Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/2022 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting City of LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION FF:16-rt Collins AGENDA Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Shelley La Mastra, Acting Chair Staff Liaison: Noah Beals David Lawton John McCoy LOCATION: Taylor Meyer Meeting will be held virtually Ian Shuff 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 JANUARY 13, 2022 8:30 AM Participation for this remote Land Use Review Commission meeting will be available online or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Land Use Review Commission via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/i/94922234179.lndividuals 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 January 13, 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: 949 2223 4179. (Continued on next page) Land Use Review Commission Page 2 December 12, 2021 The meeting will be available beginning at 8:15 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 8:30 a.m., if possible. For public comments,the Chair will ask participants to click the "Raise Hand" button to indicate you would like to speak at that time—phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation,the Staff Liaison needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to nbeals@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison will ensure the Board or Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As required by City Council Ordinance 061, 2020, a determination has been made that holding an in-person hearing would not be prudent and that the matters to be heard are pressing and require prompt consideration. The written determination is contained in the agenda materials. • 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 ZBA20049 Address: 243 N College Ave Owner: Ent Credit Union Petitioner: Brian Rowedder, Director of Marketing Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Project Description: This is a request to display a 6-foot-tall wall sign on the ATM machine. The maximum height for a wall sign in the Downtown sign district is 4.5 feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA210050 Address: 2555 Joseph Allen Dr Owner: Ft. Collins VOA Senior Housing LLC Petitioner: Mark Tweed/Mark Tweed Design Inc. Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.8.7.2 Project Description: 1) Only 1 (one)wall sign is allowed per frontage, 3.8.7.2 Cabinet Wall Signs or Dimensional Wall Signs, Table (B). Sign Types EX-A and EX-B are shown on the same elevation. 2) The secondary roof sign, EX-C, shows indirect lighting pointed upwards. This is not permitted. 3) Monument sign 1: a. Show on site plan that it is at least 75' from property line of residential across the street to the east. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 December 12, 2021 b. Overall sign height is measured at the flowline of the street c. Max is 32 sq. ft. you're showing 43 4) Monument sign 2: a. Vehicular entry signs are only allowed to be single sided b. This sign could be considered the secondary ground sign, but 20 sq ft is the max size (allowed one per street frontage) 3. APPEAL ZBA210051 Address: 1218 Canvasback Ct Owner/Petitioner: Lee Xiang Hong Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Project Description: This is request for a variance to increase the allowable floor area by 166 square feet by enclosing a patio area on more than three (3)sides. Will also be adding four(4)windows and a door. In the R-L (low density residential)zone district, the allowable maximum floor area is one-third (1/3)of the square footage of the lot. This is the third request to increase the allowable floor area for the lot. 4. APPEAL ZBA210052 Address: 116 N Washington Ave Owner/Petitioner: Robyn M Dolgin Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.3(1) Project Description: This is a request to use a 10-foot x 8-foot shed to store materials relating to a horticultural design and maintenance home business. Issuance of home occupation license pending approval of variance to allow use of storage shed. 5. APPEAL ZBA210053—POSTPONED Address: 134 Lyons St Owner/Petitioner: Gregg Smith Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(5) Project Description: This is a request to build a 640 square foot accessory building with habitable space, which will be 40 square feet over the 600 square foot maximum allowed for accessory buildings in the N-C-L zone. 6. APPEAL ZBA210054 Address: 2721 S College Ave, Unit 7 Owner: JCRS II Colfax LLC Petitioner: Adam Ray Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(C) Project Description: This is a request to display window signs that cover more than 50%of the architecturally distinct window. In the commercial/industrial sign district, a window sign covers up to 50% of the architecturally distinct window. A sign permit for the window signs will need to be applied for pending approval of this variance. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT From: Shelley La Mastra To: Noah Beals Cc: Kory Katsimpalis Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: Land Use Review Commission(LURC)formerly ZBA,Remote Hearings Date: Tuesday,January 4,2022 8:50:08 PM Hi Noah, I agree for this month, though think it it important to find a time for a board discussion on this topic. Best regards, Shelley On Tue, Jan 4, 2022, 10:20 AM Noah Beals <nbeals(c�r�,fcgov.com>wrote: Hello Vice Chair-person La Mastra, Since May 2020 the Land Use Review Commission(LURC) has conducted a remote hearing. These remote hearings appear to have met the needs of the board members and the applicants. The concerns that prompted these remote meetings are beginning dissipate but are not eliminated and a resurgence of concerns have cropped up. • Health risks during a world-wide pandemic • Vaccinations continuing to be administered • Difficulties in coordinating logistics for an in-person meeting or hybrid of such It is staff recommendation to continue with a remote hearing for January 2022 meetings of the LURC. If conditions change sooner we can revaluate at any time. We will coordinate with the new Chair-person for meetings after January. Please respond to this email with your agreement with this recommendation or other suggestions for these hearings. Kind Regards, Noah Beals Development Review Manager I City of Fort Collins 970 416-2313 City of LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION Fort Collins MEETING MINUTES Ralph Shields, Chair Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair Staff Liaison: Noah Beals David Lawton John McCoy LOCATION: Taylor Meyer Virtual Hearing Ian Shuff Butch Stockover 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 DECEMBER 9, 2021 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All commission members were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to approve the November 12, 2021, Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously, with La Mastra and McCoy abstaining. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION -NONE- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210047—APPROVED Address: 1003 W Horsetooth Rd Owner/Petitioner: Greg Thornton Zoning District: N-C Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Project Description: This is a request to allow a 4-foot-tall sign and a 2.92-foot-tall sign to be installed in the residential sign district that limits these signs to a maximum of 2 feet in height. The business is changing locations; the old location is not in the residential sign district and the new location is. Staff Presentation: Prior to Staff Presentation, Vice Chair La Mastra disclosed that she is working on another project in this area,just south of the property; La Mastra indicated that she did not feel that she would be in conflict of interest by participating in the discussion. City legal counsel Claire Havelda asked for the record if La Mastra if she had any financial interest in this project;La Mastra responded that she did not. Havelda asked La Mastra that there is no way that Land Use Review Commission Page 2 December 9, 2021 her work on the other project would influence her decisions on this project. La Mastra responded that this was correct. Commission member Ian Shuff also disclosed that he was working on the same project as Vice Chair La Mastra, stating that the project is a mixed-use building on the same property. Shuff commented that he is in now way influenced in his decision making regarding the case at hand. Havelda asked for the record that there is no financial benefit for Shuff; Shuff answered in the affirmative. Havelda confirmed that there is no conflict of interest. Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located near the corner of S Shields and W Horsetooth, and sits mid-block. The building has been a restaurant in the past and is now being converted into use as a bike shop. The previous location for the bike shop was located at 4612 S Mason St and is now in the process of moving operations to the 1003 W Horsetooth location. The applicant is seeking to move signs currently in place on the former location and affix them to the building at the new location. Beals indicated that the primary issue at hand is that the new location is located within the residential sign district. The mixed-use development does include residential units, as do the blocks across the street and abutting the development property. Beals presented an illustration of the entry sign element itself as well as how it would appear on the building as proposed. The backing of the sign and mounting brackets would be considered part of the sign and extend beyond the allowable 2-feet maximum height. Additionally, a sign proposed for installation on the side of the building contains portions of lettering that would exceed beyond the allowable 2-feet maximum height. Beals provided additional views of the building in situ to provide context for discussion. Vice Chair La Mastra asked Beals to clarify which portions of the side sign are out of compliance. It seems that the way the applicant has highlighted the sign plan to indicate overages may not be accurate. Beals clarified that the applicant may have been considering the two elements shown as two separate signs when in fact, under code, they would be one single sign. La Mastra questioned if we have the actual dimensions for total height from top of the"V"to the bottom of the orange panel. Beals indicated he would need to perform some additional research and/or receive that data directly from the applicant. Applicant Presentation: Greg Thornton, 4612 S Mason St, addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Thornton read a prepared statement to the Board, which reads as follows: "Hello, my name is Gregg Thornton, owner of pro Velo Bicycles, currently located at 4612 S Mason St. I opened by business in 2010 and have become a proud member of the Fort Collins cycling community, and a productive member of the local business community. I am here today because I will soon be moving my business to a new location at 1003 W Horsetooth. I won't go into the details of why I Am moving, but in short, short of fighting a long legal battle, I've essentially been coerced out of my current location. Fortunately, I found anew location in abuilding that has sat unoccupied for the last two years, and plan to give it a new purpose. It was formerly several different restaurants that were not successful in this location. I believe my business will be a great fit here, and bring something new to the shopping center that it has lacked in the past. Part of my relocation plan was to move my existing signage to the new location, but it was brought to my attention that they do not comply with the Land Use Codes. So, I have requested a variance to avoid the expensive process of replacing them. The variance request asks that I prove hardship due to this issue, and I hope to prove that today. I am sure all of you are aware that the last year and has presented a very difficult business environment, with supply chain and staffing issues that have not been easy to manage. Bicycle shops were deemed `essential'at the on-set of COVID, so we have been open throughout the pandemic. But navigating the public's safety as well as my staff's safety, in addition to the broken supply chain and difficulties staffing, has presented challenges and additional expense I was not expecting. While there is great interest in cycling, getting product has been an ongoing issue that is still far from resolved, and has made it difficult to meet our customers' needs. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 December 9, 2021 To add insult to injury, I now find myself having to move my business, which is an expensive process that I was not prepared for, and once again I really wasn't given an option. To add additional insult, I am now seeing a slow-down in business that is difficult to explain and is adding stress to an already stressful time. And now I am being asked to throw away my perfectly good signs over a nominal issue, which I will also address today, and spend tens of thousands of dollars to replace them. This will clearly create additional hardship on my business, not only from a financial standpoint, but also adds an additional task to my lengthy list of tasks I must perform to successfully move my business. This also struck me—it seems that throwing away two perfectly good signs into an already- overfilled landfill is not a very sound environmental policy from a City that prides itself on being green and protecting the environment. The hardship this policy will create is over an issue that truly is nominal. My plan was to move two signs, as you saw, to the new location. One will be placed on the back of the building along Horsetooth Rd., one will be placed over the front door, but facing the center's parking lot. In general, the sign along Horsetooth complies with zoning requirements because does use individual letters and is not a box sign. The issue is over the fact that two of the letters are 25 inches tall, and one of them is 25 518 inches tall, and the code calls for the letters to be 24 inches. (The applicant paused his reading and acknowledged that there was some confusion about the overall height of the sign, but he still believes that taking those overages into account, this is still a nominal issue. Applicant commented that really what we are talking about here is a 1 inch to 1 5/8-inch difference, which is nominal.) [Reading of written statement continues] The sign over the front door has individual letters that are all under 22 inches tall, much shorter than the 24 inches the code calls for. The issue is really over the sign's backing, which is an architectural feature rather than a part of the sign. The sign was designed to go in front of a window and is perforated to let the light shine through into the building, and it gives the letters something to be mounted on since they can't be mounted to a window. At the new location, the sign will be mounted over a window as it was in the old location, so the backing will provide the same function as it did before. Furthermore, the sign will be tucked into an alcove, as you saw, over the front door, and will look like it was made for the spot. I think this, too, can be viewed as nominal. Both signs are attractive, well-designed signs that will look great on the new building, and because of the nominal design issue, will not look out of place. So, I hope my presentation today not only provides evidence of the hardship this will create, if the variance is not approved, but also gives conclusive evidence that issue truly is nominal and inconsequential. Thank you for your time. I appreciate the opportunity to state my case and trust that the Board will understand and approve my variance request. Vice Chair La Mastra questioned if the applicant knew the overall height of the north-facing sign, from the top of the"V"to the bottom of the orange frame element. Staff member Beals responded that when he applied the scale tool to the plans that were provided, it measured 35 inches, or 2.8 feet. Applicant Thornton responded that the sign is noted as 2.9 feet approximately in the variance request. Commission member Lawton asked for clarification regarding which sides of the building the signs would be located, and asked Beals to demonstrate using the aerial view of the property. Beals indicated that the perforated, over-window sign will be located on the south side of the building, facing the parking lot. The individual letter sign will be placed on the north side of the building, facing Horsetooth Ave. Lawton remarked the placement would provide visibility to traffic flow on the north as well as pedestrian/parking level traffic to the south. Audience Participation: Audience member Kevin Bowes, with Action Sign Co., 1413 Webster Ave., Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Board and agreed to participate in the hearing remotely. Bowes indicated that we was the designer responsible for the design of the signs. Bowes explained that during the design process, they were interpreting the residential sign code to allow a maximum of 24-inch letter height, rather than an overall sign height. That interpretation may be inaccurate. As explained to the owner of Action Land Use Review Commission Page 4 December 9, 2021 Signs, Randy