HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/2021 - Land Use Review Commission - SUMMARY AGENDA - Regular Meeting
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:
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
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
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/95184109985.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 November 12, 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 kkatsimpalis@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: 951 8410 9985.
(Continued on next page)
Land Use Review Commission Page 2 November 12, 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 ZBA210043
Address: 4424 Denrose Ct.
Owner: McDonald’s USA, LLC (dba Archland Property I LLC)
Petitioner: Jordan Bunch
Zoning District: C-G
Code Section: 3.8.7.4(A)(2)
Project Description:
This is a request is for a variance which will extend the seven-year period in which a nonconforming
sign on a property that has been annexed into the City limits has to comply with the City's regulations.
Specifically, the McDonalds' freestanding sign was required to be brought into compliance by Dec.
20th, 2012 (seven years from the date of annexation). A previous variance was granted in May of
2012, extending the compliance date by an additional 3 years to Dec. 20th, 2015. A variance was
granted again in 2015 to extend the compliance date to Dec. 20th, 2018; this request was approved,
extending the compliance date to 12/20/2021. This request is to extend the compliance date for at
least an additional 3 years to Dec. 20th, 2024.
2. APPEAL ZBA210044
Address: 110 W Suniga Rd.
Owner/Petitioner: Tucker Jordan
Zoning District: C-S
Code Section: 3.5.3(E)
Project Description:
This is a request to construct a new shed in the backyard on the property line, encroaching 8 feet into
8-foot rear setback and 5 feet into 5-foot left side setback.
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
kkatsimpalis@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 November 12, 2021
3. APPEAL ZBA210045
Address: 903 W Mountain Ave.
Owner: S & S 230 LLC
Petitioner: Tara Palmer
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3)
Project Description:
This is a variance request for an 8-foot-tall fence along the west property line, resulting in fence
totaling 61 feet long and 8 feet tall in both sides’ 5-foot side setbacks (the fence runs east and west
across the width of the lot in middle rear yard).
4. APPEAL ZBA210046
Address: 119 N Shields St.
Owner/Petitioner: Julie Mote
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(E)(4)(a)
Project Description:
This is a request to increase the maximum wall height at the North side of the addition to 22.28 feet,
the maximum height allowed is 14 feet.
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
1
Jennifer Luther
From:Ralph Shields <rshields@bellisimoinc.com>
Sent:Monday, August 30, 2021 12:34 AM
To:Noah Beals
Cc:Jennifer Luther
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Land Use Review Commission (LURC) formerly ZBA, Remote Hearings
I agree with staff's recommendation on the matter.
Thanks
Ralph Shields
970.231.7665
From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 9:18 AM
To: Ralph Shields <rshields@bellisimoinc.com>
Cc: Jennifer Luther <jluther@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE: 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 September through December 2021 meetings of the
LURC. If conditions change sooner we can revaluate at any time.
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
1
WRITTEN STATEMENT
This is an application for renewal of a three-year variance the City of Fort Collins (the “City”)
originally granted in 2012 and extended for an additional three-year terms in 2015 and 2018. The
current variance expires on December 20, 2021. Pursuant to Section 2.10.3 of the Fort Collins
Land Use Code (the “Code”), the Property owner McDonald’s USA, LLC (“Applicant”) is
submitting this written statement in connection with its application for a variance from the
provisions of Section 3.8.7.4(A)(2) of the Code requiring that “all existing nonconforming signs
located on property annexed to the city shall be removed or made to conform to the provisions of
this Article no later than seven (7) years after the effective date of such annexation.”
Background:
Applicant owns the real property having an address of 4424 Denrose Court, Fort Collins, CO
80524 (the “Property”).
The Property is located at the southeast corner of I-25 and Mulberry Street and is part of the
Interchange Business Park Second Annexation (the “Business Park”) which was annexed into the
City effective December 20, 2005. The Property is zoned General Commercial.
The Property is the site of a franchisee-owned McDonald’s restaurant, and contains an
approximately 60-foot-tall 2-sided freestanding sign, with faces of approximately 176 square feet
per side (the “Sign”) located in the northwest corner of the Property. At the time the Sign was
constructed, the Property was in unincorporated Larimer County. The Sign was built in
conformance with the conditions of Permit - #01-SN0008 issued by Larimer County (the
“County”) on November 26, 2001. The Property was subsequently annexed to the City of Fort
Collins on December 20, 2005.
2
In accordance with Section 3.8.7.2(G) of the Code, freestanding signs, like the Sign, may only
have a maximum height of 18 feet above grade and faces may not exceed 90 square feet per side.
On May 10, 2012, the City’s Zoning Board of Appeals granted Applicant a variance permitting
the Sign to remain, as is, until December 20, 2015 because the Sign only diverged from the Code
in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the Property's neighborhood
(the “2012 Variance”). A second three-year variance allowing the Sign to remain was granted by
the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 12, 2015 after finding that the neighborhood
surrounding the Property was predominantly commercial with signage that does not comply with
City standards and was likely to remain that way for many years beyond the second extension date
3
of December 20, 2018. For similar reasons, a third variance was granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals on September 13, 2018 which permitted the Sign to remain in place until December 20,
2021.
Request for a Variance:
Applicant hereby requests a variance from Section 3.8.7.4(A)(2) of the Code to extend its use of
the non-conforming Sign for at least an additional three (3) years, to December 20, 2024. The
conditions which supported the prior variance approvals remain unchanged, including the support
of the neighboring Maverick gas station. A letter of support from Maverick is included with our
application. As discussed in detail below, changes in the surrounding area related to street closures
and construction on I-25 offer further support for this variance.
Much of the property located in the vicinity of the Property is located within the County and have
not been annexed to the City. The areas shown in color below have been annexed into the City
while the rest of the property shown remains in the County (the Property is circled in yellow):
In addition, virtually all nearby highway service uses, such as restaurants and hotels, are located
West of I-25 and are located in unincorporated Larimer County with freestanding signage easily
visible from I-25. These County service uses will be able to maintain large and tall freestanding
signs for at least seven (7) more years (upon annexation to the City, a neighbor or competitor
would have seven (7) years to cause its sign to be in compliance under the Code) and will continue
to draw the majority of highway traffic into the Larimer County businesses, resulting in a loss of
business, and City sales taxes, for the City’s service uses located on the East side of I-25, including
the McDonald’s restaurant and the Maverick store. If the Applicant’s request for an additional
three-year variance is denied and Applicant is forced to remove its existing sign, no City businesses
East of I-25 will have signage that is readily visible from I-25, and I-25 traffic will be drawn to the
County businesses West of I-25. City businesses will lose traffic and sales revenue, and the City
will lose sales tax revenue. Allowing Applicant’s sign to remain in place for an additional period
of time will draw highway service traffic to the East of I-25 and enhance the ability of Applicant
4
and other City businesses at that location to remain competitive with the County businesses West
of I-25.
The differences between the City’s sign regulations and the County’s regulations put the
Applicant, and any other City business in the vicinity of the I-25/Mulberry Road interchange, at a
competitive disadvantage to the neighboring County businesses. Approving this request for a
variance would enable Applicant to continue to maintain equal footing, with its neighbors and
competitors along the Mulberry Street commercial corridor for at least three (3) more years.
The continued existence of the Sign has become even more important to the health of the
Applicant’s business and the surrounding businesses since 2018. Recently, the Frontage Road,
which used to provide access to the Property from Prospect was closed to thru traffic.
As a result, the only way customers can access the Property and the Business Park is from I-25.
Without the Sign, the Applicant’s business is not visible from I-25. This is particularly crucial
because of the ongoing I-25 construction. The traditional informational signage located along I-
25 that would alert commuters to the presences of businesses have been taken down during the
construction, which is anticipated to last at least through 2023. Thus, the Sign has become even
more integral to Applicant’s ability to attract customers.
Applicant’s Request Meets the Standards for a Variance under the Code:
Applicant’s request satisfies the requirements for granting a variance set forth in Section 2.10.4(H)
of the Code because such variance (i) diverges from the standards set forth in the Code “in a
nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood,” (ii) will
continue to advance the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code, (iii) is not “detrimental to
the public good,” and (iv) does not authorize “any change in use.”
Considering the Variance in the Context of the Neighborhood:
5
The Property is located at the southeast corner of the I-25/Mulberry Street interchange and is
surrounded by commercial properties that form the eastern edge of the Mulberry Street commercial
corridor.
There are numerous freestanding signs along the Mulberry Street commercial corridor near the
Property, including those shown below, which exceed 18 feet in height and some of which have
faces larger than 90 square feet per side. Hence, when considering that other signs that are
comparable in size to the Sign already exist in the neighborhood, extending Applicant’s deadline
to remove the Sign for three (3) additional years would merely diverge from the standards of the
Code in a nominal and inconsequential way.
6
Residential properties lie to the east of the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. We do not believe
the residential properties are a part of our neighborhood. Instead, based on their location and
character, they form a separate and distinct neighborhood. They are located to the east and beyond
the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. They are located far enough from the Property that the
Code does not require Applicant to give them notice of our variance application.
Moreover, owners within the residential neighborhoods have no reasonable expectation that the
Sign will be taken down and replaced with a smaller sign. The closest residential neighbors are in
unincorporated Larimer County and would have no basis to object to the sign if the Property
continued to be governed by Larimer County’s sign code. The Sign has been on the Property for
twenty (20) years, and when erected the Property was in the County and conformed with the
County’s regulations. The other signs in the County portion of the Mulberry Street commercial
7
corridor that exceed the County's current sign dimension regulations have been there for years as
well and will not be removed or replaced any time soon due to the County grandfathering-in these
signs.
In any event, even if one were to consider the residential neighborhood to be part of our
neighborhood, the divergence from standards and impact of the variance are nominal. Replacing
the Sign will not have a significant impact on the views from the residential properties given the
number of other large signs in the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. Replacing the Sign will
not create a view free of large signs – Applicant’s Sign is just one of many. As such, replacement
of the Sign will not have a significant positive impact on the use, enjoyment or value of the homes.
Furthermore, the variance is not perpetual. It is for a relatively short period of time – three (3)
years.
Advances the Purpose of the Code
This variance would satisfy the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code by:
(i) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and
industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all; and
(ii) being sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.
First, as referenced above, the other three corners of the I-25/Mulberry Street interchange are in
the County. As a result, many properties possess taller and larger freestanding signs than are
allowed in the City. Granting the variance fosters a more rational relationship among the
businesses in the Mulberry Street commercial corridor by allowing the Property to temporarily
remain on equal footing with the neighboring County commercial properties. Second, the variance
is sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods because the Sign is comparable in size with
other existing signs along the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. By limiting the duration of the
variance, Applicant is balancing the requirements of the Code with the competitive disadvantage
that Applicant, a City business, will suffer because its Property was annexed into the City well
before other competing businesses located along the Mulberry commercial corridor.
The Variance Benefits the Public
Allowing the Sign to stand for the requested extended compliance period would benefit the public
by supporting employment and increased sales taxes to the City for three (3) more years. As
discussed above, the closure of the Frontage Road and continuing construction on I-25 is
detrimental the Business Park and the Sign is crucial to combating the impact of these
transportation projects. McDonald’s Corporation’s studies show that up to 61% of sales for
McDonald’s restaurants are impulse purchases and, as a result, lowering the height of a
freestanding McDonald’s sign will cause a further decline in sales for the restaurant. A significant
drop in business will reduce sales tax revenues to the City and may result in the loss of some jobs.
