HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARSEE PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 14-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)30
1 STATE OF COLORADO)
2 ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER)
4 I, Kacia D. Homolka, a Professional Shorthand Reporter
5 and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that
6 the foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of the Marsee
7 residential preliminary and final PUD request, was held on
8 Monday, May 22, 1995, at 300 West Laporte Avenue, Fort
9 Collins, Colorado; that said proceedings were transcribed by
10 me from videotape record to the foregoing 29 pages; that
11 said transcript is, to the best of my ability to transcribe
12 same, and accurate and complete record of the proceedings so
13 taken.
14 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
15 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
16 nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
17 Attested to by me this 14th day of June, 1995.
18
19
20
Kac D. Homolka
21 315 West Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
22 (970) 482-1506
23 My commission expires May 27, 1997.
24
25
29
1 struggle with this because this applicant is wanting to do
2 something legally that the others are doing illegally. But
3 I also am very supportive of overall planning and putting my
4 weight behind what's going on with the West Central
5 Neighborhood plan and would like to have that plan in place
6 before we start spot zoning. So that's my concern.
7 Roll call.
g THE CLERK: Carnes.
9 MR. CARNES: Yes.
10 THE CLERK: Bell.
11 MS. BELL: Yes.
12 THE CLERK: Walker.
13 MR. WALKER: No.
14 THE CLERK: Strom.
15 MR. STROM: No.
16 THE CLERK: Cottier.
17 MS. COTTIER: Yes.
18 THE CLERK: Fontane.
19 MS..FONTANE: Yes.
20 THE CLERK: Clements.
21 MS. CLEMENTS: No.
22 Motion passes, four -three.
23 (Agenda item concluded.)
24
25
28
1 THE CLERK: Carnes.
2 MR. CARNES: Yes.
3 THE CLERK: Bell.
4 MS. BELL: Yes.
5 THE CLERK: Walker.
6 MR. WALKER: No.
7 THE CLERK: Strom.
8 MR. STROM: No.
9 THE CLERK: Cottier.
10 MS. COTTIER: Yes.
11 THE CLERK: Clements.
12 MS. CLEMENTS: No.
13 Motion passes, four -three.
14 MS. COTTIER: Then I will move approval of the
15 Marsee PUD preliminary and final.
16 MS. BELL: I second, yeah.
17 MS. CLEMENTS: Motion and second. Further
18 discussion?
19 MS. COTTIER: I would just like to say that in
20 this particular case I am persuaded because of the nature of
21 the surrounding area being primarily rental and the -- and
22 my interpretation of the point chart and not substantiating
23 the requirement for a variance.
24 MS. CLEMENTS: I guess I'd like to state for the
25 record that I understand my fellow board members, and I
27
1
MS. COTTIER:
I move that we grant a variance on
2
the grounds that it is --
would not be detrimental to the
3
public good and on the grounds
that the plan as submitted is
4
equal to or better than
such a plan incorporating provision
5
for which a variance is
requested.
6
MS. CLEMENTS:
Doesn't the variance need to occur
7
first? Is that correct,
Paul?
8
MR. ECKMAN:
Well, you have a motion to approve
9
the variance, right?
10
MS. CLEMENTS:
Oh, so that's what your motion is?
11
Oh, okay. I'm
sorry, it's late.
12
MS. BELL: I'd
like to second that with a
13
clarification. Which was your first one, Jan?
14
MS. COTTIER:
We need to say that granting the
15
variance would not be detrimental to the public good, and
16
then we give one of the
reasons.
17
MS. BELL: Is that No. 4 there?
18
MS. COTTIER:
No. It's just below No. 4 in that
19
paragraph not numbered.
20
MS. BELL: I
second.
21
MS. CLEMENTS:
There's a motion and second.
22
Further discussion?
23
Roll call.
24
THE CLERK: Fontane.
25
MS. FONTANE:
Yes.
26
1 Reason 3, the plan submitted is equal to or better than
2 because the plan submitted does not have any visual impact.
3 And I think that Mrs. Marsee's points about being
4 slightly to the west or slightly to the east in affecting
5 the point chart are significant and that, also, if they were
6 willing to commit to our income guidelines for affordable
7 housing, that they would have the points made.
g MS. CLEMENTS: Additional comments?
