The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/09/2002 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday,May 09,2002 Roll Call Approval of the Minutes from the January 10, 2002 Meeting Appeal. 2382 1118 W Oak St The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in the existing detahced garage. Specifically the variance would allow the owner to have a hair salon in a portion of the existing garage. The home does not have an attached garage. Code Sections: 3.8.3(1) Petitioner: Michael Spearnak ZoningDistrict NCL Appeal. 2383 2802 CHASE DR The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to 8.31 feet for the northenmost deck and from 15 feet to 3.91 feet for the southernmost deck.. The decks are on the rear of each unit of this duplex building. Code Sections: 3.5.2(D)(3) Petitioner: TRAVIS ROBSON p ZoningDistrict LMN Appeal: 2384 907 Mathews St The variance would reduce the required lot area from 10,000 sf to 8,288 sf in order to allow the construction of a new 800 sf carriage house dwelling on the rear portion of the lot. The lower level of the proposed building will be a 2 car garage, and the upper level will be a 1 bedroom dwelling unit. Code Sections: 4.7(D)(1) Petitioner: Mikal Torgerson ZoningDistrict NCM Other Business: a Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday, May 09, 2002 Appeal 2382 Address 1118 W Oak St Petitioner Michael Spearnak Zoning District NCL Section 3.8.3(1) Description The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in the existing detached garage. Specifically, the variance would allow the owner to have a hair salon in a portion of the existing garage. The home does not have an attached garage. Hardship The home owner has a small scale hair cutting salon that she would like to conduct out of her home in the garage. If the garage were attached there would be no need for the variance. Staff Cofnntents This is similar to other requests for home occupations in the old part of town. The detached building is existing, and there is no attached garage. Appeal 2383 Address 2802 CHASE DR Petitioner Travis Robson Zoning District LMN Section 3.5.2(D)(3) Description The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to 8.31 feet for the northern most deck and from 15 feet to 3.91 feet for the southern most deck. The decks are on the rear of each unit of this duplex building. Hardship See petitioner's letter. Staff Co»tntents This is a self-imposed hardship because the decks were constructed without a permit. Therefore, this probably does not qualify as a hardship variance, and the Board would need to find that "the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard". In this case, the lot in question backs to a proposed "small neighborhood park". If the lot backed up to another residential lot, staff believes it would not be possible to find that the proposal submitted promotes the standard equally well or better than one that complies. However, since a park will be constructed behind this lot, the Board may find that it is possible to apply the "equal to or better than" standard, pursuant to citing specific findings as to why the proposal meets that standard. �d Appeal 2384 Address 907 Mathews St Petitioner Mikal Torgerson Zoning District NCM Section 4.7(D)(1) Description The variance would reduce the required lot area from 10,000 square feet to 8,288 square feet in order to allow the construction of a new 800 square foot carriage house dwelling on the rear portion of the lot. The lower level of the proposed building will be a two-car garage, and the upper level will be a one-bedroom dwelling unit. Hardship See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments This is a self-imposed hardship since the applicant is merely wanting to build a house without the required lot area. Therefore, in order to approve a variance, the Board must determine that "the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested". In this case, the standard under consideration, a 10,000 s.f. lot area requirement (5000 s.f. per building), came about as a result of an emergency ordinance that was passed by the City Council in 1993. That ordinance was adopted in response to City Council's concern over the number of "alley houses" that were being constructed in the older Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. The emergency ordinance repealled the original 4,500 s.f. per building lot area requirement and replaced it with an "interim" lot area requirement of 5,500 s.f. per building. This increase effectively eliminated the possibility of new "alley house" construction. The emergency ordinance directed that the 5,500 s.f. requirement stay in place until City staff, in conjunction with residents of the affected neighborhoods, had an opportunity to review the issue and prepare an ordinance with appropriate recommendations within 1 year. The 1 year time-frame was extended by City Council several times due to the neighborhood controversy that surfaced with every proposed ordinance. Finally, 3 years later, the Council adopted the new 5000 s.f. lot area regulation in 1996. At the time the Council approved the new standard, the City was still using the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) as the basic zoning code. The LDGS allowed any standard to be varied by means of a PUD, without having to prove a hardship. City Council was so concerned about ensuring that the 5000 sf lot area requirement was not "abused" by variances through the PUD process, that they took the very unusual step of amending the 1996 ordinance between 1 st and 2nd reading. The amendment added wording to the NCL, NCM and NCB zones that expressly prohibited the varying of any standards by means of a PUD. Thus, any variance request from the 5000 sf lot area standard must be carefully examined to ensure that the purpose of the standard is met equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard. Prior to 2001, the ZBA could only grant variances based on a hardship. The ZBA granted no lot area reduction variances for alley homes between 1996 and 2001 because those requests were always viewed as self- imposed. However, the Code was amended in 2001 to allow the ZBA to Appeal 2384 grant "equal to or better than" variances. With that expanded authority, the Board did grant two variances in 2001 to the lot area standard. One was for a new home at the rear of a corner lot. The Board found that the overall purpose of the standard is to limit the density and number of alley houses, thereby minimizing the impact of alley homes on an alley and on the existing infrastructure, character and density of the neighborhood. The Board determined that the corner lot situation accomplished meeting the standard in part because 1) the placement of the rear dwelling oriented to, and fronted on the street along the side of the lot, thereby creating no additional alley traffic or change to existing traffic patterns, 2) the parking for the new dwelling came off of the side street, rather than the alley, and 3) the design protected the established character of the neighborhood which consisted of homes fronting on streets and of other homes having been constructed on the rear portion of the other corner lots. The other lot area variance approved in 2001 was to reduce the lot area requirement essentially from 20,000 sf to 19,000 square feet in order to allow a total of 4 single family homes (2 existing, older homes to remain, and 2 new homes to be constructed). In this case, the applicant submitted a development proposal for a large duplex for which no variance was required since the lot area was sufficient to allow one new duplex. The neighbors objected to the - proposed duplex and preferred that the 2 new dwelling units take the form of 2 small single family homes instead. Since the applicant had already submitted a plan that complied with the Code, the Board found that 2 small single family homes met the standard better than would a duplex because the proposed homes 1) did not increase the density beyond what would occur with the permitted duplex, 2) did not increase the impact to the alley beyond what would have occurred with the permitted duplex, and 3) the proposed "alley houses" would preserve the historic attributes of the nearby properties and would protect the special character of the neighborhood better than would a duplex. The particular request now before the Board is different than the previous two in that this is not a corner lot fronting on 2 streets and no dwelling unit of any kind can be built without a variance (whereas the 2nd one described above allowed a duplex to be constructed in the rear without a variance). Staff has some.concern that if the Board grants this variance, it will be hard to deny similar variance requests for alley homes at the rear of lots that are interior lots. Thus, "alley creep" could begin to occur again just as it did in the 1990's. Such a phenomenon should not be allowed to occur without re- opening the process and debate that occurred in the mid 1990's. Therefore, if the Board is inclined to grant this variance, very specific findings need to be made with regards to how this plan promotes the standard equally well or better than would a plan that complies with the 4 standard. 5 cz�_t-� - I c t�-PAS, l� A 0 ML -:; n •-z; Il. i 1 -c#t - - -�__- _ _ st'._ - :.t �.- .y '� z �+�",l d r _I �. =�� _ .® '� a k _ "`" �" a '� __ _ , � F i � � � ��_ j-4r 1� f L h-. L �1 ..,` 4 � J� �I` v n� '%'wr .._ -./. T _ r� _ _ � _-._ � - .. - �..