Allowing the Sign to continue in its current configuration will prevent these additional declines
and help offset the impacts associated with the ongoing road construction. Allowing the sign to
continue will also help drive traffic to the Maverick location, with a commensurate increase in
City sales tax collections.
8
As shown above, a traveler on I-25 heading northbound would not be able to see a shorter sign as
the sign would be completely blocked by the building located to the southwest of the Property.
Also, as shown above, the Sign clearly helps orient a traveler heading southbound on I-25 to the
restaurant. Without the visual cues provided by the Sign, a traveler is likely to continue to a
different restaurant which may be located outside the City resulting in a loss of tax revenues for
the City. As such, requiring Applicant to remove the Sign is detrimental to the public good by
decreasing sales tax revenues to the City and potentially resulting in a reduction of staffing levels
at the restaurant.
McDonald’s is Committed to Fort Collins
McDonald’s and its franchisee (Bob Luther) are committed to the City. McDonalds has recently
made major reinvestments of several million dollars in its Fort Collins stores. Mr. Luther is
committed to quality and to the continued success of this location and the surrounding area. Mr.
Luther owns four McDonald’s franchises in the City and operates those with the help of his wife
and son. He has owned this particular franchise for thirteen years. During the COVID-19
pandemic, this McDonald’s location remained operational in accordance with the City’s guidelines
and Mr. Luther did not lay off any employees. Granting this variance request will contribute to the
vitality of the City in general, and to nearby properties.
No Change in Use
Applicant is not seeking a change of use with this variance request; rather Applicant wants to
temporarily maintain the status quo and merely extend its deadline for replacing the Sign.
Conclusion:
Applicant acknowledges that at some point in the sign must be brought into conformance with the
current City sign code. However, with the one exception of the Maverick site, conditions along the
Mulberry commercial corridor have not changed materially since 2012 and that time has not yet
come. Allowing the Applicant to maintain its existing sign for an additional three-year period will
benefit Applicant, the City, and other City commercial uses to the East of I-25, and we respectfully
request the Board grant the variance as requested.
9
Maverick Letter of Support
(See Attached)
Interchange Business Park Second Annexation
a-
l
Sl'r.u:i'H"E 00,ZD'
Jtr <O'H"l 1 .. 11'
INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK SECOND ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15 AND A PORTION OF SECTION 10,
TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
'>LL IJIJtl 1(1
\""'--l "" ,--=~------i
'· 1 I I _____ ,_ --l L .... . .. I
TOTAL ARC"----34.08 ...C:RCU
CONTIGD.JS0 llOUl\llJ.tRT.--l9"ll.86'
TOT.Al. POflH(T(IL--,!l(,8,70-
l/6TH PE:Rll'ICTCA--1~9'.8l'
////////, DCNCJT[S
CONTlGOJS IO~AY
\
\
J DD'~"°~: ... ;.~! ... '~ ....... IL71' J ecr ST o,• ... :io.~· .. U' SI .. >n.oo' 1111' ST c-:-JO.OI' '--r----'-'.!!W:..J~!!'.'l!>"'-' '!'....-""!C'·'<!'."-T~~~='l:'.:.-• rr ofr,..;. .. : .i~·
-·• •'sr '.!:.!...f~~,!(.:..~~
EAST MUUBERRY STREET COLORADO HIGHWAY U
S[C:llON 1 ~
I •DD'.,. or ( ii.Jr
II Dr DJ' S4' W l'!lo.71'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GRAPHIC SCALE 1:.z_ ..... b:::::!r ,,
MOUNTAIN VISTA RO
VICINITY MAP Ji
N.T.S. N
. -------.------
·~.
SITE
:... . ...,.IOCSJcNCD 3Y. loi::tAWN Bt: IAPPFloVED BY: sc;~'::o· l°'"o~~:s =,,.=,"'~~=,~,-~16~.,~,,---1 INTERCHANGE
l!CITJ!('IW•(;[ f!YS!KESS Putc SCCQHQ ANHfH!K'lN prs~
tolofSIO[lmfC n«: W(Sf UNt or 1"t NOll'nfW[S'I OUAJn[llt °' sttnoll "·
TOWNSHlr 7 HOlft\I. ltlNCC lol W(S'I Olf TM( In! "'"NCIPM. •[l!IDl,UI AS ICMllfC
'l OC' 11' Jr W wmt AU. KAIUllU NUON ltflATIY( h!(ll[TO.
COWOICINCATTHlNDll'TK'l'OTCOllHUor~oUClDI ,STHCllCtSOCT It'
,,. .. 108l.1t ((CT: fMOIC[, s •r to',.. t IO,JO ft(T TO" ,01111 OM "THC
WtsTULT Ul'lt or llf11JICl(,1.!tC[ IUS1N[SS '"" SUIOIV!SIOHJ COKTlllVlllC. s u•
tO' ,.-c l.H n:tll TH{ltC [ s ocr ti' l<I" .. ·~1.n rtCT 4LONG ~o
•tslULT UH( TO Tff( '°'Kl or " CUJrl( CUNC.li'I[ TO TH( SOUTH(ASf A l.(HCTH or ]0t.3l n:n WITH " Cnmt"L ANCU or te" S•' u · " MDIII$ or l~t.C11
rtCTANO lCHOllDWHICNlt.ut:SH zt·n·o.· (2U.30n:CTTOA,OHHOT
llfTUtSCCTIOllW!tl4TNC~llL'rUlftOrTHtlHT(ll(MANC(IUS'"[SS,Al!ll;
rl"5'TJ.Mll04TIONTOTH(CITYOfTOllTC0UJllSA"10 THCl.llllt...nU!!l
~TOllTHIS0[5Cllll'TIOH:
T'llnict lK l'OU.OWHfC SIX(•) CA.ill M..Of'IC MIU llOllTlltllt.T UNC Of THC
IHTUtO .... NCC 9!/SlllCSS '"Ill( nRST 6fft,l[Un0f4: s ... oo· •7' [ ».lt rtn:
TH(lf«, s ar ],,]' n· [ ... U.51 rUT: UfOIC[, H M' , ..... [ J1.l4 rt[f:
Tt1(1<a, H ~ 2 1' o..• t .5U.1t rtCT; MN«. II •1• 12' "" [ to0.20 rtCJ;
Ttltl<Ct, s >4' o · .u· [ 27'.ll rtn1 111 " l"Ollfl OI ""1USCCT10M WITH ti.:
(..I.STOLT UN[ or 1M[ IH1EICKANCt IUSl!ltn PUii "' nc: l'OIMT or ,,
COW!'OUllll CUM COMCJ.vt TO '!Mt NOHlfW(ST: THt nltST CIJl!\'t HU A IDCTM
or '5UI rtCT'll'!TM AC(WTUlAICLtor .... ,,. DJ " AlllAOIUS Of''3).00
rtn .ul!I " CMOllO 'll'MICM KilS II " DI ' u· t ""°°·" rrn TO not( il'OIJl'T ~ nu: stCOMo o...-i: HAY!llG " lDICTM or .u1.11 rcn wmc " cc!fTAAL .u1cu
OI JI' ,. • ., .... llWHU'S or ns.oo rttt AND ,, CHOllD WHICH ltU'S H or SS'
,,. t .u2.oz rcn: TllfMCt 11 or or s.-· • 2u.n rtn To " l'OIHT or
IWTUIStctlOH'llTTHTMCSOVTl't(lllTn;;H'f-of'-WA'fl.91(orCOlOllAOOlflC!t'WAT , ..
{A.IU..U.Sl W UUClll!TSTllCn};lll[tfC(,NOO'~'OJ'[l2t .27rttTTOA
'Olll'T or llffCltSCCTIOM wm4 111( MOllnc U'I[ or tJI( NOlTMWrst QUAll'Ttll OI
SAIO S{CJIOH U; nmra:, H OCI' .57' 01• t 40.U rm TO ,, '°"" or
IMTCltSCCnotl ""1M nn: MOlmfOlT lllGHT-Ol"-WAY UHC or COUIMOO l!ICHWAT I•
(4.IU.. 1'.AST WUUICRln' Sntt'I): t H(NC(, PMIC((DMG N..Dltt !AIO MOll'ncUlT
111CWT-or-w1.1, "' er 02· ,,. w ~" rtn: nm1ct "' OCI' SJ' 01· c :so.oo
rca. fMCWt;(. H ff' o;z• st" • JO.OD ru1: llf(HC(, s 00' ST DI" • JO.OD
rct'T: nt'UfCC H ... 02' ..51" W S21 .71 rttt1 NCHC[, H If' .51' .... W 78.17
rtn; nu:11ct. UAVIHG SAIO MOlml[RLT llllCHT-or-•t.T, ' 00' •S' oo · • 11.)7 n:n TO A l'OIHT or IMTt'ltSCCTIOM 'fllTH flt[ NOll'TM Ll'lt: or 11'1( NOllTllWtST
ou.umorS.A.IOSCC'nCIH IS.:1MUIC[,SOCI' ..0'4'"[ U7.8l rtt1TOAl'OIHT or IM'ml'SCCTlOll ""™ TMc scunmn.1 ll!CMT-<>r-wu Ll'ltort.01.ouoo
HIGWWU u (4.IU.. LUJ lllUUat\tl" STICtT): nm1ct. H •r 1)41' SI' " U.J.:I
="!7~.;.'-=~~l~~::~:!~i~:~~oS.~ ~[ s
Ol'01.J.S0 [1tl.02lOAl"Ollll0tCUIWAT1.lllCCONCA'l'llOll'[-lltWCSTA
U:HCTII Of JJ0.20 rttl wml " comu.L AMCU or ,,,. ,.. J7" A llAOl1IS or
:5.40.oo rtct .uio" OIOllD WHICH •U.U sir., . .s1• • JIY..17 rcn: lltOICt,
S~30'.S7"• IOl:!.1tntt1o•~Nl'Mturl4TUUCOH<:•vtTOTH[
SOU'n!tAST ,, LOICTlt or H.21 Tm ""'" I\ COlfll ..... ~OL.t or CY 37' ,,,,. ,,
~Oflst.OO'lt?t.HDt.CHCllO .. H1CHIUJtSS,, ... ,.,, • .,,J,,27rm
r~lt~[ w1:'~r 0~0':'.Is?." lfGl>!ll!!!C ro1t 1111:1. D['SCltll"TIOll: COllTAIMIC J..Oll
lli2I.ES!
I. THIS PLAT nm::s NOT RO'R(S[HT A rl(LIJ SURV(Y. AU. !NrOAH•TION 'll•S
llCR IV(IJ r~ txlSTING PL•TS AND L[GAI. DCSCRlPTIONS.
~. UPON •Nt<E:X•TION THAT PORTTO!i DI" STAT[ HIGN•Y I• WJCM IS JE:l.-iG
ADDCD TO lHLJ:ITl or F"OAT COLLINS 'lo'lLL,_.I[ .KHOIJH AS CAST HUL BE:RAV
STRCCT.
