The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/04/2000 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE DECEMBER 16, 19 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 25 DATE: April 4, 2000 • FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF • Stephen Olt SUBJECT : Consideration of the appeal of the December 16, 1999. Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to Deny a Major Amendment to the South Glen PUD, Second Filing - Final, Consisting of a Request to Eliminate the Existing Swimming Pool and Bath House Facility at the east end of the 40 Dwelling Unit Multi-Family Residential Development. RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. and after consideration, either: (1) remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board or(2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's decision. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This appeal .vas originally scheduled for the February 1. 2000 Council meeting, but was postponed to this date at the request of the appellant. BACKGROUND: On December 16. I999. the Planning and Zoning Board denied a Major Amendment to the South Glen PUD. Second Filing — Final, consisting of a request to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the 40 dwelling unit multi-family residential development. The property is zoned LMN —Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (as of the effective date of March 28, 1997 for the new Land Use Code). The property is located on the west side of Albion Way, east of Manhattan Avenue, west of the New Mercer Canal and Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. and approximately Y mile south of West Horsetooth Road. On December 30, 1999. a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellant Southglen Partnership. LLC, it is alleged that: ♦ The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. ♦ The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter. I DATE: April 4, 2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 25 Attachments: 1. Notice of Appeal (dated December 3 , 1999 and received by the City Clerk's office on December 30, 1999) 2. Staff Report (with recommendation, attached plans, and supporting documentation) to the Planning and Zoning Board for the December 16, 1999 public hearing 3. City Staff response to the appeal 4. Minutes of the Meeting before the Planning and Zoning Board, held Thursday, December 16, 1999 The procedures for deciding the appeals are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code. ' j NOTICE OF APPEAL TY !;1— -OF FINAL DECISION OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD 1. The action which is the subject of this appeal is the denial by the Planning and Zoning Board of the Appellant's request for approval to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the Southglen Planned Unit Development, Second Filing Multi-family Residential Development. 2. The action occurred on the evening of December 16, 1999. 3. The Appellant is Southglen Partnership, LLC, Building 5 Old Town Square, No. 216, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. Telephone (970) 221-9332. The Appellant is the owner of the subject real J property. 4. The grounds for the appeal consist of the Planning and Zoning Board's failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Specific allegations of error include: a. The Board's majority apparently felt that removal of the swimming pool would eliminate a valuable and desired recreational amenity. However, all of the evidence indicated that the pool is private and for the benefit only of the PUD's apartment occupants, that none of the apartment occupants object to removal of the swimming pool, that the swimming pool has in fact become a bother, a danger and a liability to the PUD and the neighborhood generally, and that the neighbors desire its removal for the best interests of the neighborhood, as well. The Board lacked authority under the Code and Charter to arrive at its conclusion in the absence of any credible supporting evidence. b. The Board's majority apparently felt that removal of the swimming pool would result in a significant loss of important open space. However, this request is simply for the removal of the swimming pool and bath house, and nothing in this request seeks approval of any alternative use for the land area now occupied by these facilities. In other words, removal of the swimming pool and bath house will not affect the existing amount of open space in any way. The Board has misinterpreted and misapplied open space provisions contained in the Code, and lacked authority under the Code and Charter to decide the matter on that basis. C. The Board's majority apparently felt that the possibility of three single family lots • being approved in some of the area now occupied by the swimming pool and bath house was an inappropriate use and, again, significantly abridged the PUD's open space. However, while the Staff report mentioned the applicant's intent to seek approval of three single family lots in this area, that proposal was not part of this request. In fact, upon information and belief the approval of the three lots could have occurred by administrative approval, and it was only the fact that the swimming pool and bath house were part of the original PUD plan for Southglen PUD, Second Filing, that the Staff determined the P & Z Board's approval was needed for the removal of those aspects of the original plan. The Board therefore assumed authority it does not possess under the Code and Charter to decide matters not before it. Additionally, the undisputed evidence was that the PUD today has sixty percent(60%)open space and, even if three single family lots were approved for the area now occupied by the swimming pool and bath house, the PUD's open space would still be over half(51%). This is still an enormous percentage of open space which far exceeds the requirement in effect at the time of the PUD's original approval (30%). The Staff has informed the Appellant that there is no current minimum requirement for open space, so the Board applied a standardless standard. The undisputed evidence also indicated that Troutman Park, which is very close to this area, by itself satisfies Section 4.4(D)(7) of the LUC, regarding required parklopen space proximity, even if there were no open space within this PUD itself. The Board misinterpreted and misapplied the Code in this regard. d. The Board's majority apparently felt that the City could and should work with the Appellant to restore the swimming pool to a functional state. However, nothing in the Code or Charter empowers or authorizes the City to essentially dictate to a private property owner whether it should keep open a private swimming pool. This was in the face of undisputed evidence that serious vandalism (including puncturing the pool cover and extensive destruction of the pump house after breaking and entering) was submitted. The neighbors in letters and testimony, which were uncontroverted, apprised