HomeMy WebLinkAbout516 DEINES COURT, EXTRA OCCUPANCY RENTAL HOUSE - PDP - PDP120005 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING(4) denial, suspension or revocation of any city permit or certificate relating to
the dwelling unit.
4. Have any extra occupancy rental applications been denied based on the lack of
neighborhood compatibility/harmony?
Response: No.
Thank you for attending the neighborhood meeting. Additional information regarding process
can be found online at: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/. And, the entire Land Use
Code can be found online at:
http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm.
Don't forget the public hearing:
PUBLIC HEARING
May 14, 2011, 5:15 p. m.
281 North College Ave.
Conference Room A
Please contact me with any questions.
Best
th E. Lorson, AICP
City Planner
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.224.6189
slorson@fcgov.com
2
City of
Fort Collins
Current
Planning
May 4, 2012
RE: Response to questions from neighborhood meeting (516 Deines Court)
Greetings,
This letter is to address the outstanding questions that were generated at the neighborhood
meeting on May 2, 2012, regarding the proposed extra occupancy rental at 516 Deines Court.
Below are the questions, as my notes reflect, that could not be answered without further
research.
1. When was the neighborhood rezoned to allow for extra occupancy rentals?
Response: The use of extra occupancy rental houses in the Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N) District was adopted by City Council on July 18, 2006 by
Ordinance No. 104, 2006. As per the adoption of said ordinance the L-M-N district was
given greater scrutiny than that of other districts in which the use is allowed by requiring
a proposal of more than 4 unrelated tenants to be subject to an administrative public
hearing.
2. How can the neighborhood have this use removed from the zone district?
Response: City Council must initiate a rezone or a Land Use Code revision such as this.
Citizens may petition City Council to do so during the public comment portion of any
City Council meeting.
3. If this application gets approved, is there a way that it can be revoked?
Response: Yes. According to LUC Sec. 2.14.4(B): Criminal and Civil Liability, Penalties
(8) An owner, property manager or occupant commits a civil infraction by violating any
provision of Section 3.8.16 of this Land Use Code. Each day during which the
limitation on the number of occupants is exceeded shall constitute a separate
violation. A finding that such civil infraction has occurred shall subject the offender(s)
to the penalty provisions of § 1-15(0 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and any
or all of the following actions:
(1) the imposition of a civil penalty of not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00)
and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation;
(2) an order to comply with any conditions reasonably calculated to ensure
compliance with the provisions of Section 3.8.16 of this Land Use Code or with
the terms and conditions of any permit or certificate granted by the city,
(3) an injunction or abatement order; and/or
Has an extra occupancy rental ever been denied by neighborhood opposition or lack of
compatibility?
Response (PL): I don't think so. We will look into it.
Can the decision be appealed?
Response (SL): Yes. We will get you that information. Anyone without email will get
responses via US postal service.
Please request the hearing officer to visit the neighborhood.
What is your motivation?
Response (DC): I bought it to rent to 5.
Response (DC): I pay for it.
I'm concerned about the zoning allowing this, how is it legal?
Response (PL): Certain zone districts allow extra occupancy rentals. Rental housing, the
city does not do extra inspections. Extra occupancy rental housing does require it at the
original inspection.
Why was the traffic impact study waived?
Response (SL): The traffic engineers waived it because the impact is not big enough to
warrant changes to the infrastructure.
Thank you for the provisions about pets and other things, but will that always remain the
same?
Response (DC): I think this is something that will be worked out with the City as part of
the management plan.
How do we change this zoning?
Response (SL): I will look into it and get back to you.
If 5 people are approved, can it be removed?
Response (SL): I will look into it.
I feel like the presentation is disingenuous. You wouldn't have paved if you were moving
in. Can guests park anywhere?
Response (DC): no. It is in the lease that the people who live and visit can only park in
front of 516 Deines Court.
Have you seen where we live? We all know each other and shovel for each other and care
about each other. There is no answering the parking in the front yard. There is only one
extra space on the street. 5 tenants is the issue, the parking, the neighborhood at our
expense. The zoning is an issue, at some point it has been rezoned.
Response (SL): We will look into how it was zoned and if it can change.
Enforcement, we don't want to have to call the police. We have children that don't want
to worry about traffic.
Has there been other approved extra occupancy rentals on a cul-de-sac?
Response (PL): Yes. But not on such a small cul-de-sac.
Response (DC): One year lease. No pets. No dogs, maybe cats.
How will you address the harmony of the neighborhood?
Response (SL): Through the compatibility section in the Land Use Code.
We own the property next door. Been in the family since the subdivision in the 1950s.
