HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/14/1985ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
March 14, 1985
Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M.
Minutes
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday,
March 14, 1985 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Thede, Murphy,
Dodder, Szopinski, and Johnson.
Boardmembers Absent- Lieser, Walker
Staff Present: Barnes, Zeigler, Eckman
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of February 14, 1985, Approved as Published
The minutes of the February 14, 1985 regular meeting were unanimously
approved..
Appeal #1589. 2229 S. College - Withdrawn
Appeal #1606. Section 118-41(B), 118-41(D), 118-41(E) by Joe Vansant,
1113 W. Olive - Approved with conditions
"---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet
to 3000 square feet, reduce the required front yard setback from 20
feet to 15 feet, and reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet
to 9 feet for a new single family dwelling in the RL zone. This is a
rehearing of similar requests heard by the Board on December 13, 1984.
The Board agreed to rehear the appeal based on new evidence which has
been submitted by the petitioner.
---Hardship pleaded: The lot used to be a City of Fort Collins substation
and was created for that use, therefore it is small. There is no
additional land available to buy. Without a variance nothing can be
built. The house contains only 900 square feet of floor area, and
since the RL zone requires that the lot area be 3 times the floor
area of the building, the house could have 1000 square feet of floor
area, so from that standpoint it satisfies the density requirements.
See petitioner's new evidence for additional hardships.
---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the variance is
good only for the 900 square foot house presented by the petitioner to
the Board. Based on the new evidence documenting 12 similar situations
in a 2 block radius this would not be an unusual situation for the
neighborhood. The fact that this lot is bordered by an alley on one
side and a street on the other, any negative impacts on surround-
ing properties are somewhat negated. Added to this is the letter of
support submitted by the adjacent property owner to the west, who would
probably be most affected by this variance. A portion of the sur-
rounding properties are non -conforming duplexes, which may have more of
an impact on density than the addition of a single family dwelling.
If this were only an economic hardship, staff would recommend denial.
However, the code authorizes the Board to consider narrowness and
shallowness of a piece of property or any other exceptional situation
or condition of the property as a hardship when considering a variance.
This lot is shallow and narrow, and has an unusual situation because
it is an abandoned°sub- station site on which nothing can be done
without a variance."
No notices were returned. Two letters were received.
"February 7, 1985
City of Fort Collins
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals:
This letter is in regard to notification about the construction of a house
on the vacant lot immediauely to the east of my property at 302 Scott
Street.
I have made inquiries into the project with the City and have found that
the side -yard setback and other requirements are being satisfactorily met
and therefore I believe it would be an asset to the neighborhood to have a
well -constructed house there.
Hence, I certainly have no objection to this project, especially knowing
the good reputation of the builder.
Yours truly,
G. Bryan Siegrist, DMD"
"306 Scott AVe.
Fort Collins, CO 8OS21
March 8, 1985
Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Fort Collins
RE: Appeal 1606
-2-
•
Members of the Board:
I am Sylvia Nye, a property owner directly adjacent to the south of the
subject property. Because j will be out of town and unable to attend the
hearing on March 14, and because of the great impact this issue has on my
home and my neighborhood, I request that this appeal be tabled until the
next regular meeting so I may be able to address the new evidence on which
the appeal is based in person. If the board chooses to deny this request,
I respectfully submit my comments, as follows:
I herewith wish to express again that I am against the granting of this
variance for reasons already familiar enough to the Board. I would at this
time, though, like to address the so-called "new evidence" presented by Mr.
Vansant, as I understand them:
Reduced floor area of proposed dwelling: A house is a house is a
house. This 3000 square foot lot is too small for any dwelling of any
size.
Similar small dwellings close by: This is not new evidence. I
brought up this fact at past hearings pointing out that these small
houses jammed into the backs of pre-existing lots tall built years
before current zoning laws) have already created an overcrowded
condition that should not be continued and encouraged, whereby a
steady decline of the neighborhood is already in effect.
