HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/16/1999•
Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Meyer, Torgerson, Bernth, Craig and Colton. Member
Gavaldon arrived after Item 3 was discussed.
Staff Present: Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Shoemaker, Stringer, and Kuch.
Agenda Review: Current Planning Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the Consent
and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the May 20 (continued), June 17 (continued),
December 2, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. Resolution PZ99-22 Easement Vacation (continued)
3. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval
4. #72-84N Country Club Corners PUD, Lot 1 (Grease Monkey) —
Preliminary and Final
5. #31-99 Southglen PUD, 2nd Filing — Major Amendment
6. #12-99A Modification of Standards —Turning Point
Discussion Agenda:
7. #17-99 Resource and Recovery Farm, Sand & Gravel Mine - PDP
8. Modification of Standards —Jacob Center
9. The Greens at Collindale, Referred Minor Amendment
(continued)
10. Harborwalk Estates, Referred Minor Amendment (continued)
The Planning and Zoning Board Minutes for May 20 and June 17, 1999 were continued.
Dave Stringer continued Item 2. Member Craig moved Items 3, 5 and 6 to the
discussion agenda. The Board decided to move Item 7 from the discussion agenda to
the consent agenda. The applicants of Items 9 and 10 chose to continue the projects to
February 3, 1999.
Member Carpenter moved for approval of Consent items 1, 4, and 7.
Planning and Zoning Boar. Ainutes
December16,1999
Page 2 of 7
Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0, with member
Gavaldon absent.
Project: Modification of Conditions of Final Approval
Project Description: Request to* modify the condition of final PUD
approval, which required that the development
agreement, final plans, and final plat be executed
prior to the December 16, 1999 Planning and Zoning
Board Meeting.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Craig wanted an explanation about the Christ Fellowship Church.
Dave Stringer, Engineering Department, responded to Member Craig's question.
Ted Shepard, Current Planning, added that the Church and the adjacent property were
trying to coordinate development to lessen the impacts on the residents.
Member Craig wanted this to be completed by the January meetings.
Public Comment:
None
Discussion:
None
Member Carpenter moved to approve the modification as recommended.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
Member Colton agreed with the concern of Member Craig.
The motion was approved 6-0, with Member Gavaldon absent.
Planning and Zoning Board
rd Minutes •
December 16, 1999
Page 3 of 7
Project: Southglen PUD, 2nd Filing — Major Amendment, #31-
99
Project Description: Request to eliminate the existing swimming pool and
bath house facility at the east end of the Southglen
PUD 2nd Filing multi -family residential development.
The site is located south of Horsetooth Road, west of
Albion Way, and east of Manhattan Avenue. The
property is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood.
Recommendation:
Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT IS ATTACHED
• Project:
Modification of Standard — Turning Point #12-99A
Project Description: Request for a modification to increase the number of
permitted group home residents from 20 to 36 at the
property at 801 South Shields Street. The property is
zoned CC — Community Commercial.
Recommendation:
Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Steve Olt, Current Planning, gave a short presentation about the project and the
modification.
Jim Becker, Executive Director at Turning Point, gave a history of Turning Point facilities
and the project itself. He gave a description of the modification project and reviewed
the benefits to the community and the clientele.
Kim Bappe, Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Clinical Director of Turning Point,
reviewed her background with Turning Point. She discussed "Critical Incidences" and
the plan for dealing with them. The clientele accepted in Turning Point facilities did not
• have violent histories. The applicants felt that the home was safe due to the
precautionary measures they have presented.
Planning and Zoning Boar, Ainutes
December 16, 1999
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Becker addressed the neighborhood support of Turning Point and the project as
presented.
Public Comment:
Darin Menapace, student at Colorado State University, felt Turning Point was a great
organization. He felt the clients benefited from the program.
Hava Killingsworth, Student Body Vice -President at Colorado State University,
requested a presentation from Turning Point,. prior to the hearing, to discuss the
possible use for the proposed location of the new facility. She felt Turning Point came
prepared to answer all the questions during the prior presentation and there was
primarily positive feedback after the presentation. She presented the benefits this
organization would bring to the community and the clientele.
Cindy Smith, volunteer at Turning Point, had seen a variety of youth programs and felt
this organization was the best she had ever seen. She felt the staff and volunteers
were heroes and she felt they could handle any number of clients in the best possible
way.
Patricia K. Moore, delegate of Turning Point for United Way, noted that Turning Point
recognized the community need for the proposed program. She shared a personal
experience with the organization. She expressed that by granting the modification, it
would allow a great organization to continue to assist in community needs.
Karen Rattenborg, Professor in Human Development and Family Studies at Colorado
State University, shared that she places over 90 intems in organizations like Turning
Point. She felt it to be a benefit to have the site close to the campus for the students
and the clientele.
Charlie Sneider, Secretary for the Turning Point Board, felt there is a critical need to
expand youth services to assist in better resources for the kids in the community and
Turning Point could do that.
Judy Arnold, employed by Colorado State University, was treated to a tour of the
Turning Point facility. She was impressed by the facility and further chose to volunteer
there. She shared her personal experiences of working with the clientele and felt that
Turning Point worked for the kids who needed it.
Discussion:
Member Gavaldon asked the percentage of clientele that would be from our county
versus other counties.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes •
December 16, 1999
Page 5 of 7
Mr. Becker responded that on average, 60% of the clientele would be from Larimer
County and 40% would be from other counties in Northern Colorado.
Member Gavaldon asked how many "Walk-aways" have happened.
Mr. Becker responded that in 1999 to the date of the hearing they had three "Walk-
aways".
Member Craig asked where the current girls facility was located.
Mr. Becker responded with the address of 640 West Prospect.
Member Craig asked how Turning Point addresses neighborhood complaints.
Mr. Becker addressed each complaint to the satisfaction of the person reporting the
complaint. The organization felt it was important for complaints to be addressed and for
clients to be responsible for their actions if it was something done by a client.
Member Gavaldon moved to approve the modification for this project as
recommended.
Member Craig seconded the motion with the condition that the approval be for
group homes of this type, not any other future applicants.
Member Carpenter supported the motion.
