The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREINHOLTZ / FORNEY PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 61-87 - CORRESPONDENCE - LEGAL COMMUNICATION.1� ROCK C. SORENSEN DOUGLAS D. KONKEL, P.C. CRAIG STIRN GREG R. REMMENGA SORENSEN AND KONKEL ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1405 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SUITE ONE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 November 10, 1987 Joe Frank City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Dept. - 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Ralph and Cheryl Olson Project Name-Reinholtz/Forney Project 309 South Grant Street, Fort Collins, Colorado Application for Planned Unit Development Preliminary and Final Plan Approval Dear Joe: 6C�OMC� ��D TELEPHONE 303-4838484 HAND DELIVERED Thank you for your telephone call of November 9, 1987,wherein you advised me that you had discussed the matter with Paul Eckman and Tom Peterson, and determined to eliminate the. maximum number of invitee limitations, as well as the review limitation. You also advised that you would recommend approval with the following conditions upon outdoor activities: (1) Hours of activity. (2) No amplified music. 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (3) Two activities per month. I indicated to you, and again indicate,my concern over the fact that the planning staff's position has changed dramatically back and forth over the last few days. Last Thursday Kari VanMeter advised me that she would clarify that the review provision would not result in an elimination of outdoor activities, and seemed willing to consider the possibility of allowing outdoor activities to continue until 9:00 p.m. during summer months. On the morning of November 9th, I received the proposed planning staff recommendations which my clients had been able to receive from Kari the previous Friday afternoon. I was extremely concerned with the recommendations. on several • Page 2 November 10, 1987 Joe Frank Planning and Zoning grounds. First, Kari indicated that the concept of the proposal had changed significantly since its presentation at the neighborhood meeting. My clients and their architect are adamant in their position that any significant changes have been made.at the specific request of the staff. Kari seems to believe that my clients have attempted to expand the scope of permitted outdoor activities. My clients contend that this is not true. Outdoor activities have always been a necessary and incidental function of the proposed project. Outdoor activities have never been intended to be a substantial part of the activities conducted on the property,but outdoor activities are nonetheless important. I believe that my clients' position has not changed so much as Kari's concern over outdoor activities has changed. We are apparently all aware of Alden Hill and Lucia Liley's involvement in this matter. Cheryl Olson tells me that outdoor activities were specifically addressed at the neighborhood meeting. It was represented that outdoor activities would be limited to 80 to 85 guests from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. primarily during the summer months. My clients' position has not changed. Outdoor activities are certainly not the most important aspect of the proposed project, but the outdoor activities are important to the entire project. During our conversation yesterday you requested that I provide a proposed form of conditions or restrictions upon outdoor activities. Therefore, I am enclosing for your review my suggested form .of limitations and restrictions upon outdoor activities. Although I take no pride in authorship, and invite any constructive criticism or suggested modifications, I do feel that the enclosed proposed form of limitations and restrictions will more effectively achieve the goals and objectives which we all appear to agree upon; that is,to mitigate any intrusive or disruptive impact upon neighborhood residential owners. I believe the enclosed limitations and restrictions more effectively state the goals and objectives, allow for continuing neighborhood input, and provide more protection against the possibility of future owners who are not so concerned as my clients with respect to any adverse impacts upon surrounding neighborhood property owners. As you are aware, my clients have invested a substantial amount of time and money in their own residence which is.immediately adjacent to the subject property. My clients themselves reside in the neighborhood and will be Page 3 November 10, 1987 Joe Frank Planning and Zoning affected by the project. I hope that we can reach complete agreement regarding appropriate restrictions and limitations. My.clients feel that restrictions and limitations upon outdoor activiites are necessary to protect themselves as well as other neighborhood property owners. However, my clients also believe that any restrictions or limitations should be fashioned in a manner aimed to effectively achieve the goals and objectives which we all share, while at the same time allowing the project to be both asthetically and economically effective. I think everyone involved desires to see this historic landmark, including the building and grounds, restored and preserved for the benefit of our community. The restoration and preservation can only be achieved by private citizens if economically feasible. Unfortunately the goal of restoration and preservation of this historic structure will impact upon surrounding neighborhood property owners. We believe the impacts are primarily positive and beneficial. We believe that the project will have an uplifting effect on what might otherwise be a depreciating residential neighborhood. The property currently has been described as an "eyesore". We all recognize that pursuing the goal of restoration and preservation of historicstructures, and neighborhood improvement, should be conducted in a fashion that will mitigate against intrusive or disruptive impacts. I believe that our proposal effectively mitigates against these impacts. Sincerely, Douglas D. Konkel DK:mi cc: Cheryl and Ralph Olson cc: Kari VanMeter cc:, Paul Eckman 0 Proposed restrictions and limitations of Cheryl and Ralph Olson Project Name-Reinholtz/Forney Project In order to protect existing neighborhood residential property owners against intrusive or disruptive outdoor activities, and in order to mitigate negative or adverse impacts of outdoor activities upon neighboring residential owners, the following limitations are hereby imposed upon all outdoor activities: (1.) Noise. No amplified music will be permited at any Outdoor activity. Owners shall at all times take appropriate actions to maintain noise decibel levels generally accepted within.residential neighborhoods so as to mitigate any negative or adverse impacts from noise pollution upon neighboring residential owners. (2.) Traffic and Parking. Owners shall at all times take appropriate actions to direct guests at outdoor activities to park upon or immediately adjacent to the subject property and will take appropriate actions to restrict or_.prohibit'parking which would adversely impact upon neighboring residential property owners. (3.) Number_of_Guests. In order to further mitigate adverse impacts upon neighboring residential owners resulting from.noise or parking congestion incidential to outdoor activities, owners shall at all times limit'the number of persons attending outdoor activities to.not more than 75. (4.) Scheduling-Fr.eguency.. owners shall conduct no outdoor activities during the months of November thru.March of any year. Owners shall schedule outdoor activities .from April thru October of each year at such dates and times as are reasonably calculated to mitigate adverse impacts upon neighboring residential property owners. In. no event shall owners schedule more than.two (2) outdoor activities per week.. No outdoor activ'ites shall be scheduled to commence prior to 12:00 a.m. on Sundays. No outdoor activities,other than wedding receptions or dinner parties, shall extend.beyond 7:00 p.m. Absolutely.no outdoor activities shall be allowed to extend beyond 9:00 p.m. Owners will take appropriate actions to insure that any outdoor activities occurring on weekends or after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays are conducted to mitigate against intrusive and disruptive impact upon surrounding neighborhood property owners. no (5.) Continuing Review. Owners acknowledge that it is difficult to -determine at this time all measures which may be . necessary to mitigate against intrusive and disruptive impacts upon neighboring residential owners. Owners therefore agree to respond to neighborhood concerns regarding adverse impacts and take such actions as are feasible and reasonably,calculated to mitigate those concerns. (6.) Definition of .Outdoor Activities. The term "outdoor activities", as used herein, means those events scheduled by owners at which food, beverages, or entertainment is provided, outdoors to more than ten (10) persons. Outdoor activities do not include events at.which all food, beverages, or entertainment, is provided, or events conducted,indoors. Outdoor events specifically shall not include breakfasts held outdoors for bed andbreakfast guests or impromptu tours of grounds by guests. -2-