The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/14/2022 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Shelley La Mastra, Chair Ian Shuff, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 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 APRIL 14, 2022 8:30 AM LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Participation for this hybrid Land Use Review Commission meeting will be available online or by phone, or in person. Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Land Use Review Commission in person may attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. 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/94426702945. 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 April 14, 2022. 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 kclaypool@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: 944 2670 2945. (Continued on next page) Land Use Review Commission Page 2 April 14, 2022 • 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 ZBA220006 Address: 401 Greenvale Dr. Owner/Petitioner: Daniel & Kelsey Walsh Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building (garage) to encroach 10 feet into the required 15-foot rear- yard setback. 2. APPEAL ZBA220007 Address: 2108 S College Ave. Owner: Raising Canes Chicken Fingers Petitioner: Denise de la Cruz, Elite Signs & Designs, Inc. Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.1(G) Project Description: This is a request to add an additional drive-thru menu board to each of the two existing drive-thru lanes, resulting in two drive-thru menu boards per lane. The maximum number of drive-thru lane signs is one per drive-thru lane. 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 kclaypool@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. Please email any documents to nbeals@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate in person or by emailing general public comments you may have to nbeals@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison will ensure the 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 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 April 14, 2022 3. APPEAL ZBA220008 Address: 811 W Mountain Ave. Owner: Cindy & Earl Caditz Petitioner: Steve Josephs, Contractor Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) Project Description: This is a request for a variance to increase the allowable floor area in the N-C-L zone by 1,127 square feet. The total square footage allowed on the lot is 2,690 square feet, and the proposed alteration will result in a total floor area of 3,817 square feet. 4. APPEAL ZBA220009 Address: 320 Edwards St. Owner: 320 Edwards LLC (Ralph Kiel) Petitioner: Mark Taylor Clifton (Buyer) Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(b)(1), 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request to build a second story addition onto an existing house. The proposed design requires two variances: First to allow the addition to encroach 4.92 feet into the required 5-foot side- yard setback, matching the existing encroachment of the 1st story. Second to exceed the total square footage allowed on a lot in the NCM zone by 50.77 square feet. Total square footage allowed on lot is 3,175 square feet, and the proposed alteration will result in a total floor area of 3,225.77 square feet. 5. APPEAL ZBA220010 Address: 124 N Grant Ave. Owner: Yao Tingting & Robert Cohen Petitioner: Collins Ferris, Designer/Consultant Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for a new accessory building with habitable space to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot side setback. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Shelley La Mastra, Chair Ian Shuff, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Meeting was 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 MARCH 10, 2022 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the February 10, 2022, Minutes. The motion was adopted, with Lawton unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA220005 Address: 622 W Mountain Ave. Owner/Petitioner: Greg and Betsy Wheeler Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) & (4) Project Description: This is a request for a 120 sq ft accessory structure (shed) to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot rear setback (from existing alley) and 2 feet into the required 5-foot side setback. Additionally, for the eave to be 12.5 feet tall along the side property line; the allowed maximum height is 10 feet. Structures that are 120 sq ft or less are exempt from floor area calculations. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of W Mountain and N Loomis, and is the second property in from that corner. The request today is to build an accessory structure on the North-west corner of the property. A variance is necessary due to the proposal to build the structure within three feet of both the LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 March 10, 2022 rear and side property lines. For accessory buildings along an alley, without a garage door, the required side and rear setback is five feet. This structure does not count towards square footage calculations, because it is under 120 square feet. However, it still requires a building permit because the proposed height is over 8 feet (the proposed structure is approximately 12-13 feet a the peak). Beals continued with the presentation of a lot plan and aerial view of the property, noting the presence of a large tree in the north-west corner, as well as an existing garage and accompanying driveway that exits to the alley. The neighbor’s property also has a garage/alley that lead to the alley. Beals presented renderings of the proposed structure, noting that the maximum height, measured from grade to the peak of the structure, is marked as 13 ft 7 in. The access doors are normal size for person entry. The applicant’s description of the structure notes it as being a “play structure”, though Beals commented that the doors would accommodate normal adult-sized persons. Pictures of the property as seen from the street and looking back towards the alley were presented, along with pictures taken from the alley entrance from N Loomis looking east. Beals stated there are some non-conforming structures present along the alley in adjacent lots, and may be some structures that are non-conforming and/or illegal. The neighboring garage does meet the required setback along the alley. Pictures from the alley looking west also depict the corner of the applicant lot wherein the proposed structure would be placed. Commission member Shuff asked if the fence seen in photographs was representative of the approximate property line shown in the survey. Beals indicated that the fence was located along the approximate property line; the applicant may speak to that as well during their presentation. Commission member Lawton asked if the large tree identified in the aerial view was located on the applicant’s property or on a neighbor’s property. Beals stated his belief that the tree is located within the applicant's property and asked the applicant to provide clarification during their presentation. Application Presentation: Applicant Representative Jeremy Tamlin and applicant Greg Wheeler addressed the Commission, and both agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Tamlin stated that the tree in question is located on the applicant’s property, and in fact is one of the main reasons for requesting a variance. The tree is large a mature, and it’s location lends to the placement of the proposed structure more towards the back of the property. This is also a reason for the height of the proposed structure: digging a normal foundation would negatively affect the root structure of the tree, so instead the proposed structure would employ a pier system with raised floor, which would avoid excavation. Chair La Mastra asked Tamlin if they could confirm the location of the fence as being on the property line; Tamlin stated that he believed the fence to be right on the property line but did not have the survey in front of him for verification. La Mastra asked if the three feet encroachement would be measured from the fence line; Tamlin answered in the affirmative, stating that the property line would be surveyed and pinned, and measurements would be taken off of that determination. Commission member Lawton asked for clarification regarding the tree, stating that it seems that the goal of the variance is to get closer to the side and rear property lines. Lawton stated his understanding of wanting to get closer to the rear of the lot, but didn’t understand the goal of getting closer to the side property line. Applicant and home owner Greg Wheeler addressed Lawton’s questions, stating that with the narrowness of the yard, the more the structure moves away from the fence, even by a few feet, it begins to feel as if it is sitting in the center of the yard. Wheeler commented one of the big things that they have tried to accomplish throughout this process, working with neighbors, was to minimize any adverse effects on neighboring property owners. That neighbor did submit a letter of support to the Commission. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 March 10, 2022 La Mastra commented it was hard to determine the location of the tree based on the lot plan provided by the applicant, stating it may have been helpful to have the location of the tree marked on the plan. La Mastra asked the applicant to provide an approximate description of the distance between the trunk of the tree and the proposed structure wall. Wheeler indicated it would be about three feet from corner of the structure, at a diagonal. La Mastra asked how far the tree trunk is from the fence; Wheeler responded the tree is about 2-2.5 feet from the fence. Tamlin concurred with Wheeler’s estimate, commenting that the branches overhang the other side of the fence and provide some privacy, likely adding to the neighbor’s desire that the tree remain intact. La Mastra asked if there had been any discussion or thought given to lowering the height/pitch of the roof. The renderings of the structure show a large transom window above the door along with a steeply pitched gable roof. Tamlin responded that the proposed design is aligned with that of the existing structure and was designed in a way that would maintain cohesion between the two. Applicant Wheeler reiterated the comments of Tamlin, stating that they did not want the structure to appear to be an “afterthought”. The goals is for the structure to blend in the existing home by mimicking elements such as exterior brickwork, window dimensions, doors, etc. Shrinking the roof line down would alter the design to the point that it no longer matched the house. Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer commented he did not quite understand what exactly about the aesthetic the proposed design is attempting to match. Removing the transom window over the door and reducing the height of the roof is certainly doable and wouldn’t be a detriment to the overall design. Meyer stated he understood the reluctance to change roof pitch, which could be aesthetically problematic. Meyer stated that while removing the transom window and lowering the roof height could be a simple solution, there may also be some limitation on ceiling height that are in play. Meyer stated his appreciation for the applicant’s thoughtfulness to put the structure on piers so as not to damage the tree. In terms of the setbacks, Meyer does not have a problem with the rear-side encroachment but does see reason that the five-foot side setback could not be met. Commission member Lawton asked if there were any prior variances on this property based upon the amount of square footage at the read-half of the property? Seems a lot of it is occupied or has a structure on it. Beals answered that he had not come across any previous variances, but suspected that the size of the proposed structure is below the 120 square foot maximum due to the lot being already close to maxed-out on allowable square footage. Beals offered to perform additional research to confirm. Beals also commented that the wall height, stating that if the structure were to be rotated, they would also meet the code standard if the taller wall heights were North/South, rather than East/West as proposed. Lawton stated he understood getting closer to rear setback because of the tree, but does not understand the proposal to move closer to the side fence/tree, as that could ultimately be detrimental to the tree and its roots. Lawton suggested that Beals may also want to make comment on the sight distances down the alley. Regarding sight lines/distances down the alley, Beals commented that placing a structure in the corner of the lot as proposed may impede a vehicle’s visibility while entering/exiting driveways from the alley. There is a six-foot tall fence there now. A shed encroaching in that setback does reduce the visibility of cars using the driveway(s) as well as visibility of vehicles driving along the alley itself. Beals stated he would continue to research any previous variances for the property while the Commission members hold discussion. Chair La Mastra stated she is struggling with the overall height of the structure, commenting that she does not have as many issues with the setbacks. With the fence already in place, sight distances in the alley are already reduced/affected. 10-foot eaves on a structure this small seems like a lot. Commission member Shuff agreed with the comments of Meyer regarding the setbacks; Shuff does not have as much of an issue with the rear-side (alley) setback, due the presence of the existing fence. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 March 10, 2022 Shuff shared his opinion regarding the side setback that there is room to add the five-foot setback, which would ultimately help the tree. Thinking of long-term adjacency to the east, the owner could change over again, and there isn’t much impact to that potential owner down the road. Shuff commented that in terms of the height, we need to ask ourselves at what point is something still an accessory structure, and does a certain height then deem a structure as something other than an accessory structure. Code is somewhat clear on this, but it may be something the Commission wants or needs to consider. La Mastra asked Beals to read out the definition of an accessory structure. Beals stated that there are three definitions included within the Code – Accessory Building, Accessory Structure, and Accessory use. Beals read the definition of Accessory building: “Accessory Building shall mean a building detached from a principal building, and customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principle building or use, and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal building.” La Mastra stated her opinion that the proposed structure meets the definition of an Accessory Building and asked the Commission if there was any disagreement. La Mastra asked Beals to read out the definition of an Accessory Structure. Beals read the definition as follows: “Accessory structure shall mean a structure detached from the principal building and customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal building or use, and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal building.” Shuff asked if it is then the Zone District which describes the size of accessory buildings. Beals confirmed Shuff’s statement and stated that each Zone District defines the limits of what an accessory building can be. Shuff stated his understanding that an accessory building is limited to 120 square feet and asked if there is a height limit. La Mastra added that the maximum allowable height is stated as 10 feet – part of the variance request today is for a variance of the maximum structure height. Beals clarified the 10-foot maximum applies to the eave, not necessarily the overall building height. Shuff re-stated his understanding of the proposed structure, commenting that the eaves seemed to meet the requirement while the gables did not. Shuff added this is a common request type, and it comes down to roof form. If this were a hip roof, with a ten-foot eave height the proposed structure would meet the requirement. Because this is a gable roof, it’s almost a stylistic thing. Because of this, Shuff states he is less-inclined to have a concern over total roof height based on those parameters. La Mastra commented regarding subordinated use that if a building such as this becomes taller and taller, does it necessarily appear subordinate, especially when considering a one-story house on the lot. Shuff stated the house is technically one and a half stories, but he is still comfortable with the height. Shuff added that his biggest hang-up currently is with the requested side-yard setback. Commission member McCoy stated he does not have problems with either the setback or the height, partly because of the landscaping and placement of the “massive” tree. Additionally, McCoy has taken into consideration the size and placement of the neighboring garage, which is pretty large. When dealing with a subordinate building it only pertains to the home on the same property. The proposed structure seems that it would fit in with the character of other existing structures, and the existing fence will provide some amount of cover as well. McCoy stated his opinion that the structure appears to be a good fit, and he would vote to approve the variance for both setback and height. La Mastra acknowledged McCoy’s consideration of the adjacent garage, since that is the structure the proposed structure would be closest to. La Mastra stated her opinion that the adjacent garage is more impactful than the tree in her estimation. La Mastra commented that she could agree with the comments of Shuff and McCoy regarding approval. Meyer acknowledged the factor of having the proposed structure next to a much-larger garage and a huge tree, which both dwarf the proposed structure to a certain extent. As a designer, Meyer found it a bit odd when considering proportions, as the proposed structure maintains a small footprint but grows substantially in the vertical direction. However, after reading the definitions and realizing an accessory Land Use Review Commission Page 5 March 10, 2022 structure is allowed to be taller that this, Meyer may be more inclined to support. If the proposed structure had maintained a roof height under eight feet, they wouldn’t even be submitting for a permit. Neighborhood context may trump all here, so the points made regarding the adjacent garage and tree are well taken. Meyer stated his willingness to consider support of the request. Lawton commented he has come around a bit, with the discussion around accessory building and adjacent structures. There isn’t anything from an overall standpoint that would cause Lawton to deny. Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA220005 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good; other types of accessory structures are allowed 13-foot eave height; the portion of building with increased eave height is seven feet in length. Additionally, in regards to the setbacks, the setback encroachment is not detrimental to the public good. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considering the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in section 1.2.2. Yeas: McCoy, Lawton, Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED. • OTHER BUSINESS Beals commented that the Commission currently has five applications for next month. The plan is to hold the hearing in-person next month. Staff are currently working to make the Hearing “hybrid”. Beals also commented on the current work of City Clerk’s office to fill Commission seats. LURC currently does not have new applicants, but that posting may be re-activated. Commission member Lawton offered to put the word out to his contacts, as did Commission member Meyer. Commission discussed food options to the upcoming meeting, deciding that a savory breakfast was desired! Four “seconds” were offered in support of the soft motion for burritos and coffee. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 9:19am Shelley La Mastra, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 14, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220006 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 401 Greenvale Dr. Owner/Petitioner: Daniel & Kelsey Walsh Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: This is a request for an accessory building (garage) to encroach 10 feet into the required 15-foot rear-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was platted and received development approval in the county in 1977. It later annexed into the City in 2006. The primary house was built in 1988. The subject property abuts to public right of ways Greenvale Drive along the front property line and Fossil Creek Parkway along the rear property line. The original plat restricts vehicle access to be taken from Fossil Creek Parkway. The Fossil Creek Park is designed with 20ft of landscaping between the back of sidewalk and all the abutting the rear property lines of all the residential properties. When the property was annexed into the City it was Zoned Low Density (R-L) zone district. In the R-L zone district the rear setback is 15ft. In general setback reduce the affect a building from looming onto abutting property lines. In this case the public sidewalk is noticeably at a higher grade than the rear property line preventing such looming affects. 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 public sidewalk is setback 20ft from the rear property line. • The proposed garage takes vehicle access from Greenvale drive. • The public sidewalk is set at a higher grade than the rear 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 ZBA220006. Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI $UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJGLVWULFW RWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH%RDUGPD\JUDQWYDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFH UHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWRWKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVVVKDOORZQHVVRU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQGH[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHGWKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRU hardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWLHQRWVHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHGequally well or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVW EHVXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location/D3RUWH$YH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV)RUW&ROOLQV&2 Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City )RUW&ROOLQV&2Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Updated 02.18.20 If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted 401 Greenvale Dr. 80525 Daniel & Kelsey Walsh 719-510-8021 Article 4, Division 4.4 dankwalsh@gmail.com Low Density Residential Dist.Kelsey Walsh 401 Greenvale Dr. 719-510-6885 kelsey.mcwalsh@gmail.com A variance to the rear setback within 5' of the property line would be nominal and inconsequential when considered within the context of the neighborhood. There are no homes or other private properties that abut the rear property line and never will be. The rear property line is adjacent to public right of way/Fossil Creek Parkway. The variance in setback does not alter any neighboring properties' views relative to the standard setback requirement and the variance will improve the functionality of the proposed garage Both neighboring property owners have 03/02/2022 Daniel K Walsh 3. Nominal and inconsequential Additional Justification Additional Justification A variance to the rear setback within 5' of the property line would be nominal and inconsequential when considered within the context of the neighborhood. There are no homes or other private properties that abut the rear property line and never will be. The rear property line is adjacent to public right of way/Fossil Creek Parkway. The variance in setback does not alter any neighboring properties' views relative to the standard setback requirement and the variance will improve the functionality of the proposed garage. Both neighboring property owners have agreed in written statement to the proposed garage w/ variance. The requested setback variance is shown in the attached file: "Site Plan Option #2". The attached file "Site Plan Option #1" shows the standard 15' setback and illustrates the challenges in respect to proximity to the main home. R/ UNEXCAVATEDNEW SHOPFOUNDATION PLANNEW SHOP ROOF PLANSHOP FRONT ELEV.SHOP SIDE ELEV.NEWSHOPNEW SHOP PLANNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONREFERENCE COVER PAGE FORBUILDER AND GENERAL NOTESSHEET NUMBERA1SHEET TITLEDRAWNPRINTS ISSUEDNEW SHOP PLANSHOUSE NO. 201105.14.2020PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS05.15.2020WalshGaragePLAN REVISIONS05.23.2020SITE PLAN REVISIONS 05.27.2020SITE PLAN REVISIONS 06.03.2020 EXISTINGHOUSENEWGARAGEGREENVALE DRIVE401 Greenvale Dr.Fort Collins, CO 80525NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONREFERENCE COVER PAGE FORBUILDER AND GENERAL NOTESSHEET NUMBERSP1SHEET TITLEDRAWNPRINTS ISSUEDSITE PLANHOUSE NO. 201105.14.2020PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS05.15.2020WalshGarage1" = 10'-0"0 10' 20'NOTES:1. SLOPE GRADE AWAY FROM THE HOUSE IN ALL DIRECTIONS -THE GRADE SHALL FALL A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES WITHIN THEFIRST 10 FEET AND COMPLY WITH IRC SECTION R401.32. THIS SITE PLAN IS PROVIDED FOR COORDINATIONPURPOSES ONLY. FOLGER DESIGN HAS NOT PROVIDED ANYSURVEYING, ENGINEERING, OR SITE MEASUREMENTS FORTHIS SITE PLAN. ALL INFORMATION, GRADES, ANDDIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON OWNERPROVIDED INFORMATION. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ANDGRADES BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.SITE PLANPLAN REVISIONS05.23.2020SITE PLAN REVISIONS 05.27.2020SITE PLAN REVISIONS 06.03.2020 EXISTINGHOUSENEWGARAGEGREENVALE DRIVE401 Greenvale Dr.Fort Collins, CO 80525NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONREFERENCE COVER PAGE FORBUILDER AND GENERAL NOTESSHEET NUMBERSP1SHEET TITLEDRAWNPRINTS ISSUEDSITE PLANHOUSE NO. 201105.14.2020PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS05.15.2020WalshGarage1" = 10'-0"0 10' 20'NOTES:1. SLOPE GRADE AWAY FROM THE HOUSE IN ALL DIRECTIONS -THE GRADE SHALL FALL A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES WITHIN THEFIRST 10 FEET AND COMPLY WITH IRC SECTION R401.32. THIS SITE PLAN IS PROVIDED FOR COORDINATIONPURPOSES ONLY. FOLGER DESIGN HAS NOT PROVIDED ANYSURVEYING, ENGINEERING, OR SITE MEASUREMENTS FORTHIS SITE PLAN. ALL INFORMATION, GRADES, ANDDIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON OWNERPROVIDED INFORMATION. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ANDGRADES BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.SITE PLANPLAN REVISIONS05.23.2020SITE PLAN REVISIONS 05.27.2020SITE PLAN REVISIONS 06.03.2020 Chris Mullen 317 Greenvale Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 1/05/2022 Daniel Walsh 401 Greenvale Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 To whom it may concern, I have been informed of the proposed structure addition to 401 Greenvale Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 to include a 22’ x 24’ detached garage in the southeast corner of the property. The provided information included a building plan, site plan, and proposed setback variance to 5’ from the rear property line. I have no objections and support the proposed structure with or without the proposed setback variance. If major changes (to include but not limited to dimensions & location) occur to the proposed plan, I reserve the right to rescind my support pending further review. You may contact me via 970-310-5887 or chrismullen619@gmail.com. Sincerely, Chris Mullen %!30(2021 # '!) "#!"#'"#"'"(&"$!##!!#"#$ !#!'!*"#/2&##5+%!!#!!!!#' ""#"##$"#"&$"!#""%%"$# #!*#/1""$"!##!$"&$!#!" ###"$##!* #!"#!%#"###"+"%(&####" !&!%###$!!#"#'!!#!### !%$"&!#"#* "$!##/2!###"+"&##$* '$%'$!#! $"#"("!###$"#*!$".*! 760,227,7571* '$( -! $ 405!%!* !#"( Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 14, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220007 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2108 S College Ave. Owner: Raising Canes Chicken Fingers Petitioner: Denise de la Cruz, Elite Signs & Designs, Inc. Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.1(G) Variance Request: This is a request to add an additional drive-thru menu board to each of the two existing drive-thru lanes, resulting in two drive-thru menu boards per lane. The maximum number of drive-thru lane signs is one per drive- thru lane. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property most recently developed in 2006 as a fast-food drive thru. Since than the success of the business has steadily increased. This has led to Minor Amendments that were approved to allow a second drive-thru lane and various changes to the access points of the site. Sign regulations in general are to limit the sign clutter and distraction. In the last update to the sign code drive-thru lanes were given the ability to have 1 additional ground sign per drive-thru lane. These types of drive-thru signs are limited to 30sf and allowed to be 100% digital display. The proposed design includes two grounds per drive-thru land for a total of four signs. The primary menu boards are 28sf in size. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The additional signage is a 26% increase to the 30sf signage allowed. • Other drive thru lanes through out the City maintain and comply with 1 sign. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA220007. March 1, 2022 Explanation of Request For Variance RE: Raising Canes 2108 S. College This is an existing Raising Canes location, that due to hi demand and traffic control reasons, would like to install (2) Presale Menu Boards, to allow for customers to know what they are wanting to order, in hopes of moving traffic off College as quickly as possible. Under code (2) Menu Boards or (1) Presale and (1) Menu Board are allowed, but they have two drive thru lines, and would need (2) of each for each line. If approved, this would significantly improve the traffic flow. Sincerely. Denise de la Cruz Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 14, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 811 W Mountain Ave. Owner: Cindy & Earl Caditz Petitioner: Steve Josephs, Contractor Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to increase the allowable floor area in the N-C-L zone by 1,127 square feet. The total square footage allowed on the lot is 2,690 square feet, and the proposed alteration will result in a total floor area of 3,817 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City and platted in 1887 part of the Loomis Addition. The primary building was originally built in 1908. It is unclear how many changes have occurred since than, but the latest improvement was in 2019. The existing building has a limited second floor. Those areas with a second floor have varying ceiling heights. Other areas of the home are a vaulted ceiling from the first floor and not a second floor. In the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) Zone district buildings are limited by total floor area. The proposed request will self demo any non-conforming increase of the floor area and rebuild a 2nd floor with tall ceiling/building heights. The result is a 41% increase of floor area above the allowed square footage for the entire property. However, it does not exceed limits in the rear half of the property. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • A 41% increase in floor area above the allowed is not nominal. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • The height increases are not equal to the existing nonconforming building as they substantially taller and create a tall wall that is longer. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA220008. Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The /DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJ GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQPD\JUDQW YDULDQFHVZKHUHLWILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the publicgood $GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR WKHSURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVV VKDOORZQHVVRUWRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQG H[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG WKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRUhardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWLHQRW VHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG equallywell or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLV UHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential wayZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location9,578$/21/<YLD=RRP LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWRWKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP ’s Name )RUW&ROOLQV&2’s Petitioner’s Address ’s NamePetitioner’s Phone # !"Petitioner’s Email ’s Name !"Representative’s Address !"Representative’s Phone # !"Representative’s Email tZ/ddE^ddDEdyW>/E/E'd,Z^KE&KZd,sZ/EZYh^dZYh/Zs/ ^WZdKhDEd͘ 811 W. MOUNTAIN AVE.STEVE JOSEPHS CONTRACTOR 80521 319 E. MAGNOLIA ST. FT C0LLINS CINDY AND EARL CADITZ 970-218-6905 STEVE@CRAFTSMENBUILDERSINC.COM NCL 3/3/22 3. Nominal and inconsequential Additional Justiﬁcation Additional Justification Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 811 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. We are requesting a variance from the Land Use Standard F.A.R. of 2690 sf. to a total 3783 sf. We believe it will it will not diverge from the Land Use Standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way. The reasons for this belief are as follows: - We are not increasing the footprint of the house. -A second story already exists with many different wall heights, and roof lines. -Only about 44% of the second ﬂoor walls will need to be raised to get to the 8’ level. -Of 189 lf. of wall on the second ﬂoor, 50 lf. is under 5’ tall, 32 lf. is 5’ tall, and the rest averages 8’ tall. -The proposed structure meets all set backs and ht restrictions for the property -The added square footage mostly comes from an existing 2 story vaulted area at the front of the house. -A full two story house is consistent with the neighborhood. Just a few houses to the West are several 2 story structures. Thanks Steve Josephs Craftsmen Builders Inc. 40' 5'26'-1 1/2"5' 7'-5 1/2" 13'-6 1/2" 8'-0 1/2" 9'54'-5"180'90'5'-9"3020AW3020AW2442DH 2442DH 2442DH 3068 26410DH26410DH26410DH 2868 2468 2868 11120AW11120AW3064DH3014FX3014FX3064DH3065DH3014FX156830681568 246831682668 3064DH3014FX3014FX3064DH3014FX3064DH3020AW3020AW2668 26410DH26410DHDN UP N 5'-0" X 7'-7"11'-7" X 7'-7" 30'-9" X 19'-0" fridge bench DECK trash rollout Hank door coats KITCHEN speed oven/ coffee dw stair to basement below stair to second floor above BATH MUDROOM pantry magic corner with adjustable shelves abovepantry fireplace bookcases bench with storage drawers below coats TV desk future bed location beverage drawers stacked washer and dryer built in closet EXISTING DECK EXISTING PORCH MOUNTAIN AVE ALLEY 811 MOUNTAIN AVE. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 4, BLK 290, LOOMIS, FTC ZONING DISTRICT: NCL F.A.R FOR A 7200 SF. LOT WITH DETACHED GARAGE IS 2690 SF. 7200 X.20 +1000SF +250 SF FOR DETACHED GARAGE EXISTING F.A.R.3817 SF. (MIAN FLOOR 1607 SF.+ SECOND FLOOR 1607 SF. + GARAGE 603 SF) PROPOSED F.A.R 3817 SF. (MAIN FLOOR 1607 SF. +SECOND FLOOR 1607 SF.+ GARAGE 603 SF) ALLOWED F.A.R ON BACK 50% OF LOT 900 SF. EXISTING F.A.R ON BACK 50% OF LOT 661 SF. (MAIN FLOOR 29SF. + SECOND FLOOR 29SF. + GARAGE 603SF.) PROPOSED F.A.R. ON BACK 50% OF LOT 661 SF. SCALE: 1' = 20' midpoint of lot EXISTING RESIDENCE 811 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. EXISTING GARGE ! "# $% $& ' " ($) $% $& ' " ($) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 14, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220009 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 320 Edwards St. Owner: 320 Edwards St. LLC (Ralph Kiel) Petitioner: Mark Taylor Clifton (Buyer) Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(b)(1), 4.8(E)(4) Variance Request: This is a request to build a second story addition onto an existing house. The proposed design requires two variances: First to allow the addition to encroach 4.92 feet into the required 5-foot side-yard setback, matching the existing encroachment of the 1st story. Second to exceed the total square footage allowed on a lot in the NCM zone by 50.77 square feet. Total square footage allowed on lot is 3,175 square feet, and the proposed alteration will result in a total floor area of 3,225.77 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a part the Lake Park Addition annexation near 1900. The property was later replatted in the Crafts Resub subdivision. The primary structure was built in 1900 and the accessory building was built in 1920. The primary building was built in 1900. It is unclear the number of alterations that have occurred since then. The existing structure is currently a one-story structure built 4.92 feet into the required 5ft side-yard setback. The proposed design will increase the wall the height along the east property line to 18ft and the floor area 50.77 feet over the allowable. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The existing and proposed setback is a 98% encroachment. • The existing roof maybe replaced to similar condition or repaired and can be done without increasing the wall height. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA220009. Letter for Zoning Land Use Review Commission / Application for Variance Proposed project: Replace existing failing roof while creating ﬁnished attic space. In the scope of this project we are hoping to honor the architectural style of Fort Collins’ historic neighborhoods. Description of Variance(s) Requested: With the existing building and foundation in place where is; we are ﬁrst asking for a variance of the 5 foot minimum side yard setback (see below for section 4.8 standards) to extend a gable end wall vertically to the point of 18’ above grade and slope at the required 2:1 ratio for the remaining 4’2” of gable height as per ﬁgure 17.5 in section 4.8. See elevations. The house is thought to have been built circa 1900 with the earliest found photo being in 1948. The house was built on the East lot line with a 0.1 foot setback on the South East corner of the building and 0.5 foot setback on the North East corner. See attached survey plat. With the ‘zero’ lot line construction any owner of the property will not have the option of gutters, eaves, or drainage control in the neighbor’s yard and as such, changing the pitch and slope of the roof will allow for proper drainage and run-off control thereby ensuring the longevity of the exterior treatments, foundation, and home. This change will mitigate excessive run-off into the neighbor’s yard. The second variance requested is for the Allowable Floor Area (see below for section 4.8 standards). The proposed roof plan will add a total ﬁnished area of 1132 square feet upstairs, only 763.77 of which is above 7.5’ of head room which results in a 0.6% overage on Allowable Floor Area. See the table below: Summary of Requested Variance Approval: 4.8(D)(2)(b)(1), 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2), and 4.8 (E)(4). Variances requested for new roof plan to include ﬁnished attic square footage and east gable wall on existing foundation. Lot size 7709 sq ft 25% + 1000 +250 sqft 3177.25 sqft 37.9% Existing Building -1250 sqft 16.2% Alley building -1212 sqft 15.7% Remaining -715.25 sqft 9.2% Attic space 1132 sqft 14.6% 763.77 sqft 9.9% Balance (416.75) sqft (5.4%)(48.52) sqft (0.6%) Referenced Standards: Division 4.8 - Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (D) Land Use Standards (2) Allowable Floor Area On Lots (a) The allowable ﬂoor area shall be as follows: 2. On a lot that is between four thousand (4,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable ﬂoor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed twenty-ﬁve (25) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. (b) For the purpose of calculating allowable ﬂoor area, one hundred (100) percent of the ﬂoor area of the following spaces and building elements shall be included: 1.The total ﬂoor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings and including each ﬁnished or unﬁnished ﬂoor level plus the total ﬂoor area of the ground ﬂoor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the ﬂoor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet located within such accessory building located on the lot. (E) Dimensional Standards (4) Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height.Minimum side yard width shall be ﬁve (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of building wall height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, except as provided for in subparagraph (a) below. Minimum side yard width shall be ﬁfteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for schools and places of worship shall be twenty-ﬁve (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). N 00°02'38" E 140.04'N 89°49'16" E 55.04'S 00°02'00" W 140.05'N 89°50'02" E 55.07'N 89°50'02" E 500.66'N 89°49'16" E 500.40'LOT 16 AND THE WEST 5 FEET OF LOT 17,BLOCK 9, CRAFTS' RE-SUBDIVISION OFLAKE PARK ADDITIONWEST 5' OF LOT 170.5'TRUE CORNER FALLS IN CONCRETEBASE OF WOOD FENCE POSTCONCRETE PAD0.1'FACE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE250.33'250.20'SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK 19BASIS OF BEARINGSSET 1/2" REBAR WITH 1-1/2" ALUMINUM CAPAS A 1' WITNESS-OFFSET TO TRUE CORNERCAP MARKED "1 WC - LS 38692"SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 20, BLOCK 9FOUND 1/2" REBAR SET IN CONCRETENORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 20, BLOCK 9FOUND 1/2" REBARS 00°00'30" E 140.09'195.16'195.26'SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 11, BLOCK 9FOUND 3/4" SQUARE BARNORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 11, BLOCK 9FOUND 1/2" REBARN 00°05'45" E 139.98'NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legalaction based upon any defect in this survey within three years after youfirst discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon anydefect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the dateof the certification shown hereon.REVISION:REVISION:REVISION:REVISION:DRAWN BY:FIELD DATE:PROJECT NO.:CLIENT:DWG. DATE:SOF HEET㻟㻜㻢㻌㻱㻚㻌㻱㻸㻵㼆㻭㻮㻱㼀㻴㻌㻿㼀㻾㻱㻱㼀㻲㻻㻾㼀㻌㻯㻻㻸㻸㻵㻺㻿㻌㻯㻻㻸㻻㻾㻭㻰㻻㻔㻥㻣㻜㻕㻌㻞㻟㻞㻙㻥㻠㻤㻞㼏㼠㼔㼑㼣㻬㼠㼞㼕㻙㼜㼑㼍㼗㼟㻚㼏㼛㼙TRI-PEAKS, LLC㻯㻸㼀W22-0263-2-20223-3-2022TAYLOR CLIFTON11CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOSITUATE IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN LAND SURVEY PLAT㻯㻱㻾㼀㻵㻲㻵㻯㻭㼀㻵㻻㻺㻦㻵㻌㻯㻴㻾㻵㻿㼀㻻㻼㻴㻱㻾㻌㻸㻚㻌㼀㻴㻱㼃㻘㻌㻭㻌㻰㼁㻸㼅㻌㻸㻵㻯㻱㻺㻿㻱㻰㻌㻼㻾㻻㻲㻱㻿㻿㻵㻻㻺㻭㻸㻌㻸㻭㻺㻰㻌㻿㼁㻾㼂㻱㼅㻻㻾㻌㻵㻺㻌㼀㻴㻱㻿㼀㻭㼀㻱㻌㻻㻲㻌㻯㻻㻸㻻㻾㻭㻰㻻㻘㻌㻰㻻㻌㻴㻱㻾㻱㻮㼅㻌㻯㻱㻾㼀㻵㻲㼅㻌㼀㻴㻭㼀㻌㼀㻴㻱㻌㻿㼁㻾㼂㻱㼅㻌㻾㻱㻼㻾㻱㻿㻱㻺㼀㻱㻰㻌㻮㼅㻌㼀㻴㻵㻿㻼㻸㻭㼀㻌㻵㻿㻌㼀㻴㻱㻌㻾㻱㻿㼁㻸㼀㻿㻌㻻㻲㻌㻭㻌㻿㼁㻾㼂㻱㼅㻌㻹㻭㻰㻱㻌㻮㼅㻌㻹㻱㻌㻻㻾㻌㼁㻺㻰㻱㻾㻌㻮㼅㻌㻰㻵㻾㻱㻯㼀㻌㻿㼁㻼㻱㻾㼂㻵㻿㻵㻻㻺㻚㻿㼁㻾㼂㻱㼅㻻㻾㻦㻌㻯㻴㻾㻵㻿㼀㻻㻼㻴㻱㻾㻌㻸㻚㻌㼀㻴㻱㼃㻘㻌㻼㻱㻙㻼㻸㻿㻌㻔㻼㻸㻿㻏㻌㻟㻤㻢㻥㻞㻕LEGENDFOUND MONUMENT - PROPERTY CORNER AS DESCRIBEDSET 1/2" REBAR WITH 1.0" PLASTIC CAP MARKED PLS 38692 (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)PLATTED LOT LINEBOUNDARY LINERIGHT OF WAY LINE㻸㻱㻳㻭㻸㻌㻰㻱㻿㻯㻾㻵㻼㼀㻵㻻㻺㻦㻸㻻㼀㻌㻝㻢㻌㻭㻺㻰㻌㼀㻴㻱㻌㼃㻱㻿㼀㻌㻡㻌㻲㻱㻱㼀㻌㻻㻲㻌㻸㻻㼀㻌㻝㻣㻘㻮㻸㻻㻯㻷㻌㻥㻘㻌㻯㻾㻭㻲㼀㻿㻓㻌㻾㻱㻙㻿㼁㻮㻰㻵㼂㻵㻿㻵㻻㻺㻌㻻㻲㻌㻸㻭㻷㻱㻼㻭㻾㻷㻌㻭㻰㻰㻵㼀㻵㻻㻺㻌㼀㻻㻌㼀㻴㻱㻌㻯㻵㼀㼅㻌㻻㻲㻌㻲㻻㻾㼀㻌㻯㻻㻸㻸㻵㻺㻿㻘㻯㻻㼁㻺㼀㼅㻌㻻㻲㻌㻸㻭㻾㻵㻹㻱㻾㻘㻌㻿㼀㻭㼀㻱㻌㻻㻲㻌㻯㻻㻸㻻㻾㻭㻰㻻㻚NOTESTHIS SURVEY IS BASED ON A TITLE COMMITMENT PROVIDED BY LAND TITLEGUARANTEE COMPANY FILE NUMBER FC25196139-3, EFFECTIVE DATE:02/09/2022 AT 5:00 P.M.- EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAYS ARE SHOWN PER THE PLAT OF CRAFTS'RE-SUBDIVISION OF LAKE PARK ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RECORDEDAT RECEPTION NO. 30505 IN 1889 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS. IN REVIEW OFTHE TITLE COMMITMENT NO EASEMENTS BURDENING THE PARCEL WERE IDENTIFIED.- THIS IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT. ONLY POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONCERNALONG THE BOUNDARY OF THE PARCEL WAS SHOWN WITH THIS SURVEY.- SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 320 EDWARDS STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO80524..- BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK 9, CRAFTS' RE-SUB-DIVISION OFLAKE PARK ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO BEAR N89°50'02"E BETWEENTHE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT11, BLOCK 9, CRAFTS' RE-SUBDIVISION OF LAKE PARKADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, BEING A FOUND 3/4" SQUARE BAR, AND THESOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 20, BLOCK 9, CRAFTS' RE-SUBDIVISION OF LAKE PARKADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, BEING A FOUND 1/2" REBAR SET INCONCRETE.- UNITS ARE SHOWN IN U.S. SURVEY FOOT- THE TOTAL AREA CONTAINS 7,710 SQUARE FEET (0.177 ACRES) MORE OR LESS.LOT 17 THROUGH LOT 20BLOCK 9LOT 11 THROUGH LOT 15BLOCK 9EDWARDS STREET(100' RIGHT OF WAY)ALLEY(20' RIGHT OF WAY)PETERSON STREET(100' RIGHT OF WAY)MATTHEWS STREET(100' RIGHT OF WAY) ISSUE03.06.2022 DRAWN BYMTC | CLIENT320 Edwards LLC320 Edwards StFort Collins, CO80524 PROJECT320 Edwards Mountain Top Timber LLCPO Box 328Bellevue, COTel: 303.408.7550 RE-ISSUEGeneral ContractorTBDTBD EngineerTBDTBD A1.0 NE Street View Not To ScaleA1.01A1.1 NW Street View Not To ScaleA1.2 FrontNot To ScaleA1.3 BackNot To ScaleA1.6 SetbackNot To ScaleA1.4 EastNot To ScaleA1.5 WestNot To ScaleA1.7 East Gable EndNot To Scale18'-0"23'-1"22'-2 1/4"28'-4 1/4"24'-9 1/4"34'-8 1/2"6 1/4"1 5/8" ISSUE03.06.2022 DRAWN BYMTC | CLIENT320 Edwards LLC320 Edwards StFort Collins, CO80524 PROJECT320 Edwards Mountain Top Timber LLCPO Box 328Bellevue, COTel: 303.408.7550 RE-ISSUEGeneral ContractorTBDTBD EngineerTBDTBD A2.0 SITE PLANscale: 1/8”=1' A1.026'-11 1/8"7'-11 1/2"6'-10 3/8"44'-1 3/4"1 5/8"19'-6 3/4"Proposed project: Replace existing failing roof while creating finished attic space. In the scope of this project we are hoping to honor the architectural style of Fort Collins’ historic neighborhoods and mitigate drainage into the East Neighbor’s yard.Lot size is 55’ 1/2” x 140’ 3/8” = 7707.5 Square FeetFootprint of structures are existing. Proposed Roof change to main building does not change existing footprint.Main house was not built perfectly square to lot line. South East corner setback is 1-5/8” and North East corner is 6-1/4”.West Setback from main building is 11’ 7-1/2”South setback from main building to property line / sidewalk is 19’ 6-3/4”1212 Square feetExisting Building1250 Square feetExisting Building, Proposed Roof Plan6 1/4"11'-7 1/2"140'-3/8"55'-1/2"N Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 14, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220010 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 124 N Grant Ave. Owner: Yao Tingting & Robert Cohen Petitioner: Collins Ferris, Designer/Consultant Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4) Variance Request: This is a request for a new accessory building with habitable space to encroach 2.5 feet into the required 5-foot side setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the in 1887 part of the Loomis annexation and was platted at the same time. The primary structure used for single dwelling unit was constructed in 1904. The primary structure meets the required setback side setbacks. An existing accessory structure is located in a similar location as the proposed building. The existing structure is one story and is approximately 276sf in size. There is not habitable space within existing building. The proposed building is almost double in size of the existing building. It does include habitable space and an area to work in. Additionally, a similar request was presented during the 2022 February meeting of Land Use Review Commission. This previous request included a 2ft encroachment for the entire building. The current proposal setback the portion of habitable space to a 5ft setback and the workshop portion maintains the same encroachment of the existing building. 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 • There is an existing 6ft fence between at the property line. • The encroachment is limited to work shop portion of the proposed building. • The work shop portion is 9’ in height and 23ft in length. • There no windows in the encroachment facing the north 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 ZBA220010. 7217 Caledonian Ct., Windsor, CO 80550 || 970_218_0074 | collins@studiolounge.CO ZONING VARIANCE REQUEST 124 N. Grant Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 Date: March 3, 2022 To Whom It May Concern: This is a revised follow up variance request from the January 2022 request for the same project. Revisions were made to the plans in response to the discussion, feedback and concerns expressed by the Land Use Review Commission during the February 10, 2022, meeting. My client, the property owners, are seeking a variance on Article 4, Division 4.7 - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District; Section E - Developmental Standards; Subsection 4. The owners are looking to replace an existing structure in their back yard, which currently impedes the North property line setback by 2’-6”, with a new structure that impedes just 2’-0”. The existing impediment turns out to be 6” more intrusive at 2’-6” than originally assumed at just 2’-0”. The area of the new structure that will sit within the 5’-0” setback is equivalent to the current area that impedes today. The new building seeks to improvement upon its current use as a hobbyist woodworking shop with the addition of a guestroom with bath for temporary visits by family members. The divergence from the Land Use Code standards is believed to be “Nominal and Inconsequential” in the context of the existing conditions of the site and neighborhood. Since the last request, a Land Survey Plat was done on the property providing additional information regarding this request. This additional information has been incorporated into the revisions made and provided as supplemental information as Exhibit B. During the first review, the commission brought up a couple main concerns that we believe have been addressed in this new proposal. CONCERNS: 1.The length of the North wall, which sits within the setback, was significantly longer than the existing structure to be demolished (12’-0” longer) – It was mentioned that the committee might be more inclined to accept the proposal if the North wall of the new building were similar in length to the existing structure. The current length of the North impeding wall(s) is 23.4’ long (RE: Exhibit B). Instead of the new North wall being 12’-0” longer within the impeding area of the setback as in the original proposal, the new proposal is only 0’-6” longer in that area and proceeds to jog back south in order to meet the required 5’-0” setback for the remainder of the building. 2.The new building would negatively impact the adjacent property because it would be used more than the existing structure (thought to be simply storage) - The existing structure is used 7 – 8 months of the year primarily as a hobbyist woodworking shop (not, as was discussed in the Feb 10th meeting, for storage). That use will increase to year-round because the new space will be heated, cooled, and insulated. The existing building, which has open 2x4 stud walls with a single-pane window on the North wall, has absolutely no sound mitigation measures. The proposed building will not have windows facing the North, all windows used will be triple pane, and will be highly insulated throughout; we intend to use materials and building system designs that will substantially reduce sound transmission. Thus, despite more frequent use, activities connected with the improved Workshop space will be far less intrusive or noticeable relative to the current building. The remainder of the proposed new space conforms to the prescribed 5-ft setback. 3.There also was some sentiment among Board members that we should abandon the plan to build over the existing footprint and instead use space elsewhere in our yard - It was mentioned possibly being moved to the south side of the property, but we don’t think that is a viable option. That would require the elimination of two mature crabapple trees and much of the planted gardens, hardscape, and irrigation system; combined, these are the result of more than 10 years of the owners’ labor of love. Moreover, direct access to the proposed Workshop from our driveway is extremely important to facilitate loading/unloading large or heavy items (e.g., 4x8 plywood). Finally, positioning the 7217 Caledonian Ct., Windsor, CO 80550 || 970_218_0074 | collins@studiolounge.CO building to a S or SE area of the yard would, in our view, severely impede E—W movement and aesthetics of what makes the back yard beautiful, It’s open space and recreational value. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 1.The adjacent neighbor to the North (Steven Hix) at 128 N.Grant Ave testified on Feb. 10 that he has no objection whatsoever to our plan for the building that we'd presented originally. The revised building plan has even less potential to be obtrusive. 2.The improved maximum eave height will be approximately 11’-9”, which is well under the 14’ max height requirements for “construction on a lot where there is a lot abutting the North side of the subject lot and the house on such abutting lot is a (1) story.” The lot to the North is a (1) story home. The diagram in Exhibit A shows the new structure maintains the integrity of the Solar Access Setbacks requirements set forth in the Land Use Code Article 4 - Division 4.7, Section (E)4(a)4. 3.The 13’ dimensional width of the building is what is needed for the intended use of the new building, so should the entirety of the building be brought within the required 5’-0” setback, it would impede on the circulation coming out of the door in the back yard. Also important is maintaining a visual connection with the greenhouse as you’ll see on the Site Plan. We believe this addresses all the major concerns from the January 10th review. Thank you very much for another consideration for this revised request! Sincerely, Collins Ferris, AIA Associate Designer + Owner, studio_LOUNGE DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURE 271 SFRequest for new structure to only impede 2'-0" into the setback of the North Property Line, which will improve slightly from existing intrusion of 2'-6". The difference in building footprint within setback will be Nominal and Inconsequential. EXISTING GREENHOUSE(265 SF)Existing building setback from property line per Land Survey Plat taken on 1/25/2022 - RE: Exhibit A50'-0"190'-0"front setback15'-0"5'-0"setbackNEW36'-0"1'-10"NEW13'-0"3'-0"new footprintALLEYGRANT AVE.rear setback5'-0"property lineroof abovestep in roof lineEXISTING RESIDENCE2,332 SF5'-0"11'-0"NEW23'-6"NEW12'-6"Addition setback5'-0"2'-6"circulation path and view to greenhouseexist. curb cut drivedoor to exteriorExisting patio w/ paved walks and manicured built up gardens 6"6'-10"SHED (48 SF)P R O J E C T D A T AREPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING 271 SF. DETACHED STRUCTURE IN BACKYARD TO BE W/ NEW 441 SF. DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH HABITABLE SPACE TO INCLUDE WORKSHOP AND SINGLE GUESTROOM AND 3/4 BATHROOM ADDRESS _124 N. GRANT AVE., FORT COLLINS, CO 80521ZONING DISTRICT _ N-C-LLOT SIZE _ 9,658 SFNUMBER OF STORIES_ TWO STORIES + BASEMENTALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA(20% LOT =1,932 sf + 1,000 sf) _ 22,932 SF MAXTOTAL EXISTING ALLOWABLE AREA _ 2,618 SF (2,332 SF House + 271 SF Garage(To Be Demo'd) + 265 Greenhouse - 250 SF Free)ADDITIONAL ALLOWABLE AREA _ 170 SF (441 SF New - 271 SF Demo'd)TOTAL NEW ALLOWABLE AREA _ 22,788 SFSITE AND STRUCTURE DATA IS BASED OFF THE LAND SURVEY PLAT TAKEN ON 1/25/2022, RE: EXHIBIT A03/4/22SITE PLANWORKSHOP/GUESTROOM124 N. GRANT AVE., FORT COLLINS, CO 805211" = 20'-0" [RE: 1 / P1_O5]p- Site PlanN FIRST FLOOREL. = 101' - 0"EXISTING GRADEEL. = 100' - 0"UPPER EAVE HT.LOWER EAVE HT.EL. = 111' - 9"EL. = 109' - 9"EL. = 114' - 3 5/8"OVERALL HT.DOWNSPOUTFIRST FLOOREL. = 101' - 0"EXISTING GRADEEL. = 100' - 0"UPPER EAVE HT.LOWER EAVE HT.EL. = 111' - 9"EL. = 109' - 9"EL. = 114' - 3 5/8"OVERALL HT.FIRST FLOOREL. = 101' - 0"EXISTING GRADEEL. = 100' - 0"UPPER EAVE HT.LOWER EAVE HT.EL. = 111' - 9"EL. = 109' - 9"OVERALL HT.4'-0 1/2"2" 12"1P1_O5closet17'-1 1/2"2'-0"3'-8" 11'-10"1'-6"3'-1 1/2"1'-6"9'-3"1'-9"11'-0" 2'-0"8'-4"1'-8"36'-0"5'-0 1/2"5'-0"2'-11 1/2" 5'-0" 3'-11 1/2"12'-0"17'-1 1/2"140 SFBEDROOM205 SFWORKSHOP2 '-5 1 /2 "3'-0 1/2"downspout w/ splashblockdownspout w/ splashblock23'-6"FIRST FLOOREL. = 101' - 0"EXISTING GRADEEL. = 100' - 0"UPPER EAVE HT.11'-9"3'-0"PROPERTY LINE1'-0" 5'-0"SOLAR ACCESS HEIGHT MAX.14'-0"1 ft. setback per 1 ft. height increase1'-0"LOWER EAVE HT.9'-9"UPPER EAVE HT.LOWER EAVE HT.EL. = 111' - 9"EL. = 109' - 9"FIRST FLOOREL. = 101' - 0"LOW PLATE HT.EL. = 109' - 1 1/8"EXISTING GRADEEL. = 100' - 0"2" / 12"2" / 12"UPPER EAVE HT.LOWER EAVE HT.OVERALL HT.EL. = 114' - 3 5/8"1P1_O52" / 12"2" / 12"METAL ROOFMETAL ROOFDOWNSPOUTDOWNSPOUTDASH LINES ARE WALLS BELOW03/04/22PLANS, ELEVATIONS & EXHIBIT AWORKSHOP/GUESTROOM124 N. GRANT AVE., FORT COLLINS, CO 805211/4" = 1'-0"P1_O53p - East Elevation1/4" = 1'-0"P1_O52p - South Elevation1/4" = 1'-0"P1_O55p - West Elevation1/4" = 1'-0"P1_O54p- Floor Plan _O11/4" = 1'-0"P1_O51EXHIBIT A - SECTION DIAGRAM - EAVE HT1/4" = 1'-0"P1_O56p - North Elevation3/16" = 1'-0"P1_O57p- Roof Plan 7.2'2.6'23.8'1.2'3.5'1.2'30.3'24.5'22.0'2.0'11.5'1.5'24.2'1.2'7.1'20.2'12.0'18.4'12.0'18.4'5.0'5.0'10.0'14.3'18.5'14.3'18.5'0.6'4'x12' SHED WITHOUT A FOUNDATIONWOOD FRAMED SHEDSGREENHOUSEMATERIALSVARYWOOD FRAMED RESIDENCEON FOUNDATIONN. GRANT AVENUE(100' RIGHT OF WAY - PLAT)ALLEY(20' RIGHT OF WAY - PLAT)N 00°05'24" E 287.25'S 89°57'49" E 190.03'S 00°05'24" W 49.96'N 89°58'21" W 190.01'N 00°04'28" E 49.99'N 00°04'28" E 287.45'237.46'LOT 14, BLOCK 281LOOMIS ADDITIONLOT 11, BLOCK 281LOT 15, BLOCK 281237.29'287.5' - PLAT287.5' - PLAT190' - PLAT50' - PLAT237.5' - PLAT50' - PLAT237.5' - PLAT190' - PLAT15.0'15.4'11.5'9.3'2.5'6.8'3.8'31.0'0.7'71.9'0.8'LAPORTE AVENUE(150' RIGHT OF WAY - PLAT)NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 281FOUND 3/4" SQUARE BAR SET IN CONCRETES 89°54'43" E 400.20'190.09'400' - PLATBASIS OF BEARINGS - NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 281190' - PLATNORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 281FOUND 1/2" REBAR210.10'210' - PLATNOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legalaction based upon any defect in this survey within three years after youfirst discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon anydefect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the dateof the certification shown hereon.REVISION:REVISION:REVISION:REVISION:DRAWN BY:FIELD DATE:PROJECT NO.:CLIENT:DWG. DATE:SOF HEET㻟㻜㻢㻌㻱㻚㻌㻱㻸㻵㼆㻭㻮㻱㼀㻴㻌㻿㼀㻾㻱㻱㼀㻲㻻㻾㼀㻌㻯㻻㻸㻸㻵㻺㻿㻌㻯㻻㻸㻻㻾㻭㻰㻻㻔㻥㻣㻜㻕㻌㻞㻟㻞㻙㻥㻠㻤㻞㼏㼠㼔㼑㼣㻬㼠㼞㼕㻙㼜㼑㼍㼗㼟㻚㼏㼛㼙TRI-PEAKS, LLC㻯㻸㼀W22-0041-25-20221-30-2022ROBERT COHEN AND YAO TINGTING11CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOSITUATE IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN LAND SURVEY PLAT㻯㻱㻾㼀㻵㻲㻵㻯㻭㼀㻵㻻㻺㻦㻵㻌㻯㻴㻾㻵㻿㼀㻻㻼㻴㻱㻾㻌㻸㻚㻌㼀㻴㻱㼃㻘㻌㻭㻌㻰㼁㻸㼅㻌㻸㻵㻯㻱㻺㻿㻱㻰㻌㻼㻾㻻㻲㻱㻿㻿㻵㻻㻺㻭㻸㻌㻸㻭㻺㻰㻌㻿㼁㻾㼂㻱㼅㻻㻾㻌㻵㻺㻌㼀㻴㻱㻿㼀㻭㼀㻱㻌㻻㻲㻌㻯㻻㻸㻻㻾㻭㻰㻻㻘㻌㻰㻻㻌㻴㻱㻾㻱㻮㼅㻌㻯㻱㻾㼀㻵㻲㼅㻌㼀㻴㻭㼀㻌㼀㻴㻱㻌㻿㼁㻾㼂㻱㼅㻌㻾㻱㻼㻾㻱㻿㻱㻺㼀㻱㻰㻌㻮㼅㻌㼀㻴㻵㻿㻼㻸㻭㼀㻌㻵㻿㻌㼀㻴㻱㻌㻾㻱㻿㼁㻸㼀㻿㻌㻻㻲㻌㻭㻌㻿㼁㻾㼂㻱㼅㻌㻹㻭㻰㻱㻌㻮㼅㻌㻹㻱㻌㻻㻾㻌㼁㻺㻰㻱㻾㻌㻮㼅㻌㻰㻵㻾㻱㻯㼀㻌㻿㼁㻼㻱㻾㼂㻵㻿㻵㻻㻺㻚㻿㼁㻾㼂㻱㼅㻻㻾㻦㻌㻯㻴㻾㻵㻿㼀㻻㻼㻴㻱㻾㻌㻸㻚㻌㼀㻴㻱㼃㻘㻌㻼㻱㻙㻼㻸㻿㻌㻔㻼㻸㻿㻏㻌㻟㻤㻢㻥㻞㻕LEGENDFOUND BLOCK CORNER MONUMENT AS DESCRIBEDFOUND 0.5" IRON ROD WITH 1.0" PLASTIC CAP MARKED AS DESCRIBEDSET 0.5" IRON ROD WITH 1.0" PLASTIC CAP MARKED PLS 38692PLATTED LOT LINEBOUNDARY LINERIGHT OF WAY LINE㻸㻱㻳㻭㻸㻌㻰㻱㻿㻯㻾㻵㻼㼀㻵㻻㻺㻦㻸㻻㼀㻌㻝㻠㻘㻌㻮㻸㻻㻯㻷㻌㻞㻤㻝㻘㻸㻻㻻㻹㻵㻿㻌㻭㻰㻰㻵㼀㻵㻻㻺㻌㼀㻻㻌㼀㻴㻱㻌㻯㻵㼀㼅㻌㻻㻲㻌㻲㻻㻾㼀㻌㻯㻻㻸㻸㻵㻺㻿㻘㻯㻻㼁㻺㼀㼅㻌㻻㻲㻌㻸㻭㻾㻵㻹㻱㻾㻘㻌㻿㼀㻭㼀㻱㻌㻻㻲㻌㻯㻻㻸㻻㻾㻭㻰㻻㻚NOTES- THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THIS SURVEY IS BASED FROM THE WARRANTY DEEDRECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 20080062171 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS.- EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAYS ARE SHOWN PER THE PLAT OF LOOMIS ADDITION TOTHE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 25122 OF THE LARIMERCOUNTY RECORDS. DISTANCES ARE REFERENCED ON THIS DRAWING AS "PLAT".- THE CLIENT DID NOT REQUEST A TITLE COMMITMENT TO BE ORDERED FOR THISSURVEY OR REQUEST ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS/RIGHT OF WAYS TO BE SHOWN;THEREFOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD WERE NOTRESEARCHED FOR THIS SURVEY. ANY INFORMATION REGARDING DOCUMENTS THATMIGHT AFFECT THE QUALITY OF TITLE TO SUBJECT PROPERTY WERE NOTDETERMINED.- THIS IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT. ONLY THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ONTHE PARCEL HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY FOR PLANNING PURPOSES.- SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 124 N. GRANT AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO80521.- BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 281 TO THE LOOMIS ADDITIONTO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO BEAR S89°54'43"E BETWEEN THE NORTHWESTCORNER OF BLOCK 281, BEING A FOUND 3/4" SQUARE BAR SET IN CONCRETE, AND THENORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 281, BEING A FOUND 1/2" REBAR.- UNITS ARE SHOWN IN U.S. SURVEY FOOT- THE TOTAL AREA CONTAINS 9,496 SQUARE FEET (0.218 ACRES) MORE OR LESS.FOUND 1/2" REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP MARKED "LS 14823"DEFINED BY IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT RECEPTION NO. 20100026959FOUND 1/2" REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP MARKED "LS 14823"DEFINED BY IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT RECEPTION NO. 20100026959