HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/10/1985a
•
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 10, 1985
Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M.
Minutes
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday,
October 10, 1985 at 8 30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Johnson, Lieser,
Thede, and Dodder.
Boardmembers Absent: Murphy and Walker
Staff Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Roy, and Ball
Minutes of the Regular Meetings
of August 8, and September 12, 1985, Approved as Published.
The minutes of the August 8, and September 12, 1985 meetings were both
unanimously approved (August 8 minutes were approved at this meeting due to
a lack of attendance of Board members at the September meeting.).
Appeal No. 1672. 1940 Larkspur - Tabled until the November 14, 1985
meeting.
Appeal No. 1673. Section 118-93(B)(4) by Victor Szidon, 1630 S. College
Avenue - Approved.
"---The variance would increase the sign allowance for a mixed -use,
commercial building from 100 square feet to 125 square feet. The
building is located in the HB zone.
---Hardship pleaded: The owner has vacant spaces in the building, but no
signage allowance left. He can't rent out additional space unless the
tenants can have signage. Since the building is two stories, more
signage is required than a one story building because there are more
tenants, however, a building doesn't get any bonus allowance for having
a second story under the sign code provisions.
---Staff recommendation: Approval. The hardship is somewhat self
imposed, but the property has very little sign allowance. The second
story tenancy is somewhat of an unusual circumstance in Fort Collins."
There were no notices returned. There were no letters received.
Boardmember Dodder withdrew himself from this particular appeal, due to a
conflict of interest.
Victor Szidon, owner of the commercial building at 1630 S. College Avenue,
stated that Donavon's Driver's Training School, desires to put up a sign.
The lease is predicated upon obtaining a variance for a sign.
ZBA Minutes
Page 2
There was some discussion as to the other vacancies in his building. At
the present time Szidon has two (2) vacancies in this building, and if
another person wants to put up a sign, Szidon stated that it wouldn't be
possible.
Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the Appeal for the hardship
pleaded. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Leiser,
and Thede. Nays: None.
Appeal No. 1677. Section 118-96(A) by Jeff Taylor, 1739 S. College —
Approved.
"---The variance would allow a projecting wall sign over private property
to be 60 square feet per face. The sign is for "The Workout" located
in the Fox Shops in the HB zone.
---Hardship pleaded: The sign is really not a projecting wall sign as
intended by the code. It is parallel to the wall of the building and
mounted on a rail which is 4 feet from the wall. Therefore, the sign
is really more like a flushwall sign, which has no sign limitation.
This is the only place to put a sign because below the rail is all
glass, and the wall above the rail would be used for signs on the top
floor. This business is on the bottom floor.
---Staff recommendation:
No notices were returned
Approval."
No letters were received.
Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes stated the sign in question is already
up, it is made out of canvas and it has been treated as a banner and a
twenty (20) day banner permit has been issued for it. The sign is located
on a rail on the edge of the walkway approximately 6 feet from the wall of
the building. Mr. Barnes pointed out that since the sign is more than 12
inches from the wall of the building it is no longer a flushwall sign but
the sign code automatically puts it into the catagory of a projecting wall
sign. Jeff Taylor, the petitioner, stated that it is clearly a unique
situation which doesn't fit into the flushwall sign code or the projecting
wall sign, and he hopes the Board grants the variance in Light of the
situation.
BoardmemberDoddermade a motion to approve Appeal number 1677 for the
hardship stated. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson,
Leiser, Thede, and Dodder. Nays: None.
Appeal No. 1691. Art March for LCAS, Inc., 1415 S. College — Upheld the
Community Development Department staff's decison.
"---The petitioner is appealing the determination made by the Community
Development staff that the proposed use of the property at 1415 S.
College by the Larimer County Alcoholic Services does not comply with
the conditions set forth in the 1415-1417 S. College P.U.D.
ZBA Minutes
Page 3
---Petitioner's and staffs presentation to be made at meeting."
One notice was returned. One letter was received.
Peter Barnes pointed out that the 1415-1417 S. College P.U.D. was approved
by the Planning and Zoning Board, approximately five years ago. There were
certain conditions placed upon the P.U.D. at that time. There are two
conditions that apply to this; 1) the uses permitted are limited to
professional offices defined in the Zoning Code, excluding medical, dental,
and real estate offices or clinics; 2) the average number of vehicular
trips cannot exceed twenty (20) per day to the building. Mr. Barnes
further stated that the city code at this time does not have any provision
for clarification or determination to take this back to the Planning and
Zoning Board. Currently the code requires that it would come before the
Zoning Board of Appeals. Barnes pointed out that the question before the
Board is to provide clarification as to whether or not the proposed use by
the Larimer County Alcoholic Services complys with the conditions set forth
on the P.U.D.
Elaine Kleckner, staff member of the City of Fort Collins Planning
Division, wanted to point out what the intent was when they put those
conditions on the P.U.D plan. She started out by looking back at some of
the history of this area in terms of people's concerns about the
neighborhood compatability aspect. Kleckner stated that on January 4, 1977,
City Council expressed some concern that affirmative plans for the
transition of that neighborhood be developed. They were seeing some
proposals at that time where commercial uses wanted to go into some of the
older residences. They recognized that the neighborhood was unique,
meaning that there are large older structures and mature vegetation. These
two blocks of College were viewed as being special and they wanted to
retain this character. Kleckner further stated that based upon a letter
from John Clarke, resident in that neighborhood at that time, Council
unanimously established a moritorium on any variances to allow commercial
uses in those residences until staff could develop some policy guidelines.
Planning staff went ahead and developed some policy guidelines which
attempted to address those types of things. In those guidelines they
focused a lot on traffic, which explains the condition on the plan that
tries to limit traffic to some degree. She further explained that when the
P.U.D. plan for this lot came in at the Planning and Zoning Board level,
there was discussion on limitations of development. At the City Council
level, discussion focused on adverse traffic impacts. At that time staff
pointed out a portion of those policy guidelines, which became a part of
the Board's consideration, and the City Council-s consideration of that
item.
Kleckner then quoted a portion of the minutes from those policy guidelines,
"the area including lot 1417 and the lot north of it, generally consists of
houses which should be preserved, provided that appropriate commercial uses
can be located within them. The suitability of such uses should be a
function of vehicular traffic generation to a large degree and of the
U
ZBA Minutes
Page 4
compatibility between the various uses to a lesser degree. Commercial uses
on these six (6) lots should be limited to non -retail, and only low trip
generating uses not to exceed twenty (20) daily trips including those of
employees." She further pointed out that Community Development Staff
believes that Larimer County Alcohol Services, with the use described to
them, may have some trouble meeting the low intensity use requirement. One
of the concerns that they have is that it is not a dispursed type of use.
Planning staff feels the Board should go a bit further in their
interpretation of the type of business condition, (stated above) by adding
that businesses with a high intensity of use, which may be disruptive to
the character of the neighborhood should also be added to the exclusions
already stated. They would propose to define high intensity uses, as those
with a large client load or a type of use that doesn't generate that steady
dispursed flow of traffic.
In conclusion, Kleckner stated that they would encourage the Zoning Board
of Appeals to look beyond the issue of semantics in exactly how the
conditions are worded to what the intent of those conditions were and to
recognize the special character of the neighborhood. Community Development
Staff is presently working on a set of design guidelines for those two
blocks which they hope to have done by the end of the year. These will set
guidelines for when commercial uses come in.
Boardmember Dodder asked what the trip limits are on the other properties
in the area?
Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, answered that he was not aware of any
other traffic limitations on any other P.U.D."s. He further pointed out
that currently when they review a project, they will determine if it's
impacts are acceptable or not. If not, they will give the developer the
opportunity to make changes to the street system, curb -cuts,
de-exceleration lanes, to make the situation work for the current level of
traffic, and for a future target level. Boardmember Dodder pointed out
that this P.U.D. is an exception. Ensdorff answered yes. Dodder wanted to
know why? Ensdorff answered that he didn't know why other than what had
been presented already. He was not the traffic engineer at the time, he
said at the time he would imagine that they were trying to make some sense
out of what was happening, and put some qualifiers on what they saw
happening to make it safe and efficient. He further stated that they now
try to address the issue up front and get it solved.
Boardmember Dodder asked if Ensdorff has reviewed the traffic flow on this
P.U.D. and does he feel the limitation is reasonable or not? He answered
that being a current P.U.D., plan, the twenty (20) vehicle limitation, is
part of the rules of that P.U.D., if it wasn't there, in their analysis of
the traffic impact, which they have expressed to the applicant, they do not
see a negative impact from the traffic circulation. They do see a problem
with parking, but from the traffic circulation from this facility they do
not think it would be unacceptable for that area.