the Board of their concerns about vandalism, trespassing, and youth congregating at all hours around the private pool facility. The uncontested evidence also showed that the pool has not been filled or in operation for a protracted period of time for these reasons and, again, because none of the apartment occupants object to the removal of the facilities. The Board assumed authority not accorded it under the Code and Charter. e. The Board's majority apparently felt that the future proposal to plat three single- family lots in the area now occupied by the swimming pool and bath house was not desirable as removing open space, as mentioned. However, this was in contravention of the policies and provisions of City Plan encouraging housing development where existing infrastructure, including parks, exists. Thus, while 2 � the three lot proposal was not part of this request, the Board misinterpreted the Code in its consideration of that aspect of the Appellant's future plans. f. The motion which passed on a 4-3 vote was to deny the request with the condition that the Staff be directed to use appropriate processes to work with the owners to return the pool to functional use. The maker of the motion used the term `condition", and the person who seconded the motion also used the term "condition". While the City Attorney observed he felt this was simply giving direction to the Staff, it was clearly a motion to deny with a specific condition. The Board is not empowered by the Charter or Code to deny requests with conditions, and the Board misinterpreted and misapplied the Code and Charter in this regard. g. The Board's majority apparently felt that the fact that the swimming pool is not currently in operation constituted violation by the owner of a City ordinance, namely the approval ordinance for this PUD under the LDGS (Land Development Guidance System), as advised by the City Attorney. However, there was no evidence in the record that the approval ordinance occurred under the LDGS. In fact, it preceded the LDGS. The Board misinterpreted and misapplied the Charter • and Code in this regard. h. A review of the hearing indicates that in the totality of the circumstances a majority of the Board was largely confused as to who owned and controlled the swimming pool, what the actual request before the Board was (and, importantly, was not), what the authority of the Board or the City was generally in requiring the Appellant to do a host of things with regard to the swimming pool, and what the effect of various alternative actions that the Board might take would be. Based on nothing in the record, the Board's majority created an inference that the swimming pool is a desired amenity. All of the evidence in the record suggested the contrary. The owner, the apartment occupants, and the neighbors all desire the swimming pool to be removed. The Board received no objection from any quarter to this request. The City Staff recommended approval. A large amount of the discussion of the Board's majority centered on whether or not the City could and should require the pool to become operational. There was no evidence that anyone desires this to occur. The uncontested evidence was that the pool and pump house were regularly vandalized, ultimately so severely that they could not be affordably repaired. They have continued to be vandalized. The neighbors have been adversely affected by trespassing, noise and disturbance. The neighbors held a neighborhood meeting to discuss removal of the pool, gave notice to all of the apartment occupants, and received no objections from anyone to the removal. This • 3 was not a meeting required by the City to be convened, and so was something extra the neighbors took it upon themselves to organize for the benefit of themselves and the apartment occupants. The pool has not been in operation for a long time and it is still a congregating area for teenagers who disturb area residents and endanger themselves. This PUD has abundant open space that exceeds all applicable requirements significantly, with or without the swimming pool, and the close proximity of Troutman Park means, again, that all applicable City open space and park requirements are far exceeded. The Board assumed authority it lacks under the Code and Charter in so inferring and arriving at conclusions not supported by any credible evidence and against the considered recommendation of the Staff. Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council review the record of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, find that the request and the Staff's recommendation of approval thereof are congruent with applicable provisions of the Code and Charter, are supported by all of the competent evidence in the record, and are in furtherance of the best interests of the Appellant, the apartment occupants in this PUD, and the surrounding neighborhood, and reverse the decision. SUBMITTED this ?aAI day of December, 1999. SOUTHGLEN PARTNERSHIP, LLC By: Manager 4 City Attorney City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: January 4, 2000 TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attomeyy* RE: Notice of Appeal Filed by Southglen Partnership LLC On December 30, 1999, you received a Notice of Appeal filed by Southglen Partnership LLC pertaining to the December 16, 1999 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the proposed major amendment to the Southglen P.U.D., Second Filing. Pursuant to Sec. 2-50 of the Code of the City,this office is requiredto review Notices of Appeal for any obvious defects in form or substance. I have reviewed the subject Notice of Appeal and have not found any obvious defects in form or substance. WPE:med • 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6520 • FAX (970) 221-6327 City Clerk 4'MOM City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday,February 1, 2000 at 6:00 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 attached appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on December 16, 1999 regarding the proposed major amendment to the South Glen PUD,Second Filing(#31-99),filed byEd Stoner,Manager,Southglen Partnership, LLC. You may have received previous notice 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. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750). Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by January 25. Agenda materials . provided to the City Council, including City staff's response to the Notice of Appeal, and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers,will be available to the public on Thursday, January 27, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance. 6 Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: January 13, 2000 cc: City Attorney Planning Department Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant ;00 LaPorte Avenue • PO. Boc P50 • Fort Cn':Lns, CO 80522-0580 • (970)321-6515 FAX (970)?1-6295 Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning Citv of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Stephen Olt, City Planner �Gn THRU: Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S. Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director DATE: January 26, 2000 RE: Major Amendment to the South Glen PUD, Second Filing — Final ... Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding the December 16, . 1999 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny a Major Amendment to the South Glen PUD, Second Filing — Final. The request is to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the existing 40 dwelling unit multi-family residential development. The property is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and is located on the west side of Albion Way, east of Manhattan Avenue, west of the New Mercer Canal and Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, and approximately '/z mile south of West Horsetooth Road (see attached Vicinity Map). Section 2-48 of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter; i 281 :North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." The Appeal (Note: Bold text represents excerpts from the appeal document) Appellant: Southglen Partnership, LLC Building 5, Old Town Square, #216 Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Grounds for Appeal: On December 30, 1999, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellant Southglen Partnership, LLC, it is alleged that: The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter at the Public Hearing on December 16, 1999. Specific allegations of error include: a. The Board's majority apparently felt that removal of the swimming pool would eliminate a valuable and desired recreational amenity. However, all of the evidence indicated that the pool is private and for the benefit only of the PUD's apartment occupants, that none of the apartment occupants object to removal of the swimming pool, that the swimming pool has in fact become a bother, a danger and a liability to the PUD and the neighborhood generally, and that the neighbors desire its removal for the best interests of the neighborhood, as well. The Board lacked authority under the Code and Charter to arrive at its conclusion in the absence of any credible supporting evidence. 2 • b. The Board's majority apparently felt that removal of the swimming pool would result in a significant loss of important open space. However, this request is simply for the removal of the swimming pool and bath house, and nothing in this request seeks approval of any alternative use for the land area now occupied by these facilities. In other words, removal of the swimming pool and bath house will not affect the existing amount of open space in any way. The Board has misinterpreted and misapplied open space provisions contained in the Code, and lacked authority under the Code and Charter to decide the matter on that basis. C. The Board's majority apparently felt that the possibility of three single family lots being approved in some of the area now occupied by the swimming pool and bath house was an inappropriate use and, again, significantly abridged the PUD's open space. However, while the Staff report mentioned the applicant's intent to seek approval of the three single family lots in this area, that proposal was not part of this request. In fact, upon information and belief the approval of the three lots could have occurred by administrative approval, and it was only the fact that the swimming pool and bath house were part of the original PUD plan for Southglen PUD, Second Filing, that the Staff determined the P & Z Board's approval was needed for the removal of those aspects of the original plan. The Board therefore assumed authority it does not possess under the Code and Charter to decide matters not before it. Additionally, the undisputed evidence was that the PUD today has sixty percent(60%) open space and, even if three single family lots were approved for the area now occupied by the swimming pool and bath house, the PUD's open space would still be over half (51%). This is still an enormous . percentage of open space which far exceeds the requirement in effect at the time of the PUD's original approval (30%). The Staff has informed the Appellant that there is no current minimum requirement for open space, so the Board applied a standardless standard. The undisputed evidence also indicated that Troutman Park, which is very close to this area, by itself satisfies Section 4.4(D)(7) of the LUC, regarding required park/open space proximity, even if there were no open space within this PUD itself. The Board misinterpreted and misapplied the Code in this regard. d. The Board's majority apparently felt that the City could and should work with the Appellant to restore the swimming pool to a functional state. However, nothing in the Code or Charter empowers or authorizes the City to essentially dictate to a private property owner whether it should keep open a private swimming pool. This was in the face of undisputed evidence that serious vandalism (including puncturing the pool cover and extensive destruction of the pump house after breaking and entering) was submitted. The neighbors in letters and testimony, which were uncontroverted, apprised the Board of • 3 their concerns about vandalism, trespassing, and youth congregating at all hours around the private pool facility. The uncontested evidence also showed that the pool has not been filled or in operation for a protracted period of time for these reasons and, again, because none of the apartment occupants object to the removal of the facilities. The Board assumed authority not accorded it under the Code and Charter. e. The Board's majority apparently felt that the future proposal to plat three single family lots in the area now occupied by the swimming pool and bath house was not desirable as removing open space, as mentioned. However, this was in contravention of the policies and provisions of the City Plan encouraging housing development where existing infrastructure, including parks, exists. Thus, while the three lot proposal was not part of this request, the Board misinterpreted the Code in its consideration of that aspect of the Appellant's future plans. f. The motion which passed on a 4-3 vote was to deny the request with the condition that the Staff be directed to use appropriate processes to work with the owners to return the pool to functional use. The maker of the motion used the term "condition", and the person who seconded the motion also used the term "condition". While the City Attorney observed he felt this was simply giving direction to the Staff, it was clearly a motion to deny with a specific condition. The Board is not empowered by the Charter or Code to deny requests with conditions, and the Board misinterpreted and misapplied the Code and Charter in this regard. g. The Board's majority apparently felt that the fact that the swimming pool is not currently in operation constituted violation by the owner of a City ordinance, namely the approval ordinance for this PUD under the LDGS (Land