- The approval of a property owner directly west of the subject pro-
perty: This person is one of many absentee landlords in the area,
does not live in the neighborhood and his reasons for wanting the
variance granted, I would submit, are strictly economic.
I would again remind the Board of its obligation to the people of Fort
Collins by citing language taken from the legal notice:
This board has been established to hear cases, where by reason of
exceptional situations or conditions, the strict application of a
regulation in the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins would result
in exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship
upon the owner of such property, provided that the granting of a
variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public
good.
I submit, again, that if a hardship exists upon the owner (either the City
or Mr. Vansant) it can only be construed as an economic one and pure
economic gain ought not be a factor. In addition, the granting of this
variance on this small lot would in fact result in a substantial detriment
to the public good by encouraging the neighborhood's decline. I understand
the City's policy on infill, but feel this property is not appropriate to
that policy. This would not be infill, this would be blatant overcrowding.
-3-
0
I feel strongly enough about this issue that I did submit a bid to buy the
property from the City at the appraised value, but was outbid by Mr.
Vansant.
The Board's serious consideration of the factors addressed by this letter
and my arguments at past meetings are appreciated. I again ask that you
deny the granting of the variance on this property.
Sincerely,
Sylvia M. Nye"
Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes gave the Board a short history of the
lot. It used to be a City of Fort Collins substation. At the December
1984 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting the City of Fort Collins was the owner
of the property. Technically, they still are until next Tuesday. The City
went through the whole bid process and lowered the appraised value and were
accepting bids for an unconditional contract. In other words no conditions
of variances being approved were stipulated. This brought the appraised
value of the property down quite a bit. Mr. Vansant was awarded that bid
and even if this variance is denied, he still is the owner of the property.
Petitioner Joe Vansant, 119 W. Lake, said that he would be the owner,
designer and builder of this project. He has some concrete design solar
work that he wants to do on his own home, a smaller home, so that he can
see if they will work before he starts on a larger project. Mr. Vansant
said that there will still be room to put 3 off street parking spaces and
still have a lot of grass to mow. He said that there is almost 1000 square
feet of City property in front of this lot which does not cramp the lot as
much as it sounds. Addressing some of the objections he stated that this
piece of property has been available for three years if the neighbors had
wanted to purchase it and do something with the lot, the option was there.
Mr. Vansant said that the neighbors on Scott Street are objecting because
of a traffic problem with the school. It is not felt by Mr. Vansant
that his house on W. Olive will have any bearing on this problem. It was
pointed out by Mr. Vansant that Sylvia Nye did bid on the lot. He wanted
it known that Ms. Nye has an apartment in her basement. If Ms. Nye would
have gotten the lot, she could have taken 60 feet off the back of her lot
and she could build the same house without a variance.
Boardmember Murphy asked if 900 square feet was the total floor area of the
house. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that basements are not
considered as floor area. Mr. Barnes said that the lower level meets the
requirements of a basement so that floor area would not be considered.
Joe Frey, 1121 W. Oak spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Frey has lived
in the area for 14 years. He feels that the project that Mr. Vansant
proposes is very appropriate for the area. He said that the precedence has
-4-
been set all along Olive Street with other infill projects. Mr. Frey feels
that the congestion problems talked about by the neighborsis caused by the
larger homes that are rentals. Mr. Frey stated that the project will
definitely fit in with the character of the neighborhood and said that he
supports it fully. Mr. Frey went on to tell that the lot looks awful and
is not taken care of.
Roland Minue appeared to speak in favor of the variance. He said he would
like to see the property developed. He has children in the grade school
adjacent to the property and feels a vacant lot can cause lots of safety
problems to the children. It is off of school property and out of the
schools realm of authority.
Harriet Froberg, 1103 W. Olive said that she doesn't have any problem with
the project Mr. Vansant has proposed but does feel that the City should not
grant a variance on this small lot for a dwelling. She felt that one
variance would lead to another.
Boardmember Szopinski made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship
pleaded with the condition that the house that is built is similar to the
plan submitted. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Dodder. Yeas:
Thede, Dodder, Murphy, Szopinski, Johnson. Nays: None.
