HomeMy WebLinkAboutHORSETOOTH EAST BUSINESS PARK, BIGHORN OFFICE BUILDING (LOT 2) - PRELIMINARY/FINAL - 43-94E - CORRESPONDENCE -those "contained in the industrial uses section of the E - Employment zoning district." This
determination appears to be more restrictive than the "overlapping uses" condition which you had
found, earlier in your decision, to be appropriate. In other words, under paragraph 4 of your
"Findings and Conclusions," office usage would be allowed, since I "overlaps" between the E and
I zoning districts. Under your staff s interpretation of paragraph 1 of your decision, office use is
apparently not permitted since it does not fall within the provisions of Section 4.22 (B) (2) (c) of
the Code (which is only a part of the uses which overlap between the E and I districts).
We respectfully request that you clarify or modify your December 4, 1997 decision so that the
"Decision" language is consistent with the "Findings and Conclusions" language and thereby
allow any overlapping use which is defined in the Code for the E and I zoning districts.
With the current "stop" placed on the processing of this application it is important that I quickly
understand what is taking place. We have a deadline of November I" for occupancy of this space
by the tenant and as such I need to commence construction fairly soon. I am also in the process
of completing another transaction that would fall under the same situation and that would
complete the 8,000 sf allocation. So I am asking you to give this matter your consideration as
soon as possible and call me at 1-303-442-8687.
Thank you in advance for your time.
Very truly yours
Richard L. Woodruff
"� qllllq�l
September 11, 1998 Spio�6t o/ )%_c-� Ov.*Ik4
8-.2a 4w� 9/1q/9S--
Mr. Bob Blanchard L—..w 4'( er to us
City Fort Collins C ` SUS I�
Current
t Planning Director 4,,4
VIA HAND DELIVERY IJd Gp,�'dp,r d>J 44 GS 2
Dear Bob: '��PL
My company, The W.W. Companies, recently submitted an applica ' n for a tenant finish permit
at 3800 Automation Way. The application was for a group calle utheran Family Services and
was for —5000 sf of space on the second floor of the buildin ike Blank with Rincon
Development, the contractor on the tenant finish, was con cted by Jenny in your office on
Wednesday that the permit could no longer be processe ecause the planned use was not
permitted under the current zoning for this property. e indicated that we would need to speak
with Steve Ohlt which I did on Wednesday and as a yet he has no returned my call so I felt it
was important that I try to reach someone regardit Tt11 a er.
It was my understanding when we went through the review process back in November and
December, 1997, with you and Steve, that we were being granted an "E - Employment District"
zoning destination, but with an "I - Industrial zoning district use restriction. The "Findings and
Conclusions" contained in your December 4, 1997 decision indicate that it would be appropriate
to limit the use of this building to "overlapping uses contained in both E - Employment and I -
Industrial zoning districts." Among the overlapping uses contained in both districts are "offices,
financial services and clinics" under the general heading "Commercial/Retail Uses." We realize
that it was your position that the office (i.e., "Commercial/Retail") would be subject to the
restriction contained in Section 4.22 (D) (1) of the Code, but even that would still allow up to
25% of the gross area of the building to be devoted to office users, as we discussed with you at
that time. Based on the foregoing, we understood that we would be able to have approximately
8,000 square feet of the building dedicated to office users. We have therefore negotiated with
Lutheran for the above -mentioned 5,000 square feet, on that basis.
It appears that the confusion may arise out of the language of paragraph 1 of the "Decision"
portion of your December 4, 1997 decision. That paragraph states that uses will be limited to "'°"N'r"
V