Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/2015 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingMichael Bello, Chair Council Liaison, Gino Campana Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Staff Liaison, Noah Beals Daphne Bear Robert Long LOCATION: John McCoy City Council Chambers Ralph Shields 300 LaPorte Avenue Butch Stockover Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING MAY 14, 2015 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL #BPA15001 Address: 201 E. Elizabeth Street Petitioners 1) Joseph Piesman 2) John Snyder 3) Cindy & Tom Laupa 4) Aaron & Ashley McGrew Owners: Paul Milewski and Julie Rickett Zoning District: N-C-B Project Description: On April 15, 2015, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director made a decision under Land Use Code Section 3.8.25 to authorize a change of use permit which would allow a previously abandoned fraternity house to be re-established on the property at 201 East Elizabeth Street. Three conditions were imposed on this approval: • The building occupants shall be limited to 18 occupants • No fraternity meeting shall exceed 18 attendees • Eight off-street parking spaces are provided as shown on the site plan dated 03/26/15 This decision of the CDNS Director has been appealed by four appellants. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 May 14, 2015 2. APPEAL #2804 Address: 5331 Fossil Ridge Drive Petitioner/Owner: Paulo deBrito Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: The variance would allow a patio cover with posts to encroach 2 feet into the required 15 foot rear- yard setback. 3. APPEAL #2805 Address: 1052 Briarwood Road Petitioner/Owners: Edward and Christine Fast Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: The variance request would allow the minimum rear-yard 15 foot setback required in the R-L zoning district be reduced to 7 feet in order to accommodate an addition to the existing shed. At completion the shed will be 8 feet x 24 feet or 200 square feet. 4. APPEAL #2806 Address: 965 Bungalow Court Petitioner: Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction Owners: Louis and Barbara Sunderland Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Project Description: The existing structure exceeds the rear 50% of the lot allowable floor area by 25.75 square feet. The variance request would allow an additional 229 square feet of allowable floor area in the rear 50% of the lot for a new one-car garage. 5. APPEAL #2807 Address: 417 Maple Street Petitioner: Platinum Properties, LLLP Owner: Lloyd Donald Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) Project Description: The variance would allow a two car garage to be built encroaching 10 feet into the required 15 feet rear yard setback. 6. APPEAL #2808 Address: 6325 Kyle Avenue Petitioner/Owners: Clarence and Carol Rothfuss Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d) Project Description: The variance would allow a 240 square foot shed to encroach 8 feet into the required 20 feet side- yard setback. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 May 14, 2015 7. APPEAL #2809 Address: 4014 S. Lemay Avenue #4 Petitioner: Zak George Landscaping Owner: Terry L Dickinson, Revocable Trust Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: The variance would allow a pergola 13.6 feet in height, and side screens, to be attached to the existing deck at a zero foot setback from the rear property line. The approved PUD allowed for a 5 feet encroachment into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback. 8. APPEAL #2810 Address: 311 West Street Petitioners/Owners: Robert, Laura, Lark, and Delfinia Mosiman Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(3), 4.8(E)(4), 4.8(F)(1)(c) Project Description: The request is to allow a 240 square foot addition to the existing 288 square foot garage with the following 3 variances: 1) The addition would encroach 1.8 feet into the required 5 feet side-yard setback. 2) The addition would increase the allowable floor area in the rear 50% of the lot by 72 square feet. 3) The addition to an accessory building would encroach 1 foot into the additional 10 feet front yard setback from the principal building. 9. APPEAL #2811 Address: 307 Riverside Avenue Petitioner/Owner : Sean Windsor Zoning District: C-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: The variance would allow a new residential building to be built with portions of the walls encroaching 2 feet into the required side-yard setback and portions of the eaves encroaching an additional 6 inches past the allowed 2.5 feet projection into a required setback. 10. APPEAL #2812 Address: 4030 Big Dipper Drive Petitioner/Owner: Tyler Shurigar Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(c) Project Description: The variance would allow a 192 square feet accessory building to be built 12 feet into the required 25 feet rear-yard setback. 11. APPEAL #2813 Address: 1408 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner: My Sister Knits, Julie Luckasen Owner: Julie Luckasen Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.3(1), 3.8.3(5), 3.8.3(8), 4.7(D)(5), 3.8.7(C) Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 May 14, 2015 Project Description: The request is to allow a home occupation to continue to operate as it has in the past. This request would require the following 7 variances: 1) Allow a home occupation to operate in a detached accessory building. 2) Allow retail sales as a primary function of the home occupation. 3) Allow the home occupation without any additional off street parking spaces for customers and students. 4) Allow the hours of operation extend past 6 pm. 5) Allow more than one co-worker who does not reside in the dwelling. 6) The accessory building exceeds the maximum 744 square feet, that was allowed through a building permit, by 141 square feet, and presently accessory buildings are limited to 600 square feet. 7) Allow a flush wall sign to be displayed above the entrance of the building 8 square feet in size; the code allows a maximum of 2 square feet. 12. APPEAL #2814 Address: 256 Linden Street Petitioner: Brandon Silar, LARK Design/Build Owner: Creative Properties Zoning District: D-Old City Center Code Section: 3.8.7(I), 3.8.7(H) Project Description: The request is to install two signs. This request would require the following 3 variances: 1) Allow a projecting sign over the public sidewalk with 46.5 square feet per sign face, the maximum allowed size per face is 12 square feet. 2) Allow the sign at 14 feet 5 inches in height; the maximum allowed height is 7 feet. 3) Allow the flush-wall sign to extend 6 inches more than the allowed 12 inches from the face of the building. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Michael Bello, Chair Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Robert Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Council Liaison, Gino Campana Staff Liaison, Noah Beals Location: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING APRIL 9, 2015 8:30AM • Call to Order and Roll Call Boardmembers Absent: Long, Stockover • Citizen Participation (Items Not on the Agenda): None • Approval of Minutes from March meeting Shuff made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve the minutes from the March 12, 2015 meeting. Yeas: Bello, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: none. Abstain: Bear. THE MOTION CARRIED. • Appeals for Variance to the Land Use Code 1. APPEAL# 2798-Withdrawn- 420 Hawkins Street 2. APPEAL #2799 - Denied Address: Petitioner: Owner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 1856 North College Avenue Wendy Bergman, Contractor (Gordon Sign) Perfect Teeth North College PC C-C-N 3.8.7(J) The variance would allow an existing flush wall sign for Perfect Teeth to remain in place on the south wall. The existing flush wall sign projects 12.5 inches above the top of the canopy. The code does not allow a canopy sign to project above the canopy on which it is mounted. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and noted the approved sign permit showed that the sign would be wall-mounted. Upon inspection, the sign was found to be mounted on the canopy instead of on the wall. Beals stated the applicant should have discussed the issue with staff prior to installing the sign as they did and stated staff is recommending denial of the appeal as there is no unique hardship. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 April 9, 2015 Bello asked if the sign is further off the face of the building, but lower than it would have been if placed on the wall. Beals replied in the affirmative. Applicant Presentation: Wendy Bergman, Gordon Sign, 5861 Terminal Avenue, Colorado Springs, stated the original architectural drawings showed three tie-backs; however, the canopy ended up with four tie-backs and the sign therefore not fit on the wall. She asked if she could resubmit for a new permit. Beals replied a variance would still be required. Bear requested an explanation of the race-way mentioned by Ms. Bergman. Ms. Bergman replied the race-way is a long rectangular box behind the letters which houses the electrical components. She stated the sign cannot be modified to fit with four tie-backs. Bello asked Ms. Bergman if a discussion has been held with the architect regarding adjusting the tie­ backs. Ms. Bergman replied in the negative. Bear asked if the building is new construction. Ms. Bergman replied in the affirmative. McCoy stated it appears a smaller sign could fit on the building below the cables. Ms. Bergman replied that a smaller sign could fit. McCoy asked if the sign could sit on the roof above where it was originally permitted. Beals replied City regulations do not allow roof-mounted signs. Bear asked if any other businesses in the area have been granted a similar variance. Beals replied he is not aware of any and stated the regulation is in place for aesthetic reasons and because the code prohibits roof-top signs. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Shuff discussed the importance of the City's sign code and stated there is no reason a new building should not be compliant. She stated a creative solution could be found to meet the code. Bello agreed and stated he cannot find any justification for the variance. McCoy made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to deny Appeal No. 2799, for the following reasons: the applicant has not demonstrated how the variance request is due to a unique hardship of the property that is not caused by the act or omission of the applicant and there are options to locate the sign on different portions of the building; it is not limited to the fascia of the canopy. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bello, Bear and Shields Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPEAL #2800 - Approved Address: Petitioners: Owners: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 1500 West Mountain Avenue Jeff Gaines, HighCraft Builders . Jennifer Crane and Scott Denning N-C-L 4.7(E)(4) The variance would allow a new 460 square foot one-story addition to be built on a corner lot. The proposed addition would be constructed 2 feet 11 inches into the required 15 foot corner side setback. The existing house is already 3 feet 3 inches into the required 15 foot corner side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and noted the existing structure already encroaches into the setback. Additionally, Beals noted the addition is only 10% of the total frontage along Roosevelt Zon;ng Board of Appeals Page 3 AprH 9, 2015 and stated there are no sidewalks along Roosevelt in the area. He stated staff is recommending approval based on the variance being nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. McCoy asked if the setback is further back than the curb. Beals replied in the affirmative. Applicant Presentation: Jennifer Crane, 1117 West Oak, stated she has owned the subject property since 2003. Jeff Gaines, 230 North McKinley Avenue, discussed the proposed addition and the need for the variance. He noted the curb is approximately 24 feet from the house and discussed varying setbacks of other homes in the area. Additionally, he noted the addition would be difficult to be seen given existing vegetation and fencing. Ms. Crane stated she appreciates and understands the Old Town atmosphere and does not want to interfere with that. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Bello stated the variance is nominal and inconsequential. Bear and Shuff agreed. Bear made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve Appeal No. 2800 for the following reasons: the variance request is not detrimental to the public good, the encroachment distance is less than the existing structure and therefore the variance will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bello, Bear and Shields. Nays: none THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. APPEAL #2801 -Approved with Condition Address: Petitioner/Owners: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 519 West Mountain Avenue Chris and Ellen Kelly N-C-M 4.8(E)(2) The variance would allow a 1 0 foot x 18 foot porch cover to be constructed 4 feet 4 inches into the required 15 foot front setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and noted the property abuts an alley. He stated staff is recommending approval of the variance as being nominal and inconsequential with the condition that the porch remains open on three sides. Shuff asked about other structures encroaching into the setback. Beals showed slides indicated the block to the west has encroaching structures. Applicant Presentation: Chris Kelly, 519 West Mountain Avenue, stated the house originally had a porch which was replaced with an addition in the 1940s. He stated this porch would be consistent with its proper Queen Anne Victorian style and noted the Landmark Preservation Commission has approved the plan. Shuff asked how the ten foot dimension was arrived upon. Mr. Kelly replied the depth is functional for the family and matches what the original design was assumed to be. Audience Participation: None Zon;ng Board of Appeals Page4 AprU 9, 2015 Board Discussion: Shuff expressed appreciation for appealing to the character of the house but expressed concern regarding the depth of the porch and noting the larger right-of-way on Mountain Avenue is there for a reason. She stated it is important to keep the context of buildings from the street on Mountain, stated an 8 foot depth would still be functional. Bear expressed similar concerns but noted the Board does not exist to design projects. Shuff stated that the Board needs to determine whether or not the variance would be nominal and inconsequential in context with the neighborhood and questioned whether or not other homes on the block have any similar extension. Bello expressed concern with the 1 0 foot depth as well. McCoy commended the design and argued that the variance would be nominal and inconsequential as the property line and street are quite a distance from one another. He stated the design fits the scope of the structure and did not agree the variance would place the structure out of line with others along Mountain. Bello asked how the 10 foot measurement was arrived upon. Mr. Kelly replied Historic Preservation would not allow a wraparound porch and stated this design would be functional without excessive mass and would aid in enhancing not only the house but the neighborhood as well. Bear asked if Mr. Kelly has had conversations with neighbors regarding the design. Mr. Kelly replied in the affirmative stating neighbors to the east and west and across the alley are in support of the project. Beals noted the block to the east of the subject is also split with an alley and the two business structures are located up to the right-of-way. Bear stated this project would be an enhancement to the block. Shuff expressed appreciation for the design and work with Historic Preservation; however, she expressed concern regarding the feeling of the project from a pedestrian perspective. Shields expressed support for the variance given the setback. Bear made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve Appeal No. 2801, with the condition that the porch remains open on three sides, as the request is not detrimental to the public good. With the additional four feet of public right-of-way, the impact into the setback is minimized. The request is for an open-wall structure and the encroachment is limited to a one-story structure and support beams. Other buildings on the block to the west of the property also encroach into the front setback; therefore the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Bello, Bear and Shields. Nays: Shuff THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. APPEAL #2802 -Approved Address: 324 East Oak Street Petitioner/Owners: Rob Kittle Zoning District: N-C-B Code Section: 4.9(0)(3); (D)(6)(d ); (E )(2)(a )(1 ); and (E )(2)(b)(1) Project Description: Four variances are requested: The first variance would allow a second story addition to be built on an accessory building with habitable space resulting in 1225 total square feet. The code restricts accessory buildings with habitable space to 600 square feet. The second variance would allow an accessory building with habitable space to encroach 6 feet into the required 7 foot side yard setback. The existing building is 1 foot from the west property line. The third variance would allow an accessory building with habitable space to be 2 stories. The code allows accessory buildings Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 April 9, 2015 with habitable space to be a maximum of 1.5 stories. The fourth variance would allow an accessory building with habitable space to have an eave height along a side property line of 22 feet high. The code restricts the eave height of accessory buildings with habitable space to 13 feet along any side property line. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to appeal and discussed the four variances requested, noting staff is recommending approval based on the variances being nominal and inconsequential or equal to or better than the standard. Shuff asked if the proposed additional square footage meets the density requirements for the lot. Beals replied in the affirmative. Bear asked if the accessory building currently includes habitable space. Beals replied in the affirmative. Bello noted the accessory building does not have restrooms. Applicant Presentation: Per Hogestad, Architect, stated he completed the conceptual design for the building as part of the City's Design Assistance Program, associated with the Historic Preservation department. Rob Kittle, 324 East Oak Street, discussed the history of the property; CSU built this cinder block building that backs to the alley. He noted the habitable space would simply be office space. He stated neighbors have expressed support for the project. Mr. Hogestad noted that the original architect for the historic main house, which is not being modified, was Montezuma Fuller; 1890s-1900s well know architect. Fuller designed the Laurel School, the former Stone Lion bookstore, and other structures in the area. He doesn't think that the cinder block blocking is in context of the neighborhood. Shuff asked about the house to the east. Mr. Kittle replied it is a 2-story duplex and noted the property to the west has structures on the alley. There was a discussion about the placement of the stairs to the second story and whether moving the stairs would meet the setbacks requirements. Bear requested clarification of the zone district. Beals replied the property is in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer district which buffers the area between the downtown area and residential areas. Beals noted a carriage house in the area could be 1,000 square feet; however, an accessory building can only be 600 square feet. Deputy City Attorney Eckman discussed the purpose of the NCB zone district as being a transition area. Bear asked if the use of the accessory building could change. Beals replied the use of the accessory building is to be solely by the occupant of the primary residence. Shuff noted the ceiling height is lower than 7 feet 5 inches; therefore, only a portion of the square footage would actually count as needing a variance. McCoy commended the plan as meeting the definition of the zone district. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Bear stated she was originally concerned about the impact of this project; however, given the definition of the zone district, she stated the project is a good fit with the context of the neighborhood. Shuff agreed noting this variance keeps with the neighborhood and preserves the main house. Bello noted additional letters of support were received by the Board. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 April 9, 2015 Bear made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve Appeal No. 2802 in its entirety as requested for the following reasons: the variance request is not detrimental to the public good, the second story will not increase the distance of the building to the west property line, the second story will not include any windows along the west property line, the variances all pertain to the accessory building which sits behind the primary structure, the alley is shared with non-residential uses of downtown zone district, the primary structure is historic therefore an expansion of floor area to the accessory structure is preferred, the property is zoned as a buffer which supports the requests; therefore, the variances requested will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Bello, Bear and Shields. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 6. APPEAL #2803 - Denied Address: Petitioner: Owners: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 5204 Greenway Drive Landmark Garages Jay Kennedy R-L 4.4(D)(2)(c) The variance would allow a newly constructed garage to remain encroaching 9 feet into the required 15 foot rear yard setback. A building permit was issued based on a site plan that illustrated the structure in compliance with the 15 foot rear yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to appeal noting its location off College Avenue near Fossil Creek Parkway. He stated a garage permit was issued based on a site plan indicating the garage would be in compliance with all setback requirements. During final inspections for issuance of a certificate of occupancy, it was found that the garage was not located as per the site plan. Therefore, the variance request would allow the constructed garage to remain encroaching 9 feet into the required 15 foot setback. He noted the applicant, Landmark Garages, was unaware of a rear addition to the house when he submitted the site plan; which made moving the garage location necessary. However, the applicant did not discuss the issue with Zoning prior to constructing the garage. Beals stated staff is recommending denial of the request as there is no unique hardship not caused by an act or omission of the applicant. Bello asked if the garage would need to be removed or moved if the request were denied. Beals replied in the affirmative stating the Building Department would deal with that aspect. Shuff asked why this issue was not discovered at the footing and foundation inspection. Beals replied he is unsure when the inspections were requested. Applicant Presentation: Merrill Miller, Landmark Garages, PO Box 3224, Dillon, Colorado, stated that their engineer did complete a foundation inspection and admitted fault in placing the garage in the incorrect location. He noted the property owners would like to have the garage remain in its existing location due to functionality. Jennifer Van DeVeere, 5204 Greenway Drive, stated they had no idea until recently there was an issue with the location of the garage and given they hired a contractor, they are at a loss regarding what to do. She stated the garage would be useless in terms of getting cars in and out if it were moved. She submitted letters of support from neighbors. Additionally, she stated other neighbors have garages near the property line. Bello asked if habitable space exists above the garage. Mr. Miller replied no, it is storage. Bear asked who submitted the permit to the City. Mr. Miller replied his daughter, who works for his company, submitted the permit. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 April 9, 2015 Bear asked about the shed on the property. Mr. Miller replied the shed was not part of the original site plan but existed on the property and caused the issue with placement of the garage. Audience Participation: Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, Fossil Creek Meadows HOA, stated the HOA did not approve this structure prior to its construction. She discussed the mass of the structure and noted the subject lot is one of the smaller lots in the neighborhood. Additionally, she expressed concern the original building permit stated there would be no electrical on the building; however, there are two exterior lights. The garage building permit was issued in December. She also stated the yard of the home behind the subject property will be greatly affected by shadowing. The HOA contacted the owners at Christmas-time, but the garage was already built at that time. Bear asked about the property manager mentioned by Ms. Rose. Ms. Rose replied Faith Property Management manages the neighborhood open space, manages dues, aids with HOA meetings, and distributes architectural design forms; however, the Board makes decisions regarding improvement applications. McCoy asked when the application was made to the HOA. Ms. Rose replied it was made after the structure was completed, although, the owner stated he submitted an application prior to building though that was never seen by the property management company nor any of the HOA members. Rich Stave, 5410 Fossil Ridge Drive, Fossil Creek Meadows HOA, stated a physical architectural design application was not received prior to the construction of the garage and discussed his involvement in the issue. He questioned how the HOA is expected to work with the City given the building permit was issued by the City without HOA approval. Bear asked if a complaint was filed during the construction of the garage. Mr. Stave replied it is not clear when the foundation was poured, noting it is behind a six foot privacy fence. He stated the violation letter was sent after the garage being completed. Cree Goodwin, 5205 Griffith Drive, stated he owns the property behind the subject and expressed concern about the height of the garage regarding privacy and the shadowing effect of the structure for half of the day, as well as his ability to locate an accessory building on his lot. He noted that it is a beautiful building but should not be on his fence line. Board Discussion: Bello stated this is an unfortunate situation; however, he noted there is a reason for the building permit and notification process and stated this was a poorly implemented plan. Shuff suggested the Board examine the variance request assuming the structure was not in place. She also stated the issue is due to errors and omissions by the contractor. Bello suggested there is not enough information to make the decision as to whether or not the Board would have approved the variance request. Bear suggested the setback is in place partially to ensure that other properties are not shaded; therefore, the construction of this building appears to be detrimental to the public good as neighbors are being negatively impacted. Bello agreed and stated the Board has granted former requests for existing structures encroaching setbacks, but they have been near greenbelts and open space, which is not this case. Shuff agreed and stated the structure negatively impacts neighbors. Additionally, they have shown no substantial evidence of hardship. Bello made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to deny Appeal No. 2803 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public good, the applicant has not demonstrated how the variance request is due to a unique hardship of the property that is not caused by the act or omission of the applicant, it is not seen that this is the only location for the garage and there appears to be other complying locations on the property. Vote: Yeas: Shuff, Bello, McCoy, Bear and Shields. Nays: none THE MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Board of Appeals Page8 April 9, 2015 • OTHER BUSINESS Beals stated we already have items for next month's agenda. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:43 a.m. Michael Bello, Chairperson Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # BPA15001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 201 E Elizabeth Street Petitioners: 1) Joseph Piesman 2) John Snyder 3) Cindy & Tom Laupa 4) Aaron & Ashley McGrew Owners: Paul Milewski and Julie Rickett Zoning District: N-C-B Description: On April 15, 2015, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director made a decision under Land Use Code Section 3.8.25 to authorize a change of use permit which would allow a previously abandoned fraternity house to be reestablished on the property at 201 East Elizabeth Street. The following three conditions have been imposed on this approval: • The building occupants shall be limited to 18 occupants • No fraternity meeting shall exceed 18 attendees • Eight off-street parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the site plan dated 03/26/15 This decision of the CDNS Director has been appealed by four appellants. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends upholding the decision of the CDNS Director to allow a previously abandoned fraternity house to be reestablished on the property at 201 East Elizabeth Street provided the three conditions listed above are met. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: This decision of the Planning Director has been appealed by four appellants. These appeals are properly before the Zoning Board of Appeals under Division 2.11 of the Land Use Code which pertains to appeals from administrative decisions. Section 2.11.1(B)(9) authorizes appeals regarding the issuance of a building permit. The decision made by the Director is not precisely a building permit; it is a change of use permit, which stands in the same stead as a building permit. Accordingly, you must decide this issue. The standards under which you measure the appeals are the same standards which apply to the underlying administrative decision of the Director. Those standards are found in Section 3.8.25(A) of the Land Use Code and provided as follows: 3.8.25 Permitted Uses: Abandonment Period/Reconstruction of Permitted Uses (A) If, after June 25, 1999 (the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Section), active operations are not carried on in a permitted use during a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, the building, other structure or tract of land where such permitted use previously existed shall thereafter be re-occupied and used only after the building or other structure, as well as the tract of land upon which such building or other structure is located, have, to the extent reasonably feasible, been brought into compliance with the applicable general Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 2 development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this Code. This requirement shall not apply to any permitted use conducted in a building that was less than ten (10) years old at the time that active operations ceased. Intent to resume active operations shall not affect the foregoing. City staff contacted the Larimer County Assessor’s office concerning the last known use of the property as a Fraternity. The Assessor’s office reported that the building was classified as a commercial residential until 2012 and at the request of the owner at that time its classification was changed to residential. Therefore, it was found that the property was not used as a fraternity for more than 12 consecutive months. As you can see, the standards on which you must measure your decision are that the proposed fraternity use must, to the extent reasonable, have been brought into compliance with the applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of the Land Use Code. Those applicable general development standards and district standards are as follows: 4.9(A) and (B) - Purpose and Permitted Uses The purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District is to provide an area of transition from the residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas. This site is within a geographic zoned area that sits between the Community Commercial (C-C) District and the Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M). The property is zoned N-C-B and fraternity is a listed permitted use. 4.9(E) - Development Standards This section requires off-street parking areas not be located any closer to the public right-of-way than the distance by which the principal building is set back. The site plan indicates the parking area will not encroach into the setback distance of the principal building. 3.2.1 - Landscaping Parking lots are required to include perimeter landscaping with setbacks of 10 feet from a non-arterial right-of-way and 5 feet from a side lot line. This landscaped area must include screening elements, such as trees, shrubs, and fences. • Along the north property line that abuts Elizabeth Street, the parking area is set back 10 feet along the perpendicular space and 14 feet along the spaces that run parallel with the right of way. In this setback area two trees are planted and the ground cover will consist of turf grass and shrubs. Additionally, a six foot high fence is placed at the 10 setback. • Along the south property line where the spaces are perpendicular, there is a 5 foot setback, and there is a 10 foot setback for the parallel space. In this setback area there is an existing concrete curb. A six foot high fence is located in between the existing curb and the park spaces. The ground cover that is not existing concrete will be turf grass and shrubs. Also two trees are located on either end of the parking area. Tree mitigation requires that new trees be planted when existing trees are removed. The City Forester determines the number of mitigation trees required based on the size and health of a tree. With this proposal the City Forester has requested 5 trees be planted to mitigate the tree that will be removed. As mentioned above, a total of 5 new trees that will be planted along the perimeter parking area. At the time of planting, the sizes of these 5 trees have been upsized to meet the mitigation requirements. 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking • In 1978, a parking area in the rear was approved that circulated from an alley access to an egress onto Elizabeth Street. This plan does not change the circulation pattern. Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 3 • Pedestrian connection to the primary entrance of the building from the public sidewalk also remains. • A total of 24 bicycle parking spaces are provided. There are 15 spaces that will be enclosed and at least 9 fixed spaces. • The project is required to provide a total of 6 off-street parking spaces. This is based on the standard for a fraternity use, which is 2 parking spaces for every 3 bedrooms. The total number of bedrooms is 9. The project is providing 8 off-street parking spaces in compliance with the standard. • One of the 8 parking spaces is required to be a handicap van accessible space, which the proposal includes. 3.2.4 Site Lighting There are no changes to the site lighting. 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling enclosure An enclosure for both the trash and recycling has been provided. This enclosure will be match the fencing used to screen the parking area. It is located away from the public sidewalk and designed with a walk-in entrance separate from the main service gates. Collection needs will be from the alley. 3.4.1 - Natural habitats and Features Therefore, no additional protection was required. 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources The City’s Historic Preservation Planner reviewed the project and found that the proposal did not preclude the building from any future historic designations. 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility This section allows for conditions to be placed on the operational/physical standards of a proposal as it relates to compatibility with existing neighborhood and uses. The following is a list, from this section of some of the possible restrictions that may be placed on the operational standards of a proposal: (1) hours of operation and deliveries; (2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise and glare; (3) placement of trash receptacles; (4) location of loading and delivery zones; (5) light intensity and hours of full illumination; (6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines; (7) location and number of off-street parking spaces. This is list is not exhaustive and some items are specific to nonresidential proposals. Common concerns that for this project address the potential of number of occupants, parking and noise: • The application requested 24 occupants of the building. The decision to limit the number of occupants to 18 was based on the compatibility with the existing neighborhood and uses. This area is primarily residential varying from single family to multi-family dwellings. The Land Use Code does not typically limit the number of occupants. Occupant limits are typically limited by the Building Code standards. In this case, the number of occupants allowed by the Building Code would far exceed the proposed 24. The historic number of occupants for the past fraternity and sorority was also reviewed (see attached summary report). Therefore, the Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 4 condition of 18 occupants was decided to be compatible with the neighborhood based on the size of the building, number of bedrooms and its historic use. • As stated earlier the proposed off-street parking spaces exceed the standard minimum by 2 spaces. The decision to condition the approval with requiring the proposed 8 off-street parking spaces was based on the compatibility with the existing neighborhood and uses. The director recognized that fraternity parking standards have not been reviewed in a while and may need to be updated as student car ownership has changed from the time the fraternity parking standards were initially implemented. As such, the proposed fraternity would have an impact on the availability of on-street parking spaces. • The applicant has stated that fraternity meetings will be held on site. The decision to condition the number of attendees at a fraternity meeting to 18 attendees was based on the impacts of these meetings to the neighborhood-particularly parking, noise, and frequency of the meetings. 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) outlines standards for transportation review of a development proposal. Requirements include identifying capacity, operations, and safety needs of the area transportation network, and detailing the impact (and potential mitigation needed) that a particular development has on the network. For 201 East Elizabeth with an occupancy of 24 students, the estimated traffic is about 60 daily vehicle trips, with less than 10 trips in any peak hour. From a transportation system perspective, this is a limited number of trips, and does not rise to the level of requiring a traffic impact study. The area network (Elizabeth, Remington, etc.) is adequate to accommodate this traffic from a capacity, intersection operations, and safety perspective. 3. Additional Background: The request to approve the change of use to the fraternity originally came through the City’s Land Use Code Minor Amendment Process. During the Minor Amendment process, the decision was referred to the Planning and Zoning Board. In proceeding to the Planning and Zoning Board, a neighborhood meeting was held. On the night of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, additional information was received from both neighbors and the applicant. As a result of the additional information, the Planning and Zoning Board moved to table the item until their next meeting. Staff looked into the information received and brought the item again at the Planning and Zoning Board’s work session. At the work session, it was decided that the Minor Amendment was not the correct process of review of the application. A Building Permit to change the use of the building is the correct review process. Because public notification had already been sent out that this item would be on the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing agenda, it was decided to notify the public that staff would be around after the Planning and Zoning Board meeting to listen to any comments. It is through the Minor Amendment process that staff has received the majority of public input. These comments have been captured through emails, correspondences, and meeting notes, and have been included as attachments. 4. Staff Conclusion and Findings: In evaluating the CDNS Director’s decision to approve with conditions the change of use for 201 E. Elizabeth Street to fraternity, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The application complies, to the extent reasonably feasible, with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards, with the conditions that: • The building occupants shall be limited to 18 occupants. • No fraternity meeting shall exceed 18 attendees. • 8 off-street parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the site plan dated 03/26/2015. B. The application complies with the extent reasonably feasible with relevant standards located in Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B), and District of Article 4 - Districts. Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 5 5. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the CDNS Director’s decision be upheld. Attachments: 01. 4.20.15 Piesman Appeal 02. 4.23.15 Snyder Appeal 03. 4.29.15 Laupa Appeal 04. 4.29.15 McGrew Appeal 05. Director’s Decision: B1502349 Building permit & supporting docs 06. 1978 Site Plan 07. 1978 Certificate of Occupancy and Permit 08. Residential Building Report at 201 E Elizabeth St 09. After 4.15.15 Director’s Decision 10. After 4.3.15 P & Z Work Session 11. Prior to 4.3.15 P & Z Work Session 12. Additional Materials received at the 3.12.15 P & Z hearing 13. Correspondence during Minor Amendment process 14. Neighborhood meeting 2.19.15 2 81502349 A SITE PLAN ELIZABETH ST. --!: ; r--�� I c "" D F. 2 4 s 6 7 8 SADDLE-UP PARTNERS, LLC 201 EAST ELIZABETH ST. FRATERNITY HOUSE J / i -, LOT 2 AND TH£ NORTH 20 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 5, CRAFT' S RESUBDIVISION OF LAKE PARK ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COILLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO VICINITY MAP <f-0:-�2 ---,- I �· -�· _± j - T LEGEND """ -x--x--x- SITE DATA TOTAL SITE ARI:A �Fl.OOftAA£11: &r�r€PAAKING\.OT L,I.O PA� t.N<06CN'E .... 18,t10&F S,.10S0F ..... ., m SF (2S.8'1il ! ASPHAI..T I PAvatS �SF (1�) n �0 ' PAR<It\G � 4 9GA. SHT.KT.Al. """-""" .. ' �AQUNO "'-"'"""" \\'H!Tf. lA¢(� TO)· CV..P�HTroSlta. .,...., ..... """' • • 1 .. S<:J.J.& I""Itr r- •w� �x-x-x-x-x-x l c l-i -. L ------ . Please attach and send to the Zoning and Planning Committee/ Fort Collins City Council for the meeting on 3/12/2015. Thank you ahead of time for taking the time to read this document. My name is Aaron and I am a resident at 202 East Elizabeth (my front porch looks directly at the Horsely House (201 E. Elizabeth Street)). I am a Fort Collins native, growing up on 405 Smith Street, and am currently practicing medicine one block away from where I was born. My wife is a DVM, PhD at CSU and teaches undergrads and veterinary students. Her family has lived here since the 1900’s and Linton Elementary was named after her grandparents. We’re no strangers to old town and intend to raise our family here and live here for at least the next 50 years. When searching for a house in which to raise our family, I wanted a family oriented neighborhood. I attended Laurel Harris, now Harris bilingual, and inquired about the neighborhood into which I would be buying. The Elizabeth street area was perfect. It had almost no rental properties on the block. There was a range of well educated, well respected professionals, and young couples with children. There were no fraternities. I looked at purchasing a house on Remington and in other old town locations, but did not, given the proximity to fraternity organizations. Property values for assessors and banks may depend on the square footage, or comparisons, but a property is only worth what someone will pay for it. Many of us would not pay more to live next to a fraternity. As a result, I do believe this would disrupt the value and character of the neighborhood as I wouldn’t pay more, and the fraternity is not family oriented. Additionally, I want to help reveal the character of the neighborhood as it exists today. Presently, the 200 block of East Elizabeth Street consists of children from 1 year of age to adults of 60+ years of age. Incomes very between household, ages of couples, and families also vary, but the character of the neighborhood is one of: warmth, trust, cooperation, generosity and an eagerness and willingness to share life’s journey with one another. There is a genuine concern for each person’s well- being and weekly gatherings in which we get together to eat and share stories of our weeks. We depend on each other for a cup of flour, sidewalk snow removal, house sitting when we are on vacation or making meals for one another when someone is sick. The goals set forth in the East Side Neighborhood plan in 1986 have become a reality on East Elizabeth Street. Congratulations on having the vision and foresight to create such a great community. However, I do feel that the amount of people, noise, odor, trash, traffic, and automobiles would change the character of the house/development itself (current Land Use Code 2.2.10) and as a result, have a direct impact on the character and very nature of the neighborhood and the progress made in the last 29 years. The ESNP (eastside neighborhood plan) 1986 2.1.2; 1, created by your predecessors, clearly states, “…for the “Buffer” area …it is recognized that, as with any existing neighborhood, unique and specific circumstances affecting certain properties will require special consideration. …the East Side Planning and Advisory committee shall work to create criteria for the review of future proposals to protect the interests of the Neighborhood …the area should be monitored for any significant demographic changes. Such changes should be promptly assessed and appropriate steps be taken to revise policies and implementation measures in the interest of Neighborhood stabilization.” The 200 block of EE is a unique and specific circumstance and 24 new 18-21 year olds does alter the demographics. Additionally, the character of the houses on the 200’s block of EE Street, according to page 32 of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Strategy Report (2012-present), would most aptly be classified into the Character 1 area. This is the same designation that would be given to Mountain Avenue and Peterson Street. A fraternity on Mountain Ave? Is a Character 1 area (regardless of zoning) a place in which you feel it is appropriate to place a fraternity? Additionally, you will hear about parking issues, which will become even more constrained when the greenway construction project is completed on Remington Street in 2015 (at least 4 parking spaces are eliminated from the intersection of EE and Remington). The members of the fraternity have informed the neighborhood that they will have their members and guests park 3 blocks away from 201 EE. As you know, this parking issue leaves the buffer zone and enters the low density, single family Preservation area that the ESNP established. The effects on the Preservation area are in direct conflict with the Z&P, and City council’s policies on page 24 section 3.2 of the ESNP stating that, “…any change of use…should be allowed if the proposal… is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood environment; and, can be shown to create no significant traffic, noise or other land use conflicts with adjacent Preservation Areas. Unfortunately, the fraternities attempt to placate the immediate neighbors will cause disruption to the adjacent Preservation areas. Even if they don’t park 3 blocks away, there would only be 3 on street parking spaces in front of the house after the Greenway project would be completed and would push the immediate parking and traffic issues to the surrounding Preservation areas. For 90 years, 201 East Elizabeth Street (1002 Remington) has stood proudly at the corner of Remington and East Elizabeth Street. The Horsely House was built in 1925 by Leslie Horsely. Leslie lived in this house with his wife Cora and his daughter Ester, from the completion of construction until 1948. For 23 years this house protected and helped raise a family. In 1957 Mary F Winters, and in 1960 the Schultz family began living at 201 East Elizabeth. Since 1960 the Horsely House has been a single family residence except for the brief time in which the Triangle Fraternity occupied the house. ~(10 yrs). I know 201 East Elizabeth is in the NCB zone, I also understand that it lies within the Laure School Historic District Boundary. Given the size of the structure, the age (1880-1930), the architectural design and the materials with which this house was built, I feel that it is a contributing structure to the Laurel Street historic district. Unfortunately, past record has shown that some fraternities or high intensity housing has not been a proper match for historic buildings. Examples might be the house that was condemned and bulldozed at the NW corner of Howes and Laurel streets, or the work that needed to be done to 201 E. Elizabeth street, when the triangle fraternity moved out. Another, is the fraternity currently undergoing renovations on Lake street and finally, 1504 Remington street (The University House), that needed to be completely gutted and the second floor condemned and deemed permanently unusable space after the fraternity moved out. In the ESNP page 35, 2.4.1, your committee stated, “…Some important structures have been lost to demolition in past years. Additional protection for the area is needed as the fringe commercial and mixed use buffer areas and downtown continue to redevelop.” It is both of our responsibilities to be good stewards of our historic properties and I feel it would be irresponsible of us to lend this house to 24 to 28 people indefinitely. Alcohol, no alcohol, code or not code; these are the realities, of intense occupancy housing, and I feel it is not a risk I, nor the Poudre Valley Landmarks Committee would willingly take. Please don’t put the Horsely House at risk of becoming another casualty of intense occupancy living, we could lose more structures that contribute to Fort Collin’s rich History. History is a record that demonstrates that we do not always make the right choices (or I would have invested in apple at 5 bucks/ share rather than invest it in Heska). Therefore, it may make sense to reconsider the “it’s been used as a fraternity in the past” justification to now justify using this single family residence as a fraternity again. The labeling of this decision as a minor amendment is semantics and coding law, that’s it. It is not minor. This will not only affect the future of the house, but will also affect the future of my life and neighborhood. To you the passing of this minor amendment will be ephemeral, but will be a daily encounter for the rest of my life and the lives of my children. Please don’t take this decision lightly. Intelligence contributes to the ability to avoid mistakes, but once mistakes are made it is a wise person’s responsibility to not make the same mistake. I know that you as the Zoning and planning committee are intelligent, now I can only hope that your discernment and judgment will be wise. Please commit to your ESNP, pg 44, 2.8. “The policies included in this plan have meaning for the ESN and the greater community only if they are implemented. …a commitment to implementation is a fundamental part of the adoption of this plan.” 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:49 AM To: 'Andrew Beavers' Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: 201 Elizabeth Comments Andrew, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Andrew Beavers [mailto:beavers_andrew@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:45 AM To: Noah Beals Subject: 201 Elizabeth Comments Mr. Beals, I own and live at 1117 Mathews street and have lived elsewhere in this neighborhood since 2003. I will be unavailable the night of the meeting on March 12 (tonight), so I am submitting my comments via email and would like them entered into the record for the neighborhood meeting. I have read the neighborhood information meeting notes (I was out of town for that meeting as well). Please confirm receipt. Parking: All discussion thus far has centered around the idea that the renters are students and therefore will not need much more than the 8 spaces allotted. This logic is thoroughly flawed and demonstrably false. Please use hard numbers, which are available from CSU. Survey's show roughly 90% of off-campus students have cars. There is no reason to believe that will not be the case for this fraternity other than hearsay and speculation. Hard numbers demonstrate otherwise. That means the fraternity will bring an additional (24*0.9) - 8 = 13.6 (call it 13) cars to park on the street in the neighborhood. Given current parking setups (parallel on all 2 blocks closest to 201 Elizabeth) where the maximum spots per block are 11 (personal observations counting cars in the neighborhood) that's over a block of parking dedicated to an individual property. That seems patently unfair to neighbors. The rental units immediately to the south of this property had to spend significant dollars to provide ample parking for their units, it seems only fair that this property should have to meet the same requirement based on proposed occupancy. Parking permits: I am opposed. I do not want the hassle, nor the expense, of providing parking permits to my friends and family every time they come to visit. Am I to purchase a half dozen permits because I choose to have friends for dinner? Or purchase a permit because my son's grandparents come to visit him for 5 days? That feels incongruous with a town the size of Fort Collins. Phi Kappa Tau: The CSU code of conduct for fraternities prohibits 'alchoholic' parties, but does not prohibit parties. I'd like to hear from a representative of Phi Kappa Tau roughly how many parties they have in a year, and how late these parties typically go. An answer of 'none' or 'never past 10' are not answers I would put much faith in. Parties are a part of fraternity life (as they should be!). My concern is that large parties of the type that are typical of fraternities are incompatible with a residential neighborhood. I think everyone would agree to that. If Phi Kappa Tau, or any other fraternity (or any renter for that matter) that is interested in the house, would like to at any time have a loud party at night, they should look elsewhere for a house. That said, if they'd like to be a responsible and respectful part of our community, and build the character of our neighborhood, I, for one, will welcome them just as I do any new neighbor. That's the same criteria I would apply to any renter anywhere in our neighborhood, student, professional, family, or otherwise. Codes: It was stated in the neighborhood information meeting that the house "needed to be brought up to current development standards" because it hadn't been occupied in over a year. I'm curious if other codes were met as well (e.g. electrical, plumbing, etc.). If not, what is the rationale for holding the owners to the parking standards but not other standards? This is an old house and hasn't been properly maintained in quite a while (years) from what I can tell walking by it on a regular basis. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Andrew Beavers 1117 Mathews Street 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 4:07 PM To: 'Rachel Bedard' Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: 201 e eliz Rachel, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Rachel Bedard [mailto:rmbedard@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 3:47 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: 201 e eliz Noah: I am very much opposed to a private property being leased to a fraternity (or a sorority). • This is a neighborhood, not frat central • We already have parking problems. I cannot get groceries mid-day and also expect to park at my house when I return. 54 additional people in the neighborhood will not help. • There is a noise/trash problem that would likely be exacerbated. • I am tired to explaining to my small child why college children behave as they do. I certainly do not need 50 more explanations pending. 2 • There is an issue related to transparency. Neighbors feel exceptions are being made and plans are being fast tracked for this property. Please be transparent. Exceptions make people feel angry, slighted, and marginalized. Fort Collins is not about marginalization. • Please include my comments in the Planning and Zoning meeting for this Thurs. Thank you, Rachel Bedard Owner of 1113 Mathews St 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:37 AM To: 'Francis Coffren'; Sarah Burnett Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com) Subject: RE: 201 e. elizabeth st. Frankie and Rachael, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Francis Coffren [mailto:flcoffren4@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:25 PM To: Noah Beals; Sarah Burnett Subject: 201 e. elizabeth st. Mr. Beals, My name is Frankie Coffren and my wife Rachael and I live at 329 E. Elizabeth St. and we wanted to write over concern and protest over the minor amendment change to the property at 201 E. Elizabeth St. My wife and I both attended the neighborhood meeting on February 19th, listened to the presentation given by the owners, potential renters and questions by fellow community members and it seemed there was quite a lot of resistance to the proposal. Zoning - I understand that the property is zoned to allow fraternities and sororities and indeed has in the past but more importantly this home was not built or designed to be a fraternity home, it was built as a single family home 90 years ago. It was inhabited as a single family home for its first 54 years, built on one the city's first east-west streets, acting as the southern border of the original town. This home also resides within the Laurel Historic Preservation District and represents historically one of the more important and influential streets and areas in our towns history. 2 Density - The idea of allowing such a high density dwelling in a predominantly single-family neighborhood seems irresponsible and detrimental to the quality of life within the neighborhood. Fraternity and Sorority use codes seem to allow almost twice the number of inhabitants compared to any other type of occupancy code. The house has never had more than 15 people reside in it and more importantly the house itself was not built or designed to handle that many inhabitants. Parking - Going from 8 residents to a proposed 24 (up to 28) people would add a significant number of vehicles to an already overburdened parking situation and would have ripple affects across the surrounding area. Already the adjacent block east on Elizabeth in front of St. John's Lutheran Church has parking restrictions for church use and the block to the north on Elizabeth has both businesses and hotel parking guests to compete with. It has been talked about frequently and understood that the neighborhood parking spaces already are occupied during school hours by commuting students. Traffic criteria - Elizabeth Street was originally designed when the town was established as an east-west corridor and it has remained that way ever since. It is a main artery for police and rescue personnel in town because of its convenience between College Avenue, CSU, old town and the hospital. This road has also seen increased traffic and accidents within the past few years. After several accidents last year including one involving police personnel, traffic studies were conducted to study speed and volume concerns. Subsequently, speed cameras have been added at the corners of Elizabeth and Matthews within the last few months. It also is understood that the city will be doing work to rework the intersection of Elizabeth and Remington to better improve turn lanes and better handle volume to a very busy intersection. Neighborhood Concerns - My wife and I are both CSU alumni and we returned too this town several years after graduating because we loved what the town offered not only to its college residents but to all its residents. We wanted to live in old town and understood the proximity to the university could place us in areas or neighborhoods with college students. But old town also contained beautiful professional and family occupied neighborhoods and streets, which were still close to the downtown area and possess character and the flavor of the town . While Colorado State University is a significant part of the towns identity and history, the town is also represented by many other people, industries and belief systems. This specific neighborhood in Fort Collins is one of a hand full of neighborhoods and streets in particular that define this town and its history. Frankie Coffren Rachael Coffren 329 E. Elizabeth St. 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:39 AM To: 'Ray Frush' Cc: Sarah Burnett; Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com) Subject: RE: Concern over 201 E Elizabeth Conversion to a Frat House Ray and Lisa, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Ray Frush [mailto:phred@rflm.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:59 PM To: Noah Beals Cc: Sarah Burnett Subject: Concern over 201 E Elizabeth Conversion to a Frat House Mr Beals, Ms Burnett- My name is Ray Frush. Lisa Moravan and I own and live at 220 East Elizabeth. We would like to go on the record as being opposed to the rezoning of 201 East Elizabeth from Single Family Home to Fraternity Use. While the proposal looks straight forward, we don’t believe it takes into account changes in the 200 Block of East Elizabeth that have occurred over the last 20 years. When we purchased and moved into 220 East Elizabeth in 1995, the makeup of the neighborhood was quite different than it is today. 2 • 201 East Elizabeth was home to the small and declining Triangle Fraternity, which disbanded and sold the home to Dennis Dowswell, who rehabilitated the house and used it as a Single Family Home. • 202 East Elizabeth was converted from a B&B business and is now Single Family home. • 215 East Elizabeth was condemned and foreclosed after being trashed as a multiple unit rental, and has been beautifully rehabilitated by the current owners as an over/under duplex. The owners live in the main upstairs unit. • 224 East Elizabeth was rented (both units) as an over/under duplex. The owner moved back into the upstairs unit and did extensive upgrades to the whole house before selling to the current owners. They live in the main unit, and have continue to improve the landscaping. In short, over the last two decades, the neighborhood on the 200 block of East Elizabeth has become less business focused, and is now almost entirely owner occupied homes with the exception of 223 East Elizabeth. The owners have invested considerable time, money and effort to preserve, and improve the homes on the block. Allowing the use of 201 East Elizabeth by a Fraternity will have a profound effect on the character of the neighborhood, and in our opinion would cause the neighborhood to go into decline. The presence of a fraternity on the block would likely cause drops in the re-sale values of the remaining Single Family Homes as new home buyers would be disinclined to purchase a home next to a fraternity. We're aware of some of the other letters you’ve received, and that they cover many of the more technical aspects of the opposition to this rezoning, so we will not repeat those arguments here. However, we have been reading over the East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP), and we believe that there are a number of areas that the owners of 201 East Elizabeth have not addressed. These include: • In Chapter 1 the ESNP states, “...primary purpose of ESNP - to help preserve and enhance the existing quality of life in the Neighborhood.” We do not see how re-zoning 201 East Elizabeth serves to do that. • The 200 block of Elizabeth has been meeting the vision laid out in the East side Neighborhood Plan. Instead of declining, its residents have been rebuilding, investing time, money and effort into their homes, their yards and their community. The proposal by 201 East Elizabeth does not address how that investment in time, money and community would be preserved. • From Section 3.2.1, paragraph 2.7: "If elements of the proposal are not consistent with the policies of the East Side Neighborhood Plan, does the proposal make substantial positive contributions to the Neighborhood that offset its shortcomings?” As far as we are aware, the proposal by the owners of 201 East Elizabeth have not addressed this. It is not clear how zoning the property as a Fraternity would make a positive contribution to the neighborhood. We ask that you and your team consider this proposal carefully in the context of the ESNP, which serves as an important guideline for planning and zoning decisions in our neighborhood. — Ray Frush Lisa Moravan 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:40 AM To: 'Zak George'; Sarah Burnett Cc: Sarah Burnett; Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com) Subject: RE: 301 E. Elizabeth st. Zak, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Zak George [mailto:zak@zakgeorgelandscaping.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 5:45 PM To: Sarah Burnett; Noah Beals Subject: 301 E. Elizabeth st. Good evening, I just want to touch base with you regarding the house on E Elizabeth. It is concerning to me when residents of the city are sending out anonymous letters about how they don't want this to go through. If they really are against it then they should stand up for it and make themselves known. Myself and my dad own three properties within the stated distance from the proposed house. One of which my parents live in most of the year. They are retired and move from Fort Collins to the E coast with my bother. We are for the house remaining a fraternity house and allowing the students to live there. As an active member of the community we would much rather the house be designated as a house VS the young men just making any old house or block of houses into a fraternity. When I was in college we did not have an actual house and we would have huge parties at random houses through out the town. This was not good as the police were usually called at some point during the night. I feel that if they men want to party they will police themselves as they 2 have more to loose if they get in trouble with the police. Also the days of drunkin massive raging parties for fraternities does not exist. In today's day and age that is not what makes people join. The men are required to do community service and act as leading members of their fraternity. Yes some are not perfect but the general leadership of the fraternity and active members do not want to cause trouble. I feel it is better for the city's interest to allow the fraternity as it will make the long term easier to manage from a complaint and violation stand point. Lets not forget that at one point that house was in pretty bad shape and i think it would be good for the young men to keep it clean. As for the parking, that is the low lying fruit that is easy for the neighbors to complain about. I have news for everybody that it is not easy to find a parking spot withing 4 blocks of the campus on any given day. A few more cars in the area will not have any more of an affect on neighbors. The students that need to watch their spending know they can park along the streets for free. This is a very weak excuse why they don't want the men there. In my vote I would rather have the future of America learning life lessons on how to enter the real world vs. another office park or restaurant being opened. Thanks for taking the time to read my email and i hope that you approve this for the young men that deserve it. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Zak George, CLT Zak George Landscaping CO Office (970) 221-9228 Cell (970)218-0609 335 S. Summit View Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80524 WY Office (307) 633-9871 1621 Central Ave. Suite 3427 Cheyenne, WY 82001 www.ZakGeorgeLandscaping.com www.Facebook.com/ZGLandscaping 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:35 PM To: 'Clint Alyson' Cc: Sarah Burnett; Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com) Subject: FW: Please include for the March 12 hearing Attachments: oppose MA140133.pdf Alyson and Clint, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Clint Alyson [mailto:clintalysonbills@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:03 PM To: City Leaders; Noah Beals Subject: Please include for the March 12 hearing Greetings, Could you please include our letter of opposition in to the development proposal MA140133 that is on the agenda for the March 12 hearing? We would like these comments to be on record and presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. Thank you so much for your time and support, ~Alyson Huff and Clint Reeves 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:39 AM To: 'Jeff Icenhower'; Sarah Burnett Cc: rcsrnko@gmail.com; DFrederickson@agpros.com Subject: RE: Feedback on Proposal to Allow Phi Kappa Tau to Occupy 201 E. Elizabeth Jeff, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Jeff Icenhower [mailto:icenhower@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 9:03 PM To: Noah Beals; Sarah Burnett Cc: rcsrnko@gmail.com; DFrederickson@agpros.com Subject: Feedback on Proposal to Allow Phi Kappa Tau to Occupy 201 E. Elizabeth Please include the following with public comments on the proposal to allow Phi Kappa Tau to occupy the house at 201 E. Elizabeth, Fort Collins, CO. Zoning It appears that there may be some confusion about the zoning and its application to the property at 201 E. Elizabeth. To place the pertinent information into the public record I am including the following from the Fort Collins Land Use Code. 2 DIVISION 4.9 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, BUFFER DISTRICT (N-C-B) (A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District is intended for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. (Emphasis by me.) (B) Permitted Uses. … (3) The following uses are permitted, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Fraternity and sorority houses, provided that such fraternity or sorority house is located within a street-fronting principal building. It seems clear to me that allowing the use of the subject property by the Phi Kappa Tau Fraternity is appropriate under current zoning regulations. On Fraternities I am a Sigma Chi. I attended the University of Montana, receiving my undergraduate degree in 1981. I lived in a large converted home in a neighborhood with up to 35 other Sigma Chis. Not once in my time there do I recall our neighbors complaining about our presence. In fact, when we went caroling every Christmas season many invited us into their homes. 3 Many of the comments I have seen have displayed the worst kind of ignorance about fraternities. It seems the only research people have done on fraternities is to re-watch Animal House. It seems important to point out that this movie was a comedy, not a documentary. To judge the men of Phi Kappa Theta without taking time to know them is the worst kind of prejudice. One just as well condemn them because of their gender, or because their name sounds foreign. So what are these men committed to? An easy Google search reveals the following: The mission of Phi Kappa Tau is to champion a lifelong commitment to brotherhood, learning, ethical leadership and exemplary character. With the occasional unfortunate exception, fraternity men are the kind of men who build the value of neighborhoods and communities. Neighborhood I take exception to the characterization of the neighborhood as one of families and owner occupied dwellings. Directly north of 201 E. Elizabeth, the next two buildings are four-plexes. Within a block north and south on Remington I spotted two multi-unit apartment complexes. Just one block south is a (different) fraternity house. Easily half of the remaining residences in the same area show clear evidence they are rentals. This is clearly a transition area, appropriate to its zoning. Parking Anyone who lives within two blocks of one of the largest universities in the state might reasonably expect to face some on street parking challenges. Certainly the men of Phi Kappa Tau had to take this into consideration in deciding to rent this location. Their few more cars will not make a dent in parking in the area when compared with the thousands of students who regularly commute from other areas in Fort Collins to CSU. (These comments remind me of people who used to move 4 to a small town I lived in, bought property in the country on dirt roads, then complained about the dust…) Neighbors The following story was printed in the Missoulian: October 08, 2014 7:45 am AP Content Recently I had a most pleasant experience with students from the University of Montana. I am a 73-year-old woman with no children or grandchildren, and as a result I have little contact with young people. Although I had just moved to Missoula in July, I found myself in a situation that was not good for me and I needed to move again. Since I live on Social Security benefits I could not afford movers. I called the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement at the university and asked if it was possible to get help for my move. Julie, the woman I spoke with, seemed to think there would not be a problem; she could get me help. And she came through. On that Saturday, cars and trucks kept coming down the street and young men came to the door, introduced themselves and were ready to pack the truck. They were pleasant, cheerful and often funny. Then the young women began to show up. In all, 33 young people came to be of assistance. What fun we all had. Several different fraternities and sororities were represented and everyone worked well together. My purpose in writing this letter is twofold: I want to publicly thank the young people from the University of Montana; I also want to encourage senior citizens to take opportunities to interact with young people. It will be good for both age groups. I promise. Judith TreeCrone, Missoula AP Licence This is what you get when you have fraternities and sororities in your neighborhoods. 5 Jeff Icenhower Fort Collins, CO 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:03 PM To: 'John Douglas' Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: Phi Kappa Tau house John, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: John Douglas [mailto:iweld4u@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:58 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: Phi Kappa Tau house Dear Noah, I am writing on behalf of The petition to allow the Phi Kappa Tau fraternity to occupy 201 E Elizabeth Street. I am aware that the Planning and Zoning and Board will be considering a decision of the Minor Amendment for the house on 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. My son attends and is a member of the fraternity Phi Kappa Tau. 2 I am formally petitioning as a Colorado State residence that the amendments are passed and the fraternity is allowed to live in the house. The house is currently zoned and has been a fraternity house in the past. It would not make sense to not allow the fraternity the right to live there. Warm regards, John Douglas 1 Noah Beals From: Deanne Frederickson <DFrederickson@agpros.com> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 3:44 PM To: Jamelle Cc: Noah Beals; Ashley Milewski (amilewski@c3-re.com); Paul Milewski (paulrski@yahoo.com); Julie Rickett (jjtrickett@comcast.net) Subject: RE: Conversion of property at 201 e Elizabeth Jamelle, My apologies for not responding sooner. The total finished floor area is 5,400 SF. The building code would allow 27 occupants, based on 200 SF per finished floor area. However, the applicant is requesting an occupancy not to exceed 24. It is my understanding that one of the bedrooms will be a single-occupant, and the others will be multiple- occupant. The parking requirements for a Fraternity, per City Code, is 1 off-street space for every 2 bedrooms. The subject building has 9 bedrooms, which would require a total of 6 parking spaces, one of which is ADA accessible. The application will provide for 8 total off-street spaces, which exceeds the City Code. Let me know if you have additional questions. Deanne Frederickson (970) 535-9318 -----Original Message----- From: Jamelle [mailto:jamelle70@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 1:58 PM To: Deanne Frederickson Cc: Noah Beals Subject: Re: Conversion of property at 201 e Elizabeth I wanted to confirm I am understanding. How many residents could live in the building? (It is not clear to me if these are single-, double-, or multiple-occupant bedrooms.) Parking is very tight during the school year here and I wanted to understand how this might impact the already difficult parking issues in our neighborhood. Thank you. Jamelle > On Feb 20, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Deanne Frederickson <DFrederickson@agpros.com> wrote: > > Hello Jamelle, Thank you for your questions. > > The lot in question (201 E Elizabeth) is Zoned NCB - for Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. The Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District is intended for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. The proposed application (for a fraternity) is for a use that is allowed in the NCB zoning district, and no change of zone is requested. > > The Minimum vehicular parking spaces for a fraternity is 2 spaces for every 3 bedroom, plus one space per two employees. There are no employees expected at this facility. The building has 9 bedrooms, so 6 off-street parking 2 spaces are required. The Site Plan currently shows 8 parking spaces, which exceeds City Code. One space is designated for handicap parking. There will also be 24 bicycle parking spaces provided, 15 of which will be interior to the building. > > A public hearing is scheduled for March 12, 2015 with the Planning and Zoning Board. > > Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns. > Thank you, > > > Regards, > > Deanne Frederickson > Land Planner > > AGPROfessionals > 3050 67th Avenue, Suite 200 > Greeley, CO 80634 > 970-535-9318 office > 970-535-9854 fax > www.agpros.com > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jamelle [mailto:jamelle70@hotmail.com] > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 3:38 PM > To: Noah Beals > Cc: Sarah Burnett; Deanne Frederickson > Subject: Re: Conversion of property at 201 e Elizabeth > > I was unable to arrange child care during the meeting time, but would still very much appreciate receiving the answers to the questions I asked in my email below. > > If this information is available in meeting materials provided at the meeting or on line, please send me the link. > > Thank you and have a good weekend, > Jamelle > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> wrote: >> >> Jamelle Schlangen, >> 3 >> Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I'm including the applicant's representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. >> >> There is an neighborhood meeting scheduled on February 19th, 2015 at 5:30pm at 305 E Elizabeth Street . This will be an opportunity for neighbors to meet the applicant and hear from them about the proposal. Those in attendance will be able to ask questions and provide comments. >> >> Your comments and concerns will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda will be sent out and posted online closer to the time of the meeting. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. >> >> Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City's neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. >> >> Sincerley, >> >> Noah Beals >> Senior City Planner-Zoning >> City of Fort Collins >> 970 416-2313 >> 970 224-6134 Fax >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jamelle [mailto:jamelle70@hotmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 3:47 PM >> To: Sarah Burnett >> Cc: Noah Beals >> Subject: Conversion of property at 201 e Elizabeth >> >> Ms. Burnett, mr. Beaks, >> >> I was hoping to review information on changes proposed to 201 e. Elizabeth if that is available? >> >> If you could please let me know what that lot is currently zoned and what the current parking requirements are for that zoning class and what class of zoning is requested and what associated parking requirements would become if the change is approved? >> >> I am already concerned about the availability of parking in my neighborhood and want to make sure that if an increase in density is approved, it comes with an appropriate amount of off-street parking. >> >> Is there a public meeting scheduled to discuss this change? >> Thank you for your assistance. >> >> Jamelle Schlangen >> 1117 Mathews St. 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:48 PM To: 'Jennifer Douglas' Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: Phi Kappa Tau House petition Jennifer, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Douglas [mailto:jenndouglas@outlook.