Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/13/2003Minutes approved by the Board at the April 10, 2003 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — February 13, 2003 8: 30 a.m. 11 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 [Chairperson: Steve Remington 11Phone: (H) 223-7138 11 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Rppeals was held on Thursday February 13, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOAI:D MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Dickson Robert Donahue DwigLt Hall Davi,: Lingle Andv Miscio Steve �:emington William Stockover BOA _D MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAi-r IMEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Tames, Zoning Administrator Paul _,}_man, Deputy City Attorney Staci Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROL.' CALL The r,eeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken. 2. APP ) V AL OF MINUTES: Mise r, made a motion to approve tl, minutes from the January 9, 2003, meeting. Hall cc 3ed the motion. The motion passed with board member Lingle abstaining. 3. APP; [ '. L N 0. 2407 —Approved. ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 2 Address: 4231 Table Mountain Place Petitioner: Mary Seaman Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(C) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback from 15 feet to 11 feet, in order to allow a detached gazebo (enclosed hot tub building). The gazebo is 10' x 19' in size, and is already constructed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The building is not very tall, about nine feet. Therefore, the impact on the neighbors, even at four feet closer than the required setback, is no more than the impact of a one or two-story home located at the 15-foot minimum setback. The slab is already poured, so it can not be picked up and rotated very easily. The structure was purchased from a local retail outlet, and the owner was told by the store employees that a permit was not required. Staff Comments: Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property is on a corner lot, and that the property fronts on Table Mountain Place. Barnes noted that the rear -yard is enclosed with a shadow box fence, and the gazebo structure is fairly close to the house. Bames stated the Applicant is requesting a rear -yard setback of 11 feet. Barnes stated the trigger for the rear -yard setback requirement was due to the gazebo structure needing to conform to the building code. Remington asked why the gazebo structure required a building permit. Bames stated the gazebo is considered to be a detached accessory building, and if said building is taller than eight feet in height and/or larger than 120 square feet, a building permit is required. Bames stated the gazebo is nine feet in height and 190 square feet. Applicant Participation: Mary Seaman addressed the Board. Seaman stated that when she purchased the gazebo, she specifically asked the store and salesman if a building permit was required; she was told no. Seaman stated the gazebo is placed in the most benefrcal way for entering and exiting the structure. Seaman stated the hot tub inside of the gazebo is needed for therapuetic reasons. Remington asked if the strucuture was attached to the concrete foundation. Seaman stated the stmcuture is just set on the foundation. Miscio asked if the Applicant found it feasible to take one -foot off the top to make it eight feet high. Seaman responded no due to the structure being pre -formed. Bames clarified that even if the structure was lowered a foot, it would still be larger than 120 square foot. ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 3 Donahue asked if the structure could be roated 90 degrees, and the foundation extended. Seaman stated she was unsure of what a rotation of the building would entail. Dickson asked staff if there was a side -yard setback. Barnes replied that a five-foot side -yard setback is required from the interior side lot line and 15-feet from the street side lot line (along Bear Creek Drive). Remington asked staff if any of the setbacks would be impacted by the property being a comer lot. Barnes responded that last year the definition for lot lines was changed so that the unique situation for a comer lot does not apply anymore. In support of the Appeal: Charlotte Brown, 4231 Table Mountain Place, addressed the Board. She was in favor of the appeal. Board Discussion: Miscio was in favor of the appeal, but stated that cost was not an allowable critieria to approve the appeal. Miscio was in favor of using the equal to or better than standard. Dickson agreed with Miscio. Dickson asked what the stanard was. Barnes replied that the motion maker would have to explain the general purpose, which is a 15-foot rear yard setback requirement. Barnes stated that setback requirements are to ensure adequate light, ventialation, privacy, and shading issues are addressed and protected. Barnes stated that in a lot of zones the rear -yard setback can be reduced to five or eight feet under the code (if it abuts an alley) because the alley acts as addition separation. Miscio felt the gazebo structure was not imposing on the neighbors. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2407 based on the following reasons: (1) granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public good; (2) the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested is to have a 15-foot rear -yard setback to ensure adequate light, ventialation, shading, and privacy from one neighbor to another; and (3) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than because the structure does not impose view difficulties for the rear neighbors to the property due to the structure not being as tall as a one-story structure. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Dickson, Remington, Lingle, and Stockover. Nays: Donahue and Hall. 4. APPEAL NO. 2408 — Upheld. Address: 1109 West Harmony Road Petitioner: Mark Brophy Zone: LMN Section: 2.11 ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 4 Backjzround: The petitioner is appealing the written administrative interpretation (#5-02, issued by the Current Planning Director Cameron Gloss) regarding the definition of "Neighborhood" as found in Sections 4.4(A) and 5.1.1 of the Land Use Code and as mentioned in City Plan. The interpretation is for the purpose of determining the "neighborhood" in which the property at 1109 West Harmony Road is located. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Staff Comments On Dec. 24, 2002, Cameron Gloss, the Director of Current Planning rendered a written interpretation regarding the petitioner's earlier request for an interpretation of elements of the City's Land Use Code. Specifically, the petitioner, Mark Brophy, requested an answer to the following question in regards to clarifying whether or not there is a conflict between the definition and use of the term "neighborhood", as applied in the Land Use Code, and specific City Plan Principles and Policies relating to Transportation Corridors: "If the Harmony Road improvement project removes barriers to pedestrians as stated in City Plan Policies TC-2.2, TC-3.1, and TC-4.3 and there are no major physical features such as railroad tracks, irrigation ditches, or drainage ways acting as a barrier to pedestrians, does the area of the neighborhood in which my property is situated change to the area bounded by a five-minute walking radius (about a quarter -mile) of a public space of highest pedestrian use, the Harmony Library, that is less than or equal to a ten-minute walking distance (about a half -mile) from my property at 1109 West Harmony Road?" Mr. Gloss, in his written interpretation, concluded that the area of Mr. Brophy's neighborhood, as defined by a five-minute walking radius, from the neighborhood center to the edge, will remain as presently configured. Mr. Brophy is appealing this interpretation to the ZBA on the grounds that it fails to resolve conflicts in the definition of "neighborhood" between City Plan and the Land Use Code. The applicant had previously attempted to receive Land Use Modifications from the Planning and Zoning Board in order to allow the property to be developed with commercial uses. Those modification requests were denied. Two of the modifications pertained to the separation requirements between Neighborhood Centers. If the ZBA agrees with the applicant and finds that Shields Street and Harmony Road don't present barriers to pedestrian and bike access, the applicant could have a stronger case that a Neighborhood Center on his site meets the intent of certain sections of City Plan. If the ZBA agrees with the staff interpretation presented by Mr. Gloss, then it will be difficult for the applicant to develop the property with the types of commercial uses that were the subject of the previous modifications considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. (Verbatim minutes follow). ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 5 Soriano Appeal number 2408, address 1109 West Harmony Road, Petitioner Mark Brophy, Zoning District, LMN. The petitioner is appealing the written administrative interpretation (#5-02, issued by the Current Planning Director Cameron Gloss) regarding the definition of "Neighborhood" as found in Sections 4.4 (A) and 5.1.1 of the Land Use Code and as mentioned in City Plan. The interpretation is for the purpose of determining the "neighborhood" in which the property at 1109 West Harmony Road is located. Please see the Petitioner's letter for the statement of hardship. Barnes This particular appeal is uh different than the types of appeals that the Board normally considers. This is an appeal of an administrative City staff interpretation. Uh, Section 2.11, or Chapter 2.11 of the Land Use Code, uh, sets forth a procedure for someone to appeal decisions uh regarding the Land Use Code, and there are ten different triggers that allow someone to do that. One is um, someone can appeal the issuance of a written administrative interpretation of a section of the Land Use Code. And that's the uh specific type of appeal that is being presented to the Board today. Um, I'm in a minute going to go through the slides and then um, the Current Planning Director, Cameron Gloss, uh will be making a presentation uh regarding uh, his interpretation regarding the issues, and then Mr. Brophy, the Applicant, will be making a presentation as well. And they will be able to get more involved into the specific issues. I'm not gonna try and get into that, but I will just give you an overview. In your packet, uh you received the letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Mr. Brophy, in which he is requesting uh that, he's appealing the decision, which is administrative interpretation #5-02, which was issued by Mr. Gloss on December 24, 2002. He's appealing this decision because Mr. Brophy believes it fails to resolve conflicts in the definition of neighborhood between City Plan and the Land Use Code. Uh, Mr. Brophy, then attached uh different uh sections of various codes, and in that you have the petitioner's ground for appeal, that's all in your packet. That's Mr. Brophy's grounds for the appeal. He's included some information on neighborhoods that were taken out of City Plan, and then you have the staff interpretation, #5-02, which was rendered by Cameron Gloss on December 20. And after that you have the petitioner's original request for interpretation. This is what Mr. Brophy submitted to um, Cameron Gloss requesting an interpretation of the issues. And then you have lastly, Section 4.4.