Appeal #1608. 140 Second Street - Withdrawn
Appeal #1609. Section 118-81(C)(1) by Pamela Sue Heldt, 512 Peterson -
Denied
"---The variance would allow an art studio home occupation to be conducted
in a new detached building rather than in the house. The house is
located in the RM zone.
---Hardhship pleaded: The house is not big enough to accommodate a room
of adequate size and head room for the variety of sculpture and other
art works which will be made. The new structure will be passive solar
and have air filtration and dust collection systems. No one will come
to the property in connection with the business.
--- Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the
neighbors."
There were no notices returned. Four letters were received.
"528 Whedbee
Fort Collins, CO
Mr. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
-5-
0 0
Dear Mr. Barnes,
Because of my age and physical condition I will not be able to attend the
meeting on Thursday 14th relative to allowing a building to be erected at
518 Peterson. I definitely am against it. Why, oh why are they allowing
our choice City of Fort Collins to be destroyed. This section of Fort
Collins is definitely Fort Collins as it was supposed to be. Why does our
Zoning Board let it be destroyed with buildings etc. going up in back
yards. It spoils the view, the neighboring homes and the parking situa-
tion. Stores and a business belong downtown with all the other stores.
Keep our residential area a place for homes. I do protest such a permit
being allowed.
Dorothy V. Finley"
"We do not approve of this zone change.
L.C. Lair
524 Peterson
Fort Collins, CO 80524"
"518 Peterson Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
March 11, 1985
Mr. Peter Barnes
Zoning Administrator
City of Fort Collins
Office of Building Inspection
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mr. Barnes:
In reply to your letter of March 6 regarding the request of Pamela Heldt of
512 Peterson Street for a variance in the building code, for a building on
the back part of the lot, my feeling is that the proposed building would:
1. Almost totally interfere with the view across the back yards in this
part of the block, reducing the open character of the block.
2. Probably reduce the property values of the adjoining properties and
affect the property values in the entire block to some extent.
3. Lead or contribute to the commercialization of the block and the area
at some future time, especially if the property were sold later
on.
4. Possibly add to air pollution in the neighborhood.
in
I therefore would like to state my strong opposition to the granting of
this variance. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Elizabeth Hoffman"
"508 Peterson Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
March 13, 198S
Mr. Peter Barnes
Zoning Administrator
City of Fort Colliins
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mr. Barnes:
These are our comments on the proposal to grant a variance of the building
code under Appeal No. 1609 by Pamela Heldt of 512 Peterson Street. Our
property would be impacted to a greater extent than any other, as it is
just north of the proposed building.
We have lived at this location for 39 years, since 1946, and have done our
best during that entire time to uphold and also build up the character and
beauty of the neighborhood. This has become increasingly difficult because
of traffic, air pollution, noise, and parking, but we are still trying.
The granting of this variance would be the biggest setback we have had yet,
for the following reasons:
1. Open space. The lots here are 50 by 190 feet and the houses are rather
close together. The views are obstructed for about the front 125 feet of
the lots, leaving about 65 feet of open view in the back of our lot and the
three lots to the south. This is a great asset, and it would be destroyed
by a 28' by 40' building, partly two stories, in the. middle of this open
space. If set 5 ' from our property line, as proposed, the shading would
make impossible the garden and landscaping which have been in place for a
long time.
2. Air pollution. As an engineer and designer of solar heating systems, I
have been asked to look at the possibility of solar heat for this building,
and my conclusion is that while such heating is usually practical, shading
from a tree which is now in place and from others in the future make this
an unlikely solution. Since wood, and I suspect coal, are used for a great
deal of the heat in the present house at 512 Peterson, any more of this
would create a very bad pollution problem.
3. Noise. There has been a great increase in noise as a result of the
heavy traffic on Mulberry Street and the sirens on the fire trucks, the
fire station being across the street. If the proposed building ever became
a production shop, this could create a lot of noise, most unsuitable for a
residential zone.
