The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWATERGLEN PUD - FINAL ..... APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - 71 93B - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION,M-..a-96 '1UE 14; 2D r�4 RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY LKEY'S CHARGES REGARDING THE TIMING OF THE APPEAL. It .•could seem logics! to us that if the P and Z Board has the rigbt to deny approval at the: £final hearing, so would citizens have the right to appeal at that poinvif they see that the issues that concerned them'had not been resolved am board members. The record shows that the discussion of location was Indeed still an issue among board members at the final hearing and that several had serious reservations about the location. It seemed likely, prior to that hearing that the beard itself might come to the same couchislon as the appelants and that an appeal would be unnecessary. Few citizen groups would want to pursue an appeal until it was clear that the normal board and commission process had not addressed their concerns Furthermore, the group had not received any material that alerted them to this issue. Ono would think that If it was going to be an issue, that tho better from the City Attomefs office would have pointed that out. Qt7TX 0K -bb iue i c-'d FORT Utility Capacity," 2) On page 6 under Vehicular, 'Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation" and "Emergency Aces", having subsequently been able to review the record carefully, we hereby withdraw these as grounds for our appeal. 3) Finally, we have recently come to understand that storm drainage will not return to Boxelder creek but that flood water from Box Elder wM be routed to Cooper Slough. We withdraw the grounds as stated on page T that "that there would not be any storm drainage during a storm" (We had understood that Boxelder water would have no where to go but back to Boxelder). Since farming practices have changed natural drainage, this is complex and took conversations with the Storm Drainage staff to understand. The storm drainage issue is still very much alive, however and has not been resolved to the satisfaction of staff at this point. We retain the claim that storm drainage is a serious problem and that has not been resolved but admit that the grounds we used were mistaken. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify these points. We believe that the remainder of the appeal is worthy of your consideration. Respectfully, 10usm AAd kwe Doug Rice N"" . Lisa Rice Roger McConnell Waterglen appellants 14 `i I l lam`. December 30, 1994 Ms. Wnnda Krajicek , City Clerk 300 LaPorte Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Pbst4r brand tax transmittal memo From Tooe. oe. Dept Pbero _ Fax a 7671 to posts ► � . i � ! h:J Dear Council Members and others concerned with. the Waterglen Appeal, Wo 'would like to correct/amend a few things that were in error or omitted when we, in haste, re -submitted our appeal after making the minor changes recommended by Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman. We would also like to withdraw three of the grounds for our appeal and have been informed that this is permissible. We assume that this correspondence will be included in the packet that Council receives. Errors: The original copy of the appeal submitted on Nov. 4 does not contain these errors and can be used by Council since the only changes were to the letter to the City Clerk and the signature page and not the content of the appeal. If Council has been given the second version, the following errors should be noted and are important since the are our specific references to City Charter and Code - the basis for our appeal: * On page 4 of the second submittal, under a., "Infilling or locating development near existing development, shopping, recreation, transportation and employment", the references to Code (Land Use Policy Plan) were omitted. The portions of the LUPP that emphasize this planning principle are the following: page 49, policy 8Q page 24, policy Id; page 33, policy 28; page 37, policy 41; and page 37, policy 42. * On page 6 of the second submittal, under D. ``Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply the following viable criteria" - should read, variable criteria. This refers criteria that are not All Development or Community Wide Criteria. On page 5, under "Reduction of Vehicle Miles" the number of school children referred to as "500+" should be "400+". This is a mistake in both copies. Grounds for Appeal We Wish to Withdrw..1) On page 5, under "Expansion of services by Special Districts should help produce a concentrated urban land use pattern". Although this principle is a good one and still violated by the Waterglen Iocation, we have learned, however, that Boaz Elder Sanitation District does have the capacity to serve Waterglen and in fact wants the business to help offset the costs of their Cooper Slough line. While this may violate the principle as stated,'we withdraw the claim that the District is near capacity and discussing asidng the City for assistance. Likewise, these grounds will bo withdrawn on page 4, last paragraph, last two sentences and 6 under "I 7671 to posts ► � . i � ! h:J Dear Council Members and others concerned with. the Waterglen Appeal, Wo 'would like to correct/amend a few things that were in error or omitted when we, in haste, re -submitted our appeal after making the minor changes recommended by Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman. We would also like to withdraw three of the grounds for our appeal and have been informed that this is permissible. We assume that this correspondence will be included in the packet that Council receives. Errors: The original copy of the appeal submitted on Nov. 4 does not contain these errors and can be used by Council since the only changes were to the letter to the City Clerk and the signature page and not the content of the appeal. If Council has been given the second version, the following errors should be noted and are important since the are our specific references to City Charter and Code - the basis for our appeal: * On page 4 of the second submittal, under a., "Infilling or locating development near existing development, shopping, recreation, transportation and employment", the references to Code (Land Use Policy Plan) were omitted. The portions of the LUPP that emphasize this planning principle are the following: page 49, policy 8Q page 24, policy Id; page 33, policy 28; page 37, policy 41; and page 37, policy 42. * On page 6 of the second submittal, under D. ``Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply the following viable criteria" - should read, variable criteria. This refers criteria that are not All Development or Community Wide Criteria. On page 5, under "Reduction of Vehicle Miles" the number of school children referred to as "500+" should be "400+". This is a mistake in both copies. Grounds for Appeal We Wish to Withdrw..1) On page 5, under "Expansion of services by Special Districts should help produce a concentrated urban land use pattern". Although this principle is a good one and still violated by the Waterglen Iocation, we have learned, however, that Boaz Elder Sanitation District does have the capacity to serve Waterglen and in fact wants the business to help offset the costs of their Cooper Slough line. While this may violate the principle as stated,'we withdraw the claim that the District is near capacity and discussing asidng the City for assistance. Likewise, these grounds will bo withdrawn on page 4, last paragraph, last two sentences and 6 under "I