The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/09/1987ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting - April 9, 1987 Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 9, 1987 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Lieser, Barnett, Lawton, Lancaster, Thede, Coleman. Members Absent: Walker Staff Present: Barnes, Roy, Brayfield Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 12, 1987, and the Special Meeting of March 20, 1987, Approved as Amended. The minutes of the regular meeting of March 12, 1987, and the special meeting of March 20, 1987, were amended to list Boardmember.Thede's absence as approved. The minutes were unanimously approved as amended. Appeal #1798 Section 118-81 (C)(1), by Frank Henthorn, 1020 E. Vine Drive, Approved. ---The variance would allow a sheet metal business to be conducted as a home occupation in a detached building, rather than in the dwelling as required by code. The home occupation would be in the RL zone. Petitioner's statement of hardship: Large machinery is used- in connection with sheet metal fabrication, and the machinery won't fit in the house. The machinery is quiet and shouldn't bother the neighbors. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the lot, located on E. Vine, is deep with a fence along the east lot line. The detached garage would be located in the rear part of the lot. Petitioner Frank Henthorn stated that he was requesting the variance so that he could move the business closer to his residence. Mr. Henthorn stated that he has been in the sheetmetal fabrication business for 31 years, and currently rents a shop at 1413 Olive Court. He works with his two sons, but plans to work alone in the future, and wants to keep a low overhead. Mr. Henthorn said that he talked to his neighbors about the proposed home occupation, and no one objects. ZBA Minutes - ApI# 9, 1987 • Page 2 Boardmember Thede asked Mr. Henthorn if he would be using the existing drive for access to the garage. Mr. Henthorn replied yes, stating that the drive is 20 feet wide with a turn -around in the back. The turn -around would eliminate the problem of having to back out onto the highway. Mr. Henthorn said that the lot is deep, and the garage would be located at the back of the lot, with a fence along the rear lot line. Boardmember Lancaster asked if there would be any outside storage. Mr. Henthorn said that he had no need for storage - his sheetmetal products are made for specific jobs and are immediately delivered to the job site. Boardmember Lieser stated that the lot lends itself well to this type of application. Boardmember Coleman made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Barnett, Lawton, Thede, Coleman. Nays: None. Appeal #1799 Section 118-41 (D), by Terry Rowell, 1000 W. Laurel, Approved. --The variance would reduce the required front yard setback along Monte Vista Avenue from 20 feet to 7.5 feet for a garage addition to a single family dwelling in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: This is a corner lot. The house faces the legal side yard, so the legal front yard in reality is used as a side yard, which requires only a 15 foot setback. A variance was granted on November 13, 1986 to reduce it to..15 feet, however it was recently discovered that the setback is actually 7.5 feet. This occurred because a pin was found in the sidewalk which was thought to have been the property line, but upon further investigation, another pin was located 10 feet further west and it turned out to be the actual property line. This was not discovered until the framing inspection had been done. ---Staff recommendation: None. This item was tabled on March 20th after 2 hours of discussion in order to allow the owners to obtain an improvement survey so the exact location of the property line could be determined. A survey has been submitted showing the garage to be 7.5 feet from the setback." No notices were returned. One letter was received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that a variance was granted at the December 1986 meeting to allow the garage to be 15' from the property line along Monte Vista. The decision was tabled until proof of the property -line location could he submitted. Petitioner Terry Rowell stated that the issue was discussed at length at the previous (March 20, 2987) meeting, and the only new evidence was the improvement survey submitted, that established the property line to be at the second pin back from the sidewalk. ZBA Minutes - Ap 9, 1987 • _ Page 3 Dwight Miller, 619 Monte Vista, spoke in opposition to the variance. He stated that construction was not permitted so close to the property line for good reason. If everyone was allowed to build so close, the neighborhood would have a strange appearance. He was concerned that other people in the neighborhood would want the same variance. Boardmember Lawton and Zoning Administrator Barnes explained the corner lot situation which was part of the original hardship. Mr. Barnes explained that the Board was required to consider each variance request individually on its own merits. It was unlikely that another variance would be requested in this neighborhood with exactly the same circumstances. Edith Tobin, 627 Monte Vista, stated that at the last meeting a petition with approximately 30 signatures was submitted to the board, stating the neighbors' objections to the garage addition. She said that the garage had a three foot overhang when only a two foot overhang was allowed. Mrs. Tobin expressed her concern that the property values in the neighborhood might drop because of the garage. Mr. Barnes explained that a two foot overhang is allowed to encroach into the required setback. A three foot overhang is allowed, but must be set back another foot from the property line. Les Madison, 617 Armstrong, stated that another resident of the neighborhood asked for a similar variance and was denied, and that he also was refused a similar variance. Mr. Madison felt that the garage was an eyesore because of the 7'6" setback. He said that he felt that the City was negligent in allowing the project, and that the variance should be turned down. Petitioner Terry Rowell stated that the foundation of the structure sits 15 feet away from the property line. He explained the circumstances that led to the error in locating the property line. Boardmember Thede said that this variance was unusual because it was not often that a property line was found to be different after a structure was already up. Boardmember Coleman said that there was some discussion about how far the garage addition would extend at the first hearing. Mr. Rowell had pointed out that the garage would extend as far as the tree shown on the slide. The garage addition was built out to that point, the only change being the actual location of the property line. Mr. Coleman said that, in reality, there was little difference on the garage's impact on the neighborhood. Boardmember Lancaster stated that the Board considers the intent of the code along with existing conditions. He felt that the intent of the code was being met, and said that it was unfortunate that when the original notices went out no one showed up to voice any objections. Boardmember Lawton pointed out that in the previous hearing, one of the neighbors stated that he appreciated the addition because it screened his property from the traffic on Laurel. Mr. Lawton thought that there was not much deviation from the original proposal. ZBA Minutes - A*1 9, 1987 • Page 4 Boardmember Barnett commented on the issue of the neighbors not attending the first meeting. He said that perhaps no one objected to the 15 foot setback, but if they had gotten notice of a 7'6" setback, they might have had objections. The problem is that the structure is already up, and is closer to the property line than proposed. But the Board does take intent of the code into consideration along with the corner lot situation. The question is should they be required to remove part of the structure. Boardmember Lieser said that the setback at the foundation was o.k. but the eaves could have been treated differently. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the 7.5 ft. setback with the 3 foot overhang for the hardship stated. Boardmember Coleman seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton, Thede, Coleman. Nays: Lieser. Appeal #1800 Section 118-81 (C)(1), 118-81 (C)(6), 118-91 (A), 118-93(A), by Don Drury, 2120 W. Elizabeth - Approved with Modification ---The variance would allow an in -home business in the BP zone to be conducted using a detached garage for storage, to have equipment stored outside, and to allow a sign for the home occupation tb be larger than the allowed 2 sq. ft. in area. Specifically, the sign would be 16 square feet, the garage would be used for storing supplies for a roofing contractor, and trucks would be stored outside. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner resides at the property and uses a portion of the home for telephone and record keeping and desires to be able to use the detached garage for storage of materials and supplies. The property is adjacent to businesses, therefore a larger sign will not be intrusive. ---Staff recommendation: Denial of the sign variance. While a sign larger than 2 square feet may be warranted on this street, 16 square feet is considerably larger than variances for other home occupation signs which the Board has granted. Approval of the other requests if there are no objections from the neighbors. No notices were were returned. One letter was received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the variance request is for the existing sign. The petitioner also wishes to have outside storage, which would be the storage of several trucks used in connection with the business. Petitioner Don Drury said that he had been operating out of the office at 2120 W. Elizabeth since last August. He rented the property with the understanding that the property was already zoned business. Evidently the PUD expired, so now the business is in violation of code. He stated further that all materials are delivered to the job site, so there is no storage of roofing materials on the property, except for any excess materials, which are stored in the garage. The only thing they need to store outside is the dump truck. Mr. Drury said that the existing sign is ZBA Minutes — April 9, 1987 Page 5 • • in character with the neighborhood, which is basically business, with King Soopers across the street and Little Caesar's Pizza next door. The Board asked if kettles were ever stored on the property. Mr. Drury replied that the company owns three kettles, but they are rarely in town. When in use, they are generally delivered to the job site. Only rarely would a kettle be on the property, and large quantities of asphalt would not be stored on the property. The Board asked about Mr. Drury's plans for screening the area, and about the conditions of the rental agreement. Mr. Drury stated that he plans to rent the property until it is sold. He was told that the property was zoned commercial when he rented it, but he did not get it in writing. Mr. Drury had no plans for screening the area. Tony Fonte, owner of Little Caesar's Pizza spoke. He said that the City Zoning Office was requiring him to erect a temporary screening fence if the property in question was to remain a residence. Mr. Fonte had no objection to the commercial use of the property, but did not feel that he should be required to put up a temporary screen fence if the property was used for the roofing business. Boardmember Lawton asked Mr. Barnes if this was not a separate issue. Mr. Barnes replied that the zoning office has agreed not to require the fence if this variance was approved. However, Mr. Fonte would have to apply for an administrative change. Boardmember Thede said that she had a problem with the timing. If the variance is granted, it goes with the property. Until the Board knows what the future of the property is, she would hesitate to give a variance for this use. Boardmember Coleman said that this proposal is similar to the first variance on the agenda. The lot is very deep, and from the street it looks like a residence. However, he did have a problem with the sign. Boardmember Lancaster said that he thought this situation was very different from the first variance request because of the outside storage of the dump truck. He said that hardship is the fact that the landlord mislead the tenant. Boardmember Barnett said that if the property was truly in a residential neighborhood, it would be different, but this is a transitional area in the BP zone. Because this is basically a commercial area, the proposed use is appropriate. He said that he thought that the sign was not appropriate for a home occupation. Boardmember Lawton said that the difference between this appeal and the first one is that the business will not be conducted out of the garage. No business traffic is going in and out of the property. Mr. Lawton said that he saw no hardship for the sign, and that the sign does not fit in with the neighborhood. ZBA Minutes - A* 9, 1987 • Page 6 Boardmember Lieser thought that the requested sign variance was too great. The most signage allowed for a home occupation in the past was between six and ten square feet. Boardmember Thede asked about the possibility of fencing the whole property for screening. Boardmember Barnett thought that it would be a lot of fencing for a temporary use, and that a six foot fence would not really screen the property. The only side affected by the business is the side in which the dump truck is being stored and the owner of Little Caesar's has said he has no objections. Boardmember Lancaster felt that separating the boundary between the restaurant and the roofing business was appropriate. Mr. Barnes stated that staff has agreed to delete the requirement for the fence if that variance is granted. Boardmember Coleman felt that requiring the fence was not reasonable due to the transitional nature of the residential property. Mr. Fonte pointed out that the required fence would only cover the front 65' of the property, the dump truck would not be screened. Boardmember Coleman made a motion to grant the variance for the home occupation for a roofing contractor to have exterior storage, but to restrict the sign for the home occupation to eight (8) square feet. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Barnett, Thede, Coleman. Nays: Lawton. Appeal #1801 Section 118-95-(A), by Jack Gianola - Approved. ---The variance would reduce the required 15 foot setback for a groundsign which is within 50 feet of an intersection to 11 feet. The sign is for the F.PIC Center, which is located in the RLP zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The sign was located in this location by mistake. The property is unique in that the property owner on both sides of the property line is the same, the City of Fort Collins. Because of a gooseneck design in the road, the sign is actually 28 feet from the street, so the intent of the code is met and there is no traffic hazard imposed by the reduced setback. Staff recommendation: None." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Petitioner Jack Gianola gave a brief history of the situation, stating that the City had a contest to name the facility, and the design and the location of the sign were not decided until the results of the contest were known. This was about six months after the plans for the facility were submitted for approval. The sign was designed by an architect from St. Louis, who was not familiar with the City's sign code. The sign was then placed in the field to have good site distance and to fit in with the contour of the land. Currently there are no plans to widen the gooseneck and make the street a through street. ZBA Minutes - A '1 9, 1987 • Page 7 Zoning Administrator Barnes said that there is a multi -family development at the south end of the street, and the street actually dead -ends on the south end. Boardmember Lawton was concerned that there would be traffic problems when the development is finished. Mr. Barnes pointed out that the development is designed so that most of the traffic will exit on Stuart Street, and that the driveway to the Epic Center will be a permanent dead-end street. Mr. Gianola said that the flow line of the street was 36'. with a 20' flow line at the gooseneck. Mr. Barnett said that the multi -family development is accessed off of Rollingwood, with a private access off Riverside. Boardmember Lawton said he drove by the sign, and did not find it to be a hazard. The trees and foliage on the site were more of a visibility problem. He commented that there is no stop sign for traffic going north, but the sign was not a hazard. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Barnett, Lawton, Thede, Coleman. Nays: None. Appeal #1802 Section 118-81 (D)(1)(a) & (b), 118-81 (D)(2)(a), by Don Wedum, 2005 S. College - Denied. ---The variance would reduce the required parking lot landscape setback along College Avenue from 15 feet to 0 feet and the landscape setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet. The variance would also allow the parking lot to remain as is, and not have to be brought into compliance with circulation requirements of the code (sidewalk, curb cuts, etc.). The variance is for a retail store in the HB zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot and building are existing. The use is going to change from a laundromat to a retail store so the parking code has to be complied with. However, because of the location of the building, there is no way the landscaping can be complied with and still provide parking. ---Staff recommendation: Approval of the request to eliminate the landscape requirements. There would be very little parking area left if these requirements were complied with. Currently, the parking lot can be entered from any point along the lot frontage since there is no curb or designated curb cut. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, is requiring that a vertical curb be installed along the frontage and that only one standard curb cut for access and egress be provided. However, he is willing to allow those improvements to be delayed until the appropriate opportunity comes along, if the petitioner commits to doing so. No notices were returned. One letter was received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that any change of use at this property would require adherence to the code requirements for ZBA Minutes - April�9, 1987 • Page 8 parking. The proposed variance would eliminate the 15' landscape strip along College and the 5' strip along the south lot line. Mr. Wedum also wants a variance for the vertical curbing. The City Traffic Engineer would be willing to delay the curbing requirements until a later date when the adjoining properties install curbing. Mr. Barnes stated further that the Husky station will be making improvements, but the muffler shop will not be required to conform to parking code requirements because it is not a change of use. Petitioner Don Wedum spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the property is difficult to work with because it is so small. The required curbing is a problem because of limited access to the storage area of the building. Mr. Wedum said that the only access door to the basement is on the north, and he would like to retain it for truck access. Mr. Wedum said that installation of the required curbing would block the access. Mr. Wedum stated further that getting in and out of the property is a hazard. The best way to exit safely is to maneuver the car parallel to College Avenue, and then accelerate when there is an opening in traffic. The curbing required by City Traffic Engineer would force entry at right angles to College Avenue, which is too slow to be safe. Mr. Wedum said that parking was also a problem on the lot because the yard of the property is only 40 feet wide, which is not wide enough for a structured lot: Also, the hot tub retailer needs the three parking spaces in front to display his hot tubs. Boardmember Lancaster stated that if the three spaces were to be converted to a display area, there would be opportunity to do some landscaping in that space. Landscaping would also make a nicer display area. Mr. Wedum felt that a landscaped display area would make it harder to exit onto College Avenue. Mr. Lancaster replied that landscaping would not block exiting any more than the hot tub display. Boardmember Lawton asked if there would be other display areas. Mr. Wedum said that there would be two display areas, and that he needed to keep the space open and flexible for maximum maneuverability. Boardmember Thede asked how much parking would be required. Mr. Barnes replied that two spaces would be required for every three employees. Boardmember Barnett asked Mr. Wedum if he had met with the people designing the Vickers station next door, suggesting that the landscaping could be combined along the shared lot line and perhaps they could work out some alternate access to his property. Mr. Wedum said that he had not met with them, and doubted that they would be willing to work with him. City Traffic. Engineer Ensdorff spoke to the issue of the vertical curbing along College Avenue. He thought that having a curb along this property without tying into the adjacent properties would be a hazard. He recommended that installation of vertical curbing be postponed until "appropriate opportunity" comes along. Mr. Ensdorff explained that "appropriate opportunity" would be when development happens on either side of Mr. Wedum's property. ZBA Minutes - April 9, 1987 Page 9 6 0- Boardmember Lawton said that he had a problem with the fact that the plan submitted is not necessarily the one that will be used. Approving the variance in this situation would leave it too open - it could create a hazardous situation. Boardmember Lieser said that she had trouble with the hardship. Also, the proposal is too vague - there is a plan submitted, but the petitioner is talking about eliminating all of the existing parking drawn on the plan. Mr. Wedum said that his hardship was like a Catch-22. He couldn't firm up the site plan until he has a definite lease, but he cannot get a firm lease until he gets the parking variance resolved. Boardmember Barnett said that the submitted plan is not a fully developed site plan, and the Board needs it tied down before it can grant any variances. Mr. Wedum said his problem is that he has several potential tenants each with different site requirements. Mr. Barnett said that he was still in favor of requiring a fully developed site plan. Boardmember Coleman stated that when a vertical curb is installed, the three existing parking spaces will no longer exist. This would open up some space for landscaping. Mr. Coleman would like to see.a finished plan that showed the curb cuts before granting a variance. Boardmember Coleman made a motion to deny the variance. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Barnett, Lawton, Thede, Coleman. Nays: None. Appeal #1803 Section 118-81 (C)(5), by Florencio Huerta-Nunez, 1900 Leicester Way - Denied. ---The variance would allow a home occupation to have clients come to -the home to rent video tapes, rather than have all rentals delivered to the clients' home. The house is located in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: To comply with the code, the petitioner must deliver the tapes to the purchaser. The purchaser likes to look at the pictures on the box and read the description, and if they are not allowed to come to the home to view tapes, a lot of business is lost. Traffic is minimal, since a lot of the tapes will still be delivered. ---Staff recommendation: Denial. This type of business has the potential to generate a lot of clients, and this in turn would increase the amount of traffic into a residential neighborhood above what may be acceptable for a home occupation." One notice was returned. No letters were received. Petitioner Florencio Huerta-Nunez spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that he had been operating his home occupation for a month on a delivery basis. He found that most people wanted to be able to come to his home and ZBA Minutes - A9, 1987 • Page 10 look through the tapes before making a selection. Mr. Huerta-Nunuz stated that he made a $5,000 dollar investment in his business, and that he was losing money by having restrictions on clients coming to his home. Boardmember Lawton was concerned with the amount of traffic that would be generated by the business. He commented that there were a lot children in the neighborhood and that traffic safety was a problem. Boardmember Thede explained that the RL zone was restricted to single family residences - retail businesses need to be located in the commercial zone. The Zoning Board of Appeals could grant a variance to the home occupation only if there was a legitimate hardship and if the use was appropriate to the neighborhood. Ms. Thede explained that the Board was not allowed to consider financial matters as a hardship. Boardmember Barnett explained that the purpose of zoning was to separate different uses into appropriate areas. If this variance was granted for a retail type business, it would be in effect rezoning the property, and the Zoning Board of Appeals is not allowed to do that. Mr. Barnett said that he was also concerned about the amount of traffic generated by the business. Mr. Huerta-Nunez pointed out that beauty shops were allowed as home occupations, and were businesses which required clients to come to the home. Boardmember Thede stated that beauty shops had little traffic impact on a neighborhood because clients came one at a time and would stay for about an hour. Boardmember Thede made a motion to deny the variance. Boardmember Barnett seconded that motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton, Thede, Coleman. Nays: None. Appeal #1804 Section 118-44 (E), 118-44 (F), by Carl Preyss, 902-904 Remington - Denied. ---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 1 foot, and the street side setback along Locust Street from 15 feet to 1.5 feet for a new 8 foot high privacy fence in the back yard of a 4-plex which is located in the RH zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: Because the house located directly to the east is very close to the rear property line and is elevated a couple of feet, a 6 foot high fence does not screen the bedroom windows of the 4 plex from the house. An 8 feet high fence would provide the needed privacy. If the fence were moved to comply with the setback, the garage would not be usable. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the fence only be installed along the east lot line, as shown on the site plan. A fence over 6 feet in height is classified as a structure, and must meet the same setbacks as a building. However, because of the close proximity of the house to the east, a fence higher than 6 feet is necessary to provide privacy. Moving it 15 feet would put it in the ZBA Minutes - April 9, 1987 Page 11 • . driveway, and would not be a practical location. No notices were returned. One letter was received. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the four-plex was on a corner lot with an existing six foot fence. An eight foot fence would require a 15 foot setback, which would put the fence in the middle of the driveway. Petitioner Carl Preyss spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that he purchased the property four years ago and made extensive improvements. One of the problems the property had in the past was noisy tenants, and with the improvements he had made and the fact that he enforces a noise code in his building, good tenants now occupy the building. He said that the privacy fence was necessary to keep the good tenants. Because of the difference in elevation of his property and the adjoining property, a six foot fence does not adequately screen the bedrooms and the back yard of his property. Boardmember Barnett asked how high the adjacent lot was. Mr. Preyss replied that Mr. Glass's first floor was about 2 1/2 feet above grade, and his was 3 1/2 feet above grade. Mr. Preyss said that was trying to maintain privacy on the first floor. Roardmember Thede said that as a realtor she saw many properties in the City that did not have first floor privacy and that this was not a hardship. Jennie Anders spoke in opposition to the variance, stating that she had thought about trading her property for Mr. Glass's and that an eight foot fence along one of the property lines would definitely be a detriment. The existing fence is already tall, and an 8 foot fence would make the property seem closed in. Boardmember Thede stated that she did not see the hardship. Many other properties in the city had the same problem, and if they granted variances for it, there would be 8 foot fences all over the city. Boardmember Coleman asked Mr. Preyss how he determined that an 8 foot fence would be adequate. Mr. Preyss said that he put a marked pole against the fence and checked the line of site. He stated further that he would be glad to set the 8 foot fence back 15 feet except that it would cut off access to the drive, and would make the back yard unusable. Mr. Preyss said that he was only asking for 20 feet of the fence line to be 8' tall, not the whole area. Boardmember Lawton said that the code is written so that people could have privacy, but still not be allowed to intrude on the neighbors. He felt that the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Coleman commented that he thought that an 8 foot fence would not solve the problem, and that there could be a better solution such as an awning. ZBA Minutes - A'1 9, 1987 Page 12 0- Boardmember Thede made a motion to deny hardship. Boardmember Barnett seconded Barnett, Thede, Lawton. Nays: None. the variance for lack of a the motion. Yeas: Coleman, Appeal #1805 Section 118-44 (B) & (C), 118-81 (D)(2)(b)[1], 118-81 (D)(2)(a), by Bud Frick, architect, 523 Remington - Approved with Condition. ---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 12,000 square feet to 7000 square feet, the lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet, reduce the required parking lot landscape strip along the north lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet, and eliminate the requirement to install a 6 foot privacy fence along the north lot line for a conversion of a house to a dental office in the RH zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is platted and is an older lot that has only 50 feet of width and 7000 square feet of area. There is no additional land available to buy. The house would have to be moved several feet south to allow a 5 foot landscape strip and since this parking lot is adjacent to another one, there is no need for the fence or landscaping. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that this property owner be required to install the fence if the adjacent property should ever request it." Three notices were returned, two letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that this was the first step in the review process for the proposed project. If the variance request is approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, then the project is reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Board. Lots in this area are typically 50 feet wide, so this is a common variance request for a conversion in the RH zone. The parking code requirements are satisfied. The parking lot that serves Budget Rent -a -Car goes right up to the property line, and one of the requests is to eliminate the landscaping between the two areas, and provide a fence. The property owner to the south is requesting that the fence along the south lot line be eliminated. Boardmember Barnett asked what provisions the City had to enforce the parking code requirements if there was a change of use in the future. Mr. Barnes said that a Certificate of Occupancy would have to be issued for any change of use, and the parking situation would be reviewed at that time. Petitioner Bud Frick, architect, spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Frick pointed at the although Dr. Anderson wants to keep his practice downtown, there is no commercial space available in the range of 1000 - 1800 sq. ft.. Over the past five years, six out of eleven dentists that were practicing in the downtown area have moved to the south of town, so Dr. Anderson is providing a needed service to the downtown area. The house would not be altered on the outside so that it would fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Traffic would not be a major impact, only about 8 cars per ZBA Minutes - April 9, 1987 • Page 13 day come to the office in connection with business. Mr. Frick stated further that the City has asked them to look into The city had asked them to look into obtaining an easement from Rocky Mountain Travel King to provide a 24 foot driveway. Sylvia Mucklow, the president of Rocky Mountain Travel King sent a letter in reply stating that the would he unable to grant the easement because they would lose 8-10 parking spaces. Dr. Anderson spoke in favor of the appeal. He said that his dental practice has expanded so that he needed to move, and there is no existing space to lease in the downtown area. Most property owners are not anxious to rent to him because of the extensive remodeling required for a dental office, which makes the space difficult to lease to any other business. Considering this, Dr. Anderson felt that it would be more practical to buy a property and remodel it for his own use. Dr. Anderson said that he currently employs two full-time employees, and may hire a third employee in the future. He felt that his dental practice would not generate much traffic because there were no more than two patients in his office at a time. In addition, Dr. Anderson requested that if the variance was granted, that it be granted for a period of 18 months. Betty Martel, representing Rocky Mountain Travel King, spoke in favor of the variance. She said that the project would be an asset to the neighborhood. However, she would not be in favor of the easement because it would eliminate too many parking spaces, nor would they be in favor of a fence separating the two properties. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that the fence be installed along the south property line if either property owner wishes it, and that the variance be granted for a 18 month period. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton, Thede, Coleman. Nays: None. Appeal #1806 A verbatim transcript for Appeal 1806 begins on the next page. ZBA Minutes - Ap9, 1987 • Page 14 Appeal #1806 Section 118-20 (A), 118-81 (D)(1)(c)[1], 118--81 (D)(1)(a)&(b), by Garfield Street Neighborhood Committee, 316-322 Garfield - Staff Determination Upheld. --- The Garfield Street Neighborhood Committee is appealing the interpretation of the code requirement for parking lots to be located on adjacent property, and a decision to allow a curb cut on Garfield Street to serve a proposed parking lot for the St. John's Lutheran Church. See petitioner's letter for specifics. --- Staff. comments: The specific aspects of the appeal will be clearly defined during the course of discussion at the meeting. However, there are two decisions which the Board will definitely be asked to render: 1. Is the proposed location of the parking lot - across the alley from the church - a permitted location under Section 118-81 (D)(1)(c)[1] of the Code? It should be pointed out at this time that perhaps the Board should first determine if this code section is even applicable to this situation. The section in question pertains only to required off-street parking spaces and deals with making sure that the required amount is being provided. The proposed parking lot in question in this particular case in not required. The City has never told the church that they must provide more parking. The only applicable section as to location for this situation would be 118-81 (D)(1)(c)[2), which says that a parking lot in a residential zone is permitted if it is there to serve a use which is permitted in that residential district. Since accessory uses do not always have to be located on the same lot with the principal building (118-81 (A)(3)), staff feels that this is an acceptable accessory use to the church and is of the opinion that the proposed parking lot presents no safety hazards or otherwise jeopardizes public health, safety, and welfare. Also, according to the City Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff, the location of this parking lot makes sense from a traffic operations standpoint, and presents no significant traffic impacts. A partial list of other accessory lots which have been approved in the past include the American Baptist Church, Sorenson PUD, 555 S. Howes office building, College Inn office building, Park Lane Towers, Budget Rent -a -Car, Village Shops, University Motor Inn, Helmshire House, and Everitt Office PUD. 2. Should the curb cut on Garfield Street be allowed for this proposed parking lot? It is the City Traffic Engineer's position that this parking lot location makes sense from a traffic operations standpoint but that the lot would function adequately without the Garfield curb cut, and he is requiring that the alley be paved and 7.BA Minutes — Aprilp 1987 Page 15 • improved all the way from Mathews to Peterson. However, it is also the Traffic Engineer's opinion that the existence of the curb cut would not have a significant enough impact on Garfield Street to warrant denial of the curb cut. These are the two main questions before the Board. However, as previously indicated, the entire appeal will be refined during the course of the discussion. No notices were returned. One letter was received. Zoning Administrator Barnes opened the discussion with a brief outline of the procedures. The discussion would begin with a brief history, slides, and staff comments, and decisions, followed by discussion and citizens comments from both sides of the issue. Zoning Administrator Barnes explained that we are hearing an appeal filed by the Garfield Neighborhood Committee regarding the proposed parking lot to be put in by the St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church. The Church is on Elizabeth and Mathews, part of the parking lot would be on Flizabeth, part would be on Garfield separated from the church by an alley. There is an alley that runs parallel to Elizabeth and Garfield between Mathews and Peterson. Two main items of discussion would be the acceptability of allowing the parking lot on the other side of the alley, and the other main item would be discussion of allowing a curb cut on Garfield to serve the parking lot. There may be other items that we would define and refine as we go through this. Staff members, Rick Ensdorff, Traffic Engineer, and Tim Buchanan, City Forester, are both here to address comments that might come up or any other comments that they may wish to make. Over the last few years the church has contacted the zoning office, we have heard from them about once a year about the possibility of putting a number of parking spaces on the other side of the alley on the rear half of a couple of lots that they have owned for some time. And it was the Zoning Office's interpretation that parking in this particular instance is an accessory use, and that accessory uses do not always have to be located on the same lot as the building is located, and therefor parking across the alley was an acceptable alternative. We made contact about once a year regarding the question but never saw any formal plans. Then about three months ago we became aware of the fact that the church had acquired three properties on Garfield with the intent of putting the larger parking facility on Garfield. At that time we were contacted by residents who lived on Garfield Street regarding this. There appeared that there were going to be some issues of concern. I contacted the church to find out what the plans were, and tried to encourage some sort of dialogue or meeting between the parties. There were a number of meetings that were held, and you (the Board) got a packet of information that explained it, between the neighborhood and the church to discuss the proposed parking lot, what it looked like etc.. The neighborhood had originally three main concerns. One dealt with lighting fixtures, landscaping, and the existence of a proposed curb cut on Garfield Street. They attempted to reach a compromise and work things out, and at one point in time my perception of things were that things were moving along as far as the landscaping and lighting, the curb cut remained the final obstacle. When the church submitted formal plans two weeks ago, the curb cut on Garfield was shown as part of the plan. At that time the neighborhood committee filed their appeal to the Zoning Board 7.BA Minutes - Aprillp 1987 • Page 16 of Appeals because there were staff decisions made to not deny the curb cut. Mr. Barnes then presented slides and explained some history. The church has minimal parking right now. The church was built in 1963, and when the permit and the certificate of occupancy were issued the zoning code that was in effect at that time did not require any parking spaces for churches. They are a permitted use in the RM zone, they are not a non -conforming use. The existing parking is in the rear of the building. Mr. Barnes showed slides of the area on Garfield Street where the parking lot would go. There are two houses there now, which would be removed. The alley goes through to Peterson. He showed the house on Elizabeth, directly adjacent to the Church to the east. As far as staff comments go - first we need to address the issue of the location of the parking lot. Barnes explained the parking code in regards to location. There are three subsections dealing with location in the parking code. One of them deals with all parking lots in the RH zone - they must meet certain requirements. Another aspect of location deals with all parking lots in residential zones. They are only allowed if they are there to serve a use that is permitted in that residential zone. Then a third item of location which is in question here deals with parking lots where required parking spaces are located. It doesn't mention anything about parking lots consisting of parking spaces which aren't.required. And the city in this instance is not requiring the church to provide parking. They are legal the way they are, they would only have to provide parking if they came in with an addition to their sanctuary. At that time then they would have to meet parking requirement standards. It is staff's opinion that this section dealing with required off-street parking spaces and the question of allowing the parking lot across the alley, although it itself says that there are times that it can be located non -adjacent, the staff's interpretation is that it does not apply to this parking lot since the parking lot does not contain required parking spaces. The church's requirement is based on the 1963 code. So what do we have then? We would have an accessory use. The principal use of the tract of land owned by the church in this block is the church building. Parking is accessory to that principal use and accessory to the principal building. And under the criteria for accessory uses, one of those requirements is that it is ordinarily located on the same lot or premises, as the principal building or use. Again it allows parking lots or other accessory uses to be located on lots that aren't on the same lot as the building. So then what is there in the parking code that deals with acceptable location for this particular parking lot. It would be in Section 118-81 (D)(c)(2). The only one of those three criteria of location which is applicable would be (2), which says that only off-street parking provided to serve uses permitted in a residential zoning district will be allowed in that residential district. So we have first of all - is that church allowed in that residential district? Yes it is. The parking lot is there to serve that use. Therefor the parking lot is a permitted use there. And under the accessory use it says "ordinarily located on the same lot or premises", there is nothing that says it always is. And we have a number of parking lots around town that are not adjacent. So the question of adjacency and required parking, staff feels is not applicable to this parking lot situation. The authority given to the staff in the zoning code is basically that we are supposed to look at the code, determine the compliance with the regulations there, and that is it. We are not supposed to make judgmental ZBA Minutes — Aprilp 1987 Page 17 decisions, or impose our own opinions. The code itself has already told us that these provisions are the minimum requirements to provide and meet the requirements for health, safety, morals, welfare, whatever. We may not always agree that that's the case, and we see lots of projects that we'd like to be able to say it doesn't look good or we see lots of projects that we'd like to say that's great — we'd like to make it work. We can't do that. We have to apply what is before us. The Zoning Board on the other hand is empowered to balance the scales you might say. They can apply the code as well as determine if this is in harmony with the purpose and the intent of this chapter and in accordance with the public interest and the most appropriate development of the neighborhood. So the Board is empowered to weigh certain other things that staff is not allowed to do. And it is in that order that this issue is before the Board today. So the first item is to decide the applicability of the section dealing with required parking spaces and the issue of adjacency. The second issue would be the proposed curb cut location on Garfield to serve that. Again, Rick Ensdorff who is authorized under the Zoning Code to make decisions regarding access and circulation, he again cannot make judgement calls. The existence of a curb cut does not significantly impact the Garfield Street neighborhood from a traffic operations standpoint. And therefore, there is no mechanism for him to say it can't be there. Those are the two main issues, and I think we should address them first, and .then see what direction we go in. Acting Chairman Lawton said that as a way to organize the discussion, both groups that want to speak on the issue will have a representative from the group talk to us about the situation at hand, starting off with the representative in favor of the appeal. City Attorney Roy said that he wished to express his opinion on a point that Mr.Rarnes brought up. He thinks that the ZBA is here to provide relief from the strict application of the Code under certain circumstances, and in that context can use those (above mentioned) broad standards •of balancing the purposes and the intent of the chapter in accordance with the public interest, etc. He does not think that the ZBA can use that latitude to take away a right that exists under the language of the Code. And so I think on your first issue, if you decide that the applicant has a right under the existing provisions to put this parking lot in because the principal use is a permitted use, and the provisions of the other section don't apply, apply only to required parking, in my opinion that is the threshold issue, and that may be determinative of the whole thing, because if Peter is correct in that, then the applicant has a right to put the parking lot in and it's only if you get into the second section, the one that he thinks applies to required parking that involves language of discretion on the part of city officials, is it an appropriate alternate location. That kind of language in the code — I think those kinds of discretionary determinations by officials charged with the enforcement of this code are subject to your review, and you apply this overlay of public interest. So it is to grant relief from their opinion if you feel that it is not in the public interest. But the law