(A) of the Land Use Code, which is the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood district, LMN District, and the purpose statement of that zone. So Mr. Brophy in summary then requested an answer to the following question in regards to clarifying whether or not there is a conflict between the definition and use of the term "neighborhood," as applied in the Land Use Code, and specific City Plan principles and policies relating to transportation corridors. The question he posed to Mr. Gloss was "if the Harmony Road ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 6 improvement project removes barriers to pedestrians as stated in City Plan policies TC-2.2, TC-3.1, and TC-4.3 (those are all included in Mr. Brophy's package) and there are no major physical features such as railroad tracks, irrigation ditches, or drainage ways acting as a barrier to pedestrians, does the area of the neighborhood in which my property is situated (and his property is 1109 West Harmony) does the area in the neighborhood in which my property is situated change to the area bounded by a five-minute walking radius (about a quarter mile) of a public space of highest pedestrian use, in this case the Harmony Library, that is less than or equal to a ten minutes walking distance (which is about %: a mile) from my property at 1109 West Harmony Road?" —that was the question. Then Mr. Gloss in his written interpretation, which you have, concluded that the area of Mr. Brophy's neighborhood as defined by a five- minute walking radius from the neighborhood center to the edge will remain as presently configured. Mr. Brophy is appealing this interpretation to the ZBA on the grounds that it fails to resolve the conflicts that he had citied. If the ZBA agrees with the Applicant, and finds that Shields Street and Harmony Road don't present barriers to pedestrian and bike access, the Applicant could have a stronger case that a neighborhood center on his site meets the intent of certain sections of City Plan. If the Zoning Board agrees with the staff interpretation presented by Mr. Gloss then it could possibly be difficult for the Applicant to develop the property with the types of commercial uses that he had previously presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for modification requests. So let me go through the slides real quick and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Gloss and Mr. Brophy. This is a vicinity map of the area, and this is Mr. Brophy's property right here, this yellow area. Uh, this is Shields Street, Harmony Road, over here is Front Range Community College, um, you have Westbury PUD, NO.. consists of single-family detached homes and then an area right in here, which is more of', an attached patio home type of development. Uh, across the street on Harmony is vacant, undeveloped land at this time. Over here on this corner of Shields and Harmony you have an apartment complex, and then again the College. This is a Fort Collins mixed -use neighborhood concept, um, and uh, Cameron Gloss will be going over this and explaining this concept to you in just a few minutes. This is an aerial similar to the vicinity map, uh, again, the property in question, the developed residential area, undeveloped here, and the College campus over here. Uh, this was, this right here is Harmony Road, this is looking south along Shields. Uh, the Brophy property is back in here. It's a site that has a lot of trees. Again, this is Harmony Road looking back toward Mr. Brophy's property which is back, his house, I believe is back in here —I think. Well, I'm not sure which is the house and which isn't. Uh, this is looking West along Harmony Road, uh again these trees are on the perimeter of Mr. Brophy's property. This is an asphalt walk along uh, the north side of Harmony Road. And this is looking on Harmony Road, looking south, uh, this is the west property line of Mr. Brophy's property, so his uh property is back I ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 7 in here, and this is part of the Westbury PUD. Similar picture looking a little bit more to the east. This is on Shields Street, there is a drive entry here off of Shields Street. The property sits back in here again. This is on Shields looking to the north. This is uh Mariposa Court, which is in Westbury, these homes here back up to the west boundary of Mr. Brophy's property. This is uh, a property here that abuts uh, the south along the south -side of Mr. Brophy's property. And this, that property I just showed you, which is right here, Mr. Brophy's is here, the Westbury PUD development has a street that stubs out —it is called Olt Court. It stubs out um, to that intervening property between Mr. Brophy's and Westbury PUD. As they say in Colorado, if you don't like the weather, wait a day, so um, those other pictures were taken last year. This was just taken a week or two ago, uh, similar pictures. This is the undeveloped field on the north of the property, on the north side of Harmony. That's all that undeveloped property. Uh, this is uh Shields Street here and Front Range Community College. I've included some other pictures in here just in case the conversation goes to the issue of distances between neighborhood centers. Um, Mr. Brophy's property is to the right —off of the screen, and this is Harmony Road here, and the new Harmony Road curves around to intersect at Taft. At this location here, is the overlook Seneca PUD, which is a neighborhood center. Uh, it was constructed last year. Again, here's Mr. Brophy's property here, Harmony starts to curve and here is that overlook Seneca Center —neighborhood center. That's all I have at this time if the Board doesn't have any questions of me I'll turn it over to Mr. Gloss. Remington I've got one question, um, which I guess is actually for Paul before we get too far into this. I guess I want to understand the motion when we get to the end of this, since this is something kind of different than what were used to. So as we're going through I need to think about where we need to be heading, so at the end of this we need to do what? We need to have a motion ... Eckman Well, the uh, information that I gave you before which uh as to do with how to make motions pertaining to the equal to or better than test or the hardship test or whatever, and I might add that, that last motion was very on target as far as that advice I gave you was concerned. Those don't apply now, and the uh Land Use Code simply provides, well in Division 2.11, which is the division you are working under now regarding appeals from Administrative decisions, but Step 7, require that you shall review, consider, and uphold, modify or overturn the administrative decision of Mr. Gloss. Either uphold it, modify it, or overturn it. And then if you look at Step 8, which is the standards that you're to use that doesn't give you much help. It says that an appeal from an administrative decision shall be determined based upon the same standards, which apply to the underlying administrative decision. The same standards that Mr. Gloss was under when he made his decision. So I, uh, had to go to Division 1.4 of the Land Use Code, to see if it gave him some guidance on how to render his interpretation. And 1.4.3(C) is entitled, "Rendering of Interpretation", and again it leaves us, it leaves you in a position almost of a court, at this point. To try to ascertain the intent of the legislation, of the ordinance of the Land Use Code in this case because it says the director shall ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 8 review, and evaluate the request of Mr. Brophy in light of the terms and provisions of this Land Use Code. Goes on and says that he can ask for advice from the City Attorney or from other City Departments that might be involved before rendering his interpretation. So, so I view his duty as being to apply the language of the Land Use Code pertaining to neighborhoods, and neighborhood centers and so on and try to figure what would a reasonable person think those words meant. What was the intent of the City Council in passing this law based upon the words on the page as a reasonable man test or reasonable woman test, just what must it have meant. So you're now in a position just like so many judges are to try and ascertain that without much more in the way of criteria than just apply the reasonable person rule. Remington So then, okay so then, at the end we'll need a motion to either uphold the decision as it was made um Eckman Overturn it Remington Modify it Eckman Or modify it Remington We could modify it —a motion that would modify the decision to something else. Or a motion that would overturn Eckman That's right Remington And then with that motion some explanation, I guess, of Eckman It'd be nice if you could explain your thinking, your logic on why you came to that conclusion, but were kind of off the board as far as the ideas that I gave ,you regarding the hardship variances, and the other types of variances now Remington Right. Thanks that helps. Kind of think through where were headed so ...any other questions for staff? Gloss Good morning Mr. Chairmen and members of the board. As Mr. Eckman stated the Applicant has the ability to request an interpretation of the City's Land Use Code and those interpretations can be general in nature. In this case, that would apply, and that the Applicant has asked about the definition of neighborhood, but also can be more specific as it applies to a particular piece of property and that is also the case here. Mr. Brophy has asked how that definition, that I'm making this interpretation on, would relate specifically to his property at Harmony and Shields. The Appellants, or excuse me, Mr. Brophy's request specifically asks some questions, which Mr. Bames has stated into the record. One of those requests was about the definition of neighborhood as it appears in the Land Use Code. Actually when you go to the Land Use Code, and you go to Section 5.2.1, which is where we list definitions. There is no formal definition of neighborhood. So we have to go to other sections and they relate specifically to uh section 4.4.(A) and the City Plan, which is the City's comprehensive planning document that has several elements to it, there are principles and policies, and then that is implemented through a map, that you've probably seen called the structure plan. There are several exhibits in City Plan, and I've got one shown here, I would also like to get copies passed out to you, they're 8 %2 x 11, so maybe it's a little easier for you to read than this color version that's projected on the screen. I thought it would be helpful to show this graphic, kind of take a step back, and talk about ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 9 the structure of the City as it relates to neighborhoods and what the intention of City Plan was when it was created in 1997. And I think it's pretty telling if you go to that definition that is um, under Section 4.4.(A), when we talk a little bit about neighborhood and what's considered to be a neighborhood and then this particular graphic. You'll see a series of arcs on this diagram. And you'll notice that you've got the streets here at, are one mile sections, and that's very typical and uh much of the United States the Jeffersonian grid is 640 acres, a square mile, and often times they were developed with rural roads, farm roads that developed into arterial streets —and that's pretty much the pattern you see in Fort Collins. You'll notice then these arcs and what they represent is a quarter mile distance. So from the center to the edge, that's a quarter of a mile and about a five-minute walk. You turn to section 4.4(A) of the Land Use Code and it says a neighborhood shall be considered to consist of approximately 80 to 160 acres. Here's a 160 acres. With edges typically consisting of major streets, well here's an arterial street, that would provide an edge. A drainage way, irrigation ditch, railroad tracks or other major physical features. So let's just say for example, that this is South Shields Street going north/south on this graphic, and this Harmony Road, and this is the subject property, and that's about the size of it. How might that fit in as being part of a neighborhood? Well, you can see these arcs, how in all the cases on this graphic, they terminate at the edge of an arterial street —that this is a barrier, and edge of a neighborhood. If it wasn't this arc could then swing out over here and it's, I think, even more telling when you have a circumstance uh, like uh, really like uh actually shown on all of these graphics you don't see situations were these arcs cross over an arterial street. Um, Mr. Brophy's case is that we have uh the Community College and the Harmony Library located adjacent to the site, and that, that is an area of high pedestrian use, which is true, and that this arterial street because of some street improvements that are anticipated but not completely funded would then allow, essentially this are to cross over onto the site and be served by the neighborhood —by what is perceived, he perceives to be the neighborhood. I don't agree with that. Uh, my perspective is that the arterial street does provide the barrier and the edge to the neighborhood. I think this graphic is telling, and it's demonstrated in City Plan that this is one of the structural elements that uh these neighborhoods are combined together to make the community, and they have definite edges to them. There's been a lot of discussion, the Applicants submittal about the street improvements at Harmony/Shields. And as the photographs indicated, and if any of you have been to that intersection at peak hour, it's quite congested. It's one of the most congested intersections in the City, and one that we have as a priority item to improve. And there are series of improvements, that are as I said, partially funded and they would include sidewalks, medians, enhanced cross