HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTHGLEN PUD, 2ND FILING - MAJOR AMENDMENT - 31-99 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILjiLCr— ^'
NOTICE OF APPEAL C! i y Ci-
OF
FINAL DECISION OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
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 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
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
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
29 suggestions as to how we can go to put it back to the
25 pool? Obviously that's the best choice. But I -- we
§ 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. 25.77
§ 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 spaces 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 10.25-75
§ 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 28 282 --
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)
t'rility 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
(2) 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 io - zs - 7s
§ 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 (30%) one-half (1/2) of
the same may be developed for planting, walk-
ways and landscape elements. The remaining one-
half (1/2) 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 10.25.75
No Text
December 14,1999
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort,Coltms, Colorado 80522-0580
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express concern about a proposed project (South Glen PUD, 2nd Filing,
Major Ammendment, #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 vour attention and consideration in this matter.
Pon and Sheme Quinn
312 Mapleton Ct. (970)226-4117 -
Ft.Collins Colo 80526
(970)226-4117
SCOTT AND MIKOL APPEL
304 ALBION WAY
FORT COLLINS, CO 80526
August 18, 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,
Scott Appel
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 r
Robe o Ortiz
W
H
F/
PARK SOUTII P.U.D.
U.d6vtlaped
••.al
• .A`w�) �,r' •^ •it
r 'r Cr'4 •dam \ ''.a
M4r4.e+'
�1'1a'w•a
.
///...
a
j4+111i1 Aw IF+Lt 'A'
K � 41• ''.' 1r
r vt,aa // -. ee4 orsr i
`Vj-----Jr�/�
I. p{{ps1�aio<lur4�r
ry,toy AMA,
n.
rAMI
.W AFrA fee"µ eF .14W4 l
W r, P to Il.a Wa' N4 I 1 /.� l
AIrNr a 44N Y ao1N •Ja•a / %� - �_rP U.a �4•n .
O/ PW pow,.0 txA sv1s. 1 `.
•Meµ M r<wILO F+o,
I. tra mum-rimov Am vAA1 4, A41•, '
n+N, Y4 .1 ."WwoN eI 1Nr CW'..
�Y• 6,4�18 F
�y. 4Y ♦s, / +
A�IlL f✓. �.
�rq .•y�b•I.. A'1. ��
-A Praj�i
\. f
Ni \
r • u•.r/. .' lvui G
1,0111
`.7..a 1
A
tm.. "Al90 FAMILY UP4 No.-�AP4Fr CD
1.�.--...,��•9t- JI - Fit,. +.At ar1sv611W
At� ,p D LaI•. • t. -
w... i.fill." I1 A wto-111. 1w wu{ I / liL Ur
_�'•'J _ oPrNl.wu :. Frwlmaa, aO�- E •`
I r
wcuc g �4r ,T
a W ,a .. I.. bee I p
4. <ea'itluNPa<Atr rum
fq- <wim 4Ls vWL'imiumo Muml• r nnv n,ulluq.
6. too NOWCWNµt.1 A.1pLL11em AAM WlrlAlm
'lI1+L1 'e' AW 2'.
'I. 440 Ptvpwr, <OAU I•y+I eta oswvm NkW
list I•F lo� r/f+IA s reIfL L4 ♦1+4, tAWY Iof6,
1. It, to, 4 "a {r ll�„♦aIrP1 160 4' 61.1 a.) of 4u two.
,FUUFA+ M4Wuf " , I
,•t4 1
c�Y1~�•�� �
Ci 1
1{
I
R) y'
�1,•46tr .Lf
A1�e.L.ru..
e�I�
A 9Kl Iv rJ
:IS
a.444 v110
rr•+.
3
is
i
0
g
VILIKItY MAP`•AL..1• laws
yppi-mot VAtA
10 m1FAL
Sna K »v...__ ,00a. (,LP. P.v.R. 410 Mks,
areal torn]---41 lflr
gfpla Ae•A--4. 6efn A<L . 411,16, rr
^L.AV tln{-WY4.1 rM11Y 4 HULt. rAnaY
Wn+ L±e,
•,r .r au A ..Its• K' .
