Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/2021 - Land Use Review Commission - 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          Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Virtual Hearing The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2021 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All commission members were present. Stockover was present but joined after the roll call. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton to approve the September 9, 2021, Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION -NONE- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210039 - APPROVED Address: 617 Cherry St Owner/Petitioner: Vincent and Kimberly Chimelis Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request to enclose an exterior stair (cellar access) with a roofed structure that would encroach .92 feet (11 inches) in the required 5-foot alley side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is mid-block between Loomis Ave. and Whitcomb St. The lot was originally platted with one alley down the middle. Subsequent development included the construction of an additional alley. The property is located between the two alleyways. The request is to cover and fully enclose an exterior cellar stairway on the east side of the existing home. The home was constructed in 1920, prior to most of our current building codes. The staircase does currently encroach slightly into the existing setback. The east side of the property abuts an alley and does not directly abut any residences. There is a similar LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 October 14, 2021 existing cantilever bay window on the east side of the building, which code allows to encroach approximately two feet into the setback. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Troy Chimelis, 6244 Murano Dr., Windsor CO, addressed the board and agreed to h old the hearing held remotely. Chimelis stated that he has recently purchased th e property and is making upgrades to the home prior to taking occupancy. Chimelis notes that he had previously been measuring from the fence line, however a survey recently performed shows that the fence is located a bit further east from the actual property line, continues at an angle from back to front of lot. Audience Participation: (none) Commission Discussion: Commission member Stockover thinks this is a straightforward and reasonable request, noting that the alley gives them more of a buffer, and that the residence is pre-existing older home. Vice Chair La Mastra concurs, noting that this request within the definition of being nominal and inconsequential. Commission Member Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE ZBA210039 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neigh borhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: the staircase location to be enclosed is existing, and the encroachment occurs along an alley as well as behind an existing fence. Additionally, similar-sized architectural features are permitted to encroach, which this building has. Yeas: Stockover, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, La Mastra, Shuff, Lawton Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA210040 - APPROVED Address: 1401 W Lake St. Owner/Petitioner: Whitney Cranshaw Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: This is a request to build an accessory building (greenhouse) encroaching a total of 5 feet in the required 15-foot setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, as well as abutting some property that is owned by a church entity. This request is to build a greenhouse structure within the required rear setback. The required rear setback is 15 feet; the applicants are requesting to build 10 feet into the setback . The structure would continue to meet the side setback along the north. The proposes structure is a dome; overall height at the peak would be 10 feet. Commission member Stockover asked if there is a height limitation for structures such as this. Beals stated that in general, the height limitation is the same as for a primary building. Commissio n member Stockover asked if this is considered an accessory building? Beals confirms that it is an accessory building and mentioned that if a building is less than 8 feet and less than 124 sq ft, you are not required to get a building permit. However, because this structure is over the height limit it is required to have a permit. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 October 14, 2021 Applicant Presentation: Applicant Sue Ballou, 1400 W Lake St., addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Ballou stated that she is the owner of the property located at 1401 W Lake St., where the application is being made. The property is a vacation rental and is registered as such with the City. Ballou stated that the proposed location works better due to the amount of sun received and the proximity to an existing 6-foot fence. There is a fair amount of tree growth providing screening between the proposed greenhouse location and the adjacent property owned the church entity. Vice Chair La Mastra questions the proposed location of the greenhouse, noting that in pictures the location appears to be completely shaded. The applicant responded that most of the shade visible in the photos is from a Crabapple tree that is slated to be removed, which will result in a sunny site. Audience Participation: (none) Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer stated his opinion that this request falls into the category of nominal and inconsequential. The dome shape lends itself to only a small portion of the dome being over 10 feet tall. The current proposed location