HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/21/2015 - CONSIDERATION OF THREE APPEALS OF THE ZONING BOARDAgenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 21, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Tom Leeson, Interim Director, Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svrs
SUBJECT
Consideration of Three Appeals of the Zoning Board of Appeals Decision Regarding the "Change of Use-
Building Permit" for Fraternity Use, 201 East Elizabeth Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 14, 2015, in a 6-1 vote, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approved the motion to uphold the
decision of the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director. Three separate
appeals of the ZBA's decision were filed with the City Clerk. The three parties of appellants are as follows:
McGrew Appeal: Aaron McGrew, Ashley McGrew, Joseph Piesman, Ray Frush, Lisa Moravan, and
Mark Havens
Snyder Appeal: John Snyder
Laupa Appeal: Cindy Laupa and John Laupa (represented by: Jamie Baker Roskie, Attorney at Law)
The City Code outlines six errors that can occur during the decision making process. The three parties have
filed an appeal on the following alleged errors:
Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. (McGrew, Snyder
and Laupa Appeals)
Failure to conduct a fair hearing, in that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in
the Code or Charter. (Snyder and Laupa Appeals)
Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that, the Board considered evidence, relevant to its findings, which
was substantially false or grossly misleading. (McGrew, Snyder and Laupa Appeals)
These are the issues for Council’s consideration in connection with these appeals.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On April 15, 2015 the CDNS Director issued a building permit to change the use of the property located at 201
East Elizabeth Street to fraternity, with the following three conditions: (1) The building shall be limited to 18
occupants; (2) No fraternity meeting shall exceed 18 attendees; and (3) 8 off-street parking spaces are
provided as shown on the site plan dated March 26, 2015. After the issuance of the building permit to change
the use of the property and in accordance with the Land Use Code Sections 2.7.3(L) and 2.11.1(A), this
decision was appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) by four different appellant parties.
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 2
The ZBA conducted a public hearing on May 14, 2015. The verbatim transcript (“Transcript”) of the hearing
has been provided as Attachment 12. At the end of the hearing, the ZBA approved the motion to uphold the
decision of the CDNS Director. (Transcript pages 38 and 39)
Items provided as the record of the Zoning Board of Appeals Decision (attached) are as follows:
- Matrix of Allegations
- City Clerk’s Notice of Hearing and Site Visit
- Notice of Appeal filed by Aaron and Ashley McGrew, May 28, 2015
- Notice of Appeal filed by Cindy and Tom Laupa, May 27,2015
- Notice of Appeal filed by John Snyder, May 25, 2015
- Staff report to ZBA, including attachments
- Applicant materials presented at the ZBA hearing
- Citizen materials provided to ZBA prior to hearing
- Citizen materials presented to ZBA at hearing
- Materials submitted to City Clerk by P. Milewski, July 13, 2015
- Materials submitted to City Clerk by J. Baker Roskie, on behalf of the Laupas, July 14, 2015
- Verbatim transcript of ZBA hearing, May 14, 2015
- Powerpoint presentation
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
The following information is provided as an outline of the evidence in the record that supports the ZBA
decision.
A. Allegations of failure to conduct a fair hearing in that, the ZBA exceeded its authority or
jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter.
1. Snyder Appeal checked the box on the appeal application to indicate there was a failure to
conduct the fair hearing, in that the ZBA exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the
Code or Charter. However, the appellant has offered no argument as to how or why the ZBA
exceeded its authority or jurisdiction.
2. Laupa Appeal alleges the ZBA exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or
Charter because Section 3.8.25 of the Land Use Code does not explicitly authorize the Director to
make the Decision and because the Director made no finding on whether due process had been
satisfied or whether the appropriate Code provisions had been met.
In the verbatim minutes (Transcript”) on page 24, starting in Line 1, it reads:
“DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Well, and that’s why I mentioned the conflict
provisions, because I think…the conflict provision says that the most specific regulation
controls over the more general, and I think this particular section dealing with abandoned
uses and restarting of uses that previously existed is quite specific. So, I think we were
limited to looking at that section and saying, okay, that’s the section that governs because
it’s the most specific to a restart of a previously existing permitted use. And as a restart of
a previously existing permitted use, who is going to decide that? And it just made sense
that the Director would decide it and that if the Director’s decision is not acceptable, it
would get appealed to this Board. That’s how it came to this Board.”
B. Allegations of failure to conduct a fair hearing in that, the ZBA considered evidence, relevant to
its findings, which was substantially false or grossly misleading.
1. McGrew Appeal alleges the ZBA heard testimony from the owner of the property, Paul Milewski
that was substantially false or grossly misleading. This testimony was in reference to the
neighbors welcoming or showing appreciation toward the fraternity brothers.
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 3
In the verbatim minutes on page 16, starting in line11, in the middle of Paul Milewski’s remarks, it
reads:
“As far as the fraternity guys... what a wonderful, amazing group of guys. They…first
snow storm, they came to us and said, hey, let’s go shovel all the neighbors’
driveways…let’s just try to be good neighbors and start off on the right foot. They got out
and did that. Not a single thank you from anybody, but they got out and did it.”
2. Snyder and Laupa Appeals both allege that the ZBA failed to conduct a fair hearing, in that the
ZBA considered evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly
misleading, namely they allege that the 1978 certificate of the occupancy for fraternity use is no
longer valid due to property conversion and occupancy as a single-family dwelling.
In the verbatim minutes page 25, line 16, referencing the certificate of occupancy issued on May 2,
1978 Boardmember Bear stated:
“Well, this certificate of occupancy right here says that it was approved as R1, with the use
zone of BH. So, is this…is this a valid, most recent document?” City staff responded
“That’s the current certificate of occupancy for the building.”
Later on page 25, line 20, City staff stated:
“The R1s and R2s…again, that’s Building Code. The Land Use Code…in 1929, the
property was originally zoned B for residence, which allowed for fraternity. In 1965, it was
rezoned to RH which is high-density residential, which also allowed for a fraternity. And
then in 1991 is when it was zoned NCB.”
In the verbatim minutes starting on page 26, line 6, of Chair Bello’s statement it reads:
“I’m struggling with why we’re arguing about building code issues when this is really a land
use issue and not a building code issue, because I think that seems to be a lot of the
concern here.”
In the verbatim minutes on page 32, starting on line 1, City staff stated:
“If the Certificate of Occupancy for fraternity was changed, then the building permit would
be a change of use and a change of occupancy. In this case, the Certificate of Occupancy
that is in place still the one for a fraternity, the one that was pointed out earlier in the
meeting. And so the only thing that was changing here was the use because that
fraternity has been abandoned and reverted to a single-family.”
In the verbatim minutes on page 33, in line 21, City staff stated:
“I did review with Mike Gebo, the Chief Building official, where…what the current
Certificate of Occupancy is, and he did say it is the fraternity occupancy.”
Also on page 33, starting in line 23, Chair Bello stated:
“And I’m going to push back saying, that’s a building code issue, it’s not a Land Use
Code…we’re not dealing with Building Code issues here. So, if there’s a concern about the
Building Code, then I think that’s outside the purview of this Board. I mean, I don’t necessarily
agree with the fact they don’t have to do anything, but that’s not my… my role here.”
Detailed discussions of compliance with the current building code are not addressed in the record of the
hearing.
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 4
C. Allegations of failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code
1. The McGrew Appeal has alleged Section 2.2.10(A)(1)(a) through (g) of the Land Use Code was
improperly interpreted and applied. This section of the Land Use Code is titled ‘Amendments’ and
applies to amendments to an approved development plan.
As stated in the Staff Comments section 3. Additional Background of the staff report to the ZBA:
“The request to approve the change of use to the fraternity originally came through the City’s
Land Use Code Minor Amendment Process. During the Minor Amendment process, the
decision was referred to the Planning and Zoning Board. In proceeding to the Planning and
Zoning Board, a neighborhood meeting was held. On the night of the Planning and Zoning
Board additional information was received from both neighbors and the applicant. As a result
of the additional information, the Planning and Zoning Board moved to table the item until their
next meeting. Staff looked into the information received and brought the item again at the
Planning and Zoning Board’s work session. At the work session, it was decided that the Minor
Amendment was not the correct process of review of the application. A Building Permit to
change the use of the building is the correct review process. Because public notification had
already been sent out that this item would be on the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing
agenda, it was decided to notify the public that staff would be around after the Planning and
Zoning Board meeting to listen to any comments. It is through the Minor Amendment process
that staff has received the majority of public input. These comments have been captured
through emails, correspondences, and meeting notes, and have been included as
attachments.”
The approval of the building permit to change the use of 201 East Elizabeth was not reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Board through a Minor Amendment. Therefore, this allegation was not
addressed further in the record of hearing.
2. The McGrew Appeal has alleged that sections of the East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP)
were not properly interpreted and applied.
In the verbatim minutes of the ZBA hearing, starting at line 34 of page 17, City staff stated “There was
a mention of plans that were approved, Eastside/Westside Plans… when we do the application review,
we look at the Land Use Code, not necessarily the Plans of the neighborhood.”
This allegation was not addressed further in the record of hearing.
3. The Snyder Appeal has alleged the Land Use Code Section 3.8.25 was not properly
interpreted and applied, by not requiring the Project to be reviewed under Article 2 of the Land
Use Code, and also not requiring that the property should be brought up to current building
code. The appellant has offered no argument in regards to this allegation. Therefore, no
information from the record of hearing is provided.
4. The Laupa Appeal has alleged that the Land Use Code and Charter, namely Section 3.8.25
pertaining to “abandonment”, Section 4.9 (B)(3) of the Land Use Code and Section 1.7.2 of the
Land Use Code, as well as some of the definitions contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use
Code, and multiple provisions of the building code, were not properly interpreted and applied.
The ZBA review solely addresses the merits of the project under standards of the Land Use Code.
Therefore, information pertaining to the allegations concerning the building code, is not in the record of
the hearing.
In the verbatim minutes (Transcript) of the ZBA hearing, on page 18, starting on line 17, it reads:
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 5
“DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Yes, the staff report shows the issues that at least
the staff felt were applicable to this particular project, and maybe this merits some
discussion of what Ms. Roskie brought up by way of procedural objections to this very
hearing. Her suggestion was that you stop the hearing and require the matter to go back
through the Planning and Zoning Board process. Lawyers disagree…that’s the way they
make their living…so she and I disagree. The Land Use Code lists fraternities as a
permitted use in this zone district. If it were a new fraternity, having never existed as a
fraternity ever before, then I believe…and anyone that disagrees, and I know the Director
is here as well…that that would be a matter that would come before the Planning and
Zoning Board for approval. But, the issue…and I know I’ve heard it said that fraternities
are not an appropriate use in this area because of this neighborhood. That should be a
zone change, a use list change in that zone district, or something to that effect. Because,
by reason of it being listed as a permitted use, it’s presumed, under the Code, that it’s
okay to have fraternities in that Zone district. But then you have to go through the criteria
of the Land Use Code.
In this particular case, the reason she and I disagree is because…if, arguably, there’s a
conflict…if the Code says, well P and Z reviews fraternities, and then the Code says in
3.8.25 that the review of a use that has been abandoned… and there’s no question it’s
been abandoned, there is a special criteria that you look at, to the extent reasonably
feasible, does it comply with Article 3 and Article 4 applicable standards. So, our conflict
provisions in 1.7.2 of the Land Use Code says that the most specific provision controls
over the more general provision.. So, the general provision is, fraternities are permitted as
a use in that zone. If they’re brand new, they come through P and Z Board, but
specifically for abandoned uses that are sought to be started up again, you look at 3.8.25
and you go through those criteria. That’s what the Director did. One could argue, well, it
wasn’t the Director’s decision, somebody else should have decided that. But, we made
the decision that it was silent, we would use the Director as the decision maker and that
would be a springboard to the possibility of the you ultimately deciding this, which is what
we’re doing today, which gives everyone a chance for a hearing, everyone a chance to
speak to you as a Board for you to decide the question since it’s been appealed to you.
So, that’s my view on how it came to be here.
There was an argument that the Land Use Code is unconstitutionally vague because, who
knows what ‘to the extent reasonably feasible’ means. That term is defined with some
particularity in the definition section of the Land Use Code, which is Article 5. I guess I
don’t know if I answered your question, but I rambled on for some there…but I’ll stop there
and if there are more questions, I’ll be happy to answer those as well.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Matrix of Allegations (PDF)
2. City Clerk's Notice of Hearing and Site Visit (PDF)
3. Notice of Appeal, filed by Aaron and Ashley McGrew, May 28, 2015 (PDF)
4. Notice of Appeal filed by Cindy and Tom Laupa, May 27, 2015 (PDF)
5. Notice of Appeal, filed by John Snyder, May 27, 2015 (PDF)
6. Staff report to ZBA, including attachments (PDF)
7. Applicant Materials presented at the ZBA Hearing (PDF)
8. Citizen Materials provided to ZBA prior to Hearing (PDF)
9. Citizen Materials Presented to ZBA at Hearing (PDF)
10. Materials submitted to City Clerk by P. Milewski, July 13, 2015 (PDF)
11. Materials submitted to City Clerk by J. Baker Roskie, on behalf of the Laupas, July 14, 2015 (PDF)
12. Verbatim transcript of ZBA Hearing, May 14, 2015 (PDF)
13. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
Matrix of Allegations
GroundsforAppeal
Appeal
Parties
FailuretoConductafairhearinginthat:
Failuretoproperlyinterruptandapply
TheBoardexceeded relevantprovisionsofLandUseCode
itsauthorityor
Jurisdiction
TheBoardconsidered
evidence,relevanttoits
findings,whichwas
substantiallyfalseorgrossly
misleading.
McGrew
Appeal
TestimonygivenbyPaul
Milewskiinreferencetothe
neighborswelcomingor
showingappreciationto
fraternitymembers.
x LandUseCodeSection
2.2.10(A)(1)(a)
x EastSideNeighborhoodPlan
Snyder
Appeal
Checkedtheboxon
theapplication,but
didnotprovideany
argument.
1978Certificateof
Occupancyforfraternity
useisnolongervalid
x LandUseCodeSection3.8.25
x Article2ofLandUseCode
x ProvisionsoftheBuildingCode
Laupa
Appeal
LandUseCodeSection
3.8.25thedecision
wasnottheCDNS
Director'stomake
1978Certificateof
Occupancyforfraternity
useisnolongervalid
x LandUseCodeSection3.8.25
x LanduseCode4.9(B)(3)
x LandUseCode1.7.2
x DefinitionsofArticle5.1.2
x ProvisionsoftheBuildingCode
ATTACHMENT 2
City Clerk’s
Public Hearing Notice
and
Notice of Site Visit
ATTACHMENT 3
Notice of Appeal
-Notice of Appeal filed by
Aaron and Ashley McGrew,
May 28, 2015
ATTACHMENT 4
Notice of Appeal
-Notice of Appeal filed by
Cindy and Tom Laupa, May
27, 2015
ATTACHMENT 5
Notice of Appeal
-Notice of Appeal filed by
John Snyder, May 27, 2015
ATTACHMENT 6
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the
Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing held May 14, 2015
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT May 14, 2015
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
APPEAL # BPA15001
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 201 E Elizabeth Street
Petitioners: 1) Joseph Piesman 2) John Snyder
3) Cindy & Tom Laupa 4) Aaron & Ashley McGrew
Owners: Paul Milewski and Julie Rickett
Zoning District: N-C-B
Description:
On April 15, 2015, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director made a
decision under Land Use Code Section 3.8.25 to authorize a change of use permit which would allow a
previously abandoned fraternity house to be reestablished on the property at 201 East Elizabeth Street.
The following three conditions have been imposed on this approval:
The building occupants shall be limited to 18 occupants.
No fraternity meeting shall exceed 18 attendees.
Eight off-street parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the site plan dated 03/26/15.
This decision of the CDNS Director has been appealed by four appellants.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends upholding the decision of the CDNS Director to allow a previously abandoned fraternity
house to be reestablished on the property at 201 East Elizabeth Street provided the three conditions listed
above are met.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Background:
This decision of the Planning Director has been appealed by four appellants. These appeals are properly
before the Zoning Board of Appeals under Division 2.11 of the Land Use Code which pertains to appeals
from administrative decisions. Section 2.11.1(B)(9) authorizes appeals regarding the issuance of a
building permit. The decision made by the Director is not precisely a building permit; it is a change of use
permit, which stands in the same stead as a building permit. Accordingly, you must decide this issue. The
standards under which you measure the appeals are the same standards which apply to the underlying
administrative decision of the Director. Those standards are found in Section 3.8.25(A) of the Land Use
Code and provided as follows:
3.8.25 Permitted Uses: Abandonment Period/Reconstruction of Permitted Uses
(A) If, after June 25, 1999 (the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Section), active
operations are not carried on in a permitted use during a period of twelve (12) consecutive
months, the building, other structure or tract of land where such permitted use previously
existed shall thereafter be re-occupied and used only after the building or other structure,
as well as the tract of land upon which such building or other structure is located, have, to
the extent reasonably feasible, been brought into compliance with the applicable general
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 2
development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards
contained in Article 4 of this Code. This requirement shall not apply to any permitted use
conducted in a building that was less than ten (10) years old at the time that active
operations ceased. Intent to resume active operations shall not affect the foregoing.
City staff contacted the Larimer County Assessor’s office concerning the last known use of the
property as a Fraternity. The Assessor’s office reported that the building was classified as a
commercial residential until 2012 and at the request of the owner at that time its classification was
changed to residential. Therefore, it was found that the property was not used as a fraternity for more
than 12 consecutive months.
As you can see, the standards on which you must measure your decision are that the proposed
fraternity use must, to the extent reasonable, have been brought into compliance with the applicable
general development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained
in Article 4 of the Land Use Code. Those applicable general development standards and district
standards are as follows:
4.9(A) and (B) - Purpose and Permitted Uses
The purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District is to provide an area of transition from
the residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas. This site is within a
geographic zoned area that sits between the Community Commercial (C-C) District and the
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M).
The property is zoned N-C-B and fraternity is a listed permitted use.
4.9(E) - Development Standards
This section requires off-street parking areas not be located any closer to the public right-of-way than
the distance by which the principal building is set back. The site plan indicates the parking area will
not encroach into the setback distance of the principal building.
3.2.1 - Landscaping
Parking lots are required to include perimeter landscaping with setbacks of 10 feet from a non-arterial
right-of-way and 5 feet from a side lot line. This landscaped area must include screening elements,
such as trees, shrubs, and fences.
Along the north property line that abuts Elizabeth Street, the parking area is set back 10 feet
along the perpendicular space and 14 feet along the spaces that run parallel with the right of
way. In this setback area two trees are planted and the ground cover will consist of turf grass
and shrubs. Additionally, a six foot high fence is placed at the 10 setback.
Along the south property line where the spaces are perpendicular, there is a 5 foot setback,
and there is a 10 foot setback for the parallel space. In this setback area there is an existing
concrete curb. A six foot high fence is located in between the existing curb and the park
spaces. The ground cover that is not existing concrete will be turf grass and shrubs. Also two
trees are located on either end of the parking area.
Tree mitigation requires that new trees be planted when existing trees are removed. The City Forester
determines the number of mitigation trees required based on the size and health of a tree. With this
proposal the City Forester has requested 5 trees be planted to mitigate the tree that will be removed.
As mentioned above, a total of 5 new trees that will be planted along the perimeter parking area. At the
time of planting, the sizes of these 5 trees have been upsized to meet the mitigation requirements.
3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking
In 1978, a parking area in the rear was approved that circulated from an alley access to an
egress onto Elizabeth Street. This plan does not change the circulation pattern.
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 3
Pedestrian connection to the primary entrance of the building from the public sidewalk also
remains.
A total of 24 bicycle parking spaces are provided. There are 15 spaces that will be enclosed
and at least 9 fixed spaces.
The project is required to provide a total of 6 off-street parking spaces. This is based on the
standard for a fraternity use, which is 2 parking spaces for every 3 bedrooms. The total
number of bedrooms is 9. The project is providing 8 off-street parking spaces in compliance
with the standard.
One of the 8 parking spaces is required to be a handicap van accessible space, which the
proposal includes.
3.2.4 Site Lighting
There are no changes to the site lighting.
3.2.5 Trash and Recycling enclosure
An enclosure for both the trash and recycling has been provided. This enclosure will be match the
fencing used to screen the parking area. It is located away from the public sidewalk and designed with
a walk-in entrance separate from the main service gates. Collection needs will be from the alley.
3.4.1 - Natural habitats and Features
Therefore, no additional protection was required.
3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources
The City’s Historic Preservation Planner reviewed the project and found that the proposal did not
preclude the building from any future historic designations.
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
This section allows for conditions to be placed on the operational/physical standards of a proposal as it
relates to compatibility with existing neighborhood and uses. The following is a list, from this section of
some of the possible restrictions that may be placed on the operational standards of a proposal:
(1) hours of operation and deliveries;
(2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses
such as noise and glare;
(3) placement of trash receptacles;
(4) location of loading and delivery zones;
(5) light intensity and hours of full illumination;
(6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines;
(7) location and number of off-street parking spaces.
This is list is not exhaustive and some items are specific to nonresidential proposals.
Common concerns that for this project address the potential of number of occupants, parking and
noise:
The application requested 24 occupants of the building. The decision to limit the number of
occupants to 18 was based on the compatibility with the existing neighborhood and uses. This
area is primarily residential varying from single family to multi-family dwellings. The Land Use
Code does not typically limit the number of occupants. Occupant limits are typically limited by
the Building Code standards. In this case, the number of occupants allowed by the Building
Code would far exceed the proposed 24. The historic number of occupants for the past
fraternity and sorority was also reviewed (see attached summary report). Therefore, the
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 4
condition of 18 occupants was decided to be compatible with the neighborhood based on the
size of the building, number of bedrooms and its historic use.
As stated earlier the proposed off-street parking spaces exceed the standard minimum by 2
spaces. The decision to condition the approval with requiring the proposed 8 off-street parking
spaces was based on the compatibility with the existing neighborhood and uses. The director
recognized that fraternity parking standards have not been reviewed in a while and may need
to be updated as student car ownership has changed from the time the fraternity parking
standards were initially implemented. As such, the proposed fraternity would have an impact
on the availability of on-street parking spaces.
The applicant has stated that fraternity meetings will be held on site. The decision to condition
the number of attendees at a fraternity meeting to 18 attendees was based on the impacts of
these meetings to the neighborhood-particularly parking, noise, and frequency of the
meetings.
3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards
The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) outlines standards for transportation
review of a development proposal. Requirements include identifying capacity, operations, and safety
needs of the area transportation network, and detailing the impact (and potential mitigation needed)
that a particular development has on the network. For 201 East Elizabeth with an occupancy of 24
students, the estimated traffic is about 60 daily vehicle trips, with less than 10 trips in any peak hour.
From a transportation system perspective, this is a limited number of trips, and does not rise to the
level of requiring a traffic impact study. The area network (Elizabeth, Remington, etc.) is adequate to
accommodate this traffic from a capacity, intersection operations, and safety perspective.
3. Additional Background:
The request to approve the change of use to the fraternity originally came through the City’s Land Use
Code Minor Amendment Process. During the Minor Amendment process, the decision was referred to the
Planning and Zoning Board. In proceeding to the Planning and Zoning Board, a neighborhood meeting
was held. On the night of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, additional information was received
from both neighbors and the applicant. As a result of the additional information, the Planning and Zoning
Board moved to table the item until their next meeting. Staff looked into the information received and
brought the item again at the Planning and Zoning Board’s work session. At the work session, it was
decided that the Minor Amendment was not the correct process of review of the application. A Building
Permit to change the use of the building is the correct review process. Because public notification had
already been sent out that this item would be on the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing agenda, it
was decided to notify the public that staff would be around after the Planning and Zoning Board meeting to
listen to any comments. It is through the Minor Amendment process that staff has received the majority of
public input. These comments have been captured through emails, correspondences, and meeting notes,
and have been included as attachments.
4. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
In evaluating the CDNS Director’s decision to approve with conditions the change of use for
201 E. Elizabeth Street to fraternity, Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The application complies, to the extent reasonably feasible, with relevant standards located in
Article 3 - General Development Standards, with the conditions that:
The building occupants shall be limited to 18 occupants.
No fraternity meeting shall exceed 18 attendees.
8 off-street parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the site plan dated 03/26/2015.
B. The application complies with the extent reasonably feasible with relevant standards located in
Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B), and District of Article 4 - Districts.
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 5
5. Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the CDNS Director’s decision be upheld.
Attachments:
01. 4.20.15 Piesman Appeal
02. 4.23.15 Snyder Appeal
03. 4.29.15 Laupa Appeal
04. 4.29.15 McGrew Appeal
05. Director’s Decision: B1502349 Building permit & supporting docs
06. 1978 Site Plan
07. 1978 Certificate of Occupancy and Permit
08. Residential Building Report at 201 E Elizabeth St
09. After 4.15.15 Director’s Decision
10. After 4.3.15 P & Z Work Session
11. Prior to 4.3.15 P & Z Work Session
12. Additional Materials received at the 3.12.15 P & Z hearing
13. Correspondence during Minor Amendment process
14. Neighborhood meeting 2.19.15
To: Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: An appeal to deny approval of Building Permit# B1502349 which would allow 201 E Elizabeth
Street to be used as a Fraternity House
Date: April 23, 2015
My name is John Snyder and I own property at 1008 and 1010 Remington Street, directly to the
south of 201 East Elizabeth. I have been in contact with neighboring property owners who are
uniformly against the conversion of this residential home to a Fraternity House. There are
currently about 50 neighbors actively involved in this effort, and several hundred more who will
be negatively impacted by this use. I apologize for this lengthy letter, but I have several points
which I would appreciate your consideration of.
Conditions have been placed on this permit which restrict the use to a maximum of 18 occupants
and limit meetings held on the premises to a maximum of 18 persons. The problem is that these
limits would be difficult to enforce, since the developers of this property are signing a lease with
the fraternity charter office, not with individual tenants. Also, the fraternity size is currently
approximate 60 persons and growing and the entire fraternity membership will be using this
house. Even if meeting size is limited, the fraternity can and will have the full 60 person
membership at the house under the guise of it being a social function.
I can see the argument for granting this use. The developer has hired a large development firm
and retained a lawyer, and the City is faced with the prospect of a lawsuit unless it approves. The
main argument seems to be that the house was granted this use previously and the new owners
purchased it with this understanding. But, the City of Fort Collins has put much effort into
ensuring that rental houses are not over-occupied by enforcing the three-unrelated rule. This
provides a controlled pathway for larger houses to have more than three unrelated occupants and
limits their occupancy based on reasonable standards. Using these standards this house could
have no more than 10 occupants. The three-unrelated policy has been applied retroactively to all
rentals in Fort Collins. The proposal to use 201 East Elizabeth as a Fraternity House should not be
given preferential treatment because you can't change the rules after the fact. Of course you can -
its been done on countless rental properties affected by the three-unrelated rule.
The reason this is an issue now is not because fraternities suddenly need houses. The problem is
the scarcity of student housing, with rental vacancy rates at an all time low. The developers of this
property see this as an opportunity to put several times the number of students into a house than
would be allowed under Extended Rental Occupancy regulations. There are thousands of CSU
students who belong to fraternities and do not live in a Fraternity House. Converting houses into
fraternities is not a solution to this rental crises.
This is clearly a change of use from a single family residence. The fraternity was abandoned
around 14 years ago. The previous owner of the property, Dennis Dowswell, filed a
Homeowner/Builder Affidavit in 2007 stating that this property was his personal home; Mr.
Dowswell continued to claim this owner occupied home status into 2013 at the County Assessors
office.
If this change of use is granted, the conclusion is that any house in the NCB Zone could be
converted to a fraternity. The only significant building requirements would be in meeting
standards related to fire suppression, and the parking requirements are minimal. The investment
in converting a house to a fraternity would be paid off in a matter of months considering rental
profits would be increased several times under high occupancy fraternity use.
The 1986 East Side Neighborhood Plan, which is being incorporated into the overall master plan,
addressed this issue long ago. This document states that in Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
Zone " ... Any change of use ... should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
environment..and create no significant traffic, noise, or other land use conflicts ... "(page 24). This
Plan continues on page 25 to specifically state that the Buffer area is not intended to encourage
additional traffic encroachment into the Neighborhood. A fraternity would be the highest impact
use for traffic, noise and parking which could occur in a rental situation at this location, yet no
Traffic Studies have been done, and it is not clear that neighborhood impacts are being considered
here.
One can also argue that the NCB Zone was never intended to allow fraternity use and that this was
an oversight by the City which has not come up until this particular proposal. On page 24 of the
1986 East Side Neighborhood Plan, there is a list of appropriate uses in this Zone, and
fraternities are not on this list. I was part of the committee which created this document back in
the '80s, and we did not intend for fraternities to be allowed in the NCB Zone. This is buffer zone
between low and high impact uses. Again, a fraternity is the highest impact use possible in a rental
building.
Researching year books from CSU shows that the Triangle Fraternity which previously used this
house ranged from 8-18 members during the years they occupied this residence. This new use is
for 60 plus fraternity members to constantly use this house. This is not the same Character of Use.
Also, the Triangle Fraternity did not occupy the house immediately after the use was granted in
1978 - it took over two years to repair the dilapidated building before they moved in. This
fraternity had a disaster strike them and abandoned the house around 2002. The total time this
building was used by a fraternity was less than 22 years. The house was built as a single family
residence in 1925. The total time this house was used as a single family residence was over 68
years.
This is not an anti-fraternity campaign. The objections to the conversion of a residential house to
a fraternity house are based on the impacts any very large group of people constantly using a
residential house would have on the neighborhood. The real issue is whether a residential house
in a residential neighborhood can be used as a central meeting house by a large organization and
be occupied at a super high density without causing significant problems for the entire
neighborhood. The answer is, it can't.
A comparison which has been often used in this case is that it is similar to a warehouse re-opening.
This is very different from a warehouse closing down and reopening. A warehouse is a purpose
built structure, not typically a residential house. A better comparison if one needs an alternative
analogy is this: Consider a small 4 table restaurant converted from a single family home opening
in a residential area. The restaurant is granted use and over time business fades and it closes. The
place is re-occupied as a residential house for 12 years. During this time the owner guts the
interior and expands the finished area of the house and adds rooms, all as an owner occupied
remodeling effort not requiring a general contractor. He then sells the house and the new owners
reopen the restaurant at quadruple the capacity, and have weekly functions featuring groups of
60 persons. Would you still call this the same "Character of Use"? Wouldn't the new restaurant
be required to completely conform to all current codes? And would the use be automatically
granted without any neighborhood impact considerations?
The Certificate of Occupancy which allowed a change of use from a single family residence to a
fraternity and boarding and rooming house was issued in 1978, the last time this use has been
reviewed by the City. The City has changed a lot since 1978 as have building code requirements.
The Occupancy Group designated on this C.O. is R-1, which is not the R-2 designation used for a
fraternity. It has been argued that the City was lax about these designations back in 1978, but it
could also be argued that this was intentional. Regardless of intent, the building was not granted
an R-2 designation. Here is the IBC definition of the R-1 Occupancy Group:
R-1 Residential occupancies containing sleeping units where the occupants
are primarily transient in nature, including:
Boarding houses (transient)
Hotels (transient)
Motels (transient)
Congregate living facilities (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants are
permitted to comply with the construction requirements for Group R-3.
Also, it is difficult to understand how this high an occupancy could be granted during a time when
the very regulations concerning fraternity occupancy limits are unclear and are being reviewed.
As I write this the City does not have clear guidelines in place about such occupancy. Sarah Carter,
City Building Services, wrote in an email on March 9, 2015:
"As you can see, the Building Code addresses occupant loads for a dormitory separately from other
R2 (Residential) occupancies. A fraternity is listed specifically in the definition of dormitory. Further
argument could be made that the Dormitory "occupied area" should be limited to sleeping rooms,
required facilities, and egress paths. Creating a more clean cut definition of how "dormitory"
occupancy should be calculated is on the agenda for our upcoming 2015 code review".
Current building code requirements for fraternities and other high occupancy buildings are
apparently not being enforced on this building. It is required that a reasonable effort must be
made to bring this building up to current code. Since this use was last granted in 1978, it is
reasonable to require for safety reasons that the structure be fully brought up to current
standards. This building has undergone much "midnight" renovation over the last 10 years. Does
it meet all current building code requirements? Does it have up to date fire suppression and fire
partitions in place? Below are some of the IBC Standards required for Fraternity Houses:
SECTION 420 GROUPS 1-1, R-1, R-2, R-3
420.1 General.
Occupancies in Groups 1-1, R-1, R-2 and R-3 shall comply with the provisions
of Sections 420.1 through 420.5 and other applicable provisions of this
code.
420.2 Separation walls.
Walls separating dwelling units in the same building, walls separating
sleeping units in the same building and walls separating dwelling or
sleeping units from other occupancies contiguous to them in the same
building shall be constructed as fire partitions in accordance with Section
708.
420.3 Horizontal separation.
Floor assemblies separating dwelling units in the same buildings, floor
assemblies separating sleeping units in the same building and floor
assemblies separating dwelling or sleeping units from other occupancies
contiguous to them in the same building shall be constructed as horizontal
assemblies in accordance with Section 711.
[F]420.4 Automatic sprinkler system.
Group R occupancies shall be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with Section 903.2.8. Group 1-1 occupancies shall be
equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
Section 903.2.6. Quick-response or residential automatic sprinklers shall be
installed in accordance with Section 903.3.2.
[F]420.5 Smoke detection and fire alarm systems.
Fire alarm systems and smoke alarms shall be provided in Group 1-1, R-1 and
R-2 occupancies in accordance with Sections 907.2.6, 907.2.8 and 907.2.9,
respectively. Single-or multiple-station smoke alarms shall be in accordance
with Section 907.2.11.
Obviously, whatever decision made is going to be appealed. Our neighborhood group has also
retained legal council, and we are willing to take this to District Court if necessary. I implore you
to consider following the higher ground on this issue. A fraternity of this size in this Historic
Neighborhood will negatively impact hundreds of people for decades. The renovations of nearby
old Victorian houses will stop. Property values will drop-who is going to buy a restored single
family home across the street from a large fraternity packed into a relatively small house? The
.,
.. ..,
developers have said that this will be a great addition to the neighborhood, but that is a patently
false statement. And when they sell the house to a fraternity, which is their objective, the house
will no longer yield property taxes, as non-profit fraternities don't pay these taxes. Nobody wins
or even comes out even with this use except the developers who will make several times the profit
on this structure than could be made by any reasonable use.
I encourage you to go look at the houses and talk to the neighbors next to this proposed fraternity.
These are mainly owner occupied beautifully restored homes with nice families inside. This isn't
a clear cut legal issue, and it seems like an entire neighborhood's well being should be a priority
in decisions such as this. How would you react if the house next door to you went from single
family occupancy to 60 persons?
The bottom line is that it is unreasonable to allow 60 plus persons to regularly use a residential
single family home in a residential neighborhood. This would have an extremely detrimental
impact on the lOO's of residents living in the immediate vicinity of this house. Please deny this
use!
Thank you for your considerations.
John Snyder
q.;k� : 97tJ 't�o q9 s-3
�.{ � jeJ.n _s',;.,{Lv(!_ $¥-'"',CD,.,
Being Appealed:
"B Permit" for Fraternity Use 201 E. Elizabeth St.
Decision Maker (Board, Commission, or Other):
Director Laurie Kadrich
Appellant/ Appellant Representative (if more than one appellant): Name, address, telephone number(s), and email address of an
Individual authorized of all to be mailed the
Phone#:
(970) 690-5853
Address:
1 003 Remington St.
Email:
claupa@frii.com
GROUI\US ;-()K /\l'fl! /\1
The Decision Maker committed one (1) or more of the following errors (check all that apply):
l.f 1 Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the land Use Code, and Charter.
list relevant Code and/or Charter provision(s) here, by specific Section and subsection/subparagraph:
Director improperly issued "change of use" permit, for wbich there is no provision in the code
Apepropriat procedure for proposing for a permitted m;e is Article 2, Sec 2 1 2 et seq Fraternity
uses must be reyjewed by the Planning & Zoning Board under Article 4, Sec 4 9(B)(3)(a)
O Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: (Attach additional sheets as necessary)
D The Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in
the Code or Charter;
DThe Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker substantially ignored its previously established rules
of procedure;
DThe Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which
was substantially false or grossly misleading. Describe any new evidence the appellant intends to
submit at the hearing on the appeal in support of these allegations2
. :_________ _
--·or ----�
D The Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence
offered by the appellant.
D The Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker was biased against the appellant by reason of a
conflict of interest or other close business, person or social relationship that interfered with the
decision maker's independence of judgment. Describe any new evidence the appellant intends to
submit at the hearing on the appeal in support of these allegations2
: ----
Instructions:
1. For each allegation marked above, please attach a separate summary of the facts contained in the record
which support the allegation. Each summary is limited to two pages, Times New Roman 12 point font. Please
restate allegation at top of first page of each summary.
2.
No new evidence will be received at the hearing in support of these allegations unless it is either described
above or offered in response to questions presented by Councilmembers at the hearin .
APPELLANTS
Name: Date:
Cindy & Tom Laupa 1\ 4/29/15
Slgnatu�
��� Email:
(/_.,A +Ia claupa@frii.com
Address: 1 U - ., Phone#:
1003 Remington St. (970) 690-5853
Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or
other Decision Maker:
Property owner within 500 feet.
Name: -:---
�L7� G.u(n
Signature: ...--:: /
Address: /J lG.U�-fl3 �,- ,.1c_l�
Date:
Email:
Phone#:
l-f
l
t:--a
/
t
5
� h ' •
t L,/clu (?IJ G? -rz..-� I . (.�
9 b-'227 � St 7._7
Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or
other Decision Maker:
Name: Date:
Signature: Email:
Address: Phone#:
Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or
other Decision Maker:
Name: Date:
Signature: Email:
Address: Phone#:
Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or
other Decision Maker:
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY
Appeal to "change of use" permit issued for fraternity use for 201 E. Elizabeth
Summary: The Director improperly administratively issued a "change of use" permit for this
property. There is no "change of use" permitting provision in the City Land Use Code. She
therefore exceeded her authority. The appropriate procedure for proposing for a permitted use is
Article 2, Sec. 2.1.2 et seq. which requires a full development application and a 12 step process
which includes a public hearing. Also, fraternity uses must be reviewed by the Planning &
Zoning Board under Article 4, Sec. 4.9(B)(3)(a).
The Director has erred twice in her handling of this matter. Initially the property owner was
allowed to apply for a fraternity use under the "minor amendment" provisions of the land use
code. However, the "minor amendment" procedures only applies to a previously filed
development plan. No development plan was filed.
When the staff determined that the "minor amendment" provision was applied in error, planner
Noah Beals sent a letter to interested residents (dated April 6) that said, "The Land Use Code
allows for the re-occupancy of the Fraternity use at 20 1 E Elizabeth Street without a public
hearing. The decision to issue a change of use permit is made by the Director of Community
Development and Neighborhood Services, Laurie Kadrich." The Director then held a "listening
session" on April 9th and issued a building permit on April 15th.
However, the Director exceeded her authority in issuing this permit. There is no provision in the
code which allows a fraternity to be established in the NCB zone through a "change of use
permit" accompanied by a "listening session." Since there is no such procedure in the code (and
therefore no findings in the record to determine how the Director made her decision) neither the
code nor due process has been satisfied. According to the administrative appeal review
procedures, "appeals must be considered under the same standard which applied to the
underlying administrative decision." (Sec. 2.11.2(H).) However, since there are no code
standards for this decision, it is impossible for the Zoning Board of Appeals to adjudicate this
appeal. (If the code is interpreted to allow this type of standardless finding, the code is arguably
void for vagueness.)
The Director did properly find, and note on the building permit, that the previous fraternity use
had been abandoned under Sec. 3.8.25. Information in the city's file indicates that the house was
last used for fraternity purposes in 2006. Sec. 3.8.25 only requires a 12 month period for a use to
be abandoned. After that time the use must be brought into compliance with all applicable
provisions of Articles 3 & 4 of the Land Use Code.
Therefore the property owner should be required to file a new development application in order
to change the use of this property from residential to fraternity. This triggers Planning and
Zoning Review and several other requirements. Development review procedures are sumamrized
in Sec. 2.1.2(C), "Development proposals which include ... permitted uses must be processed and
approved through the following development applications: first through a project development
plan (Division 2.4), and then through a final plan (Division 2.5)." Fraternities are permitted uses
in the NCB zone, with Planning & Zoning Board review. (See Article 4, Sec. 4.9(B)(3)(a).)
