The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/16/2021 - 738 CAMPFIRE DRIVE EXTRA OCCUPANCY APPEAL Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 16, 2021 City Council STAFF Will Lindsey, Associate Planner Paul Sizemore, Interim Director, Comm. Devt. & Neighborhood Serv. Claire Havelda, Legal SUBJECT 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Appeal. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s Decision, on December 18, 2020, approving the 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Rental House #FDP 200018 to permit not more than 4 occupants. A Notice of Appeal was filed on January 4, 2021 alleging the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) regarding the number and type of required bicycle parking spaces. The Appellant alleges the Hearing Officer’s Decision approving the project did not meet the number of bicycle parking spaces required by the LUC and that the type of bicycle parking spaces approved do not meet the LUC definition of fixed bicycle parking spaces. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On December 10, 2020, the Administrative Hearing Officer held a public hearing to consider the application for the 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Final/Project Development Plan. The Hearing Officer issued his decision on December 18, 2020 approving the Extra Occupancy application. The Notice of Appeal, Staff Report, Hearing Officer Decision, and Record are attached. The questions for Council regarding the appeal are: 1. Did the Administrative Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply LUC Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) regarding the number of required bicycle parking spaces when he approved a total of three bicycle spaces as consistent with the standard for an extra occupancy dwelling occupied by up to four residents in three beds? 2. Did the Administrative Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply LUC Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) regarding the type of required bicycle parking spaces when he approved bicycle parking spaces located in an attached garage meeting the dimensional requirements, but consisting of bicycle hooks on a garage wall as meeting the definition of Bicycle parking, fixed found in LUC Section 5.1.2? The Notice of Appeal references failure to properly interpret LUC Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b), which is set forth below. “3.2.2(C)(4)(b) – Bicycle Parking Space Requirements The minimum bicycle parking requirements are set forth in the table below. For uses that are not specifically listed in the table, the number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be the number required for the most similar use listed. Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 2 Use Categories Bicycle Parking Space Minimums % Enclosed Bicycle Parking/ % Fixed Bicycle Racks Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements Multi-Family Residential 1 per bedroom 60%/40% Fraternity and Sorority Houses 1 per bed 60%/40% Group Homes No requirement n/a Recreational Uses 1/2,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 0%/100% Schools/Places of Worship or Assembly and Child Care Centers 1/3,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 0%/100% Small Scale Reception Centers in the U-E, Urban Estate District 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 0%/100% Extra Occupancy Rental Houses 1 per bed 0%/100% ” First Question on Appeal The Notice of Appeal asserts the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret LUC Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) regarding the number of required bicycle parking spaces. The Appellant alleges that four bicycle parking spaces are required. The dwelling unit for the extra occupancy rental house is a 3-bedroom single-family dwelling. The Appellant argues that the three bicycle parking spaces provided by the applicant for the four occupants is insufficient, and that City Staff and the Hearing officer incorrectly interpreted the bicycle parking standard by taking into consideration that two of the occupants are a couple that share a bed/bedroom when calculating the minimum number of spaces required. It should be noted that the bicycle parking standard for extra occupancy was changed as part of the Annual Land Use LUC update which was adopted in January 2021. That standard for the minimum bicycle parking requirement is now calculated by the number of occupants rather than by bed. However, since the standard which required one bicycle parking space per bed was in effect at the time the development review application was filed and went to hearing that was the standard with which the site plan had to comply. Second Question on Appeal The Appellant further argues that the proposed bicycle parking area in the plan does not meet the requirements of the definition for fixed bicycle parking. LUC Section 5.1.1 contains the following definitions of “bicycle parking, fixed” and “bicycle parking, enclosed” referred to in LUC Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b): Bicycle parking, fixed shall mean bicycle parking that allows the bicycle frame and both wheels to be securely locked to the parking structure. The structure shall be of permanent construction such as heavy gauge tubular steel with angle bars permanently attached to the Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 3 pavement foundation. Fixed bicycle parking facilities shall be at least two (2) feet in width and five and one-half (5½) feet in length, with additional back-out or maneuvering space of at least five (5) feet. Bicycle parking, enclosed shall mean bicycle storage in lockers, a room or other space within a parking structure or other building, including a shed or carport. All types of enclosed bicycle storage must be easily accessible to entrances and walkways, secure, lighted and protected from the weather. Each storage space shall provide a minimum of six (6) square feet in area. The storage space shall not impede fire exits or be located so that parked bicycles interfere with public access. (Emphasis added.) While the LUC language for fixed bicycle parking is prescriptive, staff has allowed applicants to meet the code requirement in a variety of ways provided that the parking area meets the minimum dimensional standards and is of permanent and secure construction (i.e., wall mounted bicycle racks). Staff recommended approval of the proposed fixed bicycle parking area that used bicycle hooks in the attached enclosed garage as staff determined that it was adequate to satisfy the intent of the fixed bicycle parking definition because bicycles are affixed to a permanent structure, the garage wall, and they are locked and secured in a safe and convenient manner for the occupants. Page 4 of the staff report discusses compliance with the bicycle parking requirement, and the photographs in Attachment 4 to the Staff Report are in the record and are also attached for your reference. ATTACHMENTS 1. Public Notice and Mailing List (PDF) 2. Notice of Appeal (PDF) 3. Staff Report to Hearing Officer (PDF) 4. Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (PDF) 5. Public Comments (PDF) 6. Verbatim Transcript of Hearing, December 10, 2020 (PDF) 7. Video of Hearing, December 10, 2020 (PDF) 8. Hearing Officer Decision (PDF) 9. Requests for Decision Report (PDF) 10. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice Site Visit Notice Mailing List 3309 YULE TRAIL DR LLC 1991 ANGELO DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80528 857 RIDGE RUNNER LLC 8398 SPINNAKER BAY DR WINDSOR, CO 80528 ADAMIAN OSEP 945 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ALEMAN TALISHA NICHELLE 1133 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ALEMAN VICTOR ZUNIGA 3702 ELGIN PL FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ALLSUP ROBERT L/LAURA L 956 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ALSARRAF HAITHAM QASEM ALI 850 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ANDERSON DENNIS JAY II/ALLISON 926 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ANNAMEIER TRAVIS W/SHELLY K 3551 SWITCHBACK RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 APPLEGATE NOAH/TRACY 3120 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BABNICK CYNTHIA K 1139 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BALANZAR JUAN F GOMEZ AMBER J GOMEZ 902 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BARNES DAVE S/DENISE ANN 3392 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BARNES JENNIFER M DENNIS SCOTT L JR 3126 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BEAUVAIS ROSEMARY V 3336 GREEN LAKE DR UNIT 2 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BECK ALYSON 863 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BECKETT POLLY 1045 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BELCHER ZACHARY M/HALEE B 3608 GLENLYON CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BERG MICHAEL J TAYLOR TRACY E 802 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BIEKERT SARAH/DEVIN SCHMIDT DOUGLAS 833 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BIGONESS MARGARET 5102 CINQUEFOIL LN FORT COLLINS, CO 80528 BLOMBERG ERIC W/MARGARET M 826 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BLUTH RYAN DAVID/CHRISTA DAVIS 921 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BOBANGO LAWRENCE M/BARBARA E 3375 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BOCKHOLD SHELIA IRENE 1103 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BOEHM JUSTIN M 902 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BOGOSIAN JASON W/JULIE Q 3138 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BORREGO KERRY 933 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BOTELHO MARGARET MARY/JUSTIN ROBERT 850 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BRACHLE PAUL G/CANDACE M 962 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BRADY ERICA M 956 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BRAUN LEO D 715 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BREEN TIMOTHY COLESON TOWNSEND REANNE LEE MCMILLEN 744 WAGON TRAIL RD UNIT 3 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BROWN JOEY A 909 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BROWN JOSEPH F/THERESA A 3257 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BUCKNER FAMILY TRUST 3324 GREEN LAKE DR UNIT 1 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BURNS ANGELA K 914 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BURY MICHAEL/SONSEEAHRAY 3608 GLENBARR CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BUSBY CHARLES/ELIZABETH 3108 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 BUSSARD JACKSON/KRISTIN 744 WAGON TRAIL RD UNIT 2 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CHARPENTIER SABRA L OLGUIN TALYN DIANTI 3313 GREEN LAKE DR UNIT 2 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CHASE DAVID ANTHONY 1303 PARK RIDGE DR SEVERANCE, CO 80615 CHILDS KRISTIEN/MICHAEL A 921 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 300 LAPORTE AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 CITY OF FORT COLLINS COLORADO PO BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 CLARK DIANE K 3226 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CLARK DOUG/RUTH TRUST THE 827 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CLINE SUSAN F/RONALD KEITH 932 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CONNER BRADLEY T 3203 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CONNOR JASON L/JOY 3232 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 COOPER KATHERINE E/ERIC W 926 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CORDSEN RYAN JAMES MUSE HANNAH MARIE 909 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CORNELISON VICKI RENEE 933 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CORNETT NAOMI G 863 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 COVI JOSEPH A 3414 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 COWART JACQUES E/KATIE 3233 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CRISTIANI RICHARD C/MONICA J 1015 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CUOMO ROBERT W/SUZANNE M 3245 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CURL KELLY A/RYAN P 921 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CURRAN JAMES 3356 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CUTRELL MAX 956 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CZARNECKI LAURA L MORRISSETTE JAMES 902 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DAVID CHELSEA N ANDREWS PETE R 1015 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DAVIS MICHAEL R 839 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DECKER TYLER 832 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DEIBLER KYLE K 3374 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DEMOTTS STEPHEN KNIGHT JESSICA 909 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DERLOSHON PEGGY 3174 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DEWALD ROLAND/NORMA LIVING TRUST 4008 S WATSON AVE SIOUX FALLS, SD 57106 DICK GARY L/ROSE M 741 CHEROKEE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 DICKERSON DAVID E 3156 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DILLON MICHAEL T/LAURA R 1021 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DINKINS TIMOTHY C/JENNIFER H 1138 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DISNEY JAMES G JR/CYNTHIA S 3469 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DONAHUE TED J/DAWN S 3287 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DONALDSON PHILIP L EDELEN CANDYCE 3209 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DOSSOU THIERRY GUINNOU FIFONSI A SUZY 809 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DOUGHERTY DAVID J 1115 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DOUGHERTY HARVEY DEAN JR/CATHERINE JEANE 3275 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DUCHARME CORY/ALYSHA 944 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 DUNN LINDSEY R/BLAINE R 3327 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 E F FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LP PO BOX L FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 EBIN PROPERTIES LLC 3449 BOXELDER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 EISIMINGER LINDSAY MAY 944 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 EUBANKS JOHN DAVID/DAISY E 3557 BEAR RIVER CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 FAWCETT MICHAEL J KATHLEEN D 409 TIMBER RIDGE WAY WINDSOR, CO 80550 FAY JEFFREY C/COURTNEY M 932 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 FERGUSON JOAN E/TERRY L 3474 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 FIGGS TANYA D 3614 GLENBARR CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 FIGUEROA JORGE/GRISELDA 3615 GLENBARR CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 FLICK DON 520 N SHERWOOD ST UNIT 14 FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 FLORY KALE MATHEW/SHALA DALE 3280 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 FONTENOT RYAN J/ALI R 1014 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 FOSLER MONICA LEA 903 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 FRANCHS LESLIE 844 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 FREDERICKS MICHAEL L/IYLENCIA L 921 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 FRONT RANGE STORAGE SYSTEMS LLC 375 UTE PEAK DR LIVERMORE, CO 80536 FRONT RANGE WATER LLC 1044 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GARDNER KEVIN W/JACLYN F 3209 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GATES STEPHEN E/JENNIFER P 974 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GAZDECK ELAINE MARIE REVOCABLE TRUST 750 WAGON TRAIL RD UNIT 4 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GERDES WILLIAM D/JODI M 1422 N 4TH ST ABERDEEN, SD 57401 GLEASON EDWARD DEAN 927 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GOLDEN GREGORY J 3233 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GOODENOUGH TYLER E/KRYSTLE C 3338 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GORDON NOAH 827 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GRAMLING PHIL/RUTH 3268 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GREEN GARY L GREEN KATHRYN A 3263 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GROBAREK PETER/ANN MARIE 845 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GROSS DENNIS/ALYCE FAMILY TRUST 2764 COVENTRY LN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121 GROSSMAN BRIAN J 3274 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 GROTE DAVID A/CARRIE 908 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HALE AARON A 3227 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HALSEY DAVID/ELLEN J 851 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HANNA MARK ALAN/MARY JEAN 821 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HARRIS FAMILY TRUST 2016 985 N VERNAL AVE MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 HART ROBIN/GLENDA MONTECILLO 902 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HARTSHORN WATERWORKS LLC PO BOX 337492 GREELEY, CO 80633 HEMME BRYAN E/ERIN R 945 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HENDERSON CURTIS WAYNE/SUSAN ANNE 1021 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HERRIMAN RYAN D BURKETT KATHRYN H 3275 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HEYL ANDREW/DIXIE 3324 GREEN LAKE DR UNIT 2 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HINRIKUS MATTHEW M 1032 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HIRSTWOOD GRAEME/SARAH L 3714 ELGIN PL FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HITCHINGS CARY F 756 THREE FORKS DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HOLBERT BRUCE D JR GARDNER KIMBERLY A 3262 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HOLLAND ANTHONY ANDREW/BETH M 868 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HOOG MARK E/BRANSON M 3251 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HORSTMAN COLIN E 3315 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HORVAT WENDI A/COLLIN J 845 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HUDSON ELIZABETH L 939 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HUDSON SHELLY L OLDHAM BRENDAN H 3320 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 HUGHES WILLIAM W/BROOKE L BOYNTON 1004 SILVER FIR DR LOVELAND, CO 80538 HUNT JERRY M GARSKE TINA S PO BOX 109 LAPORTE, CO 80535 HUYNH JONATHON MINH 738 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 IMU-TEK ANIMAL HEALTH INC 3541 E VINE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ISHII DOUGLAS N/WENDY A 3301 RAWHIDE DR LAPORTE, CO 80535 JAQUES WADE E/RACHAEL A 12755 XAVIER ST BROOMFIELD, CO 80020 JCH DAVIS CONTRACTORS INC 140 BOARDWALK DR UNIT M FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 JOHNSON BRENT D CLEMENT-JOHNSON ANDREA L 3381 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 JOHNSON JASON/PATRICIA M 950 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 JONES RANDY/LORIS LIVING TRUST JONES MARLENE LIVING TRUST 744 WAGON TRAIL RD UNIT 5 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 KALINEE LAURIE K/JOSEPH P 3445 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 KAMPBELL KRISTINA L 3269 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 KELLEY ERIC J 939 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 KEMP GARY G/MARY A 136 N CLAY AVE FERGUSON, MO 63135 KENDALL KATHLEEN L/LONNIE V 21520 BUCKHORN RD BELLVUE, CO 80512 KILGORE ANTHONY L/ANITA M 1132 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 KING STEPHEN J II/SANDRA F 1008 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 KLAS WILLIAM R/SUKIE T 750 WAGON TRAIL RD UNIT 1 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 KLEIN DOUGLAS E 1002 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 KOCH JORDAN M 914 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 KOCH RACHEL M 714 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 KRICK WILLARD J T IV DETWILER-KRICK AMANDA J 3387 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LAMCZYK JO LYNN 1051 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LAMONTAGNE KEVIN G/KRISTINA E 3621 GLENBARR CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LANGHOFF GARY M/SUSAN M 3221 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LARIMER COUNTY HOLDINGS LLC 7406 COUPLES CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80528 LARSON ANGELA 818 MATHEWS ST FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LARSON GORDON R/JUDITH K 3238 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LAUTZENHISER STEPHEN M 3457 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LEASK ANDREW J/SHARON K 3556 BEAR RIVER CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LEDESMA ROBERT J/MELISSA L 815 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LEE MARK R/CHRISTY L 908 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LEEMAN ZACHARY/ALISSA 1026 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LEGOZA JAMES JOSHUA 3662 CULLEN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LEMAY ERIC MICHAEL 1002 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LHUNGAY HOLDINGS LLC 1644 WALNUT ST BOULDER, CO 80302 LHUNGAY HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 214 HYGIENE, CO 80533 LIMHAPIROM PATCHARA 3132 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LINDE GINA LEE 808 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LINGL KARI J WICKLINE KENDRA E 820 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LIPINSKI SHARON D 814 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LIVINGSTON DAVID W RAYBURN-LIVINGSTON HEATHER C 1008 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LOEWE KYLE J LOEWE DENISE E 3715 ELGIN PL FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LOWRIE PATRICK H/LISA A 3244 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LOY FAMILY TRUST 13551 WHITEWATER DR POWAY, CA 92064 LYNCH CHARLES P/URSULA C 3312 GREEN LAKE DR UNIT 1 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 M S STRONG LTD 1615 STARDANCE CIR LONGMONT, CO 80504 MADRIGAL GUADALUPE/BERTHA 845 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MAEDA JENNIFER M/CASEY J 3320 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MAGILL SEAN 3368 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MAHONEY FRANK/JANET 744 WAGON TRAIL RD UNIT 1 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MAHONEY PETER J/LINDA G 750 THREE FORKS DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MALAN MICHAEL SCOTT/LAURA ANN 3386 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MANTZ SABRINA/ROBERT 908 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MARANG LIVING TRUST 4365 REIMER RD NORTON, OH 44203 MARKISON MICHAEL 3656 CULLEN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MARQUART REID C/JENNIFER S 3415 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MARSO CHARLES R 2029 S COUNTY ROAD 21 BERTHOUD, CO 80513 MARTER JESSICA L 874 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MARTI CORINNE 932 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MARTIN CAROLYN R (.57) MARTIN MAJEL L (.43) 3332 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MARTIN MARILYN 920 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MARTIN STEVEN D 1002 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MATTEO ROBERT T 34995 COUNTRY GREEN RD STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO 80487 MAYDEW NICHOLAS E HITPAS AMANDA M 3245 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MCCOPPIN CHARLES MCCOPPIN EMILY M 815 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MCCORMICK JAMES E/LINDA SUE 3227 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MCDONALD JEANNE/KEVIN 732 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MCGUIRK MICHAEL J/HOUSTON J 914 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MCKEVITT BARBARA L 1951 WINDROSE WAY MYRTLE BEACH, SC 29577 MCLAUGHLIN MEGHAN 2419 SUNSTONE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 MICHAELS DAVID PAUL/MARGARET MARY 3663 CULLEN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MIDKIFF KAREN P 3251 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MILLER KELLY D/MELISSA M 844 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MILLER MATTHEW JAMES 3314 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MITCHELL DANGELO M 903 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MOLZER BRIAN 3426 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MOORE TIMOTHY/DAWN 3120 LOUER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MSH REAL PROPERTIES-A LLC 4420 EAGLE LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MUELLER