HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/2021 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting
Ralph Shields, Chair
Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair
David Lawton
John McCoy
Taylor Meyer
Ian Shuff
Butch Stockover
Council Liaison: Shirley Peel
Staff Liaison: Noah Beals
LOCATION:
Meeting will be held virtually.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 8, 2021 2020
8:30 AM
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
Participation for this remote Land Use Review Commission meeting will be available online or by phone. No one
will be allowed to attend in person.
Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Land Use Review Commission via remote public
participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/93465714602. Individuals participating in the
Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site.
The meeting will be available to join beginning at 8:15 a.m. on July 8, 2021. Participants should try to sign in prior
to 8:30 a.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to
indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have
an opportunity to address the Board or Commission.
In order to participate:
Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly
improve your audio).
You need to have access to the internet.
Keep yourself on muted status.
If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email jluther@fcgov.com.
Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. The
number to dial is +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 9128, with webinar ID: 934 6571 4602
(Continued on next page)
Land Use Review Commission Page 2 July 8, 2021
• CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda)
• APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE
1. APPEAL ZBA210025
Address: 1550 Reeves Dr.
Owner/Petitioner: Anurag Agrawal
Zoning District: L-M-N
Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(5)
Project Description:
This is a request to extend the existing rear-yard fence along the public sidewalk. The existing fence
encroaches 2 feet into the 2-foot setback from the sidewalk and the proposed fence is requesting to
match the existing encroachment.
2. APPEAL ZBA210026
Address: 2026 Bear Mountain Dr.
Owner: Omnia Cum Deo LLC
Petitioner: Mark Bruder
Zoning District: I
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Table (B)
Project Description:
This is a request for a variance to the required sign height in the Residential Sign District. The request is
to allow all wall signs, both currently proposed and future signs, for this building to extend an additional 1
foot beyond the required 2-foot height limit.
The meeting will be available beginning at 8:15 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 8:30 a.m., if possible.
For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like
to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom
session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting:
keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email
jluther@fcgov.com.
Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, the Staff Liaison needs to receive
those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting.
Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are
encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to nbeals@fcgov.com. The Staff
Liaison will ensure the Board or Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of
the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to
the meeting.
As required by City Council Ordinance 061, 2020, a determination has been made that holding an in-person
hearing would not be prudent and that the matters to be heard are pressing and require prompt
consideration. The written determination is contained in the agenda materials.
Land Use Review Commission Page 3 July 8, 2021
3. APPEAL ZBA210027
Address: 1025 Sailors Reef
Owner/Petitioner: Elaine and Dennis Edwards
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c)
Project Description:
This is a request to build a deck encroaching a total of 8.75 feet into the required 15-foot rear-yard
setback. The approved subdivision plans already allow a 3-foot encroachment into the required 15-foot
rear setback. The proposed deck is seeking an additional 5.75 feet. This also requires vacating part of a
10-foot utility easement along the rear property line.
4. APPEAL ZBA210028
Address: 421 E. Laurel St.
Owner: Patricia and Nick Quinn
Petitioner: Kristin Zuro
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2)
Project Description:
This is a variance request to exceed maximum allowable floor area of the lot by 619 square feet. The
total allowable square footage of the lot is 3,496 square feet. Previous variance, ZBA210011, approved
an additional 295 square feet. This variance request is asking for an additional 324 square feet on top of
the 295 square feet already granted.
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
1
Jennifer Luther
From:Noah Beals
Sent:Monday, May 24, 2021 9:35 AM
To:Jennifer Luther
Subject:FW: Land Use Review Commission (LURC) formerly ZBA, Remote Hearings
From: Ralph Shields <rshields@bellisimoinc.com>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 9:33 AM
To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Land Use Review Commission (LURC) formerly ZBA, Remote Hearings
Hi Noah. I agree with staff's recommendation.
Thanks
Ralph Shields
970.231.7665
From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 9:17 AM
To: Ralph Shields <rshields@bellisimoinc.com>
Cc: Jennifer Luther <jluther@fcgov.com>
Subject: Land Use Review Commission (LURC) formerly ZBA, Remote Hearings
Hello Chair‐person Shields,
Since May 2020 the Land Use Review Commission (LURC) has conducted a remote hearing. These remote hearings
appear to have met the needs of the board members and the applicants. The concerns that prompted these remote
meetings are beginning dissipate but are not eliminated.
Health risks during a world‐wide pandemic
Vaccinations continuing to be administered
Difficulties in coordinating logistics for an in‐person meeting or hybrid of such
It is staff recommendation to continue with a remote hearing for June and July 2021 meetings of the LURC and revaluate
for the August meeting.
Please respond to this email with your agreement with this recommendation or other suggestions for these hearings.
Kind Regards,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning | City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
Ralph Shields, Chair
Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair
David Lawton
John McCoy
Taylor Meyer
Ian Shuff
Butch Stockover
Council Liaison: Shirley Peel
Staff Liaison: Noah Beals
LOCATION:
Virtual Hearing
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 10, 2021
8:30 AM
• CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
All commission members except Shields and Stockover were present.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the May 13, 2021 Minutes.
The motion was adopted unanimously, with Lawton abstaining.
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda)
None.
• APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE
1. APPEAL ZBA210015 –DENIED
Address: 4606 S. Mason St.
Owner: 4606 S Mason St, LLC
Petitioner: TJ Malone
Zoning District: C-G
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(G)Table (G)(1)
Project Description:
This request is for the following variances: (1) Add a ground sign along W. Harmony Rd. where only
one ground sign is allowed per frontage when it is part of a group of properties with shared vehicular
access. (2) Add a ground sign along S. College Ave. where only one ground sign is allowed per
frontage when it is part of a group of properties with shared vehicular access.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the new
owner of the building is an appliance store and two ground signs are present on the property. The
sign code has been updated to reduce sign clutter. This property shares vehicle access with other
businesses (fast food restaurant, a brewery and others). There is already a shared tenant sign. The
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Land Use Review Commission Page 2 June 10, 2021
request is to remove the nonconforming signs and build two new ones in their place in a similar
location. The code requires that the signs be shared with all business that have shared vehicular
access. The sign which hangs currently on the north corner of the building has been previously
approved for a variance. The new sign would include an electronic digital portion. Structural
alterations are not allowed for non-conforming signs.
Vice Chair LaMastra asked about the bottom of the sign. Beals stated that it is the digital part of the
sign.
Commission member Lawton asked whether any signs were being demolished. Beals stated the
proposed plan is for the existing signs to come down and new signs were to be built.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant, TJ Malone, 4606 S Mason St, addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held
remotely There is not a lot of visibility to the establishment outside of the two signs. They are trying to
update the signs and get more aesthetically pleasing signs. Signs would be illuminated and would
last for years. It would also cut down on power.
