HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/09/2002A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday May 9, 2002, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Martin Breth
Robert Donahue
David Lingle
Steve Remington
Diane Shannon
William Stockover
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Andy Miscio
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Breth made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 11, 2002, meeting. Stockover
seconded the motion. The motion passed with Donahue and Shannon abstaining.
3. APPEAL NO. 2382 -- Approved with conditions.
Address: 1118 West Oak Street
Petitioner: Michael Spearnak
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 2
Zone: NCL
Section: 3.8.3(l )
Backwound:
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.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The homeowner 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 Comments:
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.
Letters from Stephen Dunne (II10 West Oak Street) and Matt Haines (1115 and 1119 West
Mountain Avenue) were read. Mr. Dunne had no objections to the variance request. Mr. Haines
expressed his concerns regarding off-street and alley parking.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property is similar to most homes in the area
by not having an attached garage. Bames stated the Applicant is proposing to use the detached
garage on the rear of the property for the hair salon. Barnes addressed Mr. Haines' letter.
Applicant Participation:
Leslie Harms, owner of 1118 West Oak Street, addressed the Board. Harms noted she intended
to have her clients park in front of her home. To the right of the detached garage, Harms'
neighbor owns two parking spaces. Harms has spoken to her neighbor regarding rental of one of
those parking spaces. Harms stated the reason she decided to put a detached garage on the
property was to maintain the architectural integrity of the neighborhood.
Shannon asked the Applicant if parking was available on the east side of the property (the salon
entrance) without impeding the alley. Harms stated there was not due to the fact that the salon
entrance is off of the alley. She would also like to maintain her vegetable garden space.
Shannon asked the Applicant how she would indicate to her clients where they are supposed to
park. Harms stated she intended to send out a map showing her clients that they will need to
park in the front of her home and that they will need to walk through the backyard to reach the
salon. Harms noted she would have her clients move if they parked in inappropriate spaces.
Breth asked if the driveway could be used for customer parking. The Applicant stated yes.
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 3
Barnes commented that the Home Occupation Ordinance requires that adequate parking be
provided on the lot in order to accommodate the needs of the business. Barnes stated on -street
parking would not meet the parking requirement. Barnes noted through the parking ordinance
staff has the authority to approve alternative parking locations.
Lingle asked staff regarding future employees. Barnes stated the Code allows one other person,
who does not live at the home, to work at the home business. Barnes said the Board could
consider placing a condition on the approval that in the event the business expands to a two -chair
salon the Applicant would have to return to the Board to re -submit such a request.
Board Discussion:
Breth was in favor of granting the appeal, although he had some concerns regarding parking and
abuse of the neighbor's parking spaces. Breth wanted a stipulation on the approval that the
Applicant provide signage for her parking salon as well as private resident parking. Stockover
and Donahue expressed their concerns regarding parking. Shannon made a motion to approve
appeal 2382 for a hardship of the narrowness of the lot and maintaining the architectural style of
the neighborhood by having a detached garage with the stipulation that the homeowner provides
two parking spaces for her clients. Shannon also stated that no employees would be allowed, and
the approval of the variance is specific to this homeowner and use. Donahue seconded the
motion.
Stockover asked Shannon how the Applicant would designate two parking spaces. Shannon
stated the Applicant may be able to rent a space from her neighbor. Remington asked staff if the
driveway would be applicable in designating two parking spaces. Barnes stated for the parking
spot to be designated as a legal space, each space has to have unobstructed access to the street, so
tandem parking spaces do not count. Barnes also noted that on -street parking does not count as
legal parking spaces. Barnes commented that the condition of designating two parking spaces is
more than what the Code requires, and is unusual. Barnes stated the Code only requires one
parking space, which the Applicant has. Barnes noted that if the Board feels the parking
situation is a detriment to the public good the Board could consider placing the condition on the
approval of the variance request. Shannon agreed, and would like the Applicant to provide two
parking spaces.
Breth stated he had a problem with the hardship that Shannon gave for her motion. Breth stated
the lot is not a narrow lot. Barnes stated the lot is fifty -foot wide and typical for this part of
town. Barnes referred Boardmembers to the hardship noted on the agenda. Shannon amended
her motion stating that the hardship is the unique situation regarding the detached garage, and
that if the garage were attached, the Applicant would not be seeking a variance request. Lingle
felt the motion was overly restrictive in that if the garage were attached, the Applicant would not
be present, and the Board would not be able to impose additional parking requirements. No one
seconded the revised motion, and the revised motion failed.
Stockover asked the Applicant if she considered putting a parking space beside her garage. The
Applicant stated she would rather not. Stockover asked staff if the Board could approve the
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 4
variance by requiring signage for parking. However, should the neighbors complain about
parking, the appeal could be heard again and additional parking spaces could be required. The
Board was offered legal advice regarding the possible revocation of a variance request approval.
There was a discussion held regarding the legal aspects of the Applicant renting parking space
from her neighbor.
Stockover made a motion to approve appeal 2382 based on the hardship stated with the
requirement that the owner put up adequate signage directing clients to designated parking
spaces. Stockover stated if the Applicant decided to have an employee, she would need to come
back to the Board to satifsy additional parking requirements. Stockover noted the approval of
the variance request is for this owner and use only. Shannon seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Breth, Donahue, Remington, Shannon, Stockover, and Lingle.
Nays: None.
4. APPEAL NO. 2383 -- Decks approved. Stairs denied.
Address:
2802 Chase Drive
Petitioner:
Travis Robson
Zone:
LMN
Section:
3.5.2(D)(3)
Background:
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.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A.
Staff Comments:
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.
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 5
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes noted the property is in Rigden Farm, a
new development under construction. This lot in particular is designated as multi -family and a
duplex has been constructed on this lot. Barnes stated the lot was a corner lot. Barnes noted an
update to the plat. The current plat shows an existing 30-foot permanent, non-exclusive
easement. However, the property to the rear is currently under review. A development
application has been submitted for Rigden Farm 6th filing, so there will be development
occurring behind this property. However, the area behind this particular lot is designated as a
small neighborhood park (it will be open space) and there will not be other developable lots or
residential units to the rear of this property. One deck has a cantilevered stairway. The other
does not have a stairway, just a deck that comes off of the main level. Barnes noted decks over
30" in height are required to comply with the setback requirements for the zoning district the
property is in.
Remington asked if the decks would have been shown on the submitted plans for the duplex.
Barnes replied the building permit application that was submitted to the City did not show
projecting decks. The deck areas shown on the submitted plans were shown flush with the
building. A building inspector noticed the decks not being built as proposed on the approved
plans, and that's when it was brought to the Zoning Department's attention. Barnes stated that
there is a 6-foot utility easement along the back of the property. The stairway and cement pad
encroach into the 6-foot utility easement. Barnes stated concrete pads (such as sidewalks and
patios) could be built over utility easements.
Applicant Participation:
Travis Robson, owner of R&R Homes, addressed the Board. Robson had no comments.
Board Discussion:
Shannon asked staff what would happen if work needed to be done in the utility easement.
Barnes replied that the utility companies have the right-of-way in the easement, meaning
permission would not be needed to perform work in the easement. Barnes stated the stairway
could come off without effecting the structural integrity of the deck. Breth remarked he was
having trouble with the stairway being partially in the easement. Breth felt the problem was the
decks being over 30" high. Shannon asked why decks were regulated if they were above 30".
Barnes replied there were two reasons: (1) if decks are above 30" they are regulated by the
building code, and (2) to make sure privacy and adequate separation are maintained.
Barnes explained to the Board that the appeal would not meet the requirements for a hardship
because it is a self-imposed hardship due to the decks being constructed without obtaining a
building permit. Shannon was concerned with the contractor not obtaining a building permit.