will be least visible to neighbors and makes sense. Commission member Stockover stated his opinion that the proposed location is good, and there is good surrounding vegetation to provide visual cover. However, this will be a massive permanent structure; this is larger that the typical “backyard greenhouse”, which gives a moment of pause. Stockover stated that if this were in another location, he may not be able to support the request. Commission member Shuff agreed with the sentiments of Stockover, agreeing that while the structure is indeed large, the proposed location will help to hide it from sight amongst adjacent neighbors. Vice Chair La Mastra stated the property directly behind the applicant is currently owned by the church but is a separate parcel. Most of these properties will eventually be re-developed, and the context of that future development needs to be considered. Commission member Lawton stated that if not for the setback issue, this structure wouldn’t even be in front of the board for review. The size is not a big problem, and the structure appears to be in good character. La Mastra concurs with Lawton, and notes that the abutment of the rear yard is made to the side yard of the church lot. Encroachment may be contextually appropriate in this case. Chair Shields stated that the size doesn’t concern him as much if it is meeting size requirements for this type of structure. Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA210040 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code co ntained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings: the abutting neighbor is required a five foot side yard setback from the shared property line; the accessory structure will be used for gardening purposes. Yeas: Stockover, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, La Mastra, Shuff, Lawton Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Land Use Review Commission Page 4 October 14, 2021 3. APPEAL ZBA210041 - APPROVED Address: 501 Edwards St. Owner: On Track Homes LLC Petitioner: Adam Jaspers Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(4); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request to encroach 8 feet 4 inches, and an additional 3 feet for the eave, into the required 16-foot west side-yard setback for a building with a wall height of 19 feet 1.25 inches. A variance request (ZBA210033) to encroach 5.8 feet into the side-yard setback for a wall height of 18 feet has previously been approved. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property was also reviewed by the board in August. The previous variance approved an encroachment in the same area. When the permit was again up for review, it was found that the wall height is higher than 18 feet. This requires an additional setback; because it is 2 feet (or a portion o f 2 ft) above 18 feet, it requires an additional foot of setback (for a total of 16 feet of setback). The existing home does currently encroach on both east and west setbacks. As currently proposed, the structure would meet the 6-foot setback requirement on the east side and would encroach on the west side setback. Beals noted that property line does not align with back of sidewalk, minimizing the perception of encroachment on setback. Interior plans have not changed since the last review. Exterior plans ha ve not changed either. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Adam Jaspers, 36763 Bryan Ave., Windsor, CO, addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Jaspers added that it was a surprising to note that within this zoning district wall height is not measured from the top of the foundation but is instead measured from grade from the interior lot line. The building has been shifted over due to difficulties meeting wall height at the lot line with the required grade, because it drops off another foot or so. The main floor has been recessed to maintain level with top of concrete on foundation. Audience Participation: (none) Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff states if this property were not located on a corner and having a large side yard setback, he may not be able to support the variance. This is a clear design restraint, and eave height is clearly stated in the Land Use Code. Every one must abide by the same code and there are ways to do. Vice Chair La Mastra agreed with Shuff and stated additional separate between back of sidewalk and property line helps in this context to mitigate encroachment into the setback. If located somewher e else this request may not be supported but given the context of location it may be easier to support. Commission member Meyer stated that he was not in attendance during the August hearing and is seeing this proposed plan for the first time. Meyer’s first reaction is the site is very challenging—the site is 40 feet wide with a 15-foot setback on one side and a 5-foot setback on the other side, leaving a buildable footprint only 20 feet wide. When comparing what is being proposed now to what was proposed in August, this appears to be a nominal change. Wish we could replat the property! Commission member Lawton stated his continued support for the request from August, noting that a change in 1 foot of setback encroachment doesn’t change his current thinkin g. Land Use Review Commission Page 5 October 14, 2021 Vice Chair La Mastra commented she finds it interesting that an 8-foot encroachment into a 15-foot setback would be deemed as nominal. Given the lot conditions and setback restraints as outlined by Meyer, this might be a hardship justification for the variance. Chair Shields questions whether this becomes nominal given the context of relationship between lot line and back of sidewalk? La Mastra