Member Colton supported the motion and appreciated the extra work that Turning Point
had put into the project.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Modification of Standard — Jacob Center
Project Description: Request for a modification to reduce the minimum
separation requirements between group homes in the
NCM Zoning District from 1,000 feet to 570 feet. The
building at 703 Peterson is a single-family residence
that is currently used as a family type facility to house
4 foster children. The applicant would like to increase
the permitted number of foster children in the house
to 8.
Recommendation: Approval
Planning and Zoning Boar I Ainutes ,
December 16, 1999
Page 6 of 7
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Steve Olt, Current Planning, reviewed the staff report and explained the modification.
Joel Painter, Clinical/Program Director of the Jacob's Center, gave a short presentation
about the foster home and increased need for additional group homes. He explained
the "foster home" feel of the group home.
Public Comment:
Mark Anderson, 704 Matthews, asked if the public comments have been considered.
He researched statistics of crime in the neighborhood. He described the problems and
agreed with the separation.
Judy Lovaas, 304 E. Myrtle, felt the neighborhood was very tolerant. She did not
understand how the trends of the neighborhood were better for the community. The
City had invested in the needs of the citizens but she asked that the Board keep the
reasonable standard spelled out in the code.
Arvin Lovaas, 304 E. Myrtle, reviewed the neighborhood meeting comments. He felt
that the 1,000 feet separation was worth keeping.
Carolina Westers, 811 Peterson, said that she had never had any problems with any of
the group homes around her residence. She supported group homes in any place the
City could put them. She felt that it is more difficult to find people to host group homes
and that you would always have neighbors that wouldn't approve of them.
Jim Becker, Executive Director at Turning Point, said he was an adjacent neighbor at
614 S. Matthews. He spoke for Turning Point that they had no objection to changing
the standard. He suggested creating a neighborhood advisory committee that might
help alleviate some of the neighborhood concerns.
Discussion:
Member Gavaldon asked the applicant about the police reports addressed by the citizen
and security concerns.
Mr. Painter responded that the situation was a critical incident and the incident did not
take place at the foster home. The assault occurred at Lesher Junior High School and
the police came to the foster home for investigation. Security was addressed by the
resident in charge of the foster home who had a background working with foster
children, along with a security system for the windows and doors.
Member Gavaldon asked how many "Walk-aways" happened recently.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes •
December 16, 1999
Page 7 of 7
• Mr. Painter responded that there were 2 recently.
Member Carpenter asked the background of the children living in the foster home.
Mr. Painter responded that both males and females between the ages of 12 and 18 are
at the home. The resident is at the home full time.
Member Gavaldon moved to deny the project.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Member Carpenter had difficulty making a decision, but felt the separation was there for
a reason and did not want the neighborhood to be overburdened with group homes.
Member Colton agreed with the reasoning. The Board was uncomfortable denying the
group home because group homes are a needed service, but felt they needed to be
dispersed throughout different neighborhoods.
The motion to deny was approved 5-1 with Member Torgerson voting against the
denial. Member Craig claimed a conflict.
• Other Business:
None
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
December 16, 1999
SOUTHGLEN PUD .SECOND FILING
MAJOR AMENDMENT
Commission Members Present:
Glen Colton
Mika[ Torgerson
Sally Craig
Dan Bernth
Jennifer Carpenter
Jerry Gavaldon
. Judy Meyer
Staff Present:
Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office
Steve Olt, Planning Department
Ted Shepard, Planning Department
0
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC Phone: (970) 482-1506
140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266 Toll -free (800) 482-1506
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Fax. (970) 482-1230
e-mail. meadors@reportenaorks.com
2
1 MR. COLTON: Okay. That brings us to item number
2 5, Southglen PUD Second Filing, major amendment. Sally,
3 would you like to have a staff presentation on this or
4 address a -- specific issues?
5 MS. CRAIG: I'd like a minimal presentation. I
6 am interested in some site shots and some of the stuff
7 that was discussed at work session. My concern is, if we
8 approve the modification and they remove the pool, that
9 are we losing on open space recreation area that that
10 apartment complex thought came with it and should possibly
11 stay with it. So I think that's what Steve is probably
12 going to address in his presentation.
13 MR. COLTON: Steve, is that enough to go on?
14 MR. OLT: That's enough to go on. Thank you. In
15 terms cf a brief presentation so that, you know, members
16 of the audience are aware of where we're at, the site is
17 located on the east side of Manhattan Avenue, which is
18 this street right here (indicating). South of Horsetooth
19 Road, you can see that up at the top of the slide. As a
20 landmark, Troutman Park is almost directly across the
21 street from the site. The red area is the Southglen
22 Second Filing.
23 What the applicant is requesting is to eliminate
24 this pool facility, pool and bathhouse facility at the
25 east end of the development. We're looking at 10
3
•
1 buildings here, 40 dwelling units on approximately two and
2 a half acres -- pardon me -- on approximately four acres
3 with two and a half acres of that being open space in some
4 form.
5 You can see there's a large block of open space
6 here (indicating), here, back in this area. The pool is
7 part of it. The pool has been in the state of disrepair
8 for sometime. I know that site shots are critical to you,
9 and I do have additional shots. Running through those
10 real quick.
11 This is from the parking lot in the multifamily
12 complex looking towards the pool (indicating). In the
13 background are relatively new single-family homes along
14 Albion Way which is the street just east of the pool.
15 This ie looking from Albion Way back up towards the pool
16 and the multifamily complex in the background.
17 That's the bathhouse and the pool facility
18 parking lot. Between the buildings is that in that
19 location. Again, looking at the pool and bathhouse from
20 Albion Way. This is the condition of the wading pool
21 facility. This is the pool itself. This is pretty much
22 the way it looks year round. They have not used this pool
23 for many, many years.
24 The concern of the neighborhood appears to be
25 there has been a lot of vandalism starting to occur. The
1 pool itself, as you can see, is not very well -secured in
2 terms of a fence. That fence is only 4-feet high. It
3 wouldn't take much for any young child to be over in that
4 area.
