Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARSEE PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 14-95 - CORRESPONDENCE - APPLICANT COMMUNICATIOND E V E L D A E N T T R A C K I N L S Y S T E M COMPLAINT PROGRAM ompint # Street Address Description 91-045 1300 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 89-026 1300 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 89-025 1301 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 90-022 1304 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 91-034 1304 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 89-019 1304 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 91-015 1308 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 89-018 .1308 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 90-019 1308 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY D E V E L O P M E N T T R A C K I N G S Y S T E M COMPLAINT PROGRAM # Street Address Description �^ �^� II 7 84-033 1309 �TT]IZ1T iICP FAIRVIEW TZ] DR TT T T.nf T 1LLLVCL ILLEGAL T1a TITTy 1 CiL11L1 FAMILY 89-024 1309 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 91-016 1309 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 90-018 1309 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 89-023 1317 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 90-020 1317 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 90-016 1321 HAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 91-041 1324 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY D E V E L O P M E N T T R A C K I N G S Y S T E M COMPLAINT PROGRAM # Street Address Description 41 941 432 4 FAIRVIEW DR TT T T^ FAMTT. 89-020 132.4 FAIRVIEW DR ±1 ILLEGAL FAMILY 88-021 1336 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 89-021 1336 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 92-002 1336 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 89-022 1340 FAIRVIEW DR ILLEGAL FAMILY 1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A 040 Colorado 050 Larimer County 060 Fort Collins division 070 Fort Collins city (pt.) 080 Tract 5.02 TENURE Universe: Occupied housing units 70 Owneroccupied ...................................... � Renteroccupied ................................... 882 .................. j�1,8716. 82 �Ao CITY OF FORT COLLINS 1990 CENSHR TRerTc 1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A 040 Colorado 160 Fort Collins city TENURE Universe: Occupied housing units Owner occupied........... Renter occupied ..................................................... 46 117,,743 purposes which the city is trying to enforce. We meet all the development criteria for the LDGS. If other definitions from the LDGS can be considered valid definitions, then all the definitions should apply that fall under shopping center. 3. Finally we could obtain an additional 20 points if we were within 650 feet of an existing transit stop. There is an existing transit stop just south-east of us, again just past the 650 feet by a couple hundred feet. If our project was larger like the LDGS is geared for then we wouldn't have to worry about this. The criterion also states for this to comply (it would have to be a project having a density of at least six (6) dwelling units per acre on a gross acreage basis). This alone should prove this chart is for large proposed developments. F. The LDGS density chart a. We could obtain up to 20 points by being with in 2000 feet of an existing neighborhood shopping center, or 10 points for being with in 2000 feet of an approved, but not constructed neighborhood shopping center. King Soo ers located P just west of us and a Preliminary approval 410f The Spring Creek Shopping Center to be located just south east of us. Both of these are just out of the required 2000 feet by a couple hundred feet for us to get up to 30 more points. This would put us over the required amount of points. 1. The LDGS has a definition ( the only definition in the back of the book) for shopping center. This definition states... Shopping center shall mean a group of more than four (4).retail and service establishments located in a complex which is planned, developed, owned, or managed as a unit, with off street parking provided on the property. On page 84 of the LDGS labelled Activity J or Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center, says,... A shopping and service center situated on seven (7) or fewer acres with four (4) or more business establishments located in a complex which is planned, developed, and managed as a unit, and located within and intended to primarily serve the consumer demands of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood convenience shopping center criteria shall apply only to those areas of the City that are zoned R-L, R-L-P, R-L-M, R-H, R-P, R-M-P, M-L, M-M, B-L, or B-P, or any other areas of the City if such area are subject to the zoning condition that no development be approved unless processed as a Planned Unit Development, provided, however, am said criteria shall under no circumstances apply to development in the H-B zone. The principal uses permitted include retail services, personal services, convenience grocery stores (with accessory gas pumps), standard or fast-food restaurants (without drive -up windows), liquor sales (for on- or off -premises consumption), beauty or barber shops, dry cleaning outlets, equipment rental (not including outdoor storage), and uses of similar character as determined by the Planning and Zoning Board. Secondary uses may include professional offices, limited banking services such as automated teller machines, multi -family dwellings, medical offices and clinics, small animal veterinary clinics, and child care centers. Since the LDGS density chart is used based off of the guidelines and definitions and the only definitions used, this should mean that the Fairview Shopping Center applies to the Chart. With using either of these LDGS definitions provided we are within 2000 feet of a shopping center and should get the additional 20 points needed. In this case we would not need a variance. My understanding is the City expects proposed projects to follow the LDGS in full. If this is the case, then.I am confused as to why the City is not also required to use the LDGS in full (including.the only available definition in the LDGS). To me if the city does not go by this standard then the LDGS booklet is misleading and should either be changed to comply with what is being asked by Planning and Zoning or not be used for the Terry Whitaker he said he stopped filing these complaints because it was useless as.the situation continues to grow. B. Next the appellants stated, there are no rental units of the type proposed by. the Marsees. I agree there are no legal rented units of this type, but there are several illegal units of this type. Referring back to one of the appellants letters of opposition. Mr. Svoboda said, "most already violate the two unrelated family laws." Without specifically saying which ones (and holding myself liable) I have a friend who lives in an illegal unit and have personally been in it. This unit, along with several others, falls under the category described by the City as a duplex. C. The amended appeal states that, " The Planning and Zoning Board considered misleading evidence in making its decision to approve the Marsee P.U.D. #14-95.request on 5/22/95." At no time did I try to mislead the Planning and Zoning Board. Again all of.the information was obtained by me at the Larimer County Assessors Office, The City of Fort Collins records. I also believe that arguments on a personal nature .