Lyric, the orange"bicycle" element counts separately within the residential sign district as it pertains to the overall sign height. Again, this may be an inaccurate interpretation of the code. When measured together, to overall height of the north sign is 35 inches, as noted by Beals. Bowes commented the applicant did state the case clearly and completely. Bowes drew attention to a few additional small details, commenting a previous tenant in the building did employ a sign of approximately the same size and square footage, when the building was being used as a restaurant. Regarding the nominal aspect of the justification for variance, Bowe's noted that the overhanging portions of letters are symptoms of the typography, and in fact some other typographies that would meet code could ultimately produce more of an impact on the surrounding residential properties. The ascenders and descenders on the letters are only nominally outside of the code, and when you interpret the code on its intent to limit signages' impact on residences nearby, the impact of this project is very nominal. Additionally, Bowe's urged that the perforated portion of the south sign be considered framework, so as not to endure hardship of sign re-production for that space. The backing has no graphics or design of their own, and in fact the perforated "design" is actually a functional element that allows light to penetrate the window. Commission member Lawton asked Bowes if either of the signs were illuminated. Bowes indicated that both signs are internally illuminated channel letter sets. Lawton asked if there are any timing mechanisms planned for the illumination of the signs. Bowes responded the signs will be controlled along with the exterior lighting systems of the building. Bowes stated that usually an electrician is employed for final hook up of the signs, and they will set the controls to the customer's standards as well as to applicable codes. Most signs are turned off at some point during the night to save electricity, usually around 11 pm. Signs are generally only illuminated in the evenings, and most use either a pre- set timer or a photo-cell timer. Commission member Lawton asked Beals what the limitations on sign size would be if this property were not located in a residential district. Beals responded that if this sign, as presented, were not located within a residential district then it would meet code requirements. The business is moving from a non-residential district, and their signs were acceptable. Lawton asked if there were any limitations on illumination within the residential district. Beals responded that most signs are to be turned off based on closing time of the business unless the illumination of the sign is helping in some safety consideration. Commission Discussion: Vice Chair La Mastra noted there is residential located across Horsetooth; however, the buildings are set back quite a bit from the street and are behind a significant stand of evergreen trees. La Mastra shared the opinion that neither of these signs are truly adjacent to residential uses. There are residential blocks surrounding this particular development, but the north-facing sign is adjacent to arterial street separation in addition to significant landscaping and another parking lot before a residential building. The south-facing side is adjacent to a large retail parking lot. La Mastra believes that given the context of the site, this does present a very nominal impact to any surrounding residential property. Commission member Shuff stated his agreement with La Mastra's assessment that any impact to surrounding residential property would be minimal. Additionally, Shuff noted that there is a 7-11 immediately east of the residential development, so this is not the only commercial development in the immediate area. Despite this being a residential area, the entire corner is a commercial development. Therefore, there is an expectation of signage and sign illumination associated with retail properties. Shuff feels it is nominal and inconsequential given the size of the letters and elements. The south side sign's mounting bracket really blend into the surrounding window and won't be read as a portion of the sign itself. Shuff stated his support for approval of the variance request. Commission member Stockover stated his support for approval of the variance request. Commenting that this was to be his last meeting, Stockover voiced his opinion that 90% of the argument presented by the applicant does not hold weight in the Commission's purview to review the application. We have to remember that times are tough now, but we are approving something forever. Making exceptions Land Use Review Commission Page 5 December 9, 2021 now because times are temporarily difficult is not best practice. Code does not vary based on economics. Perhaps staff could put out a letter that details what factors can actually be considered. Stockover commented that this is a perfect location for a bike shop. Despite the multiple details and justifications provided by an applicant, we must make our decisions based solely on the signs in question and language of the code. Chair Shields commented that during his more than seven years serving on the Board, he has never quite understood the delineation between residential and commercial sign districts. This corner in question is clearly a commercial corner. The nearby 7-11 has a canopy that glows all night, so definitely in the context of this corner this is nominal and inconsequential. Shields confirms his support for approval of the variance request. Commission member Lawton stated his agreement with previous members' comments, commenting that the signs are well designed and fit the character of the building. If controls for late-night illumination are available, that would be great. Lawton confirms his support for approval of the variance request. Vice Chair La Mastra agreed with Stockover's comments, noting that this property is actually zoned neighborhood-commercial, which speaks to the dual nature of this area. La Mastra recommend to Noah Beals that perhaps something to talk about with staff in the future is the need for potential compromise within sign code in these areas that have both neighborhood and commercial zoning and codes. La Mastra referred to Stockover's comments, agreeing that the presentation seemed to make more of a hardship argument rather than nominal and inconsequential impact. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Lawton to APPROVE ZBA210047 — 1003 W Horsetooth Rd., based on the following findings: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the north-side increased height is limited to only certain letters of the sign; the south sign increased height is for the background; the background is semi-transparent. Therefore, the granting of the modification of standard would not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Meyer, Stockover, Lawton, Shields, Shuff, La Mastra, McCoy Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA210048—APPROVED WITH CONDITION Address: 400 Jackson Ave Owner/Petitioner: Michael and Katie Rusnak Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a request to construct a fence along portions of the south and east property line that vary in height between 6 feet and 7 feet. Based on the slope of the property, some sections of the fence will be taller than the 6-foot maximum that is allowed for fences built in a side yard or a rear yard. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located on the corner of W Magnolia Ave and Jackson Ave, directly across the street from City Park. Beals offered some pertinent history of the property, noting there was a house on the property previously which was demolished and replaced with the current residence. Additionally, over time there has been a subdivision of the original single lot into three separate parcels. The adjacent property to the south shares an uneven property line that jags north a bit from the Jackson Ave. side. Beals noted the parcel drawing included in applicant materials doesn't show current buildings on- site, but instead depicts parcel lines and building envelopes/setbacks for those parcels. The one Land Use Review Commission Page 6 December 9, 2021 building depicted on the plans no longer exists. The hand-drawn diagram of the parcels does depict the current structures. The red line indicates where the fence line is increased in height. The increase is not consistent, but instead varies from 6 feet to 7 feet depending on changes in gradient and applicant design plans. Beals shared an additional diagram provided by the applicant which describes the shared property line between the applicant's property and the adjacent property at 1237 W Magnolia. This east property line is a rear line for the applicant(400 Jackson) but a side line for 1327 W Magnolia. The south lot line as a shared side line between applicant property and 404 Jackson; there appears to be an encroachment by the existing structure at 404 Jackson. Additional renderings of the proposed fence and patio were shared by Beals, which depict a finished pool, patio, landscape planters, surrounded by new fencing. The increased fence height is depicted in the renderings. Beals noted that increased fence height needs to be six feet within the setback, but beyond the setback in can be increased in height, it would just require a building permit. This is similar to if a building similar height were to be placed beyond the setback, thus requiring a permit. Beals also noted that part of the fence did already go under construction, and it was noticed during some other inspections that the height of the fence would require a building permit. That is how the City became aware of the fence height being in violation of code. So, coming forward to the Board today is part of coming into compliance. Beals presented photos of the fence in its current state, describing how close the fence and property lines come to adjacent properties. Vice Chair La Mastra asked for clarification regarding the lot line shared between 400 Jackson and 404 Jackson. In one diagram, it appears that 404 is encroaching on the property of 400 Jackson. However, within the plan view of the pool, it appears that the"notched-out" area is included in their lot. It is unclear what is actually happening there, perhaps the applicant can provide additional detail. Beals commented that his understanding was that the structure on 404 Jackson does encroach; Beals asked if the applicant could provide any additional information regarding that lot line. Applicant Presentation: Katie Rusnak, 400 Jackson Ave, Fort Collins, CO addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Rusnak explained that the had submitted a lengthy narrative with her application, which she assumed the Board had already had a chance to read. Rusnak then read a brief portion of the narrative, stating: The purpose of this variance request to ask permission to construct/maintain a privacy fence of greater than 6 feet around our backyard. The exact height of this fence varies with the slope of our backyard, but in no portion should exceed 7 feet. In some areas of the yard the fence is actually well under 6 feet and even closer to 5 feet. The two fence lines that would exceed 6 feet most significantly run only between private properties, with little to no visibility from public streets. These portions are highlighted in the attached site plan for our lot. Our desire to have a privacy fence greater that 6 feet is based on the following rationale: 1. The close proximity of our home and yard to our neighbors 2. The very close proximity of our neighbors'houses and other structures to the property line 3. The fact that we have a backyard swimming pool which increases the need for a sight and sound barrier 4. The fact that the grade of our yard slopes significantly, with the lowest portion along the rear/east property line creating a fence that naturally gets taller as it runs towards the rear of the lot, while visually feeling shorter because the grade there is lower. " Rusnak added both of her adjacent neighbors have emailed her and spoken extensively in-person regarding the fence. Both neighbors have sent comments to the Board regarding the variance application. Rusnak stated both neighbors are generally supportive of the variance request, with a few caveats. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 December 9, 2021 Chair Shields asked Noah Beals to confirm if the had received the neighbors' emails. Beals stated the emails were received this morning, and he could read them to the Board during comment portion. Vice Chair La Mastra asked the applicant to clarify the discrepancy between lot lines and encroachments as depicted between the two plans provided. The applicant stated her surprise when looking at the highlighted plan provided by the City, noting that she was surprised and confused to the see the encroachment of 4040 Jackson onto their lot. They were not previously aware of this encroachment. The applicant stated when the new fence was constructed, they took down the previous fence with the permission of the neighbors at 404 Jackson. The new fence was placed exactly along the same line as the previous fence. Applicant stated the new fence is most likely completely within their property line, as they were not aware that a portion of the south lot notches out further south. Applicant Rusnak explained that 400 Jackson Ave was originally one lot with one original house. When the applicant became involved, the developer had already purchased and subdivided the original lot into three parcels; homes had already been constructed on the adjacent parcels (404 Jackson and 1327 W Magnolia). Thus, 400 Jackson was the last of the three new parcels to be purchased and built out. The lot line encroachment would have already been present at the time the applicant purchased the lot and built their existing residence. Applicant stated the plan provided by the City is probably the most-accurate representation of lot lines and adjacent properties. Audience Participation: Noah Beals offered to read the emails provided by neighbors of 400 Jackson Ave. The first email was sent by Blake and Meredith Naughton, residing at 404 Jackson Ave. Their email and attached letter are transcribed below: Mr. Beals, My wife and 1 are unable to make it to the Commission hearing this morning for our neighbors'fence variance appeal,ZBA210048, so we would like to submit the attached letter. In short, we support the fence as constructed on our property line, do not comment on the other property line, and raise a related concern about drainage. Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information from us. Sincerely, Blake Naughton [Attached letter:] Dear Commissioners: This letter is written in response to the Adjacent Property Owner Notification of Appeal ZBA210048, requesting a modification of the Land Use Code by our neighbors Michael and Katie Rusnak, who are located at 400 Jackson Avenue. We own the property to the south of the Rusnaks, at 404 Jackson Avenue, and reside there full time. The proposal description references a request relative to both the south and east sides of their property,as their south side is the only one affecting our property, we will limit our comments to that and will not comment on the east side. The Rusnaks communicated with us proactively about their fence project, sharing ideas and conceptual photos of possible designs. We agreed that the best course would be to allow their contractor to remove our existing shared fence, which was constructed by the original owners of our home, before the Rusnak's'home was built. We preferred this to them building a new fence against ours existing(and therefore possibly seeing both). Their contractor agreed to connect the new fence to our existing fence at the southeast corner of their property(the northeast corner of ours). Further, due to details of their fence design, the existing gate entirely on our property between the north side of Land Use Review Commission Page 8 December 9, 2021 our home and their new fence no longer connected properly. Therefore, the Rusnaks replaced it with a new gate, at their expense. The fence between our properties appears to be substantively complete, although we understand additional wood boards are planned to be added on our side of the fence to cover decorative metal panels with see-through patterns. The new fence as currently constructed runs in height approximately a few inches over 6 feet at the west end to over 7%feet at the east end, as measured from ground level on our side of the fence. Although this creates a fairly large fence as seen from our backyard, from the views in our property, we do not find this objectionable and support the fence staying at this height. Further, as the Rusnak's'larger project involved installing a swimming pool and an elevated pool deck along the entirety of our shared fence line, we believe the additional fence screening is beneficial and support the variance to keep the current height and limit views from their pool. However, we do not wish for the fence to be any higher than it is currently constructed. Finally, although not the subject of this appeal, we would like to raise a related concern. Their new pool deck was constructed several feet above grade, with a steep