walks, but also double left turn lanes. The width of the street will actually be widened, even with those pedestrian enhancements. From my perspective they still create a significant barrier and continue to form an edge to that neighborhood as opposed to allowing pedestrian activity to readily flow back and forth. And so for all of those ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 10 reasons I rendered my interpretation uh to say that Mr. Brophy's request basically stating that the new street improvements at the Harmony/Shields intersection would not be a barrier was problematic, and that I thought it was very clear in the Land Use Code what the interpretation should be for a neighborhood and that's stated, I think, very clearly in the interpretation. So with that, that concludes my presentation, and I would welcome any comments thatyou've got. Remington I've got one question, I guess, right off the top. The graphic we have here doesn't match what's on the slide. Gloss There's a little bit of difference. Remington This one actually has the radius crossing the streets thatyou're talking about. Gloss I believe the graphic that you have um shows the arcs still terminating, not crossing over in all cases. Remington Okay, I see whatyou're saying. It goes halfway Gloss It goes halfway, and you'll notice that it doesn't come completely over. It terminates in all cases at the arterial street, does not cross over. Remin on Okay, I see whatyou're saying. Okay thank you. Eckman I think we ought to try to establish some procedure, and I gather, to me it's up to the chair to decide, but now that you've heard Mr. Gloss, and you are now going to hear Mr. Brophy uh whether or not there should be rebuttal time for Mr. Gloss to respond to issues that Mr. Brophy raises and then some limited, you have to keep getting this down narrower and narrower, but should then Mr. Brophy have a chance to respond to Mr. Gloss' response. How far do you want to go with this and how do you want to set that up? Remington Okay, good point. I guess what I would suggest is that staffs done the presentation and we would ask whatever questions we have of staff specific to their presentation. And I would suggest we hear from the uh, Mr. Brophy, the Applicant, the Appellant, I don't know what the right term is, but hear from Mr. Brophy and ask any questions that we have, um directly related to his presentation. Um, Eckman We have to include the public input. Remington Right, um, now do we want the public input, I guess, before or after we do the rebuttals? Um Stockover Can we see a show of hands of how many people want to comment? Remington Yeah, I guess for just to help us for planning. Can I just see a show of hands of people that are either interested in speaking for or against this proposal? Do we have, so just a couple, okay. Eckman Perhaps we should uh, if we're gonna have rebuttal times for each side, we should have that dialogue go on first before the public. Remington Before the public. Okay, so I would recommend that we get staff, ask questions, hear -from Mr. Brophy, ask questions, and maybe give each side five minutes um for a rebuttal, and then um hear input from the public, and then board discussion. Does that seem reasonable to folks? Okay. So let's, are there any other questions then for staff. Yeah Lingle Yeah, I've got one. Uh Cameron you just mentioned that this graphic that we have shows those neighborhoods terminating at an arterial street, and ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 11 essentially creating a half are or half -circle Gloss That's correct, yes. Lingle Neighborhood, could it not also then if the neighborhood center were on a comer, like what I understand as being proposed, that the neighborhood would then be a quarter arc? Gloss That's correct, yes. Lingle Not qualify or Gloss That's true. hi all cases, if you look at both policy and the graphics and City Plan, it would indicate though that there's still a barrier. I mean it's conceivable that you could have uh, um, some kind of commercial use on a corner. Uh, we haven't given preferential treatment to um commercial centers being on an arterial intersection for serving neighborhoods. Uh, because what you're doing is you're lessening the ability for people within that five minute walk to get to that center. You want to maximize the number of people that live in close proximity to the center. By pushing it further to the edge of the neighborhood uh it makes it difficult to do that. But it is conceivable, you're right. Lingle Okay. Remington I Are there any other questions for staff? Miscio Uh, yes Cameron are there blended things where you have one circle overlapping another? Where, you know, sometimes it's very difficult to arbitrarily say this is where the neighborhood stops, and this is where another one begins. And there's time when you have this blended thing where you have your residential, then your multi -family, then your commercial, and you know all of that can conceivably have some sort of overlapping as to what is construed as a neighborhood. Gloss I see your point, but if you look at the structure that we set up within the City's Plan. We actually draw some relatively tight lines, and use that five minute walk as the basis for that structure of the neighborhood. So, you know, I guess, probably the short answer is no. No we don't really show that overlap within the plan. We do encourage a mixture of uses, and it does get down to the details sometime of how do you create the right mixture? And that's certainly something that we struggle with all of the time. Uh, but if you look at the City structure plan it's very clear where the neighborhood centers are located, it's very clear how we define neighborhood, I think from the graphic we just showed as well as the policies. Miscio Well, you know I was thinking about what comprised of a neighborhood and I don't know that there's any specific set of criteria that delineates one neighborhood from another. Some are based on the physical characteristics, some are based on the image, some is based on the ethnic composition, some is based on economics, so I mean, in my mind, having this concrete definite thing there are times when that is appropriate, and then there's times where from a practical perspective you look at a neighborhood and say hey I don't care where your line is, that's part of the neighborhood. And so, I lean towards trying to understand the practical aspect of what we're doing here with neighborhoods, and I look at the guidelines thatyou're imposing but also ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 12 there's something, a more practical nature beyond that in my judgment. Gloss I guess I'd like to offer that Mr. Brophy's comment relates really to where's the edge of the neighborhood, and does the arterial street, in this case there are two, do they create really a barrier —an edge to the neighborhood? And whether you, you know, I think you've said that you can define neighborhood in different ways, but where's the edge and is this truly, this arterial street truly provide a barrier and create that edge, and from our perspective it does. Remington Vny other questions for staff? (tape turns over Lingle What's the tie in to Harmony Library in this particular case? Gloss That was an argument made by Mr. Brophy and it maybe best for him to try to explain that. Thank you. Lingle Oh, okay. Remington Any other questions for staff? Um, I've got one, and I apologize, I don't remember exactly where in the, in the reading it was stated, but I remember from in the reading there was an argument or a point made by um, the City that they've used in defining these arterials as boundaries I think the point was made that it's been used before. Um, to define boundaries, can you, can you give some specific examples of where these arterial roads have been used to define neighborhoods in previous, is that ... Gloss Well, I could probably point to section line roads, like Shields and Harmony and Timberline. Uh, and Mulberry that create those edges to neighborhoods. You could very clearly Remington Those being used for other development proposals to define those boundaries. Gloss Yes, that's correct. Remington Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff. One other one I've got, I'm sorry, but I'm trying to understand. So this definition of neighborhood, I guess I'm trying to understand how does that specifically impact um, this subject property in terms of what can be developed there or not? Gloss I think as Mr. Barnes stated in his presentation and his last few comments to summarize that it's possible that if, I think you agree with the Applicant, that his case uh is correct. That it's certainly not the edge of the neighborhood, that Shields and Harmony doesn't present a real barrier to pedestrian bike access. He can probably make a stronger case that a neighborhood center meets the intent of City Plan. Uh, Mr. Brophy had requested .. . Remington The neighborhood center is what allows the commercial development? Gloss That's correct. There's a lot of detail to it that I don't, that's not appropriate to get into at this time, but Mr. Brophy had requested a modification of standards for the separation requirements for neighborhood centers um back in uh 2001, and that was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and denied on June 7' And then it was appealed to the City Council, which was then uh Council upheld the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Remington Okay thanks. Any other questions for staff? Eckman May I ask one? Remington Yeah. Eckman Is that because uh the neighborhood center is not to be at the edge, but rather Gloss No, it was a different argument. And I'm only bringing this up because the ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 13 questions was asked. Uh, that related specifically to some separation requirements in the Land Use Code. Eckman But now this argument. This, this request to re uh, have another look at your interpretation is it because that this site is not at the edge, then it might possibly be a candidate for Gloss I think it would make a stronger argument for the Applicant to come back and request a modification. Eckman But if it is at the edge it's a harder argument to make? Gloss Yeah, from, in my opinion yes. Remington Okay, thanks, that helps clarify that. Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you. Mr. Brophy, if you'd like uh come forward and if you could state our name and address for the record and ... Brophy My name is Mark Brophy, I live at 1109 West Harmony Road. Um, there's a couple of problems with the interpretation um, one is the one that you just mentioned uh Mr. Miscio about uh these things can be um defined pretty arbitrarily if you live a little bit to the east of the Harmony Library you would be within a short walking distance of two public spaces one McGraw Elementary and the Harmony Library, so you could draw a circle around McGraw Elementary or you could draw it around um the Harmony Library and have two different definitions of a neighborhood. However, that's not the case here there's only one public space. Um, the definition of a neighborhood is on page 145 of City Plan, and it says that each neighborhood has an identity that evolves from its public places. And the public place within a ten minute walk of my property is the Harmony Library and the Front Range Community College. So the only way that you can satisfy that is to draw a circle around the Harmony Library. Um, it also says in Mr. Gloss' interpretation that the neighborhood, term neighborhood is very generally defined within City Plan, it's not as defined quite specifically on page 145. I, it says a neighborhood is more than a housing development, 100 to 160 acres in size, um, this general size range is based on a five minute walking distance, a quarter of a mile from the edge to the center, and a 10 minute walk from edge to edge. On the second paragraph says it evolves from a public space, the third says that it includes a transit stop. Harmony Library includes a transit stop, but it's at the Harmony Library, but there is no transit stop in the neighborhood as defined by Mr. Gloss. Um, so you don't have a public space, and you don't have a transit stop. The only that um matches his definition of a neighborhood with mine is we agree on the size. Um, second his interpretation on the next page, it says that um, it is acknowledged that the proposed street improvements will result in greater physical comfort and safety for the pedestrians, but such improvements will be offset by other qualities detrimental to the pedestrian environment. Um, and then he comes to the conclusion that um, those um, things that make it easier for pedestrians are