9 Are we ready for a roll call?
10 Roll call.
11 THE CLERK: Cottier.
12 MS. COTTIER: No.
13 THE CLERK: Fontane.
14 MS. FONTANE: No.
15 THE CLERK: Carnes.
16 MR. CARNES: No.
17 THE CLERK: Bell.
lg MS. BELL: No.
19 THE CLERK: Walker.
20 MR. WALKER: Yes.
21 THE CLERK: Strom.
22 MR. STROM: Yes.
23 THE CLERK: Clements.
24 MS. CLEMENTS: Yes.
25 So motion does not pass, four to three.
25
1 early 160s and was to expire 20 years after that unless the
2 neighborhood came together and upheld it, and it was not
3 upheld. It has expired. My feeling on that is the
4 neighborhood has basically left it to be a rental
5 neighborhood. It's getting larger and larger, and my
6 4 1/2 years of living there has shown that to me and to the
7 neighbors -- the other 90 neighbors that are living there.
8 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you.
9 Additional questions, comments?
10 Paul.
11 MR. ECKMAN: I think you ought to address the
12 issue of the variance as a separate vote prior to the main
13 motion.
14 MR. WALKER: I'll make a motion, I guess. I move
15 denial of the variance request due to a lack of criteria for
16 granting such a variance request.
17 MS. CLEMENTS: We have a motion on the table. Is
18 there a second?
19 MR. STROM: I'll second it.
20 MS. CLEMENTS: There's a motion and a second.
21 Discussion?
22 Jan.
23 MS. COTTIER: I will not support the motion. I
24 think that the reasons for granting a variance are that it
25 would not be detrimental to the public good and that --
24
1 Regarding our house comparable to the others, we
2 are capable of doing this under the standards required
3 because of the size yard we have being a corner lot. The
4 other ones would not be able to put this addition on with
5 the recommendations and the setbacks, et cetera.
6 So all these single-family homes that are stuck
7 with inside the corner lots do not have the space in their
8 yard to do it. From reading the guidelines and talking with
9 the Planning and Zoning Staff, we have the availability and
10 the space with excess of yardage after adding this on.
11 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you.
12 Jan.
13 MS. COTTIER: Could I ask another question,
14 please, Mrs. Marsee. Could you explain a little further or
15 give a little more information on the restrictive covenants
16 that expired. I mean, what all did they cover? How did it
17 come to be that they expired, and --
18 MS. MARSEE: The -- my understanding of the
19 covenants that everyone signs when you purchase a house in
20 the neighborhood for our -- for subdivision -- Fairview,
21 et cetera, was that additional two-story -- additions
22 including two stories would have to be granted through their
23 covenant, and there's various other ones. The only one that
24 applied to what we were doing was the two-story one.
25 And the house -- this was established in the
►W,
1 be -- has to have direct access to the street or an alley.
2 MS. BELL: I don't think there's a setback on the
3 sides of the houses to allow for a garage on the side --
4 these lots are not wide enough to put an additional -- it's
5 working there because it's the backyard and it's the side.
6 MR. STROM: But the issue isn't the garage. The
7 issue is a second apartment. That's why they need the
8 variance. They can do a garage without an LDGS process.
9 MS. BELL: But you can't just put a basement
10 apartment in there.
11 MR. STROM: But the other thing I would like to
12 suggest is I would certainly be willing to grant Mrs. Marsee
13 two minutes to respond to those issues if she could do it
14 very succinctly.
15 MS. CLEMENTS: Mr. Strom would like to -- for you
16 to very succinctly address those two issues.
17 MS. MARSEE: Three issues that you brought up
18 that I had an answer to, and my opinion was if we moved the
19 house west a couple hundred feet, we'd be closer to King
20 Soopers on Taft, and we'd get 20 more points on your chart.
21 So if a house a couple hundred feet from us in the same
22 zoning district wanted to do it, they'd be able to do it.
23 If we moved just 550 -- 50 feet passed our 500
24 square feet towards Prospect, we'd be in another zoning
25 area. All around our area is duplexes or multifamily units.