drop-off between it and our shared fence. We have already noticed gravel and dirt flowing under the fence into our yard from the Rusnak's'yard, despite the fact that there has not been very significant rainfall since the fence was installed. Further, during pool construction in May, a large sinkhole developed on our property just a few feet from the fence, and near the window well of our basement guest room. We are therefore worried that during a significant rain event or during significant snowmelt, our yard and home may be adversely affected by substantial run-off. We are not sure what might be done to mitigate this possibility, and thought it might be important now, before construction is complete, to ask the city for guidance on how to proceed on studying the risks and recommending a drainage plan. Thank you for soliciting this feedback. We are grateful for the kind relationship we have developed with our neighbors over the two years we have lived here, and are happy to discuss any options going forward if needed. Sincerely, Blake and Meredith Naughton Beals continued, reading an email sent by Judy Dorsey and Dan Epstein, who reside at 1327 W Magnolia. Their email and attached letter are transcribed below: Hi Noah, Thank you for your assistance sharing our email comments below with the Land Use Review Commission. You'll note that we introduced a second concern about stormwater drainage that we'd like the City's assistance with navigating. We realize this specific appeal may not be the best place to provide comments on this second topic but would like to raise it with you and the Land Use Review Commission to clarify the process for addressing this concern. Here's our input to the Land Use Review Commission: Dear Land Use Review Commission Members, We're located at 1327 W. Magnolia St., adjacent to the east side of the Rusnak property at 400 Jackson Ave. Thank you for the opportunity to share our input on Appeal#ZBA210048—a proposal to construct a fence along portions of the south and east side of the Rusnak property line, reported to vary in height between 6 and 7 feet. Land Use Review Commission Page 9 December 9, 2021 We provided an inquiry to the City about the fence earlier this fall, but have not filed any complaints and we have shared our written comments to you in advance with the Rusnak's. We've been happy neighbors for over a decade so want to be sure a pool project and fence don't overshadow more important aspects of harmonious living in an amazing neighborhood. Ultimately, we're mostly comfortable with this variance request, except for a particular portion of the fence that impacts our views from our kitchen and home office where we spend a great deal of time. Here are our points of clarification and areas where we're not comfortable with the variance proposal as currently written: -First, we don't wish to speak to anything along the south property It affects our neighbors the Naughtons more directly, so we defer to their preferences on this matter. Next, it's important to note that the fence as currently constructed measures 7'3"on our side of the property line at the southeast corner of the Rusnak lot, which is greater than the 7' variance request. Even though it is not ideal and exceeds the variance proposal, we're comfortable with a compromise that extends this fence height along most of our shared east/west property line, but only up until our fence gate along this span. Our goal is to preserve the views described above and not have a new higher fence line running through our frequent line of sight. Specifically, we're requesting that the fence height be stepped back down to be code compliant, not exceeding 6'anywhere from our gate northward. This includes the northern segment of fence on the Magnolia-facing side of the lot. -From measuring from our side of the property line, the northern Magnolia-facing side of the fence looks to also exceed 6'along this east-west span, even though this segment of fence was not included in the variance proposal. Regarding measurements from our side of the property line versus what the Rusnak's may be measuring from their side of the property line, an important piece of context in this variance proposal is that the fence is part of a larger pool project that included building up a pool deck significantly above prior grade and very close to the fence lines. We'd like to confirm a common understanding that fence height in this variance request is measured from the original ground elevation at our shared property line, which effectively means well below fence height at pool deck level. -Lastly, despite our continued appreciation for and desire to maintain good relationships with our neighbors the Rusnak's, we've unfortunately lost confidence in their contractor to follow code. Therefore, we're reintroducing an even more pressing concern than the fence height. And that is our concern with stormwater drainage after converting the entire backyard from predominantly permeable landscape with turf to virtually all flat hardscapes. We'd like assurances that there is an updated drainage plan with newly installed solutions as required to accommodate the increased runoff from this project. -For historical context, we've had problems with stormwater drainage between these properties in the past. Solutions were installed prior to the Rusnak's purchasing their home and include drainage pipe at the very sight where the new pool deck is now located. It's not clear whether these past engineered solutions are still in place and whether they've been expanded to accommodate increased flows. Thank you for including our comments for the planning boards'consideration, Sincerely, Judy Dorsey, PE and Dan Epstein 1327 W. Magnolia St. Land Use Review Commission Page 10 December 9, 2021 Commission Discussion: Vice Chair La Mastra asked Beals to explain how fence height is measured, when essentially a wall is being built between two properties. It may be seven feet on one side but more than seven feet when measured from a neighbor's side. Beals explained that fence heights are measured at the grade level directly under the fence. It is true that you cannot alter the grade to increase allowable fence height. It should be measure from original grade. La Mastra asked if we are actually approving the height as measured from the east and south property lines, rather than the pool deck surface which has been significantly built up above grade. Beals asked the applicant to confirm if the grade does in fact change where the fence is located. Applicant Rusnak offered additional description, utilizing the corner-view photograph of the pool deck and fence where the three parcels intersect. This is the site where neighbors are measuring the fence height over seven feet. When measured from the inside of the fence, the applicant is determining a height right at seven feet. Applicant is measuring from the original grade, from the ground on the backside of the fence, not the pool deck. The few-inches difference may be a result of the lot's continued slope downhill as it progresses east. An additional section of fence along the east property line, abutting the Naughton's garage, is actually higher. Perhaps right at that intersection they are achieving a higher measurement, closer to 7.5 feet. It seems the Naughton's may be okay with this as long as the fence height steps down as it approaches Magnolia Ave. La Mastra questioned the location of the gate noted in the Dorsey-Epstein email. Beals indicated the location of the gate within the photographs. Rusnak explained when the old fence was taken down, the Dorsey-Epstein residence preferred a different style of fence and maintained their existing style of gate. They would like the adjacent fence lines to be lower than seven feet so as not to block an existing bay window. The Rusnaks are working with their fence contractor to ensure gates and fence panels in that area are not to be higher than six feet. Chair Shields shared his opinion that generally fence heights need to be measured from the property they are being built on to determine final measured height under code. La Mastra agreed with Shields, drawing attention to the difference in grade present between the ground and the pool deck. Applicant Rusnak described from their back door there is a raised deck with two steps down to ground level. That is the level that the pool has been installed. Because the yard slopes so far to the east, the areas was built up with concrete to cause it to be elevated. However, the concrete ends some inches before the fence on both sides, and the fence itself is anchored directly to the ground at grade. On the east property line, there is a small gap