Since then it has been a rental house, without having more than one or a couple. Could
have had 3 students but were more concerned about the preservation of the property than
the income. The current tenants are married grad students. Compatibility section
references operational and physical compatibility. Quote about impacts on adjacent
properties. These do not relate to the current circumstance. The parking will be a
minimum of 5 vehicles. In Loveland the inadequate parking goes onto the street where
the overflow irritates our tenants. However our tenants are helpless because the City
allows 72 hr parking. Enforcement is an issue. The neighborhood has been quiet for 50
years and not on a through street. If the application happens the streets will be parked full
especially on weekends. 3 are not necessarily a party but it can be. 5 is almost certainly a
party. The other properties condition are pretty telling of what we can expect. I inspect
my property but if I lived so far away I would not be able to. Traffic issues are a matter of
safety for children in the neighborhood. No pet policy but people will have them and
smoke etc... You cannot control tenants after initial screening. We're concerned about
our investment. She's interested in maximizing, we are interested in preserving. If this
happens, then our property value will go down the drain. If that's compatible than the
standard has no teeth.
You have kids, but if you had a 4 year old would you want this?
Response (DC): I'm willing to live next to any of our tenants. They will be respectful.
Because the extra occupancy renatl can be sold to others and the same policy will apply,
then the applicants lease and screening policy does not matter.
Response (SL): We are requiring a management plan that addresses the impacts we are
hearing today and it will become a condition of approval of the proposed use and
therefore will carry with the property.
This is the first rental like this in the neighborhood. We came here for single family. This
will be the first.
The area between College and Stover, Prospect and Stuart is a fragile area. Few places
with enclaves of owner -occupied areas that keep the neighborhood stable. You may or
may not move in but your rental proposal will damage the property. We have to teach the
new students to live in a neighborhood. Do you have in your lease that they have to have
trash pick up?
could date a partier. The concrete in the front yard will affect property values. We will
have to utilize code enforcement.
I am in favor of the extra occupancy rental. It provides affordable housing. Most tenants
are good. You can get a good tenant. 5 tenants does not mean bad behavior.
Opposed to 5 people. Safety is the issue. The turn off of Smith St. onto a smaller cul-de-
sac with close houses. Property value is a concern.
Not opposed to rentals or college students, but opposed to 5 unrelated tenants. Related
people and 3 tenants hold each other accountable. Rentals are hard to come by. Families
need them too. A family is a good fit. Concrete takes from the character of the
neighborhood. What is your time frame for moving into our neighborhood as you stated
you are planning to do?
Response (DC): We have to sell our own home and husband needs to lose job. Pluse we
can't kick out our tenants.
Bedroom windows about 17 feet from front door and 10 feet from garage. People coming
and going and parties will affect us. 5 makes a party, 3 we can live with. Spoke with a
realtor, it will lower our property value due to 5 tenants and the extra parking in front.
This is your investment, but our home. The ambience is a diamond in the rough; it will
change with this proposal. We are service people, giving not taking. You will be taking
from us. Please leave it at 3 tenants. Your letters, you never said you planned to move
into the house. Are you guaranteeing you will be moving into this home? Compared to
your current home this house is small. The city is saying that we'll have more than
enough rentals. I don't believe that you will move into this property. This is just to make
more money.
Response (DC): 516 Deines Court is the most desirable to move into. But we cannot
guarantee it.
You said you're going to have a very strict lease. How are you going to enforce that?
Being that you are down in Brighton. Are you coming by once a week?
Response (DC): My goal is to make frequent trips.
What does the lease say about parking?
Response (DC): Tenants can only park in front of 516 Deines Court. I am doing what I
can so the neighborhood will be comfortable with this proposal. One of the vehicles if
there are 5 must be in the garage.
Increased traffic is my biggest concern. Turn-arounds at the end of the court.
How long is the lease? Animal policy?
Action Items
1. Provide neighbors with appeal information.
2. Respond to neighbors' questions via email or US Postal Service.
3. Request the hearing officer to visit the neighborhood.
Comments/Questions (not verbatim)
Not opposed to rentals although neighborhood is special and a community; concerned
about number of people in house and it may be the only rental in the neighborhood. 3
people are manageable but 5 might not be easily managed.
What are your other rental sizes?
Response (DC): one for 4, one for 3. Only making this rental 5 is because it can be and
because it is close to campus and has the space for 5 and parking.
Other rental with a college party and challenges with damage in a neighbor's front yard;
Response (DC): Doesn't want and will not tolerate parties for kids and/or a family that
might move in. Language in lease very strict.
Does this permitted use goes with the property or the lease.
Response (SL): With the property.