. �•.V.�•'.In�I .:4 I. a914 CLL
.__..__la
1-Y k•yn uao- 4.9 w,m Wnh
�14, F.li P. "._.____ l,l'I 11TOY'
u1..A rmm.f v,ILa'F •... I/a.11]6 • 15.1. UNf</AL.
/y,'..rIM•• N.w II I</ (. (/11a • 1.16 Iw16/Al,
00". N. ttf --. ]6, 1.1141- . 4.46 ..F., At
. 41110u rAMnv Ott, fa, too, .r $I. 1V.
��itACI 'A' Lf,Yllav 16,1,t M Is.V.
ALI 'L' CYLY ..rIC{ 4,1L1 .r 1.11.
NLrbv a{uf R.1.LL--6pesa Af la.t1.
KYLII re WY b O LNP. AµA- 1� ass ar Co ri
•.o.A / vF1vu • •,111 Ll 1.N %
:K. '".qg %t AFL+ 1o.en N - 1./n _
W WaArk LA4L r.s.V, •11/w <r It,a w
rF� 4tu-414, lab y Ioaon
41W AW,r
1rr a4Faa1 MIkMa - 4 6rAY{6 PtF Lsf
IAnfl`Ann'(
1I•• 4{AIN4 r 1.16 • 1 . 7,1 • 41
'i"Le "A. yFAga•--1i yF•Now
/AFrW4 PA, ..."a I,
. pp-041Ar 1%LL•• 1,
WAL 41 ai• rF--,--
mA6 D6/ALKIP1101±
Y
I# s Is,IN u•., kl IFI
I
rnl d Pd
11.1,1i Y.
+'Nlldr IMIII :,)
1
Tosolost
I9Qan.(W W a,
I
L_ .y'./✓_
1 NI,
_ .F_ :: I �
,0
� ,pµ
bn
of a adl:.lu4a
Mf fA.
j Jn'Ni:u lief I' li
d�
1/ 1S4 b.�wr4
1 I
441.6: I •
FF•.111111q
I I L i-jI��WI a�dly I 'iuN 1 ;iia w. ; . il�'v� ii� i iiii i..i .r aii. iir m� i
I
1880
C.V m 0 0 0 s-zoo
-ram AaOWL � 49 - bbw *r, -� 3 �� I�
�o�ld lad �. -t1�� w►uy� ��� edfr ay a gDP �•w�-�,
0
w'b NPT'V' :wun
r---------
--1
_ I
D
j l
wA '
1 ,Nn
p4 11.L +NL R P
-rA.s vdt plod nPlrJs P7 p+e+r8
d,myr> 1. 1>i Sde)plPn.
�II �IIn.I�1
\ 'l[lfrs
'Till" rlua4
girl%'•. .\� D i r
I /J"P L'1C_ n
1•R[[ 1T .I1NMf
Y}
1.21
.LL_=
MM Orb. 1H ll .f.tf
>%�
Y.YI r.r.Ow.
YY
1-Y N•t.1
t1 IRO �. h �•U.MI.^:. NM.•.. .N/K
(.. ��. •. ... u.n I...I. ..NN•u. nir. �n ♦�Ml
Mw
' ♦.r\d . Is M.{... Y Wn • IY PNN RI / P}n. W1r
eu�an= bvr.
' '• wn6 V` uCA 4 b� W Irn.t N>I. .O.✓��n '
1'.IJ u•1.. M1Ly >
..k.1. j f5 ".�" i f ..,«.zl r-•, / off• \� ..� +r:..+<« �� `\ .1 '. o
A.
l �`��� :.i• / in'e. � i / ��. np_n� Xv' _ � —.rvw .1 1\
r /
mo 9 imminp Pool
�� I Arta► �Te n.nli rociry � � � �
" OIRDFILIu4
No Text
Steve Olt '
Project Planner
City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department -
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
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
Humanin? 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 r'nc. "
Landscape Architect/Project Manager
encl.
153 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO 80524
970 484 1921
FAX: 970484 2443 E-MAIL: JIMSELL@FRII.COM
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.
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 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 113 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 Request:
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 developer's 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 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.
I ITEM NO. 5
MEETING DATE12 16 99
STAFF Steve Olt
ICitv 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
c/o Leon Bush
153 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
OWNER: Southglen Partnership, LLC
c/o 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, CO80522-0580 (970) 2-11-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 )
3 COUNTY OF LPnIMER )
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
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
21
..._ :..:..........
ti f r.