• - � 4 R� V r _. PI no ®^X- r IM i Y 1 1 � AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 34 .. FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL ' DATE: July 16, 2002 FROM: Peter Barnes SUBJECT: Consideration of the Appeal of the May 9, 2002, Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals Denying the 907 Mathews Street Lot Area Variance Request (ZBA Appeal #2384). ii RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, City Code and Charter, and after consideration uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's decision. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 9, 2002, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request to reduce the required Iot area from 10,000 square feet to 8,288 square feet in order to allow the construction of a new 800 square foot carriage house dwelling on the rear portion of the lot at 907 Mathews Street. —The property is zoned NCM—Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density. „ Notice of Appeal was received by the C'ty Clerk's office �s regardpgcision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. gn �`he4cAmena CC r ..�edotice of Appeal, from the(Appellants Mikal Torgerson and Derrick Van ersluys, 't is alleged that the Zoning Board of Appeals Earle to proper y t entipret and ap^ pTy the re eva provisions of the Code because they allege that the decision was based on extraneous standards. yof,Ab- *ph,i,L- Notice of Appeal, _, oi@ `lotice a FpeW-- * City Staff response to the appeal. * Staff Re ort, with recommendation and attached plans, to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the pvc hearing. * Minutes of the Meeting before the Zoning Board of Appeals, held May 9, 2002, including the Board's Findings, Conclusions and Decision. C—& �Thep enced �V,,d2!4=- �u.p .�t•. .�sUc-ctr-r beda-i.c.;'-e--�pt—e r� �Art icle I11.�,�D di�v'l i�sion3�-o f� � A the City Community Planning and Environmental Services Building and Zoning Department ( MM Citv of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator THRU: John Fischbach, City Manage,4 Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S. ,. " DATE: June 19, 2002 RE: Staff Response to 907 Mathews Street Zoning Board of Appeals Decision —Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding the May 9, 2002 decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the 907 Mathews Street lot area variance request (ZBA Appeal #2384). Section 2-48(b) of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: T k tk� Pt1 (and i ►ni[t r,e. vF 41�t + ;( it t tfsa tkw,t �� Z►S� Fu;lec( (1) Ito properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, 6ccac4s, c.Ktwnr $Stncla.-� 4re,-� ;+.�y�.atoar(y coKccie. ray 7!`e Q�f Plan s sto 1410L 1-koi -rl« arc oN tY a reftw..,l` t.�aY�s:a..s (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b. The board, commission or other decision maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence �t relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly 041 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80322-0580 • (970)221-6760 • FAX(970) 224-6134 misleading; or d. The board, commission or other decision maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." The Appeal: Appellants Mikal Torgerson Derrick Vandersluys 223 North College Avenue 1806 Hull Street Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Grounds for Appeal: Inert -ii p-ella-pt's written notice of appeal of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA�-decision to deny the 907 Vath-ews Street_lot area variance request, the following allegation was cited: 1. Relevant laws were t-_not properly interpreted and ap because extraneous standards improperly considered. 7kr Additional details of the Grounds for Appeal were offered (below). _courier Bold Teepresents excerpts from the appeal document. c� `? _-> _��,� � #�•� o� t'kc ��r;«,••� ivokl r,( be �tefr�m�u� l 1. The Boar z of-ad sddy consider whether the request was detrimental to the -good. The other determination that would have had to have been made in order to grant the variance was that our proposal was not detrimental to the public good. The discussion of the Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday May 09th was primarily focused on the "equal to or better than" portion of this case, with little discussion as to whether it was detrimental to the public good. Staff Response:CY The Appellants correctly state that the Board did not spend much time discussing whether or not the proposal was detrimental to the public good. However, when the motion was made to deny the appeal, boardmembers discussed whether or not it was necessary to include a finding relevant to the issue of detriment in the motion. The motion-maker did not believe that it was necessary and asked staff for input regarding the matter. The Deputy City Attorney explained that the Board is only required to make 2 a finding regarding the question of"no detriment" in order to aipprove a variance. Since the motion on the table was to deny the variance, no further discussion or finding was necessary with regard to whether the proposal was detrimental or not detrimental. The motion-maker then made it clear that the issue of detriment was not part of his motion to deny the variance. The motion was then seconded. Thus, staff contends that the standard of public detriment was properly interpreted and applied even though it was only discussed briefly. 4-- t .e, a- ►-off t� ,�T.,,4 W -� � 'attec�e t� tst �wA�11� n�eAe�rt,t G�rO� r past C0'"c.7 4Lfiv&i q«eaL 2. Decisions were based on extraneous standards. s The discussion unfortunately focused more on the precedence that the granting of this modification might set for future variances. There was also some discussion from board members who felt that the granting of this variance would be in effect "policy setting" which should be outside their purview. In the comments preceding the vote, board members offered discussion as to why they would not be supporting the variance. These reasons varied from concern about the lot size as it related to the old Land Use Development System, to the concern about setting a precedence, and "opening the floodgates" to these kinds of variances. There was extensive discussion about council action regarding alley houses in the past, with detailed staff presentation on the history of alley houses. This spawned other concerns that the granting of this variance, would essentially undermine the policy set by council regarding alley houses . ... We feel that since decisions were based on these extraneous standards, i and not those required in the Land Use Code, that relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied. The code is clear that the only findings that the board should base their decision on is u that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the ' public good or impair the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. 1ti Staff Response: The charge of the Zoning Board of Appeals in this case4to determine that the purpose of the standard for which the variance m requested will be promoted by the submitted 3 proposal equally well or better than would a proposal that complies with the standard. Therefore, in order for the Board to make such a determination, it is necessary that they understand the purpose of the standard. In this particular case the standard is found in Section 4.7(D)(1), and it requires that a minimum of 5,000 square feet of lot area be provided for each single-family dwelling that is located on a lot in the NCM zone. With regards to 907 Mathews Street, 5,000 square feet of lot area is required for the existing house and an additional 5,000 square feet of lot area is required for the proposed house. Thus the standard in the Code requires a total of 10,000 square feet of lot area in order to construct an additional home a e rear of the lot. Since the 10,000 square foot standard was the direct result of age ergency ordinance and a subsequent 3 year public outreach effort, staff bekwedthat it was nveeessert4o providehe Board with a detailed presentation (summarized in the following paragraph) on the history of the standard in order for them to understand the purpose of the standard. The emergency ordinance was adopted in December 1993 in response to City Council's concern over the number of "alley houses" that were being constructed in the older Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. The ordinance repealed the original 4,500 square foot per building lot area requirement and replaced it with an "interim" lot area requirement of 5,500 square feet per building. This increase effectively eliminated the possibility of new "alley house" construction. The emergency ordinance directed that the 5,500 square foot requirement stay in place until City staff, in conjunction with a consultant and residents of the affected neighborhoods, had an opportunity to review the issue and prepare an ordinance with appropriate recommendations within one year. The one-year time frame was extended by City Council several times due to the neighborhood controversy that surfaced with every proposed ordinance. Finally, three years later, the Council adopted the new 5000 square lot area regulation in 1996. At the time the Council approved the new standard, the City was still using the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) as the basic zoning code. The LDGS allowed any standard to be varied by means of a PUD, without having to prove a hardship. City Council was so concerned about ensuring that the 5,000 square foot lot area requirement was not "abused" by variances through the PUD process, that they took the unusual step of amending the 1996 ordinance between 1" and 2nd reading. The amendment added wording to the NCL, NCM, and NCB zones that expressly prohibited the varying of any