DAVID MATTHEW WELLMAN ALISON SUZANNE 908 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MUNOZ ANGEL R/DANA 3308 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MURPHY CYNTHIA J LIVENS MICHAEL D PO BOX 1516 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 MURPHY JOSEPH M/ELIZABETH W (.50) HORVAT EDWARD A/SUSAN T (.50) 3313 GREEN LAKE DR UNIT 1 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MUSE BRIAN L 3363 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MUSE BRIAN L/SANDRA GALE YOST 3281 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MUSIAL STEPHEN G MORREN-MUSIAL LAURIE A 911 TRAPPERS PT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NANBARA JEFFREY 3657 CULLEN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NANCE RONNIE G PACK-NANCE DEBRA 939 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NAPELBAUM ERIC/CHRISTINE REVOCABLE TRUST 3144 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NEAVES KYLE R 744 WAGON TRAIL RD UNIT 4 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NOBLE JEFFREY R 3614 GLENLYON CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NULL NULL 951 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NULL NULL 821 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NULL NULL 915 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NULL NULL 950 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 OAKS ANNE-LAURE 856 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 OAMEK FAMILY TRUST 136 RUNNING FARM LN UNIT 103 STANFORD, CA 94305 OATES ANDREW WILLIAM 3409 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 OELTJENBRUNS CHAD E 3220 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 OKEEFE SHANE R/JESSICA L 1020 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ONEILL PATRICK D/STEFANIE J 821 ROARING CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 OSTROSKI JOSEPH A/NICOLE J 1020 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 OVERMAN JARED/CORTNEY 851 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 OVERTON ADAM THOMAS/JESSIE MARIE 3308 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 PANTE DOMINICK A JR/CAROL A 3263 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 PANTE MICHAEL C FELLMANN CONNIE D 832 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 PARENTE FILIPE M LEE SU 1026 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 PAUL DONNELL W/HEATHER M 3256 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 PETERSON DEBRA/JONATHAN 3421 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 PETTER NATHAN J 1121 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 POTTS TIMOTHY L GEARKE-POTTS KATHLEEN ANN 3314 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 POWERS DEBORAH S GILBERT BRIAN 3321 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 PRATO ALICIA R CULPEPPER CHARLES E 1003 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 PROVOPULOS AMY 903 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 QUINBY JOHN R/MANDA S 1126 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RADMAN JASON/LAURA E 3569 BEAR RIVER CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RAINES SHARON L 833 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RAMMER DANIEL P 839 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RAY MICHAEL/SARA 720 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 REPPAS GREGORY T/LAURIE H 3309 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 REUBLIN MARY LOU 914 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RIDER LUCAS PEDREGON ADRIENNE 3620 GLENBARR CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RIDGE RUNNER LLC 814 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RIPLEY LINDA 251 PASCAL ST FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RITCHIE KYLE 915 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RIVERA REBECCA E/RODNEY D 833 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ROBERSON WESLEY LEY ANDREA 1033 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RODRIGUEZ KARLA LIZET SAAVEDRA FUENTES SAUL LOZANO 3480 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ROESTELL STACEY R 3399 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RONNEVIK JON T/KRISTIN L 3403 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ROSENBERG STEPHEN SCOTT/HEATHER RENAE 856 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ROSS CHERYL J 920 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ROTH RORY/LISA 3215 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RUBENSTEIN JEFFREY M/KADIE L 3398 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RUFFNER MICHAEL P/ERIN E 968 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 RUNGE HEIDI D 1014 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SACKS JEREMY/JACQUELYN 927 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SANDFISH PROPERTIES INC PO BOX 506 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 SCARLETT KELSEY ANNE PACE CHRISTOPHER PATRICK 3369 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SCHONGAR ELIZABETH 2620 MARSHFIELD LN FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SCHWAB GEORGE/KRISTAN R 3313 GREEN LAKE DR UNIT 3 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SCIBILIA LAWRENCE SHINGLER LEO J 708 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SEITZ RENTALS LLC PO BOX 898 FRASER, CO 80442 SEVERIN BOBBIE J 3709 ELGIN PL FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SHEPARD MICHELLE MARIE 3463 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SHOLANDER GRACIELA B/KEVIN A 3362 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SHORT BENJAMIN PATRICK 726 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SIMON SANDRA K 3402 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SKINNER PAULINE W 950 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SLT INVESTMENTS LLC 1111 SOUTHGATE DR WINDSOR, CO 80550 SMITH JOEL S SR/MARY CLAIRE 3221 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SMITH JONATHAN 803 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SNYDER WILLIAM BRYAN 3214 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SODERBERG KODY MARSHALL/KRISTY MARIE 803 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SOUZA CARIDAD ABOTSI GODWIN 3315 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SPARGO LORRIE 857 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SPRAIN ANDREW/ERIN 938 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 ST DENIS AUDREY M 927 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 STAHLE ASHLEY J/JAY R 838 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 STAMM JOSEPH L SOMODI JOSEPH E III 3239 GREENLAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 STEGNER PROPERTIES III LLC 1817 COUNTY ROAD 54G FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 STEVENS CATHERINE DUNHAM 933 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 STOUT STEPHEN KEITH/CHRISTINE L 744 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 STRUCK VALERIE 3162 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 STULTZ SCOTT STACKHOUSE ALEXIS 814 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 SZULCZEWSKI SUSAN E 3215 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 TAEGE NICHOLAS J 903 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 TATTI LOUIS E/NANCY L 3203 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 TEDRICK CHARLES G/KIRSTIE P 909 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 THIELE JACOB J MIESZALA LAUREN A 3326 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 THIELK DAVID/KELLY L 3475 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 THL 2 LLC 3239 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 THORNTON JERAD N BRADDOCK GILLIAN 2166 EASTWOOD DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 THORPE MARY ELIZABETH 1027 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 TJARDES FAITH H 269 CAMINO DEL MUNDO FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 TOLAND STEVEN A/ALYSHA E 3451 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 TRAIL HEAD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PO BOX 370390 DENVER, CO 80237 TRAIL HEAD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 7251 W 20TH ST BLDG D1 GREELEY, CO 80634 TRAIL HEAD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC 3900 E MEXICO AVE STE 310 DENVER, CO 80210 TRAILHEAD HOMES LLC 5013 BLUESTEM CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 TREMAINE JO ANNE 750 WAGON TRAIL RD UNIT 3 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 TREMBLAY KENNETH R III/BRANDY L 808 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 TSCHACHER MEGAN D 700 E DRAKE D9 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 TUCKER CHARLES WESLEY/GERTI 1109 LOCHMORE PL FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 UNRUH HANSON C/DINAH M 3333 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 VEDDER TODD JASON 3344 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 VESTA JEREMY T 3293 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 VOSS JARED LUEDTKE ALICIA 938 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WARDIN BRUCE ALAN/COLETTE MICHELLE 838 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WASSON JOHN 862 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WASSON JOHN G/ROBERT J/TOBI J 3350 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WATERGLEN OWNERS ASSOCIATION 1001 A E HARMONY RD 357 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 WATERGLEN OWNERS ASSOCIATION 3665 JOHN F KENNEDY PKWY BLDG 1 100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 WATROUS KYLE S STASHAK MONICA L 3269 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WEAKLAND RACHEL N/PATRICK G/AMANDA J 809 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WEANT ROBERT K/GAYLYN 1008 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WEISER JAMES WEISER BEVERLY 1009 TRADING POST RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WEISS MICHAEL C/JAMIE N 3380 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WEISSER KIMBERLY 709 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WEISSMANN ROBERT C LIVING TRUST 721 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WELDEN LAURENCE WAYNE 945 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WHEELER DOUGLAS 3208 GREEN LAKE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WHITEAKER SCOTT N/DEANNA S 815 ELGIN CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WHITHAM FARMS LLC 816 PTARMIGAN RUN LOVELAND, CO 80538 WHITMAN DENNIS F TRUST 3420 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WILLARD DANA TRUST 3312 GREEN LAKE DR UNIT 3 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WILLIAMS GALE C FERRERO JACQUELINE A 920 CAMPFIRE DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WILLIAMS LARRY L/DEBORAH K 3150 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WILLIAMS PETER 3408 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WILLKOMM SARAH L/TREVOR H 826 RIDGE RUNNER DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WINNIE JANET/DOUGLAS 3302 WAGON TRAIL RD FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WOLF HOPE/STEVEN 815 ROARING CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WOOD KATHLEEN CANDELLA KRISTIN JO 3562 BEAR RIVER CT FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 WUENSCH CHIARA L BRULEY DIRK R 3299 GLACIER CREEK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 YAJNIK BHARAVI N/SUCHARITA B 3481 YULE TRAIL DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 YARBROUGH JEAN MARIE 3168 LOWER LOOP DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 Leslie Tricia 915 Trading Post Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Goldin Stephanie 451 Boardwalk Dr. 1008 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Anne Oakes Rob Starling 856 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 ATTACHMENT 2 Notice of Appeal Filed by Joseph Brown January 4, 2021 ATTACHMENT 3 Staff Report (with attachments) Presented to the Administrative Hearing Officer December 10, 2020 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 2 of 2 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Administrative Hearing: December 10, 2020 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Rental House #FDP200018 Summary of Request This is a combined Project Development Plan/Final Development Plan to add Extra Occupancy as a permitted use in an existing single-family dwelling for up to four occupants. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved by the Hearing Officer, the applicant will be eligible to apply for a building permit and Certificate of Occupancy. Site Location 738 Campfire Drive in the Trail Head neighborhood. Parcel #8704305006. Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). Property Owner Jonathan Huynh 2908 Crusader St Fort Collins, CO 80524 Applicant/Representative Same as Owner Staff Will Lindsey, Associate City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Land Use Code Article 2 ............................ 3 3. Land Use Code Article 3 ............................ 4 4. Land Use Code Article 4 ............................ 6 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 7 6. Recommendation ....................................... 7 7. Attachments ............................................... 7 Staff Recommendation Approval of the FDP200018 Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 2 of 7 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The proposal is to add Extra Occupancy for up to four occupants as a use of the single-family dwelling at 738 Campfire Drive. • The existing house, driveway and garage accommodate the proposed extra occupancy. • The property provides and exceeds the required habitable floor area for the proposed four occupants. 1,400 sq. ft. are required; 2,164 sq. ft. are provided. • The property is within the LMN zoning district which permits the use subject to Administrative Review and hearing by a Hearing Officer. B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND 1. Subject Property The house was built in 2012 within the 2004 Trail Head Block 1 Filing. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Low Density Residential (RL) Land Use Single-family houses on the same block face Single-family houses on the same block face Vacant/Stormwater Detention area Currently Undeveloped (Single-Family Dwellings Proposed) C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The single main consideration in this case was off-street parking, as is typical of extra occupancy proposals. The applicant is utilizing the parking arrangement allowed by the code wherein a lot with less than 65 feet of street frontage, and which does not abut an alley than one of the required parking spaces may be aligned in a manner that does not provide direct access to the abutting street (see attached site plan and details below). D. CITY PLAN The City’s comprehensive plan (2019 City Plan) was updated with the participation of thousands of community members and embodies the vision and values of the community for the future. It does not specifically address issues of occupancy. A significant theme in the plan is encouraging more housing options in general. For example, Policy LIV 5.6 on p. 42 states: “EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS: Expand housing options in existing neighborhoods (where permitted by underlying zoning) by encouraging: Infill development on vacant and underutilized lots; Internal ADUs such as basement or upstairs apartments; Detached ADUs on lots of sufficient size; and Duplexes, townhomes or other alternatives to detached single-family homes that are compatible with the scale and mass of adjacent properties.” Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 3 of 7 Back to Top The plan designates this part of the Trail Head neighborhood as “Mixed Neighborhood” land use designation, which is characterized by a mixture of housing types. The following excerpt from p.98 in City Plan gives a sense of the main ideas for land uses in that designation: Principal Land Use Single-family detached homes, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes Supporting Land Use ADUs, small scale multifamily buildings, small-scale retail, restaurants/cafes, community and public facilities, parks and recreational facilities, schools, places of worship Key Characteristics/Considerations (Existing Neighborhoods) • While many existing Mixed-Neighborhoods may consist predominantly of single-family detached homes today, opportunities to incorporate ADUs or other attached housing options of a compatible scale and intensity may be feasible in some locations. • The introduction of larger townhome or multifamily developments into existing single-family neighborhoods should generally be limited to edge or corner parcels that abut and/or are oriented toward arterial streets or an adjacent Neighborhood Mixed-Use District where transit and other services and amenities are available. • Where townhomes or multifamily buildings are proposed in an existing neighborhood context, a transition in building height, massing and form should be required along the shared property line or street frontage. • As existing neighborhoods change and evolve over time, rezoning of some areas may be appropriate when paired with a subarea or neighborhood planning initiative. See the Priority Place Types discussion on page 107 for more details about changes in existing neighborhoods over time. • While reinvestment in existing mobile home parks is encouraged, redevelopment of existing parks is not. 2. Land Use Code Article 2 A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review – CDR200060 A conceptual review meeting was held on August 13, 2020. 2. First Submittal The PDP was submitted on September 18, 2020 3. Neighborhood Meeting Pursuant to LUC Section 2.2.2 – Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings, a neighborhood meeting is not required for Administrative Hearing (Type 1) projects and no meeting was held. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: September 21, 2020, Sign #572. Written Hearing Notice: November 25, 2020, 348 addresses mailed. Published Hearing Notice: Scheduled for October 20, 2020. Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 4 of 7 Back to Top 3. Land Use Code Article 3 Because the plan involves existing development which comports with the Land Use Code standards, only a few standards specific to Extra Occupancy pertain in this case. A. DIVISION 3.2 – SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking – General Standard This code Section requires secure, convenient, efficient parking and circulation improvements that add to the attractiveness of the development. • The existing subdivision development provides a parking and circulation system consistent with the standard. • The plan provides specific required parking per the subsections noted below. Complies 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking Space Requirements This plan is required to provide 1 bicycle parking space per bed. • An indoor fixed bicycle parking rack provides the required three bicycle parking spaces with the necessary maneuvering space of 5 feet wide by 2.5 feet deep in the garage. Complies 3.2.2(K)(1)(j) – Required Number of Off- Street Spaces Extra occupancy rental house uses are required to provide 0.75 parking spaces per tenant, rounded up to the nearest whole parking space, plus one (1) additional parking space if the extra occupancy rental house is owner-occupied. 3 spaces are required in this case. • 3 dedicated parking spaces are provided. Per the code, if such lot has less than sixty-five (65) feet of street frontage length on any one (1) street and does not abut an alley, then one (1) of the required parking spaces may be aligned in a manner that does not provide direct access to the abutting street. Complies Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 5 of 7 Back to Top B. DIVISION 3.8 – SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.8.16 – Occupancy Limits – Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed Subsection (E)(1) states “with respect to single-family and two-family dwellings, the number of persons allowed under this Section may be increased by the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for use as an extra occupancy rental house in zones allowing such use.” The proposed plan is to increase the occupancy of a single-family dwelling. If approved the applicant will submit a building permit application. Upon compliance with any building code and the approval of this application a new certificate of occupancy will be issued. Complies via the proposed plan in the LMN zone 3.8.28 – Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations This Section contains requirements for extra occupancy in single-family detached dwellings. 350 square feet of habitable floor space is required for each tenant plus an additional 400 square feet if the dwelling is owner- occupied. • 1,400 sq. ft. are required for the proposed four occupants; 2,164 sq. ft. of habitable space are provided in the existing dwelling. No more than 25% of parcels on a block face may be approved for extra occupancy rental house use. • No other Extra Occupancy Rental Houses are approved on the block face. Complies Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 6 of 7 Back to Top 4. Land Use Code Article 4 A. DIVISION 4.5 – LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (LMN) The LMN zone district was created in 1997 as part of the City’s comprehensive plan and has been re- established in subsequent updates. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.5(A) - Purpose This Section states: “Purpose. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood.” Complies as a part of the overall Trail Head development 4.5(B) - Permitted Uses Extra occupancy rental houses with four or more tenants are permitted with review and a public hearing by an administrative hearing officer. Complies Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 7 of 7 Back to Top 5.Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy #FDP200018, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1.The Project Development Plan/Final Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2.The plan complies with pertinent standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. 3.The plan complies with Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood in Article 4. 6.Recommendation Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer approve 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy #FDP200018 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report. 7.Attachments 1.Applicant Narrative 2.Site Plan 3.Floor Plan Info 4.Bicycle Parking Photos 5.Public Comments Project Narrative – 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy This proposal is to add extra occupancy to the existing single-family dwelling at 738 Campfire Drive (Lot 6 Block 1 of the Trailhead Subdivision) to accommodate 4 persons in the existing 3 bedrooms. This proposal will use existing site and building conditions and include the addition of a permanently fixed wall-mounted bicycle rack in the 2-car garage. No structural changes will be done to the building or impervious area added to the site. The property is owned by Johnathon Huynh, who is the proposal applicant. The property is within the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and is subject to a Project Development Plan (PDP/Type 1). The conceptual review meeting for this proposal was held on Thursday August 13, 2020. The home has 2164.4 square feet of habitable space consisting of 575.5 square feet on the first floor, 1045.5 square feet on the second floor, and 543.4 square feet in the finished basement. These dimensions are consistent with the Land Use Code, excluding closet, laundry, storage, and utility space. This exceeds the minimum required amount of 1400 square feet required for 4 inhabitants. Three on-site parking spaces are provided by the 2-car garage and the concrete driveway. For this project the concrete driveway will be counted as a parking space (as per Will Lindsay of Planning Services). The bicycle parking requirement will be met by installing wall-mounted bicycle racks for 5 bikes in the extra space on the East side of the garage, as portrayed in the site plan. The racks will be permanently fixed to the structure’s wooden struts and meet the Land Use Code rack and maneuvering space dimensions requirements. This project will have no impact on the existing trees, therefore forestry planning was not necessary. Additionally, no ecological impacts will occur as a result of this project. Finally, the Traffic Impact Study requirement was waived. ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation to the Administrative Hearing Officer, December 10, 2020 Contact InformationCity Staff Information:Will LindseyAssociate City Planner970-224-6164 wlindsey@fcgov.comLeslie SpencerCommunity Development970-416-4288lspencer@fcgov.comPlease email your name and full address to Leslie to receive the decision report.1Alyssa StephensPublic Engagement Specialist719-297-1058astephens@fcgov.comIf you have any technical issues, please contact Alyssa. Hearing AuthorityAs required by City Council Ordinance No. 079, 2020, a determinationhas been made that it is desirable to conduct a remote hearing toprovide reasonably available participation by parties–and-interestsand the public, because meeting in person would not be prudent.2 3Providing Public Comment on Zoom• Please sign in with your first name and last name (or last initial). • The Hearing Officer will call for public comment on each item after a short presentation from staff and/or applicants. • Use the “Raise Hand” button at the bottom of your screen to let us know you would like to speak. • OR, if you are listening to the meeting through a telephone, please dial *9 on your phone to raise your hand.• We will call on you and let you know when you are able to unmute yourself.• State your name and address when you speak. 4Order of Proceedings1.Project Introduction (staff)2.Applicant Presentation3.Staff Presentation4.Staff Response to Applicant Presentation5.Public Testimony6.Applicant Response 7.Staff Response8.Decision• Within 10 business days, Hearing Officer issues written decision• May approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development application9. Decision is mailed to applicant and any person who provided testimony at public hearing10. Appeal Process• Appeals are filed with the City Clerk’s Office• Written appeal must be received within 14 calendar days of the decision• Filing fee of $100.00• City Clerk will schedule appeal for City Council 738 Campfire Drive –Extra Occupancy Rental HouseCombined Final/Project Development PlanFDP 200018Type I Administrative HearingDecember 10, 20205 Neighborhood: Trail Head NeighborhoodZone District: Low Density Mixed-Use (L-M-N)Land Use: Current Use: Single-Family DwellingProposed Use: Extra Occupancy Rental House•4 tenants maximum proposedProject Overview Project Location •Habitable space - 3.8.28• 350 sf required per tenant• 4 tenants x 350 = 1,400 sf•541 sf provided per tenant (2,164 sf total)•Vehicle parking – 3.2.2(K)(1)(j)• .75 spaces required per tenant• 4 tenants x.75 = 3 spaces•3 spaces provided (each 9 ft x 19 ft)•Bicycle parking - 3.2.2 (C)(4)• 1 fixed space per bed required• 3 beds x 1 = 3 spaces•3 spaces provided (fixed bicycle hooks)Zoning Standards Site Images Proposed Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Floor Plans[575.5 Sq ft][543.4 Sq ft][1045.5 Sq ft][550.1 Sq ft] Floor Plans Staff FindingsStaff finds the Final/Project Development Plan:• Complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.• Complies with applicable standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards.• Complies with standards located in Division 3.8.28 – Extra Occupancy Rental House Requirements of Article 3 – General Development Standards.• Complies with applicable standards located in Division 4.5 Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N) of Article 4 – Districts. 14 Staff Recommendation15Staff recommends approval of the 738 Campfire Dr –Extra Occupancy Rental House, consolidated Project Development Plan/Final Plan, FDP200018. Contact InformationCity Staff Information:Will LindseyAssociate City Planner970-224-6164 wlindsey@fcgov.comLeslie SpencerCommunity Development970-416-4288lspencer@fcgov.comPlease email your name and full address to Leslie to receive the decision report.16Alyssa StephensPublic Engagement Specialist719-297-1058astephens@fcgov.comIf you have any technical issues, please contact Alyssa. ATTACHMENT 5 Public Comments The following people emailed comments or called prior to the Administrative Hearing for 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy: Link to audio messages: https://youtu.be/L9xLTVGHERY; Written comments attached. Dennis Gross 2764 COVENTRY LN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121 Ellen Halsey 851 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dawn and Ted Donahue 3287 GLACIER CREEK DR Fort Collins, CO 80524 Susan Szulczewski 3215 Glacier Creek Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Sarah Biekert 833 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Eric & Christine Napelbaum 3144 Lower Loop Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Tricia Leslie 915 Trading Post Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 M Martin 3332 WAGON TRAIL RD Fort Collins, CO 80524 Heather Rayburn‐Livingston 1008 Trading Post Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 William Gerdes 1422 N 4TH ST ABERDEEN, SD 57401 David Eubanks 3557 Bear River Court Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jacqueline Ferrero 920 CAMPFIRE DR Fort Collins, CO 80524 Gale Williams 920 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Cary Hitchings 756 Three Forks Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Scott & Heather Rosenberg 856 Ridge Runner Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Bruce Holbert 3262 Green Lake Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jennifer Marquart 3415 Wagon Trail Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Candyce Edelen 3209 Glacier Creek Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Sandy King 1008 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Theresa Brown 3257 Green Lake Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jackie Sacks 927 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Gina Linde 808 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jeanne McDonald 732 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Scott Rosenberg 856 Ridge Runner Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dennis Whitman 3420 WAGON TRAIL RD Fort Collins, CO 80524 Todd Vedder 3344 WAGON TRAIL RD Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jessica Marter 874 CAMPFIRE DR Fort Collins, CO 80524 MARANG LIVING TRUST 4365 REIMER RD NORTON, OH 44203 Stephanie Goldin 451 Boardwalk Dr. 1008 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Tricia Leslie 915 Trading Post Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Anne Oakes & Rob Starling 856 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Anonymous (Call) From:David Eubanks To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 4 person house occupancy Date:Thursday, December 10, 2020 12:22:21 AM Alyssa, I didn’t attend the zoom meeting at Trailhead concerning this but I’m not in agreement for allowing this . I think there would be too many cars, especially if they all had visitors. This also may lower home values. I’d like it to remain a family neighborhood rather than college rental property. That’s why we bought a house in this neighborhood. Thank/you, David Eubanks 3557 Bear River Ct Fort Collins,CO Sent from my iPhone From:Todd Vedder To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Dev Review Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 6:20:01 PM Hi Alyssa, I disapprove allowing more than 3 unrelated people in a house hold. I believe this violates Fort Collins 2 plus 1 rule. So case closed there, correct? Not even sure this warrants a zoom meeting. How is this making it into conceptual review with the City? It also hinders vehicle traffic as the occupants alone could have four vehicles and parking some vehicles on street. Plus any gatherings they have. This poses a safety risk to drivers with oncoming traffic and children at play. The streets are not wide enough to accommodate significant parking on both sides. This is already an issue the way it is and would result in a domino effect across the neighborhood. Regards, Todd Vedder Sent from my iPhone From:Sue Szulczewski To:Development Review Comments Cc:Will Lindsey Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Dr Extra Occupancy Development Proposal Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 11:33:16 AM I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Development Proposal FDP200018 for extra occupancy at 738 Campfire Dr in Trailhead. This proposal would allow up to four unrelated occupants at this property. I purchased my home in Trailhead because it is a quiet family neighborhood. The owner-occupied properties in Trailhead are well maintained which ensures the property values of the neighborhood. My concern is that approval of this proposal sets a precedent which would negatively affect all of Trailhead. It will lead to other investors purchasing properties in the neighborhood to turn into higher occupancy rentals. This in turn will destroy the family neighborhood. I am also concerned about parking and tenants maintaining the property. As a neighbor, I urge you to not approve the 738 Campfire Dr Extra Occupancy Proposal. Susan Szulczewski 3215 Glacier Creek Dr 952 237-8523 sue.szulczewski@gmail.com From:Ellen Halsey To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Dr, FC Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:30:06 PM This email is in reference to the developmental proposal at the subject address. Where are additional vehicles going to park?! We have zero confidence that these renters will take proper care of the property. Generally speaking, it is the nature of renters to not care about a property as owners do. This could set a precedence that will change the nature of our neighborhood. It's as if you're allowing lost cost housing to evolve here. The rent divided 4 ways has to be relatively low. We just don't understand why this is even being considered in Trail Head. We are a community of people who take good care of their properties; families with children playing in the neighborhood. It seems likely that 4 unrelated occupants in one single family home will likely be young, single people who are likely to party, play loud music, disturbing the ambience late at night, etc. We have had one horrible experience (that I know of) with renters here. It leaves a bad taste! Somebody needs to explain to us why this is being considered. Ellen Halsey 851 Campfire Dr FC From:Gale Williams To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Dr. extra occupancy proposal. Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 5:56:56 PM To whom it may concern: My name is Gale Williams and I am the homeowner at 920 Campfire drive 80524 in the Trailhead subdivision. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed extra occupancy variance at 738 Campfire dive. Most importantly this would pose a lasting safety hazard at the end of an already busy street that is elevated by the extra vehicles parked on the narrow campfire dr. Also I’m concerned with parking overflow caused in the future by the high density housing being built in the adjacent lot. This will also set a precedent in the future for more extra occupancy dwellings to be approved which will devalue our properties if the neighborhood were to see more proposals. Thank you for you time and I hope you will take this into consideration. Gale Williams 920 Campfire dr. Fort Collins, CO. From:Dennis Gross To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Dr Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 7:07:18 PM Alyssa, I live on Glacier Creek Dr which is part of the neighborhood that includes Campfire Dr. The development has always been a single family home project. There is a proposal in front of the city for the owner of 738 Campfire to be allowed to rent this home to 4 unrelated parties. I am adamantly opposed to this possibility. If the owner wants to be a landlord for multiple tenants, the property should be sold and the sale receipts used to buy a multi family complex or apartment building. It goes without saying that 4 unrelated parties means at least 4 vehicles at one property. None of the occupants will be contractually obligated to the HOA since they are not owners. I have three different friends on that street with young children and they have to be vigilant about the traffic flow to keep their children safe. If there is a vote by homeowners to influence the city's decision, I want 738 Campfire to be a single family residence; not be occupied by unrelated parties. Thanks Dennis Gross 801-599-2280 From:Heather Rayburn To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Dr Date:Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:55:03 PM Hello Alyssa, My husband and I are the owners and occupants of 1008 Trading Post Road in Fort Collins and will be unable to attend the meeting regarding 738 Campfire Dr Extra Occupancy FDP200018 but would ask that the proposal be denied. Many of my neighbors have expressed concern at the precedent this may set for future rental properties in our neighborhood, of which there are many. Thank you for your time regarding this matter, Heather Rayburn-Livingston Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad From:Sarah Biekert To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Drive Development Proposal - CDR 200060 Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 11:15:45 AM Hello Alyssa, My name is Sarah Biekert, and my husband and I live with our three children just up the street from 738 Campfire Drive. I understand there is a proposal under review to allow this to become a higher occupancy rental property. I would like to express my concerns. My family moved into this neighborhood just over a year ago. We chose it for many reasons, one of which was that the neighborhood was well maintained, and we could see that people took pride in their homes here. Since then, the value of homes in this neighborhood has only increased. That is of course of great value to us as homeowners. The board has made us aware that a proposal like this was once approved in the neighborhood, and that the results were disastrous. The tenants did not observe the rules of our HOA, and the landlord did not enforce them nor correct the violations himself. It was a lengthy process to resolve and ultimately cost the HOA money in legal fees – money that we pay every month, even when my husband is laid off for a second time due to COVID-19, so that we can continue to improve and maintain the neighborhood we have invested in. NOT so that it can be thrown away on mitigation that could have been avoided. I am actually very agreeable to the woman and her husband who have brought forth this proposal. They seem like great people. Affordable housing in Fort Collins is absolutely a huge problem that needs to be addressed by the City. However, this rental scenario sets a precedent for our neighborhood that I am just not comfortable with. My family's vote therefore is a resounding no. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sarah Biekert - 833 Campfire Drive From:Jessica To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Drive Date:Wednesday, December 9, 2020 6:37:20 PM Hi Alyssa, I’m writing to you regarding the request for additional occupancy at 738 Campfire Drive in the Trailhead neighborhood. I understand there will be a hearing on Thursday, December 10th to consider allowing additional occupants to rent this property. I would urge you to reconsider allowing additional occupants at this time. The neighborhood is designed for single family homes and for garage and driveway parking. Allowing additional tenants to reside at this address will necessitate street parking which is against the tenants set by our HOA. Thank you, Jessica Marter Sent from my iPad From:Rob Starling To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 campfire proposal Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 10:13:11 PM Hello, We have received a letter about the proposal for the 738 Campfire property to rent the house to up to 4 unrelated occupants. We are concerned that if this passes, it could have a lasting impact on our neighborhood. We don’t want to set a precedent for other investors to buy out property to rent rooms and make an already bad parking situation even worse. Anne Oaks and Robert Starling Sent from my iPhone From:Joseph Brown To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire proposal Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 3:29:24 PM Alyssa et al, I live at 3257 Greenlake Dr in the Trailhead neighborhood. In the strongest possible terms, I oppose any proposal to increase occupancy in our neighborhood. We are a family neighborhood. Allowing a landlord to increase occupancy to four unrelated adults would be a complete betrayal of the natural development of our neighborhood and will permanently damage the character, the condition, and the value of Trailhead. The Fort Collins occupancy law exists for a reason. You need to uphold the law. Joseph Brown From:Dennis Whitman To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire, fort collins, co Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 7:22:56 PM Please do not allow or agree with a higher occupancy rental of the property at 738 Campfire in Trail head . As a homeowner we have worked very hard to make this a great community of neighbors helping neighbors and do not want this to change. We all enjoy this community and work to make it even better, sharing and caring about each other. We still have work to do but this will easily become one of the special places in Fort Collins that people will always want to be a part of. Development of our park coming this year will help to unify our community. From:Ted Donahue To:Development Review Comments Cc:Mom ; Danielle Nayes Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:12:07 PM Dear Ms. Stephens, I am writing to you to voice my strong opposition to allowing 738 Campfire to become a rental to multiple non-related people. When we moved to Fort Collins 7 years ago it was very difficult to find affordable single family housing for a dual income family (PSD employees) in a town that is overwhelmed with rental property. I imagine that factors such as increasing property taxes, rising home costs and the pandemic are making it extraordinarily difficult for an average family to make it. We currently spend over 1/3 of our post-tax income on our mortgage, property taxes, home owner’s association and house insurance. Since we bought our home 135 townhomes have been built 50 yards from my front door. We knew that this was a possibility moving in. When the owner of 738 Campfire bought that property perhaps they should have invested in one of those townhome properties instead of destroying an opportunity for a single family home in an established neighborhood. For this prospective landlord to want to change the rules so that they can make a buck after the rest of us have abided by them is criminal. Please deny the request. Sincerely, Dawn and Ted Donahue From:M Martin To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 5:33:58 PM I am surrounded by rentals!!!!!! 4 unrelated people are unacceptable. I am 74 years old; my home is my security. Some rentals are well vetted, however, some are not! Loud cars, parties, inconsiderate behavior and CONSTANT moving in and out comes with most rentals. PLEASE keep our neighborhood quiet and peaceful and a neighborhood. STOP this request! Thank you. From:William Gerdes To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire Date:Wednesday, December 9, 2020 12:10:55 PM I oppose the development proposal for 738 Campfire. Our home is within half a mile of 738 Campfire. We purchased our home at 3393 Wagon Trail Rd. two years ago. We found a home in a neighborhood of single family homes and we do not want the characteristics to change. Our HOA bylaws specify that the lots are to be developed with only single family homes. Of course, allowing up to 4 unrelated occupants would be contrary to that bylaw. Our HOA bylaws also restrict parking to one vehicle outside our garages. The proposed sketch shows two vehicles would be parked in the driveway. That may seem trivial, but more cars mean more traffic. More traffic means both more noise and less safety for the kids and residents out walking or riding bikes on the street. While the owner (or occupant) of 738 Campfire may have legitimate reasons for wanting additional renters, those are considerations that should have been addressed earlier. The approval of the application is requested so "nobody has to more out" and to "help them pay the rent easier." Do more than 4 unrelated occupants already live in the house? It appears the applicant may now be asking for forgiveness when he should have sought permission earlier. That would open endless possibilities and be an unfortunate precedent for future decisions. Thank you for your consideration. Bill Gerdes 3393 Wagon Trail Rd. Fort Collins From:Jeff Rubenstein To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] 738 Campfore Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 11:00:07 AM Hello. There is an occupancy variance request for 738 Campfire Dr. My family and I live in the neighborhood and we would like to voice our opinion. We are in favor of the variance request. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jeff Rubenstein 970-214-1560. -- Jeff Rubenstein From:Candyce Edelen-TH To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] comments on development proposal Date:Sunday, December 6, 2020 8:41:34 PM Hi Alyssa and Will, I'd like to share my input on the development proposal at 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy FDP200018. I am the president of the Trail Head Community HOA. I am opposed to this request. We have already had a problem with another property located on Yule Trail in our neighborhood (not the property in question). This property was not approved for extra occupancy, but it was rented to more than 3 unrelated people anyway. The situation we encountered there makes a good case for why I'm opposed to this proposal. The driveways in this community are not large, and this particular rental on Yule Trail had too many occupants, too many cars. The garage was packed full of the tenants' belongings, so the occupants parked 4 cars in the driveway. Because the driveway was too short to accomodate 4 cars, they parked two so that they were blocking the sidewalk and extending into the street. The occupants parked 2-3 other vehicles in the street near the property. There were usually 4 to 6 cars at the location. The driveway at 738 Campfire is roughly the same length as the property on Yule Trail where we had the problems. In addition, there is a fire hydrant in front of 738 Campfire, further limiting the number of cars that can be parked in front of the property. In addition, the tenants in the Yule Trail property stored debris, equipment, used appliances and construction materials outside - in the driveway and the front yard. I realize that this is against City regulations and was a violation of our Covenants. We attempted enforcement, sending violation notices and fines. But we as a board were unable to successfully enforce our Covenants around parking and debris. Our multiple violations were simply ignored by the tenant and owner. We do have the authority to place liens on the property, but that also doesn't accomplish the goal of compliance. We finally notified the police about the situation, and it was rectified by enforcing the City of Fort Collins occupancy limitations. Street parking on Campfire is another concern. The community has a lot of young children, and we already have problems with traffic speeding along Campfire. We've requested help from the City to install speed bumps, but our request was declined. If we increase the number of cars parked on the street, it increases the risk of cars not seeing children at play. I believe that permitting this proposal will have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood over time. As investors see that Fort Collins is permitting 4 unrelated people to live in one house in Trail Head, they'll no doubt start purchasing other houses in our community to do the same thing. This will increase cars parked on the street, increase our challenges enforcing our Covenants, and increase risk for children playing. Thank you for considering my comments. -- Warm regards, Candyce Edelen President, Trail Head Board of Directors 303-882-8871 From:Scott Rosenberg To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Comments on proposal for 738 Campfire Dr Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 1:05:35 PM Alyssa, Hello. Thanks for your time. I hope you’re well. I’m writing to offer comments about the proposal at 738 Campfire Dr FDP200018, as I live in the neighborhood. I hope the city allows the proposal to be adopted. It should approve it and thank the petitioners heartily for following appropriate procedures. Frankly, I wish the city would encourage higher density housing in neighborhoods like this all over the city. Thanks for your time Scott Rosenberg From:Jennifer Marquart To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Comments regarding development proposal for 738 Campfire Drive Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 2:12:56 PM To Whom it May Concern, I am writing in regards to the development proposal for 738 Campfire Drive in Fort Collins. They want to be able to rent to up to 4 unrelated occupants. This should not be approved. That type of occupancy does not belong in this neighborhood. This neighborhood has lots of children. Extra cars parking on the street would present a hazard. In addition, I have looked at the property and they do not have much street space in front of their house. Extra vehicles would surely cause a great impact on their neighbors. We are not close to campus, but I do believe we might get students living there. Additionally we have people here that commute to the Air Force base in Cheyenne, and I could foresee the house being rented to 4 different Air Force personnel, which would create a lot of vehicles and traffic in front of that residence. Please respect the type of neighborhood that we are working to create. One that is family oriented and safe for children. Please reject this proposal. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Jennifer Marquart (Trailhead resident) From:Stephanie Goldin To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Development proposal for 738 Campfire Drive Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 1:03:33 PM Good afternoon, I am writing in support of the development proposal to increase the occupancy of the residence at 738 Campfire Drive in Fort Collins. Throughout their tenancy, the current tenants have worked hard to keep up the residence. The lawn is mowed frequently, they laid fresh sod, they repaired and repainted the fence and they've done a great job of maintaining the landscaping. They also seem to work hard to never block the sidewalk. They've responded quickly and accordingly to any feedback they've gotten from their neighbors. I believe the area is already zoned for multiple occupancy, and as such, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow the actual occupancy limit to increase accordingly. The residence has four bedrooms and currently only allows for three occupants which doesn't make sense to me. In preparation for this hearing, the tenants of 738 Campfire have reached out to their neighbors to address any questions or concerns they may have. I feel this is worthy of respect. The tenants have opened themselves up to criticism from their neighbors in an attempt to be as helpful as possible during what I am sure is a very uncomfortable and stressful period. I hope this message has helped to bring to light what responsible neighbors the tenants at 738 Campfire are and has helped to further their cause. Thank you for your attention to this matter, I look forward to attending Thursday's hearing. Have a fantastic week! Stephanie Goldin From:Heather Reeves To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Development Review Sign #572 Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 6:00:31 PM Good evening I am a home owner in the Trailhead subdivision and will not be able to attend the public hearing on December 10, 2020. I strongly support the proposal to allow 4 unrelated occupants to live in the single family dwelling at 738 Campfire Drive. Allowing this small increase in occupant density is inline with the city’s climate agenda, and after my review of the documents on the city’s website the applicant has complied with all the requests. The neighborhood zoning allows for this level of density in a dwelling and any opposition seems to be based on fear that this change will decrease owner property value. As each proposal would require separate review and compliance with city procedures, that argument should not be used to deny the current proposal. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you Heather Rosenberg 856 Ridge Runner Drive Sent from my iPhone From:Jeff Rubenstein To:Leslie Spencer Subject:[EXTERNAL] Fwd: Address for Decision Report Date:Thursday, December 10, 2020 1:26:53 PM Hello. I would like a copy of the decision. Thank you in advance. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Date: Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:17 AM Subject: Address for Decision Report To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Good morning, You are receiving this email because you submitted public comment on the 738 Campfire Dr. Extra Occupancy request scheduled for an administrative hearing this evening. If you would like to receive a letter notifying you of the decision on this project, please provide your name and mailing address to lspencer@fcgov.com. The fastest and most environmentally-friendly way to view the decision report is online at fcgov.com/developmentreview/proposals. I am happy to notify you when the decision letter is posted online. Thank you, Alyssa Stephens MA Neighborhood Development Liaison City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals -- Jeff Rubenstein From:Jeanne McDonald To:Development Review Comments Cc:Kevin Michael Mcdonald Subject:[EXTERNAL] Objection to the Proposal #572 Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 8:39:56 PM Dear Alyssa Stephens— I would like to formally voice my objection to proposal #572 which would allow more than 4 unrelated rental occupants to the 738 Campfire Drive. We already have a parking problem on this section of Campfire Drive with numerous vehicles parked on the street. We own the house next door and this property has been a rental for the last 6 years. We have seen numerous tenants come and go including a year with multiple college students. Allowing this exception in our neighborhood will encourage other properties to turn them into higher occupancy rentals. I will be participating in this week’s zoom meeting to again voice my opinion on this proposal. I hope the City will consider our concerns. Kindly, Jeanne McDonald 732 CampfireDrive 817-983-8929 From:Gina Linde To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Occupancy Date:Thursday, December 10, 2020 1:01:51 PM Please do not change the laws on occupancy here in Trailhead neighborhood or anywhere in Fort Collins. Sent from my iPhone From:Jeremy Sacks To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Proposal for Campfire Drive Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 12:59:45 PM I am reaching out as a resident who lives on campfire Drive to voice my concern for the Property proposal at 738 campfire drive. It is my understanding that the investor of the property wants to allow an extra tenant to help cover the cost of rent for the current tenants. This Investor just purchased the property earlier this year for a great price of 360,000 for a 4 bedroom single family home, taking this property out of the hands of first time home buyers in the area and now wants to allow additional tenants to occupy the property to help cover cost? This landlord has not even been a property owner at the address for a full year and we have no history or trust with what he will do with future tenants. The rent was listed at 2195 per month which divided 3 ways would leave the individual rent at 730 per month based on the current city occupancy rule. No one forced these tenants to live above their means, we all make choices on what we can and cannot afford . Investors take a risk when they rent out their homes for profit. Allowing extra tenants to occupy a single family home in our neighborhood will cause increased traffic and parked cars on the roadway . This is a neighborhood full of families and children who play outside all day and we still do not have a park for them to play safely. As a homeowner I am deeply concerned about this proposal, I purchased my property with the knowledge of the you plus two occupancy rule and expect it to be upheld.I moved out of a higher density neighborhood and purchased a home here specifically to avoid these issues. This burden will be felt by the entire neighborhood and may inspire other investors to pursue similar interests in the neighborhood. How can we be sure that this landlord doesn't raise the rent if he can have 4 unrelated tenants living under the same roof. It seems like this proposal could lead to increased per room rent in benefit of the landlord in the future. This is not a solution to the affordable housing issues in Fort Collins, this landlord took an affordable home off the market for a first time home buyer and will personally and financially benefit from an extra tenant. I look forward to the hearing this Thursday. Jacquelyn Sacks resident on Campfire Drive From:Theresa Brown To:Will Lindsey; Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 738 Campfire Dr. Extra Occupancy FDP200018 Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 3:41:21 PM sorry, the message sent before I was finished... my STRONG disapproval of this proposal. Living within Fort Collins continues to be a choice. Living in a neighborhood that is outside the price range of what a group of adults can afford is a choice (not a well-thought-out choice). Attempting to change an ordinance/law based on a person's own preference is selfish and would permanently damage this neighborhood. 1. Allowing a single-family (small lot) home that contains 3 bedrooms to hold 4 unrelated adults would mean (at least) 4 separate vehicles at any given time. This neighborhood has a "walkability" score of 1/9 because cars need to be driven when going anywhere outside of the neighborhood. 2. This is a family neighborhood. My family bought our home in this neighborhood because we did not want large numbers of neighbors with no interest in long-term investment (renters). My children deserve to ride their bikes in the streets of their neighborhood without 4+ cars lining the road in this area. 3. This is the law. City Planners need to help uphold these ordinances. There are other homes/ apartments/ condos/ townhomes for rent within Fort Collins at different price points. It is unreasonable to ask people who have already made the commitment to this neighborhood and Fort Collins (homeowners) to shoulder the burden of squeezing more bodies within a single home to benefit the bottom line of investment-property landlords. Thank you, Theresa Brown On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:24 PM Theresa Brown <theresabrown22@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Will and Alyssa, I received a notice that a single family home within my neighborhood has requested extra occupancy within the home located at 738 Campfire. I am a homeowner within this neighborhood and I would like to express my STRONG From:William Gerdes To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 738 Campfire Date:Thursday, December 10, 2020 2:58:57 PM I need to make a couple corrections: First, I should have referred to "covenants" not bylaws. Second, the parking restriction has been removed from the covenants. Nonetheless, more cars mean more traffic. Even with that change, I oppose the proposal. Bill Gerdes On December 10, 2020 at 3:24 PM, Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi William, Thank you so much for reaching out and providing your thoughts and concerns on the proposal for extra occupancy in your neighborhood. I really appreciate you taking the time to participate in an important decision like this. If you are able, I would encourage you to attend the hearing tonight! I think that many of the questions that you have for the planner and for the property owner may be discussed during the hearing. In the meantime, here are just a few notes for you based on my limited knowledge of this project. First, the applicant is not planning to change the home itself, so it will remain a single-family dwelling. Second, I believe this home is currently rented out to three unrelated individuals, and they would like to add an additional person. Third, I would invite you to submit a copy of your bylaws to this email address prior to the hearing, or bring it with you if you are able to attend the meeting. Your comment will be shared with our Hearing Officer to aid in their review of the request. The Hearing Officer will be reviewing those materials in the coming days (before and after tonight's hearing), and will issue their decision on the project within the next week. Once the decision has been issued, it will be posted at fcgov.com/developmentreview/proposals (look for the “Hearings” table!). Please let me know if you have any additional questions or comments about this project! Best, Alyssa Stephens MA Neighborhood Development LiaisonCity of Fort Collins Neighborhood ServicesSubmit a public comment| Track Development Proposals From: William Gerdes <billgerdes@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 12:11 PM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 738 Campfire I oppose the development proposal for 738 Campfire. Our home is within half a mile of 738 Campfire. We purchased our home at 3393 Wagon Trail Rd. two years ago. We found a home in a neighborhood of single family homes and we do not want the characteristics to change. Our HOA bylaws specify that the lots are to be developed with only single family homes. Of course, allowing up to 4 unrelated occupants would be contrary to that bylaw. Our HOA bylaws also restrict parking to one vehicle outside our garages. The proposed sketch shows two vehicles would be parked in the driveway. That may seem trivial, but more cars mean more traffic. More traffic means both more noise and less safety for the kids and residents out walking or riding bikes on the street. While the owner (or occupant) of 738 Campfire may have legitimate reasons for wanting additional renters, those are considerations that should have been addressed earlier. The approval of the application is requested so "nobody has to more out" and to "help them pay the rent easier." Do more than 4 unrelated occupants already live in the house? It appears the applicant may now be asking for forgiveness when he should have sought permission earlier. That would open endless possibilities and be an unfortunate precedent for future decisions. Thank you for your consideration. Bill Gerdes 3393 Wagon Trail Rd. Fort Collins From:Candyce Edelen-TH To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: comments on development proposal Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 10:49:56 PM Hi Alyssa, One further comment. It’s my understanding that the parking for increased occupancy should not impede street access for any of the parked vehicles. This is not possible for 4 cars at this property, nor at most other lots in TrailHead. Only 2 cars can be parked with unimpeded street access. Warm regards, Candyce On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:13 PM Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Candace, Thank you so much for reaching out and providing comment on the extra occupancy request. Comments from neighbors are an incredibly important part of this process, and we really appreciate you taking the time to share your experiences with extra occupancy in the past. All comments we receive regarding this project are forwarded on to the hearing officer so they can consider them alongside the application materials. The hearing is scheduled for this Thursday, but our hearing officers generally don’t make a decision on the spot, so it may be a week or so before you hear back. If you received a letter about the hearing, you’ll also receive a letter notifying you of the decision. Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments for me! Best, Alyssa Stephens MA Neighborhood Development Liaison City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals From: Candyce Edelen-TH <candyceedelen.th@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2020 8:41 PM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] comments on development proposal Hi Alyssa and Will, I'd like to share my input on the development proposal at 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy FDP200018. I am the president of the Trail Head Community HOA. I am opposed to this request. We have already had a problem with another property located on Yule Trail in our neighborhood (not the property in question). This property was not approved for extra occupancy, but it was rented to more than 3 unrelated people anyway. The situation we encountered there makes a good case for why I'm opposed to this proposal. The driveways in this community are not large, and this particular rental on Yule Trail had too many occupants, too many cars. The garage was packed full of the tenants' belongings, so the occupants parked 4 cars in the driveway. Because the driveway was too short to accomodate 4 cars, they parked two so that they were blocking the sidewalk and extending into the street. The occupants parked 2-3 other vehicles in the street near the property. There were usually 4 to 6 cars at the location. The driveway at 738 Campfire is roughly the same length as the property on Yule Trail where we had the problems. In addition, there is a fire hydrant in front of 738 Campfire, further limiting the number of cars that can be parked in front of the property. In addition, the tenants in the Yule Trail property stored debris, equipment, used appliances and construction materials outside - in the driveway and the front yard. I realize that this is against City regulations and was a violation of our Covenants. We attempted enforcement, sending violation notices and fines. But we as a board were unable to successfully enforce our Covenants around parking and debris. Our multiple violations were simply ignored by the tenant and owner. We do have the authority to place liens on the property, but that also doesn't accomplish the goal of compliance. We finally notified the police about the situation, and it was rectified by enforcing the City of Fort Collins occupancy limitations. Street parking on Campfire is another concern. The community has a lot of young children, and we already have problems with traffic speeding along Campfire. We've requested help from the City to install speed bumps, but our request was declined. If we increase the number of cars parked on the street, it increases the risk of cars not seeing children at play. I believe that permitting this proposal will have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood over time. As investors see that Fort Collins is permitting 4 unrelated people to live in one house in Trail Head, they'll no doubt start purchasing other houses in our community to do the same thing. This will increase cars parked on the street, increase our challenges enforcing our Covenants, and increase risk for children playing. Thank you for considering my comments. -- Warm regards, Candyce Edelen President, Trail Head Board of Directors 303-882-8871 -- Warm regards, Candyce Edelen 303-882-8871 From:Tricia Leslie To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Regarding 738 Campfire Occupancy Hearing Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 5:58:48 PM Alyssa Stephens, I understand that the owners of 738 Campfire are requesting a change to the current occupancy of their residence and I wanted to express my concern about this change. We live in a smaller family neighborhood with lots of children! We want to preserve our neighborhood so that families continue to want to live here! Unfortunately, our neighborhood has seen what happens when there are 4 renters living under one roof in our neighborhood. It was a disaster. There were cars parked everywhere, blocking driveways and sidewalks. It increased the traffic in our small neighborhood exponentially. There were loud parties and the home was kept in disarray. There was no regard for homeowners and their properties. I am respectfully asking that the city deny the petition that will be brought forward on Thursday, Dec 10th. We live in a great family neighborhood and we don't want our neighborhood to turn into a rental community. Thank you for your consideration, Respectfully, Tricia Leslie 915 Trading Post Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-402-6648 From:Eric Napelbaum To:Development Review Comments Cc:"Danielle Nayes" Subject:[EXTERNAL] Regarding Development Proposal for 738 Campfire in Trailhead Subdivision, Project CDR 200060 Date:Monday, December 7, 2020 6:58:20 PM Dear Ms. Stephens, I am writing to share my feedback regarding the upcoming development proposal CDR 200060 in the Trailhead neighborhood where the owner at 738 Campfire is requesting that they be allowed to rent the house for up to 4 unrelated occupants to “help the existing occupants be able to afford their rent” My wife Christine and I are against this proposal for the following reasons: While the city ordinance and housing rules may allow up to 3 unrelated occupants, we already view having rental properties in the neighborhood as undesirable. While we sympathize with the owner and the current tenants, we feel the owner has the option of finding and screening tenants that can afford the three-way split of the rent without having to deviate from the ordinance. We also recognize these are difficult times and one or more of the tenants may be in financial difficulty due to a job loss, something we do not wish for anyone. However, this is the risk that any owner takes when purchasing a rental property and we don’t feel that we and the other owners are obligated to share in their burden of the owner losing tenants and lost rental income. Last, we feel that this will set a long-term precedent for other investors to purchase properties in Trailhead that has implications for potentially lowering property values, increasing instances of properties not being maintained, increased disturbances and overall increasing the density of people and traffic in our neighborhood. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that the review board please vote against this development proposal. Thank you for your consideration of our feedback. Please feel free to reach out if we can answer any questions. Eric & Christine Napelbaum Trailhead Subdivision 3144 Lower Loop Drive Fort Collins, CO 970-889-7356 esn0556@comcast.net From:vendor20@sigridco.com To:Development Review Comments Cc:Danielle Nayes Subject:[EXTERNAL] Sign 572 - Extra Occupancy FDP200018 Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 1:13:11 PM Ms Stephens, I am a trustee of the Marang Living Trust. The Trust owns properties at 3336 Unit 1 Green Lake and 3303 Wagon Trail Fort Collins. The Trust has been notified regarding the proposal of extra occupancy at 738 Campfire, (Parcel #8704305006, FDP200018). The Trust believes the proposal would significantly alter the nature of the development away from single family low density use. The Trust believes, if permitted, this action would establish precedent resulting in further erosion of use away from single family low density housing. The Trust believes the proposal would in effect allow a boarding house or hostel to be established in the development along with the concomitant disturbance and disorder of same. The Trust believes the proposal would further exacerbate the challenging parking situation in the development. Currently, many residents are not able or not willing to park their vehicles in their garage or in their driveway and resort to congested on street parking. Therefor, the Trust is unequivocally opposed to the proposal to allow extra occupancy at 738 Campfire. Best Regards, Eric J. Marang Trustee, Marang Living Trust From:Gina Linde To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Trailhead neighborhood review Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 7:32:57 PM Hi I hope I can watch the meeting on this but I want to voice my concerns about allowing more than three unrelated‘s in this house I do not want it. It’ll just change this neighborhood into a parking lot and lowers our home values. I met one of the young fellows that came by,very very nice I’m not saying that this particular group is going to do something wrong. It’s the minute they move it’s going to be a mess. It also sets a new precedent for the whole neighborhood to be able to do it. Please no no no Sent from my iPhone ATTACHMENT 6 Verbatim Transcript Administrative Hearing December 10, 2020 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held December 10, 2020 Remote/Virtual Meeting In the Matter of: 738 Campfire Drive – Extra Occupancy Rental House #FDP200018 Meeting Time: 5:30 PM, December 10, 2020 Hearing Officer: Staff Members Participating: Marcus A. McAskin Will Lindsay, Associate City Planner Leslie Spencer 2 MR. MARCUS MCASKIN: For the record, this is Marcus McAskin, the Hearing Officer. I'm 1 going to open the public hearing on the 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy application at 7:51 PM. I 2 did note earlier this evening when I gave introductory comments that I do have jurisdiction. The only 3 thing I was missing was the copy of the notice as published in the paper; I have been provided with that 4 now. That was done on November 25th, 2020. 