between the applicant's new fence and the Dorsey-Eptstein's existing fence. Commission member Lawton asked for clarification surrounding the height of the metal fence posts depicted in the photographs. Lawton asked two questions. First, to Noah Beals: do we measure fence height by the posts or by the top edge of the fence panels? Beals responded that both elements (post and panels) must be measured and comply with fence height code. Lawton noted the measurements included in the materials did not measure to the top of the posts. If that is the case, then what we are discussing is actually a taller fence than seven feet. La Mastra added her understanding that construction had been paused, and more wood slats were actually planned to be installed between the posts. Applicant Rusnak confirmed La Mastra's assertion, stating it is one hundred percent correct. On the south side, the fence has been completed and the posts and wood panels are the same height. When construction of the fence began on the east side, between the Rusnak and Dorsey-Epstein properties, that's when the issue was raised regarding fence height. Construction was stopped at that point. Currently, the wood on the east side of the fence is at the allowed six-foot height. Pending the outcome of this variance request, the additional height will either be added, or the fence and posts will be brought into compliance with code. Lawton clarified that the fence as currently constructed is non-conforming and awaiting approval of the variance. The applicant concurred, indicating that if approved the fence would be built to the requested Land Use Review Commission Page 11 December 9, 2021 seven-plus foot height; if denied, existing posts would be cut down to confirm with allowable height under code. Commission member Stockover asked the applicant how the existing metal panels would be finished if the variance was approved, and the fence height were to be increased. Would wood be placed over the top edge of the metal panels to maintain consistent height?Are more metal panels being added? Are the edges of the metal panel and wood panels to be left at differing heights?Applicant stated that if approved, the metal panels would be uninstalled to allow for the installation of wood planks and/or additional metal panels at the base of the existing panels to achieve a consistent seven-foot height along the top edge of the fence. Stockover shared his opinion there is too much going on with this application to feel comfortable with approving at this point. Stockover asked Beals what it would take to go out on-site and take some photos and measurements from the affected property owners' perspective. Beals responded that if the Board decided to table the item to next meeting, we would need to work with the adjacent property owners and the applicant to arrange permission to be on their properties to take measurements ourselves, as a neutral party in this discussion. It seems plausible we could do that before next month's meeting. Stockover commented that if he were to be here next month, an on-site visit might be a great idea. Stockover has some familiarity with this lot due to some earlier speculation and touring of the original lot. With that said, this lot is fully mature with lots of trees and leaves. Effects of rainwater and drainage could definitely impact leaves and debris bunching and collecting at certain areas. It is hard to determine from the photos what is finished height and what is under construction. There are way too many questions to be comfortable with approval at this point. While we don't want to hold up construction, our decision is a permanent decision. A decision could be more-comfortably made with additional measurements, view sheds (including alleys), etc. Stockover acknowledged that with all that said, he will not be present next month due to term limits and would defer to the remaining members of the Board for a final determination. Beals commented that as far as inspections go, because the fence is over six feet and requires a building permit, we City would be doing an inspection and at that time could verify the fence is measured to whatever height the Board approves. Chair Shields commented that the grading issue that has been brought up during this application is not really part of this request. Claire Havelda concurred with Shields' assessment, stating that the issue of grading is beyond the purview of this Board for this Hearing. Shields commented it appeared the neighbors to the east are okay with the higher fence line, up until it reaches their side-yard fence. Vice Chair La Mastra commented she understands that there are other issues the neighbors have. In the past when we have approved encroachment into setbacks or other similar items that are affecting drainage for other properties, we must think about that. However, this fence height does not affect the drainage problems that are there. It appears that both neighbors are fine with the fence as proposed, except for lowering it to six feet past the adjacent gate at the Dorsey-Epstein residence. They need to continue to coordinate to resolve the grading issue by the pool deck; again, this issue is outside of the purview of this Board. The only questions remaining is if measurement for height is being taken from the applicant's or neighbors' side of the fence. La Mastra stated her support for approval of the variance. Commission member Meyer commented that while this application is about fence height, all he would need to see is a plan of the fence with measurements made from native grade, showing total height, in five-foot increments. And yet, we don't see that information. We are not to be expected to guess, estimate and speculate what the height of the fence is from pictures and descriptions. All we need is a simple plan of the fence showing what the height is from native grade. Since this fence has been built, and there is a lot of discussion of grading changes, who is to say what native grade is?We aren't, that's not our job. Someone needs to determine that and bring that information to the Board. We can't Land Use Review Commission Page 12 December 9, 2021 approve an application for fence height and not be given information regarding fence height. How can grade be that different from one side of the fence to the other, when the fence is only 2-3 inches wide? Is that grade change native? Is that a retaining wall? Did it occur during construction?We shouldn't be wasting our time trying to guess and estimate fence height. Commission member Lawton agreed with the comments offered by Meyer, and commented this discussion started with confusion regarding lot lines and encroachment, which is still undetermined. Lawton stated that we still don't have the information necessary to make a decision. Lawton would be willing to take a look at the application next month if and when more information is available. Lawton recommends tabling the item; at this point he would not be in support of the application based on the lack of information currently possessed/presented. La Mastra urges the Board that we need to be very clear in the information we are requesting from the applicant. Based on previous comments from the Board, it sounds like we are asking for fence heights in five-foot increments, as well as fence heights measured from the applicant's property as well as from the neighbors' properties. Meyer confirms La Mastra's synopsis, again questioning how the grade could be so different from one side of the fence to the other. We need to know more about the conditions of the native grade and any retaining structures that might be present. Commission member Shuff commented if we isolate this discussion to just the fencing, which is our purview, he is more comfortable with the request based on the support letters of the neighbors and application materials. Shuff agrees that there is some ambiguity regarding what we are measuring to; we may have one measurement in the packet but need more. If the Board would prefer to gain more clarity and table the item, that would be ok; if the Board would like to put forth a motion to approve, Shuff could also support that as well. Stockover confirms that the applicant has been informed that an inspection will be performed when the construction of the fence has been completed. So, if the fence is built six feet above their grade, rather than native grade, there is a red flag that could be tagged during inspection. The risk is totally shifted to the applicant if in the motion we state that we would be in support of approval upon inspection if the fence is measured from native grade. We could approve the application with the understanding that the