Under Sec. 2.1.2 (D), "the development application is then subject to a 12 step review applicable
to all applications."
The twelve (12) steps of the common development review procedures are the same for
each type of development application, whether subject to administrative review
or Planning and Zoning Board review ... each overall development plan, each project
development plan and each fmal plan will be subject to the twelve-step common
procedure. The twelve (12) steps include: (1) conceptual review; (2) neighborhood
meeting; (3) development application submittal; (4) determination of sufficiency; (5) staff
report; (6) notice; (7) public hearing; (8) standards; (9) conditions of approval; (1 0)
amendments; (11) lapse; and (12) appeals.
The Director's failure to require the proper development application for the change to a fraternity
use has denied the affected neighbors their right to public notice and a hearing, thus violating
their due process rights. The remedy for this violation is to require that the proper application be
submitted and the application subjected to all of the above review steps, particularly a
neighborhood meeting, determination of sufficiency and staff report, notice and a public hearing,
and application of the standards and conditions of approval by the Planning & Zoning Board.
Only then should an application for a building permit be considered under Sec. 2.7.3 of the code,
at which time the requirements of the International Building Code should apply, as required by
Sec. 2.7.3(C).
Finally, it should be noted that the department and Director's taking of comments from the
applicants and others outside a formal hearing process is in direct contravention to the process
established by the code for deciding development applications. Sec. 2.1.2(1) says:
Development plans must be reviewed and approved in accordance with the
provisions of this Land Use Code and the City's decision whether to approve or
deny an application must be based on the criteria established herein and on the
information provided at the hearings held on the application. In order to afford all
persons who may be affected by the review and approval of a development plan
an opportunity to respond to the information upon which decisions regarding the
plan will be made, and in order to preserve the impartiality of the decision
makers, decision makers who intend to participate in the decisions should avoid
communications with the applicant or other members of the public about the plan
prior to the hearings in which they intend to participate.
In order to protect the rights of all parties, this matter should be returned to the Director so that
she can instruct the property owner to file a full development application. The law requires that
the neighbors have the opportunity to exercise their right to be heard on this matter within the
procedure provided for in the city's land use code.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Zoning Board of Appeals, c/o Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins, (ph) 970-416-2313, (fx) 970-224-6134
Per Article 2.111 wish to appeal the Administrative decision to approve the change of use permit
81502349 for the property of 201 East Elizabeth Street, 80524.
We live at 202 East Elizabeth Street, within 100 feet of the subject property.
We feel the process and standards used to review and approve this application were not only confusing
for both the city staff and residents of Fort Collins, but also that the process taken was done in error,
given current code guidelines and zoning matrices.
We had a meeting with the city administrator and representatives from the city in which both groups
agreed that the process of revising the current code, and the procedures involved in handling
fraternities and sororities was flawed (or had not been reviewed for 30 years), and that further revision
was needed in this area. We were encouraged to participate in the process currently in its infancy;
however, they did state that the benefit of the changes would not be timely enough to provide aid for
the current situation.
We feel that the acknowledgement of the issues and deficiencies in the current system by the FC staff
would lead us to believe that no decisions should be made until the codes and guidelines can be
rectified. Why would anyone make a decision if they knew it was not an appropriate decision for the
current situation? If your bike has a flat tire, do you ride it and then pump it up later, or do you damage
the tube, and decide that the damage done is worth the time saved in riding it during that moment?
Is the damage to the neighborhood demographics and character worth the time saved in fixing the
deficiencies in the system/code? If the answer is yes, is it the loss of income to the current owner the
compelling force driving an immediate decision? If the cost to the owner is the driving force for a
speedy decision let me reassure you that the owner of 201 EE has been offered the full purchase price
for the property by a neighbor and was refused. It is a great investment opportunity for the new owner,
but I feel, not worth the cost to the neighborhood in which your department has created.
We did discuss with the administrator after the meeting some of the aspects involved with the decision
and I feel that the administrator was in a hard position to balance the current code, with the code set
forth by the 1986 East Side neighborhood plan (ESNP), and the anticipated emotions of the new owners
and the emotions of the current residents of surrounding properties.
We feel that the decision will not be enforceable and that the administrator's opinion and decision will
be undermined and once this appeal has been denied, cannot easily be reversed.
However, I do believe that the goals of the committee (including the Z&P committee) in designing the
ESNP would be dismissed if the approval is upheld. The letter below is the information sent to the
administrator referencing the specific codes and goals set forth by the Zoning and Planning committee
for this specific neighborhood in the ESNP.
[My name is Aaron McGrew and I am a resident at 202 East Elizabeth (my front porch looks directly at
the Horsely House (201 E. Elizabeth Street)). I am a Fort Collins native, growing up on 405 Smith Street,
a.nd am currently practicing dermatology as a PA one block away from where I was born. My wife is a
DVM, PhD at CSU and teaches undergrads and veterinary students. Her family has lived here since the
1900's and Linton Elementary was named after her grandparents. We're no strangers to old town and
intend to raise our family here and live here for at least the next 6Q-70 years.
When searching for a house in which to raise our family, I wanted a family oriented
neighborhood. I attended Laurel Harris, now Harris bilingual, and inquired about the neighborhood into
which we would be buying. The Elizabeth street area was perfect. It had one rental property on the
opposite block, near the church. There was a range of well educated, well respected professionals, and
young couples with children (teachers, CDC PhD's, doctors, restaurant owners, PA's, etc ... ). There were
no fraternities. I looked at purchasing other properties on Remington and in other old town locations,
but did not, given the proximity to fraternal organizations. The character of this neighborhood was the
most important consideration about buying this property.
Additionally, I want to expand on the character of the neighborhood as it exists today.
Presently, the 200 block of East Elizabeth Street consists of children from 1 year of age to adults of 60+
years of age. Incomes very between household, ages of couples, and families also vary, but the
character of the neighborhood is one of: warmth, trust, cooperation, generosity and an eagerness and
willingness to share life's journey with one another. There is a genuine concern for each person's well
being. The neighbors get together for weekly gatherings in which we eat and share stories of our weeks.
We depend on each other for a cup of flour, sidewalk snow removal, gardening, boulder moving, house
sitting when we are on vacation, and making meals for one another when someone is sick. The goals set
forth in the East Side Neighborhood plan in 1986 have become a reality on East Elizabeth Street, and I
Congratulate the P&Z board for having the vision and foresight to create such a great community. It
seems that some folks at the meeting think that the plan from 1986 needs some revision or may have
been outdated, but I think many of the key points that are found in the Neighborhood East Side Plan
(NESP) and in the current East neighborhood and West neighborhood planning studies remain
applicable to the current issue.
I feel that the change of use of this property would conflict with current land use code 2.2.10; in
that the number of people, noise, odor, trash, traffic and automobiles would change the character of
the house/development itself, and the surrounding character of the neighborhood. Additionally, the
ESNP 2.1.2; 1) created by your predecessors, clearly states, " .. .for the "Buffer'' area ... it is recognized
that, as with any existing neighborhood, unique and specific circumstances affecting certain properties
will require special consideration .... the East Side Planning and Advisory committee shall work to create
criteria for the review of future proposals to protect the interests of the Neighborhood ... the area should
be monitored for any significant demographic changes. Such changes should be promptly assessed and
appropriate steps be taken to revise policies and implementation measures in the interest of
Neighborhood stabilization." The 200 block of EE is a unique and specific circumstance and 24; 18-21
year old males will alter the demographics of the area. Even though part of the 200 block may be
located in the buffer zone, this area should be looked at as a specific circumstance, and does require
special consideration. It may be too late to come up with policies and proposals to protect the current
area, but that is why the decision has been given to you to protect what has been developed over the
last 29 years (which is backed and supported by the ESNP code). We are not talking about 5 blocks to
the south or 2 blocks north that have the daycare areas or other fraternities. We are talking about a
very specific area, the 200 block of East Elizabeth Street.
Additionally, the character of the houses on the 200's block of EE Street, according to page 32
of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Strategy Report (2012-present), would
most aptly be classified into the "Character 1 area." The age of the houses, the oversized porches, the
number of two stories houses, the architectural work and detail work on many of the properties all fit
into this Character 1 area category. This is the same designation that would be given to Mountain
Avenue and Peterson Street. What would they say about putting a fraternity on Mountain Ave? Is a
Character 1 area (regardless of zoning) appropriate for a fraternity?
On a different note, historically, 201 East Elizabeth Street (1002 Remington) has stood proudly
at the corner of Remington and East Elizabeth Street for 90 years. The Horsely House was built in 1925
by Leslie Horsely. Leslie lived in this house with his wife Cora and his daughter Ester, from the
completion of construction until 1948. For 23 years this house protected and helped raise a family. In
1957 Mary F Winters, and in 1960 the Schultz family began living at 201 East Elizabeth. Since 1960 the
Horsely House has been a single family residence except for the time in which the Triangle Fraternity
occupied the house.
I know 201 East Elizabeth is in the NCB zone, I also understand that it lies within the Laure
School Historic District Boundary. Given the size of the structure, the age (1880-1930), the architectural
design and the materials with which this house was built, I feel that it is a contributing structure to the
Laurel Street historic district. At least three houses on this block have participated in the historic homes
tour and two or three residences in the future will be applying to be participants in the Garden tours. As
this is a historically significant structure, in a historic district, I care about the longevity of the building
itself.
Unfortunately, past record shows that some fraternities have not been proper stewards of
historic buildings. Examples might include the building on the NW corner of Howes and Laurel streets
(bulldozed), or the work that needed to be done to 201 EE Street (125k), when the triangle fraternity
moved out, and 1504 Remington street (The University House), that needed to be completely gutted
and the second floor permanently condemned after the fraternity was removed.
In the ESNP page 35, 2.4.1, the board stated, " ... Some important structures have been lost to
demolition in past years. Additional protection for the area is needed as the fringe commercial and
mixed use buffer areas and downtown continue to redevelop." I feel that it is both of our duty and
responsibility to be good stewards of our historic properties. It is NOT the type of people in the building
that I believe creates a problem, but the sheer number and sustained high Intensity use. The residence
halls at CSU are built using steel and concrete and are therefore suited for dormitory living (200 sq ft./
person), but 90 yrs ago this building was not intended for such a use, and I feel that another important
structure may be in jeopardy in the future if this use is reinstated. Alcohol, no alcohol, code or not
code; these are the realities, of "dormitory'' occupancy housing, and I feel it is not a risk I, nor the
Poudre Valley Landmarks Committee would be willing to take. Please don't put the Horsely House at
risk of becoming another casualty of intense occupancy living, we could lose more structures that
contribute to Fort Collin's rich History.
Finally, the parking issue seems to be a large complaint among neighbors. I agree, the parking
will become even more constrained when the greenway construction project is completed on
Remington Street in 2015 (4 parking spaces eliminated). However, it is not my parking spot that I would
be concerned about, but the adjacent preservation districts. The members of the fraternity have
thought ahead and have taken measures to avoid problems with the neighborhood which is
commendable; however, according to them they will have their members and guests park 3 blocks away
from 201 EE. As a result, I am concerned for the neighbors in the medium density and low density
preservation districts, south and east of Pitkin and Smith Streets respectively*. As you know, this
creases issues in the MD and RL preservation zones in conflicts with page 24 section 3.2 of the ESNP
stating that, " ... any change of use ... should be allowed if the proposal... is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood environment; and, can be shown to create no significant traffic, noise or
other land use conflicts with adjacent Preservation Areas." Unfortunately, the fraternities attempt to
placate the immediate neighbors will not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
environment.
History consistently demonstrates that we do not always make the right choices (or I would
have invested in Apple at 5 bucks/ share). Therefore, it may make sense to reconsider the "it's been
used as a fraternity in the past" justification to now reinstate this single family residence as a fraternity.
I understand that this decision is not an easy one. This will not only affect the future of the house, but
Will also affect the future of my family and neighborhood. To you the approval of this "change in use"
will be ephemeral, but it will be a daily occurrence for the rest our lives and the lives of our children.
Please don't take this decision lightly.
Intelligence contributes to the ability to avoid mistakes, but once a mistake is made it is a wise
person's responsibility to not make the same mistake. From our conversations and your previous
employment, I know that you are intelligent, now I can only hope that your discernment and judgment
will be wise.
Please commit to the ESNP, pg 44, 2.8 : "The policies included in this plan have meaning for the
ESN and the greater community only if they are implemented . ... a commitment to implementation is a
fundamental part of the adoption of this plan."
Thanks again,
.· . � Ns4uw-
Aaron McGrew PA-C, MS & Ashley McGrew DVM, PhD.
*3 blocks East Is Whedbee, but the school Is on that block (no parking)-therefore, east of Smith Street is the closes they could
park]
A
B
c
D
E
81502349
SITE PLAN
._.:
(/)
z
0
I-
(z ')
::;;?
w
n:::
xn 1'-6" xx 2'-6"
INVERTED "U" BIKE RACK
2
ELIZABETH ST.
EXTERIOR BIKE PARKING:
SEE DETAIL BELOW
n 3.00'
----~-- CONCRETE, ASPHALT,
OR ALL·WEATHER
SURFACE.
N.T.S
2
3 4 5 6
SADDLE-UP PARTNERS, LLC
201 EAST ELIZABETH ST. FRATERNITY HOUSE
'· ____ ,_
.. ·. ·140'
·:·.·-.. '·
-' ··:-····
14a
LOT 2 AND THE NORTH 20 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 5, CRAFT'S RESUBDIVISION OF LAKE PARK
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
I--- 12.oa ---I
I MIN. I
~------ HANDICAP SIGN
SEE DETAIL BELOW.
. ·, .. :~ . :. ·. ··.·
~Llf-.~&
~~<--+---;X7-·. ' .•. I
. ~ ' 71
20'MIN.
B.00' J~
1 ~
~ 8
EXISTING CONCRETE CURB
CURB STOP- 2' FR. FENCE TYP.
TRASH ENCLOSURE
SEE DETAIL BELOW
VICINITY MAP
LEGEND
--x-~x-~x--
SCALE: I" - l <J
PROPERTY LINE
6 PRIVACY FENCE
._ Name Total V a~e
£1-;:-::;:;::::~~~~"'"'il'"~~t;--,--~~"1---~_:_--::J..f.L.:;_ __ ~~
.. ~ ~A_d_d_r_es_s,__;,t-.1,..;=-.=...:.;~~~~:....:...;:::...=.,__----1 Description of Work
_ -E City ,.... -+ :>
8 City license Ncf.J_ L,. (&, 0 Tel. No. fJJ. -&-g~ re p1 A~e. '-'-' : "ckwS
0 i I\ ~ ct~"""""'~ i-
ccup an cy Group A. B, C. D, E, f , G,
Jj, .1. J Division 1, 2. 3, 4 · -.w_ ~ f '.5 r ~ pe... iµ.(\ ~
Use Zone-RE, AL, ALM. RM, ~RP, AMP
- Ml, MM, BP. BL, HB, BG.~ll. IG
Fire Zone 1, 2, 3 ' ..
PUO
Signature of owner
1
, ' By Contractor UJ ~cu,/ ~
a ... ~~ 8<. o 1-. ·. " {~
o~ f\e w -(~ ~e,
\.u~\\
, _ . _{3 .1~ . fl l:t1ftl.f /-')-?- ,.,
-~ 3304(c) -~~
H1') r:· f 't-" t-i.Htl j3o ~ Of<
i111 (6 ~~ .
Int. lot -----
... ...._
Corner lot - ---
Rev. C . L. ----
Approved tor Chief B.I.
Zoning
..
Residential Building at 201 E. Elizabeth Street
Delta Zeta Sorority, Triangle Fraternity
Submitted to: Ms. Laurie Kadrich, Director
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
lkadrich@fcgov.com
Mr. Noah Beals, Senior City Planner
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
nbeals@fcgov.com
Prepared by: Carl McWilliams
Objective
Cultural Resource Historians LLC
1607 Dogwood Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 493-5270
historians@frii .com
April 16, 2015
The purpose of this report is to provide a brief history of the residential building located at 201 E.
Elizabeth Street, focusing on the years it was used as a sorority and as a fraternity. A particular objective
is to document, to the extent possible, the number of sorority and fraternity members who resided in the
building in any given year.
Location
Address:
Legal:
201 E. Elizabeth Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
LOT 2 & N 20 FT OF LOT 3, BLK 5, CRAFTS RESUB, FTC
Background
The residential building at the above-referenced property was constructed circa 1924. It was originally
addressed as 1002 Remington Street until circa 1964 when its address was changed to 20 I E. Elizabeth
Street.
Methodology
Information contained in this report is based on research conducted at the Archives and Special
Collections Department at Colorado State University's Morgan Library. The Archives and Special
Collections is located in Suite 202 in the Morgan Library on the CSU campus. Phone number: (970) 491-
1844. Website: www.lib.colostate.edu/archives.
Online research was conducted via the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives located at 408 Mason
Court, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Phone number (970) 221-6688. Website:
www.h i ~tory.poudrelibraries.om .. Additional online research was conducted via the Larimer County
Assessor office located at 200 W. Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Phone number (970) 498-7050.
Website: www.larirner.org/assessor.
The research was conducted by Carl Mc Williams, owner of Cultural Resource Historians LLC, and by
Gordon "Hap" Hazard, Archivist with the CSU Archives and Special Collections, and President of the
Fort Collins Historical Society.
Three sources were used: CSU Silver Spruce yearbooks, CSU student and faculty directories, and Fort
Collins city directories. The Silver Spruce was published annually for each school year (e.g. Silver Spruce
1958-1959) from 1895 to 2002. Each edition of the Silver Spruce typically contains a section providing
information regarding the various fraternities and sororities. A group photo of each fraternity and sorority
is typically shown in each yearbook, with the names of the members pictured listed in a caption beneath
the photo. The CSU student and faculty directory was also generally published annually by the university
for each school year (e.g. CSU Directory for 1958). The directories are typically divided into two
sections, one listing the university's students, and the other listing the faculty. Students are listed
alphabetically by surname followed by their given name, local address and other contact information. Fort
Collins city directories were generally published annually beginning in 1902. In most years, the city
directory was published by the R. L. Polk and Company. The property at 1002 Remington Street I 201 E.
Elizabeth Street was researched in the following city directories: 1927, 1933, 1940, 1948, 1954, 1956-
1959, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, and 1979-1989 inclusive.
In addition to the written sources, on April 15, 20 I 5 a telephone interview was conducted with Norma L.
Andersen. Ms. Andersen was a CSU student and a member of the Delta Zeta Sorority between 1956 and
1960
Historic Overview
The residential building located at the southeast corner of Elizabeth and Remington Streets was
constructed circa 1924. It was addressed as 1002 Remington Street until circa 1964 when its address was
changed to 201 E. Elizabeth Street. From circa 1924 to 1947 the building served a private residence. City
I •
directories list members of the Leslie and Cora Horsley family as the property's owner and residents
during those years. From circa 1947 to 1960, the building was home to the Delta Zeta Sorority. In the
1960s and 1970s the building served as a residence and photography studio owned by Victor W. Sothers.
From circa 1979 to 2006 the building was home to the Triangle Fraternity. In earlier years, from circa
1966-1978, the Triangle Fraternity was located at 406 W. Laurel Street.
Residents During the Sorority and Fraternity Years
The number of residents in representative years was gleaned by obtaining a list of Delta Zeta Sorority
members (circa 1947-1960) and Triangle Fraternity members (circa 1979-2000) from the Silver Spruce
yearbooks. The names were then cross-referenced with the appropriate year's CSU Directo1y, noting
whether each member was listed as residing at the sorority/fraternity house, or residing elsewhere either
on campus or in the community.
Delta Zeta Sorority Years
School Year Number of Members Listed Number of Those Members Number of Those Members
in Silver Spruce Photo Listed as Residing al 1002 Listed as Residing
Caption Remington Street Elsewhere
1948-1949 15 6 9
1951-1952 40 19 21
1958-1959 55 30 25
Triangle Fraternity Years
School Year Number of Members Listed Number of Those Members Number of Those Members
in Silver Spruce Photo Listed as Residing at 1002 Listed as Residing
Caption Remington Street Elsewhere
1979-1980 13 11 2
1985-1986 27 13 14
*1989-1990 8 unknown unknown
1994-1995 10 5 5
*1999-2000 15 unknown unknown
* In some years, the Silver Spruce yearbook provided only a group photo of the Triangle Fraternity
members, without a list of names.
Norma L. Andersen related the following information regarding the Delta Zeta Sorority during the late
1950s, and the property then addressed as 1002 Remington Street. She attended CSU and was a Delta
Zeta member from I 956 to 1960. To the best of her recollection, as many as sixteen sorority members
may have lived in the main sorority house at one time. She believes there were three bedrooms upstairs,
each with two bunk beds, while one or two smaller bedrooms, each perhaps with a single bunk bed, the
house mother's room, the kitchen, and other facilities were all located downstairs. Ms. Andersen also
related that other sorority members resided in two nearby annexes. One annex was located at 202 E.
Elizabeth Street (directly across Elizabeth Street to the north), while according to Ms. Andersen, the other
annex was located at I 011 Remington Street (across Remington Street to the west, the second house south
of Elizabeth Street). She recalls that approximately eight sorority members may have resided in each of
the two annexes. Ms. Andersen reported that during her freshman year she lived on campus in newly-built
Green Hall. She lived in the main Delta Zeta Sorority house at 1002 Remington Street during her
sophomore year, and during her junior year she lived in the Delta Zeta annex at 202 Elizabeth Street. By
the time of her senior year, the Delta Zeta Sorority was no longer located at the Remington and Elizabeth
Streets location. Ms. Andersen also related that all freshmen pledges were required to live on campus,
unless they were from Fort Collins in which case they had the option of continuing to live at home with
their families. Such students who were from Fort Collins were known as "townies." She further reported
that a number of sorority members lived elsewhere off campus.
Interpretations
Membership in the Delta Zeta Sorority peaked in the late 1950s, while membership in the Triangle
Fraternity peaked in the mid-1980s. The written research does not necessarily provide an exact number of
sorority or fraternity residents at the location in any given year; however, corroborated with the oral
information obtained from Norma Andersen, it does provide a close estimate. The actual number of
residents may have varied somewhat from the numbers presented in the two tables for the following
reasons:
• Not all members of the Delta Zeta Sorority, and later the Triangle Fraternity, may have appeared
and been listed with the Silver Spruce photo in any given year. It is likely that some members
were absent in some years.
• Some sorority/fraternity members may have had their primary residence elsewhere even though
they were listed at the !002 Remington Street/201 E. Elizabeth Street location. For example, the
home or permanent addresses for some members were in Fort Collins or Loveland. In these cases,
the member may have primarily resided at their home address and were simply listed at the
location because they were members of the sorority or fraternity.
• Fort Collins city directories between 1957 and 1959 list the Delta Zeta Sorority at 1002
Remington Street as well as a Delta Zeta Sorority "Annex" at 202 E. Elizabeth Street
(corresponding with the oral information from Ms. Andersen). However, city directories from the
late 1950s do not list a Delta Zeta Annex at IOI I Remington Street as reported by Ms. Andersen.
City directories from that time instead indicate the building at that location was an apartment
house.
• Sorority members listed in the CSU Directorfos as residing at !002 Remington Street included
those who lived in the annex( es).
• The Silver Spruce ceased publication in 2002 by which time a group photo of the Triangle
Fraternity no longer appeared.
Noah Beals
From: Laurie Kadrich
Sent:
To:
Monday, April 06, 2015 1:15 PM
'John Savell'
Cc:
Subject:
Noah Beals; Cameron Gloss; Bob Overbeck
RE: Re:
John,
Thanks for adding to this conversation as your thoughts are very similar to the information we heard from Planning and
Zoning Board members last Friday. As such, our planning services manager, Cameron Gloss is adding this item to one of
our longer range, neighborhood planning processes. I have him copied in this email so that you can be notified of that
process in the event you wish to comment further. I couldn't agree more with the perception however assure you that
is not the case. Again, we welcome your thoughts and comments as part of the administrative review. Thanks,
From: John Sovell [mailto:jrsovell@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 10:32 AM
To: Laurie Kadrich
Cc: Noah Beals; Cameron Gloss; Bob Overbeck
Subject: Re:
Thank you Laurie for your quick response. I do have a few thoughts on this change in events
surrounding 21 5 Elizabeth. I have also included my original message, since I neglected to cc my
council member, Bob Overbeck on my original email to you. I have written in a previous email to
Noah my concerns over the parking issue and that parking requirements for fraternities are too low,
outdated, should be reviewed and potentially updated. I suspect you have access to my previous
email. I also believe that the character of a neighborhood can change over time and what was in the
past considered an allowable use, may currently no longer be the case. I believe that is occurring in
this particular situation, which is why I believe a full review including a public meeting with the P and Z
committee is warranted. I understand that you are following City protocol on this matter, but maybe
City protocol also needs to be reviewed and updated. I think it is important for the City to understand
that once having started this process, to pull it in the 23rd hour will be perceived as a slight on the
part of the City to the neighborhood; as if our feelings and concerns on this matter are not being
considered, that we are being marginalized in this process.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my opinion.
Sincerely
John
John Sovell wrote: Monday April 6, 8:58 am.
Dear Director Kadrich,
I am a City of Fort Collins resident living at 828 Remington Street and was just informed that the
agenda item pertaining to the 215 Elizabeth Street minor amendment has been removed from the
April gth P and Z meeting. I was wondering if you could explain to me the City's reasoning for this
move. It seems that the City is trying to execute a run around to avoid public neighborhood input on
this very controversial issue.
1
I have been very upset with City administration over the last year or so after having my summer 2014
ruined by the City with their decision to place a construction yard outside of my house from May into
September for the College Avenue waterline replacement. This was done with nearly no forewarning
from the City. Now this, I am really angry. I should not need to remind you that the City, all of its
employees, including you, work for the people that pay your salaries; myself and the rest of the fine
citizens of our fair City. I wish that the City would start working with us citizens rather than to take
what appears to be an adversarial relationship with us. It seems that the level of professionalism at
the City these days really needs some improvement.
Thank for you time on this important issue.
Sincerely
John Savell
Trip Leader & Co-founder
Grass Track Safaris, LLC
We give you Africa ... authentically
ww.wgrasstracksafaris.com
On Monday, April 6, 2015 10:01 AM, Laurie Kadrich <lkadrich@fcgov.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Sovell,
Thank you for reaching out to better understand what happened. I am sorry you have been upset over the City
Administration and assure you that this action is in no way an attempt to avoid public input rather it is a course
correction since an incorrect process was used to start this review. One of our planners believed that the
process to use for this proposal was that of a minor amendment. Minor amendments can be heard by the
Planning and Zoning Board or approved by staff members. I asked to have this one reviewed by the board
due to the concerns expressed by neighbors. Just prior to when the action was to be taken by the board we
received a substantial amount of information regarding the project and some information that led us to question
whether the right process was in place. Hence the board continued the hearing so that staff including our Land
Use Attorney could further review the information and the process. Our conclusions were presented to the
Planning and Zoning Board during their work session last Friday and the result is that an incorrect process had
been started for this proposal and what should have occurred is an administrative review since the Fraternity
Use is allowed at that location. We are currently in completing the administrative review and would welcome
any thoughts or comments you may have. I have copied our Zoning Manager and the Planning Services
Manager on this response so that you may send your comments directly to the staff members handling the
review. Our apologies for the mistake. Please let me know if you would like to visit further about this. I can be
reached at 221-6765.
From: John Savell [mailto:jrsovell@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 8:59AM
To: Laurie Kadrich
Subject:
Dear Director Kadrich,
----------
I am a City of Fort Collins resident living at 828 Remington Street and was just informed that the
agenda item pertaining to the 215 Elizabeth Street minor amendment has been removed from the
April gth P and Z meeting. I was wondering if you could explain to me the City's reasoning for this
2
• move. It seems that the City is trying to execute a run around to avoid public neighborhood input on
this very controversial issue.
I have been very upset with City administration over the last year or so after having my summer 2014
ruined by the City with their decision to place a construction yard outside of my house from May into
September for the College Avenue waterline replacement. This was done with nearly no forewarning
from the City. Now this, I am really angry. I should not need to remind you that the City, all of its
employees, including you, work for the people that pay your salaries; myself and the rest of the fine
citizens of our fair City. I wish that the City would start working with us citizens rather than to take
what appears to be an adversarial relationship with us. It seems that the level of professionalism at
the City these days really needs some improvement.
Thank for you time on this important issue.
Sincerely
John Savell
Trip Leader & Co-founder
Grass Track Safarsi, LLC
We give you Africa ... authentcial/y
ww.wgrasstracksafaris.com
3
Noah Beals
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Laurie Kadrich
Monday, April 06, 2015 1:09 PM
'Bob Thelen'
Noah Beals
RE: 215 Elizabeth Street amendment
Thanks for the opportunity to provide an explanation. After considerable review with our legal staff and the planning
and zoning board it was determined that staff had begun the review of 215 E. Elizabeth with an incorrect process. The
project should not have been a minor amendment, nor should it have been scheduled for Planning and Zoning board
review as such. So now we are getting back to the process required by the Land Use Code to review such a request. You
are more than welcome to make comments, and I have copied Noah Beals since he is the project lead on this
application. An administrative decision will be made by April 141h
on this application so please get us your thoughts prior
to that date. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further, I can be reached at 221-6765.
From: Bob Thelen [mailto:scoutman28@qmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 9:17AM
To: Laurie Kadrich
Subject: 215 Elizabeth Street amendment
Hi Laurie,
I'm surprised given the amount of public interest in the 215 Elizabeth Street amendment change that you would
make a decision without public input. Please provide a explanation for this decision.
Regards,
Bob Thelen
1
,
Noah Beals
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thanks for asking Joe,
Laurie Kadrich
Monday, April 06, 2015 1:22 PM
'Joe Piesman'; Cindy Cosmas; Noah Beals
Cameron Gloss
RE: 201 E Elizabeth agenda item
Staff reviewed the application with our attorney and the Planning and Zoning Board last Friday. The outcome of that
discussion was that this decision should be made administratively and not by the board. The application should not
have been processed as a minor amendment to begin with. There is no listening session scheduled rather we discussed
that some citizens may come to the meeting expecting this issue to be heard by the board and as such I could visit with
them following the meeting and hear their concerns. You may also provide us comments prior to the meeting and those
will be included in the project file and reviewed as the final decision is made. We expect to make a decision no later
than April 14ht. We apologize for the confusion of this matter as it should not have started through a minor amendment
process.
From: Joe Piesman [mailto:j.piesman@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 12:33 PM
To: Cindy Cosmas; Noah Beals
Cc: Laurie Kadrich
Subject: Re: 201 E Elizabeth agenda item
Ms. Kadrich, As per the message below, any information that you can provide regarding the changes to the P&Z agenda
on Apr 9th re the 201 E Elizabeth item would be appreciated. Thanks.
Joe Piesman
210 E Elizabeth St
970-691-6697
j. piesman@comcast. net
---- Original Message ----
From: Joe Piesman
To: Noah Beals ; Cindy Cosmas
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: 201 E Elizabeth Street Minor Amendment MA140133 Neighborhood Meeting notes
Noah & Cindy, I have heard from several neighbors that the 201 E Elizabeth agenda item has been pulled from the Apr
9th P&Z formal agenda and a "listening session" will be held after the formal meeting. Is this correct? Any information
you can provide would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Joe Piesman
210 E Elizabeth St
970-691-6697
j. piesman@comcast. net
----- Original Message ----
From: Noah Beals
To: Sarah Burnett; Joe Piesman O.piesman@comcast.net)
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com)
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:04AM
1
Subject: FW: 201 E Elizabeth Street Minor Amendment MA 140133 Neighborhood Meeting notes
Joe,
Thank you for the additional comments. I will get them to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Joe Piesman [mailto:j.piesman@comcast.netl
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 5:04 PM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: Re: 201 E Elizabeth Street Minor Amendment MA140133 Neighborhood Meeting notes
Dear Mr. Beals: Please find attached our concerns regarding the proposal to turn 201 E Elizabeth St into a fraternity
house. Please include our comments with those going to the P&Z board for their March 12, 2015 meeting.
Thank you for your attention.
Pamela & Joseph Piesman
210 E Elizabeth St
Fort Collins, CO 80524
j. piesman@comcast. net
----- Original Message ----
From: Noah Beals
To: Sarah Burnett
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:02PM
Subject: 201 E Elizabeth Street Minor Amendment MA140133 Neighborhood Meeting notes
Hello,
Thank you for attending the neighborhood meeting on Feb 19th, 2015 for 201 E Elizabeth Street Minor Amendment
MA140133. This is a link to the notes from that meeting:
http://www .fcgov .com/developmentreview /pdf /neighborhood-mtgs/201 elizabeth neighborhood mtg notes.pdf.
As mentioned at the meeting information for the city's on-street parking permit program RP3 can be found at
http://www.fcgov.com/parking/residential-parking-permit/index.php. You can also contact Jamie Moyer 970-416-
2036 jmoyer@fcgov.com.
Also mentioned at the meeting was our Neighborhood Services Code Compliance group. This is a link to their web
page that discusses nuisance violations and other complaints http://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/code
compliance.php.
The notes from the meeting will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a
decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has
been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda will be sent out and posted online
closer to the time of the meeting. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition
to any written comments and the attached meeting notes, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the
2
meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at
fcgov .com/citvclerk/pdf /boa rds/pzbroch u re. pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson Deanne DFrederickson@agpros.com, or the
City's neighborhood Liaison Sarah Burnett, 970 224-6076 sburnett@fcgov.com, with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
3
· Noah Beals
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
John,
Laurie Kadrich
Friday, April 10, 2015 9:51 AM
'johnsnyder@skybeam.com'
Noah Beals
RE: 201 East Elizabeth fraternity proposal
I am sorry you were unable to attend last night and understand your concerns, many of those same concerns were
expressed by neighbors last night. We are working towards an acceptable solution for this application as well as any
future code revisions that need to be made regarding fraternities, parking and other related impacts. I expect that a
decision regarding this building permit will be made next Tuesday and will include your email into our record.
From: joh nsnyder@skybeam.com [ mailto :johnsnyder@skybeam .com]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 8:56 AM
To: Laurie Kadrich
Subject: Re: 201 East Elizabeth fraternity proposal
Good Morning, Laurie:
I was unable to attend the meeting last night due to extreme depression.
After thinking it through I can see the side of the issue arguing granting this use. The developer has hired a
large development firm and a good lawyer, and the City is faced with the prospect of a lawsuit unless it goes
forward. The main argument for is likely that the house was granted this use previously and the new owners
purchased it with this understanding.
I would like to put to rest a comparison which has been often used in this case. This is very different from a
warehouse closing down and reopening. A warehouse is a purpose-built structure, not typically a residential
house. A better comparison if one needs an alternative analogy is this: Consider a small 4 table restaurant
converted from a single family home opening in a residential area. The restaurant is granted use and slowly
business fades and it closes. The place is reoccupied as a residential house for 10 years. During this time the
owner guts the interior and expands the finished area of the house and adds rooms, all as an owner occupied
remodeling effort not requiring a general contractor. He then sells the house and the new owners reopen the
restaurant at quadruple the capacity, and have weekly functions featuring groups of 60 persons. Would you
still call this the same "Character of Use"? Wouldn't the new restaurant be required to completely conform to
all current codes?
I was speaking with a neighbor who researched old year books from CSU. The Triangle Fraternity was shown
in photos, and during the years it used 201 East Elizabeth, the fraternity size ranged from about 8-12
members. The new use you are considering allowing is for 60 fraternity members to constantly use this
house. This is not the same Character of Use.
It is being argued that the R-1 designation granted to this building was just a mistake made in the old days of
1978. Since we are guessing about what happened in 1978, lets assume that the use granted to this house
was granted because it was known that a small fraternity would occupy it, not a 60 member fraternity. And, I
1
still contend that legally this building was granted an occupancy permit for a transient boarding house via the
· R-1 designation, not a fraternity. It seems one should be conservative in these interpretations since the stakes
are so high for so many people.
Our group has finally gotten its act together and we are hiring legal expertise. It looks like this will be filed as a
class action lawsuit. One strong argument is that the City kept changing the contents and definition of the
proposal in a way which prevented those of us trying to challenge it or mounting a reasonable defense. Every
City notice sent out was in error, even the last one calling this a change of use, and there was never a
neighborhood liaison to contact though the contact info is still on the last notice. This really confused people
and left them no easy way to keep up with the changes. Its like we were shut out on purpose.
It is also difficult to understand how this high an occupancy could be granted during a time when the very
regulations concerning fraternity occupancy limits are being reviewed. This is particularly odd since as I write
this the City does not have concrete guidelines in place about such occupancy. Here is the quote from Sarah
Carter on March 9, 2015: As you can see, the Building Code addresses occupant loads for a dormitory separately
from other R2 (Residential) occupancies. A fraternity is listed specifically in the definition of dormitory. Further
argument could be made that the Dormitory "occupied area" should be limited to sleeping rooms, required facilities,
and egress paths. Creating a more clean cut definition of how "dormitory" occupancy should be calculated is on the
agenda for our upcoming 2015 code review. If you would like to submit a suggested limitation for the committee, I'll be
happy to include it in my discussion notes.
Obviously, whatever decision made is going to be appealed, and in our case will end up in District Court.
implore you to consider following the higher ground on this issue. A fraternity of this size in this Historic
Neighborhood will negatively impact hundreds of people for decades. The beautiful renovations of old
Victorian houses will wind down. Of course property values will drop-who is going to buy a restored single
family home across the street from a large fraternity packed into a relatively small house? The opposition has
suggested that this will be a great addition to the neighborhood, but that is a patently false statement. And
when they sell the house to a fraternity, which was clearly stated as their objective, then the house will not
longer even yield property taxes as non-profit fraternities don't pay these taxes. So nobody wins or even
comes out OK except the developers who will make several times the profit on this structure as could be made
by any considerate use.
If you have concerns about this, go look at the houses and talk to the neighbors immediately next to this
proposed fraternity. I can give you their contact information. They are all owner occupied beautifully
restored homes with nice families inside. This isn't just a black and white legal issue, and it seems like an
entire neighborhood's well being should be an priority in decisions such as this. How would you react if the
house next door to you suddenly went from single family occupancy to 60 persons?
Thank you for your time and consideration. Feel free to contact me regarding this. I have quite a lot of
documentation I could present on this issue.
John Snyder
From: Laurie Kadrich
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 1:16PM
To: John Snyder
Subject: Re: 201 East Elizabeth fraternity proposal
Nothing will happen regarding this so the reason to come to the meeting would be to convey any thoughts
you might have about code changes, or actions the PZ Board may take in the future regarding similar
2
situations,
Best Regards, Laurie
On Apr 8, 2015, at 1:02 PM, John Snyder <johnsnyder@skybeam.com> wrote:
Thank you for the info .. Will anything be happening at the P&Z meeting tomorrow regarding
this? Is there any reason for those concerned to attend this meeting?
John
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G L TE DR OlD
Laurie Kadrich <lkadrich@fcgov.com> wrote:
John,
Thanks for your follow up and interest in this matter, many of these questions are building code
based which is not my area of expertise so I am having staff look into these. I have confirmed
that this process will now be a building permit process which can be appealed to the Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA) and onto the City Council once the ZBA makes a decision. Please let me
know if you need any further information at this time. Again, thanks for the phone call earlier
this week, I really appreciate your thoughts and approach to this.
Best Regards, Laurie
On Apr 6, 2015, at 4:32PM, "johnsnyder@skybeam.com" <johnsnyder@skybeam.com> wrote:
Dear Ms. Kadrich:
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this issue on the phone. I will forward
the latest City notice regarding the Listening Session to our neighborhood group,
although it is still unclear whether anything said will have any impact on this
particular proposal.
Since this is such a drastic change in use (the previous fraternity use was
abandoned over 10 years ago and that fraternity had less than 12 occupants and
few meetings) and will have a significantly detrimental effect on the
neighborhood, I would like to follow up with a few comments and questions:
1) The current Agenda for the April 9th meeting contains this statement: 11The
Planning and Zoning Board continued this item during the March public hearing
to the April public hearing.
Since the March meeting, City staff has determined that the Land Use Code
permits the fraternity use to be reestablished through a change of use permit
and not a minor amendment.
3
Therefore, the proposal is subject to a compliance evaluation by the Planning
and Zoning Board, which will determine if the proposal meets the zoning district
and general design
standards of the Land Use Code to the extent reasonably feasible ... ".