-7-
0 •
4. Parking. If the proposed building were ever used commercially,
parking would be further aggravated. It is now very difficult for us to
use the space in front of our house for parking because of parking by
students living at 506 Peterson Street, just north of us, and sometimes by
fire department personnel and visitors.
5. Property values. In view of the changes brought on by granting of the
variance, we have been advised by a realtor that while it is impossible to
quote an exact impact on the value of our property, he was certain it would
be much harder to sell. Changing the character of a neighborhood has
unforeseen impact.
We are therefore asking that the variance be denied for the five reasons
cited above. We further think that if a building is really needed, it
could be located in the present fenced enclosure back of the house rather
than on the rear part of the lot.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these ideas.
Sincerely,
Harold B. Mummert
Orphea Mummert°
"13 March 1985
Mr. Peter Barnes
Zoning Administrator
City of Fort Collins
Appeal No. 1609
Dear Mr. Barnes:
We will be out of town at the time of the scheduled appeal for a variance
of the RM zone in the 500 block of Peterson.
A second large structure on a lot previously deemed suitable for only one
large structure is undesirable and a real detriment to the neighborhood.
We have a real concern that this variance if granted, would soon lead to
other variance requests and eventually to the demise of a very desirable
neighborhood of well kept family homes.
We respectfully urge that this variance of the RM zoning code be denied.
Sincerely,
Norma G. Hilmes
Kenneth E. Hilmes"
In
There were several neighbors present to speak opposed to the variance.
George Beech who lives within a block of the appellents address said that
he had lived there for 56 years and he feels the variance would change the
character of the neighborhood.
Steve Allen, 515 Whedbee, said that the building would block the view and
the noise would be very bothersome, i.e. the saws that would be used for
the wood artwork.
Harold Mummert said that after living there for 34 years, it would be hard
to learn to live without there gardening. The proposed building would
shade their garden area.
Ray Mackleny, 520 Peterson, felt that the open area would be deleted and
many gardens shaded.
Irving Cross, 530'Peterson, who has lived at this address for 28 years said
that the building would be out of character with the neighborhood.
After hearing the petitioners and neighborhoods comments, Boardmember
Dodder made a motion to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by
Boardmember Szopinski. Yeas: Thede, Dodder, Murphy, Szopinski, Johnson.
Nays: None.
Appeal #1610. Sectionl18-81(D)(1)(d), 118-81(F)(4), 118-81(D)(2)(b)[6]
by Howard Jones for Steele Lumber, 2255 Midpoint - Approved.
"---The variance would allow part of a parking lot to not be hard surfaced,
and would reduce the amount of required 6% interior landscaping to 0%
for the rear portion of the parking lot for a new Army Reserve Center
in the IL zone. The variance would also allow a barbed wire fence to
be constructed around the rear portion of the lot. (Barbed wire is
allowed only in the IG zone.)
---Hardship pleaded: The rear parking lot will be used to park large
pieces of equipment such as caterpillar tractors and other large earth
movers which will be used quite seldom. If they were sitting on
asphalt they would sink into the asphalt. Interior landscaping in the
rear can't be provided due to Army security regulations, however the
landscape requirements have been surpassed on the rest of the property
to off set this. The barbed wire fence is also required to satisfy the
army security regulations. The bottom strand is 10 feet above ground
so no hazard is presented.
---Staff recommendation: Approval. The landscape plan is quite substan-
tial. The Board granted these same variances last year for this
facility two lots further east.
There were no notices returned. Three letters were received.
"March 8, 1985
Office of Building Inspection
300 LaPorte Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
ATTN: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
RE: Zoning Code Variance
2255 Midpoint, Appeal #1610
Dear Mr. Barnes:
As representative of the W.W. Reynolds Companies presently developing
Prospect Park adjacent to the property being considered for a variance, I
would like to go on record as opposing the above mentioned variance. I,
along with other representatives of my Company, will attend the March 14,
1985 hearing and voice our opposition. I would like to make a few comments
at this time regarding the consideration of this particular variance.