22
1 the sense it's defined in the LDGS. I think that a basement
2 apartment would be among the most affordable in the community.
3 So I think in terms of not having a detrimental
4 effect on the appearance of the neighborhood and not
5 compounding parking problems or compounding, you know --
6 not, you know, creating a significant increase in traffic,
7 that -- then I believe that, you know, I could bring myself
8 to believe that both the -- it would neither be detrimental
9 to the public good, and we could find some basis as far as
10 Variance Procedure No. 4.
11 Probably the biggest concern is what impact it
12 would have on the future development in the neighborhood or
13 redevelopment in the neighborhood, and that's the thing that
14 I'm struggling with.
15 MS. CLEMENTS: Bernie.
16 MR. STROM: A couple of things just in terms of
17 what Gary had to say. I -- it's not at all clear to me why
18 single -frontage properties would be any more restricted from
19 doing this than corner lots. If you're talking about
20 putting in a basement apartment or a one-story unit and it
21 would fit under a garage, why wouldn't it fit under the
22 corner of the house or in the backyard?
23 MR. CARNES: There's no alleys in this area.
24 MR. STROM: Well, ask the Staff but I don't think
25 there's any specific requirement that an apartment has to
P.
21
1 saying, though. He's -- you know, if you've got a rental up
2 above, and you've got three to four people, and then you
3 put -- and then a basement apartment and add, you know,
4 three more people, I can also see it from that end as well.
5 Yes, Lloyd.
6 MR. WALKER: I have to respond to that,
7 Jennifer. I mean, there's no finding of fact along those
8 lines. And if that is the case, then it's an illegal
9 situation, and I don't think we can base our decision on
10 something that is an illegal situation.
11 MS. CLEMENTS: Gary.
12 MR. CARNES: I think that what Jan says is very
13 true, that it's not going to alter the visual appearance of
14 the neighborhood, and I read the letters, and it looked like
15 the two-story is what aspect -- is what most of the
16 neighbors who objected were concerned about.
17 As far as this being a precedent -- if we gave a
18 variance for this -- being a precedent for doing it
19 elsewhere in the neighborhood, the only place this would
20 make sense, in my opinion, would be on a corner lot where
21 there is parking on both sides as in this case.
22 So you know, as far as what you base a variance
23 on, I -- Criteria No. 4 would be there's some public benefit
24 and in this case, I guess, affordable housing. Although
25 there's no assurance that it would be truly affordable in
20
1 certainly I would be hard-pressed to argue that one
2 additional car or two additional cars from this unit would
3 be a problem.
4 But on the same basis, I don't find anything
5 unusual about this property compared to essentially every
6 other property in the neighborhood, and if you're talking
7 about doubling the density of the entire neighborhood,
8 granted, that's a worst -case scenario but it's plausible,
9 and that's where I run into problems with setting a
10 precedent.
11 MS. MARSEE: Could I address those two issues?
12 MS. CLEMENTS: Let me ask if the Board would like
13 for you to address them.
14 Does the Board wish to hear from the applicant?
15 No, thank you.
16 Yes, Jennifer.
17 MS. FONTANE: Well, I was thinking about the
18 comments about the majority of that neighborhood already
19 being multifamily in the sense that it's student housing.
20 In a sense you've already got more than one family -- you
21 know, more than two, sometimes three, sometimes more
22 unrelated persons per dwelling unit in the majority of that
23 neighborhood because it's around CSU. And it -- you know,
24 as far as character, the character has pretty much been set.
25 MS. CLEMENTS: Well, I understand what Bernie is
19
1 detrimental to the public good or would impair the intent
2 and purposes of the Land Development Guidance System.
3 That's one part.
4 The other part is you need to find one of those
5 four circumstances to exist regarding the granting of a
6 variance, whether it be an unusual circumstance that creates
7 a hardship or the solar one or that it's equal to or better
8 than or that there's some other substantial public benefit
9 being conferred because of the project.
10 And then, finally, on Page 6 there are three
11 findings of fact suggested, and it appears that there is
12 nothing in the Staff report and nothing that's been
13 presented by way of facts tonight to support Item No. 3,
14 that the project does not comply with Criteria A1.2. So I
15 would recommend that whatever motion is made that that not be
16 one of the findings because there's no facts, so far, to
17 support that. That was actually included in there by mistake.