22
�.
23
MR :.
24
25
Anne Hansen
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
140 West Oak Street, Suite 266
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
My commission expires: 02/13/03
19161
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
18 legal action or something. Okay. Roll call, please.
19 THE CLERK: Bernth?
20 MR. BERNTH: No.
21 THE CLERK: Craig?
22 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
23 THE CLERK: Gavaldon?
24 MR. GAVALDON: Yes.
25 THE CLERK: Meyer?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
MR. GAVALDON: Glen, can I ask the other
applicant who made the presentation to come up?
As you are representing the owners and the
design, do you have any thoughts you would like to add or
what process the owners used in the apartment complex?
MR. BUSCH: I feel as representing the owner on
that, we really don't have any say in that -- in that
issue. You know, that's completely up to their decision.
We're just involved with the design and what -- what they
guide us in the design is the way we would proceed.
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
you had an opportunity if you had any insight. Thank you.
MR. COLTON: Okay. The motion on the floor is to
deny the major amendment to Southglen PUD Second Filing.
Do we have a second on that? We did. Okay. Any other
comments or . . .
Okay. Any other comments? No?
MR. GAVALDON: Glen, I think the only condition I
had was to refer to staff to follow the appropriate
process procedures to review the pool. I think that was
the only thing I had.
MR. TORGERSON: I just had a question for
Paul. Is it -- is it appropriate to deny with conditions?
That seems odd.
MR. ECKMAN: I was thinking it was a denial with
33
1 was there any discussion at all with tenants? Mr. Ortiz,
2 would you know sore:=thing of this issue?
3 MR. ORTIZ: Yea:. 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 Basicaliy 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 ou=.
14 MR. BERN-7z-: Mr. Ortiz, if you had a perfectly
15 manicured pool or you had no pool, what would be your
16 preference? You seem to have the voice of the
17 neighborhood here.
18 MR. ORTIZ: Okay. The question is what now?
19 MR. BERN'1=:: The ctuestion 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.
Ewa
1 and profiting from something that was intended for
2 recreational amenity.
3 MR. TORGERSON: It seems like the only input we
4 got from public was in support of removing this pool.
5 Like Sally said, I don't hear anybody from the apartment
6 project saying, "Save our pool." And it is -- it does
7 seem to be a matter of health, safety, and welfare of the
8 public. And so I won't be supporting the motion.
9 MR. ECKMAN: May I ask if the tenants in the
10 apartments would have received notice of this meeting, of
11 this issue?
12 MR. OLT: This is a rental property. I guess I
13 don't know how to speak to that. If it's a rental
14 property --
15 MR. ECKMAN: who did we send notice to?
16 MR. OLT: The effective property owners, as we
17 always do.
18 MR. ECKMAN: And not to tenants.
19 MR. OLT: Not to tenants.
20 MR. ECKMAN: Okay.
21 MR. COLTON: So we don't -- I guess from what we
22 heard, I don't know if the applicant has any comments, but
23 was there any discussion with the renters on this issue
24 and whether they cared? I don't know what type of people
25 or who lives there, if they're college students. I mean,
01
1 it. Maybe Paul could make me feel a little bit better
2 about us doing this. Re -explain the fact that if we deny
3 it, then he is no longer in compliance of his PUD because
4 the pool is not useable at this point. Is that -- am I
5 interpreting that right?
6 MR. ECKMAN: That would my thought. I would hope
7 that we would be able to persuade the municipal judge
8 accordingly.
9 MS. CRAIG: And if we -- if in court things don't
10 go as we feel like they should, then we end up with this
11 pool sitting here all broken down; is that the end result?
12 MR. ECKMAN: Well, we would still be able to use
13 the nuisance provisions of the code with the City Council
14 to keep -- keep down the nuisances, anyway.
15 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you.
16 MR. ECKMAN: And, of course, the applicant's
17 never prevented from coming back and trying again with
18 another amendment.