9 •
ZBA Minutes
Page 5
Art March, attorney representing the petitioner, LCAS, Inc., explained to
the Board that this was not a request for a variance, they are not asking
that they lower the twenty (20) number, and they are not asking to change
the uses permitted, although he pointed out that the Planning Department
has apparently reversed the variance from their standpoint, and they'd like
to increase the restrictions that are on the P.U.D. All he was asking was
that they interpret the P.U.D., as the Zoning Code says they are the body
to do, and determine whether or not the use proposed of the property fits
within the requirements of the P.U.D. March further explained the other
properties in the area, which have been used for commercial buildings.
March explained that historically there was a Real Estate office that was
boot -legged into this property. They occupied it as a residence and
started having more and more sales out of their house, and soon starting
having their employees in there. They wanted to continue. There were
complaints filed, and therefore went through the P.U.D., and agreed to the
restrictions. They then decided to go elsewhere, but they did want to use
the property for commercial purposes. He feels that College Avenue isn't
really an appropriate residential area, the neighborhood still has
residential character, and the appearance of the residential neighborhood
is what is trying to be preserved.
Mr. March then went back to the question of interpretation by stating that
the P.U.D., as it has been approved and is now by virtue of that approval
part of the zoning ordnance of the City of Fort Collins, allows this
property to be used for professional offices as they are defined in the
zoning ordinance. He explained that they provide counseling for alcoholics.
They have a scheduled program, group sessions, and one on one counseling.
Those people will come to the property, if this use is allowed, and they
will receive counseling and they will leave the property. He stated that
this is the use that will be made of the property. He doesn't feel that
there is any real controversey over whether or not the use to be made fits
within the definition that's allowed on the P.U.D. March further stated
that the staff would like to further expand the restrictions, and he feels
that they are being over zealous. He thinks they have really misinterpreted
their role. He stated that the Board's function is to interpret the
P.U.D., and see what's required. Not to enlarge on it or subtract from it.
That is a function of the Planning and Zoning Board. March felt there were
some things that needed to be interpreted, such as the limitation of the
twenty (20) trips a day. He quoted from the P.U.D., restrictions,
"vehicular trips per day to either building are not to exceed an average of
twenty (20) including employees." He feels this is fairly clear, that it is
a restriction on the number of times a car can come to the property in a
given day. Because of the nature of the clientele, most of the clients do
not have a driver's licence. Most will be walking, or taking the bus to
get to this property. He has suggested that they keep a log of the trips
per day to be sure they do not exceed what they are allowed.
The next question Mr. March asked is what is meant by an average? He feels
they need to have some logical period of time to use as an average. He
could only think of three logical ones, a year, a month, or a week. They
have figures of what the average use would be for a week or month or year.
ZBA Minutes
Page 6
Mr. March brought up the last question that has arisen, and he is not sure
what the staffs position is because it has changed over time as they have
gone along. At one point they had taken the position, that they had
decided in advance that the number of vehicular trips that would be made to
this property would be more than twenty (20), and therefore they denied the
request. That was before they had presented the data we have to them, so
they may have changed their mind on that. March stated that he thinks that
is improper. He further stated that certainly his client will have to
abide by the limitations as long as the limitation is on this P.U.D., but
he does not think that it is proper for the staff to prejudge that matter,
and say we deem that you are going to have more than twenty (20) trips per
day, despite your assurances that you won't and that you can control that,
and therefore we are going to deny you the right to go in there. He feels
that if in fact the average is exceeded, as this Board would determine what
an average is, then they are going to be guilty of a violation of a zoning
ordinance. He has explained to them that means that they can be prosecuted
in a municipal court for a misdemeanor or a violation of city ordinances,
it also means that the city can go in a court and get an injunction against
their continuing to use the property if they violate the ordinance. He
said that they are well aware of that. That's a condition that they are
willing to take the property with, and willing therefore to abide with.
Mr. March suggested to the Board, that this really is not a question of
semantics, it is a question of what the limitations are. He further stated
that there are well established legal principals that deal with
interpreting zoning ordinances, 1) Zoning is referred to as a measure that
is in derigation of the common law rights of a property owner to use his
property for whatever purposes he pleases. Zoning ordinances or provisions
should be strictly construed in favor of the property owners right to use
his property as he wishes. He wants them to keep this in mind, and that
they are not to stretch the provisions of the law beyond what that law
says, to further restrict the property owners right to use his property. 2)
Should use a common sense definition of terms. They are not to define
terms in a strained way, but to use their ordinary, everyday meaning of
such terms. The only real question Mr. March said he could come up with
concerning what this P.U.D., says is what is the average. He feels that is
one that is open to the Board's decision. In his view, the question of the
use that is being made, is not in question. They are going to be making
professional use of the property, it fits the City's professional office
definition, in the zoning ordinance, and the trips per day really is the
only one (and they are going to keep it to twenty (20)), but they need to
know what the average is.)
Boardmember Thede asked if they were talking about purchasing this building
or leasing it? March answered that it is to be purchased. Boardmember
Dodder asked where they were presently located? March answered that they
are located right across the street and a block down. one half block to
the north and across the street.
Tom Jackson, Executive Director of this Corporation, Larimar County Alcohol
Services, was asked questions by Mr. March when he approached the podium.
ZBA Minutes
Page 7
Mr. March: What is Latimer County Alcohol Services? Mr. Jackson: It is
an outpatient information and treatment center, that has existed in Fort
Collins since 1971. Mr. March: Is it a profit or non-profit organization?
Mr. Jackson: It is a community non-profit organization. It is funded in
part by United Way and contract funds by Latimer County and the Citys of
Fort Collins and Loveland. Mr. March: So you receive your funding from
among other things the City of Fort Collins and Latimer County? Mr.
Jackson: Yes. Mr. March: What services do you provide to people? Mr.
Jackson: Our primiary service is to give education and group thepery
services to people referred to our agency by a variety of sources. Primiary
activity is to meet with clients and groups of 8 to 12 persons, and meet
with them on an individual basis and help provide them with the life skills
necessary to continue their lives drug free. Mr. March: You conduct these
in offices, is that right? Mr. Jackson: That's right. Mr. March: What
kind of a day time, night time load would you have? When is your primary
business done? Mr. Jackson: Our business hours are from 10:00 A.M. to
10:00 P.M., five days a week, Monday through Friday. A good portion of our
clientele are working of course, and because of their involvement with
their offices, and their occupations we need to be available to them after
hours. A great portion of what we do and I can't name a percentage for you
on this spot, but a great portion of what we do is after 6:30 P.M., in the
evenings, because that's when most of our clients are available to its.
Certainly there are clients that come to and from the building during the
day, but relatively small numbers of them. Most of my employees work from
late morning or early afternoon until 10:00 P.M., to meet with those
clients. Mr. March: Do you have any knowledge of how your people get to
where you are now? He then stated that he had mentioned that the office
was across the street and about a half a block north, is that correct? Mr.
Jackson: Yes, it's 1318 S. College right now. Mr. March: How do people
come there right now, do you know? Mr. Jackson: We are right across the
street from the main South College Transfort bus stop. A great portion of
our clients ride the bus to our clinic and they will either car pool or
walk or ride bicycles home. Since a good portion of our clients are in our
program for reasons involving the seizure of the driver's licence, most of
them have to provide other forms of transportation. Many ride bikes, many
walk, many ride the bus. Some carpool, and some drive their own cars. Mr.
March: Is the parking lot connected with the property you now have? Mr.
Jackson: Yes. Mr. March: How many spaces does it accommodate? Mr.
Jackson: Fourteen (14). Mr. March: Is your use the only use on that
property? Mr. Jackson: No, there is now a State Farm Insurance agent on
the second floor of our building. Mr. March: And you occupy the lower
floor? Mr. Jackson: That's right. Mr. March: Do you have any times when
you have difficulty with having enough parking spaces on a fourteen (14)
car parking lot? Mr. Jackson: We have not had yet, no. Mr. March: Is
that true with the insurance agency there as well? Mr. Jackson: Yes.
Boardmember Thede asked Mr. Jackson how many employees he has? Mr Jackson
answered that the corporation employes twelve (12) people, including
himself. Three (3) of them work full time in Loveland. He further
explained that some of these employees who work in Fort Collins, work on
different day of the week, so there are nine (9) people employeed at the
ZBA Minutes
Page 8
Fort Collins office. Boardmember Thede asked on an average how many people
come to work for him there? Mr. March at this time said he had some
information that could explain that if she liked. But he felt it was still
a little bit difficult, because he said he still didn't know what kind
period they would like to use for averaging. Mr. March wanted to know if
there was any way they could have a decision on that one issue? Boardmember
Leiser stated that regarding Thede's question, they need to know on a daily
basis how many people they have on staff at any given time during the day.