My question is, who determines what is reasonably feasible? The IBC Code for
R-2 use has very specific requirements. In addition, the building in question has
had structural defects pertaining to loading limits which were supposed to have
been addressed in previous building upgrades. Has this been confirmed? Is the
building structurally capable of regularly holding 60 people? Is the fire
suppression system up to date? It seems in this case safety and sanitary issues
would dictate that the building be completely up to all code requirements since
it will have constant use by more persons than a house of this type was ever
designed for.
2) The Codes regarding fraternity use are currently being reviewed. Sarah
Carter has stated that creating a more clean cut definition of how fraternity
occupancy is calculated is on the agenda of the 2015 Code review. Isn't it
reasonable to postpone this proposal's approval until this review process has
occurred?
3) Can the occupancy be limited since the previous use had at most 12
occupants? And certainly can't the total use be kept down to less than 60
people? This is an extraordinary amount of people to pack into a single family
home and this house has never had this type of high impact use.
4) The application specifically states they will be required to provide 22 off street
parking places during meetings. Since it is doubtful the church is going to grant a
permanent deeded parking permit tied to 201 East Elizabeth, what happens if
this parking permission is rescinded?
5) Lastly, I want to point out the the Certificate of Occupancy granted to this
building specifically grants an Occupancy Group R-1, and only R-1. This building
was never granted R-2 occupancy as required for fraternity use. I don't see how
this can be a resumption of use if the R-2 use was never granted.
John Snyder
a avostf .. ,_ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is act
a avast( This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
khM
4
..
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 12:20 PM
To: 'Deanne Frederickson'
Cc:
Subject:
Paul Milewski; jjtrickett@comcast.net
RE: 201 E. Elizabeth - Follow up
Deanne,
I responded to your questions below.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Deanne Frederickson [mailto:DFrederickson@agpros.com]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 10:00 AM
To: Noah Beals
Cc: Paul Milewski; jjtrickett@comcast.net
Subject: 201 E. Elizabeth - Follow up
Hi Noah. A follow up from last night's meeting:
1. I have the Building Permit Application that you gave me last night, and I will fill it out with as much information I
have. Paul and Julie will be back on Monday, so they will sign it before it is submitted on Monday.
a. Are there any attachments needed? I have floor plans and the MLS listing that verifies the information on
the application if that is helpful. For attachments I was going to use the site landscape plan you created you
can include hard copies.
b. Is there an application fee? Will the application fee for the Minor Amendment be returned to Paul and
Julie? Yes there is an application fee, we were going to apply the Minor Amendment fee that was collect to
Building permit application and refund the difference.
2. Would you provide the parking ratios that you used for the new multi-family housing? We want to at least see
what it is and what that means for the project if they were applied in this case. Here is a link to the code online
the section 3.2.2 the stuff highlighted in yellow is the new stuff. http:/ww./wcolocode.com/fclandusehtml.html
3. What is the review criteria for the Building Permit application? For Zoning it is the Land Use Code Section
3.8.25.
4. Please call when you get a chance today: I'd like to talk to you about the site plan. Thanks.
Regards,
Det.:ll!\,11\-t FYedeYtcRs.ol!\,
Land Planner
AGPROfessionals
3050 67th Avenue, Suite 200
Greeley, CO 80634
1
970-535-9318 office
970-535-9854 fax
www.agpros.com
AG PROfessionals
DEVELOPERS Of ACR!CULTURF.
2
Noah Beals
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Chip,
Sarah Burnett
Monday, April 06, 2015 9:15 AM
Chip Cannan
Rebecca Everette; Noah Beals
Re: Participation in review process
Thank you for contacting me. The email addresses for the planners on these two proposals are:
Rebecca Everette
Reverett@fcgov.com
For PDP140012 -Young Peoples Learning Center
Noah Beals
Nbeals@fcgov.com
For the 201 E Elizabeth proposal
They will forward your comments to the Planning and Zoning Board members for their consideration. You may also want
to review the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Guide available at
www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/PDF/boards/p&z/brochure.pdf. Please also feel free to contact me or the planners if you have
additional questions.
Best regards,
Sarah Burnett
Neighborhood Development Review Liaison
970- 224-60 76
>On Apr 3, 2015, at 2:33 PM, "Chip Cannan" <ccannan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Sarah Burnett,
>
> I would like to voice my opposition to Project #s: MA140133, PDP140 012. Please provide an email address to which I
can send emails voicing my opposition to these projects.
>
>Thank you.
>
>John Cannan
1
Noah Beals
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Deanne
Laurie Kadrich
Monday, April 06, 2015 1:46 PM
'Deanne Frederickson'; Noah Beals
Paul Milewski; jjtrickett@comcast.net; Paul Eckman; Tim Naylor
RE: 201 E. Elizabeth - Change of use
Thanks for sending a follow up email to your call this morning. I was not aware you were awaiting a response from me
as both our attorney and the zoning manager spoke to you on the day that you left messages for all of us so I wrongly
assumed your questions were answered. My apologies for that. I am not certain what you mean by participating in a
process under protest, we would describe what is now happening is getting the project back to the process that it should
have started with rather than a minor amendment. We agree that the applicants have done what we have asked them
to comply with, unfortunately we started with the wrong process. There is no separate meeting that will be held with
"the opposition" rather I discussed with the Planning and Zoning board how to handle those who may come to the
Planning and Zoning Board meeting expecting to hear a decision made by the board. I offered to speak with any parties
after the Planning and Zoning Board meeting was over- those could be people in favor or against the project. We are
sending out a written notice to those who have expressed an interest in this project to let them know it will not be heard
on Thursday night however there may still be some persons who attend. We are also letting people know if they choose
to comment that they may send written information to Noah. I hope that answers your questions and I believe we have
all the information needed to process this request, so while I am happy to meet with you and your clients I am not
certain that is necessary at this point. I have reviewed this application with Noah, our attorney, and the Planning
Services Manager and we believe we have all the information we need from you as applicants to move forward
processing this application.
From: Deanne Frederickson [mailto:DFrederickson@agpros.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11:10 AM
To: Noah Beals; Laurie Kadrich
Cc: Paul Milewski; jjtrickett@comcast.net; Paul Eckman; Tim Naylor
Subject: 201 E. Elizabeth - Change of use
Hi Laurie. I left a message on your voice mail this morning, but I thought I would follow up with an e-mail.
I am a Land Planner, working with Paul Milewski and Julie Rickett-the applicants and owners of the 201 E. Elizabeth
application for a fraternity use at this address. I have been coaching them, and I represent them in this process to the
best of my ability. I have attempted to contact you in the past regarding this application without response from
you. We have been working almost exclusively with staff to this point.
We understand at the Planning and Zoning work session last Friday, March 27, it was determined that the case would
not be heard at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing on Thursday night, April gth, after being continued from the
scheduled hearing on February 12. We also understand that the neighbors who attend the hearing will be asked to go to
a separate meeting room to voice their opposition to you. We are not clear what the expectation is for the applicant in
the midst of this unusual procedure.
I believe at this time it is important that Mr. Milewski and Ms. Rickett be given an opportunity to meet with you directly,
as soon as possible. It is important that we make sure you are fully informed of the facts and the applicant's position
related to this case. This is especially important given it appears you will be meeting with those who oppose this project
on Thursday evening.
1
With this e-mail, I am notifying you that we are participating in this process under protest. We believe a resolution is
imminent, but we are aware that the way in which the application is being reviewed is highly unusual. The delays,
uncertainty and added stress has caused (and continues to cause) significant expense and hardship. We believe the
original use permit, granted by way of the "Certificate of Occupancy" issued by the City of Fort Collins Building
Department on May 2, 1978, for a "Change of Occupancy from Single Family Residence to Fraternity and Boarding &
Rooming House" still applies today. Though the Fraternity use was discontinued in 2006, the use continued as a
boarding house up until the current owners purchased the property in January of this year. The last of the residents
moved out in February so that the building could undergo minor improvements for a continued fraternity use.
The applicants have participated in this application process in good faith; we are all aware that the application has been
very confusing from the very beginning; and, we are all seeking an open and satisfactory resolution for all parties
involved.
We believe that we have followed the instructions and expectations to the letter. Our site plan meets or exceeds all
applicable land use codes. Staff has concurred with this fact in their staff reports to date.
I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Dt{;lli\,1!\,e Freoleric.k?-soli\,
Land Planner
AGPROfessionals
3050 67th Avenue, Suite 200
Greeley, CO 80634
970-535-9318 office
970-535-9854 fax
ww.wagpros.com
AG PROfessionals
Df:Vn.OPERS OF AGRJCl!l:rtlRE
2
Noah Beals
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Laurie Kadrich
Monday, April13, 2015 11:54 AM
Noah Beals
FW: 201 Elizabeth Street. Fort Collins-- VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN -- Director Karich,
respectfully, please explain what the implication of the decision means
From: James Fetter [mailto:jameslfetter@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 12:52 PM
To: Laurie Kadrich
Cc: Jeanine Fetter; Olivia Fetter; Ryan Taylor; Johnsnyder@skybeam.com
Subject: Re: 201 Elizabeth Street, Fort Collins-- VERY CONCERNED CffiZEN --Director Karich, respectfully, please
explain what the implication of the decision means
Thanks again Laurie, we appreciate your help very much.
Due to the fact that there will not be debate tomorrow night at the meeting, I will not continue to try to
rearrange my schedule to attend the meeting. Would you PLEASE include my comments from my previous
letter below (copied here), to the Planning and Zoning Board to make policy changes:
Points for the Planning and Zoning Board:
1) MOST IMPORTANT: The INFRASTRUCTURE of the immediate and surrounding area of any sight must
be able to support the influx of people, cars, parking, traffic, noise, etc ... (Example ... in the immediate case we
are discussing, 201 Elizabeth Street, there will be 28+ people added, an estimated 23 cars/parking (based on a
survey by the city that 81% of students brought a car to campus), 54 people every Monday for meetings,
etc ... The INFRASTRUCTURE of the immediate and surrounding area of 201 Elizabeth Street WILL NOT
SUPPORT THIS. PLEASE HAVE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD LOOK AT THE
PROPERTY/SITUATION AND APPLY LOGIC TO EVERY MAJOR/IMPORTANT CHANGE OR
DEVELOPMENT, of this nature!
2) IF the property values will be impacted negatively (as is the case that we are discussing at 201 Elizabeth
Street), the Planning and Zoning Board should take this under consideration before acting (at the least). The
taxes should be lowered for the area to reflect the denigration of property values.
3) There should be special consideration and respect for a National Register Historic District area to keep the
areas unique charm/appeal.
4) The codes for Fraternity Houses are outdated and need to be revised immediately (28+ people in a 5000
Square foot house, with 54+ people meeting every week in the house, small yard, etc ... is ridiculous!; however
most importantly, the terribly cramped living conditions would potentially place the occupants in a very
dangerous environment and would/should open up liability for the city, if passed!
5) The Zoning Precedent will be set if this is allowed to proceed ... potentially opening up liability and litigation
to the city.
We are writing to voice our strongest objection possible to allowing any organization with
large member populations to reside at 201 East Elizabeth. This is a Historic District! The
Laurel School National Register Historic District possesses a unique charm and is considered a
family oriented community with great desirability. If any large member organization were to
move into 201 East Elizabeth, it would destroy the integrity, atmosphere, and most importantly
1
Thank you
Jim Fetter
303-931-4450
th�roperty value of the neighborhood. As significant, or even more significant, the
INFRASTRUCTURE in this immediate area can NOT support potentially 28+ people, plus the
cars/parking needed for the residence (a survey by the city found 81% of students brought a car
to campus). In addition to that, it was discussed in the previous meeting by the presenters that
there will be a meeting every Monday for 54 peo_ple and many additional events planned at 201
(East Elizabeth. Has this been considered by Planning and Zoning in their decision? This will
stress the situation even further. Simply put, the neighborhood and the infrastructure
surrounding it can NOT accommodate the parking AND the volume of people moving into such
a small area/property. There is already a significant struggle to park by one's own house due to
the student population parking in and around the neighborhood. Every day, CSU students
in front of the homes in this neighborhood to avoid paying for parking; adding to the
infrastructure issues.
Furthermore, the City of Fort Collins, the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, the
Senior City Planner and everyone else involved should realize the detrimental effects this large
of an organization will have on the Historic District, community and its atmosphere (parking,
traffic, noise, trash, etc ... ). 'fhe property values in this area will undoubtedly de_preciate and the
zoning recedent will be set!
Please understand that our opposition has nothing to do with this fraternity or any
fraternity/sorority, or the peo12le involved. It is the FACT that the infrastructure in this area can
NOT handle this additional density of people/cars/parking, noise, etc ... etc ... and will destro):
the current feel of the Historic District, its unique charm, its family oriented community, its
atmosphere, its great desirability, its roperty values and the area as we know it today, will be no
more!
Thank you for your help.
From: Laurie Kadrich <lkadrich@fcqov.com>
To: James Fetter <jameslfetter@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: 201 Elizabeth Street, Fort Collins -- VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN -- Director Karich, respectfully, please
explain what the implication of the decision means
There will not be debate about this project however there is an opportunity for you to comment to the planning
and zoning board any policy changes or follow up you would like them to take due to this situation, for example
I spoke to one person who thought the codes related to fraternities are outdated and should be updated, we
passed that information onto the board and they agree and want us to look at making changes, otherwise the
decision related to this fraternity will be made by staff outside of the PZ meeting
Best Regards, Laurie
On Apr 8, 2015, at 9:28 AM, James Fetter <jameslfetter@yahoo.com> wrote:
2
Thank you very much Laurie for your reply. Is there value in us being at the meeting tomorrow? Will there b1
allowed discussion/debate?
I have been trying to rearrange my schedule to be able to make it, however, if there will not be open
discussion/debate, I would certainly appreciate knowing that.
Thank you very much again Laurie.
Sincerely,
Jim Fetter, Jeanine Fetter, Olivia Fetter
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:"Laurie Kadrich" <lkadrich@fcgov.com>
Date:Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:02AM
Subject:Re: 201 Elizabeth Street, Fort Collins-- VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN-- Director Karich,
respectfully, please explain what the implication of the decision means
James,
thank you for your comments regarding this building permit, the comments will be included as part of the staff
review in whether to approve the project or not.
Best Regards, Laurie
On Apr 6, 2015, at 4:58 PM, James Fetter <jameslfetter@yahoo.com> wrote:
Director Kadrich, as a key representative for us in the community of Fort Collins, we would like to
express to you our very serious concerns about what the implications of the Planning and Zoning Board's
NEW decision really means for the house at 215 Elizabeth Street, Ft. Collins? We are writing to voice
our strongest objection possible to allowing any organization with large member
populations to reside at 201 East Elizabeth ... Please see my previous letter for our specific
objections (BELOW), sent to the Mayor, the City of Fort Collins, the City Council, the
Planning and Zoning Board, the Developers and now to yourself and your team.
We were encouraged that it was recognized that the application for 20 I Elizabeth Street should not have
been processed as a minor amendment. However, we are now very concerned that there is no "listening
session" scheduled, and apparently NO open discussion/debate with the many concerned residents in this
area. We can only hope that this last minute decision, that just came up, is not somehow politically
motivated. Please note our objections/comments (below) in your project file and please have them
reviewed as the final decision is made. We are currently scheduled to be out of town on the date of the
meeting, however, we are trying every possible way to reschedule our travels.
Director Kadrich and all of our Representatives, PLEASE review the sight we are discussing, we need
your help to make this right! The INFRASTRUCTURE in the immediate area of201 Elizabeth Street
simply can NOT support 28+ people, plus the cars/parking needed for the residence ... let alone what else
we highlighted in the letter below.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
3
James L. Fetter, Jeanine M. Fetter, Olivia H. Fetter
303-931-4450
3/11/2015
City of Fort Collins
City Council
Planning and Zoning Board
Senior City Planner
Developers of potential project at 201 East Elizabeth
Unfortunately, due to a sudden family emergency in Ohio, we cannot attend your VERY
IMPORTANT meeting.
We are writing to voice our strongest objection possible to allowing any organization with
large membe1· populations to reside at 201 East Elizabeth. This is a Historic District! The
Laurel School National Register Historic District possesses a unique charm and is considered a
family oriented community with great desirability. If any large member organization were to
move into 20 I East Elizabeth, it would destroy the integrity, atmosphere, and most importantly
the property value of the neighborhood. As significant, or even more significant, the
INFRASTRUCTURE in this immediate area can NOT support potentially 28+ people, plus the
cars/parking needed for the residence (a survey by the city found 81% of students brought a car
to campus). In addition to that, it was discussed in the previous meeting by the presenters that
there will be a meeting every Monday for 54 people and many additional events planned at 201
East Elizabeth. Has this been considered by Planning and Zoning in their decision? This will
stress the situation even further. Simply put, the neighborhood and the infrastructure
surrounding it can NOT accommodate the parking AND the volume of people moving into such
a small area/property. There is already a significant struggle to park by one's own house due to
the student population parking in and around the neighborhood. Every day, CSU students park
in front of the homes in this neighborhood to avoid paying for parking; adding to the
infrastructure issues.
Furthermore, the City of Fort Collins, the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, the
Senior City Planner and everyone else involved should realize the detrimental effects this large
of an organization will have on the Historic District, community and its atmosphere (parking,
traffic, noise, trash, etc ... ). The property values in this area will undoubtedly depreciate and the
zoning precedent will be set!
Please understand that our opposition has nothing to do with this fraternity or any
fraternity/sorority, or the people involved. It is the FACT that the infrastructure in this area can
NOT handle this additional density of people/cars/parking, noise, etc ... etc ... and will destroy
the current feel of the Historic District, its unique charm, its family oriented community, its
atmosphere, its great desirability, its property values and the area as we know it today, will be no
more!
Thank you for your help.
4
Sincerely,
James L. Fetter, Jeanine M. Fetter, Olivia H. Fetter
303-931-4450
Thank you
Jim Fetter
303-931-4450
5
Noah Beals
From:
Sent:
To:
Laurie Kadrich
Monday, April 13, 2015 11:54 AM
Noah Beals
Subject: FW: 201 East Elizabeth fraternity proposal
From: John Snyder [mailto:johnsnyder@skybeam.coml
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 1:01 PM
To: Laurie Kadrich
Subject: Re: 201 East Elizabeth fraternity proposal
Thank you for the info .. Will anything be happening at the P&Z meeting tomorrow regarding this? Is there any
reason for those concerned to attend this meeting?
John
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
Laurie Kadrich <lkadrich@fcgov.com> wrote:
John,
Thanks for your follow up and interest in this matter, many of these questions are building code based which is
not my area of expertise so I am having staff look into these. I have confirmed that this process will now be a
building permit process which can be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and onto the City
Council once the ZBA makes a decision. Please let me know if you need any further information at this
time. Again, thanks for the phone call earlier this week, I really appreciate your thoughts and approach to this.
Best Regards, Laurie
On Apr 6, 2015, at 4:32 PM, "johnsnyder@skybeam.com" <johnsnyder@skybeam.com> wrote:
Dear Ms. Kadrich:
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this issue on the phone. I will forward the latest City
notice regarding the Listening Session to our neighborhood group, although it is still unclear
whether anything said will have any impact on this particular proposal.
Since this is such a drastic change in use (the previous fraternity use was abandoned over 10
years ago and that fraternity had less than 12 occupants and few meetings) and will have a
significantly detrimental effect on the neighborhood, I would like to follow up with a
few comments and questions:
1) The current Agenda for the April 9th meeting contains this statement: "The Planning and
Zoning Board continued this item during the March public hearing to the April public hearing.
1
Since the March meeting, City staff has determined that the Land Use Code permits the
fraternity use to be reestablished through a change of use permit and not a minor amendment.
Therefore, the proposal is subject to a compliance evaluation by the Planning and Zoning Board,
which will determine if the proposal meets the zoning district and general design
standards of the Land Use Code to the extent reasonably feasible ... ".
My question is, who determines what is reasonably feasible? The IBC Code for R-2 use has very
specific requirements. In addition, the building in question has had structural defects
pertaining to loading limits which were supposed to have been addressed in previous building
upgrades. Has this been confirmed? Is the building structurally capable of regularly holding 60
people? Is the fire suppression system up to date? It seems in this case safety and sanitary
issues would dictate that the building be completely up to all code requirements since it will
have constant use by more persons than a house of this type was ever designed for.
2) The Codes regarding fraternity use are currently being reviewed. Sarah Carter has stated
that creating a more clean cut definition of how fraternity occupancy is calculated is on the
agenda of the 2015 Code review. Isn't it reasonable to postpone this proposal's approval until
this review process has occurred?
3} Can the occupancy be limited since the previous use had at most 12 occupants? And
certainly can't the total use be kept down to less than 60 people? This is an extraordinary
amount of people to pack into a single family home and this house has never had this type of
high impact use.
4) The application specifically states they will be required to provide 22 off street parking places
during meetings. Since it is doubtful the church is going to grant a permanent deeded parking
permit tied to 201 East Elizabeth, what happens if this parking permission is rescinded?
5) Lastly, I want to point out the the Certificate of Occupancy granted to this building
specifically grants an Occupancy Group R-1, and only R-1. This building was never granted R-2
occupancy as required for fraternity use. I don't see how this can be a resumption of use if the
R-2 use was never granted.
John Snyder
a avostf
.. , ...
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active .
2
Noah Beals
From: Laurie Kadrich
Sent:
To:
Monday, April13, 2015 11:55 AM
Noah Beals
Subject: FW: 201 Elizabeth Street, Fort Collins-- VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN -- Director Karich,
respectfully, please explain what the implication of the decision means
From: James Fetter [mailto:jameslfetter@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:25 AM
To: Laurie Kadrich
Cc: Jeanine Fetter; Olivia Fetter
Subject: Re: 201 Elizabeth Street, Fort Collins -- VERY CONCERNED CmZEN -- Director Karich, respectfully, please
explain what the implication of the decision means
Thank you very much Laurie for your reply. Is there value in us being at the meeting tomorrow? Will there be
allowed discussion/debate?
I have been trying to rearrange my schedule to be able to make it, however, if there will not be open
discussion/debate, I would certainly appreciate knowing that.
Thank you very much again Laurie.
Sincerely,
Jim Fetter, Jeanine Fetter, Olivia Fetter
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:"Laurie Kadrich" <lkadrich@fcgov.com>
Date:Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:02AM
Subject:Re: 201 Elizabeth Street, Fort Collins -- VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN -- Director Karich,
respectfully, please explain what the implication of the decision means
James,
thank you for your comments regarding this building permit, the comments will be included as part of the staff
review in whether to approve the project or not.
Best Regards, Laurie
On Apr 6, 2015, at 4:58 PM, James Fetter <jameslfetter@yahoo.com> wrote:
Director Kadrich, as a key representative for us in the community of Fort Collins, we would like to
express to you our very serious concerns about what the implications of the Planning and Zoning Board's
NEW decision really means for the house at 215 Elizabeth Street, Ft. Collins? We are writing to voice
our strongest objection possible to allowing any organization with large member
populations to reside at 201 East Elizabeth ... Please see my previous letter for our specific
1
objections (BELOW), sent to the Mayor, the City of Fort Collins, the City Council, the
Planning and Zoning Board, the Developers and now to yourself and your team.
We were encouraged that it was recognized that the application for 201 Elizabeth Street should not have
been processed as a minor amendment. However, we are now very concerned that there is no "listening
session" scheduled, and apparently NO open discussion/debate with the many concerned residents in this
area. We can only hope that this last minute decision, that just came up, is not somehow politically
motivated. Please note our objections/comments (below) in your project file and please have them
reviewed as the final decision is made. We are currently scheduled to be out of town on the date of the
meeting, however, we are trying every possible way to reschedule our travels.
Director Kadrich and all of our Representatives, PLEASE review the sight we are discussing, we need
your help to make this right! The INFRASTRUCTURE in the immediate area of201 Elizabeth Street
simply can NOT support 28+ people, plus the cars/parking needed for the residence .. .let alone what else
we highlighted in the letter below.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
James L. Fetter, Jeanine M. Fetter, Olivia H. Fetter
303-931 -4450
3/1 112015
City of Fort Collins
City Council
Planning and Zoning Board
Senior City Planner
Developers of potential project at 20 I East Elizabeth
Unfortunately, due to a sudden family emergency in Ohio, we cannot attend your VERY
IMPORTANT meeting.
We are writing to voice our strongest objection possible to allowing any organization with
large member populations to reside at 201 East Elizabeth. This is a Historic District! The
Laurel School National Register Historic District possesses a unique charm and is considered a
family oriented community with great desirability. If any large member organization were to
move into 20 I East Elizabeth, it would destroy the integrity, atmosphere, and most importantly
the property value of the neighborhood. As significant, or even more significant, the
INFRASTRUCTURE in this immediate area can NOT support potentially 28+ people, plus the
cars/parking needed for the residence (a survey by the city found 81% of students brought a car
to campus). In addition to that, it was discussed in the previous meeting by the presenters that
there will be a meeting every Monday for 54 people and many additional events planned at 201
East Elizabeth. Has this been considered by Planning and Zoning in their decision? This will
stress the situation even further. Simply put, the neighborhood and the infrastructure
surrounding it can NOT accommodate the parking AND the volume of people moving into such
a small area/property. There is already a significant struggle to park by one's own house due to
the student population parking in and around the neighborhood. Every day, CSU students park
in front of the homes in this neighborhood to avoid paying for parking; adding to the
2
infrastructure issues.
Furthermore, the City of Fort Collins, the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, the
Senior City Planner and everyone else involved should realize the detrimental effects this large
of an organization will have on the Historic District, community and its atmosphere (parking,
traffic, noise, trash, etc ... ). The property values in this area will undoubtedly depreciate and the
zoning precedent will be set!
Please understand that our opposition has nothing to do with this fraternity or any
fraternity/sorority, or the people involved. It is the FACT that the infrastructure in this area can
NOT handle this additional density of people/cars/parking, noise, etc ... etc ... and will destroy
the current feel ofthe Historic District, its unique charm, its family oriented community, its
atmosphere, its great desirability, its property values and the area as we know it today, will be no
more!
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
James L. Fetter, Jeanine M. Fetter, Olivia H. Fetter
303-931-4450
Thank you
Jim Fetter
303-931-4450
3
Noah Beals
From: Sarah Burnett
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:26 PM
'Richard Holmes'
Cc: Noah Beals
Subject: RE: 201 Elizabeth St.
Mr. Holmes,
I was out of the office last Thursday and Friday, but wanted to let you know that I forwarded your message to Noah
Beals, who has be coordinating the City's review of this proposal so that they could be added to the record for this
proposal.
Thank you,
Sarah
Sarah Burnett
City of Fort Collins
Neighborhood Development Review Liaison
970-224-6076
sburnett@fcgov.com
Your neighbors are connecting online. Have you joined NextDoor yet?
From: Richard Holmes [mailto:mrsherlock@aol.coml
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 20 15 8:56 AM
To: Sarah Burnett
Subject: 20 1 Elizabeth St.
Sarah:
I am not going to rant and rave. I own a duplex near the Fraternity house. I have 4 bedrms and parking for 7 cars. I can
seldom find parking infront of my Duplex as CSU students park there as CSU keeps removing parking spaces to build
what ever. The City of FC raked me over the coals to make my Dueplx meet the three people rule and do inspections and
blue prints, and change windows. The inspectors still said I had one of the cleanest rentals they had seen. So after
FORCING me to pay all this money for permits and building issue to meet CURRENT standards I now see the City
breaking the rules all the time. This Frat house for one, the Apt bid at LaMay and Lincon. 80 0 bd rms and 700 parking
spots oh that is ok there will be 80 0 bike spots. Get real. 1 00 people are not going to drive anywhere anytime?
I don't envey your job but the rules the city sets should not be modified to fit the applicant and that is what it looks like from
the outside .
Thank you for listen in and below is just another example of what I was sayiing above
Richard Holmes
1
From: Melissa Pattison <melissapattison@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed Fraternity at 201 E. Elizabeth
To: Steve Giuliani < sgiulianifc@gmail.com>
Please forward. I'm frustrated by the city's incredibly intrusive zoning rules that do no good blocking extreme outliers, but
mess with every normal request.
I did a little further research yesterday. It's a challenge to determine how big 201 E Elizabeth is. Permit application
80603243 on July 3, 2006 lists Residential Sq Ft as 3,504; 4.5 baths. Larimer County Assessor shows a Total Sq Ft of
3159, with 240 square feet of finished basement and 4.5 baths. Zillow has 5408 square feet and 5 baths, which is highly
suspect due to edit capabilities granted to just about anyone. None of these values support the occupancy proposed,
since the city requires 350 square feet of living space per resident on the high occupancy application. A fraternity may be
different, but why and by this much?
Zillow = 5408, Implied Occupancy 15, with 24 residents it is 193 sq ft per resident, 55% of the requirement for a boarder.
County = 3399, Implied Occupancy 9, with 24 residents it is 141 sq ft per resident, 40%
It is really bad precedent for the city to violate its own zoning rules. It seems dangerous and unsanitary to have occupancy
of 24, much less 28, in 201 E Elizabeth. Things have changed since 1978 when the first occupancy application was
approved. Safety and liability issues are more significant.
2
Noah Beals
From: Laurie Kadrich
Sent:
To:
Monday, April 13, 2015 11:56 AM
Noah Beals
Subject: FW: 201 E Elizabeth - the view from across the street
----- Original Message-----
From: Tom Laupa [mailto:tlaupa@frii.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 20 15 10 :47 AM
To: Laurie Kadrich
Subject: 201 E Elizabeth -the view from across the street
Ms Kadich:
My family lives across the street from 201 E Elizabeth. It is our family's home, my grandfather purchased it in 1926. I've
lived there most of my life.
The neighbors of my youth have all passed on. Esther Moore, whose husband Roland Moore we named the park after.
John Clark, a teacher at CSU. Ms Yankee, who worked downtown. And my grandfather, a professon who Durrell Center
was named after. A family neighborhood.
I'm here to tell about the problems we had with the Triangle Fraternity. When they first moved in I was excited. It was
an engineering fraternity, and I was going to go to CSU as an engineering student. But the excitement didn't last long.
The fraternity brought noise, parking, trash, and boyish vandalism to the neighborhood.
The noise was the worst. And I admit I was scared to talk to them about it. After a few minor confrontations at 2 o'clock
in the morning, I stopped talking and simply called the police. I'd close the windows on many sweltering September
nites, hunker down, and try and ignore the noise.
There was never a parking space in front of my house and there would often be cars parked in front of Ms Moore's
driveway.
My weekend morning ritual was to go and pick up bottles and trash off my front lawn. And I'd find oddball stuff ... a pair
of girls pants, a dining room chair, in my front yard.
201 did not look good. Run down and over grown. I remember the guys were partying on the second floor balcony
(directly across from my
bedroom) and they got to rough housing. They knocked the brick fa�ade off the front of the house. The bricks stayed in
the front yard for months, and repairs took even longer.
The boyish vandalism was bothersome.
o I replaced the old flagstone sidewalk in
front of my house. I did the work myself and was quite proud of it. I stayed on the porch all afternoon to make sure no
one stepped in the wet concrete. As soon as I went in for dinner the guys came over and wrote their names.
o On occasion, when I'd called the police on
them, the guys would throw bottles at my windows, occasionally breaking some of the stained glass.
1
o And when there were parties, there weren't
enough bathrooms at 20 1. The guys took to urinating outdoors. At one point I put flood lites in my front yard. When I'd
hear the guys urinating on my trees, I'd turn on the lites to run them away.
Over the years things finally quieted down. The fraternity had a tragic car accident on the way to a fraternity function in
which the president was killed. That toned things down quite a bit. And the fraternity was finally disbanded.
Since that time new neighbors have moved into the neighborhood, and we've become a nice place to live again. We
don't believe that use as a fraternity is compatible with the neighborhood. We cite land use code 3.5.1.J.
We were very happy when Dennis Dowswell bought
20 1
·
E Elizabeth as his primary residence. His warranty deed and deed of trust, along with his mortgage, show that he
intended residential use. He lived there. And there are building permits showing that the "building to be occupied by
owner after renovation". So it is clear there was twelve years, very peaceful years, where the house was his residence.
This abandonment of use is referenced in land use code 3.8.25.
Another fraternity is not welcome.
Tom Laupa PE
Nalco- an Ecolab Company
10 03 Remington
Fort Collins, CO 80 524
970 -227-5127
2
Noah Beals
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
laurie Kadrich
Monday, April13, 2015 11:57 AM
Noah Beals
FW: 201 East Elizabeth fraternity proposal
From: johnsnvder@skvbeam.com [mailto:johnsnyder@skybeam.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 4:33 PM
To: Laurie Kadrich
Subject: 201 East Elizabeth fraternity proposal
Dear Ms. Kadrich:
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this issue on the phone. I will forward the latest City notice regarding
the Listening Session to our neighborhood group, although it is still unclear whether anything said will have
any impact on this particular proposal.
Since this is such a drastic change in use (the previous fraternity use was abandoned over 10 years ago and
that fraternity had less than 12 occupants and few meetings) and will have a significantly detrimental effect on
the neighborhood, I would like to follow up with a few comments and questions:
1) The current Agenda for the April 9th meeting contains this statement: "The Planning and Zoning Board
continued this item during the March public hearing to the April public hearing.
Since the March meeting, City staff has determined that the Land Use Code permits the fraternity use to be
reestablished through a change of use permit and not a minor amendment.
Therefore, the proposal is subject to a compliance evaluation by the Planning and Zoning Board, which will
determine if the proposal meets the zoning district and general design
standards of the Land Use Code to the extent reasonably feasible ... ".
My question is, who determines what is reasonably feasible? The IBC Code for R-2 use has very specific
requirements. In addition, the building in question has had structural defects pertaining to loading limits
which were supposed to have been addressed in previous building upgrades. Has this been confirmed? Is the
building structurally capable of regularly holding 60 people? Is the fire suppression system up to date? It
seems in this case safety and sanitary issues would dictate that the building be completely up to all code
requirements since it will have constant use by more persons than a house of this type was ever designed for.
2} The Codes regarding fraternity use are currently being reviewed. Sarah Carter has stated that creating a
more clean cut definition of how fraternity occupancy is calculated is on the agenda of the 2015 Code
review. Isn't it reasonable to postpone this proposal's approval until this review process has occurred?
3) Can the occupancy be limited since the previous use had at most 12 occupants? And certainly can't the
total use be kept down to less than 60 people? This is an extraordinary amount of people to pack into a single
family home and this house has never had this type of high impact use.
1
4) The application specifically states they will be required to provide 22 off street parking places during
meetings. Since it is doubtful the church is going to grant a permanent deeded parking permit tied to 201 East
Elizabeth, what happens if this parking permission is rescinded?
5) Lastly, I want to point out the the Certificate of Occupancy granted to this building specifically grants an
Occupancy Group R-1, and only R-1. This building was never granted R-2 occupancy as required for fraternity
use. I don't see how this can be a resumption of use if the R-2 use was never granted.
John Snyder
a avastf This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active .
.. , ....
2
Dear Planning and Zoning Board of Fort Collins and members of Phi Kappa Tau,
I would like to bring up some points to consider regarding the proposed fraternity house at 201 E.
Elizabeth Street:
1. Parking
How is this a buffer zone if the buffer is going to spill over into the neighborhood with permanent
vehicles and guest vehicles? When the city closed down the 200 block of East Locust Street this past
summer, there were many vehicles from residents pushed up onto our block and it was difficult to park.
We personally don't have a driveway and we have young children which makes it a challenge to get in
and out of the house. Fraternity officers scouted this block as a good place to park their extra vehicles
as stated in the March 12th meeting.
2. Activity
There will be 24 full time residents in a single family home (albeit a large one) and there will be many
comings and goings. I would not want that next to my home. This is exclusive of events such as rush,
graduation and meetings when there will be considerably more than 24 people.
3. Privacy
This is a high occupancy dwelling with proposed bedrooms as 1 single, 1 quad, 3-4 triples, and 4-5
doubles. When members of the fraternity are not in their rooms, where will they be? There is some
yard space, but again, I would not be interested in living next to 24 people.
4. Respect for the neighborhood I Final thoughts
We are frustrated and disappointed in how the city of Fort Collins has dealt with this issue. We were
made to feel like we had a voice in this decision, but then made it clear by sending a last minute apology
letter that, in fact, our concerns and quality of life in this neighborhood do not matter.
Thank you for listening to these concerns.
Respectfully,
I
'-{'( ;tt
:
11�
The Giuliani Family (Steve, Aranda, Olive, and Agnes) -- -
331 Locust Street
/"'
l �.
�\ ----
,.. .
(� 'A.,t�
\ \
Noah Beals
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Noah,
Sarah Burnett
Monday, April 13, 2015 9:40 AM
Noah Beals
FW: Fraternity house on East Elizabeth
I'm going through old email messages, and ran across this one. I do not believe it was forwarded to you previously. Can
you please add it to the record?
Sarah
-----0 rigi na I Message-----
From: Cynthia Baker [mailto:ccoffeebuzzed@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Sarah Burnett
Subject: Fraternity house on East Elizabeth
To whom it may concern: Although I am unable to attend tonight's meeting regarding the potential reopening of a
fraternity house on East Elizabeth, I want to voice my concern and strong opposition to this use of the building at 201
East Elizabeth. I have lived in this neighborhood (at 428 East Elizabeth} for over 9 years. During that time, many of the
houses that used to be rented to students, and were, sadly, incredibly burdensome dwellings for homeowners have
ceased to be rented. Instead, many of these homes have been sold to families and other responsible people, or rented
to responsible adults.
The college students who once rented these homes (and who still rent one or two problematic dwellings in the
neighborhood} were across the board rude, obnoxious, loud, boisterous partiers. Their all-night parties, accompanied by
screaming, drinking, and fighting, brought down the quality of living in the neighborhood and kept us all up at night,
resulting in many calls to the police. Sadly, these student renters did not even attempt to form part of the community.
My husband and I have seen students run over by fellow partiers who were driving out of control at 3 am; we have had
males and females alike urinating in our front bushes; we have been told that we had no "right" to buy a home near
csu.
We have contemplated leaving the city over this, though in recent years this neighborhood has begun to fill with
families, children, and real neighbors, with investments and thus commitments to the quality of life in this
neighborhood. Why would anyone want a fraternity house on the corner, creating more problems with parking, out of
control partying, and generally rude and disrespectful behavior in a neighborhood that has begun to grow and mature,
and where housing prices have finally begun to reflect the community we are developing in this neighborhood? No
fraternity, I say!
I strongly oppose having a fraternity on East Elizabeth. It is quite unwelcome. Find another location!
Sincerely, Dr. Cynthia Baker.
Sent from my iPad
1
Please attach and send to the Zoning and Planning Committee/ Fort Collins City Council for the meeting
on 3/12/2015.
Thank you ahead of time for taking the time to read this document.
My name is Aaron and I am a resident at 202 East Elizabeth (my front porch looks directly at the
Horsely House (201 E. Elizabeth Street)). I am a Fort Collins native, growing up on 405 Smith Street, and
am currently practicing medicine one block away from where I was born. My wife is a DVM, PhD at CSU
and teaches undergrads and veterinary students. Her family has lived here since the 1900’s and Linton
Elementary was named after her grandparents. We’re no strangers to old town and intend to raise our
family here and live here for at least the next 50 years.
When searching for a house in which to raise our family, I wanted a family oriented
neighborhood. I attended Laurel Harris, now Harris bilingual, and inquired about the neighborhood into
which I would be buying. The Elizabeth street area was perfect. It had almost no rental properties on
the block. There was a range of well educated, well respected professionals, and young couples with
children. There were no fraternities. I looked at purchasing a house on Remington and in other old
town locations, but did not, given the proximity to fraternity organizations. Property values for
assessors and banks may depend on the square footage, or comparisons, but a property is only worth
what someone will pay for it. Many of us would not pay more to live next to a fraternity. As a result, I
do believe this would disrupt the value and character of the neighborhood as I wouldn’t pay more, and
the fraternity is not family oriented.
Additionally, I want to help reveal the character of the neighborhood as it exists today.
Presently, the 200 block of East Elizabeth Street consists of children from 1 year of age to adults of 60+
years of age. Incomes very between household, ages of couples, and families also vary, but the
character of the neighborhood is one of: warmth, trust, cooperation, generosity and an eagerness and
willingness to share life’s journey with one another. There is a genuine concern for each person’s well-
being and weekly gatherings in which we get together to eat and share stories of our weeks. We
depend on each other for a cup of flour, sidewalk snow removal, house sitting when we are on vacation
or making meals for one another when someone is sick. The goals set forth in the East Side
Neighborhood plan in 1986 have become a reality on East Elizabeth Street. Congratulations on having
the vision and foresight to create such a great community.