Commission Member Meyer stated that the sign proposals are in the same location as the old signs
and wanted to know why the applicant thought the new signs would increase visibility. Applicant
stated that it is more about the condition of the current signs and the need for update. The current
tenant sign does not provide enough visibility. Meyer asked Beals for clarification on the code
regarding repairing signs. He was wondering if the solution could be to repair the existing sign
instead. Beals read portions of the code (3.8.7.4). No sign shall be structurally altered to preserve the
sign. There are limitations for repair. Applicant said that removing signs would create a hardship. The
clients bought the building for visibility on this busy intersection.
Vice Chair LaMastra asked whether the corner projecting sign can be removed. She is concerned
with sign clutter. Is the projecting sign and EMC panels necessary? Applicant stated that he thought it
was necessary. The monument signs are attracting drivers. LaMastra wanted to know if there is any
leeway regarding the clutter and impact. Can it be replaced with just a monument sign? Applicant
stated he would have to speak with the owner.
Audience Participation: none
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Meyer does not see the hardship. The sign code seems to have been written
for a property like this and it seems very intent.
Commission Member Shuff thinks it’s creating more intensity. He noted there is already a large sign
which was approved. He would be open to reconstructing existing signs, but wouldn’t be for the
appeal as stated.
LaMastra thinks that there is already enough signage.
Commission member Lawton thinks that the code is there for a reason. He thinks the large sign on
the corner is very visible. He doesn’t think there is any confusion as to what the building is. He does
not see hardship.
Commission Member McCoy agrees with Shuff. He thinks there is a lot of clutter on this corner.
Shuff asked whether this should be tabled to propose something else.
Beals shared some of the options available to the applicant and suggests a decision should be made
on what’s being proposed.
Lawton thinks it would be better to deny to set precedent for any future properties in the same
situation.
Boardmember Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to deny ZBA210015 for the
following reasons: Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing hardship that
would prevent the client from being in compliance with the standard set in the code, and the
existing tenant signs can also be used.
Yeas: Meyer, Shuff, Lawton McCoy and LaMastra. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED.
Land Use Review Commission Page 3 June 10, 2021
2. APPEAL ZBA210020 - APPROVED
Address: 400 9th St
Owner/Petitioner: Michael Hutsell.
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(b), 4.4(D)(2)(d)
Project Description:
This is a request for a variance to build an addition encroaching 16 feet into the required 20-foot front
yard setback and encroaching 3 feet into the required 15-foot corner side setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that it is a
corner property (9th and Buckingham). Many of the homes in the area do not comply with the current
setback standards. Request is to redo the front. There was a porch which was enclosed. The porch
would be removed and habitable space would replace it. Existing vegetation would block the view of
the addition.
Commission member Meyer wanted to confirm the proposed addition – it would not be encroaching
any more than what is already encroaching. Beals confirmed this.
Vice Chair LaMastra asked what the impacts will be when the intersection is widened. Beals answered
that the Engineering department usually works around this.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant, Michael Hutsell, 400 9th St addressed the board and agreed to the remote proceedings. The
number one priority is to increase the curb appeal. All neighbors are in favor of this. There are other
homes in the neighborhood with similar setbacks. They are across from an open field and receive a
good amount of wind and dust. The Lemay bypass is going to reroute Lemay traffic to the east of their
neighborhood. Existing 9th street (Lemay) will become a neighborhood street. Buckingham will connect
With the proposal they will be increasing driver sight lines.
Commission member Lawton asked about the current protection in the front of the house. Applicant
answered that there was some asbestos abatement on the property.
Audience Participation: none
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Shuff thinks this is straight forward and will be in support.
Commission member Lawton thinks the design is good and understands the need for better visibility
on this street corner.
Commisssion members Meyer and McCoy and LaMastra are also in support.
Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to approve ZBA210020 for the
following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; The original structure
was constructed under County standards; An existing enclosed porch is in the same location
of the proposed addition; The proposed addition will be partially open. Therefore, the variance
request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when
considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the
Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2
Yeas: Meyer, LaMastra, Shuff, Lawton, McCoy . Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
Land Use Review Commission Page 4 June 10, 2021
3. APPEAL ZBA210021- APPROVED AND DENIED
Address: 1009 Morgan St
Owner/Petitioner: Joseph Manning
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(E)(3); 4.7(E)(4)
Project Description:
This is a request for a variance to build a 12'x16' shed encroaching 12 feet into the required 15-foot
rear setback and encroaching 2 feet into the required 5-foot side setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that adjacent
properties have similar setbacks. The property in the back has never been platted and the owner is the
same as the adjacent property on Garfield. A tree may need to be moved to meet the setback. There
is a 20 foot utility easement which makes it difficult to build. A building permit would not be able to be
issued until the easement is vacated. This would be a condition if it is approved.
Commission member McCoy asked if there are utilities in the easement. Beals replied that he was
unsure. It would require contacting all utility providers and requesting a vacation.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Lora Manning, 1009 Morgan St. addressed the board and agreed to have the hearing held
remotely. There is a bulkhead on the house and this would be a problem with moving the shed to the
North. The entire backyard has been improved and is being transitioned to xeriscape/hardscape.
There would only be about 5 feet of walking space between the bulkhead and shed if it was moved to
the North.
Audience Participation: Beals read customer feedback received regarding this variance.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Shuff thinks its challenging to support something that’s in an easement. He will
be in support of staff recommendations.
Vice Chair LaMastra thinks the maps are not labeled correctly and this is confusing.
Beals clarified that staff recommendation of approval for a 5-foot setback is based on condition that
the utility easement is vacated. This would be a separate process that the applicant would have to go
through.
Commission member Lawton doesn’t have an issue with the side setback.
Commission member Shuff would be in favor of tabling.
Vice Chair LaMastra thinks that engineering would reduce the easement to the same size as the
adjacent properties. She does not have a problem with the 5-foot setback. She asked if an approval
for a range of feet was appropriate. Beals affirmed.
Commission member Meyer is comfortable with Staff’s findings, noting that easements are difficult to
correct.
Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to deny the reduction of the south
side setback of ZBA210021 for the following reasons: Insufficient evidence has been provided
in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a
proposal that complies with the standards, Insufficient evidence has been provided in
establishing how the proposal would be nominal and inconsequential in the context of the
neighborhood, and to approve the reduction of the rear yard setback with the condition that
the easement is vacated with the following reasons: it is not detrimental to the public good;
The abutting property if developed would be assigned a side-yard setback of 5 feet, The shed
is 12 feet in length along the 76.5-foot property line, The encroachment should minimally
increase shadows on the west abutting property
Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Meyer, Lawton, LaMastra Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM DENIED the south side-yard encroachment and
APPROVED a 10ft encroachment into the rear-yard setback, provided the easement is vacated.