Donahue asked if the stairway could be moved to the side of the deck, and felt it would be less
imposing on the public space. Breth would have like to see the stairway moved because he felt it
was not a safe and allowable location for the stairway. Eckman stated the park is there to satisfy
open space requirements for the development, and it would be unlikely that the park space would
be amended for residential use.
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 6
Stockover made a motion to approve Appeal 2383 based on the equal to or better than standard,
with the findings that the intent of the code is being met with the fact that they are overlooking
open space and not another development, and with the fact that the owners are aware that they
would be responsible for any losses incurred if work needed to be done in the easement area.
Stockover stated there was no detriment to the public good because of the open space to the rear.
No one seconded the motion. The motion failed.
Breth asked Stockover if the stairs would remain in tact. Stockover asked what the purpose was
of having the stairs be removed. Lingle stated the purpose was eliminating the encroachment
into the easement and reduces the visual impact. Breth commented that he did not want to set a
precedent by allowing items to be built in easements.
Applicant Robson commented that there are other properties in the same subdisivion that the
Board granted variances to allowing garages within five feet of the rear setback. Robson stated
he could get a letter from the homeowners stating that if work needed to be done in the easement,
the homeowner would remove the stairway. Robson told the Board he made a mistake by not
building the decks as they were submitted. Robson stated the homeowners requested larger
decks to be built.
Stockover felt it was a minimal encroachment. Barnes clarified that the variance that was
granted last June for a section of the Rigden Farm subdivision (on the rear setbacks) for the
detached garages, the easements would still take precedence, meaning one could not build a
garage encroaching into the easement.
Stockover asked the Applicant if there was any way to turn the stairway to get it out of the
easement. Applicant Robson responded it could be possible. Lingle remarked the stairway
would have to be taken off the rear and be relocated to the side because an easement goes
straight up, and an encroachment would still exist. Stockover stated the intent of the code is
being met with regards to the deck height.
Breth made a motion that Appeal 2383 be approved based on the equal to or better than standard
because of the designated open space to the rear of the lot provided that the stairway be removed
to a different location outside of the easement. Breth noted there was no detriment to the public
good. Lingle seconded the motion. Stockover reiterated his support for the appeal in that the
Board was not setting a precedent and the encroachment was minimal. The motion failed.
Vote:
Yeas: Breth, Donahue, and Lingle.
Nays: Remington, Shannon, and Stockover.
There was a discussion held regarding setting a precedent and meeting the purpose of the
standard. Stockover made a motion to approve Appeal 2383 based on the equal to or better than
standard with the findings that with the situation of the park being built behind the intent of the
code for privacy is being met, and there is no detriment to the public good. Stockover stated that
in the event that the park is not built, that the findings would change, and the deck and stairs
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 7
would have to come into compliance (flush with the building). Shannon seconded the motion.
The motion failed.
Vote:
Yeas: Remington, Shannon, and Stockover.
Nays: Breth, Donahue, and Lingle.
Remington asked the Board if the primary issue was the deck being built into the easement.
Those who voted nay said yes. The Board was in agreement with the findings. There was a
discussion held regarding the stairs being built into the easement. Options were discussed on
how best to approach the appeal. Donahue asked Applicant Robson why one of the decks had
stairs, and the other one does not. Applicant Robson responded the owners of the property with
the stairs want to put a spa at the bottom. The owners want to be able to access the spa through
outside stairs.
Remington gave a summary of the options: (1) appeal would not be approved due to tie votes (2)
table the hearing until next month or (3) approve the appeal without the stairs or with a
modification to the stairs. Stockover moved to rehear the previous motion with the addition that
in the event the Applicant elects modify the basic floor plan of the deck, (i.e. cover it, change the
stairs, overhand, etc.) other than bringing the deck into total compliance, the Applicant would be
required to come before the Board for another variance. Bames stated if the Applicant wanted to
cover the patio, a variance would be required. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion failed.
Lingle stated the disagreement was over the stairs not the deck. There was a discussion held
regarding the relocation of the stairs and if approval could be made for the decks and not the
stairs.
Vote:
Yeas: Remington, Shannon, and Stockover.
Nays: Breth, Donahue, and Lingle.
Lingle asked if the deck and stairs could be considered separately. Lingle made a motion to
approve appeal 2383 under the equal to or better than standard for the northern and southern
decks only without the stair on the southern most deck. The findings were that since there is a
private park behind the lot there is no detriment to the public good. Shannon seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Breth, Donahue, Remington, Shannon, Stockover, and Lingle.
Nays: None.
There was a discussion held regarding whether or not the stairs should be approved. Remington
made a motion to approve Appeal 2383 that the stairs be allowed to exist on the southern deck
based on the equal to or better than standard. The findings are that a park exists back there as
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 8
previously outline under the motion, the intent of the standard to provide space and privacy is
being met. There is no detriment to the public good. Even though the stairs are in the easement,
the stairs are cantilevered, and could be moved if necessary. The stairs do not create a more
difficult access to the easement than the cement pad. The motion failed, and the stairs are not
allowed.
Vote:
Yeas: Remington, Shannon, and Stockover.
Nays: Breth, Donahue, and Lingle.
Barnes offered some solutions to the Applicant.
5. APPEAL NO. 2384 -- Denied.
Address: 907 Mathews Street
Petitioner: Mikal Torgerson
Zone: NCM
Section: 4.7(D)(1)
Background:
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.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B.
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 square
foot lot area requirement (5000 square feet 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 square feet 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 feet requirement stay in place until City staff, in conjunction with residents of the affected
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 9
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 feet 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 square foot 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 1st 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 square foot 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
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 comer 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 comer
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 comer lots. The other lot area variance
approved in 2001 was to reduce the lot area requirement essentially from 20,000 square feet to
19,000 square feet in order to allow a total of four single family homes (two existing, older
homes to remain, and two 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 two new dwelling units take the form of two small single family homes
instead. Since the applicant had already submitted a plan that complied with the Code, the Board
found that two 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.
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 10
The particular request now before the Board is different than the previous two in that this is not a
corner lot fronting on two streets, and no dwelling unit of any kind can be built without a
variance (whereas the second 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 standard.
Barnes This is the property in question at 907 Mathews. Um this property is somewhat
different in that uh this block has a T shaped alley, and you can see that on the
site plan that was provided by the Applicant that is in your packet. There's an
alley that comes off of Locust Street and goes south through about half of the
block and then there's uh the alley that connects Mathews and Rem ... uh well I
don't know if it goes all the way through Remington either, um it does. Yeah it
goes all the way through Mathews to Remington. So there's really two alleys
on this property, on this block and this lot fronts on both of those alleys. This is
the south side of the property and here's the alley that connects Mathews which
is out here to Remington uh to the west. Again this is that same alley looking
out towards Remington Street. Uh this lot goes back to the north -south alley at
the back of the property and the proposal is to, there's an existing (we'll have
some other slides too) but there's an existing uh garage type of building back
here in the comer. The proposal would be to, I believe remove that and
construct a new 800 square foot, two-story structure off of the alley, back in this
area. That uh lower level would consist and it would be back right about in
here. This is from the rear alley looking to the east, this is the back of the house
on Mathews Street. Um and you have pictures of the building that is proposed,
the lower level would be a garage and the upper level would be a uh one -
bedroom apartment. This is uh the back area of the lot. Over here is the
existing detached building in the corner. This is the alley along the side of the
property, along that south side. This is at the intersection of Locust and
Mathews. This is the house in question. This is the house at the comer, and
there's another house behind, behind it that fronts onto Locust, and then behind
that house is where you have the alley that goes from Locust out here, and
heads south, and Ts into the alley here, that goes from Mathews to Remington.