offset. Um, that's arbitrary and the way to figure that out objectively is to look at the Fort Collins pedestrian plan. The Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan states uh, if you look at it, that currently ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 14 um, the intersections of Harmony and Shields have a level service D, and once the improvements are made that will rise to B. Um, it also states that the acceptable level of service is C that implies that there is no barrier here. The pedestrian plan was developed at great expense to uh make sure that streets aren't barriers, and clearly states what you need to do to figure out whether it's a barrier or not. And after these improvements are made the change will be made from a barrier to uh something that's not a barrier. It's a minor inconvenience, but it's not a physical barrier like a river, or a major highway, or a drainage ditch or something like that. Um, third, this um, this question has already been answered before by the Planning Department and uh previous case. The Seneca Center at the comer of Seneca and Harmony um, was um, under a points based system and under that system points were awarded if a neighborhood center was at the intersection of a collector's street, and an arterial street. Seneca Street is a collector's street uh, north of Harmony, and it's a local street south of Harmony. The um, the Seneca Center is on the south side of Harmony Street, so if this code had been interpreted strictly they would not have been given any points for being at the intersection of a um, collector and arterial because it's at the intersection of a local and arterial. The planner for the project decided that the arterial was not a barrier, it wasn't very important so the points were awarded for being at the intersection of a collector and an arterial. If that um, those points had not been um awarded that project would not have gone through. So, it seems to me that this question has already been answered. Thank you very much. Remington Excuse me, Mr. Brophy, are there any questions for Mr. Brophy? Brophy Oh I'm sorry Remington That's all right, any questions for ...I guess I've got one in that, that the uh the comments you were just making about the Seneca Center, um, where that was uh, deemed a center of a neighborhood, in that definition was that a um, I don't know whether that was uh, you know, was that a quarter arc or a half arc or a full arc in terms of like the diagram that we saw um where you've got centers um defined and the arcs stops at an arterial was the case of Seneca was that one where um, the center was defined there but the arc stopped around the arterial or was that whole neighborhood defined. Brophy Uh, no the arc went around the arterial because it was decided that there was a lot of population um on all sides of um, of the Seneca Center because actually most of it was on the collectors side. Uh, there's an elementary school, or a junior high, there's something there. There's a large park there and a large center of population. On the north side, uh Kathy Fromme Prairie uh prevents it from having as large uh, uh population center. So that's why ideally that center would have been on the other side of the street. And that's why it was a local street. Remin on So it's your understanding that it was a full circle, a full arc or whatever. Brophy Yes, essentially it was a full arc, yes. Remington Around the corner. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Brophy? Um Miscio I have one, Mark. I'm trying to understand, and I don't get things real fast, but when I do I'm okay. What is the neighborhood thatyou're trying to say that ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 15 your part of? Brophy Uh, my neighborhood, my property is in the Front Range Community College District, and it's, my neighborhood is bound by um a quarter of a mile walking radius, five minute walking radius around the Harmony Library, which is the area of the highest pedestrian use within a ten minute walking distance of my property. Miscio And by saying that you're included in that neighborhood how does that benefit you. Brophy Uh, that's an argument for another day, but it uh will help me in my modifications request. It's a very complex thing. Miscio Okay, thank you. Remington I But your feeling is the neighborhood center would be the Harmony Library. Brophy Yes, that's right. Remington Any other questions for Mr. Brophy? Bames I do just want to clarify that the Seneca Center while it was constructed last year, was constructed under the Land Development Guidance System, and was not regulated by the terms of the Land Use Code with respect to having to comply with any other requirements of the Land Use Code. Um, just so you understand that. Uh, the fact that it's there and classified as a neighborhood center has some impact on like uses being certain distances from that center and everything. Um, so just some background information regarding the Seneca Center, not thatyou're confused with how that project was approved. Remington Okay. Barnes And I don't know if Mr. Brophy had anything to say regarding what I just said or not. Brophy I think that when they were approving the Seneca Center they uh, had the same question answered that you did with the previous applicant, was it equal to or better. And the intent of the Land, the Development Guidance System was the same as it is under City Plan, and so they had to decide whether to award points for being at the intersection of a collector and an arterial uh based on how well it fit the policies of the City. So that particular decision was decided based on City Plan, even though, the entire project was decided under the Land Development Guidance System. Remington Okay. I guess one other question I've got is there's a couple of public or what I guess what I would deem public places around that, there's a church on the north side of Harmony, there's McGraw as you mentioned, what in, in your arguments what makes the Harmony Library the center versus the, I don't know, the church or the school or some of those pieces around there? Brophy Um, I go to McGraw Elementary sometimes, but it's more than a five minute walk, so it's not, it's a half a mile away, not a quarter of a mile away. Uh, the church is within that distance, however it's a private church, it's not a public place. When people go to a public place within a ten minute walking distance of my place, they always go to the Harmony Library. Um, I spoke before of the hypothetical case of somebody who lives slightly to the east of the Harmony Library, so it's not actually a hypothetical case, Glen Colten on the Planning and Zoning Board lives there, when he wanted to reach a civic place ZBA Febmary 13, 2003 Page 16 he didn't go to the McGraw Elementary School. He wanted to get people to vote for his ballot and issues, so he went to the Harmony Library instead. And uh, I think that there's a certain minority of the population that goes to that church, but I wouldn't call it a public space. Remin on Okay, thanks. Any other questions for Mr. Brophy. Yeah Lingle If your neighborhood was bounded by Harmony and Shields, and you were part of that southwest quadrant that would comply with the neighborhood according to City Plan. Is that entirely developed out, that it would not allow the neighborhood center to be somewhere interior to that, that would be in compliance with this or do you see what I mean? Is Brophy Um, my property and the small property of Marsha Collins adjacent to mine are the only ones that are undeveloped. Lingle And everything else is residential? Brophy That's right. Lingle Okay, and so therefore if, if your definition of where your neighborhood is would not be upheld, your property would more than likely need to be developed residentially? Brophy Uh, no it could be used for office use uh and it would also um, this will clarify the thinking of the Planning and Zoning Board when they um decide on a modification request, but it's not in any way of uh what actually might happen. Lingle Okay, thank you. Remington Are there any otherquestions? Barnes Mr. Chairmen, I do want to clarify one issue. You asked the question about the church, um, and then the issue came up of whether or not that's a public space. Uh, Mr. Brophy referred early to page 145 out of Principles and Policies and um, Mr. Brophy indicated that that was a private church and not a public space, but the second paragraph on that page states each neighborhood may have an identity that evolves from its public spaces, and then it defines what, for example, streets, parks and outdoor spaces, schools, places of worship and other shared facilities uh so from that, I just want to clarify that uh according to City Plan Principles and Policies a church can be considered a public space even thou it's a private church. Remington Okay thanks. Any other questions for Mr. Brophy? Okay, thank you. I think if I remember right we said we'd give a five minute rebuttal to each side, and then do public input. So Gloss I'd just like to make a few points of clarification. Uh, Mr. Chairmen you had asked about the Seneca Center, and uh Mr. Barnes had responded that it was actually approved under the former code the LDGS or Land Development Guidance System. But it was also approved under the City's previous comprehensive plan. So, there's a little bit of difference in terms of the policy basis that would be applied. Uh, secondly on the Seneca Center being at an arterial/collector intersection the traffic volumes are significantly lower uh as most of you know having gone thorough this intersection this is a heavily used, the public improvements that we'd be talking about at Shields and West Harmony would result in a very wide intersection, uh cross-section, of the roadway and you'd be talking about double left turn lanes. So you'd be ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 17 crossing six lanes of traffic in order to get across the street. And that's one of the points I was trying to make is that you've got through movements, right turn movements, and double left turn movements. And those are significant, if you've spent any time crossing streets of that width, uh, I think you'll note (as from my own personal experience) how difficult that is and what a barrier is actually created by it. So those are really the only points that I wanted to bring up. I think everything else is been very clearly stated. Thanks Remington Any questions for? Okay, um Barnes Are we going to ask Mr. Brophy if he had anything to respond to what Mr. Gloss just asked? Remington Right, yeah. If we can get you to come up to the microphone, so it's on the record we'd appreciate it. Brophy Uh, the two left turn lanes that Mr. Gloss refers to are uh you don't have to cross those left turn lanes from my property. They're on the other side of the street, on the uh north side of um Harmony Road. If you cross Harmony there's uh a single left turn lane, and that's what is planned —no right turn lane. And on uh, Shields on my side, there will be a single left turn lane, not a double. Thank you. Eckman Mr. Brophy, Mr. Brophy, may I, may I ask a question? Brophy Sure Eckman Just to try to clarify the issues. You mentioned in response to Mr. Miscio's question that was very complicated, but that uh, I'm trying to see if I can help to focus what the Board is being asked to look at. Is it fair to say that the question that the Board needs to decide is what is a neighborhood, and also whether or not that college campus is in your neighborhood then? Brophy Yes, that's right. Eckman Just the boundary, and the reason for that is I think, and I didn't get a clear answer from either Mr. Gloss, and I hope to get one from you that if your on the edge of the neighborhood that presents a problem for development. But if you're further into the neighborhood, it makes it easier for development in your mind. Brophy Uh, yes. I think Mr. Barnes summarized it uh well in his paragraph one. Remington So I guess maybe the question I've got to ask you then, maybe give City a chance to respond, but I think the comment was made earlier when we were looking at this map that defined arcs and neighborhoods and all that you could have uh, a quarter circle arc um, around a comer. So it seems to me that there's a lot of, you know, developments on comers and all so I guess can you have um, a neighborhood center defined on a comer with uh, with uh quarter arc around it. I mean could this, could this property be its own neighborhood center on the corner with uh, am I making sense in what I'm asking. Gloss I think you'll notice, I understand your point. You'll notice in the graphic that you, you don't see them on comers. You see them on collector/arterial intersections, not at