Land Use Review Commission Page 5 June 10, 2021
4. APPEAL ZBA210022 - APPROVED
Address: 301 E. Drake Rd.
Owner: Christ United Methodist Church
Petitioner: Gary Turner
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 3.8.7.1(J)(2)(b)(1)
Project Description:
This is a request for a variance to allow a new electronic message center (EMC) sign to encroach 15
feet into the required 100-foot setback to a residential property.
Staff Presentation:
Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting there is
approximately 100-foot separation to the structure but not to the property line. The property sits on a
4-lane arterial street. There are other illuminations currently on the street. The house most impacted
would be directly to the north. The proposed sign would meet all other standards to the code.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicants Gary Turner and Aaron Gray, 301 E Drake Rd, addressed the board and agreed to have
the appeal heard remotely. After submitting the variance request, he learned that moving the sign
would cost moving utilities as well. The existing sign is 7 feet tall and the new sign would be shorter
and less intrusive. A sign design has not been agreed upon yet. The applicant shared some design
concepts with the Commission. They have received no objections from neighbors.
Audience Participation: (none)
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Shuff thinks this is a reasonable request and will be in support.
Commission member Meyer thinks that headlights from cars would be more intrusive than the sign
and will be in support.
Commission members Lawton and McCoy will be in support.
Vice Chair noted that the view from the north will not change.
Boardmember Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer, to approve ZBA210022 for the
following reasonsunder section 2.10.4H: The variance is not detrimental to the public good, The
digital portion of the sign does not face the north neighboring properties, The house directly across to
the north is setback at minimum 15 feet from the property line, the new sign will be in the same place
as the existing sign. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a
nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue
to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2.
Yeas: Shuff, Lawton, McCoy, LaMastra, Meyer Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
• OTHER BUSINESS
There was discussion about when in-person would be resumed. Beals mentioned that it was
agreed upon to meet remotely through July. All commission members would be in support of
meeting in person in August. LaMastra added that the hybrid meetings are very fragmented
and would be in support of a full in person meeting.
• ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:35 AM.
Land Use Review Commission Page 6 June 10, 2021
Shelley LaMastra, Vice-Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT July 8, 2021
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA210025
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 1550 Reeves Drive
Owner/Petitioner: Agrawal Anurag
Zoning District: L-M-N
Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(5)
Variance Request:
This is a request to extend the existing rear-yard fence along the public sidewalk. The existing fence
encroaches 2 feet into the 2-foot setback from the sidewalk and the proposed fence is requesting to match the
existing encroachment.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was annexed into the City and platted in 1981 and later platted as part of the Registry Ridge
Subdivision in 2000.
Fences along the public sidewalk are required to be setback 2ft. In general, this requirement is to prevent
long tunneling effects and provide a safer experience for patrons of the sidewalk.
In addition to the Commission’s review the fence permit will be reviewed by the Engineering Department to
verify that the fence is outside of the site distance triangle.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The existing fence along the property and the fence on the abutting tract encroach the same
distance.
• The proposed fence does not extend the full side of the west wall of the house.
Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way,
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210025
Application Request
for Variance from the Land Use Code
The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve varian ces from the requirements of
Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals s hall not authorize any use in a zoning district
ot her than those uses which are specific ally permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant varian ces whe re it
finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance
request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons :
(1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extr aordinary and exceptional situati ons unique to the
property, including, but not lim ited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or
topography, the strict application of the c od e requirem ents would result in unus ua l and exceptional practical
difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such diff iculties or
hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applic ant (i.e. not self-im posed);
(2) the proposal 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 req uested;
(3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inc onsequential way
when c onsidered in the context of the neighborhood.
This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined
and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any
work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that
the variance was granted.
However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month
extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must
be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed.
Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting
Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524
Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m.
Variance Address Petitioner ’s Name,
if not the Owner
City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner ’s Relationship
to the Owner is
Zip Code Petitioner’s Address
Owner ’s Name Petitioner’s Phone #
Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email
Zoning District Additional
Representative ’s Name
Justification(s) Representative’s Address
Justification(s) Representative’s Phone #
Justification(s) Representative’s Email
Reasoning
Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________
Updated 02.18.20
If not enough room,
additional written
information may
be submitted
1550 Reeves Dr
80526
Anurag Agrawal
3.8.11 (C) (5)
LMN
Variance is requested for fence installation within 2' of public sidewalk due to the following
1) Our current west side fence was built in 2002 and is adjacent to the sidewalk. We are
proposing to extend this fence further south. (see attached)
2) Please see the attached exhibits in our neighborhood showing similar installations
3) An 811 pre-dig request shows the xcel energy gas and century link phone lines run about 2'
from the sidewalk, we cannot install fence posts at 2' from sidewalk. (see attached)
06/06/2021
3. Nominal and inconsequential
1. Hardship
Additional Justification
Dear Zoning Board members,
We are proposing to extend our fence at 1550 Reeves Dr. as shown in the pictures below.
Our current fence was installed in 2002 by the previous owners and is adjacent to the public sidewalk
within 2’ (as shown in the image below). We are proposing to extend this fence further south by 36’ as
shown. We do not plan on extending the fence to or beyond the front line of the house and plan to cap
it off as shown in the picture below.
This would be a variance on the city land use code and our justification is as follows
Hardship:
We recently submitted a Colorado 811 locate request and as shown in the image below, the xcel energy
gas lines and century link phone lines run about 2’ from the sidewalk. Since it is not recommended to dig
within 18” of these lines, we will not be able to install the fence posts at 2’ from the sidewalk.
Nominal or Inconsequential:
1) We would like to match the extension to the current fence so it does not look out of place and
maintains the aesthetics of our neighborhood
2) Please see exhibits from other corner lots in the neighborhood adjacent to the public sidewalk
where the fence is between 0” and 18” from the sidewalk.
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT July 8, 2021
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA210026
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 2026 Bear Mountain Drive
Owner: Omnia Cum Deo LLC
Petitioner: Mark Bruder
Zoning District: I
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Table (B)
Variance Request:
This is a request for a variance to the required sign height in the Residential Sign District. The request is to
allow all wall signs, both currently proposed and future signs, for this building to extend an additional 1 foot
beyond the required 2-foot height limit.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was annexed into the City and platted in 1997. The property received approval for
development in 2006 as part of the Timberline Center subdivision. Only portions of the Timberline Center
were completed in accordance with the original approval. Other portions have received new development
plan approvals. The subject property received an approval in June of 2020 to build a two-story building to
include a mix of uses such as workshop/custom small industry, general office and limited indoor recreation.