5 And the neighbors -- and there are several
6 letters. You had some in your packet previously. I gave
7 you another letter tonight from another resident just to
8 the south of the pool, all supporting the removal of this
9 because it's become an area for basically younger people
10 to congregate and party. There's noise. There's
11 vandalism. They just -- the neighborhood feels like it's
12 really an undesirable area. As you can see, it really
13 does present from a health, safety standpoint quite a
14 problem.
15 This is looking -- you wanted to get an idea of
16 what the complex looks like. This is from Manhattan
17 looking into the complex at the entry. You can see the
18 nature of this. Looking down along the north side of the
19 buildings, you can see they have a reasonable setback, an
20 open space area between the buildings, and the new
21 multifamily complex to the north.
22 This is along the south side. I'm actually
23 standing in Troutman Park right across the street.
24 There's a significant park there. Twenty -acre city
25 neighborhood park. Directly across the street with the
0
1 crosswalk here (indicating), painted crosswalk there, and
2 the raised enhanced crosswalk right over here.
3 This goes back into the large open area. I'll
4 show you that better in this next slide. This is part of
5 Southglen Second Filing. Part of the development. This
6 is a very large open space area, the fence to the
7 single-family neighborhood to the south, and then again
8 the buildings to the north of that open space.
9 This is from the east looking back into it. So
10 they do have quite a large area. Still open space to --
11 to use. Granted, it's not developed in a fashion where
• 12 there's any picnic tables or tot lot or anything of that
13 nature. This would remain as open space should the pool
14 be eliminated. And if something were to occur to the
15 property on the pool site, you still have a fairly large
16 turf grass area and trees that would remain because the --
17 the intent of the developer is possibly plat three
18 additional lots, subdivision lots, similar to the lots on
19 Albion Way, and they would end right about here. So that
20 then would remain part of the open space in the
21 development.
22 This is looking along the north side again
. 23 between the multifamily project to the north and the
24 Southglen project itself. This is just looking to the
25 north. There is an emergency access platted right through
0
1 here
(indicating)
between
the street
-- Albion Street in
2 the
other project
and the
parking lot
in Southglen Second
3 Filing.
4 With that, I'd be available for any questions.
5 And the applicant is here tonight, if you want a
6 presentation or questions of the applicant.
7 MS. CRAIG: I have one question for you,
8 Steve. If any multifamily wanted to remove their pool,
9 would they have to come to us with a modification?
10 MR. OLT: I believe so. That's -- we've
11 identified this as a major amendment to the PUD, and I
12 believe we would do that. Obviously, it's the loss of a
13 recreational facility, an open space amenity. And I don't
14 deem that as a minor amendment as we did here. This is a
15 major amendment to the plan so it would come before you.
16 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you.
17 MR. COLTON: Any other questions of Steve? Does
18 anyone want to hear the applicant? Would the applicant
19 like to come up and give a short presentation? Actually
20 you have 30 minutes if you'd like.
21 MR. BUSCH: Hi. My name is Leon Busch, and I
22 represent Jim Sell Design, Landscape Architecture and
23 Planning. Our client is Ed Stoner. The project as Steve
24 Olt had described, gave the location, this planned urban
25 development with the pool. As you saw from the pictures,
FA
1 that the pool is a safety concern and there is also an
2 issue of sanitation and health hazards on this particular
3 project. The pictures also show that there's an awful lot
4 of open spaces with low density, mixed -use development in
5 through there. By removal of the pool, there's still a
6 lot of open spaces. There's plenty of existing vegetation
7 in through there for buffering.
8 Even with the individual lots, individual lots
9 that would be proposed would have fencing in the back to
10 help to buffer between the existing apartment complex and
11 the new single-family dwellings. And there's plenty of
• 12 open space in between the two that I don't believe that
13 there's any concern as far as being an overly -developed
14 area.
15 Along Albion Way, there are already a number of
16 single-family dwellings which fall along the street in
17 through the cul-de-sac. And this is just a continuation
18 of three more lots in this development. Also, the fact
19 that Troutman Park is just across the street exemplifies
20 the fact that there are a lot of neighborhood facilities
21 in this area as far as recreation. And loss of the pool
22 probably wouldn't be that big of a consideration
• 23 especially since the fact it is not being maintained and
24 it is in a large state of disrepair right now.
25 I don't believe that I really have any other
F]
1 comments to make other than that fact.
2 MR. COLTON: Okay. If the board has any specific
3 questions, we'll call it. All right.
4 MR. BERNTH: Actually, I have a specific question
5 for the applicant.
6 MR. COLTON: Maybe we should go ahead and get --
7 if we could do questions now or get audience input. Would
8 you prefer to do it now? Okay.
9 Why don't we go ahead and get audience input on
10 this then. If there's anyone from the audience that would
11 like to come up and address this, please give us your name
12 and sign in and you have up to four minutes.
13 MR. ORTIZ: Hi. My name is Roberto Ortiz, and I
14 live at 312 Albion Way. I'm here to be in favor of
15 removing the pool. I'm speaking in behalf of Southglen
16 Homeowners Association. And the reasons, as everybody has
17 already said, the reasons why we'd like to have it removed
18 and -- and actually we're hoping to get this approved
19 quite quickly because the summer's coming. There's going
20 to be more vandalism going through.
21 And we've been having problems with our back
22 fence because they go over the tarmac. And they keep
23 jumping our fences and breaking them down, and then we
24 have to call the cops once in a while. We don't want to
25 put anybody in jail. We just want to get people to work
0
0
1 with us and have the pool removed so we can put some homes
2 in there and put a fence behind to separate the complex
3 even more so from the subdivision. Thank you.
4 MR. COLTON: Mr. Ortiz, are you on the homeowners
5 association then? Or you're actually representing --
6 MR. ORTIZ: Yes. I'm on the homeowners
7 association.
8 MR. COLTON: Great. Thank you.
9 MR. ORTIZ: Any more questions? Oh, okay.
10 MR. COLTON: Is there anyone else who would like
11 to come give us some input? Okay. Not seeing any, we'll
• 12 close it and bring it back to the board. Dan?
13 MR. BERNTH: I just had a question for the
14 applicant. If he'd come forward, please. I'm referring
15 to an August 12, 1998 letter. And I don't know if you're
16 familiar with this letter, but I'll just read the second
17 to last paragraph in the letter. It said, "The proposed
18 lots are intended to be Habitat for Humanity houses at
19 which there are few existing on Albion Way." Is the
20 applicant intending to commit to that tonight, or what's
21 his thought on that?