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:46 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: Phi Kappa Tau House petition Dear Mr Beals, Please allow me to introduce myself, my name is Jennifer Douglas, I am a resident of Colorado, and my son Ryan attends CSU. Ryan is also a member of Phi Kappa Tau. I am writing to you about the fraternity house that is located on 201 E. Elizabeth St. This house is allowed as a fraternity house under city zoning. However, there has been concerns about parking and noise from the neighbors. The fraternity brothers of Phi Kappa Tau are a civic minded mature group of young men. The fraternity has very strict rules when it comes to having parties, and they are not allowed to do so in their fraternity house. While I understand the concerns from the neighbors I think they are overly concerned. In addition, living just a short distance from the school 2 one must assume that they will be surrounded by college students. The block had multiple rentals with students currently living and renting in them. Not allowing the fraternity house seems highly unfair to the fraternity, and to be honest, discriminating. The house is very close to the campus, and while parking is limited many of the boys do not own cars, or park at the college. Tomorrow during the final hearing I would like you to please allow the fraternity to be located in this house. CSU is a wonderful school and this fraternity is incredible. I work at the National MS Society, I have raised my son to give back. He served a year in Americorps volunteering before attending college. He is not alone, the young men in this fraternity are incredible. Beyond that however, considering that this house is already zoned for a fraternity, and it is just a block away from campus, I have a hard time understanding how this could not be approved. Again, please allow the fraternity to occupy this house. Warm Regards, Jennifer 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:21 PM To: 'Kathy Jones' Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: 201 E. Elizabeth Street Kathy, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Kathy Jones [mailto:hokajones@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:46 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: 201 E. Elizabeth Street Dear Mr. Beals: I am Howard E. Jones, Managing Partner of MESA PARTNERS, LLC which owns the property at the corner of South College Ave. and Elizabeth Street, identified as the IHOP Restaurant. We are totally opposed to Change of Use in the subject property from single family use to a fraternity house. 2 The provision for parking is totally inadequate for the proposed fraternity house.. We have provided substantial parking to support the IHOP business. With a fraternity only a half a block away, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the franchisee of IHOP will be put to a substantial amount of time and cost maintaining the parking lot for the use of their customers. Sincerely, Howard E. Jones MESA PARTNERS, LLC Manager 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:38 AM To: 'Tom Laupa' Cc: claupa; Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: 201 E Elizabeth - Comments from Laupa's Tom, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Tom Laupa [mailto:tlaupa@frii.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 5:49 AM To: Noah Beals Cc: claupa Subject: 201 E Elizabeth - Comments from Laupa's Mr Beals: our family is opposed to a fraternity at 201 Elizabeth. we purchased our home at 1003 Remington, directly across the street, in 1926. i've spent the majority of my life in this home, and i've seen many changes. this is an unwelcome change. >parking is inadequate. >Section 3.8.28 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code provides that the maximum number of residents is one tenant per 350 square feet of habitable floor space >noise control in the neighborhood will become untenable >other fraternities locations have shown a dramatic affect on neighborhood quality of life 2 please do not allow this change to our neighborhood. Tom Laupa PE Nalco - an Ecolab Company 1003 Remington Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-227-5127 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:50 PM To: 'John Litschert' Subject: RE: minor amendment on Remington and Elizabeth John, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Additionally, the applicant has requested to a maximum of 24 occupants. This number is permitted within the Building Code. The parking requirements for a fraternity are based on the number of bedrooms. The requirement is 2 off-street parking spaces per 3 bedrooms. With a proposal of 9 bedrooms the development is required to provide at least 6. The proposal has been revised from the initial submittal and they are showing a total of 8 off-street parking spaces now. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: John Litschert [mailto:jclitsch@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 12:18 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: minor amendment on Remington and Elizabeth Hi Noah, I received a letter from you on March 2 that invited me to a meeting on Feb 19 about a minor amendment on the corner of Elizabeth and Remington. Given that I didn't get the notice in time for the meeting I figured I would ask you a question via email. Is there a maximum occupancy limit for the proposed fraternity house? I see there are 9 bedrooms and 9 parking spots but if they pack 2 or 3 to a room (like dorm rooms) that doubles or triples the potential parking requirements which seems might be somewhat burdensome for that area. Thanks, 2 John Litschert 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:20 PM To: 'Patrick McGlinchey' Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: In support of the minor change of use amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Patrick, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Patrick McGlinchey [mailto:ptmcg7@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:25 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: In support of the minor change of use amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Hello Noah, The main things that the Fraternity is taking flak on is a lack of parking at night, partying, and that while the Fraternity may be nice, "who knows who will be living there 3 years from now?" There is a lack of parking during the day due to the neighborhood's proximity to campus however the Fraternity cannot be held accountable for this. Parking at night is not an issue as recent counts of free parking spots simply on the 201 Elizabeth's house block and the block across from the house range from 50-130 after work/school hours. As far as partying, there are specific national fraternity rules, CSU rules, Fort Collins rules, and Greek Life office rules that state the Fraternity cannot have parties in their official "lettered" house. As there are strict rules in place against this, any issues involving partying or the noise arising from partying should not be heard as there simply cannot be parties in the property. 2 The aspect of the Fraternity being nice but worrying about who comes in the future is an argument born out of hypotheticals. Many residences in this neighborhood have renters living in them (including a 24 bed unit immediately next to the house and a quad on the corner on the same block) and there is no objection to these in the worry they may "one day be rented by bad people". Not to mention, the Fraternity actually has requirements for admitting people into a chapter in addition to internal accountability systems, making the Fraternity more likely to keep up a steady supply of good people than a rental unit. This argument seems to be the most discriminatory one and I believe it may even conflict with the Fair Housing Act. It seems we have countered every issue that has arisen, it is then my belief that progress should simply not be halted because of a resistance to change in the community. The house was previously zoned as a Fraternity/Sorority house, so there is a legal reason for the house to be used as such. There is a severe lack of Fraternity housing, so there is a need for the house to be used as such. Patrick McGlinchey 2101 Perennial Lane Ft Collins 210-303-3149 | ptmcg7@gmail.com 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:35 AM To: 'Aaron McGrew'; Bob Overbeck Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: Z&P meeting Attachments: (Attachment to McGrew Email)Zoning and Planning Committee.pdf Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Aaron McGrew [mailto:mcgrewat@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:24 AM To: Noah Beals; Bob Overbeck Subject: Z&P meeting Here is the message for the Z and P meeting. Thanks Aaron McGrew 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 11:13 AM To: 'Tracey' Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: 201 E Elizabeth Street Minor Amendment MA140133 Tracey, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax -----Original Message----- From: Tracey [mailto:akatraytay@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:37 AM To: Noah Beals Subject: 201 E Elizabeth Street Minor Amendment MA140133 >> To the Planning and Zoning Board of Fort Collins: >> >> As a homeowner on Elizabeth Street, I also feel the need to voice my opinion on the proposal to turn 201 E. Elizabeth back into a fraternity. Like the majority of residents and homeowners who have already voiced their opinions, I also have the same concerns on how this decision will impact our parking, our property value, and the charming character this wonderful >> neighborhood has. It is my opinion 201 E. Elizabeth is not suitable for 24-28 residents. The previous fraternity housed 15 members or less which is a much more suitable number for a home of this size. Approving this amendment to allow up to 28 people to live in a 5400 square foot home seems irresponsible from a health and safety perspective for 2 the residents living in the home as well as the residents of the neighborhood. I ask you to also take this into consideration along with the many other concerns we have already addressed as a community. >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Tracey Morse >> 206 E. Elizabeth St. 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:16 PM To: 'Stacey Neth' Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: 201 E Elizabeth Street Stacey, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax From: Stacey Neth [mailto:stacey@discnation.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 12:48 PM To: Noah Beals Subject: 201 E Elizabeth Street Dear Mr. Beals, I am a parent of one of the fraternity members interested in renting the house at 201 E Elizabeth Street. As I hope you are aware, these boys have worked very hard to re-establish this fraternity at CSU and would do nothing to jeopardize this work by breaking the rules or hosting parties. My understanding is that the zoning for this house is correct, but needs an ammendment for them to be able to use it for the fraternity and that parking may be an issue. I feel that their assertion that parking is widely available at night (after classes end for the day) is valid. Please reconsider and pass the ammendment. Thank you, -- Stacey Neth 1 Noah Beals From: Noah Beals Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 9:39 AM To: 'Mike Schifferdecker' Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett Subject: RE: 201 E. Elizabeth Proposal Mike, Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this proposal. Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf. Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett with questions or comments. Sincerely, Noah Beals Senior City Planner-Zoning City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 970 224-6134 Fax -----Original Message----- From: Mike Schifferdecker [mailto:mshifty78@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:19 AM To: Noah Beals Subject: 201 E. Elizabeth Proposal > Dear Fort Collins Officials, > > My name is Mike Schifferdecker, I have been a resident of this beautiful town for over 10 years. For most of these years I have had a strong connection and admiration with and for the 200 block of east Elizabeth. A very close friend owned the house two down from the 201 property hence I spent some time enjoying this fine, quite, and beautiful block. Currently, I live on this great block myself directly across from the 201 property at 206 E. Elizabeth. Living on this block has been such a great experience due to the kind and generous neighbors who look after each other and really care for this block. It is a unique and historic block near old town and campus with the homes being primarily occupied by the families that own them and take great pride in caring for them. This is where I lead into the main reasons why I strongly oppose 201 e. Elizabeth reverting back to a fraternity house. Allowing 24 to 28 young men to live in the 5400 2 square foot home on the 201 property will not only change this quite neighborhood forever, it will certainly impact the surrounding areas as well. To begin there is the parking concerns.. Even with the 8 proposed spots within this property, 24 to 28 men and all of the frequent guests they will inevitably have, there will be nowhere for any resident and or guest to park. Secondly, all of the values these homes on this block are going to suffer some loss and appeal due to the fact that 24 to 28 men live right next to them. Lastly, the noise and traffic that this house and the occupants will product on this block will certainly upset all the neighbors and take away the charm and unique atmosphere this block has had for years. In conclusion, I believe this city needs to re zone this block to prevent such a high number of people to be able to live under one roof. I am aware that the house in question was a fraternity once before but for close to ten years it has not and the 200 block has grown into a very family oriented block in which this type of occupancy does not fit. Please do not allow this fraternity occupancy to go forward. You would be ignoring all the neighbors in this area who do not want this type of occupancy so please do the right thing.... > Sincerely > Mike Schifferdecker 1 Noah Beals From: Sarah Carter Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 3:02 PM To: 'johnsnyder@skybeam.com' Cc: Noah Beals Subject: FW: fraternity occupancy limits Mr. Snyder, I’m sorry to hear you had trouble finding the answers you were looking for. Unfortunately, we are not able to publish the whole of the ICC Building Codes on our website due to copyright infringement issues. We are able to post our Land Use Code and Amendments because they are ours, but the building codes are published by another entity, and so may not be published on our website. The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments is the governing building code for R2 projects. First, allow me to address the applicable codes. It is important to understand that while the City’s Land Use Codes and Building Codes are intended to work together, they govern different portions of any given property. Essentially, Land Use Code governs the “use” of the property including items such as parking, landscaping, and function (“use”); whereas the Building Codes address structure, systems, and life safety items specific to the type of “occupancy”. Use and occupancy have many similarities, but are not completely parallel. With this in mind, let’s address your question about dormitories/fraternities as they relate to “extra-occupancy rentals”. A dormitory is an R2 occupancy under the IBC, but an “extra-occupancy rental” would be considered an R3 dwelling governed by the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC). The term “extra occupancy rental” is a Land Use Code term— it is not recognized by the building codes. Therefore the occupancy of the house would still be R3, but the Land Use Code has provisions for approving additional tenants for a single family home over and above the “3 unrelated persons” allowed. A boarding house could be an R2 occupancy under the IBC if there are more than 16 (nontransient) occupants, but a boarding/rooming house with fewer than 16 nontransient occupants would be an R3 occupancy under the IRC. So, I just want to be clear that a dormitory (or fraternity/sorority) is a different animal than extra occupancy rentals and boarding houses as far as the Building Codes are concerned. Now here is the occupant load table I referenced in my original email: 2 As you can see, the Building Code addresses occupant loads for a dormitory separately from other R2 (Residential) occupancies. A fraternity is listed specifically in the definition of dormitory. Further argument could be made that the Dormitory “occupied area” should be limited to sleeping rooms, required facilities, and egress paths. Creating a more clean cut definition of how “dormitory” occupancy should be calculated is on the agenda for our upcoming 2015 code review. If you would like to submit a suggested limitation for the committee, I’ll be happy to include it in my discussion notes. 3 So, let me ease your mind that any given regular single dwelling under the IRC cannot be changed to a dormitory by simply submitting a minor amendment. A change such as this would go through a development submittal, but then it would also be required to go through a change of occupancy with Building Services. A change of occupancy to move from a single dwelling to a dormitory would be no small task. Many changes to the building to meet a much more restrictive occupancy would be required. Changes would include a full commercial fire sprinkler system, accessibility upgrades, electrical upgrades, a more restrictive egress design, possible structural reinforcement for heavier floor loading requirements, and other costly improvements. Therefore, while someone could certainly apply to make a change such as this, generally the required construction for a change of occupancy would be cost prohibitive even if the use were approved by Zoning. The building in question has an existing Certificate of Occupancy reflecting previous approval as a fraternity which is why Building Services would allow the owner to use it in this way. With this in mind, Zoning could still impose further restriction on the occupant load based on Land Use Code restrictions, and there would be no conflict with the Building Codes because occupant loads are maximums. An alternate restriction further limiting the maximum stemming from a Planning or Zoning development project would be enforced. In this case, I understand that the requested number of occupants would be 24. Because they would be below the allowed occupant load under the IBC, Building Services would approve this, and assuming no other departments put further restriction on that, the allowed number of occupants would be 24 if the project is approved. Essentially, the applicant must comply with both Building and Land Use Code, therefore the more restrictive number would apply. I hope this helps clear up your concerns regarding occupant load for this project. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, Sarah Carter, LEED ® GA Plans Analyst City of Fort Collins Building Services 970-416-2748 scarter@fcgov.com From: johnsnyder@skybeam.com [mailto:johnsnyder@skybeam.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:56 AM To: Sarah Carter Subject: fraternity occupancy limits Ms. Carter: I was forwarded the following info from Noah Beals regarding occupancy limits for fraternities. I was then able to look up the relevant info online. Thank you for providing the first concrete information I have been given to date on this subject. I had been searching though Fort Collins Land Use and Building Codes without much luck So, please help me understand this. Is this saying that if a residential house had 5400 finished square feet, including a finished basement, the number of fraternity members allowed to occupy the unit full time (I.e. live in the house) would be 108! This seems preposterous. I believe the City regulations regarding boarding and rooming houses and all extra occupancy rentals require 350 square feet of finished living space per tenant. These uses, as with Fraternities, fall into the IBC definition of R-2 residential. Is there a specific City regulation which removes fraternities from this classification? I think it is apparent that something is wrong here. There are over 40 residential homes in Fort Collins with extra occupancy permits which could be converted into fraternity use with a minor amendment submitted to 4 P&Z and no neighborhood notification required. Most of these homes are around 2000 square feet and house from 4-8 tenants. It appears from this data that 50 fraternity members could move into a 2000 square foot house, and many more into the larger of these houses. Please advise John Snyder ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is response from City’s Plan reviewer Sarah Carter 970 416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com. Fraternities and sororities are classified as an R2 occupancy under the 2012 IBC. R2 occupancies are usually calculated at 200 square feet (gross) per occupant, however, the building code has a separate calculation for “dormitories” which a fraternity would fall under. Occupant load for a dormitory/fraternity would be determined by dividing the gross square footage of the R2 “occupiable” area by 50 square feet per Table 1004.1.2 of the 2012 IBC. This calculation would only include the finished square footage of the building. For example, an unfinished basement would not be included in the square footage calculation for occupant load for the R2 portion of the building, as it would stand alone as its own S2 occupancy. If you need more information on the building code please contact Sarah Carter directly. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. From: Laurie Kadrich To: Cindy Cosmas Subject: email sent to Council member Overbeck - SAR 29001 Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 3:53:42 PM On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:09 PM, "Sovell,John" wrote: Hi Noah, I live on Remington Street, one block away from the fraternity proposed at 201 Elizabeth. I am opposed to the use of that property as a fraternity. I would recommend that the Planning and Zoning Board not consider this amendment at the March 12 meeting and postpone its decision on the amendment until April's meeting. This will give both the community, the city, and the developers additional time to discuss this complex issue. I see from the March 12 Planning and Zoning board agenda that there are only two amendments that have garnered any emails, the 201 Elizabeth project being one and all 11 of the emailers (+one, me) oppose the 201 Elizabeth amendment. That is quite a number of people for a small community neighborhood. This proposed use does not fit the character of the neighborhood, is not an appropriate use of the property from a community standpoint, and does not accommodate enough parking spaces (8) for 24 occupants in a neighborhood already facing parking challenges; plus the site will be used for large fraternity meetings of over 50 people, further compounding traffic and parking issues. Sure the property was a fraternity in the past, but the neighborhood has changed drastically in the last decade. I have read the Planning and Zoning board staff report recommending the amendment and question whether neighborhood opposition was even a consideration in the staffs review. It appears that the City's general position on these matters is to side with developers and go ahead with plans without considering community involvement. The recent "English Park garden" and "Summit parking garage" fiascos are two recent examples. I am perplexed by how all of this was advanced with the community only finding out about it in late January, followed by a neighborhood meeting just weeks ago in late February, and now a Board decision on March 12. That timeline is just a bit ridiculous. I had the unfortunate experience of having the street outside of my house turned into a construction yard for the College Avenue waterline replacement last summer, with virtually no advance warning from the City. It pretty much ruined the entire summer for everyone on the block. To say that I am upset with the City's lack of communication with local neighborhoods on issues of neighborhood importance is an understatement and this is just one more example of the City's failure. I have one question (plus sub-questions) for you; would it be useful for the neighborhood to develop a petition against this amendment and collect signatures? If so, is there a city procedure to follow? How should the petition be worded? Who should the petition be presented too? Thank You John Sovell 828 Remington Street Clinton Reeves and Alyson Huff 201 E Plum St Fort Collins, CO 80524 March 11, 2015 To Whom It May Concern: We would like to express our opposition to the proposed development of 201 East Elizabeth Street in Fort Collins and we insist our comments be included with the materials presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. As residents in our owner-occupied property in the neighborhood, we see significant reasons this proposal should be denied regardless of possible compliance with the current land use code. The proposed development would likely increase traffic and parking congestion in our neighborhood, decrease property values, increase noise pollution, and negatively impact our family-friendly community. The increase in occupancy proposed in MA 140133 exceeds that allowed, even for Extra Occupancy Rentals. The number is too great for the area and the house. This eastside neighborhood currently has a healthy mix of owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing. Adding a large-scale housing unit like this would diminish the balance we have. We have ‘you-plus-two’ for a reason. This house should be no exception. The parking congestion we would experience if this proposal is approved negatively impacts our neighborhood. Even with dedicated spots for parking, that number will not support the number of tenants proposed. The formula used to determine the acceptable number of parking places does not seem to reflect the number of tenants that will likely have vehicles. Currently we live across the street from a fraternity house and the number of spaces they consume on our street is outrageous. They have about 8 places on their property for parking and those are insufficient. Probably this fraternity would encounter the same inadequate supply and demand relationship. Fraternity houses bring noise pollution. The fraternity across from our home has speakers on the outside of the house from which they blare music throughout the day. In the spring and early fall, that often means we leave our windows closed when we’d like to get fresh air. It also means lots of interrupted nap time for our infant, uncomfortable hours of hearing loud music when we are trying to enjoy our yard, and inability to have a normal volume conversation on our patio. The occupants like to sit outside, play in their yard, have guests over, and cook out on the grill…and so do we. A normal occupancy home produces normal neighbor sounds that a large occupancy house magnifies to an unacceptable level for our neighborhood. Conversion to a high-occupancy housing unit in our neighborhood will also increase after-bar foot traffic through our neighborhood. Remington Street is already swarming with intoxicated college students walking home from old town after the bars close. We’ve had our fences spray painted, kicked in, and torn down multiple times each year. We also had our mailbox smashed in and kicked down from a corner location so many times that we finally had to move it to a more discrete location to avoid drunken vandalism. We are concerned that this new fraternity location will add to this problem. For these reasons and more, we as residents of 201 East Plum Street, oppose the property development MA 140133 of 201 East Elizabeth Street and wish to have these comments included in the materials for the Planning and Zoning Board, the City Council’s leadership team, and any other applicable venues for expressing a citizen’s opposition to a proposed neighborhood development. Sincerely, Alyson Huff Clinton Reeves NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Project: 201 E. Elizabeth Street (Fraternity Use) Date: February 19, 2015 Applicants: Paul Milewski & Julie Rickett & Deanne Frederickson Planner: Noah Beals City Process Overview: This is a proposal to reoccupy the building at 201 East Elizabeth Street as a fraternity. Fraternities are a permitted use in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone District (NCB), and as the building has been utilized as a fraternity in the past, the re-occupancy can be processed as a minor amendment. Minor amendments can be approved administratively at the staff level, but as we began to hear about concerns from neighbors the decision was made to refer the minor amendment to the Planning & Zoning Board. The Planning & Zoning Board will consider this minor amendment at their next hearing on March 12th. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Representative: Paul Milewski & Julie Rickett purchased the property in January and have been working on renovating the interior. They began discussions with several fraternities to rent the building. The City has said that as it has been more than a year since the building was occupied, it needed to be brought up to current development standards. This means primarily upgrading to the parking lot area. They plan to renovate the east side of the building and parking area and understand parking is one of the biggest concerns from neighbors. The City codes require 2 parking spaces for every 3 bedrooms, and one of these parking spaces needs to be a handicap space. The site can accommodate 8 parking spaces, including one handicap parking space. The parking is accessed off the alley, with a one way access drive through the parking area and existing onto Elizabeth Street. They are also planning on updating the landscaping and talking with the City Forester about the existing trees on-site. They also want to clean up the property -- a trash enclosure will be constructed for trash/recycling collection and be located off the alley. They are also required by the City to add 24 bicycle parking spaces, 60% of which need to be enclosed or sheltered. Owners: We’d like to introduce ourselves and the fraternity who are looking to move into the house. Julie is a life-long Fort Collins resident and now works at Rocky Mountain High School. We have a long history of volunteering and fundraising events within the community. Paul has worked in Fort Collins as the owner of a local parking/paving business. We both active in the community and with local non-profits, and regularly volunteer and donate to these organizations. We have provided funds for Leukemia research and as CSU alumni, are interested in helping Greek students find housing in the community. We understand parking is a major concern and have a plan to address these issues. We will install a new parking lot that can accommodate more parking than currently present, and more than required by City Code. Not all fraternity members will have cars, and the fraternity has established a parking program to limit the number of members living at the fraternity who can have parking passes. They have also reached out to St. John’s Lutheran church for a potential parking arrangement for chapter meetings. This neighborhood is great with its proximity to CSU and the energy in the area. The housing situation for Greek students in the community is inadequate. Nine fraternities applied to rent this building, but we chose Phi Kappa Tau due to their civic mindedness and community volunteer efforts. As owners, we will be actively involved with the fraternity and want to be good neighbors. We’ve done a neighborhood walk-through and met with several of you and have heard your concerns. Many people have in their head the stereotypical frat house image reminiscent of Animal House. The fraternities have to follow rules set by CSU, including no alcohol and alcoholic parties. The fraternities can lose their position with CSU. In our lease, we are also including a provision for no alcoholic parties. As a business owner, I’m very accustomed to dealing with young men; if any issues arise, we are going to be actively involved – we’re not absentee owners from far away. We have our contact information to hand out to everyone tonight, and we’d like to meet with anyone who has concerns. Phi Kappa Tau Representatives: We have had a dream of a centralized location for our fraternity and brotherhood, and this is an opportunity for us to realize this dream. We want to break the stereotypical fraternity image and show that we will be a part of the community through our philanthropy, community service, and everyday helpful tasks. We’re here to stay and don’t want to tarnish our reputation. The animal house fraternity stereotype has changed. CSU Greek Life rules prevent us from having parties in Greek housing. We didn’t want a centralized chapter house for parties; we needed this location where all the brothers could live together and have a chapter meeting in our own house. We currently have to rent out a room just so we can all meet in one place. We have a parking system in place and are looking at parking permits for our members. We’re only two blocks from campus, and not all of our members have cars. We have a lot of members bicycling to campus, and we’re going to encourage this as a way around the limited number of parking spaces. We’re not here to take all the parking spots in the neighborhood. The night when we would have the most parking issues is for chapter meetings, and we’re looking to coordinate with this church so members can park in their parking lot to address this demand. We’ve noticed parking is more open several blocks away; we would encourage guests to park further to the east where it is less of an issue. What makes our organization excellent is the ability to self-govern and a way for brother and submit peers for any transgressions, and this can include parking where we shouldn’t be given our rules. We want to be known as the neighbors that you feel comfortable asking to shovel snow or help move a grill. We are trying to be good neighbors. This house is our dream and we don’t want to upset the neighborhood. There will be punishments for disobeying the parking as it’s such an important issue. Questions, Comments & Responses Question (Citizen): How many total people are in the fraternity? Response (Applicant): The fraternity itself has 54 members, but the maximum amount at the house would be 24. Response (Applicant): The maximum occupancy for the house is actually 28, but we’re going to limit it to 24. Question (Citizen): For fairness of process, can you please write down concerns and questions and email this to everybody? I think it would be fair to keep it open and given everyone a documented process. Past meetings have done this and I’ve found this is a fair way to get everyone involved and to stay up-to- date. Typically we have a whiteboard and it is nice to see what is jotted down and can be seen. Response (City): Notes are being taken of tonight’s meeting and we will email a copy to everyone who signed in with an email address. In addition, the notes will be provided to the decision maker for the minor amendment. Question (Citizen): I live two houses down – during construction of the parking spaces, will the alley be shut down? Response (Applicant): The alley won’t be shut down. We only have a 3-man crew, and we have plenty of parking for those guys in our own area. When we resurface the parking area, there may be some disruption for 1 or 2 days. There will be safety traffic control signs and you’ll always be able to get access from the other end of the alley during this time. Question (Citizen): Are you planning a fence on the east side against the alley? Response (Applicant): I actually want to talk with you about this as I was thinking I may want to mirror a retaining wall like you have. There will be a fence around the area of the trash and recycling enclosure. Question (Citizen): Could you let us know what is the square footage of the building and the bedroom configuration? I’m guessing it will all be 2 or 3 people to a bedroom? Response (Applicant): There are 9 bedrooms. One bedroom will be a single, one bedroom will have 4 members in the basement, and the rest of the bedrooms will be a mix of doubles and triples. Response (Applicant): The building is 5,400 square feet, including the basement. I don’t know the square footage without including the basement, but the basement is fully finished, and has its own separate entrance. Question (Citizen): Am I to understand that this is a done deal? Response (City): This is not a done deal. There is a process for this application, and the neighborhood meeting is part of the process. The decision will be made by the Planning and Zoning Board at their March hearing. Comment (Citizen): I live close by and don’t feel comfortable with this. The neighborhood has changed and I don’t feel a fraternity fits with the character of the neighborhood anymore. Further south I could see a fraternity where there are existing fraternities and institutional uses near the Center for the Arts. Question (Citizen): If it does not become a fraternity house, what else could this be? Response (Applicant): We talked to the City prior to purchasing the house; it currently is zoned for fraternity and sorority use and it is our intention to rent it for this use. Question (Citizen): If it wasn’t a fraternity, would it just be a home? Response (City): The zone district does allow for other uses, including single family homes. Question (Citizen): Do you have any other rental properties in town? You speak very highly about your management, but other examples of well-managed properties would be helpful. If you have a history in the rental business you could alleviate some people’s fears. Response (Applicant - Paul): We do have experience with other rental properties. I have a rental at 2400 Purdue that has been rented out to college students. It is now a vacation rental by owner. I’ve also have rentals in Bellvue – a cabin rental and another house. I don’t have a lot of experience with college students, but Julie does. Having a business with 20 to 30 employees, my main job is solving problems every day, and there is a lot of communications needed and enforcement. We are planning a very detailed and strict lease. I have experience in handling and solving problems, particularly with young men. We interviewed 9 different fraternities, and we selected these guys based on what you just heard – we have full confidence in them. If anything comes up we’ll be there when it does. We’ll deal with that when it comes and we’ll be good neighbors. Response (Applicant - Julie): I have been renting for many years, particularly with condos near CSU. I have condos in Baystone, Sunstone, and Big Horn Village in Campus West. I love students, and have not had issues with parties, but I have a very tight lease and a good relationship with the students. I go through a long process of checking them out and researching them. I have a good feeling about these guys and this fraternity. Question (Citizen): What will be the process if there are parking problems, trash, parties, etc? Response (Applicant): We will be first in the chain of command and have contact information to provide for everyone tonight. Response (Applicant): The fraternity has a formal process to handle issues; we fill out an incident form and the member involved sits before the standards board and gets punishment. But you may have meant more of an external process? Response (Applicant): The city has a parking and nuisance hotlines. Question (Citizen): How do we, as neighbors, get access and in touch with the right people to resolve any problems? Right now, it sounds like we can only call the police. Response (Applicant): You can call us as owners, CSU, the City-hotlines, etc. Response (Applicant): You can always call our house manager. Question (Citizen): Could you go over the City’s noise regulations? We’ve lived here for 25 years and I know there’s a process, but there’s always noise issues at the beginning of the school year, no matter how good you say you will be. Whose skin is in the game for complaints, the owners or the tenants? Response (City): During normal business hours, you can call our neighborhood services department who responds to noise complaints. After business hours you can call Police Services. Both departments have some discretion in how to enforce noise complaints – usually they start out with a warning, and if there are further occurrences it can lead to a summons to court with a fine. Question (Citizen): Who gets fined, the owner or the frat? Response (Applicant): The owner Response (City): I will have to double-check on that, but I believe the party and owner can both be fined. Comment (Citizen): There is a nuisance ordinance and you should provide that information to everyone when you send out the emailed notes. The City, with the nuisance ordinance, they collect data, and if you get 3-strikes, you get put on radar and you get watched and owners and tenants are notified. If problems continue on, there can be fines. It does keep everything in check. It holds both the owners and tenants accountable. If it’s ignored, the property can be seized as a nuisance. Comment (Citizen): The house was built in 1924 as a single family residence and used as that for 54 years. It was occupied as a single family residence in 2006. I think we need to get away from the notion that this has always been a fraternity. The vast majority of its life it has been used as a single family residence. It has never had 24 members; there were numerous issues when the Triangle Fraternity was using the building and they had fewer members. I’m also very curious why there hasn’t been a traffic study done for this project. Talking about parking three blocks away, you’re talking about pushing it three blocks away. Everything is being glossed over. You guys sound like good guys, but what happens when you guys leave, which fraternity rents it next? This property could be offices or a bed and breakfast or a boarding house, it isn’t set in stone that it be a fraternity. A fraternity is by far the highest occupancy intensity for the building. You’ve said that you’re passionate about the community -- if you were convinced that everyone in the neighborhood was against this and it would have a negative impact on the community, would you withdraw the proposal? Response (Applicant): It has not been a single family residence recently – there was approval to convert it back, but it was never used in that manner. Comment (Citizen): I live on the corner of Elizabeth and Matthews and during the day there is no parking; I have to park in my driveway. You said you have 6 parking spaces with that many young men, I won’t have any parking spaces on the street, nor will my family or friends when they come to see me. Response (Applicant): There are 8 parking spaces on the site. Response (Applicant): We’ve checked on a recent event the parking situation. If we go one block to the east and one block down, there are 16 parking spaces plus 12 plus another 14 on Elizabeth, and we have this on recorder. Comment (Citizen): This all depends on the time of the day. It is ridiculous for people to think there is anywhere for people to park on a regular basis during the day. Response (Applicant Representative): I talked to the Parking Services Manager, Randy Hensley – they have a neighborhood parking program and if the majority of the neighborhood wants to create this program it can be implemented to try and reduce non-resident parking. It’s a way of permitting on- street parking, specifically for residences. Every resident gets a free permit and then can pay for additional permits. That way they can take parking that is not permitted and can be ticketed, and it’s hosted by the City. It is a program specifically for these types of situations. Response (Applicant - Fraternity): I currently live on Howes Street, and parking has been a big issue for us as well. We’ve agree as a neighborhood north of campus to the RP3 (Residential Parking Permit Program) on Howes, so that parking is aligned for residents, and not commuter CSU parking. Question (Citizen): Will you have the parents co-sign on the lease? Response (Applicant): We are doing a lease with the fraternity chapter organization. Question (Citizen): It’s not an individual lease? I’m thinking about getting everyone liable. You don’t have a separate lease individually with people living there. Response (Applicant): The chapter itself would have individual leases for members. Question (Citizen): What are you charging for rent? It seems if you’re charging now, you could do some improvements to the property. Response (Applicant): We’re going to keep that rent information private. Question (Citizen): How are property values going to be impacted when a house of high occupancy moves into the neighborhood? Are you going to give tax breaks to people when our property values go down? Response (City): I can’t answer any questions about what may or may not happen to property values. Question (Citizen): Is there anyone that can address that? Response (City): The county assessors’ office. Response (Applicant): There has been no upkeep on the property recently, and we’re planning a lot of work to the outside. We’re going to increase the value. Response / Comment (Citizen): I’m going to have increased property values if I have 24 people living next door? I have an affidavit from the prior owners from 2006 that they were using this as a single family home. As a boarding house, the maximum number of people that could stay there is approximately half of what you’re proposing due to the parking requirements. Surveys show 90% of off campus students have cars. Comment (Citizen): I came here to learn how not to get a fraternity here but have to take off to attend another event. It sounds like the next meeting is March 12th. What do you need from this group to stop or delay this happening on March 12th? Response (City): You can offer public comment to me by letter or email and that will be attached to the Planning & Zoning Board materials for their consideration. Their hearing is a public hearing, so it’s open for additional comments on March 12th as well. The meeting is at 6pm at City Hall in Council Chambers. Question (Citizen): Am I to understand that there is not a responsible adult on the premises? Response (Applicant): There is a house manager on site. Response (Applicant): These fraternity members are adults – they can go off and fight for us. Response (Applicant – fraternity): We have several people over 21 there; if we want to look at responsibility, our members have jobs, we go to school; I work at a property management company myself. In terms of responsibility, I’m not sure what the measurement is. Question (Citizen): Following up on the RP3 program -- about a year ago there was a survey if there was any interest from the neighborhood. I just got back something that it was still under study. What do we have to do to get this process rolling? If we got a permit program in this area, would the frat get half of those permits? Response (Applicant representative): There is a maximum of 5 permits for each property. You pay increasing amounts after the first free permit. Question (Citizen): So the fraternity could get 5? Response (Applicant): Yes, the fraternity could get 5, just like your home could get 5. Response (City): Randy Hensley is the contact for the program, and we can include his contact information when we send out the notes. Question (Citizen): Is it per address or per unit? Response (City): I believe per unit, and the fraternity is considered only one unit. Comment (Citizen): The numbers don’t make sense, if you multiply 5 per each house, there aren’t enough spaces. Response (Applicant): It works out because not everyone buys 5 permits, if you buy 5 it would be very expensive. You get your first permit for free and maybe you only need 1 other permit. They do a study that encompasses the whole neighborhood it affects to make sure the program will work out. Question (Citizen): What is the fee? Is it per month or per year? Response (Applicant): The fee is per year. Comment (Citizen): I do have a neighbor who has been in contact with someone at the City about this process. She had heard that the permit parking problem was seriously being considered for north of campus, but that the City has no plans at all for east of campus. When you consider that west of campus is campus west, if the north gets this parking system in place, we are really going to be in trouble to the east. We have lived on this block since 1971, and in the last several years it is getting tougher and tougher to find a parking space for our own house. It does concern me that in the presentation you talked about people parking a few blocks further away, as that’s right next to my house. Response (Applicant): I talked to them today, and this is a neighborhood eligible for the program, but it has to be initiated by the neighborhood. They receive calls and complaints and can make a determination that parking is an issue. I know it sounds daunting, but they want to make sure they are doing it right, and it has to start somewhere. They identify the neighborhood and have to have at least 50% of the neighbors agree to it before they will initiate it, and it has worked in three other neighborhoods. Comment (Citizen): I live very close by and enforcement is the problem – no one tickets or enforces existing parking rules. I have people parking in front of my driveway or in our rear parking area at least two or three times a week. Comment (Citizen): I know you guys are geting the short end of the stick tonight, dealing with the fraternity stereotype. I’d rent to you guys, you sound great, but it’s the people that move in afterwards who we may have a concern with. If someone else moves in and there’s trouble, there’s nothing that can be done. We’ve talked about noise and parking. When they redo the intersection (Remington Greenway project), they are taking about taking some parking spaces out for bulbouts. We’re looking at a loss of 4-6 just from City construction, so we also need to keep that in mind. Comment (Citizen): As a neighbor across there street, there have been various people or groups living in the house, but it wasn’t more than 8 or 12 recently. This area is a historic district, and we take great pride in this neighborhood, so if we hear a lot of noise, we’re going to be upset. We’ll have to hold you guys to it. Triangle eventually become more tolerable because people were riding them. I see where both sides are coming from. We need to keep in mind there will be parking spaces leaving, and that you’re coming into a very good neighborhood and block. I think property values will go down with a fraternity, but I appreciate that you are going to fix it up and make it look good, but remember to make it historically accurate. I think there’s a bunch to be considered with this. Question (Citizen): My concern is the parking as well. I’m just right across the street from the church. My whole issue is I can’t find a parking space in front of my house, and there’s no other option for me as I don’t have a driveway. I can’t afford to pay extra money each month with the parking program just in case I want to have people over every once in a while. It doesn’t seem fair that because a fraternity comes in we now have to pay for parking. Response (City): The RP3 program would be separate from this proposal. Comment (Citizen): My concern is that in this historic neighborhood, maybe 1 of every 2 homes doesn’t have a driveway, and would be forced to buy into the RP3 program. I’m thinking that’s something that should be considered. Question (Citizen): Is there some way to the City to allow curb-cuts and allow more driveways? Response (City): You would need to call the City Engineering Department and inquire about this with your site details. Response (Citizen): I haven’t asked the City yet. If you’re one of the 50% without the driveway, you have to pay more for extra permits. Is that what the neighborhood needs or wants to do? Response (City): Someone can request a curb-cut, but I think they try to encourage alley access before a curb-cut off the street if available. Comment (Citizen): I’m a real estate broker, and people are expressing concerns about property values. The market does not look at who is your neighbor, it looks at your sales and nearby comparable sales and improvements. With some improvements, compared to what is there now, it is a positive in many ways. There are some detractions, and those are behaviors, but the market doesn’t look at the behaviors, more comparable sells. It looks at the conditions and area. I would not get too worked up because buyers will make their choices no matter what they see. I would look at what makes best sense for the neighborhood and the people. I think there are better ways to manage your parking than pulling in the City to manage it. I wouldn’t partake in that personally because there’s no sense to bring in regulation that everyone can solve on their own. Comment (Citizen): Could you talk more about collaborating with the church - -could you elaborate on that? Response (Applicatin-fraternity): On the nights we see the most traffic, for our chapter meetings, we want to have members parking at the church, and we would compensate the church, with a small monthly payment or shoveling snow, etc. That agreement is being worked on. Comment (Citizen): I’m graduating in May, so I get it -- you want to be close to campus. I invested in a property near with my my dad, I’m two houses down. If you were in my position, would you want to invest in a property that is close to a frat house? Response (Applicant-fraternity): There are a lot of people who have houses that are rented out, not for frats, and their properties are trashed. We are committed to maintain the property. Comment (Citizen): The permit is not being granted for your specific fraternity, but for any fraternity in general. What happens when you move out? Who will our next neighbors be? Response (Applicant-fraternity): Our property management company owns a house near the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, and we never have issues renting the house out. Response (Applicant): You bring up good points, but they’re true for anyone who moves into a neighborhood, whether a fraternity or single family home. Question (Citizen): You talk about improvements to the property, can you say more about that? Response (Applicant): For starters, the parking lot is going to be the best parking lot in the whole neighborhood. There is a new City requirement for pervious pavers to allow for water drainage, and we have to incorporate that into the new parking area. As far as landscaping, we want to get together with the neighborhood and mirror some of the great landscaping along the street and coordinate the look. We want to blend into the neighborhood. There will be a nice fence. For sure the lawn needs an overhaul and some care and we’re planning on that as well. Question (Citizen): Will you cut your grass? Response (Applicant-fraternity): I have an entire proposal that has to go through our national organization and it has to outline who takes care of the grounds, when it will take care of it, etc. We are planning to do all of that ourselves. Question (Citizen): Will you be there year-round? Response (Applicant-fraternity): Yes. Response (Applicant): We as owners will make sure as well. Question (Citizen): Will it be professionally maintained? Response (Applicant-fraternity): We have 5 members employed as landscapers, so I’d like to think we will do a professional job. Question (Citizen): Are we talking about granting a permanent use for any fraternity or just this fraternity, any which could have 28 people? Response (City): Like other projects, they are applying for the use as a whole, not a specific business or fraternity. Comment (Citizen): Between now and the next meeting, I’d really like to talk to those people who live next to other fraternities and get some hard facts about the behaviors from fraternities impacting their neighborhoods. Comment (Citizen): I initially came to the meeting with concerns about parking, but that has been beaten to death tonight. My one question is that if this building was proposed as a boarding house, it would have different number of parking spots required. As a fraternity there are different ratios – why for a similar type of use is there a different set of requirements? Response (City): It’s a fairly old standard. A boarding house refers to a more transient type of tenant with shorter leases as opposed to a fraternity, which has to have an affiliation with CSU. This implies a tenancy associated with the school year rather than short term occupancy. Question (Citizen): The whole City review and discussion process seems abbreviated at best, and that’s being generous. Why is there such an abbreviated approval process for this when it is going to be so impactful to the neighborhood? Response (City): This is based off the standards in the Land Use Code. Because the property was used as a fraternity at one point in time, and because the zone district allows the use, it can be reestablished through a minor amendment. Question (Citizen): The thing I don’t quite get is with 24 people and only 8 parking spaces, is that to say the other 16 people don’t have cars? Response (Applicant-fraternity): Most in our fraternity don’t have cars. I would say 25% of the fraternity members have cars. Question/Comment (Citizen): Can you guarantee that year after year? Comment (Citizen): I have lived in the nearby area most of my life. Fort Collins continues to grow and there are always more people and more cars. If people can’t find any parking at their destination, it just spills over to near other people’s property. I don’t think there’s a solution as long as there are more people and cars in the community. It’s going to keep happening unless you build parking structures. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2804 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 5331 Fossil Ridge Drive Petitioner/Owner: Paulo R Borges de Brito Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: The variance would allow a patio cover with posts to encroach 2’ into the required 15’ rear-yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a patio cover with post to encroach 2’ into the 15’ required rear-yard setback. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property is a part of the Fossil Creek Meadow subdivision that was reviewed and approved by the County. The Fossil Creek Meadow subdivision was annexed into the City in 2009 in the Phase Three of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The original development included a zero setback along the attached sides of the building. A front and rear setback was still required. Upon annexation into the City the property was zoned R-L. This zone district requires a 15 feet rear- yard setback. The abutting property of the rear property line is HOA land that includes landscaping and no buildings. The smallest width of the HOA land between two residential lots is approximately 20 feet. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the variance to allow a patio cover with posts to encroach 2’ into the required 15’ rear-yard setback and finds that: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • The additional landscaped HOA land immediately behind the property provides enough separation to meet a 15’ setback to the neighboring residential property. • The encroachment is for a structure that is open on two sides. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Appeal # 2804. To whom it may concern, The proposed patio cover serves to protect the area directly underneath from water and flooding. The area has a 4’ retaining wall on 3 sides and the house on the other, creating a hole in the ground for water to fill up, as there is no drainage. The homeowner’s have already been forced to perform restoration and mitigation and replace their basement floor due to this area flooding, as there is only a small grate for water to seep through and is insufficient in heavy rain. There is also only 1” of clearance between the cement floor and the bottom of the sliding door into the house, which, in a heavy rain, has caused flooding. The proposed cover will cover only this area to protect it from the vast majority of water that would otherwise fall directly in. The product is an Equinox louvered patio cover system, that when closed will drain the water to a gutter system and away from the area. Due to the design constraints of this system and the area to be protected, the posts must be installed at the outside edge. According to the plot plan these posts would encroach into the setback 2’ and would then be 13’ from the rear property line. Please approve this variance. Sincerely, Tad Bjorlie, Engineer Appeal #2804 05/14/2015 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2805 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1052 Briarwood Road Petitioner/Owner: Edward & Christine Fast Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: The variance would allow an addition to a shed, approximately 64 square feet in size, to encroach 8 feet into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a 64 square foot shed addition to encroach 8 feet into the required 15 feet rear yard setback. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a part of the Miller Brother’s Foothills Subdivision and was annexed into the City in 1959. Its current zoning is R-L. The R-L zone district requires a 15 feet rear-yard setback. A building permit is required for an accessory structure when it is either: • Over 8 feet in height. • Over 120 square feet in size. • Within 3 feet of a property line. The rear and side property lines are adjoined to other detached single family lots. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a 64 square foot addition to encroach into the rear yard setback and finds that: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • If the addition was a stand-alone structure it would not require a building permit. • The height of the structure is only 2 feet taller than an allowed 6 foot tall fence. • The size of the shed with existing and addition is approximately 200 square feet in size. • The grade changes on the lot gives the appearance that the addition is shorter than the existing portion of the shed. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 2 Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # 2805. Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2806 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 965 Bungalow Court Petitioner: Jeff Schneider Owner: Louis & Barbara Sunderland Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Variance Request: The existing structure exceeds the rear 50% of the lot’s allowable floor area by 25.75 square feet. The variance request would allow an additional 229 square feet of allowable floor area in the rear 50% of the lot for a new one-car garage. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow an additional 229 square feet above the existing condition of allowable floor area in the rear 50% of the lot. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a corner lot and Bungalow Court is on both the north and west side of the property. Therefore, the front of the property was determined by which way the front door faces. If the property was divided in half by the other direction, the variance request would be limited to an additional 56 square feet. In 2009 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance request to the property; also for an increase of allowable floor area in the rear 50% of the lot. The building, that the request was made for, was never constructed; therefore the variance approval has expired. The typical lot of the N-C-L zone district has a depth of 140-190 feet. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow an additional 229 square feet above the existing condition of allowable floor area in the rear half and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The lot depth is 66 feet, far shorter than the typical lot depth in the N-C-L zone district. Therefore, the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty up on the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # 2806. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2807 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 417 Maple Street Petitioner/Owner: Platinum Properties, LLLP Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) Variance Request: The variance would allow a two-car garage to be built encroaching 10 feet into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a two-car garage to be built 10 feet into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property was part of the original town plat of Fort Collins. It was later subdivided to create this parcel from the rear portions of two existing lots. The primary structure was built approximately in 1958. The new building does not exceed the allowable floor area for the whole lot or the rear of the lot. While the south property line is considered a rear line for the applicant, it is a side line for his neighbor. Therefore, the neighbor could build within 5 feet of the same property line. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a new two-car garage to be built 10 feet into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback and finds that: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • On the other side of the south property line there is a 5 feet side-yard setback. • The south side of the building that faces the rear property line has an eave height of 13’ feet and then slopes up to the peek. • There will be no windows on the south side of the building. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # 2807. ZONING VARIANCE REVIEW 417 MAPLE STREET, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 To: Zoning Board of Appeals Request is being made to erect a new garage on the southeast corner of the lot, with access from the alley. The expected dimensions of the new garage are 22' X 24' and roof having a 6:12 pitch with a total footprint of approximately 528 sf. The specific request is for a variance to place the new structure with a 5' setback from the south lot line and 5' setback from east lot line with alley access. An apartment complex is across the alley to the east of this lot. Zoning is N-C-M. There is no existing, serviceable garage on the premises, but does have a shed/outbuilding constructed from post/beam construction and corrugated metal roof and metal siding with an average ceiling height of 6 Yz-7 feet, in a dilapidated condition & sagging roof. Request has been made with the City of Fort Collins Historical Review (Josh Weinberg) for approval to demolish the existing structure, which has been granted. Existing home was constructed in 1958 of contemporary design and a footprint of 1,148sf and fronts to the north on Maple Street. Home is to be remodeled under a separate building permit to be applied for as well as a separate permit for the new garage. Because of the unique shape of the lot and the location of the existing home, there is no reasonable way to create a usable backyard except by locating it on the southeast corner of this lot. A variance under the #1 guideline states in part: "by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography ... ". Applicant believes that because of this lot's small size & irregular shape due to being partly created from additions of adjacent lots, that this request meets this variance guideline. Guideline #3 states: "the proposal will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood". Applicant also believes this variance request meets the criteria of #3 because the proposed structure does not diverge from the guideline IF the alley was on the rear lot line as opposed to the side adjacent to the alley, that is, 5' from the rear lot line. Moreover, this proposed structure is in keeping with the feel and context of the neighborhood and is great improvement from the existing structure. The proposed location also places the new garage farther from the neighboring residence (which faces street on west) on the adjoining south lot line. Applican5;��," �num Properties, LLLP )r.jJ , A_U�- kJ·-�-MAELE Sr:REtT FoB.L_f.:f.JLLL/Y'5, C-_Q (EAsT A L{; .. f'y £1-s EVA. I fj f:. TrON) t st 4JI Lt/'lf ( .51'J I} T"tf) �.---·. �-.. ----·--·------ - (NoRIH \ S1 OE E1.-.e v Art ct') FOR-r (' o L 1.., N5' c n {,()' 510TBAGK.- v ·• ' /16 ==- I s' --'> � f'/ow GAI'<.AGrE z..2.Y.2"/"' ( cz.si/J) b �· St:rB/1<1<- £0 r St-ieD To 13�: uErMD' D f j AREA EY..t5ntJG BAGK:tt! R.D r!oM E \ 70' 1, 1-tBP I 0 0' J/LLE'J May 12,2015 To: Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Appeal # 2807 As long time property owners of 234 N Sherwood St, adjoining the property at 417 Maple Street, we would like to offer our opinion on zoning appeal #2807 by email since we will be unable to attend the meeting scheduled on Thursday, May 14. The applicant is requesting a variance on the 15 foot setback and wants to build a garage at a 5 foot setback. We are opposed to this variance. While this property has been in disrepair for a number of years, we are encouraged that a change is in sight. It is our understanding that the company that has purchased this property intends to flip it upon completion of renovation. Conventional wisdom and knowledge of current real estate housing realities tell us that this property will most likely end up being a high occupancy rental rather than an owner occupied residence. We have two main concerns. The height of the structure, if allowed by the zoning appeals board ·as requested, adversely affects our property. Secondly, we feel the overall size of the structure they are requesting is not in keeping with the proportions of the dimensions of the lot as would be reasonably expected of an owner occupied home, and is more in keeping with the needs of a high occupancy rental dwelling. Also part of our concern is that the simple, cursory line drawing provided offers no indication of exterior finish, lighting, color, composition etc. Thus, we are left to guess regarding many details of the proposal which we are given to comment upon. In conclusion, our main concerns are that the proposed garage is too big, too close, and designed to facilitate a high occupancy rental rather than an owner occupied residence. We are not opposed to "progress" and certainly cannot argue that this property is not ripe for updating, however, we hope that the zoning board will see fit to, at the very least, find compromise in this variance to restrict height and proximity of the proposed structure in keeping with our wishes and what we believe to be the truest benefit to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Harmony and Stephen Bennett 540 V amer Circle Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-546-8480 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2808 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 6325 Kyle Avenue Petitioner/Owner: Clarence & Carol Rothfuss Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d) Variance Request: The variance would allow a 240 square foot shed to encroach 8 feet into the required 20 foot side-yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a 240 square feet shed to be built 8 feet into the required 20 feet side-yard setback. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property was annexed into the City as part of Phase Three of the Southwest Enclave annexation in 2009. The primary building was built in 1979. In the County, the structures did not require a 20 feet side- yard setback. Therefore, existing structures on the property and other neighboring properties have been built within the 20 feet side-yard setback The adjoining neighbor to the north of the property is the Larimer County Humane Society. The U-E setbacks were intended for residential uses that abut other residential uses. As such, the Humane Society does not have a required 20 feet setback and could build closer to the same property line. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a shed 240 square feet in size to be built 8 feet into the required 20 feet side-yard setback and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The other side of same property is a driveway to the Larimer County Humane Society. • The adjoining neighbor to the north does not have a required setback for structures along the same property line. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # 2808. Clarence Rothfuss 6325 Kyle Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 April10, 2015 City of Fort Collins Planning, Development & Transportation 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 To Whom It May Concern, I am asking for a variance on the north side of my property to allow a shed to be 12 feet from the north property line. This is the only spot on my lot that I will be able to access the shed with a vehicle without driving on another person's property. As you can see from the drawings, 20 feet from the north property line would make it totally useless. Sincerely, Clarence Rothfuss ~by!~, ~- <.:> >'t'l. p. s.t. ~ ~ ... ;;_711W' t5# p.,.fr .. ..._ . .__,_. 11 (? (J s !$ ·-,. .• " -,.,<f" ---···-·· ··---·------ : ~----- /,:Z '--- R.J.L.SURVEYS 5133 2263927' P.e<: IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICJUE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 8, Blook S, LYNill A.CRES, County of Larimer, State of Colorado SOORCE: Home Federal Savings Banlt - --- - ~J ~ ~"1-5 · uncJC"'< =:s:~.-:- _,___s _________ ,- . ______ til - J+ r /~ !"~~0 {>AM1;"; "'"'· '"""_ "~ __,.[] ~ Dr. ·' .... ~./lo-'Vl.O:.. s.~z-""' \[] ~tO f' ~t"'" I ' d I I J,a,' P..-ofo?~ :>A.e./;J, \0, .hj .. "'-' :a \ .. I J.- DM!!: 'i,';P.tiX' ., \ Fb",•n . .:l >NJ ~rr. r ~ \ .jl w '1~·5':1:. . t~-~· \ '· ~ ?- (NO RlhlllL t:t-~'1!':l. :::., -"'':~ ·b' ~ (..G.·~- '._;j ~.' !. .~~;. --' ..~ .. "--n l! ·' · .• 0. .•• ~·"'~' ... !!:: •• • ' • '. • •I \ J-.. l;.~= 0 ~,.· - 0. . ' . .-. · 0 . ~ :I 'J \ ]"'- CO'-><;. " "-. ' I \ -.J > - ~ I l I I .o,~ I I 1\ :, oo• \?' 30''W .\ I 20'1;.-rl ' ' . • ' • / -J J·~ ,; 0 {'J I ~ ~I I e . J J J I ·"' -~ l <:. ~~ )'>) '1---- VI ·J J ~~ til ~I ~ ~::S I Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2809 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4014 S. Lemay Ave #4 Petitioner Zak George Landscaping Owner: Terry L. Dickinson, Revocable Trust Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: The variance would allow a pergola 13.6 feet in height, and side screens, to be attached to the existing deck at a zero foot setback from the rear property line. The approved PUD allowed for a 5 feet encroachment into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a pergola 13.6 feet in height, and side screens, to be attached to the existing deck at a zero foot setback from the rear property line. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property is a part of the Greens at Collindale PUD that was approved in 2001. The approved site plan included an allowance for a building to be built within 10 feet of the rear property line, but not to encroach into the easement. The applicant has met with both the City’s Engineering and Stormwater departments concerning the easement. Both departments are in agreement that the encroachment will be allowed. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a pergola 13.6 feet in height, and side screens, to be attached to the existing deck at zero foot setback from the property line and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The property backs on to a golf course providing open land greater than 15 feet. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # 2809. 335 S. Summit View Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80524 4014 S. Lemay Ave #4 –Setback Variance Fort Collins City: Zoning Variance Review This report has been put together by ZGL(Landscape Contractor) for Terry Dickinson (Resident of 4014 S. Lemay Ave. #4) to gain approval and permits needed to build a protection screen and pergola in the set back on the eastside of the residence. The privacy /protection screen and pergola will be constructed to aid in defense from stray golf balls that frequently damage the houses along Lemay Ave in the Greens of Collindale Neighborhood. The location of the screen will be directly against the existing deck that is connected to the eastside of the house. We are requesting for a zoning variance to allow the construction of the protection screen and pergola to help aid and ease the practical difficulties and hardships that are not self imposed but are caused by patrons golfing at the Collindale golf course. It is a common occurrence that golf balls are hit in the direction of the houses and as a result the home owners are in danger of being hit with a golf ball when out on their back decks. The protection screen and pergola will deflect stray golf balls from the deck and large windows of the house. The protection screen and pergola will not diverge from standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood because there are no neighbors to the east of the house. Directly to the east of the house is the Collindale golf course, which is the reason the protection screen/pergola is needed. The new protection screen and pergola will not affect any neighboring homes or the community and does have written approval from the Neighborhood homeowners association. Zak George Landscaping 335 S. Summit View Dr. Fort Collins, Co 80524 Office (970) 221-9228 Fax (970) 224-9185 Cell (970) 556-6082 www.ZakGeorgeLandscaping.com 4014 S. Lemay Ave #4 Cobble Stone Drainage Swell 8' Stripstone Edge Deck Wall: - Varying heights - Stone veneer facade - 12" wide stone cap - Custom designed metal screens 3 pergola sections: - Pergolas to be attached to house - Pergola posts to be built into deck wall - Privacy screens to be attached to sides of pergola posts Belgard Urbana Pavers in 'Tuscana' Soldier Course: Cambridge Cobble 'Montecito' Window Well Stone Caps Stone Veneer Privacy Screens -Custom Designed Metal Screens Pergola DECK WALL Custom Metal Screen Windows No Scale DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: JOB NUMBER: SHEET: DRAWING TITLE: SEPTEMBER 8th 2014 ZLV 1"=20' H:\zgl.jpg 335 S. SUMMIT VIEW DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LANDSCAPE DESIGN CONSULTATION IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE L1 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 20' 0' 10' 20' 40' Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2810 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 311 West Street Petitioner/Owner: Robert, Laura, Lark & Delfinia Mosiman Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(3), 4.8(E)(4), 4.8(F)(1)(c) Variance Request: The request is to allow a 240 square feet addition to the existing 288 square feet garage with the following three variances: 1) The addition would encroach 1.8 feet into the required 5 feet side-yard setback. 2) The addition would increase the allowable floor area in the rear 50% of the lot by 72 square feet. 3) The addition to an accessory building would encroach 1 foot into the additional 10 feet front-yard setback form the principal building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 3 variance requests to allow: • the addition to encroach 1.8 feet into the required 5 feet side-yard setback, • an additional 72 square feet of allowable floor area in the rear 50% of the lot, and the • 1 foot encroachment of an accessory building into the additional 10 feet front-yard setback from the principal building. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property was platted and annexed into the City in approximately 1907 as part of the Capital Hill Addition annexation. The lot size has remained intact from that time. The original building on site was probably built in 1908 and appears to have been built in the rear half of the lot. The number of changes to the original building is uncertain. The property directly to the south came before the ZBA board in January of this year. Part of the January variance request included the removal of an existing garage and building a new large accessory building. The existing garage on the property to the south is the full addition in the variance request today. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the 3 variance request to allow: • the addition to encroach 1.8 feet into the required 5 feet side-yard setback, • an additional 72 square feet of allowable floor area in the rear 50% of the lot, and the • 1 foot encroachment of an accessory building into the additional 10 feet front-yard setback from the principal building. Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 - Page 2 Further, staff finds that: • The variance requests are not detrimental to the public good. • The property to the south that is most impacted by the addition is owned by petitioner. • The additional 72 square feet does not exceed the allowable floor area for the lot. • The addition does not exceed the limited 600 square feet for an accessory building. • The addition matches the setback of the existing structure. • All the buildings are in the rear half of the lot; and the accessory building is located further back than would another accessory building if the primary building was on the front half of the lot. • The addition of the accessory building does not include a driveway extending to the street. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # 2810. My name is Robert Mosiman and I live at 307 West Street with my family. I am requesting a variance for 311 West Street, a property I am under contract for that is next door. I was here a couple months ago and received approval for a garage addition to my house. Regrettably, my current garage will have to be demolished for the new build. In a fortunate twist of events, purchasing this property has provided a unique opportunity to retain my original garage, and simply !The house move next it next door door.is very ! rough. It has been long neglected by the current owner yet it continues to rent. It is a small house, with a 1 car garage that runs parallel to it. It has the potential to be a very nice property and further improve the appearance of our neighborhood, and that is my intention. I plan on significant landscaping and overhauling of the house in the next !This variance few months.supports ! my plan to clean up and improve the property. Similar to my house, all structures are on the back half of the lot. My current garage is the same width with similar overall dimensions. I would like to connect mine to the existing as a tandem garage. We will retrofit them together and add matching siding. It already has funky windows, and a nice awning on the east side giving it a very cool look. In fact, it’ll be the nicest structure on the property until the house is renovated. The act of moving it is very simple, with a slab pour followed by moving the !Overall, garage this as addition one piece will have with a minimal crane.! impact on the neighborhood. The garage will be less than 600 square feet, and when combined with the house total less than 1400 square feet. Furthermore, it will sit between 2 homes I own, and thus not affect my neighbor’s sight lines or boundaries. The property is already difficult to see due to it’s street elevation and trees. Overall, an unimposing structure that is pleasing to the eye and goes well with the funky style of Old Town. I’m not asking to build a large house that will steal the sun or be an eyesore. I simply want !1.The to proposal increase falls the under size of a a variance garage, request and by luck, due to reuse “exceptional what I already physical have conditions.next door. ” The ! property is on the back of the lot. This allows for a nice, large front lawn but any addition requires !2. The variance a variance proposal due to will current promote Old the Town standard building better regulations.than if we ! complied with the standard. We are not adding square footage where allowed (front half of lot). Instead, we are working within !I am open the current to any suggestions design of the you property.may have ! as well to make this work. Thank you for your time and !Robert, consideration,Laura, Lark ! and Delfinia Mosiman! Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2811 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 307 Riverside Ave Petitioner/Owner: Sean Windsor & Maria Cristina Windsor Zoning District: C-L Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3), 3.8.19(A)(6) Variance Request: The variance would allow a new residential building to be built with portions of the walls encroaching 2 feet into the required side-yard setback and portions of the eaves encroaching an additional 6 inches past the allowed 2.5 feet projection into a required setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a new residential building to be built with portions of walls encroaching 2 feet into the required side-yard setback and portions of the eaves encroaching an additional 6 inches past the allowed 2.5 feet projection into a required setback. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property was a part of the original town plat. The existing primary structure was built approximately in 1882. The number of changes that have occurred to the existing structures since the time it was built is unclear. The site is currently zoned Limited Commercial (C-L). The C-L zone district is intended for small commercial uses near residential neighborhoods. This district does permit residential uses from single family detached to multi-family. Therefore, there are not maximum density requirements; such as number of units or allowable floor area. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a new residential building to be built with portions of the walls encroaching 2 feet into the side-yard setback and portions of the eaves encroaching an additional 6 inches past the allowed 2.5 feet projection into a required setback and finds that: • The variances are not detrimental to the public good. • The encroachment is for 2 corner points and not the entire length of the wall. • The neighbor on the other side of the east property line does not have the same residential setback, but could build closer than the 5 feet. Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 - Page 2 Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # 2811. Fort Collins Zoning Variance Review Request Property Address: 307 Riverside Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 Property Owners: Sean & Cristina Windsor 513 EOak St Fort Collins, CO 80524 Background Information: This property lies within the Limited Commercial District (C-L) along Riverside Ave. The owner {applicant} would like to construct a two story, one bedroom, second residence on this property {Please reference the attached site plan}. This use is permitted under the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Variance Request: Reduce the setback requirements on the plan east lot line from 5' to 2'. The applicant would like to construct the plan east wall of the structure within 3' of the plan east property line. With a l' overhang on the structure the set back requirement on this side lot would need to go from a 5' requirement to 2'. Reasoning for Request: The applicant would like the Board of Appeals to consider that this request, if granted, will not diverge from the standards of the land use code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Though the lot is narrow on the south side, the building does fit within the current setback requirements but it would be much nicer if it could be shifted eastward to allow more room for foot and vehicle traffic on the alley side. The east property line is shared with 315 Riverside Ave. This property is used commercially and not residentially. Many of the structures in this block of Old Town, including adjacent neighbors, sit between 0' and 5' of their respective lot lines and if granted this request will conform well within the neighborhood. (Please reference the FCMaps Exhibit A.) Thank you for your time and consideration, Sean Windsor Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2812 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4030 Big Dipper Drive Petitioner/Owner: Tyler & Hope Shurigar Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: The variance would allow a 192 square feet accessory building to be built 12 feet into the required 25 feet rear- yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request allowing a 192 square feet shed to be built 12 into the required rear-yard setback, with the condition that the City Stormwater department approve the location and other site improvements as shown. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property is part of the Old Oak Estates subdivision. At the time of the approval of the subdivision, the grading plan was not finalized for this and other lots. The Development Agreement required the grading plan for each lot be approved by Stormwater Utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Old Oak Estates plat did include the typical utility and drainage easements at the property lines along both Big Dipper Drive and Strauss Cabin Road. Before the building permit was issued for the house on this lot, the Stormwater Utility department did approve a 15” RCP storm-sewer to be placed on the property outside of the easement. The Urban Estate (U-E) zone district requires a .5 acre lot size for a single family dwelling. The allowable square feet for an accessory building in the U-E zone district on a .5 acre lot is 1,200 square feet. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends the approval of the variance request to allow a 192 square feet accessory building to be placed 12 feet into the required rear-yard setback, with the condition that the City’s Stormwater Department approves the location and the other improvements that have been shown on the site plan and finds that: • The typical .5 acre lot in the U-E does not include additional stormwater infrastructure outside of the drainage. • The primary structure was built closer to the rear of the property than the front property. Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 - Page 2 • The existing grading increases the difficulty in finding a suitable location for an accessory building. Therefore, the variance request may be granted do to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL # 2812. Tyler Shurigar 4030 Big Dipper Drive Fort Collins, CO 80528 April 14, 2015 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Old Oak Estates Lot 6 (4030 Big Dipper Drive); Fort Collins, Colorado Setback Variance Request Zoning Board of Appeals, Lot 6, Old Oak Estates (4030 Big Dipper Drive) is in the Urban Estate (UE) zoning district with the follow setback requirements:  Front setback of 30 feet  Side-yard setback of 20 feet  Rear-yard setback of 25 feet This is a request to reduce the North facing side-yard setback from twenty feet (20’) to ten feet (10’) to construct a twelve foot (12’) by sixteen foot (16’) garden storage shed on the North side of the existing home that would encroach on the current side-yard setback. This request is submitted due to the loss of usability of a substantial portion of the lot for storm drainage and water quality purposes, a majority of this storm drainage encumbrance is outside the easements. Another issue driving the request is that per the development agreement for the lot – I, (the homeowner) am responsible for the maintenance of the water quality structure existing on the Southeast corner of the lot. I believe the above mentioned circumstances meet the variance requirement of: 1. By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant of the property or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act of omission of the occupant or applicant (i.e. not self imposed) I appreciate your consideration and time looking into this matter. Sincerely, Tyler Shurigar Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2813 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1408 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner/Owner: My Sister Knits, Julie Luckasen Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.3(1), 3.8.3(5), 3.8.3(8), 4.7(D)(5), 3.8.7(C) Variance Request: The request is to allow a home occupation to continue to operate as it has in past. This request would require the following 7 variances: 1) Allow a home occupation to operate in a detached accessory building. 2) Allow retail sales as a primary function of the home occupation. 3) Allow the home occupation without any additional off street parking spaces for customers and students. 4) Allow the hours of operation to extend past 6 pm. 5) Allow more than 1 co-worker who does not reside in the dwelling. 6) The accessory building exceeds the maximum 744 square feet allowed by the building permit by 141square feet. Presently, accessory buildings are limited to 600 square feet. 7) Allow a flush-wall sign, 8 square feet in size, to be displayed above the entrance of the building. The maximum size is 2 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denying the variance requests to allow: • Sign greater than 2 square feet. • Retail sales as a primary function of a home occupation. • Allow more than 1 co-worker at a time that does not reside in the dwelling. Further, Staff recommends the approval of the following variance requests. • To allow a home occupation to operate in a detached accessory building. • Allow the home occupation without any additional off-street parking. • Allow the hours of operation to extend past 6 pm with the condition of only 1 night a week and no later than 8 pm. • To allow an accessory building to increase an additional 141 square feet from the previously permitted 744 square feet with the condition a building permit and letter of completion are approved for the additional square footage. Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 - Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: Every zone district allows for a Home Occupation in a dwelling unit from a single family detached dwelling to a multi-family dwelling. Not all zone districts allow commercial/retail uses. To mitigate the impacts of the home occupation the Land Use Code has listed certain restrictions such as but not limited to; the location, number of coworkers, hours of operation, off-street parking, and the size. Home Occupations are required to apply for and be approved for a Home Occupation license. These licenses are good for two years and verify the Home Occupations are in compliance with the Land Use Code. The applicant has stated her Home Occupation My Sister Knits has been in operation since 2004. From that time to present this business was not issued a Home Occupation License. During this year the City received a request for a similar home occupation. The applicant of the similar occupation pointed out My Sister Knits. It was at that time that City staff contacted My Sister Knits concerning obtaining a Home Occupation License. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends denying the following variance requests: • Allowance for a sign greater than 2 square feet • Allow retail sales as a primary function of the a home occupation • Allow more than 1 co-worker at a time that does not reside in the dwelling. Further, Staff recommends approval of the following variance requests. • To allow a home occupation to operate in a detached accessory building. • Allow the home occupation without any additional off-street parking. • Allow the hours of operation to extend past 6 pm with the condition of only 1 night a week and no later than 8 pm. • To allow an accessory building to increase an additional 141 square feet from the previously permitted 744 square feet with the condition that a building permit and letter of completion are approved for the additional square footage. Staff finds that in recommending approval of the mentioned 4 variance requests: • The variance requests are not detrimental to the public good. • The home occupation operates completely in an enclosed structure • 4 of the 5 neighbors on the same block face and the neighbor across the alley have written a letters of support Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of 4 of the 7 variance requests of APPEAL #2813. 5' - 6" 5' - 6" 8' - 0" 8' - 4" 15' - 1" 25' - 7" SHED CARRIAGE HOUSE 885 sf RESIDENCE 2624 sf LOT ADDRESS: 1408 WEST MOUNTAIN AVE LOT AREA: 9000 sf ZONING: NCL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION LOW DENSITY DISTRICT ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA ON REAR HALF OF LOT: Per FC Land Use Code 4.7.D.3 = 25% OF AREA OF REAR HALF OF LOT (0.25 x 4500 sf) = 1125 sf 180' - 0" 50' - 0" OPTION #1: LOT CENTERLINE 400 sf 62 sf ATTACH THE CARRIAGE HOUSE TO THE RESIDENCE WITH A 7' WIDE HALL ALLOWING 6' CLEAR INTERIOR WIDTH. PROPOSED FLOOR AREA ON REAR HALF OF LOT: = New Hall + Carriage House = 400 sf + 885 sf = 1285 sf (160 sf GREATER THAN ALLOWABLE) OPTION #2: LEAVE THE CARRIAGE HOUSE AS A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING PROPOSED FLOOR AREA ON REAR HALF OF LOT: = 885 sf (Carriage House Only) = 240 sf LESS THAN SQUARE FOOT LIMIT PROPOSED HALL FROM OPTION #2 Scale Date Drawn By Checked by 419 Canyon Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects 1" = 20'-0" 04-14-2015 FV LUCKASEN ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN CARRIAGE HOUSE TM A0.1 NORTH LUCKGARO Luckasen, Gary J & Julie R 507-58-3327 Federal Asset Report FYE: 12/31/2014 -- Asset Description 15-year GDS Property: 54 Remodeling Prior MACRS: I Store 2 Remodeling 3 Remodeling 5 Remodeling 6 Vacuum 7 Computer Equipment 8 Office Equipment 9 Sewing Machine 10 Displays II Sweater Displays 12 Signs 13 Computer 14 Office Equipment 15 Vacuum 16 Remodling- 2007 stuff 17 Painting - 2007 18 Patio Walkway 19 Table & Chairs 20 Rug 21 Furniture - WFI Nashua 22 Frames for Artwork 23 Window Coverings 24 Rugs 25 Building Improvements 26 Paint 27 Rug 28 Sound System 29 Building Improvements 30 Building Improvements 33 Building Improvements 35 Dell Computer 36 Sign 38 Peyton Signs 39 Oreck Vacuum 40 Lawn Chairs 41 Screen Door 43 !pad 44 I pad 45 Computer 46 New Sign 47 Washer & Dryer 48 Recover Chairs 49 Humidifier 50 Vacuum 51 Sign 52 Refrigerator & Microwave 53 Remodeling Other Depreciation: 42 Quickbooks Software Total Other Depreciation LUCKGARO Luckasen, Gary J & Julie R 507-58-3327 Federal Asset Report FYE: 12/31/2014 Retail Yarn Date Bus Sec Basis Asset Description In Service Cost --% -- 179Bonus - for Depr 0 0 Grand Totals 389,856 293,560 Less: Dispositions and Transfers 0 0 Less: Start-up/Org Expense 0 0 Net Grand Totals 389,856 293,560 -PerConv --- Meth Prior Current 0 0 156,724 14,410 0 0 0 0 156,724 14,410 Kendal and Robin Stitzel 1412 W. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins CO 80521 To the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board: April 5, 2015 Our neighbor, Julie Luckasen, has asked us to write a letter of support for a zoning variance for her shop, My Sister Knits, which is located in her carriage house at 1408 W. Mountain Avenue, next door to our home of18 years at 1412 W. Mountain Avenue. We are the neighbors who should be most impacted by Julie's shop, but we are happy to make this request because the shop has been an asset to the neighborhood rather than a detriment for the 10 years that it has been open. Julie has always been a thoughtful and considerate neighbor and business owner. Even though My Sister Knits has grown, Julie has always been conscientious to keep her business from bothering her neighbors. The activities are confined to the carriage house, near the rear of the property. She keeps only limited hours (10-5 , Wed.-Sat, and 10 AM to 8 PM Tues.). These hours fall during times when most people in the neighborhood are away at their jobs, anyway, and thus have little impact. On only a single night does she stays open late-not so much for people to shop but just so that a few customers can knit together and visit-again with low impact to the neighborhood. Certainly, there is no machinery involved and no noise-unless we were so uncharitable as to object to occasional small groups of happy people chatting on the sidewalk. Occasional parties at neighbor's houses have been much noisier than anything resulting from Julie's shop. Neither have we experienced problems with traffic, litter, or deliveries. There are a few more cars parked on the street during the limited business hours, but this has not presented a problem, either. Additional cars parked on the street present no more problem than any other neighbor would w·hen hosting a barbeque. Plus, any parking impact seems almost insignificant when compared to the major disruptions that occur from the many city-sanctioned events such as races, parades, etc., that occur fairly regularly on West Mountain Avenue. Julie is civic and community minded: she has participated in the Tour de Coop (a tour of neighborhood chicken coops), the Junior League Garden Tour, and donates regularly to the Linus Foundation, the homeless shelters do\\ntown. She has gathered clothing and school supplies for local underprivileged school children and donated to the CSU Alumni Foundation and other causes. As a knitter, Robin feels feel lucky to be next door to a lovely shop with high quality goods :::.::2 :l cozy atmosphere. As neighbors, we are both gra:eful to have such a kind, friendly, and consider5e friend and business O\\ner !i\·ing and working next door-at a shop that seems to bring so much joy to its customers \\ith so linle impact to the nei::+"':orhood. We both support a zoning variance so that +;s ·.o,:::::::.c"J.'. business, My Sister Knits, can continue in Lhc san1e locati0n-jus:: ';c; it has done so �t2._,... ., -�-:;:y ..::.=i '.•.ithout disruption for so n1any years. S1ncerely� _ (i�:z .kt�. ,, I 12':; :.M " April 6, 2015 Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board: My name is Catherine Doering and I live at 119 Lyons St. My residence is located directly north of and across the alley of the carriage house in which My Sister Knits is located. I have lived in this home for four years as of May 1, 2015 and have only ever had positive experiences with both the owner of the business and the patrons of it. In fact I appreciate the activity in and around my home that it generates given that my home is adjacent to an alley. In summary, I support the application for a variance and have no issues with My Sister Knits continuing to do business in their current location. For any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 970-381-2933. Regards, �Cjj Catherine Doering � . April 6, 2015 To Whom It May Concern: This is regarding My Sister Knits. We are in full support of a variance to continue their business in the same location of 1408 W. Mountain Ave. They are lovely neighbors, and we do not feel this business is in any way a problem for our neighborhood. We are happy to support our neighbors continuing their business in our local community. Bruce and Beverly Wasserman 1420 W. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 ( /�Q� _I?\ �0 <.____ . ....--' I 'ri "") I ' }v;--c_ �t ;__1--- �- ()_ vfl�'jf- D \ �Ph�ce__ . U v I rsu_u." /�Jv/re-cL2J<,.eL cv1'U:rl·e -0L� ·-IJ'vL{'�Lv ' L·I _,-f��SL .. �t(J- � 0_/ �--· .cJ cPvi--v' �'-'tkvr- -.LM.�a.A- · ·-(J{ a_-;f- . : ) .. • !· Q Ct. � - VVV<-I.J-' 1--i\.. & - 66-... �_g.. �-- �- -<A- ("� � --<./)��- J�Lc:t- I Ohl /f"'f?Jf"!e;:: 0 (? + ..._ I l · / '"-- • .A'\...9 • 'k ,� f-2'. ... SliU'Il191SI�Aii\l Duv-;_ ·r;;vf CM�a- r�� VvJ b�,� � .' j /�fw-v���� ��sibu �-{;, J fke- ar?Ll'u);� /}C-- v-c�·{cM_e_L- .. p� � � � -h a!lrv k� �vUAJ d-o &n-hJ�u__ � JP �f­ � r;__��\,J _ ·T�v_ � u �i,�) �� ?v � ;£)0v<U- � ���:: Vx., � J'Wl- fl.Ujhk�; � fu<-4- �� � �� kn � ('�-d�H.--(/1-. Sn�, ;/!/(tub- If c� 11 { {p tJ�s-f f/;'4w�'L-/n k Fcrvf CorJti11A I 0tJ '60 5DL/ r fle_Y?·ci!wf �� rq q � Oakwood School TO: THE ZONING BOARD OF FORT COLLINS RE: MY SISTER KNITS APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE For several years, Oakwood School and My Sister Knits were Mountain Avenue neighbors. During the time that I was an Oakwood School administrator, I came to know and appreciate the presence that MSK has in the neighborhood through an ongoing and highly valued relationship with the owner, Julie Luckasen. Julie has always taken particular care to make sure that her property is well maintained; she keeps a low profile and there have never been any issues related to parking, noise or visual distractions. Her signs are tasteful, the automobile traffic is minimal, and the business is, by nature, calm and low-key. Even more importantly, Julie has made it a point - perhaps even a mission - to contribute significantly to the neighborhood and the City of Fort Collins. During New Belgium's Tour de Fat each year, Julie sets up a coffee stand and provides free beverages to all spectators in the area; she regularly supplies beautiful hand-knit hats, mittens and scarves to the homeless shelter during the winter months; she has taught countless children to knit. She regularly volunteered at school and was always the first to contribute generously to fund-raising activities. ' . Instead of discouraging such endeavors, we as a community should be actively recruiting businesses of this nature. People like Julie Luckasen contribute much to making Fort Collins a wonderful, caring place for people of all walks of life. Additionally, I strongly urge the Zoning Board to consider the following factors when reviewing this case: -Well-run, in-home businesses such as My Sister Knits allow working parents to be accessible to their families. -Walk-in customers, who make up a significant share of Julie's business, reduce traffic, pollution and noise and help to create a sense of community. - A healthy business provides extra sets of eyes and ears to minimize unwanted activity in the neighborhood. In short, My Sister Knits has a positive impact on the neighborhood and deserves to remain a viable business in its current location. Sincerely, ' Phyllis Smith, 970 493 0742 Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sir or Madam, Sarah Sheldon <sarah.w.sheldon@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2015 2:07 PM Noah Beals Support for My Sister Knits Zoning Variance Hearing I am WJjiting in regards to the hearing to attain a new zoning variance for My Sister Knits at 1408 W Mountain Ave. Mjy Sister Knits is among the unique business in Fort Collins that I believe make our city so special and its loss would be a detriment to the community. To provide a personal perspective and to attempt to illustrate how important this business is I would like to share my story. In June of last year I took a beginners knitting class on a whim and I can say without exaggeration that it changed my life. Learning to knit has provided me with not only a new skill, but also a sense of community and belonging. I have meet so many amazing people since then that I never would have met otherwise. Having a place to go where I could create things and be surrounded by strong, powerful women got me though a really hard graduate school experience. In the world we live in having a place where people can go to do this is so critical. The idea that this place that is so important to me could go away is incredibly upsetting. This new sense of community has made me more attached to the city of Fort Collins and is part of the reason I decided to stay here. The location has a lot to do with its power of community building. The beautiful space My Sister Knits occupies is so relaxing and could not be replicated anywhere else. Since learning to knit I have visited many other local yarn shops and there is never the same sense of community, which I believe has a lot to do with the space. I hope you take this in consideration when making your decision about the future of My Sister Knits on May 14, 2015. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, 1 Sarah Sarah Sheldon sarah. w.sheldon@gmail.com 2 Rory Schmidt 612 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Gary Lopez City of Fort Collins, CO Planning and Zoning PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Lopez, APR 2 7 2015 April 22, 2014 As a resident of Old Town, I believe My Sister Knits continued operation out of the Carriage House at 1408 West Mountain Avenue is of vital importance. While My Sister Knits is a business, it also fulfills the role of neighborhood community center. The store epitomizes everything I love about the Old Town neighborhood: walk-ability, friendship, community, and the unexpected. I have chosen to live in Old Town specifically because I do not want to live somewhere were all the houses look the same, neighbors are socially distant, and access to attractions requires getting in a car. If My Sister Knits was forced to leave its current location, it would significantly detract from the culture and charm of Old Town and be an incredible loss to the entire community. My Sister Knits occupies a very special place in my heart. I visited the store for the first time a few months after moving ·to town. I was lonely and in need of a hobby and My Sister Knits was within walking distance and offered beginner classes. If I was ambivalent about knitting prior to entering the shop, that changed the moment I set foot inside of Julie's carriage house. I had to knit so that I had an excuse to keep coming back to this amazing place! Over the years, My Sister Knits, its staff, and the community it fosters has become a focal point of my life. The women I've met at the shop have supported me through my first pregnancy, welcomed my daughter into the world, and helped me find a family while I've been away from my own. My Sister Knits is not just a business, it is part of our neighborhood. Closing, or moving its location will be removing a part of our community, a part of Old Town - its charm and feel. My Sister Knits has a role to play in making Old Town what it is, and I know that many people would sorely feel its loss which is why I whole heartedly support allowing it to continue operating at its current location. Sincerely, ~ Rory Schmidt Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: Carol Hannon <cwhannon@gmail.com> Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:27 PM Noah Beals My Sister's Knits I'm not quite sure what the issue is about a variance, but I would like to voice my support for My Sister's Knits. I live in Ft. Collins only part time and am close enough to bike to the store. The staff is very helpful and go out of their way to make my knitting projects a success! I would be at a loss if the store closed. Sincerely, Carol Hannon Sent from my iPad 1 Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: Mr. Beals, Timothy Campbell <campbell.timothym@gmail.com> Thursday, April 30, 2015 1:07 PM Noah Beals Zoning variances for 1408 W Mountain Ave I'm writing in regard to the zoning variances requested for My Sister Knits at 1408 W Mountain Ave. This business is a staple to the Old Town community and broader Fort Collins and it would not be able to remain in business without the requested variances. There is a growing sub-community of knitters in Fort Collins and My Sister Knits is where many of them met each other. Neither of the other knitting shops in Fort Collins offer the same sense of fraternity; if this shop closes, the knitting community would suffer. It is diverse sub-communities like this within Fort Collins that makes this such a great place to live. I implore you to approve the requested variances so that this community can continue to thrive. Thank you, Tim Campbell 1 Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Noah, liz good <lizgood@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2015 5:09 PM Noah Beals In Support of My Sister Knits I just want to send a letter of support to keep My Sister Knits in a the carriage house behind 1408 W. Mountain Ave. I live close by and feel that the location of this shop adds greatly to its chann and success. It is a great treat to be able to walk to it and have it as a hidden gem in the neighborhood. I love seeing the decorations as I walk to and from City Park and to be able to stop by when I need knitting supplies. I have also driven and have never had issues parking or felt that the shop was detracting from the on-street parking. I hope that it can continue where it is adding something unexpected and positive to the neighborhood. Thank you, Liz Good 1233 Maple St. Fort Collins, CO 8052 1 1 Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Bryna Fitzgerald <blfitz@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:31 PM Noah Beals My Sister Knits I am emailing to show my support for My Sister Knits. My Sister Knits is an amazing place. I really enjoy going there to get help with my knitting and to get inspiration for new projects to start. They have a wonderful yarn selection and an extremely knowledgeable and helpful staff. It is really hard to find yarn stores where people are friendly, helpful and accepting to knitters of all skill levels and My Sister Knits is just that. There are some women who come all the way from Loveland to knit and get help from the staff at My Sister Knits. It is really great place that provides a space for creative people from different skill levels to come together to knit and get support and advice. Fort Collins would not be the same without this store. Thank you, Bryna Fitzgerald Bryna Fitzgerald Graduate Research Assistant Belisle Laboratory Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology Colorado State University blfitz@gmail.com 1 Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: Michele Worthington <michele_worth@yahoo.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2015 2:27 PM Noah Beals My Sister Knits Please afford them the zoning variance. This shop is a tribute to the neighborhood. sincerely, Michele worthington 1 -# 28!3 Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: pt5705@aol.com Wednesday, April 29, 2015 8:37AM Noah Beals My Sister Knits I would like to support My Sister Knits be approved to stay in its current location Phyllis Titterington Sent from my iPhone 1 Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Travis Green <travis.m.green@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2015 6:38 PM Noah Beals zoning permit for My Sister Knits My name is Travis Green and I am a current resident in Fort Collins. I write to strongly encourage you to allow My Sister Knits to continue to operate at their current location. I am of the understanding that they require a new zoning permit which I believe they deserve. It is a quiet business that fits perfectly with the artistic cultw-e in the city. During their hearing on May 14th please do the right thing and allow this lovely establishment to continue. Thank you, Travis Green 1 Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: ken hathcoat <khath4@gmail.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:15 PM Noah Beals My Sister Knits zoning variance I am writing to urge you to allow the zoning variance for Julie to continue her business, My Sister Knits, out of the carriage house behind her home on W. Mountain Ave. I have shopped there for years and would be very disappointed to Jose this wonderful business establishment. When I have been there, it didn't appear to me that the business or low volume of traffic was disturbing to the surrounding area. Again, I urge you to allow the zoning variance. Respectfully, Karri Hathcoat 1 Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: Diane <vanlood@frii.net> Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:50 AM Noah Beals zoning variance: my sister knits I would like to support the application for a zoning variance for My Sister Knits, 1408 West Mountain. I have been a customer for many years and in my opinion it is the nicest knitting store in town. I have two friends (one from Brooklyn, one from LA) who always stop there for yarn when they visit. I would not consider taking them to any other yarn store. They can buy plenty of yarn at home-it's Julie's store they want to visit. Part of the charm of the store is the walk through Julie's lovely back yard, which invokes a peaceful moment to sit and knit. That is unique to the carriage house location. My Sister Knits is the essence of the Old Town experience and I would be very sorry to see it lost to Fort Collins knitters. Diane Van Loo 213 Del Clair Road Fort Collins 970-218-3034 1 Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Beals, cherixl@aol.com Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:54AM Noah Beals My Sister Knits zoning variance application I am writing to support the application of Julie Luckasen to continue to operate the small shop, My Sister Knits, at the current location in the carriage house behind her residence at 1408 W. Mountain Avenue in Fort Collins. The store is unobtrusive, extremely well kept and has been a well established element in the fabric of this neighborhood for a number of years. It serves a niche clientele, and over many years of my patronage to the store, I have never had an issue parking on the street. It is one of the more charming, well-run shops in our town and Ms. Luckasen is an involved, committed member of the Fort Collins community. She has demonstrated this time and time again by organizing and actively supporting many community-based initiatives to help those in need. I urge the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council to grant the variance so that the store can operate without interruption. Thank you very much for considering my input. Cheri Nichols 1601 Meadowaire Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 690-5016 1 Fwd: My Sister Knits Thursday, May 07, 2015 3:20PM r Subject I i I From I I Fwd: My Sister Knits iTo j Sent I i ! I Marcha Noah Beals Hill . i Thursday, May 07, 2015 3:01 __PM i ____) APPEAL 2813 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Amy Satterfield <amy@wadoofurniture.com> Date: May 7, 2015 at 2:03:59 PM MDT To: <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: My Sister Knits May 7, 2015 Hello, I've heard that My Sister Knits is applying for a zoning variance to continue operating the shop on West Mountain Avenue. I just wanted to let you and the Planning and Zoning Board know that I very much support this variance. My Sister Knits is a wonderful part of Old Town's charm, a thriving business that contributes to our sales tax coffers, and a place that has fostered community among many people who frequent the shop. I have been there many times, and I believe it adds to the neighborhood's ambience and has never been any kind of nuisance. My Sister Knits adds to Fort Collins and to the neighborhood it is in. The neighborhood is better for the shop. I urge the council and the board to approve this variance and allow My Sister Knits to keep operating where it is and as it is now, for the good of that neighborhood, the community as a whole and the retail offerings in the area. Thank you. Amy Satterfield, Owner Wadoo 970-223-4012 200 S. College Ave., Ste. 150 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Open 10 to 7 Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri, Sat; 10 to 6 Wed; 11 to 5 Sun Longer hours during summers, holiday seasons and when so many people are downtown it seems silly to close. Zoning Page I Noah Beals From: Sent: To: Subject: Michelle Haefele <michelle.haefele@centurylink.net> Sunday, May 10, 2015 4:28 PM Noah Beals Comments to ZBA regarding Appeal #2813 �&13 I'm writing to ask that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny all seven variances being requested by "My Sister Knits." It is not appropriate to base this appeal on the fact that the business has operated without complaints (as stated in the applicant's letter), nor is it appropriate to base approval on letters of support. The fact is this business has been operating illegally for years. To reward such behavior opens the door for other scofflaws who will simply open a business in a residential neighborhood without the appropriate license and without following the rules that would attend such a license and then claim a hardship when they are found out and ordered to cease and desist. If the applicant had come before the ZBA prior to setting up operation and requesting all these variances I would certainly hope that they would all be denied. The fact that the business has been already been operating this way should make no difference. What makes this especially outrageous is the fact that City Staff in the Planning Department have apparently been aware that this business has been operating in violation of the zoning for at least eight months. This business was one of several such illegal businesses that were used as examples in a presentation from staff to the Planning & Zoning Board at their August 8, 2014 work session. City staff should pro-actively address zoning violations as soon as they are aware of them. Instead, staff time is expended studying a long list of inappropriate variances and concludes that this ongoing, long-running violation should be rewarded. It should not, instead it should at the very least be halted and perhaps there should be some fine or other penalty applied. This business is in the middle of a zone district where such use is prohibited and to permit such commercial operations completely undermines the very purpose of zoning. It is a disservice to all Fort Collins residents who rely on zoning to preserve the residential uses and character of neighborhoods. Exceptions to zoning should be made sparingly and should certainly never be used to correct such a long list of ongoing violations. Michelle Haefele 1 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # 2814 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 256 Linden Street Petitioner: Brandon Silar Owner: Creative Properties Zoning District: D - Old City Center Code Section: 3.8.7(I), 3.8.7(H) Variance Request: The request is to install two signs. This request would require the following 3 variances: 1) Allow a projecting sign over the public sidewalk with 46.5 square feet per sign face; the maximum size per face is 12 square feet. 2) Allow the sign at 14’5” in height; the maximum height is 7’. 3) Allow the flush wall sign to extend 6” more than the allowed 12” from the face of the building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denying the following variance requests: • Allow a projecting sign over the public sidewalk 46.5 square feet per sign face. • Allow the sign to be 14’5” in height Further staff recommends approving the variance request to allow the flush-wall sign to extend 6” more than the allowed 12” from the face of the building. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The sign code section contains many regulations for the size, height and location of flush-wall and projecting signs. The regulations were put in place for many reasons such as but not limited to safety; over use of signs; and to preserve aesthetic appeal of property viewed from the public right of way. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends denying the following variance requests: • Allow a projecting sign over the public sidewalk 46.5 square feet per sign face. • Allow the sign to be 14’5” in height. Further staff recommends approving the variance request to allow the flush-wall sign to extend 6” more than the allowed 12” from the face of the building and finds that: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • The additional 6” is not the entire length of the sign. Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 - Page 2 • The variance is for a corner of the building making it difficult to see the entire sign at a single point of view. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of 1 of 3 variance requests of APPEAL # 2814. 1 _ VARIANCE REQUEST LETTER for 254/256 LINDEN CORNER SIGN (04-14-15) www�larkdesignbuild�com Lark Design�Build LLC ��� E �th Street Loveland� CO ����� ������������ April 14, 2015 VARIANCE REQUEST LETTER for 254/256 LINDEN – CORNER SIGN Hello Zoning Board of Appeals, We are writing to request a variance to the signage code in preparation for a Change of Occupancy (COO) and Tenant Finish (TF) submittal at 254/256 Linden Street, currently approved under permit number B1412618. The Downtown Artery is going through an exciting transition! The entire downstairs of the current 252/254/256 Linden Building is being remodeled to support a café and toast bar, a recording studio and practice space for local musicians, and a 225-person live music venue. Work is underway on this 7,000 sqft change-of-occupancy and tenant finish project, and is expected to wrap up by the summer months. To identify the cluster of businesses both at sidewalk level and above – and to bring exterior interest to an otherwise non-descript building – the approximately twenty businesses located in the Artery building are proposing to add signage to the various faces of the building to highlight their ecosystem of artists, musicians, support businesses, and shared resources. Instead of individual signs identifying each of the twenty businesses, the Artery folks want to put forward a consolidated brand around the building name (aka: “The Downtown Artery”), with a modest cluster of smaller way-finding and support signage, such as poster cabinets to display art, band posters, or event announcements. Due to the vintage of the Linden street façade and an overall drive to keep consistent with the authentic feel of the architectural inventory in downtown Fort Collins, the businesses are proposing a vintage concept – a deco- inspired marquee with corner-flag signage. Both the form and technology have drawn heavily from research into vintage signs from the beginning of the 20th century. The proposed Artery sign would be a Flush Wall cabinet marquee with vintage extruded letters (clip-in). The marquee would wrap the corner of the building in the location of the original signage used in the middle of the last century. Above the marquee, mounted to a gloss-painted metal panel, the “Artery” Flag Sign be constructed from individually riveted, gloss-painted, boxed letters made from sheet metal. Additional address-specific signage on the Linden facade would remain consistent with the marquee/flag in color, material and height from ground, but would be purely diminutive in stature with their purpose being for door identification. We are also asking approval for sidewalk-level poster cabinets which consist of shallow, lit, lockable glass display cabinets to house rotating artwork or event advertising. The keystone of the signage concept is a large corner sign to highlight the heart of the building’s draw to the public: the live music venue. Additionally and according to variance requirement #3, we feel that… “…the requested variance does not diverge from the standards except in a nomical, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood.” … and actually improves the character of the downtown by adding a larger graphic indicator to traffic on Jefferson (Highway 14) raising the importance of Linden as a major local street in the downtown network, connecting the existing historic district with the up-and-coming river district and breweries. 2 _ VARIANCE REQUEST LETTER for 254/256 LINDEN CORNER SIGN (04-14-15) www�larkdesignbuild�com Lark Design�Build LLC ��� E �th Street Loveland� CO ����� ������������ While the signage concept is significantly smaller than the signage area allowance for this building, the marquee and flag signs do exceed a few of the massing constraints outlined in the sign code, including the following: 1. PROJECTING SIGNAGE Code Reference: 3.8.7 SIGNS; (H) Projecting Signs (2) No sign may project over a public right-of-way in any zone district, except that signs eight (8) feet or more above grade may project up to forty-eight (48) inches from the face of the building if the total area for such signs is the lesser of one (1) square foot of sign for each linear foot of building or twelve (12) square feet per face. Interpretation: Projection of 48” maximum - Conforming; Min 8’ Height from Ground - Conforming; Max. 12 sqft of area/side - Non-Conforming Calculations: Each side of the flag sign shown to the right is approximately 2’10” x 16’5” = 46.5 sqft Variance Logic and Request: Due to various considerations, including... • Historically accurate form and size for this building, in an historic district • The sign’s location on the corner Jefferson (Hwy 14), and Linden Street, as a means to signal the importance of Linden as a primary commercial street in the downtown district. • The sign’s 45 degree angle to the either right-of-way (50% aspect) to avoid occluding adjacent signage, and to minimize duplicative signage on either facade. • The adjacency to faster-moving traffic on Jefferson Street requiring larger signage to communicate a business’s presence to motorists in the shortest (safest) amount of time. ... we ask for the maximum area requirements for this projecting sign to be modified at this location to allow the signage shown in this document. 2. FLUSH WALL SIGNAGE Code Reference: 3.8.7 SIGNS; (I) Flush Wall Signs No flush wall or individual letter sign shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. Flush wall and individual letter signs may not project more than twelve (12) inches horizontally from the face of the building on which they are erected. Flush wall and individual letter signs that are mounted on mansards or similar architectural features may not project more than twelve (12) inches horizontally, measured at the bottom of the sign, from the surface to which they are mounted Interpretation: Max. Height of 7‘ - Conforming; Max. Projection of 12“ - Non-Conforming Calculations: Depth of marquee cabinet at its thickest point (radiused corner) is designed at 18”. 3 _ VARIANCE REQUEST LETTER for 254/256 LINDEN CORNER SIGN (04-14-15) www�larkdesignbuild�com Lark Design�Build LLC ��� E �th Street Loveland� CO ����� ������������ Variance Logic and Request: Due to various considerations, including... • Historically accurate form and size for this building, in an historic district • An aesthetic goal to “force the perspective” by making the cabinet slowly thicken as it gets closer to the corner; in addition to, • The functional requirement to start the sign from a thickness of 8”, in order to diffuse the internal light source. • An aesthetic goal to indicate a visual “base” to the projecting sign. ... we ask for the maximum projection requirements for this flush wall sign to be modified at this location to allow the signage as shown in this document. Thanks for your consideration, and we hope to present this concept to you, soon! Brandon Silar LARK Design/Build LLC 607 E 5th Street Loveland, CO 80537 brandon@larkdesignbuild.com 970.682.5110 LARK DESIGN/BUILD www.larkdesignbuild.com ph: 970.682.5110 607 E 5th Street Loveland, CO 80537 Properties Creations 252 Linden Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 attn: Kent Bradley ph: (970) 581-2607 254/256 LINDEN FACADE IMPROVEMENT - Corner Signage Concept April 14, 2015 Lighted Cabinet Marquee (frosted acrylic) Extruded Clip-in Le�ers (black acrylic; movable) Individual Le�ers (lighted hollow aluminum; w/ red 2-stripe LED “neon”) “Artery Flourish” (lighted hollow aluminum; w/ red 2-stripe LED “neon”) Aluminum Cabinet (box aluminum; w/ 3-stripe LED “neon” accents at edge, and near top) LARK DESIGN/BUILD www.larkdesignbuild.com ph: 970.682.5110 607 E 5th Street Loveland, CO 80537 Properties Creations 252 Linden Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 attn: Kent Bradley ph: (970) 581-2607 254/256 LINDEN FACADE IMPROVEMENT - Corner Sign Variance Description April 14, 2015 PROJECTING SIGNAGE Code Reference: 3.8.7 SIGNS; (H) Projec�ng Signs (2) No sign may project over a public right-of-way in any zone district, except that signs eight (8) feet or more above grade may project up to forty-eight (48) inches from the face of the building if the total area for such signs is the lesser of one (1) square foot of sign for each linear foot of building or twelve (12) square feet per face. Interpreta�on: Projec�on of 48” maximum - Conforming; Min 8’ Height from Ground - Conforming; Max. 12 sq� of area/side - Non-Conforming Calcula�ons: Each side of the flag sign shown to the right is approximately 2’10” x 16’5” = 46.5 sq� Variance Logic and Request: Due to various considera�ons, including... - Historically accurate form and size for this building, in an historic district - The sign’s loca�on on the corner Jefferson (Hwy 14), and Linden Street, as a means to signal the importance of Linden as a primary commercial street in the downtown district. - The sign’s 45 degree angle to the either right-of-way (50% aspect) to avoid occluding adjacent signage, and to minimize duplica�ve signage on either facade. - The adjacency to faster-moving traffic on Jefferson Street requiring larger signage to communicate a business’s presence to motorists in the shortest (safest) amount of �me. ... we ask for the maximum area requirements for this projec�ng sign to be modified at this loca�on to allow the signage shown in this document. FLUSH WALL SIGNAGE Code Reference: 3.8.7 SIGNS; (I) Flush Wall Signs No flush wall or individual le�er sign shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. Flush wall and individual le�er signs may not project more than twelve (12) inches horizontally from the face of the building on which they are erected. Flush wall and individual le�er signs that are mounted on mansards or similar architectural features may not project more than twelve (12) inches horizontally, measured at the bo�om of the sign, from the surface to which they are mounted Interpreta�on: Max. Height of 7‘ - Conforming; Max. Projec�on of 12“ - Non-Conforming Calcula�ons: Depth of marquee cabinet at its thickest point (radiused corner) is designed at 18”. Variance Logic and Request: Due to various considera�ons, including... - Historically accurate form and size for this building, in an historic district - An aesthe�c goal to “force the perspec�ve” by making the cabinet slowly thicken as it gets closer to the corner; in addi�on to, - The func�onal requirement to start the sign from a thickness of 8”, in order to diffuse the internal light source. - An aesthe�c goal to indicate a visual “base” to the projec�ng sign. ... we ask for the maximum projec�on requirements for this flush wall sign to be modified at this loca�on to allow the signage as shown in this document. 1’ 5” 5” 2’ 11” 3” 2’ 5” 3’ 2” 11’ 3” 8’ 8” 18” 14’ 6” 5’ 2” (radiused) 3’ 5” Retail Yarn Date Bus Sec In Service Cost --% -- 179Bonus - - 5/31114 5,725 X 5,725 7/01/04 129,800 8/0 I /04 -..., 5,500 6115/05 26,536 7)01/06 33,903 1/08/07 1,109 X 2/21/07 280 X 2/28/07 145 X 4112/07 480 X 5/04/07 2,365 X 5/11/07 300 X 5/31/07 400 X 7/02/07 3,020 X 8/02/07 320 X 8/06/07 560 X 1/01/08 - 0,814 1/01/08 10,440 5/19/08 3,445 X 4/03/08 1,926 X 8119/08 3,244 X 9/23/08 3,208 X 8/06/08 1,496 X 3/05/09 2,500 X 3/08/09 2,026 X X 3/13/09 24,005 X 3/31/09 8,048 X 3/31/09 700 X X 4/01/09 920 X X 4/09/09 5,835 X 6113/09 2,245 X 12/01/10 2,436 X 2/08/10 2,059 X X 3/24/10 320 X X 8/06111 1,437 X 11110/11 672 X 4/07/11 850 X 5/11111 1,041 X 12/15112 989 12/31/12 730 1/15/13 707 X 1/23/13 399 X 2/15/13 1,257 X 2/15/13 1,000 X 3115/13 297 X I 0115/13 682 X 12/03/13 107 X 5115/13 I 200 X 7116/13 /8f:789 X 383,542 1/13/12 589 X 589 Total ACRS and Other Depreciation 589 Listed Property: 4 Auto 1/01/05 0 24.39 Basis for Depr 2,863 2,863 129,800 5,500 26,536 33,903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,814 10,440 1,722 963 1,622 1,604 748 1,250 0 12,002 4,024 0 0 2,917 1,122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 989 730 353 I99 628 500 148 341 53 600 40,895 290,403 294 294 294 0 -PerConv --- Meth Prior Current 15 HY SIL 0 2,958 0 2,958 39 MMSIL 31,479 3,329 39 MMSIL 1,322 141 39 MMSIL 5,812 680 39 MMSIL 6,484 869 7 HY 200DB 1,109 0 5 HY 200DB 280 0 7 HY 200DB 145 0 7 HY 200DB 480 0 7 HY 200DB 2,365 0 7 HY 200DB 300 0 7 HY 200DB 400 0 5 HY 200DB 3,020 0 7 HY 200DB 320 0 7 HY200DB 560 0 39 MMSIL 1,652 277 39 MMS/L 1,595 268 15 HY 150DB 2,479 101 7 HY 200DB 1,797 86 7 HY200DB 3,027 144 7 HY 200DB 2,993 I43 7 HY 200DB 1,395 67 5 HY200DB 2,428 72 7 HY200DB 2,026 0 15 HY SIL I5,603 801 I5 HY SIL 5,231 268 7 HY 200DB 700 0 7 HY 200DB 920 0 15 HY SIL 3,793 195 15 HY S/L 1,459 75 15 HY SIL 2,436 0 5 HY 200DB 2,059 0 7 HY 200DB 320 0 7 HY 200DB 1,437 0 7 HY 200DB 672 0 7 HY200DB 850 0 15 HY S/L 1,041 0 5 MQ200DB 425 226 5 MQ200DB 314 166 5 HY200DB 424 114 7 HY 200DB 228 49 7 HY 200DB 7I8 154 7 HY 200DB 571 123 7 HY 200DB 170 36 7 HY200DB 390 83 7 HY 200DB 61 13 7 HY 200DB 686 147 15 HY SIL 42,257 2,727 156,233 11,354 3 MOAmort 491 98 491 98 491 98 0 HY 0 0 E ~ 'N tl\lUE lender: Herne, Ferleral Sav· Bank Borrower: I ~' T . 11 C • Amer:i.can I B:eri tage 1 e o .. ~~~lli!~~~~r·oFI~SII«'' ANDUR9AN ~MEIIT FLOOD tiOURANCI! MlE!.IAI'$, 1HIS Pf!Ql'I;RT\' Pmn•• OBDlol---ozol-5 S¢ALE REVISED FILENO. l'h "'10' 6325 Xyle 1\ve. Fo:r:-t Collins, OJ -93-3765 +-{ � ... I ....Q)l'X&' / ......_ .,...,.... ;./ I I � :.to' ._ .... _.., -.: .. / ... •01�1 �--------J_j tU,$, s ZON�OI$TR:ICT• NC6; N�lb«))O QC)H$UNAn¢H I IIVFFUI: CI$T'IIIJ(:T PARIONG PROVICEO HCPA.AKII«)· STANOAAO PARI<I.� • ,. 8SPACES ... N:.E 7SPACES PAAIONO ReoJIR(O 2 SPACES fOR £�RY S 8EORO<lM$ IGT01At $PA(f;$) KYaJ!P�R!OI.It'l;tO; 110CCUPANT•2o' CO'o'tRElHtEOUIREO; �· lSSAAef$ IJNOO'Yal£0 AEOUIREO. � • II SPACES BJCVCLE PNtKfiCl PROVIDED: 2.t SPA.CES OO'.�RE0.186SF 1SSPACES UHCOVEAa) 0• SPAC£S r---- ow------; I n ,,. ,,.,.,.JJr.l>.donm•"' .n ""'"""' ""''"ln'�-�i..'J td.$ 7 8 A 13 c D E "'"' ·-· �� � - Jo.'l!olliCC�o .�'Yl ..... O 'I(•NJ � a.l''ll'IOM � �" " " " ®II i� el t ! ..., . " ...::! , , Qi! <!:! �� � f-< (/]t5fg wo � �::r: <N >-o ......f-< .. f-<ti3� w (/)�� 0 - f-< � 01 "' "" "' 0 00 0 u� ...,., . >.<V .V., M u"' Or- �s oe. 0 .. ",' <!" !! ·"§ Vl � - •M <>o. " ' " "' ""' >,., <� _o - ,_ G� -o. 0 ,., 0 M 8 < � � 8 "' " :l 8 !< :: u � ...� ,; . w " � :: � " w � < � S HEET: SP-IQfl 1 �� E. f.LJT.ABETH $T f'OitTCOU.Il"S.,('()