HomeMy WebLinkAbout868611111111111111111
1111111 111111111111111111111111111 IN
2 R 10- 00
11 D
I of 9 0.00 Pueblo Ct.yrClkC& Ree
of
RESOLD I1UN NO. 8686
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE
FROM THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON 22
BARRINGTON COURT, PUEBLO, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Hector Arambulo is the owner (the "Owner ") of 22 Barrington Court, Pueblo,
Colorado, legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Regency Ridge Subdivision, 6th Filing (the
"Property "), and
WHEREAS, the Property is subject to the restrictive covenant that the finished grade of the
developed Property, lawn or other ground surface thereof shall be no higher in elevation than the
existing grade of the Property in its original state (the "Restrictive Covenant "), and
WHEREAS, Owner is disabled and dependent on a motorized wheelchair for mobility, and
WHEREAS, Owner has requested a variance from the Restrictive Covenant in order to
reasonably accommodate his use of the Property, and
WHEREAS, the requested variance will not adversely impact the drainage of surface water
from or across the Property. NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PUEBLO, that:
SECTION 1
The Owner of the Property is hereby granted a variance from the Restrictive Covenant to
permit:
(a) up to five (5) inches of fill dirt to remain in the yard at the rear of the residence on
the Property extending approximately three- quarters of the width of the residence and approximately
twenty feet from the residence,
(b) additional fill dirt in front of the residence on the Property to be placed under a
handicap ramp leading from the front of the Property up to the residence, and
(c) spreading of organic material, such as compost and manure, for the installation of
grass.
1303850 10/20/1999 12:33P RES Chris C. Munoz
SECTION 2 . 2 of 2 R 10.00 D 0.00 Pueblo Cty Clk & Rec.
This Resolution shall become effective upon final passage.
A7kq ST
City k
INTRODUCED: April 26, 1999
By Rich Golenda
Councilperson
J
-2-
of the City Council
Renewal Systems - (719) 647 -1970 - Created: Tuesday, April 20,1999 3:43 PM - Page 1 of 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
To: Pueblo City Council April 20, 1999
From: Hector & Connie Arambulo
Re: Variance for Reasonable Accommodation, Lot 3, Ridge Subdivision
We ask you to review and grant us a variance to the plat restrictions to ensure our
home is accessible based on my current disability.
There have been issues over this subdivision:
o the neighbors versus the developer on annexation
o the neighbors versus the developer regarding drainage and elevation
o the neighbors versus the developer and builders regarding dust control
We ask you to separate these issues and yourself from these past biases. While not
an easy thing to do, it is very necessary to judge the merits of our request. Their
primary focus was and should be Lots #4, #5, and #6, for the elevation and drainage
issues
Today we need your concurrence on a resolution to allow us to maintain our current
grade as it supports the planned decking we are going to build. This decking will allow
access to both dining and bedroom areas, and support a ramp for access to our yard.
This would allow me access to the total living premises, and also provide an exit for
safety reasons.
In Mr. Mike Graber's letter he reaffirms this by stating the difference between impact
versus intent.. Our lot is being singled out even though there is no meaningful
impact to our neighbors. They "fear" that it will be a precedent. But "fear" should not
drive reasonable people to their decisions. Common sense and good judgment are
the hallmarks of effective decision making.
You have assured my neighbors their homeowners rights by protecting them from the
three lots bordering their neighborhood lots, we ask for nothing less than what was
granted to them. We would like the full right to enjoy our home as would any other
citizen of Pueblo.
We believe the City's resolution meets the requirements for a "reasonable
accommodation" and urge you to support it.
Regards,
Hector & Connie
Michael L Graber, P.E.
Professkmal Engineer
March 24, 1999
Mr. Tom Cvar, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Pueblo
211 E. "D" Street
Pueblo, CO. 81003
1617 Kingsroyal Blvd.
Pueblo, CO. 81005
Phone 719 -564 -2599
Fax 719 -544 -0800
Email mgraber@fone.net
Re: Lot grading and surface drainage for the new house located at 22
Barrington Court, future home of Hector and Connie Arambulo
Dear Mr.Cvar:
My residence is located directly east of the above referenced site and I was one of
the neighbors who asked the City Council to require the developer provide a plat
amendment which would not allow the raising of the existing grade on these lots,
primarily for drainage concerns. The primary concern was for those lots which
backed up to the adjoining lots on Kingsroyal Blvd. Mr. Arambulo's lot is on the west
side of the Culdesac and all drainage from his lot is intercepted and transported to
the detention basin to the west. It is my professional opinion that his lot grading as
currently configured posses no additional run off for any lots on Kingsroyal Blvd and
for this reason, I support allowing him to leave the current finished grade without
removing any of the additional imported fill. My opinion is based on 25 years in the
engineering profession with extensive background in drainage and surface runoff
modeling.
I would be opposed to raising any of the lots which back up to the existing homes on
Kingsroyal Blvd., both for drainage and aesthetic concerns. It was my intent, when
lobbying the city council, that only those lots backing up to Kingsroyal Blvd. have the
requirement that the grade not be raised. Mr. Arambulo has very legitimate access
concerns as he has recently become a quadriplegic and is completely dependent on
a motorized wheel chair for mobility. I have long felt that it is never hard to defend
doing the right thing. Even though there is a plat requirement for not raising the
grade, no one is worse off because of it and Mr. Arambulo is much better off because
of it. I urge you to do the right thing by allowing the lot grading to remain as it is. I do
not think this a violation of the intent of the plat requirement.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue further, please contact
me.