We, at the W.W. Reynolds Companies, feel that the development of the
described facility at this particular location will nullify all attempts
that we are making at creating a first class, visually appealing techno-
logical park. The described property is located nearby at the "gateway" to
Prospect Park East in a highly visible area which will certainly detract
from the high standards that we are planning. The lack of hard surfaced
paving and complete landscaping as well as an inappropriate handling of
barbed wire would certainly clash visually without design criteria of
"high-tech" identity. We would hope that the City of Fort Collins would
work with us in an attractive, homogeneous appearance to our development
and help discourage incongruities so close to the park entrance.
We request that you deny Appeal #1610 and stand by those regulations
requiring higher standards.
Sincerely yours,
Charles L. Deane
Director of Architecture and Planning
CLD/lgj"
"March 14, 198S
City of Fort Collins
To Whom It May Concern
RE: Variance for 2255 Midpoint Drive
-10-
We own eleven acres on the corner of Prospect, Timberline and Midpoint
Drive. It seems very inconsistent planning to take an area where a de-
veloper has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a quality
project in a highly visible area and then down grade standards to allow an
outdoor storage area for army vehicles. The developer, Reynolds and
Company, has created a high class Business Industrial Park with high-tech
type businesses. Surely barbed wire fences and huge over weight green
vehicles don't belong there. We definitely don't want any reduction of
landscaping or gravel parking areas in this area.
Because the County Jail is located on the entire east boundary of this
property there would be total visibility of all of the storage and barbed
wire from Midpoint Drive as well as from the parking lot of the County
Jail.
When quality projects are developed to improve industrial areas it seems a
terrible crime to undermine those efforts by lowering standards to allow a
user that will not be consistent with the area.
Rhoades Inc.
by
James R.Rhoades"
"March 13, 198S
Mr. Peter Barnes
Zoning Administrator
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO BOW
Dear Mr. Barnes:
Reference is made to variance request for property at 2255 Midpoint Drive,
Appeal No. 1610.
The Board of County Commissioners at a meeting on March 13, 1985 voted by
consensus to register objection to granting of the zoning variances in-
cluded in the above appeal.
The Board objection is based on the realization the project violates
several zoning regulations and does not reflect the type of development
envisioned in this area when the County committed to the adjacent Detention
center site. Larimer County was highly sensitive to the zoning require-
ments of the City when construcitng the Detention Center and of accom-
plishing the difficult task of assuring the compatibility of a detention
facility with its surroundings. The Board is concerned that the quality of
the area will not be preserved if the requested variance is approved.
-11-
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance action.
Sincerely,
Wayne Lawler,
Facilities Manager
WL/dh"
Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained to the Board that last October
Howard Jones, petitioner, appeared before the Board for the same Reserve
Center with the same building layout. Those variances were granted by the
Board unanimously. The lot at that time was on the east side of the jail,
directly adjacent on the east side. That land deal fell through and Mr.
Jones has now found a lot on the west side of the jail. The lot on
the west side is a different zone therefore barbed wire fences are not
allowed. This lot would be between the jail and The Northern Colorado
Distributing Company. There is a farm at the rear of the property and
railroad tracks. Mr. Barnes said that the only portion of the lot that
won't be paved is at the rear of the lot. The heavy equipment would
be placed there. The rest of the property would be heavily landscaped and
staff's opinion is that they are exceeding the landscape requirements, even
if you spread out the portion that will be landscaped in the front over the
entire lot, they would probably still exceed the landscape requirements by
over 2 to 1.
Petitioner Howard Jones, Steel Lumber Company, 555 South Howes, Suite 205,
Fort Collins said that he thought Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes had
adequately explained the reason for resubmitting to the Board. He said
that they are attempting to provide a training center for the Army, jt is
their attempt to do an outstanding job on landscaping. He asked the Board
to notice that the front of their parkhng lot has as much as 85 feet
setback from the street before you see cars. There are front berms along
the west side of the lot and they are planting along the side as far back
as they can go. He pointed out to the Boardmembers that the setbacks
before they hit the fence is literAlly a football field. They are sur-
rounded by Nor -Colo Business against the east side of their building. The
exposure to the south is a 40 foot easement for a power line, a railroad
track and a feedlot. The jail site is to the east of the property.
Petitioner Jones passed out some photos of the proposed building. He
also showed the Board the elevations of the proposed building.
Boardmember Szopinski asked Mr. Jones how many vehicles the Army will be
parking in the back of the property. Mr. Jones said that every parking
spot. on the plans is for machines that they are authorized. They do not
have that many machines but the number on the plans shows how many they are
authorized to have. Each and every slot is designed for a specific ma-
chine. Mr. Jones stated that only the back portion of the lot will be
-12-
fenced with barbed wire. The front portion of the lot is screened and
beautified with landscaping. The back fence is for security reasons only.
At one time Mr. Jones presented to the Army the idea of having land-
scaping against the fences and the Army quickly pointed out that this could
not be done for security reasons. He said because of this he has tried to
work with the angles on the approach with the plantings in the parking lot
plus what's along the side; as you approach the property from the west
and north it is totally screened.
George Betz, 323 S. College, spoke in opposition to the variance. He
represents various interests in the area. He referenced the letter by Mr.
Jim Rhodes. Mr. Betz said that he was involved with Mr. Jones first
attempt to develop the lot to the east. It did not work out because.the
property sold to another gentlemen, Mr. Reynolds and Company. At the
time of the first variance there was no objection because the use was
consistent with what had been done and with where the area is heading.
Since that time there has been an expenditure of several million dollars in
purchasing the area and in upgradings to make it an industrial park that
would not otherwise be possible. Mr. Betz said that they object at this
point because the use is no longer consistent with the area and direction
it is heading.
Charles Dean, 1919 14th Street, Boulder, Colorado, representing W.W.
Reynolds and Companies spoke in opposition to the variance. He feels the
use is inconsistent with the present development of the area which is high
tech. He felt that it would definitely have an impact on the develop-
ment that they are proposing. They are now in the process of developing.
The development of the Army Reserve Storage and Maintenance Facility with
its reduced standards and elements would certainly hinder marketing the
leases in the park. Mr. Dean felt that it would be the kiss of death from
a marketing standpoint. He said the issues of contention that they have
are the parking of heavy equipment in the exterior - it is very heavy
equipment and they don't feel that the roads in the area will tolerate this
use. Reduced landscape requirements - our park has high design criteria
standards with respect to landscaping and this is certainly a relaxed
stance on the City's standards. Parking not being paved - He feels a lot
of dust is going to be generated, depending on the amount of traffic.
Barbed wire fencing - this is visibly incongruous and even if it won't be
apparent at the front of the building, it will be very visible from their
development. The final objection that he had was that relaxing of the
standards that the City of Fort Collins has established with respect to
landscaping, barbed wire fence, etc. is going to set a precedence and he
thinks that it will be hard to control with respect to adjacent property.
He asked that the Board deny the variance and stand by their standards they
have established. He felt that with so many aspects of this variance such
as barbed wire, landscaping, lack of paving indicates that this facility
should be in another part of Fort Collins.
Boardmember Thede asked if he was aware that when he bought the property in
this area that a variance had already been approved for the Army Reserve
Center.
-13-
Mr. Dean said that when they purchased the land they felt that the idea of
an Army Reserve Center no longer existed.
David Bregman, Vice President of Real Estate for the W.W. Reynolds Com-
panies, said that his main focus of activity is in marketing their pro-
jects. He said that their project will cover approximately 80 acres and
eventually encompass about a million square feet of improved property. He
brought a colored picture to try and show the Board what they propose in
the area. They are trying to create a high tech environment. They are
creating extremely intensified landscaped areas with many areas for grass,
tree paths for running,. One of three lakes is already under construction.