Mr. Jackson said he'd try to answer that question, but he would have to
give it to them on a day at a time, becaue the staff fluctuates, the staff
levels are different on different days of the week. He stated that there
are four (4) employees in the building on Monday. Their hours are unique in
that some come for a short period of time, others for the entire business
day. Tuesday is a different situation, there is a different group of
people who come, and there can be as many as six (6) employees. He further
stated that Wednesday is probably their busiest day. The last three
Wednesdays, they had occasions when all nine (9) of the employees who work
during the business week were in the building sometime during the day.
Thursday is a slightly less busy day, Friday is a much smaller day in terms
of staff intensity because there are employees who only work Monday through
Thursday and they have three day weekends including that Friday. There is
another group of employees who work Tuesday through Friday. He feels that
they are literally going to have to give the Board an average to tell them
how many people come and go from the building. He used the month of April
to generate a series of figures because April was the busiest month their
agency has had in the last twelve (12) months.
Mr. March then presented the Board with a letter on LCAS stationary that
presents the numbers they have been able to put together on a monthly basis
as far as client trips to this facility. Mr. Jackson explained the
document. He stated that he chose April because of it's high client
intensity and copied the numbers from reports they fill out and send to the
state each month. There were fifty (50) groups sessions held in the month
of April. He said the number of persons who attended those groups, the
same people didn't come to the same groups for the entire month of April,
so in fairness he took the months of March and May and April and condensed
all of those numbers, divided them by three (3) to come up with a high
average, and that's 172 persons. They went through and literally counted
the number of people scheduled to attend individual counseling sessions in
those three months, March, April, and May. Did the same kind of division
to arrive at what a number would be for the month of April, and that's the
hours; 445 hours of individual counseling for the month of April. He went
on to further explain the document line by line. The average number of
persons that came to their premises for individual counseling per day was
8.4 plus. How many times an employee was supposed to be on the premises
was 5.59 persons per day. He further stated that there were different
intensities on different days of the week, there are days of the week when
the building is not in use at all. There are holidays observed, they are
not on the property on weekends. There are occasionally small educational
classes held on Saturday mornings. Trying to consider all hours of
everyday for thirty (30) days these are the numbers that are generated, and
ZBA Minutes
Page 9
lie stated that it is embarrassingly close to twenty (20) but 19.8 is the
total on the document.
Mr. March asked more questions of Mr. Jackson concerning the amount of
trips per day taken by staff and the fact not all the scheduled
appointments show up. The figures stated on the document were figured on
scheduled appointments. Mr. Jackson stated that their average attendance
for scheduled appointments is 88 percent. Of the clients that were in
service on the 25th of September, 72 percent did not have driving
privileges in Colorado. Mr. March taking all these figures into
consideration came to approximately between the 9 to 12 range from the
basis of their historic figures on a monthly basis.
Boardmember Johnson had some questions concerning the arithmetic in the
document. He pointed out that there were some miscalculations on lines
ten, six and five, bringing the total persons per day over twenty. Mr.
Jackson and Mr. March agreed that the total was in error, they should have
.6 times 5.7 persons more than is represented here. Mr. March came to a
total of 22.6 persons, remarking that the numbers didn't get reduced and
they were going to be slightly higher or lower.
There was further discussion between Boardmember Thede and Mr. Jackson
about the group. Jackson pointed out that their enterprise is for
non-profit. The statute mandates a 28 week episode. There average episode
for people who chose not to finish the program, or people who finish the
program quickly, is about 20 weeks. They have no A.A. connection at all.
Boardmember Dodder asked what the affiliation with the Hope Center is,
Jackson answered that they were the Hope Center.
Mr. Jackson stated as a point to neighborhood concerns that each time they
move one of their offices, they meet neighborhood fear and resistance
because it is thought that they are bringing dangerous, unreasonable,
drunken, falling down, vomiting people into the neighborhood. He said
there is a colorful picture that seems to surround alcohol treatment. He
wants it to be understood that their agency does not work with anyone under
the influence, in fact, they call the police, just like anyone else would
call the police if there were an intoxicated person here. They work with
people who are recovering from drugs and alcohol. He said they are working
with people who are the citizens of Fort Collins, not transients, because
they don't go into out -patient treatment. These people have families and
jobs and responsibilities as we all do, and they are meeting an important
community need and they are working with a large number of people who could
not afford to receive these important services from a private sector.
There was some discussion about parking, Jackson pointed out they have been
a good business neighbor, because their daytime parking needs are very
small. The intensity of their use is after 6 - 6:30 P.M.
Boardmember Leiser asked Jackson, if there was any medication handled, he
answered no. They are not licenced for that, there are no medical people
on their staff. The term clinic does not mean it's a medical facility. He
ZBA Minutes
Page 10
answered that they are by definition in their licence a non -medical
facility. They are licenced by the state.
Boardmember Thede brought up a concern about the statement of planning
objectives, She read from the statement, "the intent of this P.U.D., is to
provide an instrument through which transition of residential use to
commerical may be efficiently accomplished. This P.U.D., is intended to
comply with the City of Fort Collins memorandum dated May 25, 1977. from
Mr. Les Kaplan, Planning Director to Mr. Robert Bruntin, City Manager,
concerning proposed policy guidelines for 1400 block, S. College Avenue."
She wanted to know if there is a copy of that letter available, and is that
letter still in effect? Joe Frank, acting Planning Director for the City of
Fort Collins, said he would be answering any questions for staff. He
stated that he has the memorandum available, and the purpose of it was to
propose guidelines for the 400 block of College Avenue. Copies were made
and given to the Board.
Rick Ensdorff, talked about number three in the general notes as a traffic
engineer would define it as opposed to what they have heard from a lawyer-s
point of view. He stated that in the traffic engineering profession, a
trip is used to give them a quantitative measure to be able to identify the
impact of a site and he feels we all will agree that the impact from a car
is both into the site and from the site; the impact on the street system.
From a traffic engineer's view point, average would be average week day
trips, that's how they do all traffic studies, not weekends. They would
look at that and say there is twenty (20) vehicle trips. That would mean
that there is ten (10) actual trips, one there and one leaving. He said
that they are consistant in how they do all development projects. He
stated that he did not write this, but if it was put in there to identify a
traffic concern, the traffic engineer now, himself, looking at this would
interpret it that way. The other issue he will bring up is that at
conceptual review, they were given two pieces of information regarding the
operation. He wanted to comment that they found two inconsistencies (one
has been pointed out), the other one is that the statement had been made
that the office does not operate on Saturdays or Sundays, yet they are
using 30 days in the month to generate their figures. He has gone through
and done an anaylsis that shows that if they use no Sundays, the total,
trips would be approximately 24. If they use no Saturdays and Sundays, he
came up with about 26. He then commented about the item regarding the
listing of the total number of people that use the facility each day. He
said their high day is Wednesday, which they show 48 trips coming and 48
trips leaving. Using an average for the week day trips, again from how a
traffic engineer would look at it, they find that there is 34 trips a day,
using all five week day trips. He also stated that regarding the document
in question, it was stated in the document, that attendance was usually at
about 88 percent, factoring that 34 times 88 percent, gives them a little
under 30 trips per day. On both of those analysis, it is their opinion
that they did not meet the note on the site plan of less than 20 trips a
day.
ZBA Minutes
Page 11
Mr. March asked Ensdorff, what the traffic engineer's definition of the
word "to" is? He defined it as the trips that are using the site, he said
maybe the word was used out of context, he would look at it as the impact
from the vehichle trips. Mr. March wanted to look at the word in context,
"to the property", asking again what the word to means. Ensdorff's reply is
that he would interpret that note, which means both to the facility and
away from the facility, he further stated that obviously the cars going to
the facility aren't going to just stop and stay there, they are going to
leave, they will have impact also. Mr. March asked is it not quite
possible that the Council also recognized the fact that a car going to the
property would be coming from the property? Ensdorff stated that he can't
say that, he is saying he is looking at it from a traffic engineer's
standpoint.