In general, sign regulations are adopted to reduce sign clutter, reduce distraction, and limit impacts on
abutting properties. The Residential Sign district allows non-residentials uses to have signs that are less
impactful to the residential uses within close proximity. The property received the Residential Sign District
designation at the time it was annexed and zoned into the City.
In 1997, at the time the district designations were established, it was uncertain where residentials uses
would develop. Currently residential development occurred 350 feet to the east across the six-lane arterial
street and 550 feet to the south behind the enclosed mini-storage facility. There are intervening buildings
between the subject property and the closest residential developments.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The height increase will have minimal increase in impact to existing residential development.
• There are taller buildings intervening between the closest residential property to the south.
• There is a six-lane arterial street with streetlights and street trees on either side between the
residential property to the east.
Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way,
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 - Page 2
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210026
To whom it may concern,
As the development group, we spent extra effort and time creating a Signage Standard for the Lofts at
Timberline. We did so to promote installation of cohesive signage about the building that provides
architectural interest with compatible features, details, and scale. The Lofts at Timberline Signage
Standard allows each occupant to express desired creativity for their unique business, while remaining
sensitive to the character of the existing neighborhood.
As to the neighborhood, the Lofts at Timberline is located within the larger, Timberline Center, a mixed-
use commercial development bounded on the east by South Timberline Road – a major arterial with traffic
speeds approaching 50 miles per hour – and on the west by Joseph Allen Drive. As part of the larger
Timberline Center, the Lofts at Timberline is bounded on the north by a significant industrious use with an
outdoor RV storage component to it, on the west by a large self-storage use and heavily traversed railroad
tracks, and on the south and east by commercial uses of varying magnitudes. The character of the
Timberline Center development can only be described as commercial / industrial in nature.
As you consider our variance request, please consider:
• With a prescribed height stipulation of two feet (2’), businesses that have both visual (i.e., logo)
and textual elements to their signage – that rely on scale of the two elements – may be left with
textual elements that are illegible. We would like to request a variance for a sign height of three
feet (3’) for all proposed and future signage for the building to ensure all textual elements are
legible.
• Furthermore, the Signage Standard for the Lofts at Timberline limits owner’s placement of signage
on the building, essentially in the lower third and half of the building. This negates any issue of
view of the signage elements from nearby residential uses, however far removed of the Lofts at
Timberline development they may be.
To grant the variance, the PDT Director would be allowing small businesses – the heart and soul of the
Fort Collins community – to be able to express their individuality and to be able to install appropriately
sized signage elements for their location in a commercial development. This nominal variance would not
be a departure from the existing signage precedent in the neighborhood; in fact, it would be in
conformance therewith, as a multitude of existing signage elements in the neighborhood depart from the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District signage height stipulation.
Respectfully,
Zach Smith
As Manager, Omnia Cum Deo, LLC
FireRiserDWEntryLSBackflowPossible Entry PointPossible Entry PointOverhead DoorOverhead DoorOverhead DoorOverhead DoorOverhead DoorOverhead DoorOverhead DoorOverhead DoorOverhead DoorOverhead DoorOverhead DoorOverhead DoorPossible Entry PointCTV
CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV
CTV
CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVG
G
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W
8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' WTT
TTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTEEFESGasC IrrigationControlDSMWCCCCCMWW VW VW VW VW VW VW VW VW VW VWMDDDDDDMW VWCSSIrrigationControlTCSElectricVaultElectricVaultIrrigationControlIrrigationControlIrrigationControlWCCGasElectricTTCCHYDDDDDD8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W 8'' W
8'' W 8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' WHY D8'' WElectricVault6''6''6''6''6''6''6''6''6''6''6''6''6'' F6'' F2.5'' W2'' W8''8''8''8''8''6''6''6''6''6''6''6''8''8''6''6''6''8''6''6''6''6''6''6''8''8''6''6''6''6''6''6''6''6''8''23456111213141510171819423930212223242627282931325149454843523750463844757473727170615958575655546263646568666769531169252033363534607841767778798180TFLOT 3OWNER STOR N LOCKPARTNERS 24 LLCLOT 8LOT 5LOT 14OWNER:ALL ABOARDANIMAL RESCUE ANDSHELTER INCOWNER: TIMBERLINESTAR CENTER LLCOWNER: DBA NOCOLLCTRANSFORMER9.0'LOT 2OWNER: TIMBERLINETIRE INCLOT 9OWNER:SIERRA MADRIDLLCNEW HANDICAPRAMP AND WALKCONNECTION28.0'19.0'8.0'PROPERTY LINENEW ENTRYDRIVENEW ENTRYDRIVE26.6'27.2'18.0'12.9'NEW 5' SIDEWALKNEW 5' SIDEWALKEXISTINGDRIVEWAYEXISTINGDRIVEWAY TO BECLOSEDNEW 5' SIDEWALKEXISTING DRIVEBUILDING ENTRY18.0'NEW HANDICAPRAMP AND WALKCONNECTIONNEW 7' WALK3' APRONNEW 6' WALKBOLLARDSTYPICALOVERHEADDOORSTYPICALPROPOSED BUILDINGBUILDING ENTRYTYPICALNEW 5' SIDEWALKBUILDING ENTRYTYPICALFIXED BIKERACKS-4SPACES3' APRONLOT 1FIXED BIKERACKS-4SPACESNEW 6' SIDEWALK6.0'NEW 6' SIDEWALK10.5'19.0'27.