standards by means of a PUD. Staff centerds, tt'recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals, that given the origin of the standard in question, any variance from the , -#ae't lot area standard must be carefully examined to ensure that the purpose of the standard is met. Since the purpose of the standard4t;an bedir�ctl�/ racd to City Council's policy as stated in the 1993 emergency "�o Ir.aRt �1t ex r+e- � ordinance and t c�resu mg 1996 ordinance, it was appropriate for the Zoning Board of Appeals to be concerned about changing that very clear policy by granting a variance. c..te WAS C,ISO f_y& J J 440"1- Seff,-S a e,V(_P rr,. a r,, ,•,'`: e� ulta#,4618 emffoseed Concern if this particular variance were granted"it would be hard to deny similar variance requests for alley homes at the rear of lots. Thus, t} proliferation of alley houses could begin to occur without re-opening the process and debate that occurred in the mid-1990's. There was discussion at the May 9ch hearing 4 about the ability to convert the existing home on the lot into a duplex, triplex, or fourplex without the need for a variance since the lot was of adequate size to accommodate such use. In light of this, the Board discussed whether or not the placement of an additional home at the back of the lot, resulting in a density of only 2 dwelling units on the property, was any worse than converting the existing home to a duplex, triplex, or fourplex. Staff explained to the Board that almost every existing home on a lot in the NCM zone could be converted in that manner without a variance, and if the 907 Mathews appeal was granted, then every property owner could petition for a similar variance, claiming that building an alley house is preferable to converting the existing home to something else. However, when City Council amended the Code in 1996, they understood that the existing homes could be converted, and they did not have a problem with both a multi-family on the front and an alley house in the rear as long as the lot was of a sufficient size. What was of concern to Council at that time was not the potential for conversions of existing homes, but of the proliferation of new alley houses. This concern manifested itself in regulations that significantly limited the number of new alley houses that would be allowed based on a lot area formula. Therefore, the Zoning Board rightly discussed the issue of precedence with regards to allowing alley houses a po . Since limiting alley housing was the intent of the 1996 ordinance and is the purpose of the existing standard, it really doesn't matter what use is on the front of the lot. Conclusions: -Staff contend that the Zoning Board of Appeals properly applied and interpreted relevant laws. 1. The standards established in 1996 are not extraneous, but are relevant with regards to understanding the origin and purpose of the 5,000 square foot lot area requirement. Even though the NCM zone lot area requirement was established prior to the adoption of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the standard to limit the construction of alley houses is the same today as it was in 1996. In fact, when the Land Use Code was adopted, the City Council did not make changes to any of the NCM regulations. The NCM regulations were simply "rolled over" into the new Land Use Code. Therefore, consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals of prior ordinances and regulations was relevant to the decision making process regarding 907 Mathews Street in order to determine if the proposal would promote the purpose of the standard. 2. It was proper for the Board to be concerned about precedence since the granting of this variance could result in alley houses on almost all lots in the NCM zone simply b prope4 nwner Kati #aving 2-separate-houses4s-no-wo.rse.than_haaciag one-duplex,tripl-ex,-car#earptex. Such a ruling would undermine the purpose of the standard to limit the construction of alley houses, and therefore consideration of precedence was relevant in order to ensure that the purpose of the standard was not compromised. 5 3. It was relevant for the Board to understand that City Council established policy to limit the construction of alley houses when the Code was amended in 1996, and that the Zoning Board of Appeals was not the appropriate policy making body to approve a variance that could result in changing an existing policy. May 31, 2002 Q E C E � W E 2002 Wanda Krajicek CITY CLERK City Hall West 300 West Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Ms. Krajiecek: I am writing on behalf of my client Derrick Vandersluys to request an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals # 2384. Derrick is the owner of a property at 907 Mathews, which is the subject of this appeal. He resides at 1806 Hull Street, Fort Collins, CO 80526. His phone number is 970-266-1162. 1 will be acting as his representative, so as such, we would appreciate any correspondence regarding this be sent to Mikal Torgerson, 223 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 This appeal was filed to request a variance to 4.7(d)(1) which is the minimum lot size requirement for a detached dwelling in the NCM zone district. As required by the code, our application argued that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. A majority of the members of zoning board of appeals board did in their discussions agree that our proposed carriage house did "preserve the character of this area" better than would a compliant plan le. if the single family house in the front were converted into a fourplex which is allowed under the code. This majority sentiment would have satisfied half of the requirements to grant the modification. The other determination that would have had to have been made in order to grant the variance was that our proposal was not determined to be detrimental to the public good. The discussion of the Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday May 09`h was primarily focused on the "equal or better than" portion of this case, with little discussion as to whether it was detrimental to the public good. The discussion unfortunately focused more on the precedence that the granting of this modification might set for future variances. There was also some discussion from board members who felt that the granting of this variance would be in effect "policy setting" which should be outside their purview. In the comments preceding the vote, board members offered discussion as to why they would not be supporting the variance. These reasons 223 NO (oIlege varied from concern about the lot size as it related to the old Land Use Foil[olmt.LO80524 970416.7431 '888.416.7431 Fax:970.416.7435 Email:mika4mckilex.com hff://wwwofdtifex.cw City C,I rk 0 \1CI\ i I . >_002 Development System, to the concern about setting precedence, and "opening the floodgates" to these kinds of variances. There was extensive discussion about council action regarding alley houses in the past, with a detailed staff presentation on the history of alley houses. This spawned other concerns that the granting of this variance, would essentially undermine the policy set by council regarding alley houses. It was even suggested during the hearing by the chairman of the board, that we might want to appeal this case to council who would be a more appropriate policy making body to consider the question. We feel that since decisions were based on these extraneous standards, and not those required in the land use code, that relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied. The code is clear that the only findings that the board should base their decision on is that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. We, therefore, respectfully request that we be given the opportunity to present our appeal to the Fort Collins City Council. Sincerely, MikalT erson v Derrick Vandersluys d-3 S I Le-,Her fd �ay ay e April 23, 2002 Z6)+ For q Peter Barnes City of Fort Collins 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr Barnes: I am writing on behalf of my client Derrick Vandersluys to request a variance for Division 4.7 (D)(1) of the land use code which reads: Density/Intensity of Development. Minimum lot area shall be the equivalent of two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. For the purposes of this subsection, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty(120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least eight(8) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area). In my clients case, the five thousand square feet of lot area per dwelling unit would apply. The property in question has 8,288 square feet of lot area. We are requesting a variance because we believe that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. The Purpose statement for the Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District reads; intended to preserve the character of areas that have a predominance of developed single-family and low- to medium-density multi-family housing and have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. This site falls within the East Side Neighborhood Plan (subarea plan). The site in question was designated as multi-family on the Existing Land Use survey Included in this plan. It was suggested as Neighborhood Preservation District zoning by the East Side Neighborhood Plan. The NP zone district also allowed multi-family. It is our belief that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good, on the contrary, since we are proposing an 800 square foot designated affordable housing unit on the back of this property we believe that this use would substantially address the following important community needs defined in City Plan Principles and Policies: City Plan Principles and Policies Housing PRINCIPLE HSG-1: A variety of housing types and densities will be available throughout the urban area for all income levels. 