recognizes a right to have development proceed under the existing ordinances. And if what they want to do exists as a matter of right, and that discretionary provision isn't even involved, then I don't think you can take that away by deciding that it's not in the public interest. That right was given to them, if it exists, by City Council, in a legislative act, and it isn't the kind of. ZBA Minutes - April, 1987 • Page 18 thing that I think you can tinker with. Boardmember Lawton asked staff's opinion of how to handle this. Should the Board have some discussion first before public input from both sides. It was decided that because many people were already there, the Board should get on with the hearing beginning with the petitioner, before Board discussion. Lucia Liley, representing St. John's Church, asked a procedural question: Given what has been said by staff., are we to understand that you then want information and evidence on all of the issues including the location of the parking lot, because if there is a decision made by the Board that the interpretation of staff is correct, then that becomes a moot point. I don't want to waste everybody's time putting all of our people forward in talking about the location issue if in fact you determine that as a matter of law this is a use by right and is not subiect to appeal. I just wanted to asked the question because I don't want to have that introduced if in fact it's a moot point. City Attorney Roy: I just want to make one other observation. I know everybody wants to save time, but we need to look at that in the long term too. There is a right of appeal from this Board to Council if either party chooses to do that because of an adverse decision. That appeal would be solely based on the record, and it's conceivable that Council could disagree on the first issue and then it seems pointless to have to kick it back and re-examine the other issues and then perhaps go to Council again. So my suggestion would be that everybody's here and we have at least another hour and a half, lets put everything on that everybody wants to put on and be sure there is a full hearing on all the issues. Even though your determination on the first one may be dispositive of it, if it's appealed, then Council knows what we are looking at. If that's acceptable. Boardmember Lancaster: I want to ask that that one issue at a time be heard so they can be kept straight. The potential is for a lot of things to get thrown out at once and get confusing. Boardmember Lawton thought that it would be appropriate. He said that the first issue we will address is permitted location of the parking lot, and then the second time around the curb cut. Vicki Mykles spoke for the Garfield Neighborhood Committee: I am an ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America. I will be making the introductory statement on behalf of the Garfield Neighborhood Committee, but I am not making the complete statement. Many members of the committee are here this morning and they will each be presenting a different angle to you. We will be as brief as we can possibly be. The sequence of events which lead us here are before you today, you have the history of the neighborhood in trying to deal with the St. John's church. I would like to recount just a few of those and before I do that I would like to say that we considered asking for a postponement in this hearing because we were not able to respond to the Church plan for the parking lot until it was filed with the City. It was filed two weeks ago today and we have had only two weeks to come up with arguments. They have had three months plus many years, according to Peter, to consider this and to prepare their argument. So we feel we are at a disadvantage here without the kind of reports that they have been able to prepare. But we ZBA Minutes - Aprilo. 1987 • Page 19 will continue. The history that I would like to recount is that many of the older residents in the area were aware that St. John's church was interested in acquiring property, however no attempt was made to contact the residents when the property was purchased on Garfield Street, to let the neighborhood know that parking was intended for that area. It was discovered that this was the case when a truck that was from a house moving company was discovered on the street and several of the neighbors asked the truck driver what was going on and the truck driver responded that the Church had purchased the houses and was planning to move them or demolish them to make way for a parking lot. This is the first time that the neighborhood as a whole learned of the destruction of the neighborhood. Two neighborhood meetings were held on January 26 and February 2, at St.John's Church, at the neighborhood's request to get information about the parking lot and also to share concerns and suggestions about how that would impact the neighborhood. On February 9th, the results of the construction committee's considerations of the requests of the neighborhood were these: that it was in the Church's best interest to keep the original plan in place, that is with the curb cut, some additional landscaping would be added, and low level lighting was being considered at that point. On February 11th, the request was made to meet with the Church Council and with the entire construction committee as we had only met with Mr. Larry Kline and with the Reverend Ron Nichols. Two representatives of the Church met with us briefly. The request was denied by Reverend Nichols who stated that the council and the committee would not be interested in speaking with us as they had no intention of changing their plans. No further contact has been made by the church to the neighborhood, two phone calls were made by myself to Reverend Nichol, and they were not returned. Since the communication was severed by the Church we have had nothing to respond to - no plans - and we were advised not to continue to try and communicate with the congregation since they had not tried to communicate with us. So in essence, we have had to wait until the church filed with the City with their plans to respond to that and that is where we are today. Again, if our argument today has gaps in it, we apologize as we have had very little time to prepare for this. I would like to state the neighborhood's position. We are opposed to the demolition of our neighborhood, and the installation of this parking lot for the following reasons: 1. It will cut the heart out of a well maintained, established historical neighborhood. There is one house on the block that is in not very fine shape, there is a lot of litter around the yard, but that house is recoverable. Many of us who live in the neighborhood live there because we are interested in maintaining this old neighborhood. We have purchased the homes, we are not a neighborhood of renters, and we are recovering the stability of the neighborhood, putting a lot of energy into renovating the homes. The second issue is that by putting in this parking lot it will isolate neighbors from neighbors, we have two senior residents of the neighborhood who are being squeezed out by the church. The property is being purchased around them and they are being isolated from their neighbors. We will have to trade our neighborhood for a sea of asphalt. We will see a substantial increase of traffic on a very placid and quiet street. The church is placing pressure on these long time residents to sell their homes in order for this parking lot to go in, and we are very concerned on the affect on our property values with a sea of asphalt surrounding us. St. John's traffic report, which is a private report done for them, indicates their long range plans. And while the neighborhood did not object to the short term parking lot necessarily, it does object to the 7.BA Minutes — Aprip. 1987 • Page20 long term plans which call for the destruction and demolition of three quarters of the block. We are not opposed to St. John's church. I work for a church, I understand that a church can be a benefit for the neighborhood. We would not like to suggest that we would like to keep the church from growing. It is an exciting time for St. John's church, and we are pleased for them. However, we would like to suggest that St. John's church may perhaps be landlocked, that is that they may not be able to grow further into the neighborhood without acquiring more and more property and destroying a residential area. In the Presbyterian Church we often advise our land locked churches to consider relocating. It's a large project, but it can be done. I currently work for a church in Estes Park and in the last three years we have had to relocate because we were landlocked. I would also like to state that we understand the churches concern about their elderly citizens and we would suggest that the existing parking which is down behind the alley there, perhaps be designated for elderly parking,. When we were there on Sunday, many people who were very able to walk a short distance were parking in those places whereas older members of the congregation were parking across the street and having to travel across the street to get to church. Also many churches purchase vans to pick up people who are unable to walk any kind of a distance and it is a ministry to those people, then to be picked up by their own church members and delivered to the door of the church. These are just things that many churches do. At this point I would respectfully submit to the Board a petition that has been signed by the majority of the neighborhood. It has been signed by every resident on the 300 block of Garfield except one, this person is not profoundly impacted by the parking lot. There are a majority of the rest of the neighborhood on the street surrounding, on Elizabeth, Mathews, and Peterson. There are 39 households represented in this petition, and 48 individuals. Boarmember Lieser asked if any of the houses on the block were designated as historical. Ms. Mykles stated that the East Side Plan of the City of Fort Collins lists this neighborhood as a whole as historical, and the National Historical Society also has it listed. She did not think that any specific house was on the register, however. Boardmember Lieser stated that she did not feel that there would be any more traffic generated by the parking lot since the church members were already parking on the street. Acting Chairman Lawton: As point of procedure in starting this out I would like to have one representative from each group talk, and Reverend Mykles has spoken right now, if there are no other questions from the Board I'd like to hear from the other group. Also, one other thing, we are splitting this up into two sections here, the first section being to talk about the actual location of the parking lot being a permitted location. The second issue we will address after that point in time will be the curb cut. So I would like to limit our discussion at this point in time to the actual location being permitted. Reverend Mykles: I would like to state for the record that we have an integrated presentation and I have not presented the full report from our group at this time. We have prepared it so that different' people would speak to different issues related to this. ZBA Minutes - ApriA 1987 Page 21 • Mr. Lawton: I understand - we have moved this case up so that we could hear a lot of the arguments and accommodate timing situations. Reverend Mykles: I want it stated that our report was being interrupted. Zoning Administrator Barnes: It is my understanding that most of the presentation from the church is going to be done by one person. My suggestion is that we hear from one side and then from the other so that it isn't interrupted and have some continuity in the whole thing. I don't know what the Board feels about that. Boardmember Lawton said he has a question as far as time. We have other cases to consider as well. Reverend Mykles: We can present with two further people and that's it. We will dismiss the rest of our report. Boardmember Lancaster: Could we concentrate on the location and zoning and whether it is permitted or not, that is the question we are talking about right now. It would be helpful to limit it to the question we are talking about. I realize that there are a lot of other issues in the neighborhood, that we are not in a position to discuss all those. We are discussing right now whether or not it is permitted or not. Dorothy McKean representing the two elderly senior members of the neighborhood spoke for the neighborhood committee: One of us has resided there 43 years, the other one over 30 years. The church has been after both of us for the last 10 years to purchase our properties in order to make a parking lot. First, they bought the house next door to me to the west and wanted to make a parking lot. I went to the zoning board and found that it was not wide enough for a parking lot. Secondly, they wanted to purchase 20 feet on the back of all of our lots so that that 20 feet could be made into a parking area. They wanted to cement, take up the grass in front of the house next door to me and put in cement so that they could make that a parking area and a walk way. I told them that I did not see why they wanted to ruin the neighborhood just for one Sunday's parking. The next morning they came to me and said that they had changed their mind and decided to make a walkway. The other elderly lady was approached by one of the members of the church to buy her property. And she said well if they would meet her price she would sell. And they went to her attorney, had a contract drawn up and came to her with a check for $5000. And she refused because they had gone behind her back to her lawyer. Now that they have purchased the properties on the east of us we are both surrounded by the church property. Thank you. Don Mykles representing the neighborhood committee spoke: I am addressing the letter and the spirit of the code. I am a concerned citizen, I have read the Code, and I see it here that first of all the strict interpretation of the code by the zoning staff in effect creates a double standard with respect to parking lots. There are two standards that seem to be distinguished here. We have one standard for a required lot, and another standard for a nonrequired parking lot. Now this I believe was not intended by the people who wrote the code. It appears to us that a nonrequired lot would not have to meet as strict standards as a required parking lot. This seems to me the complete opposite from what should be the case. I see it that building a parking lot that is not required should meet at least the same standards as one that is required. Does this mean 7BA Minutes - Apri 1987 • Page22 that any person if they own a piece of property out of whimsy level a house and pave it over? We want to emphasize that this is an elective project. That the church and not the City has determined as necessary. The City first of all is not requiring the Church to put in any off-street parking whatsoever. Nor does the neighborhood object to the Church's use of our streets for Sunday parking. Mr. Barnes mentioned that we have under ordinary circumstances, or ordinarily we do this. I also want to stress to the Board the uniqueness of the situation. Although other lots have been approved in the past for accessory use, this is the first time in which a church in an established older neighborhood recognized as part of an historic district is seeking to remove historical structures as cited by the East Side Plan and endorsed by City Council. Obviously, we are very much concerned about our neighborhood. We would not be here in front of you today if we weren't. So obviously there's an opposition by the neighborhood itself to the impact of the installation of the parking lot. Now if today you decide that indeed you are going to impose different standards, and apply these standards differently with respect to required and nonrequired parking, we would like to know just what are the appropriate standards, and what they should be for nonrequired parking since it is not clear in the code. We also need to address the spirit of the code. We believe that if this parking lot is approved, the spirit of the code is being violated. Is it the intent of the code to break up neighborhoods piecemeal. It is my understanding on the concept of contiguous property that the idea is that this would provide a unified approach in developing a site. If you look at the site plan you see that the proposed location of the parking is so removed from the church that it is more intrusive to our neighborhood than if it was placed directly behind the church. To me it looks gerrymandered. In effect it brings the church's presence from Elizabeth Street to Garfield Street where it's not felt now. Another point is that to a person that is driving down Garfield Street, if this parking lot is put in place, will look at that parking lot in the middle of our block and wonder why the parking lot is there because it will not be immediately apparent that that parking lot belongs to St. John's church. So we are talking about the idea of visual completeness. When you see a building and you see a parking lot next to it, one can readily assume that the parking lot is for that building. This will not be the case if they build this parking lot as planned. The parking lot is so removed from the church it's not directly apparent that it belongs to the church. In conclusion I believe our neighborhood is at a turning point. Young, people like myself and others have moved in, we have renovated homes, and added stability to that neighborhood. We believe this parking lot would be a destabilizing influence, eventually returning many homes back to rental properties. And finally, we reserve the right to appeal any ruling against our neighborhood to higher authorities. May I answer any questions you might have? Boardmember Coleman: I have one - I have driven by the area and have written down some street addresses, but I am not quite sure which addresses go with which group. I understand that 302 Garfield is owned by the Church. - That's correct - What about the next house which is 304 Garfield? Mykles - That belongs to Mrs. Jean Gibbons who has lived in the neighborhood in that house for 43 years. - Coleman- Then the next one must be Mrs. McKean? - Mykles- No the next one belongs to the church. The fourth house then belongs to Mrs. McKean. 