The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About226 PETERSON STREET ACCESSORY BUILDING W/ HABITABLE SPACE - PDP - 39-06 - CORRESPONDENCE - (6)Page 3 of 3 the first floor of any accessory building as part of the total floor area, regardless of ceiling height. This change would not apply to your proposal since you have submitted under the existing standards. It seems that your options for the proposal right now are (1) to reduce the footprint of the building to make the building a more typical accessory building, or (2) add a third garage bay and reduce the garage ceiling height to 7 ft 5 in. If you need any further clarification, Cameron and I are happy to meet with you, and we both should have some time available later on this week. Shelby Sommer Associate Planner City of Fort Collins Current Planning 970-221-6750 ssommeridfcaov.com file://CADocuments and Settings\ssommer\l ocal Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 2/20/2007 Page 2 of 3 Department, therefore you will be able to have a 3 car garage at a height of 7 ft 5 in, but this cannot be finished as space intended for human occupancy. As long as the upper story (space intended for human occupancy) has a ceiling height of 7 ft 6 in, it will be acceptable to the Building Department. In addition, total floor area accounts for all space with a ceiling height of at least 7 ft 6 in. The 3 car garage area would not be counted as part of the total floor area, but any areas with a ceiling height of 7 ft 6 in will be counted and limited to 600 sq. ft. Your options are to propose a traditional 2 car garage accessory building, or potentially a 3 car garage with garage ceiling height of 7 ft 5 in and upper story ceiling height of 7 ft 6 in. Item 2 The code defines half story as follows: 'Story, half shall mean a space under a sloping roof which has the line of intersection of the roof and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the floor level, and in which space the possible floor area with head room of five (5) feet or less occupies at least forty (40) percent of the total floor area of the store directly beneath." This essentially dictates a 6V:12H roof pitch which is half of the pitch for a traditional barn/carriage house and does not match the aesthetics of the neighborhood. In addition, this makes the upper half story have only 10% of the upper floor area > 7.5 ft, hardly sufficient to be called "habitable". This seems inconsistent with intent to allow homeowners to build traditional accessory buildings and carriage houses, without dwelling space, 'in the rear of Old Town lots. A 12V:12H roof pitch is more traditional and compatible with the neighborhood and provides 55% of the upper floor area > 7.5 ft (see attached sketch). Question: Assuming l satisfactorily resolve all other review comments, could I successfully request a modification to standard to the half story standard (requesting a 12:12 roof pitch and 20% floor area <.5 ft.) with the rational that the proposed modification equally well or better meets the standard by being consistent with historical structures (barns & carriage houses) and supports the same use as a conforming design. Alternatively, assuming I satisfactorily resolve all other review comments (and still have 3 car bay doors on the main floor), could l successfully request a modification to standard to the 10, 000 sq ft minimum lot size for a carriage house with the rational that the proposed modification equally well or better meets the standard by being consistent with historical structures (barns & carriage houses) and supports the same use as a conforming design. These questions bring us back to the intent of the standards and the fact that a traditional accessory building has a smaller footprint (2 car garage). When the footprint is enlarged, the other proportions (primarily roof pitch) become skewed. We will be unable to support a modification request to the half story standard because by increasing the roof pitch the total floor area would increase, and an already larger than normal accessory building would become even larger. With regard to the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size modification idea, the threshold was set specifically for and by this neighborhood at 10,000 square feet. We will not support such a request because the neighborhood had a great deal of involvement with establishing these standards, and felt that less than 10,000 square feet is insufficient space for two dwelling units. The intent of these standards is to discourage the development of new large structures on the rear portions of small lots that could be rented out as dwelling units. Item 3 To date, Me paid $500 for a transportation review fee, $4,105 for my application review fee and $291 for APO labels. This amounts to $4,896, without architect's fees, for what is essentially a garage (I presume I would have to pay the same amount even if I were not trying to have a little space above the garage.) This seems a bit steep. Question: Are these charges correct? Do any of the charges to the transportation review fee or the application fee go towards a building permit or are they deductible form State or County taxes? You are correct in that you were overcharged. You should have been charged the small project fee of ($250) instead of the PDP application review fee. A refund request has been submitted to the Accounting Department, and you will be receiving a refund of $3690. Finally, the Land Use Code change proposed this Spring is to count file://C:\Documents and Settings\ssommer\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 2/20/2007 Pagel of 3 Shelby Sommer - RE: 226 Peterson St Accessory Bldg. questions From: "Wright, Toby -- MFG" <Toby.Wright@mfgenv.com> To: "Shelby Sommer" <ssommer@fcgov.com> Date: 02/14/2007 10:23:53 PM Subject: RE: 226 Peterson St Accessory Bldg. questions Shelby; Thanks to you and Cameron for such a quick reply. I understand now that the current code did not intend to allow accessory buildings comparable to the three historic barns on the alley behind my house. Though such structures with these dimensions are very common in the area around my property, apparently the concept of a new accessory building of this size and dimension, was intentionally restricted and I have no hope of being granted a modification to standard. Though you indicate that I can go ahead with my submittal (3 bays @ 7 ft x 5 in on main floor, 6:12 pitch on upper 1/2 story, I feel that such a low roof pitch is really ugly and inappropriate for that sized structure ( and inconsistent with similar structures in the area) and would be a detriment to the neighborhood. So, I will re- group with my architect and pursue one of two options: 1) propose a 20 ft x 30 ft, accessory building with habitable space that has 2 or three garage bays, a 13 ft eve height, a 12:12 roof pitch with a 23 ft crest height and no upper 1/2 story (e.g., open barn w/ no ceiling just high rafters and exposed roof joists); 2) propose a 20 ft x 30 ft single story accessory building with habitable space that has 2 or three garage bays, a 10 ft eve height, a 12:12 roof pitch with a 20 ft crest height. I f you can think of any reason that option one is not permissible, please let me know. Again, thanks to both you and Cameron. I really do appreciate your patience and help. Toby Wright From: Shelby Sommer [mailto:ssommer@fcgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:12 PM To: Wright, Toby -- MFG Subject: Re: 226 Peterson St Accessory Bldg. questions Toby, Thanks for the message. Cameron and I sat down earlier today and discussed your questions. Here are our responses: Item 1 Mr. Gloss indicated that if I added a third bay to the lower level (which I took to mean that this door would ensure that the 10 ft x 20 It space on the main level would not be habitable space), then my design would be considered compliant. However, with the ceiling height being already @ 7ft 5in, it already fails to meet the requirement for "habitable ". This comment by Mr. Gloss seems at odds with Comment 14. Therefore, I'm not sure how to respond to question. The Building Department will not issue permits for habitable space (space intended for human occupancy) if the ceiling height is not at least 7 ft 6 in. Garage space is not considered habitable space by the Building file://C:\Documents and Settings\ssommer\Local Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 2/20/2007