5 So, for those of you that are in attendance that may have missed my earlier comments, just to give 6 you a quick run down of the process for the hearing. In a minute, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Lindsay 7 with the City Planning Department and he's going to give us a brief overview of the project. We are then 8 going to turn it over to the applicant for a presentation. I will then allow staff to give a more thorough 9 overview and presentation regarding the project, and at that point, I will open it up for public comment. 10 And if you are joining us this evening virtually for this hearing, thank you. If you do raise your hand in 11 Zoom, then Leslie Spencer with the City will be managing that process and she will allow you to make 12 comments at the appropriate time. I will then give both City staff and the applicant the opportunity to 13 respond to any questions or issues that are raised during that public comment portion of the hearing. I am 14 required under the City's Land Use Code to issue a written decision in this matter within ten business days 15 following the conclusion of the hearing, and if you do wish to receive a copy of that decision, please 16 make sure that Leslie Spencer has your contact information, including your mailing address so that City 17 staff knows where to route a copy of that decision. 18 And, Will, maybe before I turn it over to you maybe…for those members of the public that may 19 have missed the introductory slides earlier, Leslie do you want to jump on really quick and make sure that 20 members of the public know your email address so that they can email their contact information to you 21 directly should they desire to receive a copy of the report? 22 MR. WILL LINDSAY: Mr. McAskin, I have that on my very first slide if you'd like me to begin 23 sharing my screen. 24 MR. MCASKIN: Perfect. Alright, well Will take it away if you want to give us an overview of 25 this application. Thank you. 26 MR. LINDSAY: As we did earlier, we have our City staff contact information on this initial slide. 27 I'll also have this at the conclusion of the presentation, so if you are unable to jot it down within the time 28 that I'm speaking now, we will have it available later on. And, just as a reminder about the hearing 29 authority that Mr. McAskin established earlier in the hearing about why the hearing is being conducted 30 remotely…I don't know if you want to speak to that again at all sir? 31 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Will, I will just note that…and I did make a statement to this effect 32 earlier, but I did, in consultation with City staff, made a determination that it was desirable to conduct this 33 evening's hearing via remote technology in order to give the applicant and any other parties-in-interest, 34 and any member of the public, the opportunity to be present at this hearing. And we're conducting it 35 virtually because conducting it in person would not be prudent given the continuing public health crisis 36 and pandemic. So, with that, I'll turn it back over to you Will, thank you. 37 MR. LINDSAY: Thank you very much. And then, Leslie, I don't know if you would like to 38 speak about providing public comment on Zoom again, just for reference for anybody who may not have 39 been in attendance during the first half of the hearing. 40 3 MS. LESLIE SPENCER: Sure. So, when you sign in, if you sign with your first name and last 1 name, and when it comes time for public comment, the Hearing Officer will call for public comment on 2 each item after a short presentation from staff or applicants. And if you would use the raised hand button 3 at the bottom of your screen to let us know you would like to speak, that would be great. Or, if you're 4 listening to the meeting through a telephone, please dial star nine on your phone to raise your hand and 5 we will call on you and let you know when you're able to unmute yourself. And if you could please state 6 your name and address when you speak, because we'll need that to send you a decision report within the 7 ten days after the hearing. And for those…I don't think anyone is calling in, but just in case, my email is 8 lspencer@fcgov.com. You may email me your name and full address please, that would be great. Thank 9 you. 10 MR. LINDSAY: Thank you Leslie. I'm going to go ahead and just head on past the order of 11 proceedings slide, because I think we've established how the hearing will be conducted previously. So, 12 thank you all very much for being here this evening. My name is Will Lindsay, I'm an Associate City 13 Planner with the City of Fort Collins Planning Department, and I'm presenting tonight on 738 Campfire 14 Drive Extra Occupancy Rental House, which is combined final project and final development plan, 15 logged under the record number FDP200018. 16 So, just a brief project overview before I hand it over to the applicant. The site that we're 17 discussing this evening is located in the Trailhead neighborhood on Campfire Drive just north of East 18 Vine Drive. It's located in the Low-Density Mixed-Use, or LMN, zone district. And the current use is a 19 single-family dwelling. The applicant is proposing to add the extra occupancy rental house use to this 20 dwelling unit with a maximum number of tenants being four that would be allowed within this dwelling 21 unit as part of the extra occupancy. So, as with most extra occupancies, it's a fairly straightforward 22 request. I'd like to go ahead and stop here and pass it over to the applicant at this time if they have a 23 presentation or just a statement that they'd like to make about the approval that they're seeking here. I 24 believe our applicant, Mr. Huynh, is on the line with us. So, Mr. Huynh, if you'd like to speak at all about 25 the project? 26 MR. JONATHAN HUYNH: Hello? Does everyone hear me good? 27 MS. SPENCER: Yes, we can hear you. 28 MR. HUYNH: Okay. Okay, I just want to talk about the purpose of my application for the extra 29 occupancy because…so, the first, when I bought this property, it's actually for myself using, and then 30 during the pandemic, so my mom from overseas couldn't come to the U.S., so I feel like it's a waste, so 31 that's why I rent it out to my tenants right now. Which is, I don't know any of laws or anything yet. So, 32 they come up with a group of four people, which is I thought…you know…my house has like three 33 bedrooms and then, you know, like a big rec room, that you know, it would be enough for everybody. 34 And I didn't know that I have to have like a permit or anything for them to stay. After like three or four 35 months that they stay in the neighborhood, which is really nice…you know, nice, tenants…so that's why 36 I'd like to keep them, you know, in place. 37 And then I know that, you know, I spoke with…and Will, you know, how to go through the 38 process and everything. And, you know, I just want to keep everybody in the same place, so, you know, 39 nobody has to move out…during the pandemic. And, I feel like it's the right thing to pay money, and you 40 know, make it right. So that's the reason why I apply for this…you know, the process. And I just hope 41 that everything goes well so everybody can stay for…at least for the next year. And then, well if 42 4 everybody decides to move out, I'd probably just take it back and live there or, you know…I just 1 don't…probably do any extra or anything, so just the maximum of four for right now. 2 MR. MCASKIN: Mr. Huynh, does that conclude your comments? 3 MR. HUYNH: Yes. 4 MR. MCASKIN: Okay; thank you very much for that, and I'm going to turn it back over to… 5 MR. HUYNH: Just one more thing, I'm sorry. Because I think my tenant is actually on the Zoom 6 meeting tonight too, so I'm not sure if they want to say something about, you know…just so the neighbors 7 can hear…you know, like the understanding about the project. 8 MR. MCASKIN: Sure…Mr. Huynh, we'll have any member of the public, including your current 9 tenants will have the opportunity to make comments during the public comment portion of the hearing, 10 but before we get to that point in the evening, I'm going to…if you're done with comments at this point, 11 I'm going to turn it back over to Mr. Lindsay with City staff to have an overview of the project. 12 MR. HUYNH: Yeah, I think I'm done. 13 MR. MCASKIN: Great, thank you. 14 MR. LINDSAY: Thank you very much…and thank you Mr. McAskin; I'll go ahead and continue 15 with my presentation here. So, as part of this project, I do want to clarify a couple of the things that Mr. 16 Huynh mentioned in his statements there, that yes, this is an instance where an applicant is pursuing extra 17 occupancy at the site to come into compliance with our Land Use Code and occupancy standards. 18 Generally speaking, when Code Compliance enforces on an occupancy violation of the three unrelated 19 adults…or when more than three unrelated adults are residing in a dwelling unit of any kind, there are two 20 options to either come into compliance by coming back into the limitations of you plus two, or if the site 21 is located in a zone district where extra occupancy is a permitted use subject to a basic development 22 review, or in this instance a type I administrative hearing, then an applicant can pursue that approval to 23 then come into compliance with the Land Use Code and that's what Mr. Huynh is choosing to do in this 24 instance to be able to maintain the four tenants that he has on the property. Although he stated an intent 25 to potentially in the future only rent out to three tenants, it should be noted that the entitlement of the 26 extra occupancy rental house that allows for renters here would continue, so that would stay in place 27 regardless of whether he then decides to only rent to three tenants instead, so I wanted to clarify that 28 before we move on. But I'll go ahead and continue with my presentation here. 29 So, just an aerial overview of the address itself, looking down at the Trailhead neighborhood here. 30 When we're evaluating extra occupancy requests within the LMN zone district, there are several standards 31 that come into play, but the ones that are the most important are these three here. We're evaluating, does 32 this structure meet the requirements for a minimum amount of habitable space for the tenants, can it meet 33 the vehicle parking requirement, and can it meet the bicycle parking requirement. So, I'll start with 34 habitable space for extra occupancy rental houses, and this standard requires that 350 square feet of 35 habitable area, habitable area being that space which excludes, you know, unfinished floor area, storage 36 areas, laundry rooms, anything that isn't used as a living space, from that calculation. And so, when 37 you're looking at an extra occupancy rental house for four tenants, there's a minimum square footage 38 requirement of habitable area of 1,400 square feet. In this instance, Mr. Huynh is providing 2,164 square 39 5 feet total of habitable space, which comes out to 541 square feet provided per tenant, so that standard…it 1 complies with that standard for extra occupancy rental homes. 2 As far as vehicle parking requirements, 0.75 spaces are required per tenant, so with four tenants 3 times 0.75, that comes out to three spaces. In instances for extra occupancy where the parking calculation 4 ends not on a whole number, so for example, if there were five tenants and that came out to 3.75, that 5 number is then rounded up to four whole parking spaces, and same for six, it would be up to five whole 6 parking spaces. But, in this instance, the requirement is to provide three dedicated on-site parking spaces 7 for the tenants, which Mr. Huynh has, and he's denoted that on the site plan which we'll see in just a 8 moment here. 9 And then the third standard for bicycle parking which requires that at least one fixed bicycle 10 parking space be provided per bed in the home. So, with three beds in the home, there are three spaces 11 being provided, and these are being provided by fixed bicycle hooks within the garage itself. The bicycle 12 parking area also meets our minimum dimensional standards for bicycle parking being two feet by five 13 and a half feet, and then by also having five feet of maneuvering space for the tenants to remove their 14 bicycle and maneuver that effectively within the garage. 15 So, Mr. Huynh provided just some images of home, of the north, south, east, and west elevations. 16 No exterior structural changes are proposed as part of this project, so nothing will be changing on the 17 building elevations. Looking at the site plan itself, you can see Mr. Huynh has provided the, you know, 18 minimum requirements for extra occupancy table. He's denoted three vehicular parking spaces on the site 19 plan itself, each a nine by nineteen parking stall, standard parking stall provided there, with two in the 20 garage and one in the driveway. I would note here that in instances for extra occupancy rental homes that 21 are located on a lot that is less than 65 feet wide, and that does not abut an alley, then one parking space is 22 allowed to not have direct access to the abutting street. So, in this instance, one of those parking spaces is 23 allowed to be blocked by another parking space while still meeting our parking standard, which is why 24 he's parked a vehicle tandem to one of the garage spaces. And then you can also see on the site plan it's 25 denoted where that bicycle parking area is being provided. Photographs were attached to the staff report 26 of that bicycle parking area and the bicycle hooks that were installed as part of that. 27 MR. MCASKIN: One quick question on the bicycle parking. I mean…the staff report is clear 28 that it's three bicycle parking spaces that are being provided because it's one per bed, and I know that the 29 home has three bedrooms, but do we have more than three beds? Or, how is that issue analyzed? 30 Because I was a little bit confused because the project narrative that was submitted with the materials has 31 a statement that the bicycle parking requirement will be met by installing racks for five bikes, and it 32 looked like on the site plan maybe they were trying to show five bicycle…anyway, I'll just leave it at that, 33 and if you can help clarify the three versus five, because there seemed to be a bit of a discrepancy there. 34 MR. LINDSAY: Would you like me to clarify that now or continue on and then come back to it? 35 MR. MCASKIN: If you want to clarify it now, that would be great. 36 MR. LINDSAY: So, according to the applicant, at the time of that initial submittal there were 37 preexisting bicycle hooks within the garage that they calculated into their total, which don't fall into the 38 footprint of their dedicated bicycle parking area. They were up in the ceiling of the garage, and we told 39 them that, you know, for it to meet the standard, those needed to be within like a dedicated area that had 40 met our standard for maneuverability to take them in and out, or you know, off the wall, or anything like 41 6 that. We've been flexible in the past with other extra occupancies on how they…what kind of bicycle 1 parking, kind of, hardware that they utilize. But one thing that we have consistently told people is that, 2 you know, hanging them off of the ceiling kind of spread throughout the garage doesn't meet that standard 3 because you're not providing the adequate five feet of maneuverability if you're having to pull it down 4 from the ceiling. So I think the five number was from that initial submittal, but then it was refined to the 5 three. As for how that's being verified, we know that with this particular instance that of the four tenants 6 residing on the property, two of them are a couple, which is why they are sharing a bedroom and the bed, 7 which is what we're basing that count off of in this instance. 8 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you; I appreciate that. 9 MR. LINDSAY: So, quickly just looking at the floorplan provided, and then we have some 10 additional schematics of the floorplan as well, but…like I mentioned earlier in the presentation, there's 11 2,164 square feet of habitable area. That habitable area excludes things like laundry, storage spaces, 12 anything else. The basement, I will just, you know, point out that the basement is not being utilized as a 13 living or a bedroom area at this time. That could potentially, you know, be converted into a bedroom 14 space in the future. If that were to happen, then a review by our Building Department would be required 15 to verify that there's egress off of a basement bedroom, and then the site plan would have to be amended 16 as well. I think the issue there is that, based on the parking calculation and the constraints on the site, if it 17 were to increase to, you know, to have a fourth bedroom downstairs, they would have to, you know, add 18 an additional bicycle parking area. There's always the possibility of a change or a need for additional 19 parking, and I don't think that can be achieved on the site beyond the three spaces that they're providing 20 now. But, no bedroom in the basement, all living spaces are upstairs, and that's made a little bit more 21 clear by these additional floorplans that exist for the property as well. So, all of the bedrooms themselves 22 are on that second-floor area upstairs, and all meet requirements for egress and everything as well. 23 So, all that being said and detailed in the staff report and within this presentation, staff finds that 24 the combined final and project development plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 for 25 common development review procedures for development applications, that it complies with the 26 applicable standards of Article 3 and general development standards, that it complies with the standards 27 located in Division 3.8.28 for extra occupancy rental houses, and that it complies with the applicable 28 standards in Division 4.5 for the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district, and staff recommends 29 approval of the 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Renal House, known as FDP 200018. And with 30 that, I am happy to open it up to questions and discussion regarding this application. Thank you, Mr. 31 McAskin. 32 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you, Will, for that overview. And just to confirm, the applicant has 33 specifically requested extra occupancy approval, but limited to four. 34 MR. LINDSAY: Limited to four, yes. 35 MR. MCASKIN: If the applicant were to seek to increase that to five, or some other number, in 36 the future, with a build out of the basement, that would require a separate application and ultimate 37 approval of a new certificate of occupancy through the Building Department, is that correct? 38 MR. LINDSAY: That is correct, and I think the issue that that would create is that to increase the 39 occupancy beyond the four would create the need for four dedicated on-site parking spaces, and the 40 limitation is in place where no more than 40% of the front yard area can be paved to be utilized for 41 7 parking, as well as the width of the lot, really precludes that from happening. And the fact that, 1 obviously, the applicant cannot utilize on-street parking to satisfy any kind of parking requirement for the 2 extra occupancy rental house use, would make it difficult for additional occupants to be put here beyond 3 the four that he is requesting. 4 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you for that explanation. So, I will go ahead and let's move into 5 the public comment portion of the hearing. And, as I mentioned before, if you do have questions or 6 comments, please do raise your hand, and Leslie Spencer with City staff will call on everybody, kind of 7 as you're queued up, to make comments. And then I will give City staff and the applicant an opportunity 8 to respond to those questions and comments that are raised during public comment. So, Leslie, do you 9 want to take over at this point and let us know who we have with a hand raised. 10 MS. SPENCER: Yes, we have four attendees with their hands raised, Bruce Holbert is first in line 11 and I will allow Bruce to speak now, if you'll unmute yourself Bruce. 12 MR. BRUCE HOLBERT: Hello, my name is Bruce Holbert and I live at 3262 Green Lake Drive, 13 and I'm speaking out in opposition of allowing the extra occupancy. Just kind of a few concerns center 14 around one, the precedent that it will set for people to come in and purchase homes in our neighborhood 15 and ask to rent to a collection of individuals that are not family that may exceed the three level that 16 currently exists in the city. And I guess another question or concern would be, if the owner of the house 17 is truly concerned about the ability of the tenants to afford to rent a house, then why doesn't the owner of 18 the house just reduce the rent? Because I guess I see where this may be going, and this is just me, maybe 19 thinking down the line, but right now if the rent is $2,100 divided by three, it's $700 a person, you bring a 20 fourth person in, maybe the rent is reduced for the three that are currently living there, maybe down to 21 $575, but you add the fourth person in, then that total rent per month is up to $2,300, so the owner of the 22 house is somewhat taking advantage of the extra occupancy to add more profit based upon rental, and it's 23 not really for the benefit of the tenants that are currently there. So, that's my concern, one, setting 24 precedent for future purchases of homes with extra occupancy, but also if there is really truly concern 25 about the ability of the tenants to afford the home, then the owner could just reduce the rent down to a 26 level in which all three present tenants can afford. Thank you. 27 MS. SPENCER: Mr. Holbert, I'm sorry, I missed the street name, can you repeat that please? 28 MR. HOLBERT: 3262 Green Lake Drive. 29 MS. SPENCER: Okay, got it, thank you. 30 MR. HOLBERT: Thank you. 31 MS. SPENCER: Okay, next up we have Candyce Edelen, and Candyce, if you'll unmute yourself, 32 you may speak now. 33 MS. CANDYCE EDELEN: Okay, hi, thank you for allowing me to speak. So, my name is 34 Candyce Edelen, I live at 3209 Glacier Creek Drive, I'm the president of the Trailhead HOA. And I want 35 to express my opposition to this plan. I have a few concerns, one is that you're saying that it's 0.75 spaces 36 per tenant, but if we have four unrelated tenants, then I would expect there to be four cars parked there, 37 and the way that you were explaining it, this property cannot accommodate four cars. There is a fire 38 hydrant right in front of that house which was not shown in those photographs so street parking is going 39 8 to be challenging there. So, I'm concerned that where there is a couple living there now, sharing a 1 bedroom, that would not be a requirement going forward for the next tenants that occupy that property, 2 and so then we would be increasing the number of beds and bedrooms, and that would necessarily 3 increase the number of vehicles. And so, I'm concerned about this from the long-term, because you had 4 mentioned that this is not just a one-year plan, this is something that stays permanent. They cannot 5 extend that driveway to make it wider without violating the covenants of our HOA, so even if the City 6 gave a variance for extending it, we would deny that variance from the covenants' perspective. 7 And then the last thing that I wanted to mention…well, actually two things. One is that there's a 8 lot of street parking along Campfire, and we have a huge problem right now with cars speeding down, 9 coming off of Vine and going really fast down Campfire. This is a community of families with a lot of 10 young children, and my concern is that if we increase street parking that that increases the risk. We've 11 approached the City asking for speed bumps and were denied that because they said that we don't have 12 enough traffic on that street to justify speed bumps, so we don't have any way to slow down the traffic, 13 and minimizing street parking is the only way we feel we can help to protect the children. 