Development Guidance System), as advised by the City Attorney. However, there was no evidence in the record that the approval ordinance occurred under the LDGS. In fact, it preceded the LDGS. The Board misinterpreted and misapplied the Charter and Code in this regard. h. A review of the hearing indicates that in the totality of the circumstances a majority of the Board was largely confused as to who owned and controlled the swimming pool, what the actual request before the Board was (and, importantly, was not), what the authority of the Board or the City was generally in requiring the Appellant to do a host of things with regard to the swimming pool, and what the effect of various alternative actions that the Board might take would be. Based on nothing in the record, the Board's majority created an inference that the swimming pool is a desired amenity. All of the evidence in the record suggested the contrary. The owner, the 4 . apartment occupants, and the neighbors all desire the swimming pool to be removed. The Board received no objection from any quarter to this request. The City Staff recommended approval. A large amount of the discussion of the Board's majority centered on whether or not the City could and should require the pool to become operational. There was no evidence that anyone desires this to occur. The uncontested evidence was that the pool and pump house were regularly vandalized, ultimately so severely that they could not be affordably repaired. They have continued to be vandalized. The neighbors have been adversely affected by trespassing, noise and disturbance. The neighbors held a neighborhood meeting to discuss removal of the pool, gave notice to all of the apartment occupants, and received no objections from anyone to the removal. This was not a meeting required by the City to be convened, and so was something extra the neighbors took it upon themselves to organize for the benefit of themselves and the apartment occupants. The pool has not been in operation for a long time and it is still a congregating area for teenagers who disturb area residents and endanger themselves. This PUD has abundant open space that exceeds all applicable requirements significantly, with or without the swimming pool, and the close proximity of Troutman Park means, again, that all applicable City Open space and park requirements are far exceeded. The Board assumed authority it lacks under the Code and Charter in so inferring and arriving at conclusions not supported by any credible evidence and against the considered . recommendation of the Staff. Staff Response: The Appellant's request is to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the existing 40 dwelling unit multi-family residential development. A recorded Site Plan was submitted showing the location of the pool area in the existing development and indicating the intent to remove the swimming pool and bath house. Accompanying the plan was a letter from the applicant giving reason for the request to remove the facility. As stated in the letter: "... The major amendment is to eliminate an existing swimming pool that has become a nuisance to the existing development. The swimming pool is currently not in use, as a result of vandalism that has occurred over the past few years. Currently the swimming pool poses a potential danger to children that may be playing in the area. Our client has informed the residents of the apartment complex of the elimination of the pool, and there has not been any negative response." • 5 As part of Staffs evaluation of the request to remove the swimming and bath house facility in the South Glen PUD, Second Filing, it was determined that the request would not violate the requirements set forth in Article 3 — General Development Standards nor Division 4.4 — Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District in Article 4— Districts in the Land Use Code (LUC) and that it would not put the existing project out of compliance with Section 118-83.J of the Subdivision of Land (the ordinance in effect at the time of approval of the South Glen PUD, Second Filing). NOTE: In the Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Board on December 16, 1999, the relevant section in Section 118-83 — Unit Developments of the City Code was cited incorrectly. It should have been Section 118-83.J Substantive Design Standards, not 118-83.K. The Staff Report does reference "Substantive Design Standards", only the letter designation was incorrect. The Planning and Zoning Board, on December 16, 1999, denied the request (on a vote of 4-3) to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the existing 40 dwelling unit multi-family residential development, with the following direction: (1) Give staff direction to investigate and use appropriate processes for the pool so it won't be a safety and health hazard. (2) To refer to staff to follow the appropriate process procedures to review the pool. In making this motion, the Board made the following findings and referred to the following conditions: (1) If the Board denies the request to remove the pool then the project is no longer in compliance with the approved PUD because the pool is not useable at this point. (2) Possible loss of open space due to the removal of the pool and the potential for the recreational amenity to be replaced with single family lots or other development. (3) The owner has an obligation to take care of the condition of the recreational amenity, being the pool. 6 i PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 16, 1999 SOUTHGLEN PUD SECOND FILING MAJOR AMENDMENT Commission Members Present: Glen Colton Mikal Torgerson Sally Craig Dan Bemth Jennifer Carpenter Jerry Gavaldon Judy Meyer • Staff Present: Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office Steve Olt, Planning Department Ted Shepard, Planning Department 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@reporterworks.com 2 1 MR. COLTON: Okay. That brings us to item number 2 5, Southglen =j"D 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 com--:ex 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. CLT: That ' s enough to go on. Thank you. In 15 terms of 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 I 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 car. 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 Z do have additional shots . Running through those 10 real quick. o11 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 is 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 023 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 4 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 5 • 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 6 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, 7 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. s 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 is 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 8 1 comments to make ocher than that fact. 2 Va. COLTON: Okay. If the board has any specific 3 questions, we ' ll call it . All right. 