SH[(l "'J]' BUSINESS PARK SECOND ANNEXATION I l "l
1-9 2"4\7
4,514
752.3
FCMaps
This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps
Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this
map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
City of Fort Collins - GIS
572.0
1:
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet572.00286.00
Notes
Legend
3,430
Parcels
Growth Management Area
City Limits
Sign Plans
°70-150 SIGN
SCALE • I/4• • 0.0
mirel luasua.dcpth sal penenuton
ado tear. fog *ovum n do. a.m.-
ty 01 e-st cc c
',, nee. n In perlusure.1
alvn...Ind ....staolped Inter ,prel n
to n11.1.44ng insp<0.
Ok
CONDUIT
• UBC CLASS 4 SOIL
SAND / CLAY ASSUMED,
IF DIFFERENT CONTACT
ENGINEER
Soo rub 351012 CC pelomodby COOS
Ilegslesd64.51146666016616616
IsIdupssler.
CONCRETEcoMPRESsIVE
STRENGTH • 26 DAYS
Pc • 2600
•
PSI MINIMA
EL R
47.
S.F.
A 6.72 S.
EL. 44 547 F.
A• 47.50 S.F.
5• 10.500 PT.
A• 54.00 S.P.
EL• 40.500 FT.
C
up!
o Ne
as
cz
1-5 u
11/
08
3‘g
0 ,4
317
1E1
PL 144167(0-10.
646
I IN DIA MOLES
FOR ($ I' DIA
ASES
roWed- 5/16
5/I6 I TEL
KING '4ST A4r1t4TE 67 1— 5 Ai
PIPE CS
1,10.
PIPE 16..(.1476) A6315
°MATCHING PLATE DETAIL
-PIPE ISO'Y 576) 0555
p4,15 Se- G
and S .c 15o
@BASE PLATE DETAIL
04 ;MAR RING
/-•647ACZAA ("?2 ,'"N GS cvc
IM VERTICAL RISSAR
LONG (IS ) RECUIRED
-EVENLY SPACED
I I/2. DIA 456 ANCHOR
BOLTS SPACED
1/2°0/C
j ..4e-z-.
Z n5 e.c.-Pr.,3
e
,t):r2/
y ,41•66>D,nioy 4 /7.- (1/....es
5075 e,d) ri fo et..1-1.,/;.,,
cpY- po
_ ("e,
REBAR PLAN VIEW
SCALE 5/4. • 1,0
Is
E
1
.1,2119,141,1,, NO, 9
57
• -
AS. B TAIA°51/4,‘ S. )
Lower: PIPE
GPLUIVE RING
‘l rAG
.S1-07..TWELD0S,, `-•
E70
UPPER ere
OP RING 4
7r AS SNUG
AS POSSIBLE
0 THICK
A56 PL INSIDE
11111 k E70
6/16
r
r GUIDE RING
r TOP OP
LOWER PIPE
ree TR 5111 -16F7' COP RING 4
AND SOT. OF
PL 1/4
SLOT WELDS,
Iu.177W RICKPIPE
0
'ter1/4 .10
A.14110.1.1•NigUG
,I6L INSIDE
3 111P11 5/16 E70
(0,6•46 it• comply with Ovaerres
enlainmarland Pluda.Cerlea
woval.
240 adopted by [Jamnea......,
777
5.
o
10
rni
101rtrn
iy adn cr vcw,m
a.
t
,
W
,
u
n10.,3.0.
IA
5/4;1 RING
24' (.575)
PIPE
ASS GR. 15
SLEEVE DETAIL --
NOT TO SCALE
ED. PIPE (.570)
ASS GR. IS
e r-\.. SLEEVE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
Location of Sign on Property
A
0'
11
1
tl
C
0
0
Y
b a
itahai7filiLiTaZT 1.31;.'1P311.-
COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 14
(000 WM
COLCPACL7 5T4 ,5
SITE PLAN
face OF WORK
OTT. SIGN It
I
ACTION
PROVIDE / INSTALL
DESCRIPTION PACE A
POLE SIGN 10-0' OW 70-150 SIGN
FACER _
70-160 SO I
24 2 PROVIDE / INSTALL LED LIONT BEAMS (9ECLR17 LIGHTING)
0 3 PROVIDE / INSTALL RACCWAT (EMS WO' CDGNALDS
I 4 PROVIDE / INSTALL 7044 DIRECTIONAL 02VE-5100 DRIVE•T210
I B PROVIDE / INSTALL 7044 PIPECNNAL TURK YOU WANK YOU
2 6 PROVIDE / INSTALL 43PS PRESEU. BOARD
I 7 PROVIDE / INSTALL 0015LE RAMAT =RAWL / CLEARANCE
B PROVIDE / INSTALL COD INIT MAE DISTAL • BY G(ITCtIER) RID LED
2 9 PROVIDE / INSTALL PP43 MENU BOARD
SPECIFICATIONS:
ElLb1121491I
1441 C., 100roph, Dpoeure C
ForteUrrACAL err, ,
i'Z'Z'2°.111P`.,,,-.""A 11117,ir 351,s1.
Round Woo. A97,1 A59 God. 5 de ottevolant, FY • Ask. .
Deoten end lobriectIon accordtte , hot MS ,corrent odlelco.
gOlOr :1=re
F70-1Cere electrode. for SAWproem.,
ralGECT21
Nolen .14 conetructIon oc“rdlne to ACI
tken 20 N.5 ord
the •len ',oho I. 0.1.‘votaly braud aga!nst *Ind leads for AltlIrnion or 4 days,
Frr
aboo ,rnay bo Ingalled the torn. day ao Oho lootIng I. pavrod.)
god
"57 "t. "o'yt '111 'ot:a
CUSTOMER APPROVAL
I tnav, Metal Su RS.* 6.4125
&who art9 Pod Om 10NowIng 0500.
500530mbl.
f ) copy and ists7.710.
( ) Mobriria I Ca.
I DIrnans‘cas
Caatoomers / 1052,
Larimer County Building Permit For Sign (01-SN0008)
Larimer County Building Department
200 West Oak Street
Permit Number: 01-SNOOOS
Date Issued:
P. 0. Box 1190 Date Expires:
Fort Collins, CO 80522 Permit Type:
LARIMER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT
Work Description: FREE STANDING SIGN
November 26, 2001
May27,2003
FREE
------Owner ------------Contractor------
INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK LLC, CO LIABILITY CO
YOUNG ELECTRIC SIGN COMPANY
Construction Address: 4424 DENROSE CT FTC
Subdivision Name: ??
Parcel Number: 871520700 I
Space:
Lot: ?? Block/Tract:
The owner/contractor agrees to perfom1 the work described according to the plans and specifications submitted and with all
provisions of applicable ordinances, state laws, and building codes. The owner/contractor also acknowledges that the granting
of this permit does not give authority to violate any of these regulations and understands that it is their responsibility to insure
that compliance to the above provisions are met.
The pennit is subject to all red line corrections as noted on the approved plans and attached conditions. The approved plans and
permit card shall be avaHable at the construction site. A reinspection fee may be assessed if the approved plans are not available
or for each inspection or reinspection when such portion of work for which the inspection has been scheduled is not completed
or when corrections called for have not been made.
THIS PERMIT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF THE BUILDING OR WORK AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT IS
NOT COMMENCED BY May 25, 2002, OR lF THE BUILDING OR WORK AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT IS
SUSPENDED OR ABANDONDED AT ANY TIME AFTER THE WORK IS COMMENCED FOR A PERIOD OF 180
DAYS, OR IF THE PROPERTY OWNER, PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHOM THE PERMIT IS ISSUED FAILS TO
REQUEST AN INSPECTION BY May 25, 2002. THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE ON May 27, 2003 UNLESS AN
EXTENSION OF AN ADDITIONAL 18 MONTHS IS REQUESTED IN WRITING. FAILURE TO HAVE THE FINAL
INSPECTION APPROVED, OR WHERE APPLICABLE, A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OBTAINED, OR AN
EXTENSION APPROVED WILL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE ADOPTED REGULATIONS OF LARJMER
COUNTY AND SUJECT TO REMEDIES AS ALLOWED BY LAW.
I have read the above notification and attached conditions and agree to comply with these regulations and the County approved
plans. If the signatory below is someone other than the property owner, the signatory represents and warrants that he/she has
full authority to sign this permit on behalf of the property owner and to bind the owner to all terms and conditions herein.
Name of Owner: --~-~Ju{ _____ f_J_-_2_6_-_Z_t1_'!1_J __ ~ ______ (Please Print)
By: __________________________________ (Signature)
__________________________________ (Titlror
Relationship to owner if signed by someone other than owner)
Larimer County Building Department
200 West Oak Street
Permit Number: 01-SN0008
Date Issued:
P. 0. Box 1190 Date Expires:
Fort Collins, CO 80522 Permit Type:
970-498-7700 Inspections: 970-498-7697
CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS
1: Property owners/contractors are responsible for assuring
that structures meet Larimer Countys' minimum requirements
for setbacks from property lines, rights of way, and for
the accuracy of any plans submitted showing these details.
County Building Inspectors are not equipped to verify these
distances/setbacks when making inspections. Property owners
are strongly advised to hire a Colorado Licensed Land
Surveyor that will locate the property lines and verify
that the structure location is as shown on the approved
plans and meets Larimer Countys' minimum setback
requirement.
2: Inspection requests are to be made at least 24 hours prior
to the requested inspection time.
3: -MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE IS 180 SQUARE FEET .
-MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT IS 60 FEET.
-ALL SIGNS MUS~ BE LOCATED COMPLETELY ON PRIVATE PROERTY
AND SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON OR OVER ROAD EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS
OF WAY.
-SIGN PLACEMENT MUST MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SIGHT TRIANGLE STANARDS AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 4.3.F OF THE
LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE.
-EACH LEGALLY ESTABLISHED PRINCIPAL USE IS LIMITED TO ONE
SIGN.
-NO SIGN MAY CONTAIN AN FLASHING, ROTATING,
ANIMATED OR OTHERWISE MOVING FEATURES. SIGNS WITH A
CHANGEABLE MESSAGE MUST REMAIN MOTIONLESS FOR NOT LESS THAN
ONE MINUTE.
-ANY LIGHT USED TO ILLUMINATE A SIGN. MUST BE ARRANGED TO
REFLECT LIGHT AWAY FROM NEARBY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND
AWAY FROM THE VISION OF PASSING MOTORISTS.
-PORTABLE SIGNS, REVOLVING AND ROTATING SIGNS, OR STRINGS
OF LIGHT BULBS USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES OTHER THAN
TRADITIONAL HOLIDAY DECORATIONS AND WIND DRIVEN SIGNS ARE
PROHIBTED.
4:
5: NO FINAL FLOOD INSPECTION NEEDED.
6: PLEASE READ RED-LINES ON PLANS OVER CAREFULLY. FINAL
APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO ON-SITE INSPECTIONS.