19 MR. COLTON: Discussion.
20 MR. BERNTH: Again, my biggest problem comes back
21 to this, is that you're changing a former PUD and then
22 you're selling lots off which was intended to be the
23 recreational amenity or open space or whatever. I don't
24 have a big deal whether it's open space, whether the pool
25 is cleaned up, but I do have a problem with coming back
001
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
6 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
is 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
29
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. CRAIG: Yes.
THE CLERK: Gavaldon?
MR. GAVALDON: No.
THE CLERK: Meyer?
MS. MEYER: No.
THE CLERK: Torgerson?
MR. TORGERSON: No.
THE CLERK: Colton?
MR. COLTON: Yes.
Okay. That motion fails. So can we have another
one?
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I'm going to take a stab at
it. And that is, I move for denial of the major amendment
to Southglen PUD Second Filing, to eliminate the existing
swimming pool and bathhouse facility, the Second Filing,
31-99.
MR. COLTON: Do we have a second?
MS. CARPENTER: I'll second it, but can we
condition it somehow? I mean, I -- I don't want it to
stay there the way it is.
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. If I can add, if I can,
that staff -- the staff use the appropriate processes to
work with the owners and return the pool to functional
use.
MS. CARPENTER: I'll second that.
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?
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.
25
1 future possibilities into the picture that is just really
2 conjecture.
we really don't
know
if they
want to develop
3 it for as
single-family lots,
for
Habitat
for Humanity, or
4 just general single-family lots. And that's not a part of
5 what we're deciding tonight.
6 It seems like any future land use that might
7 occur is probably better left to us in the future or
8 future boards to decide whether or not that's an
9
appropriate
use, to
take away open space from the
10
development
and make
it a new use. But that to me doesn't
11
seem like a
part of
our decision tonight. And I won't be
12
supporting the
motion
as it was worded.
13
MS.
MEYER:
I agree with Mike -- Mikal. I'm not
14 sure it's our job to determine what the future use of this
15 ground is. The question before us is, remove the swimming
16 pool and put some grass in it and maybe at a another date
17 we'll do something else. So I can't support it with the
18 condition of it.
19 MR. COLTON: Any comments? I'll be supporting it
20 because I assume this is -- project was done a long time
21 ago. But I'm assuming it got some sort of points or
22 credit for having active recreational area in the
23 project.
24 I don't want to set a precedent where people can
25 come in and get approval for projects and then years later
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
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.
22
1 MR. BERNTH: I would second that motion, and
2 maybe add that they could do one of two things. Either
3 use that as a recreational amenity, or again, go back to
4 the letter of August 12, they use the lots here for
5 Habitat for Humanity.
6 MS. CRAIG: I don't know if I can accept that,
7 Dan, because that's sort of us conditioning what they
8 develop it into. And I think that's going one step
9 beyond -- you know, if you leave it what it already is,
10 which is a recreational amenity, I can -- I feel
11 comfortable with. But to tell them what they can do with
12 it beyond that, I don't feel comfortable with that. I
13 don't know if I can accept the friendly amendment to my
14 motion.
15 MR. COLTON: I would second the way Sally stated
16 it to begin with.
17
MS. CARPENTER:
I
-- I think I
agree
with the
18
underlying sentiments here.
But I'm a
little
bit
19
concerned that this pool
is
just going
to end
up staying
20
there because it's going
to
cost money
to take
it out and
21
fill it in. And I think
probably the motivation
here is
22 to make some money on the lots. So if we do that, is
23 there anything that then requires that they do go ahead
24
and
take
the
pool
out? Or are we
just going to end up
25
with
it
just
left
the way it is, .a
mess..
21
1 would like to grant the modification. I think it's pretty
2 apparent that this pool is never going to be a pool that
3 for some reasons legally we couldn't even force it to be a
4 pool if we wanted it to be a pool. What I would like to
5 place on the modification, though, is a condition that
6 this area that they're going to take the pool out of
7 remain a recreational amenity.
8 Now whether we need to be more specific and say
9 that they at least leave it open space, you know, return
10 it to grass, and so we don't make -- you know, force them
11 to do anything like a little playground or something.
12 That would be fine. But that was the purpose of it when
13 this was put in as a PUD, that that was a recreation --
14 recreational amenity. And that -- I could accept the
15 modification if we added the condition.
16 MR. COLTON: Would you like to make a motion and
17 then we can have some discussion?