City Attorney, Steve Roy stated at this point that he thought they needed
to clarify the ground rules with regards to the Board's procedures at these
types of hearings. He pointed out that generally they don't proceed by
examination and cross-examination of witnesses, nor does he think it's
necessary. He stated that he thought they need to give some perspective to
their deliberations and at least initially to the procedure. He further
stated that if Mr. March has further comments or input or evidence that the
Board wants to receive, he thinks it's up to the Chairman to decide whether
to proceed through examination and cross-examination of witnesses or to
allow Mr. March on behalf of the applicant to make a statement and rebuttal
once they've received statement from staff. At one point he would like to
offer some imput with the issues that are framed by this appeal in relation
to the code provisions, as to what is the Board's proper function, at this
kind of a review hearing.
Mr. March said he had no problem with this, he just wanted to get on the
record obviously, but if they don't want him asking any questions, he will
be happy not to. Boardmember Leiser pointed out that if he had any
statments he wanted to present, that would be fine, but in the same frame
of mind, this discourse probably wasn't proper at this particular time.
Mr. March asked that she make a ruling that he not ask any questions, and
he will be happy not to. Boardmember Leiser than stated that she so rules.
Steve Roy pointed out to Mr. March, that all of this is being tape
recorded, and that was our form of record.
Boardmember Leiser asked the legal staff if they wanted to present their
thoughts at this time.
Mr. Roy stated that the code provides that in this kind of a hearing, that
they do review any requirement, decision, or determination of an
administrative official whose intrusted or charge with the responsibility
of interpreting these conditions, he stated that he felt that once they
receive the input that they will have to take a vote, and rather than
voting on what trip means, what average means, what the various other
individual terms mean, he said he thinks they should vote on whether to
uphold the determination of staff or whether to reverse them. They are not
ZBA Minutes
Page 12
charged with the responsibility (in his opinion) of interpreting per say
the conditions. Staff needs to clarify it's determinations, as he
understands them, and Mr. March will tell you if he disagrees. There is a
determination first of all, that these conditions pertaining to permitted
use, and vehicular trips, can be applied in advance of a use. Their first
determination is that a use can be prohibited by the application in advance
of these restrictions. He commented that those kinds of restrictions, can
be permissible. Whether these restrictions as presently worded are those
kinds of conditions, they need to look at. The second determination is
should this use be prohibited because it cannot meet the conditions, either
because it is not the kind of permitted use in the one paragraph, or
because the trips will exceed the requirement that appear in the condition
on the P.U.D., if there are other determinations that have been made, he
thinks that they need to establish those of record. After the imput, he
suggested that they limit the imput to that consideration. Such as; are
these conditions which can be applied in advance? and Can they meet the
conditons, if so? He suggested that they frame their vote on the issue to
either uphold or reverse staffs determination.
Boardmember Thede requested that they get a copy of the second sheet that
the traffic engineer had from which he sited information concerning the
number of trips.
Boardmember Johnson asked Steve Roy for a definition of the word clinic,
Peter Barnes answered that there is no definition of the word clinic in the
Zoning Code.
Boardmember Johnson asked petitioner why they are moving? Jackson's answer
was that they have out grown the building they are in now, and because of
the cost of leasing, it is financially expedient for them to buy and the
building they are in is not for sale.
C.J. Strite, owner of properties starting at 1419 S. College, four houses
running south of that, and west of the alley property also, he stated that
he has a substantial financial risk at stake, and was concerned with the
parking that they have available to the proposed new use of the property.
He pointed out that the information that Art March and his client
researched with respect to the averages of traffic generated by the
anticipated use, is somewhat misleading. He further pointed out that
originally the zoning that he recalls, in 1977, the key points at that time
was frequency on an average basis, rather than multiplied use at a given
time. He feels there will be days where there is an intensified use, just
with the employees much less the traffic from the clients. He also
mentioned that the traffic engineer's evaluation of the average car vehicle
use, considerably exceeds what the P.U.D., as approved, allowed.
Steve Roy asked that a copy of the properties owned by Mr. Strite be kept
for the record.
Joe Van Sant, 119 W. Lake and also part owner of 133 W. Lake, stated that
his property is directly behind the house in question, and probably the
ZBA Minutes
Page 13
person that is most influenced by what happens on this house. He also
pointed out that he has been living there a long time and and knows the
whole story about the block, and would be willing to answer any questions
about it. He then pointed out that there has been some misleading
statements that have come up today. He said there are only six (6) parking
spaces on this house they are discussing, they could remove the garage and
they might get one (1) more. On the night they said they had their
meeting, he stated, there weren't 12 cars parked, there were 16 cars parked
there, and they weren't conveniently parked, they were packed in and some
of them were hanging in the alley. He then went on to say that when this
place has a meeting and there are cars parked behind the insurance office,
the normal pattern in the past has been to overflow onto either his
driveway, his lawn, or down the alley on C.J.'s property. He's noticed
that since this has all come up, the parking lot at their existing location
is full every night that they have their meetings, and they have somewhere
to overflow, a side street, Buckeye, which dead ends into the back of their
existing office. One point that he wanted to mention, was that the people
that don't bring their own cars, and are dropped off by somebody, those
people that drop them off, generate twice as many trips as if they had
brought their own cars. Van Sant pointed out that the whole back half of
the block is residential at this point in time. There are kids who play in
the alley, especially in the evenings and on weekends, when some of the
meetings are going to be.
Boardmember Dodder asked Mr. Barnes how many parking spaces are there on
the combined plot plan. Mr. Barnes answered that it's supposed to be
fourteen (14).
Boardmember Johnson asked Mr. Van Sant how many times the parking has
spilled over into his driveway? He answered that in the past, the Harris
House, was reletively low intense usage of that piece of property, but at
certain points in time they would have meetings that would generate a lot
of cars, and its common just to have people pull into his drive or on his
lawn.
Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes wanted to clarify on the parking, that
there are fourteen (14) with the garage removed. There are eleven (11)
with the garage remaining.
Doug Konkel, a property owner on this block, stated that he was there on
behalf of himself, his partner, and Mr. Ken Medearis, who is also a
property owner. He felt there was a point that was being overlooked, that
he felt is very important, in 1978, there was a plan, he thinks the City
Council had commissioned the Planning Staff at that time, to work up a
plan, for this particular block because of the peculiar problems associated
with this block. The goals and the issues that were addressed related to
trying to maintain the architectural integrity of this block, it had at one
time been primarily limited to residential use, there was an
acknowledgement he felt on behalf of the planning staff, that in the
future, that there was going to be a conversion of use to more of a
commercial type of use, and there was an acknowledgement over the fact that
ZBA Minutes
Page 14
the architectural structures, the traffic patterns, and other matters in
this neighborhood, would require some kind of advanced planning and
limitation on that potential commercial growth. He himself has gone
through with respect to his office building, what they consider to be a
fairly long involved and reletively complex process to optain permission to
put the property that they own at 1405 S. College to it's existing use.
Parking was a definite problem he was required to buy a parking lot
because otherwise he would not have gotten approval. He feels the staff
can consider the general plan for this neighborhood that was adopted, and
that plan says that they're going to try to maintain as they convert from
residential to commercial uses, they're going to try to get low intensity
professional types of usages, that will maintain the architectural
integrity and not adversely affect the neighborhood and not cause traffic
congestions or other sorts of problems. He further explained the problems
of the flow of traffic, and his concerns about safety. He feels the Larimer
County Alcohol Services is a good group, with a good program, and he
doesn't feel the issue here, was that this wasn't the kind of organization
that they didn't want to have in their neighborhood. He's concerned about
their goal to grow, and expand. Boardmember Dodder asked what type of
commercial use he would see fitting in there? He answered the question, by
stating that just about any use can go into that block, but that each
particular operation should be looked at and approved on a case by case
basis.
Mr. March spoke and said that he wanted to stress again that they are not
being asked to rule on whether this P.U.D., should or should not be
adopted. What they are being asked to rule on is to interpret and
determine whether this use is within the allowed uses, but he suggests
again that it is highly improper for this Board or staff or anyone else to
say that they are going to broaden what the exclusions or what the
prohibited uses are. He feels clearly the use is permitted, despite the
objections of some neighbors. He also wanted to point out again, that this
P.U.D., is more restrictive than the others that are in the block. Lastly,
on the parking, which he said there is no parking requirement, per say, on
this P.U.D., what they do have instead is a trip statement. He wanted to
point out regarding the figures that Mr. Ensdorff had on the monthly
average, that only 28 percent of their clientele have driver's licences,
and that figure needs to be put in, as well as the 88 percent figure of
people who keep their appointments, not 100 percent. By his arithmetic if
he uses a straight 28 percent and 88 percent and use 40, he comes up with
9.8 people per day, so he feels it is easily possible for them to control
the thing, so that it meets the conditions of the P.U.D.
