HomeMy WebLinkAboutWESTBROOKE PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 3 90H - CORRESPONDENCE - LEGAL COMMUNICATION (2)OSBORN & BLOOM
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
217 WEST OLIVE
DAVID L. OSBORN P.O. BOX 2003
CHARLES S. BLOOM FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522
May 27, 1998
Mr. Robert E. Blanchard
Current Planning Director
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing
Dear Mr. Blanchard:
PHONE (970) 484-2928
FACSIMILE (970) 484-2620
8 an
.Our fine represents; P&B. Partnership, a Colorado General Partnership, who are the
owners of the remaining approximately 41. lots in the Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing.
As you know, the development of the remaining 41 lots in Westbrooke P.U.D. Second
Filing has been delayed and constrained by the City of Fort Collins requirements with respect to
off -site adjacent. traffic requirements. On May 12, 1998, you commented on a letter which had
previously been sent to you by Jeff Couch, Project Engineer (with Landmark Engineering Ltd.),
concerning the activity levels regarding Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing. I must respectfully
disagree with your. conclusion that sufficient activity has not been performed by this project. I
would call your attention to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 161. 1996. Based on my review of the
applicable information, it appears that Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing meets all the terms and
qualifications of Ordinance No. 161, Section 3 project and that, as a result of such section, my
clients have until and including July 6, 1998, to file all required documentation to complete the
final work for the Second Filing. Further, it is my understanding that the City staff has refused to
process the filings that have previously been filed in connection with finalizing the Plat by
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
I have advised my clients to. go ahead and. make the appropriate filing with your office
and request an appropriate review by your staff
E
Mr. Robert E. Blanchard
May 27, 1998
Page 2
Regarding my concerns which are what I view to be the illegalii
with respect to refusing to accept the earlier attempted filings by my clie
P.U.D. Second Filing final Plat, there are a number of policy concerns i
While I recognize the pressures put upon your office and your staffs
down LDGS projects, I don't believe that such wind down should b
financial expense of clients who have. followed your system rules an
particular instance, my clients have spent over $30,000.00 in trying
finalized. The sum will be totally wasted and a substantial new sum great
will be required to be spent if they are required to refile under "City plan'
subdivision is more than seventy percent (70%) developed, the remaining
constrained by utility locations, drainage problems, streets, and traffic
clients are required to adopt the new City plan format, the balance of the
be developed will look out of sequence and out of phase with the rest o:
project, to the detriment of all concerned. The configuration change unc
in a substantial loss of value for the remaining parcel due to the forego
believe that administration of this final phase will increase the work of ;
lessen it.
of the City's actions
s for the Westbrooke
loch I find disturbing.
sire is to try to wind
accomplished at the
regulations. In this
get final plat plans
in excess of that sum
Moreover, since this
,ite is already heavily
Additionally, if my
roject which needs to
he already developed
City plan will result
g concerns. I do not
lur staff, rather it will
In conclusion, even though I may not generally agree with your 'staff s comments with
respect to a specific items, I have always believed your staff to be well intentioned and fair and
amenable to cooperating to protect the public's interest while recognizing and accommodating a
legitimate private party developer rights and expectations. In this particular case, we have a
small company who I believe have a good track record in the development business who have
followed all of the City's rules and regulations and, for reasons beyond their control (traffic
concerns), have had to hold a substantial piece of their land in near developable state for a
substantial period of time.
The proposed action by your staff in denying them the ability to complete their P.U.D., in
my opinion, is illegal and is actionable. It is not in any party 's interest to bring litigation
regarding these issues and we would request a prompt meeting with you'and your staff to see if
some resolution can be accomplished that would be fair and equitable to all concerned. It is my
understanding that my clients are willing to resolve the traffic issue by installing the required off -
site street consistent with City regulations.
Mr. Robert E. Blanchard
May 27, 1998
Page 3
We prefer not to air this particular form of "laundry" at the P&Z he
and I would appreciate your cooperation in trying to arrange an expedited
staff to see if some reasonable resolution can be effected.
Very truly yours,
OSBORN & BLOOM, P.C.
L. Osborn
DLOcpas
xc Mr. Charles A Betters
Mr. Richard L. Pitner
Mr. Jeff Couch
on June 4, 1998,
ng with the City