14 Then, the last reason that I'm opposed to it is I feel like this will set a precedent like Bruce…I 15 believe his name was Bruce…mentioned just a few minutes ago…is that once investors, and I own a 16 rental property myself, and I would see it as an opportunity. Go buy up a place in Trailhead, get an 17 extended occupancy to four unrelated people. I could make a significant increase on the amount of rent I 18 could charge over charging an individual family to live there. So, I don't want to make this area an 19 appealing opportunity for investors to come in an increase occupancy in several other homes in Trailhead. 20 So, that’s it. Thank you for allowing me to speak. 21 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Candyce. Leslie, who do we have signed up next? 22 MS. SPENCER: We have Kim W. Kim, if you would unmute yourself, you may speak now. 23 MS. KIM WEISSER: Perfect, thank you. My name is Kim Weisser; I live at 709 Elgin Court, 24 I'm the brown house on the corner of Elgin, so basically I look into the backyard of this house, or…yeah, 25 corner of back house. I just wanted to comment, and first and foremost tell Mr. Huynh I very much 26 appreciate that this was taken, you know, to the City…this was looked into, or at least it sounds very 27 much like it's gone through the works of appropriate, you know, steps, in order to request this, just as I 28 would assume there's people in our neighborhoods that rent, you know, without this kind of approval or 29 what not. So, I did want to comment on that. 30 As of now, this property that's in question is smaller than my house over on Elgin, and I have a 31 pretty small ranch house. But, the property size in general, to me, is fairly small, and the backyards over 32 there on Campfire are extremely small, so my first thought would be if there's going to be any pets, or 33 additional people, or children, there's not a whole lot of space over there. We've kind of already talked 34 about the parking space and the house space, but from my thought is it's going to create more people in 35 general in that neighborhood and house, and then with Campfire and the Greenfields, that lot there that's 36 under developed…it's about to be developed…and even that contractor I believe just lowered his total 37 occupancy and moved to a smaller number of occupancy…because we don't want to overcrowd this 38 neighborhood. And I would second on the…Vine Drive is insane, and I've about got hit a few times 39 crossing the street on Elgin. They did put up a stop sign on Elgin of 25, which is still too high, but you 40 know, all through the neighborhood…all the streets that all lead off of Vine are extremely busy, noisy, 41 and I've seen people with pets or people with kids dodge cars, or at least feel for their safety. So, I think 42 9 it's a populated neighborhood already, and I'm opposed to this occupancy. And also, too, I just wanted to 1 comment that I think it was stated before, just that, you know, with additional tenants comes additional 2 spacing and what not, so there's just not a whole lot of parking on that street in general. I walk my dog 3 over there on a regular basis, and the house and the property is nice, but you know, I can't imagine it 4 holding more people, or accommodating more, especially when that block that's under developed is about 5 to become developed. So, that's all I have. 6 MS. SPENCER: Kim, I'm sorry, would you spell your last name please? 7 MS. WEISSER: Sure, it's Weisser, W-E-I-S-S-E-R. 8 MS. SPENCER: Okay, thank you. We have Rosemary Beauvais next and, Rosemary, if you'd 9 like to unmute yourself, you can speak. 10 MS. ROSEMARY BEAUVAIS: Yes, thank you. I want to speak out and basically echo what has 11 already been said. I am not in favor of this extra occupancy being allowed. It is not compatible with this 12 neighborhood of families, and a lot of people walk in the neighborhood. And while I appreciate the 13 explanation of the parking spaces as required by law, in practice, I really doubt that the residents are 14 going to park in tandem, and it's much more probable that street parking will be taking place. There will 15 be at least four cars there, and it's going to interfere with snow clearance in the winter, and it's going to 16 add to the visual clutter in the street as well as the traffic and so forth that has been mentioned before. 17 Additionally, I'm very uncomfortable with the setting of an extra occupancy precedent for the 18 reasons that were mentioned by others. So, I'm basically against it and I agree with everything that's been 19 said so far. And I apologize for not giving my address; I did send it to you in an email, but my address is 20 3336 Green Lake Drive. 21 MS. SPENCER: Thank you. 22 MS. BEAUVAIS: Thank you. 23 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Rosemary. Do we have some more folks with their hands raised 24 Leslie? 25 MS. SPENCER: Yes, we do. We have quite a few. 26 MR. MCASKIN: Great. 27 MS. SPENCER: About nine. And Jenny Marquart is up next. 28 MR. MCASKIN: Okay. 29 MS. SPENCER: So, Jenny, if you'd unmute yourself, you may speak now. 30 MS. JENNY MARQUART: Hi; my name is Jenny. I live at 3415 Wagon Trail Road. I also 31 would like to oppose this, and I think I would really just be reiterating everything that everyone else has 32 said: not setting the precedent for the investor property…I mean I think that the owner could just turn 33 around and sell this for probably even more money and now it would just become an investor property 34 forever, and that it doesn't fit in with our neighborhood of families. I have two small children, so it's not 35 10 something that I would want next to me, for sure. And in regards to the parking…so the street that I live 1 on, farther down, they've already built the townhome development that I think we already said, when they 2 had the hearings a couple years ago for that, that we were concerned that parking would be an issue, and it 3 went through the hearings, and they said it would be fine. Well, there are people parking along Wagon 4 Trail Road adjacent to that townhome development, which is the same type of development they're going 5 to put across the street from this house. So, I would anticipate parking already across the street…people 6 parking on the street across the street from this home, and I can't imagine that with four people they won't 7 have four cars, and put two of them…or attempt to put two of them on the street, you know, which will 8 just make the drivable area very narrow over there. 9 And additionally, that lot is very narrow, as you already stated and showed pictures of. And I 10 wasn't even aware…didn't notice the fire hydrant there, but that definitely is an issue for parking in front 11 of it, but I would anticipate people ending up parking in front of other peoples' homes. Yeah, so I guess 12 that's pretty much it, thank you. 13 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Jenny. 14 MS. SPENCER: Next up we have the McDonald family. If you'd like to unmute yourself, you 15 can speak next. 16 MS. JEANNE MCDONALD: Sure, thank you. Yes, Kevin and Jeanne McDonald, and we 17 actually live adjacent to this property, and although the tenants are lovely, it's not about the current 18 tenants, but it's about the long-term change that's going to happen to this property. We've lived here six 19 years, and this house has been a rental for all six years. We've gone through six college students living 20 there, we've gone through one family living there, and parking has always been a problem. I think I can 21 agree with Candyce Edelen from the HOA where I can confirm that typically, there's always at least four 22 vehicles on the property, usually one on the street, three in the driveway, but it is definitely a problem. 23 You know, since the 1960's, Fort Collins enforced the occupancy restrictions mainly to help protect the 24 quality and character of the neighborhood, so I feel like this continuing…having more occupancy in this 25 one-family home is probably not the right thing for the neighborhood, especially considering there's a 26 future development across the street, 35 to 40 townhomes, and most of those I believe will not have 27 basements, so you're going to see more vehicles parked on the street across as well. So, as far as we're 28 concerned, we would love to see the owner sell this house to a family and have a permanent family live in 29 the structure. 30 MS. SPENCER: Jeanne, do you mind giving me your address so you can receive a decision 31 report please? 32 MS. MCDONALD: Sure, we're at 732 Campfire Drive. 33 MS. SPENCER: Okay, thank you. And is it Ginny – G-I-N-N-Y? 34 MS. MCDONALD: J-E-A-N-N-E. 35 MS. SPENCER: I'm glad I asked, thank you. 36 MS. MCDONALD: You're welcome. 37 11 MS. SPENCER: Okay, next up we have Joseph Brown. If you'd like to unmute yourself, you 1 may speak now. 2 MR. JOSEPH BROWN: Yes, okay thank you. Just a point of clarification, I guess a question for 3 Will, because he seems to know the history here really well. It sounds like what we learned in the 4 meeting tonight was that these renters were cited, and that's what precipitated the proposal that we have in 5 front of us. Is that correct? 6 MR. LINDSAY: Yes, Mr. Brown, that is correct. Like I explained, it's this kind of…not a policy 7 within the City, but just that we make…anybody who is cited for an occupancy violation, if they are 8 within a zone district where this is a permitted use subject to the BDR or the Type I administrative 9 hearing, that this is one of their avenues for coming into compliance. And there have been instances 10 where occupants, or applicants, were cited…or property owners I should say…and they chose not to 11 pursue this process because of the fees involved and the time that it takes, and the requirement for a 12 public hearing like the one we're having tonight. So, there are some who don't move forward with this. 13 MR. BROWN: Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood that; that was the first time I've 14 heard that piece of information, even though I've spoke with you, Will, I've spoke to one other person 15 from your office in preparation for this hearing, and I think it's germane to this conversation because, you 16 know, we've heard different versions of essentially…there's some slipperiness to the story of how this 17 kind of came about. And obviously, I'm against the extra occupancy proposal. I am a member of 18 Trailhead HOA board. 19 Let me just give you an example of what I mean. You know, so we actually heard from the renter 20 on our neighborhood, you know, message group, and the renter said they were requesting the extra 21 occupancy so they could better afford the home. In other words, she put it forward as like, she wanted 22 people…wanted the opportunity to have someone live along and help them with affordability, but now 23 tonight we've learned that they actually already were out of compliance; they were already doing this, and 24 they got caught. The other thing that I'm concerned about…I mean that doesn't bode well for the future, 25 okay, so that's one concern. 26 The other thing with you know, the owner, investor/owner shared this information about wanting 27 to, you know, purchase this home for himself, his family, his loving mother, and you know, that he was 28 planning to do this, but, you know, the pandemic happened. But, you know, when you look at the 29 application that was submitted, the property that he listed as kind of his permanent primary residence is 30 itself a rental. And I think it's germane to the conversation, the slipperiness of these stories, because our 31 HOA has had a difficult time holding investor/owners accountable for when they violate our covenants. 32 In many cases, they can just ignore a situation where we have to fine them until, of course, the home is 33 sold. And so, because of that, what I'm asking you all to do, is to think more holistically, look beyond the 34 zoning requirements that you say they've fulfilled, and think more holistically about, you know, 35 supporting our taxpayer and resident/owner home desire to maintain the character of the neighborhood. 36 Obviously, we are all concerned about affordability in Fort Collins, and you know, that's been a 37 major kind of driver of this discussion. You know, I think that it's been phrased wrong though. You 38 know, here we've been talking about, well, it's not affordable so they need someone else to come and help 39 them, you know, help them make that rent. But, you know, if you grant this request, as Bruce Holbert 40 pointed out earlier, you know, you're actually going to allow and investor/owner to charge an 41 unsustainably high rent, one that he will unlikely never come down from. And so, you know, what 42 12 happens when he raises the rent in the future? I feel pretty certain we're going to see another proposal 1 asking to get to five. Now, I hear what you're saying, that this seems like that's probably unlikely that it 2 would be supported in the future, but I think, you know, that's a concern, what happens in the future when 3 he continues to raise that rent. It will contribute to higher rental prices in our neighborhood, and I do 4 think it's important for us all to say, we are not anti-rental, we are not anti-renter, but I think that this is 5 asking for something that is definitely outside the character of the neighborhood. 6 I'm also concerned about the parking. But I will say, one caveat to that, one thing that has not 7 been mentioned…so other folks have mentioned the tract development that's planned now…it sounds 8 like, you know, some of our neighbors don't know that that has now been shifted to single-family 9 homes…that new development across the street, and that will affect parking. But, the issue that I think is 10 really important here is that, the City right now is requiring a certain standard of parking for those homes. 11 So, it seems wholly inconsistent to me that now with one hand you're asking for one standard for those 12 homes that are being developed, and then you're telling this other home across the street, that they can 13 have something different. And why? Because they complained. That's the crux of the matter, is simply 14 because they complained. You know, the three spaces itself is inadequate. I mean, I know that that 15 matched your required, you know, based on the way the plans work, but as folks have pointed out here, 16 this is going to necessitate a fourth car in the street. Other residents have noted that they're already 17 parking a fourth car there. We know it's going to happen, and that really brings me back to the last point, 18 to the way this will shift the character of our neighborhood. Shifting that parking to the street, which this 19 proposal clearly plans to do, is a primary example of how this extra occupancy will permanently alter it. 20 So, residents of Trailhead occasionally park in the street, but they don't always park in the street. No one 21 is required to park in the street because they just don't simply have a place for that car, but along that very 22 busy avenue, we're going to see that more. 23 And, lastly, my kids are ten and seven; they like to ride their bikes in this neighborhood. And 24 Candyce's point earlier is incredibly worth underlining here, that this is going to contribute to unsafe 25 traffic and sightlines for kids who are needing to be safe riding their bikes, and learning how to ride their 26 bikes, in the neighborhood. Thank you for allowing us this opportunity, and it's been really interesting 27 listening to all these comments. Thank you. 28 MS. SPENCER: Sorry, Joseph, would you like a decision report sent to you? If so, can you give 29 me your address please? 30 MR. BROWN: Hi Leslie; I actually emailed you just when the meeting started. 31 MS. SPENCER: Oh, great, thank you. 32 MR. BROWN: Thank you. 33 MS. SPENCER: Okay, then we have Theresa Brown. If you'd like to speak, you may unmute 34 yourself now. 35 MS. THERESA BROWN: Hi, thank you. My name is Theresa; I live at 3257 Green Lake Drive. 36 Along with the people that have spoken before me very eloquently have said, I think this particular 37 proposal sets a very bad precedent for the neighborhood. And from the perspective of a tax-paying 38 homeowner in this neighborhood, I am concerned that this property is going to be zoned for renters in 39 perpetuity, like for the foreseeable future. And my family will be living here much longer, you know, ten, 40 13 fifteen, thirty years…much longer than these current tenants. So, it's nothing against these tenants, but I 1 do believe this sets a very bad precedent for the future, that now we have a potential homeowner that can 2 charge for four people, that can advertise for a four-person rental house with the current three-bedroom 3 situation in that house. I think that sets a very bad precedent. 4 Also, I think it's interesting to note that our neighborhood is not around any community 5 amenities…that we have a walkability score of a one out of nine in this neighborhood. It's not a very 6 accessible neighborhood to, you know, you cannot walk to a grocery store, you need a vehicle to live in 7 this neighborhood. And I think saying four adults living in a home necessitates four cars. So I think 8 that's worth underlining. And just to kind of go back to the homeowner's point about the 9 ordinance…we've learned that this house is currently being occupied by four renters, and the not knowing 10 that an ordinance exists is not an excuse. We have to abide by the laws even if we are not aware of them, 11 and I don’t think…I don't think it sets a very fair precedent either, to say, you know, well, if you just…if 12 you're willing to break the law but file this report, well then, that's fine. I think it's a very dangerous thing 13 to go down. And, thank you for your time. 14 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Theresa. Leslie, I'm assuming we still have some additional folks 15 out there that would like to comment, so who's next? 16 MS. SPENCER: Yes, we do, we have four at this point. Sandy is next, and so if you unmute 17 yourself, Sandy, you may speak now. 18 MS. SANDY KING: Hi, my name is Sandy King; I live at 1008 Campfire Drive, I'm just down 19 the street from this residence, and I drive that street most days. And, just to kind of reiterate what so 20 many others have said, it's narrow, and there's already a parking problem. If I'm going down the street 21 and someone is coming the other way, someone is moving over to let us pass. And so, we already have a 22 really extensive parking problem along Campfire Drive. There's a lot of kids that play…it's not…I think 23 more traffic is really going to take away from our neighborhood. 24 Also, we…this is a family neighborhood like most neighborhoods want to be, and having a 25 transient kind of rental property like this where you're having four unrelated people that could be college, 26 could be in and out…it's not conducive to the neighborhood environment that we were looking for when 27 we bought here. My husband and I have lived here with our grandkids for the last seven years, and it is a 28 great place to live, but putting these kind of tenant…almost an apartment within a neighborhood…is 29 going to really deteriorate it, in my opinion. We do comply with the City's density rules…the builders put 30 in the townhomes intermittently along Campfire and Trading Post, and so we have residences that are 31 filling that part of a need, and I just think it sets a very scary precedence to allow people to turn their 32 single-family dwellings into multi-family rental units. So, that's my perspective. I'm also on the board; I 33 don't know if that matters…I'm vice-president on the HOA board, and this is pretty much how the 34 community response has been to this proposal. Thanks for your time. 35 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you Sandy. 36 MS. SPENCER: Zoe Becker is up next. Zoe, if you'll unmute yourself, you may speak now. 37 MR. NOEL RODRIQUEZ: Hi; I'm actually Noel Rodriquez; we're just using Zoe's computer. 38 MS. SPENCER: Oh, okay. 39 14 MR. RODRIQUEZ: I'm a tenant at 738 Campfire Drive, and I just want to comment on…I guess 1 I can split it into two parts. Mostly people's concerns were about the current situation as well as the future 2 situation. So, just to be completely transparent and clear things up for people, the reason we're applying 3 for this permit is because, yes, we did get cited. We moved in in March of this year, and we were here for 4 a few months, and then at some point, we got cited by the City for over-occupancy. So, we talked with 5 our landlord about it and, considering that this was all while the pandemic was beginning to unfold, it was 6 a really scary idea to try to look for a new place, or have to kick someone out to go out into this world 7 with the virus and then try to find a place on their own. So, we worked it out that we would try to apply 8 for this permit. And, going through all the steps with the City, we've found that our house meets all the 9 requirements, and that really there's no reason, on the house itself, for the permit not to be given to this 10 property. 11 And, currently, it seems like people are concerned about the parking issue. Truthfully, we did 12 begin to park two cars out in the street when we first moved in here. Not long after that though, we heard 13 from the HOA and we heard from the City that that wasn't allowed, and we very quickly remedied that. 14 So, we park three cars on the driveway currently and one car on the street, as is allowed. But, if parking 15 is really an issue, we're more than capable of parking two cars in our garage and two cars in our driveway, 16 if that's really what people want us to do. I don't think we really have any issue with the parking, because 17 people are thinking that we're kind of forced to park a car out onto the street…we're not really; we're 18 more than capable of being within our own property without being out onto the street and making that any 19 more congested than it already is. 20 As far as the traffic issues go, yes, maybe sometimes traffic is fast, but we're at the very entrance 21 to the neighborhood, so really the only houses that are impacted there are just along that stretch…about 22 eight or nine or ten houses just along the entrance there. So, again, if the parking is an issue, the 23 tenants…us as tenants, or any future tenants, we have the space available to park all our cars on the 24 property and not have any cars out on the street if that's what the HOA, if that's what the City needs us to 25 do. 26 And then, for future consideration, it just seems like a lot of people are worried about more 27 investors coming in and creating more opportunities for extra occupancy. With the zoning, if I'm correct, 28 I think the zoning…the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood…I think it only allows up to five 29 occupants at the max for extra occupancy. Is that right Will? 30 MR. LINDSAY: So, the extra occupancy use can go four or more in the Low-Density Mixed-Use 31 zone district. So, it's any time you increase occupancy to four or more, so there isn't specifically a 32 limitation on the number of occupants within the Land Use Code definition for the use, but it is governed 33 by…or regulated by those standards that I outlined because it's based on the amount of square footage 34 available, the amount of parking that can be provided, and those things as well. And those are the things 35 that really limit the number of occupants…the extra occupancy. 36 MR. RODRIQUEZ: Okay, thanks. Yeah, so, I mean as you can see from what we're doing here, 37 anybody that wants to apply for this permit has to go through this very intense process, so it's not like 38 anyone that wanted to apply for it just gets it right off the bat; they have to follow the same regulations, 39 they have to go through the same process, pay the same fees. And, I mean judging from the response 40 we're getting from the neighborhood, it could happen to any other person that wants to get a permit as 41 well. So, if we were to get the permit for this house, I don't think that would make it any easier for any 42 other investors to get the same permit in the future. Looking at CSU's list of extra occupancy homes in 43 15 Fort Collins, there's really only about 30 in the entirety of the city, that I saw from the list. So, whether 1 that's from lack of people applying, or just from how it is with the process, it's not like everybody is 2 getting this permit. So, it wouldn’t be any easier…or they wouldn't start popping up in the neighborhood 3 just because one house gets the permit in the future. 