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'245.1'12.0'17.8'5' SIDEWALK TYP.135.1'65.1'R20.0'R20.0'R20.0'R20.0'R20.0'R20.0'TRASH &RECYCLINGENCLOSURE24.0'26.0'R10.0'R10.0'9.0'9.0'FIXED BIKERACKS-4SPACESEMERGENCYACCESSEASEMENTUTILITY, DRAINAGE ANDACCESS EASEMENTUTILITY, DRAINAGE ANDACCESS EASEMENTUTILITY, DRAINAGE,ACCESS ANDEMERGENCY ACCESSEASEMENT9.0'9' UTILITY & DRAINAGEEASEMENTUTILITY, DRAINAGE ANDACCESS EASEMENT9' UTILITY, DRAINAGE& PUBLIC ACCESSEASEMENT9.0'UTILITY, DRAINAGE ANDACCESS EASEMENTUTILITY, DRAINAGE,ACCESS ANDEMERGENCY ACCESSEASEMENTUTILITY, DRAINAGE ANDACCESS EASEMENTUTILITY, DRAINAGE,ACCESS ANDEMERGENCY ACCESSEASEMENTUTILITY, DRAINAGE ANDACCESS EASEMENTUTILITY, DRAINAGE ANDACCESS EASEMENTBEAR MOUNTAIN DRIVEJOSEPH ALLEN DRIVE3' CEDAR FENCE3' CEDAR FENCE3' CEDAR FENCEMAIL BOX KIOSK175.7'Of:Sheet Number:Omnia Cum Deo, LLCPO Box 270038Fort Collins CO 80527PROJECT TITLEREVISIONSISSUE DATESHEET TITLESHEET INFORMATIONDATESEALNovember 13, 2019DATEPREPARED FORFort Collins, ColoradoLOFTS ATTIMBERLINE10OWNER:Staff Comments 01/08/20Site PlanSCALE 1" = 20'-0"20'040'30'HANDICAP PARKING STALLEASEMENT LINEPROPERTY LINETRANSFORMERBIKE RACKLegend:2TFMAIL BOX KIOSK6262636362626363Proposed 'Lofts' with oGG
PropposeedPrroppoosedPws' ws' ws' ws' wd Lofts with d Lofts with ddPProposeddPPPddddroh PdosoplogogogoooggololoooooooooooooogoologloloGgongaonoggooooProposed 'Lofts atLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLpppppppppPropLTImberline' with logogowithmberTImberline' with logo'''''''eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnrreeeeeeeebbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbw8K TYP.K8LK TYP.LFuture 'Outrun' signggguutt''usunFutureusFggutFi' sruOe 'reutFuturFuturKTYPKTYPKTT5555757575757575757575757575757575757575777775747473735555575757575757577777574747373Future 'Outrun' sigFuture6'''Outrun snnnFuuturee ''Ouutrrunun' siggnFtOrutn'uFe rOnugs sig sigs sign sig555557575757575757575777775OutrOutrOuOutrOutr7474uturuturtuuturuture7373FFnn'Outrnn
CTV
CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV
CTV
CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVG
G
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS8'' SS6'' SS6'' SS6'' SS6'' SSX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W
8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' WTT
TTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTEESW VW VHYDFESGasC IrrigationControlDSMWCCCCCMWW VW VW VW VW VW VW VW VW VW VW VWMDDDDDDMW VWCSSIrrigationControlTCSElectricVaultElectricVaultIrrigationControlIrrigationControlIrrigationControlWCCGasElectricTTCCHYDDDDDDD8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W
8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' W8'' WHYDHY D8'' WElectricVaultLOT 3OWNER STOR N LOCKPARTNERS 24 LLCLOT 8LOT 5LOT 14OWNER:ALL ABOARDANIMAL RESCUE ANDSHELTER INCOWNER: TIMBERLINESTAR CENTER LLCOWNER: DBA NOCOLLCLOT 2OWNER: TIMBERLINETIRE INCLOT 9OWNER:SIERRA MADRIDLLC246.0'135.3'LOT 1OWNER:CCOOKIE/JOY 2001LLC2SANDYS 2001 LLCSHAKAENTERPRISES LLCLOT 10TIMBERLINE REAL ESTATELLCOf:Sheet Number:Omnia Cum Deo, LLCPO Box 270038Fort Collins CO 80527PROJECT TITLEREVISIONSISSUE DATESHEET TITLESHEET INFORMATIONDATESEALNovember 13, 2019DATEPREPARED FORFort Collins, ColoradoLOFTS ATTIMBERLINE10OWNER:Neighborhood Context PlanSCALE 1" = 50'-0"50'0100'75'3
'(6,*15()'$7(%($502817$,1'5)257&2//,16&2/2)76$77,0%(5/,1(
ƫ
ċƫ āāĂĂăăąąĆĆāĂăąĆ
*--6.*/"5&%$"#*/&54*(/4.06/5&%50#6*-%*/(4*;&wI9wX4*(/5:1&4*;&wI9wX*--6.*/"5&%$"#*/&54*(/4.06/5&%50#6*-%*/(4*(/5:1&
'"$&-*5$)"//&--&55&34.06/5&%508"--4*(/5:1&
'(6,*15()'$7(%($502817$,1'5)257&2//,16&2/2)76$77,0%(5/,1(
ƫ
ċƫ āāĂĂăăąąĆĆāĂăąĆ*--6.*/"5&%$"#*/&54*(/4.06/5&%50#6*-%*/(352326('&203/(7,215(1'(5,1* čƫăĥāćĘœāĚġĀĘ*--6.*/"5&%$"#*/&54*(/
8*5)3&563/43&5"*/&341"*/5&%"11307&%$0-03'"$&50#&8)*5&"$3:-*$
*--6.*/"5&%8*5)8)*5&-&%4ww,//80,1$7('1,*+77,0(5(1'(5,1*T'vǵAMZ'A;ǵǎƪ
ƫ ƫġƫ
ƫ42'54*(/5:1&
'(6,*15()'$7(%($502817$,1'5)257&2//,16&2/2)76$77,0%(5/,1(
ƫ
ċƫ āāĂĂăăąąĆĆāĂăąĆww7(1$171$0(3$1(/7(1$171$0(3$1(/352326('&203/(7,215(1'(5,1* čƫăĥāćĘœāĚġĀĘ*--6.*/"5&%$"#*/&54*(/
8*5)3&563/43&5"*/&341"*/5&%"11307&%$0-03'"$&50#&8)*5&10-:$"3#0/"5&
*--6.*/"5&%8*5)8)*5&-&%4T'vǵAMZ'A;ǵǎƫ7(1$171$0(3$1(/7(1$171$0(3$1(/7(1$171$0(3$1(/7(1$171$0(3$1(/,//80,1$7('1,*+77,0(5(1'(5,1*
ƫ ƫġƫ
ƫ*--6.*/"5&%$"#*/&54*(/4.06/5&%50#6*-%*/(42'54*(/5:1&
'(6,*15()'$7(%($502817$,1'5)257&2//,16&2/2)76$77,0%(5/,1(
ƫ
ċƫ āāĂĂăăąąĆĆāĂăąĆÄ1Ä1F!ëÄ1Ä1F!ëw9w"-6.*/6."/(-&
'"45&/&%50#"$,0'3"$&8": */45"--&%8*5)4&-'%3*--*/(4$3&84*/508"--.06/5&%w9w"-6.*/6."/(-&4w9w"-6.*/6.3"$&8":
1"*/5&%50."5$)#6*-%*/('"$&-*5$)"//&--&55&34.06/5&%508"--Ä1Ä1F!ë,//80,1$7('1,*+77,0(5(1'(5,1*wh42'5Ä1Ä1F!ëÄ1Ä1F!ëÄ1Ä1F!ë
ƫ ƫġƫ
ƫ352326('&203/(7,215(1'(5,1* čƫăĥāćĘœāĚġĀĘ4*(/5:1&
'(6,*15()'$7(%($502817$,1'5)257&2//,16&2/2)76$77,0%(5/,1(
ƫ
ċƫ āāĂĂăăąąĆĆāĂăąĆÄ1Ä1F!ëÄ1Ä1F!ë7(1$171$0(3$1(/*--6.*/"5&%$"#*/&54*(/4.06/5&%50#6*-%*/(4*(/5:1&
'(6,*15()'$7(%($502817$,1'5)257&2//,16&2/2)76$77,0%(5/,1(
ƫ
ċƫ āāĂĂăăąąĆĆāĂăąĆÄ1Ä1F!ëÄ1Ä1F!ëÄ1Ä1Ä1Ä1Ä1Ä1F!ëF!ëÄ1Ä1F!ëF!ë*--6.*/"5&%$"#*/&54*(/4.06/5&%50#6*-%*/(4*;&wI9wX4*(/5:1&4*;&wI9wX*--6.*/"5&%$"#*/&54*(/4.06/5&%50#6*-%*/(4*(/5:1&
'"$&-*5$)"//&--&55&34.06/5&%50$"/01:4*(/5:1&'"$&-*5$)"//&--&55&34.06/5&%508"--4*(/5:1&
'(6,*15()'$7(%($502817$,1'5)257&2//,16&2/2)76$77,0%(5/,1(
ƫ
ċƫ āāĂĂăăąąĆĆāĂăąĆ)::ČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫČƫƫ ƫ ƫ ƫ ƫġƫ ƫ ƫĵƫ ƫƫ ƫ ƫ ƫ ƫƫƫƫ ƫ ƫ
Proposed sign is 2' 11 1/2" as drawn.