{ONE SINGLE POLE STYLE SIGN ONLY.}
7: *NOTE*: SPECIAL INSPECTIONS, BY THE DESIGNING OR PROJECT
ENGINEER, AND WET STAMPED LETTERS ARE REQUIRED. SEE
RED-LINES ON PLANSl
PAYMENT HISTORY
November 26, 2001
May 27 2003
FREE
Item# Description Account Code Tot Fee Paid Prv. Pmts Cur. Pmts
--- ------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Plot Plan Revie 101.018110.0 30.00 30.00 30.00 .00
100 Building Permit 118.018300.0 162.00 162.00 162.00 .00
130 Use Tax Collect 118.018300.0 60.00 60.00 60.00 .00
TOTAL FEE PAID:
TOTAL FEE
$252 . oo o , ... 5AJooo~
$252.00
FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting -May 10, 2012
8:30 a.m. !~============================== ================================ll
Council Liaison: Kell Ohlson
air erson: Michael Bello
iaison: Peter Barnes 416-2355
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 10, 2012 at
8:45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Daphne Bear
Michael Bello
Peter Bohling
Bob Long
Dana McBride
John McCoy
Heidi Shuff
EXCUSED ABSENCES: None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Marcha Hill, Staff Support to the Board
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF April 12, 2012 minutes was postponed until June meeting:
3. APPEAL NO. 2705 -Setback Variance Approved
Address: 321 S Whitcomb St
Petitioner:
Zone:
Section:
Justification
Description:
Steve Whittall
NCM
4.8(E)(2), 4.8(F)(1 )(a), 4.8(D)(4)
See petitioner's letter
This appeal was continued from April 12, 2012, at which time the Board approved a
requested variance to allow the west wall of the new house to be built at an angle
rather than parallel to or perpendicular to the lot lines of the lot. The Board also
denied a variance request to allow a 900 s.f. garage/home office rather than the
allowed 600 s.f. structure.
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Variance to Sections 4.8(E)(2), 4.8(F)(1 )(a) and 4.8(0)(4) -front setback, angled wall,
and maximum size of detached building.
4. APPEAL NO. 2706 -Approved
Address:
Zone:
Section:
Justification:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
4424 Denrose Ct
CG
3.8. 7(A)(3)( c)
See petitioner's statement of justification.
STAFF REPORT
Jacob Ross
Archland Property I LLC
PO BOX 182571
Columbus, OH 43218-2571
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 5
Request for Variance to Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) -extend the 7 year compliance period for a
nonconforming sign.
The variance will extend the seven-year period of time in which a nonconforming sign on property
annexed into the city limits has to be brought into compliance with the City's sign regulations.
Specifically, the McDonalds freestanding sign at this location will need to be brought into
compliance by December 20, 2012 (seven years from the date of annexation). The variance would
extend the seven year compliance period for three years, until December 20, 2015. The existing
nonconforming sign is a two-sided, 60 ft. tall, 176 s.f. per side McDonalds Restaurant freestanding
pole sign. To be brought into compliance, the sign would need to be removed and replaced with a
sign at a maximum height of 18 ft. and an a maximum size of 90 s.f. per side. There are many
commercial signs in the 'neighborhood', most of which don't comply with the City's sign regulations.
The McDonald's sign is the only one located on property that is in the city limits. All of the other
nonconforming signs are outside city limits.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the variance for Sec. 3.8.7(A)(3)(c).
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The sign code requires that all existing nonconforming signs located on property annexed to the
City must be removed or brought into compliance with the current provisions of the code no later
than seven years after the date of such annexation. The McDonalds Restaurant property is part of
the Interchange Business Park development that was annexed on December 20, 2005. Therefore,
the sign must be removed or made compliant by December 20, 2012.
The development is located at the southeast corner of 1-25 and East Mulberry, and is the only
portion of the intersection or area along East Mulberry that has been annexed. Other businesses
at the intersection and along Mulberry have similar sized signs at similar heights, but those
businesses are still in the County. McDonalds is proposing that their sign be allowed to remain for
an additional 3 years, believing that this would then maintain, for a relatively brief period of time,
the level plain field with their competitors and other businesses that they now enjoy. The soonest
the other nearby signs in the county would need to be brought into compliance would be 1 O years
(three years from the date of the creation of an enclave plus the seven year compliance period).
This time period would assume that an enclave is created immediately. However, since there's no
way to know for certain when the enclave will be created, the 10 years could be considerably
longer.
ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 6
The applicant submitted a similar variance application for the March, 2012 ZBA hearing, but
withdrew the application prior to the hearing due to a staff recommendation of denial. The original
application requested that the sign be allowed to remain until such time as the other
nonconforming signs in the area are annexed into the city and their 7 year compliance period ends.
Staff believed that request was unreasonable because it essentially would have allowed the
McDonalds sign to remain for an indefinite period of time, at least 10 years and likely much longer.
The applicant has had further discussions with staff and has now submitted a new application
requesting the 3 year extension.
2) Applicant's statement of justification:
Pursuant to Section 2.10.2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Code"), Archland
Property I, LLC ("Applicant") is submitting this written statement in connection with its
application for a variance from the provisions of Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) of the Code
requiring, "all existing nonconforming signs located on property annexed to the city shall be
removed or made to conform to the provisions of this Article no later than seven (7) years
after the effective date of such annexation."
Property Description:
Applicant owns the real property having an address of 4424 Denrose Ct, Fort Collins, CO
80524 (the "Property").
The Property is located at the southeast corner of 1-25 and Mulberry Street and is part of
the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation which was annexed by the City of Fort
Collins (the "City") effective December 20, 2005. The Property is zoned General
Commercial.
The Property is the site of a McDonald's restaurant and contains an approximately 60 ft. tall
2-sided freestanding sign, with faces of approximately 176 s.f. per side (the "Sign") located
in the northwest corner of the Property. The Sign was built in conformance with the
conditions of Permit -#01-SN0008 issued by Larimer County (the "County") on November
26, 2001. Without a variance, the Sign must be removed by December 20, 2012 because it
does not conform to the sign regulations contained in Section 3.8.7(G)(2) of the Code,
which allow freestanding signs with a maximum height of 18 ft. above grade and faces that
do not exceed 90 s.f. per side.
Request for a Variance:
Applicant hereby requests a variance from Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) of the Code to extend its
use of the non-conforming Sign for an additional three (3) years, to December 20, 2015.
The neighboring commercial properties along the Mulberry St commercial corridor and the
other three corners of the 1-25/Mulberry St interchange are located within the County and
have not been annexed to the City. As such, Applicant's neighbors and competitors will be
able to maintain freestanding signs pursuant to the Larimer County Code that are taller and
have larger faces than those allowed within the City for at least ten (10) more years (three
(3) years from the date of an enclave for annexation to the City, followed by seven (7) year
compliance period under the Code). The differences between the City's sign regulations
and the County's regulations put the Applicant, a City business, at a competitive
disadvantage to the neighboring County businesses. Approving this request for a variance
would enable Applicant to continue to maintain equal footing, on a short-term basis, with its
neighbors and competitors along the Mulberry St commercial corridor for three (3) more
years.
Applicant's Request Meets the Standards for a Variance under the Code:
Applicant's request satisfies the requirements for granting a variance set forth in Section
2.10.2(H) of the Code because such variance (i) diverges from the standards set forth in the
Code "in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the
ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 7
neighborhood," (ii) will continue to advance the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the
Code, (iii) is not "detrimental to the public good," and (iv) does not authorize "any change in
use."
Considering the Variance in the Context of the Neighborhood
The Neighborhood:
The Property is located at the southeast corner of the 1-25/Mulberry St interchange and is
surrounded by commercial properties that form the eastern edge of the Mulberry St
commercial corridor.
There are numerous freestanding signs along the Mulberry St commercial corridor near the
Property which exceed 18 ft. in height and some of which also have faces larger than 90 s.f.
per side. Hence, when considering that other signs that are comparable in size to the Sign
already exist in the neighborhood, extending Applicant's deadline to remove the Sign for
three (3) years would merely diverge from the standards of the Code in a nominal and
inconsequential way.
Residential properties lie to the east of the Mulberry St commercial corridor. We do not
believe the residential properties are a part of our neighborhood. Instead, based on their
location and character, they form a separate and distinct neighborhood. They are located
to the east and beyond the Mulberry St commercial corridor. They are located in the
County, not the City. They are located so far from the Property that the Code does not
require us to give them notice of our variance application. They are purely residential, not
commercial, nor mixed-use.
Moreover, owners within the residential neighborhood have no reasonable expectation that
the Sign will be taken down and replaced with a smaller sign. As noted above, the
residential neighborhood is located in the County, not the City, and is so far removed from
the Property that we are not required to give the owners notice of our application. The Sign
has been on the Property for ten years. It was erected when the Property was in the
County and was built in conformance with the County's regulations. The other signs in the
Mulberry St commercial corridor have been there for years as well and will not be removed
or replaced any time soon, and other owners within the Mulberry St commercial corridor
can continue to erect large signs under the County's regulations.
In any event, even if one were to consider the residential neighborhood to be part of our
neighborhood, the divergence from standards and impact of the variance should be
deemed nominal. The replacement of the Sign will not have a significant impact on the
views from the residential properties given the number of other large signs in the Mulberry
St commercial corridor. It is not as if the replacement of the Sign will create a view free of
large signs --our Sign is just one of many. As such, the replacement of the Sign will not
have a significant positive impact on the use, enjoyment or value of the homes.
Furthermore, the variance is not perpetual. It is for a relatively short period of time -three
years.
Advances the Purpose of the Code
This variance would satisfy the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code by:
(i) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and
industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all; and
(ii) being sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.
First, as referenced above, the other three corners of the 1-25/Mulberry St interchange are
in the County. As a result, those properties are allowed to possess, and many do possess,
taller and larger freestanding signs than are allowed in the City. Granting the variance
fosters a more rational relationship among the businesses in the Mulberry St commercial
ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 8
corridor by allowing the Property to temporarily remain on equal footing with the
neighboring County commercial properties. Second, the variance is sensitive to the
character of existing neighborhoods because the Sign is comparable in size with other
existing signs along the Mulberry St commercial corridor. By limiting the duration of the
variance, Applicant is balancing the requirements of the Code with the competitive
disadvantage Applicant, a City business, will suffer merely because its Property was
annexed into the City prior to the properties of its neighbors and competitors located within
the County.
The Variance Benefits the Public
Allowing the Sign to stand for the requested extended compliance period would benefit the
public by supporting employment and increased sales taxes to the City for three (3) more
years. McDonalds Corporation's studies show that up to 45% of sales for McDonald's
restaurants are impulse purchases and, as a result, lowering the height of a freestanding
McDonald's sign will cause a direct decline in sales for the restaurant. Applicant anticipates
a drop of at least 6% in sales upon lowering the Sign because the Sign provides critical
sight orientation for travelers from 1-25 as described below. Such a drop will reduce sales
tax revenues to the City and may result in the loss of some jobs.
A traveler on 1-25 heading northbound would not be able to see a shorter sign as the sign
would be completely blocked by the building located to the southwest of the Property.
Also, the Sign clearly helps orient a traveler heading southbound on 1-25 to the restaurant.
Without the visual cues provided by the Sign, a traveler is likely to continue to a different
restaurant which may be located outside the City resulting in a loss of tax revenues for the
City. As such, requiring Applicant to remove the Sign is detrimental to the public good by
decreasing sales tax revenues to the City and potentially resulting in a reduction of staffing
levels at the restaurant.
No Change in Use
Applicant is not seeking a change of use with this variance request; rather Applicant wants
to temporarily maintain the status quo and merely extend its deadline for replacing the Sign.
Applicant acknowledges that ultimately it will need to replace the Sign with a conforming
sign.
For the foregoing reasons, this variance should be granted.
1) Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of the variance and finds that:
•The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good since there are
numerous signs of the approximate same height and size in close proximity to the
McDonalds sign, and those signs will remain long after the McDonalds sign is modified in 3
years.
•The proposal will not diverge from the standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered in the context of the neighborhood.