223 Narlh College For}Coll m.{0 80524 I6,1431 Policy HSG-1.2 Housing Supply. The City will encourage public and private, 910.4 970.4416.7431 Fox:970.416.7435 Email:mikol@orchiicx.com h4://wwwarchtlLx.com for-profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of single- and multiple-family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing, that is proportionately balanced to the wages of our - labor force. Policy HSG-1.3 Accessory Housing Units. The City will recognize accessory housing units as a viable form of additional, and possibly affordable Dousing, and will develop special permit procedures, criteria, and restrictions governing their existence that are designed to facilitate their development while protecting existing residential neighborhood character. Policy HSG-1.4 Land for Residential development. The City will permit residential development in all neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy HSG-1.5 Special Needs Housing. The housing needs of all special populations within the community should be met. Residential-car facilities, shelters, group homes, elderly housing, and low-income housing should be dispersed throughout the Fort Collins urban area and the region. PRINCIPLE HSG-2: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of existing housing stock. Policy HSG-2.2 Incentives. The City will support and encourage the private development of affordable housing by offering incentives and reducing local government barriers to the construction of additional units. Policy HSG-2.5 distribution of Affordable Housing. The City will encourage a community-wide distribution of affordable housing in all neighborhoods to promote diverse neighborhoods. We also contend that this variance if granted would not impair the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. We believe that our proposal is compatible not only with the zoning recommendation recommended in the East Side Neighbor hood plan (the adopted subarea plan for this area), but that it would also preserve the character of this area which has a low- to medium-density single and multi-family housing mix. The architecture of the proposed carriage house draws heavily from the existing historic architecture of the neighborhood, as is the massing and proportioning. We would also like the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider that the existing residence is a corner lot and that the proposed carriage house would also be on an alley corner. We feel that this would also mitigate any impact that might result from our proposal. Sincerely, Mikal S. Torgerson a rtkt :V" � I YII is Hill - �� Y �+� I 11IIII41 IiI1��lI Rill. i11 � klfll .�� I I !I k♦ - a Ii W v ' I t r " f W Y ym yam/ .j � I X\G n le a! e It a � ce ce E / ---.-- nE T—7 I gig om;o W. ' ---�- A-9 Ile Ifa e W �C% o �N WQ Q � - Q Q' .D•.LL 44 ford i?Au 3dofi -ne--raus..I aria WVVQ NO srris 2GAO ar.r i i Ln i N�3dOfi 7-w.;,eus of aka up1 • acrfg rc a--m JLMCrO,-.r r I i Q WW N Q Q Q .m,9c I i l .0'.t i .S•.11 .{f•.S � � b _ u m a owl mz 13.0 r a� �s i a Q - 7 4 -..�.., U �..� Alimama Msrr o[b I MEN&NI a +9 —tip bob 1` r Fig I i s . � I 4 l The City Structure Plan is one step in the City Plan process, intended to clarify how we move to a clear plan for the city's future. The City Structure Plan is focused primarily on the physical form and development pattern of the city. The City Structure Plan is a map that sets forth a basic framework, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20 years. It will serve as a blueprint towards the desired future described in Community Vision & Goals 2015. The vision diagrammed in the City Structure Plan shows changes and choices about how our city might develop. The Plan reflects significant decisions made in several key areas: • density and land conservation • infill development • direction of growth • commercial development patterns • transportation choices • system of open lands The City Structure Plan illustrates a future city made up of four basic kinds of places: • Neighborhoods • Districts • Corridors • Edges The organization of these places-- their "structure" — gives meaning and form to our community's vision. These are not intended to be thought of as single-use "zones" in the sense of traditional land use zoning patterns, but rather as distinct and diverse places that contain mixtures of uses and activities. This report includes a description of the planning process that led to the preparation of the City Structure Plan, as well as an overview of the primary building blocks and choices represented by the Plan. City Structure Plan Introduction February 18, 1997 67 Choices Made by the City Structure Plan When reviewing the City Structure Plan, it is important to understand some of the choices that are represented by the Plan. The key choices that are represented by the City Structure Plan are described below. Density One of the choices made is about the density of our neighborhoods... how many dwelling units are built on each acre of land. Our existing neighborhoods have developed at an overall average density of about 4 dwelling units per acre. The City Structure Plan recommends that new neighborhoods have a minimum overall average density of about 5 dwellings per acre, resulting in a more compact urban form. These areas are shown on the City Structure Plan as "Low Density Mixed-Use Neighbor- hoods." The "Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods" shown on the City Structure Plan have higher densities -- 12 dwelling units per acre. These Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods are located next to Neighborhood Commercial Centers, Community Commercial Districts, and/or along existing or future transit routes. Infll Development Most of the city's new housing will be built in areas that are currently undeveloped. ` However, some new housing will also be built in existing neighborhoods. Some homes will be built on lots that are currently vacant. Some will be second homes added to lots that are large enough to accommodate an additional housing unit, or as "granny flats" above garages. Some will be redevelopment of underutilized properties in a neighborhood. ("Underutilized" means a relatively low level of economic value of improvements compared to the underlying land value, and/or land that is physically capable of supporting additional development.) The City Structure Plan assumes that about ten percent of the new housing built over the next twenty years will be in the form of infill development in existing neighborhoods, designed to be in character with existing development. k1 J,4 City Structure Plan City Structure Plan February 18, 1997 73 PRINCIPLE LU-3: The City Structure Plan will be used to provide a geographic depiction of how these City Plan Principles and Policies are applied throughout the city. Policy LU-3.1 General.Area Designations. The City Structure Plan will identify where the various designations apply within the Fort Collins urban growth boundary as an indication of the City's intent to maintain certain conditions within these areas or to promote certain types of development. Policy LU-3.2 Amendments. Any significant changes to the area designations identified in the City Structure Plan will require an amendment to the City Structure Plan and adequate public participation. The City Structure Plan will be reviewed and evaluated on a regular basis. Policy LU Develop - nt Regulations Established. Within each general area designation, spec i lopment regulations will be established to provide greater detail regarding the i tensiiy Of activity desired, sequence and timing of development, and to address s p1plific issues related to the types of uses and character of development and other crite k, to be accommodated. PRINCIPLE LU-4: More specific subarea planning efforts will follow the adoption of these City Plan Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's city-wide perspective to individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges. Policy LU-4.1 Planning within. the Context of City Plan. City Plan establishes city- wide policies. Subarea plans are needed to help implement City Plan by applying its general, city-wide policies to a specific subarea. Through the process of subarea planning, City Plan may be amended over time to respect differing subarea needs and characteristics, incorporating new ideas that are consistent with City Plan's core values, vision and goals. Consistency between subarea plans and City Plan will be achieved through the process of adopting subarea plans. In adopting a subarea plan, the City Council determines the actions that the City will take that stem from the subarea plan. City Plan can be amended by the City Council to reflect a change in policy recommended in a subarea plan. LU-4.2 Generic Scope. A subarea plan will be comprehensive or issue-specific in scope, geographically limited to a defined area that may be as large as a corridor or as small as the boundaries of an individual neighborhood organization. A subarea plan may address a full range of issues including, but not limited to land use, housing, transportation, utilities and capital facilities, economic development, public safety, environment, appearance and urban design, transition at edges, and open space. A subarea plan is likely to contain background research, surveys and needs assessments and a wide variety of short- and long-term recommendations. City Plan Principles