316 and 322 are slated for removal. 7,BA Minutes - April-9, 1987 Page 23 0- Mr. Mykles: By the way could I just show you some pictures that I have taken of the neighborhood. First of all. I'd like to show you the three houses that are slated for demolition. Two of the houses are in very good condition. And this is one at 322 Garfield, and the next slide shows the house at 316. This is the one that really has not been maintained very well by the previous owners, however although it's junky looking in terms of the garbage around the site which the church has not cleaned up, the basic structure of the house is sound and with a little work and a little money this can be fixed up into a very charming house. The third house is the one on Elizabeth Street, which again is small, but a very nice little house. You also notice that our neighborhood is completely residential. This is a view of Garfield looking west and you will notice the many mature trees along the site. It is particularly impressive in the summer months when the leaves are out. The church not only will remove houses but also remove all the trees and vegetation on the site so that very impressive blue spruce is slated for removal as well as two weeping willows - the one you see on the left of the spruce - and then two very large cottonwood trees behind the house on Elizabeth street. This (slide) again shows the mature vegetation on the street. And this is the other end of Garfield, the 300 block looking east. Again we see some very large cottonwood trees on that corner of the street. This is the view directly across from the street of the two properties that are slated for demolition and replacing with parking lot. Of course it is very difficult you can see that the church's presence from this view cannot be seen. It is hard to imagine what it would look like without houses or trees there, but to give you an impression of what it might look like, (the next slide) is a comparable view across the street from the parking lot at the First Methodist Church. Granted there might be a little more landscaping across the front, but essentially this is what we would see - a complete clear view from Garfield Street all the way to Elizabeth Street with no or very little consideration for blocking those views. Boardmember Lawton: If you go back to the previous slide, in going by I noticed that there were some trees that have already be taken down. Which ones are those? Mykles: The ones that have already been taken down were dead or dying, so they largely have removed or cleared vegetation that would not survive. Lawton: So that is already reflected in this photo. Mykles - It's reflected - they've got a pile of brush there that they haven't removed yet so it looks cluttered unfortunately, but again with a little work it can be a charming yard and house. Boardmember Lawton said he would like to hear from the representative from St. John's. Lucia Lily representing St. John's Church: I am here in kind of a dual role today. I am a lawyer representing the church but I am also a member of the St. John's congregation. Just by way of background, St. John's is a Lutheran church, it's a congregation of about 700 people. The legal ownership is vested in the Board of Elders for the benefit of all the members of the congregation many of whom are here today because they are long time members of St. John's some as long as 30-40-50 years or more with this congregation in this area. Many like myself are members of East Side Neighborhood and have long time roots both in the church and in the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. We have asked in the ZBA Minutes - April4p, 1987 Page 24 • interests of time that the members not individually speak except to the extent that there are specific things that have not yet been addressed and as you have done with the petitioner, we will also have just a couple of comments after I make my comments that relate to specific areas that they are aware of and I may not be aware of. Before I begin a discussion of the location issue I would like to make just a couple of general comments because I think they do impact on the specific comments. First, with regard to the timing, I guess I have to say that I am a little taken aback by the petitioner's suggestion that they have been disadvantaged by holding the hearing within this time frame since they are the party that has requested the hearing. And if you will look at the letter they submitted, they specifically requested that it be heard on this date. We had exactly four working days to get copies of this, to meet with City staff and to attempt to prepare response to their application for appeal. So it's a little hard for us to understand why they're not prepared for a hearing on a date that they requested. Secondly there is a side issue that relates to the location issue that has been repeatedly brought up both in the variance request to this board, the letters to the staff, and the information which has been sent out to the press and to the public. And that is this issue of historic designation and I would like to lay that to rest once and for all because there have been many misstatements with regard to the historic designation issue. I have a copy of the East Side Neighborhood Plan, I'm not going to introduce it into the record because it's marked up, but it is on file with the City Clerk and with the City Attorney's permission I would ask that that be made part of the record since it is on file with City Clerk. The East Side Plan is a neighborhood plan that was adopted not just for this area around Garfield, but for a very large area including the University Acres Subdivision east of Stover Street. What that plan says is it recognizes that there is a district, it does not itself create any district at all. It recognizes that there is an historic district called the Laurel School historic district. What that district is is a designation on the national register. None of the individual units or houses here or elsewhere have been designated as historic structures. Now within that neighborhood there are some special buildings like the old Laurel School which is now known as Centennial High School, the Arthur House, and the Andrews House, which are truly historic structures and have been designated as such both on a national and on a local level. That's not true of any of these structures on Garfield Street. In fact in the East Side Plan, these are known as structures which may contribute to the character of the neighborhood, but they're not even designated in the East Side Plan as historic structures themselves. Moreover, in visiting with Edwina Echeveria, who is the City's historic preservation specialist, she has advised that the city does not consider any of these to be locally designated historic structures, or a locally designated historic district, and that there is no city or local control which prevents the use of property by a property owner. She also indicated to me that the city has no plans at this time to designate the entire district as an historic district locally or otherwise. So the bottom line is, yes, the district has been registered with the national register as an historic district. It is not locally designated, it does not preclude any uses by the property owner, and none of the structures have been in any way individually designated as historic structures and are not under local control under the City of Fort Collins. The second issue that I would like to address has to do with the characterization of this whole issue. I think that one of the central problems that we have had as a church in trying to deal with this ZBA Minutes - Apri 1987 • Page 25 issue in a rational fashion, is the attempt on the part of the petitioners to portray the type of the use the church is asking for as something as extraordinary, something unusual, something that isn't typically done. And that the staff in doing so, has somehow violated the code and has acted improperly. The record speaks for itself. If you look around town, if you look at the way accessory uses are allowed and the definitions of accessory uses, I think you will find to the contrary. The fact is the church is an existing use by right in this zone. In fact it is encouraged by the City in all the City's codes to be located in residential districts, much more restrictive residential districts than the RM zone. They are allowed and exist in the most restrictive residential zones in the City and that continues to the present day and that is encouraged by the City. The fact is that parking lots for churches are routinely held by the City and by court cases to be appropriate accessory uses for churches. And if the church were coming in today there is no way that they would be allowed to construct the church facility without an accessory use parking lot because the City does not want people who need to use the church facilities to park on the street so that every Sunday morning people who live on Elizabeth and Peterson and Mathews do not have a place to park.for their own purposes, so that you have double parking because you have no place to let your children off for Sunday school, or you have elderly people who can't walk four block, five blocks, three blocks, or maybe even two blocks. .And you've got all of these problems that relate to the on street parking. The thrust of the City in its Codes whether they are for new subdivisions or existing subdivisions is to have uses provide appropriate parking. What the church has attempted to do over a period of years is work with the City, consult with the City, and try to do what is the only available option to them. And that is to purchase housing as it becomes available, adjacent to the church, immediately across the alley, to the south of the church, pay for that, pave it, and attempt to get that parking which now exists off all the other streets and on to where it belongs. And that is a private parking lot as would be required if it were coming in today as an existing, use by right. I think the point to be made is the neighborhood is not one isolated portion of Garfield Street. The neighborhood from the Zoning Board of Appeals view should be a much larger neighborhood that is impacted by this whole situation. It includes the church, it includes places that abut the alley, it includes Elizabeth where cars park repeatedly in front of driveways, up to stop signs and so forth, it includes Mathews Street and all the other areas that are impacted. So it's not the church versus the neighborhood, it's neighborhoods versus neighborhoods. And in the larger neighborhood view, this parking lot would eliminate a good deal of the traffic hazards that exist now, they would improve traffic circulation, and they would improve the convenience of parking for all the residents of the other areas of the neighborhood. So we ask you to take a look at these facts as you proceed in your determination. We clearly concur with the staff that in first analysis, the section regarding the location of the parking lot is' not appropriate as a matter of law. This is not required parking. The church has attempted to provide it on its own because it recognizes the problem and it's attempting to alleviate that problem. Since it is not required parking, it does not meet that code section which has been cited. That clearly says "required off-street parking shall...". This is not required off-street parking, therefor you must go back to the general code provisions relating to accessory use which would allow exactly this kind of accessory use in the location as proposed. That's the legal argument, we feel that's correct as a matter of law and we urge your ZBA Minutes - Aprilo, 1987 • Page 26 consideration and acceptance of that point of view. I would like at this time to very briefly have Larry Kline, who is a member of the Board of Elders talk to you about the church's role in the process and addressing some specific concerns that have been raised by the neighborhood. And then very briefly, Mr. Fritz Sterling, who is a member of the congregation. We will not address the curb cut issue as you have addressed until a later point in time. Larry Kline (representing St. John's Church): I am a member of St. John's church on the Board of Elders, and I am chairman of the committee for the development of the parking lot. I also work for a home builder in Fort Collins and have been in the construction business approximately 15 years. A little chronology, as was stated, we had in the past met with the City to see if the kinds of uses that we are proposing could be done. And as the ability to acquire properties came available to us or to anyone, not necessarily us, we were wanting to make sure that if we were to acquire those properties, that we would have the right to improve those in the fashion that we're suggesting that we do - which is a parking lot. The two properties on Garfield were acquired late last year - one due to some extenuating circumstances the other one we bid on. It was a HUD house. It was a bid situation, anyone could have bid on it. We happened to be the only bidder in fact. We bid on that and received that. The house on Elizabeth street we owned, we purchased last year in early '86 or late '85. We are and have been for some time in the properties at 302 and 308 Garfield. Those properties have been owned for quite some time. Our long range hope is to provide the necessary parking. We have met on several occasions, as stated earlier, with the neighborhood. I presided at those meetings. The people in the neighborhood contacted the pastor and asked if they could be given opportunity to visit with us and I said yes - we'll do that although we are under no obligation to do that. But I feel that because we are good neighbors and would like to be good neighbors, we would like to show them what we're doing. And when we met in January we had a proposed plan of what we were going to submit to the City. We met then about a week later as was stated, we discussed some others things like lighting and were given some information in regards to lighting and said no problem, we will do just what you're asking for. We had some concerns about landscaping, we met with Tim Buchanan, the city arborist, and in fact have submitted landscaping that is in excess of what the requirements are for similar type parking spaces. The curb cut that was presented or shown as a possibility as part of it - that's always been there. We then went through those series of meetings, we then did submit to the City for their review. And that is basically how we got to where we are now. There's a couple of things that I would like to comment about. One comment was made about the condition of 316 Garfield as the ability to restore that structure. I had several moving companies out and our attempt was to try to move all of those structures if possible, to other locations, sell the homes or give them away. We had moving companies come out and look at them both internally, in the basements, the crawl_ spaces, and one of those three homes which is at 322, was considered to be potentially movable. After doing some costing they determined that it would cost a minimum of $15000 just to move the home. That doesn't take into account putting it on another lot, bringing it up to code, etc.. The house at 316 and 325 Elizabeth, in opinions of professional house movers, and in my opinion as well, because of the nature of their construction, their age, their deterioration in the foundation which are a stone foundation in some places, and in other places ZBA Minutes - Aprio, 1987 • Page 27 just a log timber placed on the ground, there was no possible way that those structures could he moved or salvaged. If you go inside of them you will see that the floors have 2 or 3 inch slopes to them and to bring them up to code particularly 316, 325 was recently vacated by a staff of the church, 322 was also lived in prior to our purchasing it. But 316 specifically, if you have been inside of it, there is no way that that would be a house that anyone would want to attempt to restore. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but the cost of that may be a deterrent. One other comment about one of the slides that showed the parking of the Methodist Church down the block. When in fact the parking lot is to the south of the church, the point is that parking lot is a block and a half long. Where we're looking at the depth of our lot being 150 feet. We're talking about one full block plus half of another block for the size of the Methodist Church parking lot. In addition to that, the landscaping at the Methodist Church was virtually nonexistent. Any questions? Boardmember Thede: Has there been any attempt at all, to save any of the older trees that are there? Is that impossible to build around? Kline: We have studied that. Vaught/Fry is an architect that we have employed early to determine layout of the parking lot. We had Stuart and Associates do a topographic survey and pinpoint specific locations of trees and look at a design situation as to where those could be saved and so on with medians and buffers around them. We also contacted Kincaid Tree Service to get an opinion from them as to the condition of the trees, the longevity and so on, also the cost of what it would take to take them down. And the position of those, particularly to two on the lot on the rear of Elizabeth, are virtually in the middle of the lot. There's no way to get through them even. We have someone here from the National Forest Service that is also a member of the Church, who can answer specific questions about that. In the attempts that we have made to pursue those possibilities we have not been able to determine that the ability to leave those trees is a possibility. We could leave them all but we would not have the ability to provide traffic circulation thought the lot with the number and the location of those trees specifically. Barnes: I think after we consider the two items, we might want to talk a few minutes about landscaping. Boardmember Lawton: Is it your intention to pave the alley coming out? Is that a requirement? Kline: That was a condition that was brought to our attention, and we had indicated that if that is something that even though it is an off -site possibility, we would be willing to do that even though we're questioning whether or not that is technically permissible. We did discuss it and Rick Ensdorff, the Traffic Engineer indicated that they would require that to be done. We said sure, we'll do that. If that's what we need to make the thing work we are willing to do that. Barnes: I think Rick will address that in his comments. later, before he has to leave. Patricia Crimm (representing the neighborhood committee): I asked to talk next because I have to be going. I live at 336 Garfield Street, I teach ZBA Minutes - Aprio, 1987 • Page 28 singing. My husband and I have lived in the area for 24 years, and in the house that we now occupy on the corner of Garfield and Peterson which is kitty corner from the church for about 12 years. I think we bought that in 1975. We support the addition of a parking lot. We feel that it is absolutely necessary. I think the neighborhood needs the parking lot, and the church definitely needs the parking lot. I spent a little time circulating the petition and I'm sorry now I didn't spend more time. I just wanted you to know that the Garfield Neighborhood group - that's a clever name which kind of implies that it represents the neighborhood. But I'm part of the neighborhood and they don't represent me. When I was going around talking to my neighbors about this parking lot issue I found that we were like any other neighborhood. There were some people I talked to (Mrs. Gibbons) who was opposed to the parking lot, I talked to some people who were for the parking lot, and I talked to some people who were indifferent, and I talked to some people who just couldn't make up their minds. One thing that people were pretty unified on was the fact that the congestion on Sunday morning is pretty bad. Cars are parked all around our block and my husband and I are members of the First United Methodist Church, and we walk to church sometimes, which is not far - only three blocks, but if we drive out car down there we find out that the minister at their church has talked longer than our minister and there is no place for us to park. Something that does concern me is that if this parking lot is not allowed I imagine that financial necessity is going to force the Lutheran church to rent those properties and we do have a percentage of rental properties in our area. We don't want more renting people in there. People who rent properties are occupying the space but they have no commitment. My husband and I have spent a number of hot summer nights laying in bed listening to rock music. And I don't want to have more renters in the neighborhood. I would rather see a nice quiet parking lot. The only other point that I wanted to make is that if you look at the pictures, the Lutheran church is the best looking structure in the neighborhood. Their lot has always been well maintained and neat. And I feel that they have been very good neighbors. I assume that if they put in a parking lot it is going to be a neat, well maintained lot. Of course you saw the picture of our church, the United Methodist Church has a whole half a block of parking lot, and I don't feel it destroys that neighborhood. I haven't heard any complaints about it. I think using strong phrases like "They're cutting out the heart of our neighborhood", and things like that.... Nobody is cutting out anybody's heart, or the heart of the neighborhood. Personally I can't see why anyone wants to maintain those little old houses of 1400-1500 feet with low ceilings. The picture of 316 shows you a rather bad looking house. It doesn't show the inside particularly, and I walked through that house. It is rank, it is putrid, it would take thousands of dollars to fix that house up and I would like to see it go. It's been an eyesore for quite a long time. Boardmember Lawton said that since there has been opportunity for both sides to speak about the permissibility and the permitted location of the lot, we could have some internal discussion. Mr. Barnes then requested that staff's comments from Rick Ensdorff be heard before he had to leave. Reverend Mykles: A comment was made that the larger neighborhood would be impacted and that they didn't see it would be impacted and that nobody has complained. We have somebody here from the larger neighborhood here to speak to that issue if you would hear them for just a moment. ZBA Minutes - April4p 1987 Page 29 Blair Dodbaud, 329 E. Elizabeth: I live two lots east of St. John's Lutheran church. A couple moments ago I heard comments made by members of the church that there was parking problems on Elizabeth in addition to surrounding areas. I have lived there for two year, I'm a renter, I feel like my home is in that neighborhood right now. I know a lot of people down the block. Nobody in the 2 years that I have been there has complained about on -street parking in that area. When I have gone to talk to those people about the church's proposal, they would prefer to see the on -street left and the neighborhood stand as it is. I have never had a parking problem in my driveway. Nobody has blocked me, the only people that have are people who are across the street who are college students when they have a party Saturday night. I have never had a problem with parking in that neighborhood. Neither have my neighbors. I do feel that there are several people in the area that feel that it would be a detriment to have a parking lot behind their house or down the street from them when we don't feel we have a problem with parking on the street. And this project not only impacts Garfield, but impacts Elizabeth as well. At times during non Sunday services or activities at the church the majority of the people that go to the church park on Elizabeth, they do not park in the parking lot behind the church which now has 27 parking spaces back there. So I can't see how they can describe the parking problem with people wanting to park behind the church when you go there on a non- Sunday activity and people are parking in front of the church on Elizabeth. Any questions? Thede: Yes, do you own an automobile? Dobaud: Yes - I own two. Ensdorff: I will have some specifics about the curb cut. I know you are not in to that yet, but just to get it into the record so you can move on. The location of the parking lot, from the traffic engineer's standpoint we would look at it as parking associated with the church use should be associated as well as possible located adjacent to the church site. Standard application for parking anywhere with any development. My office has not received any complaints associated with parking in this neighborhood associated with the church. But visual inspection there on a Sunday morning will indicate that there is parking from the church parking in the surrounding neighborhood. The issue of what is the neighborhood has been discussed. For my definition, it is a broader area, a 2 or 3 block area surrounding the church. So the parking located adjacent to the church would be a reasonable approach to any parking situation, this one included. Second, about the curb cut and access to this parking lot. We have looked at that from the point of view of traffic operations and safety. From that point of view, the curb cut on Garfield is acceptable. Compared to other situations, and compared to basic traffic engineering review and analysis, it is an acceptable situation. Ensdorff: Compared to other situations, and compared to other traffic situations, our review and analysis is that it is an acceptable situation. I would be the first to state that the status quo on Garfield will be impacted. But it is not our ability to maintain the status quo on every street in this City. There are changes, as development happens, we cannot guarantee status quo. So the dilemma here is the situation where the curb ZBA Minutes - Aprio, 1987 • Page 30, cut on Garfield will increase traffic on Garfield, and at the same time what I am telling you from the City Traffic Engineer's point of view is that that increase is acceptable from a traffic engineering standpoint. from safety. By changing the status quo you are changing that street's impact. A case could be made that impact on other streets might be lessened or might be changed as a balance. A couple points have been made earlier, one is that the existing traffic is not changing, and that's an important point. It's being moved, its being changed somewhat by curb cut locations. In focus, but in essence they are not changing the total overall traffic. My conversations with members of the church who have talked to me and neighbors from the neighborhood committee have also discussed the issue. Early on in the discussion it was my comments to the neighborhood group that if they could work with the church and if the church was agreeable, that the curb cut on Garfield might not be needed. Improvements to the alley to east to Peterson should be made regardless, and that by having those access points at this stage of the parking lot development for the church would seem to make sense or could work. As the process went along the church wanted to look at a broader scheme, a master plan. It was my opinion from the beginning that eventually as the parking lot develops there needs to be a curb cut on Garfield. Just for a reasonable distribution of traffic in and out of this parking lot. That would be long range. As the church looked at their long range plans they felt that access could be defined in the parking lot that they are doing right now. They felt that they needed it now, and that it wouldn't have to be something that would have to be taken out or moved. Under those conditions I felt that a curb cut could proceed, as it did work with their long range plans. I am working from a position that the church is a given use and we are trying to accommodate that given use with reasonable parking and access to that parking. To summarize, the curb cut onto Garfield will change the status quo on Garfield, but it does not change it to be unsafe or unacceptable from the traffic engineering standpoint. The parking lot is a reasonable location adjacent to the church, and not distributed throughout the neighborhood. Thede: How long have you worked with the church and their traffic problems there? Has it been mainly this year or have you worked with them before.? Ensdorff: The focus of the effort has been over the last three months with both the church and the neighborhood group at various times asking questions through the process. Coleman: Are you a member of that church? Ensdorff: No. Lancaster: Have you received any complaints about the off-street parking or any other problems with the parking in the past? Ensdorff: No. My office has not received complaints about the existing on -street parking situation around this church. Lawton: Is it your opinion that this cut is needed for this plan or for more long range plans. Ensdorff: A cut on Garfield is appropriate for the development of the long ZBA Minutes - April 9, 1987 Page 31 range parking needs of the church for reasonable distribution of the traffic. It was my initial opinion with the preliminary discussions with the neighborhood group that if the church was agreeable to not place the cut at this time and they felt their circulation would work without it, that I would not require the church to put it in. The church has gone thought a detailed traffic study of their impact, and their traffic study indicates that they feel they need it. I am in between that position. The impacts from