4 And just one final point, all these issues that have been pointed out, they…it seems like people 5 are worried that these issues come about because there would be four people here, and I mean, it may be 6 true that with more people here, we can get more issues, but the same issues also happen with homes with 7 fewer occupants. There could still be parking issues if people have more than one vehicle, there can still 8 be overcrowding issues if, you know, a family has a lot of children, or they have to host another family 9 member for a while, or anything like that. So, not to devalue anyone's comments or anything. I 10 understand everyone's comments, and I respect everyone's opinions, but those are just some points I 11 wanted to bring up to hopefully clarify and maybe change people's opinions on that. And, we're more 12 than willing to answer anyone else's questions or concerns if they want to bring anything else up. So, I 13 believe that's all we have. 14 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Mr. Rodriquez. Leslie, do we have some more participants with 15 their hand raised? 16 MS. SPENCER: We do; we have five, and Debra Parker is up. So Debra, if you'd like to unmute 17 yourself, you may speak now. 18 MS. DEBRA PETERSON: Hello; so my name is actually Debra Peterson, and I live at 3421 19 Wagon Trail Road here in Fort Collins, and I am also on the HOA board. And I do also disagree with the 20 extra occupancy part about the same reasons as everybody has said…and a lot of it is on the enforcement 21 that the HOA…we really have difficulty enforcing some of the properties that have like a nonexistent 22 landlord, where you can't get ahold of them, they don't come into compliance. It really has become an 23 issue in the past, and I personally feel that the extra occupancy…I know the idea behind it all is to make it 24 more affordable to live, but I feel in the long run it actually does not do that; it artificially inflates 25 property values so it makes it more difficult for families to actually purchase a home. And it also makes 26 it more difficult for families to rent a home because a landlord can charge more if they have individuals 27 that they rent to. So, that's just part of that…I definitely am opposed to this. The parking is a nightmare, 28 the list goes on. And we are starting to establish several rentals in the neighborhood, and so, it does set a 29 precedent, and I would just hate to see it engulf us. So, that's it…thank you. 30 MS. SPENCER: Debra, it was really difficult to understand you; there was some interference in 31 the background, so if you said your address, I did not get it. If you could unmute yourself again. 32 MS. PETERSON: 3421 Wagon Trail Road, Fort Collins. 33 MS. SPENCER: Wagon Trail Road did you say? 34 MS. PETERSON: Yes. 35 MS. SPENCER: Okay, I think I got it…3421 Wagon Trail Road? 36 MS. PETERSON: Yes. 37 16 MS. SPENCER: Okay, thank you. 1 MS. PETERSON: Thank you. 2 MS. SPENCER: Okay, next we have Zoe Becker. Zoe, if you could unmute yourself, you may 3 speak now. 4 MS. ZOE BECKER: Hi, we just talked…Noel just talked. 5 MS. SPENCER: Oh, okay, alright…then we have Joe Ostroski up next. Joe, if you'd unmute 6 yourself, you may speak now. 7 MR. JOE OSTROSKI: Hi, thank you. Can you hear me? 8 MS. SPENCER: Yes. 9 MR. OSTROSKI: Hi, thanks, my name is Joe Ostroski; I live at 1020 Campfire Drive, the other 10 end of the block, just adjacent to Greenfields. And I guess my comment, or what I'd like to share, is that, 11 in this particular case, you know, I support the petition to increase the occupancy at this home. I think the 12 folks that live there now have demonstrated to be, you know, good neighbors, take good care of the home. 13 And my sense is that what peoples' concerns are, and certainly love our neighbors and I was on our HOA 14 board previously, respect everyone's concerns…my sense is that the concerns have nothing to do with 15 tenants or not tenants, or occupancy in general. Issues with parking and traffic and speeding and lawn 16 care…you know, the City and our HOA have covenants I guess to protect the integrity of the 17 neighborhood in that respect, so I don't feel like we should punish tenants just because they're tenants. 18 And if the issue is parking or speeding, there's other ways to address that. As Candyce mentioned, you 19 know, petitioning for speed bumps the City denied based on traffic patterns. So, I feel like we shouldn't 20 discriminate against tenants just because they're tenants, and in this case as an example, have a minority 21 voice in the opinion of a neighborhood. I think we should, you know, let folks…you know, if we allow 22 families to live in a household of six, or seven, or five, we should maintain the same leniency for tenants 23 as long as they follow all of the City ordinances and all of the neighborhood covenants, which these 24 tenants have proven to do, and I really commend them for speaking out…you know, kind of against the 25 majority in terms of opinion. 26 MS. SPENCER: Thank you Joe. We have Candyce Edelen and Jenny Marquart who have 27 already spoken, so…we also have Doug Clark. So, Doug, if you'd unmute yourself, you may speak now. 28 MR. DOUG CLARK: Yes, this is Doug Clark. My wife and I live at 827 Ridge Runner. I would 29 just like to say that the real concern here…I think of almost everyone who has spoken…is that once this 30 door is opened with one home in this particular subdivision, then…to use another illustration…the horse 31 is out of the barn and down the road. And, I don't believe that the City of Fort Collins is going to refrain 32 from approving additional permits to have this kind of housing in this neighborhood regardless of what 33 the current residents might want at that particular time. I think that for them to do that…for them to try to 34 hold the line after approving one house, runs the very real possibility that the City could be sued by a 35 prospective owner who wants that kind of a variance. And if the City tries to oppose it, then they could 36 be sued on grounds of prejudice, prejudicial decision, or some other reason that a judge would find very, 37 very difficult to deny the permit begin given. 38 17 I'm just really concerned that, as others have expressed, the character of this entire neighborhood 1 is going to change. There does not seem to be a limit on how many people could potentially live in a 2 house, there's no limitation on the size of vehicles that could be parked there…if you have three people in 3 the house who all have Ford 150 trucks, you've got a parking problem even if it does meet the technical 4 requirements. And I just think that we are letting the camel get his nose inside the tent, and there's 5 nobody that's going to be able to prevent it from making its way entirely inside the tent once we've done 6 with one permit like this. So, thank you. 7 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Doug. Leslie, who else do we have for public comment? 8 MS. SPENCER: We have Candyce Edelen and Jenny Marquart. 9 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, and I believe…I think I have in my notes…so I think Jenny has already 10 addressed us, and Candyce as well, right? Candyce is the president of the HOA? 11 MS. SPENCER: Correct. 12 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, 13 MS. SPENCER: They've both spoken. 14 MR. MCASKIN: Great. Is there anybody on the call that has not yet provided comment that 15 would like to? 16 MS. SPENCER: Jackie Sacks and Linde and Joan just raised their hands. 17 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, Leslie, thank you. Why don't you go ahead and call them in order then. 18 MS. SPENCER: Okay, Jackie, if you unmute yourself now, you may speak. 19 MS. JACKIE SACKS: Hello, I'm Jackie Sacks. I live at 927 Campfire Drive, and I oppose this 20 proposal. We just moved into the neighborhood this past February. We moved here specifically because 21 it was one of the most affordable neighborhoods in Fort Collins for our family. We have two young 22 children who play outside every single day. We've noticed that since more of these homes have been 23 purchased by investors over this past year, there's been more traffic in the neighborhood. This particular 24 house, too, has cars in the front all the time, parked in the street. It's hard to even just pull into the 25 neighborhood off of Vine, because both sides of the street are full of cars, so one car has to move over 26 typically, for another car to pass. It's a very high-speed road on Vine, so people come turning into the 27 neighborhood pretty fast as it is. I think just allowing this to happen, in general…I mean, are we 28 rewarding bad behavior? They obviously broke a rule and now they're looking for basically a reward for 29 it. I think that in the future this landlord…which he says he may move back in…but we can't trust 30 anyone's word on…we don't know what his intentions are. He can now advertise this as a per-room 31 rental, so this can attract a different type of renter to the neighborhood. So, now instead of having a nice 32 family living in the neighborhood, we may have four college kids who have parties and typically have 33 four boyfriends over, and then their friends as well, and they park down the street. We actually have this 34 problem at a house two doors down from us. So, I just…I really oppose this. I hope this doesn't pass; I 35 think it ruins the character of our neighborhood. To me, if there's an affordability issue, they shouldn’t 36 have been renting a house in a neighborhood for families. There are many other options in Fort Collins; it 37 18 may be an apartment, it may be an older home. I don't think that's really our problem and I don't think the 1 residents of Trailhead need to be punished for it. This definitely allows a precedent and so I'd like to see 2 this fail and not go forward. 3 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Jackie, and Leslie, I think you said there were maybe a couple 4 additional folks that haven't yet had an opportunity to speak. 5 MS. SPENCER: Yes, we have Linde and Joan, and Linde is up first. So, I hope I'm pronouncing 6 your name right…if you want to unmute yourself, you may speak now. 7 MS. GINA LINDE: Did it unmute? 8 MS. SPENCER: Yes. 9 MS. LINDE: It's actually Gina Linde…I checked in with my last name. I'm at 808 Campfire 10 Drive. I won't take up a lot of time here; everybody has made really good points about why not to. I 11 totally don't want this to happen. These people are nice, but for all the reasons of what's going to happen 12 in the future, I just don't want to open up our neighborhood to having over-rented houses. I think the rule 13 is in place works very well. I've lived in Boulder, Colorado and Fort Collins, both college towns, and I've 14 been both a real estate landlord and resident, and as a landlord, I rented to so many students, and they're 15 destructive and noisy. And, so these guys are nice, but I definitely don't want to see this happen. Sorry. 16 That's it. 17 MR. MCASKIN: And, Ms. Linde, you said your first name…was it Jenny? 18 MS. LINDE: Gina – G-I-N-A. 19 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. And Leslie, do we have some more folks out there with their 20 hands raised? Well, I see somebody identified…at least on my screen…I'm showing somebody identified 21 as Joan. 22 MS. JOAN FERGUSON: Yes, can you hear me? 23 MR. MCASKIN: Yes. 24 MS. FERGUSON: Okay, thank you. My name is Joan Ferguson; I live at 802…with my husband 25 at 802 Ridge Runner Drive, which is right around the corner from the house that's in question. We also 26 oppose this proposal for all the reasons that have already been mentioned by my neighbors. But, another 27 point that I just want to bring up is that this sets the precedent to turn our single-family homes into 28 apartments, and that will change…as I understand it, at least for this property, and for the foreseeable 29 future, the whole context of where we live and where we purchased into our neighborhood. So, I 30 appreciate my neighbors for all getting on the call tonight and supporting the opposition for this proposal. 31 Thank you. 32 MS. SPENCER: Okay, we have Brian now. Brian, if you'd like to unmute yourself, you may 33 speak. 34 MR. BRIAN GROSSMAN: Yeah, hi, I'm Brian Grossman; I live at 3274 Green Lake Drive. I'd 35 like to sidestep the main thrust of the conversation and ask, if this is granted, can it be granted for only 36 19 one year? That would have the advantage of dealing with the pandemic issue and also addressing the 1 long-term effects. I'm done. 2 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Mr. Grossman. Let's go ahead and take the balance of public 3 comment and then I will ask staff to respond to that question about a duration restriction on the extra 4 occupancy application. So, Leslie, who else out there has their hand raised that has not yet had an 5 opportunity to comment? 6 MS. SPENCER: No one does at this point, Marcus. There are no hands raised now. 7 MR. MCASKIN: Okay. For everybody…well, yeah…I would just like to know for everybody on 8 the call, if you have not yet had an opportunity to comment and you would like to do so, please raise your 9 hand. And I'm going to let Leslie just check that waiting room here for a minute. 10 MS. SPENCER: Candyce has her hand raised, but I think she's already spoken. 11 MR. MCASKIN: That's what I'm showing in my notes. Is there anybody that has not yet had an 12 opportunity to participate that would like to? 13 MS. SPENCER: I don't see anyone Marcus. 14 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, so just for the record, I will note again that we opened the public 15 comment portion of the hearing tonight at 8:15 PM and I will go ahead and close the public comment 16 portion of the hearing at 9:08 PM. And, at this point, I would like to turn it back over to City staff and the 17 applicant. It sounds like, you know, the majority of the concerns I think are focused on, you know, the 18 precedent that this would set in the neighborhood together with I think some important concerns about 19 street parking, and snow plowing, and sight triangles, and pedestrian or bicyclist safety. 20 But, I don't know…I know that you highlighted this in your staff report for my benefit, Will, but 21 you might want to talk a little bit about the limitation on this type of use within this zone district, and I'm 22 talking about the block face limitation…just so that folks on the call understand that restriction. 23 And then, we did have that question from Mr. Grossman at the end about whether this can be 24 granted for a limited duration. It's my understanding that the Code does not have any provision that 25 would grant me authority to do that. However, there would be no limitation on the owners of the property 26 seeking to essentially come back in and change the certificate of occupancy back to a non-extra 27 occupancy CO. But, that's…that…you know, I'm not in this every day, you are, so I want to give you an 28 opportunity to respond to that question. 29 MR. LINDSAY: Yeah, no…I think you characterized it correctly Mr. McAskin, that on the City 30 side of things, we cannot impose a time limit or duration onto a specific use once permitted. There are 31 certain uses which specifically require a licensure process, like the short-term rental or home occupation 32 licenses, that require renewal and, you know, once expired…if expired and then not renewed, then that 33 use, you know, ceases. But, in this instance, there is no licensure requirement; it is an entitlement that 34 would stay with the property itself. But, as you said, that's not to say that there isn't anything preventing 35 the property owner from entering into something like a good neighbor agreement, or some kind of 36 agreement with, you know, we have many representatives from the HOA here tonight…some sort of 37 agreement between the property owner and their HOA to limit the term of this use privately for, you 38 20 know, to the next year, for as long as he is the owner, and to, like you said, he could seek to get a single-1 family occupancy, certificate of occupancy, after this lease has expired, essentially, if it were to be 2 granted…the extra occupancy. 3 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you for that. And I suppose there's nothing that would prohibit the 4 City Council at some point from converting the extra occupancy program, or approval mechanism, into 5 something that would fall more into that annual licensure world, right? That would be City-level 6 legislation that would have to be… 7 MR. LINDSAY: I'm glad you brought that up, because, yeah, that is like a high-level change, but 8 it is something that, yeah, that would require kind of a City-wide conversation to make that type of 9 change. 10 MR. MCASKIN: Similarly, it's my understanding that there are certain zone districts within the 11 city that do not permit this type of use…certain residential zone districts. The zone district that this 12 property is located in does authorize this type of use subject to the hearing that we're having tonight. So, 13 another potential legislative change, high-level change, that could be made, would be for folks that are 14 located in this neighborhood or this zone district to talk to their City Council member about removing 15 extra occupancy uses from this zone district. But again, that would take City-level, you know, legislation, 16 to make that type of change. 17 Explain to me why…and I'm curious because in some zone districts, it's even easier for folks to 18 apply for this type of use. Because I note that in some zone districts, this is subject to a basic 19 development review and is not scheduled for a hearing…do you know any of the background about how 20 and why that sort of distinction was ultimately made between some of these competing…or not 21 competing…but some of these different zone districts? 22 MR. LINDSAY: Well, I think it has primarily to do with the fact that, outside of the Low-Density 23 Mixed-Use zone district, which requires a Type I hearing, what you see is the more intensive residential 24 zone districts, like the Medium-Density Mixed-Use, High-Density Mixed-Use, the Downtown zone 25 district, some of the Commercial zone districts, that allow this kind of approval specifically for four to 26 five occupants…or, no, I should say four occupants. In those other zone districts that I just mentioned, 27 the administrative review is required for five or more, so this, you know Type I process does exist for 28 those districts as well, but I think it's more to do with the intent of the districts themselves and the fact 29 that this is low-density, but being Low-Density Mixed-Use, and the intent there is to allow some 30 flexibility in, you know, an increase in density in select locations and when appropriate, and the provision 31 of things like extra occupancy, allowing the flexibility to do short-term rental…these are all seen as uses 32 that can help alleviate some of the issues related to affordability within the city. 33 And I mean, this has been a use permitted…a permitted use subject to the Type I administrative 34 hearing within this zone district for at least the last ten years. But I think, given just the 35 predominant…like everyone has mentioned the fact that these have historically ben predominately single-36 family areas, we haven't seen a lot of this occur in these established single-family neighborhoods. But, 37 there are instances where it has been approved. I know Rigden Farm, for example, which is another Low-38 Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, very similar lot sizes and building footprints to portions of this 39 neighborhood, has, I think, three or so extra occupancy rental homes that have been approved there within 40 the past five years. 41 21 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. And, do you have any additional information at this point to 1 add in response to some of the concerns and issues that were raised? 2 MR. LINDSAY: Well, I think…I would say that, you know, these are all valid concerns, and I 3 think the response that we've seen tonight in opposition to this project highlights the love that people have 4 for this part of the city and for their neighborhood, but I think I would agree with what I believe it was 5 Mr. Ostroski mentioned, is that, you know, there is the issues related to this extra occupancy application 6 and whether they can meet the standards on the site to be granted the extra occupancy approval, and 7 then…but that's a domino effect that people sense could occur with setting a precedent to enable, you 8 know, those rental properties that already exist in the neighborhood to increase their occupancy for, you 9 know, other outside investors to come in and buy up property and increase the occupancy. 10 Related to that, I think this is, you know, what you alluded to, and something that's important to 11 highlight, is the fact that within the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and other zone districts that 12 allow extra occupancy, there is a limitation in place to say that no more than 25% of lots along any block 13 face can be permitted for extra occupancy. How you define a block face is, you know, there's some 14 interpretation there, but in this instance, we have what clearly reads to me as a block face of eight homes, 15 so that's to say that potentially no more than two of these homes on this portion of Campfire Drive could 16 be approved for extra occupancy. And so, that limitation is in place to prevent this kind of wholesale, 17 widespread scenario where, you know, outside investors could start buying up property after property 18 after property all right next to each other. So, I hope that gives some people some reassurance about, you 19 know, that scenario and how that would play out. I think, oftentimes when you extrapolate out what 20 seems like this worse-case scenario, it becomes so huge and scary…but there are things in place to 21 prevent that from happening. I would also just highlight…I mean, obviously there are rentals already 22 existing in the neighborhood, you know…rentals…I mean this whole stretch of Campfire Drive could be 23 rentals, and from a Development Review and City Planning perspective, you know, there's not much that 24 we…there is nothing within the Development Review process that we could use to enforce any kind of 25 standards on those properties so long as they are within the occupancy limitation and they're, you know, 26 respecting the Municipal Code and things like that. 27 I think a lot of the issues that people have highlighted about traffic, those are things…and I 28 understand traffic is not a unique issue just to Trailhead, it's something that we hear about city-wide and 29 the impacts that population growth has had on traffic throughout the city, and the rollover effect that it has 30 on neighborhoods like this. But, you know, related to on-street parking, that kind of thing, we have a 31 Traffic Code in place to deal with the enforcement of on-street parking and to make sure that that is not 32 abused by anybody, renters or you know, just traditional families living in single-family homes. So, those 33 are all things that I would just point out to people…and so I would just ask that when we think about this 34 project in particular, you know, my job as a staff member is to evaluate if they've met our standards 35 within the Land Use Code, and we've found that they have. And whether or not this causes…creates this 36 ripple effect throughout the entire neighborhood, I can't predict that. I think that the standards that we 37 have in place will help mitigate that to the extent reasonably feasible. 