HomeMy WebLinkAbout612 E. PITKIN, CARRIAGE HOUSE - FDP - FDP160007 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - VARIANCE REQUEST301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80521 970.221.4158 www.northernengineering.com
Administrative Engineering Variance Request Letter
Date: December 21, 2015
Project: 612 E. Pitkin – Carriage House Project No. 1199-001
Fort Collins, Colorado
Attn: Ms. Katie Sexton
Engineering Development Review
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Katie:
Public safety and convenience, maintaining public use, and optimizing the use of limited physical capacity
of right-of-way are among the objectives of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) –
Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007. It is with those considerations in mind that this variance request
letter has been prepared. This letter is provided pursuant to Section 1.9.4 of LCUASS to document a
proposed site condition that does not comply with the current standards.
The criteria in question are the garage door setback and fencing location from the property line along an
alley. Specifically, LCUASS Figure 7-11F states:
Garage Door Setback: *Option 1: 8’ for fences placed with a setback equal to 8’ or more. Option 2:
20’ minimum for fences placed less than 8’ from the edge of the alley.
Fences: Fences may be placed as close as 3’ from the right-of-way line on private property when the
garage door is set back at least 20’ from the right-of-way. Minimum setback is 8’ for garage door
setback less than 20’ from the right-of-way.
*Building setbacks shall be in accordance with the Land Use Code.
The proposed design places the fence 3’ from the edge of the alley with the garage door setback 8’ from
the right-of-way. As such, the alternate design would not diverge from the standards except in a nominal
and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood.
Underlying objectives of these alley setback standards are to minimize parked cars from extending into the
alley right-of-way, and to provide safe sight distance for garage ingress/egress and cars passing in the alley.
Therefore, if the proposed design can mitigate these concerns, it is reasonable to conclude that the intent
of the standards are met in an alternate way.
612 E. Pitkin St. – Carriage House | LCUASS Variance Request | 12.21.2015
D:\Projects\1199-001\Admin\612-E-Pitkin_VarianceRequest_2015-12-21.docx Page 2 of 2
This property is unique in that there are four (4) parking spaces provided in garages; two (2) spaces in the
garage attached to the main house and two (2) in the proposed detached garage underneath the carriage
house accessed from the alley. The proposed carriage house also has a large dedicated parking area east
of the structure. The spaces mentioned above do not account for additional parking that may occur in the
driveway off Pitkin Street. Given the sufficiency of parking provided and the intended use and
management of the property, it is unlikely that the area in front of the garage door between the fence and
alley will be utilized for parking. Since additional parking is not needed or desired in this location, the
Owner would prefer to maximize the backyard space and place the new fence at a 3’ setback from the
alley.
Additionally, this property lies at the terminus of a dead-end alley, where the only access would be from
either the owners of the property to the north or the owners of the subject property at 612 E. Pitkin Street.
Cars are not expected to park between the garage and the alley, thus the concern of vehicles extending into
the public right-of-way is all but eliminated. Furthermore, since vehicle parking, ingress, and egress is not
expected to be a frequent occurrence, the sight distance concern is moot. Sight distance for the vehicles
parked east of the garage would be a consideration; however, since this occurs at the dead-end section of
the alley, it too is a non-issue. For these reasons, it is believed that placing the garage door 8’ from the
alley with a fence located 3’ from the right-of-way 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 question. The requested variance is not expected to pose any detriment to public health,
safety or welfare. This variance will not reduce the design life of any public improvements or increase
future City maintenance costs.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Nicholas W. Haws, PE , LEED AP
Vice President – Northern Engineering
cc: Heidi Shuff – Studio S Architecture, LLC
12.21.15