However, I do feel that the amount of people, noise, odor, trash, traffic, and automobiles would
change the character of the house/development itself (current Land Use Code 2.2.10) and as a result,
have a direct impact on the character and very nature of the neighborhood and the progress made in
the last 29 years. The ESNP (eastside neighborhood plan) 1986 2.1.2; 1, created by your predecessors,
clearly states, “…for the “Buffer” area …it is recognized that, as with any existing neighborhood, unique
and specific circumstances affecting certain properties will require special consideration. …the East Side
Planning and Advisory committee shall work to create criteria for the review of future proposals to
protect the interests of the Neighborhood …the area should be monitored for any significant
demographic changes. Such changes should be promptly assessed and appropriate steps be taken to
revise policies and implementation measures in the interest of Neighborhood stabilization.” The 200
block of EE is a unique and specific circumstance and 24 new 18-21 year olds does alter the
demographics. Additionally, the character of the houses on the 200’s block of EE Street, according to
page 32 of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Strategy Report (2012-present),
would most aptly be classified into the Character 1 area. This is the same designation that would be
given to Mountain Avenue and Peterson Street. A fraternity on Mountain Ave? Is a Character 1 area
(regardless of zoning) a place in which you feel it is appropriate to place a fraternity?
Additionally, you will hear about parking issues, which will become even more constrained
when the greenway construction project is completed on Remington Street in 2015 (at least 4 parking
spaces are eliminated from the intersection of EE and Remington). The members of the fraternity have
informed the neighborhood that they will have their members and guests park 3 blocks away from 201
EE. As you know, this parking issue leaves the buffer zone and enters the low density, single family
Preservation area that the ESNP established. The effects on the Preservation area are in direct conflict
with the Z&P, and City council’s policies on page 24 section 3.2 of the ESNP stating that, “…any change
of use…should be allowed if the proposal… is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
environment; and, can be shown to create no significant traffic, noise or other land use conflicts with
adjacent Preservation Areas. Unfortunately, the fraternities attempt to placate the immediate
neighbors will cause disruption to the adjacent Preservation areas. Even if they don’t park 3 blocks
away, there would only be 3 on street parking spaces in front of the house after the Greenway project
would be completed and would push the immediate parking and traffic issues to the surrounding
Preservation areas.
For 90 years, 201 East Elizabeth Street (1002 Remington) has stood proudly at the corner of
Remington and East Elizabeth Street. The Horsely House was built in 1925 by Leslie Horsely. Leslie lived
in this house with his wife Cora and his daughter Ester, from the completion of construction until 1948.
For 23 years this house protected and helped raise a family. In 1957 Mary F Winters, and in 1960 the
Schultz family began living at 201 East Elizabeth. Since 1960 the Horsely House has been a single family
residence except for the brief time in which the Triangle Fraternity occupied the house. ~(10 yrs).
I know 201 East Elizabeth is in the NCB zone, I also understand that it lies within the Laure
School Historic District Boundary. Given the size of the structure, the age (1880-1930), the architectural
design and the materials with which this house was built, I feel that it is a contributing structure to the
Laurel Street historic district.
Unfortunately, past record has shown that some fraternities or high intensity housing has not
been a proper match for historic buildings. Examples might be the house that was condemned and
bulldozed at the NW corner of Howes and Laurel streets, or the work that needed to be done to 201 E.
Elizabeth street, when the triangle fraternity moved out. Another, is the fraternity currently undergoing
renovations on Lake street and finally, 1504 Remington street (The University House), that needed to be
completely gutted and the second floor condemned and deemed permanently unusable space after the
fraternity moved out.
In the ESNP page 35, 2.4.1, your committee stated, “…Some important structures have been
lost to demolition in past years. Additional protection for the area is needed as the fringe commercial
and mixed use buffer areas and downtown continue to redevelop.” It is both of our responsibilities to
be good stewards of our historic properties and I feel it would be irresponsible of us to lend this house
to 24 to 28 people indefinitely.
Alcohol, no alcohol, code or not code; these are the realities, of intense occupancy housing,
and I feel it is not a risk I, nor the Poudre Valley Landmarks Committee would willingly take. Please
don’t put the Horsely House at risk of becoming another casualty of intense occupancy living, we could
lose more structures that contribute to Fort Collin’s rich History.
History is a record that demonstrates that we do not always make the right choices (or I would
have invested in apple at 5 bucks/ share rather than invest it in Heska). Therefore, it may make sense
to reconsider the “it’s been used as a fraternity in the past” justification to now justify using this single
family residence as a fraternity again. The labeling of this decision as a minor amendment is semantics
and coding law, that’s it. It is not minor. This will not only affect the future of the house, but will also
affect the future of my life and neighborhood. To you the passing of this minor amendment will be
ephemeral, but will be a daily encounter for the rest of my life and the lives of my children. Please don’t
take this decision lightly.
Intelligence contributes to the ability to avoid mistakes, but once mistakes are made it is a wise
person’s responsibility to not make the same mistake. I know that you as the Zoning and planning
committee are intelligent, now I can only hope that your discernment and judgment will be wise.
Please commit to your ESNP, pg 44, 2.8. “The policies included in this plan have meaning for the
ESN and the greater community only if they are implemented. …a commitment to implementation is a
fundamental part of the adoption of this plan.”
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:49 AM
To: 'Andrew Beavers'
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: 201 Elizabeth Comments
Andrew,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Andrew Beavers [mailto:beavers_andrew@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:45 AM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: 201 Elizabeth Comments
Mr. Beals,
I own and live at 1117 Mathews street and have lived elsewhere in this neighborhood since 2003. I will
be unavailable the night of the meeting on March 12 (tonight), so I am submitting my comments via email and
would like them entered into the record for the neighborhood meeting. I have read the neighborhood
information meeting notes (I was out of town for that meeting as well). Please confirm receipt.
Parking: All discussion thus far has centered around the idea that the renters are students and therefore will not
need much more than the 8 spaces allotted. This logic is thoroughly flawed and demonstrably false. Please use
hard numbers, which are available from CSU. Survey's show roughly 90% of off-campus students have
cars. There is no reason to believe that will not be the case for this fraternity other than hearsay and
speculation. Hard numbers demonstrate otherwise. That means the fraternity will bring an additional (24*0.9) -
8 = 13.6 (call it 13) cars to park on the street in the neighborhood. Given current parking setups (parallel on all
2
blocks closest to 201 Elizabeth) where the maximum spots per block are 11 (personal observations counting
cars in the neighborhood) that's over a block of parking dedicated to an individual property. That seems
patently unfair to neighbors. The rental units immediately to the south of this property had to spend significant
dollars to provide ample parking for their units, it seems only fair that this property should have to meet the
same requirement based on proposed occupancy.
Parking permits: I am opposed. I do not want the hassle, nor the expense, of providing parking permits to my
friends and family every time they come to visit. Am I to purchase a half dozen permits because I choose to
have friends for dinner? Or purchase a permit because my son's grandparents come to visit him for 5
days? That feels incongruous with a town the size of Fort Collins.
Phi Kappa Tau: The CSU code of conduct for fraternities prohibits 'alchoholic' parties, but does not prohibit
parties. I'd like to hear from a representative of Phi Kappa Tau roughly how many parties they have in a year,
and how late these parties typically go. An answer of 'none' or 'never past 10' are not answers I would put much
faith in. Parties are a part of fraternity life (as they should be!). My concern is that large parties of the type that
are typical of fraternities are incompatible with a residential neighborhood. I think everyone would agree to
that. If Phi Kappa Tau, or any other fraternity (or any renter for that matter) that is interested in the
house, would like to at any time have a loud party at night, they should look elsewhere for a house. That said, if
they'd like to be a responsible and respectful part of our community, and build the character of our
neighborhood, I, for one, will welcome them just as I do any new neighbor. That's the same criteria I would
apply to any renter anywhere in our neighborhood, student, professional, family, or otherwise.
Codes: It was stated in the neighborhood information meeting that the house "needed to be brought up to
current development standards" because it hadn't been occupied in over a year. I'm curious if other codes were
met as well (e.g. electrical, plumbing, etc.). If not, what is the rationale for holding the owners to the parking
standards but not other standards? This is an old house and hasn't been properly maintained in quite a while
(years) from what I can tell walking by it on a regular basis.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Andrew Beavers
1117 Mathews Street
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 4:07 PM
To: 'Rachel Bedard'
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: 201 e eliz
Rachel,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Rachel Bedard [mailto:rmbedard@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 3:47 PM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: 201 e eliz
Noah:
I am very much opposed to a private property being leased to a fraternity (or a sorority).
• This is a neighborhood, not frat central
• We already have parking problems. I cannot get groceries mid-day and also expect to park at my house
when I return. 54 additional people in the neighborhood will not help.
• There is a noise/trash problem that would likely be exacerbated.
• I am tired to explaining to my small child why college children behave as they do. I certainly do not
need 50 more explanations pending.
2
• There is an issue related to transparency. Neighbors feel exceptions are being made and plans are
being fast tracked for this property. Please be transparent. Exceptions make people feel angry,
slighted, and marginalized. Fort Collins is not about marginalization.
• Please include my comments in the Planning and Zoning meeting for this Thurs.
Thank you,
Rachel Bedard
Owner of 1113 Mathews St
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:37 AM
To: 'Francis Coffren'; Sarah Burnett
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com)
Subject: RE: 201 e. elizabeth st.
Frankie and Rachael,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Francis Coffren [mailto:flcoffren4@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:25 PM
To: Noah Beals; Sarah Burnett
Subject: 201 e. elizabeth st.
Mr. Beals,
My name is Frankie Coffren and my wife Rachael and I live at 329 E. Elizabeth St. and we wanted to write over
concern and protest over the minor amendment change to the property at 201 E. Elizabeth St. My wife and I
both attended the neighborhood meeting on February 19th, listened to the presentation given by the owners,
potential renters and questions by fellow community members and it seemed there was quite a lot of resistance
to the proposal.
Zoning - I understand that the property is zoned to allow fraternities and sororities and indeed has in the past
but more importantly this home was not built or designed to be a fraternity home, it was built as a single family
home 90 years ago. It was inhabited as a single family home for its first 54 years, built on one the city's first
east-west streets, acting as the southern border of the original town. This home also resides within the Laurel
Historic Preservation District and represents historically one of the more important and influential streets and
areas in our towns history.
2
Density - The idea of allowing such a high density dwelling in a predominantly single-family neighborhood
seems irresponsible and detrimental to the quality of life within the neighborhood. Fraternity and Sorority use
codes seem to allow almost twice the number of inhabitants compared to any other type of occupancy
code. The house has never had more than 15 people reside in it and more importantly the house itself was not
built or designed to handle that many inhabitants.
Parking - Going from 8 residents to a proposed 24 (up to 28) people would add a significant number of
vehicles to an already overburdened parking situation and would have ripple affects across the surrounding
area. Already the adjacent block east on Elizabeth in front of St. John's Lutheran Church has parking
restrictions for church use and the block to the north on Elizabeth has both businesses and hotel parking guests
to compete with. It has been talked about frequently and understood that the neighborhood parking spaces
already are occupied during school hours by commuting students.
Traffic criteria - Elizabeth Street was originally designed when the town was established as an east-west
corridor and it has remained that way ever since. It is a main artery for police and rescue personnel in town
because of its convenience between College Avenue, CSU, old town and the hospital. This road has also seen
increased traffic and accidents within the past few years. After several accidents last year including one
involving police personnel, traffic studies were conducted to study speed and volume concerns. Subsequently,
speed cameras have been added at the corners of Elizabeth and Matthews within the last few months. It also is
understood that the city will be doing work to rework the intersection of Elizabeth and Remington to better
improve turn lanes and better handle volume to a very busy intersection.
Neighborhood Concerns - My wife and I are both CSU alumni and we returned too this town several years
after graduating because we loved what the town offered not only to its college residents but to all its
residents. We wanted to live in old town and understood the proximity to the university could place us in areas
or neighborhoods with college students. But old town also contained beautiful professional and family
occupied neighborhoods and streets, which were still close to the downtown area and possess character and the
flavor of the town . While Colorado State University is a significant part of the towns identity and history, the
town is also represented by many other people, industries and belief systems. This specific neighborhood in
Fort Collins is one of a hand full of neighborhoods and streets in particular that define this town and its history.
Frankie Coffren
Rachael Coffren
329 E. Elizabeth St.
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:39 AM
To: 'Ray Frush'
Cc: Sarah Burnett; Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com)
Subject: RE: Concern over 201 E Elizabeth Conversion to a Frat House
Ray and Lisa,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Ray Frush [mailto:phred@rflm.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:59 PM
To: Noah Beals
Cc: Sarah Burnett
Subject: Concern over 201 E Elizabeth Conversion to a Frat House
Mr Beals, Ms Burnett-
My name is Ray Frush. Lisa Moravan and I own and live at 220 East Elizabeth.
We would like to go on the record as being opposed to the rezoning of 201 East Elizabeth from Single Family
Home to Fraternity Use. While the proposal looks straight forward, we don’t believe it takes into account
changes in the 200 Block of East Elizabeth that have occurred over the last 20 years.
When we purchased and moved into 220 East Elizabeth in 1995, the makeup of the neighborhood was quite
different than it is today.
2
• 201 East Elizabeth was home to the small and declining Triangle Fraternity, which disbanded and sold
the home to Dennis Dowswell, who rehabilitated the house and used it as a Single Family Home.
• 202 East Elizabeth was converted from a B&B business and is now Single Family home.
• 215 East Elizabeth was condemned and foreclosed after being trashed as a multiple unit rental, and has
been beautifully rehabilitated by the current owners as an over/under duplex. The owners live in the
main upstairs unit.
• 224 East Elizabeth was rented (both units) as an over/under duplex. The owner moved back into the
upstairs unit and did extensive upgrades to the whole house before selling to the current owners. They
live in the main unit, and have continue to improve the landscaping.
In short, over the last two decades, the neighborhood on the 200 block of East Elizabeth has become less
business focused, and is now almost entirely owner occupied homes with the exception of 223 East Elizabeth.
The owners have invested considerable time, money and effort to preserve, and improve the homes on the
block.
Allowing the use of 201 East Elizabeth by a Fraternity will have a profound effect on the character of the
neighborhood, and in our opinion would cause the neighborhood to go into decline. The presence of a
fraternity on the block would likely cause drops in the re-sale values of the remaining Single Family Homes as
new home buyers would be disinclined to purchase a home next to a fraternity.
We're aware of some of the other letters you’ve received, and that they cover many of the more technical
aspects of the opposition to this rezoning, so we will not repeat those arguments here. However, we have been
reading over the East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP), and we believe that there are a number of areas that the
owners of 201 East Elizabeth have not addressed. These include:
• In Chapter 1 the ESNP states, “...primary purpose of ESNP - to help preserve and enhance the existing
quality of life in the Neighborhood.” We do not see how re-zoning 201 East Elizabeth serves to do that.
• The 200 block of Elizabeth has been meeting the vision laid out in the East side Neighborhood Plan.
Instead of declining, its residents have been rebuilding, investing time, money and effort into their
homes, their yards and their community. The proposal by 201 East Elizabeth does not address how that
investment in time, money and community would be preserved.
• From Section 3.2.1, paragraph 2.7: "If elements of the proposal are not consistent with the policies of the
East Side Neighborhood Plan, does the proposal make substantial positive contributions to the
Neighborhood that offset its shortcomings?”
As far as we are aware, the proposal by the owners of 201 East Elizabeth have not addressed this. It is
not clear how zoning the property as a Fraternity would make a positive contribution to the
neighborhood.
We ask that you and your team consider this proposal carefully in the context of the ESNP, which serves as an
important guideline for planning and zoning decisions in our neighborhood.
—
Ray Frush
Lisa Moravan
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:40 AM
To: 'Zak George'; Sarah Burnett
Cc: Sarah Burnett; Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com)
Subject: RE: 301 E. Elizabeth st.
Zak,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Zak George [mailto:zak@zakgeorgelandscaping.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 5:45 PM
To: Sarah Burnett; Noah Beals
Subject: 301 E. Elizabeth st.
Good evening,
I just want to touch base with you regarding the house on E Elizabeth. It is concerning to me when residents of
the city are sending out anonymous letters about how they don't want this to go through. If they really are
against it then they should stand up for it and make themselves known. Myself and my dad own three properties
within the stated distance from the proposed house. One of which my parents live in most of the year. They are
retired and move from Fort Collins to the E coast with my bother.
We are for the house remaining a fraternity house and allowing the students to live there. As an active member
of the community we would much rather the house be designated as a house VS the young men just making any
old house or block of houses into a fraternity. When I was in college we did not have an actual house and we
would have huge parties at random houses through out the town. This was not good as the police were usually
called at some point during the night. I feel that if they men want to party they will police themselves as they
2
have more to loose if they get in trouble with the police. Also the days of drunkin massive raging parties for
fraternities does not exist. In today's day and age that is not what makes people join. The men are required to do
community service and act as leading members of their fraternity. Yes some are not perfect but the general
leadership of the fraternity and active members do not want to cause trouble. I feel it is better for the city's
interest to allow the fraternity as it will make the long term easier to manage from a complaint and violation
stand point. Lets not forget that at one point that house was in pretty bad shape and i think it would be good for
the young men to keep it clean.
As for the parking, that is the low lying fruit that is easy for the neighbors to complain about. I have news for
everybody that it is not easy to find a parking spot withing 4 blocks of the campus on any given day. A few
more cars in the area will not have any more of an affect on neighbors. The students that need to watch their
spending know they can park along the streets for free. This is a very weak excuse why they don't want the men
there. In my vote I would rather have the future of America learning life lessons on how to enter the real world
vs. another office park or restaurant being opened.
Thanks for taking the time to read my email and i hope that you approve this for the young men that deserve it.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Zak George, CLT
Zak George Landscaping
CO Office (970) 221-9228
Cell (970)218-0609
335 S. Summit View Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
WY Office (307) 633-9871
1621 Central Ave. Suite 3427
Cheyenne, WY 82001
www.ZakGeorgeLandscaping.com
www.Facebook.com/ZGLandscaping
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:35 PM
To: 'Clint Alyson'
Cc: Sarah Burnett; Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com)
Subject: FW: Please include for the March 12 hearing
Attachments: oppose MA140133.pdf
Alyson and Clint,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Clint Alyson [mailto:clintalysonbills@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:03 PM
To: City Leaders; Noah Beals
Subject: Please include for the March 12 hearing
Greetings,
Could you please include our letter of opposition in to the development proposal MA140133 that is on the agenda for the March 12 hearing? We would like these comments to be
on record and presented to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Thank you so much for your time and support,
~Alyson Huff and Clint Reeves
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:39 AM
To: 'Jeff Icenhower'; Sarah Burnett
Cc: rcsrnko@gmail.com; DFrederickson@agpros.com
Subject: RE: Feedback on Proposal to Allow Phi Kappa Tau to Occupy 201 E. Elizabeth
Jeff,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Jeff Icenhower [mailto:icenhower@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 9:03 PM
To: Noah Beals; Sarah Burnett
Cc: rcsrnko@gmail.com; DFrederickson@agpros.com
Subject: Feedback on Proposal to Allow Phi Kappa Tau to Occupy 201 E. Elizabeth
Please include the following with public comments on the proposal to allow Phi
Kappa Tau to occupy the house at 201 E. Elizabeth, Fort Collins, CO.
Zoning
It appears that there may be some confusion about the zoning and its application to
the property at 201 E. Elizabeth. To place the pertinent information into the public
record I am including the following from the Fort Collins Land Use Code.
2
DIVISION 4.9 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, BUFFER
DISTRICT (N-C-B)
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District is intended for
areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more
intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones that have been given this
designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. (Emphasis by me.)
(B) Permitted Uses.
…
(3) The following uses are permitted, subject to Planning and Zoning
Board review:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Fraternity and sorority houses, provided that such
fraternity or sorority house is located within a street-fronting
principal building.
It seems clear to me that allowing the use of the subject property by the Phi Kappa
Tau Fraternity is appropriate under current zoning regulations.
On Fraternities
I am a Sigma Chi. I attended the University of Montana, receiving my
undergraduate degree in 1981. I lived in a large converted home in a neighborhood
with up to 35 other Sigma Chis. Not once in my time there do I recall our
neighbors complaining about our presence. In fact, when we went caroling every
Christmas season many invited us into their homes.
3
Many of the comments I have seen have displayed the worst kind of ignorance
about fraternities. It seems the only research people have done on fraternities is to
re-watch Animal House. It seems important to point out that this movie was a
comedy, not a documentary.
To judge the men of Phi Kappa Theta without taking time to know them is the
worst kind of prejudice. One just as well condemn them because of their gender, or
because their name sounds foreign.
So what are these men committed to? An easy Google search reveals the
following:
The mission of Phi Kappa Tau is to champion a lifelong commitment to
brotherhood, learning, ethical leadership and exemplary character.
With the occasional unfortunate exception, fraternity men are the kind of men who
build the value of neighborhoods and communities.
Neighborhood
I take exception to the characterization of the neighborhood as one of families and
owner occupied dwellings. Directly north of 201 E. Elizabeth, the next two
buildings are four-plexes. Within a block north and south on Remington I spotted
two multi-unit apartment complexes. Just one block south is a (different) fraternity
house. Easily half of the remaining residences in the same area show clear evidence
they are rentals. This is clearly a transition area, appropriate to its zoning.
Parking
Anyone who lives within two blocks of one of the largest universities in the state
might reasonably expect to face some on street parking challenges. Certainly the
men of Phi Kappa Tau had to take this into consideration in deciding to rent this
location. Their few more cars will not make a dent in parking in the area when
compared with the thousands of students who regularly commute from other areas
in Fort Collins to CSU. (These comments remind me of people who used to move
4
to a small town I lived in, bought property in the country on dirt roads, then
complained about the dust…)
Neighbors
The following story was printed in the Missoulian:
October 08, 2014 7:45 am
AP Content
Recently I had a most pleasant experience with students from the University of
Montana. I am a 73-year-old woman with no children or grandchildren, and as a result I
have little contact with young people.
Although I had just moved to Missoula in July, I found myself in a situation that was
not good for me and I needed to move again. Since I live on Social Security benefits I
could not afford movers. I called the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement at the
university and asked if it was possible to get help for my move. Julie, the woman I spoke
with, seemed to think there would not be a problem; she could get me help. And she
came through.
On that Saturday, cars and trucks kept coming down the street and young men came to
the door, introduced themselves and were ready to pack the truck. They were pleasant,
cheerful and often funny. Then the young women began to show up. In all, 33 young
people came to be of assistance. What fun we all had. Several different fraternities and
sororities were represented and everyone worked well together.
My purpose in writing this letter is twofold: I want to publicly thank the young people
from the University of Montana; I also want to encourage senior citizens to take
opportunities to interact with young people. It will be good for both age groups. I
promise.
Judith TreeCrone, Missoula
AP Licence
This is what you get when you have fraternities and sororities in your
neighborhoods.
5
Jeff Icenhower
Fort Collins, CO
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:03 PM
To: 'John Douglas'
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: Phi Kappa Tau house
John,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: John Douglas [mailto:iweld4u@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:58 PM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: Phi Kappa Tau house
Dear Noah,
I am writing on behalf of The petition to allow the Phi Kappa Tau fraternity to occupy 201 E Elizabeth Street.
I am aware that the Planning and Zoning and Board will be considering a decision of the Minor Amendment for
the house on 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015.
My son attends and is a member of the fraternity Phi Kappa Tau.
2
I am formally petitioning as a Colorado State residence that the amendments are passed and the fraternity is
allowed to live in the house. The house is currently zoned and has been a fraternity house in the past. It would
not make sense to not allow the fraternity the right to live there.
Warm regards,
John Douglas
1
Noah Beals
From: Deanne Frederickson <DFrederickson@agpros.com>
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 3:44 PM
To: Jamelle
Cc: Noah Beals; Ashley Milewski (amilewski@c3-re.com); Paul Milewski
(paulrski@yahoo.com); Julie Rickett (jjtrickett@comcast.net)
Subject: RE: Conversion of property at 201 e Elizabeth
Jamelle, My apologies for not responding sooner. The total finished floor area is 5,400 SF. The building code would
allow 27 occupants, based on 200 SF per finished floor area. However, the applicant is requesting an occupancy not to
exceed 24. It is my understanding that one of the bedrooms will be a single-occupant, and the others will be multiple-
occupant. The parking requirements for a Fraternity, per City Code, is 1 off-street space for every 2 bedrooms. The
subject building has 9 bedrooms, which would require a total of 6 parking spaces, one of which is ADA accessible. The
application will provide for 8 total off-street spaces, which exceeds the City Code.
Let me know if you have additional questions.
Deanne Frederickson
(970) 535-9318
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamelle [mailto:jamelle70@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 1:58 PM
To: Deanne Frederickson
Cc: Noah Beals
Subject: Re: Conversion of property at 201 e Elizabeth
I wanted to confirm I am understanding. How many residents could live in the building? (It is not clear to me if these are
single-, double-, or multiple-occupant bedrooms.) Parking is very tight during the school year here and I wanted to
understand how this might impact the already difficult parking issues in our neighborhood.
Thank you.
Jamelle
> On Feb 20, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Deanne Frederickson <DFrederickson@agpros.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Jamelle, Thank you for your questions.
>
> The lot in question (201 E Elizabeth) is Zoned NCB - for Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. The Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer District is intended for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more
intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an
adopted subarea plan. The proposed application (for a fraternity) is for a use that is allowed in the NCB zoning district,
and no change of zone is requested.
>
> The Minimum vehicular parking spaces for a fraternity is 2 spaces for every 3 bedroom, plus one space per two
employees. There are no employees expected at this facility. The building has 9 bedrooms, so 6 off-street parking
2
spaces are required. The Site Plan currently shows 8 parking spaces, which exceeds City Code. One space is designated
for handicap parking. There will also be 24 bicycle parking spaces provided, 15 of which will be interior to the building.
>
> A public hearing is scheduled for March 12, 2015 with the Planning and Zoning Board.
>
> Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns.
> Thank you,
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Deanne Frederickson
> Land Planner
>
> AGPROfessionals
> 3050 67th Avenue, Suite 200
> Greeley, CO 80634
> 970-535-9318 office
> 970-535-9854 fax
> www.agpros.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamelle [mailto:jamelle70@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 3:38 PM
> To: Noah Beals
> Cc: Sarah Burnett; Deanne Frederickson
> Subject: Re: Conversion of property at 201 e Elizabeth
>
> I was unable to arrange child care during the meeting time, but would still very much appreciate receiving the answers
to the questions I asked in my email below.
>
> If this information is available in meeting materials provided at the meeting or on line, please send me the link.
>
> Thank you and have a good weekend,
> Jamelle
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jamelle Schlangen,
>>
3
>> Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email
I'm including the applicant's representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
>>
>> There is an neighborhood meeting scheduled on February 19th, 2015 at 5:30pm at 305 E Elizabeth Street . This will
be an opportunity for neighbors to meet the applicant and hear from them about the proposal. Those in attendance will
be able to ask questions and provide comments.
>>
>> Your comments and concerns will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a
decision of the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has
been scheduled for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda will be sent out and posted online
closer to the time of the meeting. The Planning and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to
your written comments, you and other citizens may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about
participating in the Planning and Zoning Board Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
>>
>> Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City's neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
>>
>> Sincerley,
>>
>> Noah Beals
>> Senior City Planner-Zoning
>> City of Fort Collins
>> 970 416-2313
>> 970 224-6134 Fax
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jamelle [mailto:jamelle70@hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 3:47 PM
>> To: Sarah Burnett
>> Cc: Noah Beals
>> Subject: Conversion of property at 201 e Elizabeth
>>
>> Ms. Burnett, mr. Beaks,
>>
>> I was hoping to review information on changes proposed to 201 e. Elizabeth if that is available?
>>
>> If you could please let me know what that lot is currently zoned and what the current parking requirements are for
that zoning class and what class of zoning is requested and what associated parking requirements would become if the
change is approved?
>>
>> I am already concerned about the availability of parking in my neighborhood and want to make sure that if an
increase in density is approved, it comes with an appropriate amount of off-street parking.
>>
>> Is there a public meeting scheduled to discuss this change?
>> Thank you for your assistance.
>>
>> Jamelle Schlangen
>> 1117 Mathews St.
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:48 PM
To: 'Jennifer Douglas'
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: Phi Kappa Tau House petition
Jennifer,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Douglas [mailto:jenndouglas@outlook.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:46 PM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: Phi Kappa Tau House petition
Dear Mr Beals,
Please allow me to introduce myself, my name is Jennifer Douglas, I am a resident of Colorado, and my son Ryan attends
CSU. Ryan is also a member of Phi Kappa Tau.
I am writing to you about the fraternity house that is located on 201 E. Elizabeth St. This house is allowed as a fraternity
house under city zoning. However, there has been concerns about parking and noise from the neighbors.
The fraternity brothers of Phi Kappa Tau are a civic minded mature group of young men. The fraternity has very strict
rules when it comes to having parties, and they are not allowed to do so in their fraternity house. While I understand the
concerns from the neighbors I think they are overly concerned. In addition, living just a short distance from the school
2
one must assume that they will be surrounded by college students. The block had multiple rentals with students
currently living and renting in them. Not allowing the fraternity house seems highly unfair to the fraternity, and to be
honest, discriminating.
The house is very close to the campus, and while parking is limited many of the boys do not own cars, or park at the
college.
Tomorrow during the final hearing I would like you to please allow the fraternity to be located in this house. CSU is a
wonderful school and this fraternity is incredible.
I work at the National MS Society, I have raised my son to give back. He served a year in Americorps volunteering before
attending college. He is not alone, the young men in this fraternity are incredible. Beyond that however, considering that
this house is already zoned for a fraternity, and it is just a block away from campus, I have a hard time understanding
how this could not be approved.
Again, please allow the fraternity to occupy this house.
Warm Regards,
Jennifer
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:21 PM
To: 'Kathy Jones'
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: 201 E. Elizabeth Street
Kathy,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Kathy Jones [mailto:hokajones@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:46 PM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: 201 E. Elizabeth Street
Dear Mr. Beals:
I am Howard E. Jones, Managing Partner of MESA PARTNERS, LLC
which owns the property at the corner of South College Ave. and
Elizabeth Street, identified as the IHOP Restaurant.
We are totally opposed to Change of Use in the subject property from
single family use to a fraternity house.
2
The provision for parking is totally inadequate for the proposed fraternity
house.. We have provided substantial parking to support the IHOP
business. With a fraternity only a half a block away, it doesn't take a
rocket scientist to know that the franchisee of IHOP will be put to a
substantial amount of time and cost maintaining the parking lot for the use
of their customers.
Sincerely,
Howard E. Jones
MESA PARTNERS, LLC Manager
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:38 AM
To: 'Tom Laupa'
Cc: claupa; Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: 201 E Elizabeth - Comments from Laupa's
Tom,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Tom Laupa [mailto:tlaupa@frii.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 5:49 AM
To: Noah Beals
Cc: claupa
Subject: 201 E Elizabeth - Comments from Laupa's
Mr Beals:
our family is opposed to a fraternity at 201 Elizabeth.
we purchased our home at 1003 Remington, directly across the street, in 1926. i've spent the majority of my life
in this home, and i've seen many changes. this is an unwelcome change.
>parking is inadequate.
>Section 3.8.28 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code provides that the maximum number of residents is one
tenant per 350 square feet of habitable floor space
>noise control in the neighborhood will become untenable
>other fraternities locations have shown a dramatic affect on neighborhood quality of life
2
please do not allow this change to our neighborhood.
Tom Laupa PE
Nalco - an Ecolab Company
1003 Remington
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-227-5127
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:50 PM
To: 'John Litschert'
Subject: RE: minor amendment on Remington and Elizabeth
John,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Additionally, the applicant has requested to a maximum of 24 occupants. This number is permitted within the Building
Code. The parking requirements for a fraternity are based on the number of bedrooms. The requirement is 2 off-street
parking spaces per 3 bedrooms. With a proposal of 9 bedrooms the development is required to provide at least 6. The
proposal has been revised from the initial submittal and they are showing a total of 8 off-street parking spaces now.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: John Litschert [mailto:jclitsch@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 12:18 PM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: minor amendment on Remington and Elizabeth
Hi Noah,
I received a letter from you on March 2 that invited me to a meeting on Feb 19 about a minor amendment on the
corner of Elizabeth and Remington. Given that I didn't get the notice in time for the meeting I figured I would
ask you a question via email. Is there a maximum occupancy limit for the proposed fraternity house? I see
there are 9 bedrooms and 9 parking spots but if they pack 2 or 3 to a room (like dorm rooms) that doubles or
triples the potential parking requirements which seems might be somewhat burdensome for that area.
Thanks,
2
John Litschert
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:20 PM
To: 'Patrick McGlinchey'
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: In support of the minor change of use amendment for 201 E Elizabeth
Patrick,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Patrick McGlinchey [mailto:ptmcg7@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: In support of the minor change of use amendment for 201 E Elizabeth
Hello Noah,
The main things that the Fraternity is taking flak on is a lack of parking at night, partying, and that while the
Fraternity may be nice, "who knows who will be living there 3 years from now?"
There is a lack of parking during the day due to the neighborhood's proximity to campus however the Fraternity
cannot be held accountable for this. Parking at night is not an issue as recent counts of free parking spots simply on
the 201 Elizabeth's house block and the block across from the house range from 50-130 after work/school hours.
As far as partying, there are specific national fraternity rules, CSU rules, Fort Collins rules, and Greek Life office
rules that state the Fraternity cannot have parties in their official "lettered" house. As there are strict rules in place
against this, any issues involving partying or the noise arising from partying should not be heard as there simply
cannot be parties in the property.
2
The aspect of the Fraternity being nice but worrying about who comes in the future is an argument born out of
hypotheticals. Many residences in this neighborhood have renters living in them (including a 24 bed unit immediately
next to the house and a quad on the corner on the same block) and there is no objection to these in the worry they
may "one day be rented by bad people". Not to mention, the Fraternity actually has requirements for admitting
people into a chapter in addition to internal accountability systems, making the Fraternity more likely to keep up a
steady supply of good people than a rental unit. This argument seems to be the most discriminatory one and I
believe it may even conflict with the Fair Housing Act.
It seems we have countered every issue that has arisen, it is then my belief that progress should simply not be
halted because of a resistance to change in the community. The house was previously zoned as a
Fraternity/Sorority house, so there is a legal reason for the house to be used as such. There is a severe lack of
Fraternity housing, so there is a need for the house to be used as such.
Patrick McGlinchey
2101 Perennial Lane Ft Collins
210-303-3149 | ptmcg7@gmail.com
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:35 AM
To: 'Aaron McGrew'; Bob Overbeck
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: Z&P meeting
Attachments: (Attachment to McGrew Email)Zoning and Planning Committee.pdf
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Aaron McGrew [mailto:mcgrewat@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:24 AM
To: Noah Beals; Bob Overbeck
Subject: Z&P meeting
Here is the message for the Z and P meeting.
Thanks
Aaron McGrew
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 11:13 AM
To: 'Tracey'
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: 201 E Elizabeth Street Minor Amendment MA140133
Tracey,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Tracey [mailto:akatraytay@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:37 AM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: 201 E Elizabeth Street Minor Amendment MA140133
>> To the Planning and Zoning Board of Fort Collins:
>>
>> As a homeowner on Elizabeth Street, I also feel the need to voice my opinion on the proposal to turn 201 E. Elizabeth
back into a fraternity. Like the majority of residents and homeowners who have already voiced their opinions, I also
have the same concerns on how this decision will impact our parking, our property value, and the charming character
this wonderful
>> neighborhood has. It is my opinion 201 E. Elizabeth is not suitable for 24-28 residents. The previous fraternity
housed 15 members or less which is a much more suitable number for a home of this size. Approving this amendment
to allow up to 28 people to live in a 5400 square foot home seems irresponsible from a health and safety perspective for
2
the residents living in the home as well as the residents of the neighborhood. I ask you to also take this into
consideration along with the many other concerns we have already addressed as a community.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Tracey Morse
>> 206 E. Elizabeth St.
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:16 PM
To: 'Stacey Neth'
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: 201 E Elizabeth Street
Stacey,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Stacey Neth [mailto:stacey@discnation.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 12:48 PM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: 201 E Elizabeth Street
Dear Mr. Beals,
I am a parent of one of the fraternity members interested in renting the house at 201 E Elizabeth Street. As I
hope you are aware, these boys have worked very hard to re-establish this fraternity at CSU and would do nothing
to jeopardize this work by breaking the rules or hosting parties. My understanding is that the zoning for this house is
correct, but needs an ammendment for them to be able to use it for the fraternity and that parking may be an
issue. I feel that their assertion that parking is widely available at night (after classes end for the day) is
valid. Please reconsider and pass the ammendment.
Thank you,
--
Stacey Neth
1
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 9:39 AM
To: 'Mike Schifferdecker'
Cc: Deanne Frederickson (DFrederickson@agpros.com); Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: 201 E. Elizabeth Proposal
Mike,
Thank you for sending on your comments concerning the Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. In this email I’m
including the applicant’s representative, Deanne Fredrickson, as she is the most familiar with the specifics of the this
proposal.
Your comments will be included in the record when the Planning and Zoning and Board considers a decision of the
Minor Amendment for 201 E Elizabeth Street. The date of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing has been scheduled
for March 12th, 2015. Notification of this meeting and its agenda have been sent out and posted online. The Planning
and Zoning Board hearing is a public meeting. Therefore, in addition to your written comments, you and other citizens
may also provide comments at the meeting. Specific information about participating in the Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings is available at fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf.
Please feel free to contact me and/or the applicant, Deanne Fredrickson, or the City’s neighborhood Liaison Sarah
Burnett with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Schifferdecker [mailto:mshifty78@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:19 AM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: 201 E. Elizabeth Proposal
> Dear Fort Collins Officials,
>
> My name is Mike Schifferdecker, I have been a resident of this beautiful town for over 10 years. For most of these
years I have had a strong connection and admiration with and for the 200 block of east Elizabeth. A very close friend
owned the house two down from the 201 property hence I spent some time enjoying this fine, quite, and beautiful
block. Currently, I live on this great block myself directly across from the 201 property at 206 E. Elizabeth. Living on this
block has been such a great experience due to the kind and generous neighbors who look after each other and really
care for this block. It is a unique and historic block near old town and campus with the homes being primarily occupied
by the families that own them and take great pride in caring for them. This is where I lead into the main reasons why I
strongly oppose 201 e. Elizabeth reverting back to a fraternity house. Allowing 24 to 28 young men to live in the 5400
2
square foot home on the 201 property will not only change this quite neighborhood forever, it will certainly impact the
surrounding areas as well. To begin there is the parking concerns.. Even with the 8 proposed spots within this property,
24 to 28 men and all of the frequent guests they will inevitably have, there will be nowhere for any resident and or guest
to park. Secondly, all of the values these homes on this block are going to suffer some loss and appeal due to the fact
that 24 to 28 men live right next to them. Lastly, the noise and traffic that this house and the occupants will product on
this block will certainly upset all the neighbors and take away the charm and unique atmosphere this block has had for
years. In conclusion, I believe this city needs to re zone this block to prevent such a high number of people to be able to
live under one roof. I am aware that the house in question was a fraternity once before but for close to ten years it has
not and the 200 block has grown into a very family oriented block in which this type of occupancy does not fit. Please do
not allow this fraternity occupancy to go forward. You would be ignoring all the neighbors in this area who do not want
this type of occupancy so please do the right thing....
> Sincerely
> Mike Schifferdecker
1
Noah Beals
From: Sarah Carter
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 3:02 PM
To: 'johnsnyder@skybeam.com'
Cc: Noah Beals
Subject: FW: fraternity occupancy limits
Mr. Snyder,
I’m sorry to hear you had trouble finding the answers you were looking for. Unfortunately, we are not able to publish
the whole of the ICC Building Codes on our website due to copyright infringement issues. We are able to post our Land
Use Code and Amendments because they are ours, but the building codes are published by another entity, and so may
not be published on our website. The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments is the governing
building code for R2 projects.