18 MS. CLEMENTS: Other comments? Motion?
19 MR. STROM: Oh, I just --
20 MS. CLEMENTS: Bernie.
21 MR. STROM: -- had one brief response to what Jan
22 was saying. I think there's more to neighborhood character
23 than visual character. Certainly that's an important
24 characteristic. We just spent four or five hours dealing
25 with it, but you're also talking about activity levels, and
u
18
0
1 Bernie.
2 MR. STROM: Just a brief one. I guess part of
3 what we typically work at in terms of varying a point chart
4 doesn't constitute change in character of a neighborhood,
5 and it's a little tougher when you're in a neighborhood of
6 this nature that if I were to vote for a change in the point
7 chart for this property, what grounds would I have for not
8 voting for all the neighbors to do the same thing?
9 MS. COTTIER: Well, my personal response to that
10 would be I would look at them on a case -by -case basis based
11 on the architectural impact in terms of changing the
12 physical appearance of the neighborhood because I think
13 that's a more significant evaluation of the character of the
14 neighborhood, the way it looks.
15 And in terms of the way it -- I mean,
16 functionally, traffic is a big issue. And certainly we
17 couldn't make the case that the streets couldn't handle an
18 additional car or two or that they couldn't handle the
19 parking. So I don't know.
20 MR. STROM: I guess --
21 MS. CLEMENTS: Well, Paul.
22 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I just wanted to interject
23 that when you're thinking about the variance, I suggest you
24 look at Page 3. There really is a two-part test. You have
25 to first decide whether the granting of a variance would be
17
1 with residential ones frequently. Most frequently what
2 we've done are business -oriented ones, I guess. But so I'm
3 not so troubled by the point chart, and I mean, I think we
4 could easily look at ways to revise the point chart so that
5 the points were met.
6 But my real concern is compatibility with the
7 neighborhood, and I have trouble with saying it's not
8 compatible with the neighborhood if there's no objections to
9 the physical appearance of it.
10 And when we look at the west side and the east
11 side, for example, we are encouraging secondary structures
12 for affordable housing, and I see this as really something
13 kind of similar, and it is in the same proximity to the
14 university. And looking at the LDGS, the compatibility
15 criteria, I can't say that there's any -- in terms of our
16 specifically defined criteria -- that it doesn't meet. So I
17 don't know.
18 I think it's -- I do appreciate the idea of
19 wanting to preserve the character of the neighborhood and
20 certainly am concerned about changing a single-family
21 residential area to rental, but if this is a -- one of the
22 few owner -occupied structures in the neighborhood, that's
23 another inconsistent way -- criticism, I think. So I'd be
24 interested in other Board comments.
25 MS. CLEMENTS: Other Board comments?
16
1 plan. I'm working as the P and Z liaison to that group, and
2 in the meetings that we've had so far, this type of area is
3 one of the areas that is of concern in that planning process
4 because here you have -- this house, I think, is typical,
5 that neighborhood is typical, where you have some, you know,
6 30- to 40-year-old, ranch -style houses that perhaps need to
7 have some modifications to make them up to contemporary
8 space and other living standards.
9 And so I know on this that that group, so far,
10 has been starting to define that as an issue as to how --
11 one of the things that came out is to keep the vitality of
12 the neighborhoods, keep them viable, and make them -- just
13 as we've seen with the east side, west side plans. How do
14 you keep some vitality in these neighborhoods? And I think
15 that that issue is being discussed.
16 But again, as Gwen suggested, at this point in
17 time for us, you know, to look at this project and have to
18 grant a variance and, you know, sort of push the system,
19 like I say, makes me uncomfortable.
20 MS. CLEMENTS: Additional comments?
21 Jan.
22 MS. COTTIER: This is a real problematic one, I
23 think, and I mean, we grant variances to the point chart all
24 the time, and I don't know why this is particularly
25 different than other situations. I mean, we have done it
15
1 violated here is not a criteria that we can go by and say,
2 ,well, okay." So I really have some concerns that I see no
3 basis by which we can allow this to move forward.
