Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/15/2001Minutes approved by the Board at the April 12, 2001 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — March 15, 2001 8:30 am. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) II Chairperson: William Stockover I Phone: 482-4895 (H) II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday March 15. 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Ayraud Martin Breth Thad Pawlikowski Steve Remington William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Andy Miscio Diane Shannon STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Sandra Kendrick, Staff Support to the Board Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector AGENDA: ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Ayraud to approve the minutes from the February 8, 2001, meeting. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Board Member Remington abstaining. ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO.2325—Approved with conditions Address: 410 Cherry Street Petitioner: Tuff Shed, Contractor Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required interior side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet along the east side. Specifically, the variance would permit a detached garage to be set within 3 feet of the property line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: At the rear yard, there is a two foot diameter mature tree toward the center of the lot which will conflict with a garage at a five foot setback. Additionally, the alignment of the garage at a five foot setback in relation to the house prevents adequate access from driveway into garage. There was a garage previously on the site at the same location which sat on the property line. That garage was removed in 1988. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal Applicant Participation: Wayne Snyder for Tuff -Shed, Inc., 1201 E. Mulberry stated that access into the garage would be somewhat difficult at a five foot setback. A three foot setback would be adequate for access. Board Member Breth asked if the garage would be three feet from the back of the house. The Applicant stated yes and the garage would be built to meet the fire codes since it is that close to the house. Breth asked why it couldn't be built back farther on the lot. The Applicant pointed out that it was because a large sucker has grown from the tree and if they built back farther it would necessitate removing that sucker which the owner would rather not do. A wider, shorter garage was also considered, but that would destroy the back yard. Peter Barnes pointed out that since this property does not have an alley along the rear property line, a 15 foot rear yard setback is required. When there is an alley, there is a five foot setback required. In opposition of the appeal Heather Manier, 411 N. Meldrum, addressed the Board. One of her concerns is that the van that is now located on the lot would get blocked in by the garage with no way to remove it. Another concern is the branches of the tree that are intertwined with power lines; how they could be pruned after the garage is built and there is no access into the backyard. She is not opposed to the actual structure, only the problems that could occur after the garage is in place. ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 3 Board Member Ayraud asked the applicant if the van would still be on the lot after the garage is built. The Applicant said the owner will be using the garage to store cars in and all other vehicles will be removed. Board Member Remington asked about the access to the backyard once the garage is built. The Applicant said access to the backyard with a truck would be very difficult if not impossible. Remington asked if the garage needs to be 40 feet long. The Applicant said the owner has requested that size building in order to house two long vehicles and a three foot workbench in the back of the building. Board Member Breth asked Barnes if the utility company should be contacted to prune branches that are interfering with power lines. Barnes stated that it would be the responsibility of the property owner since the utility company does not go onto private property to prune trees. Breth asked the Applicant if this issue has been addressed with the homeowner. The Applicant said they are planning to do some pruning before they start pouring the foundation. Breth said it was not the Board's responsibility to police these kinds of things, but if it is a hazard, it should be taken care of. Eckman said that even though it is not the Board's responsibility to police these things, there is some relevancy to this because of the fact that after the garage is built, if the Board is inclined to authorize the variance, there would be no way to get in the yard to prune the trees. It would be legally defensible to condition the variance on the pruning of the tree or the removal of the branch. Ayraud had an additional question for Manier in regard to whether her concern was about a vehicle being parked behind the building or whether the vehicle would be in another location. Manier was concerned about the vehicle being blocked in behind the building and she is planning to talk to the owner about this. The Applicant told Manier that the vehicle has to be moved in order to build the garage. Board Discussion: Breth stated that the hardship is there because of the narrowness of the lot and the topography with the existing tree, so he would approve the variance with the stipulation to prune the tree. Remington made a motion that Appeal No. 2325 be approved for the hardship stated which is the lot size and the topography with the stipulation that the tree be adequately pruned around any electrical wires. The motion was seconded by Ayraud. Remington asked if there should also be a stipulation that the van not be left in the backyard. Eckman suggested that it be more general by adding that no vehicle be boxed in behind the building. Remington revised the motion to include that no vehicle is to be boxed in behind the building. The motion was seconded by Ayraud. ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 4 Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Remington, Stockover, Breth, Pawlikowski Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO. 2326 — Approved with condition Address: 125 Circle Drive Petitioner: Pam Marcus -Porter, owner Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) and 4.6(D)(1) Back r The variance would reduce the required street side yard setback along Lake Street from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow a two -car garage addition that will have access from the alley. A second story addition will also be added. The addition will line up with the existing building which is already only 10 feet from the Lake Street property line. The variance would also reduce the required lot area -to -floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.875 to 1 in order to allow the square footage of the home to be 2733 square feet instead of the 2621 square feet allowed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing building is currently set back at 10 feet on the corner side. The owners would like to maintain the "line" of the house along Lake Street. There is also a very large blue spruce tree that would be endangered if the addition were built further to the south. Note that the garage doors will face onto the alley. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. A revised elevation was presented to the Board. The proposed addition will be five feet in from the rear property line. The existing house currently sits ten feet in from the property line and the proposed addition will line up with the existing north wall. Applicant Participation: Pam Marcus -Porter, owner, gave the Board a packet with additional information which included a letter from Jason Jones, Arborworks, who inspected the trees on the property. The letter is in support of the issue that excavation near the trees in both the front and back of the house would reduce the life and health of the irees. Also included in the packet was the revised elevation. The footprint remains the same as the original elevation, but worked with Historic Preservation on the design of the house so that the elevation is more compatible with the existing structure and an improvement to the property and the neighborhood. ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 5 Peter Bames asked if the revised plans increased the floor area of the building beyond the original submittal floor area. The Applicant said it did not. Ayraud asked the Applicant how many two story homes are in the area. The Applicant stated that were a couple of additions off of the back of houses. The home across the street has more than one leveL There is a two story addition going up at Buckeye and Whedbee. Ayraud asked if Historic Preservation was comfortable with the addition and whether the addition comformed with the historic preservation in the neighborhood. The Applicant said they had some suggestions as to how to make it work and the Applicant has tried to implement that into the design. The house would not be designated with landmark status and would not be eligible for benefits. Remington asked how much lower the roof is in the new west elevation than the previous elevation. The Applicant stated that it is about two feet lower, because they shortened the walls on the side so it does lend itself to the design of the existing structure. On the north and south elevations, the mid area between existing structure where the addition begins will have a raised roof line so that the house as a whole blends into itself. Remington asked Barnes if the variance, as presented to the Board, is to include the height of the building. Barnes stated that the height only applies on an interior side yard property line and does not apply to the rear setback requirement or on a street side setback on a corner lot, so this variance is dealing with the lot area -to -floor area ratio and the street side setback. Board Discussion There was discussion concerning the building mass going from a one-story wall to a two story wall along the north lot line. Barnes asked the Applicant if the addition would go further to the back. The Applicant said the additional square footage would be where the stairs would be added. Stockover asked what would be above the garage. The Applicant said there would be two bedrooms. Stockover asked if they should put in the motion that the height does not exceed what is drawn in the latest proposal. The Applicant was asked if they have any plans to change the latest drawings in regard to height. The Applicant said no. Ayraud made a motion to approve Appeal 2326 finding that part of the purpose of having the setback would be to prevent an adjoining landowner from having a mass of any height that close to the property line. Since there is an alley and a street specifically at the corner where they propose to build this addition, the addition would be equal to the purpose of the Code and is separated by some land mass other than adjoining property lines. There is a limited alternative to that placement, namely the blue spruce tree, and the condition would be that they would be restricted to the proposed height. The motion was seconded by Stockover. Remington asked if the approval is based on the hardship of the location of the trees and being able to build on the lot or is it being done under the equal to or better than standard. Ayraud stated that he was moving under the equal to or better than standard but wanted to include the tree so that there would be more restriction on the reason that it was equal to or better than. ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 6 Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Remington, Stockover, Breth, Pawlikowski Nays: None (Note: The tape recorder stopped functioning after Appeal 2326) 5. APPEAL NO.2327 — Approved with condition Address: 4708 Prairie Ridge Dr Petitioner: Lee Barker for Stoner & Co. Construction Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(3) Board Member Breth declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from discussion for this appeal. Background: The variance would reduce the legal rear setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to 9 feet in order to allow a single family home to be constructed on the lot. This is a corner lot, where the home will face the legal street side yard (Prairie Ridge Drive). Since the south lot line facing the cul-de-sac is the legal front yard, the north lot line is the legal rear, even though it functions as a side lot line since the home is to be oriented to Prairie Ridge Drive. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The property fronts on two streets. The proposed placement makes the front of the house face the legal street side of the property and the left side of the house becomes the legal rear. If the street side were the legal front, then no variance would be required. Prairie Ridge Court is the legal front and doesn't have adequate width to turn the house toward that front. Staff Comments Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal and directed the Board to follow the site plans in their packet since this is a vacant lot and would be easier to follow. The house will be set back 25 feet from the back of the sidewalk which would be 20 feet from the property line. The house will face Prairie Ridge Drive. Applicant Participation: Lee Barker, 601 Brewer Dr., felt this was not only a positive move in designing the home, but it was positive as well for the neighbors. The neighbors to the north would not have the back of the house facing the back of their house. They would look at the side of the house, maintaining privacy. The house to the east would not be fairly tight access on the cul-de-sac as far as driveways are concerned. There would be one right next to the other. It was felt it improved the abutting properties as well as the design of the proposed home. He presented the Board with ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 7 an elevation of the house as it would face the north. Remington asked what the setback of the house is from the north property line. Applicant replied it was nine feet. Remington then asked how many feet between the houses. Barnes stated there was 38 feet between the houses based on the site plan on file for the house to the north. Opposition to the Appeal Nathan Donovan, representing Stuart & Julie Fields, owners of Lot 34, 1609 Blue Sage Drive, read a letter from the owners. Mrs. Fields addressed the Board and expressed her concern about the distance between the homes. They designed their home to fit Lot 34 following City's requirements and trusted that the required setbacks would be enforced on adjoining property. After discussion, Ayraud asked the Applicant and Mrs. Fields if they would be willing to change the request to reduce the setback from 15 feet to 14 feet. This would result in the home being built further south, but still in compliance with the required south lot line setback. The Applicant and Mrs. Fields were agreeable to the change. Ayraud made a motion to approve Appeal No. 2327 with an amendment reducing the rear setback from 15 feet to 14 feet. Remington seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Remington, Stockover, Pawlikowski Nays: None 6. APPEAL NO. 2328 -- Approved Address: 603 Bayberry Circle Petitioner: William D. Flint, potential owner Zone: RL Section: 4.3(13)(2)(c) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to 8 feet in order to construct a single family home on this corner lot. (The home that is currently under construction on the lot is located on an unplatted REA easement. It must be removed and a new home constructed outside of the easement.) Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: While the property fronts on two streets, it is the number of various easements on the property which prevents an adequate sized house from being located on the lot in compliance with all setbacks. Easements cover 57% of the area of the lot. In addition, this is a corner lot, wherein the house faces the legal street side lot line, rather that the front lot line. The rear lot line actually functions as a side lot line, which only requires a five foot setback. ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 8 Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides in regard to this appeal. Peter Bames explained that the construction on the current house which was a Habitat for Humanity home was started before the unplatted REA easement was discovered. Applicant Participation: William D. Flint, 1136 Redwood Street, explained that the current house is built seven feet inside the REA easement, and the proposed home will be a 1500 square foot ranch. It would face Bayberry Circle. Board Discussion After some discussion, Remington made a motion to approve Appeal No. 2327 for the hardship stated. Ayraud seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Remington, Stockover, Breth, Pawlikowski Nays: None Board Member Remington left the meeting at 10:30 am. 7. APPEAL NO. 2329 - Approved with condition Address: 338 E. Pitkin St., Bldg. B Petitioner: Dan Bernth, owner Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(D)(1) & 4.7 (E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area from 10,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet in order to allow a new 800 square foot single family home to be constructed to the rear of the existing home at 338 E. Pitkin, on the northwest comer of Pitkin and Peterson. The variance would also reduce the required setback from the property line along Peterson Street from 15 feet to 9.75 feet. (The existing home at 338 E. Pitkin is located seven feet from the Peterson Street lot line, so the new home will be set back further but will face Peterson Street instead of Pitkin Street.) Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 9 Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to the appeal Applicant Particioation: Dan Bernth, 418 Buckeye Street, read his letter dated February 21, 2001, to the Board. Barnes explained the 15 foot setback requirement and the contextual setback from Article 3. Discussion was held regarding the neighborhood and contextual setback. The Applicant stated this home would be facing Peterson Street and the porch would extend to the setback. In opposition to the appeal: Pamela Standen and Liane Emerson, owners of 332 E Pitkin, weren't necessarily opposed to the appeal, but they did have some concerns about increased traffic, a basement that could be used as a rental, and the construction of a garage. Board Discussion: Discussion was held concerning the question of the basement becoming a rental unit. Eckman reminded the Board this variance was for a single family dwelling unit. It was also decided that there would be little traffic impact and the height of the garage would be the same as the current garage which would be removed. The Applicant and Standem and Emerson agreed that installing a six foot high fence between the properties would be acceptable. Ayraud made a motion to approve the appeal with the condition that a six foot fence be constructed along the