First, allow me to address the applicable codes. It is important to understand that while the City’s Land Use Codes and
Building Codes are intended to work together, they govern different portions of any given property. Essentially, Land
Use Code governs the “use” of the property including items such as parking, landscaping, and function (“use”); whereas
the Building Codes address structure, systems, and life safety items specific to the type of “occupancy”. Use and
occupancy have many similarities, but are not completely parallel.
With this in mind, let’s address your question about dormitories/fraternities as they relate to “extra-occupancy rentals”.
A dormitory is an R2 occupancy under the IBC, but an “extra-occupancy rental” would be considered an R3 dwelling
governed by the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC). The term “extra occupancy rental” is a Land Use Code term—
it is not recognized by the building codes. Therefore the occupancy of the house would still be R3, but the Land Use
Code has provisions for approving additional tenants for a single family home over and above the “3 unrelated persons”
allowed. A boarding house could be an R2 occupancy under the IBC if there are more than 16 (nontransient) occupants,
but a boarding/rooming house with fewer than 16 nontransient occupants would be an R3 occupancy under the IRC. So,
I just want to be clear that a dormitory (or fraternity/sorority) is a different animal than extra occupancy rentals and
boarding houses as far as the Building Codes are concerned.
Now here is the occupant load table I referenced in my original email:
2
As you can see, the Building Code addresses occupant loads for a dormitory separately from other R2 (Residential)
occupancies. A fraternity is listed specifically in the definition of dormitory. Further argument could be made that the
Dormitory “occupied area” should be limited to sleeping rooms, required facilities, and egress paths. Creating a more
clean cut definition of how “dormitory” occupancy should be calculated is on the agenda for our upcoming 2015 code
review. If you would like to submit a suggested limitation for the committee, I’ll be happy to include it in my discussion
notes.
3
So, let me ease your mind that any given regular single dwelling under the IRC cannot be changed to a dormitory by
simply submitting a minor amendment. A change such as this would go through a development submittal, but then it
would also be required to go through a change of occupancy with Building Services. A change of occupancy to move
from a single dwelling to a dormitory would be no small task. Many changes to the building to meet a much more
restrictive occupancy would be required. Changes would include a full commercial fire sprinkler system, accessibility
upgrades, electrical upgrades, a more restrictive egress design, possible structural reinforcement for heavier floor
loading requirements, and other costly improvements. Therefore, while someone could certainly apply to make a
change such as this, generally the required construction for a change of occupancy would be cost prohibitive even if the
use were approved by Zoning.
The building in question has an existing Certificate of Occupancy reflecting previous approval as a fraternity which is why
Building Services would allow the owner to use it in this way. With this in mind, Zoning could still impose further
restriction on the occupant load based on Land Use Code restrictions, and there would be no conflict with the Building
Codes because occupant loads are maximums. An alternate restriction further limiting the maximum stemming from a
Planning or Zoning development project would be enforced. In this case, I understand that the requested number of
occupants would be 24. Because they would be below the allowed occupant load under the IBC, Building Services would
approve this, and assuming no other departments put further restriction on that, the allowed number of occupants
would be 24 if the project is approved. Essentially, the applicant must comply with both Building and Land Use Code,
therefore the more restrictive number would apply.
I hope this helps clear up your concerns regarding occupant load for this project. Please feel free to contact me with any
further questions.
Sincerely,
Sarah Carter, LEED
®
GA
Plans Analyst
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
970-416-2748
scarter@fcgov.com
From: johnsnyder@skybeam.com [mailto:johnsnyder@skybeam.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:56 AM
To: Sarah Carter
Subject: fraternity occupancy limits
Ms. Carter:
I was forwarded the following info from Noah Beals regarding occupancy limits for fraternities. I was then able to look
up the relevant info online. Thank you for providing the first concrete information I have been given to date on this
subject. I had been searching though Fort Collins Land Use and Building Codes without much luck
So, please help me understand this. Is this saying that if a residential house had 5400 finished square feet, including a
finished basement, the number of fraternity members allowed to occupy the unit full time (I.e. live in the house) would be
108! This seems preposterous.
I believe the City regulations regarding boarding and rooming houses and all extra occupancy rentals require
350 square feet of finished living space per tenant. These uses, as with Fraternities, fall into the IBC definition
of R-2 residential. Is there a specific City regulation which removes fraternities from this classification?
I think it is apparent that something is wrong here. There are over 40 residential homes in Fort Collins with
extra occupancy permits which could be converted into fraternity use with a minor amendment submitted to
4
P&Z and no neighborhood notification required. Most of these homes are around 2000 square feet and house
from 4-8 tenants. It appears from this data that 50 fraternity members could move into a 2000 square foot
house, and many more into the larger of these houses.
Please advise
John Snyder
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is response from City’s Plan reviewer Sarah Carter 970 416-2748, scarter@fcgov.com.
Fraternities and sororities are classified as an R2 occupancy under the 2012 IBC. R2 occupancies are usually
calculated at 200 square feet (gross) per occupant, however, the building code has a separate calculation for
“dormitories” which a fraternity would fall under. Occupant load for a dormitory/fraternity would be
determined by dividing the gross square footage of the R2 “occupiable” area by 50 square feet per Table
1004.1.2 of the 2012 IBC. This calculation would only include the finished square footage of the building. For
example, an unfinished basement would not be included in the square footage calculation for occupant load for
the R2 portion of the building, as it would stand alone as its own S2 occupancy.
If you need more information on the building code please contact Sarah Carter directly.
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
From: Laurie Kadrich
To: Cindy Cosmas
Subject: email sent to Council member Overbeck - SAR 29001
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 3:53:42 PM
On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:09 PM, "Sovell,John" wrote:
Hi Noah,
I live on Remington Street, one block away from the fraternity proposed at 201 Elizabeth. I am opposed to the
use of that property as a fraternity. I would recommend that the Planning and Zoning Board not consider this
amendment at the March 12 meeting and postpone its decision on the amendment until April's meeting. This will
give both the community, the city, and the developers additional time to discuss this complex issue. I see from
the March 12 Planning and Zoning board agenda that there are only two amendments that have garnered any
emails, the 201 Elizabeth project being one and all 11 of the emailers (+one, me) oppose the 201 Elizabeth
amendment. That is quite a number of people for a small community neighborhood.
This proposed use does not fit the character of the neighborhood, is not an appropriate use of the property from a
community standpoint, and does not accommodate enough parking spaces (8) for 24 occupants in a
neighborhood already facing parking challenges; plus the site will be used for large fraternity meetings of over 50
people, further compounding traffic and parking issues. Sure the property was a fraternity in the past, but the
neighborhood has changed drastically in the last decade. I have read the Planning and Zoning board staff report
recommending the amendment and question whether neighborhood opposition was even a consideration in the
staffs review. It appears that the City's general position on these matters is to side with developers and go ahead
with plans without considering community involvement. The recent "English Park garden" and "Summit parking
garage" fiascos are two recent examples. I am perplexed by how all of this was advanced with the community
only finding out about it in late January, followed by a neighborhood meeting just weeks ago in late February,
and now a Board decision on March 12. That timeline is just a bit ridiculous. I had the unfortunate experience of
having the street outside of my house turned into a construction yard for the College Avenue waterline
replacement last summer, with virtually no advance warning from the City. It pretty much ruined the entire
summer for everyone on the block. To say that I am upset with the City's lack of communication with local
neighborhoods on issues of neighborhood importance is an understatement and this is just one more example of
the City's failure.
I have one question (plus sub-questions) for you; would it be useful for the neighborhood to develop a petition
against this amendment and collect signatures? If so, is there a city procedure to follow? How should the petition
be worded? Who should the petition be presented too?
Thank You
John Sovell
828 Remington Street
Clinton Reeves and Alyson Huff
201 E Plum St
Fort Collins, CO 80524
March 11, 2015
To Whom It May Concern:
We would like to express our opposition to the proposed development of 201 East Elizabeth Street in
Fort Collins and we insist our comments be included with the materials presented to the Planning and Zoning
Board. As residents in our owner-occupied property in the neighborhood, we see significant reasons this
proposal should be denied regardless of possible compliance with the current land use code. The proposed
development would likely increase traffic and parking congestion in our neighborhood, decrease property
values, increase noise pollution, and negatively impact our family-friendly community.
The increase in occupancy proposed in MA 140133 exceeds that allowed, even for Extra Occupancy
Rentals. The number is too great for the area and the house. This eastside neighborhood currently has a
healthy mix of owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing. Adding a large-scale housing unit like this would
diminish the balance we have. We have ‘you-plus-two’ for a reason. This house should be no exception.
The parking congestion we would experience if this proposal is approved negatively impacts our
neighborhood. Even with dedicated spots for parking, that number will not support the number of tenants
proposed. The formula used to determine the acceptable number of parking places does not seem to reflect
the number of tenants that will likely have vehicles. Currently we live across the street from a fraternity house
and the number of spaces they consume on our street is outrageous. They have about 8 places on their
property for parking and those are insufficient. Probably this fraternity would encounter the same inadequate
supply and demand relationship.
Fraternity houses bring noise pollution. The fraternity across from our home has speakers on the
outside of the house from which they blare music throughout the day. In the spring and early fall, that often
means we leave our windows closed when we’d like to get fresh air. It also means lots of interrupted nap time
for our infant, uncomfortable hours of hearing loud music when we are trying to enjoy our yard, and inability to
have a normal volume conversation on our patio. The occupants like to sit outside, play in their yard, have
guests over, and cook out on the grill…and so do we. A normal occupancy home produces normal neighbor
sounds that a large occupancy house magnifies to an unacceptable level for our neighborhood.
Conversion to a high-occupancy housing unit in our neighborhood will also increase after-bar foot traffic
through our neighborhood. Remington Street is already swarming with intoxicated college students walking
home from old town after the bars close. We’ve had our fences spray painted, kicked in, and torn down multiple
times each year. We also had our mailbox smashed in and kicked down from a corner location so many times
that we finally had to move it to a more discrete location to avoid drunken vandalism. We are concerned that
this new fraternity location will add to this problem.
For these reasons and more, we as residents of 201 East Plum Street, oppose the property
development MA 140133 of 201 East Elizabeth Street and wish to have these comments included in the
materials for the Planning and Zoning Board, the City Council’s leadership team, and any other applicable
venues for expressing a citizen’s opposition to a proposed neighborhood development.
Sincerely,
Alyson Huff
Clinton Reeves
(
· ~t°Coui~
January 07, 2015
SADDLE UP PARTNERS, LLC
713 BENTHAVEN CT
Fort Collins, CO 80526
RE: 201 E Elizabeth St, MA140133, Round Number 1
Community Development and
Nelghborflood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6760
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.comldevelopmentreview
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of
the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual
commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Noah Beals, at 970-416-2313 or
nbeals@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ryan Mounce, 970-224-6186, rmounce@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/24/2014
12/24/2014: If the property has not been in use as a fraternity for more than 12 months, the Land Use
Code requires the site to be brought up to current development standards to the extent reasonably
feasible. Such site upgrades would focus primarily on the parking area, with the following
requirements:
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/24/2014
12/24/2014: Minimum vehicular parking spaces for a fraternity amount to 2 spaces for every 3
bedrooms, plus one space per two employees.
Minimum bicycle parking spaces are 1 per bed, and 60% of such spaces need to be enclosed.
Enclosed bicycle spaces require a sheltering element, such as locating them indoors, in lockers, or
under an overhead canopy/carport.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/24/2014
12/24/2014: To determine the minimum bicycle/vehicle spaces required, we need more information
on the number of bedrooms, beds, and employees (if any) that are planned for the fraternity.
Page 1of2
Comment Numb 4 Comment Originated: 12/24/2014
12/24/2014: There could also be requirements to alter the parking area itself, but more information and
dimensions would also be needed to determine this. For instance, a new development would be
required to have a 5' landscaped setback of parking area from lot line and alley, or to have certain
width for the one-way drive aisle.
In particular, more information is needed on the the angle of the diagonal parking, the width of the
one-way drive aisle, and the width from the alley to the closest parking spaces.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
01/07/2015: No comments.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Originated: 01/07/2015
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2014
12/23/2014: This minor amendment will trigger the site to be in compliance with current City Code so
stormwater requirements will apply. Please contact Dan Mogen at 224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com, to
discuss/set up a time to meet.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
12/30/2014: No comments.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
12/29/2014: Zoning concurs with the planning comments.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 12/30/2014
Comment Originated: 12/29/2014
Comment Originated: 12/29/2014
12/29/2014: Please provide information on the trash and recycling enclosure relative to the needs of
the facility.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014
12/29/2014: The parking area should include a van accessible Handicap space. This will need to be
signed with a vertical sign at the head of the stall.
Page 2 of 2
SADDLE UP
PARTNERS, LLC
Fort Collins, CO 80526
RE: 201 E Elizabeth St, MA 140133, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions
about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your
questions through the Project Planner, Noah Beals, at 970-416-2313 or
nbeals@fcgov.com.
3/25/15: Follows are applicant comment responses shown in RED text below:
Comment Symmarv:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ryan Mounce, 970-224-6186,
anoynce@fcgoy.com Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
12/24/2014
Comment Originated:
12124/2014: If the property has not been in use as a fraternity for
more than 12 months, the Land Use Code requires the site to be
brought up to current development standards to the extent
reasonably feasible. Such site upgrades would likely focus primarily
on the parking area. So noted. The use of the property up until
February 15, 2015 was for a boarding house use.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated:
12/24/2014
1/30/2015: The latest submittal included copies of the floor plans,
showing 9 bedrooms, but information is also needed on the
maximum number of beds and if any employees will be on-site to
determine the exact number of required vehicle and bicycle parking.
The request is for no more than 24 occupants. There are no
employees. Parking for a fraternity is 2 parking spaces for every 3
bedrooms. There are 9 bedrooms: minimum parking required is 6
spaces, one of which is handicap accessible. 24 bicycle parking
spaces are proposed, 16 spaces (60%) will be provided interior to the
building in an enclosed porch on the west side of the building. At
least 9 spaces will be provided on the exterior west of the building.
Fraternities require 2 vehicle spaces per every three bedrooms and
one vehicle space for every 2 employees. One bicycle space is
required for each bed, with 60% of such bike parking in enclosed or
sheltered areas. So noted.
Comment Number: 5
02/02/2015
Comment Originated:
02/02/2015: The hand drawing of the site plan is difficult to read due
to the scanning/copying artifacts. Please provide a clearer site plan,
ideally at 24" x 36" in size and to a scale. On the site plan, please
be sure to include the entire property. out to Remington Street.
Page 1of3
The site plan should also include a chart or table that lists the
number of bedrooms, beds, employees and bicycle/vehicular parking
spaces provided.
A 24" x 36" site plan and landscape plan are provided with this
response letter. It includes a Site Data Table with occupancy and
parking numbers.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, myjrata@fcgoy,com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/07/2015
01/30/2015: With the trash containers now proposed, please clarify if this is a trash
enclosure structure or non-anchored trash containers. A trash enclosure would
need to be designed and shown on the plans to not have the structure in alley
right-of-way or doors swinging out into right-of-way.
The trash enclosure shown on the plan includes 2 carts: one for
trash, the other for recycling of materials. The enclosure is a 6'
cedar privacy fence with 4' gates that do not swing into the alley
way.
01/07/2015: No comments.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/30/2015
01/30/2015: The minor amendment should ideally be depicted on a 24 x 36 drawing,
labelling property boundaries/right-of-way along with existing and proposed
improvements. I'm under the impression on the information provided that no work in
City right-of-way is being proposed. There is no work proposed within the City right-of-
way. A 24" x 36" plan set is included with this response letter. The site plan shows the
property boundaries and adjacent right-of-way along with existing and proposed
improvements.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbychanan@fcgoy,com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02125/2015
02125/2015:
The following comments for this project pertain only to trees and tree related items.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/25/2015
02125/2015:
Please include the tree Inventory and mitigation assessment information on the final
plan that was provided to the applicant by City Forestry staff at the on-site meeting
held on 2-24-15. Clearly record this information on the plan by direct labeling trees
and summarizing information in a table. A landscape plan is included with this
response letter. The landscape plan shows the existing trees as documented by
Tim Buchanan at the on-site meeting held on 2-24-15. The tree species are listed
in a table with common and botanical names and size. Trees to be removed, as
prescribed by Mr. Buchanan are shown, along with trees that shall remain in
place. Mitigation trees are also shown on the Landscape Plan.
It was found at the on-site meeting that the large Siberian Elm tree closest to the
house would have its root system significantly damaged with the construction of the
proposed parking lot. Excavation very close to the west side of this tree would
impact significant shallow structural roots. There is a 44" Siberian Elm that will be
removed (approved by City Forester) prior to the installation of new parking lot
pavement and L.l.D. pavers. 3 mitigation trees are shown along the fence on the
Page 2 of 3
north side of the parking lot.
Retaining the NE most Siberian Elm located along alley is a very important
component of the tree protection and mitigation plan. Adequate protection for this
tree during construction needs to be provided on the final plan. So noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/25/2015
02/25/2015:
Provide 5 mitigation trees on the final plan. Identify these mitigation trees by species,
size and location. Mitigation trees need to be sized as follows. Include at least two of
the mitigation trees in the general location where the two junipers are shown to be
removed to provide a vertical landscape dimension near the building entry.
Canopy shade trees 3.0 inch caliper
Ornamental trees 2.5 inch caliper
Evergreen trees 8 feet height
Three mitigation trees will be placed along the
fence on the west side of the site. The
remaining 2 mitigation trees will be placed on
either side of the front door at the time the
existing trees are removed.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/25/2015
02/25/2015:
Include the 7 tree protection specification on the final plan that are found in LUC
3.2.1 G Be sure and include the table that goes with specification 7.
Tree protection specifications are listed on the Landscape Plan,
including the note as provided below. Add this note as number 8 to
the tree protection specifications. All tree pruning and removal work
shall be performed by a business that holds a current City of Fort
Collins Arborist License where required by code. Note added.
Comment Number: 5
02/25/2015:
Comment Originated: 02/25/2015
Provide typical plant notes on the final landscape plan. Include one note that clearly
describes how the new landscape plants will be irrigated such as with an automatic
drip and where appropriate spray irrigation. Provide information in this note how the
parkway trees will be irrigated. Typical landscape notes to include on the plan can
be obtained from Noah Beals in the Planning Department. General note #3 on the
landscape plan says "All new plant materials will be irrigated with an automatic
irrigation system."
The existing parkway trees are not currently irrigated with an automatic irrigation
system, but are very well established and the ongoing manual watering that has
occurred will be continued to maintain tree health.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen@fcqoy.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/28/2015
02/20/2015: Comment still applies. Site plan does not include pavers at this time
because parking area is being influenced by pending City decision to allow the
removal of the elm tree in this area. Paver discussion to continue once decision is
made on tree removal. The City Forester met with the applicant at the site (see
discussion above.) It was determined that the 44" caliper Siberian Elm tree is in
fair condition and can be removed with the installation of 3 mitigation trees. 25% of
the parking area will utilize pavers as required by code. The total parking lot area
is 3,050 SF. 765 SF will utilize pavers. The pavers are shown on the site plan on
Page 3 of 3
the west side of the parking lot along the building.
01/28/2015: Stormwater's Low Impact Development (LID) requirements will apply;
therefore, at least 25% of new pavement needs to porous and 50% of new
impervious area will need to be treated by an LID technique. Please contact Dan
Megen at (970)224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com to discuss how these requirements
can be met.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgoy,com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014
12/29/2014: Zoning concurs with the planning comments. So noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2014
02/02/2015:The trash and recycling area needs to be identified on the plans and
notes included about the size of containers. The trash and recycling area is identified on
the plan and a detail is provided that includes the size of the containers.
12/29/2014: Please provide information on the trash and recycling enclosure
relative to the needs of the facility.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12129/2014
12129/2014: The parking area should include a van accessible Handicap space.
This will need to be signed with a vertical sign at the head of the stall. A handicap
parking space is included with details for a vertical sign at the head of the stall.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015
02/03/2015: The plans will need to be on a 24x36 sheet. The quality of the site plan
will need to elevated from the last submittal. The plan set submitted with this comment
response letter is on a 24" x 36" sheet. This set provides additional information and
details from the last submittal.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015
02/03/2015: Staff will be referring the approval decision of the Minor Amendment to
the Planning and Zoning Board. It is understood that the Planning and Zoning Board
will determine compliance to the extent reasonably feasible of Article 3 & 4 of the
Municipal Code.
This does require a neighborhood. That has been scheduled and notifications will
be sent out this week. A neighborhood meeting was held on February 19t11, 2015.
Page 4of3
•" ( (
Noah Beals
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Paul Milewski <paulrski@yahoo.com>
Thursday, January 08, 2015 10:01 AM
Noah Beals
Julie Rickett
Subject: Fwd: 201 E Elizabeth St. MA140133
See previous email below on questions committee asked.
Thank you Noah
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul Milewski <paulrski@yahoo.com>
Date: January 6, 2015 at 10:08:18 AM MST
To: Gary Lopez <GLOPEZ@fcgov.com>
Cc: Julie Rickett <jjtrickett@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 201 E Elizabeth St. MA140133
Gary,
Responses to questions:
1) There will be 9 bedrooms and 18 beds.
2) I will forward you property lines and dimensions completed by surveyor yesterday for more specific
measurements. The parking lot will not be new construction, we are just following existing parking lot
with new striping layout.
Any kind of new setback would not allow enough room for the parking we need.
3) striping is currently sketched out 60 degree angle with 9' stalls.
Not sure what the minimum width from alley is, however if you tell me requirements, I can design a
new sketch for this.
I'm meeting our striper at this property today at 4:00 if you have any feedback before then, that would
be great.
Requirements on bicycle storage dimensions would be helpful at that time as well.
4) Regarding dumpster, can dumpster be close to alley, potentially in hashed out parking area on
southeast end of parking lot .
Is there a a design layout requirement for dumpster area ?
5) I spoke with Dan Mogan regarding storm water requirements and explained we will not be excavating
any new slope or changing any water flow. Ideally we will would like a 2 degree slope following existing
flow line .This would be our goal.
Dan told me he needs to have further discussion with you, and would get back to me today. I'm happy to
meet Dan at the property to put eyes on project.
I'm available all day for any questions or calls after 11:00 am.
1
Thank you,
Paul Milewski
970-999-2387
Sent from my iPhone
(
On Jan 5, 2015, at 1:46 PM, Gary Lopez <GLOPEZ@fcgov.com> wrote:
(
Paul, the comments for this minor amendment are not due until tomorrow but I can
give you what I've rec'd thus far:
Current Planning's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Ryan Mounce (970-224-6186)
12124/2014: If the property has not been in use as a fraternity for more than 12 months, the Land
Use
Code requires the site to be brought up to current development standards to the extent reasonably
feasible. Such site upgrades would focus primarily on the parking area, with the following
requirements:
12/2412014: Minimum vehicular parking spaces for a fraternity amount to 2 spaces for every 3
bedrooms, plus one space per two employees.
Minimum bicycle parking spaces are 1 per bed, and 60% of such spaces need to be enclosed.
Enclosed bicycle spaces require a sheltering element, such as locating them indoors, in lockers, or
under an overhead canopy/carport.
12124/2014: To determine the minimum bicycle/vehicle spaces required, we need more information
on
the number of bedrooms, beds, and employees (if any) that are planned for the fraternity.
1212412014: There could also be requirements to alter the parking area itself, but more information
and
dimensions would also be needed to determine this. For instance, a new development would be
required
to have a 5' landscaped setback of parking area from lot line and alley, or to have certain width for
the
one-way drive aisle. In particular, more information is needed on the angle of the diagonal parking,
the width of the
one-way drive aisle, and the width from the alley to the closest parking spaces.
Stormwater Engineering's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Dan Mogen (970) 224-6192
12/2312014: This minor amendment will trigger the site to be in compliance with current City Code
so
stormwater requirements will apply. Please contact Dan Magen at 224-6192, dmogen@fcgov.com,
to
discuss/set up a time to meet.
Technical Services's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Jeff County (970) 221-6588
12/3012014: No comments thus far however resubmittal drawings will need to be reviewed by this
dept.
Zoning's Unresolved Issues:
2
(
Made By: Noah Beals (97uj 416-2313
12/29/2014: Zoning concurs with the planning comments.
12/29/2014: Please provide information on the trash and recycling enclosure relative to the needs
of the
facility.
12/29/2014: The parking area should include a van accessible Handicap space. This will need to
be
signed with a vertical sign at the head of the stall.
Paul, the departments that have yet to respond are: Engineering and Historic
Preservation. I'll Jet you know of these responses on Wednesday, 01/07 /2015.
3
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
Project: 201 E. Elizabeth Street (Fraternity Use)
Date: February 19, 2015
Applicants: Paul Milewski & Julie Rickett & Deanne Frederickson
Planner: Noah Beals
City Process Overview:
This is a proposal to reoccupy the building at 201 East Elizabeth Street as a fraternity. Fraternities are a
permitted use in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone District (NCB), and as the building has
been utilized as a fraternity in the past, the re-occupancy can be processed as a minor amendment.
Minor amendments can be approved administratively at the staff level, but as we began to hear about
concerns from neighbors the decision was made to refer the minor amendment to the Planning &
Zoning Board. The Planning & Zoning Board will consider this minor amendment at their next hearing
on March 12th.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Representative:
Paul Milewski & Julie Rickett purchased the property in January and have been working on renovating
the interior. They began discussions with several fraternities to rent the building. The City has said that
as it has been more than a year since the building was occupied, it needed to be brought up to current
development standards. This means primarily upgrading to the parking lot area.
They plan to renovate the east side of the building and parking area and understand parking is one of
the biggest concerns from neighbors. The City codes require 2 parking spaces for every 3 bedrooms,
and one of these parking spaces needs to be a handicap space. The site can accommodate 8 parking
spaces, including one handicap parking space. The parking is accessed off the alley, with a one way
access drive through the parking area and existing onto Elizabeth Street.
They are also planning on updating the landscaping and talking with the City Forester about the existing
trees on-site. They also want to clean up the property -- a trash enclosure will be constructed for
trash/recycling collection and be located off the alley. They are also required by the City to add 24
bicycle parking spaces, 60% of which need to be enclosed or sheltered.
Owners:
We’d like to introduce ourselves and the fraternity who are looking to move into the house. Julie is a
life-long Fort Collins resident and now works at Rocky Mountain High School. We have a long history of
volunteering and fundraising events within the community. Paul has worked in Fort Collins as the owner
of a local parking/paving business. We both active in the community and with local non-profits, and
regularly volunteer and donate to these organizations. We have provided funds for Leukemia research
and as CSU alumni, are interested in helping Greek students find housing in the community.
We understand parking is a major concern and have a plan to address these issues. We will install a new
parking lot that can accommodate more parking than currently present, and more than required by City
Code. Not all fraternity members will have cars, and the fraternity has established a parking program to
limit the number of members living at the fraternity who can have parking passes. They have also
reached out to St. John’s Lutheran church for a potential parking arrangement for chapter meetings.
This neighborhood is great with its proximity to CSU and the energy in the area. The housing situation
for Greek students in the community is inadequate. Nine fraternities applied to rent this building, but
we chose Phi Kappa Tau due to their civic mindedness and community volunteer efforts. As owners, we
will be actively involved with the fraternity and want to be good neighbors.
We’ve done a neighborhood walk-through and met with several of you and have heard your concerns.
Many people have in their head the stereotypical frat house image reminiscent of Animal House. The
fraternities have to follow rules set by CSU, including no alcohol and alcoholic parties. The fraternities
can lose their position with CSU. In our lease, we are also including a provision for no alcoholic parties.
As a business owner, I’m very accustomed to dealing with young men; if any issues arise, we are going to
be actively involved – we’re not absentee owners from far away. We have our contact information to
hand out to everyone tonight, and we’d like to meet with anyone who has concerns.
Phi Kappa Tau Representatives:
We have had a dream of a centralized location for our fraternity and brotherhood, and this is an
opportunity for us to realize this dream. We want to break the stereotypical fraternity image and show
that we will be a part of the community through our philanthropy, community service, and everyday
helpful tasks. We’re here to stay and don’t want to tarnish our reputation.
The animal house fraternity stereotype has changed. CSU Greek Life rules prevent us from having
parties in Greek housing. We didn’t want a centralized chapter house for parties; we needed this
location where all the brothers could live together and have a chapter meeting in our own house. We
currently have to rent out a room just so we can all meet in one place.
We have a parking system in place and are looking at parking permits for our members. We’re only two
blocks from campus, and not all of our members have cars. We have a lot of members bicycling to
campus, and we’re going to encourage this as a way around the limited number of parking spaces.
We’re not here to take all the parking spots in the neighborhood. The night when we would have the
most parking issues is for chapter meetings, and we’re looking to coordinate with this church so
members can park in their parking lot to address this demand. We’ve noticed parking is more open
several blocks away; we would encourage guests to park further to the east where it is less of an issue.
What makes our organization excellent is the ability to self-govern and a way for brother and submit
peers for any transgressions, and this can include parking where we shouldn’t be given our rules.
We want to be known as the neighbors that you feel comfortable asking to shovel snow or help move a
grill. We are trying to be good neighbors. This house is our dream and we don’t want to upset the
neighborhood. There will be punishments for disobeying the parking as it’s such an important issue.
Questions, Comments & Responses
Question (Citizen): How many total people are in the fraternity?
Response (Applicant): The fraternity itself has 54 members, but the maximum amount at the house
would be 24.
Response (Applicant): The maximum occupancy for the house is actually 28, but we’re going to limit it
to 24.
Question (Citizen): For fairness of process, can you please write down concerns and questions and email
this to everybody? I think it would be fair to keep it open and given everyone a documented process.
Past meetings have done this and I’ve found this is a fair way to get everyone involved and to stay up-to-
date. Typically we have a whiteboard and it is nice to see what is jotted down and can be seen.
Response (City): Notes are being taken of tonight’s meeting and we will email a copy to everyone who
signed in with an email address. In addition, the notes will be provided to the decision maker for the
minor amendment.
Question (Citizen): I live two houses down – during construction of the parking spaces, will the alley be
shut down?
Response (Applicant): The alley won’t be shut down. We only have a 3-man crew, and we have plenty of
parking for those guys in our own area. When we resurface the parking area, there may be some
disruption for 1 or 2 days. There will be safety traffic control signs and you’ll always be able to get access
from the other end of the alley during this time.
Question (Citizen): Are you planning a fence on the east side against the alley?
Response (Applicant): I actually want to talk with you about this as I was thinking I may want to mirror a
retaining wall like you have. There will be a fence around the area of the trash and recycling enclosure.
Question (Citizen): Could you let us know what is the square footage of the building and the bedroom
configuration? I’m guessing it will all be 2 or 3 people to a bedroom?
Response (Applicant): There are 9 bedrooms. One bedroom will be a single, one bedroom will have 4
members in the basement, and the rest of the bedrooms will be a mix of doubles and triples.
Response (Applicant): The building is 5,400 square feet, including the basement. I don’t know the
square footage without including the basement, but the basement is fully finished, and has its own
separate entrance.
Question (Citizen): Am I to understand that this is a done deal?
Response (City): This is not a done deal. There is a process for this application, and the neighborhood
meeting is part of the process. The decision will be made by the Planning and Zoning Board at their
March hearing.
Comment (Citizen): I live close by and don’t feel comfortable with this. The neighborhood has changed
and I don’t feel a fraternity fits with the character of the neighborhood anymore. Further south I could
see a fraternity where there are existing fraternities and institutional uses near the Center for the Arts.
Question (Citizen): If it does not become a fraternity house, what else could this be?
Response (Applicant): We talked to the City prior to purchasing the house; it currently is zoned for
fraternity and sorority use and it is our intention to rent it for this use.
Question (Citizen): If it wasn’t a fraternity, would it just be a home?
Response (City): The zone district does allow for other uses, including single family homes.
Question (Citizen): Do you have any other rental properties in town? You speak very highly about your
management, but other examples of well-managed properties would be helpful. If you have a history in
the rental business you could alleviate some people’s fears.
Response (Applicant - Paul): We do have experience with other rental properties. I have a rental at 2400
Purdue that has been rented out to college students. It is now a vacation rental by owner. I’ve also have
rentals in Bellvue – a cabin rental and another house. I don’t have a lot of experience with college
students, but Julie does.
Having a business with 20 to 30 employees, my main job is solving problems every day, and there is a lot
of communications needed and enforcement. We are planning a very detailed and strict lease. I have
experience in handling and solving problems, particularly with young men. We interviewed 9 different
fraternities, and we selected these guys based on what you just heard – we have full confidence in
them. If anything comes up we’ll be there when it does. We’ll deal with that when it comes and we’ll be
good neighbors.
Response (Applicant - Julie): I have been renting for many years, particularly with condos near CSU. I
have condos in Baystone, Sunstone, and Big Horn Village in Campus West. I love students, and have not
had issues with parties, but I have a very tight lease and a good relationship with the students. I go
through a long process of checking them out and researching them. I have a good feeling about these
guys and this fraternity.
Question (Citizen): What will be the process if there are parking problems, trash, parties, etc?
Response (Applicant): We will be first in the chain of command and have contact information to provide
for everyone tonight.
Response (Applicant): The fraternity has a formal process to handle issues; we fill out an incident form
and the member involved sits before the standards board and gets punishment. But you may have
meant more of an external process?
Response (Applicant): The city has a parking and nuisance hotlines.
Question (Citizen): How do we, as neighbors, get access and in touch with the right people to resolve
any problems? Right now, it sounds like we can only call the police.
Response (Applicant): You can call us as owners, CSU, the City-hotlines, etc.
Response (Applicant): You can always call our house manager.
Question (Citizen): Could you go over the City’s noise regulations? We’ve lived here for 25 years and I
know there’s a process, but there’s always noise issues at the beginning of the school year, no matter
how good you say you will be. Whose skin is in the game for complaints, the owners or the tenants?
Response (City): During normal business hours, you can call our neighborhood services department who
responds to noise complaints. After business hours you can call Police Services. Both departments have
some discretion in how to enforce noise complaints – usually they start out with a warning, and if there
are further occurrences it can lead to a summons to court with a fine.
Question (Citizen): Who gets fined, the owner or the frat?
Response (Applicant): The owner
Response (City): I will have to double-check on that, but I believe the party and owner can both be
fined.
Comment (Citizen): There is a nuisance ordinance and you should provide that information to everyone
when you send out the emailed notes. The City, with the nuisance ordinance, they collect data, and if
you get 3-strikes, you get put on radar and you get watched and owners and tenants are notified. If
problems continue on, there can be fines. It does keep everything in check. It holds both the owners and
tenants accountable. If it’s ignored, the property can be seized as a nuisance.
Comment (Citizen): The house was built in 1924 as a single family residence and used as that for 54
years. It was occupied as a single family residence in 2006. I think we need to get away from the notion
that this has always been a fraternity. The vast majority of its life it has been used as a single family
residence. It has never had 24 members; there were numerous issues when the Triangle Fraternity was
using the building and they had fewer members.
I’m also very curious why there hasn’t been a traffic study done for this project. Talking about parking
three blocks away, you’re talking about pushing it three blocks away. Everything is being glossed over.
You guys sound like good guys, but what happens when you guys leave, which fraternity rents it next?
This property could be offices or a bed and breakfast or a boarding house, it isn’t set in stone that it be a
fraternity. A fraternity is by far the highest occupancy intensity for the building.
You’ve said that you’re passionate about the community -- if you were convinced that everyone in the
neighborhood was against this and it would have a negative impact on the community, would you
withdraw the proposal?
Response (Applicant): It has not been a single family residence recently – there was approval to convert
it back, but it was never used in that manner.
Comment (Citizen): I live on the corner of Elizabeth and Matthews and during the day there is no
parking; I have to park in my driveway. You said you have 6 parking spaces with that many young men, I
won’t have any parking spaces on the street, nor will my family or friends when they come to see me.
Response (Applicant): There are 8 parking spaces on the site.
Response (Applicant): We’ve checked on a recent event the parking situation. If we go one block to the
east and one block down, there are 16 parking spaces plus 12 plus another 14 on Elizabeth, and we have
this on recorder.
Comment (Citizen): This all depends on the time of the day. It is ridiculous for people to think there is
anywhere for people to park on a regular basis during the day.
Response (Applicant Representative): I talked to the Parking Services Manager, Randy Hensley – they
have a neighborhood parking program and if the majority of the neighborhood wants to create this
program it can be implemented to try and reduce non-resident parking. It’s a way of permitting on-
street parking, specifically for residences. Every resident gets a free permit and then can pay for
additional permits. That way they can take parking that is not permitted and can be ticketed, and it’s
hosted by the City. It is a program specifically for these types of situations.
Response (Applicant - Fraternity): I currently live on Howes Street, and parking has been a big issue for
us as well. We’ve agree as a neighborhood north of campus to the RP3 (Residential Parking Permit
Program) on Howes, so that parking is aligned for residents, and not commuter CSU parking.
Question (Citizen): Will you have the parents co-sign on the lease?
Response (Applicant): We are doing a lease with the fraternity chapter organization.
Question (Citizen): It’s not an individual lease? I’m thinking about getting everyone liable. You don’t
have a separate lease individually with people living there.
Response (Applicant): The chapter itself would have individual leases for members.
Question (Citizen): What are you charging for rent? It seems if you’re charging now, you could do some
improvements to the property.
Response (Applicant): We’re going to keep that rent information private.
Question (Citizen): How are property values going to be impacted when a house of high occupancy
moves into the neighborhood? Are you going to give tax breaks to people when our property values go
down?
Response (City): I can’t answer any questions about what may or may not happen to property values.
Question (Citizen): Is there anyone that can address that?
Response (City): The county assessors’ office.
Response (Applicant): There has been no upkeep on the property recently, and we’re planning a lot of
work to the outside. We’re going to increase the value.
Response / Comment (Citizen): I’m going to have increased property values if I have 24 people living
next door? I have an affidavit from the prior owners from 2006 that they were using this as a single
family home. As a boarding house, the maximum number of people that could stay there is
approximately half of what you’re proposing due to the parking requirements. Surveys show 90% of off
campus students have cars.
Comment (Citizen): I came here to learn how not to get a fraternity here but have to take off to attend
another event. It sounds like the next meeting is March 12th. What do you need from this group to stop
or delay this happening on March 12th?
Response (City): You can offer public comment to me by letter or email and that will be attached to the
Planning & Zoning Board materials for their consideration. Their hearing is a public hearing, so it’s open
for additional comments on March 12th as well. The meeting is at 6pm at City Hall in Council Chambers.
Question (Citizen): Am I to understand that there is not a responsible adult on the premises?
Response (Applicant): There is a house manager on site.
Response (Applicant): These fraternity members are adults – they can go off and fight for us.
Response (Applicant – fraternity): We have several people over 21 there; if we want to look at
responsibility, our members have jobs, we go to school; I work at a property management company
myself. In terms of responsibility, I’m not sure what the measurement is.
Question (Citizen): Following up on the RP3 program -- about a year ago there was a survey if there was
any interest from the neighborhood. I just got back something that it was still under study. What do we
have to do to get this process rolling? If we got a permit program in this area, would the frat get half of
those permits?
Response (Applicant representative): There is a maximum of 5 permits for each property. You pay
increasing amounts after the first free permit.
Question (Citizen): So the fraternity could get 5?
Response (Applicant): Yes, the fraternity could get 5, just like your home could get 5.
Response (City): Randy Hensley is the contact for the program, and we can include his contact
information when we send out the notes.
Question (Citizen): Is it per address or per unit?
Response (City): I believe per unit, and the fraternity is considered only one unit.
Comment (Citizen): The numbers don’t make sense, if you multiply 5 per each house, there aren’t
enough spaces.
Response (Applicant): It works out because not everyone buys 5 permits, if you buy 5 it would be very
expensive. You get your first permit for free and maybe you only need 1 other permit. They do a study
that encompasses the whole neighborhood it affects to make sure the program will work out.
Question (Citizen): What is the fee? Is it per month or per year?
Response (Applicant): The fee is per year.
Comment (Citizen): I do have a neighbor who has been in contact with someone at the City about this
process. She had heard that the permit parking problem was seriously being considered for north of
campus, but that the City has no plans at all for east of campus. When you consider that west of campus
is campus west, if the north gets this parking system in place, we are really going to be in trouble to the
east.
We have lived on this block since 1971, and in the last several years it is getting tougher and tougher to
find a parking space for our own house. It does concern me that in the presentation you talked about
people parking a few blocks further away, as that’s right next to my house.