Proposed sign is 2' 3" tall. The address/numbers donot count towards the sign height.
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT July 8, 2021
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA210027
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 1025 Sailors Reef
Owner/Petioner: Elaine and Dennis Edwards
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c)
Variance Request:
This is a request to build a deck encroaching a total of 8.75 feet into the required 15-foot rear-yard setback. The
approved subdivision plans already allow a 3-foot encroachment into the required 15-foot rear setback. The
proposed deck is seeking an additional 5.75 feet. This also requires vacating part of a 10-foot utility easement
along the rear property line
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was annexed into the City and platted in 1972 and later in 1978 received approval for the
North Shore PUD development plan. This plan allowed for a 12-foot rear-yard setback. The existing primary
structure was completed in 1980.
An existing patio area is within the same area the proposed deck is to be located. The proposed deck
requires a building permit and therefore is required to meet the setbacks. However, overlayed on the 12-
foot setback is a 10-foot utility easement. The applicant did some preliminary investigation to find out if
there are any existing utilities in the easement and has found no conflicts yet. A complete vacation of the
easement will be required to build within this area.
Immediately to the rear (southwest) of the property is Warren Lake. This property does not have any
buildings or development approvals and is maintained as a private lake.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good, provided the easement is vacated.
• The proposed deck does not increase the impacts of the current patio area.
• The abutting property to the southwest is a private lake with no residential buildings.
Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way,
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210027
Elaine and Dennis Edwards (the applicants) would like to build an elevated deck
attached to the southwest corner of their property on 1025 Sailors Reef, Ft. Collins, CO
80525. The deck would be approximately 12-feet above present ground level. The
elevated deck would allow a view, over the Warren Lake berm and make Warren Lake
visible. Also, the deck would provide views of the Front Range mountains to include
unobstructed views of Longs Peak and Mount Meeker.
This recent photo shows the view, looking southwest,from ground level at the site of the
proposed deck. From the photos, one can see from ground level, a viewer sees only the
side of the berm that forms the north shore of Warren Lake. Also from the photos, one
sees that trees that appear on the Landscape Plan from 2002 (attached) have been
removed. All of the cottonwood and birch trees between the homes (1001 - 1049 Sailors
Reef) and the Warren Lake berm were removed in year 2014.
This recent photo shows the view looking southwest,from the deck located at 1029
Sailors Reef, approximately 35-feet to the east, of the applicants’ proposed deck. This
photo shows that a deck elevated 12-feet above ground level provides an unobstructed
view of Warren Lake and the Front Range mountains.
The Jamestown HOA has approved the deck project. Their decision was that the deck
design was aethetically pleasing and consistent with the existing decks in the
Jamestown HOA.“The proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards
except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the
neighborhood.”
As required for HOA approval, neighbors on either side of the applicants’ property have
been contacted and have no objections to the construction of an elevated deck.
Presently, seven of the eleven Jamestown HOA properties that are on the south side of
Sailors Reef have elevated decks. Only four properties,including 1025 Sailors Reef, do
not have elevated decks. These eleven properties back up to the Warren Lake berm.
The height of the berm does not allow a view from the ground level of Warren Lake or of
the Front Range mountains.
The project would require four caissons to support four vertical columns to support the
deck.
A preliminary judgement by the city of Fort Collins denied a building permit. The
decision was based upon the fact that the caissons would encroach upon a 10-foot
easement and a 12-foot building setback. (See attached “Edwards Deck- HOA
Setback-pdf”)
To address the 10-foot easement encroachment, the applicants contacted Mr. Dave
Betley of Fort Collins Engineering. At his suggestion,the applicants contacted all known
utility companies that might have above ground or below ground assets between the
south side of 1025 Sailors Reef and the Warren Lake berm. All inquiries were negative,
meaning that the known utility providers that might have above-ground or below-ground
assets, had no objections to the project. Individual responses are summarized in the
attached document, “Edwards Deck- Vacate the easement.pdf”
To address the 12-foot building setback, the applicants have completed the Fort Collins
City “Zoning Variance Application.”
EXHIBIT
650 E. Garden Drive | Windsor, Colorado 80550
phone: (970) 686-5011 | fax: (970) 686-5821
KING SURVEYORS
www.contact@kingsurveyors.com
5/14/2021 ZZD1Uw5-lTObzaYz4m7TvYA-N_OBGqH2OnueffcbdazjQRQXII4Xi89wTJq86fkN0YRg3Q86ILrkjxenQMyojYb7BHmPH8rDP9VYBtfNIapwHsi9…
https://gm1.ggpht.com/ZZD1Uw5-lTObzaYz4m7TvYA-N_OBGqH2OnueffcbdazjQRQXII4Xi89wTJq86fkN0YRg3Q86ILrkjxenQMyojYb7BHmPH8rDP9VYBtfNI…1/1
In order to encroach upon the 10-foot easement, the applicants contacted Mr. Dave
Betley, Fort Collins Engineering. At his suggestion and from the applicants’ knowledge
of the property, the following utility companies were contacted. The companies were
contacted either by direct email provided by Mr. Betley or by the Colorado 811
Construction hotline.