(insinuations, etc.) have no place in a process such as this. D. The appellants also said that all of the homes are two and three bedroom homes. Some of these homes have five or six bedrooms including; 1312 Southridge Drive, 1304 Fairview Drive, and one of the appellants at 1317 Fairview Drive. I have been in these homes and that is why I feel'this is true information. 3. Variance request for the "Marsees P.U.D. #14-95 request... A. The Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) point chart is geared for large projects, not for a small project like ours. B. We are asking for a variance from 90 to 100 points. We were .06 points over the limit to only getting 90 points. The point requirements are for 10.05 units per acre. This clearly shows that this point chart is for large projects. C. The Land Use Policies Plan (used for a guideline) Policy 80-a states.. "Higher density residential uses should locate: a. Near the core area, regional community shopping centers, CSU main campus, or the hospital. Living five (5) blocks west of CSU this would be considered near CSU and the area where increased density is needed. D. In our opinion this request.would not be detrimental to the neighborhood because it is already being used for these purposes. E. We are trying to do legally what other neighbors are already doing. (Information provided previously). Honest and legal attempts to better utilized public and personal resources in Fort Collins should be encouraged, not discouraged. currently rented. A1. Southridge Drive rented home #'s 1304, 1308, 1309, and 1312, out of twelve homes that is a third. A2. Fairview Drive rented home #'s (per the area the appellants discussed) 1324, 1340, and 1352. Of the 8 houses 37.5% are .rented. A,. Two of the houses that the appellants claim not to be rented are (1) on Southridge Dr. and (2) on Fairview Drive. The Zoning Department informed me that if the person(s) living in the house are not on the deed then the house is considered rented. If one of the person(s) living in the house are on the deed and rent other rooms then they are still rented but they have to apply for a Home Occupation License. Neither of these homes prove to have applied for this license or have been approved for it. My. understanding from this is that they are not conforming with the City of Fort Collins requirements. Furthermore one of these residents has signed the appeal, which to me makes no sense. A,. Fairview Drive rented home #'s 1300, 1301, 1304, 1305, 1308, 1309, 1321, 1340, and 1352. A5. The appellants stated in their appeal that "This is definitely not a neighborhood in which rental units predominate." A51. Of the six letters originally sent in to Planning and Zoning four (4) of them state conflicting evidence: 1. The Andersons at 1320 S. Bryan Ave. stated, "We already have too many rental homes with multiple occupants in this neighborhood." 2. The Andersons at 1317 Southridge Dr. stated, " We feel the. apartment when rented would add more students, more cars, more traffic, to an overly stressed neighborhood that was once a very quiet residential street and area." 3. The Biggs at 1321 Southridge Dr. stated, "We have more rental property now than we need." 4. The Svobodas at 1317 Fairview. Dr. stated, "This area is already overcome by homes rented to college students, most whc already violate the two unrelated family laws, limited parking, and excessive noise." These four letters directly contradict what they have stated in their appeal. Attached are copies of complaints filed with the City Zoning Department for over rented units. These complaints were filed by Terry Whitaker of 1312 Fairview Drive. After talking to Thanks to the City Council for giving me the opportunity to present my case. I have been informed by the City Attorney and the Planning and Zoning Department that the only information I can discuss tonight are facts that have already been addressed. What I plan to do tonight is... 1. To prove the statements I made to the Planning and Zoning Board. 2. Then I would like -to discuss the appeal that has been filed. 3. Finally, explain why we feel a variance should be allowed to our P.U.D. request for a duplex. I have made copies of the issues I will be addressing for you to use at your convenience. 1. Previous statements I have made... First, I obtained all of my information from the following sources: the Larimer County Assessors Office, Advanced Planning and Zoning, and Planning and Zoning. A. I stated that there are 96 houses with in a 500 sq. ft. radius. This information was obtained from the Larimer County Assessors Office. Of these 96 houses there are seven (7) houses with children living in them, (not three (3) like I previously stated). B. I stated that of these 96 houses, over a third of them are rented. After researching information from the Larimer County Assessors Office, their records stated that 33 houses were listed with the owners not living at that address. My calculations show that to be 34.4% rented which is over a third. C. The Fort Collins 1990 Census for Fort Collins shows that there were 17,746 owner occupied units and 15,943 renter occupied units, a total of 33,689 units. This is 47% rented 53% owner occupied. That is almost half. In the area labelled 5.02 which is contained between Mulberry south to Prospect, and Taft east to shields, there are 882 owner occupied units and 1,716 renter occupied units or 65.9% renter occupied. This neighborhood is definitely an area of rental homes. 2. Discussion of the appeal and amended appeal filed by the neighbors... A. The appellants claim in their appeal that this was not a neighborhood of rental homes. They only refer to two (2) streets, my information was for the required 500 sq. ft. radius. On the west side of Southridge Drive the is one house rented of six, on the east side there are three homes: rented of the six, not two. On the portion of Fairview Drive that goes from South Bryan past the south end of Southridge Drive, there are 3 houses