• Page 2 March 24,1999
Sincerely,
Michael L. Graber, P.E.
Professional Engineer
Cc: Dave Gali, Assistant City Manager
April 22, 1999
City Council Members:
The homeowners on Kingsroyal Blvd. have gone through a series of
events that no one should have to contend with.
1. We bought lots with the promise that there would be no building for
10 to 15 years. There was money given to the city to be specifically
used for a greenbelt for the land behind our homes.
2. Instead you annexed land to Roger Fonda to develop.
3. Stipulations were placed on the annexation that there not be a grade
change.
4. Roger Fonda did not follow environmental health mandates for his
development. Our homes have been repeatedly deluged with dirt.
5. You annexed more land to Roger Fonda to develop.
6. The first house is being built behind our homes. You are considering
a resolution to change the annexation agreement, to accommodate a
physical disability. Where was your concern when one of our
neighbors, with a life- threatening disability, was put on oxygen 24
hours a day in order that he could breathe? His oxygen tank was so
clogged with dirt that it had to be changed. A newborn baby has had
a cough and a wheeze since the development has begun.
7. The builder and developer misled the buyer, Mr. Arambulo, and did
not inform him that the grade could not be changed. It is the
responsibility of the builder and the developer to come up with a
plan, without changing the grade, to facilitate Mr. Arambulo's needs.
This problem was created by the developer and the builder, not the
homeowners on Kingsroyal Blvd.
8. If you change the annexation agreement for one you set a serious
precedent for other buyers and builders to change the grade for a
myriad of reasons. The rules of the annexation agreement were in
place before Mr. Arambulo bought the lot.
When are the rules going to be followed and the promises kept? We
hope that you consider the promises made to us an important part of
your decision making.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
April 16,1999
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Arambulo,
We received your letter dated April 9,1999 and would like to respond to the issues
that you wished to bring to our attention.
1. Some of you are still upset and angry with the developer.
Please don't take it out on us.
We assure you that this is not a vindictive act on our part. The annexation
agreement that was voted on by city council is a matter of public record and
your builder and the developer were well aware of the stipulations that were
put on those lots. We feel that you need to address your concerns to your
builder, as he is the responsible party. The developer was at the council
meeting and Mr. Fonda was aware of the annexation agreement.
2. The whole subdivision comes under the elevation and drainage decision.
The annexation agreement was proposed to protect our houses, not only the
drainage problem, but the possible devaluation of our homes as well. We can
not allow a change in the law with one builder. It will open up the
opportunity for others to do the same for a myriad of reasons.
The "evenings determination" was not done in haste. We have all spent
hours upon countless hours dealing with these problems. Engineers also
were involved in trying to come up with a workable agreement. This
determination was not done without serious forethought.
3. Rights and responsibilities -there is an ebb and flow to actions.
We did not act in an emotional state, as you put it, but out of a need to
protect our homes. We are not acting out of an emotional state now, but out
of a need again to protect our hard- earned investments.
The "ebb and flow of actions " need to fall on the responsible parties, in this
case, your builder and your developer.
We appreciate your lime and consideration with our concerns.
Sincerely,
Ca��C�ti�
Dale E. Warfield
1603 kingsroyal Blvd.
Pueblo, CO 81005
April 23 1999
To Yembers of Pueblo City Council
Last evening I attended Council's public forum at South High School.
After the meeting, in a discussion with Yr. Dave Galli, he informed me of
a pending Council action concerning deviation from City Ordinance No. 6301,
at property under construction at 22 Barrington Court, behind Kingsroyal
Boulevard.
Although my property does not abut directly upon the annexed area
covered by Ordinance 6301, I am a member of the covenant committee which
represents all property owners on Kingsroyal Boulevard between Lehigh Avenue
and Barrington Court. J took an active part in the homeowners' action which
succeeded in obtaining your inclusion of Clause XI in Ordinance 6301, that
prohibits raising the ground level above its original natural state in the
annexed area.
Yr. Galli said that a Resolution will be considered at the Council
meeting this coming F.onday, April 26, 1999, to allow Yr. and Mrs. Hector
Arambulo to raise their property level in violation of the annexation Ordin=
ance. They believe that they have special privileges which entitle them to
this violation.
I have seen letters which the Arambulos wrote to homeowners adjacent to
the annexed area. They do not claim that they did not know about the ground
level restriction when they acquired their building lot. They apparently
believed they could simply ignore the ordinance. There is no indication
that they sought permission to do so, but had several large dump truck loads
of dirt hauled to the lot and then had it spread around. City Attorney 1°r.
Thomas Jagger has already informed the Arambulos of their violation of the
Ordinance.
Mr. Galli said that no public discussion or comments will be allowed
when Council considers the resolution to permit this ordinance violation.
I have attended several Council meetings during which petitions from property
owners were presented. Council always asked if anyone wished to speak for
or against the petition. Why should this case be any different? Why have
the Arambulos not been required to adhere to the usual petition process?
If Council approves this ordinance deviation, what is there to prevent
every lot owner in the new Regency Ridge Subdivision from getting the same
special treatment without the normal input from affected property owners?
During the South High School forum Nr. John Rivas and t.:r. Sam Corsentino
made some very pertinent remarks about the city adhering to sound policies in
new development areas. If Council 1�,embers really mean what they say about
interacting with the public, then I urge you to not approve the pending
resolution without giving it a proper hearing.
Sincerely,
cc: Mr. Dave Galli S
G'