And uh it's off of this are of the alley that they would propose taking access into
this uh carriage house. And this is along the rear of the alley or uh the rear alley
um this is a detached garage building that's opposite where they're proposing to
construct their other dwelling over here. Here you have where the two alleys
intersect. This is a uh, fairly large garage building that's on the side alley
directly south of the property in question. Again, the side alley, here's that
garage I just showed you a picture of. There's that garage I just showed you a
picture of, and there's a garage at the comer off of Mathews Street. So that
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page I
gives you a little flavor for the types of structures that are along the alley. The
uh, brain ...Okay the code requires that um, well first of all there's no, no
requirement in the code that says you can't have two homes on a lot. However,
there is a requirement that you have to have a sufficient size lot in order to
accommodate two homes. And that lot area requirement varies from zone to
zone. In this particular zone, we require 5000 square feet of lot area per
principle building. Um when you have a dwelling unit that's considered a
principle building, so the new structure in the back is a dwelling unit, therefore
you have a second principle building, and you need 5000 square feet of lot area
for that building, and 5000 square feet of the home that is already fronting on
Mathews, so therefore, the code requires a total of 10,000 square feet of lot
area. Uh the proposal here is that the lot has 8, 288 square feet, and they wish
to be able to construct a uh dwelling on the rear of the lot. What we might refer
to as an alley house. Um, brief background. The Code was amended in '96, uh
that's when the 5000 square foot requirement came into being, and that was a
direct result of an emergency ordinance that was adopted by City Council in'93.
Um and that ordinance, the emergency ordinance, which is very unusual step
for Council to take came about because of a concern of the number of alley
dwelling units that were being constructed uh in uh a couple of neighborhoods.
And that emergency ordinance was adopted with the requirement that the Code
used to require 4500 square feet, the emergency ordinance increased it to 5500
square feet per principal building, meaning that it was almost impossible to find
in either the eastside neighborhood or the westside neighborhood large enough
to accommodate another single family home. Um, that emergency ordinance
required that City staff within one year come back uh after having reviewed this
situation come up, come up with design guidelines as well as address all of the
density issues uh and within one year come back to them uh for specific
recommendations. That one year result, turned into almost three years, uh we,
we did go back to them with various ordinances, the neighborhoods were not
pleased with those. City Council kept extending the original one year date on
the emergency ordinance uh because of uh all of the controversy uh that was uh
the neighbors continued to have with this. Um, so three years later after
considerable numbers of neighborhood meetings, public outreach meetings,
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Board, and uh with members of City
Council uh at work sessions, and the hiring of a consultant uh City Council
finally adopted an ordinance that uh, uh contained some minimal design
standards of new construction whether it be additions to buildings or brand new
A dwellings. In addition to dealing with the size of new alley houses limiting
them to 800 square feet total including the area of a garage. Um, and in all
other zones other than the three zones in the old neighborhoods the NCL, NCM,
and NCB uh we don't count garage as floor area. But in these zones uh City
Council was concerned about limiting the size of buildings so they uh included
in the ordinance a requirement that the garage also counts as floor area in these
three zones. Um, so we have the design standards, we had size limitations, and
we had lot area requirements as well in order to uh deal with new construction
and density issues. So that's a little brief explanation or background explanation
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 12
of uh how the Code got to where we are right now. I'd be happy to answer any
questions that the Board might have.
Remington
So Peter one question, I've got at least for the record the ...As you understand
it, the primary concern of City Council and all around alley houses was a
density issue?
Barnes
They had uh concerns regarding size. They didn't, they wanted to put a size
limit, so that alleys houses were really subordinate. That they didn't, that they
weren't larger than other houses in the block. Um, so they put a size limit of
800 square feet, in addition, they were concerned that, they didn't want a lot of
lots uh ...they didn't want a lot of in -fill development occurring with additional
dwelling units. So, they uh, they certainly required that we first of all ...Our
emergency ordinance did one thing, it increased the lot area requirement from
4500 square feet to 5500 square feet-4500 square feet per building requires a
9000 square foot lot. About 80% of the lots in the areas of concern, would have
met that requirement without a variance. So they thought that is not
appropriate, we want to allow in -fill dwellings, but we want a reasonable
number to occur and therefore change to the lot area requirement.
Remin on
Thank you.
Barnes
They changed it to 5500, which would have made it almost impossible. The
end result was they came down to 5000, which requires 10,000 square feet of
lot area. A lot of the lots are 9500 square feet in size, there are some instances
where you do find lots that are larger than that or you can combine portions of
lots to come up with your 9500.
Remin on
Thank you that clarifies it. Yeah, other questions for staff?
Lingle
Yeah, I've got ...In your report, in what you said was that the uh the emergency
ordinance was adopted in response to City Council concerns over those alley
houses. What, what prompted the concern, was it uh huge public out cry that
neighbors brought to Council or what was thatprocess?
Barnes
That's what happened. Uh, and actually the Board dealt with a variance request
to remodel the house that started it all. Uh, it was an alley house on um,
Whedbee and just a couple of months ago.
Lingle
Whedbee and Laurel.
Barnes
Yeah, right. And uh that was the house that started it. It was large, they didn't
like the looks of it um they, there was a letter writing campaign from that
neighborhood to City Council, then City Council became aware of other alley
houses that were being constructed. That was a popular thing to do in the early
'90s. We hadn't seen much of that for decades and then all of a sudden in the
early '90s we had whole areas that were being uh redeveloped with alley
construction. So in response to that initial one uh and the neighborhood
concerns uh Council looked at what was going on then became concerned with
design of the one that started it, the size of it, and when they looked at that one
along with um the other neighborhoods that we had, at least half of all the
blocks being developed with alley structures, they were concerned about the
densit changing the character of those neighborhoods.
Remington
Any other questions for staff? So, Peter I've got one more. As I understand it
then this particular property, even under the pre-1993, standard would have
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 13
needed a variance is that correct?
Barnes That's correct because uh prior to the emergency ordinance 4500 square feet per
principle building would have been allowed, and this would have been short of
the 9000 that would have been needed for a second building.
Remington Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Would the Applicant please come
forward. State your name and address for the record, please. You can add any
additional comments you would like.
Torgerson Yes, thank you. My name is Mikal Torgerson. I'm with MTA Architects at 223
North College. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today. I would
like to go through uh some of the situations that I think are unique to our site
and some of the considerations unique to the architecture that we're proposing,
that I think will make this an appropriate design. Um, first of all, as Peter
mentioned, uh our site is right here. We're at the T of uh unique alley
arrangement --a T alley arrangement. And so it's sort of a corner lot at the front
with the alley, and that actually the back is sort of a corner with an alley too --
sort of a unique situation. Uh, the other reason that I felt that this was
appropriate in this particular block is that a lot of these other ...in terms of the
density, this is consistent with almost everything else in the block. As you can
see this lot here, which is exactly the same size as our proposed lot has been
divided and there are two full-size, fully occupied homes there. Nothing like an
alley house, those are really full-size homes. Um, this building here is a duplex,
and I believe there's another duplex on the side of this block as well. So in
terms of the density and the number of units um on a lot this is quite consistent
with a lot of what the other buildings on the block. The other issue is that of a
principle building, as Peter described it. I, I agree with the concerns that people
had about alley houses and actually I'm not a big fan of some of the alley houses
that have been built in Fort Collins. Primarily because they are truly a house
behind a house, you know, especially in this situation we have two full size
homes on a lot of equal size. I look at this as sort of a less than principle
building. It's, in architecture it's designed to look like a garage. It's intentionally
not a full extruded two-story building where you proportioned it to be consistent
with other garages in the vicinity. In fact, the size walls are 12 feet and I think
almost half of the garages along these alleys have 12 foot eaves that one there
does. This one does, there's a couple of others in here. So architecturally, I
think it's consistent with the garages and wouldn't appear to be the house behind
a house or principle dwelling behind a principle dwelling. The intention is that
this would be sort of a studio that is really subservient to this existing structure
up front. So I view it more as a carriage house than an alley house. The other
thing architecturally is that we've uh made the primary dwelling up above the
garage and they have a small deck area above a carport. The thinking there was
that that would ...there was some concern I think it was '96 or '93 when there
was concern about alley houses. If you started putting people back in the alley,
that maybe their couch ends up down here, and they're starting a barbecue in
the alley, and, and that's an unintended use in an alley. The thought here is that
you bring people up into the residence and that this serves as sort of their little
yard, the same way that an apartment might have a deck. And um, that's to
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 14
keep that unintended impact on the alley from occurring. We intentionally used
Old Town architecture. Um, we're trying to blend this in to the extent we can in
this historic -neighborhood to make this look like it might be a historic carriage
house there. The unit is primarily tucked up within the roof um again to keep
those sidewalls small and to keep it from looking like a house behind a house.