Boardmember Leiser made a final comment by telling the Board, to maybe
reread for their own judgement, the determination made by the Community
Development Department staff, that the proposed use of the property at 1415
S. College by the Larimer County Alcohol Services does not comply with the
conditions set forth in the 1415-1417 S. College P.U.D., that is the
question, and that they may want to consider that before making any
determination of motion.
0
ZBA Minutes
Page 15
Boardmember Thede made a motion to agree with the determination made by the
Community Development Department staff, that the proposed use of the
property at 1415 S. College, by the Larimer County Alcohol Services, does
not comply with the conditions set forth in the 1415-1417 S. College P.U.D.
Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Leiser, Thede,
and Dodder. Nays: None.
Appeal No. 1682. Section 118-43(B), 118-43(C) by Tony Stoddard, 613 Maple
- Approved with conditions.
"---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet
to 5450 square feet, and the lot width from 60 feet to 35 feet for a
new duplex in the RM zone.
---Hardship pleaded: The lot is an existing lot, platted with only 35
feet of width, the units will be approximately 800 square feet each.
---Staff recommendation: Approval. The same variance was denied by the
Board on April 14, 1983, but overturned by City Council. The variances
were then approved by the Board for a different applicant on January
12, 1984."
No notices were returned. No letters were received.
Tony Stoddard, contractor in Fort Collins, stated that he wants to make an
investment into this property to build a duplex and his purchasing is being
held back with the granting of the variance for this piece of property for
a duplex.
There was some discussion as to the parking and the grass areas.
Boardmember Dodder asked what the target date for starting was? Mr.
Stoddard answered that he is going to try for a construction loan by
November loth, and he added that it will be pre -sold before he attempts
construction. Dodder asked if they grant a variance, how long did he think
he would need it for? Stoddard's answer was that he was hoping for the end
of the year, but with weather and so forth, possibily into January.
Boardmember Johnson asked the petitioner, if the second unit will be on top
of the first unit? Stoddard answered that was correct, it will be two
stories.
Boardmember Dodder made a motion for approval of Appeal number 1682 on the
condition that the building be constructed according to the footprints
shown on the plan. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, said it will have
to be changed somewhat because he won't be able to have a 10 foot setback
from the alley with a 22 foot wide home. Boardmember Dodder amended his
motion to read with the exception of meeting all City setback codes.
Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Leiser, and
Dodder. Nays: Thede.
ZBA Minutes
Page 16
Appeal No. 1687. Section 118-81(D)(3)(e) by Aaron Joseph for Delta Upsilon
Fraternity, 200 E. Plum - Denied.
"---The variance would reduce the required number of q parking spaces from 12
to 6 for a fraternity in the RH zone.
---Hardship pleaded: The petitioners removed six (6) parking spaces to
accomodate a new volleyball court. This was done in an effort to
upgrade the property and the neighborhood. The fraternity feels that
there is enough parking on the street to accommodate their needs and
that in the past, other properties in the neighborhood have used the
fraternity parking.
---Staff recommendation: Denial. The hardship is self imposed. The
volleyball court should be moved somewhere else on the lot and replaced
with the previous parking, or new parking provided elsewhere."
No notices were returned. No letters were received.
Zoning Adminstrator, Peter Barnes explained that the fraternity took out
the parking that used to be there, and replaced it with a volleyball court.
Therefore eliminating some of the required parking that they had, and put
them into more of a non -conforming status, which brought them into
violation of the code. He further explained where parking was located in
the area.
Boardmember Johnson asked how this came to Mr. Barnes attention? Mr.
Barnes answered that it was through a complaint received by someone who
lives in the neighborhood, as well as a referral from the City Engineering
Department, when they received a complaint that the sidewalk was moved to
accomodate the volleyball court.
Aaron Joseph, representing the corporation for Delta Upsilon Fraternity,
pointed out that there are two issues involved with the City; 1) the
sidewalk dispute, by which they have moved into the public right-of-way,
which involves the department of engineering, 2) dispute with zoning,
through Peter Barnes, they have violated the parking spaces by putting the
volleyball pit in. As a related matter he said that they are moving the
sidewalk back to it-s original position at their expense, for the length of
the volleyball pit. He stated that they have had neighborhood meetings
through Barbara Leiber, and the East side Core Neighborhood, and they
learned that they are buying the House, there are a certain number of
improvments that they have done to the exterior as well as to the interior.
There present capacity is at 32 maximum, as held in their lease, right now
they have 27 members living in the House. They felt that the parking that
was in the street, and on the site was always ample for the fraternity. He
pointed out that many times CSU students will park on their property all
day long, which presents a problem for them as well as for the Jack and
Jill Nursery, across the street. He said he knows there is some concern
about them uping their occupancy, which they will be but it will be very
minimal, from 32 to approximately 37 members.
ZBA Minutes
Page 17
There was some discussion about parking and another place to put the
volleyball court. Also discussed were the possibilities of leasing or
purchasing other parking areas from neighbors and negotiating the
possibility of using the Village Shops retail space.
Boardmember Dodder pointed out that there has to be on site parking
provided, street parking cannot be depended upon to maintain their
requirements and obviously if CSU students were using there lot, that would
show that there was already a problem in existence before they took out the
parking.
Derik Walter, member of Delta Upsilon Fraternity, and lives at 200 E. Plum,
commented that there is some problems with street parking and congestion,
although they haven't noticed that in terms of their parking, any kind of
problems, and as far as they know, it hasn't been a large problem for their
neighbors. He went on to explain some of the improvements that they have
made. He said that the street used to be very dark at night, and now the
area is all lit, which he considers an improvement.
There was discussion that they would have to prove in some way that they
have leased or provided a parking area elsewhere.
Dave Edminson, resides at 200 E. Plum, spoke and gave some background on
why they put in the volleyball court in. He explained that they are a
small fraternity and they don't have a great deal of money, and the alumni
said they were willing to do something for them by asking if they would
like a volleyball court. They saw it as an improvement to their
fraternity, and a direct improvement on the neighborhood itself. He also
stated that they like to think they have a good relationship with their
neighbors. They are trying to work with them on this. They are looking at
it from the standpoint as an improvement on the property itself and
hopefully on the neighborhood.
Dar Jackson, new member of the Delta Upsilon Fraternity, resides in the
House, spoke and said that with the imput that he has received from the new
members, the improvements that they are doing to the house, they are doing
to improve their neighborhood as well. He feels that if lines were painted
on the street, they could get more parking spots.
Nancy Micurial, sole owner and director of Jack and Jill Nursey located
directly south from the fraternity, said that Jack and Jill is in it's 20th
year now, they have a 25 foot loading zone in front of their school, which
is specifically for their parents to drop off their children, and pick them
up. She said they have 100 students, 75 of which they service per day. She
stated that she has never been contacted by the fraternity, although she is
willing to work with them too. She explained that her employees present a
problem also, there are eight (8) of them that go there daily. She said
that she knows that her loading zone is used every Friday night by the
fraternity during the time which they entertain parties at their volleyball
court. She pointed out that every week she has had to call the police to
have a car ticketed or removed from the loading zone, she said they always
ZBA Minutes
Page 18
ask if someone would please move the car before doing this. She went on to
talk about the parking situation. Then she commented about the fact that
the volleyball court is "supposedly" a benefit to the neighborhood, because
every Sunday she has to come in and pick up the beer cans that are left on
her lawn, and so does the neighbor to the east of her, does the same thing.
She also stated she feels this can be a workable situation, but she has
never been contacted.
Dr. John Falls, represents Jack and Jill as an advisor to the school, and a
past parent who had a child in the school. He spoke about the increase of
traffic in the area. He said the neighborhood is becoming congested. He
said it is important for everyone in the neighborhood to do what they can
to enhance solving the traffic problem, rather than work against it. He is
concerned about the growth of the fraternity and the number of people
residing in the unit, and the parking situation that already exists. He
feels that the taking out of the six (6) parking spots is counter
productive to the problem of the neighborhood. He pointed out that safety
to the children is important.
Barbara Leibler, 817 Peterson Street, said she was there for 2 reasons. Mr.
Theodorates, 726 Mathews asked her to represent him because he couldn't be
here this morning, he circulated the attached petition, against approval of
the variance. The second group she was representing was the Core Area
Neighborhood, which she is a member of the Board of Directors. She then
read the attached letter from the Core Area Neighborhood resident, Robert
Zimdahl asking for denial of the variance.
Harold Worth, representing the Prospect - Sheilds Neighborhood Association,
spoke about the parking situation and requests denial of the appeal.