4 MS. CLEMENTS: Other comments?
5 Gwen.
6 MS. BELL: I actually feel a little bit torn
7 about this project because in many regards I can relate to,
8 you know, wanting to do this type of a project, and I would
9 actually like to commend the applicants for doing such a
10 good job at trying to, I guess, blend into the neighborhood
11 and not be obtrusive. .
12 I guess what kind of stands out in my mind as the
13 problematic issue is the spot zoning aspect of things, in
14 that this is a residential -- single-family residential
15 neighborhood, and it sounds like it's developing into a
16 potential area where duplexes and apartments and things
17 might be appropriate. But I'm not sure that it's maybe our
18 job to be making that decision, and perhaps Council is
19 the more appropriate place for a zoning change to be
20 occurring.
21 MS. CLEMENTS: Other comments, questions?
22 MR. WALKER: Yeah.
23 MS. CLEMENTS: Lloyd.
24 MR. WALKER: Let me just reflect on one of the
25 things that's happening on this West Central Neighborhood
14
1 interpreted by the LDGS, would suggest is appropriate in
2 this situation.
3 I -- looking through the reasons for variances,
4 to me, there -- I don't see it there. I don't see that we
5 have the criteria to grant a variance. The kinds of things
6 that would allow us to grant a variance are just not there
7 in that situation.
8 Now, perhaps -- the applicant points out that
9 it's difficult to -- for a single lot to work this PUD
10 system appropriately. But then, you know, again, on the
11 other hand, I would suggest that it is -- it does seem like
12 a way of -- as Ms. Smith mentioned that -- a way of what
13 used to be called spot zoning, where you could put something
14 into an area that perhaps didn't fit. We just call it a PUD
15 sometimes now. So I really am uncomfortable with this.
16 I think the letters from the citizens who
17 objected reflect the fact that this is -- the area is
18 residential in character, single-family residential. And
19 certainly, it seemed like the individuals who responded
20 suggested that the garage was not a problem. My guess is
21 that, perhaps, you know, an addition, per se, isn't a
22 problem. But it's a question of how the use is made and
23 that being a two-family unit.
24 And I think the argument made that, well, there's
25 a lot of the unrelated adult -living situation that's being
13
1 the letters that did mention concern about a second
2 dwelling unit.
3 However, we did not receive any further comments
4 addressing the basement apartment itself. Staff felt it was
5 visually not obtrusive to the neighborhood, so we felt that
6 it had satisfied the architectural compatibility.
7 MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you.
8 I'll open it up to Board questions now.
r
9 Lloyd.
10 MR. WALKER: Just some observations, comments. I
11 mean, the -- of course, the primary issue is to grant a
12 variance to the point chart, and we have very specific
13 criteria as to why we should do this. Now, first of all, I
14 should say that we can argue, "Well, this is close." So you
15 know, does close have some criteria?
16 But I think the point here is that -- what that
17 tells me is the point chart is set up to suggest that in
18 this situation perhaps what is being asked to be done is
19 somehow more than the system is comfortable with allowing,
20 even though, you know, we're looking at a duplex unit here.
21 By the time you calculate -- make the necessary
22 calculations, you come up with the way we have to determine
23 the point criteria, and it comes up short.
24 And again, that suggests to me that perhaps this
25 proposal is overstepping the limits of what the system, as
12
1 plan.
2 What I'm trying to get at is I'm, you know,
3 playing the balancing act here looking at the needs of the
4 applicant and Staff interpreting the guidelines, and what I
5 struggle with is that we've got a number of households in
6 our community that are doing -- that are having illegal
7 rentals, and then we've got someone who's trying to do it
8 legally. And so I'm trying to get some input from you as to
9 if people were calling about the revised plan.
10 MR. LUDWIG: Staff did not receive any calls
11 regarding the revised plan. I guess we basically --
12 initially, the applicant proposed a two-story addition and
13 Staff had concerns about it meeting the architectural
14 compatibility with the neighborhood being that it's a
15 predominately ranch -style, single -story neighborhood.