4 MR. BERN'-H: 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. o 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 9 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 1023 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 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 ? Is this an LMN or an MNM or do you 4 allowed in this zone 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 . MR. COLTON: Okay. Any other comments, 8 questions? 9 MS. CRAIG: I agree that the pool needs to be 10 removed. I don't think that that 's an issue here . 11 Obviously it ' s not being used for what its purpose is . 12 What does bother me is that area was approved as a 13 recreational amenity. 14 I would be comfortable at removing the pool if we 15 can condition that the area still remain a recreational 16 amenity, whether that means they just put grass in, or 17 they put a little tot lot or something. When this came 18 through, that was part of the plan, that this would be a 19 recreation -- you know, recreational area. Not just 20 detention pond, not just open space. 21 And it bothers me that they' re not going to do 22 something with that area. They're just looking at taking 23 the pool out . I ' d like to see something be put there. 24 MR. COLTON: Jerry. 25 MR. GAVALDON: More procedural-type question 13 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? S 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 is 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 damaced 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 . P1-id 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 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. 18 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. OAT: 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 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. O_T: 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. 6 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 PP P g 9 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 s 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 is 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 s 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 is 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. 28 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? 29 • 1 MS . CRAIG: Yes. 2 Thy CLERK: Gavaldon? 3 MR. GAVALDON: No. 4 = CLERK: Meyer? 5 MS . MEYER: No. 6 =- CLERK: Torgerson? 7 MR. TORGERSON: No. 8 THE CLERK: Colton? 9 MR. COLTON: Yes. 10 Okay. That motion fails. So can we have another 11 one? 12 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I 'm going to take a stab at 13 it . And that is, I move for denial of the major amendment 14 to Southglen PUD Second Filing, to eliminate the existing 15 swimming pool and bathhouse facility, the Second Filing, 16 31-99 . 17 MR. COLTON: Do we have a second? 18 MS. CARPENTER: I ' ll second it, but can we 19 condition it somehow? I mean, I -- I don' t want it to 20 stay there the way it is. 21 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. If I can add, if I can, I 22 that staff -- the staff use the appropriate processes to . 23 work with the owners and return the pool to functional 24 use. 25 MS. CARPENTER: I 'll second that. 30 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 . Mayne 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? 012 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 is 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 -- is 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. is 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 35 • 1 the direction to the staff . 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 is 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? 36 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 . 18 19 20 Anne Hansen Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 21 r 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266 "�'�•' �" � Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 22 (970) 482-1506 crs�„ 23 My commission expires: 02/13/03 o 24 25 ITEM NO. 5 MEETING 16 99 Olt STAFF Steve Olt City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Major Amendment to the South Glen PUD, Second Filing - Final - #31-99 APPLICANT: Jim Sell Design Go Leon Bush 153 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 OWNER: Southglen Partnership, LLC Go Ed Stoner Building #5 Old Town Square, #216 Fort Collins, CO. 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for approval to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the South Glen Planned Unit Development (PUD), Second Filing multi-family residential development. The site is located on the west side of Albion Way, east of Manhattan Avenue, west of the New Mercer Canal and Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, and approximately 1/2 mile south of West Horsetooth Road. The property is in the LMN - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for approval to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the South Glen PUD, Second Filing multi-family residential development. The proposal has been evaluated against the criteria as set forth in Section 2.2.10(B) Major Amendments of the Land Use Code (LUC). COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 90522-0580 (970)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Major Amendment to South Glen PUD, Second Filing, Final -#110-79B December 16, 1999 P & Z Meeting - Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN; single family and multi-family residential (South Glen PUD, Fourth & Fifth Filings) S: RL; existing single family residential (South Glen Subdivision, First Filing) E: LMN; -existing single family residential (South Glen PUD, Fourth Filing) W: RL; existing single family residential (South Glen PUD, First Filing) The property was annexed into the City with the Horsetooth-Harmony Annexation in July, 1978. South Glen PUD, Second Filing, Final was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on December 22, 1980 for 40 dwelling units (10 four-plex buildings) on 4.48 acres. This development was approved under Section 118-83 Unit Developments of the Subdivision of Land Ordinance that was in effect at the time. This was prior to the adoption of the Land Development Guidance System in 1981. 