Response (Applicant): I talked to them today, and this is a neighborhood eligible for the program, but it
has to be initiated by the neighborhood. They receive calls and complaints and can make a
determination that parking is an issue. I know it sounds daunting, but they want to make sure they are
doing it right, and it has to start somewhere. They identify the neighborhood and have to have at least
50% of the neighbors agree to it before they will initiate it, and it has worked in three other
neighborhoods.
Comment (Citizen): I live very close by and enforcement is the problem – no one tickets or enforces
existing parking rules. I have people parking in front of my driveway or in our rear parking area at least
two or three times a week.
Comment (Citizen): I know you guys are geting the short end of the stick tonight, dealing with the
fraternity stereotype. I’d rent to you guys, you sound great, but it’s the people that move in afterwards
who we may have a concern with. If someone else moves in and there’s trouble, there’s nothing that
can be done. We’ve talked about noise and parking. When they redo the intersection (Remington
Greenway project), they are taking about taking some parking spaces out for bulbouts. We’re looking at
a loss of 4-6 just from City construction, so we also need to keep that in mind.
Comment (Citizen): As a neighbor across there street, there have been various people or groups living in
the house, but it wasn’t more than 8 or 12 recently. This area is a historic district, and we take great
pride in this neighborhood, so if we hear a lot of noise, we’re going to be upset. We’ll have to hold you
guys to it. Triangle eventually become more tolerable because people were riding them. I see where
both sides are coming from. We need to keep in mind there will be parking spaces leaving, and that
you’re coming into a very good neighborhood and block. I think property values will go down with a
fraternity, but I appreciate that you are going to fix it up and make it look good, but remember to make
it historically accurate. I think there’s a bunch to be considered with this.
Question (Citizen): My concern is the parking as well. I’m just right across the street from the church.
My whole issue is I can’t find a parking space in front of my house, and there’s no other option for me as
I don’t have a driveway. I can’t afford to pay extra money each month with the parking program just in
case I want to have people over every once in a while. It doesn’t seem fair that because a fraternity
comes in we now have to pay for parking.
Response (City): The RP3 program would be separate from this proposal.
Comment (Citizen): My concern is that in this historic neighborhood, maybe 1 of every 2 homes doesn’t
have a driveway, and would be forced to buy into the RP3 program. I’m thinking that’s something that
should be considered.
Question (Citizen): Is there some way to the City to allow curb-cuts and allow more driveways?
Response (City): You would need to call the City Engineering Department and inquire about this with
your site details.
Response (Citizen): I haven’t asked the City yet. If you’re one of the 50% without the driveway, you
have to pay more for extra permits. Is that what the neighborhood needs or wants to do?
Response (City): Someone can request a curb-cut, but I think they try to encourage alley access before a
curb-cut off the street if available.
Comment (Citizen): I’m a real estate broker, and people are expressing concerns about property values.
The market does not look at who is your neighbor, it looks at your sales and nearby comparable sales
and improvements. With some improvements, compared to what is there now, it is a positive in many
ways. There are some detractions, and those are behaviors, but the market doesn’t look at the
behaviors, more comparable sells. It looks at the conditions and area. I would not get too worked up
because buyers will make their choices no matter what they see. I would look at what makes best sense
for the neighborhood and the people.
I think there are better ways to manage your parking than pulling in the City to manage it. I wouldn’t
partake in that personally because there’s no sense to bring in regulation that everyone can solve on
their own.
Comment (Citizen): Could you talk more about collaborating with the church - -could you elaborate on
that?
Response (Applicatin-fraternity): On the nights we see the most traffic, for our chapter meetings, we
want to have members parking at the church, and we would compensate the church, with a small
monthly payment or shoveling snow, etc. That agreement is being worked on.
Comment (Citizen): I’m graduating in May, so I get it -- you want to be close to campus. I invested in a
property near with my my dad, I’m two houses down. If you were in my position, would you want to
invest in a property that is close to a frat house?
Response (Applicant-fraternity): There are a lot of people who have houses that are rented out, not for
frats, and their properties are trashed. We are committed to maintain the property.
Comment (Citizen): The permit is not being granted for your specific fraternity, but for any fraternity in
general. What happens when you move out? Who will our next neighbors be?
Response (Applicant-fraternity): Our property management company owns a house near the Sigma Phi
Epsilon fraternity, and we never have issues renting the house out.
Response (Applicant): You bring up good points, but they’re true for anyone who moves into a
neighborhood, whether a fraternity or single family home.
Question (Citizen): You talk about improvements to the property, can you say more about that?
Response (Applicant): For starters, the parking lot is going to be the best parking lot in the whole
neighborhood. There is a new City requirement for pervious pavers to allow for water drainage, and we
have to incorporate that into the new parking area. As far as landscaping, we want to get together with
the neighborhood and mirror some of the great landscaping along the street and coordinate the look.
We want to blend into the neighborhood. There will be a nice fence. For sure the lawn needs an
overhaul and some care and we’re planning on that as well.
Question (Citizen): Will you cut your grass?
Response (Applicant-fraternity): I have an entire proposal that has to go through our national
organization and it has to outline who takes care of the grounds, when it will take care of it, etc. We are
planning to do all of that ourselves.
Question (Citizen): Will you be there year-round?
Response (Applicant-fraternity): Yes.
Response (Applicant): We as owners will make sure as well.
Question (Citizen): Will it be professionally maintained?
Response (Applicant-fraternity): We have 5 members employed as landscapers, so I’d like to think we
will do a professional job.
Question (Citizen): Are we talking about granting a permanent use for any fraternity or just this
fraternity, any which could have 28 people?
Response (City): Like other projects, they are applying for the use as a whole, not a specific business or
fraternity.
Comment (Citizen): Between now and the next meeting, I’d really like to talk to those people who live
next to other fraternities and get some hard facts about the behaviors from fraternities impacting their
neighborhoods.
Comment (Citizen): I initially came to the meeting with concerns about parking, but that has been
beaten to death tonight. My one question is that if this building was proposed as a boarding house, it
would have different number of parking spots required. As a fraternity there are different ratios – why
for a similar type of use is there a different set of requirements?
Response (City): It’s a fairly old standard. A boarding house refers to a more transient type of tenant
with shorter leases as opposed to a fraternity, which has to have an affiliation with CSU. This implies a
tenancy associated with the school year rather than short term occupancy.
Question (Citizen): The whole City review and discussion process seems abbreviated at best, and that’s
being generous. Why is there such an abbreviated approval process for this when it is going to be so
impactful to the neighborhood?
Response (City): This is based off the standards in the Land Use Code. Because the property was used as
a fraternity at one point in time, and because the zone district allows the use, it can be reestablished
through a minor amendment.
Question (Citizen): The thing I don’t quite get is with 24 people and only 8 parking spaces, is that to say
the other 16 people don’t have cars?
Response (Applicant-fraternity): Most in our fraternity don’t have cars. I would say 25% of the fraternity
members have cars.
Question/Comment (Citizen): Can you guarantee that year after year?
Comment (Citizen): I have lived in the nearby area most of my life. Fort Collins continues to grow and
there are always more people and more cars. If people can’t find any parking at their destination, it just
spills over to near other people’s property. I don’t think there’s a solution as long as there are more
people and cars in the community. It’s going to keep happening unless you build parking structures.
1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AGENDA
May 14th, 2015
Appeal BPA - 201 E. Elizabeth St.
Appeal 2804 - 331 Fossil Ridge Dr.
Appeal 2805 - 1052 Briarwood Rd.
Appeal 2806 - 965 Bungalow Ct.
Appeal 2807 - 417 Maple St.
Appeal 2808 - 6325 Kyle Ave.
Appeal 2809 - 4014 S. Lemay Ave.
Appeal 2810 - 311 West St.
Appeal 2811 - 307 Riverside Ave.
Appeal 2812 - 4030 Big Dipper Dr.
Appeal 2813 - 1408 W. Mountain Ave.
Appeal 2814 – 256 Linden St.
2
Appeal #BPA15001
Address: 201 E Elizabeth Street.
Change of Use Applicant: Deanne Frederickson, Land Planner
Owner: Paul Milewski and Julie Rickett
Staff: Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning
3
201 E Elizabeth Street
Vicinity Map
4
201 E Elizabeth Street
Vicinity Map
5
201 E Elizabeth Street
Vicinity Map
6
201 E Elizabeth Street
7
201 E Elizabeth Street
8
201 E Elizabeth Street
9
201 E Elizabeth Street
Approved 1978 Site Plan
North
10
201 E Elizabeth Street
Site Plan
11
201 E Elizabeth Street
Landscape Plan
12
201 E Elizabeth Street
• CDNS Director Approved a Building Permit to
Change the Use to a fraternity provided:
– The building occupants are limited 18
– No fraternity meeting shall exceed 18 attendees
– 8 off-street parking spaces are provided as shown
on the site plan.
13
Thank You!
ATTACHMENT 7
Materials submitted by
Applicant at the Zoning
Board of Appeals Hearing
May 14, 2015
Vicinity Aerial
t
N
AG DEVI!.LOPL� PROfessionals 01 \Llti(.ULfURL
• Built in 1924 as a single-family residence
• City of Fort Collins approved a fraternity use at this location in 1978
• Owned and occupied by the Tri-Delt Sorority between 1982 until it
was sold in 2006
• They closed on the property in January of this year in anticipation of
an administrative approval of their application
• Current owners submitted a Minor Amendment Application to the
City of Fort Collins December 15, 2014. The application
requirement was changed to a Change of Use Application, which
was submitted and administratively approved in April, 2015
Zoning
N-C-B Zoning
Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
District
Areas that are a transition
between residential
neighborhoods and more
intensive commercial-use
areas.
t
N
AGPROfessionals D!:. VLLOP£� OJ. 1\L.R..ILULTUIU..
Change of Use
Section 3.8.25: Permitted Uses: Abandonment Period/
Reconstruction of Permitted Use.
"If ... active operations are not carried on in a permitted use
during a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, the
building, other structure or tract of land where such
permitted use previously existed shall thereafter be re
occupied and used only after the building, other structure or
tract of land upon which such building is located have, to
the extent reasonably feasible, been brought into
compliance with the applicable standards contained in
Article 3 and Article 4 of the land use code ... "
Site Plan
24 total bicycle
parking space:
15 interior
/
!.
/ /
\
I
I
I
!
. I ..
�
Parking
Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(e)
"For each fraternity or sorority house, there shall be
two (2) parking spaces per three (3) bedrooms, plus
one (1) parking space per two (2) employees."
•
There are 9 bedrooms = 6 parking spaces required, one of which is ADA
accessible
•
The Site Plan provides for 8 total on-site spaces, including an ADA
accessible space, which exceeds the requirement.
•
There is a condition of approval that "8 off-street spaces are provided as
shown on the site plan dated 03/2612015"
Classified as a R2 occupancy in the building code,
which is usually calculated at 200 square feet per
occupant.
•
The building is 5,400 SF finished space = 27 total occupants
•
The request was for 24 total occupants
•
There is a condition of approval: "The building occupants shall be
limited to 18 occupants. No fraternity meeting shall exceed 18
attendees. "
Dl:. Vl:.LOPER!:t OJ. AGRlt.ULTURL
Fort Collins Code Compliance
./Consistent with the NCB Zoning District
./Complies with Site Development Standards
./Exceeds parking requirements and offers a solution
for parking challenges
./Meets occupancy standards
' "
ZB A Appeal
�==========�����
2.11.1(8)(9) Appeal from Administrative Decisions:
"This Division shall apply to appeals from an
administrative decision regarding the interpretation
and/or application of the land use regulations which
preceded this Land Use Code, and to appeals from the
following administrative defcisions made under this
Land Use Code,
(9) The issuance of a Building Permit under Section
2. 7.3."
Conditional Approval ====:::::�
3.5.1(J) Operational/ Physical Compatibility Standards.
"Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of
development applications to ensure that new
development will be compatible with existing
neighborhoods and uses."
Saddle-U� Partner.§., LLC
Applicant: Paul Milewski, Ashley Milewski,
Julie Rickett
c/o AGPROfessionals
3050 67th A venue, Suite 200
Greeley, CO 80634
ATTACHMENT 8
Materials submitted by
Citizens prior to the Zoning
Board of Appeals Hearing
1
MEMO
To: Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Jamie Baker Roskie, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Cindy & Tom Laupa,
Appellants
Date: May 12, 2015
Re: ZBA hearing – 201 E. Elizabeth
This memo addresses the legal issues surrounding the issuance of a “change of use”
permit for the establishment of a fraternity use at 201 E. Elizabeth. There are three
issues to be addressed: 1) The Director exceeded her authority in issuing this permit,
rather than requiring that the applicant follow the proper development plan permit
procedure, which requires a hearing before the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Board.
The affected neighbors’ due process rights have not been properly protected by these
proceedings, 2) The Board of Zoning Appeals lacks the authority to cure the defects
in this process, and proper handling of this matter requires that this application be
remanded to staff so that they can instruct the applicant to properly file a
development plan, 3) If this use is properly approved by P&Z for this site, the
applicant must still apply for an actual building permit under Sec. 2.7.3, so that it can
be determined if this site and building comply with current requirements of the
International Building Code. The 1978 Certificate of Occupancy is no longer valid,
since this use has been abandoned.
1) The Director exceeded her authority in issuing this permit. The code
specifically requires that the Planning & Zoning Board review fraternity
uses. Therefore, the affected neighbors’ due process rights have not been
properly protected by these proceedings.
The Director exceeded her authority in the issuance of this permit in several ways.
1) The Director issued a “change of use permit” (although titled “building permit”
on the permit itself). There is no authority in the city code for the issuance of a
“change of use” permit, by the Director or any other entity. The only applicable
mention of “change of use” in the code is in the definition section, which says
“Change of use shall mean the act of changing the occupancy of a building or
land from a use that is specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" inArticle 4to a
different use that is specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" inArticle 4.”
1 (Sec.
5.1.2)
1 A change of use occurs whenever:
(1) the occupancy of a single-tenant building or of a parcel of land changes from the most recent
previously existing use to a different use;
l Page 2
The Staff Report says that a “change of use permit. . .stand[s] in the same stead”
as a building permit. However, this is not possible, because there is no such
thing as a “change of use” permit.
2) Article 4 of the code specifically requires that a fraternity use in the NCB district
be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Board. (See Article 4, Sec. 4.9(B)(3)(a).)
3) The Director claims authority to issue the “change of use” permit under Sec.
3.8.25 of the city code, entitled “Abandonment Period/Reconstruction of
Permitted Uses.” The Director is correct that this use is abandoned, because
active operation of a fraternity has not been carried on for a period longer than 12
months. However, the provision does not give her authority to issue this permit.2
a. First, Article 4 requires that a fraternity use only become a permitted use
in this District after review by the Planning & Zoning Board (see above).
b. Second, this provision does not give authority to the Director to make the
findings of reasonable feasibility.
c. Third, there are no criteria in this provision or anywhere else in the code
as to what reasonable feasibility might entail. (This provision is therefore
arguably unconstitutionally vague.)
d. Fourth, there are no findings in the building permit or in the record up to
the date of this appeal as to how the Director or staff determined that
application of the standards in Art. 3 and Art. 4 were, or were not,
“reasonably feasible.” This is particularly true since Art. 4 clearly
requires Planning & Zoning review. The Director and staff have not
clearly explained why they did not submit this to P&Z, and/or why it was
not reasonably feasible to submit it. Since the permit was almost
reviewed by P&Z when it was mistakenly submitted as a “minor
amendment,” it seems feasible for it to be submitted to P&Z for review
(2) the occupancy of a tenant space in a multi-tenant building changes to a use that is not
currently existing in another tenant space of the building or that did not previously exist in any
tenant space of the building within the last twelve (12) months; or
(3) the most recent previously existing use of a building or land has been abandoned, by cessation
of active and continuous operations during a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, and
either the same type of use is proposed to be reestablished or a different use that did not exist
on the property is proposed to be established.”
2 “[S]uch permitted use. . .shall thereafter be re-occupied and used only after the building or
structure as well as the tract of land upon which such building or other structure have, to the
extent reasonably feasible, been brought into compliance with the applicable general
development standards contained in Article 3 and the Applicable district standards contained in
Article 4.”
l Page 3
and findings. (If not, this provision is arguably unconstitutionally vague
as applied in this proceeding.)
After our appeal was filed, the Staff Report was issued containing findings in support
of the permit. Since this information was not integrated into the permit or
accompanying documents, we address those arguments here:
1) Since there is no “change of use” permit procedure and it has already determined
that the “minor amendment” procedure is not applicable, the only permitting
procedure available in the code for this use is the development plan process
under Article 2, Sec. 2.1.2 et seq., (which in this case would require a public
hearing). During that process the applicant could bring forward information or
evidence as to why the requirements of Art. 3 and Art. 4 might not be
“reasonably feasible.”
2) The availability of a public hearing is particularly important for the application of
Art. 3.5.1, “Building and Project Compatibility.” This is an opportunity for
affected neighbors to raise their specific concerns in the proper public forum, and
receive answers from the applicant and from staff, about hours of operation, site
activities, and other aspects of this use that might impact the neighborhood and
their property. A review of the over-200-page record in this case shows many
concerns that are not addressed in the permit. For example, one troubling
omission is any limitation on the number of attendees at any function or party not
restricted by the limitation of 18 attendees at a chapter “meeting.” Public input in
this process was gathered by email and in a “listening session” generated when
the property was errantly in the “minor amendment” process. This does not meet
either the code requirements or the requirements of procedural or substantive due
process.
3) The Staff Report says that “the decision to limit the number of occupants to 18
was based on the compatibility with the existing neighborhood and uses.” In
support of this limitation the report says, “Occupant limits are typically limited
by the building code. In this case the number of occupants allowed by the
building code would far exceed the proposed 24.” However, there is no cite to
the provision in the building code that would allow any particular number of
occupants. According to the record there is some controversy about whether the
building code would allow one resident per 50 square feet or one resident per 200
square feet in a fraternity/dormitory. (The 200 square foot limitation would
square directly with the 18 person condition.) This also raises the issue of
whether an actual building permit should be required for this property, since the
use has been deemed abandoned. Under the requirements of Art. 2, the code is
clear that an actual building permit as governed by Section 2.7 would be
required.
l Page 4
4) The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have the authority to cure the errors
in this process.
The Staff Report asserts that “Section 2.11.1(B)(9) authorizes appeals regarding the
issuance of a building permit. However, by the staff’s own admission this is not a
“building permit.” Rather, the issue is whether the staff properly interpreted Sec.
3.8.25 in issuing a “change of use” permit. As we have argued above, they have not.
3.8.25 requires a showing that the use has been brought up to the requirements of
Art. 3 and 4, and Art. 4 requires Planning & Zoning approval of a fraternity use.
This requires submittal of a development plan and adherence to the requirements of
that process, unless the applicant can show why it is not “reasonably feasible” to
meet those requirements. The Board of Zoning Appeals lacks authority to make such
findings, or to attach conditions to a use under Sec. 3.5.1. Therefore the cure for the
irregularities and errors in this process is to remand this application to staff with
directions to instruct the applicant to file a development plan and meet the
requirements thereof.
5) If this use is approved on this site, the applicant must still apply for an
actual building permit under Sec. 2.7.3 to determine if this site and building
comply with current requirements of the International Building Code.
The 1978 Certificate of Occupancy, even if properly issued at the time, is no longer
valid for this property, as the fraternity use has been abandoned. Therefore, in order
for the property owner to make required improvements to the property and allow the
fraternity use on site, the requirements for a building permit must be met, and a new
CO must be properly issued. (See also Sec. 2.14.2(B).)
ATTACHMENT 9
Materials submitted by
Citizens at the Zoning
Board of Appeals Hearing,
May 14, 2015
Forit:oUins
-�-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
281 N. College Ave. • Fort Collins, CO 80524 • Phone: 97D-416·2740
www.fcacw.com/bulldlna
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
APPLICATION NUMBER 81502349
----- APPUCATION DATE --4---13---2015 ---------------------
Job Site Address 201 E. Elizabeth St. Unit# _________ _
PROPERTY QWNER INFO: (AR owner Information is required-It Is not optional) Phone #1__(9_7__0 )_ 9_9_9__-2_3_8_7 _______
_
Last name Milewski First Name
Paul Middle
-----
Street Address 1998 Pleasant Glen Ln.
C
ity Bellvue
state CO
Zip 80512
CONJRACnPRINFO:Co�nyN�e __________________________ _ Contractor Phone"-----
Lie Holder Name----- City of Fort Colins license# _____ Supervisor Cert "----
Mailing Address'---City ______________ State.
_____
Zip. _____ _
LEGAL INFO:
SubdivisionJPUD Crafts Resub. Filing# ____ Lot# 2-3 Block #__5 _ Lot Sq Ft 18,870
CONSTRUCTION INFO: Total Building Sq Ft (not including basement)_, _______________ Total Garage Sq Ft -----
Residential Sq Ft 5,400 Comm'l 2"" FloorSq Sq Ft Ft 1431.9 # of Stories 2 Bldg Height #Dwelling Units __1 __ _
3"'�Sq Ft Unfiished Bsmt Sq Ft
Finished Bsmt Sq F� .1940 #of Bedrooms __9 _ #of Full Ba� % Baths __ Y. Baths __ #of Fireplaces _2 ___ _
Air Conditioning: Y � Energy info: ( Circm appropriate choiCe") 1. ComCheck D 2. ResCheck w/Air Seating D
3. ResCheck w/Biower Door04. Simulated Performance AltemativeD 6. Prescriptive w/Air SealingO 6. Prescriptive w/ Blower Ooo,[J
City of Fort Collins Stock Plan tl
list appropriate option #s,
_
_
__
__________
__
_
_
UTIUDES INFO:
water Tap Size Sewer Tap Size Metered: Yes ll'lNoD Temp. Pedestal YesD NoD
Type of Heat: 0 Gas DEiectric Electric Main Breaker Size (Residential only) 0150 Amp or Less D 200 Amp Oother
Value of Construction (incl�g.I<J'?or. material & profit) $.
__
N
_
I
A
______________
_
__________
__
Description of Work: . ·· ·
C
hange of use.-fro7m�s:cin�lg�e�fa:-:m::-i;;:-l
y
-:-:t'-o�f
!::':
New Evidence submitted July 13, 2015, ATTACHMENT 10
subject to determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing.
Materials submitted to City
Clerk by
Paul Milewski, applicant,
July 13, 2015
New evidence submitted July 13, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing.
New evidence submitted July 13, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing.
New evidence submitted July 13, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing.
New Evidence submitted July 14, 2015, ATTACHMENT 11
subject to determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing.
Materials submitted to City
Clerk by
Jamie Baker Roskie,
Attorney at Law, on behalf
of Cindy and Tom Laupa,
appellants,
July 14, 2015
New evidence submitted July 14, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing
New evidence submitted July 14, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing
New evidence submitted July 14, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing
New evidence submitted July 14, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing
New evidence submitted July 14, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing
New evidence submitted July 14, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing
New evidence submitted July 14, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing
New evidence submitted July 14, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing
New evidence submitted July 14, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing
New evidence submitted July 14, 2015
subject to a determination of admissibility at
the time of the hearing
ATTACHMENT 12
Verbatim Transcript of the
Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing
May 15, 2015
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Thursday, May 14, 2015
Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
201 East Elizabeth Street, Appeal #BPA15001
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Bello, Chair
Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair
Daphne Bear
Robert Long
John McCoy
Ralph Shields
Butch Stockover
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner – Zoning
Marcha Hill, Staff Support to the Board
Lisa Olson, Staff Support to the Board
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
2
1 CHAIR MICHAEL BELLO: Okay, so first I’d like to make a motion…the Zoning Board
2 of Appeals Bylaws contain provisions regarding the order of hearings of an appeal, and the order
3 is not consistent with the order found in the Land Use Code; however, the Bylaws allow the
4 order to be different if a majority of the Boardmembers present approve the change. I’d like to
5 make a motion that the Board approve the order as described in Land Use Code Section 2.2.7(c)
6 for the first hearing…first appeal.
7 BOARDMEMBER HEIDI SHUFF: Second.
8 CHAIR BELLO: Any discussion? Roll call please.
9 MS. MARCHA HILL: Shuff?
10 BOARDMEMER SHUFF: Yes.
11 MS. HILL: Long?
12 BOARDMEMBER ROBERT LONG: Yes.
13 MS. HILL: Shields?
14 BOARDMEMBER RALPH SHIELDS: Yes.
15 MS. HILL: Bello?
16 CHAIR BELLO: Yes.
17 MS. HILL: Bear?
18 BOARDMEMBER DAPHNE BEAR: Yes.
19 MS. HILL: Stockover?
20 BOARDMEMBER BUTCH STOCKOVER: Yes.
21 CHAIR BELLO: We need one more vote, Marcha? McCoy…
22 MS. HILL: Sorry, McCoy?
23 BOARDMEMBER JOHN MCCOY: Yes.
24 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY PAUL ECKMAN: Are we going pretty well so far?
25 CHAIR BELLO: I think we’re doing okay.
26 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: One think that we need to do is the citizen
27 participation time…unless I missed it, I didn’t hear you ask if there were any persons wanting to
28 address matters not on the agenda.
3
1 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, you’re right. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience who
2 would like to address the board for any issues that are not in any of the appeals this morning?
3 Okay, seeing none…could we have the first appeal? That’s what this…so this language…this
4 language, Paul, takes care of the explanation, correct?
5 MR. NOAH BEALS: Alright, so the first item on the agenda today is Appeal number
BPA 15001 for 201 East Elizabeth Street. On April 15
th
6 , 2015, the Community Development
7 and Neighborhood Services Director made a decision under the Land Use Code section 3.8.25, to
8 authorize a change of use permit which would authorize a previously abandoned fraternity house
9 to re-establish on the property at 201 East Elizabeth Street. The following three conditions have
10 been imposed on this approval: the building occupants shall be limited to 18 occupants, the
11 fraternity meetings shall…no fraternity meeting shall exceed 18 attendees, and 8 off-street
12 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the site plan dated 3/26/2015. This decision of the
13 CDNS Director has been appealed by four appellants. That’s an overview of the appeal.
14 CHAIR BELLO: Alright, the next step would be the applicant’s presentation. Is the
15 applicant present?
16 MS. DEANNE FREDERICKSON: Good morning, I’m Deanne Frederickson, I’m from
AGPROfessionals; we’re located at 3050 67
th
17 Avenue in Greeley, Colorado. We’re a full service
18 consulting firm; we’re land planners and government relations people in our firm. I’m here
19 today to represent Settle Up Partners in the appeal of the Director’s decision to allow a fraternity
20 use at 201 East Elizabeth Street in Fort Collins.
21 MR. BEALS: Deanne, I do have the hard copies you gave to me.
22 MS. FREDERICKSON: Okay. Thank you.
23 CHAIR BELLO: Would you sign in also?
24 MS. FREDERICKSON: I did sign in.
25 CHAIR BELLO: Okay thank you…appreciate that.
26 MS. FREDERICKSON: I’m sure you know where this site is…the site is located on the
27 corner of Elizabeth Street and Remington Street, one block east of the CSU campus. The
28 building was built in 1924 as a single-family residence. The City of Fort Collins approved a
29 fraternity use at this location in 1978. This was owned and occupied by the Tri-Delt sorority
30 between 1982 until it was sold in 2006. They closed…my clients, Julie Rickett and Paul
31 Milewski, closed on the property in January this year in anticipation of an administrative
32 approval of their application. The current owners submitted a minor amendment application to
33 the City of Fort Collins in December 15, 2014. The application requirement was changed to
34 change of use application which was submitted and administratively approved in April of 2015.
4
1 The site is located in the NCB zoning district, which allows fraternity land use. Division
2 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer district…the purpose for that is the neighborhood
3 conservation buffer district is intended for areas that are a transition between residential
4 neighborhoods and more intensive commercial use areas or high traffic zones that have been
5 given this designation in accordance with an adopted sub-area plan. It’s interesting to note that
6 the zoning at this location has allowed a fraternity house since 1929; we would expect this since
7 it’s right next to the CSU campus. A fraternity use is normally permitted in the NCB zoning
8 district with Planning and Zoning Board review. However, this particular property was first
9 approved as a fraternity house in 1978 and remained a fraternity house for 28 years, until 2006.
10 Because the occupancy has not been a fraternity for more than one year, staff requested a change
11 of use application to reinstate a previously approved use. The result of a change of use permit is
12 to bring the site into compliance with the development standards. These standards are stated in
13 article three and article four of the Municipal Code, section 3.8.25. A change of use was
14 administratively approved in April 15, 2015 through a building permit application.
15 The site is 18, 870 square feet in size. The building is a two-story building with a
16 finished basement; it has nine bedrooms and five bathrooms. The site and the building will not
17 change substantially except for general maintenance and landscape improvements. The biggest
18 change will be in the parking lot. The parking lot will be paved and re-striped; the general
19 circulation pattern will direct cars from the alley through the parking lot and exit onto Elizabeth
20 Street. The new parking lot will incorporate the new pavement standards; a portion of the
21 parking lot will consist of pavers to increase the permeability of the parking lot; the remainder of
22 the lot will be paved with asphalt. There will be a total of 24 bicycle parking spaces provided,
23 15 of which will be enclosed, and at least nine fixed, exterior spaces. A trash enclosure will be
24 placed in the exterior of the site, which will provide screening for the trash dumpsters. The site
25 plan as presented is in compliance with the development standards as presented in section three
26 of the Land Use Code. Staff has provided a complete analysis of the Code requirements and how
27 the plan is in complete compliance. Let’s go back…go back…back…to seven?
28 Section 3.2.2(k)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is about parking; parking is one of the key
29 concerns voiced in the neighborhood letters. We should be reminded that on-street parking
30 within walking distance of any college campus would be in short supply, especially during the
31 day. We should also be reminded that on East…on-street parking is a public right-of-way and is
32 available at no cost on a first come, first served basis. We care about the lack of parking in the
33 fraternity impacts to an already crowded condition. Our parking lot exceeds Code requirements
34 by two spaces. In addition, the owners have worked out an agreement with St. John’s Lutheran
35 Church, located one block to the east of this property, to allow for parking during fraternity
36 events. They are also considering designating spaces in their parking lot for fraternity use in
37 exchange for parking lot maintenance. Occupancy…
38 The applicant has requested a total maximum occupancy of 24 persons. The approval
39 placed a condition on the proposal to limit the building occupants to 18. This will ride with the
5
1 property for the life of the fraternity use. Now, normally, you would…we would look at the
2 occupancy as being a math problem, 5400 square feet would be 200 square feet per person…that
3 would be 27 occupants allowed in this house. We were asking for 24 and the condition is for
4 18…18 occupants. Next slide.
5 Now we’ve covered all of the obligations as required for review, as described in the Fort
6 Collins City Code. This project meets all Code requirements for approval; the Fort Collins
7 Planning Department agrees. There were four appeals to the Director’s decision to approve the
8 project with conditions. These appeals were brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals under
9 Division 2.11 of the Land Use Code. We received the appeal letters and read them carefully.
10 The issues raised have to do with the overall approval process for the project approval and
11 criteria under which the approval was made. Staff has provided a detailed analysis of how the
12 Land Use Code was applied in this project; we believe we have met the standards and have
13 complied with the Code, not only to the greatest extent possible, as required, but have met or
14 exceeded the requirements to the letter. The Director approved the application with three
15 conditions, as allowed under 3.5.1(j). The three conditions are related to occupancy and parking.
16 As we noted, the occupancy is limited to 18 persons, not only residential occupancy but also for
17 meetings. Parking requirements were increased to eight spaces from the six spaces required by
18 Code. The applicant has accepted these conditions. I think the neighborhood will see significant
19 improvement to the overall physical quality of the site. We request that you uphold the
20 Director’s decision. Thank you.
21 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you.
22 MS. FREDERICKSON: Do you have questions at this time or should I stand by?
23 CHAIR BELLO: So, staff…staff questions or Board questions? Okay. Thank you.
24 MR. BEALS: So, I’m going to go through this pretty quickly as most of this was covered
25 in the applicant’s presentation, and then we can go into the comments and questions. But, again,
26 we’re right on the corner of East Elizabeth and Remington. We’re in the NCB zone district,
27 which does allow for fraternity use. And, the NCB zone district stands for Neighborhood
28 Conservation Buffer district. So, it’s a district that helps buffer the commercial on the west side
29 along College from the residential in the NCM zone district on the east side of the zone district.
30 Here are some pictures of the house. This site plan is the 1978 site plan that was
31 approved, and again it showed eight parking spaces in the back. Going to the site plan presented
32 and…sorry, it’s a little washed out here on the Power Point…again, it’s showing eight parking
33 spaces. Really the changes to the site are to the parking area, they’re going to improve it with
34 surfacing and put in a trash enclosure, and they are going to put in the bike racks as required by
35 Code. The landscape plan…it’s a little better there…there are some tree removal happening, but
36 those trees are going to be mitigated with the new trees that will be planted. So, again, the
37 CDNS Director did approve the building permit to change the use of the fraternity, with the
6
1 conditions that the occupants are limited to 18, no fraternity meetings exceed 18 attendees, and
2 that the eight off-street parking spaces are provided as shown. And I’ll end the staff presentation
3 at this point.
4 CHAIR BELLO: Okay.
5 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Just to follow the order, do you have any
6 comments to make to the applicant’s presentation?
7 MR. BEALS: I do not have any additional comments to the applicant’s presentation.
8 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, so do we want to do Board discussion, Paul, before the public
9 testimony, or…?
10 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: According to the order, we have the
11 applicant’s presentation and now the staff report, and I just asked if there was any staff response
12 to the applicant’s presentation and there was not, so now we would move on to public testimony.
13 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, is there anybody in the audience who’d like to speak for or
14 against this topic? Would you please raise your hand? Okay…I’d like to limit your testimony to
15 three minutes if possible. Do we have a timer on the podium? Okay. Would you please come
16 forward, state your name…
17 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: How many minutes did you suggest?
18 CHAIR BELLO: Three minutes.
19 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: How many?
20 CHAIR BELLO: Three.
21 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: I would…I would suggest if we could give
22 each person five minutes, it would make for a better hearing.
23 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, five minutes.
24 MR. BEALS: There are two podiums, so we can alternate if you would like to line
25 up…both.
26 MS. ASHLEY MCGREW: Hello Boardmembers, my name is Ashley McGrew. I was
27 born at PVH, I married a Lambkin and I’ve been a CSU Ram for the last ten years. My
28 grandparents, Wayne and Shirley Linton, are the namesake of Linton Elementary. Fort Collins
29 will always be home, but the 200 block of East Elizabeth Street is where Aaron and I put down
30 roots. The unique character, beauty and demographics of this block created for us a rich sense of
31 community, and this is the community that we wanted to have when we purchased our home.
32 Our home, on the Historic Homes Tour last fall, is directly across the street from the beautiful
7
1 Tudor estate that we know as the Horsley House. I want to take just a moment to thank the
2 Zoning Board of Appeals for the opportunity to present today; it’s a privilege to engage in a
3 dialogue about the decision pertaining to 201 East Elizabeth Street. We, the appellants, represent
4 the collective voice of over a hundred neighbors and community members. You’ve received our
5 formal appeals, and in a moment a few vested individuals will provide you with the foundational
6 details from which these appeals arose. We will highlight the most salient points from these
7 documents, particularly pertaining to procedure, Code, enforcement, and community impact of
8 this decision. The appeal that Aaron and I submitted goes into great detail about the character of
9 this block. We cite important information from the Eastside Neighborhood Plan, sections 2.2.10
10 and 2.2.2, part one, and the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Strategy
11 Report. We also stress the importance of being good stewards of our historic properties, citing
12 the Eastside Neighborhood Plan and the consequences of sustained high-intensity use with
13 specific examples therein, for example 2.4.1. As you listen to the objective arguments of the
14 others, please let the important words that I speak now echo in your mind, from the Eastside
15 Neighborhood Plan in 1986, they stated that the policies included in the Plan have meaning for
16 the Eastside Neighborhood and great community only if they are implemented. So, please, today
17 let’s critically evaluate the information that we have at hand and be good stewards of these things
18 that we value most.
19 MS. JAMIE BAKER ROSKIE: Yes, thank you. My name is Jamie Baker Roskie. My
20 business address is Post Office Box 230 in Laporte. I am a Fort Collins native; I was born at
21 Poudre Valley Hospital. I recently returned and opened my own law practice. I’m an attorney
22 licensed in Colorado, Georgia and Virginia. I represent Tom and Cindy Laupa in this matter.
23 Tom and Cindy live at 1003 Remington, which is directly across the street from the subject
24 property. Just…since this my first time appearing before this Board, just as a way of
25 introduction, I will say that I have been a land use lawyer since 2001. I started practicing in
26 Washington, D.C. where I represented at a large commercial firm, developers and private
27 institutions. Subsequent to that, for ten years, I was the managing attorney of the land use clinic
28 at the University of Georgia law school, where I worked with local governments, land owners
29 and non-profits on land use and environmental and local government matters.
30 I was engaged to review the Fort Collins Code about this particular matter. I feel I’ve
31 done so repeatedly and carefully and I feel strongly that this application is not now, nor has it
32 been in any point in this process, in the proper permit procedure. We’ve heard the procedural
33 history of this case, and unfortunately, there are some problematic gaps in the Code that make
34 this particular case kind of a headache. I’ve consulted with a lot of local governments over the
35 years and I’ve written a lot of code, and I’m sympathetic to the fact that it’s very difficult to
36 write code that will cover every eventuality. However, I’m also very clear that it’s necessary to
37 work with a code as it’s written, not the code as we would like it to be. There’s no question that
38 staff has the discretion to interpret the Land Use Code; however, in my view, that discretion does
39 not extend to creating a permit process that does not otherwise exist. If this were simply
8
1 changing one permitted use to another, staff would have that authority; however, while a
2 fraternity use can be permitted in this district, that use does require the review of the Planning
3 and Zoning Board. It might seem like having this hearing cures that problem. If you have an
4 entirely new hearing before the ZBA, doesn’t that give folks a sufficient opportunity to have
5 their voices heard? As I have argued in the memorandum that I filed in this case, which I hope
6 that the Boardmembers have had an opportunity to read, this particular hearing does not cure our
7 problem. Although this is being styled a new hearing, and you did adopt the procedures in
8 2.2.7(c) this morning, the staff report instructs the BZA [sic] to hear this case based on the same
9 standard used by the Director, which is the abandonment provision in 3.8.25 of the Code.
10 However, there are several problems with that argument, which I’ve highlighted in my memo,
11 and I’d like to reiterate the two most problematic issues. Number one, the abandonment
12 provision requires that the abandoned use can be, quote, reoccupied only after the building and
13 tract of land, to the extent reasonably feasible, been brought into compliance with the standards
14 of Article 3 and Article 4. However, Article 4 clearly requires approval by the Planning and
15 Zoning Board, not by the ZBA. Planning and Zoning is the body with authority to place
16 conditions on this use under Article 3.5.1, not the staff or this body. Two, the abandonment
17 provision does not give the Director the authority to make findings of reasonable feasibility. In
18 fact, the provision gives no one that authority and it is therefore arguably unconstitutionally void
19 for its vagueness, which means that it does not properly protect Constitutional due process rights.
20 In my view, the only potentially applicable permitting process in the Code that could
21 properly allow a fraternity use on this site is the requirement to file a development plan under
22 Article 2. That would be the proper procedure for the applicant to show how the use of the site
23 does or does not meet the requirements of Article 3 and Article 4. This would also give the
24 affected neighbors the opportunity to present their concerns in the appropriate public forum and
25 receive answers from the proper body as to their concerns. P and Z could then appropriately
26 place conditions on the use to address those concerns. We therefore request that you return this
27 matter to staff so that the applicant can file through the correct permit procedure. Since this case
28 is about returning a fraternity use to the site for as long as anyone wishes to use it as a fraternity,
29 the actions taken in this case bind the property potentially forever. It is therefore proper to do
30 what the law requires in order to make this decision properly. Thank you for your time and
31 attention.
32 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you, next?