The um, we're providing three covered off-street parking spaces. Another
concern we heard about alley houses is that, if you start putting additional
people in here, then their cars become a concern. At present, as you saw in the
pictures, this home parks on the street and there is no off-street parking. We're
providing three new off-street covered parking spaces, and that should be more
than sufficient to satisfy not only this dwelling unit, but also to take whatever
parking is occurring for this resident on the street out, and put it in covered
parking spaces. So that we view is sort of an improvement to an existing
problem in the neighborhood. The other thing that we did was we're accessing
the house, the proposed alley house the stairs, I'll turn this around, are on the
back of the unit. They are not on the alley side. Again, this is to keep whatever
activity is generated by this within the house and yard proper and not start
generating activity, new activity in the alley space. So the stair up to the unit is
tucked behind the carriage house. The idea that somebody coming in on a
bicycle or pedestrian could come and visit the house without going down the
alley and creating new traffic back there. Um again, I think the density is
consistent with the rest of the block, so that the impact of that I think is
appropriate within this zone district. The other thing we're doing is there is an
existing garage here that's really in poor shape --it's a one car garage. And it's
literally up against both property lines and within a view triangle in the alley.
Removing this building is going to help visibility back here and although people
aren't going fast through the alley, it does improve safety a bit by opening up
what's right now a blocked view triangle. The other point I wanted to make and
this kind of goes back to what you were discussing with the balconies
overlooking peoples backyards and the issue of privacy. We've intentionally
sited this deck area on this side and setback quite a ways from the property line.
This is looking at what, the southern uh part of this alley is essentially a wall of
garages and privacy fences starting down here, this is a garage with a privacy
fence that comes to another garage with a privacy fence that continues around a
bunch of parking areas. Then a three -car garage with a privacy fence, a storage
building. A very tall, ugly garage. And a lot of drive-in parking with a garage
right on the property lines. The reason I'm bringing that up is that the impact,
that the impact this might have is really quite mitigated by this wall of garages
and wall of privacy fences, and it's setback so far that I think that, that really
wouldn't have much of an impact on those people's private areas. And then
looking this way, of course, there's very large garage here that would mitigate
any impact there. Um, we're also setting this back from the alley uh 19 feet, I
believe it is. The idea there is that in the off chance that we had additional cars
other than the three spaces that we're providing, they could park behind these,
this area and not obstruct the alley in any way. That also sort of mitigates the
impact to any surrounding neighbors because we're setting it farther back than
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 15
any of the existing garages. The other point I'd like to make is that the house
up front is relatively small house. It's a 940 square foot foot -print, and what
we're proposing behind it is only a 400 square foot foot -print, and so while there
is some concern about this house behind a house, what we're really proposing is
very small behind a very small house. And so if you look at it compared to the
neighbors houses for example, they've put quite a bit of living space on what is
the same size lot. And I think the impact of what we're proposing is going to be
significantly less than that. The other point I wanted to make is that we intend
to, not only intend, we'd be required to pave the alley. These are existing sort of
sub -standard gravel alleys. We would pave the alley to our site and that's
probably going keep these people driving this direction, and only driving by one
house and another house other than their own. Um, so that the impact on
everyone else is going to be minimal. The likelihood of these people deciding
to drive down a longer gravel drive is, seems unlikely. So the impact is kind of
minimized to the neighbors. Along those lines though, if there was some
concern about what Peter brought up, Peter Barnes brought up the possibility
that that could be a concern how, how these people might be driving by other
peoples homes. We would be willing to consider re -orienting this carriage
house to this alley, so that they only drove in this way. Really only impacting
this house theses are again the garages and houses are significantly farther back,
so that's something we'd be willing to consider as maybe a condition of
approval. Um, I understand that Fort Collins needs to codify the minimum lot
size for additional dwelling units, um I actually agree with that and as
mentioned before I'm concerned about some of the huge house behind a house
that we've seen. I think that in light of fact that we're proposing what I believe
is uh an appropriate proportioning, and size unit in the back, that um it's worth
considering a variance for the lot size. And I don't think that this would be an
undue impact on the neighborhood. The other point I'd like to make is that this
is essentially an unsubsidized form of affordable housing in this student area.
And so being a fan of affordable housing I'd like you to consider that um it is
appropriate to build student housing, especially in light of the fact that CSU
doesn't seem to be keeping pace with their students. Um, near the um, um
university. I spoke with the owners of this property and this property --two
adjacent properties about this proposal and unfortunately he wasn't able to make
it here today. Um, he's just gotten back from an extended vacation, but he
wanted me to express to you that he had no concerns whatsoever about this, and
was supportive. And um, perhaps if you wanted to verify that uh appropriate
condition of approval would be that I get some letters to that effect, and I could
certainly do that. Um I, I'd like to also mention that I think it's appropriate to
increase density near services that CSU and the transit system, seems like the
place to do it. I feel that we're adequately addressing the impacts of parking,
stormwater will be addressed with stormwater, and we'll be required to comply
with them as part of our approval process. We're paving the alley and
improving that situation, and I think we have compatible architecture so I would
urge your support. I also have with me the owner of the property, Derek
Vandersluys. We had several other pro erty owners in the area that were
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 16
wanting to speak in support of the project, but had to leave. I think we still
have one here, um that would like to speak to it as well.
Remin ton- -
We'll get to that part in just a second.
Torgerson
With that I would like to turn it over to the owner.
Remington
No, let's hang on cause, cause, let's see if there's any questions.
Torgerson
Oh, I'm sorry.
Remington
Any questions for ...yeah?
Lingle
In your letter Mike, when you say that uh this is a designated affordable
housing unit, is that somehow built into your, how's that going to be?
Torgerson
Um ...
Lingle
Classified that it would be an affordable housing unit as opposed to ...
Torgerson
That might be an appropriate condition approval. It, it by designated affordable
means that it would be at the 80% AMI criteria that is in the code. There hasn't
been any covenant or anything in place because we haven't gotten to that point.
Um, but that might be an appropriate condition.
Lin le
The intent is that it is a rental unit?
Torgerson
Yes.
Lingle
Not a for sale 80% AMI?
Torgerson
Yes, that's correct.
Lingle
Okay.
Remington
Any other questions for the Applicant?
Donahue
Would the stair be located on the interior of the property or the exterior? The
model is showing a different um indication than the ...
Torgerson
Yeah.
Donahue
Than the drawings do. I just want to clarify that.
Torgerson
It would be on the interior. This model was actually developed for another
project ironically the project that the previous gentleman was referring to in
Rigden Farm, inaccurately actually. We've got the five foot setback that he was
describing for garages along the property lines and this was a model that was
constructed for that project, but it's exactly the same but mirrored in this
situation.
