HomeMy WebLinkAboutREINHOLTZ / FORNEY PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 61-87 - CORRESPONDENCE - LEGAL COMMUNICATION (2)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 9, 1987
Kari VanMeter
Senior City Planner
Office of Development Services,
Planning Department
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 Kari:
TELEPHONE
303-4934MU
HAND DELIVERED
My client has provided me with a copy of your proposed
recommendations regarding the above referenced project.
Cheryl advises me that she was first able to pick up the
recommendations at 4:45 p.m. on Friday afternoon. After
reviewing the proposed recommendations I am shocked. As
you will no doubt recall, we discussed this project by
telephone on Thursday, November 5th. At that point I
indicated my concern that the hours be extended to 9:00 p.m.
during the summer months, at least on a.trial basis.. I also
attempted to clarify that all outdoor events or activities
would not be eliminated following the one year review period.
You told me that the intent of the restrictions was not to
eliminate all outdoor activities, and that you would add
language which would clarify that all outdoor activities
would not be subject to revocation. You indicated that your
concern was not over the Olsons' use, but over the possibility
of future owners taking advantage of the limitations. I
proposed that you draft language stating the general purposes
of the specific restrictions.
After our telephone conversation I reported to Mr. and Mrs.
Olson that I felt very good about our discussion and, that
you had indicated that you would attempt to clarify that
all outdoor activities would not be subject to revocation
following the one year review period. Now I see that you
have gone 180' in the other direction and have recommended
that the outdoor activities be subject to complete revocation.
a
C
Page 2
November 9, 1987
Kari VanMeter
It is difficult to rationally address your concerns when your
position changes so dramatically in such a short period of
time. However, as I advised you in my letter of November 4,
1987, I believe that it is unfair, and perhaps economically
unfeasible for my clients to devote the time and money_
necessary to restore the project with the possibility that
all outdoor activities may beterminated in one year. I urge
you to support a position requiring reasonable limitations
in order to avoid any disruptive influence on the surrounding
residential uses, while at the same time assuring my clients
the opportunity to continue to use the project for outdoor
activities with reasonable restrictions and limitations. My
clients do not understand how they can be required to spend
significant funcb in landscaping and fencing the project.only
to find that in one year the outdoor activities are completely
eliminated.. The purpose of the project is to restore the
entire site, not merely the interior of the historic residence.
The grounds themselves are an historic landmark. It would be
a shame to restore the grounds and then to preclude any outdoor
activities upon them.
My clients will agree to all specific restrictions referenced,
but will propose that the one year review restrictions be
revised to assure continued outdoor activities with reasonable
restrictions and limitations.
I request that you provide the Planning and Zoning Board with
copies of this letter, as well as my letter of November 4, 1987,
so there will be no misunderstanding of my clients' concerns.
DK:mi
cc: Ralph and Cheryl Olson
Sincerely,
Douglas D. Konkel