and Policies Land Use February 18, 1997 90 This includes the many, various residential developments existing within the City at the time of adoption of these City Plan Principles and Policies. PRINCIPLE EXN-1: Most existing residential developments will remain largely unaffected by these City Plan Principles and Policies. Policy EXN-1.1 Changes To Existing Residential Developments. No significant changes to the character of existing residential developments will be initiated by City Plan. Changes, if any, will be carefully planned and will result from initiative by residents or from a specific subarea plan prepared in collaboration with residents. Other changes may result from specific initiatives intended to improve the quality of existing neighborhoods, such as improving mobility and access to everyday activities and services, and the introduction of new neighborhood centers, parks, and small civic facilities. Policy EXN-1.2 Collaboration with Surrounding Residents. The City will continue to ensure that neighbors will be advised of any changes and be requested to comment. Stated preferences of neighbors will be considered in determining acceptable intensity and character of infill and redevelopment. Policy EXN-1.3 Relationship to the Vicinity and the Broader Community. In determining the acceptability of changes to parcels of land adjacent to existing residential developments, the adjacent residents' preferences will be balanced with community-wide interests. Policy EXN-1.4 Infill Development and Redevelopment. Infill/redevelopment policies, standards, and procedures will apply to proposals for such activity in designated areas. Residential development on any parcels over twenty (20) acres will be subject to the density policies for new neighborhoods. Other policies for new neighborhoods should be taken into consideration, if applicable. For parcels under twenty (20) acres, such infill and redevelopment activity will be supported if designed to complement and extend the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, relationship to the street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses. Compatibility with these existing elements does not mean uniformity. Forms of potential infill development include: City Plan Principles and Policies Exisdag Neighborhoods February 18, 1997 161 • The addition of new dwellings on vacant lots and other undeveloped parcels surrounded by existing residential development • Dwelling units added to existing houses (e.g., basement or upstairs apartments) • Small, detached dwellings added to lots of sufficient size with existing houses (e.g_, "alley houses" or "granny flats") • Redevelopment of properties • Neighborhood-related, non-residential development Policy EXN-1.5 Introduction of Neighborhood-Related, Non-Residential Development. New services, conveniences, and/or gathering places will be supported in an existing neighborhood that lacks such facilities, provided they meet performance and architectural standards respecting the neighborhood's positive characteristics, level of activity, and parking and traffic conditions. _z> Related Plans &Policy Background: Previously adopted documents include: Issues and Policy Plans: • Air Quality Policy Plan: summarizes pertinent,facts about air quality, establishes a community vision:and measurable objectives,and sets forth specific policies to direct City programs and actions (1-993). • Fort Collins Bicycle Program Plan: guides development of aCity bikeway program and facilities (1995). • Fort Collins Congestion Management<Plan: land use,-transportation and air quality recommendations. Identification.of activity centers (1995) • Parks and Recreation Policy Plan: an inventory and.assessment ofneeds, specific recommendations, and implementation options for parks, recreation and open space (1996). • Pedestrian Plan: policies, design standards and guidelines for pedestrian facilities (1996). Subarea Plans. • Eastside Neighborhood Plan: policies and recommendations to preserve and enhance quality of life of the neighborhood (1986). • Westside Neighborhood Plan: policies and recommendations to preserve and enhance quality of life of the neighborhood (1989). City Plan Principles and Policies Existing Neighborhoods February 18, 1997 162 PRINCIPLE HSG-2: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of existing housing stock. Policy HSG-2.1 Affordable Housing Information. The City will collect, maintain and disseminate information and vital statistics on housing affordability such as cost, demand, and supply of affordable housing stock. Policy HSG-2.2 Incentives. The City will support and encourage the private development of affordable housing by offering incentives and reducing local government barriers to the construction of additional units. Policy HSG-2.3 Development Practices. The City will seek opportunities to modify land use regulations and permit processes that make project approval timelines, achievable densities, and mitigation costs more predictable. Policy HSG-2. ----preservation of Neighborhoods. The City will attempt to retain existing affordable lioilsg stock through conservation efforts of older residential neighborhoodg:` Policy HSG-2.5 Distribution of Affordable Housing. The City will encourage a community-wide distribution of affordable housing in all neighborhoods to promote diverse neighborhoods. Policy HSG-2.6 Displacement. The City should explore ways to mitigate the impact upon residents displaced through the closure or conversion of either a manufactured housing park or conversion of rental apartments, particularly single room occupancy units, to condominiums or other uses. Policy HSG-2.7: Impact of New Policies and Regulations. The City shall assess the effects of new polices and regulations, or changes to existing policies and regulations, on housing development costs and overall housing affordability, in order to achieve an appropriate balance between housing affordability and other objectives such as urban design quality, maintaining neighborhood character, and protecting public health, safety and welfare. City Plan Principles and Policies Housing February 18, 1997 114 PRINCIPLE HSG-3: Neighborhood stability must be maintained and enhanced. Policy HSG-3.1 Development Practices. The character of stable residential neighborhoods should be preserved through neighborhood planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive regulatory techniques. Policy HSG-3.2 Historic Residences. The City will explore opportunities to combine development efforts with historic preservation. The City will place priority on preserving existing residential structures of historic value. Oe- City Plan Principles and Policies Housing February 18, 1997 115 Related,Plans &Policy Backgroum Izl Previously adopted documents include: Issues and SPoUcy Plans: • Affordable Housing,Policy: policies,:forcommunitp-wide:affordable $ousing�development, including the definition of"affordable housing (1992). • City of Fort Collins Consolidated.Plan: identifies needs and sets priorities for those.requiring housing assistance,.human services-and non-housing community development.needs (1995). Historic..Resources Preservation Program Plan: includes a process to identify resources eligible forprotection, provide incentives, and legal techniques appropriate to accomplish historic preservation (1993). Subarea Plans: • Colorado State University Main Cam 'pus Master Plan: policies and recommendationsior campus design, facilities expansion, parking, transportation,housing and transit (1996). • Downtown Civic Center Master Plan: twelve block area west of Downtown,:including-analysis,framework plan, design guidelines and implementation strategies (1996). • Downtown Plan: policy guidance for capital improvement projects, land use;urban design,historic preservation, transportation, parking, etc. (1989). • EastsideNeighborbood Plan: policies and recommendations to preserve and enhance quality of life of the neighborhood (1.986). • Harmony Corridor Plan: provides a land use and urban design framework for future development of the area (1995). • North College Avenue Corridor Plan: policy guidance-for revitalization, including basic public improvements, image and appearance, land use, and zoning (1995). • Old Town Area Plan: revitalization plan for the Old Town area, including physical, social and economic redevelopment and historic preservation (1980). • Westside Neighborhood Plan: policies and recommendations to preserve and enhance quality of life of the neighborhood (1989). City Plan Principles and Policies 116 Housing February 18, 1997 � Y'd::+fi� ��na�2anenl adoption of Plan elements as needed. A comprehensive update of City Plan shall take - place at least every five (5) years, beginning in 2002. (Revised by Resolution 2000-33.) Policy GM-10.2 Scope. The specific scope of amendments shall be determined by guidance from subarea plans, other strategic plans, departmental functional plans, regional plans and other sources within and external to City government. (Revised by Resolution 2000-33.) Policy GM-10.3 Types of Plan Amendments. Plan amendments may be either minor or major. Minor Plan revisions are housekeeping in nature such as correcting a text or map error. Major Plan amendments are more substantial in nature such as changes or additions to policy language, land use, zone districts, boundary line adjustments and street alignments. (Revised by Resolution 2000-33.) Policy GM-10.4 Consistency. All Plan amendments shall promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City PIan and the elements thereof. (Revised by Resolution 2000-33.) Policy GM-10.5 Decision-making. Plan