Remington
We're all thankful the stairs aren't on the easements, so ...um
Torgerson
Actually for the record we are not encroaching into the easement out there.
Remington
Yeah, I know. One other question I've got. The lot next to that, I don't if this is
for you or for Peter, do we know what the square footage of that lot is and when
was that divided? Do we know is that the same square footage as this?
Shannon
The one on Locust?
Remington
The one, yeah, yeah that lot. It's actually been divided, is that, it looks like
according to the drawings it's about the same square footage is that the case?
As far as we know?
Barnes
It's uh real close to that.
Remington
Real close.
Barnes
Um
Remin on
Do we know when that was divided?
Barnes
A long time ago. And asyou've seen in other instances uh a lot of times the
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 17
established character uh in these old neighborhoods on comer lots is that a long
time ago they, they had these long lots and they split off the back portion and
built another house in the back facing that side street. So this is not an
uncommon situation that you find on corner lots uh where the established
character is to have the original platted lot uh having, at some point in history,
been replatted into two with a house in the back facing the other street. I don't
know exactly when that lots lit occurred.
Remington
Would it be safe to say though it occurred prior to 1993?
Barnes
Yes.
Remington
Okay, thanks.
Donahue
So these two would be nonconforming? I would assume to be 5000 square foot.
Barnes
That's right they would be nonconformin with respect to the lot area.
Remington
Any other questions? Okay at this point um, is there anyone in the audience in
favor the appeal. If you'd come forward and state your name and address for
the record and then any additional commentsyou'd like to add.
Way
My name is Ben Way, I'm at 1812 Hull Street in Fort Collins. Uh the reason
I'm in favor of this is from my, I'm here unofficially but I work for a uh national
land protection organization, that protects farm and ranch land across the
country. And this, while this particular case is obviously not going to have a
huge impact on our greater mission, I think it addresses a principle in that for
every reasonable situation where you can increase the density or approve an in -
fill situation like this, it's one less lot that's gonna have to be converted and
contribute to the spatial sprawl we're all confronting and viewing with here in
Fort Collins, which I'm sure as you know is of concern to the majority of
citizens. So it's just from that perspective that in each case where you can just
reduce the amount of new acreage that it has to be converted into residential
units, I think is worth factoring into the equation of your deliberations. I just
wanted to point that out. It also, as they had pointed out, it also um in terms of
the costs associated with new residential development by being able to increase
density into an already serviced urban area you are essentially spreading the
costs of that. The City or County has to provide to residential dwellers over a
larger population and increase, excuse me, decreasing additional costs that
would be associated with servicing new growth areas. It was just from that sort
of principle that I'm in favor of this particular case.
Remington
Okay any questions at this time?
Breth
Yes, does that theory really hold true, I, even though you're not, the
displacement is not the same. You've got student housing versus family
housing on another lot somewhere else.
Way
When you say theory, which uh ...
Breth
The theory that you're in favor of this because more density on existing lots, in
theory, means there might be one less lot developed out in the urban sprawl
somewhere.
Way
Uh-huh.
Breth
But you're not comparing apples to apples. You're talking about student
housing versus family housing.
Way
I don't think it matters so much whether it's a student or a family. Those people
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 18
still require services. And in terms of sewage, safety, fire, all of the public
services that a City and County provide by putting people into existing service
-- — --
areasyou're spreading those costs.
Breth
Well, I understand about the existing service areas, but you're not gonna put a
family of five on an in -fill lot.
Way
No, that's fair enough, but you'd still, there's a lot of people, lot of individuals
on new lots as well. I think principle is valid. Um
Breth
Okay.
Remington
I Any otherquestions? Thank you.
Way
Thank you.
Remington
Is there anyone else in the audience in favor of this appeal? If you'd state your
name and address, and then any other commentsyou'd like to make.
Vandersluys
I'm Derrick Vandersluys, 1806 Hull Street, I am the owner of this property. Uh,
I'm a real estate agent in Fort Collins. Um, part of the, the thinking behind this
is that CSU is increase, increasing their enrollment, they are not providing more
dorms. Um, given the location of this property it is basically gonna be a college
rental, but the positive to this is that I think it would decrease traffic and
pollution by having the students close enough that they could walk versus
driving in from surrounding areas. It would keep the student, I mean, it would
help to decrease the students from moving into the other suburban areas which
is a big issue right now where people, family -oriented places don't want
students living right beside them. Increasing the density around the college is in
my opinion the correct way to go.
Remin ton
Any questions for him? Thank you.
Vandersluys
Thank you.
Remington
For the record is there anyone else in the audience in favor of this appeal?
Seeing none. Anyone opposed? Seeing none Board discussion.
Lingle
Steve, I've got another question of Peter. Uh, just to help me understand the
requirement, is that the unit could not be larger than 800 square feet, that
includes the garagesquare footage?
Barnes
That's correct.
Lingle
Okay, now if this were a two -car garage and a car port with a workshop for the
primary dwelling or a studio or whatever else it might be um 800 square feet,
the same mass and bulk as what's being proposed. That would not require a
variance and would be acceptable?
Barnes
Right, the size is not an issue in this case, it's the lot area. That's the standard
that's being requested for a variance which deals with uh the addition of
dwellings wherein you have additional trips and things of that nature,
workshops and garages are supposed to be for the use and enjoyment of the
residence of the main principle building --main house on the property as
opposed to two distinct things. So .. .
Lingle
But what's triggering this? Is the fact that it's a separate dwelling unit not the
mass and bulk of the ...see what I mean? That while ...
Bames
Right.
Lingle
They could be exactly equal the assumption behind the policy is that because
it's a separate dwelling it's gonna have it's own car or cars and its own traffic
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 19
trips and all those kinds of things.
Barnes
That's correct. For instance, someone may have an existing 800 square foot
detached garage that's been there for 50 years and they come in and apply for a
permit to convert that garage to a dwelling unit, even though the building is
already there they would need to meet the lot area requirement or get a variance
because of the change in use. So it's the use that trips uh the activities that
occur there, no longer have anything to do with the family uh the household that
occupies the main house.
Lingle
Uh huh, okay. Thank you.
Remington
Any other Board comments? I guess I'll share some of my thoughts. I think
um, I think the arguments that have been made, I think that it certainly um is a
well thought out design. I think it um certainly trying to address some of the
concerns that have existed around alley houses or carriage house or whatever
we want to call 'em. I think the arguments about um whether we allow in -fill or
don't allow in -fill are interesting. The concern I've got though is it's not I don't
think it's this Board's role to set policy in those areas and what I am concerned
about is the standard that's, that exists, exists to prevent this situation. Um, and
even prior to 1993 this would have needed a variance when City Council acted
in 1993 because of the concern about the ...this wouldn't have complied even
at that point, so I'm, I'm concerned. I think the City Council and needs to make
some policy decisions around whether they're going to allow this, but I'm
frankly kind of concerned as to the equal to or better than standard um whether
this meets that.
Donahue
I have a question for Peter. The 5000 square foot lot area requirement what is
the intent and the spirit of the code behind that? Is that for preserving open
space, was it implemented primarily to prevent increasing density, what is the
intent behind that?
Barnes
In this case throughout all of those three years that transpired between the
emergency ordinance and the adoption of the final ordinance that ended up with
the 5000 square foot limit. The uh idea of preservation of open space really
wasn't uh didn't enter into the thinking. It dealt with somehow preserving the
existing quality of life in those neighborhoods, uh character of those
neighborhoods, as they were already in place and being very careful about alley
creep. Um, and so the intent of the 5000 standard is to limit the number of
potential new dwellings that could be constructed. Uh, staff had to prepare uh
we had to go out and do surveys of how many lots there were in the eastside
neighborhood and the westside neighborhood um the number of lots in each of
those areas ...cause the eastside neighborhood and the westside neighborhood
came about as a result of a neighborhood plan that in itself was the result of
years and years of um neighborhood involvement in a City planning process.
