Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/27/1995-AdjournedI June 27,1995 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Janett, Smith and Wanner. Councilmembers Absent: Azari, Kneeland and McCluskey. Staff Members Present: Jones, Krajicek, Roy. Appeal of the May 22,1995 Final Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving a Proposed Conversion of a Single -Family Residence to a Duplex Residence Known as the Marsee Residential Planned Unit Development, Planning and Zoning Board. overturned. The following is staff's memorandum on this item "Executive Summary On May 22, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-3 to approve the Marsee P. U.D., Preliminary and Final, Conversion of a Single -Family Residence to a Duplex Residence, #14- 95. A key element of the approval was a decision to grant a variance to Criteria I of the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D. G.S. which required the Marsee P. U.D. to earn a minimum of 100 points on the "density chart "for a proposed residential density of 10.05 dwelling units per acre. The variance request was granted, by a 4-3 vote, on the basis that it "would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes" of the L.D. G.S. and that "the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested. " On June 5, 1995, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office regarding the decision(s) of the Planning and Zoning Board. Also, on June 12, 1995, an Amended Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk regarding the same decisions. 193 June 27, 1995 The appellant cites Section 2-48 (1) and 2-48 (2c) of the City Code as the basis for the appeal. The appellant alleges that the Board failed to property interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and charter. The appellant further alleges that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; and that the Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. The attached documents include the Notice of Appeal and the Amended Notice of Appeal, the Planning Department response to the Appeal, and the information packet that was received by the P & Z Board for the May 22, 1995 meeting. In addition, minutes to the P & Z Board meeting are included. The procedures for considering and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code. " City Attorney Steve Roy outlined the appeals procedure. Michael Ludwig, City Planner, gave the staff presentation and described the nature of the appeal. He gave a history of the project and showed slides of the site and surrounding neighborhood. ._ 11 - Irm Robert Lantz, 1336 Fairview, stated his major concern about the action of the P&Z Board was ' that there was improper notice. He stated neighbors did not know about the second plan that was submitted. He stated the information provided to the P&Z Board by the applicant was erroneous. He disagreed with statements by the applicant that more than one-third of the 96 houses within the 500 ft. radius were rental'properties. He stated there are very few rental properties and the area is progressing toward no rental properties. He stated the issue is a zoning change, and suggested P&Z approval is a method of "spot zoning". He stated several P&Z Boardmembers indicated their approval of the variance was based on the fact that the surrounding area is primarily rental. He questioned whether the project qualified as a PUD and asked that the Board decision be overturned. James Ells, 1316 Southridge Dr., commented on illegal renting. He spoke of the neighborhood efforts to monitor the issue of three unrelated individuals living in a house. He expressed concern that duplexes will become the dominant neighborhood housing style. Jeanette Frasier, 1332 Fairview Dr., opposed the variance and spot zoning that would allow two families to occupy one structure. Jennifer Anderson, 1320 So. Bryan, stated the neighborhood did not need two independent living units within one owner -occupied area and asked that P&Z be overturned. She spoke of the character of the neighborhood and urged Council to keep it low density. ' 194 IApplicant: June 27, 1995 Jeani Marsee, applicant and owner of the property at 1320 Southridge Dr., spoke of her statements about the number of rental properties in the neighborhood, discussed the appeal, and explained why a variance should be granted to allow the duplex. She stated information on rental properties was obtained from the Larimer County Assessor's office and the City of Fort Collins' records. She stated of the 96 houses within the 500 ft. radius, 33 houses are listed to owners not residing at that address which is 34.4%. She detailed the housing mix in the neighborhood and spoke of the difficulties a small project has in meeting LDGS point chart requirements. She displayed a map showing the percentage of rental versus owner occupied houses in the neighborhood and the proximity to area shopping centers. Mayor Pro Tem Janett asked if there was objection from the appellants to receiving this map as an exhibit since it was not presented to P&Z at the May 22 hearing. The appellants indicated objection to the inclusion of the map as an exhibit. City Attorney Roy suggested Council disregard the evidence as it goes to the question of the distance from the shopping center since that is not the subject of any allegation that the