amendments shall be accomplished by an action of the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services for minor Plan revisions and by the City Council, upon receipt of a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board, for major Plan amendments. (Revised by Resolution 2000- 33.) PRINCIPLE GM-11: The City will involve citizens in the planning and decision-making processes of government. Policy GM-11.1 Support Citizens' Efforts. The City will support efforts by citizens organizations to promote and improve their neighborhoods, in accordance with the following considerations: • Neighborhoods and the City will work hand-in-hand to identify neighborhood needs, resolve issues, establish lines of communication, and maintain and improve the quality of life. • Neighborhoods will have the capacity to arrive solutions to address neighborhood concerns through measures such as: matching grants which would allow residents to initiate projects for their area; and direct assistance from City staff members who act as neighborhood liaisons. • Neighborhoods and the City will work together to be a positive influence on the lives of youth. • Every area of the City will be within a recognized neighborhood boundary and represented by a neighborhood group. City Plan Principles and Policies Growth Management February 15, 2000 142 P144ot, Status: The plan was adopted by City Council resolution as an element of the Comprehensive Plan in March 1986. Prepared By: The plan was developed by City staff with the assistance of a citizens' advisory committee and a planning consultant. Purpose: The purpose of the Eastside Neighborhood Plan was to provide a tool to help preserve and enhance the existing quality of life in the neighborhood. The plan contained a policy plan and an implementation guide. Key Issues: • The plan divided the neighborhood into three general land use areas: • The Fringe Area -- including predominately non-residential uses along the boundary arterial streets • The Preservation area— containing predominately lower density residential areas which make up the majority of the neighborhood • The Buffer Area -- providing a transition between the two other areas. • The plan provides land use policies for each of these land use areas. These policies relate to review criteria, the historic district and signage. • The plan outlines several transportation policies aimed at balancing neighborhood concerns with city-wide transportation interests. • The plan recommends better enforcement of the Fort Collins Housing Code, as well as other policies aimed at helping existing residents improve the maintenance of their property. • The Eastside Neighborhood was one of Fort Collins' earliest neighborhoods; it includes the Laurel School Historic District. The plan recommends that the City Appendix A Eastside Neighborhood Plan February 18, 1997 A-39 City Clerk =A Citv of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, July 16, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals made on May 9, 2002 regarding its decision not to grant a variance to reduce lot area on property at 907 Mathews Street, filed by Mikal Torgerson. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearings held by the Zoning Board of Appeals. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office(221-6515) or the Zoning Board of Appeals (221-6760). Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by July 9. Agenda materials provided to the City Council,including City staff s response to the Notice of Appeal,and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers,will be available to the public on Thursday,July 11,after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance. Rita K. Harris Chief Deputy City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: June 21, 2002 cc: City Attorney Building and Zoning Department Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Appel lantrApplicant 300 LaPorte A venue - P.O.Box 580 - Fort Collins,C080522-0580 - (97 0)221-6515 - FAX(97 0r 221-6295 May 31, 2002 IE EC IE r W E I 2002 Wanda Krajicek Ci d `r'' Fes;EzRK City Hall West 300 West Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Ms. Krajiecek: I am writing on behalf of my client Derrick Vandersluys to request an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals # 2384. Derrick is the owner of a property at 907 Mathews, which is the subject of this appeal. He resides at 1806 Hull Street, Fort Collins, CO 80526. His phone number is 970-266-1162. 1 will be acting as his representative, so as such, we would appreciate any correspondence regarding this be sent to Mikal Torgerson, 223 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 This appeal was filed to request a variance to 4.7(d)(1) which is the minimum lot size requirement for a detached dwelling in the NCM zone district. As required by the code, our application argued that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. A majority of the members of zoning board of appeals board did in their discussions agree that our proposed carriage house did "preserve the character of this area" better than would a compliant plan le. if the single family house in the front were converted into a fourplex which is allowed under the code. This majority sentiment would have satisfied half of the requirements to grant the modification. The other determination that would have had to have been made in order to grant the variance was that our proposal was not determined to be detrimental to the public good. The discussion of the Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday May 091h was primarily focused on the "equal or better than" portion of this case, with little discussion as to whether it was detrimental to the public good. The discussion unfortunately focused more on the precedence that the granting of this modification might set for future variances. There was also some discussion from board members who felt that the granting of this variance would be in effect "policy setting" which should be outside their purview. In the comments preceding the vote, board members offered discussion as to why they would not be supporting the variance. These reasons 223 No6h College varied from concern about the lot size as it related to the old Land Use Fora Collins,C080524 970 416.7431 1.888 416.7431 Fox:970.416.7435 [moil:mikol@orchilex.com hf1p:7lwwuro1(h11ex.com Ff 7 I',I+_c' \Irt\ iI . 200 Development System, to the concern about setting precedence, and "opening the floodgates" to these kinds of variances. There was extensive discussion about council action regarding alley houses in the past, with a detailed staff presentation on the history of alley houses. This spawned other concerns that the granting of this variance, would essentially undermine the policy set by council regarding alley houses. It was even suggested during the hearing by the chairman of the board, that we might want to appeal this case to council who would be a more appropriate policy making body to consider the question. We feel that since decisions were based on these extraneous standards, and not those required in the land use code, that relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied. The code is clear that the only findings that the board should base their decision on is that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. We, therefore, respectfully request that we be given the opportunity to present our appeal to the Fort Collins City Council. Sincerely, Mikal S. Tor erson �• r '`� Derrick Vandersluys MAY-20-2002 MON 03: 12 PM CITY CLERK FAX NO. 9702216295 P. 01 May 20, 2002 MAY 4 2002 Wanda Krajic&k ari +«i.rc City Hall West CITY CLERK 300 West Laporte Ave- Fort Collins, CO 801 Dear Ms. Krajiecek\, am writing on behalf of my' lient EQerrick Vandersluys to request an appeal of the decision of the Zpning Board of Appeals # 2384- This appeal was filed to requesfv variance to 4.7(d)(1) which is the minimum lot size requirement fp `ar oletached dwelling in the NCM zone district. As required by the code, our applicatiM, argued that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that thv proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. A majority of the members of zoning board of appeals board did in their discussions agree tha�our proposed carriage house did "preserve the character of this area"1,b+ r than would a compliant plan le. if the single family house in the front,-were converted into a fourplex which is allowed under the code. This majority sentiment would have satisfied half of the requirements to grant the modification. The,other determination that would have had to have been made in order to grant the variance was that our proposal was not determined to be detrimental to the public good. The discussion of the Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday May 09' was primarily focused on the "equal or better than" portion of this case, with little discussion as to whether it was detrimental tb the public good. The discussion unfortunately focused more on the precedence that the granting of this modification might set for future variances. There was also some discussion from board members who felt that the granting of this variance would be in effect "policy setting"which should be outside their purview. In the comments preceding the vote, board members offered discussion as to why they would not be supporting the variance. These reasons varied from concern about the lot size as it related to the old Land Use Development System, to the concern about setting precedence, and "opening the floodgates" to these kinds of variances. There was extensive discussion about council action regarding alley