Staff believes that the proposal to allow a 60 ft. tall, 176 s.f. per side freestanding sign to remain for
three years will satisfy the nominal and inconsequential standard. The neighborhood around the
McDonalds Restaurant is predominately commercial, and the majority of those commercial uses
have signs that don't comply with the City's regulations. But since they are in the county, those
signs are likely to remain for many years, certainly for many years past the 3 year extension being
requested. Removal of the McDonalds sign will have no immediate impact on the visual character
of the area since many of the other nearby signs are of the same height and size, some taller and
larger. Allowing an extra 3 years will be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the
ZBA -May 10, 2012 -Page 9
context of the neighborhood. However, it is important that the extended compliance time be kept
to a relatively short time period since there are other lots in the annexed development that could
still develop with a commercial use in the coming years or convert to a different use. Such a future
use would be required to erect a sign that complies with the City regulations. The granting of this
variance would have consequences with regard to equitable treatment of future uses and buildings
in the development if the time period extension is lengthy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance to Sec. 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) to extend the seven year
compliance period for an additional three years.
STAFF PRESENTATION:
Barnes stated the existing nonconforming sign is a two-sided, 60 ft. tall, 170 s.f. per side pole sign.
To be brought into compliance, the sign would need to be replaced with a sign with a maximum
height of 18 ft. and 90 s.f. per side. There are many commercial signs in the area which do not
comply with the City sign code; however, this McDonald's sign is the only one within the City limits.
McDonald's is requesting an additional three years to keep the existing sign in order to maintain a
level playing field with its competitors in the area. The other commercial signs cannot be annexed
for at least ten years given that an enclave would need to occur first and an annexation cannot
occur until three years following an enclave. Once the property would be annexed, the businesses
have seven years to comply with the sign code.
Barnes noted the original application for this variance, which was open ended to allow the sign until
neighboring signs would need to comply, was withdrawn due to a staff recommendation of denial.
The new request is for a three year extension.
Barnes presented slides relevant to the application and noted the location of the McDonald's site
relative to neighboring businesses, which are still in the County. He stated the annexation which
would create the enclave is not yet proposed.
Bohling requested additional detail regarding the annexation that brought McDonald's into the City
limits. Barnes replied that the development was annexed in 2005 and it was voluntary.
McCoy asked if the annexation occurred before the development. Barnes replied in the negative;
the development was approved in the County and many of the buildings, including the McDonald's,
were developed in the County.
Bear asked if the sign code was in place at the time of the annexation. Barnes replied the City sign
code has existed since the early 1970's. However, the McDonald's sign was erected pursuant to
the County sign code and was up approximately three years prior to annexation.
APPLICANT PARTICIPATION:
Jacob Ross, 6666 E Jamison Ave, Centennial, noted the original developer of this area signed a
pre-annexation agreement in 2000, in which he agreed the property would be annexed at a later
date. Mr. Ross stated his client bought into the property without knowledge of the pre-annexation
agreement and they placed the sign based on all of the County requirements. He stated the
McDonald's franchise owner was surprised the sign would need to be replaced.
Bob Luther, franchisee for the McDonald's at 4424 Denrose Ct, stated this sign will aid in attracting
business and increased tax dollars for the location in question.
Bello asked if any type of studies have been done regarding the impact of that particular sign. Mr.
Luther replied he estimates that six to ten percent of the store business would be lost without that
sign. He stated the store has been remodeled which has increased business, jobs, and sales tax
revenue for the City. The visibility of the store will decrease without the sign.
ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 10
Bello asked how many employees work at this store. Mr. Luther replied there are 50 employees at
this store and he has five stores and about 250 employees in the City.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION:
Roger Bank, 616 W Oak St, supported the variance to allow the sign as the elevation of the
property is low and the store is hidden somewhat by other structures.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Bear stated she does not have any concern with the request and does not see any detriment to the
public good. Bello noted staff is recommending a three year extension. Bohling stated the sign is
appropriate for the business district in the area and supported the request.
Long stated it is unfortunate Mulberry looks the way it does, however, this sign is no worse than
the others. He appreciated the decrease in time to three years.
Bello asked if an additional variance could be requested in three years. Barnes replied in the
affirmative.
Bear moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve Appeal 2706 for the following
reasons: the applicant's request satisfies the requirements for granting a variance set forth
in the Code because such variance diverges from the standards in a nominal and
inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and it will
continue to advance the purpose set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code, it is not detrimental
to the public good, and does not authorize any change in use. Bohling and Shuff seconded
the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Long, Bear, McCoy, Bello, Bohling, McBride, Shuff
Nays: None.
Abstain: None.
5. APPEAL NO. 2707 -Application Withdrawn
Address:
Petitioner:
Zone:
Section:
Justification
Description:
401 E Laurel St
Paul Steinway
NCM
4.8(E)(3), 4.8(E)(4), and 4.8(0)(5)
See petitioner's letter
The first variance requested will allow a first and second floor addition to be
constructed at a 5 ft. rear yard setback instead of the required 15 ft .. The second
variance requested will allow the proposed addition to be constructed at a 10'-4"
setback from the street side lot line along Peterson St instead of the required 15 ft.
Lastly, the variance requested will increase the maximum allowed floor area ratio for
that portion of the house located in the rear half of the lot from .33 to .7 (an increase
in the maximum allowed floor area in rear half of lot from 825 s.f. to 1,752 s.f).
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Variance to Sections 4.8(E)(3), 4.8(E)(4), and 4.8(0)(5) -rear setback, street side
setback, and rear lot floor area.
ZBA -May 10 , 2012 -Page 17
BOARD DISCUSSION:
McBride stated he likes the open stairway from an architectural standpoint.
Bohling moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve Appeal 2708 for the following
reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, and the
lot abuts an alley on the back and one side so the building has minimal impact on nearby
lots. The additional 79 s.f. of floor area added by enclosing the open stairway will not add
any functional floor space that can be used for other purposes. The two abutting alleys
create exceptional physical conditions unique to the property and make it difficult to build
on.
Barnes suggested a reference to staff comments in the motion . Eckman stated the motion could
be withdrawn and restarted . Bello stated this change is nominal and inconsequential rather than a
hardship . He asked if Bohling would be willing to accept a friendly amendment referencing that
reasoning . Bohling replied in the affirmative .
Bohling amended his motion and stated the proposal, as submitted, would not diverge from
the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way, when
considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes
of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Bear seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Long , Bear, McCoy, Bello, Bohling, McBride, Shuff
Nays : None .
Absta in : None .
7. Other Business:
Bello discussed an upcoming meeting to discuss Board work plans . Barnes stated the work plan
for the ZBA has remained the same every year and he discussed the Board's duties . He stated
the Board will discuss the Eastside Westside Plan jointly with the Planning and Zoning Board at the
end of the year.
Barnes suggested motions can be made with reference to the recommendations in the staff
reports .
The Board discussed an email regarding MAX and Barnes asked if the Board would like to receive
a presentation regarding the project. The Board replied in the affirmative . Barnes stated the
groundbreaking for the project will follow the Federal signing of funding on May 21 51 .
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting -May 10, 2012
8:30 a.m. !~============================== ================================ll
Council Liaison: Kell Ohlson
air erson: Michael Bello
iaison: Peter Barnes 416-2355
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 10, 2012 at
8:45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Daphne Bear
Michael Bello
Peter Bohling
Bob Long
Dana McBride
John McCoy
Heidi Shuff
EXCUSED ABSENCES: None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Marcha Hill, Staff Support to the Board
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF April 12, 2012 minutes was postponed until June meeting:
3. APPEAL NO. 2705 -Setback Variance Approved
Address: 321 S Whitcomb St
Petitioner:
Zone:
Section:
Justification
Description:
Steve Whittall
NCM
4.8(E)(2), 4.8(F)(1 )(a), 4.8(D)(4)
See petitioner's letter
This appeal was continued from April 12, 2012, at which time the Board approved a
requested variance to allow the west wall of the new house to be built at an angle
rather than parallel to or perpendicular to the lot lines of the lot. The Board also
denied a variance request to allow a 900 s.f. garage/home office rather than the
allowed 600 s.f. structure.
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Variance to Sections 4.8(E)(2), 4.8(F)(1 )(a) and 4.8(0)(4) -front setback, angled wall,
and maximum size of detached building.
4. APPEAL NO. 2706 -Approved
Address:
Zone:
Section:
Justification:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
4424 Denrose Ct
CG
3.8. 7(A)(3)( c)
See petitioner's statement of justification.
STAFF REPORT
Jacob Ross
Archland Property I LLC
PO BOX 182571
Columbus, OH 43218-2571
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 5
Request for Variance to Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) -extend the 7 year compliance period for a
nonconforming sign.
The variance will extend the seven-year period of time in which a nonconforming sign on property
annexed into the city limits has to be brought into compliance with the City's sign regulations.
Specifically, the McDonalds freestanding sign at this location will need to be brought into
compliance by December 20, 2012 (seven years from the date of annexation). The variance would
extend the seven year compliance period for three years, until December 20, 2015. The existing
nonconforming sign is a two-sided, 60 ft. tall, 176 s.f. per side McDonalds Restaurant freestanding
pole sign. To be brought into compliance, the sign would need to be removed and replaced with a
sign at a maximum height of 18 ft. and an a maximum size of 90 s.f. per side. There are many
commercial signs in the 'neighborhood', most of which don't comply with the City's sign regulations.
The McDonald's sign is the only one located on property that is in the city limits. All of the other
nonconforming signs are outside city limits.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the variance for Sec. 3.8.7(A)(3)(c).
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The sign code requires that all existing nonconforming signs located on property annexed to the
City must be removed or brought into compliance with the current provisions of the code no later
than seven years after the date of such annexation. The McDonalds Restaurant property is part of
the Interchange Business Park development that was annexed on December 20, 2005. Therefore,
the sign must be removed or made compliant by December 20, 2012.
The development is located at the southeast corner of 1-25 and East Mulberry, and is the only
portion of the intersection or area along East Mulberry that has been annexed. Other businesses
at the intersection and along Mulberry have similar sized signs at similar heights, but those
businesses are still in the County. McDonalds is proposing that their sign be allowed to remain for
an additional 3 years, believing that this would then maintain, for a relatively brief period of time,
the level plain field with their competitors and other businesses that they now enjoy. The soonest
the other nearby signs in the county would need to be brought into compliance would be 1 O years
(three years from the date of the creation of an enclave plus the seven year compliance period).
This time period would assume that an enclave is created immediately. However, since there's no
way to know for certain when the enclave will be created, the 10 years could be considerably
longer.
ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 6
The applicant submitted a similar variance application for the March, 2012 ZBA hearing, but
withdrew the application prior to the hearing due to a staff recommendation of denial. The original
application requested that the sign be allowed to remain until such time as the other
nonconforming signs in the area are annexed into the city and their 7 year compliance period ends.
Staff believed that request was unreasonable because it essentially would have allowed the
McDonalds sign to remain for an indefinite period of time, at least 10 years and likely much longer.
The applicant has had further discussions with staff and has now submitted a new application
requesting the 3 year extension.
2) Applicant's statement of justification:
Pursuant to Section 2.10.2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Code"), Archland
Property I, LLC ("Applicant") is submitting this written statement in connection with its
application for a variance from the provisions of Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) of the Code
requiring, "all existing nonconforming signs located on property annexed to the city shall be
removed or made to conform to the provisions of this Article no later than seven (7) years
after the effective date of such annexation."