Boardmember Dodder commented that he didn't think anybody on the Board has
a problem with a volleyball court, it's just the placement of it. The
sidewalk and the parking situation pose a problem too. He then made a
motion for denial of the variance, to which Boardmember Thede added because
of the self-imposed hardship, which Dodder agreed to. Boardmember Thede
seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Lieser, Thede and Dodder. Nays: None.
Peter Barnes informed the fraternity that they have been issued a violation
notice, and that with the denial of the variance, it puts the violation
notice in effect. The fraternity needs to correct the problem shortly.
Peter asked that they let him know what their intentions are.
Appeal No. 1689. David Farr for Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 321 S.Sherwood -
Approved for rehearing
"---The petitioner would like the Board to rehear Appeal No. 1671 based on
new evidence. The appeal would be for a variance to reduce the lot
width from 100 feet to 50 feet and the side yard setback from 7 feet to
0 feet for a fraternity in the RH zone. This is just a request for
rehearing. If granted the actual variance will be reheard at a later
date.
ZBA Minutes
Page 19
---The new evidence would be to limit the number of occupants in the home
to eight (8), and to conduct all large meetings at CSU or other
facilities. Only small committee meetings consisting of 5-10 people
would be held on the premises.
---Staff recommendation: Approval of the request for rehearing. If
granted, the rehearing should be scheduled for the November meeting or
at a special meeting."
No notices were returned. There was one letter received.
Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes spoke and said that the Board's purpose
was to not grant or deny a variance, but to simply determine whether or not
to grant or deny a rehearing. He made one other response to the letter
that was read, he said, the reasons they haven't made the parking
improvements and complied with that is because until the determination as
to whether or not variances are granted, the owner who they are leasing
from does not want improvements made to the property, and to put the
parking on the back of the lot off of the alley would require removal of a
fence, and putting in gravel. He then read the working in the by-laws,
regarding rehearing, to the Board.
David Farr, President of Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 321 S. Sherwood, said
that the maximum people they would have as members in the fraternity would
be 30. That doesn't mean that all 30 would live at the house, there would
be a maximum of 8 people living in the house. The committee meetings would
be 5-10 people at a time. Anything larger would be at CSU facilities.
They talked to the University Cleaner's owner, who lives right next door.
He said they could use his parking facilities after business hours. There
are only 4 men who have cars that park in front of the house, at the time.
They have had no complaints filed concerning noise, and in the future they
do not plan to have any other activities that would promote any type of
noise factors.
Wes Robb, lives directly behind the fraternity, has been there for about 8
years, spoke and said that he has not seen parking as a big problem in the
area. He pointed out that the house used to have renters with just as many
cars and he doesn't see the difference now in the impact, he said that if
they could come up with a limited time variance that might make everyone
happy.
Roy Allen, works for the City of Fort Collins, spoke and said that his
involvement in this is that his son belongs to the fraternity. He said
that they were in favor of their son belonging to this organization. He
pointed out that the people who will be purchasing this house, will be
himself, his wife, and two other families, so they will have some control
as to what is going to take place. He believes that they will be able to
provide total off street parking if they can proceed to purchase the
property. He stated that they do want to cooperate with all agencies
concerned.
ZBA Minutes
Page 20
Boardmember Dodder made a motion to rehear Appeal 1671 for the evidence
presented. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Lieser,
Thede and Dodder. Nays: None.
Dave Farr asked if the meeting could be made within the 7 days of notifying
the neighbors, instead of waiting a month.
Boardmember Lieser stated that the Board was in agreement to have a special
meeting if it was possible. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes pointed out
what dates were available. The date of Monday, October 21, 1985 at 3:00
p.m., in the Council Chambers was decided on for the Special Meeting.
Appeal No. 1690. Sections 118-43(D), 118-43(F) by Jim Musslewhite, 1104
Beech St. - Partially Approved.
"---The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15 feet
to 11 feet and the required east side setback from 5 feet to 4 feet for
a garage addition to a single family home in the RM zone.
---Hardship pleaded: This is the only practical location to build the
addition. In order to have a wide enough garage to open the car doors,
part of the garage needs to be built in the front yard. The rear
portion of the garage would be used for storage and workshop. Without
a side yard variance the garage wouldnot be wide enough for a car.
---Staff recommendation: Approval of the side yard variance. Denial of
the front yard variance. A car would still fit in the garage if 4 feet
were taken off the front."
No notices were returned. No letters were received.
Jim Musselwhite, 1104 Beech Street, spoke and said that he wanted to add on
this garage addition and make it large enough for a work area and storage
for tools.
The Board was concerned about the size of the garage because it stuck out
further than any other house on the block. Boardmember Dodder asked how
far out from the house is it coming from the front? Musselwhite answered
16 feet.
There was further discussion to determine the size garage he needed.
Pete Geringher, Sherwood Street, spoke against the variance.
Boardmember Johnson made a motion to grant the side yard setback to 4 feet
and denial of the front yard setback, for the hardship stated. Boardmember
Dodder seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Lieser, Thede and Dodder.
Nays: None.
ZBA Minutes
Page 21
Appeal No. 1692. Section 118-43(F) by Bill Paradise, 330 Park St. -
"---The variance would reduce the required 15 foot setback from the north
lot line to 7-1/2 feet for an addition to a single family home in the
RM zone.
---Hardship pleaded: The house is located 17-1/2 feet from the lot line.
The addition is intended to increase the kitchen area, so it needs to
be located adjacent to the kitchen. A 2-1/2 foot wide addition is not
sufficient, and anything greater will require a variance. The addition
will be 19-1/2 feet from the curb, so the intent of the code is being
met.
---Staff recommendation: Approval."
No notices were returned. No letters were received.
Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, pointed out that the addition will
still be 19-1/2 feet from the curb, so the intent of the code is being met.
Bill Paradise, contractor spoke on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Windberger, the
owners of this property, said that the Windbergers want to install a
dishwasher, so they need an addition to the kitchen. Mr. Paradise
explained the plans to the Board which included moving a fence down to the
edge of the line.
Mr. Barnes commented that before he moves the fence if the variance is
granted, he will need to get an encroachment permit from the Engineering
Department to allow the fence in the right-of-way.
Boardmember Dodder made a motion for approval for the hardship stated.
Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Lieser, Thede, and
Dodder. Nays: None.
The Board moved on to Other Business. Peter Barnes brought up before the
Board the idea that administratively he has the authority to decide the
order in which these appeals will be heard. He asked with the Board's
permission or input that in the future, he would like to schedule the easy
appeals first, and the more controversial, .Lengthier appeals towards the
end of the meeting. The Board agreed.
Election of officers, which was postponed from the last meeting.
Peter Barnes told the Board that Leonard Szopinski resigned from the Board
last week, and that his vacancy will be filled shortly.
Boardmember Thede nominated Eve Lieser as Chairman. Boardmember Johnson
seconded. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, and Dodder. Nays: None.
Boardmember Johnson nominated Steve Dodder as Vice -Chairman. Boardmember
Thede seconded. Yeas: Johnson, Lieser, and Thede. Nays: None.
ZBA Minutes
Page 22
There was some discussion by the Board and Staff as to whether or not to
accept Bernard Murphy's absences as excused or not.
The Board made the decision not to accept Bernard Murphy's absences as
excused. He had missed three meetings in a row, which were not excused
absences. Boardmember Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Lieser,
Thede, and Dodder. Nays: None.
The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Eve Lieser, Vice -Chairman
Peter Barnes, Staff Support
EL/PB/dz
oat w, 1785
oninL oard of :.ppaals
of Fort Collins
.port t:ollins, Colorado
iie; 1415 Jouth C011ega nve.
ionin.� Board slembers,
i regret that 1 roust to out of town and therefore
cannot attend the Oct loth 'Zoning board iseeting.
i do not feel that the proposed use by the Larimer
County nlcoholie Services is computable with or
maintains the existing nei^hborhood atmosphere thst
exists in the north hair of tYis block. The existing
professional uses will rave personal owner interaction
in this, area. The nronosed use would briny_ many transient
people into the area. it 'r,ouid be nice to preserve
the existing neighborhood atmosphere until a major
oomme:ciel development oceures.
Yours truly,
i,irs inita Clark
131 ''lest Lake Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
I� ' 1'iOFIT C0VP9f1T10N
1
Average Number of Group Sessions
50
2
High Average Clients in Group
172
3
High Average of 1-1 Counseling Hrs
445.25
4
Days in One Month
30
5
Average Number of Groups per Day
1.66666
6
Average Clients per Group per Day
5.73333
7
Hours of 1--1 Counseling per Day
14.8416
8
Average Session Length @
1.75
9
Average Persons for 1--1 per Day
8.48095
10
Total Clients/Day (6+9)
14.2142
11
Staff Person Days per Month
167.7
12
Average Staff persons per Day
5.59
13 Total Persons/Day (10+12) 19.8042
This should be an accurate representation of the
number of persons into and out of the building
per day -- Averaged over any 30 day period.