houses in the past, with a detailed staff presentation on the history of alley houses. This spawned other concerns that the granting of this variance, would 223tbrfl+College Fod{ollini,Q$0521 970.416.7431 1.888.410431 hz:970.410435 £mail:mi6l6or6itez mm hH;//W*V0chiles.mm MAY-20-2002 MON 03: 12 PM CITY CLERK FAX NO, 9702216295 P, 02 ki(L 2 0 �2(')0 2 essentially undermine the policy set by council regarding alley houses. It was even suggested during the hearing by the chairman of the board, that we might want to appeal this case to council who would be a more appropriate policy making body to consider the question_ We feel that since decisions were based on these extraneous standards, and not those required in the land use code, that relevant laws were not property interpreted and applied. The code is clear that the only findings that the board should base their decision on is that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. We, therefore, respectfully request that we be given the opportunity to present our appeal to the Fort Collins City Council. Sincerely, Mikal S. Torgerson rtkt City Clerk City of Fort Collins May 21, 2002 Mikal S. Torgerson M. Torgerson Architects, PC 223 North College Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mr. Torgerson: This letter is in reference to your Notice of Appeal dated May 20, 2002, appealing the May 9, 2002 Zoning Board of Appeals denial of a minimum lot size requirement variance requested on behalf of your client,Derrick Vandersluys,for the property at 907 Mathews Street. The Deputy City Attorney has reviewed the appeal document and his findings are set out in the attached memorandum dated May 21, 2002. You will want to pay particular attention to the recommendations suggested in his memorandum. Section 2 51 of the City Code provides that an amended Notice of Appeal may be filed by the appellant(s) within fourteen(14)working days after the date of filing of the original notice of appeal. An amended Notice of Appeal must be submitted NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M. on Tuesday, June 4, 2002. The City Council hearing on the appeal has been scheduled for Tuesday,July 16, at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, ,A '41"Gt . Rita Knoll Harris Chief Deputy City Clerk 300 LaPorte Avenue - P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6515 • FAX(970)221-6295 City Attorney ,'ity of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: May 21, 2002 TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorne RE: Appeal of Mikal S. Torgerson Regarding Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Item #2384 You forwarded to me a copy of the above-referenced appeal which you received on May 20,2002. In accordance with Section 2-50 of the Code of the City, I have examined the notice of appeal for any obvious defects in form or substance. Although the form of the notice of appeal does not follow the requirements of Section 2-49 of the Code with precision, it appears to me that, taken together, the notice of appeal does contain most of the information required pursuant to of Section 2-49. However, there is one piece of information that is lacking in the notice of appeal. Section 2-49(3) requires that the notice of appeal include the name, address, telephone number and relationship of each appellant to the subject of the action of the Board. Section 2-46 defines the term "party in interest" to include the applicant before the Board, the owner of the property and, among other things,any person who appeared before the Board. In the notice of appeal,Mr.Torgerson indicates that he is appealing on behalf of his client,Derrick Vandersluys. Presuming that Mr. Vandersluys is the owner of the property,he would have standing to appeal in his own name as party in interest. Also, Mr. Torgerson appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals and would, in his own name, having standing as a party in interest to appeal. I would recommend that the notice of appeal be amended to more clearly identify the appellant and the relationship of the appellant to the subject of the action of the Board,and if Mr. Vandersluys is the appellant,then the notice of appeal should include his address and telephone number. If both Mr. Vandersluys and Mr. Torgerson are appellants, then Section 2-49(5)becomes applicable and the name, address and telephone number of one of the appellants must be indicated as the appellant authorized to receive on behalf of all,any notice required to be mailed by the City. The notice of appeal indicates the action of the Board by Agenda #2384 and indicates that the discussion of the ZBA was held on Thursday,May 9,2002,which is the day that the Board rendered its decision. The name, address and telephone number of the appellant (if the appellant is Mr. Torgerson) can be found in the letterhead. 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6520 • FAX (970) 221-6327 Wanda Krajicek May 21, 2002 Page 2 As for the grounds for appeal,the appellant has stated only one ground, that being that the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. T believe that the notice of appeal should be amended to better identify the appellant and to describe i the relationship of the appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, before the appeal is presented to the City Council for its consideration. WPI:pec City Attorney CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM City- of Fort Collins ALDATE: July 11. 2002 CONFIDE ' "I TO: Mavor and CityCouncilmembers RECEIVED JUL 12 2002 FROM: W. Paul Eckman. Deputy City Attorne}� THRU: Steve Rov. City Attorney,/l 4— RE: Appeals Procedure -- Appeal of Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals Denying, ZBA Appeal #2384 (the "Project") BOTTOM LINE: In this appeal. the Council must decide whether the Zoning Board of Appeals properly interpreted and applied the Code in deciding to deny the request of the Appellant fora variance to the minimum lot area requirement of the Land Use Code. BACKGROUND: A Notice of Appeal was filed with the City Clerk on May 20.2002.with respect to the May 9.2002. decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals("Board")denying the Project,by Mikal S. Torgerson. who is a party-in-interest ,vorking, as an architect for the owner of the Project. An Amended Notice of' Appeal was filed with the City Clerk on June 5. 2002. replacing the original Notice of Appeal. clarIfi __ that the owner. Derrick Vandersluys, is also an appellant. along with Mr. Torgerson. ISSUE ON APPEAL: • Whether the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter(Code Section 2-48[b][1]}. ANALYSIS: In this appeal,the Council must decide whether the Board properly interpreted and applied the Code in deciding to deny the request of the Appellant for a variance. ;(V 1-aPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6320 • FAX (970) 221-6327 Mayor and City Councilmembers July 11. 2002 Page 2 The requested variance would reduce the required lot area from 10.000 square feet to 8.288 square feet in order to allow the construction of a new 800 square foot carriage house dwellin- on the rear portion of the lot. The Appellant, before the Board and also in its Notice of Appeal to City Council, has consistently focused on Section 2.10.2(H)(2)as the standard for review concerning whether the variance should or should not be granted. Accordingly, the question for the Council to answer is whether the Board properly interpreted that portion of the Land Use Code a copy of which is attached hereto. In order for the variance to be granted by the Board, it must first find that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Secondly, the Board, to grant the variance,must find that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested [that standard is found in Section 4.7(D)(1)] equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. Furthermore, as to this finding, the Board is also required to make a specific finding showing hoii the proposal. as submitted, promotes that general purpose equally well or better. In this case. the Board made no finding on the question of"no detriment" because it determined that the proposal didn't pass the "equal to" test. The standard which was sought by the Appellant to be varied is found at Section 4.7(D)(1) and requires a minimum lot area of 10.000 square feet. The staff opposed the variance because of some strong City Council directives that it had received some years ago regarding alley houses and minimum lot areas. Please refer to the staff memorandum for details concerninLy this standard, and prior Council directives. COUNCIL'S STANDARD OF REVIEW: The Council should determine whether the record shows that the Board did or did not properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. If the Council determines that the record shows that the Board did properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code, then the Council should uphold the decision of the Board. If the Council determines that the Hearing Officer did not properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code, then the Council should either overturn the decision of the Board or modify the decision. Finally, it should also be noted that the Council may remand the matter to the Board for rehearing if the Council determines that a rehearing would be necessary in order for the Board to receive and consider additional information with regard to any issue raised on appeal. (Section 2-56(d)(2)). Mayor and City Councilmembers July 11, 2002 Page 3 RECORD ON APPEAL/NEW EVIDENCE: Code Section 2-53 provides that the appeals shall be "on the record." which record includes