responds she could see that perspective; when considering percentages, 8 feet out of the require 15 feet setback represents more than 50% of total area. How could one effectively build a home on a 20-foot sliver? Commission member Stockover noted that the board didn’t always have the nominal and inconsequential justifications; without those guidelines, this request would certainly meet the justification for hardship. The narrowness of the lot fits the description of “exceptional physical conditions” unique to the property. Beals noted that if wall heights were at 18 feet, the setback would be 15 feet. Because the wall he ight is now over 18 feet, the required setback is expanded to 16 feet and 6 feet, reducing the footprint of the property even more. Commission Member Stockover made a motion, seconded by La Mastra to APPROVE ZBA210041 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and for the hardship reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, wh ich is subject to the request as follows. The narrowness of the lot creates a hardship condition, and mitigating factors are that it has a large buffer between the sidewalk and property line. Additionally, the increased wall height of 19+ feet provides a second reason to approve on the grounds of nominal and inconsequential. Yeas: Stockover, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, La Mastra, Shuff, Lawton Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 4. APPEAL ZBA210042 – APPROVED with Condition Address: 2533 Courtland Ct. Owner/Petitioner: Clay Bell Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for a carport to encroach 4 feet 11 inches into the required 5-foot side setback. The posts will be 1 foot from the property line and combination of eave and gutter is 11 inches and will not cross property line. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located on a cul-de-sac, which butts up against Drake Rd. There is a small pedestrian access from Drake Rd. to the end of the cul-de-sac. This property wants to build a carport on the north side of the house. The primary structure is almost double the size of the required setback; however, there is still a required 5-foot setback along the side of the property. Prior to the applicant owning the property, there was a carport in-place. Subsequent investigation determined that no previous permit was pulled for the carport that was present, meaning it was technically an illegal structure. During the large snowstorm of last year, the existing carport collapsed under the weight of the snow. The collapsed carport has been removed, and the applicant is now seeking to rebuild what had been an illegal structure. In submitting the building permit this time, they found it was in the setback, and a hold has been placed on the permit. They are now seeking a variance for setback encroachment. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 October 14, 2021 Beals explained that the current request is to build out a carport extending almost all the way up to the property line, with a 1-foot setback from the post to the property line, and 1 inch from the face of the gutter to the property line. The proposed roof has an increased roof to assist with snow/water runoff. Beals showed aerial images of the property, noting that this lot and others at the end of the cul-de-sac are a bit wider compared to the interior lots. Commission member McCoy asked Beals if, in the context of a fence running along the property line, if a fence can be 6 feet tall. Beals confirmed. McCoy asked to clarify that because there would be a roof extending from the house, this is what has triggered the variance request. Beals answered that because the roof of the proposed carport is attached to the primary residence, the carport then requires a building permit and must meet fire code as it approaches the house. Chair Shields asked Beals if there was another structure to the south of the existing home. Beals responded that it appears that there is a small shed and another shade structure on the property. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Clay Bell and Kevay Bell, 2533 Courtland Ct., addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Clay bell provided a bit of context, stating they purchased the home about a year ago and during the snowstorm last year, the carport collapsed. The old carport was supported primarily by 4” x 4” wooden posts and beams and was attached to the face of the home via simple metal brackets. The previous carport roof did extend to the fence, and had a gutter installed to minimize water and ice flowing to the neighbor’s property. Bell stated that he is looking to essentially rebuild the previous structure but do it in a way that prevents future collapse or damage. From the front of the house there is a full-swing gate providing access to the carport location; the proposed roof would extend just a bit higher than the fence line. Commission member La Mastra asked the applicant if they have spoken to their adjacent neighbor, and whether the neighbor is ok with the proposed carport. Bell indicated that he had spoken with the neighbor; the neighbors observed the collapse of the carport while shoveling snow. The neighbor is ok with the proposed carport, and in fact helped the previous homeowner with the building of the original carport more than ten years ago. Unfortunately, the structure collapsed right after purchase. Commission member Lawton asked what the reason is for constructing a carport, when it appears from pictures that there is a garage present on the property. Beals responded that the previous owner used the carport to store a “hot rod”, and when Beals purchased the home, the carport was a n attractive