22 MR. BUSCH: I spoke with the applicant this
• 23 morning. His intentions are no longer to have those as
24 low income housing. The Habitat for Humanity projects,
25 he's no longer interested in that feature, so.
10
1 MR. BERNTH: Looked good in the letter.
2 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm familiar with the
3 letter. And he's changed his mind since then.
4 MR. BERNTH: Thank you.
5 MR. COLTON: Steve, I had a procedural question
6 here. By granting approval to remove the pool, does that
7 automatically grant any other use for the land other than
8 just removing the pool, or -- and if not, what is the
9 process we need to go through to decide whether it's
10 actually appropriate to take an existing development now
11 without the pool and redeveloping part of it?
12 MR. OLT: By virtue of a decision tonight on the
13 removal of the pool, should you approve the removal of the
14 pool, that does not grant any approval for another use on
15 that site. They would remove the pool in some way,
16 reclaim that, you know, fill in the hole. Probably put
17 some grass seed on it and something would happen.
18 We know the intent is to come to you at a later
19 date, as said in their letter as well as my staff report,
20 that they would submit a project development plan under
21 the land use code at a later date for another land use.
22 But this request tonight is for nothing other than the
23 removal of the pool from that site.
24 MR. COLTON: Okay. And since in four years on
25 the board, I haven't really ran into something where we're
0 0
11
1 converting an existing use of like a multifamily project
2 into, say, possibly single-family homes or something
3 else. What -- how do we look at that? This is -- what is
4 allowed in this zone? Is this an LMN or an MNM or do you
5 know?
6 MR. OLT: This is the LMN zoning district.
7 MR. COLTON: Or type 1 or type 2? Would it
8 probably be a type 1 or type 2 under -- if it was a
9 residential use --
10 MR. OLT: Well, it's conjecture, of course. We
11 need to make sure we don't get too ahead of ourselves.
• 12 The properties in the LMN zoning district so permitted
13 uses, if they were to request a permitted use, depending
14 on the nature of it. Single-family homes would be type 1
15 use in the LMN zoning district. But we don't know for
16 sure that's what they're proposing. The request right now
17 is to be able to remove what is considered in their
18 standpoint to be a safety and -- safety hazard and a
19 vandalism concern.
20 MR. COLTON: Okay. It's just not clear to me,
21 and may not be relevant to the exact decision here, but
22 just unclear under what are the criteria we would use if
• 23 it came in as a type 1 on deciding whether you can take
24 part of an open space from an existing development and
25 convert it into residential homes? I don't know what the
12
1 rest of the word is. Interested in that, but it's beyond
2 my current understanding of what the process would be.
3 Ted, did you have any comments?
4 MR. SHEPARD: Whatever the code allows. It would
5 be reviewed by Article 4 for land use and Article 3 for
6 standards.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLTON: Okay. Any other comments,
questions?
MS. CRAIG: I agree that the pool needs to be
removed. I don't think that that's an issue here.
Obviously it's not being used for what its purpose is.
What does bother me is that area was approved as a
recreational amenity.
I would be comfortable at removing the pool if we
can condition that the area still remain a recreational
amenity, whether that means they just put grass in, or
they put a little tot lot or something. When this came
through, that was part of the plan, that this would be a
recreation -- you know, recreational area. Not just
detention pond, not just open space.
And it bothers me that they're not going to do
something with that area. They're just looking at taking
the pool out. I'd like to see something be put there.
MR. COLTON: Jerry.
MR. GAVALDON: More procedural -type question
13
40
1 probably for -- for staff. If we deny removing the pool,
2 for example, what would they have to do, recondition the
3 pool and bring it back into service, or what?
4 MR. OLT: I'm going to need help from our
5 attorney because I don't know what leverage we have. Do
6 we have the ability to impose upon a development like this
7 to maintain that pool in a certain fashion?
8 MR. ECKMAN: I'm thinking that the PUD -- this
9 was a PUD, I presume, originally -- was approved with the
10 pool. And so I would think that technically at the moment
11 the pool doesn't exist except as a hole in the ground, and
• 12 they're, probably -- could be seen to be in violation of
13 the planned unit development. The approved plan at the
14 moment for not having the pool. There might be a contrary
15 argument that they do have a pool; it's just an empty
16 pool. So it's not an easy case to prosecute. And the
17 City doesn't, I don't think, want to prosecute that kind
18 of case.
19 MR. GAVALDON: So if we say, for example, we deny
20 the removal of the pool, you're stuck with an open pool
21 just sitting there and it can just fall more into
22 disarray? And then doesn't it fall into a different
. 23 criteria for safety and health then? And then that's
24 another process out of our privy?
25 MR. ECKMAN: That's out of the P&Z Board's --
14
1 MR. GAVALDON: So if we say no, they're stuck
2 with the pool, right? And then they go back -- and maybe
3 the applicant can help me understand, why did the pool go
4 this way in the first place and now you have -- come up
5 into new thinking and turn them into new single-family
6 lots? Can the applicant explain that?
7 MR. BUSCH: My understanding of that is that a
8 few years ago the pool was vandalized. The damages that
9 were done with it, the homeowners association just could
10 not come up with the funds for repairing the facility.
11 And once the facility was damaged and started to go into a
12 state of disrepair, then the vandalism just continued and
13 that was just kind of a Catch-22 type of situation and
14 just got out of their hands. And it's at the state that
15 it is Today just because they haven't had the funds to
16 keep it maintained properly.
17 MR. GAVALDON: So another question, if I may
18 then, is it the developer that owns the land or is it the
19 homeowners that own the land that wants to turn it into
20 something different?
21 MR. BUSCH: That would be a question for --
22 for . . .
23
MR. ORTIZ:
Well, okay.
I've
been living there
24
for almost two and a
half years.
And
I've been seeing
25
it -- everytime they
do repair it,
it
does gets vandalized
0
S
15
1 again.