18 MS. CRAIG: Yes. I would like to make a
19 motion. I move that we approve the major amendment to
20 Southglen PUD Second Filing Final, Number 31-99, with the
21 condition that the area that the pool is being removed
22 from be replanted with grass so that it is still
23 considered an open space or a kind of a passive
24 recreational amenity.
25 MR. COLTON: Do I have a second?
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, t-,en the.City would have come out and then the
4 apartment owner would have had to have done something
5 about the pool. Isn't that right? It's just because they
6 never called because of the vandalism, which is amazing.
7 I don't know
who they
did call, maybe the
police.
8 MR.
ECKMAN:
If the conditions at
that location
9 exist such as would fit the criteria of presenting a
10 health risk, then the City could take action to alleviate
11 that nuisance. The City Council would do that, much in
12 the same manner as was done with the mobile home park that
13 was flooded a couple of years ago under that same
14 ordinance.
15 So I don't know what has come to the attention to
16 the City with regard to that. But, yes, if, for example,
17 next summer or something a situation arises where you have
18 infestation of rodents or whatnot, you could do that.
19
With regard to
the
mobile home park,
I know
we recruited
20
the assistance
of
the Larimer County
Health
Department to
21 testify to the Council that there was indeed a health risk
22 there. And that may be another step that we should take,
23 if need be, if this pool was to remain for the summer
24 again.
25 MS. CRAIG: What I'd like to see us do is, I
1 triangular area which is part of Mr. Ortiz's development.
2 Right here (indicating).
3 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. I think I've got it
4 straight. Since this is a health and safety problem, is
5 there something in the City that would require the owners
6 to take care of that? To me it's an attractive nuisance.
7 Isn't there something that would require that that be
8 taken care of? Why has it sat there for so long, and
9 wouldn't they have to do this almost?
10 MR. ECKMAN: I don't know that it's been
11 presented as enough of a nuisance that the -- the City
12 zoning official has even -- even gotten knowledge of
13 that. I'm not aware of any -- Mr. Barnes having knowledge
14 of any problems out there that would rise to a level of a
15 nuisance.
16 MS. CARPENTER: Okay.
17 MR. OLT: Until the application was submitted to
18 us, request for removal of the pool, we had no idea what
19 the condition of that facility was.
20 MS. CARPENTER: Well, yeah. I'm just wondering
21 at this point when we know about it, is there something
22 that they would have to take care of it? I don't see how
23 we can have -- just allow that kind of condition to be
24 going on. So evidently we can't. Okay.
25 MS. CRAIG: Well, I think that if,-- if all these
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 Southclen 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.
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
RV
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 N1. 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 --
14
1 MR. GAVALDON: So if we say no, they're stuck
2 with the pool, right? And then they go back -- and maybe
3 the applicant can help me understand, why did the pool go
4 this way in the first place and now you have -- come up
5 into new thinking and turn them into new single-family
6 lots? Can the applicant explain that?
7
MR. BUSCH: My understanding of that is that a
8
few years
ago the pool was vandalized. The damages that
9
were done
with it, the homeowners association just could
10
not come
up with the funds for repairing the facility.
11
And once
the facility was damaged and started to go into a
12
state of
disrepair, then the vandalism just continued and
13
that was
just kind of a Catch-22 type of situation and
14
just got
out of their hands. And it's at the state that
15
it is today just because they haven't had the funds to
16
keep it maintained properly.
17
MR. GAVALDON: So another question, if I may
18
then, is
it the developer that owns the land or is it the
19 homeowners that own the land that wants to turn it into
20 something different?
21 MR. BUSCH: That would be a question for --
22 for
23
MR. ORTIZ:
Well, okay.
I've
been living there
24
for almost two and a
half years.
And
I've been seeing
25
it -- everytime they
do repair it,
it
does gets vandalized
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 MP.. OLT: I'm going to need help from our
5 attorney because I don't know what leverage we have. Do
6 we have the ability to impose upon a development like this
7 to maintain
that pool
in a certain
fashion?
8 MR.
ECKMAN:
I'm thinking
that the PUD -- this
9 was a PUD, I presume, originally -- was approved with the
10 pool. And so I would think that technically at the moment
11 the pool doesn't exist except as a hole in the ground, and
12 they're, probably -- could be seen to be in violation of
13
the planned unit development.