2. Land Use: This is a request for approval to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the South Glen PUD, Second Filing multi-family residential development. The proposal has been evaluated against the criteria as set forth in Section 2.2.10(B) Major Amendments of the LUC. This section states that: Major amendments to approved development plans or site specific development plans approved under the laws of the city for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Land Use Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located, and, to the maximum extent feasible, shall comply with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4..." In this particular case, the South Glen PUD, Second Filing was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on December 22, 1980 for 40 multi-family dwelling units on 4.48 acres. The approval included a swimming pool and bath house/equipment room building in an open space area at the east end of the development. . Major Amendment to South Glen PUD, Second Filing, Final -#110-79B December 16, 1999 P &Z Meeting Page 3 3. Pertinent Land Use Code Criteria: The elimination of the swimming pool and bath house does not violate any of the requirements set forth in Article 3—General Development Standards nor Division 4.4 — Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District in Article 4— Districts in the LUC. In fact, the entire South Glen PUD, Second Filing is located within 800' — 1,000' of the existing City-owned Troutman Park (a 20 acre neighborhood park) to the south and west. Section 4.4(D)(7) of the LUC requires that either a neighborhood park or a privately owned park, that is at least 1 acre in size, shall be located within a maximum of 1/3 mile (1,760) of at least 90% of the dwellings in a development project as measured along street frontage. The entire South Glen PUD, Second Filing project (100% of the 40 dwelling units) is within 1,000' of Troutman Park. 4. Applicant's Reauest: This request for a major amendment to the South Glen PUD, Second Filing is to eliminate an existing swimming pool that has become a nuisance to the existing development. The swimming pool is currently not in use, as a result of vandalism that has occurred over the past few years. Currently the swimming pool poses a potential danger to children that may be playing in the area. The developer has informed the residents of this apartment complex of the potential elimination of the swimming pool and there has not been any negative response. Also, the developers intent is to replace the existing swimming pool facility with 3 single family lots that would front on Albion Way. The proposed lots are intended to be Habitat for Humanity houses, of which there are a few existing on Albion Way. A Project Development Plan will be submitted at a later date for the proposed 3 lots. 5. Staff Evaluation: The request to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility does not violate any requirements as set forth in Article 3 or Article 4 of the LUC. Although this would constitute the loss of a previously approved recreational amenity, after inspection of the facility it has been determined that the condition of the swimming pool and bath house presents a public health and safety hazard to the neighborhood. The facility is neither properly maintained nor adequately secured to prevent access, especially by small children. . The expressed intent by the developer is to provide 3 single family lots, similar to those in the South Glen PUD, Fourth Filing, on the property should the swimming Major Amendment to South Glen PUD, Second Filing, Final -#110-79B December 16, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 4 pool be eliminated. These lots would be accessed from Albion Way. This request to eliminate the swimming pool and bath house does not include the request for approval of the lots.A request for approval of a Project Development Plan for the 3 single family lots must be submitted separately at a later date. This request would be evaluated against the applicable criteria in the LUC. The entire South Glen PUD, Second Filing contains 4.2 acres, of which 2.51 acres are open space in the project. The open space, including the swimming pool facility, currently equals 60% of the project. With the elimination of the swimming pool facility and the inclusion of the 3 single family lots (should they be approved at a later date) the open space area in the Second Filing would be decreased from 2.51 acres to 2.12 acres, or 51% of the total of 4.2 acres. ' Section 118-83.K Substantive Design Standards of the Subdivision of Land Ordinance (the ordinance in effect at time of approval of the South Glen PUD, Second Filing) required that open space (including recreational facilities or structures) in any project comprise at least 30% of the total gross area of a residential PUD. Even with the elimination of the swimming pool facility the open space in this development would exceed the minimum requirement. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS: In evaluating the request for the Major Amendment to the South Glen PUD, Second Filing (to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the Second Filing), staff makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. The proposal has been evaluated against the criteria as set forth in Section 2.2.10(B) Major Amendments of the Land Use Code (LUC). 2. The elimination of the swimming pool and bath house does not violate any of the requirements set forth in Article 3 — General Development Standards nor Division 4.4 — Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District in Article 4 — Districts in the LUC. 3. The elimination of the swimming pool (open space) facility would not put the project out of compliance with Section 118-83.K of the Subdivision of Land (the ordinance in effect at the time of approval of the South Glen PUD, Second Filing). • Major Amendment to South Glen PUD, Second Filing, Final -#110-79B December 16, 1999 P & Z Meeting Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Major Amendment to the South Glen PUD, Second Filing (to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the Second Filing) -#31-99. August 12, 1998 Steve Olt Project Planner City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 f . RE: South Glen P.U.D. Second Filing-Major Amendment Dear Steve: On behalf of our client Mr. Ed Stoner,Jim Sell Design, Inc. is submitting a major amendment to the South Glen P.U.D. Second Filing. The major amendment is to eliminate an existing swimming pool,that has become a nuisance to the existing development. The swimming pool is currently not in use, as a result of vandalism that has occur over the past few years. Currently the swimming pool poses a potential danger to children that may be playing in the area Our client has informed the residents of the apartment complex of the elimination of the pool, and there has not been any negative response. It is the intent of our client to replace the existing pool, with three single family lots which will front on Albion Way. The proposed lots are intended to be Habitat for Humanity houses, of which there are a few existing on Albion Way. A Project Development Plan will be submitted at a-later date for the proposed three lots. Please review this information and should you have any questions, give me a call. Sincerely, JIM SELL DESIGN Ihc. ' • Landscape Atchitect/Project Manager encl. Ca m■■u ate'♦:♦��;r . i KIM do . LPN►��♦♦1♦ ♦♦��•. Ott i low on1►�♦ �■ Wb��♦♦♦♦♦♦1�♦ IIt/� a� oil Is ��E % - � ,'t( � irk �■■ ► �1.�. � Flu"n, un'.�,T .�.... .nip� - = „ , ■' � � ��,+• �rr�� ►♦eW tutu "- �� ill%/iD� � �/ Ian 1; NONE MWu _Nunn►► n . ■•■r►'.= ... �� ritu►n td►O "iuiiioiin� u■■■ 1 . turn .