Um, and we had to go and do an inventory of the square footage of the lots in
all of those areas as to how many lots had 9000 square feet at least, which
would have met the original requirement of 4500 square feet per building. How
many had at least 11000 square feet, which would have uh met the threshold for
the 5500 square foot emergency ordinance and then we decided to look at how
many lots had 10000 square feet of lot area fora proposed 5000 square foot. So
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 20
we gave all those results to City Council and said okay if you go back to the
4500 square foot, here's how many, here's what percentage of all of the lots can
accommodate another house. If you go to 5500 square foot, which is 11000
square foot for an alley house, this is the percentage of lots that can
accommodate another alley house. And if you go with 5000 square foot, this is
the percentage. So they had these comparison tables um and with uh, uh all of
the neighborhood input and Council um thought that was put into they
determined that 5000 gave them the right mix. Um because they are very
concerned about alley creep --going down the alley. Once you get away from
the streets, we have the corner lot situations already where you have, it's very
common to have two lots uh two houses, that not particularly of concern. But
they were more concerned about when you start uh allowing uh through,
through smaller lot size requirements when you start allowing the potential for
more and more lots to be uh redeveloped with in -fill development. They felt
that would be uh changing the quality of life in those neighborhoods, and uh
they were concerned about preserving that quality of life and the character. The
character yeah well there some alley houses that were minimal amounts, and
they were concerned about what was happening. So also they were concerned
about preserving the character of the neighborhood which was mostly blocks
devoid of interior alley houses, so the intent, I think, I think can so say quite uh
quite confidently was just really dealing with limiting the number of new alley
house construction.
Remington
Peter is the, is that situation with uh, with two, with property adjoining two
alleys how unique is that situation?
Barnes
It's fairly unique. I don't believe there are too many blocks that have that type
of alley (tape turns over) the block right to the north on the other side of Locust
is similar.
Remington
But generally in that part of town it's a unique feature.
Barnes
I think so.
Remington
Discussion or questions.
Lingle
Yeah um, I'd like to hear some other comments from the Board, but I'm really
(tape cuts out) finding a way through either a hardship or an equal to or better
than position to be able to approve it. That's why I'd like to hear what some
other people think.
Breth
Well um, I'm all for affordable housing. We can't have enough affordable
housing as far as I'm concerned, but um how we go about it is a total different
issue. How we go about obtaining it. I think the uh applicant has gone to great
pains to address a lot of issues of the architectural style is where it needs to be
albeit uh although that was an accident, I mean it was designed for something
else, but it can definitely fit in that neighborhood. Um, I think the side
orientation is proper whether it's turned to face the other alley or not --it's
immaterial. But I do believe we have a responsibility to uphold the code as it
was adopted back in 1996. Um, and the codes are there to protect the public
good, the detriment to the public good and, and uh I think um personally I just
happen to think that it's not our job to override that uh. It's not our job to
increase density where density doesn't belong, is what I'm trying to say. Um, if
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 21
this were one big lot, let's say, one big, if this lot and the corner lot were one big
lot, and they wanted to come in and do more dense housing on there with a
brand new plan if, if, if the whole lot, if both lots were vacant then I would
certainly be in favor of taking a look at that as in way of increasing density and
way of providing affordable housing, but I don't think, I just don't think it's
being accomplished here. In this, in the present way it's been proposed.
Remington
Any other comments?
Barnes
Steve, I think the Applicant would like to address the Board.
Remington
Okay, sure come on up.
Torgerson
Thank you, I wanted to answer a question that you rightly proposed, which was
how does this address the standard equally well or better than. Um, and I
neglected to say that in my presentation. I actually believe that it better
addresses than, uh than compliance would. That standard says that it needs to
promote the standard of which the variance is requested equally well or better
than a proposal which complied with that. So when you look at the purpose
statement, which is what we're supposed to be promoting. The purpose
statement for that section of the code says it's intended to preserve the character
of the area that have a predominance of developed single family, low to
medium density and multi -family housing which have been uh given this
designation in accordance with a sub -area plan. And then when you look at the
sub -area plan, which is the eastside neighborhood plan, this particular area was
in a um survey done as part of the eastside neighborhood plan was designated as
multi -family, not single family. And so this clearly promotes that sub -area plan
better than compliance would because it's in total agreement with the survey
that was done as part of that sub -area plan. So I'm really not, I don't believe I'm
stretching the code in that respect. And then the second part of that is that it
needs not to impair the intent or purposes of the Land Use Code, and clearly
providing affordable housing in Fort Collins is only promoting the purposes of
the Land Use Code, and I can cite multiple sections that agree with that. So I
didn't choose that section just because a hardship didn't fit or something. I
really truly believe that this is promoting that intent and purposes of that
section.
Remington
Okay, so help me with that. In terms of if, if it were to comply with the
standard then there would not be um a living unit built. So, how does building a
living unit promote that standard equally well or better would, help me with that
I'm not ...
Torgerson
Again, if you're looking at that sub -area plan it, it in a survey designated this as
a multi -family area. So single family in a multi -family area would be less
compliant with that sub -area.
Remington
What, what survey are you referring to?
Torgerson
The eastside neighborhood plan and that is the sub -area plan.
Barnes
Well let me uh just address something. The NCM zoning district regulations
that were adopted implemented the neighborhood plan --the eastside
neighborhood plan. And in order to implement it, certainly the NCM zone
allows uh multi -family up to four-plexes. It also allows single-family dwellings
too, so uh I don't necessarily a ee that it's a ro riate to say that the intent of
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 22
the sub -area plan is to uh not allow single-family or encourage single-family.
Um...
Torgerson
If I could Peter, what I was referring to wasn't just the general standard. It was
the specific site. This actual lot was designated as multi -family in the eastside
neighborhood plan.
Bames
And that could be converted to a duplex, tri-plex, or a four-plex--the existing
building on the front of the lot. That lot would allow that, and you could still do
that even if the Board grants a variance to allow the single-family home um the
uh unless they put some conditions on it the existing single-family home on the
front could be converted to uh duplex, tri-plex, or a four- lex. Um
Torgerson
So I guess the point I was making is that, that arrangement is more in keeping
um preserving the character of the area if we, if we build a small unit like this
and it's compatible with the neighborhood. That's preserving the character
better than I contend than building a three- lex.
Remin ton
Four- lex, okay I understand your argument. Thank you.
Torgerson
I Thank you.
Shannon
If a duplex were made, Peter you mentioned converting the house, could you
put an addition on and make that a duplex? Or is it, do we, would we then have
the sameproblem?
Bames
The lot area would be all right because the lot area requirement is per principle
building. However if you convert that building to another use uh and it requires
exterior alterations then that has to go to the Planning and Zoning Board
through a public hearing. Um not necessarily for any variances um, but just
through the public hearing process. It's allowed if they met all the setbacks and
provided the parking and stuff like that they would meet, excuse me, they
would meet the standards for a duplex or what not.
Eckman
But if they cleared the lot and started over, then that can be an administrative
review for what up to a four- lex.
Bames
When you say administrative ...
Eckman
Type one review, I'm lookina at here.
Bames
Right. If they tore down all the buildings they could build a four-plex, and City
Council was fully aware of that when they adopted the Code in'96.
Shannon
What would be the allowable square footage then? Of living units?
Barnes
It's a 2 to 1 lot area to floor area ratio. The lot, the total square footage of the lot
has to be twice as large as the floor of all the buildings on the property.
