The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/09/2022 - 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 JUNE 9, 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/95679758616. 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 June 9, 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: 956 7975 8616. (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 ZBA220016 Address: 1026 Linden Gate Ct. Owner/ Petitioner: Andrew Pakiz Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(F)1 Project Description: This is a request for two street facing garages on a duplex to not be recessed behind the front façade of the house or covered porch. 2. APPEAL ZBA220017 Address: 281 Willow St. Owner: 232 Willow Residences Petitioner: Kelly Larson, Regional Manager Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.3(E)(Table E) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the total sign area for a banner by 90 square feet. The maximum sign area allowed for a banner is 40 square feet. 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 ZBA220018 Address: 504 Pearl St. Owner: Ben & Lindsey Mater Petitioner: Heidi Shuff, Architect Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Project Description: This is a request to exceed the allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot by 352 square feet. The maximum allowed is 731 square feet. 4. APPEAL ZBA220020 Address: 1843 Michael Ln. Owner/Petitioner: Mike and Kristy Millsaps Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d); 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: This is a request for a home addition to encroach 5 feet into the required 20-foot side setback and the eave to encroach into the 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 MAY12, 2022 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of Commission member McCoy. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Lawton to approve the April 14, 2022, Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE Before hearing the first item, Noah Beals indicated that Assistant City Attorney Claire Havelda would be offering some clarification of the rules and procedures of the Commission. Claire Havelda stated that is has come to our attention that we have couple of conflicts regarding item #5, ZBA220014 [correction (see note below*): item #4, ZBA220013]. Commission members who have conflict can offer details of their conflict individually. What happens when there is a conflict is that those Commission members must recuse themselves. When that happens, we will no longer have a quorum as defined in page 19 of the Boards and Commission manual, which requires that we have a majority of the seats present when conducting a quasi-judicial hearing. Thus, the Commission will not be able to hear item #5 [correction (see note below*): item #4] during today’s hearing. Noah Beals may have an alternative way to do that without having the applicant wait until our next meeting. Beals can offer additional information. Havelda asked that the Commission members with conflicts state their name, state their conflict, and the reason they will be recusing. Chair La Mastra stated that she had a conflict of interest, as the applicant is a current client of theirs. Vice Chair Shuff stated that he had a conflict of interest, as the applicant is a current client of theirs. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 May 12, 2022 Beals indicated he will need to look into alternative methods of meeting prior to the next regul ar meeting. Normally when a Commission loses a quorum, that agenda item is moved to the next month’s meeting; hopefully we will have a quorum for next month. Staff will take a look to see if we can hold a remote or similar meeting earlier, working with Commission members’ and applicant’s schedules. La Mastra asked Havelda how many seats need to be present to meet quorum. Havelda asked Beals to confirm the full numbers of seats on the Commission. Beals stated it is seven members, meaning a quorum requires four members be present. La Mastra questioned if that changed due to the Commission being down two members. Havelda responded that unfortunately, the rules as they stand say it is a full number of those that the Commission seats that are available, regardless of whether or not there is a vacancy. La Mastra stated that because we are currently down two members, and two additional members have a conflict of interest, there is no way to meet quorum based on the current composition of the Commission. Beals explained further that the Commission has seven total seats; two are currently vacant, leaving five occupied seats. With the recusal of two of those members, we only have three seats occupied for this particular item, and thus can’t hear the appeal until at least one vacancy is filled. Havelda stated that we cannot make decisions in a quasi-judicial manner without four Commission members present. This is a problem, and the Attorney’s office will look into possible solutions. The City Clerk has just posted for all vacant Commission positions, so now is the time to do some heavy recruiting. La Mastra expressed her feeling that we are in an unfortunate position. The by-laws are understood to, but we don’t want to leave an applicant hanging indefinitely on a project they need to move forward with. Havelda indicated she spoke with the Assistant City Clerk this morning, and there are conversations happening about the fact that this unworkable for many of our Commissions; the discussion also explored the possibility of allowing the vote of the majority of whom we have appointed. That has not been finalized at this point. Beals asked for clarification regarding the agenda item in question. Commission member Meyer discovered a discrepancy between the agenda item numbers. *The correct appeal number and agenda item are as follows: Agenda item 4, ZBA220013 (1309 Remintgton Street). Beals clarified/confirmed that the item La Mastra and Shuff are recusing themselves from is actually item #4, ZBA220013, 1309 Remington Street. That item will be tabled today. 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that this item was tabled from last month’s meeting. Beals noted the property is near the corner of W Mountain and S Grant Ave, four lots in from the corner heading west. The request is to re -work the structure and maintain the existing square footage. The issue is the building is non-conforming as it exceeds allowable square footage for lot size. Once you self-demo square footage and build back, you are Land Use Review Commission Page 3 May 12, 2022 supposed to build back within compliance. During last month’s meeting, the applicant presented a different design with alternative bulk and massing of the structure. This request will include some self-demoing and reconstruction of the second floor, but within and generally close to the existing roof lines. Thus, the bulk and massing has minimal changes. Instead of taller wall increases along the second floor, the new construction will maintain the same outline that exists today. Beals presented side-by-side views of the existing structure elevations and those being proposed, noting the existing roof line is maintained. The design is attempting to stay within existing roof lines and wall heights, and re-work what is happening in the interior. Some window placements and sizes have been slightly modified. Beals went on to share pictures of the interior that were provided by the applicant, describing the existing vaulted area that doubles the square footage count. Additionally, there are some areas of low ceiling height, which under code also count as part of the total square footage of the residence. Application Presentation: Applicant representative Steve Josephs addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the meeting in a hybrid format. Josephs explained that the first request included 8-foot walls on the second floor, while the revised current design maintains the existing second roof line. The only thing they are proposing now closing in the vaulted area at the stairwell, which will add approximately 200 square feet of usable floor space. The applicant now feels there is minimal impact to the neighborhood, as there will be no discernable change to the existing size and mass. Exterior changes are minimal, consisting of slight changes in window size/placement as well as new detailing on the front façade. Chair La Mastra asked Beals for clarification, noting that what is included in the Board packet appears to be the same design as the one submitted last month. However, the slides presented by Beals to appear to describe a new design. La Mastra stated that if what was shown by Beals is the correct, new design, she is in favor. Commission member Meyer asked Josephs to confirm that the current plan is to not demo the existing roof, but to work within the existing roof structure. Josephs confirmed this as accurate. Beals indicated that he had received an email from a neighbor concerning this appeal and would read the email for the Commission. The email reads as follows: Regarding Appeal ZBA220008 Mr. Noah Beals City of Fort Collins Board of Zoning Appeals Dear Mr Beals, Please express to the Board of Zoning Appeals my dismay at, and ardent opposition to the variance request by the owners of 811 West Mountain Ave for an additional 1127 square feet on an NCL zone. This is a 42% increase. I could see a 2% to 5% increase, but this is clearly too large an increase of floor area ratio for this lot. Otherwise, why do we have zoning districts? Thank you, Bill Whitley 618 W Mountain Ave Fort Collins CO 80521 Land Use Review Commission Page 4 May 12, 2022 Commission member Shuff asked Beals if staff could respond to the sender and indicate that square footage is an existing condition as a means of clarification. Chair La Mastra confirmed that with the newly submitted design, the applicant would be maintaining the existing roof line and only changing the interior of the house. Josephs confirmed that to be accurate. Shuff stated his appreciation for their willingness to work within existing confines, since this exceeds the Land Use Code by quite a bit. Shuff commented he felt comfortable approving this request, in that we are really not changing the condition, and hopefully the homeowner gets what they want with a cleaned-up remodel of that existing condition. Commission Discussion: Commission member Lawton commented that the applicant has come back with pretty much all that was asked of them at last month’s hearing. The current design looks great and does not appear to have problems. Commission member Meyer seconded the opinion put forth by Lawton, noting the proposed changes are minimal. Meyer stated he would be comfortable approving the request. Chair La Mastra commented even the exterior is improved from what was shown last month. The gable roof provides variation along the side elevation. La Mastra acknowledged the concerns of the neighbor, however at this point there is not impact on street-side elevations other that changing window placements. La Mastra is in support of the new design. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA220008 as submitted by the applicant with the current re-design. Approval is basedt on the fact that the variance is not detrimental to the public good; existing wall heights and building height will be maintained; the footprint of the existing structure does not change, 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: Lawton, Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra Nays: - Absent: McCoy THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA220011 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) 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is in a newer subdivision (“Fox Grove”), which is currently being built out. It is located at the corner of a new intersection being built; this lot is a bit larger than the others in the subdivision. The current request is for encroachment into the street-side setback. The house as constructed was built into the street-side setback along Vixen drive. Beals presented three site plans (Original, Revised, Land Use Review Commission Page 5 May 12, 2022 and Constructed), as means of explaining what happened to cause the structure to be built in the street-side setback. The original site plan came in with a three-car garage with a seven-foot setback to the west property line. The plans were revised to remove the three-car garage, and the side setback pushed to ten feet. What was constructed was a house with a three-car garage but starting with the west side 10-foot side setback. That ended up pushing the rest of the car to the east, which caused the structure to encroach on the street-side setback. Beal presented photographs of the house as it currently sits on the intersection of Fox Grove Drive and Vixen Drive, showing the three-car garage and existing encroachment into the street-side setback. Beals noted the encroachment does not encroach into the easement but is within the setback. Chair La Mastra posed a question regarding the Staff findings contained within the Staff Report, which notes a six-foot fence could be constructed within the fifteen-foot setback. La Mastra asked Beals why that was noted, and if that is indeed allowed within the HOA rules of the development. Beals responded that the fence was noted in the Staff Report because the setback is usually there to prevent a structure from looming into the public right-of-way. A six-foot fence can generally be within a side setback, usually within two feet of the back of sidewalk. That may be more looming than this two - foot encroachment. As far as the HOA requirements, the city is not aware of those guidelines. Commission member Lawton asked Beals when this issue discovered. Beals explained with single unit structures, when newly constructed, they require an Improvement Lot Certificate (ILC). That is performed by a surveyor and then submitted to the city at the end of construction in order to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. ILCs are typically not seen by the city until the end phase of construction. Beals stated he is not sure of when exactly the applicant themselves became aware of the issue. Commission member Meyer noted the original design showed a three-car garage, while the revised plan included a two-car garage. Was that change made in response to a city request during the planning review process? Beals responded the change was not made based on a city request, as approval had been granted for a three-car garage option that had a seven-foot setback to the west side and maintained the 15-foot setback on the east side. The applicant then re-submitted for revision. This may be because the purchaser requested a two- rather than three-car garage. The applicant maybe able to speak to that change directly. Meyer asked Beals if this were denied, what would the next steps be considering the structure has already been built? Beals indicated that if the appeal were denied, the applicant may want to appeal that decision to Council. Or, if they did not want to appeal, they could perform reconstruction of the existing structure. Application Presentation: Applicant Derek Hofferber addressed the Commission and agreed to hold the hearing in a hybrid format. Hoffberer stated there was a misunderstanding when originally submitting for the permit, explaining that his permitting department received notification that a three-car garage would not be allowed on the corner lot. That prompted them to re-submit for the two and a half-car garage. The issue was subsequently cleared up that a three-car would be allowed to, and the design was again re- submitted with a three-care garage design. That design was ultimately constructed. Regarding the ILC, Hofferber explained that during construction, they performed a form check when the foundation was poured to ensure that everything was staked and excavated properly and in the right location. During inspection, it was missed that the home was moved over a few feet. The ILC was not submitted until applying for the Certificate of occupancy, at which time it was realized that the home was moved over a few feet. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 May 12, 2022 Hofferber explained that the hardship in this instance would be that if denied, the home would potentially need to be demolished and rebuilt in entirety. Therefore, a variance would be appreciated. The structure does not appear to be blocking any existing site lines. The existing split-rail fence is an HOA requirement, and a six-foot privacy fence would not be allowed. Hofferber indicated that his surveyor, Jon Lane, is available for any technical questions or explanations regarding the survey work and/or the Improvement Lot Certificate. La Mastra indicated that the Commission would not need to hear from Lane at this time. Commission Discussion: Commission member Lawton stated that because the structure is already built, these decisions can become controversial. If the petitioner had come before the Commission beforehand, there probably would not be that much trouble in approving the setback encroachment that currently exists. Vice Chair Shuff agreed with the sentiments offered by Lawton, stating that the fact that is only encroaching into a setback and not an easement helps with minimizing the impact. It is a two -story wall on a corner, which creates a presence, but it is not easily noticeable. Hopefully moving forward, the builder and surveyor can be a bit more careful in their double-checking. Commission member Meyer stated his willingness to approve the request, commenting the thoughts of Lawton were well-put, in that if this request had come before the board prior to construction, the encroachment in to setback would most likely be approved as nominal and inconsequential. Impact on sight lines and the corner are very minimal. Chair La Mastra noted she would not support this if it came in this way, due to the fact that they are exceeding their other side-yard setback. However, La Mastra is pleased the surveyor did confirm there are no sight-line issues, because that is main concern with corn er lots. La Mastra has more understanding of how this occurred, and the existing structure not detrimental to the public in anyway. Therefore, La Mastra is comfortable supporting the request. Commission Member Lawton made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE ZBA220011 for the following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; a six-foot fence can be constructed in the 15-foot setback and there is not an existing neighborhood to the south of the property. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Lawton, Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra Nays: - Absent: McCoy THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 3. APPEAL ZBA220012 Address: 1020 E Lincoln Ave. Owner: Freddy Bensch Petitioner: Kristin Zipkin, Signage Provider 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. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 May 12, 2022 Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on the corner of E Lincoln Ave and S Lemay Ave. The building was originally constructed as Fort Collins Brewery; it was later taken over by Red Truck Brewery; that has since been purchased by Sweet Water Brewery. The request is to install what the Land Use Code considers a free-standing sign. The sign is over maximum allowable height per regulations, and it came with lighting that does not fit our current lighting standards. The timeline of events is proceeded first with a sign permit was submitte d to re- brand the building and the brand on behalf of new ownership. The sign permit application did include the statue, which is a free-standing sign because it is their primary marketing image. The city notified the applicant that the free-standing sign would be an issue; they removed that element from the sign permit and proceeded with permitting the rest of the signs. Upon inspection of the permitted signs, it was found that the free-standing sign had been installed, though it did not receive approval. The applicant is here today seeking variances for the two standards that did not allow the free - standing sign to be approved initially. If the applicant does receive a variance, they would still need to pull a sign permit to have it formally approved. If variances are not granted, the free-standing sign would need to be modified and/or adjusted to meet those requirements. Beals pointed out images from the Sweet Water website, noting their marketing symbol does employ the same “trout” image that is utilized in the free-standing sign element. Beals also noted that the previous owner, Red Truck Brewery, previously employed a free-standing sign element in the form of a red vintage pick-up truck. That free-standing sign was in compliance with the Land Use Code. Beals commented that the other issue to mention is the manner sign heigh is measured; total height is measured from street grade to the top of the sign. If there are grade changes that happen, such as a hill, that will impact the overall sign height as well. Beals stated he believed the owners thought they were constructing the sign to the right height, but due to grade changes the total height is actually over the allowable maximum. In this case, the sign is further set back than normal, pushed back toward s to the building in order to accommodate an existing retention pond and deck. Regarding the requested variance for uplighting, Beals noted the Land Use Code lighting standards were updated recently and now require a BUG rating. BUG stands for Backlight, Uplight, and Glare. In this LC1 zone, we are looking for lights to have little amounts of BUG. The problem with the lights installed on the sign is that they are mounted on the ground and point up, which exceeds the lumen standards that are allowable. When a light is pointed up, the uplight is very prominent. Even before the recent updates to BUG rating, the Land Use Code did contain a restriction on uplighting. Beals again clarified that the applicant is seeking two variance requests: one for overall he ight of the sign, and the second to allow for uplighting. Beals presented pictures of the existing sign, both looking east along Lincoln Ave as well as seen head-on. Beals commented there are other options available for lighting of the sign, including existing exterior deck lighting, wall sconce lighting that could be pointed down, and in some instances free-standing signs may attach a light to the top of the free- standing sign which points downward. Commission member Lawton asked Beals to clarify how the trout statue qualifies as a free-standing sign, as it does not appear to employ any lettering or text. Beals explained that when an entity’s marketing lettering, colors, or symbols are used, the element is then considered a sign. Commission member Meyer ask Beals if the sign was attached to the building, would it no longer be exceeding the height requirement for a free-standing sign? Beals commented there are maximum height requirements for wall signs as well. Depending on the width, which this sign may exceed, a vertically oriented wall sign is allowed to be taller than a flush-wall or cabinet-sign. If the sign were attached and considered a wall sign, it would still likely exceed the requirements in other ways. Land Use Review Commission Page 8 May 12, 2022 Lawton asked if the same sign standards applied to the water tower element, which appears to have branding and logos applied to the tank. Beals responded that staff have been told the water tower is functional, and therefore is considered a structural element rather than a free-standing sign. The branding images on the water tower are each considered to be wall signs. Application Presentation: *No applicant or representative were present to address the Commission. Resident Michelle Haefelle addressed the Commission and agreed to participate in the hearing in hybrid format. Haefelle stated that it is bad public policy to grant variances after a violation is committed, and the City does this far too often. Haefelle commented her preference would be that the entire request be denied, but at the very least please do not permit the upward directed lighting. Haefelle stated there is much scientific evidence which finds that light pollution is harmful to ecosystems, specific animal species, and humans. The city has for decades pursued policies that promote environmental protection, and the lighting code is an important part of that effort. Haefelle continued to give examples of the harmful effects of l ight pollution, including that it is especially detrimental to hunting and migrating birds who navigate by moonlight and starlight; has been shown to be a driver of insect declines, which in turn affects insect eating species, mostly birds, but also some animals and also plant pollination; is detrimental to fish spawning activities in rivers as well as affecting some coral reef species. Haefelle noted that humans are also impacted by light pollution, which can disrupt sleep, which in turn has several health consequences, including cardiovascular and immune system impacts. Haefelle concluded her remarks by stating she would like the Commission to please deny the request for upward pointing lighting on this overly large sign. Chair La Mastra thanked Haefelle for her comments. Commission Discussion: Commission member Lawton asked if discussion was ok without the applicant present; Chair La Mastra responded she did not believe the applicant needed to be present for discussion and/or decision, asking Assistant Attorney Claire Havelda for additional comment or counsel. Havelda stated applicants always have the option of attending or not, and if they choose not to the Commission is welcome to infer against them in a civil matter. Chair La Mastra commented that without the applicant asking for a continuance and, with it being allowed that they are not present to add any further information to what was submitted in the packet, she advised that the Commission move forward with discussion and a motion. Havelda asked if she could provide clarification before discussion moved forward, commenting there was a mistake in the packet with reference to the code site. Havelda stated the proper code site to be “Lighting Requirements”, Land Use Code 3.2.4, and the reference to the Sign Code should have been 3.8.7.2(G)(2). Commission member Lawton commented that in deference to the last request, the work has already been done and that’s fine. The request and the explanation before this was done is pretty clear and then to come back and find that it's been done anyway, is A little upsetting. Lawton commented he absolutely agreed on a lot of the lighting issues, and and appreciated the comments of Haefelle to point that out. Lawton commented on the height restriction, stating that it seems like it could be something that was accommodated through design, rather than just coming in saying was you know it's approved what's already been put up so there's not a lot favorable for him in this request. Land Use Review Commission Page 9 May 12, 2022 Chair La Mastra asked Beals if the sign is located on a raised platform to r aise it above the height of the railing. Vice Chair Shuff commented there are engineered drawings in the packet showing the sign is on a pedestal and the pedestal is on the deck. Beals confirmed there is a raised portion of the deck for the pedestal of the sign. Commission member Meyer commented he agreed with the assessments given regarding uplighting, and certainly would not have approved that. Meyer stated that it the fish could have been installed two feet lower, they just chose not to. However, one could visualize what the fish would look like two feet lower, and it doesn’t seem that there's much of an impact for being two feet taller. Meyer stated the visual impact is negligible in his mind. Regardless of the where the sign is located, it is still going to be a big fish. La Mastra commented this is set back much further, and if you think about it in the same way as the impacts, where we allow wall heights to increase as that setback increases, it could be seen in a similar context for this as far as the visual impact of it. It is different than it being right up next to the right of way and taller. Meyer commented that if the fish were installed to the proper height but was also installed to a much closer degree to the corner of property, which is allowed, then it would have a much greater impact that it does now. Therefore, Meyer feels that the setback actually helps with that extra height. La Mastra agreed with Haefelle’s input regarding the frustration of being asked to approve a violation after it has already been installed, adding that she would hope that we can say that give the benefit of the doubt that there was a miscommunication in what part of the signed package was approved and not approved when they came in, and hope that it was just a miscommunication and nothing that was somebody was intentionally doing to try to get around that. La Mastra stated that she felt comfortable with this being set back further, but was not comfortable with the lighting, and that portion of the request needs to be denied. Vice Chair Shuff thanked members for their discussion and agreed that the lighting request ought be denied and needed no further discussion. Regarding what is allowed for the free -standing sign to be installed against the right of way, it would be allowed. The fact that it is setback helps. However, it is a large percentage. La Mastra asked Beals if he could provide the minimum permitted setback and what this is actually set back too? It may be less than 20% of the actual minimum. Shuff agreed, commenting you would also need to examine the actual sight lines. If the sign were closer to the right of way, it would have a larger impact. Compared to that, it seems to be nominal and inconsequential. Also, lowering the sign two feet would not really change the existing visual impact. Based on those findings, Shuff would be comfortable with approving that request, on the justification of either nominal or inconsequential or equal to or better than. La Mastra agreed that approval based on the justification of equal to or better than may be a stronger case. Beals offered that the minimum setback is 12 feet, and that the sign was currently setback more than twelve feet. La Mastra stated that she estimated, based on the site plan, the setback to be approximately 40-50 feet. Therefore, equal to or better than would make sense in the context of this sign for approving the height variation. One could also argue that it's nominal and inconsequential because you don't notice the height difference when it's set back significantly further, so either one could be argued appropriately within the code. Commission member Lawton commented that it's unfortunate that the city petitioner isn't here because we could hear the story behind why this is put in the way and whether it was a miscommunication or whether it was just a don't care kind of thing. Lawton stated that with the setback, he could follow Land Use Review Commission Page 10 May 12, 2022 along that it would be more impact even meeting the height, but clos er to the street where it would have more impact than where it is currently. Chair La Mastra nominated Vice Chair Shuff to make a motion. Havelda suggested that because there are two variance requests, it may be easiest to make two separate motions. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA220012, part one of request, under code section 3.8.7.2(G)2 based on discussion, staff presentations and based on the variance not being detrimental to the public good and is considered equal to or better than an approved freestanding sign location that could have been located closer to the right of way and allowed. Additionally, there is the detention pond in front of building making it difficult to locate the sign off of the elevated deck. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard, but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in section 1.2.2. Yeas: Lawton, Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra Nays: - Absent: McCoy THE MOTION CARRIED, ITEM WAS APPROVED Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to DENY ZBA220012, part two of request, under code section 2.10.4(H) based off staff recommendation, staff presentation, and Commission discussion. The denial is based on the findings that that the direct uplighting has negative impacts to the purpose of the standard and increases light pollution; there are other locations in place to illuminate the sign, and there are already some lights in place on the building in that area. Havelda offered clarification, stating that is the correct standard for the review. The Land Use Code that the applicant is looking to deviate from is 3.2.4, which is our exterior site lighting. Yeas: Lawton, Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra Nays: - Absent: McCoy THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED 4. APPEAL ZBA220013 – APPEAL TABLED DUE TO RECUSAL AND LACK OF QUORUM 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. Land Use Review Commission Page 11 May 12, 2022 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of Rock Creek Drive and Strauss Cabin Road, and sits in the cul- de-sac of Sun Glow court. Beals noted that aerial views show the foundations that have been poured for the property. The request is for a setback into the rear-yard setback. The original approval of this development granted a reduction from the U-E, which normally requires a 20-foot rear-yard setback. The original development approval approved a 10-foot setback, so they had already received a 10-foot reduction. This request is for an additional couple feet into the 10-foot setback. Beals also pointed out there is a tract of land that will be in common ownership with the HOA measuring approximately 20 feet wide between the subject property and the next property that has a residential structure. Beals presented a site plan showing the request and explained that window wells do not count towards the encroachment, but the above grade structures do. There is significant encroachment, approximately 8.5 feet at the corner. There are some cantilevered elements, which are not counted against the encroachment. Beals also noted the site was approved for a duplex, which is a two -unit building joined in the middle by a storage shed or similar. The current property is under construction currently. Beals presented the original site plan which shows the tract of land between lot 1 and lot 2, so the visual impact that increased encroachment here may be minimal as there is already a 20-foot setback in between those two property lines. The original development plan did show some proposed building envelopes and it was definitely proposed that that those structures be right up against that that 10-foot setback because there wasn't a much room towards the front to move any further north. Chair La Mastra stated she was confused, because on the first page of the staff report what the variance requests states is encroachment into the side setback, but then the application request is talking about a variance to the rear setback. La Mastra also stated her confusion on the corner, and asked for clarification regarding which side is this addressing, and to clarify which is considered “side” and “rear” here. Beals responded that the front of the structure does face Rock Creek Drive, and the western structure addresses off of Rock Creek. The rest of the structures will be addressed off of Sun Glow Ct. For this structure, the north property line is the front, and the south property line is considered the rear. Vice Chair Shuff asked if Tract A functioned essentially like an alley. Beals responded there was not vehicle access and may be covering a storm water pipe/outlet within an easement. The are is unbuildable. Commission member Lawton asked if we may see additional lots later on, as they appear to be right up against the property lines. Beals responded that the aerial picture is pretty accurate as to what is on-site currently. This is the first property that has needed a variance. There is another lot that is currently under Director Review. Other lots are under active construction at this time. Beals stated that Land Use Review Commission Page 12 May 12, 2022 for the most part the developer has realized that this could be a potential issue and is trying to ta ke care to accurately pour the foundations. There is a chance that we could see some of these lots request a variance in the future as build out continues. Application Presentation: Applicant Richard Gray, contractor, addressed to participate in the hear ing in a hybrid format. Gray stated that the owner bought the property with the foundations already up and done, and Gray came in to do a side setback and discovered they were intruding into the setback, and variance was needed in order to continue. Vice Chair Shuff aske Gray to confirm his understanding that the foundation was poured under previous ownership, and that Gray was asked to come in at a later date by new owners to finish the job. Gray indicated that to be accurate. Commission Discussion: Chair La Mastra referred back to the site plans presented by Beals, stating her assumption that the gray shaded areas depicted in the plans represented the areas of the walls that are encroaching. La Mastra commented one thing to keep in mind is that typically, when we talk about those setback encroachments, we talked about the percentage of encroachment to along the entire property line, and this appears to be pretty nominal with those little slivers of walls. Vice Chair Shuff agreed with La Mastra’s comments, noting that the encroachment created by the walls was only about 15%, or 1.5 feet over 10 feet. Shuff commented that it was good to hear that the current owners inherited this issue and are now trying to perform their due diligence. 15% on a ten-foot setback is within reason of nominal and inconsequential. It is also helpful to know that the Tract A area can never be built on and provides additional buffer to the south. Shuff stated his willingness to support a motion to approve the request. Commission member Meyer added that in addition to Tract A, the wedge shape of Lot 2 adds even more setback from the adjacent structure. Meyer would be comfortable supporting the appeal. Commission member Lawton stated that this is similar to earlier appeals, where considered on its own merit of the original owner had come and asked for this variance, considering the presence of Tract A, the Commission probably would have looked favorably at the request. Additionally, understanding that this issue was taken over and wasn’t the fault of the current petitioner, Lawton would be comfortable supporting the request. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton to Approve ZBA220014 based on Code Sections 4.2(D)(2)(d) and 3.8.19(A)(6) based on the staff presentation and applicant presentation and based on discussion of the Commission, we find the variance is not detrimental to the public good; there is a tract of land at separates their residential properties by 20 feet; a six-foot fence could be placed between the house and the property line. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in section 1.2.2. Yeas: Lawton, Shuff, Meyer, La Mastra Nays: - Absent: McCoy THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS Beals mentioned to the Commission that the application process for Commission vacancies has been opened, and staff will be sending out a link to the application process to members for recruitment purposes. Additionally, we do have items for next month’s agenda. Land Use Review Commission Page 13 May 12, 2022 Chair La Mastra asked Claire Havelda to keep her posted on the item that cannot be heard until either that code changes or somebody is appointed. La Mastra stated her concerns, given how long it takes to get other board members. We don't want to leave these folks hanging indefinitely Havelda agreed to keep La Mastra, and the Commission updated. Havelda also commented for consideration, rather than advisement, that members are always welcome to come to public comment at the beginning of City Council meetings and raise this issue and encourage the position that it's a quorum of those currently appointed to the board and not necessarily all the vacant seats. La Mastra asked if it was Council who approves changes to Commission by-laws. Havelda responded that it depends on actions of both Council as well as being part of City Code, which would need to be updated. Commission member Lawton asked if it could be modified for a specific period of time/temporarily? Havelda responded that she can’t draft but can help City Council effectuate the resolution they would like to see. Havelda observed that Council have been very responsive to their boards and commissions, especially with a rational solution. La Mastra clarified that one option could be speaking to Council and asking for a temporary resolution that would allow the Commission to continue business for the applicant on the interim condition that until we have additional Commission members appointed. Havelda responded that is always the right of members to come speak to City Council, and that staff and herself will be communicating these concerns up to Council level. Commission member Meyer stated that he will be out of town for the next LURC Hearing (June 2022). Vice Chair Shuff asked if there are bigger recruitment issues with Boards and Commissions? Havelda indicated recruitment for all Boards and Commissions have been slow, and the application process was not officially opened until yesterday (May 11). La Mastra asked why the application process was just opened when we have had vacancies for months? Havelda and Beals were unaware of why the process was opened recently despite the ongoing vacancies. Beals also alluded to staffing shortages in the City Clerk’s office, which has traditionally been in charge of Board and Commission recruiting. La Mastra asked that our concerns be communicated to City Council, stating that it is upsetting that we have had vacancies for months, and have now put a homeowner and construction company at risk by not being able to hear their item in a timely manner. Shuff advised that this issued be taken up directly to Council, as it is creating real challenges for our Commission and applicants. La Mastra asked commission Members to write letters to Council regarding this concern if they are willing and able. Havelda suggested reaching out directly to LURC Council liaison Shirley Peele as well. La Mastra asked Beals for an approximate timeline from application submittal to actually being able to sit functionally on the Commission. Beals responded the best-case scenario is about two months from application and interview dates. • ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:17am Shelley La Mastra, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JUNE 9, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220016 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1026 Linden Gate Ct. Owner/Petitioner: Andrew Pakiz Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.5.2(F)1 Variance Request: This is a request for two street-facing garages on a duplex to not be recessed behind the front façade of the house or covered porch. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1986 part of the Lee Annexation. Later in 2003 the property received approval to develop for a residential use. The overall subdivision was approved for 12 residential lots with a requirement that only 5 of them could be used for single-family residential use. The other seven lots are required to have 2 dwelling units each. The Land Use Code requires garage doors that face a street to be recessed 4 feet behind the wall of the house or the behind a porch. This standard is to promote multi-mode transportation, provide visual interest along the street front, and encourage pedestrian use of the front area of the lot. Of the 12 lots in this subdivision the other 11 have been developed. Each other lot has complied by recessing the garage doors at least 4 feet behind the house or porch. This compliance includes the other 2 corner lots within the subdivision. The subject property does include the City of Greeley Water Line Easement along the south end the property. Although the easement prohibits structures it does not eliminate the ability for some driveway designs. This property also includes the largest lot width along the street out of the 12 lots of the subdivision. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The variance request decreases the intent of the code and puts the garage doors as the prominent feature of the residential structure. • Although the shape of the lot is different from the others in the subdivision it is also the 4th largest in size and the largest lot width along the street frontage. The larger size does provide room for structures to comply with the standards. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA220016. Andrew J Pakiz Digitally signed by Andrew J Pakiz DN: C=US, E=andy@pakizconstruction.com, OU=PAKIZ Construction Management LLC, CN=Andrew J Pakiz Date: 2022.05.08 18:13:04-06'00' DĂǇϲ͕ϮϬϮϮ &ƌŽŵ͗ŶĚǇWĂŬŝǌ KǁŶĞƌŽĨϭϬϮϲ>ŝŶĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞƚ;>Žƚϲ>ŝŶĚĞŶŵĞŝĞƌƐƚĂƚĞƐWhͿ ZĞ͗ ŽŶŝŶŐsĂƌŝĂŶĐĞZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌϭϬϮϲ>ŝŶĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞƚ dŽǁŚŽŵŝƚŵĂǇĐŽŶĐĞƌŶ͖ /ƌĞĐĞŶƚůǇƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĂŶĞǁĚƵƉůĞǆŚŽŵĞŽŶĂǀĂĐĂŶƚůŽƚĂƚϭϬϮϲ>ŝŶĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞ ƚ͖ƚŚĞĨŝŶĂůůŽƚƚŽďĞďƵŝůƚŝŶƚŚĞϭϮͲůŽƚƐƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ͘ ƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƉůĂŶƌĞǀŝĞǁ/ǁĂƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞĚŽŽƌƐĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŵĞĞƚ>h ϯ͘ϱ͘Ϯ;&Ϳ͘^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůǇ͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶƐĚŽŶŽƚŵĞĞƚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚ͚ƐƚƌĞĞƚͲĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĚŽŽƌƐŵƵƐƚďĞ ƌĞĐĞƐƐĞĚďĞŚŝŶĚĞŝƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚĨĂĐĂĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚĨůŽŽƌůŝǀŝŶŐĂƌĞĂŽƌĂĐŽǀĞƌĞĚƉŽƌĐŚ͛͘ /ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĂǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůǇĚƵĞƚŽŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉĐĂƵƐĞĚďǇƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĨĂĐƚŽƌƐ͘ ͲZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƚŽďƵŝůĚĂĚƵƉůĞǆǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞŽĨĨͲƐƚƌĞĞƚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŽŶĂǀĞƌǇĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶĞĚůŽƚ͘ ͲEƵŵĞƌŽƵƐĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚƐ;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂǁŝĚĞĚŝĂŐŽŶĂůůǇŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚŝƚǇŽĨ'ƌĞĞůĞǇǁĂƚĞƌůŝŶĞĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚͿ ͲŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐ͘ Ͳ^ůŽƉŝŶŐƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚǇ;ϱ͘Ϯ͛ŽĨĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĨƌŽŵŚŝŐŚĞƐƚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƚŽůŽǁĞƐƚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ͘Ϳ Ͳ/ŶĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽĚĞƐŝŐŶǁŝƚŚĂƐŝĚĞͲůŽĂĚŽƌƌĞĂƌͲůŽĂĚŐĂƌĂŐĞ;ĚƵĞƚŽƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚǇ͕ĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚ͕ĐƵůĚĞƐĂĐ͕ΘĚƵƉůĞǆĨŝƌĞ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐͿ͘ /ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĚƵĞƚŽŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉ͕/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉůĂŶƐĂůƐŽŽĨĨĞƌĂƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚ ĚŝǀĞƌŐĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞŝŶĂŶŽŵŝŶĂů͕ŝŶĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶƚŝĂůǁĂǇ͖ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůǇǁŚĞŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƚĞǆƚŽĨĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƚĂŝŶƐϭϭĐƵƐƚŽŵŚŽŵĞƐ͕ĞĂĐŚǁŝƚŚǀĞƌǇƵŶŝƋƵĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĂŶĚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ͘ dŽĐůŽƐĞ͕ŵǇŐŽĂůŝŶĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶŐĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŚŽŵĞŝƐƚŽďƵŝůĚƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝǀĞĂŶĚĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂůĚƵƉůĞǆƚŚĂƚ ŵĞĞƚƐŵǇŶĞĞĚƐĂŶĚĨŝƚƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚĂŶĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂĞƐƚŚĞƚŝĐ͘/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĞƉůĂŶƐ ǁŚŝĐŚ/͛ǀĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚĐĂƉƚƵƌĞƚŚĞďĞƐƚďĂůĂŶĐĞŽĨĂůůŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĨĂĐƚŽƌƐĂŶĚ/ŚŽƉĞƚŚĂƚǇŽƵǁŝůůĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞ ĂďŽǀĞŝŶŐƌĂŶƚŝŶŐĂǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞ͘ /ǁĞůĐŽŵĞǇŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚůŽŽŬĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽĂŶƐǁĞƌŝŶŐĂŶǇƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐǇŽƵŚĂǀĞ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůǇ͕ ŶĚƌĞǁ:WĂŬŝǌ ZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ͗ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ͕WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ͕ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ZĞŶĚĞƌŝŶŐ DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN EXISTING 3/4" WATER TAP, LINE, AND METER TO BE REPLACED WITH 1" TO ACCOMODATE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, STREET CUT REQ.23'-4 3/4"43'-0"25'-0"25'-0" (E) 90.15 (E) 89.85 (E) 90.45 (E) 90.95 (E) 91.32 (E) 91.60 (E) 88.57 (E) 87.78(E) 86.96 (E) 86.19 (E) 4985.40, USED AS BENCHMARK, PER RECORDED GRADING PLAN (E) 85.41 (E) 85.73 (E) 87.35 (E) 85.93 PROPOSED SWALE 27' @ 2%PROPOSEDSWALE 76' @ 2%10'-0"10'-0"4'-3" (P) 89.19 (P) 88.65 (P) 87.45TOP OF FOUNDATION 4990.59 TOP OF FOUNDATION 4990.59 TOP OF SUBFLOOR 4991.76 TOP OF GARAGE SLAB AT DOOR 90.10 TOP OF GARAGE SLAB AT HIGH POINT 90.59 TOP OF GARAGE SLAB AT DOOR 87.10 TOP OF GARAGE SLAB AT HIGH POINT 87.87 TOP OF FOUNDATION 4987.87 TOP OF FOUNDATION 4987.87 TOP OF SUBFLOOR 4989.05 MIN. 10" SLOPE/10'MIN. 10" SLOPE/10'MIN. 10" SLOPE/10'MIN. 10" SLOPE/10'MIN. 10" SLOPE/10'MIN. 10" SLOPE/10'MIN . 1 0 " SLOPE /10 'MIN . 10 " SLOPE /10 ' PROPOSED SWALE 60' @ 2% MIN. 10" SLOPE/10' MIN. 10" SLOPE/10' (T.O. SLAB) 91.26 2% MIN.2% MIN.2%% MIN (T.O. SLAB) 90.09 IN.I2% MIN2%M%INMININ%M%M (T.O. SLAB) 87.37 2% MIN.2% MIN2% M N DECK 20'-2" GRADING PLAN 1026 Linden Gate Ct Lot 6 Lindenmeier Estates PUD Fort Collins, CO 80524 SCALE: 1" = 20' ON 8 1/2" X 11" PAPER EXISTING GRADE = (E) XX.XX PROPOSED GRADE = (P) XX.XX 5/8" DENSGLASS TYPE XSHEATHING AT ALL EXTERIOREXPOSED PORTIONS OF WALLSALONG AREA SEPARATION WALL 1'-1"2'-7"5/8" DENSGLASS TYPE XSHEATHING AT ALL EXTERIOREXPOSED PORTIONS OF WALLSALONG AREA SEPARATION WALL5/8" DENSGLASS TYPE XSHEATHING AT ALL EXTERIOREXPOSED PORTIONS OF WALLSALONG AREA SEPARATION WALL From:Noah Beals To:Kory Katsimpalis Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Support for Appeal ZBA220016 Date:Monday, June 6, 2022 1:40:41 PM From: Howard Wasserman <howardwasserman@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:44 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Appeal ZBA220016 Hi, Mr. Beals: My name is Howard Wasserman, and I am the current president of the Lindengate Bungalows HOA. I wanted to send a note of support for Andrew Pakiz's appeal for modifications to build his duplex in our neighborhood. I have looked over Mr. Pakiz's renderings and find his design to fit well with the other unique residences in our neighborhood. He has my support for his build at 1026 Linden Gate Ct. Thank you-- Howard Wasserman Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JUNE 9, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 281 Willow St. Owner: 232 Willow Residences Petitioner: Kelly Larson, Regional Manager Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.3(E)(Table E) Variance Request: This is a request to exceed the total sign area for a banner by 90 square feet. The maximum sign area allowed for a banner is 40 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a part of the original town annexation 1873. The latest development approval was granted in 2020 approved a multi-unit residential use. This included two 5 story buildings with a total of 197 dwelling units. In general sign regulations are to prevent sign clutter, avoid signs as the predominate visual feature of a property and provide a consistent application of signs across the City. This includes temporary sign regulations. A temporary sign is limited to 40 square feet and does not count towards the allowable sign area for the property. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The variance is 225% of the allowable size for a temporary sign. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA220017. May 9, 2022 City of Fort Collins Zoning Department Land Use Review Commission 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Written Statement for Variance Request To whom it may concern, Please accept this statement on behalf of 281 Willow Apartments. We are requesting for a banner larger than the 40sqft. that is currently allowed, please see reference below: We are currently not limiting the number of days banners can be displayed, (during non-emergency ordinance times, all businesses, etc. get 40 days per calendar year to display banners), but they are required to meet all the other requirements of 3.8.7.3(E) https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART3GEDEST_DIV3.8SURE_3.8.7.4N OSIAD We would like to have a banner installed at the back of our property on the 5th floor that would give us exposure to drive by traffic passing along Jefferson Street. The banner we are proposing would be: Width 390” x Height 48”. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kelly Larson Regional Manager RPM Living Enclosures: (1) Banner Artwork NOW LEASING From:Noah Beals To:Kory Katsimpalis Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Appeal ZBA 220017 Date:Wednesday, June 1, 2022 8:29:21 PM From: admin@rootsrealestateco.com <admin@rootsrealestateco.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 8:28 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Cc: 'Office Manager' <admin@rootsrealestateco.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal ZBA 220017 Noah, My desk is directly across the street from 281 Willow St. I do not know the reason for the variance request for a large banner (other than they want it big) but we do not feel it necessary nor do we feel it appealing to look at. Thanks – Roots Real Estate 970-225-2002 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JUNE 9, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 504 Pearl St. Owner: Ben & Lindsey Mater Petitioner: Heidi Shuff, Architect Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(3) Variance Request: This is a request to exceed the allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot by 352 square feet. The maximum allowed is 731 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1956. Prior to annexation the neighborhood received development approval in the county. The original building was constructed in 1955. This neighborhood is unique in that it is not platted. The legal descriptions are based on metes and bounds. Additionally, the lot sizes are less than the minimum requirement of the N-C-L zone district which is 6,000 sf. The lot sizes are closer to a square shape and less of rectangle shaped. When this occurs buildings naturally increase its size in the rear half of the lot. The existing building on the property was constructed exceeding the minimum front setback. This existing condition also pushes the building coverage further into the rear half of the lot. 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 original building exceeds the minimum front setback by 5’ additional feet resulting in an increase building coverage in the rear half of the lot • The lot shape is more square than rectangle resulting in an increase in building coverage in the rear of the lot. • The proposal still does not exceed the allowable floor area for the entire lot. 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 the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA220018. ϳϭϱt͘DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀĞŶƵĞ &ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϭ DĂǇϱ͕ϮϬϮϮ ŝƚǇŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ >ĂŶĚhƐĞZĞǀŝĞǁŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ϮϴϭE͘ŽůůĞŐĞǀĞŶƵĞ &ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰ Z͗sĂƌŝĂŶĐĞZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌϱϬϰWĞĂƌů^ƚƌĞĞƚ dŽtŚŽŵ/ƚDĂǇŽŶĐĞƌŶ͗ KŶďĞŚĂůĨŽĨŵǇĐůŝĞŶƚƐ͕ĞŶΘ>ŝŶĚƐĂǇDĂƚĞƌ͕/ĂŵƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐĂǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽƚŚĞ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ>ĂŶĚ hƐĞŽĚĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĂϰϯϱ^&ŽŶĞͲƐƚŽƌǇĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŝƌĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐϭ͕Ϯϱϰ^&ŽŶĞͲƐƚŽƌǇ ŚŽŵĞǁŝƚŚϮϲϰ^&ĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘ /ĂŵƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐĂǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰ͘ϳ;Ϳ;ϯͿŽĨƚŚĞ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐƚĂƚĞƐ ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĂůůŽǁĂďůĞĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂŽŶƚŚĞƌĞĂƌŚĂůĨŽĨĂůŽƚƐŚĂůůŶŽƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƚǁĞŶƚǇͲĨŝǀĞ;ϮϱͿƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨ ƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĨŝĨƚǇ;ϱϬͿƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚ͘/ĂŵƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐĂŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůϯϱϮ^&ŽǀĞƌƚŚĞ ϳϯϭ^&ĂůůŽǁĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƌĞĂƌŚĂůĨŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚ͘/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐŵĂůů͕ƐŚĂůůŽǁůŽƚĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂƵŶŝƋƵĞ ŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉ͘dŚĞŝƌůŽƚŝƐŽŶůǇϱ͕ϴϱϬ^&͕ǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵůŽƚƐŝǌĞŝŶƚŚĞE>ǌŽŶĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŝƐϲ͕ϬϬϬ ^&͕ĂŶĚŝƐŽŶůǇϵϬĨĞĞƚĚĞĞƉ͕ǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚƐŝŶƚŚĞE>ǌŽŶĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŚĂǀĞĂůŽƚ ĚĞƉƚŚŽĨďĞƚǁĞĞŶϭϯϬ͛ͲϭϵϬ͛͘dŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞŝƐƐĞƚďĂĐŬŽǀĞƌϮϱ͛ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞ͕ ŽǀĞƌϭϬ͛ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƚŚĞϭϱ͛ĨƌŽŶƚǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƵƐŚĞƐƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŽǁĂƌĚ ƚŚĞƌĞĂƌϱϬйŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶŝƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞĂŶĚƚŚĞ ƌĞĂƌǇĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐƚŚĞŽŶůǇĨĞĂƐŝďůĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽ ƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚǁŽƵůĚďĞǀĞƌǇĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚƚŽŵĂŬĞƵƐĞĂďůĞŐŝǀĞŶƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĨůŽŽƌƉůĂŶĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚďůŽĐŬ ĞŐƌĞƐƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞďĞĚƌŽŽŵĂƚƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŚŽŵĞ͘tĞĂƌĞĂůƐŽƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐĂĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚ ƌŽŽĨĐŽǀĞƌƚŽƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽƵƐĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚďƌŝŶŐƐƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞŝŶƚŽĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞůĂŶĚ ƵƐĞĐŽĚĞ͘ǀĞŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ǁĞĂƌĞƐƚŝůůǁĞůůǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůĂůůŽǁĂďůĞƐƋƵĂƌĞ ĨŽŽƚĂŐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞůŽƚ;ϭ͕ϵϱϯ^&ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǀƐ͘Ϯ͕ϭϳϬ^&ĂůůŽǁĞĚͿ͘ >ĂƐƚůǇ͕/ďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚĚŝǀĞƌŐĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐŽĨƚŚĞ>ĂŶĚhƐĞ ŽĚĞĞǆĐĞƉƚŝŶĂŶŽŵŝŶĂů͕ŝŶĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶƚŝĂůǁĂǇǁŚĞŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞǆƚŽĨƚŚĞ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶŝƐϭͲƐƚŽƌǇĂŶĚŚĂƐĂůŽǁƉƌŽĨŝůĞ͕ǁŝƚŚĂůŽǁƐůŽƉĞĚƌŽŽĨƚŽ ŵĂƚĐŚƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽƵƐĞ͕ŵĂŬŝŶŐŝƚƐŵĂƐƐŝŶŐĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘ ŝƚǇŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ >ĂŶĚhƐĞZĞǀŝĞǁŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ DĂǇϭϬ͕ϮϬϮϮ WĂŐĞϮ dŚĂŶŬͶǇŽƵĨŽƌǇŽƵƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůǇ͕ ,ĞŝĚŝ^ŚƵĨĨ ^ƚƵĚŝŽ^ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ͕>> WŚŽŶĞ͗ϵϳϬ͘Ϯϯϭ͘ϭϬϰϬ ĞͲŵĂŝů͗ŚĞŝĚŝƐŚƵĨĨΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ 9,) 9,) (;,67,1*6725<+286(6,'(<$5'6(7%$&. 6,'(<$5'6(7%$&. 5($5<$5'6(7%$&. )5217<$5'6(7%$&. 3($5/675((7 352326('6725<$'',7,21 352326(')5217325&+522)&29(5(;,67,1*3$7,2(;,67,1*'5,9(:$<3URSHUW\$GGUHVV 3HDUO6WUHHW3URSHUW\2ZQHU %HQ /LQGVD\0DWHU2ZQHU V3KRQH %HQ3DUFHO1R /HJDO'HVFULSWLRQ &20$737)76$1')7:2)1(&257+1)7:)76)7()772%(*)7&=RQLQJ'LVWULFW 1&/6XEGLYLVLRQ 6756HWEDFNV)URQW<DUG )HHW5HDU<DUG )HHW6LGH<DUG )HHW/RW6L]H 6)¶[¶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rom:Noah Beals To:Kory Katsimpalis Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: Appeal # ZBA220018 Date:Saturday, June 4, 2022 8:43:09 PM -----Original Message----- From: louwho@frii.com <louwho@frii.com> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 10:56 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Appeal # ZBA220018 Hello: We are next door neighbors to 504 Pearl Street and have no objection to the planned addition to their home. We are located at 506 Pearl, directly north of their property. If you have any further questions, you can contact us at 970/484-5970. We are unable to attend the hearing on June 9. My husband has difficulty with walking and balance and especially challenging are stairs and uneven surfaces. Thank-you, Chuck and Louise Kello Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT JUNE 9, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA220020 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1843 Michael Ln Owner/Petitioner: Mike and Kristy Millsaps Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d); 3.8.19(A)(6) Variance Request: This is a request for a home addition to encroach 5 feet in the required 20-foot side setback and the eave to encroach into the setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1970. Prior to annexation it was platted in the county in 1960 and received development approval at that time. The original building was constructed in 1960 and was approved by the county. The property abuts Cooper Place to the west. A portion of the public right of way (Cooper Place) was vacated. This increased the side setback of the original structure. When the property was annexed into City it was Zoned U-E. The side setback in the U-E district is 20ft. This variance request is for a proposed addition to encroach into the side setback. This setback is from the new property line that was created from the vacated portion of the public right of way. 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 proposed addition is for a one-story attached garage • The west abutting property’s existing primary is over 60ft from the shared property line • The current use of the setback area is a driveway. • The proposed building elevation facing the abutting west property are windows into the garage. 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 ZBA220020. City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Subject property/project: 1843 Michael Lane / Garage addition Permit # B2201984 May 10, 2022 Dear Land Use Review Commission members, We have lived at 1843 Michael Lane since 2003. It is a great neighborhood where the houses are not on top of each other. All of our neighbors have a t half an acre or more. Our house is situated on 1.95 acres and we also own the contiguous 1.0 acre lot to the southwest. Senior Zoning Inspector Rob Bianchetto noted in his initial review of our site plan that we show only 17’ to the end of the west wall of our proposed garage addition. The side setback provided by Mr. Bianchetto is 20’, thus a 3’ encroachment into the west side setback. Senior Zoning Inspector Missy Nelson also reviewed the request and noticed that the original plat noted a 25’ setback. We were able to work through a right-of-way vacation that had been recorded previously since we also own parcel 9722205023 to the west, thus allowing for further discussion with options. The zoning district is Urban Estate (UE). It is our intent to request approval of our initial design as submitted, as this neighborhood is all small acreages and we have full support from our neighbors to the west regarding this request. We do not believe this request will diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood as noted above and word for word in the application for variance documentation. Thank you for your consideration. Peterson Design4921 Sandstone Dr.Ft. Collins, CO 80526970-223-2400Millsapps Garage1843 Michael LaneFt. Collins, CO 80524A-Date:Rev:May 21, 20185'-0"217'5.28"N 89°28'00" W271'3.96"S 15°30'00" E157'4.08"S 88°06'30" E97'6.36"S 0°23'00" E73'6.48"S 89°35'00" E125'0" N 89°37'00" E478'.12"N 0°23'00" WTangent Length Radius2'8.119"12'1.2"15'0"4'6.053"118'10.2"50'0"2'8.119"12'1.2"15'0"4'6.053"118'10.2"50'0"83'1.68"N 0°23'00" E33'4.2"N 89°37'00" E Site PlanScale: 1" = 20 ft11-5'-2 1/2"-1'-2 1/2"-0'-7"relocated 14' stl gate-1'-0"0'-0"0'-0"-2'-0"48'-7 1/8"-1'-0"exist'g conc drivenew conc driveADDITION-5'-3'-4'-1'-2'-6'-7're-workexist'g deckas req'dExist'g Housefin flr = +1'-8"CODE INFORMATIONZoning = Urban EstateDesign wind speed: Vult = 129 mphDesign snow load = 30 psfGENERAL NOTES1.General Contractor shall verify and coordinate all information shown on these plans. Notify Architect immediately of any and all discrepancies, errors or omissions, before work begins.2.Construction shall comply with all applicable national, state, and local codes and ordinances.3.General Contractor shall verify all dimensions in the field prior to ordering or fabricating materials.4.General Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with 16 CFR 1201.5.General Contractor shall be responsible for the application for and payment of all fees, permits, licenses, etc. required for the proper execution of this work. 6.General Contractor shall be responsible for the coordination of all Construction activities, including any design/build provisions for mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems: all engineered systems shall be by design/build contractors.7.General Contractor is responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures necessary to accomplish the construction, including all temporary protection measures and job site safety.8.General Contractor shall be responsible for providing a complete and functional installation in all respects, together with all accessories necessary for a complete installation, whether shown or not, but reasonably inferable from the drawings and specifications.9.Interior finish items and accessories shall be provided at the direction of the Owner.10.All handling, storage and installation of materials and building products shall be in strict accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.11.General Contractor shall guarantee all workmanship, products and materials for a period of one year following completion.STRUCTURAL NOTES1.All lumber shall be Hem-Fir #2 or better, kiln-dried to 17% maximum moisture content.2.All wood structural framing shall have appropriate metal tie-down anchors throughout.3.All wood in direct contact with concrete or CMUs shall be pressure-treated to resist decay, using ACQ or copper azole products (CCA is not acceptable).4.Fasteners used in contact with pressure-treated wood shall be hot-dip galvanized, conforming with ASTM-A153.5.All concrete shall be 3,000 psi.6.All foundation walls shall be 8” min. thickness, and extend a minimum of 30” below finish grade. All footings shall bear on undisturbed soil, on bedrock, or on crushed rock fill, compacted in 12" lifts to 95% standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698) between optimum and 3% above optimum moisture content.7.All structural steel shall be A36.8.All exterior sheathing shall be 5/8" thick OSB.ARCHITECTURAL NOTES1.FV = field verifyUNO = unless noted otherwise2.All exterior wall dimensions are to face of concrete, or face of brick.3.All interior dimensions are to centerline of stud, UNO.4.All exterior wall studs are 2x6.5.All interior wall studs are 2x4, UNO.6.Place a dollup of sealant in base of joist hangers before seating joists.7.All rigid insulation shall be closed-cell foam.8.Provide 4”ø foundation drains wrapped in geotextile fabric; drain to daylight.17'-0"(from survey)building setback line5'-0"20'-0"20'-0"15'-0"5'-0"5'-0" 5'-0"20'-0"1 Peterson Design4921 Sandstone Dr.Ft. Collins, CO 80526970-223-2400Millsapps Garage1843 Michael LaneFt. Collins, CO 80524A-Date:Rev:May 21, 201826'-0"43'-8 1/2"10'-1 1/4"32'-0"3'-4"9'-4"1'-0"9'-4"5'-0"3'-4"8"MOMOMO-5'-2 1/2"gar flr elev = 0flr elev = -1'-0"flr elev = 0'-0"25'-0"-3'-6"-1'-2 1/2"edge of conc exist'g driveway2'-0"6'-0"5'-4"6'-0"5'-4"6'-0"5'-4"5'-0"6'-0"4'-0"6'-0"5'-0"1'-8"new conc drivewayDN 2 R @ 6"elev = 0-1'-0"-1'-0"-1'-10 1/2"-1'-5 1/2"edge ofroof above6'-4"1'-4 1/2"-1'-0"Exist'g Housefin flr = +1'-8"11"11"4'-4"4'-4"dn 3R14143 @ 1-3/4” x 9-1/2” 2.0E Microllam LVL34support new beam on exist'g wd stud wallRoof Framing PlanScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"12Floor PlanScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"22roof trusses @ 24" OCgirder truss supports ridge bm @ overfamingridge bd btwn trusses2x10 over-framed rafters @ 24" OC1-3/4” x 14” 2.0E Microllam LVL ridge bmover-framed 2x4 wd br'g wall24244 Peterson Design4921 Sandstone Dr.Ft. Collins, CO 80526970-223-2400Millsapps Garage1843 Michael LaneFt. Collins, CO 80524A-Date:Rev:May 21, 201843'-8 1/2"2'-0"6'-0"5'-4"6'-0"5'-4"6'-0"5'-4"6'-0"1'-8 1/2"5'-0"6'-0"4'-0"6'-0"5'-0"32'-0"8"3'-4"5'-0"9'-4"1'-0"9'-4"3'-4"MO MO MOasph shingles to match exist'gbrick to match exist'gbrick ledge elev = -4'-3 1/4"brick ledge elev = -4'-11 1/4"9'x 9' OH dr9'x 9' OH drbrick ledge elev = -1'-1 5/8"brick ledge elev = -3'-9 1/4"FV new fin grade3'-0"+-(2'-6" min)6'-4"+-(6'-10" max)26'-0"top of wall = -1'-0"Garage floor Elev-1'-0"brick ledge elev = -3'-9 1/4"brick ledge elev = -4'-3 1/4"brick ledge elev = -4'-11 1/4"brick ledge elev = -3'-9 1/4"Garage floor Elev-1'-0"Garage floor Elev0'-0"Garage floor Elev0'-0"Garage floor Elev0'-0"Garage floor Elev-1'-0"2'-6"2'-6"House floor Elev1'-8"MOMO MO MOMOMOasph shingles to match exist'gexist'g roofnew roofexist'g wallnew walldryer vent & hose bibb remainbrick to match exist'gbrick to match exist'gbrick tomatchexist'gABCCCCCEXTERIOR DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULE (all are clad-wood UNO)IDsizeoperationcommentsA3'-0"x 6'-8"side-swing doorinsulated entry doorB6'-0"x 7'-0""french bi-part doorglass door w/ low-profile thresholdC6'-0"x 5'-10"slider window3match exist'g roof ridgematch exist'g roof ridgematch exist'g fascia & soffitmatch exist'g fascia & soffitNorth ElevationScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"33South ElevationScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"13West ElevationScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"23gable end ventcem bd siding to match exist'g Peterson Design4921 Sandstone Dr.Ft. Collins, CO 80526970-223-2400Millsapps Garage1843 Michael LaneFt. Collins, CO 80524A-Date:Rev:May 21, 20182 @ 1-3/4” x 9-1/4” 2.0E Microllam LVL + 2" rigid insulhouse fin flr1'-4 1/2"vert jt weeps @ 16" OC @ headerOH drcompacted struct'l fillapproximate exist'g grade3'-3"flashing over angle; tuck under WRBL3.5x 3.5x.25 brick ledge angle @ header, typsealant over 1/4" exp filler9'-0"1'-8"1'-0"6" crushed rock base4" conc SOG4" blockout for SOG @ OH doorscollar jt grouted solid @ conc fndtn wallbrick: coursing & style to match exist'g3'-6"brick: coursing & style to match exist'g7/8" air spacevert jt weeps @ 16" OCthru-wall flashingWRB on 1/2" OSB sheathing2x6 wd studs @ 16" OCsloping brick sillasph shingles to match exist'g1/2" OSB roof sheathingwd truss @ 24" OC w/ overhanging top chord, by truss manufctrsoffit to match exist'gmtl roof edge flashingice & water shield6'-0"2 @ 1-3/4” x 9-1/4” 2.0E Microllam LVL + 2" rigid insulclad wd slider windows (selection by Owner)mortar deflection devicebrick ties @ 16" OC both ways2'-6"BOF = -7'-7 5/8"BOF = -4'-6"brick ledge elev varies: see elevationsPT 2x6 sill plate on sill-seal1/2"ø anchor bolts w/ BP1/2-3washer @ 32" OC6x6/10-10 WWF8"1'-0"Garage floor Elev-1'-0"1'-0"see elev's for brick ledges1/2" gyp bd#4s @ 24" OC vertfndtn drain wrapped w/ geo-fabric; drain to daylight2@ #4s top & bottdampproofing, typinsul baffleice & water shield6'-0"3 @ 1-3/4” x 9-1/2”2.0E Microllam LVL 2x4 wd studs @ 24" OC,align w/ roof rafterssoffit to match exist'gwd blk'g btwn raftersnew valley flashing2x10 overframed rafters @ 24" OCexist'g house const(45º section cut)Building Section @ TrussesScale: 1/2" = 1'-0"14ice & water shield6'-0"wd blk'g btwn raftersnew valley flashing2x10 overframed rafters @ 24" OCexist'g house constinsul baffle2x4s @ 24" OC9'-5"Truss Bearing+9'-5"Floor Elev0'-0"#4s @ 24" OC vert2@ #4s top & bottBuilding Section @ Ridge BeamScale: 1/2" = 1'-0"24demo exist'g roof overhangBuilding Section @ Over-framed Bearing WallScale: 1/2" = 1'-0"34wd blk'g btwn trusses2x8 ledger on exist'g wall1-3/4” x 14” 2.0EMicrollam LVL ridge bmrake edge mtl trim1'-0"2x8 fascia bd2x6 fafters @ 24" OC2x4 ledger bd2x4 soffit joists @ 24" OCtrusses @ 24" OCBuilding Section @ End WallScale: 1/2" = 1'-0"41/2" gyp bd closure @ removed overhangblk'g btwn studsTruss Bearing+9'-5"Beam Bearing+8'-8 3/8"Truss Bearing+9'-5"4mtl flashingmtl roof edge flashing8" cem bd siding (match exist'g) 25'-4"43'-412"32'-0"9'-1012 "4'-0" 4'-0"14'-8"14'-4"14'-412"4'-0"12'-8"12'-8" CF-16 CF-12CF-14 CF-123'-0"9'-4"1'-0"9'-4"5'-0"3'-4"1'-0"1'-412"6'-4"6'-8"3'-5"2'-6"VOID3'-5"3'-5"2'-6"VOID3'-5"S1.0CTL THOMPSONPROJECT LOCATION:CLIENT:contact:DATE: PROJECT # SCALE: PER PLAN DESIGN/CHK: DRAWN:REVISION/ISSUEDATENO.1THESE DRAWINGS AND ACCOMPANYINGSPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THEENGINEER AND THEIR USE AND PUBLICATIONSHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FORWHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE,REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANYMETHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITEDEXCEPT BY WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THEENGINEER. TITLE TO THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS SHALL REMAIN WITH THEENGINEER WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND VISUALCONTACT WITH THEM SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMAFACIE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS.COPYRIGHTCTL | THOMPSON, INCORPORATEDALL RIGHTS RESERVED.CTL I THOMPSON INCORPORATED400 North Link LaneFort Collins, CO 80524P:970-206-9455F:970-206-9441www.ctlt.com134 FISHBACK AVENUEFORT COLLINS, COLORADODAN FRY970-492-5566DTH DTH FC10407.000 04/22/2022 MILLSAPPS GARAGE ADDITIONFORT COLLINS, COLORADOFISHBACK BUILDERSSHEET NUMBER: 3OF SHEETS231843 MICHAEL LANEFOUNDATION PLANFOUNDATION PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"CLIENT:2x6 SILL PLATE, U.N.O. 24x24x8 1 4" CONCRETE SLAB W/ 6x6-W1.4-W1.4 WWF OVER 4" CLEAN GRAVEL GARAGE D1 A D1 A X NUMBER SIGNIFIES WIDTH OF 8" DEEP CONTINUOUS FOOTING FOUNDATION LEGEND CF-16 TOP OF PAD EQUAL BOTTOM OF SLAB, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. PROVIDE "J" DOWELS TO MATCH WALL REINFORCEMENT ABOVE #4 BARS @ 12" ON- CENTER EACH WAY. 312" FROM BOTTOM IN DEPTH OF PADS. FOOTINGS 26" AND WIDER ADD (3) #4 CONT. & (1) #4 TRANS. @ 24" O.C.THICKNESSWIDTH LE N G T H XW TL NOTES* HOLDDOWN (HD) SCHEDULE HD #MANUF. / MODEL 1 HD'S AS SHOWN ARE IN APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS. FIELD LOCATE HD'S AT CORNERS, EDGE OF OPENINGS ABOVE, OR ENDS OF REQUIRED SHEAR WALLS (SEE ARCH PLANS FOR DIMENSIONS) SYMBOL SIMPSON STHD14 OR STHD14RJ EXISTING GARAGE TO REMAIN EXISTING RESIDENCE TO REMAIN D1 B D1 C D1 C D1 B D1 B D1 C 24x24x8 24x24x8 D1 E D1 D NOTE: OTHER OBSERVATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION OR OTHER ENGINEERS WORKING ON THIS PROJECT. RECOMMENDED OBSERVATIONS: FOUNDATION REINFORCEMENT FOOTING FORMWORK & SUBGRADE OPEN-HOLE / SOIL VERIFICATION RECOMMENDED QUALITY ASSURANCE OBSERVATIONS CTL CTL CTL OBSERVATION PERFORMED BY: Soils: Assumed per 2018 IRC Table R401.4.1 and to be verified at Open-hole by CTL I THOMPSON. Assumed allowable bearing pressure: Max. 1,500 psf 1 DROP T.O.W. AT DOOR, TYP FOOTING STEP SLAB STEP D1 F CTL THOMPSONPROJECT LOCATION:CLIENT:contact:DATE: PROJECT # SCALE: PER PLAN DESIGN/CHK: DRAWN:REVISION/ISSUEDATENO.1THESE DRAWINGS AND ACCOMPANYINGSPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THEENGINEER AND THEIR USE AND PUBLICATIONSHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FORWHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE,REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANYMETHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITEDEXCEPT BY WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THEENGINEER. TITLE TO THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS SHALL REMAIN WITH THEENGINEER WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND VISUALCONTACT WITH THEM SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMAFACIE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS.COPYRIGHTCTL | THOMPSON, INCORPORATEDALL RIGHTS RESERVED.CTL I THOMPSON INCORPORATED400 North Link LaneFort Collins, CO 80524P:970-206-9455F:970-206-9441www.ctlt.com134 FISHBACK AVENUEFORT COLLINS, COLORADODAN FRY970-492-5566DTH DTH FC10407.000 04/22/2022 MILLSAPPS GARAGE ADDITIONFORT COLLINS, COLORADOFISHBACK BUILDERSSHEET NUMBER: 3OF SHEETS231843 MICHAEL LANEROOF FRAMING PLANS1.1ROOF FRAMING PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" MAIN ROOF OUTLINE (3) 2x6 IN EXISTING WALL HEADER SCHEDULE HEADER SIZE MATERIAL (1) 2x2-2X8 HF #2 2-1 3/4"x9 1/2"LVL (2) 2x LSL OPTION HF28 LVL210 31 2" X 51 2" N/A # OF TRIMMER STUDS PER SIDE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS (1) 2x2-2X12 HF #2HF212 31 2" X 111 2" KING STUD SCHEDULE OPENING WIDTH FROM (1) 2x12" TO 7'-0" 7'-0"14'-0" 14'-0"17'-0" (2) 2x (3) 2x # OF KING STUDS PER SIDE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS T=NUMBER OF TRIMMER STUDS EACH SIDE K=NUMBER OF KING STUDS EACH SIDE #T,# K NOTES* HOLDDOWN (HD) SCHEDULE HD #MANUF. / MODEL 1 HD'S AS SHOWN ARE IN APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS. FIELD LOCATE HD'S AT CORNERS, EDGE OF OPENINGS ABOVE, OR ENDS OF REQUIRED SHEAR WALLS (SEE ARCH PLANS FOR DIMENSIONS) SYMBOL SIMPSON STHD14 OR STHD14RJ 1. ALL EXTERIOR SHEATHING VERTICAL EDGES SHALL FALL UPON STUDS PER STRUCTURAL NOTES SPACED 16" O/C TYP(SEE PLAN). 2. HORIZONTAL JOINTS SHALL OCCUR OVER BLOCKING EQUAL IN SIZE TO THE STUDDING EXCEPT WHERE WAIVED BY THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SPECIFIC SHEATHING MATERIAL SHOWN ABOVE. 3. EXTERIOR WALL PANEL SOLE PLATES SHALL BE NAILED TO THE FLOOR FRAMING AND TOP PLATES SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE FRAMING ABOVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH IRC TABLE 602.3 (1) 4. WHERE JOISTS ARE PERPENDICULAR TO INTERIOR BRACED WALL LINES ABOVE, BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED UNDER AND IN-LINE WITH THE BRACED WALL PANELS. 5. WHERE JOISTS ARE PARALLEL TO THE INTERIOR BRACED WALL LINES ABOVE DOUBLE JOISTS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER AND IN-LINE WITH THE BRACED WALL LINE ABOVE. 6. ATTACH BOTTOM PLATE OF INTERIOR WIND SHEAR WALLS TO BLOCKING/BEAMS WITH (3) 16d COMMON NAILS AT 16" (in.) O.C. (OR (1) 16d COMMON NAIL AT 5" (in.) O.C.) BRACED WALL PANEL SCHEDULE - STUDS @ 16" NOTES: BLOCKED?DESIGNATION ALL EXTERIOR UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE OSB or PLYWOOD EXTERIOR ONLY (NOTE 2) 7/16"YES 8d COMMON 16 ga 1 3/4" STAPLES SHTH. THICKNESSWALLRATED STRUC. SHEATHING TYPE EDGES HORIZONTAL MINIMUM CONNECTOR TYPE (OR EQUAL) 12"6" 6"3" FIELD SPACINGEDGE SPACING INDICATES SIMPSON HOLD-DOWN STRAP. ATTACH PER DETAILS. INDICATES SIMPSON FLAT STRAP. EXTEND TO BEAM OR WALL BELOW. HANGER SCHEDULE CONNECTION LOCATION CONNECTOR I-JOIST TO FLUSH WOOD BEAM IUS-SERIES (2) I-JOIST TO FLUSH WOOD BEAM IUS-SERIES SAWN JOIST TO FLUSH WOOD BEAM LUS-SERIES (1)-LVL TO FLUSH WOOD BEAM HU-SERIES (2)-LVL TO FLUSH WOOD BEAM HHUS-SERIES (3)-LVL TO FLUSH WOOD BEAM HHUS-SERIES I-JOIST RAFTER TO RIDGE BEAM LSSR OR HU*-SERIES SAWN RAFTER TO RIDGE BEAM LSSR OR HU*-SERIES WOOD POST TO FOUNDATION ABU-SERIES WOOD POST TO BEAM ABOVE BC-SERIES I-JOIST TO FLUSH STEEL BEAM ITS-SERIES (2) I-JOIST TO FLUSH STEEL BEAM BA-SERIES (1)-LVL TO FLUSH STEEL BEAM ITS-SERIES (2)-LVL TO FLUSH STEEL BEAM BA-SERIES (3)-LVL TO FLUSH STEEL BEAM HB-SERIES DECK PSL TO WOOD COLUMN HUCQ-SERIES * - THIS HANGER MAY BE SPECIAL ORDER FOR THE APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE. NOTE: FOR EXTERIOR APPLICATIONS WHERE ACQ TREATED LUMBER WILL BE USED, ALL HANGERS MUST HAVE ZMAX CORROSION PROTECTION. TRUSSES: ·UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, TRUSSES SHOWN ON LAYOUT ARE DESIGNED AND SUPPLIED BY TRUSS MANUFACTURER. ·TRUSS LAYOUT IS SCHEMATIC AND INDICATES LOAD PATHS. TRUSS SPACING IS TO BE DETERMINED BY MANUFACTURER, WITH A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SPACING OF 24" O.C. ·PROVIDE LATERAL BRACING AND GABLE END BRACING PER TRUSS SUPPLIER'S DRAWINGS AND STANDARD DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN "BRACING" SECTION OF IRC CHAPTER 8. ·IF TRUSS LAYOUT DEVIATES FROM LAYOUT SHOWN, CONTACT CTL THOMPSON PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ·TRUSS BRACING AND BLOCKING PER MANUFACTURER. ·FOR COORDINATION PURPOSES, CTL MAY DESCRIBE TRUSSES AS "MONO" OR "SCISSOR". A DEVIATION IN THE TRUSS PROFILE IS ALLOWED IF THE TRUSS LOADING DOES NOT CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE PROFILE. ·ALL TRUSSES ARE ASSUMED TO NOT HAVE ANY HORIZONTAL THRUST DUE TO THE TRUSS SHAPE. IF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE WALLS REQUIRES RESISTANCE TO TRUSS THRUST, A RE-DESIGN MAY BE REQUIRED.ENGINEERED ROOFTRUSSES @ 24" O.C.NEW 2x10 RAFTERS@ 24" O.C.EXISTING 2x6 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. T O RE MAINEXISTING RID GE BEAMHF212HF28(3) 9 12" LVL(1) 14" LVLHF212HF212LVL210HF28 HF28 HF28GIRDER TRUSS BY OTHERS EXISTING ROOF OUTLINE HF28SEE NOTE 1 AT RIGHT EXISTING WALL 2x4 BEARING WALL AT OVERFRAMING. BEAR ON EXISTING RAFTERS W/ (2) 16d NAIL MIN TO EACH RAFTER (3) 2x6 I N EXISTI N G W A L L 2x10 SLEEPERD1 J MONO TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. CANTILEVER RAFTERS 3'-3" MAX LVL2102x6 LEDGE @ TOP & BTM CHORD D1 K NOTE 1:HANG RIDGE BEAM TO TRUSS W/ SIMPSON HUC-SERIES HANGER. TRUSS DESIGNER TO DESIGN TRUSS FOR POINT LOAD AT THIS LOCATION: D=1,300 lbs S= 2,700 lbs CONSTRUCT PONY WALL TO BOTTOM OF NEW RAFTERS, TYP 2x10 S L E E P E R CTL THOMPSONPROJECT LOCATION:CLIENT:contact:DATE: PROJECT # SCALE: PER PLAN DESIGN/CHK: DRAWN:REVISION/ISSUEDATENO.1THESE DRAWINGS AND ACCOMPANYINGSPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THEENGINEER AND THEIR USE AND PUBLICATIONSHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FORWHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. REUSE,REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANYMETHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITEDEXCEPT BY WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THEENGINEER. TITLE TO THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS SHALL REMAIN WITH THEENGINEER WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND VISUALCONTACT WITH THEM SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMAFACIE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESERESTRICTIONS.COPYRIGHTCTL | THOMPSON, INCORPORATEDALL RIGHTS RESERVED.CTL I THOMPSON INCORPORATED400 North Link LaneFort Collins, CO 80524P:970-206-9455F:970-206-9441www.ctlt.com134 FISHBACK AVENUEFORT COLLINS, COLORADODAN FRY970-492-5566DTH DTH FC10407.000 04/22/2022 MILLSAPPS GARAGE ADDITIONFORT COLLINS, COLORADOFISHBACK BUILDERSSHEET NUMBER: 3OF SHEETS231843 MICHAEL LANEDETAILS AND NOTESD1 A - TYPICAL FOUNDATION WALL C - TALL FOUNDATION WALL D - NEW TO EXISTING WALL TIE-IN EXTERIOR SHEATHING REQUIREMENTS PER WALL SCHEDULE HOLD-DOWN STRAP PER PLAN SEE MANUF. SPEC'S FOR INSTALLATION CONCRETE FDN. WALL PER PLAN MINIMUM 2 STUDS AT HOLD DOWN FOR ATTACHMENT H - FOOTING VOID FORMG - HOLD DOWN STRAP CONCRETE & SOILS NOTES DROP T.O.W. AT DOOR OPENINGS AND POUR SLAB OVER FDN. WALL.30" MINVARIES2" CLR.8"PER PLAN SLOPE CONCRETE SLAB PER PLAN ANCHOR BOLTS PER GENERAL NOTES COMPACTED BACKFILL PER GENERAL NOTES 8" THICK CONCRETE WALL WITH (2) #4 BARS TOP & BOTTOM (8" MAX FROM T.O.W. OR B.O.W.) CONCRETE FOOTING PER PLAN FULL HEIGHT6" (1) #4 VERTICAL BAR @ 48" O.C. THUS, (ALT. HOOK DIRECTION)48" MAX.1. Materials: This plan is based upon the following material properties: 3. Soils: 4. Slabs-on-grade: 5. Backfill: We require an open-hole observation be performed by a representative of a qualified geotechnical engineer. Open-hole observations are to verify that the soil conditions are consistent with the assumed soils. Soils conditions inconsistent with the assumed soils may require additional evaluation or a foundation redesign, and should be brought to the attention of the foundation engineer. All footings shall be a minimum of 30" (in) below grade, or per local code, and should bear upon undisturbed native soils. Reinforcing shall be deformed grade 60 steel unless noted otherwise (U.N.O.) on the plan and shall conform to ASTM A615. Minimum concrete cover shall be 2" (in) U.N.O. on the plan. Overlaps shall be 40 bar diameters but not less than 24" (in). Detail reinforcing bars in accordance to the ACI detailing manual and ACI code, latest edition. All foundation wall reinforcement should be wired in place. Slab and footing reinforcement shall utilize chairs or other acceptable methods to achieve the required cross section location. Anchor Bolts: Reinforcing: Concrete: We recommend foundation walls not be backfilled for a minimum of eight days after placement of concrete. Prior to backfilling, damp-proofing all foundation walls that retain earth and enclose interior spaces, as required by local code. All floor systems should be in place before backfilling against any foundation wall, or as an alternative, adequately brace the foundation. We recommend imported granular (non-expansive) structural fill be used for backfilling around all foundation walls and beneath all slab-on-grade areas for sites where expansive soils are prevalent. In lieu of imported granular fill, the onsite soils could be used for backfill if the material and compaction process is acceptable to the geotechnical engineer. Backfill should be adequately compacted and graded to provide adequate drainage away from the foundation. Provide code specified separation from top of wall to finished grade. Backfill adjacent to the foundation may settle over time. The backfill must be monitored and maintained to provide adequate drainage away from the foundation. All fasteners and connectors in contact with pressure treated lumber shall be G185 hot-dip galvanized, type 304 stainless steel or type 316 stainless steel. Fasteners and connectors: We recommend any areas with slab-on-grade type construction placed upon expansive soils not be finished. Provide control joints at 10'-0" on center maximum. Exterior slabs-on-grade should not be doweled to the foundation unless specifically noted otherwise on plans. Foundation anchor bolts shall conform to ASTM A307 and be 1/2" (in) diameter by 10" (in) long spaced at 4'-0" maximum and 12" (in) from corners and splices. We recommend using engineered sill plate material. Concrete shall contain Type II cement, 6%+/-1.5% air entrainment, and a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 4000 psi for structural concrete, 3500 psi for interior slabs on grade, and 4500 psi exterior slabs on grade. 6. Limitations: It is the contractors/owners responsibility to verify and coordinate all dimensions prior to construction. These plans are based on the architects and/or contractor/owner furnished plans and the above referenced specifications. Any discrepancies or changes should be brought to the attention of the engineer. Cardboard void form shall be of appropriate strength for wall and slab construction. Wall void shall not be used for support of structural slabs. Void Form: TYPICAL CORNER - TOP VIEW24"TYP.2" CLR. TYP. 24"x24" REBAR HOOKS TO MATCH HORIZONTAL REBAR 24"TYP.2" CLR. TYP. 24"x24" REBAR HOOKS INTO OUTER FACE OF CONTINUOUS WALL 24" TYP. TYPICAL INTERSECTION - TOP VIEW TYPICAL REINFORCING AT WALL CORNERS / INTERSECTIONS 24" TYP. E - TYPICAL REINFORCING 8"PER PLAN4"FDN WALL PER PLANS FOOTING VOID PER PLANS 24" MIN 6" PLAN VIEW NEW FDN. WALL AND REINFORCING PER PLANS AND DETAILS EXISTING FDN. WALL DRILL & EPOXY #4 BAR TO MATCH NEW WALL REINF. MIN.EMBEDMENT 6" INTO EXISTING, 24" MIN INTO NEW FDN WALL. 6" B - TYPICAL COUNTERFORT36"6" CONC. FTG. PER PLAN W/ 2 #4 BAR DOWELS THUS,8"PER PLAN 8"2" TYP. PER PLAN3"CLEAR1'-4"MAX6'-0" MAX4'-0" MIN.SLOPE ANCHOR BOLTS PER GENERAL NOTES COUNTER-FORT PER PLAN W/ #4 BARS @ 12" (IN) O.C. EACH WAY. CENTER REINF. IN WALL & HOOK HORIZ. STEEL 24" (IN) TO BASEMENT FDN WALL (ALTERNATE) TALL FDN SEE DETAIL C VARIESDROP T.O.W. AT DOOR OPENINGS AND POUR SLAB OVER FDN. WALL.30" MINVARIES2" CLR.8"PER PLAN SLOPE CONCRETE SLAB PER PLAN ANCHOR BOLTS PER GENERAL NOTES COMPACTED BACKFILL PER GENERAL NOTES 8" THICK CONCRETE WALL WITH (2) #4 BARS TOP, MIDDLE & BOTTOM (8" MAX FROM T.O.W. OR B.O.W.) CONCRETE FOOTING PER PLAN FULL HEIGHT6" (1) #4 VERTICAL BAR @ 48" O.C. THUS, (ALT. HOOK DIRECTION)6'-0" MAX.GARAGE SLAB EXISTING RAFTER NEW RAFTERS PER PLAN NEW 2x10 SLEEPER. NAIL TO EXISTING RAFTERS W/ (3) 1 4"x5 12" SDWS SCREWS PER RAFTER ATTACH NEW RAFTERS TO SLEEPER W/ SIMPSON A35 CLIP NEW RIDGE BEAM OR 2x4 WALL PER PLAN J - NEW RAFTER TO EXISTING 2. Framing: Wood: Walls: Misc: Roof: All framing shall be in accordance with the provisions of 2018 IRC. All connections or members not shown are per code or the general contractor/owner. All manufactured wood products shall be installed per the manufacturers specifications. Refer to the code for additional requirements. All wood in contact with concrete shall be pressure treated or redwood. Provide solid blocking to transmit all point loads continuous to the foundation as necessary. Roof sheathing shall be 15/32" (32 16 span rating) O.S.B. or better with 8d @ 6" on-center edges, 12" on-center field, over engineered trusses by others. For truss attachment and bracing refer to the truss manufacturers recommendations. All rafters bearing on a beam shall be attached with a Simpson H2.5A clip Dimensional lumber rafters are hem-fir #2 unless noted otherwise. All exterior wall framing shall be 7/16" Structural rated OSB sheathing over 2x6 HF#2 @ 16" on-center unless noted otherwise. Sheathing shall be attached per the braced wall panel schedule. Built up columns are 3-2xwall thickness HF#2 or better unless noted otherwise on the plans. All dimensional lumber shall be Hem Fir #2 or better unless noted on the plan. All Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) is 13 4" thick x depth shown on plans and shall have an allowable Flexural stress Fb = 2600 psi and Modulus of Elasticity of E = 1.9x10E6 psi or better. All Laminated Strand Lumber (LSL) is 13 4" thick by depth shown on plans and shall have an allowable Flexural stress Fb = 2325 psi and Modulus of Elasticity of E = 1.55x10E6 psi or better. Glued Laminated Lumber shall have an allowable Flexural stress Fb = 2400 psi and Modulus of Elasticity of E = 1.8x10E6 psi or better. If there are 20 percent of overdriven nails in sheathing, then sheathing must be renailed with proper gun pressure not to break surface of sheathing. Wall sheathing must not break at wall top or bottom plates, instead break at middle of rim or 12" below wall top plate. K - TRUSS ATTACHMENT AT LEDGER 8" MIN 1'-0"24" x FULL DEPTH #4 DOWEL BARS @ 24" O.C. LOWER SLAB PER PLAN UPPER SLAB PLAN. THICKEN EDGE AT STEP ADD (2) ADDITIONAL #4 BARS AT BOTTOM OF THICKENED EDGE F - SLAB STEP 4"1'-4"2x6 LEDGERS, ATTACHED WITH (2)-SIMPSON SDWS 14"x512" SCREWS AT 16" O.C. 48" LONG CS20 STRAP RUN ALONG TOP CHORD OF EACH TRUSS AND BETWEEN LEDGER AND WALL. ENGINEERED MONO TRUSS BY OTHERS 2x6 SUB FASCIA CONTINUOUS, NO SPLICE LS50 AT EACH TRUSS TO EACH LEDGER TOP/BOTTOM AS SHOWN. 1 Kory Katsimpalis From:Zoning Sent:Thursday, May 26, 2022 11:07 AM To:Missy Nelson; Zoning Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: 1843 Michael Lane Garage Addition Permit #B2201984 Email #3 Not sure if they need to provide anything else for their LURC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROB BIANCHETTO Senior Zoning Inspector City of Fort Collins From: Mike millsapps <michaelfarms1843@netzero.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 5:37 PM To: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> Cc: Michael Kristy Farms <michaelfarms1843@netzero.net>; kristymillsapps@yahoo.com; dan@fishbackbuilders.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 1843 Michael Lane Garage Addition Permit #B2201984 Email #3 From my rough measurement: 15 feet to west line 20/21 feet to northwest point Michael W. Millsapps, CFM Chief Facilities Officer Aims Community College 5401 West 20th Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 970‐339‐6376 michael.millsapps@aims.edu On May 25, 2022, at 4:03 PM, Mike millsapps <michaelfarms1843@netzero.com> wrote: I’ll measure this tonight as best I can. FYI ‐ I paid the $300 appeal fee for the variance request today…. Is this all for the June meeting? Thank you! Michael W. Millsapps, CFM Chief Facilities Officer Aims Community College 5401 West 20th Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 2 970‐339‐6376 michael.millsapps@aims.edu On May 25, 2022, at 11:04 AM, Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Mike! So what are the proposed setbacks, 2 distances shown below in red. I know you had submitted another site plan that showed 17’ to the west side property line, but because that angle was drawn incorrectly I’m not sure that is correct? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MISSY NELSON LEED® AP Pronouns: she/her Senior Zoning Inspector Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 N College Ave 970-416-2745 office zoning@fcgov.com From: Michael Kristy Farms <michaelfarms1843@netzero.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 12:25 PM To: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> Cc: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com>; kristymillsapps@yahoo.com; dan@fishbackbuilders.com; michaelfarms1843@netzero.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1843 Michael Lane Garage Addition Permit #B2201984 Email #3 Additional Documents ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> To: Mike millsapps <michaelfarms1843@netzero.com>, Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> Cc: Michael Kristy Farms <michaelfarms1843@netzero.net>, "kristymillsapps@yahoo.com" <kristymillsapps@yahoo.com>, "dan@fishbackbuilders.com" <dan@fishbackbuilders.com> 3 Subject: RE: Re: 1843 Michael Lane Garage Addition Permit #B2201984 Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 15:59:53 +0000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MISSY NELSON LEED® AP Pronouns: she/her Senior Zoning Inspector Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 N College Ave 970-416-2745 office zoning@fcgov.com From: Mike millsapps <michaelfarms1843@netzero.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 9:46 AM To: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> Cc: Michael Kristy Farms <michaelfarms1843@netzero.net>; kristymillsapps@yahoo.com; dan@fishbackbuilders.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 1843 Michael Lane Garage Addition Permit #B2201984 Could we just reference the correct site plan for the variance meeting and I’ll work on getting this corrected? Michael W. Millsapps, CFM Chief Facilities Officer Aims Community College 5401 West 20th Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 970‐339‐6376 michael.millsapps@aims.edu 4 On May 10, 2022, at 8:07 AM, Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> wrote: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MISSY NELSON LEED® AP Pronouns: she/her Senior Zoning Inspector Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 N College Ave 970-416-2745 office zoning@fcgov.com From: Mike millsapps <michaelfarms1843@netzero.com> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 5:39 PM To: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> Cc: Michael Kristy Farms <michaelfarms1843@netzero.net>; kristymillsapps@yahoo.com; dan@fishbackbuilders.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 1843 Michael Lane Garage Addition Permit #B2201984 I will reach out to the architect who I had prepare the drawings, but he’s not the fastest in responding to things. If there is anything I can do myself to satisfy the variance process, I am happy to do it to keep things moving. Is tomorrow a deadline for the next meeting or? Thank you! 5 Michael W. Millsapps, CFM Chief Facilities Officer Aims Community College 5401 West 20th Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 970‐339‐6376 michael.millsapps@aims.edu On May 9, 2022, at 1:25 PM, Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> wrote: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MISSY NELSON LEED® AP Pronouns: she/her Senior Zoning Inspector Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 N College Ave 970-416-2745 office zoning@fcgov.com From: Michael Kristy Farms <michaelfarms1843@netzero.net> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 10:54 AM To: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> Cc: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com>; Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com>; kristymillsapps@yahoo.com; dan@fishbackbuilders.com; michaelfarms1843@netzero.com 6 Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: RE: 1843 Michael Lane Garage Addition Permit #B2201984 Ms. Nelson, Thank you again for taking the time to look into this! This is very helpful and detailed. After reading the options presented, please let us know if this sounds appropriate: We would like to continue with the variance application. If approved, we will support the condition of approval, as we would like to "clean up" our properties in the future anyway and make it all one property. At the same time we can clean up the site plan drawing as well (not sure what happened here). How does that sound? What do you need from us for next steps? Thank you again for all of your time and guidance to this point. This is great! Please note: message attached From: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> To: Michael Kristy Farms <michaelfarms1843@netzero.net>, Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> Cc: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com>, "kristymillsapps@yahoo.com" 7 <kristymillsapps@yahoo.com>, "dan@fishbackbuilders.com" <dan@fishbackbuilders.com>, "michaelfarms1843@netzero.com" <michaelfarms1843@netzero.com> Subject: RE: RE: RE: 1843 Michael Lane Garage Addition Permit #B2201984 Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 17:01:55 +0000