2 As far as the land, the homeowners association
3 owns probably a quarter of it on the south end of it. And
4 basically the developers through Wagner was supposed to
5 maintain that area for us, and they haven't done
6 that. And so we feel, that if the pool could be removed
7 and then what the homeowners association is going to do is
8 donate that quarter of a corner of the land over to the
9 developer, whoever is going to build on it. And they'll
10 clean it up and make it look a little better.
11 Because right now it's -- there's too many weeds
• 12 and the City comes out and takes care of it. And somebody
13 gets billed for it. Thank God, we don't get billed for
14 it.
15 MR. GAVALDON: If we can stay focused to the
16 question.
17 MR. ORTIZ: Okay.
18 MR. GAVALDON: Who owns the land that the pool
19 sits on?
20 MR. ORTIZ: That's the apartment complex.
21 MR. GAVALDON: The apartment complex owns the
22 land that the pool sits on specifically?
. 23 MR. ORTIZ: Right.
24 MR. GAVALDON: And you want to donate it to the
25 open area --
16
1 MR.
ORTIZ:
No.
We have a
quarter of it, the
2 south corner
of it.
The
homeowners
association owns that.
3 But as far as where the pool sits, the apartment complex
4 owns that.
5 MR. GAVALDON: The apartment complex owns it?
6 MR. ORTIZ: Right.
7 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I just need to understand
8 because I don't know -- when you mentioned names and who's
9 who and who owns where and your role, it's kind of
10 confusing. So please pardon my -- help me to understand.
11 MR. ORTIZ: Sure.
12 MR. GAVALDON: So you own a portion of the land
13 and the apartment has the pool?
14 MR. ORTIZ: Right.
15 MR. GAVALDON: And you want to go into together
16 to do something else with it?
17 MR. ORTIZ: Well, we're willing to let -- whoever
18 is going to build on it, we're going to donate the land to
19 them because -- the homeowners association has the right.
20 But the lady, the developer, Sue Wagner, she needs to keep
21 cleaning it up, but she hasn't done that.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Steve, can you get to a side shot?
23 I'm kind of lost on it. Maybe the other board members are
24 getting confused where we are with this.
25 MR. OLT: And I guess I'm not sure where the
17
1 confusion lies. But the area colored on the plan is the
2 Southglen Second Filing apartment complex. You can see
3 the pool, and this area is part of that. I think maybe
4 the area that Mr. Ortiz is talking about is right here?
5 MR. ORTIZ: No, south.
6 MR. OLT: That's a different development. Here?
7 MR. ORTIZ: (Indicating.)
8 MR. OLT: Who? Which homeowners association?
9 Which Southglen? We've got -- this is the Second Filing
10 (indicating), the apartment complex. To my knowledge
11 what's in -- what's colored is owned by -- what is it --
• 12 Southglen Partnership, LLC. Ed Stoner representing
13 that.
14 I guess I don't know about a piece of ground here
15 (indicating). I know that this triangular area is part of
16 Southglen fourth filing off of Albion Way. It was my
17 understanding that everything you see here, colored, is
18 Southglen Second Filing. Southglen Second Filing is a
19 40-unit apartment complex.
20 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. So the apartment complex
21 owns it, and he represents another association somewhere
22 around there.
• 23 MR. OLT: I guess that's my understanding.
24 MR. GAVALDON: That's what I get, too.
25 MR. ORTIZ: Yeah. We're across the street.
W.
1 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I was just a little
2 confused on it. The apartment -- I'm a little clearer on
3 it. Thanks.
4 MS. CARPENTER: So the pool was put in as an
5 amenity to the apartments, not to the houses that Mr.
6 Ortiz represents, the homeowners association; is that
7 correct?
8 MR. OLT: That's absolutely correct.
9 MS. CARPENTER: Does whoever owns the apartments
10 still own the pool?
11 MR. OLT: Yes.
12 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. And that -- those are the
13 people that want to do a development there, or do we have
14 another developer involved?
15 MR. OLT: The applicant -- or the owner of the
16 Southglen Second Filing, the apartment complex, that has
17 requested the removal of the pool, owns the pool, owns the
18 complex, rents these units. Would like to have -- would
19 like to remove the pool for reasons stated.
20 But in the letter, with their application,
21 indicated that at some point in time, and this is to my
22 knowledge, would like to replat that area into three
23 single-family lots.
24
MS.
CARPENTER: Same people with the
apartments.
25
MR.
OLT: Although that would include
this
0 •
19
1 triangular area which is part of Mr. Ortiz's development.
2 Right here (indicating).
3 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. I think I've got it
4 straight. Since this is a health and safety problem, is
5 there something in the City that would require the owners
6 to take care of that? To me it's an attractive nuisance.
7 Isn't there something that would require that that be
8 taken care of? Why has it sat there for so long, and
9 wouldn't they have to do this almost?
10 MR. ECKMAN: I don't know that it's been
11 presented as enough of a nuisance that the -- the City
• 12 zoning official has even -- even gotten knowledge of
13 that. I'm not aware of any -- Mr. Barnes having knowledge
14 of any problems out there that would rise to a level of a
15 nuisance.
16 MS. CARPENTER: Okay.
17 MR. OLT: Until the application was submitted to
18 us, request for removal of the pool, we had no idea what
19 the condition of that facility was.
20 MS. CARPENTER: Well, yeah. I'm just wondering
21 at this point when we know about it, is there something
22 that they would have to take care of it? I don't see how
• 23 we can have -- just allow that kind of condition to be
24 going on. So evidently we can't. Okay.
25 MS. CRAIG: Well, I think that if -- if all these
20
1 letters that we're getting saying that it's being
2 vandalized over and over again, if they had called the
3 City, then the City would have come out and then the
4 apartment owner would have had to have done something
5 about the pool. Isn't that right? It's just because they
6 never called because of the vandalism, which is amazing.
7 I don't know who they did call, maybe the police.
8 MR. ECKMAN: If the conditions at that location
9 exist such as would fit the criteria of presenting a
10 health risk, then the City could take action to alleviate
11 that nuisance. The City Council would do that, much in
12 the same manner as was done with the mobile home park that
13 was flooded a couple of years ago under that same
14 ordinance.
