HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARINE SPORTS WEST AND HARRIS MACHINE PUD FINAL - 43 92 - LEGAL DOCS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILNOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado on Tuesday, December 15,
1992, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing
in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 Laporte Avenue, will hold a
public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
made on November 16, 1992, regarding the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine
(Keulen Subdivision), Case #43-92. The meeting is fully accessible to
handicapped persons. You may have received previous notices on this item in
connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the
hearing on this appeal. Written comments are also welcome. If you have any
questions, require further information, or wish to submit written materials,
please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office or the Planning Department
at 221-6500.
%1�
Wan a M. Krajice
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
December 1, 1992
cc: City Attorney
.Planning Department
Appellant/Applicant
300 LaPorte Avenue 9 P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6515 • FAX # (303) 221-6329
City A ney
City of Fort Collins
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 23, 1992
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM:
W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City
Attorney
RE:
Notice of -Appeal -of John J.
Haggerty
Pursuant to Section 2-50 of the Code of the City, I have reviewed
the Notice of Appeal filed on November 19, 1992, by John J.
Haggerty regarding the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine
(Keulen) Subdivision. It is my opinion that this Notice of Appeal
complies with the requirements of Section 2-49, and I have found no
obvious defects in form or substance.
WPE:whm
300 LaPorte Avenue • P. O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6520
D
NOTICE OF APPEAL NOV j g 1992
' .J
To: City Council, City of Fort Collins
From: John J. Haggerty, 933 East Prospect Street, Unit D,
Fort Collins, CO 80525, Telephone, 224-3041
Re: Appeal of the decision of the Fort Collins Planning and
Zoning Board decision (by 4 to 2 vote) to grant the P.U.D.
request of Marine Sports West and Harris Machine (Keulen
Subdivision); #43-92. This action was taken on November 16,
1992.
The appellant, John. J. Haggerty, has standing to bring this
appeal because he was mailed a notice of the"Planning and Zoning
Board hearing and because he spoke in opposition to the P.U.D.
request at the hearing on November 16, 1992,
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
A. The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in
making an arbitrary decision without the support of competent
evidence in the record.
B. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. The P.U.D. requested and approved by the Board allows
for the operation of a boat motor repair facility and machine shop
operation in a garage located at 921 East Prospect Road. The area
is zoned RP therefore this is a non -conforming use.
2. Evidence presented at the hearing indicated that
there is only one other non -conforming use in the area.
Approximately one city block west of the subject location there is
a diesel engine repair shop. This non -conforming use was in
existence at the time this area was zoned in 1967 and has been
grandfathered in since that time. Other non -conforming
grandfathered uses that were in operation in this area in 1967 have
since ceased operation.
3. Prospect Springs, a high density residential area,
is immediately to the east of the subject property. This area is
the most impacted because of its proximity to the subject property.
To the west of the subject property on the south side of Prospect
Street is residential except for the non -conforming use noted above
which is located in back of a residence school. On the north side
of Prospect is residential and a church and school are located
approximately two blocks west. Spring Creek bike trial is located
to the south of the property.
cc; C1,4)
P1dnt �
4. The nature of the business being conducted at this
location requires that several boats be parked outside of the
existing structure. There is an A -frame hoist approximately eight
(8) feet high that is used to remove engines from boats. The
engines are then taken inside the structure for repair. There is
a large water tank that is used to test small engines after repair.
This water tank is located to south end of the subject property.
5. Testing of the engines results in noise and plumes
of smoke. It was this testing of engines that brought this zoning
violation to the attention of the city zoning office in the early
summer of this year. Additionally, several residents of Prospect
Springs are exposed directly (within 20 to 30 feet) to this
operation and although there is a six foot privacy fence in place,
the boat storage, water tank and A -frame hoist are all visible from
the second floor of their property and the noise from the running
engines can be clearly heard and the smoke and odor. from the
engines interferes with the quite enjoyment of their property.
ARGUMENT
A. The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in
making an arbitrary decision without the support of competent
evidence in the record.
1. The Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) for
Planned Unit Developments as adopted by the City of Fort Collins
states as its purpose "to improve and protect the public health,
safety and welfare" by pursuing several objectives. Two of those
objectives are:
(a) To foster a more rational pattern of
relationship between residential, business, and industrial uses for
the mutual benefit of all.
(b) To protect existing neighborhoods from
harmful encroachment by intrusive or disruptive development.
2. In granting this P.U.D. the Planning and Zoning
Board included a sunset provision as follows:
Because of the existing residential character
of the neighborhood, and because of the potential
for future residential development in the area, the
Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD shall
expire should business discontinue for a period of
12 consecutive months. After a discontinuance
period of 12 consecutive months, any repair or
machine shop use, or any use not allowed by the R-P
zone, must be rereviewed and subject to the PUD
process.
This condition was also recommended by staff.
i
3. Appellant believes the Board abused its discretion
because the evidence in the record does not support the granting of
this P.U.D.
4. The subject property is in the middle of residential
use and the type of activity being conducted is not compatible with
residential use. The granting of this P.U.D. does not foster a
rational pattern of relationship between residential and
industrial, nor does it protect the residential areas from harmful
encroachment by intrusive or disruptive development.
5. In 1967 this area was zoned R-P. As nonconforming
uses ceased operation, the area became more and more in line with
the Zoning. It would appear that by granting this P.U.D., the
Board has taken a giant step backwards.
6. Finally, The Board, as well as the staff, must have
recognized that this P.U.D. is not a compatible use with the
existing area, otherwise there would not have been a need for the
"sunset" condition.
B. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
1. The LDGS sets forth specific criteria that must be
met in the P.U.D. for approval. If any of those criteria are not
met, then the P.U.D. can not be approved. With respect to this
P.U.D., there are two specific criteria that must be answered in
the affirmative. Those two criteria are:
(a) Have all differences between the applicant and
the affected neighborhood as to social compatibility of the project
been resolved?
(b) Are all repair, painting and body work
activities, including storage of refuse and vehicular parts,
planned to take place within an enclosed structure?
2. The staff recommendation indicated that all
differences between the applicant and the affected neighborhood as
to social compatibility had been resolved. However, that is not
the case. As noted in the staff's recommendation, "compatibility
with a residential neighborhood was one of the main issues raised
at the neighborhood meeting.
3. As noted above, the P.U.D. does have prohibited J
activities occurring outside of enclosed structures. Boat engines
are removed by use of the A -frame and this is done outside. Also,
the testing of small engines is done in a large water tank which is
located outside. Finally, There are normally 3 to 5 boats parked
at various locations outside.
4. During Board discussion on this proposal, two of the
Board members felt that the proposed P.U.D. did not meet the
criteria for Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Uses. When you
apply the facts of this situation to the criteria noted in (b)
above, appellant believes the Board failed to properly apply the
relevant provision of the Code.
The appellant respectfully request this Body review the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to the
subject P.U.D. and reverse the decision of the Board and deny the
applicant's request.
John J.& Hagge y
933 East Prospect Street "D"
Fort Collins, CO 80525