contractor needs to double-check measurements. Chair Shields agreed with Stockover's comments, and stated the City is ultimately going to have to verify the height of the fence; if it turns out to be to high, it will have to be cut down to compliance. If it is taller than what is approved today, it will have to be modified. Shields stated his approval based on conditions as discussed. Noah Beals clarified that either in the motion or in acknowledgement from the applicant, that the height of the fence being requested from the neighbor's winged gate/fence north, that the fence height will truly be six feet or lower. If acknowledged to be correct, that element with either no longer be part of the request today, or it's made clear in the motion that that is a condition of approval. Shields agrees that a condition probably makes sense within a potential motion to approve. La Mastra asked for clarification regarding where measurements would be taken from to make a motion and/or determine conditions. Which side of the fence are measurements taken? Beals clarified that the City will take measurements from the applicant's side of the fence. La Mastra questioned how native grade might be determined if the pool deck surface has already been built up. Commission Member Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE WITH CONDITION ZBA210048 based on the following findings: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the building on the abutting property to the east has five-foot setback and not the same fifteen-foot setback; the building to the south is non-conforming and encroaches into the five-foot setback; landscaping along the property may exceed such heights. Therefore, the variance request may be granted to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant, and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon their request. Land Use Review Commission Page 13 December 9, 2021 The variance request is approved with the following two conditions: first, that the fence be dropped to a six-foot height from that portion that is north of neighboring property's gate. Second, that the inspection, upon completion of the fence, is measured to native grade on the outside of the fence to ensure fence height does not exceed the proposed variance. Yeas: Meyer, Stockover, Shields, Shuff, La Mastra, McCoy Nays: Lawton THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITION • OTHER BUSINESS Noah Beals acknowledged the eight years of service put forward by Commission member Stockover and Chair Shields, who will both be leaving the Board due to term limits. The Board thanked them for their service and offered well wishes. • ADJOURNMENT—meeting adjourned at 10:20am Agenda Item 1 STAFF ■ - T January 13, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210049 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 243 N College Ave Owner: Ent Credit Union Petitioner: Brian Rowedder, Director of Marketing Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.2(B) Variance Request: This is a request to display a 6-foot-tall wall sign on the ATM machine. The max height for a wall sign in the Downtown sign district is 4.5 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was a part of the original town plat in 1873. It has developed and redeveloped since then. The most recent development approved an existing the existing building and parking lot to be used as a financial institution that includes both a drive up and walk-up ATM machines. The sign code restricts the height of a sign on the first story of a building in the Downtown area. This restriction is prevent sign clutter and maintain a pedestrian scale at the street level of buildings in the downtown area. The proposed sign is measured from the top to the bottom of the sign. The code does not include an allowance for increase height when the sign is missing a middle section. The location of this sign is near the primary entrance of the building. Unlike other building in the downtown are the main entrance is not directly abutting the public sidewalk but is approximately 50ft away. 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 sign area is missing a middle section. • The sign does not directly abut the public sidewalk. 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 ZBA210049. Item# 1 -Page 1 City of fit Collins A Request , Application q for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner's Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address 243 N. College Ave. Petitioner's Name, Ent Credit Union - Brian Rowed if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner's Relationship Director of Marketing to the Owner is Zip Code 180524 1Petitioner's Address 11550 Ent Parkway, COS, CO 8 Owner's Name JEnt Credit Union Petitioner's Phone# 719-550-6755 Code Section(s) 3.8.7.2(B) Petitioner's Email browedder@ent.com Zoning District ID-Downtown Additional Representative's Name Justification(s) 3. Nominal and inconsequential Representative's Address Justification(s) 1. Hardship Representative's Phone# Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative's Email Reasoning Ent Credit Union is seeking a variance for our wall-mounted ATM surround at 243 North College If not enough room, in Fort Collins. As this location was our first Fort Collins site, we followed the guidance of our additional written Colorado-based sign vendor relative to the initial placement and signage. For both the ATM information may surround and the associated window graphics as well as the drive-up ITM surround graphics - be submitted these were outside their scope and unfortunately coordination with our architect and the vendor Date 12/13/21 Signature Brian Rowedder Updated 02.18.20 Ent Credit Union is seeking a variance for our wall-mounted ATM surround at 243 North College in Fort Collins. As this location was our first Fort Collins site, we followed the guidance of our Colorado-based sign vendor relative to the initial placement and signage. For both the ATM surround and the associated window graphics as well as the drive-up ITM surround graphics-these were outside their scope and unfortunately coordination with our architect and the vendor was missed. We were not aware at that time that the graphics associated with these elements would count towards our allowable square footage overall.This created the disconnect between the planning documents submitted by our architect at the beginning of the project and the drawings submitted by our sign vendor, specifically for sign permitting, at a later date. Coordinating only our actual building signage, the sign vendor did not have the window graphics, ITM or ATM surrounds included in their scope of work. Once this discrepancy was brought to our attention by the City of Fort Collins, we did remove the non-compliant graphics from the ATM/ITM surrounds and drive-up lanes as well as from the windows. We were also made aware by the City that the overall height of the ATM surround/sign located near our front entrance exceeds code by approximately 1.5'. Replacing the ATM surround at this location would require extensive additional brick work and repair to the face of the building. As the ATM surround for this unit was produced specifically for this machine and fascia, recycling/repurposing is not an option at this time and disposal would be required. For that reason, we respectfully request a variance for the height differential and appreciate your consideration of this request. We apologize for these oversights. As we have subsequently opened two additional Fort Collins' locations, we have addressed these specific items during the construction of those service centers. Please let us know if there is additional information you require as you consider this request. t_ w 3 10 IDS ■ il . 0 �+ 17z909OO'sNnl00la0j =�1�11�1=1111111111 I 2o�O� `m3m 3A`d 3931100'N E4Z k E a a .� oio�"rs egku Ffd �� y �2 �E g=a$ aRx€gx dy a NOINf111432i0 1N3 NON I I I I I I I 11 V g.g�m Ndld 1N3WdO13A34 311S a11oa' a � o �k EU :e s a5'ss, s eF p x e as gg$s aoaol = !e .so But kg_a a any t a z aeW so€= oe :a l`sa 1 HIM w =ko So e5 Z g O€HI'- c� °€ w 3'�Wl„ ee m gl; F a$esw s�'s eaoM'�:a a gga O �"-'g m qef 'a s kLF a a9 Z'=E:4o. �eea W iE4 a w N as - g.yc ez's.ug. x' xe"sSBF s J`gag F BIN m tgtl Z io =-w,.o 4� a€20 yet' 3" m a$e§ m xka 1 w m Z4 fl oc - i z� 3§ ^Ws esy 3�'€ :C E a7p�°; '"s�oow �3r=<=o� 4f' ❑ s a tog = ' wneE _Qy Isxf-a€awmo�oa>= _ ❑ a Y s a ao9 3 a '`i€. :la`s a$ s °sso 'laog4_ ,.: Fg=5 a s3 4 xe.'s s m 3 e a i3= 3 `9 a� Y-oR. gw `=�i �g.��.56aEmaw 3E - ge .l Hug ssw s=,w- '" :a a^a= =a.. ., w.�= .. a='I eve€ eW f € f seea� �aFa u uo=3 is`=o, '$'W $l=s l i =gel oeaa=nae,$a;s; .a a`&S�i:cwe 1MR fg 7s i4a°'4xa .