Property Description:
Applicant owns the real property having an address of 4424 Denrose Ct, Fort Collins, CO
80524 (the "Property").
The Property is located at the southeast corner of 1-25 and Mulberry Street and is part of
the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation which was annexed by the City of Fort
Collins (the "City") effective December 20, 2005. The Property is zoned General
Commercial.
The Property is the site of a McDonald's restaurant and contains an approximately 60 ft. tall
2-sided freestanding sign, with faces of approximately 176 s.f. per side (the "Sign") located
in the northwest corner of the Property. The Sign was built in conformance with the
conditions of Permit -#01-SN0008 issued by Larimer County (the "County") on November
26, 2001. Without a variance, the Sign must be removed by December 20, 2012 because it
does not conform to the sign regulations contained in Section 3.8.7(G)(2) of the Code,
which allow freestanding signs with a maximum height of 18 ft. above grade and faces that
do not exceed 90 s.f. per side.
Request for a Variance:
Applicant hereby requests a variance from Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) of the Code to extend its
use of the non-conforming Sign for an additional three (3) years, to December 20, 2015.
The neighboring commercial properties along the Mulberry St commercial corridor and the
other three corners of the 1-25/Mulberry St interchange are located within the County and
have not been annexed to the City. As such, Applicant's neighbors and competitors will be
able to maintain freestanding signs pursuant to the Larimer County Code that are taller and
have larger faces than those allowed within the City for at least ten (10) more years (three
(3) years from the date of an enclave for annexation to the City, followed by seven (7) year
compliance period under the Code). The differences between the City's sign regulations
and the County's regulations put the Applicant, a City business, at a competitive
disadvantage to the neighboring County businesses. Approving this request for a variance
would enable Applicant to continue to maintain equal footing, on a short-term basis, with its
neighbors and competitors along the Mulberry St commercial corridor for three (3) more
years.
Applicant's Request Meets the Standards for a Variance under the Code:
Applicant's request satisfies the requirements for granting a variance set forth in Section
2.10.2(H) of the Code because such variance (i) diverges from the standards set forth in the
Code "in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the
ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 7
neighborhood," (ii) will continue to advance the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the
Code, (iii) is not "detrimental to the public good," and (iv) does not authorize "any change in
use."
Considering the Variance in the Context of the Neighborhood
The Neighborhood:
The Property is located at the southeast corner of the 1-25/Mulberry St interchange and is
surrounded by commercial properties that form the eastern edge of the Mulberry St
commercial corridor.
There are numerous freestanding signs along the Mulberry St commercial corridor near the
Property which exceed 18 ft. in height and some of which also have faces larger than 90 s.f.
per side. Hence, when considering that other signs that are comparable in size to the Sign
already exist in the neighborhood, extending Applicant's deadline to remove the Sign for
three (3) years would merely diverge from the standards of the Code in a nominal and
inconsequential way.
Residential properties lie to the east of the Mulberry St commercial corridor. We do not
believe the residential properties are a part of our neighborhood. Instead, based on their
location and character, they form a separate and distinct neighborhood. They are located
to the east and beyond the Mulberry St commercial corridor. They are located in the
County, not the City. They are located so far from the Property that the Code does not
require us to give them notice of our variance application. They are purely residential, not
commercial, nor mixed-use.
Moreover, owners within the residential neighborhood have no reasonable expectation that
the Sign will be taken down and replaced with a smaller sign. As noted above, the
residential neighborhood is located in the County, not the City, and is so far removed from
the Property that we are not required to give the owners notice of our application. The Sign
has been on the Property for ten years. It was erected when the Property was in the
County and was built in conformance with the County's regulations. The other signs in the
Mulberry St commercial corridor have been there for years as well and will not be removed
or replaced any time soon, and other owners within the Mulberry St commercial corridor
can continue to erect large signs under the County's regulations.
In any event, even if one were to consider the residential neighborhood to be part of our
neighborhood, the divergence from standards and impact of the variance should be
deemed nominal. The replacement of the Sign will not have a significant impact on the
views from the residential properties given the number of other large signs in the Mulberry
St commercial corridor. It is not as if the replacement of the Sign will create a view free of
large signs --our Sign is just one of many. As such, the replacement of the Sign will not
have a significant positive impact on the use, enjoyment or value of the homes.
Furthermore, the variance is not perpetual. It is for a relatively short period of time -three
years.
Advances the Purpose of the Code
This variance would satisfy the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code by:
(i) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and
industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all; and
(ii) being sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.
First, as referenced above, the other three corners of the 1-25/Mulberry St interchange are
in the County. As a result, those properties are allowed to possess, and many do possess,
taller and larger freestanding signs than are allowed in the City. Granting the variance
fosters a more rational relationship among the businesses in the Mulberry St commercial
ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 8
corridor by allowing the Property to temporarily remain on equal footing with the
neighboring County commercial properties. Second, the variance is sensitive to the
character of existing neighborhoods because the Sign is comparable in size with other
existing signs along the Mulberry St commercial corridor. By limiting the duration of the
variance, Applicant is balancing the requirements of the Code with the competitive
disadvantage Applicant, a City business, will suffer merely because its Property was
annexed into the City prior to the properties of its neighbors and competitors located within
the County.
The Variance Benefits the Public
Allowing the Sign to stand for the requested extended compliance period would benefit the
public by supporting employment and increased sales taxes to the City for three (3) more
years. McDonalds Corporation's studies show that up to 45% of sales for McDonald's
restaurants are impulse purchases and, as a result, lowering the height of a freestanding
McDonald's sign will cause a direct decline in sales for the restaurant. Applicant anticipates
a drop of at least 6% in sales upon lowering the Sign because the Sign provides critical
sight orientation for travelers from 1-25 as described below. Such a drop will reduce sales
tax revenues to the City and may result in the loss of some jobs.
A traveler on 1-25 heading northbound would not be able to see a shorter sign as the sign
would be completely blocked by the building located to the southwest of the Property.
Also, the Sign clearly helps orient a traveler heading southbound on 1-25 to the restaurant.
Without the visual cues provided by the Sign, a traveler is likely to continue to a different
restaurant which may be located outside the City resulting in a loss of tax revenues for the
City. As such, requiring Applicant to remove the Sign is detrimental to the public good by
decreasing sales tax revenues to the City and potentially resulting in a reduction of staffing
levels at the restaurant.
No Change in Use
Applicant is not seeking a change of use with this variance request; rather Applicant wants
to temporarily maintain the status quo and merely extend its deadline for replacing the Sign.
Applicant acknowledges that ultimately it will need to replace the Sign with a conforming
sign.
For the foregoing reasons, this variance should be granted.
1) Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of the variance and finds that:
•The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good since there are
numerous signs of the approximate same height and size in close proximity to the
McDonalds sign, and those signs will remain long after the McDonalds sign is modified in 3
years.
•The proposal will not diverge from the standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered in the context of the neighborhood.
Staff believes that the proposal to allow a 60 ft. tall, 176 s.f. per side freestanding sign to remain for
three years will satisfy the nominal and inconsequential standard. The neighborhood around the
McDonalds Restaurant is predominately commercial, and the majority of those commercial uses
have signs that don't comply with the City's regulations. But since they are in the county, those
signs are likely to remain for many years, certainly for many years past the 3 year extension being
requested. Removal of the McDonalds sign will have no immediate impact on the visual character
of the area since many of the other nearby signs are of the same height and size, some taller and
larger. Allowing an extra 3 years will be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the
ZBA -May 10, 2012 -Page 9
context of the neighborhood. However, it is important that the extended compliance time be kept
to a relatively short time period since there are other lots in the annexed development that could
still develop with a commercial use in the coming years or convert to a different use. Such a future
use would be required to erect a sign that complies with the City regulations. The granting of this
variance would have consequences with regard to equitable treatment of future uses and buildings
in the development if the time period extension is lengthy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance to Sec. 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) to extend the seven year
compliance period for an additional three years.
STAFF PRESENTATION:
Barnes stated the existing nonconforming sign is a two-sided, 60 ft. tall, 170 s.f. per side pole sign.
To be brought into compliance, the sign would need to be replaced with a sign with a maximum
height of 18 ft. and 90 s.f. per side. There are many commercial signs in the area which do not
comply with the City sign code; however, this McDonald's sign is the only one within the City limits.
McDonald's is requesting an additional three years to keep the existing sign in order to maintain a
level playing field with its competitors in the area. The other commercial signs cannot be annexed
for at least ten years given that an enclave would need to occur first and an annexation cannot
occur until three years following an enclave. Once the property would be annexed, the businesses
have seven years to comply with the sign code.
Barnes noted the original application for this variance, which was open ended to allow the sign until
neighboring signs would need to comply, was withdrawn due to a staff recommendation of denial.
The new request is for a three year extension.
Barnes presented slides relevant to the application and noted the location of the McDonald's site
relative to neighboring businesses, which are still in the County. He stated the annexation which
would create the enclave is not yet proposed.
Bohling requested additional detail regarding the annexation that brought McDonald's into the City
limits. Barnes replied that the development was annexed in 2005 and it was voluntary.
McCoy asked if the annexation occurred before the development. Barnes replied in the negative;
the development was approved in the County and many of the buildings, including the McDonald's,
were developed in the County.
Bear asked if the sign code was in place at the time of the annexation. Barnes replied the City sign
code has existed since the early 1970's. However, the McDonald's sign was erected pursuant to
the County sign code and was up approximately three years prior to annexation.
APPLICANT PARTICIPATION:
Jacob Ross, 6666 E Jamison Ave, Centennial, noted the original developer of this area signed a
pre-annexation agreement in 2000, in which he agreed the property would be annexed at a later
date. Mr. Ross stated his client bought into the property without knowledge of the pre-annexation
agreement and they placed the sign based on all of the County requirements. He stated the
McDonald's franchise owner was surprised the sign would need to be replaced.
Bob Luther, franchisee for the McDonald's at 4424 Denrose Ct, stated this sign will aid in attracting
business and increased tax dollars for the location in question.
Bello asked if any type of studies have been done regarding the impact of that particular sign. Mr.
Luther replied he estimates that six to ten percent of the store business would be lost without that
sign. He stated the store has been remodeled which has increased business, jobs, and sales tax
revenue for the City. The visibility of the store will decrease without the sign.
ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 10
Bello asked how many employees work at this store. Mr. Luther replied there are 50 employees at
this store and he has five stores and about 250 employees in the City.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION:
Roger Bank, 616 W Oak St, supported the variance to allow the sign as the elevation of the
property is low and the store is hidden somewhat by other structures.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Bear stated she does not have any concern with the request and does not see any detriment to the
public good. Bello noted staff is recommending a three year extension. Bohling stated the sign is
appropriate for the business district in the area and supported the request.
Long stated it is unfortunate Mulberry looks the way it does, however, this sign is no worse than
the others. He appreciated the decrease in time to three years.
Bello asked if an additional variance could be requested in three years. Barnes replied in the
affirmative.
Bear moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve Appeal 2706 for the following
reasons: the applicant's request satisfies the requirements for granting a variance set forth
in the Code because such variance diverges from the standards in a nominal and
inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and it will
continue to advance the purpose set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code, it is not detrimental
to the public good, and does not authorize any change in use. Bohling and Shuff seconded
the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Long, Bear, McCoy, Bello, Bohling, McBride, Shuff
Nays: None.