the minutes of the Board meeting.as well as all exhibits received or viewed by the Board.any videotape that was made of the proceeding. and the verbatim transcript of the Board's proceedings. In this appeal.new evidence can be considered by the Council only if it is offered in response to questions presented by Councilmembers. APPLICABLE LAWS: In addition to the appeals provision of the City Code. the applicable Land Use Code provisions for the Council to consider in this appeal are Sections 2.10.2(H) and 4.7(D)(1) of the Land Use Code. Copies of the above-cited Land Use Code sections are attached as Exhibits "A" and "B". RECOMMENDATION AS TO FINDINGS: The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code. If the Council determines that the Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code, Council should overturn or modify the Board's decision. Even if the Council determines that the Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code, the appeals provisions of the Code permit the Council to remand the matter back for rehearing by the Board if the Council determines that it is necessary for the Board to receive and consider additional information with regard to any issue raised on appeal. If the Council does remand the matter for such reconsideration, it would be helpful for the Councilmember making the motion to identify the particular issue or issues to be addressed by the Board on remand. Specific findings that might be considered by the Council for its deliberations are shown below. It is not necessary that any or all of these findings be stated at the time of the decision Tuesday. Instead, they can be included in the resolution that will be brought forward at the next meeting in support of Council's decision. However. some reason should be stated in support of Council's decision Tuesday night. The purpose of including these possible findings is to give Councilmembers a feel for the kinds of reasons that might be offered in support of a motion or vote. • Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply the Code when it determined that the proposal as submitted did not promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested as well as, or better than, a proposal which would comply with the standard for which the variance is requested? Mayor and City Councilmembers July 11. 2002 Page 4 Upholding the Board: The Board did not fail to properly interpret and apple the Code when it determined that the proposal as submitted did not promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested as well as,or better than, a proposal which would comply with the standard for which the variance is requested. On the contrary,the granting of the variance would actually encourage the proliferation of alley houses which Section 4.7(D)(1) was intended to limit, not encourage. Overturning The Board: The Board.failed to properly interpret and apply the Code when it found that the proposal as submitted did not promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested as well as, or better than. a proposal which would comply with the standard for which the variance is requested. For example. the proposed carriage house u°ould preserve the character of the area as well as, or better than, a plan to convert the single-family house in the front of the lot into a four-plex. which would be allowed under the Land Use Code. If the City Council decides to overturn the decision of the Board and find in favor of the Appellant then the Council would need to make one additional finding, that being that the proposal is not detrimental to the public good. If the Council decides to uphold the decision of the Board, then the Council need make no further findings regarding the "no detriment" issue. At the next Council meeting, I will have a resolution summarizing the Council's findings and decisions regarding this appeal. WPE11'SJR:med Attachments cc: John F. Fischbach, City Manager Greg Byrne, Director of CPES Peter Barnes. Zoning Code Administrator DECISION OUTLINE Question: Whether the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provision of the Code. IF YES: IF NO: Overturn or modify the decision of the Board. Uphold the decision of the Board. IN EITHER CASE: The Council may remand the decision to the Board to relieve and consider any additional information with regard to any issue raised on appeal. Division 2.10, Variances Section 2.10.2(D) (D) Step 4(Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable. (E) Step 5 (Staff Report): Not applicable. (F) Step 6 (Notice): Section 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that "500 feet" shall be changed to "150 feet," and "14 days" shall be changed to "7 days," everywhere they occur in Section 2.2.6.(A). Section 2.2.6(B)-(D) shall not apply. (G) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Not applicable, and in substitution for Section 2.2.7(A),the Zoning Board of Appeals,pursuant to Chapter 2 of the City Code, shall review, consider and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for variance based on its compliance with all of the standards contained in Step 8. Step 7(B)-(G)(1) (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing,Decision and Findings,Notification to Applicant,Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and Plats, Filing with City Clerk): Applicable. Step 7(G)(2) (Final Plats Recorded with County Clerk and Recorder): Not applicable. (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic development review; and that: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or EXHIBIT Article 2, Page 55 Supp. 11 s A Division 2.10, Variances Section 2.10.2(H) a (2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. Any finding made under subparagraph(1)or(2)above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1) or(2). (1) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (J) Step 10 (Amendments): Not Applicable. (K) Step 11 (Lapse): Any variance which applies to the issuance of a Building Permit shall expire six (6) months after the date that such variance was granted, unless all necessary permits have been obtained; provided, however, that for good cause shown, the Zoning Board of Appeals may authorize a longer term if such longer term is reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, but in no event shall the period of time for obtaining all necessary permits under a variance exceed twelve (12) months in length. One (1) six-month extension may be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (L) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. (Ord. No. 177, 1998 §1, 10/20/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §11, 12/15/98; Ord.No. 165, 1999 §13, 11/16/99; Ord. No. 59, 2000 §9, 6/6/00; Ord. No. 183, 2000 §8, 12/19/00; Ord. No. 107, 2001 §§12-16, 6/19/01; Ord. No. 204, 2001 §1, 12/18/01) Supp. I Article 2,Page 56 Division 4.7,Neighborhood Conservation.Medium Denstry District Division 4.7(B) r� (b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Community facilities. 2. Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. (3) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-M District,subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Two-family and multi-family dwellings up to four (4)units per building when structural additions or exterior alterations are made to an existing building,or when the dwellings are constructed on a lot or a parcel which contained a structure on October 25, 1991. (b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: P 1. Public and private schools for elementary, intermediate and high school education. (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Bed and breakfast establishments with six (6) or fewer beds. (d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Wireless telecommunication equipment. (C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not(1)expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Section or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director pursuant to Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited. (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Density/Intensity of Development. Minimum lot area shall be the equivalent of two(2)times the total floor area of the building(s), EXHIBIT Supp. 8 Article 4, Page 50 B Division 4.7,Neighborhood Conservation,Medium Density District Division 4.7(D) but not less than the following: five thousand(5,000)square feet for a single-family or two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. For the purposes of this Division,"total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half(71/2)feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area). (2) Residential. Any new dwelling that is proposed to be constructed between the back of an existing dwelling and the rear property line of the lot on which both dwellings will be located, and any new, detached accessory building shall contain a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area. A new dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such lot,provided that it complies with setback requirements of this District. (E) Dimensional Standards. (1) Minimum lot width shall be forty(40) feet for single-family and two-family dwellings and fifty (50) feet for all other uses. (2) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks- from garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty (20) feet. (3) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alleys and fifteen (15) feet in all other conditions. (4) Minimum side yard width shall be five(5)feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side Iot line an additional one Supp. 11 Article 4, Page 51