that curb cut on that part of Garfield is a change, but that level of change is not unacceptable compared to other similar situations. I would not require the curb cut, or I would not tell them that they could not have it. It becomes more of a subjective opinion either by the Church or the neighborhood on its placement. Thede: Either way you are going to require that the alley connecting these two properties be paved - is that correct? Ensdorff: Yes. Part of the alley is paved to Mathews. It is my feeling that because of the location of the parking lot the alley to the east, to Peterson, will be used regardless, and therefore should be improved to make it as safe as possible. Lieser: What is the width on the curb cut? What are the sizes of the curb cuts that serve as the driveways there now? Ensdorff: The curb cut would be 24 feet. I don't know the size of the existing driveways for a fact but curb cuts on that part of town are all narrow unless they have been upgraded recently. They are probably 10 feet. Thede: Theoretical question - if they do not put the curb cut in in this location, (we have it shown on our plots here) and down the line they acquire more properties, give me a possibility. Could they move that curb cut closer to Mathews Street in the future? Ensdorff: The church does not have an overall design for the parking lot, for the future expansion. They have given us the indication that they feel they need parking in that area to Mathews Street. A curb cut on Garfield is needed for that, it could be placed closer to Mathews. Its placement at this time is not unacceptable but depending upon the overall. design of the parking lot it could be anywhere in those future planned parking areas on Garfield. Roy: Can I clarify one thing for the record? Are you saying that strictly speaking, that the proposed location is adjacent to the church in spite of the alley or are you instead going under the other criterion and merely saying that this is an acceptable alternative location? Ensdorff: I am saying because of the current use of the alley as an access way that it is adjacent to the use that it is intended for. The alley is currently used as an access way for church activity and this proposed parking lot would continue that practice. Barnett: If this parking lot were built with precisely the design we see before us today, and if it were in the future extended closer to Mathews, can you see the necessity or what problems would be created by a second access onto Garfield. ZBA Minutes - April 1987 Page 32 • Ensdorff: The scenario where there's two curb cuts on Garfield - ultimate and long range. The traffic operations and safety might be negatively impacted because of some confusion in that short of a distance having two curb cuts. From a safety traffic operations standpoint it was our analysis that one curb cut would better serve that. One would be the best situation. Two would have a negative impact - not a major one. Just general practice would indicate that one curb cut would meet the capacity needs and would be a little safer in the long run. Liley: We have not yet been allowed to address the issue of curb cuts and we have some information in regards to the alley. If Mr. Ensdorff is not here you are not going to have the benefit of his opinion with regard to those, nor are we. There are a couple of factors in which we will need some response from Mr. Ensdorff. Lawton: We haven't addressed the 1st situation which would lead us into the second. We are faced with time constraints with Rick. the first one needs to be addressed first. Barnes: Rick has to leave in five minutes. You may want to entertain one or two questions from each side on the curb cut - if that's acceptable to both sides of the issue. A five minute recess was called after which Boardmember Lawton reconvened the meeting with questions about the curb cut. Kelly Alberts (of the Garfield Neighborhood Committee): Is it your interpretation that just with the plans they have now that just for these three properties and the property on Elizabeth Street, that the curb cut is not necessary. Ensdorff: As in my previous remarks, it is not that clear cut. Without the curb cut, given the current situation; that is, access from Elizabeth Street and access from the alley both east and west, it was my opinion that the parking lot can operate acceptably without it. At the same time, with the curb cut, the impact on Garfield Street is not unacceptable from a traffic operations/ safety standpoint. It works both ways, but without the curb cut, the impact on Garfield Street remains status quo. In the long term there is a need for a curb cut given the church expansion of parking, there is a need for a curb cut on Garfield. Alberts: Your thinking on this is directed only to the question of traffic/safety consideration - is that correct? Ensdorff: Yes - my responsibilities are to look at what the impact from a traffic operational and safety standpoint - and also parking. As I indicated earlier, the location of parking adjacent to its use is a general practice, the most appropriate location. Alberts: If the curb cut is put in, is it also the City's belief that there could be no landscaping in the front of that area in order to have appropriate visibility ? For a twenty-four (24) foot curb cut? Ensdorff: The location of landscaping on Garfield for the purpose of ZBA Minutes - ApAR , 1987 • Page 33 screening the parking lot from the residences on the south side would be appropriate. They need to be strategically located so that motorists using the curb cut would have adequate view of traffic on Garfield. I haven't calculated site distance, but the site distance on a street like this wouldn't be that significant. We've done it elsewhere. Alberts: You are aware that with respect to the long range parking plans of the church, that these are purely speculative at this moment and that the church does not even own two of those properties that they've done a traffic report on? Ensdorff: In my discussion with the church, and in the traffic analysis they submitted to me, they indicate what their ownership is now and their long range master plan for future parking. Alberts: In terms of just what they have submitted, it's your opinion that it's not necessary to have that curb cut. Ensdorff: I'll refer back to my answer the first time. Liley: You made the statement that without the curb cut the traffic may operate acceptably with just the alley access and the Elizabeth access. That's based on the alley being widened and paved - is that correct? What is your request of the church for the width of the alley? Ensdorff: That discussion has not come up to a width. We understand that there is a twenty (20) foot right-of-way for the alley in that area, and we would expect that that would meet the needs of access to Peterson. Liley: Taking that full easement width of. twenty (20) foot and making that useable would meet the needs of traffic in that area without the curb cut? Ensdorff: At this point that's my analysis, we have not looked at design yet. Liley: Are you aware of potential encroachments, that now exist into the alley? If there were potential encroachments - driveways, garages, landscaping, etc. - so that they alley couldn't be widened to its full width - might that have an impact on your conclusion with regard to adequate traffic flow in the alley without the curb cut? Ensdorff: If the full right-of-way could not be used, or could not be improved to a useable condition, that would have an impact on the distribution of traffic and what access would be needed. Mykles: Does the City ever designate alleys to be one-way if they are not wide enough for 2-way traffic? Ensdorff: Alleys have been designated one way in certain segments of the City. We would try to stay away from that in residential areas. Neighborhoods generally consider alleyways to be full use. Limitations on them could cause safety problems. But it has been done - primarily in the downtown area where there is more intense use. Mykles: If the long range plans are implemented, and the rest of the block ZBA Minutes - Aprio, 1987 • Page 34 is taken out and made into parking - where the curb cut is now - is that where you would recommend it being placed for the long range plans? Ensdorff: Without seeing long range plans, I would have to speculate. Given the overall possible frontage that the parking lot could take on the north side of Garfield, a curb cut reasonably located in the middle of that frontage, and reasonably designed with overall access would work. With the information I have at this point, it meets the criteria. It has been one of the concerns all along that the curb cut be placed so that it would not have to be moved. Mykles: You sent a letter earlier on to Peter Barnes saying possibly where the curb cut is indicated would not be a suitable place for a curb cut if they developed the rest of the block. Ensdorff: At that time the church had not gone into an analysis of how the overall area could work. That statement was a request to go through that process, to make sure that it would work. They have gone through that process. I came to that conclusion through their traffic study. Lawton: Let's concentrate this next section on the plan we have before us not on the proposed long range plans. I'd like discussion by the board on the feasibility and permissibility of the parking lot in the location. Thede: Accessory use, in my opinion, is a matter of common sense in this matter. They are putting a parking lot adjacent to their church. It is definitely an accessory use. I don't have a problem with it. It happens to be located in the neighborhood, and that's the problem. I think that staff did the right thing in stating that this is an accessory use. Barnett: The parking lot contains forty-six (46) spaces and in multiplying that out with the standard length of a parking space for on street parking you come out with about 1,058 feet of curb line that would be freed up when that parking lot is full... This parking lot represents between 1-1/2 and 2 blocks of street frontage with both sides packed full. That's concentrating it adjacent to the particular use and frees up that much space in the neighborhood. Lancaster: What we are being asked here is what applies under the code and whether this is permitted under the code. Whether or not it is a good idea to have a parking lot here or what it's impact is on the neighborhood - unfortunately we do not have the leeway to discuss at this point. We are here to discuss whether this is a permitted accessory use. From my interpretation - I can't see how this is not a permitted use. Barnes: Specifically the question is - is this location permitted. Coleman: Let's presume for a minute that we decide this is a permitted use. If we do that it probably means that everything else is out of our hands. On the other hand, let's presume that we decide it's not a permitted use, that the lot is not adjacent, and that the interpretation that "required" applies here and it requires a variance. In that case could we attach to that variance certain things that might appeal to the neighbors. Barnes: We are not here on a variance request. We are here to decide on ZBA Minutes - Aprio, 1987 Page 35 0- the appropriateness of this being a permitted spot for the parking lot. Roy: Going back to how to structure this whole thing. There is an area of discretion that has been exercised by staff - that is - does this proposed parking lot meet the requirements in 118-81 (D) (1) for a parking lot. There is a sub part of that - does it meet any specific locational requirements in sub section (C) (1), required parking. If you decide that that doesn't apply because this isn't required parking, that is not a locational requirement that must be met. If you decide that it does not apply, the only other locational requirement is in (C) (2). And then you look at whether they have exercised correct discretion about all of the general requirements for parking lots - screening, landscaping, etc. Barnett made a motion that the Board interpret the code in this situation that the parking in question is not required parking and that they support staff's determination on this issue. Boardmember Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Lieser, Barnett, Thede. Nays: Lawton, Coleman. Roy: I suggest that both sides be given the opportunity to pose any issues and be sure that they have a satisfactory record on all questions they want answered. I suggest that you make a second determination of whether you agree or disagree with staff's determination that this parking lot meets the general requirements for off street parking contained in 118-81 (D)(1) (c). That includes all of the other issues - landscaping, access, location Is acceptable. Barnes: We need to address the issue of landscaping next. Tim Buchanan has reviewed the plan and he would like to see the spruce tree remain there so a change to the design of the parking lot would include that spruce tree and result in the possible elimination of 2 parking spaces. When it comes to landscaping on the plan, we would defer to Tim Buchanan, City Forester, as to what would be required to meet the city specifications. Lancaster: I am concerned about the elm trees: it's not marked in the property - it could be saved. Tim Buchanan: There is an existing American Elm, located between the sidewalk and the curb. It appears just to the east of the curb cut on the plan. We feel it should be saved. There was a little confusion on the landscape plan submitted, which showed a new tree going in that location. The landscape designer failed to inventory the elm on the site. We recommend that the elm stay. In terms of the big blue spruce, our administrative guidelines which supplement the landscape code requirements for parking lots, it does say that significant desirable trees will be preserved where possible. It has been noted that there are 5 major trees on the site. We feel that the blue spruce is the best of these 5 existing trees. Because it is along the perimeter of the lot, the potential to save it is much greater. We felt that it is a good tree - fairly healthy, though starting to age. It has a live crown, no evidence of decay, well rooted, it's not leaning. In my opinion, it could be saved by placing a curb on the north side of that spruce and creating a landscaped area back of the sidewalk closer to the east of the curb cut. One or two parking places could be lost because of that. I considered the possibility of root damage, but I felt with sensitive design of the curb and excavation of the parking lot there would be no main root cutting. I've heard concern that • ZBA Minutes - April, 1987 • Page 36 maybe with removal of the structures and vegetation, increased wind speeds against this tree could blow it over. That may exist, but I don't feel is a significant concern to warrant removing the tree. Thede: What percentage of land do they have in landscaping. Buchanan: They have 2 interior parking lot islands that combined are about 1100 square feet. Lancaster: Does their landscaping plan with the modifications you are requiring meet City guidelines? Buchanan One of the requirements is that the parking lot should be screened from the street with vegetation, berming, hedge, a 20% blockage from the cross sectional view. I thought it was a little deficient in screening just to the east of the curb cut. Retaining the spruce would help achieve that 20% screen. Sizes, quantities of interior plantings met the code requirements and seemed to be a well thought out arrangement. Barnes: They are required to have 930 square feet and they have 1216 square feet of interior landscaping on this plan. The board then requested that both sides present any final evidence or information on any of the issues. Liley: The thrust of the petitioner's objections in requesting this hearing is that it has been improper on the part of the City Traffic Engineer to render a decision that a curb cut onto Garfield isn't appropriate in light of the use. Again, if you look around Fort Collins, that's