Remington
What, what is the floor area that's proposed. We have 800 feet here and I think
you mentioned the footprint on the front, but what's the square footage of the
building on the front --the total square footage?
Torgerson
I don't know the total square footage, but, but as Peter said it's a floor to, oh I'm
sorry it is a floor to area ratio, not a coverage. If the lower floor is um, 800
square feet or so, it's probably 13-1400 square feet above grade, and then it has
a basement. So I guess what I was saying is that, if you're looking at the highest
and best use of the property this sort of approach certainly preserves the
character of the neighborhood, and that is the purpose statement that I'm
arguing is better than or at least equal than. So I guess, it doesn't seem like
you're really legislating from the bench so much asyou're just looking at a
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 23
specific situation and seeing that it's either equal to or better than that purposed
statement or not.
Remington
Any other Board discussion? Thank you.
Lingle
Well for, me at least, that seems to change things a little bit. That if, if up to a
four-plex were to be allowed with a total building area of 4100 square feet, I
guess I'm not, and Peter you said that the City Council was aware of that at the
time.
Barnes
Yes they were because if you go with that thought every single house in the
NCM zone could be converted to a four-plex and then if you were to grant this
variance they could also have another house in the back. So now I think I'm
going to have to refer to City Plan and the Applicant did cite some references to
City Plan, which is the City's comprehensive plan. And our Land Use Code, the
zoning code, implements the principles and policies found in City Plan. So the
Applicant cited some, but I'm gonna cite some different ones. Uh, this is uh,
taken out of the chapter in City Plan on the City structure plan. It says, choices
made by the City Structure Plan and it talks about in -fill 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 granny flat above a garage. Again, the keyword there is you can
add those to lots that are large enough. Then you have other sections on, this is
in the chapter on principles and policies in the chapter on existing
neighborhoods the principle is most existing residential developments will
remain largely unaffected by the City Plan Principles and Policies, and then
Policy 1.1 dealing with that principle states that 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 sub -area plan prepared in collaboration with
residents. And then it goes on to say in that same, in another policy regarding
that same principle on in -fill development. Forms of potential infill
development include small detached dwellings added to lots of sufficient size
with existing houses, for example alley houses, in other words a type of in -fill
development is a small detached dwelling that you're gonna add to a lot where
there's an existing building on it when the lot is of sufficient size.
Remington
So Peter, can I ask a question on that? So in that situation if, if this were a
10,000 square foot lot in that location, in that zone they could put, if I
understand it correctly, they could put a four-plex on the farther property and
still have 800 square foot
Barnes
No. Uh, they need 5000 square feet of lot area for every single-family and
duplex.
Remington
Okay.
Barnes
You need 6000 square feet of lot area for a tri-plex or four-plex. So they need
11,000 square feet of lot area to have a four- lex and a new house.
Remington
So at 10,000 square feet, they could have a duplex and a house, right?
Barnes
That's correct. And that's on a lot of sufficient size as demeaned by the Cit
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 24
Council.
Remington
I guess what I'm trying to understand is based on the comments by the uh, uh
the Applicant's architect if, if in terms of the standard and what's equal to or
better than I'm trying to decide, is, is a four-plex on that property meeting the
standard better than this situation if, if this situation were approved with a
condition um that you could not put a duplex, tri-plex, or four-plex on the front.
Um, just in my own mind, I'm trying to decide if this meets that equal to or,
which I thinks falling under your comments, I'm just trying to uh ...
Lingle
Or uh or like you said a duplex and a single family house, which is essentially
three units on a 10,000 square foot lot versus the proposal of two units on a
8800 square feet.
Barnes
That's right and I believe what City Council said was that if you have 10,000
square feet of lot area it's appropriate to a duplex and a single-family home.
And if you have 11,000 square feet of lot area I think they said it's appropriate
to have a four- lex and a single-family home.
Breth
But they say then ...
Barnes
That was the result of those three years of comparative tables and percentages
of lots that could accommodate this and that and everything.
Breth
But they say you can only have one dwelling on a 5,000 square foot lot.
Barnes
Or a duplex.
Breth
Or a duplex on a 5,000 square foot lot. So don't you essentially have a detached
duplex here on an 8,200 square foot lot?
Barnes
No you have, you have the same number of dwelling units.
Breth
But they're not attached.
Barnes
That's right.
Breth
So ...
Barnes
Well nowyou're getting into policy issues, I think again.
Breth
Well...
Donahue
If these were attached as a duplex it would be uh one massive building. Create
more bulk where this is smaller scale more in character with the neighborhood.
Breth
If you had proper parking for that front house you'd still have more mass. I
mean enclosed parking, doesn't have a garage.
Donahue
True.
Remington
Any other Board discussion.
Shannon
I think we have a real quandary here in that, accept that it I believe this is equal
to or better alternative of a duplex and a single-family. I really don't see where
that makes a policy change if this is superior.
Remington
I think from what Peter said a duplex and a single-family detached unit would
not be allowed on this lot. The choice is you could have a duplex, tri-plex, or
four- lex on this lot. Or situation with two single-family units.
Breth
om 1 . That complies.
Except that it, it, it that complies. This doesn't comply'
Remington
Right, I think that's what I'm saying the question is this equal to or better than
something that complies which might be a four- lex.
Breth
There's a bigger problem here than equal to or better than. This could be better
than having a big massive building, butyou're gonna open the flood gates here.
Remin on
Unless there's something unique with the alley configuration or something.
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 25
Breth
Well you better find something unique about it because you ...
Shannon
How many, Peter how many properties are zoned in this way that would led to
additional alley house, the alley creep?
Barnes
Let's see if I can find the table. How many are zoned in this to do what?
Shannon
In, in the matter that it could be a duplex, or tri-plex, or a four-plex on this size
lot. How many other properties are zoned in this manner?
Barnes
Well every lot in the NCM or the NCB zoning district is zoned to allow multi-
family up to four- lex buildings.
Shannon
On what size lot?
Barnes
On a uh 5,000 square foot lot in the NCM for a single-family duplex, 6,000
square foot lot in the NCM for tri-plex and four-plex, and in the NCB it's 5000
square foot for any type of residential building up to four-plexes. So all the
NCM and NCB lots that have at least 5000 square feet are going to allow a
duplex.
Remington
So, Peter ...
Bames
Minimum some in those in the NCB will also allow up to a four- lex.
Remington
So Peter, in 1993 when this issue came to a head and, and, and in my mind in
1993 there was a pretty clear policy set. But when that came to a head did the
same condition exists in terms of being able to have a duplex, or tri-plex, on the
front of the property and a detached alley house or is that situation been created
since 1993?
Barnes
Since 1993 to do what?
Remington
Well what, what I'm trying to get at is in my mind this debate about if this was
approved with a condition that the front unit had to stay a single living unit. I'm
trying to decide if that's equal to or better than um a situation that complies,
which potentially could be this duplex, tri-plex, or four-plex. And I'm
wondering if that same condition existed prior to 1993. In other words, prior to
1993 on 4500 square feet or 5000 square could I have built a duplex or tri-plex
and still built ...
Barnes
No. You would have needed 9000 square feet to build a duplex and a single-
family.
Remington
But I, okay. I could of, I could of...
Barnes
What happened is that got changed from 9000 square foot prior to '93 to 10,000
square feet after'96.
Remington
I guess what I'm trying, maybe, let me try a different way to ask this then. Prior
to 1993 with 9000 square feet, I could have built a duplex on the front and a
single living unit on the back.
Barnes
That's right.
Remington
Or with whatever the numbers were back then with 10,000 square feet I could
have a tri-plex in uh, whatever the numbers were, but okay. Cause in my mind,
in 1993, City Council made a clear statement about, in my mind, I'm trying to
have this debate about whether this is equal to or better, and I guess what I'm
hearing is in 1993 they kind of had that debate, if it was allowed.