arterial/arterial intersections. Remington Okay, okay do you have any comments on that? Brophy Well, if you restrict me to a quarter than means 75% of the City doesn't exist. And, when you decide these thins you have to decide about the uh health and ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 18 welfare of the entire City, not a minority of 25%. It can be approached from all four directions. And the questions is, is are they arterials barriers and I think that pedestrian plan clearly states that they are now and they won't be after the improvements are made. And that's why we call them improvements. Remington Okay. Brophy Why would we spend all that money, if it's not going to improve anything? Remington Okay, any other questions for Mr. Brophy? Okay, thank you. Okay I don't know uh how to take the public input in terms of the order of events here. Um, so I think we had two people. I'll let you go in whatever order you want to go. I think this gentlemen raised his hand. If you'd like to come up state your name and address for the record, and any comments you like to add. Leeke Good morning, my name is Marty Leeke, I live at 4612 Mariposa Court, which is directly adjacent to the property in question on the western side, uh, in the Westbury PUD. Um, I have um, some prepared remarks that I'd like to share with you and if appropriate can I provide you copies of what I'm presenting. Remington Sure. Leeke In addition to the remarks there are some support materials that are relevant from previous hearings with Planning and Zoning and the City Council. Before I start my prepared remarks I'd like to share a couple of general comments. Um, I think it helps, at least it helps me when looking at these kinds of issues to understand the whole picture of what's happening with this particular property, and the potential plans for the property. The item that's brought before you today is one small piece in a series of actions and activities that have occurred so far today. Um, I don't know if it's appropriate, if not please feel free to stop me, but I want to share with you uh, my prepared comments are in the context of the whole issue associated with the development of this property, and not just the definition of the neighborhood or the hardship request that's being asked to be made regarding the definition of the word neighborhood. Remington Okay, the only, only comment that I'd throw in, is that I'd ask you to keep your remarks um, tied in or relevant to. I mean the issue we have to decide today is on this neighborhood definition it's not a development issue around the property, if you will, so if you can just keep your remarks focused on how it relates to what we have to decide that would be great. Leeke Okay, I will do that. In that case, I won't read the prepared remarks that I have, that I have presented to you, but I would call your attention that your deliberation if you want to peruse those 1 think it might help in the general context, but I will keep my remarks directly to the issue of the definition of neighborhood. At previous reviews, and at the City Council, um, meeting where the City Council is asked to either uphold or overturn the request associated with the development it was made apparent in the presentations and the arguments by the uh, by the Brophys that they actually were part of the Westbury PUD neighborhood, and in fact a large part of their argument was centered around the fact that the development that they are proposing benefits directly the Westbury PUD, and no mention was ever made of the neighborhood being the Front Range Community College campus or the ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 19 Harmony Library. Um, so I find it interesting that now the definition of neighborhood is reversed, and Mr. Brophy is asking you to expect that the neighborhood that he belongs to is the Front Range Community College neighborhood and not the property owners adjacent to his property. So, in that regard I'm not sure why now the only reason I can conclude that, that this particular request is being made is for the benefit of the applicant in the development of the property um, which the argument is directly contradictory to the argument that was made previously to Planning and Zoning so that `s one area, that I think is, is somewhat misleading is stating that this neighborhood that the Brophy property is in, is not Front Range Community College, it is in fact that Westbury PUD, and if we use Mr. Miscio's description of what makes a neighborhood uh is generally made up of the population and the activity directly surrounding adjacent to and part of that neighborhood and not something that is arbitrarily uh asked to become all of the sudden the center of the neighborhood which is um, not directly adjacent to the property in questions. So, um I will leave my remarks at that um again I did present you some materials that are not directly in line with the definition of neighborhood, I apologize if that makes things confusing, but um you'll notice in the material I presented to you a petition signed by 45 residents in the Westbury PUD regarding the action associated with the Brophys request for variance and development and I think that information is self-explanatory. Can I answer any questions? Remington The uh, I've got on the petition you're referring to is that, is that signing the um, signing an agreement to the letter Leeke The letter attached, immediately preceding the signature sheets, which was the letter that was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board, review Board. Remington Okay, I've got it. Leeke based on the original request for variance of the LMN code. Remington Okay. Any questions for? Okay thank you. Leeke Thank you. Remington I think there was someone else that wants to speak on this item as well, if you could come up and state your name and address for the record, and any comments that you'd like to, relative to the decision we have around the definition of a neighborhood. Collins Hi, uh, good morning Board. My name is Marsha Collins, I own the property that um, on the site map, you see the yellow block and then the little white strip that runs on the south border, that's the property. It's at um, 4621 South Shields Street. It's uh, presently zoned the same way, LMN, and it's also undeveloped as is the comer property. And it's completely surrounded by Westbury PUD. Um, more or less, I mean, the comments this morning have been uh really pretty comprehensive on definitions of neighborhoods and what is and isn't, and so on. I don't envy your task, in a way. But um, the point I would like to bring up is, deals more with access to this property than anything else. Um, Peter would you mind going to the slide, uh, Barnes Will this one work or the one that shows Olt Court? Collins The one that shows the front of the property with the entry way, I think it's, ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 20 right there. Where it's labeled entry, that's actually my driveway. Okay that's not on Brophy property. And if you see that small yellow sign to the right, that is uh, right on the boundary line or just immediately left of it, and that fence constitutes 500 feet from the center of the intersection of Harmony and Shields. Um, uh, could you ... Remin ton I apologize for the construction noise that seems to be going on in the building. Collins If you looked along the um, southern border of my property, which goes back into Westbury PUD, that's where Olt Court is stubbed into the back of my field. Okay, this property is 125 feet wide, and it's 500 feet deep. And Olt Court is in the very back portion, I'd say about 300 feet back. And stubbed into that Olt Court are the sewer facilities, that I think, the City anticipated having connected to um, there it is thank you. Anticipated having connect uh to the Brophy property on development. As my understanding that there's no um, sewer facility in Harmony, along Harmony there or along um, Shields as well. So, I guess um, maybe in a way I'm raising another question here, and I don't mean to do that except that the question of access to this property is key to developing it. Um, one way or another, whether it's offices or whatever is decided. So are there any questions? Remington Any questions? So, I've got one, I guess, I'm trying to understand and apologize, if I'm not quite getting it, but are you arguing in favor of upholding the Cit 's definition of neighborhood or overturning that. What's your, your Collins I was hoping you wouldn't ask that. Um, I guess, I guess I would say, I'm really on the side of uh fairing, favoring uh the definition of neighborhood that was described by Mr. Brophy with the consideration of access to that property, to both properties actually to be developed. One, being the issue of 500 feet from the intersection, and the other being Olt Court having uh sewer facility. Remington Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. I think that brings us to Board discussion. I guess um, I don't know how everyone else is feeling, I, frankly I'd like to take about three or four minutes and read through this information we were handed, but I don't know where everybody else is at. Stockover That's fine with me. Remington Is that all right? Bear with us, it might take just a minute to read through this. Board reads the information that was given to them. Remin on Oka Miscio Can I, Peter, I have a question by redefining a neighborhood does that facilitate changes of use in that neighborhood? Bames Well, it won't change the zoning. The zoning of Mr. Brophy's property will still be LMN. The zoning of all of the other properties around will remain the same uh as we indicated earlier, if um, the edge of the neighborhood is expanded to include um, the Harmony Library, and maybe that becomes, Front Range Community College becomes the edge, then that could make it, could give Mr. Brophy some additional arguments on his behalf when he proposes a development plan for a neighborhood center consisting of possible commercial uses. Miscio I guess that's the part I'm not understanding real well, is what difference does it make if we change the center of the neighborhood regarding the impact that ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 21 this site will have on the surrounding area. Barnes It would have an impact on the types of uses that might be allowed through a proposed development plan. Eckman I want to invite Cameron to respond to this to, but I'm thinking that, that the uh map you had earlier showing the circles and correct me, anyone, if I'm wrong. But I think that the idea that I saw from that was the goal was in mind was to move these neighborhood centers into the, as much as possible, into the centers of quarter sections. If you see those 160 acre spots and then you tend to see these neighborhood centers, not always just as a bulls eye, but moving them into the centers of quarter mile sections of, of sections, of square miles. And we're on a square mile grid in Fort Collins. So many of our intersections of arterial streets are developed under the prior law in commercial ways, and my observation is at least you tend to see those on the comers of arterial streets as developed under the prior law. Now so Cameron, I'm asking you to carefully consider this. If Mr. Brophy's argument is that the neighborhood is bigger, and includes that campus area, and the way the principles and policies reads churches to be included as public spaces then it would move it off to the north, where the LDS church is, you could have a scenario where his site almost gets to be in the middle of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood center would be ideal under that thinking. While if these arterial streets create the boundaries of neighborhoods then he's off onto the comer of the neighborhood rather than in the middle, is that fair? Gloss That is fair. Mr. Brophy would have a stronger case that he would meet the policies of the City's Land, uh, the City's Plan as well as the Land Use Code, and may have stronger grounds of modification of standards. I don't know that it's relevant to go into all the uses that are permitted within the neighborhood center, but I think one of the key issues for Mr. Brophy was how other types of uses, like convenience store, with fuel sales, how that might be incorporated into the design, and that was something that couldn't be accommodated under the present code. Miscio But by changing the definition of neighborhood or modifying for this case, it include that? Gloss Just by this decision, this action of the Board, it would not. But it would make a stronger case for a modification to be granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. Miscio But the Planning and Zoning Board