Loading...
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'