Abstain: None.
5. APPEAL NO. 2707 -Application Withdrawn
Address:
Petitioner:
Zone:
Section:
Justification
Description:
401 E Laurel St
Paul Steinway
NCM
4.8(E)(3), 4.8(E)(4), and 4.8(0)(5)
See petitioner's letter
The first variance requested will allow a first and second floor addition to be
constructed at a 5 ft. rear yard setback instead of the required 15 ft .. The second
variance requested will allow the proposed addition to be constructed at a 10'-4"
setback from the street side lot line along Peterson St instead of the required 15 ft.
Lastly, the variance requested will increase the maximum allowed floor area ratio for
that portion of the house located in the rear half of the lot from .33 to .7 (an increase
in the maximum allowed floor area in rear half of lot from 825 s.f. to 1,752 s.f).
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Variance to Sections 4.8(E)(3), 4.8(E)(4), and 4.8(0)(5) -rear setback, street side
setback, and rear lot floor area.
ZBA -May 10 , 2012 -Page 17
BOARD DISCUSSION:
McBride stated he likes the open stairway from an architectural standpoint.
Bohling moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve Appeal 2708 for the following
reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, and the
lot abuts an alley on the back and one side so the building has minimal impact on nearby
lots. The additional 79 s.f. of floor area added by enclosing the open stairway will not add
any functional floor space that can be used for other purposes. The two abutting alleys
create exceptional physical conditions unique to the property and make it difficult to build
on.
Barnes suggested a reference to staff comments in the motion . Eckman stated the motion could
be withdrawn and restarted . Bello stated this change is nominal and inconsequential rather than a
hardship . He asked if Bohling would be willing to accept a friendly amendment referencing that
reasoning . Bohling replied in the affirmative .
Bohling amended his motion and stated the proposal, as submitted, would not diverge from
the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way, when
considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes
of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Bear seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Long , Bear, McCoy, Bello, Bohling, McBride, Shuff
Nays : None .
Absta in : None .
7. Other Business:
Bello discussed an upcoming meeting to discuss Board work plans . Barnes stated the work plan
for the ZBA has remained the same every year and he discussed the Board's duties . He stated
the Board will discuss the Eastside Westside Plan jointly with the Planning and Zoning Board at the
end of the year.
Barnes suggested motions can be made with reference to the recommendations in the staff
reports .
The Board discussed an email regarding MAX and Barnes asked if the Board would like to receive
a presentation regarding the project. The Board replied in the affirmative . Barnes stated the
groundbreaking for the project will follow the Federal signing of funding on May 21 51 .
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
185 S State St, Ste 800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
801.936.5557 | maverik.com
September 2, 2021
City of Fort Collins
Zoning Board of Appeals
281 North College
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Attn: Caryn Champine
RE: Variance Application for 4424 Denrose Ct.
Dear Ms. Champine:
As the operator of the Maverik gas station located at 651 Frontage Road in Fort Collins, I am writing to
express my support for the referenced variance application. We are directly across the street from the
McDonald’s store, and as one of the few Fort Collins retail businesses located East of the Mulberry
Road/I-25 interchange, we believe that the variance will result in additional traffic to our property and
help to ensure our continued success at this location. We believe that the granting the variance will
benefit each of Maverik, the applicant, and the City of Fort Collins.
Sincerely,
_________________________________
Name:___________________________
Title:____________________________
Jordan Stobbe
Real Estate Manager
8' TALL SECTION OF
FENCE LOCATED IN
5' SIDE SETBACK
8' TALL FENCE FOR
61' ALONG WEST
PROPERTY LINE
From:Tara Palmer
To:Zoning
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 903 W Mountain Ave Variance
Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 9:38:46 AM
Hi there Missy! My apologies for just now responding to this email. My kids and I have been
sick since last Tuesday and I’m just now coming up for air and able to go to our house to
measure the fence line. The 8’ fence along the west side of the property is just under 61’ long
and yes we have an 8’ fence along the north side of the property which is just under 43’ long.
Please let me know if there’s anything else you need from me at this point. And yes, if the
variance is approved I’ll apply for the building permit ASAP. Thanks again for all your help
with this.
Tara Palmer
(720) 352-1944
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 12, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hello Tara and Aki,
We need a bit more information regarding the variance request. What is the length of
the proposed 8’ fence (see my snip of your ILC below)? Are you also asking for a
variance for the 8’ fence across the width of the lot also? Please also don’t forget that
even if this variance gets approved, you also need to apply for a building permit for this
fence, with engineering showing that it meets wind loads. If you have building code
questions regarding this requirement you can email buildingdocs@fcgov.com . If you
have building permit submittal questions, you can contact the permit techs at
buildingservices@fcgov.com . Permit submittal requirements can be found online
https://www.fcgov.com/building/res-requirements.php .
<image002.png>
<image001.png>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MISSY NELSON LEED® AP
Pronouns: she/her
Senior Zoning Inspector
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
City of Fort Collins
281 N College Ave
970-416-2745 office
zoning@fcgov.com
From: Tara Palmer <tarampalmer@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:42 PM
To: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com>
Cc: Aki Palmer <aki.palmer@cushwake.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 903 W Mountain Ave Variance
Good afternoon Missy. I just dropped off our variance application to Arlo at the Zoning
Department. I’ve included the ILC of our property with the 8 foot fence line
highlighted. This fence has existed here for over 2 years. Our neighbor (and friend) to
the west tends to have several motorbikes and other pieces of equipment that he
works on as a hobby in his backyard. We have two small children along with lots of
neighborhood kids that come to our yard to play. We asked our neighbor if he was
okay with a taller fence for more privacy for the children before putting it up and he
was totally fine with it.
Please let me know what else you may need from us to get this to the board and at the
November meeting. Thank you in advance for your work. Have a great day!
Tara and Aki Palmer
(720) 352-1944
Sent from my iPad
Application Request
for Variance from the Land Use Code
The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of
Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district
other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where 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 extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the
property, including, but not lim ited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or
topography, the strict application of the code requirem ents would result in unusual and exceptional practical
difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or
hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (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 requested;
(3) 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.
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
-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521SITE PLANAREA MAP
112223444556666778889999944PROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING RESIDENTIALHOME(119 N. SHIELDS STREET)1717171717NORTH SHIELDSSTREETLOT 9, BLOCK "A"GRANDVIEW ADDITION TO THECITY OF FORT COLLINS24.20 FGEX DRIVEWAY24.63 EG24.76 EG25.18 EG25.88 EG24.50 EG24.31 EG24.08 EG23.63 EG23.08 EG25.68 EG26.12 EG25.64 EG25.52 EG25.02 EG24.60 EG24.60 EG24.84 EG25.57 EG25.43 EG24.68 EG24.38 EG24.42 EG24.28 EG24.37 EG24.09 EG23.63 EG23.39 EG23.43 EG23.87 EG24.80 EG25.64 EG25.06 EG25.55 EG24.61 EG24.72 EG25.22 EG25.46 EG25.11 EG25.47 EG0.9% (EX)1.0% (EX)1.8% (EX)0.3% (EX)0.5% (EX)0.5% (EX)1.2% (EX)1.6% (EX)2.1% (EX)25.02 EG25.09 EG23.86 EG23.63 EG22.62 EX FL22.52 EX FL22.54 EX FL22.67 EX FL22.50 EX FL23.16 EG23.20 EG24.41 EG24.42 EG24.34 EG24.46 EG24.51 EG24.34 EG24.55 EG24.65 EG24.46 EG24.44 EG24.21 EG24.52 EG24.51 EG24.36 EG24.35 EG24.23 EG24.28 EG24.21 EG24.06 EG24.35 EG24.29 EG23.76 EG23.76 EG24.39 EG24.35 EG24.76 EG24.82 EG24.32 EG24.41 EG3.6% (EX)2.6% (EX)0.9% (EX)0.5% (EX)34445566667788899910101112131414141414141414161610151644PROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROP RESIDENTIALADDITION(APPROX. 1,225 SFFOOTPRINT)PROP DETACHEDGARAGE(APPROX. 792 SFFOOTPRINT)EXISTING RESIDENTIALHOME(119 N. SHIELDS STREET)NORTH SHIELDSSTREET113.34'5'5'5'5'22.99'13.68'1'1'2'2'LOT 9, BLOCK "A"GRANDVIEW ADDITION TO THECITY OF FORT COLLINS20'22.97ME24.24 FL24.14 FL23.96 FL23.81 FL23.51 FL23.13 FL24.50 FG24.48 FG24.58 FG24.58 FG24.80 FG24.80 FG24.30 FG24.70 FG24.69 FG0.95%1.3%
1.8%
2.7%0.50%0.50%0.76%0.76%0.76%0.76%EX FF = 5026.83FF = 5026.83TF = 5025.47FF = 5024.601.0%1.0%
1.0%
1.3%
2.5%24.20 FG2.0%23.81 FG23.88 FGEX TOP WINDOW SILL =23.97FG = 23.712.0%