The approved plan
at the
14
moment for not having the pool.
There might be
a contrary
15
argument that
they do
have a pool; it's just an empty
16
pool. So it's
not an
easy case to prosecute. And the
17
City doesn't,
I don't
think, want to prosecute that kind
18 of case.
19 MR. GAVALDON: So if we say, for example, we deny
20 the removal of the pool, you're stuck with an open pool
21 just sitting there and it can just fall more into
22 disarray? And then doesn't it fall into a different
23 criteria for safety and health then? And then that's
24 another process out of our privy?
25 MR. ECKMAN: That's out of the P&Z Board's --
y
12
1 rest of -he word is. Interested in that, but it's beyond
2 my curre-nt 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
11
1 converting an existing use of like a multifamily project
2 into, say, possibly single-family homes or something
3 else. What -- how do we look at that? This is -- what is
4 allowed in this zone? Is this an LMN or an MNM or do you
5 know?
6 MR.
OLT: This
is the
LMN
zoning
district.
7 MR.
COLTON: Or
type
1 or
type 2?
Would it
8 probably be a type 1 or type 2 under -- if it was a
9 residential use --
10 MR. OLT: Well, it's conjecture, of course. We
11 need to make sure we don't get too ahead of ourselves.
12
The properties in the
LMN zoning district
so permitted
13
uses, if they were to
request a permitted
use, depending
14
on the nature of it.
Single-family homes
would be type 1
15
use in the LMN zoning
district. But we don't know for
16
sure that's what
they're
proposing. The request right now
17
is to be able to
remove
what is considered in their
18 standpoint to be a safety and -- safety hazard and a
19 vandalism concern.
20 MR. COLTON: Okay. It's just not clear to me,
21 and may not be relevant to the exact decision here, but
22 just unclear under what are the criteria we would use if
23 it came in as a type 1 on deciding whether you can take
24 part of an open space from an existing development and
25 convert it into residential homes? I don't know what the
it*]
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 automat_ically 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
with us and have the pool removed so we can put some homes
in there and put a fence behind to separate the complex
even more so from the subdivision. Thank you.
MR. COLTON: Mr. Ortiz, are you on the homeowners
association then? Or you're actually representing --
MR. ORTIZ: Yes. I'm on the homeowners
association.
MR. COLTON: Great. Thank you.
MR. ORTIZ: Any more questions? Oh, okay.
MR. COLTON: Is there anyone else who would like
to come cive us some input? Okay. Not seeing any, we'll
close it and bring it back to.the board. Dan?
MR. BERNTH: I just had a question for the
applicant. If he'd come forward, please. I'm referring
to an August 12, 1998 letter. And I don't know if you're
familiar with this letter, but I'll just read the second
to last paragraph in the letter. It said, "The proposed
lots are intended to be Habitat for Humanity houses at
which there are few existing on Albion Way." Is the
applicant intending to commit to that tonight, or what's
his thought on that.)
MR. BUSCH: I spoke with the applicant this
morning. His intentions are no longer to have those as
low income housing. The Habitat for Humanity projects,
he's no longer. interested in that feature, so.
8
1 comments to make other than that fact.
2 MR. COLTON: Okay. If the board has any specific
3 questions, we'll call it. All right.
4 MR. BERNTH: Actually, I have a specific question
5 for the applicant.
6 MR. COLTON: Maybe we should go ahead and get --
7 if we could do cuestions now or get audience input. Would
8 you prefer to do it now? Okay.
9 Why don't we go ahead and get audience input on
10 this then. If there's anyone from the audience that would
11
like to come up and address this,
please give us your name
12
and sign in and you have
up to four
minutes.
13
MR. ORTIZ: Hi.
My name
is Roberto Ortiz, and I
14
live at 312 Albion Way.
I'm here
to be in favor of
15
removing the pool. I'm
speaking
in behalf of Southglen
16
Homeowners Association.
And the
reasons, as everybody has
17
already said, the reasons
why we'd
like to have it removed
18 and -- and actually we're hoping to get this approved
19 quite quickly because the summer's coming. There's going
20 to be more vandalism going through.