16 And in discussions with the applicant, it was --
17 you know, a suggestion was brought up, you know, "Would you
18 consider a basement apartment -type thing," since a lot of
19 the concerns we had heard were no two-story.
20 I think, though, that the underlying -- another
21 reason that was stated in some of those letters was
22 opposition to a second dwelling unit being added to the
23 structure. It wasn't necessarily just the two-story. I
24 think some of the letters used the two-story as a
25 compatibility criteria, but there were also several of
11
1 through the Building Inspections and Zoning Department as a
2 zoning violation. Currently, it's -- three unrelated
3 individuals is the maximum that can live in a single-family
4 dwelling or an apartment.
5 And so as far as the exact process, it would be
6 through the Building Inspections and Zoning Department, the
7 LDGS, and other, I guess, mechanisms that the Planning
8 Department administrators do not specifically address --
9 MS. CLEMENTS: okay.
10 MR. LUDWIG: -- you know, ahead of time.
11 MS. CLEMENTS: So they could call Building
12 Inspections and Zoning --
13 MR. LUDWIG: Yes.
14 MS. CLEMENTS: -- and register a complaint --
15 MR. LUDWIG: Yes.
16 MS. CLEMENTS: -- and then they would follow up
17 on that?
18 MR. LUDWIG: Yes.
19 MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. And then the next question
20 that I have is in reading through the concerns that -- the
21 letters I have in my packet, most of them are not concerned
22 about the garage. However, most of them are concerned about
23 the two-story above that garage, and that's not an issue
24 now. So I was just curious as to information that you
25 received from surrounding neighbors about the alternate
10
1 provide a beneficial use to the immediate neighborhood that
2 is next -- adjoining the area, and is an attempt to use the
3 PUD process of the LDGS to change the single-family
4 residential zoning in this area to multifamily.
5 In other words the Planning and Zoning Board is
6 being asked to do spot zoning and -- for zoning that is not
7 compatible to the existing neighborhood. We request that
8 the Planning and Zoning Board deny approval of Marsee
9 residential addition.
10 Any questions?
11 MS. CLEMENTS: Does the Board have any questions
12 of Ms. Smith?
13 Not at this time. Thank you, Emily.
14 MS. SMITH: Thank you.
15 MS. CLEMENTS: Will anyone else be speaking to us
16 on this item?
17 Seeing no one, we'll bring it back to the Board
18 for discussion. I'm going to start with a couple of
19 questions, Mike, and one is we have a problem in this city
20 with illegal rentals, and by that I mean that there are more
21 than three unrelated persons living in a home, sometimes
22 four, five, six. And what is the current mechanism that --
23 if there are illegal renters in the neighborhood -- that a
24 citizen could call and complain about that?
25 MR. LUDWIG: I believe that the process would be
2
1 Spring Creek, Wind Trail Apartments, Heatheridge No. 2, and
2 Bridgefield.
3 The.West Central Neighborhoods -area already is
4 currently the most densely populated portion of the city --
5 I already read you that.
6 How much of the city's population and density
7 load should the neighborhoods next to CSU carry, and how
8 much longer will city policies, which are transportation and
9 air quality driven, attempt to dictate that this area of the
10 city is to bear the brunt of these policies at great
11 sacrifice to the quality of our neighborhoods?
12 What about other issues relating to preservation
13 of neighborhood character and quality, and how will the West
14 Neighborhood -- Central Neighborhoods and CSU work together
15 towards the population increase that is expected in the next
16 five years?
17 The advisory committee for the West Central
18 Neighborhoods is considering and currently working toward
19 cooperative solutions with CSU to these problems. We are
20 working toward an effort that actually would have CSU
21 doing as much fair share of their housing as possible and
22 the neighborhoods around the area also not being impacted
23 with extremely high densities.
24 The proposed Marsee residential addition PUD does
25 not meet the neighborhood criteria of the LDGS, does not
E3
1 Committee. Our association opposes residential zoning
2 changes such as the one you are considering this evening.
3 At risk is the long-term viability and quality of living of
4 our neighborhoods. We do agree with the Staff's conclusions
5 that this proposal does not meet the LDGS criteria, and we
6 suggest that Staff's recommendation for denial be agreed
7 upon.