2.0%23.44 FGEX DRIVEWAY24.63 EG24.76 EG25.18 EG25.88 EG24.50 EG24.31 EG24.51 FG24.08 EG23.63 EG23.08 EG25.68 EG26.12 EG25.64 EG25.52 EG25.02 EG24.60 EG24.60 EG24.84 EG25.57 EG25.43 EG24.68 EG24.38 EG24.42 EG24.28 EG24.37 EG24.09 EG23.63 EG23.39 EG23.43 EG23.87 EG24.80 EG25.64 EG25.06 EG25.55 EG24.61 EG24.72 EG1.7%1.1%25.22 EG25.46 EG25.11 EG25.47 EG0.9% (EX)1.0% (EX)1.8% (EX)0.3% (EX)0.5% (EX)0.5% (EX)1.2% (EX)1.6% (EX)2.1% (EX)25.02 EG25.09 EG23.86 EG23.63 EG22.62 EX FL22.52 EX FL22.54 EX FL22.50 EX FL23.16 EG23.20 EG2423.76 EG23.38 FG24.76 EG24.82 EG24.41 EG3.6% (EX)2.6% (EX)0.9% (EX)0.5% (EX)2.4%HORIZONTAL CONTROL & GRADING PLANC-001J.GoochJ. GoochJ. GoochEXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE TO BE RELOCATED. CONTRACTOR TOCOORDINATE WITH OWNERS ON POSSIBLE CONDUIT TO ALLOW FORFUTURE CONCRETE PAVING OF DRIVEWAY.EXISTING TREE, TO BE REMOVED.EXISTING TREE, PROTECT IN PLACE.EXISTING FENCE, PROTECT IN PLACE.PROPOSED PATIO/LANDSCAPED AREAKEY NOTE LEGEND:EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK, PROTECT IN PLACE.EXISTING GAS LINE, ELECTRIC LINE, OR FIBER OPTIC LINE PROTECT IN PLACE.PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL HOME ADDITIONPROPOSED ROOF DRAIN/DOWNSPOUTPROPOSED BREAK LINE/SWALE WITHIN GRAVEL AREA0' 10' 20'SCALE: 1" = 10'ASPENPROPOSED 2' CONCRETE TRICKLE PAN (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET)PROJECT/ LOCATION:DRAWING:CHECKED BY:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:DESCRIPTION OF REVISION: DATE: REVISED BY: APPROVED BY:REV. #1234567PROJECT NO:DATE:91-00106/15/21SHEET NO:1 OF 1119 NORTH SHIELDS STREETFORT COLLINS, COLORADONOTES1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND MARK ALL EXISITING UTILITIES, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.2. ALL ITEMS NOT CALLED OUT TO DEMOLISHED, SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND VERIFY ITEMS WITH OWNERS,PRIORTO DEMOLITION.3. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE RELATIVE TO A DATUM OF 5000 FEET, AND ARE BASED ON AN EXISTING NAVD88 BENCHMARK, PROVIDED BY KINGSURVEYORS.4. PLEASE REFER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR EXCAVATION, GRADING, AND PAVING RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECTSITE.5. REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR FINISH FLOOR AND FOUNDATION INFORMATION.6. THE EXISTING SITE IS RELATIVELY FLAT. PROPOSED SITE GRADING IN GREEN AREAS WILL UTILIZE 1.0 - 3.0% CROSS-SLOPES, WHERE AVAILABLE, UNLESSSHOWN OTHERWISE.7. THE FLOWLINE OF THE PROPOSED CONCRETE PAN UTILIZES 0.5% TO 0.76% GRADES. EXISTING DIRT ELEVATIONS, ALONG THE EXISTING FENCE, NEAR THESOUTH PROPERTY LINE, SHALL BE HELD AND DIRT GRADED DOWN TO MATCH THE PROPOSED CONCRETE PAN SECTION. THIS BUFFER AREA MAY REQUIRECOBBLES BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE FENCE AND EDGE OF PAN FOR AESTHETICS. SEE PAN DETAIL THIS SHEET.8. THE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION SHOWN EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM ELEVATION REQUIRED FOR PROTECTION FROM THE 100-YR STORM.9. THE TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE PROVIDES FOR 8" OF HEIGHT ABOVE THE HIGHEST PROPOSED DIRT GRADES AROUNDTHE PERIMETER OF THE GARAGE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE KNOCKOUTS FOR THE GARAGE DOOR(S) AND ANY MAN DOORS, AND SHALL BEVELTHE CONCRETE AT THE DOOR OPENINGS FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE DOOR OPENINGS.10.THE CONTRACTOR & OWNERS MAY NEED TO COORDINATE WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH, AS THE PROPERTY LINE IS A COMMON DRAINAGE AREA ANDTODAY AND HAS SEVERAL RELATIVELY FLAT AREAS, BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND SPOT ELEVATION INFORMATION FROM KING SURVEYORS.MINIMAL GRADING COULD IMPROVE THE EXISTING CONDITION ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, AS MAY BE APPLICABLE.11.THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SERVES AS THE "LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT". NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL OCCUR OFFSITE.12. 34" MINUS GRAVEL IS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY EXTENSION AND GRAVEL AREA SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST OF THE GARAGE.13.PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF GRAVEL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE PROPER COMPACTION OF THE SUBGRADE MATERIAL, WITH SUBGRADECOMPACTED TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR. THREE TO FOUR INCHES OF 34" MINUS GRAVEL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON TOP OF THE PREPARED SUBGRADE ANDCOMPACTED.14.DRAINAGE FLOW ARROWS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FOR THE THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AREAS ARE SHOWN IN THIS PLAN FOR REFERENCE.PROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING CONTOURLEGEND DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTIONFG = FINISHED GRADEFL = FLOWLINEEG = EXISTING GRADE5024PROPOSED GRAVEL AREA FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUNDBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATECALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCECENTER OF COLORADOCALL UTILITY NOTIFICATIONMEMBER UTILITIES.UTILITY PLAN APPROVALCity of Fort Collins, ColoradoEXISTING WATER METER OR SPIGOT, PROTECT IN PLACE.EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE TO BE RE-GRADED TO ELEVATIONS SHOWNEXISTING ROOF DRAIN/ DOWNSPOUTPROPOSED GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EXTENSIONPROPOSED DETACHED GARAGEEXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLANPROPOSED HORIZONTAL CONTROL & GRADING PLANEXISTING CONCRETE, PAVERS, BRICK PAD, OR GRAVEL, TO BE REMOVED.EXISTING GRAVEL AREAFF = FINISH FLOORTF = TOP OF FOUNDATION6"2'-0"6 X 6 - W 14 X W 14 2' CONCRETE TRICKLE PANPROVIDE CONTROLJOINTS @ 10' INTERVALS1'-0"PROPERTY BOUNDARY(LOOKING EAST)4"-6" Ø COBBLEEX FENCE1.0%PROPOSED GRADE BETWEEN SPOT ELEVATIONSPROPOSED CONTOUR240.9% (EX)EXISTING GRADE BETWEEN EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONSME = MATCH EXISTINGEX = EXISTING
COVERSHEETHOMEADDITIONFOR:JULIE & BLAKE MOTELOCATED AT119 SHIELDS STREETFORT COLLINS, CO 80521-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521CODE COMPLIANCEIECC COMPLIANCE SHALL BE SHOWN USING METHOD 1(PRESCRIPTIVE PATH, IECC SECTION R401 - R404 AND IRCSECTION N1101.14 - N1104)CONTACTSARCHITECTURE:STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:GENERAL CONTRACTOR:CS COVERSP SITE PLANA1 BASEMENT & MAIN FLOORA2 UPPER FLOOR & ROOFA3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA4.1 BUILDING SECTIONSA4.2 BUILDING SECTIONSE2 ATTIC ELECTRICALSHEET INDEXE1 BASEMENT & MAIN ELECTRICALA3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSD1 EXTERIOR DETAILSGN GENERAL NOTESA5.1 THERMAL ENVELOPE
-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521GENERALNOTESGENERAL NOTES
-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521SITE PLANAREA MAP
-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521BASEMENT &&SQUARE FOOTAGEMAIN FLOOR1,046 Sqft.ATTIC FLOOR840 Sqft.1,886 Sqft.TOTALFINISHED BASEMENT758 Sqft.UNFINISHED BASEMENT48 Sqft.CRAWL SPACE129 Sqft.169 Sqft.COVERED DECK374 Sqft.UNCOVERED DECK
FINISHED-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521SQUARE FOOTAGEMAIN FLOOR1,046 Sqft.ATTIC FLOOR840 Sqft.1,886 Sqft.TOTALFINISHED BASEMENT758 Sqft.UNFINISHED BASEMENT48 Sqft.CRAWL SPACE129 Sqft.169 Sqft.COVERED DECK374 Sqft.UNCOVERED DECK
-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521ELEVATIONS
-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521ELEVATIONS
BUILDINGSECTIONS-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521
BUILDINGSECTIONS-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521
-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521ENERGY COMPLIANCE FOR ADDITION AT 119 NORTH SHIELDS ST.1. PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 2015 IECC RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS AND THE 2015 IRC, CHAPTER 112. ALL MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS IN IECC SECTIONS R401 THROUGH R404 AND IRC SECTIONS N1101.14 THROUGH N1104 SHALL BE MET3. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE SHOWN USING METHOD 1 (PRESCRIPTIVE PATH, IECC SECTION R401 - R404 AND IRC SECTION N1101.14 - N1104)4. THE ENERGY COMPLIANCE SUBMITTAL SHALL INCLUDE:A. COMPLIANCE REPORT SUBMITTED BY: SCOTT HOME INSPECTION, LLCB. BUILDING SECTIONS SHOWING THE BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE, RE: SHEET A5.1C. AIR SEALING DETAILS AND NOTES, RE: SHEET A5.1D. HVAC MANUALS D, J, AND S5. UPON COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING, A COMPLIANCE REPORT BASED ON THE AS-BUILT CONDITION OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE SUBMITTEDTO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL BEFORE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CAN BE ISSUED. THE COMPLIANCE REPORT MUST INCLUDE ALLREQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN IECC SECTION R405.4.2.2 AND IRC SECTION N1105.4.2.2.6. AS REQUIRED IN IECC SECTION R401.3 AND IRC SECTION N1101.14, A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE BUILDER ANDPOSTED ON A WALL IN THE SPACE WHERE THE FURNACE IS LOCATED. THE CERTIFICATE MUST BE POSTED BY THE TIME OF THE PROJECT'SFINAL INSPECTION AND SHALL USE THE INCLUDED ENERGY COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE FOR POSTING.PLEASE NOTE: IN ADDITION TO THE AIR SEALING DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET A5.1, THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION METHODS SHALL BEEMPLOYED WHERE APPLICABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF IECC R402.1.1 AND R402.2.1:1. 2 OR 3 STUD INSULATED CORNERS2. LADDER BLOCKING WHERE INTERIOR WALLS MEET EXTERIOR WALLS TO FULLY INSULATE THEM3. INSULATED HEADERS4. SEALING THE DRYWALL TO THE TOP PLATE ADJACENT TO THE VENTILATED ATTIC5. RAISED HEEL TRUSS TO ENSURE THAT INSULATION CAN FULLY COVER THE TOP PLATE6PFPEE12345TR6THERMALENVELOPEDIAGRAMS
-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521ELECTRICAL
-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521ELECTRICAL
2-Story General Exterior Wall SectionySTEP 1STEP 2STEP 3STEP 4STEP 5STEP 6Window/Door Flashing Proceduresg-DRAWN BY--SHEET NO.--TITLE--DATE DRAWN--PLAN--REVISED-Phone | 303.910.2191 | email | info@thedesignstudiollc.com02/02/21TDS05/04/21119 N. Shields StreetFort Collins, CO 80521DETAILSD1
From:Julie Mote
To:Zoning
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 119 N Shields Street Variance Application
Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 12:58:52 PM
Sure! I need a Variance from 14 to 20.
Thanks!
Julie G. Mote
Serious Texas BBQ
(970) 599 - 3554
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:48 PM Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hello Julie! Can you please be more description in what you’re asking for specifically?
Looks like you’re asking for a variance for the wall height but you don’t specify how much.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MISSY NELSON LEED® AP
Pronouns: she/her
Senior Zoning Inspector
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
City of Fort Collins
281 N College Ave
970-416-2745 office
zoning@fcgov.com
From: Julie Mote <juliegmote@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:38 AM
To: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 119 N Shields Street Variance Application
Good Morning,
Please see attached information for my variance application! Please let me know if you need
anything else.
Thanks,
Julie G. Mote
Serious Texas BBQ
(970) 599 - 3554
119 North Shields Street – Variance Application and Justification
1.) Hardship – Our Lot size is very narrow, 50 feet. In order to do an addition of any kind the
new building has to be wider than the current house. This is for engineering purposes, to
maintain the structural integrity of the existing brick house. We are not able to set our wall
back from the interior side lot line an additional one foot for each foot that exceeds the
fourteen feet in height. Our Lot is too narrow and it would ruin the structural integrity of
our existing house.
2.) Equal to or Better Than – We are asking for a variance for the wall height on the North
property line. The existing neighbor’s home is offset to the rear of the property, we will
not block or shade our neighbor to the north. Also, the neighbor’s driveway to the North
runs the entire length of our property line.
3.) Nominal and Inconsequential - We are asking for a variance for the wall height on the
North property line. The existing neighbor’s home is offset to the rear of the property, we
will not block or shade our neighbor to the north. Also, the neighbor’s driveway to the
North runs the entire length of our property line.