15 So I don't know what has come to the attention to
16 the City with regard to that. But, yes, if, for example,
17 next summer or something a situation arises where you have
18 infestation of rodents or whatnot, you could do that.
19 With regard to the mobile home park, I know we recruited
20 the assistance of the Larimer County Health Department to
21 testify to the Council that there was indeed a health risk
22 there. And that may be another step that we should take,
23 if need be, if this pool was to remain for the summer
24 again.
25 MS. CRAIG: What I'd like to see us do is, I
21
1 would like to grant the modification. I think it's pretty
2 apparent that this pool is never going to be a pool that
3 for some reasons legally we couldn't even force it to be a
4 pool if we wanted it to be a pool. What I would like to
5 place on the modification, though, is a condition that
6 this area that they're going to take the pool out of
7 remain a recreational amenity.
8 Now whether we need to be more specific and say
9 that they at least leave it open space, you know, return
10 it to grass, and so we don't make -- you know, force them
11 to do anything like a little playground or something.
• 12 That would be fine. But that was the purpose of it when
13 this was put in as a PUD, that that was a recreation --
14 recreational amenity. And that -- I could accept the
15 modification if we added the condition.
16 MR. COLTON: Would you like to make a motion and
17 then we can have some discussion?
18 MS. CRAIG: Yes. I would like to make a
19 motion. I move that we approve the major amendment to
20 Southglen PUD Second Filing Final, Number 31-99, with the
21 condition that the area that the pool is being removed
22 from be replanted with grass so that it is still
• 23 considered an open space or a kind of a passive
24 recreational amenity.
25 MR. COLTON: Do I have a second?
22
1 MR. BERNTH: I would second that motion, and
2 maybe add that they could do one of two things. Either
3 use that as a recreational amenity, or again, go back to
4 the letter of August 12, they use the lots here for
5 Habitat for Humanity.
6 MS. CRAIG: I don't know if I can accept that,
7 Dan, because that's sort of us conditioning what they
8 develop it into. And I think that's going one step
9 beyond -- you know, if you leave it what it already is,
10 which is a recreational amenity, I can -- I feel
11 comfortable with. But to tell them what they can do with
12 it beyond that, I don't feel comfortable with that. I
13 don't know if I can accept the friendly amendment to my
14 motion.
15
MR. COLTON: I would second the way Sally stated
16
it to begin with.
17
MS. CARPENTER: I -- I think I
agree with the
18
underlying sentiments here. But I'm a
little bit
19
concerned that this pool is just going
to end up staying
20
there because it's going to cost money
to take it out and
21
fill it in. And I think probably the motivation here is
22
to make some money on the lots. So if
we do that, is
23
there anything that then requires that
they do go ahead
24
and take the pool out? Or are we just
going to end up
25
with it just left the way it is, a mess.
23
1 MR. OLT: Based on the action you would be taking
2 tonight, you would authorize their right and ability to
3 take the pool out, but nothing would require them -- I'll
4 defer to Paul -- but I don't think anything would require
5 them to remove the pool.
6 MS. CARPENTER: That's my concern with this.
7 MR. COLTON: Jerry?
8 MR. GAVALDON: I had to go back one step further
9 before this process. I find it hard to believe that a
10 pool has had this problem, has gone in disarray, and
11 there's justification as a safety health hazard that you
• 12 want to make a change to the pool. I really don't buy
13 that because -- I'm not going to support that because I
14 think the pool should stay. I live in a homeowners
15 association where we have to pay to bring it up and keep
16 it up.
17 If this was part of the apartment -- which now
18 I've got the story, it's part of the apartment. It's up
19 to the apartment owners to maintain this and keep it up to
20 standard and keep it for the residents. If they want to
21 make a change, they could make a change with a good pool
22 and, you know, they could change the plot. But to let it
• 23 go downhill, per se, and now you want to make a change
24 because you can't do anything with it, this type of major
25 amendment is not what I support.
24
1 And that's -- and then now they want to make it
2 an open space and something. And then they have a memo in
3 here about humanity -- Habitat for Humanity. And also in
4 their backing, they made a new provision, a new change,
5 and they don't want to support it. This has really gotten
6 confusing to me on so many directions.
7 So with due respect, Sally, I think that's a
8 better choice. But I go back to saying, why did it go
9 downhill like this? And all these questions about safety
10 and health are now apparent. And Jennifer's right, if we
11 go with this way, they're still going to have a hole in
12 the ground. And we just give them authority. When they
13 did do it, it's up to them.
14 So I have to go back one step, go back early in
15 saying, I don't know if I'm going to support the motion.
16 I'd rather leave if. If we're going to have to do all
17 these push-ups to do things in a roundabout way, I'm
18 saying, I want to leave it as a pool and have the owners
19 bring it up to standards and use it as the amenity it was
20 designed and lobbied for and approved for. Go back to
21 square one.
22 MR. TORGERSON: I won't be supporting the motion,
23 either. It seems like we're -- we're -- the decision we
24 should be making is whether or not this pool should be
25 removed. We're basing -- all of a sudden we're bringing
25
1 future possibilities into the picture that is just really
2 conjecture. We really don't know if they want to develop
3 it for as single-family lots, for Habitat for Humanity, or
4 just general single-family lots. And that's not a part of
5 what we're deciding tonight.
6 It seems like any future land use that might
7 occur is probably better left to us in the future or
8 future boards to decide whether or not that's an
9 appropriate use, to take away open space from the
10 development and make it a new use. But that to me doesn't
11 seem like a part of our decision tonight. And I won't be
• 12 supporting the motion as it was worded.
13 MS. MEYER: I agree with Mike -- Mikal. I'm not
14 sure it's our job to determine what the future use of this
15 ground is. The question before us is, remove the swimming
16 pool and put some grass in it and maybe at a another date
17 we'll do something else. So I can't support it with the
18 condition of it.
19 MR. COLTON: Any comments? I'll be supporting it
20 because I assume this is -- project was done a long time
21 ago. But I'm assuming it got some sort of points or
22 credit for having active recreational area in the
. 23 project.