8 I would now like to address this request in the
9 context of an issue that deals with a broader perspective, a
10 preservation of neighborhood quality in the West Central
11 Neighborhoods plan area. With CSU being a major city
12 employer, City policies, which are transportation and air
13 quality driven, state that high densities in the form of
14 multifamily housing should be located in this area of
15 the city.
16 The West Central Neighborhoods area already is
17 currently the most densely populated portion of the city
18 with many high density apartments, medium to high density
19 town home/condominium complexes, plus CSU student housing.
20 We provide housing for at least 20 percent of the city's
21 population.
22 The 1990 census has our resident population being
23 17,910 persons, and these figures do not include the two new
24 CSU student apartments north of Elizabeth, The Preserve,
25 Raintree Town Homes, Sommerville Town Homes, Wind Trail on
7
1 family neighborhood, and that was 30 years ago.
2 And right now -- it is.now four -to -six blocks
3 away from CSU, our residence, and it's college students and
4 it's rental areas, and it's -- on Fairview alone there are
5 two houses owned by the same roofing company. That there
6 alone should tell you that it is an investment area. It is
7 a rental area. It is not an upcoming -- to me that's my
8 opinion. That's how I see it.
9 Basically, I think I've stated all my points.
1
10 I'd like to be available to more questions unless there's
11 any right now that I could address.
12 MS. CLEMENTS: Well, let me see.
13 Does the Board have any question of the applicant
14 at this time?
15 Okay. I don't see any but if we do have
16 questions, we'll bring you back up to the mike.
17 MS. MARSEE: Thank you.
18 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you.
19 With that we'll move to citizen participation.
20 Anyone wishing to speak to this item, please come forward,
21 sign in, state your name for the record.
22 MS. SMITH: Members of the Planning and zoning
23 Board, good evening. I'm Emily Smith, president of the
24 Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association. I'm also a
25 member of the West Central Neighborhoods Advisory
Cl
1 So what I'm basically stating is,.is right now
2 over a third of these 96 homes are rented to college
3 students or a couple of families and some of them
4 illegally. I'm asking to do it legally. I'm asking to
5 follow all your guidelines. My first submittal to the P and Z
6 got a letter of revision three pages long, 18 requirements.
7 We followed every one possible except for the variance of 90
8 to a hundredpoints, and we feel that we are trying to
9 comply and do everything legally.
10 The ones that are opposing -- were opposing a
11 two-story at first is the majority of them. There's ones
12 that are opposing it because of the increased traffic.
13 We'll be taking two of our cars off the street. We don't
14 have a garage, so if we have another person move in, a
15 single parent move in, with one car, they're still
16 benefiting by one car being off.
17 When the restrictive covenants expired, nobody in
18 the area changed those. They were set in early in the
19 160s. Regarding being a single -residential, one-story, all
20 of this, nobody addressed that. So there was no concern at
21 that point. There is nobody here -- of the six letters that
22 addressed the Planning and Zoning -- here to object to this.
23 Five of the six residents have lived there when
24 the development was made over 30 -- roughly 30 years ago,
25 and they bought it understanding that it was a residential
5
1 It's a small apartment, a one -bedroom apartment. Being a
2 previous single parent, I'm looking at having possibly a
3 young mother, father with a child that could share time with
4 our children, our backyard, our corner lot, a young couple
5 together. We're not looking at five college guys. We don't
6 want that downstairs, and it wouldn't obviously fit. The
7 local school would be appropriate for a child. I have four
8 children of my own. I want what's appropriate in that
9 area.
10 We have 96 residents in the 500 square feet
11 surrounding our house. My understanding there are six
12 residents opposing this that have contacted the Planning and
13 Zoning Board. They -- the Planning and Zoning Board
14 considers that significant. Well, I consider the other 90
15 to be significant, and I've had phone calls and people stop
16 by and talk to us and say they think it's a great idea.
17 When we moved into the house and purchased it
18 over -- a little over four years ago, we were under the
19 understanding that people like us were moving in with young
20 kids and wanting to bring it back to a residential from the
21 rental. We've been there 4 1/2 years, and in those 96
22 residents I know of -- and then I could be corrected if
23 anybody finds other ways -- there are three families in
24 those 96 homes with children of our age. And I have
25 children from 8 months old to 16 years old.