The utility companies that were contacted are:
●Atlantic Engineering Group
●Comcast
●City of Fort Collins
●Century Link
●XCEL Energy
●Touchstone Property Management/ Pyramid Landscaping Inc. (lawn irrigation
contractors)
Chris Walsh, a landscape foreman for Pyramid Landscaping Inc. (4502 Red Fox Rd
Fort Collins, CO 80526, (970) 484-1406) made a site visit on Thursday, June 3, 2021.
Chris had no objection to the proposed deck. Chris Walsh said that when the time came
for construction to begin, he would come to the site and flag irrigation water lines and
electric lines that control the irrigation system.Stella Day, the Touchstone Property
Management representative accompanied Chris. She had no objection to the project.
The following are email responses to the applicants.All responses were negative
meaning no objection to the project. Individual responses are separated by (=======).
========================================================================
Ticket: B114602340 Rev: 00B Taken: 05/26/21 04:35 PM
State: CO County: LARIMER Place: FORT COLLINS
Address : 1025 SAILORS REEF
Location: LOCATE REAR LOT ACCESS OPEN
View map and file attachments at:
https://newtin.co811.org/mapticket/?t=F9ObNdOWPWPROQY-E
Member Code Member Facility Response
ATLNTC1 ATLANTIC ENGINEERING GROUP INC05/27/21 11:43 AM 002
CLEAR - NO CONFLICT
CMSNOCO COMCAST 05/26/21 05:38 PM 002
CLEAR - NO CONFLICT
Additional information from member available here
FTCL CITY OF FORT COLLINS 05/28/21 10:51 AM 002
CLEAR - NO CONFLICT
QLNCC00 CENTURY LINK 05/26/21 04:59 PM 002
CLEAR - NO CONFLICT
Comments: fiber in front, work in rear,cbgm
XLFC00 XCEL ENERGY 05/28/21 10:00 AM 019
MARKED, ALL CROSSINGS MUST BE EXPOSED DURING TRENCHLESS
EXCAVATION
Comments: Excavator: DENNIS C EDWARDS Phone: 9707322525 Agreement
Date: 05/28/2021 Time: 09:00 AM Reason:COMPLETED BORING Terms: 358
code locate completed Type:Size: Utilities:Electric, Gas, Flags,
Paint
========================================================================
Rich, Stephanie D
Wed, May 26,
8:07 AM (7 days
ago)
Hi Dennis,
Xcel Energy does not have any issues with the deck.Thank you!
If you need to speak to me during the COVID-19 pandemic.Please call my cell phone at
970-396-4828. Thank you.
Please note: I have new working hours starting January 6th, 2020. Monday – Thursday 6:30 a.m. –
5:00 p.m.
Stephanie Rich
Xcel Energy | Responsible By Nature
Designer
1901 E Horsetooth Road, Fort Collins, CO 80525
E:stephanie.rich@xcelenergy.com
Monday – Thursday 6:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
========================================================================
Ticket: B114602340
County: LARIMER Place: FORT COLLINS
Address: 1025 SAILORS REEF
QLNCC00:
The proposed excavation does not pose a risk to Centurylink's local facilities
========================================================================
Ticket Number: B114602340-0B
Ticket Type: NORMAL
Address: 1025, SAILORS REEF, FORT COLLINS, CO FORT COLLINS CO
Phone: 970-732-2525
Type: DECK/PATIO NEW
Due: 5/28/2021 11:59:00 PM
Completed: 5/28/2021 9:00:00 AM
Location
Response Codes:
XLFC00-GS - 358
View Pictures
Locator Notes
Type:Size:
Utilities: Electric, Gas, Flags, Paint
Xcel Energy known abandoned Facilities in Dig Area:
1 Do abandoned electric facilities exist within the dig area? No
2 Do abandoned gas facilities exist within the dig area? No
========================================================================
To: DENNIS C EDWARDS Attn: DENNIS C EDWARDS
Voice: 9707322525 Fax:
Re: Qwest local network notification
This is an important message from CenturyLink replying to your request to
locate our underground facilities in an area described on the one call center
ticket. If you have any questions please call Qwest at 1-800-283-4237
Ticket: B114602340
County: LARIMER Place: FORT COLLINS
Address: 1025 SAILORS REEF
QLNCC00:
The proposed excavation does not pose a risk to Centurylink's local facilities
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT July 8 2021
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA210028
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 421 E Laurel Street
Owner: Patricia and Nick Quinn
Petitioner: Kristin Zuro
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2)
Variance Request:
This is a variance request to exceed maximum allowable floor area of the lot by 619 square feet. The total
allowable square footage of the lot is 3,496 square feet. Previous variance, ZBA210011, approved an additional
295 square feet. This variance request is asking for an additional 324 square feet on top of the 295 square feet
already granted.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was part of the original Town plat of Fort Collins. It was later re-platted in 1905. The primary
structure was built in 1910 and a remodel occurred in 1989.
The N-C-M design standards are intended to preserve the character of areas that have a predominance of
developed single-family and low to medium-density multi-family housing.
The existing structures on site exceed the current required allowable floor area for the overall lot by 116
square feet.
In April of this year the applicant applied for an additional 295 square feet to accommodate a one-story
addition on the back of the primary building. This variance was approved. At that time, the full design of
the addition and remodel of the existing structure was not fully vetted. During the hearing it was pointed
out that certain design elements may require an additional variance.
The newest design includes an area with a vaulted ceiling height. A vaulted ceiling over 14 feet in height
is counted at 200% of floor area.
The addition is in the rear of the property. The rear of the property is currently completely fenced by a
solid wood fence. The proposed addition will meet the required setbacks for the property. Additionally, it
would not exceed the allowable floor area in the rear half of the property.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The addition does not exceed the allowable floor area in the rear-half of the lot.
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 - Page 2
• The addition meets the required setback.
• In an effort to match the existing roof line, the proposed addition creates a vaulted ceiling.
• The addition is blocked from view from the street and has limited views from the alley.
Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way,
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210028.
Kristin Zuro
bldg.collective
2872 Bluff St
Boulder, CO 80301
June 8, 2021
City of Fort Collins Zoning Department
281 N College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: 421 E Laurel Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals,
I am an architect writing on behalf of our clients, Nick and Patricia Quinn, who are the owners of
421 E Laurel St. The residence was built in the 1900’s and there is an existing 491 sq. ft.
addition that was previously added in the back in the 1980’s. This addition has four different
finish floor levels, the majority of which will be demolished. Bldg.collective has been hired to
design an addition with a floor plan that is more compact and livable. On April 8, 2021, we
applied for a variance because on the second floor, 520 sq. ft. of the project’s total allowable
square footage was unusable and non-habitable, as it was less than 5 ft. in height. We were
granted 295 sq. ft. of that unusable square footage. Since then, we have further developed the
design, and have determined that the best design solution for the project will require an
additional variance request.