�n = .� � I- f nw■ 1 �i.0 i ' � �� tttttl . G �.mn �� . � t♦�♦\♦ 25111111 /ti\I♦��•♦ ♦• � i j� �� •�1 it � �,•♦♦ Irw tt®nt®t tntmtttO .'`■ttN■�i� . �� . o o �fit• � I/II /IYII `J:� �� . '• /, ntttt►��•� a .r ' �� to r .. ■tm■ ::• ®tnn• •.i �ht mtntmi� �♦ ■ptt■ .. . I .. EEmin t[u//��jpu p��u111111►r�rV Air as �AD�i�QtuO�Pj�:� `y:�♦ ♦i♦♦�i� , � as INA ttAt11■ . m■ .nnt _� rmnttlltmou\ �111111111111 INNER �""`� '��nnn Ilunn� i� ■O �� `•rum � � ■ / a ram■ �, - ; _ .^tom a a. ai. ,•_ II • e d owning. '^ � !o nPLJs at Pn• leach! TAia n1t 9 „ �� r,' ur•ml.• !. u. .!< pbn. lN'O IBL W7/, va 4`t a ll.n/� L f I . W cz I •�� .\ rnd on..r.�•qs (.. �/I i-� � r11..�l Y.S.` `� ..Q• ,..{ Q �� ^ � �_ i 1, _.^'•^ 1-`•1 �' .w ie YRb •aa.. s x.uJ r _ ram. �,' •.. w -..: .D. s ,-�" •"� /,. ,il � li gyp.,.• c5u f' � = � Z Ez 14 mo 8 ImmMp Pool x. --------- �I�c r�nrl r„ I � 114- M4 1 P / :•�' Nnibc: o % / ;:'i? CNyg r.4.x;,wuYwMW uxNN rLAY . P / q PA SOU rq- 4«9Ir Panr.•�"rAw nnw•Iriw.r nrxfiuq, 7�� TH .U. . w iC(YY /•""•3P :•" ' :�� Av4V O E �Y{1lnwvxyr,�. Ls.wxfiW LxL wM.M = '• vvv ' �: `••. tleneloWd iSN1 'n'Ko'L'. N • 1.1Yr oSNI4/rF r.NL rUYI Mr Yr«ww MWI ',l ►ar P! ur /I,I.IH<, 14 s +wqn rAwY uN. 1. T` AKNi 1.,;`.. -/h•,• dr Mrs lnAM dSusP ♦'lu•rx.l or/IM INx. I I/ rT/ J� fi_)�1k ` '•` �rAxt N1.♦s' .4 1`�\y�(7�� ,• I� /� - � }u. L V r.4w .CFA4� •A..Y - I e _1 __T.. �tv"ILa! i' it� n\ ry1 4Y / ne"�/Tv nl `. •u•les r r•na ut j +�a• .' • r )':4»r •. `(• u1rdT 1 rl4YN{ u♦rwN i'I I � �4 ' o � °te°`�Md i�\ '•alP� rv"r... ✓ .I ! r SU"' ` 1 H w " . �!4 dV Z�\` t +;r �I ��T.1, I�IN �„ •, ''. a•s j � � n u � `�� J 1i qt,, @. ��N.« yam;., r � ..� �: •T—_w�....,� / �� r - t `t3 \ t'.n 2 ti; .•11 1 l i L w MFP."iv �' �C�. VIGINItY ..au:r-:...• 'e _ `�1�� mil/ Yd � `�.. ei rvt ,\•.. t -b,1v�1 4 yJ ice\ \t y I Iyl f i •;i 4 a Q -h 4tai ••,(� 1•. J r :'Ij j� lil 'rllb GCYLItWMENI RtfA 'i _� r"�..�\ �a /, (-�'� abb� /t'4 L •(4 \v,.Pj / \`iral.'.�.5.�'„ ° $ � d�111GLAL l i,� 1--�� a/ "t. I' '�' qN/�.r 5:'(�.•`,) .PY.r W/. GY.O. IM IM1M / (//%may/� �\ • "'l .Y t.. \` 61w'.• —Y.•Yf eLM[ '•• /,` � T•- �'•'•, �\ •.A u �� . l�' If°IY.rV Yl{—ewt•{ IMI:Lr (' M«n(ANILY I A_� /��\ - • -�`✓: `t/y � :'q»r r � . I: � 6 ?i'AYIn �. I.Mr larad"11I�. (�.� /�. GI �. I. rw r•I r . . _ r,v» , ppt!OrlalLrP IINd M r•M1h• . t - .' •G°'�t�`b t pxxy prA, _ -•t r. w{♦' NnrxnrMnl• �J`�" tYy.'- K. It •. .— __" T1 �AMM1Y• A WNL M WMY ' `l •.\ l4 t-t W IIW'r iV L141'«M .y L� / "N14. 1 S \ a4 Y —.xt.• 1..re/t p NfMr V tlMr Wr an. / /'- / '1 •I y L(M rsx tr Wt•. , P. tlNl"w+ � 1% � ., i � ,Nw '• . ��.w•a•w -jy LNI4 11i W;H K. a1Lx Pima P•. `-7�nl1TNO�r�°lmo, l` \ M n 11 � � ,tt�i l' :' -- .. N.. ur xt r. \\-�!/ Jr� �� 1 \ j 4�'-,... �' '�i T�Q7. r'- i � t ♦ 'Pve Aa to wv o4 I«w'r MXOF —Ib M4 N xl.a% t.4r nun-IYnxr •^ Ac1'A sv.(ur n t.•, r L r r. I q OF.Yw°.MYYnYW «M aunr.. fKx 1 \t Y 4f'• W .j l i l W.I IpHt`6,;N Now .,A� is of 9r' _ \ .�: M»y Ir B�.I'i 1 __ 'MG/uynµ CiwLFLe—i i� H iti_�n •� '•i... kill I 1 ! r.MK—♦N,ur• M IMo« �R�'.�.:^W1'7^�.�'LT.:� «w aMr. ..ra �—C'11 \�/'i,'...-. .... -1 f •• 'rwAS �.•. _ ]. I ��, .'1/1�Q I . f s.s» w j l'.I Kjw...t�{nY rrA{rx•_s.M.N ru Nr _•.fa�fu,:..�usr r. •11n1 flq �i ((P� DTP•. S J 1 i1 ^°..GI .1 M l, ,$.r. sl •t t'.. MwuFth .y[ Y P(,.. ..I6 Iw.tr .�..•� .. 1rv1• hT. MYfU PAIIAY NNI OM. Rf>°Nc \,yr��\1 t ' r•. .t Iw�Yw N"i •rf«w n •�...�_Y]ISlt_ Ijl_rN•44xrF.FnnMfixl 1---11 } •i I I'It Q!7 A jx�i1 i fib » +I+u. /W«rrs may, aLgs••I,ro t•P Ip-I4CJ�[//./(�\% iar�� t III w1a mairtlgl x4wr LYN•w•tL I �/ I N /.` 1✓!.' Mr"'•.n orri:'i gOy '�i,r.•a�°r,riu•M1.i�,.rSw1a z , j.•...,,'`' A nWw.b tuL<.uL I yl !^� I ,•'.� 4�. f',, .V 4..L I.. wxw•fi«�.I.MiaV. I tr• 1 S 11ii I ii �•y 17Y rid 1 N,:ri as,r w.W.w w•a r w• t � � �y4 `v f � I. pNr N1 '�� • �'t MLMr 1•.r W Mn•[•�«x«••«:uw.ur• tea •\}I jl, j �i"4d vafw .:.�yx�•.x•�+y!r x. Ln•«•vr••.x w+x i' ( i -i....«� 161Ni r i•IxM{xxY'�lli I Yn Gw 1•lyl ' ilii9'IL'. r,rxro s rwren •. I I Iw M. N.tl:•[{ fP'iiu'tn 'c'uw.au l„irwr • t i 4 I -.1 L}fv_ —l•_ �l jl w: uwa in....rw•r'7 rrx l;Ww i nail' 4 r---T j dw»rir HAH I'll '�/ 1«wb.row., �rtr.n r•.iw•.[n'ir' ,n.w r.nr.«:. w^R I'•r .. I V / ffLtln rr n•rw wM.rx+b r« x•[ns,W« ..••I..... � � NO40H S�/�,.." I I %u�irv.a.w.r.h w rT.w,:.mu.F'L•sw'a a ro u re IN t•e I r-� I r r[Yp t---•Y1416N I ,• w:`:rP•'c•w 1 i:.n e.r x•w•L I I \ I I IF/°*'vY I / t W.e,.•:. :. . «ate:....T�.•.,....... •' ' 1 " ' . •• s-zoo iRso ONL • . • toold lad . -CGti w,uev� bra bd ed as a FC�P�; -cjrAo&. August 13, 1999 Roberto Ortiz 312 Albion Way Fort Collins, CO 80526 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in regards to the swimming pool located on Albion Way. I support the removal of the swimming pool in place of homes due to many concerns of vandalism and trespassing in the neighborhood. If any additional questions, please contact me at 970-206-4900. Th Robe o Ortiz D��` vA F'r C61k1� L -r c\(YneL acy . SCOTT AND MIKOL APPEL 304 ALBION WAY FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 August 19, 1999 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in regards to the swimming pool located on Albion Way. We support the removal of the swimming pool. We are in favor of homes being built on the property. We have many concerns regarding vandalism and trespassing in our neighborhood,which we feel is due to teenagers hanging around the pool until all hours of the night. If you should have any additional questions, please feel free to contact us at(970)207-1565. . Thank you, - '05r� Scott Appel • C December 14,1999 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 281 North College Ave. PO Box 580 Fort,Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express concern about a proposed project (South Glen PUD, 2nd Filing, Major Arnmendment, #31-99). My wife Sherrie and I live at 312 Mapleton Ct. Our back yard is adjacent to the swimming pool and bath house facility under proposal in the project. We are very pleased to hear that the swimming pool will be eliminated. Over the past six years we have experienced many problems with the operation of the pool and with the general conditions surrounding it. Our neighborhood will definately be safer and more enjoyable without it. We are also very concerned about the future development of the property now occupied by the pool and hope to have some input as to what will be done there. We proposed a solution to the Albion Way Homeowner's Association which would help to eliminate some of the trash and weeds on the west side of the cul-de-sac on Albion Way. Our suggestion was to move our fence to the east approximately ten feet closer to the sidewalk. This would clean up a great deal of trash and weeds along the west side of the street. This idea was presented and apparently rejected by some members of the HOA because it would supposedly block"the view". "The view" they have now is not a very pretty one. Over the past six years there has been very little to no maintenance and upkeep of this property. We are concerned that if this property is turned over to the HOA, how and who will be responsible for maintenance and use of the area along our fence and the existing pool area. We would like our wishes and concerns to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board and/or City Council as we are directly affected by what will happen with this property. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration in this matter. Pcere ,� onand Sheme Quinn 312 Mapleton Ct. (970)226-4117 Ft.Collins Colo 80526 (970)2264117 ��■ ■■�� n � ■Ill�rrrrrrr � S ff� A rr■ ■fi: � rM Igloo �iin►� � o�■ �� 1�f�• i C �11111/ �� NINE ONE milli milli �� 1�� a' - �ii'iiliii Y�f■■/ � �i � � s •� f■f■■■ ■ �� . ■ milli § 118-83 FORT COLLINS CODE § 118-83 the same to the County Treasurer for collection as in the case of collection of general property taxes. (3) Guaranties for open space preservation. Open space shown on the approved final plan shall not be used for the construction of any structures not shown on the final plan. J. Substantive design standards. The following design standards shall apply to any planned unit development: (1) Open space. .(a) Required open space shall comprise at least thirty percent (30%) of the total gross area of any residential planned unit development. (b) Within such thirty percent (30016) one-half (1/2) of the same may be developed for planting, walk- ways and landscape elements. The remaining one- half f/2) shall be developed for active recreational use and shall be developed in parcels of not less than six thousand (6,000) contiguous square feet and not less than fifty (50) lineal feet in the smallest dimension. (c) Areas devoted to natural or improved flood control channels and areas encumbered by flowage, floodway or drainage easements may be used to partially satisfy the total open space requirements. (d) Recreational facilities or structures and their accessory uses located in approved areas shall be considered open space as long as the total im- pervious surfaces (paving, roofs, etc.) constitute no more than ten percent (10%) of the total open space. (e) Public dedications may not contribute to the open space requirement. (2) Streets. The following table presents the minimum street design standards for planned unit develop- ments: 11854.14 to•2a•75 . § 118-83 ZONING § 118-83 Place Local Collector Very Light Light Local and Traffic Through (0-10 dwell- (11-100 (through ing units) dwelling traffic) units) - Pavement width (feet) No parking 20' --- --- Parking 1 side 28 28' --- Parking 2 sides --- 36 44 Right-of-way width (feet) 50 60 80 Sidewalks At least 1 or both both sides 1 side sides Sight distance 75 150 350 (feet) Maximum speed 15 25 30 (mph) Utility easements 6-foot utility easements will be required on each side of all streets ' Not to exceed one hundred (100) feet in total length. = Feasibility of parking on one (1) side shall be established by the number of off-street parking spaces provided. On streets with two (21 spaces per dwelling provided, the twenty-eight-foot street will be recommended. (3) Private streets. (a) Private streets not dedicated for public use shall be designed and developed in accordance with the foregoing minimum street design standards. This requirement shall not apply to accessways serv- ing four (4) or fewer residences or less than one hundred (100) feet in total length. (b) Access for emergency vehicles and other public vehicles shall be dedicated over all private streets. (4) Parking standards. (a) Parking spaces shall be provided for residential . developments as follows. All such parking spaces 11854.15 to-2a-7a § 118-83 FORT COLLINS CODE § 118-83 shall be off-street parking spaces and each space shall be accessible and usable. Number of Bedrooms Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit Per Dwelling Unit 1 1.5 2 1.75 3 and above 2 (b) Parking spaces shall be provided for nonresidential developments appropriate to the type of use as deemed adequate by the Planning and Zoning Board. (c) Parking areas shall be arranged so as to prevent through traffic to other parking areas. (d) Parking areas shall be screened from adjacent structures, roads and traffic arteries with hedges, dense plantings, earth berms, changes in grade or walls, or otherwise. (e) No more than fifteen (15) parking space's shall be permitted in a continuous row without being interrupted by landscaping. (f) No more than sixty (60) parking spaces shall be accommodated in any single parking area within a residential area. (g) All parking areas and any off-street loading area shall be paved and the design thereof approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. All areas shall be marked so as to provide for orderly and safe loading, parking and storage. (h) All parking areas shall be adequately lighted. Such lighting shall be so arranged so as to direct the light away from adjoining residences.- (i) All parking areas and off-street loading areas shall be graded and drained so as to dispose of all surface water without erosion, flooding and other inconveniences. 11854.16 to-25-75 § 118-83 ZONING § 118-84 (5) Planned unit development perimeters. Where planned unit developments adjoin public streets or lands with a different zoning classification, the installation and maintenance of a landscaped area at such perimeter may be required. The detailed landscape plan for any such buffer required shall be a part of the landscape plan filed in conjunction with the final unit development plan. [Amended 9-6-77 by Ord. No. 104, 19771 (6) Signs. All proposed signs shall be submitted as scaled drawings and must conform to the provisions of this chapter regarding signs. The Planning Director shall have the power to approve signs conforming to this chapter but, where extensive signing is proposed, he may submit the proposed signs for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. K. Commercial uses in residential districts. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the commercial uses allowed in the B-L Limited Business District shall be permitted in the R-H High Density Residential District, and the commercial uses allowed in the R-H High Density Residential District and the B-L Limited District shall be permitted in the R-L Low Density Residential District, R- L-P Low Density Planned Residential District, R-M Medium Density Residential District, R-P Planned Residential District and R-M-P Medium Density Planned Residential District, provided that such uses shall be allowed only if approved on the final development plan. Such nonresidential use shall not exceed a ratio of forty (40) square feet of floor area devoted to such use per dwell- ing unit within the development and all of such uses shall be primarily for the service and convenience of the residents of the development. § 118-84. Nonconforming uses and buildings. A. The following are the definitions of a nonconforming use and a nonconforming building. NONCONFORMING USE — Any legally existing use, whether within a building or on a tract of land, which does 11854.17 11.25-TT