not true. Situations just like this abound and in areas where there are even more restrictive uses than what you find in an RM neighborhood. It is not unusual, it is not extraordinary. In fact, the contrary is true. For the city to deny a request for one curb cut in a street for this many parking spaces, and considering the traffic flow, and the alley and its width would indeed be very extraordinary. I would ask you to consider what we're looking at here. We have a very narrow alley! I'd like our traffic engineer to spend just a minute talking about his conclusions looking at it from a traffic and safety standpoint. That alley has a travel width of 14'. The easement is 20'. As Mr. Ensdorff attested to a few minutes ago, it probably makes a difference in his conclusions as to adequate acres and circulation depending upon how wide and how well used that alley could be. Right now there are encroachments into that alley - utility poles, possibly garages, driveway entrances and the like that would have to be torn out or would directly abut the travel lane of that alley. After a church service, 96 vehicles would be dumped onto an alley, and have traffic adequately circulate in that alley. If you look at that situation you will see that is not viable: There are terrific site line distance problems existing, from that alley on to Peterson. If you look at the City's codes on alleys, you will find that alleys are not even permitted anymore in new residential subdivisions, and are only allowed in commercial areas as service access. They are not intended to carry through traffic. On the other hand we have one existing street, Garfield, where we could do one curb cut. Both the traffic engineer for the city, and the church's traffic engineer have testified that there will be no significant impact on that street and that it is more than adequate to handle the traffic that will exit. - ZBA Minutes - Apri•, 1987 • Page 37 This is very periodic traffic - only on Sunday mornings and on occasions when there are special church services. The code states that the City should be concerned with adequate traffic circulation and adequate access and safety is a primary concern. Safety and access are better with the one curb cut. We've heard no testimony to the contrary. With regard to the blue spruce, the church has looked at saving the trees and would like to save the blue spruce if possible. We have had a member of the congregation, who is a state forester, take borings of the tree. His concern is that it has up to this point been sheltered by houses and existing vegetation, and when those are removed, it may weaken the structure of the tree. In addition, if you allow 20' between the tree and the pavement, which he recommends to prevent significant root damage, you would lose as many as 6 parking spaces. Our question is potential damage from the tree, and potential liability. If the City were willing to certify that the tree would be in a stable and good condition, and would be willing to assume liability for the tree, we could make arrangements to keep the tree on the lot. I have a letter from Tom Osterman, a State forester, stating his findings in regards to the spruce. Matt Delitch (Traffic Engineer for the church): The city staff has reviewed the report I prepared for St. John°s Lutheran Church. I would like to submit it to the ZBA to make it part of the record. My credentials: I am a consulting traffic engineer, my office is in Loveland Colorado, I am a civil engineer by training, and have approximately 20 years experience in traffic engineering. The traffic study goes into detail about the access by this alley. The ROW is 20' , the area used by vehicles now is 14-15' wide, the distance between obstacles (utility poles, walls, etc.) is 17-18 feet. The problems with this alley as an access for the parking lot is that it would have to function as a 2-way facility. Standard lanes for traffic are 12 feet, which sums up to 24 feet for 2 lanes. The most way we can get out of this is 20 feet. As a vehicle would approach at this location, this garage on Peterson is situated such that a vehicle would have to inch out because a pedestrian could not be seen. A similar situation exists on the other side due to a 4' wall : a child would not be visible. This would present a safety problem. The City of Fort Collins standard for a driveway access to a parking lot of this type is 24 feet. It seems ludicrous to design a 24' wide parking access if the alley was the only access point to a 20' wide road. If this was the only access point to the parking lot we would be in violation of the city's own standards. The preferred access location is recommended to be from Garfield Street. It is a wide street with good side lines. The curb cut would provide a safer access. On Sunday morning there is very little traffic on Garfield. The access from Garfield will impact the street, but its not unlike the situation that occurs all over Fort Collins at other church locations. Garfield Street is well suited to handle the extra traffic in an efficient and safe manner. Coleman: The alley extends all the way to Mathews. Would you address that? Delitch: The proposed access is to be by Elizabeth, Garfield, and by the alley. It is proposed that the alley be a 2-way facility. ' ZBA Minutes - April, 1987 Page 38 Mykles: One of the disadvantages is that we have had no benefit of our own forestry report or traffic survey, sociological survey, or real estate study. The Church has all this and we don't. We don't have benefit of legal council speaking on our behalf today. We are concerned citizens who live in the City of Fort Collins. This is an extraordinary case. There is no other church in Fort Collins that impacts a neighborhood the way this one proposes to do. This church was located here before the codes were changed requiring parking. The fact that the lots are narrow, the alleys are narrow are just a part of the given that we have to live with, both the neighborhood and the church. I would like Peter Barnes to read the intent of the zoning codes. (Mr. Barnes then read Section 118-12). Mykles: I would like to talk about the "prosperity and the welfare of the neighborhood" and about the "public good" (as referred to in the zoning code). We are not saying that we don't recognize St. John's need for parking. We are questioning how it is going to impact this neighborhood. If a curb cut is put onto Garfield Street, as Lucia Liley pointed out, 96 cars would dump into our streets. That would impact us significantly. Currently parking on the street does not affect us profoundly. We live with on -street parking. When we bought into the neighborhood we realized that and we did not object to it. What we did not buy into the neighborhood for was to have a large expanse of asphalt, the removal of mature trees, and of older homes. What is going to happen to our real estate values here? If there is a curb cut onto Garfield, there will not be adequate screening across the front so that the integrity and the serenity of the neighborhood is maintained. In the code I do not know of a place that says the curb cut is the right of the congregation. Is it a right to have a cub cut onto a street when there is a protest against it? With the removal of the trees, with minimal landscaping being implemented - most of the landscaping is on the side along the fence line on the east and west sides. The Methodist Church which is being held up as an example did not infringe on the rights of the neighborhood --if the neighborhood does indeed have any rights. I'm not sure that we as taxpayers have any rights. The parking lot at the Methodist Church was formerly a CSU experimental station. There were no houses removed. We would like to ask the Board to consider a delay in this hearing until the next meeting. We would ask you not to grant any permits for the demolition or for the parking lot until the next meeting so that we may have benefit of our own traffic consultant, forestry report, sociological study, and our own real estate assessment. Coleman: I have something written to St. John's Lutheran Church dated February 2nd. This is the only thing I have from your committee that indicates what you would like to have. It says suggestions: 1. Eliminate the curb cut 2. Landscape 14 feet north of the sidewalk. 3. Use low light standards. And there is an additional individual's request about not piling snow against the fences and not extending the fence too far. Is this the sum total of what the neighborhood really wants? Mykles: The sum total of what the neighborhood wants right now is to stop the entire project and we are trying to find a legal way to do that. There are long range plans that have not even been addressed here. If this is just Phase I of the long range plans, I think the neighborhood and the City are entitled to know what those long range plans are and how they are going to profoundly impact the entire neighborhood, not just Garfield Street. We did not know that they had long range plans until the private traffic study ZBA Minutes - Apri,40, 1987 Page 39 • came out. At that point our concerns escalated. We would like to have that addressed by the Church and would like to see what their long range plans include and how it will affect the entire neighborhood. Thede: We have to judge by what is in front of us. There are long, range plans for any site in this town. If we based our decision on long range plans we'd never make any decision. That's an ongoing process. Lawton: The church is not asking for the right for a curb cut - they are submitting evidence for a need for a curb cut. As far as the "dump" of 96 cars - the neighborhood right now lives with that somewhat, in that those cars are now parking on the street. Whether they are leaving from a parking lot, or from the street, there is still the same amount of traffic in the area. There are not going to be more cars just because there is a parking lot there now. The congregation might get larger in a couple of years, but that would change anyway. Mykles: Many more cars will impact our street if there is a curb cut there. I want to know if St. John's Church is going to guarantee that all the cars that now park on the street are going to relocate into the parking lot. Are you going to require that your members park in your parking lot? Ile have already said we don't mind them parking there. I don't see that the congestion on Elizabeth Street is going to be alleviated in any way. Thede: I don't think that this is something we have to consider - it is a moot point. Peter - Do we have the right to grant a delay? They are the ones who asked for the meeting. Barnes: You are asking that they delay any issuance of permits? Mykles: We would like a delay so that we can have our own studies done. The city has a study, the church has a study --we have no study. If you rule today then due process will he blocked. Thede: You have the right to appeal this decision, that isn't blocking due process. Roy: Whether or not to grant a continuance is discretionary with the Board. If you feel that the notice and the opportunity to be heard afforded each side to present whatever evidence it chose to present as to the issues and that a continuance isn't warranted, it's up to you. Due process in my opinion does not require a continuance. It requires notice, opportunity to be heard, and an impartial tribunal. And there is a right of appeal of your final decision in this. Lawton: The fact that this meeting was scheduled for the ninth and this has been known for a while, and that we have had time for data to be put before us. I don't see what a continuance would do. Thede: It was pointed out to me that there was an article in the paper, and the meeting date was even stated in the paper. This is not normally the case in what comes before us. Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to deny the continuance. Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lawton, Lancaster, Thede, Coleman. ZBA Minutes - Aprillp 1987 Page 40 Barnett: Basically what we're being asked to do at this point is to either uphold city staff's determination and their rulings which is 1) the curb cut is not a problem, and 2) with some modification, in particular, in saving the elm tree and the blue spruce, the landscaping is acceptable. We've heard from the church's traffic engineer, who's told us that not giving the curb cut will cause problems. We've heard from the city's traffic engineer who says that it's not a problem either way. We've heard from the church's forester who says that saving the blue spruce seems to be a problem and from the city forester who says it's possible to save it. I don't know that we've heard enough strong evidence to indicate that the city staff should be overruled. Coleman: Does that mean that we can approve the plan and does that plan include the requirements to save the spruce and the elm? Does the plan include a requirement to not put in the curb cut since it works both ways? Barnett: What I'm saying is that given what we're asked to do, at this point, which is to decide whether or not to uphold staff 'a opinions, the traffic engineer has said that there is not enough evidence to deny the curb cut. Our job is to say is he right or is he wrong in that determination. And we have some other evidence that lends some support to that. At the same time, we're asked to determine whether or not the city forester is making proper .judgement in recommending to save the blue spruce. If we decide that the staff is not coming to the right decision, we should provide some guidance. I'm saying they probably have done the right thing. Thede: When I go through the concerns that they told us, that they might be using this for a short cut from Elizabeth to Garfield, when I look at the plans before us --It's got some berms, and some trees planted. If they're going to make a short cut from Garfield to Elizabeth, they're going to have to slow down and make a very rapid turn. I was concerned about that, but now I see the plan and I think they've built some safety factors into it. Secondly, the increased church traffic --That I'd have to question. There's so much traffic there already - right now scattered around. And yes, it will be more concentrated, but I can't agree that there will be more. The concern about the trees --we share it. The lighting --I presume this is something that has already been worked out. If not --enlighten me. The level of noise --We have already heard that some of the renters make as much noise. My concerns have more or less been answered. Coleman: If we move to approve staff's recommendation, what is the recommendation on the spruce and the elm? Barnes: The issue would be that the Board would either uphold staff's determination or not. Staff's determination is that this is an acceptable parking lot, it meets the design criteria and that the city arborist recommends that the blue spruce and the elm tree be preserved. Those are the conditions that staff would put on approval of this plan. Lawton: As .far as staff's recommendation for the plan, I find most of it sound. I don't see a need for the curb cut. I see a potential need, I do not see a requirement. I see lots of flow coming in from three sides, that ZBA Minutes - April 9, 1987 • Page 41 would alleviate the problem. But the landscape plan looks sound and saving the trees is a good proposal. Lancaster: I see how this is a problem with the neighborhood and how it may not be compatible. Unfortunately, in our position, I don't see where we've got any choice -- it does meet the code. I don't see where we could override staff's decision. Based on that, I'd like to make a motion. Boardmember Lancaster made a motion that the Board uphold staff's decision that the parking lot does meet code requirements with the recommendation of the city forester to save the elm and the blue spruce, and the city traffic engineer's allowing the curb cut. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Lancaster, Thede. Nays: Lawton, Coleman. Peter Barnes, Staff Support Dave Lawton, Vice -Chairman