west lot line and that staff determine what the contextual setback should be by measuring the abutting property existing setbacks. Pawlikowski seconded. Ayraud's motion was based on finding that the proposal was equal to or better than a plan that complies with the standard. Specifically, the proposed plan would not be detrimental to the public good and would comply with the purpose of the standard by limiting the impact on the alley due to orienting the home to Peterson Street and placing the home in compliance with the intent of the contextual setback standard. Additionally, the proposal was equal because the density proposed was no greater than if an extra unit was attached to the existing home, which would not require a variance. His motion also contained a finding that this corner lot situation is conducive to this type of variance, whereas an interior lot would not be because of the alley impact associated with a mid -block lot. Board Member Ayraud left the meeting prior to Appeal 2330 ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 10 8. APPEAL NO. 2330 — Approved with condition Address: 829 W. Mountain Ave Petitioner: Mike Adams Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) (The tape recorder became operational at this point.) Back rp ound: The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Washington Ave. from 15 feet to 6 feet 9 inches to allow a porch addition onto the existing home. The porch is proposed to be constructed on the rear of the home and wrap around to Washington Avenue side. It will extend six feet out from the existing west wall of the home. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The proposed addition is going to be more than 15 feet from the curb. The property is a comer lot and the property line is 18 feet behind the curb (two feet behind the walk.) This results in a setback of 24 feet 9 inches from the curb. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The existing bay window on the home is 9 feet 9 inches to the property line which is also the back of the sidewalk. The existing garage at the rear of the property is five feet from the side property line. A variance for that was received in 1999. The garage now has a five foot setback from the property line. The back of the sidewalk is 13 feet in from the curb. Applicant Participation: Mike Adams, Summit Companies, 300 E Boardwalk, addressed the Board. Summit Companies did the addition to this house in 1999 which included the garage. The original plans included a porch with a side access, but due to finances this was eliminated from the plans. They plan to stay within the five foot setback that the garage currently is. Not wrapping the porch around the house makes it look incomplete. In opposition to the appeal: Jan & Siv Verschuur, owner of 828 W. Mountain Ave, oppose the wrap around porch because it is encroaching on the space between the house and the sidewalk. This would interfere with ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 11 the historic preservation of Mountain Ave. and Washington Ave. This variance would affect the public good. Board Discussion: Breth appreciates the comments of the folks who are opposed to this variance, however the porch is proposed to set back even farther than the garage variance which was granted in 1999. He also feels that the wrap around porch will enhance the house and not be a detriment to the neighborhood or the public good. It will blend in with the current architectural style. Since the lot is a narrow one it does qualify for this variance. Barnes mentioned to the Board if the variance on the setback for the wrap around porch on the west side is denied and the owner would want to construct a porch on the rear of the home a variance would still be needed to allow it to be lined up with the existing wall of the house which is less that 15 feet. New construction needs to comply with the setbacks. Stockover agreed that consideration was given to the architectural look of old town. Barnes asked if the Applicant has talked to Historic Preservation Office. Applicant stated that he has not because the porch was included in the original plans and was approved at that time. Barnes explained that if this variance is approved, Historic Preservation will have to approve the building permit application and they will take into account such things as architectural compability with this house as well as the compatibility with the neighborhood. Pawlikowski has concerns about where the steps are going to be located and if they would come into play with the setback. Barnes stated not in regards to the setback but it does increase the impact on the sidewalk . The applicant was asked if the steps could be moved to the south. The Applicant said they could move the steps to the south and add a gate to the fence to tie into the sidewalk. Traffic flow into the deck would change slightly, either off the south and through the gate or off the steps onto the sidewalk. The owner's preference was to come off the side. The fence that is presently there will tie into the end of the porch. Breth asked if the steps could be moved and inserted into the comer of the porch so that they are not sticking out beyond or located on the north end. Barnes said the issue is whether the steps can be removed from the west side. Breth said not to remove them but to recess them into the southwest comer of the porch so they don't stick out. Applicant said he would like to drop them off the north end of the wrap around and asked if the issue is the length the stairs stick out from the deck or that they come out onto Washington Street. Breth is trying to reduce the impact on Washington St. Barnes said if they have steps coming off the west that they do not stick out any further than the porch if they grant the variance to allow a 6 foot protrusion. Applicant understands that there is a need for a nice clean line where the handrail is and not have the line interrupted where the steps come out into the yard. Breth made a motion that Appeal No. 2330 be approved for the hardship of small lot and condition the approval that the proposed steps on the west side of the deck be removed and reset into the deck or relocated somewhere else so we have a straight line of construction without any obstruction beyond 6 foot 9 inch setback of the porch inself. The motion was seconded by Stockover. ZBA March 15, 2001 Page 12 Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Breth, Pawlikowski Nays: None Barnes also pointed out that the Historic Preservation Office will need to look at the compatibility of this and they will take into account the sidewalk. 