Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCASTLE RIDGE GROUP HOME - FDP220013 - LEGAL DOCS - LEGAL COMMUNICATION 07492573.DOCX;1 April 23, 2022 Via E-mail only Michelle A. Pinkowski 1630 A 30th Street # 526 Boulder, Co 80301 michelle@pinkowskilaw.com Denver Office Jeffrey B. Smith Direct 303.991.2066 jsmith@altitude.law Re: Miramont Homeowners Association / 636 Castle Ridge Court Our File No. 9075.0002 Dear Ms. Pinkowski: Thank you for your correspondence on March 21, 2022 (the “Letter”), as well as the email on April 4, 2022 where you provided the Association with your clients’ modified request for reasonable accommodation which was provided to the City of Fort Collins (“Modified Request”). The Board of Directors for the Miramont Homeowners Association (“Association”) has asked me to respond to the Letter and the Modified Request. First, I think it is important to point out that the Association is not a party to any process you are undertaking with the City of Fort Collins. If information is not specifically provided to the Association like the Modified Request, the Association has not received it. Likewise, the Association has not authorized any representative to attend or partake in any of the City’s activities regarding the Property. Any owner who has participated has done so in their individual capacity, and not on behalf of the Association, the Board, or any Committee of the Association. As pointed out in my last letter, the Association simply assumed from your lack of correspondence for almost a year that your client had decided to deal with the City process, before engaging the Association for its own review. Two of your reasonable accommodation requests have direct links to the parking concerns of the Association. Having so many people living at the home, as well as staff, visitors and doctors, is a major concern giving the parking limitations and the narrowness of the street in question. It is for these reasons that the Association requested additional information regarding parking which was only provided to the Association on March 21, 2022. The fact that the Modified Request brings the number of beds from 16 down to 10 certainly helps with this issue. Your client has requested a reasonable accommodation to Article II, Section 28 of the Declaration. Pursuant to the Modified Request, and the documents attached to the Letter, the Association agrees to grant a reasonable accommodation to Article II, Section 28 of the Page 2 Michelle A. Pinkowski April 23, 2022 07492573.DOCX;1 Declaration to allow for no more than 10 individuals, whether related or unrelated to live and receive care at the property. With regard to the garage door accommodation of Article IX, Section 7, based on the Modified Request, your client will be keeping one of the garages in its current state to be used for parking by staff of the property. Based on this representation, no reasonable accommodation is required as this portion of the Modified Request complies with the Declaration. The Association’s main concern remains that cars only be parked on one side of the street, so please ensure that the remaining garage is utilized for parking, and that cars are not parked both sides of the street. With regard to your final accommodation request pertaining to Section 2.3 of the fence guidelines, the Association will grant a reasonable accommodation to the fence height. However, your client will still need to submit plans for approval of the fence to the ARC. The ARC will be informed that an accommodation for the height of the fence has been granted, and that the fence can be 6 feet tall. All other criteria, still remains in place, and the ARC can make it decision based on that criteria. It appears that there will have to be other exterior changes to the property besides the fence (specifically I assume there will be changes for the conversion of the one garage). Any exterior or landscaping change must go through the ARC process as outlined in the Declaration. If you feel another accommodation is required for your proposed plan, please let the Board know and we will review it in the same manner as the fence accommodation was reviewed. If an accommodation is necessitated and required, the Association will grant said accommodation, but the design and all other requirements still must be approved by the ARC. Again, the Association has and will continue to work with your client. The Association has not delayed in responding to any of your letters. The Association has requested additional information, and then when it did not hear from you for almost a year, the Association assumed you were proceeding first with the City review process before engaging the Association. Now that you have come to the Association with actual documents we have been able to grant the requests of your client, and the Association anticipates working with you and your client in the future in a similar manner. Sincerely, Jeffrey B. Smith Altitude Community Law P.C. JBS/jbs c: BOD and Pete Dauster