21 And we've been having problems with our back
22 fence because they go over the tarmac. And they keep
23 jumping our fences and breaking them down, and then we
24 have to call the cops once in a while. We don't want to
25 put anybody in jail. We just want to get people to work
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.
8 given with the individual lots, individual lots
9 that would be proposed would have fencing in the back to
10 help to buffer between the existing apartment complex and
11 the new single-family dwellings. And there's plenty of
12 open space in between the two that I don't believe that
13 there's any concern as far as being an overly -developed
14 area.
15 Along Albion Way, there are already a number of
16 single-family dwellings which fall along the street in
17 through the cul-de-sac. And this is just a continuation
18 of three more lots in this development. Also, the fact
19 that Troutman Park is just across the street exemplifies
20 the fact that there are a lot of neighborhood facilities
21 in this area as far as recreation. And loss of the pool
22 probably wouldn't be that big of a consideration
23 especially since the fact it is not being maintained and
24 it is in a large state of disrepair right now.
25 I don't believe that I really have any other
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,
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
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
3
1 buildings here,
40 dwelling
units on approximately
two and
2 a half acres --
pardon me --
on approximately four
acres
3 with two and a
half acres of
that being open space
in some
4 form.
5 You can see there's a large block of open space
6 here (indicating), here, back in this area. The pool is
7 part of it. The pool has been in the state of disrepair
8 for sometime. I know that site shots are critical to you,
9 and I do have additional shots. Running through those
10 real quick.
11 This is from the parking lot in the multifamily
12 complex looking towards the pool (indicating). In the
13 background are relatively new single-family homes along
14 Albion Way which is the street just east of the pool.
15
This 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
23 for many, many years.
24
The concern
of
the neighborhood appears to be
25
there has been a lot
of
vandalism starting to occur. The
E
1 MR. COLTON: Okay. That brings us to item number
2 5, Southglen PUD Second Filing, major amendment. Sally,
3 would you like to have a staff presentation on this or
4 address a -- specific issues?
5 MS. CRAIG: I'd like a minimal presentation. I
6 am interested in some site shots and some of the stuff
7 that was discussed at work session. My concern is, if we
8 approve the modification and they remove the pool, that
9 are we losing on open space recreation area that that
10 apartment complex thought came with it and should possibly
11 stay with it. So I think that's what Steve is probably
12 going to address in his presentation.
13 MR. COLTON: Steve, is that enough to go on?
14 MR. OLT: That's enough to go on. Thank you. In
15 terms 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
PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
December 16, 1999
SOUTHGLEN PUD SECOND FILING
MAJOR AMENDMENT
Commission Members Present:
Glen Colton
Mika[ 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
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
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
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
(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.
E
City- of Fort Collins
Communit, .Tanning and Environmental Se', :es
Current Planning
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Stephen Olt, City Planner
`W
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 '/2 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;
1
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
0
AIM
City of Fort Collins
City Clet.
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 by Ed 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.
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. Box c80 • For: Collins. CO 80522-0580 • (97 0) 221-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295
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 Staffs 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 day of December, 1999.
SOUTHGLEN PARTNERSHIP, LLC
By: xl�.O
Manager
4
d,:....,
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
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 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 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
DATE: April 4, 2000
2 TEM NUMBER: 25
Attachments:
1. Notice of Appeal (dated December 30, 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
J. 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.
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 was 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, 1999, 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 '/ 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.
City Attol_ _y
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 2000
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorne#
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 required to 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
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. OLT: Yes.
12 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. And that -- those are the
13 people that want to do a development there, or do we have
14 another developer involved?
15 MR. OLT: The applicant -- or the owner of the
16 Southglen Second Filing, the apartment complex, that has
17 requested the removal of the pool, owns the pool, owns the
18 complex, rents these units. Would like to have -- would
19 like to remove the pool for reasons stated.
20 But in the letter, with their application,
21 indicated that at some point in time, and this is to my
22 knowledge, would like to replat that area into three
23 single-family lots.
24 MS. CARPENTER: Same people with the apartments.
25 MR. OLT: Although that would include this
a
1
MS. MEYER: No.
2
THE CLERK: Torgerson?
3
MR. TORGERSON: No.
4
THE CLERK: Carpenter?
5
MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
6
T''HE 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
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.
0
No Text