We would like the addition to continue to complement the existing Free Classic Queen
Ann/Edwardian architecture. We are therefore asking for a second variance with two separate
requests:
(1) The existing addition has a unique roofline that is not consistent with the Free Classic
Queen Ann/Edwardian architecture aesthetic. We would like to keep and complete the
existing roofline by extending the exterior wall on the second level to align with the
proposed roofline of the new addition. For reference, see attached documents named
Existing Addition to be Demolished and Proposed Addition Perspectives. Currently the
project does not have enough square footage to join the two roofs (see attached
document-Allowable Square Footage Calculations). We are asking for 199 sq. ft., which
includes 68 sq. ft. of unhabitable space/attic space (see attached document-Variance
Request 1).
(2) We have designed the roof of the addition to have a 12/12 pitch that matches the
existing historic roof. Consequently, the interior ceiling height at the roof peak is higher
than 14 ft. We are asking for 141 sq. ft. of non-habitable space to use above the 14 ft.
ceiling height in this area (see attached document-Variance Request 2)
We are advocating for a variance based on justification #1 hardship, # 2 nominal equally well or
better than, and # 3 nominal, inconsequential way. We have reviewed this project with the Fort
Collins Historic Board who are in favor of the design. The Historic Board believes that the
design pays homage and is subordinate to the 1900’s house, while also being distinguishable
as a new construction. We have outlined our justifications for this variance below.
#1 Hardship
We believe that generally, the Division 4.8 code for allowable floor area, as well as line D.2.c,
presents an undue hardship for this property with regards to both requests (1) and (2). This
code prevents us from designing the addition with similar Free Classic Queen
Ann/Edwardian architecture characteristics because of how the allowable square footage is
calculated.
Division 4.8, line D.2.c
(c) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area , the floor area of the following spaces and
building elements shall be counted at two hundred (200) percent:
High volume spaces on the first or second floor where the distance between the floor and the
ceiling or roof rafters directly above is greater than fourteen (14) feet.
Regarding request (1), the 199 sq. ft. will only be used to fill in the roofline and regarding
request (2) the 141 sq. ft will only be utilized for the purposes of extending the ceiling height.
#2 Equally Well or Better Than
The 199 sq. ft. of space needed to fulfill request (1) will allow us to revise the roofline of the
existing addition. This solution allows us to create a roof that has minimal maintenance, is easily
constructed, and has a simple structural design that will be better functionally and aesthetically
than the current roofline.
Regarding request (2), obtaining the extra 141 sq. ft will allow us to design and construct a 17 ft.
4 in. ceiling on part of the interior, and subsequentially, a 12/12 pitch roof that matches the
existing roof. This will directly complement the design of the house, therefore making it an ideal
design.
#3 Nominal, Inconsequential Way
Additionally, we believe that extending the existing roof line (1) and increasing the ceiling height
(2) will not diverge from the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way. We are
of the opinion that filling in the roofline will enhance the aesthetic of the roof and therefore will
nominally impact the neighbors. 68 sq. ft. of that 199 sq. ft. is under 5’-0” which is unhabitable/
unusable space. Additionally, the 17 ft. 4 in. ceiling height will only be incorporated into a small
portion of the addition roof (the peak), and therefore will be inconsequential to the exterior
height and neighborhood presence.
In conclusion, we respectfully request that the board grant this variance for 421 E Laurel Street.
We thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kristin Zuro
Architect
bldg.collective
kristin@bldgcollective.com
(540)522-0070
64)7(;,67,1*$'',721'(02(/DXUHO5HVLGHQFH_(;,67,1*$'',7,2172%('(02/,6+('
5(6,'(1&(725(0$,1(/DXUHO5HVLGHQFH_(;,67,1*5(6,'(1&(,0$*(6
/(9(/(;,67,1*+,6725,&5(6,'(1&(
8383 64)764)7'164)7(;,67,1*$'',7,21/$85(/675((76
(
3523(57</,1(1
:
3523(57</,1(/,1(2))(1&(/,1(2))(1&($//(</,1(2):$///,1(2):$//
6(7%$&.
6(7%$&.
6(7%$&.
6(7%$&.1
(
3523(57</,1(6
:
3523(57</,1(
/,1(2))(1&((/DXUHO5HVLGHQFH_$//2:$%/(648$5()227$*(&$/&8/$7,216
/(9(/:352326('$'',7,21
/(9(/:(;,67,1*)/2253/$1(;,67,1*6,7(&$/&8/$7,216=21( 0(''(16,7<',675,&7/276,=( 64)7 ,636859(< 0$;)/225$5($ 64)7%$6(0(17 H[FOXGHG 64)7/(9(/:1(:$'',7,21 64)7/(9(/ 64)7 )&&,7<&28176 *$5$*( 64)764)7 (;(037,21 727$/ 64)7(;,67,1*)/225$5($ 64)73(5)257&2//,16&2'(0$;)/225$5($ 64)7=21,1*9$5,$1&( 64)7727$/$//2:$%/( 64)7$9$,/$%/( )/225$5($ 64)7$//2:$%/()/225$5($:352326('$'',7,21
6,7(3/$1:352326('$'',7,21
(/DXUHO5HVLGHQFH_352326('$'',7,213(563(&7,9(9,(:6(;,67,1*522)/,1((;7(1'('72$/,*1:352326('$'',7,21(;,67,1*:$//(;7(1('72-2,1352326('$'',7,21
/(9(/
/(9(/
5,'*(+7/(9(/&/*
/(9(/&/*
73$5$3(7
&/*0$;
(/DXUHO5HVLGHQFH_1(:352326('$'',7,216287+(/(9$7,21
64)781'(5
121+$%,7$%/(64)7(;,67,1*522)/,1((;,67,1*522)/,1((;,67,1*522)/,1(352326('(;7(1'('522)/,1(5(48(67)25 64)72)$//2:$%/(648$5()227$*(352326('3,7&+*$%/(522)64)7,681'(5
121+$%,7$%/(64)7(;,67,1*522)/,1((/DXUHO5HVLGHQFH_9$5$,1$&(5(48(67 64)7
/(9(/)/2253/$1Z352326('(1&/2685(
/(9(/
/(9(/&/*
/(9(/&/*
73$5$3(7
73/$7(*$%/(
&/*0$;
1 &21',7,21('&5$:/63$&(
(/DXUHO5HVLGHQFH_9$5,$1$&(5(48(6764)7$VLQGLFDWHG
6(&7,21#$'',7,21$GGLWLRQDO64)7
9$5,$1&()/2253/$1',$*5$064)764)7