It should be noted that a significant portion of
the client trips would not also represent a
vehicular trip.
0 71- A United Way
Member Agency
HOUSE of HOPE
HOPE CENTER
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Larimer County Alcohol Services
DATE: October 10, 1985
Planning Staff would like to express concern relative to the
interpretation of conditions, including type of business and vehicular
trips, for the 1415, 1417 South College PUD. In interpreting these
conditions, Staff encourages the ZBA to examine what the intent of the
limitations were, that intent being the desire to limit the intensity of
commercial use, given the special character of this neighborhood. Staff
believes that Larimer County Alcohol Services would have difficulty fitting
into a low -intensity use category.
We suggest interpretation of the conditions as follows:
1. Type of Business: The type of business should be restricted to
professional offices as defined by the City of Fort Collins Zoning
Ordinance, excluded uses being medical, dental, real estate (office or
clinic), and businesses with a high intensity of use that may be disruptive
to the character of the neighborhood. "High intensity" uses for purposes
of this condition are those with a large client load or a type of use that
does not generate a steady, dispersed flow of clients.
2. Vehicle Trips: Vehicular trips per day to either building should not
exceed twenty per day including employees (a trip being defined by ITE
standards).
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY 7
300 LaPorte Ave. - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 - (303)221-6750
List of Owners A100g S.
College Aveuuc
between Fruspect and l.zRe.
RE: Overall City Policy
Concerning New
Ucvclopment and Redevelop-ment
C. Don Berry
Public Service Company
10367 W. Weaver Avenue
P. 0. Box 840
Littleton, Colorado 80202
Denver, Colorado 80228
Robert Ditzfield
li. D. Scllclliaas
First National Bank
124 N. Grant
Trust Department
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Fort Collins, Colorado
80521
Charles Bechner
1.. IL Clark
2025 N. College Avenue.
131 W. Lake
Fort Collins, Colorado
80521
fort Collins, Colorado 80521
C. J. Streit
R_ T. Beck
746 N. College Avenue
1675 Carr Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
80521
Lakewood, Colorado 80215
C. J. Staver
D_ W. Acott, Trustees
139 Harvard Street
117 W. Lake Street
.Fort -Collins, Colorado
90521
Fort Collins-, Colorado 80521
Art I -Larch, Jr.
E. It. VanSint
City Attorney
119 W. Lake Street
Untied Bank Building
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
t Fort Collins, Colorado
80521
Bob Pennock, Jr.
G_ E. Fischer
The Broker Realty
012 Elizabeth
3000 S. College
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Fort Collins, Colorado
e0521
' E. J. Clarke
Gladys Coostree
1405 S. College
I407 S. College
Fort Collins, Colorado
80521
Fort Collins, Colorado 8052I
K. G. Nedearis
Rolf At. Sclraenningetr
1413 S. College
943 llth Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
80521
Boulder; Colorado 80302
• Matilda Rowland
1417 S. College
Fort Collins, Colorado
•80521
C.
l
`.�
..
!I
Y [*1
L, At--
"I
1-• C
Y „7
Y
C'
Y C7
•O 10
Y
A
N M
LiA
C i
1... _
f..
Y .
cam•
w-
N
c
u
O
r•
(D ri
CD
N
`_�
v
�•
r
O•
•p
of
w
i:.rt
cr
M
•�
v+y
.�
C
O Y
A
o 1-.
t=]
R
r W
C' O
H
n
O V
0
c w
rtHO
H
G7U
A
A C
!b
W
W
W D
n
'.-
0
:S
C n
U
W
U
S
r.O
0
O O
0 •
Y
n
7 •
is
H
0 O
H
HR<
7C•
`HHC
.n
:J
V.
0 S
O W
0 rt
V1
tJ
T
7 Y
O) G
O.
fJ
-
1+.
C.
�+.
•-
'%
O P.
O H
O
S H
[n rt
N
- W
O n
M C
W
tz et
f= a
H
7
Cv
CJ
CJ
-
rt
rt y
..
nt
W
Ip
p
a
C ,
G
O
7
tD
0
O 0
fJ
H
O
N
O
0
O
F^
'f.
O
"•
-
'•
-
M
-
'- C
I'•
-S
O
O
H
n Gtf
-
Y
_^
7
O
v�
G
R
H
(J 0
R
P1
r
CI
A
O
O
o
O
O
0
rt
7 3
A L
M
O
o
7J
•:
c
H
H
H
H
H
H fd
O
A
a C�0
O
1O-• 1
n
i
y
p
1-+
O
H 7
Y
N H
R
.•
o
o
Y
f'
- �G
N
F'• H
�--�
.p
Y
A
A
A
Y
A
A
O.
P.
Y
-1+-
C•
o
0
o
Y
o
o
-
a
r-
A
o
o W
o
0
- �-
n
r
r
Y
f�•
Y
Y
to
a
O
m
- r}
N
.1
.r -
r
•;
Y-
r
Y
�
r
F-•
A
-
m
O
~
rt
N
O
fD
P.
IcSf
:3
A
of
A
O
O
0
N
A
N
N
fA
y
O
O
Ea
-
co`
0
N
r
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
co
_
co
co
co
O
A
Y•
-
O
co
O
O
O
O'
O
Y
O
w
O
V.
O
O
-
co
-
In
Ln
O
In
N 6,.,j
y
m
J
coC3
co
co
to
m
co
F'
LA
N
F'
~
co
N
Y
In
N
In
to
f..
U
Ln
1-
lr
O
N
N
N
✓�
N
S
w
NO
c�
r
CD
n
• 11MOWIDUN • i(0,(
Y0: Robert L. Brunton, City llanaber /7 !l
FROM: Les Kaplan, Planning Director
,�
DATE: 25 May 1977
RE: Proposed Policy Guidelines for 1400 Block of South College
Avenue
Background
In January, 1977, the City Council instructed the City Administration to
prepare for City Council consideration an overall policy concerning
redevelopment and new development for the west side of S. ColIE;re Avenue
between Prospect Street and Lake Street and bordered by the railltoad tracks
to the west. In general the Council felt tint such a policy was necessary
due to the particular difficulties which would arise for the puBlic as well
as for property owners, developers and. users of this area when fevelopment
or use changes occur. This is due mainly to:
1. the single lot configuration of existing development in tee
B-P, Planned Business District, which requires a minimum mf
two acres for a project;
2. the .procession of existing curb cuts along: this block of South
College Avenue; and,
3. the difficulty of vehicular access to the northwest corner of the
Prospect Street - College Avenue iattrrsection.
Hore specifically, the Council felt the need for Council directfon concerning
1) a petition before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to the two
acre P.U.D. requirement for 1415 and 1417 S. College Avenue and,2) the then
anticipated development plans for two restaurants at the northast corner of
S. College Avenue and Prospect Street. Since January, the variance petition
has been withdrawn. The owner of 1417 S. College Avenue intends to open a
public relations firm as a home occupation and the owner of 1435 S_ College
Ave. will continue a .beauty parlor establishment as a home occupation. 1he
original party inquiring about restaurant development at the corner is no
longer actively interested.
On February 3, 1977, the Administration met with the property or+ners of :nd
parties directly involved with the area at and near this northeast inter-
section. Then, on March 29, 1977, the property owners and interested parties
of the larger area to discuss alternative policy approaches.
Several property owners on this block nre particularly concerned about the
beauty parlor use at 1415 S. Collci;t• Avenue contending that it is not in far.:
a home occupation and that even if it were, the use is incompatible to sur-
rounding properties and has resulted in a dangerous traffic situation on S.
College Avenue clue to frequent turning movements. The attention givenl•y pr-
owners to this use has been expressed in the context of larger concerns tiost
the area change from residential to commerci.1 uses .in an orderly ant pro[.,-r
manner. The City nuilding Tuspection Division which is respons'cble for tl:c
issuance of Bone occupation p-rmits has inspected the use at 1415 S. Cntli-gr
re: proposedPolicyGuidelines for
1400 Block of • College "Ave. • I �/
Avenue and ,is satisfied that the letter of the law concerning horde. occupations
in the city is being met.
At its March 29, 1977, work session the City Council heard a report from the
Adriinistration regarding the development status of this area, including the
withdrawn variance and the discontinued interest for restaurant development
at the intersection. After this -report- the Council instructed the Adminisrra-
tion to prepare a statement of policy guidelines relative to future developmen
and redevelopment for this area. The substance of this memo intends to propos
such guidelines based upon the above -mentioned meetings with property owners
and staff discussions about this area.