33 MR. JOSEPH PIESMAN: My name is Joseph Piesman, I live at 210 East Elizabeth
34 Street, so I look directly at the frat from our house and the fraternity brothers will be looking
35 directly into my bedroom windows…somewhat disturbing thought for perpetuity. First I’d like
36 to thank the Board for hearing our appeals; this is really the first time the neighborhood has had a
37 chance to express their concerns in a formal setting. We’ve lived on the 200 block of East
38 Elizabeth Street for 25 years now. We’ve raised a family there and have seen the block go
39 through good times and bad. I think we’re in a very good place right now. Of the ten properties
9
1 on the block, eight are owner-occupied, which is kind of a small miracle in this part of town, so
2 close to CSU. Those gains have been hard won and the community is a very tight-knit, very
3 close…we party together, we play poker together; my neighbors take my poker money a lot, I’m
4 not a very good poker player. We take great pride in our houses; at least three of them have been
5 on the historical home tour, and several are angling for being on the garden tour. And this sense
6 of community, I believe, is congruent with the Eastside Neighborhood Plan of 1986. I think
7 establishing a fraternity in the middle of this block threatens to put at risk that sense of
8 community feeling, not only with the people that currently live there, but if houses are sold,
9 families…owner-occupied families will have to think twice about living right across the street
10 from a fraternity in the future. The bad times, about twelve years ago, fifteen years ago…the
11 triangle fraternity at the 201 site suffered a series of disasters, abandoned the building, pipes
12 froze and it was kind of an empty hulk…215 right across the alley from it was condemned and
13 abandoned. But now, 215 has been fixed up and is a showpiece property. And, just let me
14 summarize by saying I think, looking at the Eastside Plan, I think there’s premium on owner-
15 occupied residential housing with families, and fraternity just doesn’t fit. Thank you very much.
16 CHAIR BELLO: What was your address Joseph?
17 MR. PIESMAN: What’s that?
18 CHAIR BELLO: What was your address?
19 MR. PIESMAN: 210.
20 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you.
21 MR. JOHN SNYDER: May I distribute…I have some references…can I give these to
22 you? That I’ll be referring to. So I might be short a copy. I’ll just introduce myself…if you
23 could, please refer to these occasionally…each one is just a little, like a sentence on each one is
24 all I want to say. My name is John Snyder; I own the property immediately next to 201 East
25 Elizabeth, 1008 Remington Street. I am protesting this use as a fraternity. I’ve owned my
26 property there for 20 years. The documents…what I’d like to focus on, and this has been largely
27 neglected I think, in this, is the Building Code considerations. Everybody keeps talking about
28 Land Use Codes, and I know Planning and Zoning largely deals with that, but this is a fraternity,
29 a super high impact use, and there are Building Code requirements for a fraternity regarding
30 safety issues. And these not only have not been met by this property, it has hardly even been
31 brought up. So, hopefully I’m not out of bounds by talking about Building Codes here. So, if
32 you would, look at the first page of what I submitted, that’s the original certificate of occupancy
33 that was granted for this fraternity in 1978. Immediately a problem pops up…the occupancy
34 group is called R1, but a fraternity is R2…clerical error? I don’t know, but at any rate, there’s
35 already a problem with this certificate of occupancy. Also, it groups together a…the fraternity, a
36 boarding house and a rooming house, which would not normally be granted under current
37 guidelines. On the next page, I have the International Building Code definition of what these
10
1 occupancy groups mean. Right there, it says R2 is the designation used for fraternities, not R1.
2 On the next page, and this is rather important, there is…this is from a Planning and Zoning
3 meeting, 1978…I hope everybody’s on that page…this is where the people who were applying
4 for the permit for converting this to a fraternity house, asked for certain variances on that use. If
5 you read through it…and I’ll just read a couple things. It was decided that, in lieu of a sprinkler
6 system, because the cost would be prohibitive, that the applicant did not have to put in what, at
7 that time, in 1978 was a minimum requirement for a high-occupancy dwelling. It was never
8 even brought into 1978 building codes.
9 There’s a series of building permits that have been pulled since then by the owner who
10 owned it previously; he purchased it in 2006. His name was Dennis Dowswell. This…I don’t
11 mean to be splitting hairs, but there’s a lot of inconsistencies here with this building permit. The
12 first permit that Mr. Dowswell pulled said that it will be owner occupied. Now it’s been
13 repeatedly said by the applicants on this that this has been a fraternity or a bed and breakfast; it
14 wasn’t, at least not officially, not legally…owner occupied building will be vacant. Next
15 building permit application on July of 2006 says he’s going to convert it to a bed and breakfast.
16 Next letter sent just a month or two later says, oh, I’ve changed my mind, it’s going to remain a
17 fraternity house; however, that’s just a letter, there’s no official documentation there. The next
18 letter of completion for some of the work that’s been pulled says that…this is a letter of
19 completion, that’s the large thing there…it says the work was performed by the owner and it will
20 be owner occupied after vacation. Then the smoking gun is, in 2007, an affidavit was filed by
21 the builder which stated that he is converting it to his own personal residence and it will remain
22 owner occupied. He verified that in 2013 with a meeting with the Assessor’s Office to try to
23 keep his taxes low. So, this is…the developer’s…on the next few pages have continually stated
24 that this is rooming house, it has been a rooming house, this is not that big of a change. But, no,
25 it isn’t. It has been a single-family residence for most of its life, including over the last at least
26 ten years.
27 I’m going to skip ahead because I’m going to run out of time…could I have maybe one
28 or two more minutes? I’ve got…there’s a pretty important conclusion I’d like to reach and the
29 other people didn’t use their full time.
30 CHAIR BELLO: Yeah, that’s fine.
31 MR. SNYDER: Okay, I’m sorry; this is a lot of stuff. Okay, I’ll skip over the occupancy
32 load, but there is some information if you read this; the occupancy loading of the building,
33 according to land use standards, is based on the finished square footage. The finished square
34 footage is…there’s a lot of conflict about what that is. An assessor determined the finished
35 square footage to be 3900. The applicants continue to state that it’s 5400. If you divide the
36 square footage allowed by fraternity members into that, you get very different numbers about
37 how many people could live there. I think at the very least, that ought to be cleared up.
11
1 But here, I think, is the most important thing. I had a long discussion with Sara
2 Carter…it’s the last few pages…this is an email from her. Probably you are familiar with Sara
3 Carter, she’s a plans analyst. And I expressed concern that, well, if they can open up a fraternity
4 there, it is zoned for it…well, why couldn’t somebody just buy the house next door and open up
5 a fraternity? On the third page of that, there’s a circled thing, and here’s what Sara Carter
6 said…a change of occupancy from a single dwelling to a dormitory, fraternity…she uses them
7 interchangeably…would be no small task. Many changes to the building to meet a more
8 restrictive occupancy would require…changes would include full commercial fire sprinkler
9 system, accessibility upgrades, electrical upgrades, a more restrictive egress design, structural
10 reinforcement for heavier floor loading requirements, and costly improvements. That’s what you
11 have to do to open up a fraternity house. This building hasn’t had any of that done. There’s…on
12 the next page I actually list some of the fire requirements for fraternities as required by the
13 International Building Code.
14 So, in the last object here…it’s a financial page…it’s the last page. I’m an investor in
15 real estate; I understand real estate. The idea, I think, is that, well, it’s not reasonable to require
16 these people to do these upgrades because it would cost too much. I think that’s really what it
17 boils down to. The…if you do a very simple analysis of what that building is worth, as an extra
18 occupancy rental with nine people in it, versus what it is worth as an extra occupancy…or as a
19 fraternity with 18 people in it, it will double in value. It’s simple numbers. The value now is six
20 hundred and something thousand dollars; it’ll be worth 1.3 million dollars as a fraternity. You
21 can just look at the income generated by it. It is not a hardship to require that maybe a hundred
22 thousand dollars be put in to bringing the building up to building codes as required for a
23 fraternity. It’s a safety consideration; if it isn’t done now, it’ll never be done, and it wasn’t done
24 in 1978, so please consider that. Thank you.
25 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you, next?
26 MR. PAUL MILEWSKI: I’ve got to strongly object to the extra time given to John;
27 we’re talking about procedures and the whole process of this…so, that’s part of what we’ve been
28 victims to, is procedural process. So absolutely our fellow speakers should have the same
29 amount of time.
30 MR. SNYDER: Well, could I comment that the last three speakers only used three
31 minutes…
32 CHAIR BELLO: Let’s not debate that, thanks. Okay, next please?
33 MR. JEFF ICENHOWER: I’m waiting for my five. My name is Jeff Icenhower…
34 CHAIR BELLO: Marcha, can you start the time please?
35 MR. MILEWSKI: Oh, oh, I’m sorry, I’m Paul Milewski…I’m the owner of 201.
12
1 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, sorry. Thank you.
2 MR. ICENHOWER: My name is Jeff Icenhower; I live at 2303 Flagstaff Place in Fort
3 Collins. I moved here a year ago from Texas and I am delighted to be back on the Front Range.
4 I live in Highlands Ranch in Denver prior to that. And I chose Fort Collins in part because I had
5 some flexibility in where I would live on the Front Range, and in particular because CSU is here.
6 If I had wanted to live someplace that didn’t have the vibrancy that a campus brings to a
7 community, I’d live in Loveland. So that you don’t have to take your maps and spread them out
8 completely, 2303 Flagstaff is up on the north side of town; I’m about two miles west of the
9 Budweiser facility. My interest in this is…I belonged to a fraternity in Missoula, Montana where
10 I went to school…the Sigma Chi fraternity, not this fraternity. However, when I read about it in
11 the papers, I noticed that there was a significant set of assumptions being made about fraternities.
12 And so I think it’s important to point out that Animal House was a movie; Animal House was
13 fiction. The reality of fraternities is that when you bring a group of young men together and they
14 commit themselves to a set of ideals, they’re held to a higher standard than students in other
15 types of housing, including the other types of multi-family housing in this particular area. They
16 are under greater scrutiny; they answer not only to themselves and to their national organization,
17 but they answer to an inter-fraternity council on the University for their behavior and for the way
18 they present themselves.
19 There’s an interesting amount…an almost ironic amount…of discrimination that I see
20 happening here, because there’s an assumption that as soon as these folks take possession of this
21 property as lessees, they’ll put a bar in the basement and they’ll put a keg out on the corner and
22 invite everybody from the campus to come over. And I think exactly the opposite is true; what
23 you’ll find is that these gentlemen will have much greater responsibilities put upon them because
24 of their affiliation with the University.
25 Now this area is zoned for a fraternity; there’s a fraternity in place, right now, a block
26 away. Had I been able to afford it, I would have lived in that neighborhood for that very reason.
27 It’s what I would expect to find; it’s what I think will add to the vibrancy of the neighborhood.
28 A lot of the testimony that I’ve heard here and previously has been about the negative impact
29 that this kind of housing would have on the neighborhood, and personally I believe it would be
30 exactly the opposite. I would also like to say that it’s been a really interesting process; I see
31 some new faces up here, I hope you all have fun doing it. It’s not been so interesting that I
32 would volunteer for what you’re putting your name in for. In an informal information session
33 following the last hearing, I volunteered some information that I’d like to share with you now on
34 the record, and that is…I think the City staff in particular has done a superb job of navigating
35 this process based on the way that I understand it. I’ve been greeted up at the front door with
36 information that I hadn’t asked for that helped explain both the process and the current status of
37 some of these hearings. And so I’m glad you’ve got attorneys to help you sort out the details of
38 who gets to decide what and where you have leeway, but as far as the way the City has
13
1 approached this and the staff that you all work with, I have nothing but positive things to say.
2 Thanks for your time.
3 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you. Is there anybody else who’d like to speak for or against
4 this? Marcha, are we good? Okay, thank you.
5 MR. MARK HAVENS: Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, thank you for your time.
6 My name is Mark Havens and I own the home bordering the proposal, directly on the east side.
7 I’m also here to speak towards 2.2.10 that allows the denial of the return of usage if it should
8 negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. I’ve always love the East Elizabeth Street
9 neighborhood, having attended Harris Elementary and Fort Collins High School. When the
10 opportunity arose to purchase a home in the neighborhood, and on what I deemed the most
11 magnificent block, I pounced. In due diligence, I contacted the Planning and Zoning Department
12 to check the status of the neighboring home at 201 East Elizabeth, and was told it had been
13 returned to a single-family residence. After meeting the elderly couple that were working to
14 renovate it and realizing that the property I was purchasing was the last derelict high-occupancy
15 rental home from prior to the you plus two regulation in the neighborhood, I was sold. I
16 immediately set about renovating my home back into a single-family home true to its original
17 character and representative of the other homes in my block. I prioritized my landscaping and
18 gardens as I am in the company of master gardeners on my block. This isn’t keeping up with the
19 Jones’, this is a neighborhood pride thing. There’s a palpable, mutual desire amongst my
20 neighbors to have the best neighborhood in town, and we do. I often refer to us as the Mountain
21 Avenue of the east side. Our shady lane is only occasionally interrupted by the sounds of the
22 church bells or the laughter from the playground at Harris. Even the ambulances shuttling to and
23 from PVH wait to use sirens until they’ve entered the buffer zone. This was not always the case
24 for our neighborhood. For many years, it was plagued with rentals of extraordinary occupancy
25 and nuisance properties. Then came the you plus two regulation. It has taken years of
26 enforcement, but you plus two works. By ensuring the density of the rental homes is equal to
27 that of the owner occupied homes, nuisance properties were eliminated and harmony amongst
28 the different types of properties was restored. The business buffer zone works in protecting us
29 from the hustle and bustle of College and the you plus two regulations work to ensure the
30 sanctity of our neighborhood. The Eastside Neighborhood Improvement Plan has worked; the
31 proposal stands to undo all of that.
32 The resale value of my home was never a concern as I renovated my home to be my
33 forever home; this has changed for me now. This Monday I got my first taste of my potential
34 future as the new dumpster for the facility was emptied at six AM. The view from my master
35 bedroom window and our of our future nursery will no longer be of the wooded backyard of a
36 historic single-family home, but rather of the dumpster enclosure and parking lot of a facility that
37 houses dozens of boys. The pounding of the dumpster on the pavement just feet from the
38 nursery window really drove that fact home. But could I move if I had to? A long-time local
39 realtor predicts a ten to twenty percent reduction in the sale price of my home should it border a
14
1 fraternity house. That equates to somewhere between $55,000 and $110,000 that I don’t have.
2 Simply put, this proposal will forever change the character of my beloved neighborhood, reduce
3 the value of our homes, and trap us next to an undesirable neighbor with little recourse.
4 I had to ask myself why…why would this be allowed? The Code uses the rationale of
5 prior usage, but that prior usage was before the you plus two, when our neighborhood was
6 plagued with high occupancy rentals. Why would we allow a return to that state? Also, the
7 triangle was a very small fraternity with only a handful of members at any given time. The
8 current proposal with dozens of occupants and fifty plus for meetings is nowhere close to the
9 prior usage of this property. An antiquated Code that allows the return to prior usage with only
10 minor approval could allow our historic homes to return to all types of prior usage from
11 throughout their storied years, and not all of them are desirable in our modern neighborhoods.
12 This is also not about the character of this first round of boys the applicant proposes to install,
13 rather this is about all future use of this lovely historic home and the effect on its neighborhood.
14 Not only is it a poor location for such a facility, it’s a poor facility choice for this extremely high
15 occupancy load. The fraternities that sit on the west side of campus at the termination of Laurel
16 Street are excellent examples of proper usage for this type of housing. They border other
17 fraternities and sororities and other CSU properties of similar usage. Most are twice or three
18 times as large in size, yet house a comparable number of members as this proposal. They feature
19 large, commercial kitchens and pull-throughs to allow for the large delivery trucks required to
20 house such a large number of occupants. Instead of being a nuisance in their neighborhood, they
21 have created a supportive one of their own. Please reconsider this proposed return to prior
22 usage; it’s extreme occupancy load and the effects on parking, noise, home values and general
23 neighborhood character are negatively impactful on our Mountain Avenue of the east. Let us not
24 undo the great strides we’ve made in our neighborhood improvement in Fort Collins. Thank you
25 for your time.
26 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you. Good? Okay, thank you.
27 MS. LISA MORAVAN: Good morning, I’m Lisa Moravan and I live at 220 East
28 Elizabeth Street. I’m appealing the change of use of 201 East Elizabeth to a high density use as a
29 fraternity. This change is in conflict with the existing Eastside Neighborhood Plan which does
30 not appear to have been taken into full consideration when the recent building permit was
31 approved. As you know, the Eastside Neighborhood Plan was developed with input from a
32 diverse set of community stakeholders and City staff. It is stated…its primary purpose is to help
33 preserve and enhance the existing quality of life in the neighborhood. Over the years, we
34 residents of the 200 block of East Elizabeth, have taken the goals and the vision laid out in this
35 plan to heart. Instead of letting it decline, we have worked hard to preserve and revitalize our
36 block, investing our time, money and effort into our homes, our yards, and our community, thus
37 enhancing both the character and the quality in the neighborhood as a whole. The change of use
38 of 201 East Elizabeth does not adequately address how our investment in time, money and
39 community would be preserved. The Eastside Plan also states, for the buffer area, it is
15
1 recognized that as with any existing neighborhood, unique and specific circumstances affecting
2 certain properties will require special consideration to protect the interests of the neighborhood.
3 It does not appear that special consideration was adequately made by the City staff to take into
4 account the specific and unique nature of the area surrounding the 200 block of East Elizabeth.
5 In addition, from Section 3.2.1, paragraph 2.7 of the Plan, if elements of the proposal are not
6 consistent with the policies of the Eastside Neighborhood Plan, does the proposal make
7 substantial positive contributions to the neighborhood that offset its shortcomings. As far as we
8 are aware, the proposal by the neighbors of the 201 East Elizabeth has not addressed this. It is
9 not clear how change in the use of the property as a fraternity, a high density use in a low density
10 area, would make a positive contribution to our neighborhood.
11 Another area of concern we have as neighbors is enforcement. If limitations on
12 occupancy, use, parking, et cetera, are placed on 201, we are unclear how and by whom these
13 conditions will be enforced. It is also unclear what limitations and rules are currently in effect
14 right now as the status of 201 is being decided. For example, currently we are noticing that it
15 appears tenants are beginning to take up residency in the home before meeting the parking
16 requirements that were spelled out in the current building permit under discussion today. Please
17 clarify the standard in which the owner is required to follow in order to meet your requirements
18 and your standards. Finally, please note that none of what we discussed today is meaningful if it
19 cannot be reinforced…excuse me, enforced in a reasonable manner. Therefore, please clarify
20 when what is decided today goes into effect and how it will be enforced and by whom. Thank
21 you for your time and consideration.
22 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you, anybody else?
23 MR. MILEWSKI: Sorry for the improper introduction…Paul Milewski, the owner of 201
24 Elizabeth. I realize that victim is kind of a harsh word, a word I don’t like; however, that’s what
25 this feels like. When this started out as a minor amendment…that’s what we were told prior to
26 purchasing this property. We weren’t looking to buy a home; we knew all along that there was a
27 shortage in affordable housing in Fort Collins, and particularly for fraternities and sororities. So,
28 not only on one occasion, but two occasions, we went down to the City of Fort Collins…it was
29 only to be a minor amendment and since then, it’s pretty much taken on a life of its own. I am
30 empathetic with the neighbors that live there with their homes; that’s the very reason we reached
31 out to the neighbors when we purchased this property. We did a neighborhood walk-through, we
32 talked to all the immediate neighbors that were home and heard their concerns, let them know
33 that we were there to fix the property up. This property had been run down, and that’s our
34 intentions, and it’s…when we’re done, it’s going to be one of the nicest looking properties in that
35 neighborhood.
36 So, the monetary part of this, going through the process that we didn’t foresee going
37 through, has been horrific. And it’s interesting to me…what I feel is really happening is, the
16
1 neighbors are trying to smoke us out, financially, and hope we’ll go away, which I have no
2 intentions of doing.
3 The hypocrisy of this is unbelievable to me. John Snyder who got up here and spoke is
4 one of the leading problems of the parking in the neighborhood. He rents primarily to college
5 students himself and I have pictures of his cars parking in the alleyway almost every day, trash
6 dumpsters not up to code, other things are not up to code. So the hypocrisy of this is pretty hard
7 to take. Those are the main issues I want to address…and, just…we have followed procedure all
8 along, anything that’s been asked of the City, and it just seems like it’s a never-ending process
9 and I just…I don’t think it’s fair. And it’s not fair to Julie…we’ve got a big part of our life
10 savings into this and there’s another side to the story.
11 As far as the fraternity guys…what a wonderful, amazing group of guys. They…first
12 snow storm, they came to us and said, hey, let’s go shovel all the neighbors’ driveways…let’s
13 just try to be good neighbors and start off on the right foot. They got out and did that. Not a
14 single thank you from anybody, but they got out and did it. The parking problem that everyone
15 is concerned about…we’re entitled to have the parking that we’re entitled to through code, which
16 we exceed. But we took a step beyond that and went to the church and worked out a parking
17 solution when they have their fraternity meetings, not parties, meetings. To take it a step further,
18 we’re in process now of having permanent parking in there Monday through Friday. We can’t
19 on Saturdays and Sundays with the church, for obvious reasons, but it is about a 95% chance that
20 we’re going to work something out where we’re going to have an additional ten spaces with the
21 church for the fraternity brothers to park there as well.
22 So, all the neighborhood concerns…we have addressed every single one of them. And,
23 so I just want to let you know we’re following procedure in every way; we think we’re following
24 code, and the process is…there’s a huge monetary element to this that I think no one talks about,
25 and that’s the loss that Julie and I have. And I would like for you guys to consider that…that this
26 process…and, we’ve already, by limiting from 24 to 18, the amount of income that we had is
27 significantly reduced. So, we’re bending along and trying to work with the neighbors and will
28 continue to do so even after this process, even though there’s some hardships and hard feelings,
29 it can be water under the bridge, we can work well with the neighbors. So, I just want to let you
30 know that’s where Julie and I stand and thank you for your consideration.
31 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience like to speak for or against
32 this?
33 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Mr. Chair? I had assumed, since Paul got up,
34 that the…the public testimony was closed and that was his applicant response. Is that not
35 correct?
36 CHAIR BELLO: No, I thought that was public…
17
1 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: That’s still public?
2 CHAIR BELLO: I believed it was.
3 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Well then…
4 CHAIR BELLO: So we still have to do the applicant response?
5 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: The applicant response to public testimony
6 and then move on to the staff response.
7 CHAIR BELLO: Correct. So is anybody else in the audience for public response? Okay,
8 we’ll close the public response and like to have the applicant response please.
9 MS. FREDERICKSON: I just have a few things to mention. Fraternities have been in
10 the…have been in the news a lot lately, and yeah, you know, they have…they have a poor
11 reputation sometimes and it’s because when there’s poor behavior and poor decisions, there’s a
12 bad reputation. But I would submit that a reputation…we should not get the term reputation and
13 character confused. And I would submit that, who’s to say that this fraternity house will change
14 the character of the neighborhood. The character has to do with how nice it will look, how well
15 it will be kept up. But this is a land use decision…it’s been a land use decision from the very
16 beginning. And, a land use decision isn’t based on whether or not it’ll be maintained, it’s not
17 based on whether or not it’ll be able to be enforced, whether or not there’ll be a breaking of
18 laws…it has nothing to do with those things. And though we really understand where the
19 neighborhood is coming from and we feel for them, I honestly don’t believe that their fears will
20 be realized here. And I would submit to you that this is a land use decision, and this applicant
21 has done their best to meet all of the Land Use Codes. And I would submit that even if it did go
22 to Planning and Zoning, it would be approvable, very much approvable, because they’ve met all
23 of the codes in every way. And so, it’s not a building permit decision…it has to do with land
24 use. And I’m just…I’m just frustrated that land use has been confused with the reputation of a
25 certain demographic of people and how these people are characterized, and I don’t think that’s
26 fair. Beyond that, that’s all I really wanted to say…I’m open to questions or comments. Thank
27 you so much for listening.
28 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you. Okay…the staff response then?
29 MR. BEALS: I would just add that this process has been long, and we have reviewed it as
30 City staff…the Director has called all the City staff together to review this process and, with the
31 City Attorney, we reviewed the process that they are in at this point, and feel it’s appropriate
32 process. Again, as the staff report pointed out, we do believe that they are meeting the Land Use
33 Code standards in which we have to review the application. Again, there was some mention of
34 building code…not a part of this review; this is a Land Use Code review. There was a mention
35 of plans that were approved, Eastside/Westside Plans…when we do the application review, we
18
1 look at the Land Use Code, not necessarily the Plans of the neighborhood. And I just would
2 close with that. I’ll put it out for questions.
3 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: So now we’re down to the point where the
4 Board can ask questions of anyone in the audience, the applicant, the public, the staff, and have a
5 discourse before you go into your motion.
6 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you. So, Board discussion…
7 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: I have questions for staff. Okay, so is the land use decision
8 based on the lot or the lot plus the improvements?
9 MR. BEALS: The land use decision was based on the site plan that was submitted with
10 the building application; so, it was based on those improvements that were shown on that site
11 plan and the property.
12 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So, the lot plus the improvement.
13 MR. BEALS: …that were shown.
14 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Okay. And then, as one of the speakers mentioned, is there
15 an option under the filing of the change use permit to deny the change use based on the impact to
16 the neighborhood.
17 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Yes, the staff report shows the issues that at
18 least the staff felt were applicable to this particular project, and maybe this merits some
19 discussion of what Ms. Roskie brought up by way of procedural objections to this very hearing.
20 Her suggestion was that you stop the hearing and require the matter to go back through the
21 Planning and Zoning Board process. Lawyers disagree…that’s the way they make their
22 living…so she and I disagree. The Land Use Code lists fraternities as a permitted use in this
23 zone district. If it were a new fraternity, having never existed as a fraternity ever before, then I
24 believe…and anyone that disagrees, and I know the Director is here as well…that that would be
25 a matter that would come before the Planning and Zoning Board for approval. But, the
26 issue…and I know I’ve heard it said that fraternities are not an appropriate use in this area
27 because of this neighborhood. That should be a zone change, a use list change in that zone
28 district, or something to that effect. Because, by reason of it being listed as a permitted use, it’s
29 presumed, under the Code, that it’s okay to have fraternities in that zone district. But then you
30 have to go through the criteria of the Land Use Code.
31 In this particular case, the reason she and I disagree is because…if, arguably, there’s a
32 conflict…if the Code says, well, P and Z reviews fraternities, and then the Code says in 3.8.25
33 that the review of a use that has been abandoned…and there’s no question it’s been abandoned, I
34 think the County Assessor’s records show that…if it’s been abandoned, there is a special criteria
35 that you look at, to the extent reasonably feasible, does it comply with Article 3 and Article 4
19
1 applicable standards. So, our conflict provisions in 1.7.2 of the Land Use Code says that the
2 most specific provision controls over the more general provision. So, the general provision is,
3 fraternities are permitted as a use in that zone. If they’re brand new, they come through the P
4 and Z Board, but specifically for abandoned uses that are sought to be started up again, you look
5 at 3.8.25 and you go through those criteria. That’s what the Director did. One could argue, well,
6 it wasn’t the Director’s decision, somebody else should have decided that. But, we made the
7 decision that since it was silent, we would use the Director as the decision maker and that would
8 be a springboard to the possibility of you ultimately deciding this, which is what we’re doing
9 today, which gives everyone a chance for a hearing, everyone a chance to speak to you as a
10 Board for you to decide the question since it’s been appealed to you. So, that’s my view on how
11 it came to be here.
12 There was an argument that the Land Use Code is unconstitutionally vague because, who
13 knows what ‘to the extent reasonably feasible’ means. That term is defined with some
14 particularity in the definition section of the Land Use Code, which is Article 5. I guess I don’t
15 know if I answered your question, but I rambled on for some there…but I’ll stop there and if
16 there are more questions, I’ll be happy to answer those as well.
17 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: I do have…if I could keep going. The appraisal document
18 showed and identified and I had noticed this previously, non-conforming bedrooms. But, what
19 does that mean…what does that mean?
20 MR. BEALS: It is my understanding the non-conforming bedroom is more of a real
21 estate term, saying that there’s no closet in that room.
22 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So, the City has determined that the bedrooms, as they exist,
23 meet standards. Would that be a fair statement?
24 MR. BEALS: Right.
25 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: That is a fair statement…that the City has established that the
26 bedrooms in the property meet City standards.
27 MR. BEALS: They meet the standards that they were originally constructed under.
28 When they were originally built, they met those standards.
29 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: In 1924?
30 MR. BEALS: 1924, 1978…
31 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So in 1978 they met the standards? So the number of
32 bedrooms identified in 1978 met the standards…right? And, I’m sorry, do we know the number
33 of bedrooms identified in 1978?
20
1 MR. BEALS: The building permit is vague on the number of bedrooms. It does talk
2 about the approval of basement escape windows, so we believe there were bedrooms established
3 at that time in the basement also.
4 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: And so…so the basement square footage that’s identified as
5 finished, was that based on 1978?
6 MR. BEALS: That’s our understanding, yes.
7 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So the number of bedrooms with adequate escape windows
8 would have been based on the finished square footage in 1978? I’m just trying to understand
9 what I’ve got to work with here as far as the building itself.
10 MR. BEALS: Yes.
11 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Okay, thank you.
12 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Now I remember what your question was and
13 I answered it rather vaguely.
14 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: You said yes.
15 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: I said yes and I never said how come.
16 UNIDENTIFIED BOARDMEMBER: But you answered others we didn’t ask…
17 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: A lot of other things that were on my mind,
18 but not on yours.
19 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Thank you so much.
20 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: The answer…the embellishment of that
21 answer is that in your staff report on page three, I think that the compatibility question that you
22 asked about is addressed in section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code, particularly paragraph J about
23 operational compatibility. It’s not about use compatibility because it’s a permitted use, but it
24 does deal with compatibility with the neighborhood. And I’ll just read it…this section allows for
25 conditions to be placed on the operational or physical standards of a proposal as it relates to
26 compatibility with existing neighborhoods and uses. And then there’s a list, and one of the
27 issues is off-street parking, and there are other…but that list is non-inclusive; it includes, among
28 other things, those things and then more that might come to the mind of the members of the
29 Board. But that’s how you’d have to address operational or physical compatibility with the
30 neighborhood.
31 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Okay, thank you.
21
1 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, I’ve got a question. This is a Land Use Code issue, this is not a
2 Building Code issue, so…if the Land Use Code or this appeal is approved…or upheld…will the
3 building have to go through Building Department review for code compliance issues?
4 MR. BEALS: Not at this time unless they are proposing any alterations that would
5 require additional building permits.
6 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, so…the reason I ask is, there’s a similar situation I believe,
7 in…on Lake Street that has a fraternity, that if that fraternity were vacant for over a year, they
8 would be required to bring the building up to code. Does that not apply to this?
9 MR. BEALS: That one is a little different as the Lake Street was a non-conforming use,
10 so it was not a permitted use…
11 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, it was a non-conforming use, that’s right.
12 MR. BEALS: …in the zone district.
13 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, so this is a conforming use based on the NCB zone district?
14 MR. BEALS: Right.
15 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, yeah, that is a difference. Okay…any other discussion?
16 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: I had a question. With respect to the abandonment period,
17 what is the timeframe? So if there was research done that in 1930, there was a use that’s
18 conforming within a zoning district, it was as that use for two years and now somebody wants to
19 reinstate that, would that fall under the abandonment period? And is…I guess, is there a length
20 of period…
21 MR. BEALS: No, there’s not a length of period…yes, the answer is yes. You know, if it
22 was established in 1930 for two years and went away and it’s still a permitted use in the current
23 zone district, then it could be re-established.
24 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: And so it would be re-established under this 3.8.25?
25 MR. BEALS: Correct.
26 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: And so basically everything would just need to be brought
27 up to current codes through the Land Use Code, Building Code requirements…
28 MR. BEALS: To the Land Use Code…
29 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: …and could be reinstated at that point. So, I guess I’m a
30 little confused. So, based on…so based on division 4.9, it is…it’s an acceptable use, but under P
31 and Z review if it’s a new use, correct? If it’s something that has not been…
22
1 MR. BEALS: If it’s listed as a permitted use in the zone district.
2 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Right.
3 MR. BEALS: And if it was a new use that was never established on the property, then it
4 would go to a Type II review, which would be the Planning and Zoning Board.
5 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: So at what point…I mean…so, currently you have to have
6 an overall development plan, but is it because it’s an abandoned use and that use occurred prior
7 to those code requirements that this property isn’t required to have a development plan that’s
8 accepted and gone through the process in order to reinstate it?
9 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Well, first, you don’t have to have an overall
10 development plan unless you’re going to develop the project in phases and a small lot like this
11 wouldn’t be developed in phases. You have to have a project development plan and a final plan
12 if it’s a new use that’s a start-up use, even if it’s a permitted use in the zone. But in this case, and
I’ll just read 3.8.25, if after June 25
th
13 , 1999…we’re after that…active operations are not carried
14 on in a permitted use during a period of twelve consecutive months, the building or other
15 structure or tract…where such permitted use…it’s a permitted use, remember…previously
16 existed, and it did, shall thereafter be reoccupied and used only after the building or other
17 structure as well as the tract of land upon which the building or other structure is located have, to
18 the extent reasonably feasible, been brought into compliance with the applicable general
19 development standards of Article 3 and applicable zone district standards of Article 4. So, that’s
20 the rule under which we are…that’s the rule under which Ms. Kadrich made her decision which
21 has been appealed to you.
22 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: So, could it be construed that, as part of bringing it into
23 those current standards, you would have to go through a P and Z review?
24 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: That decision was to be made by someone and
25 the Code is silent…it’s not going to be silent much longer, we’re going to add language into the
26 Code that says that’s a Director’s decision. We decided it was logically a Director’s decision so
27 that there’d be an appeal route to you, which is where we got. And so now it’s your decision; it’s
28 not a P and Z Board decision, in my opinion.
29 BOARDMEMBER LONG: You got right where I was going…
30 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: So it seems that that’s really the question…
31 BOARDMEMBER LONG: And she got right where I was going…I can usually count on
32 Heidi to get there. It’s somewhat circular because it says, Article 4, which again states P and
33 Z…okay we go to the non-described Director’s decision. So what…what criteria…but not only
34 does it not describe who’s going to make that decision, it doesn’t list any criteria…and we
23
1 don’t…it’s not a criticism, but we don’t have any documentation of what criteria she used to
2 make that decision. We just keep hearing, that was the decision that was made, right?
3 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: No, you have some criteria that the staff
4 included in the staff report that they thought was applicable, and I don’t know if there are any
5 Article 4 criteria listed there; I don’t see any.
6 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Well it just says it needs to go to P and Z and not us.
7 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: But there are development standards…I see
8 one, 4.9, 4.9(a) and (b), (e)…there are development standards contained in Article 4 that go
9 beyond the use list. First, you have your use list, who reviews, and then you have a section on
10 individual zone district development standards, and there are a couple there that the staff listed as
11 being applicable. They’re on page two of your staff report.
12 CHAIR BELLO: So your concern is whether…I mean the way I’m looking at this is that
13 this is an allowed use in the zone. The fact that the property was abandoned…that’s the issue as
14 to who can make the decision, whether it can be reinstated.
15 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Right, who can make the decision whether it can be
16 reinstated and under what provisions and what kind of review it needs to go through. So it says
17 it needs to…needs to be brought into compliance with the applicable general development
18 standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4,
19 which states, the following uses are permitted subject to Planning and Zoning review. I guess
20 I’m just a little confused as to, you know, where do you draw the line where this is a prior use
21 and it can be accepted and do you then…I mean, how do you ignore the fact that the Code states
22 that the uses are permitted, I understand that, but subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. I
23 mean can you skip over the P and Z review because it’s a prior…it’s a prior use that was
24 abandoned. I don’t know, Paul, could you help explain that, maybe there’s something I’m not
25 seeing.
26 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Well the Code was silent on who does that
27 review. It seemed to be the most reasonable approach, rational approach, that the Director would
28 make that decision, since it doesn’t say it goes to the Planning and Zoning Board, and that was a
29 decision that was made in this case, which brought us to you because of 2.11 which says that you
30 can review decisions…certain decisions of the Director. And, ultimately, I’m fairly certain that
31 this decision will be made by the City Council. But, that’s the next appeal I would think.
32 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: So how is the Code silent, if it says that the following uses
33 are permitted, subject to P and Z review, and it says under the abandonment period then, it needs
34 to be brought into compliance with these Articles which state it goes to P and Z. That’s where
35 my confusion is.
24
1 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Well, and that’s why I mentioned the conflict
2 provisions, because I think…the conflict provision says that the most specific regulation controls
3 over the more general, and I think this particular section dealing with abandoned uses and
4 restarting of uses that previously existed is quite specific. So, I think we were limited to looking
5 at that section and saying, okay, that’s the section that governs because it’s the most specific to a
6 restart of a previously existing permitted use. And as a restart of a previously existing permitted
7 use, who is going to decide that? And it just made sense that the Director would decide it and
8 that if the Director’s decision is not acceptable, it would get appealed to this Board. That’s how
9 it came to this Board.
10 CHAIR BELLO: So is it the City’s position that it met the criteria of Article 4, being
11 reviewed by P and Z, in its original application to become a fraternity and therefore it met that
12 criteria?
13 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: I don’t know when that application happened
14 or…
15 MR. BEALS: It was originally approved, established as a use, and it was abandoned for
16 twelve months, and this Land Use Code says, when a use was established legally, which it was,
17 and abandoned for twelve months, that it can be re-established if it’s a listed, permitted use in the
18 zone district, to the criteria Paul’s already read.
19 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, so the initial acceptance of it as fraternity, regardless of how that
20 happened…from the standpoint of the abandonment, it was a permitted use. That’s the position
21 of the City?
22 MR. BEALS: It was a legally established use, it was abandoned for twelve months, and
23 then now they want to reinstate that use…this Land Use Code section allows for that.
24 CHAIR BELLO: Say it again?
25 MR. BEALS: Land Use Code 3.8.25 allows for that.
26 BOARDMEMBER LONG: But there’s a lot of properties that have…I mean we could go
27 through the history…and that have old, grandfathered uses and I think…I mean I understand
28 what the neighbors…why they’re confused and I mean, Paul said it, he called the City and…I’ve
29 had this happen, I call all the time through my career and they say well, that use has been
30 abandoned. But in general we make the assumption it just can’t be re-established through an
31 administrative process. I mean it’s always been most of the public’s perception that if it’s an
32 abandoned use, you can’t just go in and, you know, pay a hundred dollars for a change in use and
33 be done. I mean…more people should be using it if that’s the case.
34 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: Is that an abandoned use that’s non-conforming?
35 Which I think is typically the case.
25
1 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Well, but there’s both…I mean I have to look up every
2 property I do, so I…you know, I see all types.
3 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: I think that is a really critical point though, non-conforming
4 versus conforming abandoned uses are two very different things. So if something is allowed
5 within that zone district, then, you know, I can see the rationale as far as being able to reinstate it
6 because it was a previous use.
7 BOARDMEMBER LONG: What was the previous zoning there in ’78?
8 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: That’s even before my time and I didn’t know
9 anything was before my time.
10 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Well…and I mean that gets to one of my other questions I
11 put in my notes is it says…where such a permitted use. And how do we know it was a permitted
12 use? When I go…and I did go through all the material and I don’t know where we confirmed
13 that was actually…I mean just because it was existing, how do we know it was permitted? If it
14 was R2, was it permitted under R2 zoning?
15 CHAIR BELLO: But it’s permitted within the current zoning district.
16 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Well, this certificate of occupancy right here says that it was
17 approved as R1, with the use zone of BH. So, is this…is this a valid, most recent document?
18 MR. BEALS: That’s the current certificate of occupancy for the building.
19 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Thank you.
20 MR. BEALS: The R1s and R2s…again, that’s Building Code. The Land Use Code…in
21 1929, the property was originally zoned B for residence, which allowed for fraternity. In 1965, it
22 was rezoned to RH which is high-density residential, which also allowed for a fraternity. And
23 then in 1991 is when it was zoned NCB.
24 BOARDMEMBER LONG: And that really was one of my questions when I read through
25 this, is do we have a history that it would have been approved…yeah.
26 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Well it would have had to be a permitted use if they got a
27 building permit for it, I assume.
28 BOARDMEMBER LONG: It would have been a lot easier back then.
29 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: I’m sure zoning laws were much different then, but the fact
30 that they had a building permit implies that it would have been a permitted use at that time, so…
31 CHAIR BELLO: What I’m struggling with here is that the opponents of this appear to be
32 making an argument that this is not an allowed use for this site because of the neighboring uses.
26
1 And I’m struggling with that because the zoning district says it is an allowed use; it’s a buffer
2 zone between the commercial along Harmony…I mean along College, and the single-family
3 residences to the east of that. So, from that standpoint, if the City and the staff has made the
4 determination that the Director is the right person to make this decision, then it becomes a land
5 use issue of is this a proper use for that property. And, according to the zone district, it is. And
6 I’m struggling with why we’re arguing about building code issues when this is really a land use
7 issue and not a building code issue, because I think that seems to be a lot of the concern here.