Torgerson
In 1993 we were under the LDGS, which wasn't a prescriptive land use code as
we are now. That changed happened in '96, I think it was. So you could have
put, theoretically you could put anything there in the front it was just a matter of
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 26
meeting certain criteria.
Bames
Well, in 1996 when they finally adopted this ordinance they were so concerned
about uh PUD being used to abuse this that they did something very unusual in
that between first and second reading of that 1996 ordinance uh someone raised
the issue well gee through a PUD they could bury all this stuff. Uh, a provision
was added to the ordinance between first and second reading making it very
clear that you could not vary this requirements throu h a PUD.
Remington
Any other Board discussion? Well, then I think we probably need a motion
either ...
Bames
I'll just go ahead and just to clarify I'll read that from the ordinance. It says
development of areas in the NCM district as a plan unit, development plan, as
defined process and approved according to Section 29-526 may not vary the
requirements of this subdivision. And that was put in between first and second
reading.
Remington
I think we need a motion for it or a motion against it, or a motion with
conditions. If somebody wants to uh ... any brave souls?
Stockover
Well, it's my opinion, that a lot more thought went into the ordinances than
what we've been allowed to digest in the last week that we've had this
information. And it's my feeling that even though there are two alleys that
really doesn't make it unique, it just makes the number of alley footage longer
than anybody else has, but doesn't really make it unique in my mind. Um, and
I'm usually pretty much for anything (for the record) but this is new
construction, it is, I mean we're not correcting a small problem. It is new
construction, it's clearly against what the square footage requirements are. So I
think I would be opposed to it. I just clear cut rules that are, we're trying to get
around --clear cut square footage rules. Um so I would make a motion to deny
appeal 2384 for the lack of any hardship findings.
Eckman
I don't think they were approaching the hardship, it was the equal to or better
than.
Stockover
For the lack um ...I don't find that it is equal to or better than the guidelines.
Remington
Is there a second?
Breth
That it is a detriment to the public good.
Stockover
I don't think that we have to find that, do we?
Eckman
You don't have to find that it is detrimental it, it in order to approve a variance
you have to find that it's not detrimental and that it also fits one of those other
criteria either the hardship or the equal to or better than. And I think the
Applicant approached the, the later as their argument and not, not the former.
Stockover
I don't think it's detrimental. I just don't think it's better than.
Breth
Well you don't have to.
Remington
That's not part of your motion.
Stockover
No.
Remington
Okay is there a second?
Breth
I second.
Remington
Anymore discussion?
Lingle
Steve,
Remington
Yeah.
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 27
Lingle
For me I think it's gonna come down to the fact that this lot would have been
non -complying prior to 1993. It still would have required a variance prior to
that and the City Council acted through that three year period to actually reduce
the square footage of or increase the requirement of square footage of the lot
further, and so for, to me that policy you know this lot is moving further away
from compliance that it would have been in 1993. So I would, I guess I would
tend to agree that it uh that we shouldn't approve it.
Remington
I guess I'm kind of on the same lines. Where I'm concerned is I think that this
gets in the area of starting to make policy and I think that Applicant has the
option of appealing this to City Council which um, it, it might be appropriate to
do and let City Council make a decision on this one. I think they've taken a lot
of design things into consideration, etc. And there is an argument about
duplexes and all in the front, but for me I'm just nervous we're getting into the
area of setting a policy rather than variances to the codes. Any other
discussion? Okay. Rolicall, please.
Soriano
Breth
Breth
Yes.
Soriano
Donahue.
Donahue
Yes.
Soriano
Remington
Remington
Yes.
Soriano
Shannon
Shannon
No.
Soriano
Stockover
Stockover
Yes.
Soriano
Lingle
Lingle
Yes.
Remington
Appeal 2384 has been denied.
Barnes
I did hear some boardmembers talk about that uh personally you weren't in
favor of the policy um Mikal is a member of the Planning and Zoning Board um
so perhaps this is something that um all the Boards should be instructing staff to
take a look at is this whole policy and then working City Council regarding it.
Um I don't know if the P&Z Boards work plan includes this yet or not. Do you
know where they stand on that? I mean as far as timing?
Torgerson
I don't recall what the ranking is in terms of our work plan, but one of the issues
we have on our work plan is addressing alley houses and carriage houses.
Barnes
And I can see where that is too, and uh see about getting the discussion started.
I personally don't have uh a problem with opening up the policy thing either
because in certain instances it, it uh may require looking into again. Um but uh,
uh I hear from some of the boardmembers that didn't particularly have a
problem with an alley house when the density is allowed anyway and they meet
certain design standards. Um and uh I know at least one member of the P&Z
Board feels the same.
Torgerson
And for what it's worth, I, I agree with the concern that came up and in '96 or
'93, but it was related more to you know these extruded two-story boxes that
you see back there. A lot of boils down to the details unfortunately and that's
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 28
why I would necessarily favor uping the lot size. I think they should be looked
at individually and scrutinized at this level, not so much just moseying in and
saying well I can do it.
Barnes
And maybe there's a different climate out there. I know adopting design
standards to minutely look at the design of the whole site and the building uh
was contemplated and we came up with one ordinance with all of these we had,
I don't know thirty pages of design standards, and that really got the neighbors
upset. Uh they didn't want that much government intrusion. That's why this,
part of why this emergency ordinance kept getting extended year after year.
Um and so they pared down the design standards to some just very essential
ones on roof pitch, the size of the building, but they coupled it with the lot area
requirement. So they had the concern about both and I don't know what the
climate is now days, but uh, uh a discussion of that you know might be
something that we might want to talk about.
Remington
I appreciate the appeal this morning. I think their argument of you know, I
think it's an interesting argument about what's, what's better a four-plex on this
lot or these two separate units, and I think that's a reasonable argument that they
ought to have. That's my opinion.
Donahue
Increase density and provide affordable housing, I'm all for that.
Remin on
I think it's an interesting argument.
Tor erson
Well I a preciate you hearing it.
Remington
Okay thanks.
Meeting adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
Sektl
Steve Rlein on, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
VJ�)
R & R HOME.- OF NORTHERN COLOR DO, LLC
Petitioner's Letter A
TO: Board Members, Fort Collins Building and Zoning
FR07& RF1: 14 omes of Northern Colorado
D>TE.: April 221d, 2002
RE: Vailancc request
ABcr speaking %rith anofficial from the City of Fort Collins Building and Zoning
Department, we have learned that we have built two decks that extend into the utility and
drainage easerncg1ts of LOT M3, Rigdeu Farms IG' Filing. The cement pad below each deck
apparently does comply with regulations enforced by the city, however the cantilever decks
themselves do not comply with these regulations. R & R Homes did not fully understand
the code pertaining to these regulations and we admit we have made a costly mistake and
accept complete responsibility.
However, we are asking you to review this situation a little more closely as there L a 30'
-permanent notr-exclusive easement REC #97037431 behind the property. If the spirit of
tine code allows one such easement to compensate for our oversight, we are asking for a
variance.
Sincerely,
R&R Homes of Northern Colorado
P.O. BOX 231 BERTHOUD, CO • 80513
PHONE: FAX: 970-264-6697
Petitioner's Letter B
April 23, 2002
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.
Policy HSG-1.2 Housing Supply. The City will encourage public and private,
223 North College
fort Collins. CO 80524
970.416.7431
1.888 4161431
foc 970.416.7435
{moil: mikal@mrhitextom
hltpl/w Orcwieaorn
Petitioner's Le er B
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 housing,
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 carnage 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
MikalSTs�rgerson a
rtkt