could still stop it from happening, if it's inappropriate for the area. Gloss That's correct. Remington I guess I've got, okay o ahead. Lingle I guess, and some of my questions were directed at trying to get to the underlying motivation of why we are hearing this today, but at the same time and I understand what you're asking questions about, Andy, but in my opinion um, that's really the purview of the Planning and Zoning Board to weigh the development um, uh proposal that might come before them in terms of its appropriateness for that land. And what we're really focused on today is just whether or not we support Mr. Gloss' interpretation of those two arterials ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 22 forming an edge to the neighborhood in which his property lies. I guess in my opinion, that, that they do. Uh, I've walked many arterial intersections Harmony, Lemay, and Harmony/Timberline is probably the worst where you're trying to get across six to eight lanes of traffic, and if there were ever an edge to a neighborhood created by physical boundary like that, that would be one of them. Miscio And I agree with that, as far as the physical part. I see those arterials as being a real issue with it. But you know from where I'm coming from being in real estate, sometimes the circles is right in the middle of that intersection and the neighborhood goes around where you have each corner as a commercial use, and so it becomes a commercial center, not just one corners commercial center, but you tend to have an intersection. And I'm not saying it's appropriate in this case, but in general neighborhoods for commercial centers start, in dead center, in the heart of that intersection in the middle of that street. And so, you know there's some of that, that I'm wrestling with on this, and I'm trying to uh ...if the use on this comer would be the same regardless whether we expanded the definition of neighborhood or not, I'm not having as much a problem expanding, but if the uses change then I am. Because I agree with you about, anyway, that's where I'm coming from. I'm not sure I totally agree with what Planning says is that you have a dot in the middle of a piece of ground, and you drew a circle around it, and says that's a neighborhood, cause I've seen the opposite. Remington I guess I've got a couple of questions, go ahead Barnes I just want to add something to what Andy has said. In this particular zone, we do have in the LMN zone we do have a purpose statement that talks about the uh, where is it, low density neighborhoods, will be clustered. That's what were talking about is this zoning district, your correct in other zones that are more commercial in nature, you don't have these issues of what constitutes a neighborhood edge, and stuff like that. But in this particular zone, low density neighborhoods will be clustered around and integral with the medium density mixed use neighborhood for the purposes of this division a neighborhood shall be considered to consist of approximately 80 to 160 acres with its edges typically consisting of major streets, drainage ways, irrigation ditches, railroad tracks, and other major physical features. So, those are the things, that in the purpose statement of the LMN zone, which is the zoning district of this property, it is saying that you have this 80 to 160 acres defined by edges, and then uh, it list some things. And Mr. Brophy has indicated that he doesn't believe Harmony Road is the type of barrier uh that constitutes an edge, um, so what your talking about, yeah there are instances where you can, I guess put your dot in the middle of the intersection and create a circle, but those are different zoning districts. Here we're dealing with the purpose and intent of the LMN zone and the issue of what a neighborhood edge is, and what constitutes a neighborhood in that particular zoning district. Miscio Thank you. Remington Well, good. I've got a couple of questions I'd like to get clarified, I guess for the record. One is they uh, the map that we have here is different, than what's ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 23 up there Gloss Yes, there's some changes. Remington And in my mind there's some significant differences. Is the map that we have, is this Gloss That is directly out of the plan. Remington This is an approved City Plan ma Gloss Um -huh, yes. Remington Where was this map from? Gloss This is a previous iteration that was done during the creation of plans, a color copy that we had available. Remington Okay. Stockover And what is the time frame difference? Gloss Uh, I would have to uh probably do some research to find out when exactly when that was done. It was uh, I see the mark of the uh consultant team and the City uh in the lower right-hand comer, but I don't have the exact date. Stockover But this one is '97, so it's been around for awhile. Gloss That's correct. That is the adopted City Plan document that you have in front of you, and it has not changed since its adoption. Stockover Okay, thank you. Remington I guess the other question I've got one, I asked earlier about other arterials being used as um, definitions of neighborhoods in City Plan for other projects, and I think you mentioned Harmony and Mulberry um, have, and I think from what I read in some of the material that, that Mr. Brophy provided that he would argue that those are both highways, um, at least on the east -side of town, it's partly maintained by C-DOT, and all. So, I'm wondering if you have other um, are there other cases of where arterials that could not be defined as highways, I mean Gloss Well, certainly Timberline Road is a good example. Remington Pardon me. Gloss Timberline Road is a good example. It's a street that's being widened, has been widened recently and will uh, be coming to a full lane, six -lane cross section eventually. That is a major arterial street, it has many of the same physical characteristics of the roadway that we're talking about in question, actually both at this intersection. So you can go to uh, point to uh most recent one would be at uh Drake and Timberline Remington Oka Gloss Where the Ri den Farm development is, as an example Remington Okay, thank you. Okay any other board discussion? Stockover Um, I just have one questions for Peter or Paul, what is Mr. Brophy's course of action if we uphold this? Will he be able to appeal it at another level? Eckman He could appeal that decision to the City Council. Stockover And at what point does the, does it really come into play as to what he is planning on putting on the property9 When does that becomes relevant? Eckman Well, he would have to file an application for development, which would most likely depending on the nature of the application, imagine it would be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 24 Stockover So he could come, just go to City Council and hear that what we did or take a complete plan forward and ask for an appeal? Eckman Yes. Stockover So he still has two more options. Eckman Yes. Stockover Okay. Remington Any other Board discussion? I guess my, my feelings or concerns are that um, if I look at, I don't know, I think that there's a couple of specific um, items here. One is if the, the map that was shown up there, if that is. an earlier version of what we have, and what was finally approved, I think there are some significant differences. One is um, what was finally approved does show a number of half arcs stopping at arterials, and I think that you could argue that the arc stops there but so does the diagram, you know, is the intent to go around it or what. But 1, when I look at the upper right part of this you have an arc that stops, and you have a new one that starts, that would clearly be in conflict, and so to me when you go from that version to what (tape turns over) if that's being done under City Plan at Timberline with Rigden Farms um, you know I guess, I'm leaning towards um, upholding the City's interpretation if, if when I look at this I think the intent was to stop neighborhood definitions at some of these arterials. Even though I think the argument is true that people will cross the street um, and I don't deny that. I think that will happen, but I don't when I look at what went from that revision to this revision it seems to me that there was some definite thought around stopping these at these arterials, but that's my input. Hall I would agree with that and, uh, Peter on that last slide that you had with the overview. To me what's so poignant there is the number of residential lots that are joining the side versus the Front Range Community College, to me that's clearly a part of that residential area versus jumping across and saying well that's just one small aspect of it, and that the arterials really do define it for me to a large extent. Remin on Any other Board input? Discussion? Miscio Yeah, 1, I, have to go along with what you guys are saying. I think that site is more compatible with the uh residential nature of the neighborhood and the definition of the neighborhood is more, I think those trees are really a barrier. I'm also aware of that fact that you do have little convenience centers that are on corners that are also compatible with what's around it. And so, uh, you know, in reading the letter that Marty gave us, I was impressed with it, I am very much a profit oriented guy, and I think we are here on this earth in the United States of America to make money, and I have no problem with that, but I also feel like you don't, I think we want to be consistent with a neighborhood concept that does not impede or infringe upon uh, the quality of life that is around it and in this case I think definition of neighborhood in my mind is fairly accurate for this, especially with the two arterials, and that the access issue is also something else that bothered me. If you're going to have, if you expand the definition of a neighborhood to allow some other kind of uses in there I'm, I'm struggling with that. ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 25 Remington Okay. I'll take a stab at this, I guess. See where we're at. Um, I'll make a motion that we uphold the Planning Department's interpretation um, as referenced in appeal number 2408 um, the findings around that I think would be that when you look at what's in City Plan there are some definitions of neighborhoods that um, uh, are within arterial boundaries but there are some, in some cases, as drawn in City Plan, there are some neighborhoods that appear to be defined by um, ending at arterial boundaries um, and I think given that this was a revision of a previous draft that specifically didn't show that I think it was the intent of City Plan to use some of these arterials and in some cases it's appropriate to use them um, as defining neighborhood boundaries, so I think I would agree with the, uphold the decision of the Planning Department. Hall I'll second. Donahue I'll second. Remington Is there any other discussion? Can we have a roll call, lease? Soriano Miscio Miscio Yes. Soriano Dickson Dickson - Yes. Soriano Donahue Donahue Yes. Soriano 1 Remington Remington Yes. Soriano Hall Hall Yes. Soriano Lingle Lingle Yes. Soriano Stockover Stockover Yes. Remington All right, appeal 2408 has been resolved, decided, I guess, I don't know, upheld, I guess is the right, right term for this. 5. APPEAL NO. 2409 — Approved. Address: 801 Peterson Street Petitioner: Tom Knebel Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(3) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback from 15 feet to 7.83 feet in order to allow an 80 square foot sunroom/utility room addition to be constructed at the southwest corner of the house. The addition will square in the existing area at the back corner of the house, and the new wall will line up with the existing rear wall of the home. ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 26 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The proposed addition would go over an existing patio. The lot is very small and shallow (3750 square foot lot, 75 foot depth). To function as a sunroom, southern exposure is needed. This is the most practical location, and any other location would probably also require a setback variance. Staff Comments: Shallowness of a lot can be considered as grounds for a hardship variance. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the lot is a comer lot on the corner of Peterson and Plum. The proposed sumoom addition would line-up with the existing back wall of the house, which is at an eight -foot setback from the rear property line, as opposed to fifteen feet. Bames stated that there is no alley behind the house. The lot was divided into two separate lots. Barnes stated that the lot is shallow at 75 feet in depth due to the lot division. Barnes showed where the proposed sunroom addition would be constructed. Remington asked if the property has been rezoned at some point in time, making the house non- conforming. Barnes stated that was correct. Barnes stated he was unaware of when the lot split occurred. Bames noted that the house is a legal non -conforming situation. Applicant Participation: Tom Knebel, representative for the homeowner, addressed the Board. Knebel stated that the purpose of the sunroom addition is for the homeowner's plants, and to get the washer and dryer out of the homeowner's existing dining room area. Knebel stated that he has tentative approval from historic preservation. Hall asked if the addition would continue the two existing walls and square out the comer. Knebel responded yes. Board Discussion: Remington felt the request would fall under the hardship standard because the of the house being a legal, non -conforming building, and a shallow lot. The other board members agreed with Remington's statements. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2409 for the following reasons: (1) not detrimental to the public good; (2) based on the hardship standard due to exceptional characteristics unique to the property primarily that the property exists on a shallow lot, and that the property is a legal non -conforming building. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Dickson, Donahue, Remington, Hall, Lingle, and Stockover. Nays: None. ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 27 6. APPEAL NO. 2410 —Denied. Address: 700 East Locust Petitioner: Bill Taylor Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(3) and 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback from 15 feet to 14 feet, and reduce the required west side -yard setback along Stover Street from 15 feet to 12.33 feet, in order to allow a 224 square foot second floor addition to be constructed on the existing 576 square foot detached garage. The new second story rear wall would be constructed directly on top of the existing rear wall, and the new second story west wall will be 10 feet further from Stover Street than the existing first story west wall. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The petitioner desires to have a personal use studio area. The most practical place to construct an addition is on top of the exisiting detached garage. The existing setback will be maintained on the rear, and the new west wall will be more in compliance than the existing west wall. Staff Comments: If the Board considers granting this appeal, then staff recommends placing a condition on the approval to the affect that the studio cannot be used for a home occupation activity without coming back to the Board. Hall stated he had a conflict of interest regarding this appeal, and he recused himself from the Board. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property was on a comer lot on the comer of Locust and Stover. Barnes said the property line along Stover is a couple of feet behind the sidewalk, and the sidewalk is an attached sidewalk. The garage was constructed recently, but not by the current property owner. Barnes stated that when the site plan that was submitted for the building permit for the garage, it was going to be setback 15 feet from the property line (along Stover), ,and 15 feet from the rear property line. However, the rear was built at fourteen feet instead, and the setback on Stover was missed by thirteen feet. This error was not caught by the Building Department, the construction continued, and was approved. This created a non -conforming situation. The property does not comply with the street -side setback requirement along Stover, which requires a 15-foot setback (it is only approximately 2.33 feet from the property line), and it does not comply with the rear -yard setback requirement of 15 feet, (it is actually setback fourteen feet). Barnes stated the proposed addition will not be on top of the entire garage. Barnes stated the proposal would setback the west wall ten feet further than the front wall of the garage. ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 28 Remington asked how far the new wall will be setback from Stover Street. Barnes responded that the new wall will be 12.33 feet, and the setback requirement along Stover Street is 15 feet. Applicant Participation Bill Taylor, 700 East Locust Street, addressed the Board. Taylor stated that if the previous property owner had built the structure in the proper location he would not need a variance. Lingle asked if there was a reason that the Applicant was not constructing the addition contiguous with the garage to the east on the ground. Taylor stated it was less expensive to go up and over. Lingle asked if there was maybe a mature tree there that would prevent this from happening. Taylor responded there is mature landscaping. Taylor reiterated that it was economics. Taylor wants to replicate the second -story loft that exists on his home. Stockover asked what the purpose of the space was. Taylor replied that it was basically some extra room. Remington was concerned with the potential of the addition becoming a rental unit. Taylor stated that a rental unit in that space would not conform with the zoning requirements, and he does not intend to tam it into a rental unit. Board Discussion: Remington asked staff if plans were reviewed before a building permit was issued. Barnes replied that was correct. Barnes stated that the maximum square footage allowed for a detached building is 800 square feet in this zone, and the existing garage is 576, and the new addition would be 224, so it would be at the maximum size. Remington asked about home occupation activity that might occur in the proposed addition. Bames stated that if the Applicant used the space for his own personal use a home occupation license would not be required. Remington asked if the Applicant would be using the space for business purposes. Applicant Taylor stated he did run a small consulting/engineering firm out of his house, and he intends on continuing that activity. Taylor stated the space will be used as a library for his technical materials, and he may network his computers. Taylor stated he intends to run the business out of the front portion of his house. Miscio asked Applicant Taylor if he had people coming to his house for business purposes. Taylor stated he did, but not very often. Taylor does not have any employees. Remington asked if Applicant Taylor's comments suggested that the proposed addition would be defined as a home occupation activity. Bames stated that the Land Use Code stated that home occupation activity should be conducted entirely within a dwelling. Taylor stated he did not want to jeopardize the acceptance of the appeal because he runs a business out of his house, and stated he would be willing to conduct his business entirely within his dwelling unit. Stockover stated that he was having a difficult time with the hardship, and the Applicant would be able to build the proposed addition onto the back of his garage. Stockover felt the proposed addition was out of character with the neighborhood. Lingle agreed with Stockover. Dickson ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 29 also agreed. Lingle wanted to see if other board members felt the equal to or better than standard was supportable. Remington stated that the total height is 24 feet on the plan without the roof peak. Miscio stated that the property is on a corner, which allowed for more open space. Miscio stated he did not know if there were other two story houses in the neighborhood or not. Barnes stated that the Applicant's house is a two-story building. Donahue stated that he was having a difficult time with the request meeting the hardship and the equal to or better than standard. Lingle and Remington were having difficult validating the hardship. Lingle noted that if the garage was built at the proper setbacks, the Applicant would be able to add on to his garage without a variance. Lingle was concerned about continuing the non -legal aspect of the property by allowing further encroachment. Lingle stated he realized that the two feet was not necessarily significant. Remington agreed. Stockover asked the Applicant if he could present his case for a hardship. Remington noted that economics could not be a hardship. Applicant Taylor stated he would lose space if the addition was tacked onto the back, and it would also create a choppy floor plan. Applicant noted that there are several two-story buildings in his neighborhood. Taylor stated his proposal was the most reasonable way to get extra space. Taylor was also concerned about drainage if the addition was a first floor space. Remington stated he was struggling with the equal to or better than standard. Miscio felt the proposal would not be detrimental to the public good, and he agreed with Taylor's comments regarding drainage. He also felt it would maintain the character of the neighborhood. Miscio was in favor of using the equal to or better than standard. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2410 for the following reasons: (1) the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; (2) the general purpose of the standard is met by maintaining the neighborhood characteristics (existing two-story structures), improving the neighborhood because of the new construction; and (3) the alternatives negate the benefits of putting the addition on top of the garage. Remington stated that the purpose of the standard is to allow light, ventilation, access, and open space between buildings. Miscio included Remington's comments in his motion. Dickson seconded the motion. Stockover explained why he was going to vote no. Stockover felt that a second -story addition was not going to make the property more open, and that he did not feel the proposal was equal to or better than standard, when other options exist. Stockover noted that building something new was not always beneficial, and lastly that the owner just purchased the property, and should have considered space issues. Remington wanted Miscio to amend his motion to include limiting the home occupation activity to the dwelling unit. Miscio agreed and amended his motion. Dickson seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio and Dickson. Nays: Donahue, Remington, Lingle, and Stockover. ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 30 Due to prior commitments Miscio left the meeting at 11:00 a.m. 7. APPEAL NO. 2411 — Approved. Address: 116 South McKinley Avenue Petitioner: Craig Zimmerman Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1) and 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 2.87 to 1 to 2.7 to 1, reduce the required rear -yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to 2 feet, and would reduce the required side -yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 4 feet, in order to allow the existing 297 square foot detached garage to be removed and replaced with a new 378 square foot detached garage. The new building will be at the same rear and side setback as the existing building. The building will also be converted from a duplex to a single family dwelling. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot is very small (3750 square feet), and is very shallow (50 feet). The existing detached garage is in bad repair and is too small to be a two -car garage. The owner will be remodeling the existing home, interior and exterior. He desires to construct a new garage that will be in keeping with the character of the home, and that will be large enough for two cars. It will be only 81 square feet larger than the existing garage. If the new building is moved forward to comply with the rear setback, then the building wouldn't comply with the required front yard setback. If the building is moved an additional foot to the north in order to comply with the 5-foot side yard setback, then it will be only 4 feet from the house. The owner would like to have the new building at least as far from the house as the existing one is. A letter was read from Vic and Phyllis Smith, 1128 Skyline Drive, in support of the appeal. Staff Comments: Since a replacement garage can't be constructed anywhere on the lot without a variance, the Board may determine that a hardship is imposed due to the size of the lot. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property is on South McKinley, and Mountain Avenue is to the north. An alley exists on the south property line. Barnes stated that the proposal would be to demolish the existing garage and rebuild a new one that would come out an additional four feet towards McKinley. The other three walls of the garage would be in the same location as the existing garage. Barnes stated the lot is very shallow (50 feet in depth). The doors of the garage will be reoriented to face McKinley Street, but the access to the garage doors would be from the alley. Applicant Participation: ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 31 Craig Zimmerman, addressed the Board. Applicant Zimmerman was asked by the school to purchase the property and renovate it when it went on the market a year ago. Zimmerman turned the property into a single family residence. The proposal is part of the renovation. Applicant Zimmerman felt his proposal would meet the equal to or better than standard. Remington asked how high the garage would be under the proposal. Zimmerman stated that the height is eight foot, one and a half inch, and pitch of the roof will match the roofline of the house. Board Discussion: Stockover was in favor of the appeal. Remington felt the hardship was the non -conforming status of the property. Remington was in favor of the appeal. Stockover made a motion to approve appeal number 2411 for the hardship stated (small and shallow lot), and that it would not be detrimental to the public good. Lingle seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Donahue, Remington, Hall, Lingle and Stockover. Nays: None. 8. APPEAL NO. 2412 — Approved. Address: 1831 Laporte Avenue Petitioner: Geoffrey Potts Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(2) Background: The variance would reduce the required street -side setback along Grandview Avenue from 15 feet to 11.75 feet, in order to allow a second -story addition to the existing one-story home. The walls of the second floor will be on top of the walls of the existing home. Therefore, the setback will be the same as the existing setback. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The home is a small rental home, less than 1000 square feet. The petitioner believes that a second -story addition is better than a one-story addition, and will be better suited for an owner occupied home. The home is already at a non -conforming setback from the Grandview lot line. Staff Comments: A letter from Dennis Sovick was read in support of the appeal. ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 32 Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property was a comer lot. Bames stated the property was previously split. Barnes noted that a two-story home existed behind the property, and most of the homes along Grandview Avenue are two-story homes. The property line along Grandview Avenue is at issue; a 15-foot setback from the street -side of a comer lot is required. Hall asked if there was a setback issue on the east -side of the property. Bames replied that the proposed second -floor addition will not line-up with the east wall (it will be offset a little bit), and the east -side setback would comply. Lingle asked if the garage would remain in its existing state. Bames stated that the petitioner would need to address that issue. Applicant Participation: Geoffrey Potts, 1827 Laporte Avenue, addressed the Board. Potts stated that he hopes the property will be a new residence if the plan is approved. Potts stated that he would like to increase the size of the house. Potts stated he choose his design to maintain the characteristic of the neighborhood. Applicant Potts stated that he could build an addition to the north (closer to Laporte Avenue), but Potts felt this would not maintain the architectural style of the neighborhood. Applicant Potts stated the garage would either be torn down and rebuilt to replicate the style of the house, or it may just be remodeled. Board Discussion: Lingle was in favor of the appeal. Lingle stated the issues of open space, light and ventilation were not of concern because the setback in question is the street -side. Hall agreed, and added that the size of the lot limits the Applicant's options. The Board agreed that the request meet the equal to or better than standard. Lingle made a motion to approve appeal number 2412 based on the equal to or better than standard. Lingle found that the proposal as submitted promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than a proposal that could comply with the standard. The standard is that a side -yard setback exists to require adequate privacy space, light, and ventilation. The fact that the property is a street -side setback allows the provision of the street right-of-way to be used as an aid to comply with the setback standard. Lingle noted that there is no detriment to the public good. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Donahue, Remington, Hall, Lingle, and Stockover. Nays: None. 8. APPEAL NO. 2413 — Approved. Address: 204 Maple Street Petitioner: Mark Laken and Erika Keeton Zone: D ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 33 Section: 3.2.1(E)(6), 3.5.1(2) Background: The variance would allow a portion of the lot at the northwest corner of Maple and Mason to be used as a temporary outdoor storage area/staging lot, without having to be totally screened from view. Specifically, the City will be hiring a general contractor for the Downtown Enhancement Project, and it is proposed that this lot will be used to store various construction materials and equipment for the duration of the project. The estimated time for the project is from March through October 2003. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached petitioner's letter A. Staff Comments: Barnes stated that the petitioner is the City of Fort Collins, and Mr. Laken and Ms. Keeton are representing the City. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the subject property is the northwest comer of Maple and Mason. The facility would be required, according to code, that the staging area be total screened from public view. The Applicants are proposing a chain link fence as opposed to a solid screening fence. Barnes noted that this lot has been subject to various variance requests in the past to secure parking for displaced vehicles due to construction. Remington asked if there were two parts to the variance request: (1) to allow temporary use for storage; and (2) to allow a fence that is not screened. Barnes responded stated that both of the sections the Applicant referred to on the application dealt with screening issues. The temporary use for storage is allowed, the issue is screening. Donahue commented that a similar variance was requested by the Utilities Department last year. Dickson asked what type of screening is recommended. Barnes stated the City is approaching the Board to request approval to have the facility there without the screening that is required. Barnes stated that the Code requires that the facility be totally screened from view. Applicant Participation: Mark Laken, representative for the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department, addressed the Board. Laken had no further comments. Remington asked Laken to explain the hardship. Laken stated that he was under the impression that the City would have to upgrade the site to the downtown urban standards with concrete sidewalks, pavers, tree grates and trees. Laken stated the hardship was that the structure was a temporary use. Remington stated that there is temporary fencing with screening. Barnes replied that the Land Use Code does not allow temporary screening with slats. Barnes stated that to comply, the fence would have to be a solid fence. ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 34 Hall asked if the Land Use Code has provisions for temporary uses. Barnes responded no, and that the only exception is for temporary vendors doing business for less than sixty days. Lingle was wondering what was triggering the requirement for the Applicants to request a variance. Lingle stated if there were a project under construction on that lot, the contractor would have a field trailer and would be able to accept palettes of brick or other construction materials throughout the project. The items would be piled everywhere while it is being installed. Lingle failed to see the difference between that type of situation and the City using the area as an staging area. Barnes responded that it was a good question, and the proximity issues comes into play when you have those construction projects with the contractors on site within the boundaries of the development —as a general case. Barnes stated the request is for off -site storage area, but it is associated with the construction that is going to be occurring downtown. If they were building something on this lot it, would be considered a customary accessory use in conjunction with the development on the site. Dickson stated that it was ridiculous to have to have a permanent screened fence for a temporary use. Laken stated he did not know what would be placed in the storage area. Laken stated that legally they can use parking space downtown to store materials, but this is not acceptable to downtown business owners. Board Discussion: Remington stated that to comply with the standard would be a detriment to the public good in that parking spaces would be taken away to store construction materials, and this would impede on downtown business owners. Donahue stated it would be public money that was being used to build a permanent fence, require landscaping, etc., although he realized that economics could not be a factor in granting the appeal. Eckman wanted the Board to consider the property unique in terms of development by the project being scattered out and not centralized. Lingle made a motion to approve the variance. Dickson seconded the motion. Donahue asked if the Board should consider a time limit. Remington suggested until the end of the year. Lingle agreed as did Dickson to add this to the motion. Vote: Yeas; Dickson, Donahue, Remington, Hall, Lingle, and Stockover. Nays: None. 9. Other Business Election of Officers Lingle nominated Steve Remington as chairperson. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: ZBA February 13, 2003 Page 35 Yeas: Dickson, Donahue, Remington, Hall, Lingle, and Stockover. Nays: None. Hall nominated David Lingle for vice -chairperson. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Donahue, Remington, Hall, Lingle, and Stockover. Nays: None. Meeting adjourned at 11:46 a.m. Steve Rp*i4gton, Chairperson 19't'- %3a L., Peter Bames, Zoning Administrator =a-yi3 - g3 1ty of Fort Collins DATE: January 30, 2003 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals City Council Chambers 300 W. Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 FROM: City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 Petitioner's Letter A SUBJECT: Request for Variance for Construction Staging Area for Downtown Enhancement Project The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department is requesting a variance for the property located on the Northwest comer of Mason Street and Maple Street, Parcel Number 9711123 90 1. City staff is recommending that a portion of the currently vacant, City owned lot be provided to the general contractor for the Downtown Enhancement Project as an optional area to stage construction activities. The contractor would have to meet City staff requirements in order to be allowed to use this property for a construction staging area. This use would meet the zoning classification of a public facility which is allowed in the Downtown Area. The location would be used to store construction equipment, construction materials, a field office trailer, and a port -a -toilet The area would be designated with temporary chain link fence. The proposed staging area would not allow fuel storage or other hazardous chemical storage. The location would be used for the duration of the project and then repaired to its current state upon completion of construction activities. The City will require all workers' vehicles not associated with the project to use the Rooftop Parking Program. We are requesting a variance for this property for the following reasons: • The proposed use will be short term (from March through October, 2003) and will consist of fence installation, construction materials, parked trailers and parked construction equipment. • The staging area would provide a safer alternative for storage of materials and equipment in the work zones, which will be scattered throughout the Downtown Area. • The property will be permanently developed at a later time which would require meeting zoning standards upon completion of the development • The staging area would reduce the number of on street parking spaces that the project will require for construction activities. — - -- ---------- ------------ - - -- --- If you have any questions or concerns prior to the February Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, please feel free to contact Rick Richter at 221-6798 Thanks f r your time, AT Mark Laken COFC Construction -Inspector