9. Other Business Barnes reminded the Board that the April meeting will be the scheduled breakfast meeting with Karen Weitkunat, the Council liasion. The breakfast will be at 8:00 a.m. The Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will begin at 8:45 a.m Meeting adjourned 11:25 a.m. 4� William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator SUBMITTED TO: FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2001 SUBJECT: 338 EAST PITHIN STREET REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The following is a request for Modification of Standards as outlined below: 1. 4.7(D)(1) Density / Intensity of Development — Minimum lot area shall be not less than 5,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling. 2. 4.7(E)(4) Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any comer lot. PURPOSE. The Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District is 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 sub -area plan. A REQUEST FOR THE MODIFICATION TO STANDARD 4.7(D)(1) IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: The granting of the aforementioned modifications would not be detrimental to the public good nor would they require any change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to Building Permit review; and that: (1) The strict application of the standards as outlined in 4.7(D)(1) and 4.7(E)(4) 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 (2) The proposal, as submitted, will advance or protect the interests and purposes 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, i.e. A. Compatibility — Many of the buildings in the 500 and 600 blocks of Meldnun, Sherwood and Whitcomb Streets are larger than the house on the front of the lots, with the original house becoming subordinate in size to the new house. This would not be the case for this house, as it is smaller in size and scale to the front house and would be built with similar materials — primarily lap siding and brick. 02/23/01 - G:\WP\VMC COMMERCIAUBERNTH\DAN WP\338 EAST PITKIN STREET 338 E. PITKIN STREET — REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS PAGE TWO B. Impact / Access — The intent of the code was to restrict access and parking to alleys that were not designed to handle such impacts. The additional building proposed for this lot does not impact the alley at all and would require no changes to the alley as it actually exists. The parking and front entrance are both geared to happen on Peterson Street, not on the alley. C. Character — This design would protect the established character of the neighborhood, while also allowing new, compatible design. D. Orientation — The additional house would be oriented to the street and would reduce the curb cuts from 2 ( currently ) to 1 ( future ). E. Height — The additional house will include one and one-half story elements and will be visually related to the primary structure. F. Details — The architectural details of the alley house will be simple compared to the architectural details used on the primary structure. G. Orientation — The additional house will be oriented to Peterson Street and will require no additional alley traffic. H. Infill — The goal of City Plan assumes that 10 percent of new housing built within the following 20 years would be in the form of infill development in existing neighborhoods. It further notes that infill will be "designed to be in character with existing development". In addition, this proposed project is not without precedence within this neighborhood. In fact it is a common characteristic of the neighborhood and will be equal to or better than development that has already occurred in the neighborhood. A REQUEST FOR THE MODIFICATION TO STANDARD 4.7(E)(4) IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: There is a bit of policy conflict involved in adhering to this standard. In 3.8.19(C) Front Setbacks on Corner Lots, the side of the lot with the shortest street frontage shall be considered the "front setback". Therefore, Pitkin Street would be considered the front and setbacks on Peterson Street would be considered side setbacks. Even with the porch, this additional building would adhere to standard 4.7(E)(4) as the side yard width setback In addition, we should be able to use a "contextual" front setback ( see 3.8.19(B) )as this lot is a comer lot, and the "contextual" setback may fall at any point between the zone district required front setback and the front setback that exists on the lot that is abutting and oriented to the same street as the subject lot. The setback for the existing building on Peterson Street is seven (7) feet and this building,( with the attached porch ) is 9'9'. 02/23/01 - G:\WP\VMC COMMERCIAL\BERNTH\DAN WP\338 EAST PITKIN STREET 338 E. PITHIN STREET — REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS PAGE THREE Finally, the granting of the aforementioned modifications would, without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, help to alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that proposed project would substantially address a number of important community needs specifically and expressly defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. And as mentioned previously, the strict application of the standards would render the project impossible. According to the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the modifications would substantially address the following community needs as outlined in the following principles and policies : 1. Density Principle LU-1: Growth within the city will promote a compact development pattern within a well-defined boundary. Page 89. 2. Infill Development Principle T-1: The physical organization of the city will be supported by a framework of transportation alternatives that maximizes access and mobility throughout the city, while reducing dependence upon the private automobile. Page 93. 3. Housing Principle HSG-1: A variety of housing types and densities will be available throughout the urban area for all income levels. Page 113. For the aforementioned reasons, I request your approval to the modification to standards outlined in this letter. Sincerely, Daniel R. Bemth 02/23/01 - G:\WP\VMC COMMERCIAL\BERNTH\DAp4 WP\338 EAST PITK[N STREET