Seeing housing turn into rental over the years. Former neighbors were renting to 5 — 6
students; behavior such as parties with watermelons, sleeping bags parties, etc.
accompanied by heavy drinking, smoking, bad language, etc. Landlord response he
wouldn't live near students. When reduced to 3 per house behaviors changed and she is
concerned that more than 3 in a house leads to increased disturbing behaviors by the
students including traffic, trash, junk, noise, don't bring those things.
Neighborhood was originally zoned single family in 1960; how could it be re -zoned and
we did not know; when did it happen? Originally zoned A and no notice.
Response (SL): We will look into it.
Shields Street property owned by applicant as shown on presentation — See presentation
showing trash in lawn front and back.
Response (DC): Probably drive by trash. Attorney says tenant behavior is not relevant.
40 yr resident. Other rentals: Burning neighbor house due to bonfires. Broke down our
clothes line by neighbor tenants. Need parking for landscaping business. Other property
we mow, the good lawn maintenance is nice. You have good intentions but your tenant
City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Meeting - May 2, 2012, 6 p.m., Lesher Middle School
516 Deines Court — Extra Occupancy Rental
Synopsis of Meeting
Attendees
Neighbors: 24 in opposition.
1 in favor.
Applicant: Debra Cook
Adam Cook
City Staff: Seth Lorson, City Planner
Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood
Services
Polly Lauridsen, Compliance Supervisor
Principal Discussion Items
- Five (5) tenants are too many and makes a party, while three (3) is much easier to
manage.
- Concrete parking spaces in the front yard will negatively affect the neighborhood
character.
- Property value will be negatively affected by having an extra occupancy rental
due to the tenants, the paving of the front yard, and the poor condition of the
property.
- Safety for families and children will be poorly affected by having the additional
vehicles driven by novice drivers coming into the cul-de-sac.
- The property may fall into disrepair and be treated poorly as the other properties
the applicant owns.
- The property will not be adequately managed by an out-of-town owner.
- The fabric of this fragile owner -occupied neighborhood will deteriorate with the
introduction of 5 unrelated tenants.
- Four (4) provided parking spaces for five (5) tenants plus friends will lead to
overspill of parking onto the street in front of neighbor's houses.
Questions for Staff
1. When was the property re -zoned to allow this use?
2. How can the neighborhood remove this use from the district?
3. If this application gets approved, is there a way that it can be revoked?
4. Have any extra occupancy rentals ever been denied based on lack of
neighborhood compatibility?
Email
Ain„
(J� S r v n L�
✓°3 404 3Uot
a ugo— WnM
Geo�g��4lba�-
Cfic�t7ap���1-�
1/bz, F1 ILI Z-ey
yz� r- sTv eTsr gosaS
9704 7/9
11
2� Shur h
5a �£inES ��
970- su- nI wu
) 00.06#
LI
eckf,4
s�
Sign In Sheet: May 2, 2012, Neighborhood Meeting
516 Deines Court — Extra Occupancy Rental
u e
Er,1� "brad S Z S" F40 -5 Sal ( 9.r b-a,d , �a (•co_
5 7
Ala A-)L�
l -✓v
n,'Plz e�Dc
C z-
g'z- Zg£s
L3,-- C m ,.
"V2
�svla- �.s S
Z'y 84� SS(e l
.i PEAIDE�,jo^^/ ro w
60JA Sm l e y
/lam IG WkecIb(V StYeel
4W2 z z - W 946
APPy ISh,Ae--O
i7�
I7c�G Marn`v
ZZG-�%3xu�vte
GtG(� G
SO)+ ,'bb2rv)
5zt Mein
—13z&
bo/'bbefdoar
U
h(X).
earyz
m
i
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING — 516 DEINES CT, EXTRA OCCUPANY RENTAL
1. Introduction
a. Seth
b. Laurie Kadrich
c. Cards and citizens development review guide,
2. Agenda
a. Meeting overview.
b. Process and standards synopsis.
c. Applicant presentation.
d. Question and answer.
3. Meeting ground rules (overview)
a. Respectful (e.g. No personal attacks)
b. Speak when called on.
i. No interruptions.
ii. One question each to begin with.
4. Public hearing notice correction:
a. Reads: total habitable square footage = 2,028 s.f. = 648 s.f/tenant (5
tenants)
b. Should read: total habitable square footage = 2,154 s.f - 431,5.E/tenant (5
proposed tenants)
c. Required at least 350 s.f./tenant (3.8.28)
5. L-M-N District (4.5)
a. Type I hearing
b. .75 parking/tenant (3.2.2(K)(1)O)
c. Front yard parking max.: 40% (20-105, muni code)
6. Type 1 Hearing
a. Officer
b. 10 days to decide
c. Base on the Land Use Code.
7. Vicinity Map