feature to store bikes, kayaks, and other small items. The proposed carport is not intended for vehicular storage. Lawton continued to ask why a carport is desired when a garage is present; Ball responded the garage is currently being used to store vehicles, and the proposed carport would provide additional covered space for outdoor and recreation equipment. And, Bell stated, really, they are looking to replace a structure that was present when the home was purchased a year ago, as it was an attractive feature at the time of purchase. Chair Shields asked the applicants if they had considered building a cover that met the setback requirements? Would that type of structure meet their needs? Clay Bell responded it the variance is not granted, in all likelihood they will not rebuild the structure and will just “deal” with it. A cover that meets the setback would be quite a bit narrower and may prevent parking a trailer or other full -width item within the covered space. Audience Participation: (none) Land Use Review Commission Page 7 October 14, 2021 Commission Discussion: Commission member Stockover asked Noah Beals if prefabricated metal “car shades” are considered temporary structures? Would that type of structure be allowed in this space? Beals responded “no”, most of the prefab structures seen around town are in fact illegal due to their size and should have had a permit pulled prior to their installation. Because they require a permit, they also need to meet the required setback. Stockover asks if a temporary structure must meet all codes, including setback. Beals responded in the affirmative, noting a structure is considered an “accessory building” and requires a building permit when it is 120 sq ft or more and/or reaches a height of more than 8 feet. Stockover asks what the proposed height of the structure is, noting the proposed structure is 10 feet wide by 25 feet long. Stockover states that part of him wants to approve, noting the structure would be behind a fence, up against a neighbor’s wall, and a structure existed on the site previously. On the flip side, there is a shed on the back on the other side already. The lot was probably pus hed back away from Drake as far as possible to create a buffer. That said, the proposed structure is quite a bit bigger than what is allowed as well as being taller. Chair Shields commented it is always tough when a structure is proposed to be built righ t up against a property line, and many challenges may arise from that close of a proximity. Commission member Shuff agreed with Shields, commenting there are multiple options allowed within code to provide cover that may not require a variance. Vice Chair La Mastra compared this request to previous instances of carports being granted variances, commenting almost all carports previously approved had some degree of encroachment into the setback. In the last few months, we have looked at carports that come within inches of adjacent property lines. La Mastra notes these petitioners have come here in good faith prior to beginning construction, which can’t be said of all applicants. Also, their proposed plan contains elements such as gutter to reduce impact on neighboring properties. Given these factors, La Mastra is less inclined to decline this request. Commission member Stockover suggested that the carport being proposed could perhaps be reduced in size to 8 feet wide by 20 feet deep, to reduce the footprint. The depth may not be the biggest issue; however, as drawn the rear of the carport extends beyond the back of the neighbor’s house. Considering that anything approved is approved forever, we need to consider future impacts. A smaller structure may be more desirable and could still provide all the cover needs expressed by the applicants. There may also be a concern about safety/fire access. A 6 x 15 -foot structure may be easier to approve. Commission member La Mastra concurred with Stockover, stating h er support for a possible motion that would include conditions requiring a smaller-sized structure be built. Commission member McCoy asked that if the structure was ten feet wide (to the property line) and twelve feet deep, would a permit still be required? Noah Beals clarified that any structure that is attached to the primary residence requires a permit. Additionally, any structure over 8 feet tall requires a permit. McCoy asks if a structure 7.5 feet tall, 10 feet wide and 12 feet deep would require a permit. Beals responds that it would not. Stockover responds that solution may be a “manipulation” of code. La Mastra commented that she does not view it so much as a manipulation of code, but instead is a necessary cut off parameter. Shields asked the Board what they felt regarding Stockover’s proposed condition for approval. The condition in question would reduce the proposed size of the structure to 8 feet wide by 20 feet deep. Commission member Meyer stated his agreement with the direction of the proposed conditions. Meyer stated that if he were the applicant, he would have attempted to avoid having to request a variance in Land Use Review Commission Page 8 October 14, 2021 the first place. For example, posts could be placed at the five-foot setback, with the roof overhanging two feet for seven feet of cover. You could build as far back without a variance and would only require a permit. Meyer lamented the fact that the highlighted Zillow listing provided by the applicant calls out the inclusion of a carport, when in fact the property does not allow for the build out of a car -sized structure. Commission member Lawton commented what we have before us would not be supported, but there are some modifications that can be made to get to approval. If the structure were