Pr000sed Policy Guidelines
Close city and private cooperation is necessary in order for this area to
develop in a manner which is mindful of the rights of all its property owners
and attentive to the public interest. .The transition from residential uses it
single family houses to commercial uses is underway. The existing B-P, Planne
Business District, is the appropriate zone in that it assures city site and
landscape plan review and the opportunity for public input. However, it will
be necessary to vary the two acre requirement of this zone in certain cases ar
with certain conditions in order to implement a general policy for this area.
Character of Development
While it is impractical to expect a continuation of residential uses•on
this block,'attention should be given to the preservation of its structurally
sound, architecturally significant older houses. In general the four houses
south of lot 1417 are of a lower quality than lot 1417 and the houses north of
it and, therefore, more conducive to removal and acconmodating new co rcrcial
development. Three other factors contribute to the potential for new construr
tion on the area north of lot 1417: 1)lots 143.9 thru 1435 are presently unde,
the same ownership; 2) this is a corner location; and 3) approxicately one ac
of land contiguous to the west of these lots is presently available for sale
development, thereby together comprising approxinntely two acres and developa'
as a P.U.D.
The area including lot 141.7 and north of it generally consists of horses
which should be preserved, provided that appropriate commercial uses can i•e
located within them. The suitability of.such uses should be a function of
vehicular traffic generation to a, large degree and of the compatibility bazwe
various uses to a lesser degree. Commercial uses on these six lots should he
limited to non -retail and only low trip generating uses not to ezceed twenty
(20) daily trips including those of employees.
Cunccuts on S. College Avenue
In order to avoid serious interruptions to the flow of traffic on S.
College Avenue, ingress and egress movements should occur on curbcuts that at
strategically located and limited in number. The incidence of curbcuts �1q:
largely on such market forces as the timini; of new development and redevcl.•pr
and the willingness of proper::y owners to coordinate their planning throu:;h i
to: R. L. Brunton
re: Proposed icy Guidelines for
1400 Block oW. College Ave. •
recognition of mutual ends. To the extent possible the city should limit
f aid locate curbcuts on this block as follows:
l - Maintain curbcut to lot 1413 which is an approved one lot P.U.D.
Encourage sharing of this curbcut with lot 1411 either through
revision to the P.U\D\ or a cross easement agreement. If a revised
P.U.D., then other benefits such as shared parking are available.
Shared curbcut for lots 1415 and 1417 located at the south end of lot
1417, accomplished either through P.U.D. or a cross easement agreement
One curbcut for lots 1419 thru corner lot 1439, located at the north
end of lot 1419 and connected with lot 1417 curbcut.
S. College Avenue - Prospect Street Intersection
In -order to accommodate the additional congestion at this intersection
resulting in part from the addition of commercial activities on the subject _
block, at least the northwest corner should be widened to facilitate turning
movements. This could be a city requirement at the time of P.U_D_'review.
The alley
Unless widened and improved, 'tile alley can not accommodate two way traffi
The cost of improving the alley as a dedicated street is prohibitive due to
the obstruction of utility poles and existin.- buildings. Presently the alley
serves minimally to provide access to several of the lots_ The importanc:: of
a second point of ingress and egress will increase with additional commercial
uses on this block. The city's official policy concerning the improvement of
Mason Street does not call for Mason Street to he improved in this vicinity.
Many of the property owners have complained that the alley presently functior
more as an intrusive "dragstrip" than as a benefit. nonetheless, once additi
commercial development occurs, the alley has the potential to serve as an imi
tans roadway, in that it will 1) help alleviate additional traffic on S. Coll
Avenue, 2) help reduce the number of turning movements off of and onto S.
College Avenue, and 3) serve to interconnect the commercial uses in the subj
area.
One method of improving the alley would be reroute it along the north
property line of "C" (see attached map) and north to Lake Street along the
west property line'of "A". This would involve closing the existing alley fri
"B" north to Lake Street. Such an improvement would be best accomplisher :,t
the time of F.U.D. consideration for A, B, and C_
According to the City Traffic Engineer the alley should be maintained a
not interrupted. Ingress and egress turning movements from and onto Prospec
Street are difficult because of the configuration of curbcuts for Fox Shoppi
Center .a cross the street. Tile City Administration should meet with tip^ owu1n
of the Shopping Center to discuss ways of consolidating these curbcuts and
therefore, providing opportunity for greater utilization of the .alley.
I tare 4 - 25 flay 19//
to: It. L. Bru on '�al
re: Proposed *icy Guidelines for •
1400 Block of S. College Ave.
Variances
City response to requests to vary the two acre lot requirement in
the P.U.D. ordinance should be based upon the above -stated policy
-guidelines.
I have not discussed the content of these proposed policy guidelines with
the property owners and suggest that copies of this memo be mailed to the
attached list of individuals in time for their review prior to any City
Council consideration of these proposed guidelines_
LY./ j a
attachment
i
(2N Core Area Neighborhood
p.o. box 1282, fort collins, colorado 80522 484-2673
October 7, 1985
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals,
Parking is a concern to the Core Area Neighborhood Association, an
organization of residents dedicated to preserving the quality of life
in the older residential neighborhood. As you may be aware, the
residential area surrounding CSU has tremendous parking problems.
This is due to the CSU students' daytime parking habits and to the
density of the residential and business development. Residents find
they cannot park in front of their own homes, nor can their servicemen
or guests.
This is a complex problem which we are addressing in other ways
also, but a part of the solution lies in your hands. You can refuse to
grant any variances to reduce the off-street parking requirements in
this heavily impacted area. If every building has its full requirement
of off-street spaces, then the on -street parking problem will be
lessened somewhat.
Delta Upsilon Fraternity is asking you for a variance to allow them
to have fewer than the required number of off-street parking spaces. We
urge you to deny this request. And we urge you to deny anybody's future
request for a variance to the off-street parking requirements within
one-half mile of the borders of the CSU campus.
Thank you for your concern in this matter.
Sincerely,
v
Prasident, CAN Board of Directors
-7
To. Zoning Hoard of Appeals
From: Neighborhood Residents
Re: Delta Upsilon Fraternity request for reduced off-street
parking
We, the neighbors of Delta Upsilon Fraternity, request that you
deny a variance to reduce off-street parking requirements for this
group and for any other landowner within one-half mile of the borders
of the CSU campus. We believe that adequate off-street parking for
each heavy use building will help control the on -street parking
problem, which is already quite severe in our neighborhood.
name address
date
i
4.�
J
6.
7.
9. i��L« �� ��
%11
10
1 1. \ /ILI,
CARLYLE V. TIPPETTS. Agent
,Cl Auto -Life -Health -Home and Business
322 South Sherwood - P. 0. Box 123 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Phone: Off. (303) 493-1888
October q,19°5
rear'rariance Board ':'embers;
"ince I will be unavailable for the meeting on Oct. 1O,1Q?[, I
submit the following letter and enclosed nhotos for vour consi<i-
erntion.
Reg: "he nronosal to review nneal ;"167, a )ronerty located
at ?21 South Sherwood
'his nronosal was made to the ?rariance Board in Sent.,1985, and
I
ecause of notential problems due to growth factors on such a
small lot, the nronosal was turned down.
"v primary objection is narking in the area- not only at the
nronosed nronerty, but expanding to surrounding properties as well.
'his area was formerly a residential, single family neighborhood,
but with the increase of rentals and businesses, on -street parking
is becoming more of a problem. I have a small business directly
across Sherwood from the above location,and I have provided ample
off-street narking for myself, my staff, and my clients.
I earlier submitted a nhoto taken the morning of the board meeting
which showed maximum parking in use in the neighborhood, and
particularly at 121 South Sherwood. The nroponants of Appeal ,=1671
sav they* have new evidence - I also submit new evidence -that they
are deliberately defying the narking ordinances which already exist.
sub -nit additional -photos taken Oct 5,1995 showing not 2, but
now three (�) cars crammed into the single (1) off-street parking
space.
If the narking situation can be solved by additional nroperty
accuisition or limited time on -street parking, I-)ersonally have
no objection to the other nronosed uses of the property; but,
with the obviously deliberate disregard for existing ordinances,
I really doubt that this attitude will change if the proposed
variance is granted, and the already strained narking problem will
become unbearable.
Based on the forner denial, and the fact that the petitioners have
obviously made no attemnt to comply with already existiorr ordinances,
I recuest that you turn down this petition to rehear Appeal ?1671.
Sincerely,