24 I don't want to set a precedent where people can
25 come in and get approval for projects and then years later
26
1 say, "Man, I can take care of some of this stuff" -- "get
2 rid of this open space, this playground, this pool,
3 whatever. Go make some more bucks on it." I mean, I just
4 think that's unfair to the residents of that area. And I
5 agree with Sally that it's a nuisance and we should get
6 rid of the pool if they're not going to maintain it.
7 But I don't know why the owner of that property
8 should go and benefit from selling off a part of a project
9 that was intend to be a recreational use for the residents
10 of the area.
11 Any other comments?
12 MR. GAVALDON: That's -- when I was making my
13 comment, that's where I was really struggling with, which
14 way I wanted to go. But I still want to --- I'm not going
15 to say no to the motion because it's not a good idea, what
16 you're trying to do. But I go back to the first step. It
17 should be a pool. It's not nice now. Well, it goes that
18 way because they let it go.
19 That's why I won't be supporting it because just
20 on that portion of it. I just want to recognize it should
21 be something to benefit the residents.
22 MR. COLTON: Okay.
23 MS. CARPENTER: Jerry, do you have any
24 suggestions as to how we can go to put it back to the
25 pool? Obviously that's the best choice. But I -- we
27
1 don't seem to have the ability to do that as the City.
2 MR. ECKMAN: Well, let me interject there. The
3 questions were asked of me regarding alleviating
4 nuisances. And I think that that's clear, that we can do
5 that. If we find a nuisance out there, we can fix that
6 with the City Code through the City Council.
7 As to the pool, I believe that the PUD was
8 approved with a pool on it. And the Land Development
9 Guidance Systems requires that PUD owners maintain
10 compliance with the approved PUD. So to not have a pool
11 brings the PUD out of compliance, I believe. And I think
• 12 it is a prosecutable offense in the municipal court.
13 Whether that's sufficient to get the attention of the
14 landlord or not, I don't know.
15 But beyond that, then the City would have -- if
16 that doesn't work, we'd have to take some other type of
17 legal action such as seeking a mandatory injunction that
18 the pool be operated. And that, of course, would be much
19 more complicated for the City. I don't know if you want
20 to do that or not, but those are remedies that are
21 available.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Thanks, Paul.
. 23 MR. COLTON: Okay. I recommend we take a vote on
24 the motion that was stated. And if it doesn't pass then
25 we'll give it another try.
EU
1 MS. CRAIG:
Dan asked me
to restate it.
Jill,
2 would you state it as
you have it
in the record?
3 THE CLERK:
You move to
approve with a
condition
4 that it is kept as a
recreational
use or an open
space.
5 MR. COLTON:
Okay. Any
other comments,
or are we
6 ready to vote?
7 MR. TORGERSON: I had a
comment.
8 MR. COLTON:
Yes.
9 MR. TORGERSON: I just wanted to clarify. I
10 support removing the pool. Actually I think it's our role
11 to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
12 That's our primary role. I just don't think we should be
13 deciding future land uses as part of this decision, and
14 that's why I won't be supporting it.
15 MS. CARPENTER: I'm not going to support the
16 motion because I think I agree with Jerry that we need
17 to -- it was a condition in the PUD and we need to be
18 seeing what we can do as a City to go back and require
19 that amenity to stay as it is.
20 MR. COLTON: Okay. Roll call, please.
21 THE CLERK: Carpenter?
22
MS.
CARPENTER: No.
23
THE
CLERK: Bernth?
24
MR.
BERNTH: No.
25
THE
CLERK: Craig?
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. CRAIG: Yes.
THE CLERK: Gavaldon?
MR. GAVALDON: No.
THE CLERK: Meyer?
MS. MEYER: No.
THE CLERK: Torgerson?
MR. TORGERSON: No.
THE CLERK: Colton?
MR. COLTON: Yes.
Okay. That motion fails
one?
W
So can we have another
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I'm going to take a stab at
it. And that is, I move for denial of the major amendment
to Southglen PUD Second Filing, to eliminate the existing
swimming pool and bathhouse facility, the Second Filing,
31-99.
MR. COLTON: Do we have a second?
MS. CARPENTER: I'll second it, but can we
condition it somehow? I mean, I -- I don't want it to
stay there the way it is.
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. If I can add, if I can,
that staff -- the staff use the appropriate processes to
work with the owners and return the pool to functional
use.
MS. CARPENTER: I'll second that.
me
1 MR. COLTON: I think we're probably going to get
2 an opinion on whether it is appropriate to condition
3 something on staff. Paul?
4 MR. ECKMAN: I think it's okay for this motion.
5 I sense it was a direction, giving staff direction as to
6 what to do but not requiring a certain result. Only --
7 the staff can only do the best it can. And it's up to the
8 courts and whatnot to make decisions.
9
MR. GAVALDON:
Okay. I'll
shorten that. Give
10
staff direction to investigate and
use appropriate
11
processes for the pool
so it won't
be a safety and health
12
hazard. Is that okay,
Paul? Okay.
That's my motion.
13
MR. COLTON:
Okay. Discussion
on the motion on
14 the table.
15 MS. CRAIG: I don't know. I almost wish that I
16 had the applicant come up because maybe his intent was to
17 take the pool out and put it as grass and leave it that
18 way. And maybe he felt it was worth it to do that.
19 Now we're telling him -- I get the feeling we're
20 telling him, "We'll see you in court." And I have a
21 problem with that, too. If he wants to get rid of the
22 pool, everybody is saying, "Get rid of the pool," we don't
23 have anybody from the apartment saying, "I wish it was a
24 pool."
25 So I'm concerned about us telling him -- or deny
31
•
1 it. Maybe Paul could make me feel a little bit better
2 about us doing this. Re -explain the fact that if we deny
3 it, then he is no longer in compliance of his PUD because
4 the pool is not useable at this point. Is that -- am I
5 interpreting that right?
6 MR. ECKMAN: That would my thought. I would hope
7 that we would be able to persuade the municipal judge
8 accordingly.
9 MS. CRAIG: And if we -- if in court things don't
10 go as we feel like they should, then we end up with this
11 pool sitting here all broken down; is that the end result?
• 12 MR. ECKMAN: Well, we would still be able to use
13 the nuisance provisions of the code with the City Council
14 to keep -- keep down the nuisances, anyway.