originally designed to meet code, we wouldn’t even need to talk about it. If there is a mid-term, medium solution, that is something we’d like to entertain. However, Lawton would like to hear from the applicants directly before making any proposed changes/conditions prior to approval. Applicant Clay Bell stated he has been listening in to the Board discussion and it makes sense. The reason why a variance request was sought was driven by the convenience and flexibility of having a structure that is sizable enough to fit a vehicle or trailer when needed, now and into the future. Additionally, the intent was to leave enough space on either side to be able to exit a vehicle once parked within the carport. The proposed new structure would utilize elements like ledger board to increase lateral strength and prevent future collapse. If post locations are moved back to eight feet wide, that could be a good compromise. The 25-foot length was an attempt to fully cover the side space next to the home, but a shorter length could be amenable as well. Commission member Stockover suggested that an 8-foot width may not be convenient for a daily driver but could be used to back in a vehicle that is not driven as frequently. The reduced length being proposed would also draw the rear of the carport roof closer in line with the edge of the neighboring home. Commission member McCoy asked if he could hear comments from Commission member Shuff. Commission member Shuff shared his opinion that Stockover’s proposed changes are ok and represent a good approach that maintain a useable covered area. Shuff noted that this circumstance is better than some in that the neighboring home doesn’t have any windows on the side wall that would be impacted. Commission Member Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE WITH CONDITION ZBA210042 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 with the following findings : the first finding that although the previous carport was not permitted and was an illegal structure, it was in place for ten-plus years without any concern from the adjacent neighbor. Second, the variance request is approved with the condition that the proposed structure be reduced in size, to 8 feet wide from the edge of house by 20 feet deep, with a pitched roof as shown in the drawings. The final finding for approval is the fact that the carport will be open on three sides, is behind a gated fence, is located on an existing slab, and we are improving the condition from previous non- conforming condition by increase space to side yard setback by 2 feet, bringing it more in compliance with safety access issues to the backyard. Yeas: Stockover, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, La Mastra, Shuff, Lawton Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION. Noah Beals reminded applicant Clay Bell that they will need to update their building permit to be in compliance with the above requirements. Bell asked to clarify that the 8 -foot width was measured from the face of the house to the outer face of the post. Beals confirmed that to be accurate. Land Use Review Commission Page 9 October 14, 2021 • OTHER BUSINESS Noah Beals reminded the Board that next month’s meeting will be held on a Friday (November 12), rather than Thursday, due to Veterans Day occurring on Thursday, November 11. We will continue to meet remotely. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:10am Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 12, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210043 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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) Variance Request: This is a request 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 b y 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. The current request is to extend the compliance date for at least an additional 3 years to Dec. 20th, 2024. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The sign code requires that all existing nonconforming signs located on parcels annexed into the City must be removed or brought into compliance within no later than 7 years after the date of such annexation. The McDonald’s Restaurant property is part of the Interchange Business Park development that was annexed on December 20, 2005. Therefore, before the variance was approved in 2012, the sign had to be removed or made compliant by December 20, 2012. The development is located at the southeast corner of I -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. McDonald’s is proposing their sign be allowed to remain for another 3 years, believing that this would then maintain, for a relatively brief period of time, a level playing 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 7 years. An enclave was created in 2018. The properties within the enclave can be annexed anytime now. The City is currently conducting a public outreach concerning the annexation pro cess on the enclave area. In the vicinity of the subject property there have been additional development applications. Just south, the Fox Grove second filing, residential development, was approved in 2020. To the west, Woodspring Suites, a lodging establishment, received approval of their project development plan in 2019 and is finishing the Final Plan. Directly across the street, the Maverick fueling station developed. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 2 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow a 60-foot tall, 176 square-foot per side freestanding sign to remain for another three years 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 neighborhood around the McDonald’s Restaurant is predominately commercial, and the majority of those commercial uses have signs that don’t comply with the City’s regulations. Because they are in the County, those signs are likely to remain for at least 7 years. • Removal of the McDonald’s 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. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210043. 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 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 12, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210044 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 110 W Suniga Rd. Owner/Petitioner: Tucker Jordan Zoning District: C-S Code Section: 3.5.2(E) Variance Request: 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. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was originally platted in 1892 in the County. It later annexed into the City in 1959 part of the North College Annexation. The original primary structure was built in 1927. The original lot include the parcel to the west. The primary structure on the west parcel was constructed in 1902. It is unclear when the original lot was parcel into two properties. The C-S zone district is intended for high traffic commercial corridors where a range of uses are encouraged to create a tra nsition from commercial operations on a highway, arterial street or rail spur, to less intensive use areas or residential neighborhoods. This designation is only for areas that have been designated under an adopted subarea plan as being appropriate for the C-S District. In the C-S zone district there is not a minimum lot size for residential uses. However, the minimum setbacks for residential uses still apply. Throughout the neighborhood there are non-conforming structures in relation to the setback standards. This occurs on both abutting residential parcels. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval with the condition that a minimum 3ft setback on both the north and west property line and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The 2,615 square-foot parcel is small in size. • The square shape of the lot and existing primary buildi ng limit the placement of a new structure. • Other residential properties in the neighborhood are not in compliance with the side and rear setbacks. Therefore, the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with condition of APPEAL ZBA210044. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 12, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210045 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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) Variance Request: This is a variance request for an 8-foot-tall fence along the west property line, resulting in a fence totaling 61 feet long and 8 feet tall in both side 5-foot side setbacks. (The fence runs east and west across the width of the lot in middle rear yard). COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed and platted as part to the Washington Place subdivision. The primary building was constructed in 1947. Fence regulations are to prevent illegal structures from being built, as fences over 6ft in height require a building permit. Additionally limited fence heights preserve solar access and looming structures dominating the full length of the property line. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The extend fence height does not run the full length of the property line. • Landscaping along the property may exceed such heights. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210045. 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 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 12, 2021 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210046 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 119 N Shields St. Owner/Petitioner: Julie Mote Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4)(a) Variance Request: This is a variance request to increase the maximum wall height at the north side for an addition to 22.28 feet; the maximum height allowed is 14 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed and platted in 1906. The original primary building was built in 1898. It is unclear the number of alterations which have occurred since the original construction. The original plat included a public alley on the west end of the property. This alley was vacated in 1978. A portion of the vacated alley is included in the overall property size of 13,954 square feet. In April of this year the property received a variance to construct a new accessory building exceeding square footage allotments. The request now is for an addition on the primary house. The addition includes two dormer features that face the north property line. These dormers have a width of 8ft each and extend the overall wall height to 22.28ft. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The solar access is maintained for the majority of the north property line. • The increase of wall is limited to 16 ft in width, or the length of the property line. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA2100146. 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. From:Noah Beals To:Kory Katsimpalis Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Appeal ZBA210046 119 N Shields Date:Tuesday, November 2, 2021 10:43:45 AM From: Hunter Swanson <hunterswanson123@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 10:36 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal ZBA210046 119 N Shields To whom it may concern I am the owner of 115 N Shields the property just south of 119 N Shields. I am writing to say that I have no objections to the proposal to increase the maximum wall height to 22.28'. I think this will be a great addition to the neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Hunter Swanson