8 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: What I’m hearing is they’re arguing compatibility.
9 I’m hearing they’re arguing that we have the authority to say it is not compatible.
10 CHAIR BELLO: But the zone district says it’s a proper use for that site, and it’s a
11 transitional use from the commercial of College Avenue, as I said, to the residential. It’s a
12 transitional use. So, from that standpoint, compatibility…a fraternity is considered one of the
13 compatible uses for that transition.
14 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: Operational compatibility…the key word is
15 operational.
16 CHAIR BELLO: I don’t know what that means.
17 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Yes, that’s the Code language I mentioned in
18 3.5.1(j), which is operational or physical compatibility, which is probably why the Director…and
19 the Director is here, you can question her if you want…why she decided that eighteen was the
20 limit. I think it was because of operational compatibility criteria.
21 CHAIR BELLO: Okay.
22 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Is there an appropriate time to ask the Director to step up
23 and just kind of explain the…
24 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: You may do that.
25 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: …thought process.
26 MS. LAURIE KADRICH: Good morning, I’m Laurie Kadrich and I’m the Director for
27 Community Development and Neighborhood Services, and I’m happy to answer any questions
28 that you might have.
29 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Thank you. I wonder, could you just provide just a brief
30 overview as far as how you came to the conclusion of the fact that this would be…this would be
31 the appropriate way to move forward with this case and what… I guess what kind of decisions
32 led up to that.
27
1 MS. KADRICH: It…this decision was originally, as mentioned earlier, set for a Planning
2 and Zoning Board hearing under a minor amendment process. And the reason it was set for the
3 Planning and Zoning Board is that it is the discretion of the Director as to whether a minor
4 amendment goes to the Planning and Zoning Board or has an administrative decision. And in
5 this case, we had heard from neighbors that they had some concerns, as they have expressed
6 today, so it seemed like the right avenue for the hearing would be before the Planning and
7 Zoning Board. When we were preparing for the hearing, on the night of the hearing, we received
8 additional information that caused a question about whether it should have been a minor
9 amendment process or not. And as we discussed it with staff and legal, we learned that the site
10 plan that was shown earlier was not part of a previously approved plan, so there was no
11 amendment to be made of a plan. And that caused a question about, then, the minor amendment
12 process could not be the right way. So, where was the next most applicable code that applied to
13 this specific circumstance? And that’s the code that has been presented by staff today and is in
14 your staff report.
15 Once we got to that process, then we looked at all the information that we had from the
16 applicant. We also looked at the information that we had received from neighbors, because that
17 particular portion of the code did allow us to look at operational compatibility. Some of the
18 things that I took into consideration was the number of bedrooms that were in the residence.
19 There are nine bedrooms in the residence according to the site plan. It seemed reasonable to me
20 that there could be two occupants for each one of those bedrooms for the size of the facility. In
21 addition to that, I was looking at what would be compatible from an operational standpoint
22 relative to the activities of this unit. And in my opinion, the request to have 60 members attend a
23 weekly meeting was not reasonable from an operational standpoint to the neighborhood. Hence
24 the limit on the number of occupants, which were allowed at 18, then could hold a meeting or a
25 gathering at that residence but not to exceed that. So that was kind of the reasoning that we
26 looked at, and that I used to make those operational limitations or conditions on issuing the
27 permit.
28 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: So you had mentioned that…so originally you were
29 planning to go through a minor amendment process and then information came in that the site
30 plan you had...or they were using, was not an approved site plan, which is what would trigger a
31 minor amendment process, correct?
32 MS. KADRICH: So let me back up on that, and Paul may want to jump in as well. When
33 we took the site plan from the file, we believe that that site plan was part of an overall
34 planned…project plan, that had gone to the Planning and Zoning Board and had been approved
35 through a Board process. When that happens, then you can amend that at a later time. What we
36 learned later was that that particular site plan was only part of the building permit that was issued
37 at the time, and so there had not been another process, which is an allowed…it’s a proper process
38 for that time.
28
1 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Great, thanks for that clarification.
2 CHAIR BELLO: Can I ask your rationale for fraternities and looking at two persons per
3 bedroom…in a fraternity, that’s not like a residence that a husband and wife would be typically
4 in a bedroom, so how did you come to that two?
5 MS. KADRICH: The other factor that I used in looking at that was the square footage per
6 person for the unit. And I looked at the variety of ways that we apply square footage, and so that
7 was another factor that I used to get to the two rather than a greater number.
8 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, thank you.
9 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: At any point did the actual fraternity president or
10 representatives…did you interact with them on how they would see the operation moving
11 forward?
12 MS. KADRICH: I did not interact with the fraternity itself. I based my information of
13 the application that we received and the other information.
14 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: What I find somewhat problematic is…have they
15 identified where they do hold their meetings when they have a complete membership meeting?
16 Are they doing it on campus somewhere or…?
17 MS. JULIE RICKETT: That’s correct.
18 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: Okay…can I ask Paul a question?
19 CHAIR BELLO: Can we get a response to that so we can get it on record?
20 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: Well my next question was when would be the
21 proper time to hear about that?
22 CHAIR BELLO: Can I have the lady come to the stand?
23 MS. RICKETT: Hi, I’m Julie Rickett, the other owner. And the fraternity is just going to
24 continue to have their meetings on campus, so they are using the home just for a residence. Oh,
25 where do I sign? I’m Julie Rickett…oh, sorry. Does that clarify…?
26 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: It’s fairly vague, but I believe I understand…CSU
27 would accommodate them in the future.
28 MS. RICKETT: They already have their meetings at CSU, so they’re just going to
29 continue to have their meetings at the regular place at CSU.
30 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you. Any other questions of the Director?
29
1 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: I have a question for Mr. Snyder. The…your home next to
2 the subject property, from street and alley observation, it appears to be a four unit, is that correct?
3 MR. SNYDER: A four-plex, yes.
4 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: A four-plex. And so, is that a maximum of twelve
5 occupants?
6 MR. SNYDER: Each unit is three bedrooms, three people, because of the two plus one
7 regulation, per unit, a maximum of twelve. I have eight parking places for twelve people.
8 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So the structure itself supports twelve?
9 MR. SNYDER: Yes, divided into four very discreet units with double walls between
10 them.
11 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Right, and then what is your total finished square footage?
12 MR. SNYDER: About 4500 for the whole building.
13 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Finished, total square footage…
14 MR. SNYDER: Yes, it’s all finished.
15 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: …for all four units, and you’ve got twelve max in your unit.
16 MR. SNYDER: Right, correct.
17 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: Is there two of those units or just one of those units?
18 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: There’s two properties.
19 MR. SNYDER: There’s two, but I just addressed the one because…they’re identical so I
20 just thought I’d stick…
21 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: For the record, we’re talking about two 12-plexes.
22 MR. SNYDER: Two four-plexes. The immediate next door…
23 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: They are two separate lots, correct?
24 MR. SNYDER: Right, they’re actually separate legally…they’re separately divided.
25 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Okay, and then do you agree with Mr. Milewski’s comment
26 that parking does occur in the alley for those?
27 MR. SNYDER: Absolutely…well, not only is it the students who live in my place, but
28 there’s…it’s only a block away from campus, so lots of people park over there. It’s worth saying
30
1 though that my unit…let’s just look at one unit because it’s easier. It’s a four-plex, three
2 bedrooms each unit, eight baths total, four kitchens…it has an upstairs study room; it has eight
3 parking places for twelve people. We’re talking eighteen people with the same number of
4 parking places here.
5 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: I understand, okay, thank you.
6 MR. SNYDER: And one other thing about that is that I have a little bit more control since
7 each unit is discreetly represented by three students…I have three lease guarantors and I can get
8 on the students about parking.
9 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Thank you for answering…
10 MR. SNYDER: Could I ask one little question?
11 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: I don’t know that that’s permitted…
12 MR. SNYDER: It’s just regarding the building…
13 CHAIR BELLO: Public hearing is closed.
14 MR. SNYDER: Okay, thanks.
15 CHAIR BELLO: Board discussion, where are we?
16 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: So are we still at…?
17 CHAIR BELLO: Board discussion.
18 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Or we can ask questions of…
19 CHAIR BELLO: Yes.
20 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: That’s different than Board discussion, correct?
21 CHAIR BELLO: Does anybody still have questions? Okay, Board discussion.
22 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Wait, I did have one…stop. It’s not that complex, it won’t
23 take that long. And so, briefly Noah, we’ll go with Noah…it’s like there’s so many people to
24 ask questions to…what would have been…is the criteria…or Paul…the criteria used by the
25 Director as far…it’s…the same criteria would have been addressed if it went to P and Z, it just
26 would have been addressed differently, is that…my question…or not?
27 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Yeah, the 3.8.25 would still be the section that
28 governs this, but we just decided that the section…the determination was to be made by the
29 Director in that case.
31
1 BOARDMEMBER LONG: The difference is who, not how.
2 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Right.
3 BOARDMEMBER LONG: That was it.
4 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: It’s the same thing with anything in the Land
5 Use Code; we have the P and Z Board review and we have the Hearing Officer review, and it’s
6 the same criteria no matter who reviews it.
7 CHAIR BELLO: Okay.
8 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: I do have a question of Paul also. So, in Jamie Baker
9 Roskie’s memo, one of the points was that a change of use permit was issued, which she was
10 stating is not really stated in the Code that that’s a viable option or process. Could you address
11 that?
12 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Yeah, she makes a good point…apparently
13 there is no particular document called a change of use permit in the City’s system, and yet it’s
14 been, as I understand it…and Noah can explain more how it’s been used in the past…but, in fact
15 perhaps he should…but I gather that it’s been actually issued on a building permit form instead
16 of a change of use permit form, which isn’t a perfect system and it seemed like one that could be
17 easily fixed. But perhaps Noah could help with that.
18 MR. BEALS: Yeah, we do use the building permit to change the use, and we do that
19 several times a year, using the building permit just to change a use, not to change an occupancy,
20 but just to change the use of a building. Usually it happens on tenant finishes.
21 BOARDMEMBER LONG: I was curious because I’ve gone through that and I realized
22 when you said that, that it was…mysterious.
23 MR. BEALS: Sometimes…certificate occupants, or occupancy of a building, which is the
24 Building Code, takes in a lot of the same uses that are identified separately in the Land Use
25 Code.
26 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Sure…so, another legal question. So, legally,
27 would…technically they would really only have to get a building permit then, correct? If it was
28 an abandoned use and…
29 MR. BEALS: Right, their certificate of occupancy was still in place.
30 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Oh, if the previous occupancy or the approved occupancy
31 was still in place, it would just be a building permit, but because it’s going from single-family to
32 a fraternity, then you do have to go through the planning process, in which case approvals are
33 required and then a building permit to bring it up to code?
32
1 MR. BEALS: If the certificate of occupancy for fraternity was changed, then the building
2 permit would be a change of use and a change of occupancy also. In this case, the certificate of
3 occupancy that is in place is still the one for a fraternity, the one that was pointed out earlier in
4 the meeting. And so the only thing that was changing here was the use because that fraternity
5 has been abandoned and reverted to a single-family.
6 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Okay, thank you.
7 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So, as a follow-up question, Noah…so the certificate of
8 occupancy was issued at the time, so the comment that it was issued under different zoning is
9 not…you would not agree with that statement, is that correct? So you would assert that it
10 was…the original certificate of occupancy was issued validly with a fraternity use, where Mr.
11 Snyder had argued that it was not.
12 MR. BEALS: The original certificate of occupancy and use…at that time it was a change
13 of use and occupancy…was issued validly under those current…those Building Code regulations
14 and the land use regulations at that time.
15 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: And that did permit the fraternity, not just a boarding house?
16 MR. BEALS: Correct.
17 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: And then, when the land use change is approved, is a new
18 certificate of occupancy issued?
19 MR. BEALS: Not if the certificate of occupancy is still valid for the use that it’s
20 changing to.
21 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: And so, where does compliance with City code come in? Is
22 that in the building permit?
23 MR. BEALS: So, when a building permit is required, then whatever that work is they’re
24 requesting has to be brought up to code.
25 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: And so, is a building permit required?
26 MR. BEALS: Sorry, when a building permit is required for a change of occupancy or
27 building permit is required for construction of new walls or electrical or plumbing, then that
28 work needs to be brought up to current code.
29 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So will that…will there be a building permit required based
30 on the certificate of occupancy as it exists today?
31 MR. BEALS: They have not presented anything that should change…that requires a
32 building permit for new plumbing, electrical…
33
1 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So, no…
2 MR. BEALS: I can’t say no, I mean it may be in the future that they need a building
3 permit to do some work.
4 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Okay, thank you.
5 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Well, and I want to…and not to split hairs…but so, when
6 they got a letter of completion, or when the prior owner in 2006, letter of completion stating to
7 be occupied by the owner, that did not change…I mean, so he got a permit, he pulled a permit
8 and he says, okay, I’m going to turn it back into a house. And going to her question, well now
9 we’re going to do a change of use and say, well now it’s a fraternity but construction was done to
10 make it a house. And I mean that permit says it had four bedrooms, and now we have nine
11 bedrooms…I don’t think they count the basement so I kind of get that. So now, you know, I
12 mean what happened to the non-conforming bedrooms and how come the fraternity house
13 doesn’t have to comply with current building code? If it was built to be a house in 2006 and got
14 a letter of completion that says it’s now a house…I mean, I liked your question. So, I’m kind of
15 okay with it, because remember…former contractor and it always seemed like I was having to
16 pull…I never got to do this. I just don’t understand, to Daphne’s question, now we don’t have to
17 pull a permit or ensure that it complied with building standards. And I know we’re not doing
18 building standards here, but it’s a valid point. This guy, Dennis was it, prior
19 owner…yeah…made it a house, pulled a permit, got a letter of completion, and now we’re going
20 to say, oh no, now it’s back to a fraternity, but they’re not required to check anything.
21 MR. BEALS: I did review with Mike Gebo, the Chief Building Official, where…what
22 the current certificate of occupancy is, and he did say it is the fraternity occupancy.
23 CHAIR BELLO: And I’m going to push back saying, that’s a Building Code issue, it’s
24 not a Land Use Code…we’re not dealing with Building Code issues here. So, if there’s a
25 concern about the Building Code, then I think that’s outside the purview of this Board. I mean, I
26 don’t necessarily agree with the fact they don’t have to do anything, but that’s not my…my role
27 here.
28 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: So then my thought around that is that…so, the Director,
29 who’s very thoughtful in the fact that she considered the functionality of the existing property
30 when placing conditions. But my question is, what is the…what do we know about that, like
31 what was validated? So she considered a set of facts and was thoughtful in placing conditions
32 based on that understanding, but what is that understanding, and…what is it? Is it conforming
33 bedrooms, non-conforming bedrooms, is there four bedrooms, is there nine bedrooms? So that’s
34 where I can’t make that leap, like if you’re…if you have…if you’re doing a Land Use Code
35 change based on a lot and an improvement, right, you’re basing it on the improvement, not just
36 the lot. So, if it was just the lot, I get that, but when the improvement comes into play, then you
37 look at the improvement and say, is it reasonably feasible to change the Land Use Code
34
1 considering this improvement? And I guess my concern is, I’m…and then we’re placing
2 conditions based on this improvement. But I think there’s a lot of question in my mind about the
3 improvement and does that support the use, that’s where I’m struggling.
4 CHAIR BELLO: Could Laurie help us with that?
5 MS. KADRICH: I think I might be able to provide some clarity on that. I did meet with
6 the Chief Building Official as well and took a look at the plans that we had. It’s my
7 understanding, and I concur with Noah on this, that the term non-conforming does not have
8 anything to do with the Building Code. When we checked that with Mr. Gebo, the non-
9 conforming has to do with a real estate term. So, in his opinion, as he relayed to me, there is
10 nothing non-conforming about the bedrooms in that fraternity, and that the codes that apply to a
11 fraternity are very different than the codes that apply to Mr. Snyder’s situation. And so those
12 were further considerations that we looked at before we placed any operational conditions on the
13 building.
14 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: And, Bob, so from an appraisal standard standpoint, because
15 that appraisal would have been done under the Appraisal Institute standards, correct? And so, as
16 a non-conforming, what does the Appraisal Institute…how do they define that?
17 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Well, most of the time…in basements…and this has already
18 been apparently address…in the basements they’re referring to no egress. So number one is
19 egress, and that would affect Mike Gebo. But number two is a closet, and they don’t need
20 closets.
21 MS. KADRICH: And that’s exactly what Mr. Gebo said, and he confirmed that the
22 egress windows were put in in 1978.
23 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: And those are the same standards that are in place today for
24 egress windows?
25 MS. KADRICH: That’s my understanding.
26 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Roughly…they’re better today but they’re acceptable.
27 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: What do you mean by that?
28 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Well, in ’78 they had a different criteria, but they’re, quote
29 unquote, grandfathered in. They don’t make people lower the sills, and people can get out of
30 them generally, it’s just a taller sill.
31 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, I think we close the questions….
32 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: And Daphne, I just wanted to respond to some of your
33 comments. I think…you had referred to a land use change on a number of occasions and I just
35
1 want to clarify that this isn’t a land use change, that it’s actually…this is an approved use, and
2 you know, based on all of our discussion, it’s actually a pre-existing use that’s being reinstituted.
3 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Yeah, thanks for making that point.
4 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, Board discussion?
5 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Well, I appreciate what you’re saying Mike…Mike’s right in
6 that we’re not doing a building…you’re correct…but it just helped tie some of the conversation
7 in, that was all…and to Daphne’s point. I still have a little…because it’s not defined in
8 code…I’m having a little hard time…from the residents perspective, I’m having a hard time
9 seeing how possibly due process was had since it went through the Director. And nothing was
10 brought up today, but I did read all of that. And they make a good point, and we’ve talked about
11 it here on the Board before is…and I’m not saying there will be a problem…but if there is a
12 problem, who’s enforcing it? Well, it’s the same people who are complaining because planning
13 doesn’t…you know, Noah doesn’t go inspect properties…you’ve asked that question before. It’s
14 completely a complaint-driven process and there are things to do, so I just…my concern when I
15 say…you know, I’m not sure, you know, full due process necessarily for the residents has been
16 gone through…so I just completely can sympathize. They feel like they weren’t included in the
17 process, but they’re going to be the ones stuck enforcing it. And I live in NCB; I’ve been there
18 30 years; I have renters all around me…I’ve been the guy enforcing for 30 years, and it gets
19 really…it gets old. Now, that said, I have no problem innately with fraternities, and I don’t
20 assume there will be a problem; I’m just saying I can understand their concern that they don’t
21 feel like they got due process because in the end they will be the ones having to enforce it.
22 CHAIR BELLO: But as Paul has indicated, isn’t the due process…would be the same
23 whether it went to P and Z or went to administrative review or to us. The process is the same,
24 public hearing…
25 BOARDMEMBER LONG: But their hearing was after the…now they feel like this is
26 after the fact…you know what I mean. So, they do have a due process, it’s just been crippled by
27 the…what do you call it…the muteness of the Code in the fact that it got changed…started as a
28 minor and they all showed up for a meeting and then it... If you go…and not a complaint, but if
29 you go through those emails…I don’t know, my voice…there’s always a reference to, well, at
30 the next meeting…well, there was never a next meeting. And I’m not saying that’s right or
31 wrong or process wasn’t followed, but clearly the residents didn’t…you know…it wasn’t clear to
32 them what the process was. It never is…I mean it’s not always clear to us, obviously, and so as
33 residents…so they were confused…so that’s my only concern is…it was left to the Director’s
34 decision and I can see where they’re…I’m sympathetic with their concerns because as far as, in
35 the end, they will end up being the ones having to deal with it.
36 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: Well, that’s what I was wondering, if they…you know,
37 when I asked Paul, do you deny the change use based on impact to the neighborhood because of
36
1 visual observation of the street and the alley showed that the two properties…with eight off-
2 street parking were completely full, and I did view cars parked in the alley. And so that supports
3 twelve, with a full parking lot and overflow in the alley. So now we’re supporting eighteen with
4 the same number of parking spaces. I don’t know that there’s any thought as to why it would be
5 any different. And I completely appreciate the fact that Mr. Milewski was thoughtful and
6 collaborative in looking for alternative parking spaces, but that’s not part of the lot, and so I
7 think really can’t be given consideration there. So, from that standpoint, it doesn’t appear to be
8 operationally compatible when occupancy at twelve puts overflow traffic in an alley.
9 CHAIR BELLO: But you don’t know that those…overflow parking is from that
10 residence. And, the Code says that the three or more needs two parking spaces per three
11 bedroom, so we’ve got…it meets Code.
12 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: There’s been discussion, though, that the Code needs to be
13 updated.
14 CHAIR BELLO: Well, that’s…
15 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: But that’s still operational impact.
16 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: So, can I interrupt just for a second and…I guess the big
17 picture is…so, the reason for the…the grounds for appeal were Director improperly issued
18 change of use permit for which there is no provision in the Code, appropriate procedure for
19 proposing a permitted use in…is Article 2, section 2.1.2, fraternity uses must be reviewed by the
20 Planning and Zoning Board under Article 4. So, my understanding is…our question today is,
21 was appropriate procedure followed by the Director. And really, our job is not to evaluate how
22 many parking spaces should be here…that’s really…that’s not our expertise. That’s not our job
23 on this Board. So, I would like to kind of point discussion to whether appropriate procedure was
24 followed, and whether this appeal should be granted or denied. And I think that’s what our job is
25 today, is that I guess if…as far as clarification from Paul or Noah, would that be correct?
26 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Well, I think your job is to analyze whether
27 this plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, complies with the Article 3 and Article 4 standards.
28 You think that it’s a procedural question, and it can be. And I expect that it’ll be brought up
29 again at the next appeal to the City Council once this Board decides. We think that we followed
30 the proper procedure, Ms. Roskie does not. And you can decide that issue as well. But, I do
31 think you must decide whether it, to the extent reasonably feasible, complies with the Article 3
32 and Article 4 standards, because that’s what section 3.8.25…whatever section…tells you to do.
33 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Okay, so first of all would be the question of whether or not
34 the procedure was appropriately followed, because if we determine that it’s not, then the appeal
35 would be granted without any further discussion, correct? Or…
37
1 CHAIR BELLO: It would be denied.
2 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Right, the appeal would be granted, so the decision would
3 be overturned, correct?
4 CHAIR BELLO: Oh, you’re right.
5 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: I don’t know what procedural issue you would
6 base that on…if the challenge is that the Director shouldn’t have made that decision, then I guess
7 you could overturn it.
8 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: That it should have gone to Planning and Zoning, which is
9 what the appeal was, correct?
10 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: If you believe that this is not properly before
11 you and should have been before someone else, then I guess you can close your meeting without
12 making any decision. But, that’s not our recommendation.
13 CHAIR BELLO: So do we want to have a discussion, do we think this was…?
14 BOARDMEMBER LONG: I want to correct Paul, when he said reasonably feasible was
15 in the definitions…I thought you said that earlier, it’s not there. And I think I have an
16 understanding of what reasonably feasible is. It’s a term I use.
17 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Look under E – extent reasonably feasible.
18 BOARDMEMBER LONG: E, okay there you go…I used reasonably…okay,
19 extent…because I kind of wanted to review that. Gosh, he proved me wrong, an attorney proved
20 me wrong, go figure.
21 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Well I do think we need to discuss, because it was one of
22 the biggest points brought forward by the attorney, is that they didn’t believe that the appropriate
23 procedure was followed and that it should have been reviewed by Planning and Zoning Board, so
24 I think that’s a reasonable discussion to have in this circumstance.
25 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: And you brought that up with earlier…so, I mean you had
26 concerns about that. I think, as someone who writes policy, I think the point made was, you
27 can’t anticipate every situation, it’s so hard. And so all you can really do is, you know, look at
28 the policy and try to, by proxy right, meet the same considerations and the same objectives. And
29 I think that, you know, Council has demonstrated that they…to the best of their ability based on
30 the limited, you know, policy that they did, I think without it being prescriptive; it’s a
31 prescriptive as it could have been.
38
1 CHAIR BELLO: So does anybody have a feeling that the…it was not in the Director’s
2 authority to make this decision? Does anybody feel that’s the case? Because I think that’s the
3 question we’re asking.
4 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: You know, I guess my only hesitation is this…is that under
5 the abandonment period, it does state that you can…you can continue uses that have been
6 abandoned, but they have to be applicable to the general development standards, so it’s a tough
7 thing because it’s a matter of personal opinion. Well, does that mean that it’s permitted uses
8 under the Code, or does that mean you have to go through the process of the P and Z review?
9 CHAIR BELLO: That’s the question I guess.
10 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: It’s pretty vague.
11 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: And…my two cents worth is, that’s why we have P
12 and Z and that’s why we have this Board. If you make…the worst case scenario when we talk
13 about derelict buildings and blighted areas and urban renewal, and Fort Collins does not suffer
14 like a lot of the east coast cities, but…the worst case to be in is when you have an entity where
15 you can’t do anything because the code and the process just is so difficult to deal with. So then
16 you have people developing all around you and you have all of the responsibility with none of
17 the funds. And the City has worked really hard on being more user-friendly and getting
18 processes through so that we don’t see, you know, Windsor popping up with all of the…you
19 know, the show homes and everything, but all those people are commuting to Fort Collins. So,
20 in the big, broad spectrum, City Plan and City Code are…you know, that’s our guidebook. And
21 at this level, when that doesn’t flow as everybody expects or you want an appeal, that’s what
22 we’re here for. So, it’s my opinion that yes, she did have the authority, and the…you know,
23 the…a couple of the little grey areas or whatever we want to term them as, brought it to this. It’s
24 working as described; it gives everybody an outlet to come speak in one place at one time. And
25 the next step…and both sides, I believe had said clearly, the final step would be City Council.
26 So, I see ours as…we’ll make a decision and one side or the other will appeal it, but we’re giving
27 an opinion at this point. So I think the process is working; I wouldn’t have any hesitation on
28 making a vote and expressing my opinion on this. And my opinion is that it was a proper
29 hearing and the process was followed. And I’ve worked with City staff, you know, this is my
30 eighteenth year; they don’t take this lightly.
31 BOARDMEMBER LONG: It took me that long to come up with…to answer your
32 question. If we think that she didn’t have the authority…and what I can say, looking at it, is it
33 doesn’t say she doesn’t have the authority. So lacking any other information, I can’t say that she
34 didn’t have the authority because there’s not information in here telling me she didn’t. Although
35 I do feel…I just wanted to say, like I said before, I can sure see why residents would feel like
36 they didn’t have due process. But the Code isn’t clear so, you know, it doesn’t say she doesn’t
37 have that authority.
39
1 CHAIR BELLO: And the City’s attorneys indicated…felt that she does have the
2 authority.
3 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: Yeah, I completely agree; zoning allows it, it’s a prior use.
4 There’s some grey area in how they determine, but…I don’t see any problem here, I mean with
5 what happened. So I would vote to uphold the decision.
6 BOARDMEMBER SHIELDS: I agree, I don’t see any better person than the Director to
7 make the decision on something like this. It’s an allowed use…yeah.
8 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, so…
9 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: I only have one quick thing to say, I would just ask,
10 as far as the trash…we have an office building and we had a similar incident. It’s an office
11 building that borders residential. And we converted from a metal container dumpster to three
12 residential type trash units and then that triggers their picking it up off the street during the day,
13 because that did seem problematic to me, running a trash truck down that alley early in the
14 morning. If you just switch from commercial trash to residential trash, it cures that. The
15 students just have to roll the three dumpsters out there as our tenants in our office building do.
16 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: I just have one comment to make. I don’t disagree that, as
17 Bob said, there’s nothing that says the Director didn’t have the authority, and I think that based
18 on Council…and it was done with good will and the right intentions. And based on…there is a
19 gap, I think, in the Code, and I think everyone agrees with that. And I think it was done
20 appropriately. My concern is that there is some subjectivity in that, by lack of prescriptive
21 guidance, and that subjectivity is making the decision that it’s not operationally incompatible.
22 But there’s no prescribed criteria to make that determination, and so to me, that warrants a more
23 robust process. And I’m not saying that it wasn’t within her authority or that it wasn’t done in
24 good will and with due diligence. I’m not saying that at all; I agree with that. But…the lack of
25 prescriptive guidance about how the decision is made subjectively to determine no impact gives
26 me pause. And so, in that way, I would look for a more robust process.
27 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, any other comments?
28 BOARDMEMBER LONG: I agree with Daphne.
29 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, I’m going to make a motion then. Paul, do I need to do the
30 detrimental to the public good and…none of that stuff? Okay.
31 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: The Code simply requires you to either
32 uphold, overturn or modify the decision of the Director.
33 CHAIR BELLO: Okay, thank you. So, I make a motion to uphold the decision of the
34 CDNS, and I believe that’s Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Director, and
40
1 with the conditions as stated: the building occupants shall be limited to 18 occupants, no
2 fraternity meeting shall exceed 18 attendees, and eight off-street parking spaces shall be proved
3 as shown in the plan dated 8/26/15.
4 MR. BEALS: I think you meant 3/26.
5 CHAIR BELLO: I’m sorry…did I say 8…3/26/18…3/26/15, thank you.
6 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: Second.
7 CHAIR BELLO: Discussion?
8 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Yeah, I guess I just wanted to close the loop on some of the
9 original discussions about whether or not this was an appropriate procedure. And I appreciate
10 everybody’s input on that, and I think mostly because of the fact that that was…that was brought
11 up as the question in the appeal, I thought it was worth discussion. I thought that that’s
12 something we should all voice our opinion or concern about. I do feel like the Director did her
13 due diligence in assessing the situation. You know, she had voiced in her testimony that she felt
14 that, you know, public input was correct and that, you know, she had gone forward with the
15 minor amendment process, but because of the fact that, you know, they didn’t have an approved
16 site plan, it was only the building permit, you actually couldn’t go through that process. So then,
17 went to the next most logical step, which…I would support that as well.
18 CHAIR BELLO: Thank you. Paul was that motion acceptable? I don’t need to expound
19 on it any more from the standpoint…okay. Okay, any other discussion? Roll call please,
20 Marcha.
21 MS. HILL: Shuff?
22 BOARDMEMBER SHUFF: Yes.
23 MS. HILL: Long?
24 BOARDMEMBER LONG: Yes.
25 MS. HILL: Shields?
26 BOARDMEMBER SHIELDS: Yes.
27 MS. HILL: Bello?
28 CHAIR BELLO: Yes.
29 MS. HILL: Bear?
30 BOARDMEMBER BEAR: No.
41
1 MS. HILL: Stockover?
2 BOARDMEMBER STOCKOVER: Yes.
3 MS. HILL: McCoy?
4 BOARDMEMBER MCCOY: Yes.
5 CHAIR BELLO: So appeal BPA15001 is denied…the Director’s opinion has been
6 upheld. Thank you.
ATTACHMENT 13
Staff Powerpoint presentation
to Council
July 21, 2015
Fraternity Use Appeal, 201 E Elizabeth Street
Tom Leeson Interim Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director
Fraternity Use Appeal
Recent Actions:
• On May 14th
, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
approved the motion to uphold the decision of the
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
(CDNS) Director in approving the change of use, of the
property located at 201 E Elizabeth Street, to a Fraternity.
• Three separate appeals of the ZBA’s decision were filed.
2
Fraternity Use Appeal
Appellant Parties:
• McGrew Appeal: Aaron McGrew, Ashley McGrew, Joseph
Piesman, Ray Frush, Lisa Moravan, and Mark Havens
• Snyder Appeal: John Snyder
• Laupa Appeal: Cindy Laupa and John Laupa
(represented by Jamie Baker Roskie, Attorney at Law)
3
Fraternity Use Appeal
Background:
• April 15th
, 2015 the CDNS Director issued a building
permit to change the use of the property located at 201 E
Elizabeth Street to Fraternity, with the following
conditions:
• The building shall be limited to 18 occupants
• No Fraternity meeting shall exceed 18 attendees
• 8 off-street parking spaces are provided as shown
on the site plan dated 03/26/2015
4
Fraternity Use Appeal
Background: Approved 1978 Site Plan
5
Fraternity Use Appeal
Background: Site Plan dated 03/26/2015
6
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• Collectively, the 3 appealing parties (McGrew, Snyder
and Laupa) have filed 8 allegations.
• 3 Allege: Failure to properly interpreted and apply
relevant provision of the Land Use Code.
• 2 Allege: Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the
Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction.
• 3 Allege: Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the
Board considered evidence relevant to its findings
that was substantially false or grossly misleading.
7
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• McGrew Appeal alleges the Land Use Code was
improperly interpreted and applied, specifically section
2.2.10(A)(1)(a) through(g). This section of the Land Use
Code is titled ‘Amendments’.
• The approval to change the use was not reviewed
through a Minor Amendment. Therefore, this
allegation was not addressed in the record of
hearing.
8
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• McGrew Appeal alleges sections of the East Side
Neighborhood Plan (ESNP) was not properly interpreted
and applied.
• In the verbatim minutes City Staff stated “ There
was mention of plans that were approved,
Eastside/Westside Plans…when we do the
application review, we look at the Land Use Code,
not necessarily the Plans of neighborhoods.”
• This allegation was not addressed further in the
record of hearing.
9
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• Snyder Appeal alleges that 3.8.25 was not properly
interpreted and applied, by not requiring a Project
Development Plan outlined in Article 2 of the Land Use
Code, and also by not requiring the property to be
brought up to current building code..
• No argument of this allegation was included in the
appeal application.
• Therefore, no information is provided from the
record of hearing.
10
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• Snyder Appeal alleges that the property should be
brought up to current Building Code regulations.
• Detailed discussion of compliance with the Building Code
are not addressed in the record of hearing.
11
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• Laupa Appeal alleges that Section 3.8.25 of the Land Use
Code pertaining to “abandonment” and Section 4.9(B)(3)
pertaining to the permitted uses in the N-C-B zone district
were improperly interpreted and applied.
• In the verbatim minutes Deputy City Attorney Paul
Eckman’s statement reads “The Land Use Code
lists fraternities as a permitted use in this zone
district. If it were a new fraternity, having never
existed as a fraternity ever before, then I believe…
that that would be a matter that would come before
the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.”
12
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• Laupa Appeal alleges that Section 1.7.2 of the Land Use
Code was improperly interrupted or applied. This section
is titled ‘Conflict with Other Laws’
• In the verbatim minutes Deputy Attorney Paul
Eckman’s statement reads “So, our conflict
provisions in 1.7.2 of the Land Use Code says that
the most specific provision controls over the more
general provision. So, the General provision is,
fraternities are permitted as a..(continued on next
slide)
13
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• (Continued from previous slide) use in that
zone….specifically for abandoned uses that are
sought to be started up again, you look at 3.8.25
and you go through those criteria. That’s what the
Director did.”
14
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• Laupa Appeal alleges Definitions of Article 5.1.2 were
improperly interrupted or applied.
• In the verbatim minutes Deputy Attorney Paul
Eckman’s statement, it reads “There was an
argument that the Land Use Code is
unconstitutionally vague because, who know what
‘to the extent reasonably feasible’ means. That
term is defined with some particularity in the
definition section of the Land Use Code, which is
Article 5.”
15
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• Laupa Appeal alleges provisions of the Building Code
were improperly interrupted and applied.
• As mention previously, specific details, in regards to
the allegations concerning the building code, is not
in the record of the hearing.
16
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• Snyder Appeal alleges a fair hearing was not conducted
in that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction.
• This appeal only checked the box on the application
and did not provide an argument.
• Therefore, no further information is provided from
the record of hearing.
17
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• Laupa Appeal alleges a fair hearing was not conducted in
that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction. This
appeal contends that compliance with Section 3.8.25 of
the Land Use Code was not the CDNS Director’s
decision to make.
• In the verbatim minutes Deputy city Attorney
Eckman’s statement it reads “… And as a as restart
of a previously existing permitted use, who is going
to decide that? And it just made sense that the
Director would decide it…”
18
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• McGrew Appeal alleges a fair hearing was not conducted
in that the Board considered evidence which was
substantially false or grossly misleading. This is in
regards to testimony given by Paul Milewski in reference
to the neighbors welcoming or showing appreciation
toward fraternity members.
19
Fraternity Use Appeal
Grounds for Appeal:
• Snyder and Laupa Appeals allege a fair hearing was not
conducted in that the Board considered evidence which
was substantially false or grossly misleading. Both
appeals contend that the1978 Certificate of Occupancy
for fraternity use is not valid.
• In the verbatim minutes City Staff stated “I did
review with Mike Gebo, the Chief Building Official,
…what the current Certificate of Occupancy is, and
he did say it is the fraternity occupancy.”
20
ra
:::
t-=-er:-:n:-!:ity�u
:-::
s
:::
e-. ..,ln�d::-;u
:-::
d::;:e:-:s=-p�a=rt(=in
:::
g:-rlo=t:-:a::-:n::-:d.-'-1a
:::
n�d�sc::-:a:-:p:-:e
:'""
io:=m:-:p
:-:r� o
v
:-::
e:-:me=n
:::
s-=t=-p-= e-=-r
..
th:-:e:-:s
:-..
•t� e----
plan. (This application s
ubmjtdte under protestl.
Contact Name & Phone# of JOBSITE SUPERVISOR:
-----
Subcontractor Info:
Electrical _____ Mechanical _____ �------- Plumbing-----
Framer ____Roofing _____ concrete----- Fireplace-----
Solar----- rnher _______________ _ Other ___________ _ Other ________ _
Distribution: While- Office Yelov1-Applicant Pink-WVWI/IStormwater
THIS APPLICATION EXPIRES 160 DAYS FROM APPLICATION DATE
ASPHALT /PAVERS
TURF I SHURBS I
GROUND COVER
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
7
SITE DATA
TOTAL SITE AREA:
BUILDING FLOOR AREA:
SITE AREA PARKING LOT
l.l.D PAVERS
LANDSCAPE AREA
ZONING DISTRICT:
TOTAL BEDROOMS:
TOTAL MAX. OCCUPANCY
PARKING PROVIDED:
HC PARKING:
STANDARD PARKING
PARKING REQUIRED:
BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED:
COVERED REQUIRED:
UNCOVERED REQUIRED:
BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED:
COVERED: 185 SF
UNCOVERED:
18,870 SF
5,400 SF
3,055 SF
785 SF (25.6%)
302 SF (10%)
8
NCB: NEIGHBORHOOD
CONSERVATION I BUFFER DISTRICT
9
24
8 SPACES
1 SPACE
7 SPACES
2 SPACES FOR EVERY 3 BEDROOMS
(6TOTAL SPACES)
1/0CCUPANT = 24
60% = 15 SPACES
40% = 9 SPACES
24 SPACES
15SPACES
9+SPACES
5' OPAGUE
FENCE T•-r---x-eoo·~ x-x-x-'Tl >-------------- 8.00" -------------1
IF=------vAN ACCESIBLE
SIGN
(AS REQ'D)
5 .00'
PAVEMENT
HANDICAP SIGN
3
nRESERJED
PAR<!~
1.5' - ~
2.oa
4
9GA. SHT. METAL
MOUNTEDW/2
CHROME ROUND
HEAD SCREWS,
\M-llTE
BACKGROUND TO 3"
DIA. PAINTED STEEL
PIPING
SILKSCREEN INTERNATIONAL
HG SYMBOL, \\1-i lTE ON BLUE
BACKGROUND
GREEN LEGEND & BORDER
N.T.S.
I D j ..
h-'-.._ - --- (-2) 3 X4 ----/ ~ti
I ~ 3-YAADBINS ~ I
I "" *"'-- TRASH I RECYCLY /'!' 4.00' CLEARANCE
~ ________ J_J
TRASH ENCLOSURE N.T.S. CEDAR PRIVACY FENCE N.T.S.
5 6 7 8
A
c
D
E
ANSID(24X36)
DRAWN
" REV!S!ONS
t--<
VJ ~
~ VJ
t--< ~
~o
~ ~
~ :>-<
N !---< !t-----< <
~ ~
t--< ~
VJ t--<
-~~ µ...
0
N
0
V")
0
M
SHEET:
0
0
;:i
0
..l
0
u
"z '
:i
..l
0
u
u ""f- 0 " '
..l
"""Ul f- 0..«: z .' ' ' . l
0..
::i
Ji
..l
0
0
;;l
SP-1
I OF 1
201 E. ELIZABETH ST
FORT COLLINS, CO