15 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you.
16 MR. ECKMAN: And, of course, the applicant's
17 never prevented from coming back and trying again with
18 another amendment.
19 MR. COLTON: Discussion.
20 MR. BERNTH: Again, my biggest problem comes back
21 to this, is that you're changing a former PUD and then
22 you're selling lots off which was intended to be the
• 23 recreational amenity or open space or whatever. I don't
24 have a big deal whether it's open space, whether the pool
25 is cleaned up, but I do have a problem with coming back
32
1 and profiting from something that was intended for
2 recreational amenity.
3 MR. TORGERSON: It seems like the only input we
4 got from public was in support of removing this pool.
5 Like Sally said, I don't hear anybody from the apartment
6 project saying, "Save our pool." And it is -- it does
7 seem to be a matter of health, safety, and welfare of the
8 public. And so I won't be supporting the motion.
9 MR. ECKMAN: May I ask if the tenants in the
10 apartments would have received notice of this meeting, of
11 this issue?
12 MR. OLT: This is a rental property. I guess I
13 don't know how to speak to that. If it's a rental
14 property --
15 MR. ECKMAN: Who did we send notice to?
16 MR. OLT: The effective property owners, as we
17 always do.
18 MR. ECKMAN: And not to tenants.
19 MR. OLT: Not to tenants.
20 MR. ECKMAN: Okay.
21 MR. COLTON: So we don't -- I guess from what we
22 heard, I don't know if the applicant has any comments, but
23 was there any discussion with the renters on this issue
24 and whether they cared? I don't know what type of people
25 or who lives there, if they're college students. I mean,
33
1 was there any discussion at all with tenants? Mr. Ortiz,
2 would you know something of this issue?
3 MR. ORTIZ: Yeah. There was some discussion. We
4 invited them all to our homeowners association meeting,
5 and none of them came to want to have the pool stay.
6 Basically there's all kinds of age groups that actually
7 live in the apartment complex, mostly students now, seems
8 to be. That is my guess because we put out a bunch of
9 notices on the door, and then nobody showed up to want the
10 pool to stay.
11 Basically our concern, too, is they're coming
• 12 across into our yards from the pool into our yards. And
13 that's why we want it out.
14 MR. BERNTH: Mr. Ortiz, if you had a perfectly
15 manicured pool or you had no pool, what would be your
16 preference? You seem to have the voice of the
17 neighborhood here.
18 MR. ORTIZ: Okay. The question is what now?
19 MR. BERNTH: The question is, if you had a choice
20 between a manicured -- you know, decent pool or no pool,
21 what would you prefer? And what do you think the
22 homeowners association would prefer?
• 23 MR. ORTIZ: I couldn't answer that question for
24 them, but for me, since I don't -- I'm not able to use it,
25 I'd say it doesn't matter to me then.
34
1 MR. GAVALDON: Glen, can I ask the other
2 applicant who made the presentation to come up?
3 As you are representing the owners and the
4 design, do you have any thoughts you would like to add or
5 what process the owners used in the apartment complex?
6 MR. BUSCH: I feel as representing the owner on
7 that, we really don't have any say in that -- in that
8 issue. You know, that's completely up to their decision.
9 We're just involved with the design and what -- what they
10 guide us in the design is the way we would proceed.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
12 you had an opportunity if you had any insight. Thank you.
13 MR. COLTON: Okay. The motion on the floor is to
14 deny the major amendment to Southglen PUD Second Filing.
15 Do we have a second on that? We did. Okay. Any other
16 comments or
17 Okay. Any other comments? No?
18 MR. GAVALDON: Glen, I think the only condition I
19 had was to refer to staff to follow the appropriate
20 process procedures to review the pool. I think that was
21 the only thing I had.
22 MR. TORGERSON: I just had a question for
23 Paul. Is it -- is it appropriate to deny with conditions?
24 That seems odd.
25 MR. ECKMAN: I was thinking it was a denial with
11
1 the direction to the staff.
35
2 MR. TORGERSON: Okay.
3 MR. COLTON: I guess my comments is, I'd like to
4 either see it taken care of or getting rid of it. It
5 didn't really make a lot of difference to me. I agreed
6 with Sally. I definitely don't want it sitting there,
7 nothing done with it. So I guess it kind of bothers me
8 voting for this motion because I'm uncertain as to what
9 the outcome is going to be. Before, I guess, it was still
10 uncertain. They had the option of taking it out or
• 11 putting it in as recreational, pass for recreation.
12 But I do have some concerns. I do want it taken
13 care of. I actually do think the owner has an obligation
14 to take care of it. And, I guess, maybe that could be the
15 appropriate route to pursue first. And if they won't,
16 come back and maybe make them take it out or something if
17 they aren't going to take care of it. I mean, do the City
18 legal action or something. Okay. Roll call, please.
19 THE CLERK: Bernth?
20 MR. BERNTH: No.
21 THE CLERK: Craig?
22 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
• 23 THE CLERK: Gavaldon?
24 MR. GAVALDON: Yes.
25 THE CLERK: Meyer?
M
1
MS. MEYER: No.
2
THE CLERK: Torgerson?
3
MR. TORGERSON: No.
4
THE CLERK: Carpenter?
5
MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
6
THE CLERK: Colton?
7
MR. COLTON: Yes.
8
Okay. I have four to three, if I counted my votes
9
right,
to deny it. Okay. Those who voted no on both of
10
those,
I didn't hear any other recommendations, I
11
guess.
So we're going with this.
12
(Matter concluded.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4 I, Anne Hansen, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary
5 Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the
6 foregoing proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Board,
7 taken in the matter of Southglen Second Filing, on
8 Thursday, January 16, 1999; that said proceedings was
9 taken down by me in stenotype notes and thereafter reduced
10 under my supervision to the foregoing 36 pages; that said
11 transcript is an accurate and complete record of the
12 proceedings so taken.
13 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
14 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys
15 herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the
16 case.
17 Attested to by me this 20th day of January, 2000.
fln
IMP
O
24
25
GL�
Anne Hansen
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
140 West Oak Street, Suite 266
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
My commission expires: 02/13/03