It will be a 2 and 1/2 acre lake that will have 40 foot fountains and
actually be stocked with trout or bass. The type of buildings that they
are doing are extremely attractive buildings that are poured in place tilt
up type of construction with one building up and occupied on lot 4. They
are planning construction this year on 22,800 square foot building on lot
1 and in the lower portion of the park, construction of several more
buildings which will begin by the end of March. They have invested $2
million in land acquistion. By the end of the year that investment will
increase by $6 million with new buildings and landscape. They are trying
to respond to what Fort Collins had envisioned for this area. They have
extrememly strict architectural guidelines in the area. There will be no
gravel parking lots allowed, no barbed wire fencing, no metal buildings
with the idea being that if they want to restrict and guarantee the aes-
thetic integrity of the park, they will have to pay for it. They will pay
for it in two levels, #1 - putting in the amenities up front; #2 - re-
strictions. Mr. Bregman feels that this could be a wonderful gateway to
Fort Collins but if variances such as this one are allowed, it is going to
be a big problem. He feels that when people come to this area and see the
Army's big heavy equipment, it will discourage them from developing
in this area.
Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes asked Mr. Bregman what time frame they
are looking at for completion of the park. Mr. Bregman said they are
anticipating anywhere from the next 5 to 10 years. Ground will be broken
this year on excess of 100,000 square feet.
Bret Backman, Vice President of Advanced Energy, 1600 Prospect Parkway, was
present to oppose the variance. Mr. Backman said that they are the first
tenant of the park, occupying a 26,000 square foot building. They have
options on S additional acres at the park. Their building is between
Prospect and the jail. He feels this would be a detriment to Fort Collins
in attracting high tech business. Mr. Backman said that he traveled all
over the State of Colorado trying to find something that would be suitable
for a high tec park for smaller businesses. They didn't find it in Colo-
rado. This is a great opportunity to attract this type of business to Fort
Collins. He feels very strongly that the Army Reserve Base would be a
detriment to attracting businesses to Fort Collins. Having the option on
-14-
the 5 acres, he really feels that if the reserve base goes in, it would
influence their decision to expand in that area. They started their
business off of Lincoln, near the present site of the Army Reserve Center
and it isn't in keeping having those large machines driving down the road.
They are a traffic hazard, they track mud and dirt onto the road.
Boardmember Johnson said that whether the Army project is developed on this
land or not is not the Board's decision. He said that several illusions
have been made about the use being incompatible, but that's not really the
question.
City Attorney Paul Eckman said he was about to reply to that question. The
use of the property can be controlled by ownership of the property and to
some extent it can be limited through the decisions of Planning and Zoning
Board and through the zoning on the property but Mr. Eckman wanted to
make it clear in the record that the Board is to consider just the vari-
ances before them, the parking lot, barbed wire, and landscaping. He said
that their might be a question that the use might be a detriment to the
public good but to purely look at the use is not for the Board to consider.
Zoning Administrator Barnes said that the traffic engineer has been in-
volved in this particular project and indicated that there would not be a
problem with the heavy equipment use on this road.
David Bregman, Vice President of Real Estate for the W.W. Reynolds Com-
panies, wanted to point out that they were at the meeting today to oppose
the relaxed standards being requested in the area.
Peter Barnes reminded the Boardmembers that if they did grant the variance,
Mr. Jones would like an extension of two years.
Boardmember Szopinski thinks that Mr. Jones has made an attempt to compen-
sate for what he is asking for in the variance. He has the unpaved area in
the rear of his lot. His fence is on the rear part of his lot, He has
gone to a great deal of expense in landscaping. Boardmember Szopinski made
a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded for a period of two
years. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Yeas: Thede,
Szopinski, Johnson, Nays: Murphy.
Boardmember Johnson wanted to comment that the Board is very sensitive to
the relaxing of standards and said he doesn't view this as relaxing of
standards. We have provisions for when real hardships do exist and he
feels that this is a case where a real hardship does exist, and feels other
compensatory measures have been made by the petitioner. These are the
reasons that he is in favor of the variance.
The meeting was adjourned.
-15-
0 •
BM/PB/ddz
Respectfully submitted,
Bernie Murphy, Chairman
Peter Barnes, Staff Support
-16-