38 MR. MCASKIN: Well, thank you Will for those comments, and I think I would piggy-back on 39 one of your earlier observations, which is I'm really impressed by the level of turnout from this 40 neighborhood. It shows me that people really care about the Trailhead subdivision and about what's 41 going on there. So, I want to thank…I know that everybody is extremely, you know, busy, these days, 42 and it's hard to carve out time to attend a virtual hearing like this, but I thank you because I do…it's 43 22 important for me to hear all of these comments and concerns and take those into consideration when I'm 1 reviewing the materials that are in my file. 2 So, with that, I do want to…Mr. Huynh as the property owner, you also have the ability at this 3 point to respond to any of the comments and concerns that you've heard, and I want to give you the 4 opportunity to do that if you're still on the call with us? 5 MR. HUYNH: Yes…hello…can you hear me? 6 MR. MCASKIN: We can hear you; go ahead sir. 7 MR. HUYNH: Yes, yeah there's a couple concerns that I want to, you know, talk to the neighbors 8 too…I mean, so…right now, I just want to make it right; that's why I want to apply for this process. But I 9 mean, like, there…one of the person…I forgot his name that mentioned about…that's because I charge 10 too high. But, I mean, like before I…rent this property out, I already went on the market and looked at 11 the price of that, and that’s not just these people asking for it, rent my property. You know, if I just rent it 12 out to a family of three people, you know, I mean then it's going to be no problem, then I don't have to go 13 through all the process. I mean, I go through this process…it's really hard, and it's like time-consuming 14 and everything. I already put a lot of effort to try to make it right, you know…I just want to follow the 15 rules. I just don't want to upset anybody; I just don't want to offend anything. But you know, when I 16 bought this property, I don't know that this property always been a rental property too, and I bought it 17 from property…myself, and as I said at first, you know, I just want to make it right. You know, if I don't 18 get approved on this project, who knows later on I still rent it out for just a normal family person of three, 19 and it's not going to be a problem. You think add on one person into the whole community, it's going to 20 be a big problem for everybody like this? I don't think it's going to be a big problem. Plus, my tenant 21 right now is extremely nice, and they are really good tenants; that's the reason why I'm doing everything 22 for them. Thank you so much. 23 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you Mr. Huynh. So, we have…we've had public comment and I've 24 heard from staff and the applicant. So, for those of you that were not perhaps on the call when I went 25 through the…some of the introductory comments…I am required under the Land Use Code to issue a 26 decision on this item within ten business days of the conclusion of the hearing, so again, thank you all for 27 participating this evening. I appreciate all of the comments and I will take…I should note for the record 28 that in addition to everybody that has participated in the hearing tonight, I have been provided with I 29 believe a lot of written comments from folks that maybe were not able to make it tonight, and as well 30 some audio files. So, I will be reviewing those materials as well and then issuing a decision. And, if 31 Leslie has your contact information, you will be receiving a copy of that decision in due course. So, with 32 that, I will close the public hearing on this item, which is the 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Rental 33 House application, at 9:25 PM, and thank you all again for being here tonight. Take Care. 34 ATTACHMENT 7 Link to Video Administrative Hearing December 10, 2020 https://youtu.be/T0PojsgU564 ATTACHMENT 8 Hearing Officer Decision December 18, 2020 1 CITY OF FORT COLLINS TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS AND DECISION HEARING DATE: December 10, 2020 PROJECT NAME: 738 Campfire Drive – Extra Occupancy Rental House CASE NUMBER: FDP #200018 APPLICANT/OWNER: Jonathan Huynh 2908 Crusader St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 HEARING OFFICER: Marcus A. McAskin PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a combined Project Development Plan/Final Development Plan to add Extra Occupancy to a rental house as a permitted use for the existing single-family dwelling located at 738 Campfire Drive, parcel no. 8704305006 (the “Subject Property”) for up to four (4) occupants. The Subject Property is located north of East Vine Drive on the east side of Campfire Drive, and is legally described as: LOT 6, BLOCK 1, TRAILHEAD SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO BACKGROUND: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved. ZONE DISTRICT: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the virtual hearing on Thursday, December 10, 2020 at approximately 7:51 p.m. and reviewed the Order of Proceedings and Rules of Conduct for Administrative Hearings with the Applicant and members of the public present. EVIDENCE: Prior to or at the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following documents as part of the record of this proceeding: North South East West Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Low Density Residential (RL) Land Use Single-family houses on the same block face Single-family houses on the same block face Vacant/Stormwater Detention area Currently Undeveloped (Single- Family Dwellings Proposed) 2 1. Development Review Staff Report prepared for 738 Campfire Drive - Extra Occupancy Rental House (FDP200018), attached hereto as ATTACHMENT A. 2. Applicant Narrative. 3. Site Plan (1 sheet). 4. Floor Plan Designations. 5. Bicycle Parking Photos. 6. Four recorded voicemails (in opposition to the Extra Occupancy application). 7. Thirty-two (32) emails (28 in opposition to the Extra Occupancy application; 4 in support of application). 8. Confirmation that the Subject Property was posted with a Hearing Notice (on or about September 21, 2020, Sign #572). 9. A copy of Written Notice of Public Hearing dated November 25, 2020. 10. Confirmation of Publication (Ad# 0004484064) evidencing proof of publication of Notice of Hearing in the Fort Collins Coloradan on November 25, 2020. 11. A copy of the Planning Department PowerPoint prepared for the December 10, 2020 hearing. 12. The City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Code, and the formally promulgated ordinances and polices of the City are all considered part of the record considered by the Hearing Officer. 13. Rules of Conduct for Administrative Hearings. 14. Administrative (Type 1) Order of Proceedings. TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the hearing: From the City: Will Lindsey, Associate City Planner From the Applicant: Jonathan Huynh 2908 Crusader St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 From the Public: Attached hereto as ATTACHMENT B The public comment portion of the hearing was opened at approximately 8:15 p.m. The public comment portion of the hearing was closed at approximately 9:08 p.m. The virtual hearing was closed at approximately 9:15 p.m. 3 FINDINGS 1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that notice of the virtual public hearing was properly posted, mailed and published. 2. As required by City Council Ordinance 079, Series 2020 (the “City Ordinance”), the Hearing Officer, in consultation with City staff, determined that it was desirable to conduct the hearing by remote technology so as to provide reasonably available participation by parties-in-interest and by the public, consistent with the requirements of the City Ordinance, because meeting in person would not be prudent for some or all persons due to a public health emergency. 3. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials in the record of this case, the Hearing Officer concludes as follows: a. The Application complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Code. b. Section 3.8.16(E)(1) of the Code permits an increase in applicable occupancy limits for single-family and two-family dwellings, pursuant to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for use as an extra occupancy rental house in zones allowing such use. c. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) zone district permits extra occupancy rental houses. Specifically, Section 4.5(B)(2)(a)(8) of the Code permits extra occupancy rental houses with four (4) or more tenants in the L-M-N zone district, subject to administrative review. d. The Application conforms to the occupancy limits and separation requirements set forth in the table included in Section 3.8.28(A) of the Code. e. The Application satisfies the bicycle parking requirements set forth in Section 3.2.2(C)(4) of the Code. f. The Application complies with the off-street parking requirements set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(j) of the Code, in that three dedicated parking spaces are provided. Per the Code, if such lot has less than sixty-five (65) feet of street frontage length on any one (1) street and does not abut an alley, then one (1) of the required parking spaces may be aligned in a manner that does not provide direct access to the abutting street. 4. The Application’s satisfaction of the applicable Article 2, 3 and 4 Code requirements is sufficiently detailed in the Staff Report, a copy of which is attached hereto as ATTACHMENT A which is part of the record of this proceeding. 4 DECISION Based on the findings set forth above, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following ruling: The Application (738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Rental House, FDP200018) is approved for the Subject Property in the form submitted. The Applicant/Owner is authorized to apply for a change of use building permit (to ensure that the Subject Property complies with all applicable City building and rental housing codes). DATED this 18th day of December, 2020. ___________________________________________ Marcus A. McAskin Hearing Officer 5 ATTACHMENT A Staff Report 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Rental House (FDP200018) Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 2 of 2 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Administrative Hearing: December 10, 2020 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Rental House #FDP200018 Summary of Request This is a combined Project Development Plan/Final Development Plan to add Extra Occupancy as a permitted use in an existing single-family dwelling for up to four occupants. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved by the Hearing Officer, the applicant will be eligible to apply for a building permit and Certificate of Occupancy. Site Location 738 Campfire Drive in the Trail Head neighborhood. Parcel #8704305006. Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). Property Owner Jonathan Huynh 2908 Crusader St Fort Collins, CO 80524 Applicant/Representative Same as Owner Staff Will Lindsey, Associate City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Land Use Code Article 2 ............................ 3 3. Land Use Code Article 3 ............................ 4 4. Land Use Code Article 4 ............................ 6 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 7 6. Recommendation ....................................... 7 7. Attachments ............................................... 7 Staff Recommendation Approval of the FDP200018 Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 2 of 7 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The proposal is to add Extra Occupancy for up to four occupants as a use of the single-family dwelling at 738 Campfire Drive. • The existing house, driveway and garage accommodate the proposed extra occupancy. • The property provides and exceeds the required habitable floor area for the proposed four occupants. 1,400 sq. ft. are required; 2,164 sq. ft. are provided. • The property is within the LMN zoning district which permits the use subject to Administrative Review and hearing by a Hearing Officer. B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND 1. Subject Property The house was built in 2012 within the 2004 Trail Head Block 1 Filing. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Low Density Residential (RL) Land Use Single-family houses on the same block face Single-family houses on the same block face Vacant/Stormwater Detention area Currently Undeveloped (Single-Family Dwellings Proposed) C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The single main consideration in this case was off-street parking, as is typical of extra occupancy proposals. The applicant is utilizing the parking arrangement allowed by the code wherein a lot with less than 65 feet of street frontage, and which does not abut an alley than one of the required parking spaces may be aligned in a manner that does not provide direct access to the abutting street (see attached site plan and details below). D. CITY PLAN The City’s comprehensive plan (2019 City Plan) was updated with the participation of thousands of community members and embodies the vision and values of the community for the future. It does not specifically address issues of occupancy. A significant theme in the plan is encouraging more housing options in general. For example, Policy LIV 5.6 on p. 42 states: “EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS: Expand housing options in existing neighborhoods (where permitted by underlying zoning) by encouraging: Infill development on vacant and underutilized lots; Internal ADUs such as basement or upstairs apartments; Detached ADUs on lots of sufficient size; and Duplexes, townhomes or other alternatives to detached single-family homes that are compatible with the scale and mass of adjacent properties.” Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 3 of 7 Back to Top The plan designates this part of the Trail Head neighborhood as “Mixed Neighborhood” land use designation, which is characterized by a mixture of housing types. The following excerpt from p.98 in City Plan gives a sense of the main ideas for land uses in that designation: Principal Land Use Single-family detached homes, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes Supporting Land Use ADUs, small scale multifamily buildings, small-scale retail, restaurants/cafes, community and public facilities, parks and recreational facilities, schools, places of worship Key Characteristics/Considerations (Existing Neighborhoods) • While many existing Mixed-Neighborhoods may consist predominantly of single-family detached homes today, opportunities to incorporate ADUs or other attached housing options of a compatible scale and intensity may be feasible in some locations. • The introduction of larger townhome or multifamily developments into existing single-family neighborhoods should generally be limited to edge or corner parcels that abut and/or are oriented toward arterial streets or an adjacent Neighborhood Mixed-Use District where transit and other services and amenities are available. • Where townhomes or multifamily buildings are proposed in an existing neighborhood context, a transition in building height, massing and form should be required along the shared property line or street frontage. • As existing neighborhoods change and evolve over time, rezoning of some areas may be appropriate when paired with a subarea or neighborhood planning initiative. See the Priority Place Types discussion on page 107 for more details about changes in existing neighborhoods over time. • While reinvestment in existing mobile home parks is encouraged, redevelopment of existing parks is not. 2. Land Use Code Article 2 A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review – CDR200060 A conceptual review meeting was held on August 13, 2020. 2. First Submittal The PDP was submitted on September 18, 2020 3. Neighborhood Meeting Pursuant to LUC Section 2.2.2 – Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings, a neighborhood meeting is not required for Administrative Hearing (Type 1) projects and no meeting was held. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: September 21, 2020, Sign #572. Written Hearing Notice: November 25, 2020, 348 addresses mailed. Published Hearing Notice: Scheduled for October 20, 2020. Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 4 of 7 Back to Top 3. Land Use Code Article 3 Because the plan involves existing development which comports with the Land Use Code standards, only a few standards specific to Extra Occupancy pertain in this case. A. DIVISION 3.2 – SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking – General Standard This code Section requires secure, convenient, efficient parking and circulation improvements that add to the attractiveness of the development. • The existing subdivision development provides a parking and circulation system consistent with the standard. • The plan provides specific required parking per the subsections noted below. Complies 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking Space Requirements This plan is required to provide 1 bicycle parking space per bed. • An indoor fixed bicycle parking rack provides the required three bicycle parking spaces with the necessary maneuvering space of 5 feet wide by 2.5 feet deep in the garage. Complies 3.2.2(K)(1)(j) – Required Number of Off- Street Spaces Extra occupancy rental house uses are required to provide 0.75 parking spaces per tenant, rounded up to the nearest whole parking space, plus one (1) additional parking space if the extra occupancy rental house is owner-occupied. 3 spaces are required in this case. • 3 dedicated parking spaces are provided. Per the code, if such lot has less than sixty-five (65) feet of street frontage length on any one (1) street and does not abut an alley, then one (1) of the required parking spaces may be aligned in a manner that does not provide direct access to the abutting street. Complies Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 5 of 7 Back to Top B. DIVISION 3.8 – SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.8.16 – Occupancy Limits – Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed Subsection (E)(1) states “with respect to single-family and two-family dwellings, the number of persons allowed under this Section may be increased by the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for use as an extra occupancy rental house in zones allowing such use.” The proposed plan is to increase the occupancy of a single-family dwelling. If approved the applicant will submit a building permit application. Upon compliance with any building code and the approval of this application a new certificate of occupancy will be issued. Complies via the proposed plan in the LMN zone 3.8.28 – Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations This Section contains requirements for extra occupancy in single-family detached dwellings. 350 square feet of habitable floor space is required for each tenant plus an additional 400 square feet if the dwelling is owner- occupied. • 1,400 sq. ft. are required for the proposed four occupants; 2,164 sq. ft. of habitable space are provided in the existing dwelling. No more than 25% of parcels on a block face may be approved for extra occupancy rental house use. • No other Extra Occupancy Rental Houses are approved on the block face. Complies Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 6 of 7 Back to Top 4. Land Use Code Article 4 A. DIVISION 4.5 – LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (LMN) The LMN zone district was created in 1997 as part of the City’s comprehensive plan and has been re- established in subsequent updates. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.5(A) - Purpose This Section states: “Purpose. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood.” Complies as a part of the overall Trail Head development 4.5(B) - Permitted Uses Extra occupancy rental houses with four or more tenants are permitted with review and a public hearing by an administrative hearing officer. Complies Administrative Hearing FDP200018 | 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 7 of 7 Back to Top 5.Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy #FDP200018, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1.The Project Development Plan/Final Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2.The plan complies with pertinent standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. 3.The plan complies with Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood in Article 4. 6.Recommendation Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer approve 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy #FDP200018 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report. 7.Attachments 1.Applicant Narrative 2.Site Plan 3.Floor Plan Info 4.Bicycle Parking Photos 5.Public Comments ATTACHMENT B 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy Rental House (FDP200018) Attendees who provided testimony at the 738 Campfire Dr Extra Occupancy Administrative Hearing on December 10, 2020 Bruce Holbert* 3262 Green Lake Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Candyce Edelen* 3209 Glacier Creek Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Kim Weisser* 709 Elgin Court Fort Collins, CO 80524 Rosemary Beauvais* 3336 Green Lake Drive, Unit 2 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jenny Marquart* 3415 Wagon Trail Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jeanne* and Kevin McDonald 732 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Joseph* and Theresa* Brown 3257 Green Lake Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Sandy King* 1008 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Noel Rodriquez* Zoe Becker 738 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Joe Ostroski* 1020 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Doug Clark* 827 Ridge Runner Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jeremy and Jackie* Sacks 927 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Gina Linde* 808 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Joan Ferguson* 802 Ridge Runner Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Brian Grossman* 3274 Green Lake Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Debra Parker* 3421 Wagon Trail Road Fort Collins CO 80524 * Denotes the person who provided testimony. ATTACHMENT 9 Requests for Decision Report Sign in Sheet for those who want to receive the Decision Report 738 Campfire Dr Extra Occupancy Administrative Hearing--12/10/20 Bruce Holbert* 3262 Green Lake Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Candyce Edelen* 3209 Glacier Creek Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Kim Weisser* 709 Elgin Court Fort Collins, CO 80524 Rosemary Beauvais* 3336 Green Lake Drive, Unit 2 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jenny Marquart* 3415 Wagon Trail Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jeanne* and Kevin McDonald 732 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Joseph* and Theresa* Brown 3257 Green Lake Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Sandy King* 1008 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Noel Rodriquez* Zoe Becker 738 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Joe Ostroski* 1020 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Doug Clark* 827 Ridge Runner Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jeremy and Jackie* Sacks 927 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Gina Linde* 808 Campfire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Joan Ferguson* 802 Ridge Runner Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Brian Grossman* 3274 Green Lake Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Myles Crane 4913 Langdale Court Fort Collins, CO 80526 Jeff Rubinstein 3398 Wagon Trail Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Applicant/Owner: Jonathan Huynh 2908 Crusader Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Debra Parker* 3421 Wagon Trail Road Fort Collins CO 80524 ATTACHMENT 10 Staff Presentation to Council March 16, 2021 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy AppealPaul Sizemore – CDNS Interim Director 2 3 DecisionAdministrative Hearing OfficerHearing 12/10/2020Approved 12/18/20204 Allegation• Failure to properly interpret and apply Land Use Code Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b)• Did not provide adequate number of fixed bicycle parking spaces• Bicycle parking area does not meet the definition of Bicycle Parking, Fixed5 Bicycle Parking RequirementsUse Bicycle Parking Minimum% Enclosed Parking / % Fixed Bicycle RacksExtra Occupancy Rental House 1 per bed 0% / 100%6 Fixed Bicycle Parking DefinitionBicycle parking, fixed shall mean bicycle parking that allows the bicycle frame and both wheels to be securely locked to the parking structure. The structure shall be of permanent construction such as heavy gauge tubular steel with angle bars permanently attached to the pavement foundation. Fixed bicycle parking facilities shall be at least two (2) feet in width and five and one-half (5½) feet in length, with additional back-out or maneuvering space of at least five (5) feet.7 8 Existing Bicycle Parking Area9 738 Campfire Drive Extra Occupancy AppealPaul Sizemore – CDNS Interim Director