evidence was false or misleading. It could be considered as information solely on the question of the percentage of rental properties in the area. Mayor Pro Tern Janett ruled the map could be received into evidence for the limited purpose of looking at the percentage of rental properties in the area. Rebuttal - Appellants: Jennifer Anderson, 1320 So. Bryan, spoke to the definition of rental unit and stated that definition may be an issue Council wants to discuss. She stated the issue is not the number of rental units but whether duplex units should be allowed in this area. She acknowledged there are a number of illegal duplex units in the area and stated steps need to be taken to investigate and deal with them. Robert Lantz, 1336 Fairview, pointed out the PUD process is geared for large projects and stated this is not an appropriate use of the PUD process. Jeani Marsee, 1320 Southridge Dr., stated the PUD process is the only process available and that they have complied with everything that has been requested. 195 June 27, 1995 Ludwig addressed the notice concerns expressed. He stated it was decided that in lieu of a� neighborhood meeting, the Marsees had distributed to each property owner within 500 ft., a letter describing the proposed project. The letter described a two-story addition to their existing house. Ludwig stated he expressed concerns to the Marsees about the architectural compatibility of the addition. The use approved by the Board is a conversion of a single family home to a duplex unit: The change was a change in elevation that occurs on any number of projects that are reviewed. Code provisions do not mandate a notice when modifications are made to meet staff concerns. Neighbors received notices prior to the P&Z Board hearing so all notification requirements were met. Ludwig stated this is a small PUD but not the smallest ever considered. There are no size limitations or requirements on PUDs. Councilmember Janett asked for a definition of "spot zoning". City Attorney Roy replied that spot zoning is the permission to build something by creating a zoning for it alone when it is inconsistent with the City's master plan and is done primarily for the benefit of the property owner. If there is incidental benefit to the property owner, it is not spot zoning, as long as it meets the criteria and is not inconsistent with the City's master plans. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman explained the variance procedures and added the Code states variance requests may be granted if the Board determines that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and if the applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is equal to or better than the plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested. Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, that the P&Z Board did conduct a fair hearing. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett and Wanner. Nays: Councilmember Smith. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to overturn the decision of the P&Z Board because it failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Councilmember Apt stated this decision was a close call and added he believed the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public good because this is a neighborhood issue. This decision should be made on a broader policy basis. Councilmember Wanner commented that illegal uses in the neighborhood should not be allowed to determine the character of a given neighborhood. 196 ' June 27, 1995 Councilmember Janett stated she would support the motion. She stated the City needs to deal with the bigger issue of the impacts of rental property on neighborhoods. The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion to overturn the decision of the P&Z Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Janett reminded that applications for the City Plan Advisory Committee are available and the deadline is July 5. She encouraged persons to apply for the Committee if they are interested in helping the City form long-term policy on how the City will grow and develop. Councilmember Wanner asked about the time line for City Plan. Community Planning and Environmental Services Director Greg Byrne replied that City Plan should be completed by December of 1996 or early in 1997. Councilmember Janett spoke of the Inter -regional Committee with representatives, from 10 ' regions in the state that was an outgrowth of the Governor's Smart Growth Conference. ` Regional reports are scheduled for July. Temporary Adjournment Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adjourn the meeting until the conclusion of the study session. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adjourn into Executive Session to consider legal matters related to an adversarial matter. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett, and Wanner. Nays: Smith. THE MOTION CARRIED. 197. 'i I June 27, 1995 I Adjournment At the conclusion of the Executive Session, there being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adjourn the meeting to 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 5, 1995, to consider adjourning into Executive Session to conduct the mid -year evaluations of the Municipal Judge, City Attorney and Interim City Manager. The vote was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ATTEST: