Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/12/2022 - 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 MAY 12, 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/97148603079. 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 May 12, 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 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: 971 4860 3079. (Continued on next page) Land Use Review Commission Page 2 May 12, 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 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. 2. APPEAL ZBA220011 Address: 4215 Fox Grove Dr. Owner: Melody Homes (dba DR Horton) Petitioner: Derek Hoffberer, VP of Construction Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(2) Project Description: This is a request to allow a newly constructed house to encroach a total of 2 feet into the required 15- foot corner 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. 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 May 12, 2022 3. APPEAL ZBA220012 Address: 1020 E Lincoln Ave. Owner: Freddy Bensch Petitioner: Kristin Zipkin, Signage Provider / Marie Hashaw, DaVinci Sign Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.2(G)(2) Project Description: This variance has two requests: 1) To allow a freestanding sign in the Downtown Sign District to be approximately 2.66 feet over the maximum allowable 11 feet. 2) To allow light fixtures that point upward; required BUG ratings prohibit lights that point directly up into the sky . The maximum allowable uplight rating would be a U1. 4. APPEAL ZBA220013 Address: 1309 Remington St. Owner: Dan and Martha Connors Petitioner: Jordan Oberman, Designer/Builder Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) Project Description: This is a request for three variances to rebuild an accessory building (garage): 1) Request to exceed the total square footage allowed by 389.2 square feet. The maximum permitted is 2,394.8 square feet. 2) Request to exceed the total square footage allowed in the rear half by 139.25 square feet. The maximum is 871.75 square feet. 3) Request to exceed the eave height for an accessory building without habitable space by 8 feet. The maximum allowed along the side lot line is 10 feet. 5. APPEAL ZBA220014 Address: 4007 & 4009 Rock Creek Rd. Owner: Jumbuck LLC Petitioner: Richard Gray, Contractor Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for a 2.6-foot setback which is encroaching 17.4 feet into the required 20-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: 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 • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the March 10, 2022, Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is on Greenvale Drive, situated between Greenvale Drive and Fossil Creek Pkwy. The request is to build a garage in the rear yard. The rear yard faces Fossil Creek Pkwy. It is in the R -L zone district, and thus requires a 15-foot zone setback. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 March 10, 2022 Beals offered two site plans, one showing the 15-foot setback with a five-foot side setback, and the other showing the current proposal as request, with a five-foot side setback and a 10-foot encroachment into the rear 15-foot setback. Beals presented illustrations of the proposed garage structure, as well as pictures of the front of the lot taken from Greenvale Drive. The neighborhood was originally built in the county and then later annexed into the city. The rear of the property, taken from Fossil Creek Drive, sho w that the property sits lower than the street and sidewalk along Fossil Creek Drive. From that direction, one would really only be seeing the roof of the proposed garage structure due to the change in grade. Chair La Mastra asked Beals if the existing shed structure would be remaining or would be removed for the new garage. Beals answered based on his understating that the existing shed would be staying, but the application could be asked during their presentation to confirm. Vice Chair Shuff asked Beals if Fossil Creek is classified as a collector-level street. Beals responded he believed it is classified as a collector-level street and can confirm via research. Application Presentation: Applicant Daniel Walsh, 401 Greenvale Dr., addressed the Commission, and agreed to hold the hearing in a hybrid format. Walsh stated that they had applied for a variance under the justification that the encroachment into the 15-foot rear setback would be nominal and inconsequential when considered within the context of the neighborhood. Walsh stated there are no homes that abut the rear of the property, and neighbors on the east and west have both voiced their support. Walsh commented that encroaching on the rear setback would greatly improve the functionality of the proposed garage. Walsh stated the rear property line measures approximately 48 feet, and the proposed garage is 22 feet x 24 feet; if placed to meet the required setback, the garage would only be 8-9 feet from the house. Walsh stated the existing shed would be torn down to make way for construction of the proposed garage. Walsh also stated the sidewalk to the rear of the property, along Fossil Creek Pkwy, is approximately 20 feet from their rear property line, and is approximately 4.5 above the grade of their property. For these reasons, the applicant believes the proposed encroachment to be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Commission member Lawton questioned if there would be impact to the tree shown in pictures. Applicant Walsh indicated the tree is within the proposed footprint of the garage and would need to come down prior to construction. Lawton questioned if the intent was to use the proposed structure as the primary garage, and then to re-purpose the existing attached garage space. Applicant Walsh indicated the existing garage’s use would be maintained. Walsh described himself as a “hobby mechanic” and stated the goal of the proposed garage is to provide him with a more dedicated mechanic’s space. Chair La Mastra questioned the overall peak height, which is noted as a 9-foot wall height to the truss. La Mastra asked the applicant if they can provide the overall height of the gable roof. The a pplicant was unsure, but stated the intent was to match the overall home. Beals provided answer to Vice Chair Shuff’s earlier question about street classifications, noting that Fossil Creek Pkwy is classified as a “two-lane collector”. Commission Discussion: Vice Chair Shuff commented that this case is interesting, because there are no properties fronting Fossil Creek Pkwy, and so there is not really a set relationship or character. The biggest potential impact would be the view from Fossil Creek Pkwy, but the proposed structure is small and low, sitting below grade. The lot is fairly shallow, which could justify hardship. Shuff stated his support of granting the variance, which would provide more space between the house and the garage. T he overall door is facing north, away from Fossil Creek Pkwy which also minimizes potential impact. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 March 10, 2022 Commission member Lawton commented that if the garage were to meet the current setback, it would be almost impossible to maneuver a vehicle into it’s entry. The requested encroachment would provide for better access to the proposed garage structure. Commission member Meyer stated he could be in support of the application. When looking at the two versions of the site plan, the difference is fairly nominal. The shed may in fact be less apparent if it is placed closer to the street, within the encroachment as requested. Additionally, the hardship of access created by the setback is understandable. Chair La Mastra agreed with the previous statements and added that not having across the street is helpful. We do not want to change the streetscape when travelling down Fossil Creek Pkwy; without the change in grade, it may be harder to support the request, but the 4.5-5 feet grade difference will help to minimize the impact of the proposed structure on the existing view scape. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA220006 for the following reasons: under Section 2.10.4(H), it is found that the variance is not detrimental to the public good, the public sidewalk is setback 20 feet from the rear property line; the proposed garage takes vehicle access from Greenvale Drive; the public sidewalk is set at a higher grade than a property line. 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: Meyer, La Mastra, Mc Coy, Lawton, Shuff Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on South College Avenue, and has been in the current location with a drive -through lane for approximately 10 years. In the last few years, they have tried to mitigate the impact of the drive-through lanes onto the public right of way and have added two lanes to their property. Beals noted that within our Land Use Code, which was updated in 2017-18, there was an allowance for a drive-through lane sign, which were limited 30 sq ft per drive through lane. Beals explained that the current request is to not only have a 30 sq ft menu drive-thru lane sign, but to also have an additional sign placed in the front of the drive-through lane. This would exceed the allowable signage according to current code. Beals noted that with the addition of the second drive-thru lane, the traffic pattern has changed so that the north lane is exit-only one-way, and the south lanes are exit and enter two-way drives. Beals also noted a new canopy that has been added to the drive-thru lanes, as well as the existing menu board signs. Chair La Mastra asked Beals if there had been any previous modifications for signage to this drive- through. Beals confirmed that there were no previous modifications, and the applicant is currently in compliance with sign code. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 March 10, 2022 Commission member McCoy asked if the variance was based on square footage or number of signs? Beals commented that the request contains elements of sign square footage as well as additional numbers of signs. Application Presentation: Applicant representative James Waller, Civil Engineering representative for Raising Canes, addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing in a hybrid format. Waller stated the main reason they would like to install the requested “pre-sale” boards along the drive-through lanes is to expedite traffic queuing. The goal is to move vehicles as fast as possible in order to minimize traffic back -ups onto College Ave. during peak times. Vice Chair Shuff asked if the proposed signage design is a corporate standard or customized to the site? Waller responded that the sign was as nation-wide design and has been included in newer franchise sites throughout the Denver metro area. Chair La Mastra asked Waller to describe the contents of the sign, and to describe how this type of sign helps to move traffic through the drive-through lanes. Waller stated the sign describes four main combo meals and what is included in each, as well as information regarding common “larger orders” like tailgate packs etc. Beals added that part of the sign code allowance for a drive-thru lane signs allows for the sign to be 100% digital, knowing that menus of this type may change from breakfast to lunch, as specials change, as orders are placed, etc. This is different from other grounds signs, which are generally limited to 50% of their space being digital. Commission member McCoy asked Waller if he could identify how much faster orders are placed when this type of sign is present. Waller stated he did not have that information available at this time. Light traffic impact studies have shown that the queuing process is made faster. Lawton asked Waller if this measure would fix the traffic problems on College Ave created by the Raising Cane’s drive- through lanes; Waller responded the combination of these signs with the double drive-through lanes would help to solve the problem. The double drive-through lanes and created some improvement; the addition of the pre-sale menu boards would create additional improvement to traffic patterns. McCoy asked Beals if there had been instances of traffic instances in the area of Raising Canes. Beals stated he did not have actual accident figures available but had heard anecdotally of a few accidents in the vicinity. Commission members stated they have all experienced the traffic back -ups created by traffic queuing problems and have noticed improvements since the double drive-through lane was opened. Commission member Lawton asked if the primary ordering sign could be reduced in size, so that the combination of the pre-sale and point-of-order signs could be within the allowable sign area? Waller responded that this could potentially be the case but did not want to answer definitely at this point because he personally is not responsible for the creation/design of the specific signs. Lawton noted that perhaps one of the existing panes on the existing menu signs could be removed in order to spread the allowable sign area amongst more signs. La Mastra asked for clarification regarding the adjacent buildings; Beals noted that there is a combination of residential and commercial properties . Vice Chair Shuff added that there is a 6 to 8-foot retaining wall behind the property, which helps to break up the environment. La Mastra asked the applicant if digital signs had been considered; Waller stated he could follow up with the sign maker to discuss that possibility. Land Use Review Commission Page 5 March 10, 2022 Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff stated his opinion that this request is a bit of a tough one. Shuff acknowledged that there is obviously a bit of an issue with the current traffic flow, so every few seconds gained to speed up ordering helps. Shuff stated this could potentially be viewed as a hardship justification. Looking at the impact, the proposed sign location is behind College Ave, so wouldn’t have much impact from that viewpoint. The larger impact may be to t he adjoining properties to the south and east; however, the presence of a double-lane drive through is already a significant impact so at some point it is all relative. Shuff stated he would like to see the signs a bit smaller, in an attempt to fit within the standard sign allowance. This may be a feasible compromise for the applicant. Chair La Mastra stated her difficulty with granting approval of this request, in part because in La Mastra’s opinion the applicant did not do a good job of presenting on hardship. In fact, when looking at the application request there is nothing in the application or letter that refers to hardship or nominal and inconsequential justifications. The Commission is tasked with making determinations based on those justification standards. While it can be done very easily, and may be means for approval, within our bounds for approval it is difficult to come to those conclusions for approval. Assistant City Attorney Claire Havelda offered comment, directing Commission’s attention to Land Use Code Section 2.10.4(H)(1): the last part of the hardship analysis says that the hardship cannot be caused by act or omission of the occupant or applicant. This is offered for considerati on. Additionally, subsection 2 of that, when we talk about support the purpose of the land use code. There has been discussion of traffic and safety, so may be a better fit for the conversation. La Mastra asked Havelda for clarification regarding safety concerns, which are created due to large volumes of business/customers. How would the Commission approve based on that? Havelda responded to La Mastra’s question, statin g that it depends on which part of the Code the decision is anchored upon. When we look at Land Use Code Section 2.10.4(H), subsections (1), (2) and (3) are all “or” statements, not “and” statements. So, you can look at hardship OR fulfilling the Land Use Code. It is also up to the Commission to determine who has created the hardship. Shuff stated that based on Havelda’s statements and information, we do appear to have the means to come up with hardship justification. When it was originally created with one lane, it functioned fine for a while. It has been a change in eating culture and habits over the last few years that have affected the drive-through lanes usage. Could the applicant trim the sign down 26%, and get it down to 30 square feet? That would allow for an additional sign without going over the limit. La Mastra commented that because the requested sign would be 26% over the allowable square footage, it would necessitate significantly reducing the size of the proposed new signs or re-doing their entire main sign. Shuff stated that he believed this would give the applicant opti ons. Commission member Lawton commented that he believes there are indeed options that may be looked upon more favorably by the Commission. Looking at ordering location and signage there, it may involve limiting signage there. There is good intent to reduce the amount of time customers spend in queue, but there may have been easier ways to achieve that rather than putting up more signage beyond what is allowable. Commission member Meyer agrees that this is definitely a numbers game, and the applicant has not supplied numbers for review. It would be great to see some statistics about traffic flow through a drive through, by providing additional signs. Would also like to see statistics about how many traffic incidents/accidents have occurred at that location. It seems to be a legitimate safety hazard. IT would be nice to have more knowledge about whether these signs are helpful in that regards. The Commission is now comparing a sign code about a little bit more of an eye sore compared to a legitimate safety hazard. It seems like a no-brainer – whatever we can do to help the situation is important to do. Meyer stated his surprise that this issue is now coming before the Land Use Review Commission, rather than being addressed by city engineering or another similar group. IT seems to make sense that adding these couple signs could improve traffic, as has the addition of the second Land Use Review Commission Page 6 March 10, 2022 drive-through lane. Perhaps the applicant can be encouraged to reduce signage to meet the overall 30 square foot maximum while still achieving their goal. La Mastra commented we have discussed Starbucks quite a bit, who also experiences high volume of traffic through its drive-through lane, which is also accessed off S College Ave. However, Starbucks sells primarily drinks and snacks, so it is not an apples-to-apples comparison when discussing sign square footage. Menu needs and number of entries included may be different and necessitate different types of signs. La Mastra continued, stating that she understands the issue of sign clut ter, but looking at the pictures of the site you can see large retaining walls directly behind and to the south of the property, which is itself surrounded by built landscaping. Therefore, we may be able to consider the request based on the justification of nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood, because there really isn’t a lot of impact created by the proposed placement of the signs. La Mastra stated her willingness to support the request as-is but would not be in support of asking the applicants to re-do their entire signage on their property in order to meet the 30 square foot maximum. Commission member McCoy stated he completely agreed with the previous statements offered by La Mastra and added that anything that helps to take standing/queued traffic off S College Ave is all part of Midtown trying to improve. Traffic jams and standing cars in the far-right lane only make things worse. This variance should be granted based on the issue of safety alone. La Mastra agreed with McCoy’s statements and said she would agree with approving based on either Havelda’s recommendation, or on the basis of nominal and inconsequential based on the photos of the neighborhood context and surrounding areas. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to APPROVE ZBA220007 for the following reasons: based on Section 2.10.4(H), the variance will be nominal and inconsequential in relation to it being behind the primary building, and the adjacent properties to the east and south have large retaining walls; to the north is landscaping. Based on these elements, the signage is not very visible to the public right of way. Beals asked Shuff for clarification if the Commission would be limiting the size of the second sign to what is being proposed. Shuff stated his motion stands on the request as submitted. Beals asked if this motion passes and someone wanted to replace the sign, it would still be limited to the size as submitted. Shuff confirmed this to be accurate. Havelda asked for clarification, asking if in the motion put forth by Shuff is considering subsection (3) – nominal and inconsequential when compared to the neighborhood or if it stands also non subsection (2) – safety considerations. Shuff made an amendment to his motion, to include the consideration of subsection (2) as additional grounds for justification. Yeas: Meyer, La Mastra, McCoy, Shuff Nays: Lawton THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Land Use Review Commission Page 7 March 10, 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on W Mountain Ave, near the corner of W Mountain Ave and S Grant Ave. There is an existing primary house and an existing accessory building. The existing primary building does have some second-floor level to it. In this case, we are demoing the existing second floor and building a new second floor. Beals explained that the request would entail going from a non-conforming use, demoing that, and asking for a variance to come back to what is there a maybe a bit over. Beals presented pictures of the current and proposed structures, stating the existing building does have some portions of the second floor that currently used as living space, and other sections that are used as attic storage areas. The proposed structure would include a true second floor that extends to the entirety of the building footprint. The south elevation shows more of the existing second floor, while the north elevation currently appears to be more of a single-story space. Commission member Lawton asked Beals to confirm that the current second-story space is non- conforming as far as usage. Beals clarified that the current second story is non -conforming based on square footage. Commission member Meyer asked Beals if proposed eave heights are in compliance with Land Use Code requirements? Beals stated that eave height requirements pertain to accessory buildings; we are considering the wall heigh requirements for primary buildings. The proposed building should meet the requirements for wall heights. Beals stated the wall height maximum is stated as 18 feet; wall heights within the elevation are noted as 17 feet 10 inches. Vice Chair Shuff asked if we have a break-down of existing upper floor area versus the proposed space in terms of total square footage. Beals directed Shuff to page 26 of the Hearing packet. Shuff stated that the way it is being presented, the existing and proposed FAR appear to be the same. Beals concurred, noting the N-C-L zone district has its own way of calculating floor area. The applicant can help to clarify the specific uses within the proposed second story area. Shuff asked Beals if it were safe to assume that the current primary structure was built under a previous version of the N-C-L zoning requirements. Beals agreed that it would be safe to assume that to be true. Additionally, different portions of the house were probably approved a different times/part within N-C-L. Application Presentation: Applicant representative Steve Josephs addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the hearing in a hybrid format. Josephs stated the current second story is “all over the place ” and is carpeted wall-to- wall except for a vaulted area just to the left of the front door. Josephs stated he attempted to calculate some percentages based on various wall heights but was later asked to do it as a square footage of the whole second floor. When calculated in this manner, the proposal would not add any additional square footage, which is already over the allowable maximum. The homeowners want to make changes; how would one justify making changes while also reducing the overall square footage and thus reducing property value? Instead, the applicants believe the best thing to d o is to take the existing Land Use Review Commission Page 8 March 10, 2022 footprint, ensure overall heights are in compliance, and reconstruct a new second story. Josephs offered a few reasons for doing so, including a history of multiple additions to the property which present differing floor heights/uneven floors. A new second-floor platform above first story walls would provide a new, consistent floor level. The current homeowners are looking to clean -up and simplify the flow of the second story. Chair La Mastra asked Josephs to clarify the “they” referred to when Josephs stated he was directed to calculate as existing floor area, asking he was referring to City staff. Josephs affirmed that he was directed to calculate in this manner by City staff. Commission Discussion: Vice Chair Shuff stated he knew the previous owner of the house and can confirm the assessment of the second floor as being pretty cut up. The addition does end up being a lot of square footage, and the vaulted area in the front is counted as part of FAR. The current home has a smal ler roof from than the proposed structure; the front portion of the second level does create a bit more square footage than what is there today. Shuff stated his appreciation for the applicant’s attempt to keep the eave line low as possible, to meet land use code there. The house is large for the lot, but the footprint does already exist. The Commission today is looking at size and scale. Chair La Mastra asked, when viewing the east and west elevations of the new structure, where the smaller roof line ends, and the larger roof line begins. How much of the house is being raised u compared to current? Josephs indicated the transition occurs approximately mid-way back, where the roof hips up a bit over the fourth window from front. Josephs stated the interior wall height below the lower roof portion is 11 feet before the angle of the roof begins. La Mastra asked Josephs if he could provide an overall height of new and existing gable roofs, for comparison. La Mastra commented that the proposed structure presents a massive side elevation. If superimposed over the existing elevation, how much massing is actually being added? When viewing the aerial view, the home appears to be significantly longer than neighboring homes. Shuff commented that the home was originally a one-story front, technically with eleven-foot walls before the 14-foot portion. If one really examined that condition today, where the 14-foot offset occurs, it would not be the full area. What is being proposed is increasing floor area. Beals stated when you have something that is non-conforming and you self-demo, you can’t automatically bring back/reconstruct what was there, but instead have to reconstruct back in a way that is in compliance. The simple calculation was to look at basic square footage and bring that back in the reconstruction. However, there are different roof forms and pitches in what is being proposed when compared to existing. So, it does seem to be an increase in what is existing in that sense. Shuff commented that this is something that needs to be considered; what level of demolition triggers compliance? There is a line there, but that line may not be defined. Beals stated that if you are removing square footage and then bringing it back, that definitely triggers a need for compliance. Josephs stated they are trying to maintain existing first-floor walls; some window locations will be changing but the goal is to maintain the current framing as much as possible. Josephs also answered a previous question regarding eave/roof heights, indicating the existing roof peak is approximately 21 feet; the new building peak would be approximately 25 feet. Commission member Meyer stated that if we were comparing the proposed design to existing, we may be able to argue that it is nominal and inconsequential. However, the challenge is that we are comparing the proposed to what is allowed. Nothing about this is nominal and inconsequential when compared to what is allowed by the Land Use Code. Meyer commented that when reading the applicant’s letter, none of the items included check the box for nominal and inconsequential when comparing to what is allowed by Code. Meyer stated his opinion that it appears to be too much above Land Use Review Commission Page 9 March 10, 2022 and beyond, with the added fact that we are demoing what is grandfathered in and not allowed already. That seems to be a self-imposed hardship. Meyer recommended that it be in the best interest of the applicant if they can what they can do to work around the existing condition s as best as possible. As presented, Meyer does not feel he can su pport a request that is so far from the allowable code. La Mastra agreed with the comments offered by Meyer, adding that we can’t look at this in context of what is already existing. Based on information offered by Beals, when a structure is demoed, it effectively reverts back to “ground zero” in relation to code and current requirements. If we were presented this with a 40% increase, we would never call this nominal and inconsequential. As proposed, the entire front half of the property is now floor area. La Mastra stated that given this context, it is harder to support the request. Shuff agreed with the comments offered by Meyer and La Mastra. Shuff stated that if the intent were to merely remodel the existing second floor, without physically changing the confines of what was previously built, it may be easier to approve. By capturing the front area within the proposed reconstruction in addition to the already substantial remainder of the project, it becomes difficult to justify based on what is allowed and what is requested. La Mastra asked Beals if he could provide clarification regarding where the code defines the demolition: is it due to the fact that the entire second floor is coming down? Is it tied to the need to pull a building permit to re-do the interior without changing the footprint? Where is that line? Beals responded that he would find that specific answer, and in the meantime provide some background. Beals commented the Land Use Code and Building Code need to work together in this type of instance, to determine for instance what is a complete demo vs. renovation? In past, we have seen examples such as: a wall of a house was encroaching into a setback. They were able to get it down to the studs and leave them in place, then build off of that wall. That interpretation has happened in the past; with building code updates and a new chief official, that interpretation has been questioned. Is that truly an alteration, or a complete restructure? In near past, it has been titled a complete restructure rather than alteration. We have looked at this in different eras, just as this home was built over different eras. Beals stated that right now, we would stand that even leaving just a wall is not enough to say it is just an alteration, when it is really a reconstruction of an entire floor. At this point, it is something that is left for interpretation by City staff, and then could be appealed to the Building Review Board or this Commission as well. Shuff commented based on Beals information, that potentially if the applicant wanted to leave the second-floor walls in place, make corrections to the second floor, maybe even look at re -roofing that portion, that they would truly not be changing the essence of what is there today. Shuff comments his belief there is nuance within what level of alteration there is, and it gets a little fuzzy. There is opportunity to make minor modifications to the upper level, but not really to change the condition of the front area. La Mastra stated what she believed she heard from Beals, which is even to correct the existing second-floor as far as bringing portions to the same level, without changing massing or heights, that would be considered to be a demo, and would still be subject to this Commission to approve floor area ratio, even if there were no changes to the elevations. That seems problematic if one can’t fix structural issues in certain instances i.e. what if a tree branch fell on that portion. Beals responded that on a non-conforming structure, if there is a natural disaster you are allowed to reconstruct a non-conforming structure. In this instance, the structure is in place and may not be ideal, but it seems to be we’d issue a permit for it being sound, so it is really a case of self-demoing a non- conforming structure, and if you want to bring it back it should be coming into compliance or seeking a variance from this Commission. Land Use Review Commission Page 10 March 10, 2022 Commission member Lawton agreed with Beals’ assessment, stating that in respect to this particular project what is being demoed is considered the non-conforming space. Then the expectation would be whatever design comes back would be conforming. Lawton can understand that expectation moving forward. Additionally, this proposed structure would be massive and needs to be considered in the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Commission member McCoy commented this is one of the hardest types of cases the Commission hears, wherein an applicant wants to improve a potentially non-conforming structure and not substantially change it. In comparison to what is there and what they want to do, there is no much difference. Meyer responded that when comparing what is proposed to what is existing we may be able to argue nominal and inconsequential; but we can’t make that argument when we compare the proposed to what is allowed by the Land Use Code. McCoy stated from his point of view, this reconstruction would make the property more valuable, and would also create increased valuation for surrounding properties. In that argument, there are less bounds on rules and regulations, so it may not be a legitimate argument. McCoy agrees with the first part of Meyer’s assessment, which is that the proposed is not that different from what is currently there. Because of this, McCoy would be in support of granting the variance. Meyer asked McCoy if he could still stand on his argument knowing that what is there will be removed? McCoy responded in reference to Shuff’s earlier comments, asking if there would in fact be any more floor space created. Shuff confirmed more floor space would be created. McCoy again stated this was a hard decision, as he believes the addition to the home would increase individual and neighborhood property values, and it isn’t significantly different from what is already there. La Mastra commented that one thing that helps the existing house is the front elevation, which is smaller. On the really narrow lots, one doesn’t perceive the full mass from street view. If the second story on the new version were to be stepped back, would that help? Shuff commented that was his thought behind his previous comments; what if a remodel was allowed to for the existing second floor, keeping the existing walls. That way it maintains the existing condition and the current FAR is set up. If there are no physical changes to the existing FA R, there would not be as big an issue as it would not change the ratio of the front façade. As proposed, the new front façade would be taller, more massive, and picks up floor area that isn’t currently there. La Mastra summarized the conversation, noting that there did not appear to be consensus amongst the Commission to approve the request as presented. La Mastra asked the applicant if they would be interested in tabling the item and coming back to it for a continuance, and maybe making some modifications based on the conversation? Or would they prefer that the Commission make a decision today? Applicant representative Josephs stated the evolution of the project began with an attempt to build under existing conditions. After multiple efforts, the homeow ners were not in favor of what was being suggested. Without starting over, there may not be a path forward. Josephs stated that it wouldn’t hurt to table the item and try again but was not confident his clients would feel comfortable moving forward. La Mastra asked for clarification regarding process, asking that if a decision were to be made to deny the request, would the applicant need to endure a waiting period before re-applying. Beals indicated there would be a required waiting period if the exact same design and request were to be submitted. There is not a waiting period for this commission if an applicant submits a re -designed or reduced request. Land Use Review Commission Page 11 March 10, 2022 Based upon Beals clarification, La Mastra again asked Josephs if he would prefer that the item be tabled for a continuance, of if he preferred that the Commission make a motion today. Josephs asked if a continuance meant he would need to come back with an alternative design. La Mastra confirmed, stating for example that a new design might include modifications to the step backs and changes to the front façade that would reduce mass potentially. Beals commented that a continuance may mean that the applicant wants to re-do the design and come back with changes, or they want to keep their design and come back with additional information that is not presented at this time. Continuance based on a re-design would need to be submitted rather quickly in order to be placed on the May or possible June agenda. Josephs asked how much more time a continuance would provide. Beals stated that application deadline for May’s meeting has already lapsed, so a continuance would provide an opportunity to move the item to May without a new application. A continuance would also not introduce a new application fee. Josephs stated his preference to table the item for continuance to the May 2022 Land Use Commission Hearing. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton to CONTINUE ZBA220008 until May 2022, or a later time of the applicants choosing, up to six month s from today. Yeas: Meyer, La Mastra, McCoy, Lawton, Shuff Nays: THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS TABLE TO THE MAY 2022 MEETING **Break La Mastra granted a five-minute break at 10:10am** **Break ended at 10:17am; Hearing was resumed** ROLL CALL: All Commission members were present. 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located mid-block on Edwards Street. This property was included in a previous request made to the Commission by a previous potential buyer, who was requesting for a home occupation to be used in the secondary building on the property. That sale did not go through. Beals noted the secondary building is not a dwelling unit, it is just an accessory building, and provides more space for the occupants of the primary building. Beals described the request, noting it is a request to build a second story on a non-conforming structure. This building is an existing one-story building; the non-conformity comes from the side setback. The building is almost right on the property line, w ith .08 feet of space between the building and the property line. The request is to continue the existing location of the wall up to the second floor. A permit would have been issued if the second story walls were moved back to meet the five-foot setback requirement. Land Use Review Commission Page 12 March 10, 2022 Beals presented pictures of the existing structure along with renderings of the proposed structure. Some design elements are included in an attempt to meet an 18-foot wall height, with wall bends mimicking eave height elements. Pictures of the property line stake presented by Beals show how close the existing wall is to the lot line, which is further evident in a lot improvement survey drawing included in the materials. There is an existing driveway on the west side of the property, and the property does have rear alley access. The existing accessory building is visible from the alley and is seen in photographs taken from the alley perspective. Beals re-stated the two-fold nature of the request: 1) to build within the existing side setback, and 2) the second-floor addition would add square footage, putting them over the allotment by just over 50 square feet of what is allowed on the property. Commission member Lawton asked Beals if he could identify the age of the current structure. Beals stated the building was originally constructed in 1900. Beals noted the first Land Use Code was adopted by the city in 1929. Commission member Shuff asked Beals to confirm that if the applicant were to use the existing east wall in its current location, but then step back the second story to comply with the required setback, that would be allowed. Beals confirmed this as accurate. Existing wall could be used, and new construction would need to be stepped back in order to comply. Application Presentation: Applicant Mark Taylor Clifton addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the hearing in a hybrid format. Clifton stated that one of the reasons to bring the new wall to the lot line was to mitigate runoff to the neighboring property. Right now, as the roof sits, there is a small gray gable where there used to be a widow-walk roof with a diamond and a flat roof. Water damage is visible from the interior. At s ome point somebody built a small roof over the top, which caused drainage to flow to the neighboring lot. Clifton explained that by bringing the second story wall completely up, it will take the water that would have run off the side to the neighbor and control the flow in a better way. La Mastra asked the applicant if gutters could address the runoff problems. The applicant stated that the proposed plan does not include gutters, and even as it is the eave overhang is illegal. Because it is on the lot line, technically nothing should be overhanging. Any overhang into the neighboring property is not allowed. La Mastra asked Beals how zero lot line water runoff is handled for neighboring properties. Where is the balance between approving a setback and addressing water issues with neighboring properties? Beals stated that based on his knowledge of the Building Code, the code would say don’t cross the lot line. Depending on how close they are to the lot line, some elements would require additional fire rating. Beals is not sure what a gutter fire rating would be. Is there a way to ask for a variance to a building code? Yes. It may also necessitate some negotiation with neighbors. Beals asked if there may be a way to adjust the structure to keep everything within lot lines? Perhaps, but it would require more effort, time and cost. Beals commented he is unsure if there is another instrument for recording the crossing of the property line wherein those crossed portions would also be sold together. Commission member Lawton asked the applicant to describe how water drainage is changed or mitigated in the proposed design. The applicant explained that the roof valley would shed water to the front and rear corners of the home, where he is able to install catch gutters. Commission member Meyer asked if the existing roof currently overhangs into the neighboring property, and by approximately how much. The applicant indicated the existing roof does overhang the Land Use Review Commission Page 13 March 10, 2022 neighbor’s yard by approximately seven inches at the front and approximately two inches at the rear, due to the structure being built at a slight angle. Commission member Shuff provided information regarding the fire rating requirements, noting that it is a one hour rated, zero to three feet, and no openings allowed. Technically, a window wouldn’t even be allowed at that distance. As far as general discussion items, S huff stated his understanding of the desire to try to use the full footprint; however, Shuff is of the opinion that the second floor really needs to step back. A bad condition should not be made worse by making it into a second level. Shuff does not see how the Commission could justify that. Additionally, there are some problems with the drainage. If you look at it by the hard line of the code, you would almost need to create a parapeted roof with literally no overhangs. Even a gutter would project 4-5 inches. There may be options and constraints that create opportunities for design. Shuff commented the increase in floor space is nominal, but the zero lot line conditions present here create a tough situation. La Mastra commented that perhaps her next question is a moot point given Shuff’s previous point regarding openings from 1-3 feet from property lines; but asked the applicant to describe the size and the sill height of the second story windows. The applicant responded that the sill height of the second story windows is 4 foot 8 inches, and measure 12 inches by 18 inches. La Mastra asked Beals if the side were to have larger dormers, how would that work with the setbacks. Beals stated dormers usually do need to meet the setback; there may be an allowanc e to encroach to a middle distance. Beals offered to check code for final clarification. Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer commented regards to the extra square footage, he views that element of the request as nominal and inconsequential and can support the request. In regard to the setback, if the upper floor windows were to be removed from the design, then all you have is essentially a roof replacement, wherein a lower-sloped roof is removed and replaced with a higher-sloped roof on top, at the same time reducing the roof overhang so that it doesn’t cross the property line while also fixing a drainage problem. Meyer stated he thinks it is a great proposal; there are issues with the windows on the property line that need to be addressed by the Building Department, but that is not in our purview. As long as the new roof is minimizing overhang as much as possible and using good flashing and doing detail properly, the request can almost be viewed as a roof replacement project. La Mastra asked Meyer how he felt about the wall extension; Meyer responded that the new wall basically a gable, to the point that it is almost a story and a half design, not a true second level. Shuff agreed with the argument, noting that only 1/3 to ½ of the space is usable living space on the second level. Shuff asked Meyer how he felt about the flared wall as proposed. Meyer commented he didn’t understand the flared wall, other than it being an attempt to meet the 18-foot height requirement. Meyer stated what is interesting is that element is not being proposed as a variance request. Why is that? The applicant stated that the design of the wall is within the bounds of the code; it goes up to 18 feet and then steps back at the required 2:1 ratio. It is still on the lot line, hence the request for variance. Meyer asked Beals for clarification of wall height requirements, stating his understanding that code measures the 18-foot maximum to the top of the wall, but has nothing to do with the roof. So, one could have a roof over 18 feet tall as long as there is n o wall under it. Beals responded the 18-foot wall height is a standard at a five-foot setback, not a zero-lot line. That is why a variance is needed in this instance. La Mastra commented despite the element being labelled a wall or roof it still doesn’t matter, as code is concerned with the area defined between the top roof angle down to the black horizontal line. That is Land Use Review Commission Page 14 March 10, 2022 the part that is out of compliance. Typically, when encroaching in, there is a correlating reduction. Here, we are encroaching 90%+ without and reduction. Meyer asked the applicant for the height of the peak of that wall. The applicant responded the height of the peak measures at 23.1 feet. La Mastra commented there are multiple reasons why we have these setbacks, including fire code issues, privacy, and others. When a structure with windows is right at a lot line and can look directly down on adjacent properties, that may need to be addressed by the Building Code. La Mastra stated her curiosity regarding dormers – this side window and wall element look almost like a really large dormer. La Mastra wondered if we could accommodate the front elevation, which is very nice. La Mastra would be more agreeable to running a 5-inch gutter on the side of the house rather than building up an 18-foot wall height on a zero-lot line. That seems not comparable in impact. Beals commented that in some cases there are certain elements allow encroachment into the setback. If there were a dormer at the five-foot setback, and it was flush with the lower level, it would be considered as part of the wall height and would need to maintain the 18-foot wall height. La Mastra asked what types/sizes of dormers could be allowed, and the differentiation between a window face and a wall. Beals explained that in cases when the dormer is not flush with the wall below it, you draw the imaginary line angle, and if the dormer fits in the line, then it can work. La Mastra asked if dormers are allowed encroachments; Beals stated that they are not. Shuff stated there has to be a distinction between a re-roof being a gable-end to an attic vs. a gable- end to finished space. There is a subtlety there. Shuff commented that he is struggling with this request, especially given the zero-lot line nature of the proposal. Even two or three feet can be difficult. Shuff understands this is an existing condition, but once you propose to change something, where does this Commission draw the line in what is being brought up to code? La Mastra agreed with Shuff’s comments, stating that we do need to be clear about what our basis line is. As proposed, La Mastra would not be in support of the request. Commission member Lawton asked Beals if there were any neighbor correspondence submitted or received for this variance request. Beals respond ed that he had not received any contacts from neighbors. Beals commented there is a non-essential driveway to the west, and perhaps that represents an alternative area to create additional square footage. There may also be alternative means to correct drainage without increasing square footage right in the setback. The applicant stated he did speak with the neighbors who indicated they were happy with the project; La Mastra responded that it was difficult for the Commission to not have those statements officially submitted for the record, because it then becomes hearsay. La Mastra reiterated that this request has two variances. one to increase square footage and the other to increase wall height. La Mastra stated that based on the current discussion, she would be in favor of increasing square footage but is not in support of increasing wall height on a zer o-lot line. There are safety and privacy concerns, especially when the Building Code calls for no openings and fire ratings. There is a reason why we have setbacks of structures, and this could add to a potential safety hazard situation. Meyer commented that what is interesting is that by denying the encroachment setback, there is also a denial of the extra square footage, because it can no longer be fit in the current design. La Mastra stated that as Beals pointed out, they could put the additional square footage someplace else in a redesign. Once approved for the additional square footage, the applicant would not need to come back with a re-design assuming that the re-designed additional square footage meets all other requirements. Land Use Review Commission Page 15 March 10, 2022 Shuff asked the applicant if they would prefer a continuance to provide time for a re -design. Applicant Clifton stated his preference for a continuance, so long as it would not be a waste of the Commission’s time. If they think right now that a five-foot setback is appropriate at this time, he can redesign from that. La Mastra stated three feet is the cut-off for windows to be allowed, per building code. So, there would be a two-foot potential encroachment. Beals stated that if the applicant is willing to entertain the modifications as discussed, perhaps the Commission would entertain a motion to approve at a three-foot setback rather than zero-lot line. La Mastra commented it is hard to approve something that has not yet been seen. Meyer questioned how the gutter is then addressed? La Mastra responded there is a difference for fire code between a five-inch gutter and a wall. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to CONTINUE ZBA220009 to May 2022, or a later time of the applicants choosing, up to six months from today. Yeas: Meyer, La Mastra, Mc Coy, Lawton, Shuff Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS TABLED TO A LATER DATE 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the Commission has previously heard this application earlier this year. The Commission did entertain a variance request for a similar proposed building and setback. The applicants and owner have refined their proposal and have a new request before the Commission. This property is on N Grant Avenue, second from the north alley. There is an existing shed on the property that does encroach into the setback. The design is to replace the existing structure with a new structure and maintain a similar setback. The new wall would be almost in line with existing in both location and length. The habitable space portion of the building is not setback to m eet the minimum five-foot setback. The workshop and bathroom area is still proposed in a similar encroachment to existing. Beals noted there are no windows on the east wall that face the property line. There is a small window in the wall jog, bit it does not face into the neighbors’ property. Street view photographs show the driveway that leads from street to the existing shed building. Views from the alley side show a six-foot fence running roughly along the property line, as well as the placement of the existing shed. This request is essentially a new variance request because it is a refinement of the proposed design that was heard previously and can now be considered again. Commission member Lawton asked Beals to describe the significant changes bet ween the original request/design and the one currently presented. Beals explained two main things to note: the applicant performed a survey and determined exact property lines; and the previous proposed building wall Land Use Review Commission Page 16 March 10, 2022 length along the north property line did not include the current jog. Therefore, the entire length of the proposed wall was encroaching into the setback. The current proposal has reduced the bedroom size and taken the wall back in to meet the required five-foot setback. Lawton asked what decision the Commission came to last time; Beals indicated that the previous request for variance was denied. Application Presentation: Applicant representative Collins Ferris, Designer, addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the hearing in a hybrid format. Ferris noted that based on the feedback from the initial meeting, it was deemed consequential that the entire 36-foot length of the wall was encroaching into the setback, and it would be more amenable if the project were more of a replacement of th e existing structure/encroachment. Ferris referred to additional comments made in the previous meeting that perhaps the building could be moved to an alternative site on the property, though that was deemed to not be feasible due to existing matured landscape beds. Additionally, the applicant is wanting to improve their workshop space and maintain the current access with the existing drive. The current workshop has zero insulation and is constructed from simple stud framing. The new structure will the insu lated, with sounds protections built in. The new proposed structure will maintain the existing footprint and bring some elements into compliance regarding setback. Chair La Mastra thanks the applicant for their willingness to address concerns and come back again with a re-design; it appears to be well improved. Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff agrees with the statement offered by La Mastra, agreeing that it appears to be an improvement of design and the structure is nice and simple with minimal scale. Shuff does not have any problems with the current design. Commission member Lawton recalled previous discussions regarding how the building could be modified; the redesign seems to have taken some of those ideas into consideration while also pulling the habitable space within the required setback. Lawton stated his support for the current request. Commission member Meyer offered his support for the request, expressing his appreciating for the applicant’s efforts to make design changes as well as performing the survey to ensure precision. The current design seems to fix the challenges that were identified during the previous hearing. Commission Member Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff to Approve ZBA220010 for the following reasons: 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. The granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good; there is an existing six- foot fence between the properties on the property line; the encroachment is limited to the workshop portion, and the workshop portion is 9 feet in height and 23 feet in length, and there are no windows on the encroachment facing the north property line. Yeas: Meyer, La Mastra, Mc Coy, Lawton, Shuff Nays: - THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS Beals noted that we will continue to meet in-person for next month’s meeting. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 11:11am Land Use Review Commission Page 17 March 10, 2022 Shelley La Mastra, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 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 some of the non-conforming increase of the floor area and rebuild to the existing encroachment. 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 approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The existing wall heights and building height will be maintained. • The foot print of the existing structure does not change. 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 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 $GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR WKHSURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVV VKDOORZQHVVRUWRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQG H[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG WKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRUhardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW VHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG equallywell or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLV UHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential wayZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location 9,578$/21/<YLD=RRP LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWRWKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ Date 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPH DP ’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/dd E^dd D Ed yW>/E/E'd, Z ^KE&KZd, sZ/E Z Yh ^dZ Yh/Z s/ ^ WZd KhD Ed͘ 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 ! ! "#"$%&'' & & "#"$%&'' (#' (#' )**&+#,-.+#,'+#,-'+&,+/, - +$,+/,-(+#, 0 ! 1233)456547 0 ! 1486 -5%33 0 ! 0 ! 9%1356:23%4583446456* 6%439%86;% <36266"#"$%&'' &'' & & "#"$%&'' (#' (#' )*.+/,-'+/,+/,-+$,+/,-(+#, 0 ! 1233)456547 0 ! 1486 <633*6 % *3*3%21% 4-5%45 91% 4%3*3<3=>+;%%45435 <633+)*92148<5-4)%+3=)456545% #&#&&(&(&(&("#' &&&&&&&&&&&&& ' &$' & ' ####//####////##(' "#' (' &$' "' &'' //####//##//''''&'' #/#/#/#/2 )*:&,"+':&, +#(+#,-/+/,+/,-/+/,&+$,-"+.,$+,-'+#,"#+.,-.+#,&'+#,-+ , 2=*38 8 ? =548 ! : 0 0 148)233! @ 0 A ! @ ! ? 0 0 0 4; ? 0 ? 0 @ -5%45 92=-5%45 9*3812331482 &#(#28&$(#28'#' &$(#28"#' &$(#28&$(#28(#' &'' ."' &#(#28&$(#28&$(#28&$(#28&#' &$' "'' $' &$(#28&$(#28 ' &'"$28&'' &$' &'"$282 )*$+/, +&,'+(:&,'(+.:&,"+., +$,&+$:&,&.+:&,#+(,-+',"+/,-.+',&'+$,-&+/,'+,-/+/,&+&,-/+#,$+,-$+#,+#,- .+(,&'+",-&+#,'+(,-+',3<<565;5 9148=548 65;5 925 5 9 47*382= 5 <633$<5*6-5%45 95 <633*3*3%25 <633%3*3<3=>+235 45366%+5 %466 5 23%+ 6456B 2*6)15 9483)983)4+ 5 %)6453 2766 25 453<5 5%8%+ 48625 4<633845 9%7%4 2 "#"$28$'' "#"$28&$"#%"#"$28"#"$28"#"$28"#"$28"#"$28&#&.28"/' &'' &'' &$' "#' &'' "#' )*'#+$,-#+ ,&+&,-&.+,'+',-/+&,#+&,- +,$+ ,- +',#+&,-#+',#+$,-$+,#+&,-(+(,3* 163%4)271233123363%4148%4148%412&'"$28&'"#28&#' "#(#28&'&'"#(#28"#(#28"#"$28"#"$28&'$'28&'$'28&'(&&'(&&'' &'(&&'(&' ' &'' &'&&'' &'(&"'+,-.+/,/+',-(+#,+,-/+,/+/,-(+",$+ ,-+&, +#,-(+/,$+ ,-"+',(+.,-"+(,+",- +,$+',-(+#, $+,-(+#,123314863%46) 27%4148%41263%43<<5866445445'0 (0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 0 %3 2<633*6 $*3*3%2%3 2<633-5%45 9%3 2<6339%<5*6 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4215 Fox Grove Dr. Owner: Melody Homes dba DR Horton Petitioner: Derek Hofferber, VP of Construction Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(2) Variance Request: This is a request to allow a newly constructed house to encroach a total of 2 feet into the required 15-foot corner side setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is was annexed into the City in 2005 part of the State Highway 14 East Frontage Road Annexation. Later in 2020 it received development approval part of the Fox Grove Subdivision second filing. This filing contains 47 single-family detached lots. The property is a corner lot that is approximately 69’x103’. This lot size and lot width is larger than most in this filing. The initial site plan submitted as part of the building permit application indicated a 16.5’ street side setback and a 7’ interior side setback. An updated site plan removed a third car garage bay and adjusted the setbacks to 18’ street side setback and 10 interior side setback. What was constructed was a three-car garage. All though there would have been room to adjust the building to comply with the setbacks the west side was constructed at a 10ft interior side setback leaving only a 13’ street side setback. 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. • A six-foot fence could be constructed within the 15’ setback. • There is not an existing neighborhood south of the property. 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 ZBA220011. Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220012 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1020 E Lincoln Ave. Owner: Freddy Bensch Petitioner: Kristin Zipkin, Signage Provider / Marie Hashaw, DaVinci Sign Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.2(G)(2) Variance Request: This variance has two requests: 1) To allow a freestanding sign in the Downtown Sign District to be approximately 2.66 feet over the maximum allowable 11 feet. 2) To allow light fixtures that point upward; required BUG ratings prohibit lights that point directly up into the sky. The maximum allowable up light rating would be a U1. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a part of the 1974 Northeast consolidated annexation. In 2009 it received development approval to construct the Fort Collins Brewery. This sight was later sold to Red Truck brewery, who made additional improvements to the site. Red Truck was recently purchased by Sweetwater Brewery. After this purchase the site when through additional improvements including rebranding of the site. A sign permit was submitted that included a freestanding that is a 3D image of the Sweetwater Brewery marketing. It was brought to the attention of the applicant that there were some compliance issues with the sign. The applicant of the permit indicated that it was not part of the signage they were completing and it could be removed from the application. It was then indicated that this freestanding sign would require a separate sign permit in the future. At the time of inspection for the signs that remained on the sign application the inspector found the freestanding sign was installed. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval for the additional 2.66ft in height and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • There is a detention pond in front of the building making it difficult to locate the sign off the elevated deck. • The portion of the sign that is the 3D image is 11ft in height. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 2 Further Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial of the increase of up lighting and finds that: • The direct up lighting has negative impacts to the purpose of the standard to decrease light pollution • There are other locations to place lights to illuminate the sign • There are already building lights that will provide some level of lighting in the area. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval for increase sign height and denial of non-compliant lighting of APPEAL ZBA220012. 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 VARIANCE APPLICATION DATE: 4/11/2022 SITE ADDRESS: 1020 E Lincoln Ave, Fort Collins, CO SUBJECT: Sweetwater Brewery Variance To Whom It May Concern, This letter is to provide additional context regarding the requested variance for Sweetwater Brewery. The primary reason for this variance request is due to a question of height on the fish statue located along their building closest to the intersection of 9th Street and E Lincoln Ave. The overall height of the fish statue itself is 142" tall; however, because of where it is placed on the staging deck, it exceeds the allowance set forth according to Division 3.8.7.1(E)(4) states that it is measured from the flowline to the top of the sign by approximately 22 inches +/-. Variance is also to address the added up-lighting and the BUG rating for those lighting fixtures. Additionally, I’d like to note that the monument located along 9th Street (which has been removed), was located within 5 feet of the existing property line. The fish statue is much further back and located along the building and is 45’ from the nearest section of the existing property line. Thank you for your consideration. Kristin Zipkin Commercial Signs, Inc. Kristin@comsigns.com 770-989-1290 E LINCOLN AVEPA(PLANTING AREA)PA(10) BIKE RACKSL10110PATIO FENCEFIRE PITPALANDSCAPE HEADERL1014CRUSHER FINESL1017STEPPING STONESL1016STRING LIGHTS(4) BOARDWALK LIGHT POSTSL1019(3) STRING LIGHTPOLESL1018STRING LIGHTSPAPATIO FENCEL101113'3'EXISTING PATIORELOCATE EXISTING HELIX BIKE RACKS,PAINT REDEXPANSION JOINT ALONG BUILDING, TYP.L1011EXPANSION JOINTEXPANSION JOINTL1011SAW CUT JOINTS, TYP.L1012FIREPITL10112TYPE 1 BENCHL1021MONOLITHICCURBL1013PATIO FENCEL10111TYPE 2 BENCHL1026BOARDWALKRAILING, TYP.L1022L1024BOARDWALK RAILING GATEL1022BOARDWALK DECKINGBORDER, COLOR 1BOARDWALK DECKINGFIELD, COLOR 2(2) BOARDWALK LIGHT POSTS,NO STRING LIGHT EYLETS10'L10111L101129' O.C.CUT EXISTING PATIO WALL TO CONCRETE WALK,APPX. 6' WIDE TO NEAREST JOINT IN PRECAST CAP.PROVIDE BRICK FACADE TO MATCH EXISTING ATAFFECTED EXPOSED FACESTHICKENED EDGEL1015DECK BORDER,TYP.L1023L1021L1021BOARDWALK LIGHT POSTS,NO STRING LIGHT EYELETEXPANSION JOINTTRENCH GRATEL1025TRENCH GRATEL1025L1011L1011EXPANSION JOINT ALONG BUILDING, TYP.L1011L1001708SITE PLANRED TRUCK BEER COMPANY1020 EAST LINCOLN AVENUEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 8052410/26/2018DESCRIPTION DATENORTH0' 5' 10' 20'- PLOT DATEPROJECT INFORMATIONSHEET INFORMATIONPROJECT PHASEARCHITECTSEALREVISIONS:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT #:ARCHITECTSCONSULTANTT - 970.484.0117F - 970.484.0264315 East Mountain AveSuite 100Fort Collins, CO 80524-2913© 2017www.rbbarchitects.comHAS BEEN PREPARED, IN PART, BASED UPON INFORMATIONFURNISHED BY OTHERS. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TOBE RELIABLE, THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CANNOT ASSURE ITSACCURACY, AND THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OFTHIS RECORD DRAWING OR FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICHMAY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO IT AS A RESULT. THOSERELYING ON THIS RECORD DOCUMENT ARE ADVISED TO OBTAININDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF ITS ACCURACY BEFORE APPLYING ITFOR ANY PURPOSE.THIS RECORD DRAWING #4 x 18" REBAR @ 30" O.C.,BREAK BOND ONE END ONLY1'1/2" EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL,1/4" RADIUS CONCRETE EDGE,CAULK JOINT TO MATCH CONCRETE6"8"COMPACTED SUBGRADE5"1 1/2"CONCRETE PAVING, SEE SITE PLAN FORJOINTING PATTERN, MEDIUM BROOM FINISH,1/4" RADIUS AT EDGESCOMPACTED SUBGRADESAW CUT JOINTS TO A DEPTH OF 1-1/2"5"FINISHED GRADE, SEE GRADING PLANSTABILIZED CRUSHER-FINES, 1/4" MINUSAGGREGATE, COLOR - WYOMING RED, COMPACTTO 95 S.P.D.SOIL SEPARATOR FABRIC, PIN FABRIC IN PLACEUSING 6" U STAPLE @ 3' SPACING ALONG EDGE,SEAMS AND IN OTHER AREAS AS REQUIRED TOSECURELY FASTEN TO SUBGRADE.PREPARED SUBGRADE, COMPACT TO 95 S.P.D.4"NOTE: CRUSHER-FINES SHALL BE MIXED WITH"STABILIZER" AS MANUFACTURED BY STABILIZERSOLUTIONS, 800.336.2468, OR AN APPROVEDEQUIVALENT. MIX AND INSTALL PER MANUFACTURE'SINSTRUCTIONS.2" THICK LYONS REDSANDSTONE,1" LEVELING SANDCOMPACTED SUBGRADE,PER GEOTECH REPORT2" MAX. GAPVARIES, 3' MIN.CONCRETE CURB POURED MONOLITHICALLYWITH PAVING. CARRY SAW CUT JOINTS UPSIDE AND TOP OF CURB. 1/4" RADIUS ONEXPOSED EDGES. MEDIUM BROOM FINISH.6"SEE GRADING PLAN6"(2) #4 CONTINUOUS, 2" CLEAR1'9"GREY CONCRETE HEADER,MEDIUM BROOM FINISH,1/4" RADIUS EDGESCOMPACTED SUBGRADE(2) #4 CONTINUOUS,2" CLEAR MIN.4' MAX.O.C.1-1/2" DIA. GALV. RAIL,CAP ENDS1" x 6" x 8' L. HORIZONTALWOOD PLANK, PAINTED WHITE2" WAFER STAINLESS STEEL SELFTAPPING SCREWS2" x 4" x 3/16" THK. GALV HSSFENCE POST, PAINTED WHITE34" TYP.1"BASE PLATE3'2'-712"1/4" THK GALV. PLATE8" THICKENED EDGE1/2" DIA. GALV. RAIL CONNECTION5"2"1"1"5/8" DIA. HOLE1"NOTE: FASTEN TO CONCRETE WITH(4) 1/2" x 5" TITEN HD STAINLESS STEELSCREW ANCHORS PER BASE PLATEEDGE OF CONCRETEHEADER3"BASE PLATESTRING LIGHT POLE3"ALTERNATE PLANK JOINT LOCATIONSELEVATIONRAILING NOTES:4. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT DETAILED AND DIMENSIONED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR OWNERSREPRESENTATIVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE PRIOR TO FABRICATION.5. STEEL CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH A CONTINUOUS WELD. GRIND WELDS SMOOTH LEAVINGNO BURRS OR SHARP EDGES.6. FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO FABRICATION.7. POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PLUMB.8. AUTOCAD DRAWING SHALL BE SUPPLIED TO FABRICATOR UPON REQUEST.9. DUPLEX COATING SYSTEM IS REQUIRED. AFTER FABRICATING RAIL, ENTIRE RAIL SHALL BE GALVANIZEDAND THEN PAINTED. FABRICATOR TO SUBMIT 6" X 6" MIN. COLOR SAMPLES OF PROPOSED PAINTCOLORS FOR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE PRIOR TO FABRICATION10.STEEL TUBE SHALL BE 'STRUCTURAL TUBING', HAVING RADIUSED EDGES. 90° 'SHARP' EDGES ISUNACCEPTABLE. EASE EDGES AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE RADIUSED EDGES.11. MOUNTING HARDWARE SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH HANDRAIL, TYP.12. IF GAP EXISTS BETWEEN BOTTOM OF MOUNTING PLATE AND FINISH SURFACE OF CONCRETE,CONTRACTOR SHALL FILL GAP WITH NON SHRINKING GROUT TO MATCH ADJACENT CONCRETE INCOLOR, FINISH CLEAN.CONCRETE THICKENED EDGE,PROVIDE SAW CUT JOINTSAT CORNERS OF POST10'4" x 4" x 5/16" THK. GALVANIZED HSS POST,PAINT WHITE1/4" THK STEEL PLATE EYELET,PROVIDE 1" DIA HOLE,PAINT WHITE4"FASTEN PATIO FENCEWOOD PLANKS TO POST2"18" Ø CAISSON WITH HSSEMBEDDED. REINFORCE W/(4)-#4VERTS AND #4 TIES, (2) AT 3" TOPAND AT 10" O.C. REMAINDER4'-0" MIN.75°EUROPEAN CAFE STRING LIGHTS,GALVANIZED WITH T14 EDISONSPIRAL BULBS, (KMEC100GBT14SP),PROVIDE GALVANIZED GUIDE WIREFOR POLES WITH LIGHT FIXTURES,ROUTE WIRING INTERNAL TO POLEBASE PLATE2'-6"5/8" DIA. HOLE1"1-1/2" DIA. SS TUBESLIM QUARTER KEGPROVIDED BY OWNER7"R2"2" DIA. SS TUBE1/4" THK. SS PLATEAPPX. 1'-7"POSTNOTE: FASTEN TO CONCRETE WITH(4) 1/2" x 5" TITEN HD STAINLESS STEELSCREW ANCHORS PER BASE PLATER3"1/4" RADIUS ON EXPOSED EDGES. MEDIUMBROOM FINISH.(2) #4 CONTINUOUS, 2" CLEAR1'1'1'5"2" DEEP BLACK 1/2" FIRE GLASSBRONZE GAS KEYGAS VALVE AND IGNITION SWITCH MUST BELOCATED BEHIND A LOCKED DOOR PANELEMERGENCY SHUT OFF VALVEEXPANSION JOINT1'212"3"2'3'-1"8"8"5'2"CFB290 ORIGINAL CROSSFIRE BRASS BURNER (CFB290NG)WITH 24 VOLT ELECTRONIC IGNITION SYSTEMCAST IN PLACE CONCRETE WALLCONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE GAS LINE, DRIP LEGAND ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS. EMERGENCYSHUT OFF VALVE LOCATED AT FIRE PIT.CAPPED COMBUSTION AIR/DRAIN (PERMANUFACTURERS REQUIREMENT)12 MM DEKTON PANEL5'6"3"3"SECTION12 MM DEKTON CAP3'12 MM DEKTON PANEL1/8" GROUT JOINTBETWEEN VERTICAL PANELS12 MM DEKTON PANELBELOW W/ BEVELED EDGESBURNERDEKTON SEAMNOTE: GAS SHUTOFF LOCATION PERLOCAL CODE. INSTALL PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION12 MM DEKTON PANEL12 MM DEKTON CAP2" x 2' BLOCKING36" CIRCULAR 3/16" ALUMINUM PANWITH WELDED 2" SIDEWALLS (ALPAN36C)2" x 2" x 1/4" ANGLE IRON SUPPORTFRAME, BOLT TO CONCRETE WALL#4 HORIZ. AT 12" O.C.#4 DOWELS AT 18" O.C. MAX.(2) #4 CONTINUOUS TOP AND BOTTOM3'1'-4"COMPACTED SUBGRADE10'4" x 4" x 5/16" THK. GALVANIZED HSS POST,CAP ENDS, PAINT WHITE1/4" THK STEEL PLATE EYELET,PROVIDE 1" DIA HOLE,PAINT WHITE4"2"75°CONCRETE COLUMNPER STRUCTURALCONNECTION PER STRUCTURALEUROPEAN CAFE STRING LIGHTS,GALVANIZED WITH T14 EDISONSPIRAL BULBS, (KMEC100GBT14SP),PROVIDE GALVANIZED GUIDE WIRE6/30/2017 3:23:26 PML1011708SITE DETAILSRED TRUCK BEER COMPANY1020 EAST LINCOLN AVENUEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524DESCRIPTION DATESCALE:EXPANSION JOINT11"=1'-0"SCALE:SAW CUT JOINT21"=1'-0"SCALE:MONOLITHIC CURB31"=1'-0"SCALE:STEPPING STONES61"=1'-0"SCALE:LANDSCAPE HEADER41"=1'-0"SCALE:STRING LIGHT POLE81"=1'-0"SCALE:PATIO FENCE111"=1'-0"SCALE:FIREPIT121"=1'-0"SCALE:BIKE RACK101"=1'-0"SCALE:CRUSHER FINES71"=1'-0"SCALE:THICKENED EDGE51"=1'-0"SCALE:BOARDWALK LIGHT POLE91"=1'-0"10/26/2018- PLOT DATEPROJECT INFORMATIONSHEET INFORMATIONPROJECT PHASEARCHITECTSEALREVISIONS:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT #:ARCHITECTSCONSULTANTT - 970.484.0117F - 970.484.0264315 East Mountain AveSuite 100Fort Collins, CO 80524-2913© 2017 www.rbbarchitects.comHAS BEEN PREPARED, IN PART, BASED UPON INFORMATIONFURNISHED BY OTHERS. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TOBE RELIABLE, THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CANNOT ASSURE ITSACCURACY, AND THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OFTHIS RECORD DRAWING OR FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICHMAY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO IT AS A RESULT. THOSERELYING ON THIS RECORD DOCUMENT ARE ADVISED TO OBTAININDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF ITS ACCURACY BEFORE APPLYING ITFOR ANY PURPOSE.THIS RECORD DRAWING MESH PANEL WITH 2" x 1/4"FRAMES BOTH SIDES,GALVANIZED2" X 4" HSS RAIL,GALVANIZED3'-6"4' O.C. TYP.1/2" THK PLATE RAIL CONNECTION,GALVANIZED4" x 4" x 1/4" HSS POST,PAINT WHITE3"(2)-3/4" THRU BOLTS3"PANEL CONNECTION,SEE DETAIL3"3"WELDED WIRE MESH, 4" SQ.OPENING, 1/4" WIRE DIAMETER,GALVANIZEDTOP OF RAIL DECKING6"EQEQ518"JOISTS PER PLAN4" x 4" POST3" MIN.2" x 12" BLOCKING IN EACH SIDE OFPOST, TYPICAL. PLACE JOISTS TIGHTTO POST IN PARALLEL CONDITIONCONNECTION TO DECKINGSECTIONELEVATION3"2"2"RAILING NOTES:4. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT DETAILED AND DIMENSIONED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR OWNERSREPRESENTATIVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE PRIOR TO FABRICATION.5. STEEL CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH A CONTINUOUS WELD. GRIND WELDS SMOOTH LEAVINGNO BURRS OR SHARP EDGES.6. FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO FABRICATION.7. POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PLUMB.8. AUTOCAD DRAWING SHALL BE SUPPLIED TO FABRICATOR UPON REQUEST.9. DUPLEX COATING SYSTEM IS REQUIRED. AFTER FABRICATING RAIL, ENTIRE RAIL SHALL BE GALVANIZEDAND THEN PAINTED. FABRICATOR TO SUBMIT 6" X 6" MIN. COLOR SAMPLES OF PROPOSED PAINTCOLORS FOR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE PRIOR TO FABRICATION10. STEEL TUBE SHALL BE 'STRUCTURAL TUBING', HAVING RADIUSED EDGES. 90° 'SHARP' EDGES ISUNACCEPTABLE. EASE EDGES AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE RADIUSED EDGES.11. MOUNTING HARDWARE SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH HANDRAIL, TYP.4" x 4" POST(1) 3" x 2" TABS ON POST WITH5/8" Ø HOLE, PAINT WHITE(2) 3" x 2" TABS WITH 5/8 Ø HOLESON MESH PANEL, GALVANIZED1/2" SS BOLT ASSEMBLYPANEL CONNECTIONNOTE:1. PROVIDE TREX 1" x 12" FASCIA BOARD ATEXPOSED ENDS, INSET 1" FROM END1'-6"2'10' (2' BENCH)10' (3' BENCH)10' (2' BENCH)1'2'3'1'4'4'2'4'4'2'4'4'SUPPORT POST, TYP.PLAN VIEWELEVATION1'-6"2'1'(2) 4" x 4" POSTS(2) 3/4" DIA. THRU BOLTS(2) 3/4" DIA. THRU BOLTS6"JOISTS PER PLAN4" x 4" POST3" MIN.2" x 12" BLOCKING IN EACH SIDE OFPOST, TYPICAL. PLACE JOISTS TIGHTTO POST IN PARALLEL CONDITIONCONNECTION TO DECKING2'3'1'-6"4" x 4" POSTS(2) 3/4" DIA. THRU BOLTSPER POST(2) 3/4" DIA. THRU BOLTS6"1'6"EQ.EQ.(3) 2" x 12" HORIZONTAL2" x 10" EACH SIDE OF POST2" x 12" PER POST EACH SIDE OF POST6"6"(4) 2" x 10" HORIZONTAL6"EQ.EQ.TREX 1" x 6" SQUARE EDGE BOARDSEQ.EQ.TREX 2" x 6" SQUARE EDGE BOARDPROVIDE 1/4" RADIUS AT CORNERSPROVIDE 1/4" RADIUS AT CORNERSNOTE:1. FRAMING SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED REDWOOD2. PROVIDE TREX 1" x 12" FASCIA BOARD AT EXPOSED ENDSTO COVER FRAMING, INSET 1" FROM END18"24"3'-6"(2 3/4" DIA. THRU BOLTS2" x 6" FRAMINGTREX 1" x 6" SQUARE EDGE BOARDTREX 1" x 6" SQUARE EDGEBOARDS, VERTICALTREX 1" x 6" SQUARE EDGE BOARD4" x 4" POSTS AT 4' O.C.(2) 3/4" DIA. THRU BOLTS2" x 4" FRAMING2" x 8" FRAMING1"JOISTS PER PLAN4" x 4" POST3" MIN.2" x 12" BLOCKING IN EACH SIDE OFPOST, TYPICAL. PLACE JOISTS TIGHTTO POST IN PARALLEL CONDITIONCONNECTION TO DECKINGSUPPORT OF BORDER DECKING6"EQ.EQ.1/4" RADIUSBOTH EDGES1'-6"12"NOTE:1. FRAMING SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED REDWOOD2. PROVIDE TREX 1" x 12" FASCIA BOARD AT EXPOSED ENDS TOCOVER FRAMING, INSET 1" FROM END2" x 10" EACH SIDE OF POST(2) 3/4" DIA. THRU BOLTS95°5°3"3"3"2" SQUARE HSS FRAME,GALVANIZEDGUARDRAIL POSTMESH TO MATCH GUARDRAILAPPX. 10', FIELD VERIFY3'-1"3"BOARDWALK RAILING GATE(3) HEAVY DUTYWELDED HINGESHEAVY DUTY ADJUSTOMATICGATE LATCHPROVIDE ADDITIONAL 2" x 4" HSS FRAMEWITH MESH FIELD AT AREAS WHERE GAP INGUARDRAIL EXCEEDS 4"TYPE 1 BENCHRAILING/BENCH INTERSECTIONGLULAM OR 2" x 12" JOIST1"TREX 1" x 12" FASCIA BOARDTREX 1" SQUARE EDGE BOARD(2) TREX 1" GROOVED EDGE BOARDSPROVIDE BLOCKING AT 12" O.C. FORSUPPORT OF BORDER DECKINGFIELD DECKING PER PLANGLULAM OR 2" x 12" JOIST1"TREX 1" x 6" VERTICAL ON SOUTH, EAST ANDWEST SIDES OF ELEVATED PORTION OFBOARDWALKTREX 1" SQUARE EDGE BOARD(2) TREX 1" GROOVED EDGE BOARDSPROVIDE BLOCKING BETWEEN COLUMNS FORSUPPORT OF DECKINGFIELD DECKING PER PLANT/DECKING100' - 0"T/DECKING102' - 8"CONCRETE COLUMN AT ELEVATED PORTIONOF BOARDWALK3"6"1'NOTES:1. TRENCH GRATEMANUFACTURER: URBAN ACCESSORIESMODEL: TITLE-24 (8" X 18")MATERIAL: DUCTILE IRON2. SUBMIT PRODUCT DATA TO OWNER'SREPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION3. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERSRECOMMENDATIONS4. CUT ENDS SHALL BE ON INSIDE OF WALK EDGEANGLE STOCK PERIMETER FRAME1/2" x 2" NELSON STUDSHOP WELDED TO FRAMEAT 24" O.C.3"SLOPE CHANNEL 2% IN DIRECTION OF FLOWBACK OF SIDEWALKSLOPE PLATE TO MATCH SIDEWALK1'COMPACTEDSUBGRADEFINISH GRADE,RE: SITE PLANFINISH GRADE,RE: SITE PLANTRENCH GRATE6/30/2017 3:23:26 PML1021708SITE DETAILSRED TRUCK BEER COMPANY1020 EAST LINCOLN AVENUEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524CONFORMED CDSDESCRIPTION DATESCALE:BOARDWALK GUARDRAIL21"=1'-0"SCALE:TYPE 1 BENCH11"=1'-0"SCALE:TYPE 2 BENCH61"=1'-0"SCALE:DECK BORDER31"=1'-0"SCALE:ELEVATED DECK EDGE41"=1'-0"SCALE:TRENCH GRATE51"=1'-0"10/26/2018- PLOT DATEPROJECT INFORMATIONSHEET INFORMATIONPROJECT PHASEARCHITECTSEALREVISIONS:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT #:ARCHITECTSCONSULTANTT - 970.484.0117F - 970.484.0264315 East Mountain AveSuite 100Fort Collins, CO 80524-2913© 2017 www.rbbarchitects.comHAS BEEN PREPARED, IN PART, BASED UPON INFORMATIONFURNISHED BY OTHERS. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TOBE RELIABLE, THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CANNOT ASSURE ITSACCURACY, AND THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OFTHIS RECORD DRAWING OR FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICHMAY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO IT AS A RESULT. THOSERELYING ON THIS RECORD DOCUMENT ARE ADVISED TO OBTAININDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF ITS ACCURACY BEFORE APPLYING ITFOR ANY PURPOSE.THIS RECORD DRAWING ϲϲϳϳϵϵ,,<<:>>DDϴϴ<͘ϴ<͘ϴ<͘ϱ<͘ϱ:͘ϴ) ) ) )) )))))) ) ) ))) )))))) )) ))))))))))))))) )))#37[2&# 37[2&# 37[2%[2&# 37[2&# 37[2&# 37[2&# 37[2%[2%[2%[2%[2%[2%[2%[2%[2&*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[*/%[))#37[2&(;,67,1*67250'5$,19(5,)<6,=($1'/2&$7,21,1),(/'[*%))) [*% 9,) 67<36 6*/%[66666,03621+8&Z [7,7(16&5(:6 02'(/771+ 7<3*/%[> @*/%[> @ 7'(&.,1* 7'(&.,1* 7'(&.,1* 7'(&.,1* 7'(&.,1*6666666#37[2&$)8//6,=('3,&.83758&.,672%(3/$&('21(/(9$7('3257,212)%2$5':$/.&2175$&7256+$//3/$&($0,1,0802) [37%/2&.6',5(&7/<%(/2:$//7,5(62)758&.21&(,1),1$/326,7,21,)758&.,672%(029('$5281'217232)3/$7)2506+($7+,1*6+$//%(3/$&('81'(57,5(672',675,%87(/2$'817,/62/,'%/2&.,1*&$1%(,167$//('%(/2:7,5(662+62+66 6>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@>)/86+@ 9,) 73,(5 73,(5 73,(573,(573,(573,(5 37[> @ 37[> @23(1$7)/22567(367(367(3 9,) 7<37<37<3&% )&2175$&725127( )64)227,1*0$<%(5(3/$&('%<'5,//('3,(53(57<3,&$/$//))227,1*6 6&2175$&725127( )64)227,1*0$<%(5(3/$&('%<'5,//('3,(53(57<3,&$/$//))227,1*6 66Z&/ͲϬϬϵZ&/ͲϬϮϬZ&/ͲϬϮϬ $5($3/$1)281'$7,213/$1127(6 %2$5':$/.)281'$7,216+$//%($5$0,1,0802)%(/2:),1,6+('*5$'($//%2$5':$/.-2,6766+$//%(35(6685(75($7('$//*/8/$0%($066+$//%($/$6.$1<(//2:&('$56((*(1(5$/127(6)25$'',7,21$/*/8/$05(48,5(0(1767232):$//%2$5':$/.)5$0,1*6+$//%( 8123/$17232)%2$5':$/.3,/$67(566+$//%( 812213/$16((6)25*(1(5$/127(6$1'63(&,$/,163(&7,217$%/(66((6)25&2/801$1'%$6(3/$7(6&+('8/($1''(7$,/6&2175$&7256+$//9(5,)<(;,67,1*&21',7,21635,2572&200(1&(0(172)&216758&7,219(5,)<$//',0(16,21,1),(/'$1'&225',1$7(:,7+$5&+,7(&785$/3/$16)227,1*66+$//%($521$0,1,0802) 2)29(5(;&$9$7('$1'&203$&7('*5$18/$562,/*(27(&+1,&$/(1*,1((56+$//9(5,)<)281'$7,21%($5,1*&21',7,21635,25723/$&(0(172)1(:)281'$7,216ͲW>Kdd WZK: d/E&KZDd/KE^, d/E&KZDd/KEWZK: dW,^ Z,/d d^ >Z s/^/KE^͗/^^h d ͗WZK: dη͗Z,/d d^KE^h>dEddͲϵϳϬ͘ϰϴϰ͘Ϭϭϭϳ&ͲϵϳϬ͘ϰϴϰ͘ϬϮϲϰϯϭϱ ĂƐƚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀĞ^ƵŝƚĞϭϬϬ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰͲϮϵϭϯΞϮϬϭϳ ǁǁǁ͘ƌďďĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ͘ĐŽŵ,^ EWZ WZ ͕/EWZd͕^ hWKE/E&KZDd/KE&hZE/^, zKd, Z^͘t,/> d,/^/E&KZDd/KE/^ >/ s dK Z >/> ͕d, ^/'EWZK& ^^/KE>EEKd^^hZ /d^hZz͕Ed,h^/^EKdZ ^WKE^/> &KZd, hZzK&d,/^Z KZZt/E'KZ&KZEz ZZKZ^KZKD/^^/KE^t,/,Dz,s E/EKZWKZd /EdK/d^Z ^h>d͘d,K^ Z >z/E'KEd,/^Z KZKhD EdZ s/^ dKKd/E/E W E Eds Z/&/d/KEK&/d^hZz &KZ WW>z/E'/d&KZEzWhZWK^ ͘d,/^Z KZZt/E'ϭϭͬϵͬϮϬϭϴϳ͗ϱϮ͗ϬϮD^ϭϬϭĐϮϭϱϵ&KhEd/KEW>EͲZ ĐZ dZh< ZKDWEzϭϬϮϬ ^d>/EK>Es Eh &KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰϭϬͬϮϲͬϮϬϭϴ )281'$7,213/$1#$5($&,62/$7(')227,1*6&+('8/(0$5. :LGWK /HQJWK 7KLFNQHVV 5(,1)25&,1* &200(176) ($&+:$<%27720) ($&+:$<%27720) ($&+:$<%27720) ($&+:$<%27720)' ($&+:$<%27720) ($&+:$<%27720) ($&+$77 %) ' ($&+:$<7 %) [ ($&+:$<7 %) [ ($&+:$<7 %) [ ($&+:$<7 %)[ /21* 75$167 % ^Z/Wd/KE d Z&/ͲϬϬϵ Ϭϭ͘Ϭϯ͘ϮϬϭϴZ&/ͲϬϮϬ Ϭϭ͘ϮϮ͘ϮϬϭϴ 20'SCALE: 1" = 20'0 20'GRADING PLAN(REVISIONS FOR RED TRUCK BREWERY PROJECT)4ANOTES:City of Fort Collins, ColoradoUTILITY PLAN ApprovalSHEET:OF908 Laporte AvenueFort Collins, CO 80521(970) 219-2834ENGINEERINGPEX 20'SCALE: 1" = 20'0 20'SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN(REVISIONS FOR RED TRUCK BREWERY PROJECT)4BNOTES:City of Fort Collins, ColoradoUTILITY PLAN ApprovalSHEET:OF908 Laporte AvenueFort Collins, CO 80521(970) 219-2834ENGINEERINGPEXNOTES: SHEET:OF908 Laporte AvenueFort Collins, CO 80521(970) 219-2834ENGINEERINGPEXCONSTRUCTION DETAILS(REVISIONS FOR RED TRUCK BREWERY PROJECT)4CCity of Fort Collins, ColoradoUTILITY PLAN Approval SHEET:OF908 Laporte AvenueFort Collins, CO 80521(970) 219-2834ENGINEERINGPEXCONSTRUCTION DETAILS(REVISIONS FOR RED TRUCK BREWERY PROJECT)4DCity of Fort Collins, ColoradoUTILITY PLAN ApprovalDETAILNO.CWADETAILCONCRETE TRUCK WASHOUT AREADETAILNO.OPGRAVEL INLET PROTECTION MODIFICATIONFOR WATER QUALITY OUTLET STRUCTUREDETAILNO.C1DETAIL1' MOUNTABLE CURBDETAILNO.RSDETAILROCK SOCKDETAILNO.VTCDETAILVEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL SCOPE OF WORKThe designs, details and specifications contained in this drawing are confidential. The recipients of this drawing hereby acknowledge and agree that it is the soleproperty of 0XUGRFK Engineering and that they shall neither use nor reveal any of the designs, details and specifications contained in this drawing, outside ofthe contractual agreement expressed written permission from 0XUGRFK Engineering.Deviations from this drawing shall not be made without consulting 0XUGRFK Engineering. In case of incongruities between drawings, specifications, and detailsincluded in contract documents, 0XUGRFK Engineering shall decide which indication must be followed and their decision shall be final.Copyright 0XUGRFK Engineering.All rights reserved.PREPARED FOR:6.1SHEET:BSIZE:DWG TITLE:NOTES &%$6(PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT ADDRESS:6:((7:$7(5)5((67$1',1*6&8/3785(ϭϬϮϬ >ŝŶĐŽůŶǀĞ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰPXUGRFKengineering.com( )- 1-$0DQDVTXDQ1-&200(5&,$/6,*16GENERAL:ϭ͘>>Dd Z/>^EtKZ<^,>>KE&KZDdKd, Z Yh/Z D Ed^K&d, WW>/> /Ed ZEd/KE>h/>/E'K ;/Ϳ͘Ϯ͘ KE^dZhd/KED d,K^EWZK: d^& dz͗Zt/E'^E^W /&/d/KE^Z WZ ^ Edd, &/E/^, ^dZhdhZ EKEKd/E/d D d,K^͕WZK hZ ^͕KZ^ Yh E K&KE^dZhd/KE͘d< E ^^ZzWZ hd/KE^dKD/Ed/EE E^hZ d, /Ed 'Z/dzK&d, ^dZhdhZ hZ/E'KE^dZhd/KE͘d, KZt/>>EKd E&KZ ^& dzD ^hZ ^KZZ 'h>d/KE^͘d, KEdZdKZ^,>> ^/'E͕KE^dZhd͕ED/Ed/E>>^& dz s/ ^E^,>> ^K> >zZ ^WKE^/> &KZKE&KZD/E'dK>>>K>͕^dd ͕E& Z>^& dzE, >d,^dEZ^͕>t^͕EZ 'h>d/KE^͘ϯ͘ d, KEdZdKZ^,>>s Z/&z>>/D E^/KE^͕ > sd/KE^E^/d KE/d/KE^WZ/KZdKd, ^dZdK&KE^dZhd/KEEEKd/&zd, E'/E Z/DD /d >zK&Ez/^Z WE/ ^KZ/EKE^/^d E/ ^d,dZ &KhE͘EKd /D E^/KE^d< WZ E Ks Z^> /D E^/KE^͘KEKd^> Zt/E'^͘ϰ͘ >>KD/^^/KE^EͬKZKE&>/d^ dt Ed, sZ/Kh^ > D Ed^K&d, tKZ</E'Zt/E'^E^W /&/d/KE^^,>> ZKh',ddKd, dd Ed/KEK&d, E'/E ZE&/ >/E^W dKZ͘d, E'/E Z^,>>WZKs/ ^K>hd/KEWZ/KZdKWZK /E't/d,EztKZ<&& d zd, KE&>/dKZKD/^^/KE͘ϱ͘ t, Z EKKE^dZhd/KE d/>^Z ^,KtEKZEKd &KZEzWZdK&d, tKZ<͕KE^dZhd/EKZE t/d,d, ^d >KE^dZhd/KEDEh>͕ϭϰd, /d/KEKZϮϬϭϬ>hD/EhD ^/'EDEh>͘ϲ͘ t, E d/>/^/ Ed/&/ ^dzW/>͕d, KEdZdKZ/^dKWW>zd,/^ d/>/E ^d/Dd/E'EKE^dZhd/KEdK s Zz>/< KE/d/KEt, d, ZKZEKdd, Z & Z E /^Z W d /E s Zz/E^dE ͘ϳ͘Ez,E' dKd, ^/'E^^,KtEKEd, Zt/E'^Z Yh/Z ^WZ/KZtZ/dd EWWZKs>&ZKD ^/'E E'/E ZK&Z KZ &KZ KE^dZhd/KE͘ϴ͘tKZ<W Z&KZD /EKE&>/dt/d,d, ^dZhdhZ>Zt/E'^KZWW>/> h/>/E'K Z Yh/Z D Ed^^,>> KZZ d dd, yW E^ K&d, KEdZdKZ͘ϵ͘s Z/&/d/KE͗s Z/&z>>/D E^/KE^͕ > sd/KE^͕E^/d KE/d/KE^ &KZ ^dZd/E'tKZ<͘EKd/&zd, KZ/DD /d >zK&Ez/^Z WE/ ^͘ϭϬ͘ KhD Ed/E^d>>d/KEK&&KKd/E'^ͬE,KZK>d^ͬ WKyzE,KZ^t/d,W,KdK'ZW,^ED ^hZ D Ed^STEELϭ͘ ^d >^,W ^^,>>KE&KZDdKd, &K>>Kt/E'͗&LJсϰϮ<^/D/E͘&LJсϰϲ<^/D/E͘&LJсϱϱ<^/D/E͘&LJсϯϲ<^/D/E͘ZKhE,^^^YhZ ͬZ d,^^d,Z ZK^d >W>d ^d͘W/W ^dDϱϬϬ͕'Z^dDϱϬϬ͕'Z&ϭϱϱϰ'Zϱϱ^dDϯϲ^dDϱϯ͕'Z &LJсϯϱ<^/D/E͘Ϯ͘K>d^^,>>KE&KZDdK^dDϯϬϳ'Z ϯ͘K>d^Ed,Z ZK^,>> ,KdͲ/W'>sE/ W Z^dD&ϮϯϮϵhEK͘ϰ͘E,KZK>d^^,>>KE&KZDdK^dD&ϭϱϱϰhEK͘ϱ͘Ehd^^,>>KE&KZDdK^dDϱϲϯ͘ϲ͘t^, Z^^,>>KE&KZDdK^dD&ϴϰϰ͘ϳ͘^d >,ZtZ ^,>> ,KdͲ/W'>sE/ W Z^dDϭϱϯhEKϴ͘t >/E'͗Ă͘t >^dZhdhZ>^d >/EKDW>/E t/d,E^/ͬt^ϭ͘ϭE/^^W /&/d/KE͕,Wd Z:͘t > Z^^,>> Zd/&/ ^Z Yh/Z z'Ks ZE/E'K hd,KZ/dz͘t >/E'^,>> KE z > dZ/ZWZK ^^h^/E'>KtͲ,zZK' E > dZK ^t/d,^W /&/ d E^/> ^dZ E'd,EKd> ^^d,EϳϬ<^/hE> ^^EKd Kd, Zt/^ ͘ď͘>>^,KWE&/ >t >^^,>> W Z&KZD zEt^KZ/ Zd/&/ t > Zt/d,d/s ^ddh^dd/D K&t >/E'Đ͘hE> ^^>Z' Zt >^/ /^/E/d ͕WZKs/ D/E/DhD^/ t >^W Z/^^W /&/d/KE͕^ d/KE:Ϯ͕d> :Ϯ͘ϰĚ͘^ W>d ^^,>> t > KEdKWEKddKDt/d,KEd/EhKh^t >^K&d> ^dϭͬϰΗ;/&W>d /^hddK&/ddh /EdKW>d ͿALUMINUMϭ͘ &Z/d E Z d>hD/EhD/EKDW>/E t/d,d, >hD/EhD^^K/d/KE;ͿϮϬϭϬ>hD/EhD ^/'EDEh>;DͿϭ͕d, ^W /&/d/KE^&KZ>hD/EhD^, dD d>tKZ<;^DϯϱͿ͕E/,Wd ZϮϬ͘Ϯ͘ W/W Edh ^,>> ϲϬϲϭͲdϲW Z^dDϮϰϭKZϰϮϵt/d,&ƚƵсϯϴ<^/D/E͕&ƚLJсϯϱ<^/D/E͕&ƚƵǁсϮϰ<^/D/E͕&ƚLJǁсϭϱ<^/D/E͘ϯ͘ ^d^dZhdhZ>WZK&/> ^^,>> ϲϬϲϭͲdϲW ZϯϬϴt/d,&ƚƵсϯϴ<^/D/E͕&ƚLJсϯϱ<^/D/E͕&ƚƵǁсϮϰ<^/D/E͕&ƚLJǁсϭϱ<^/D/E͘ϰ͘ ^, dEW>d ^,>> ϲϬϲϭͲdϲW Z^dDϮϬϵt/d,&ƚƵсϰϮ<^/D/E͕&ƚLJсϯϱ<^/D/E͕&ƚƵǁсϮϰ<^/D/E͕&ƚLJǁсϭϱ<^/D/E͘ϱ͘ ydZh^/KE^^,>> ϲϬϲϭͲdϲW Z^dDϮϰϭKZϰϮϵt/d,&ƚƵсϯϴ<^/D/E͕&ƚLJсϯϱ<^/D/E͕&ƚƵǁсϮϰ<^/D/E͕&ƚLJǁсϭϱ<^/D/E͘ϲ͘ >>^,KWE&/ >t >^^,>> W Z&KZD zEt^KZ/ Zd/&/ t > Zt/d,hZZ Ed^ddh^dd/D K&t >/E'ϳ͘hE> ^^>Z' Zt >^/ /^/E/d ͕WZKs/ D/E/DhD^/ t >W ZD͘>>>hD/EhDt > :K/Ed^^,>>,s t >^/ ^K&d> ^dϭϰ/E,ϴ͘ &/>> dt >^^,>>EKd y d,/EE ^dD D Zt>>d,/<E ^^:K/E ͘ϵ͘ >hD/EhDt >&/>> Z^,>> ϱϯϱϲ>>KzϭϬ͘t >/E'WZK ^^'DtKZ'dt^,>> /EKZE t/d,t^ϭ͘Ϯϭϭ͘>hD/EhD,EE >> dd Z^^,>> KE^dZhd K&Ϭ͘ϬϵϬΗZ dhZE^EϬ͘ϭϮϱΗ<^D/E/DhD͕hE> ^^>Z' Z^/ /^/E/d KEZt/E'^͘d,/^EKd ^,>>^hW Z Zt/E' d/>^͘ϭϮ͘WZKs/ E KWZ E '^< d dt E/^^/D/>ZD d>^dKWZ s Ed'>sE/KZZK^/KEϭϯ͘>hD/EhD/Z d>z D /EdKKEZ d ^,>> WW dKddKDEKd t/d,/dhD/EKh^Kd/E'KZWK>zhZ d,E t, Z /EKEddt/d,KEZ d ͘ϭϰ͘&^d E Z^ dt E/^^/D/>ZD d>^^,>> ^d/E> ^^^d >ϯϭϲ͘EXISTING CONDITIONS:ϭ͘ /& y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Z EKd^ d/> /Ed,/^ ^/'E͕d, /E^d>> Z^,>> ^ tKZ<EEKd/&zDhZK, E'/E Z/E'/DD /d >z͘Ϯ͘ DhZK, E'/E Z/E't/>>EKd W Z&KZD/E'KEͲ^/d /E^W d/KE^KZs Z/&/d/KE^͘/d/^d, Z ^WKE^//>/dzK&d, /E^d>> Z͕^dZhdhZ KtE Z͕EWZKW ZdzKtE ZdK/ Ed/&z y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^EKEddDhZK, E'/E Z/E't/d,Ez/^Z WE/ ^KZKE ZE^͘ϯ͘ /E^d>> Z^,>>KE&/ZDd, /D d ZEd,/<E ^^K& y/^d/E'D D Z^EEKd/&zDhZK, E'/E Z/E'K&Ez/^Z WE/ ^͘ϰ͘ /E^d>> Z^,>>/E^W dEKE&/ZDd, Yh>/dzK& y/^d/E'^dZhdhZ ^Η/E'KKZ W/ZΗ͘/&d, Z Z Ez/E/d/KE^d,dd,/^/^EKdd, ^ ͕/E^d>> Z^,>> ^ tKZ</DD /d >zEEKd/&zDhZK, E'/E Z/E'͘ϱ͘ Ez y/^d/E'/E&KZDd/KE^,KtE,^ E&hZE/^, zd, W Z^KE;^ͿKZKDWEzd,/^KhD Edt^WZ WZ &KZ;^ d/d> >K<Ϳ͘DhZK, E'/E Z/E'/EEKtz Zd/&/ ^d,/^/E&KZDd/KE^Η^Ͳh/>dΗ͘/&d, Z /^EzZ ^KEdK >/ s d, y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^ d/> , Z /EZ EKdhZd ͕DhZK, E'/E Z/E'^,>> EKd/&/ /DD /d >z͘1. LIMITS OF LIABILITY TO EXTEND ONLY TO THE QUANTITY INDICATED. ATTEMPTS IN PARTOR IN WHOLE TO INSTALL GREATER QUANTITIES THAN THOSE SPECIFIED WITHOUTCONSULTING MURDOCH ENGINEERING SHALL VOID ALL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ANDCOVERAGE.ĂƚĞĂĐŚĐŽƌŶĞƌ(QJLQHHU V1RWH )UDPHIDVWHQHGWKURXJKGHFNLQJWRPLQ[[VWHHOVOHHSHUDQJOHVXQGHUGHFNLQJ7KURXJKEROWVWREH$ RUJUDGHHTXLYJDOYDQL]HG;&LJсϰϲŬƐŝͿ;&LJсϰϲŬƐŝͿ;&LJсϰϲŬƐŝͿDWG TITLE: The designs, details and specifications contained in this drawing are confidential. The recipients of this drawing hereby acknowledge and agree that it is the soleproperty of 0XUGRFK Engineering and that they shall neither use nor reveal any of the designs, details and specifications contained in this drawing, outside ofthe contractual agreement expressed written permission from 0XUGRFK Engineering.Deviations from this drawing shall not be made without consulting 0XUGRFK Engineering. In case of incongruities between drawings, specifications, and detailsincluded in contract documents, 0XUGRFK Engineering shall decide which indication must be followed and their decision shall be final.Copyright 0XUGRFK Engineering.All rights reserved.PREPARED FOR:6.SHEET:BSIZE:DWG TITLE:6&8/3785(&211(&7,21PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT ADDRESS:PXUGRFKengineering.com( )- 1-$0DQDVTXDQ1-6:((7:$7(5)5((67$1',1*6&8/3785(ϭϬϮϬ >ŝŶĐŽůŶǀĞ͕&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰ&200(5&,$/6,*16[[[JDOYDQL]HGVSDQQLQJPLQWZR>@MRLVWV'HVLJQHGE\PIU )\ NVL )\ NVL DWG TITLE: 6758&785$/'(6,*1&$/&8/$7,216 6:((7:$7(5$5&+,7(&785$/6&8/3785( (/LQFROQ$YH)RUW&ROOLQV&2 '$7(,668(' %< -(5(085'2&+3( &2/,&3( 973-570-8215 murdochengineering.com 1 of 9 New Projects projects@murdochengineering.com >ŽĂĚŝŶŐƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶ 973-570-8215 murdochengineering.com 2 of 9 New Projects projects@murdochengineering.com Murdoch Engineering 2399 NJ-34 Manasquan, NJ 08736 Project Job Ref. Section Sheet no./rev. 1 Calc. by N Date 2/15/2022 Chk'd by Date App'd by Date WIND LOADING In accordance with ASCE7-16 Using the directional design method Tedds calculation version 2.1.10 4.206 ft 11 ft15 ftF 5.5 ft5.5 ft Wall/sign data Length of wall/sign;B = 4.21 ft Height of wall/sign;s = 11.00 ft Height to top of sign;h = 15.00 ft General wind load requirements Basic wind speed;V = 115.0 mph Risk category;II Velocity pressure exponent coef (Table 26.6-1);Kd = 0.85 Ground elevation above sea level;zgl = 0 m Ground elevation factor;Ke = exp(-0.0000362 u zgl/1ft)= 1.00 Exposure category (cl 26.7.3);B Gust effect factor;Gf = 0.85 Minimum design wind loading (cl.27.4.7);pmin_r = 8 lb/ft2 Topography Topography factor not significant;Kzt = 1.0 Velocity pressure Velocity pressure coefficient (Table 26.10-1);Kz = 0.57 Velocity pressure;qh = 0.00256 u Kz u Kzt u Kd u Ke u V2 u 1psf/mph2 = 16.4 psf Area of sign;Af = B u s = 46.262 ft2 Ratio of solid area to gross area;H = 1.00 Wall/sign forces – Case A and B Force coefficient (Figure 29.3-1);Cf_A = 1.71 Resultant force;FA = max(16psf, qh u Gf u Cf_A) u Af = 1.1 kips 973-570-8215 murdochengineering.com 3 of 9 New Projects projects@murdochengineering.com Murdoch Engineering 2399 NJ-34 Manasquan, NJ 08736 Project Job Ref. Section Sheet no./rev. 2 Calc. by N Date 2/15/2022 Chk'd by Date App'd by Date 1.1 kips Plan - Case A 1.1 kips Plan - Case B 0.841 ft 973-570-8215 murdochengineering.com 4 of 9 New Projects projects@murdochengineering.com Murdoch Engineering, LLC Nicholas Nehila, PE SK-1 Mar 21, 2022 Sign Frame R 3-21-22.r3d 973-570-8215 murdochengineering.com 5 of 9 New Projects projects@murdochengineering.com Murdoch Engineering, LLC Nicholas Nehila, PE SK-2 Mar 21, 2022 Sign Frame R 3-21-22.r3d 973-570-8215 murdochengineering.com 6 of 9 New Projects projects@murdochengineering.com Company Designer Job Number Model Name : : : : Murdoch Engineering, LLC Nicholas Nehila, PE Checked By : __________ 3/21/2022 9:35:08 AM Basic Load Cases BLC Description Category Z Gravity Distributed 1 D DL -1 6 2 W WL 6 Load Combinations Description Solve P-Delta BLC Factor BLC Factor 1 1.0D+0.6W Yes Y 1 1 2 0.6 Member Distributed Loads (BLC 1 : D) Member LabelDirectionStart Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft]End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft]Start Location [(ft, %)]End Location [(ft, %)] 1 M1 Z -0.014 -0.014 0 %100 2 M2 Z -0.014 -0.014 0 %100 3 M3 Z -0.014 -0.014 0 %100 4 M4 Z -0.014 -0.014 0 %100 5 M5 Z -0.014 -0.014 0 %100 6 M6 Z -0.014 -0.014 0 %100 Member Distributed Loads (BLC 2 : W) Member LabelDirectionStart Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft]End Magnitude [k/ft, F, ksf, k-ft/ft]Start Location [(ft, %)]End Location [(ft, %)] 1 M1 Y 0.037 0.067 0 %100 2 M2 Y 0.057 0.057 0 %100 3 M3 Y 0.057 0.057 0 %100 4 M4 Y 0.057 0.057 0 %100 5 M5 Y 0.057 0.057 0 %100 6 M6 Y 0.057 0.057 0 %100 AISC 15TH (360-16): ASD Member Steel Code Checks LC Member Shape UC Max Loc[ft]Shear UC Loc[ft] Dir Pnc/om [k]Pnt/om [k]Mnyy/om [k-ft]Mnzz/om [k-ft] Cb Eqn 1 1 M2 1.75X1.75X.125 0.99 2.992 0.275 2.992 z 19.662 24.326 1.238 1.238 1.182 H3-6 2 1 M4 1.5X1.5X.125 0.565 2.58 0.233 2.58 z 16.509 20.584 0.887 0.887 2.451H1-1b 3 1 M1 1.5X1.5X.125 0.564 4.774 0.03 4.774 z 9.671 20.584 0.887 0.887 2.311H1-1b 4 1 M8 HSS4X2X4 0.485 5.406 0.096 5.406 z 42.143 67.21 4.109 6.749 1.604H1-1b 5 1 M7 HSS4X2X4 0.335 1.942 0.06 1.942 z 63.283 67.21 4.109 6.749 1.241H1-1b 6 1 M6 1.5X1.5X.125 0.325 0 0.023 0 z 13.97 20.584 0.887 0.887 2.327H1-1b 7 1 M5 1.5X1.5X.125 0.306 0 0.023 0 z 14.062 20.584 0.887 0.887 2.323H1-1b 8 1 M13 HSS4X2X2 0.255 3.25 0.042 3.25 y 19.801 35.808 2.208 3.81 1.336H1-1b 9 1 M12 HSS4X2X2 0.155 3.25 0.04 3.25 y 19.801 35.808 2.208 3.81 1.32 H1-1b 10 1 M3 1.5X1.5X.125 0.127 2.212 0.187 2.212 z 17.502 20.584 0.887 0.887 1.538H1-1b 11 1 M19 HSS4X2X2 0.096 0 0.021 1.661 y 34.449 35.808 2.208 3.81 1.958H1-1b 12 1 M16 HSS4X2X2 0.09 0 0.025 0 y 34.449 35.808 2.208 3.81 1.958H1-1b 13 1 M18 HSS4X2X2 0.08 3.177 0.007 0 y 31.082 35.808 2.208 3.81 1.117H1-1b 14 1 M15 HSS4X2X2 0.077 3.177 0.007 3.177 y 31.082 35.808 2.208 3.81 1.13 H1-1b 15 1 M17 HSS4X2X2 0.069 1.661 0.021 0 y 34.449 35.808 2.208 3.81 2.041H1-1b 16 1 M14 HSS4X2X2 0.063 1.661 0.018 1.661 y 34.449 35.808 2.208 3.81 2.001H1-1b 17 1 M10 HSS4X2X2 0.05 1.625 0.121 1.625 z 19.801 35.808 2.208 3.81 2.488H1-1b 18 1 M9 HSS4X2X2 0.043 3.25 0.037 6.5 y 19.801 35.808 2.208 3.81 1.311H1-1b 19 1 M11 HSS4X2X2 0.035 3.25 0.036 6.5 y 19.801 35.808 2.208 3.81 1.452H1-1b 973-570-8215 murdochengineering.com 7 of 9 New Projects projects@murdochengineering.com Company Designer Job Number Model Name : : : : Murdoch Engineering, LLC Nicholas Nehila, PE Checked By : __________ 3/21/2022 9:35:08 AM Node Reactions LC Node Label X [k] Y [k] Z [k] MX [k-ft] MY [k-ft] MZ [k-ft] 1 1 N15 0.024 0.034 -0.251 0 0 0 2 1 N12 0.003 -0.005 -0.181 0 0 0 3 1 N19 -0.024 0.034 0.303 0 0 0 4 1 N16 -0.002 -0.005 0.26 0 0 0 5 1 N7 0.046 -0.447 0.313 0 0 0 6 1 N9 -0.046 -0.258 0.16 0 0 0 7 1 Totals:0 -0.647 0.606 8 1 COG (ft):X: 5.249 Y: 4.355 Z: 2.927 973-570-8215 murdochengineering.com 8 of 9 New Projects projects@murdochengineering.com KEE d/KE>h>d/KE^ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶdLJƉĞ͗ ϯͬϴΗϰϰϵdŚƌŽƵŐŚďŽůƚƐŽƌĞƋƵŝǀ͘ ůůŽǁĂďůĞdĞŶƐŝŽŶсϭϳϴϬůď ůůŽǁĂďůĞ^ŚĞĂƌсϲϴϬůď DĂdž͘dĞŶƐŝŽŶZĞĂĐƚŝŽŶсϯϭϯůď d E^/KEK< DĂdž͘^ŚĞĂƌZĞĂĐƚŝŽŶсϰϰϳůď ^, ZK< 973-570-8215 murdochengineering.com 9 of 9 New Projects projects@murdochengineering.com Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220013 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1309 Remington St. Owner: Dan and Martha Connors Petitioner: Jordan Oberman, Designer/Builder Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2) Variance Request: This is a request for three variances to rebuild an accessory building (garage): 1) Request to exceed the total square footage allowed by 389.2 square feet. The maximum permitted is 2,394.8 square feet. 2) Request to exceed the total square footage allowed in the rear half by 139.25 square feet. The maximum is 871.75 square feet. 3) Request to exceed the eave height for an accessory building without habitable space by 8 feet. The maximum allowed along the side lot line is 10 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a part of the 1925 LC Moores Annexation and received development approval around the same time. The primary structure was built approximately around 1933. The existing garage is a one-story structure. Located 5ft of the rear property line with the garage door facing the alley. The existing garage was built at a time when cars where shorter in length. The proposed garage is located approximately in the same location but different width and length dimensions. It is 9sf less in size and is a one-story structure. The gable ends of the propose garage face the side property line. This creates an eave that is higher than the allowed 10ft eave height. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval of the increase floor area for the lot and within the rear half of the lot and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The existing structure is greater in size • The proposed structure is located in the same location and maintains vehicle access from the alley. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 Further Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial of the increase of up lighting and finds that: • The eave height increase is over 50% of the allowed height. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 2 • The building is at the minimum 5ft side-yard setback. • 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 approval of partial request of APPEAL ZBA220013. 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-imposed); (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 vari ance 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 1309 Remington Jordan Obermann Owner's Design&Builder 80524 120 W Olive St. Dan and Martha Connors 970-412-9777 Division 4.7, (D)Jordan@forgeandbow.com NCL Current maximum allowable square footage for this lot is 2,645 above grade square footage. Currently, there are 3043 above grade square footage, which is certainly way beyond what is allowable, however, is acceptable due to the timing of when the code was adopted. Additional, the existing garage is not structurally sound. We propose building a new garage that will reduce the overall square footage by 10 feet, bringing us closer to code. Our alternative is to repair the existing garage, keeping the size, and maintaining being an eyesore for the community. March 7, 2022 2. Equal to or better than Additional Justification Additional Justification If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted To whom it may concern; We would like to submit for two zoning variances in order to demolish and rebuild a garage at 1309 Remington Dr., Fort Collins, CO. Currently, the house and garage sit on a 6,974 square foot lot. With current zoning codes, this allows for 2,395 square feet of above grade floor area, plus 250 more because of the detached garage. This gives us 2,645 above grade square footage for the Floor Area Ratio. Additionally, we are allowed to have 871.75 square feet on the rear half of the lot. In current conditions, there is 2,485 square feet of above grade square footage in the house, and 558 square feet of garage space, totalling 3,043 total Floor Area on the lot. This is 398 square feet more than is allowable under current code. Additionally, the current conditions have 1,020 square feet on the rear half, 148.25 more than allowable. Upon inspection of the existing garage by Jason Baker (Advanced Engineering), he determined that the current garage is a safety risk due to its dilapidated condition, and should immediately be repaired or replaced. After inspections by my company, Forge & Bow dwellings, we quickly determined that the cost to repair will be nearly identical to the cost to replace. We are aware that by removing the existing garage, current code would not allow us to rebuild. Therefore, we are requesting variances that would allow us to do this work. We believe that the variances should be granted due to the following reasons: the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance(s) is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance(s) is requested The reason for the floor area limitations in the Old Town area, both in regards to FAR and rear half ratio, is to limit the density of development on lots. Currently, the existing setup is beyond what is currently allowed, and is only able to stay due to grandfathered codes. Though my client could indeed repair (complying with current code) the existing garage so that it is safe, they would rather build something new that is 10 square feet smaller than the existing garage. Though it is minimal, this does indeed reduce the total floor area of the lot and the rear half ratio closer to the general purpose of the standard. Further, the new garage, even after repairs to the old garage, will be safer, and certainly much more aesthetically pleasing for the community at large. Thank you for considering this variance. Jordan Obermann, Owner of Forge & Bow Dwellings SITE PLAN1309 REMINGTON STREETLOT 9, BLK 2, L C MOORES 1ST, FTC +/- 9.8'REMINGTON STREETPATHWAY (existing)DEMO EXISTING ACCESSORY BLDG. 558 SFPRIMARY BUILDING(existing)UNCOVEREDPORCH(existing)ALLEY+/- 36.2'RIBBON DRIVEWAY (existing)DNDNDN+/- 3.9'DNPROJECT DATAADDRESS _1309 REMINGTON., FORT COLLINS, CO 80524ZONING DISTRICT _ N-C-LLOT SIZE _ 6,974 SFNUMBER OF STORIES_ 1.5 STORIES + BASEMENTALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA(20% LOT =1,395 sf + 1,000 sf)_ 2,395 SF MAXEXISTING ALLOWABLE SQ. FT. _ 2,793 SF BASEMENT_ (667 SF NOT INCLUDED)MAIN FLOOR_ 1,477 SFUPSTAIRS_ 1,008 SFEXIST GARAGE_ 308 SF (558 SF EXISTING -250 SF)NEW GARAGE_ 302 SF (552 SF EXISTING -250 SF)TOTAL REAR HALF AREA_ 1,020 SF(552 SF NEW GARAGE + 462 SF MAIN HOUSE)PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS BASED ON EXISTING RECORDS AND ASSUMPTIONS.NEW GARAGE(ACCESSORY)549 SF22'-0"1'-6"24'-0"A0.025A0.024A0.023A0.0214'-0"16'-0"4'-0"SIDE SETBACK5'-0"5'-0"SIDE SETBACK5'-0"FRONT SETBACK15'-0"50'-0"139'-5"EXISTING FOOTPRINT8'-6"14'-0"1'-6"MIDLINEREAR HALF MAIN HOUSE289 SF (289 SF MAIN + 173 SF UPPER)FORGE + BOW DWELLINGS120 W. OLIVE ST, SUITE 220, FORT COLLINS, CO/CONNORS RESIDENCE04/26/22REMINGTON PROJECTSCALE:1" = 10'-0"1VARIANCE-SITE PLAN TRIM TO MATCH EXISTINGGABLE END TRIM DETAIL TO MATCH EXISTINGGABLE END TRIM DETAIL TO MATCH EXISTINGBRG. HT.T.O.F.EL. = 109' - 1 1/8"EL. = 100' - 0"8'-0"GABLE END TRIM DETAIL TO MATCH EXISTINGTRIM TO MATCH EXISTINGSTUCCO TO MATCH EXISTINGHEEL1'-0"10:1210:1212:1212:12FORGE + BOW DWELLINGS120 W. OLIVE ST, SUITE 220, FORT COLLINS, CO/CONNORS RESIDENCE03/07/22REMINGTON PROJECTSCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"4GARAGE - EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"5GARAGE - NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3GARAGE - SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1GARAGE - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2ROOF PLAN - GARAGE From:Paul Esposti paul@forgeandbow.com Subject:Fwd: 1309 Remington Date:March 4, 2022 at 12:18 PM To:Jordan Obermann jordan@forgeandbow.com Jordan, Please see below. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jason Baker <jason@advancedengineeringllc.com> Date: Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:58 PM Subject: 1309 Remington To: Paul Esposti <paul@forgeandbow.com> Hi Paul, As we discussed at 1309 Remington, I feel the home has good bones and was built with quality above the standard of that time. The floors felt relatively level and solid, and there were no indications of instability or significant post-construction movement. The cracks in the north exterior wall near the northwest corner are from minor differential settlement, they only require cosmetic repairs. The settlement likely occurred due to the downspout draining next to that corner. I recommend improving the drainage in all areas as best possible. Several of the interior walls are bearing for the second floor and roof framing. So, moving the walls around will require structural repairs. The extent of the repairs will depend on what walls move and how much they move. Modifying the walls around the bathrooms, between those rooms and the adjacent closets, will be fairly easy and friendly to your budget. Modifying the hallway walls will be a larger task and will have the highest cost for design and construction. Given this, if there are thoughts of moving a hallway wall just a few inches it may not be worth the cost. But as with any project, we can do anything the owners want to pay for. We won't be able to do the structural design until your plans are done and some finish materials are removed to allow better observation of the existing framing. Design fees could range from approximately $2k to $8k for the house remodel, depending on the scope of work. At the garage, the roof is shot and needs to be removed. This building is not safe to be in when there is snow on the roof. But the structure can be saved, I feel the walls are mostly in good shape, just needing some repairs. I recommend new roof framing and repairing the walls as needed. The roof framing could be single slope rafters as it was, or could be manufactured trusses with various shapes/slopes. You could even consider attic trusses to gain some storage space. The building could use more shear wall on the west side, you should plan on eliminating one of the garage doors. Design fees could range from approximately $1k to $3k for the garage project, depending on the scope of work. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jason E. Baker, P.E. President/Principal Advanced Engineering, LLC 229 12th Street SW, Loveland, CO 80537 970-278-1909 office, 970-690-4616 cell jason@advancedengineeringllc.com Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220014 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4007 & 4009 Rock Creek Rd. Owner: Jumbuck LLC Petitioner: Richard Gray, Contractor Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d); 3.8.19(A)(6) Variance Request: This is a request for an 8.25-foot setback which is encroaching 11.75 feet into the required 20-foot side setback COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is part of the 2005 Sunrise Ridge annexation. It received development approval in 2007 part of the Sunrise Ridge second filing. Later in 2018 a major amendment was approved to allow duplex to be built on each lot. The 2019 Major Amendment approved reduced setbacks for each lot to accommodate a duplex design with shared drive access. This received an allowed encroachment into the side setback of 10ft. Effectively reducing the 20ft setback to a 10ft setback. The side lot line abuts a tract of HOA land that separates it from the other residential lot by approximately 20ft. The site plan submitted with the building permit application complied with the reduced 10ft side setback. During construction it was found that the building encroaches into the 10ft side setback by an additional…. 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 a tract of land that separated the residential properties by 20ft • A six foot fence could be place between the house and 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 ZBA220014.