4
1 I would also like to thank the Staff for their
2 consistent time. Mike'has spent an awful lot of time with
3 us, hours. I could probably show you on record that someone
4 with inexperience like us, residential owners, and not
5 understanding the process and the time they spent -- and I
6 understand his denial, and I understand why and completely
7 the reasons.
8 We, at first, are applying for a variance. We do
9 have 90 of the hundred points. We are .06 over allowing us
10 just the 90, and this -- the point system is set up, in my
11 mind and my understanding, for large developments. This is
12 a small 672 foot square development, and it makes it
13 impossible for us to -- we would have -- if we went with a
14 two-story apartment above the garage -- would have been
15 allowed four more points, making it a possible 94 if we went
16 with solar.
17 Since we've tried to accommodate the
18 complaints -- opposition from the neighbors to the two-story
19 addition going underneath, we can't do that solar at this
20 point, and whether we got the 94 or the 90, we still would
21 have needed the variance. So what we're looking at is
22 requesting a variance because it's impossible for a small
23 structure like ours to comply with the large structure
24 LDGS rules.
25 We have a request that the apartment be added.
3
1 The proposed project earns 90 percent of the
2 maximum applicable points on the residential uses point
3 chart of the Land Development Guidance System. However, the
4 proposed density requires a minimum of a hundred percent of
5 the maximum applicable points. The applicant has requested
6 a variance to the residential uses point chart.
7 Staff feels that this variance request does not
8 meet the variance criteria of Section K of the Land
9 Development Guidance System, and therefore, Staff recommends
10 denial of the Marsee residential PUD for its failure to meet
11 Criteria 1 of the residential uses point chart and all
12 development Criteria A1.2.
13 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you.
14 Does the Board have any questions of Staff at
15 this time?
16 Seeing none, we'll hear from the applicant.
17 MS. MARSEE: Would you like me to sign in?
18 MS. CLEMENTS: Yes, go ahead. Sign in, state
19 your name for the record.
20 MS. MARSEE: My name is Jeani Marsee from
21 1320 Southridge Drive. I would like to thank the Board for
22 taking the time to listen to us, and I would also like to --
23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You need to lower
24 the mike.
25 MS. MARSEE: Thank you.
2
1 MS. CLEMENTS: Welcome back to the May 22nd
2 meeting of the Fort Collins Planning.and Zoning Board. The
3 slide projector is inoperable at the moment, so we're going
4 to proceed without slides.
5 The next item on our agenda is the Marsee PUD
6 preliminary and final, conversion of a single-family
7 residence to a duplex residence.
8 Mike.
9 MR. LUDWIG: Madam Chair, members of the Planning
10 and Zoning Board, this is a request for a preliminary and
11 final PUD approval for the addition of a one-story,
12 672 square foot, two -car garage, with a one -bedroom -basement
13 apartment, to an existing three -bedroom, single-family
14 residence located at 1320 Southridge Drive.
15 The existing single-family residence would be
16 converted to a duplex. The property is zoned RL, low
17 density residential, and does not allow duplex residences as
18 a permitted use. Therefore, the project has been submitted
19 as a planned unit development.
20 The original Staff report incorrectly stated that
21 a minimum of 3.5 off-street parking spaces were required. I
22 have revised the Staff report to state that the Marsee PUD
23 will provide the minimum two off-street parking spaces.
24 These changes are highlighted in the revised Staff report,
25 which you received.
01
rCOPY
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND.ZONING COMMISSION
Held Monday, May 22, 1995
At Fort Collins City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Concerning Marsee Residential Preliminary and Final PUD:'
Request for addition of a one-story, 672 square foot
two -car garage with a one -bedroom basement apartment.
Members present:
Renee Clements, Chairperson
Jan Cottier
Lloyd Walker
Jennifer Fontane
Gwen Bell
Gary Carnes
Bernie Strom
Court reporting services provided by:
Meadors & Whitlock, Inc.
315 W. Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) or (800) 482-1506
Fax: (970) 224-1199