�Y9 '"G oc fig, ygl' = w 0ra e>�ll e..w5ss„;1ya$sE ay$s=0o=;0$x';aail•ai�sg=a=3-€€s9�„=av9sea^'sus,'¢„.,�?§;,..Oe=.sg�Ea"gsga-aag€saos`.og'aF.a s-4.s w'€ca"ga��eaaif=spg'=Qgn9"o"€>a!z.m33a3'eaus�li€l�a:'eog€4'.'s 4�`a'�?�ea�aas Ha€-�ac s "s €"g9m'€ksa Ne £ ss sgeew ae § w a.w 3 o ` 4zzfa W ` 11s s sgap=nfaa=e�='ok` m oo9okl€--,�._ r�e;_5e=iegas::$ga.a�ssss„ F:a 'aa$a4'�>3aso'�i$aSs..gz FdFfIIS€x's€.mgas?a:e ®_ _ Z Zw0 �� P�0 Z '3Atl 3931100'N J o0LL o� 3 Z r3° o Oo z �r I- 3 2o z I O QywO J LLl m g. O N N College Ave m ¢e I U s 7 v` Tn Tn W �S�m J € w y-+>jm aZ Q Ciao W=u° >YO c 3 u s=-s I_I I o z= U 3 J ° m - _� o O ~ Q U zs 0. ue wJ z$ $'4 € 0imm WN n� INH$ohs k &358 � 45`o ek ° W Z y to S „w r z a = a 0 r 3F.a aeoa Y'§ x9 m 4= Z Q kc=3 kko"HNI 3 3 q U y>3 d-moo m-s3 s 0 45a O 3 gtlg.. ()' a,ps-"e:�Z 3 3` F `.� Se ° U x'6;k'5 ac lea W B" w§ saQa x 3A o EI j s� o ea= �W€nm s� 3 a e>a- IE w >S za g € laq $�a ge 5_-. 0 :? ¢ s-: mk U as�e ❑ 5 3d's :3� �+ 17Z909 OO'sNnlOO iaoj t*k1*1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2��Oo `may 3AV3931100'NE4Z , �E: gsiy aRx€g� 0-0 dy a NOINn ii(13210 iN3 B-IN I I I I I wo g.gM�w Mdld 1N3WdOl3A34 3AS 4k � e.H e a '^ i0t- a _ w 9 5 3 g g o 3 .r"ems Sz ag 3`a_: g RF' I H-H �a[3 3?ex,�w N c :e e. Ez's OF aos3e f ©© =33 Zz €k. I<ao o Uz gw <o o®® rn0000000000000000000®OOO OO ®®®O®®® Z'a H �`s N f9`g�'aJ¢���ygp���� �� �� \� '3-3031100'N I a o v ------------------ I I i I I ap ------------------ Z ywp i I Q Zoo I I J �wU w Z Z° z a ----------------- w I �140 111I1 h I I LL ---------------- 1 O00 ° J 0 woLL wU/>>o I ----------------- =R p� . � LL.O w W j O w=W w� p CO a o ?. z m ------------------ ------------- F - I I,. II 0 0 Q ----------------- I II I I ----------------- = ---------- ---- = � © �i 1`------ stiff `� � II IN---------------- ti _ I I' -- © �+ 17Z909 OO'sNnl0O ia0j t*k1*1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I f� 2o�O� `m3m 3A`d 3931100'N E4Z k E a a .� oio�"rs e�kku C H byj�doodo :k oo :_= ch FBI N� y �2 dy a NOINf111432i01N3 g.$�,�w Mdld 1N3WdOl3/�34 311S _ , �EE g N a §s'4k i e� vv a ao s o MR €s `n sx" a tl so N EkE'� '=g m O iz`' Y E .r'e` s' as erg "- 'ao3 e s i s i ➢ a s e� "- $ „m<, o` $°xW has= €, k` O NO's O IiN HA, g�°Q w Zo Ana O l 5 B 5 5 B 5 B 5 5 m 5 B 5 B 5 B B�g B 5 B 4 6 5 g g $gg W 1 l l l 1©�0 0 0 0 m S 0 + w a b 6 b 5 b 5 b 5 b b 5 b g g g k WE I E - G g B B g g Q$ A k g �3 m 4 w O x s E' O 1 rn0000000000000000000®OOO OO OO®®OO®®®OOO OO OO®® o a s s - ' '�` a'aJ¢ z gr w " e No , §am kgsee9 w- �<Q..".,J„gQ< '3AV 3031100'N • IR RP O E) a:o Q 11 Z�3w W Z°�� ❑ � . z O 0 yw0 J W° m l' LU z ♦. 0 a W W w� ° //� v, J z° El� e; I I ry I I I 0 o o gA I ............. s n i - er o x o 0 :k$ a �+ tzsosOO'sNnlOOlaOj t*k1*1IIIII 111 I 2o�O� -N 3/�d 3J31100'N E4Z k E a a e€a;� ESS IY/,spy�02 rsw � NO; � s �bd a NOINn ii(13210 iN3 �� I g.gMm Ndld lN3WdOl3A34 311S 4 oY F - w M B U g 000000000 $, p z 000000000 W. 0000000o Y®�'s , - ff - — 000000000 0 000000000 �a 000000000 Ij 3 000000000 O �� ~ P 0000000000 w Z atlEX e '1 000000000000000000 000000000 10, O r r pp€ m" O0 w0 z z 00000 000 °°°°Z 0000 o O.O.H.0oo0 O i 4Jtya }} 5Q[F `5 U 000000000 U Z uF b i6 Sa E I _Yso w 00000000.0 Z o 000000000 Of 000000000 !a 1 111 11 111, z. .. . N � e In o Q .i: a amw§Qo s m y z L - .. .. .. U = o" dQ Q ? O eg iawn� LLL..LLL Z Fx F 1— O�K F Z Z z O F W 'F 3¢3 s �e � � LU Z .I Oztt r 3 ; J W W o o w >LLJ m w U a o a cwi W=mU r. .1.9 M_ H. �` \\ zLU aka y 1 N x 0 P O N tl 3 tl°tl<� sn AQ V) J Z O // W z c nSw se_ 0 3e� SZ u x 1 E• ?$ Mir ywsz 3 r e vm—i un3d o z en�� k gg 4 s#ry Y 4 �Z W > s" a o.• w .� w o d � ee 33 w a v € ua F o .M. w _ Q 3€ U 2 00 a eunoe Q O O O �+ 17Z909 OO'sNnl0O la0j t*k1*1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2o�O� `m3m 3AV 3931100'N E4Z k E a a .� oio�"rs e€asN H Lf) a by NOINf111432101N3 3-1- eIl Mdld 1N3WdOl3A34 311S 'g a o� §EEH s Qa =i"`^i s e '" `r3 F g "s s& s gf;o O €-'Qeg $yga �' wa g; ge $ N §$:$ s€= �� sa e3 ews za �� � m= ea �. � � �_gx: `o Qo � �< O a»a3g'� :�:6 Mg W 3ws�aa .��i 5 w z'e €a$ 'ap »a z` '8' z I li m-__ .I r . _ @ ® ® Ge ® 'kk z o s se .' €s ^a a =wee s� as,s �%-.,, „ ow Es z 0 s M cp 'S� scF Y Se -3 W. fin Z §„ „degg as a a.mgea ¢ e es s 3 z $s e- c7 I li I N000 U. ., .. _ m ^ - = s j., O' �ee z css im kxe ya= � H:or;e of _gym"s�=$ U, e e 4_ - El p I I fi Q CFOI 1e I I Z o �ho O°---� i W O.d z ? w — O C)�w° I j ' W �m'a W J = .§ :: 0 O'a J �,` - s°a- oox W W x.0 I I mw� O Z p =U I I I � I - a , w a a .w aIRF v , a a� Y I �I =1 a I 5 I m I v ______,,,,_ �+ 17Z909 OO'sNnl0O ia0J =*kkl d I I I I I 1 1 I 2��Oo `m3m 3AV 3931100-N£4Z 8 bti�GG-�-"�"mo o=u 10 d al �bd a NOINf11I432i01N3 �=NNIIIIIIIII � Mdld 1NMdOMA30 31IS o� er M,`�gs �ao3 z dos. y� �wxsww � ye.ap $:a� k �awma �e z�c7 Has e w 3u�WwS »e:_a �f °e s FAX uMx� O-sa"� n a '3AV3031100'N �� �� HT4 <a 'a.m qe of$ Z: a sgg M. 4© 0 4 0 F——-- --—--—- ------------ - © + a ° — I I I I I � I I I II I I I III ; I I I I yp I I xo Z �qa II Q ?�O a. Z�3w w— 0 i I f Z°mow w + ��05 n Q W}p � O w O LL Z tlM've�aa o "11 Lu w� ado �ZO I — I I I I I I -------------------- I ------ - ---- 3 iiF t I II III I S r o I y 0 I O ® O I 0 0 ®® pFAFIfEId �+ 17Z909 OO'sNnl0O la0j t*k1*1 I I I I I 1 1 1 2o�Oo `m3m 3AV3931100'NE4Z o m bti,/p��do : a =tl W 6 ti 10�G"0 rs �bo NOW ii(13UO 1N3 8`NON eI I I I I I IMal : H aw Mdld 1N3WdOl3A34 3AS i i i i 3L i $" a e e a e e > o o 0 0 �i Ua o01 €€ €€€€ 3 ' vv 0 8 1 € zo a HE z. 0. 5 w� U= zz f5 a y o saws aso 81 s - ap N m z s Z o F o _ _ 5 m O o"mrc a " "N" s ... e J Z O w o 000 WCO .0 O�..R z Z s w w) e J W LL~ m 3'Gw op O j �UE UE UE ®E� UE °s3 gam° W �o v; W 0�az 0 ao'o� W=yc° ®Zw � w� w X. 1 q w° oa OR` 5 ®u 1 ass€o i f _MP HER H I K Im— — II i °G° no-Am go -pe " p Hono o y, J u °gig �o= _° N.- P a 3 � a=a� H =_3 g o a_l w w z �+ tzsos OO'sNnlOO laOj =*kkl d I I I I I 1 1 2o�Oo `m3m 3AV3J31100'NE4Z 7bo"°o�`sio s�Pfo ��3 Es�s 1p-1py �W n I �bo NOINnii(13UO1N3co NON I I I I I I : N �.$z.aw N`dld 1N3WdOl3A34 3AS i i i i MO. 21 IN ' 3a Saba °pk � �p ��m � $�_ �s ao m ° 6:€w gmys< a g�6w R b 0 w3 as m q a SaBn:y o°_a .-s 8�43 3 s_S€$,'o-®. d n'®§'�3a•�^,° g6•$ .oa-as`s wv. g - s m y mn ¢ 1ja1i1 g$r.W 3 •€ a°n^ a sae 3 e s3 $ "g `oil flu, a€d_iy _ as z= ctN vs,," It 1 p ?gg»€e .g we3 �g-= e° miyag $' a>e' $ o,$• s$3� • s3g2 a; o a "ms: o o a w o`° 3> oo ¢3 =�$; = ' �eie° wow ssvi�.a �� ''€gs 3 _ ° a" • =g= ��oy 2 _z a� dawg �o > .g egos = r� a': e$ �$:Fsg$wp a e.�s1 §3�a 'g•�=. � �w� s g �a s�q� tl e HN e _.° 'fj _€p: Mi =�ds €s s� s"'s i Ewa �g LLi '$sue ae? a6 z„€s g° »is $gH E, =£$$ 8E"'� s »l$ w9�$ sa Mu �m»-';ea• @� "°a=n;'� •i -� "< �_ °a a° $; "` o g'_ €>°a> a $! =e= m ass=o w °iga 3w €2`o®$Sio &$ a•u0. i$�. oa;�i a a� a �w= om fltma ,saa 'wa w�a a bps y �� 8'.;<se i'' alg:= :: m ^ awSs we .: ®_ :s° 'si m`�o �_ - ss: =c� a.wi...8 .� Big $a �rwu aim€aa geis 03 �e° ism:so">s s d=wo": $e ¢" g= _ Fw 8'=e ffe 8'g" s mo aiga'.�• iw�s Fs s'• ew° o p§-z W� ? Si a:gw: -a4 gyde sg �y:z s$ c a z `€i _>�' o�> w> is 55 �$ gr _ �e m= ° as a °."s.°o. N is =e 5' •a a, se;:.e yy' ae�-€ yym � 33%o m�• Y i mE p� �w 3 6es �� g•„ � u`� �' 'Soi u° PEE&o'=�• 9 'gN o- iw $ N� ° °3�$g • %" k5 ��w�E os" w e a=- s ?° a >jya `g - `s3 s.aie�gg 35 I•e^.p $sway to a :'a`g ME $Qwe. eul 8"= ..I. a .i•� awi =zc� 4€0 .g � aw. e $ �l• aii 9 ss..a gawp wog ?e a.a p = fie0 ` a"gs We. aQo § - $ As a' S:vwg qy s$ a $' `s $o wa i3 `g» '€ a a3o€�eE las1 = c ,m a 3 €a au ao a°e job qa €gp a <ea $ e sw asc a ea ya g»° B°¢ Wm°° ">p" „oia °a • c •s yei i sw ega w§ H a . €p; f¢a;° ' g fr m g C = Aw x = Eg" a :- _ �a w _ `j. g'o g 0�1 I• oeg g q 5 H! A � _���° �§n$ � �we o s g � �: � '" 3" "°�o9e= a d4o=qe '$'° s; :€ .� NeE g - .$ �'• giw E §s>� ag� €c.oa haw ;a psm c um °?aaq o -g p am .m M1@ as - a as v: » HP gg s^ $�• a = i yeeogs we=s =w€= i:`em a=§I ° 0 8 '� m 3s I .�' saa iee a O � 8 g g3Fe wao i 9 ¢` s=og". w° ! wW 3 w.•$ €F g$ S'- i€ ge sa ima s al'w - 1 v s'° - wg�o=° a_-e _ a= k@$ s€y • s. i^-^ °' sw$ `s Z yp o 5 3g§ 3g8Gr,3 8P a e. 8 c $ a• '0 5 L ° W$g < � $s i.� g b €"so> 8•=� s`3 3°u 5 3a90 ea y w p ° s" He° °mF 8;` i"z H zw a 'sp e<=° •v$s s$° e • •r $_. 1 z €a Wg £a s mg S "e,¢ -°a° s.LL o0 3nael� w le^» s e °me ic. s $ zs vac - M; &e" �, a Q O wnd§, €F4Fg E gp`[ >� m "_ = S� `„S;g ~sea'4 `s= m y_ J OOw .` oo 4 o gGw a" C q w8 'zoz�a w3 g_g�Y3v e$ S.g: €�s e$ i e. esp cui fi @e e3 .r!v 33= 8 €R�o a" p o a _=q„ _ g W a H. :_ c w° =oa =p _ >w° 8€9e o s^= v esie a= Paw i`•° } E Z 3 w ° °� a=� o€off°o ^a`s see °"""3 0 1. �€ s ° g y$ a`9§ x4> ,gz wF 1 gi �_ 83ew zs m�=.�a �$ G3 zo $zw s:: Bs lo' $9• s3:> sws .$ O° a a = . #" m iw§ 3c: q ocws o°o<, o =$pwa s`ff$' aj .0 9g's g I u a,a: ;i A, `s=.• ec > mAw�.'"°'aa s� - o$a �3 a• • Vs^ �s : y.� € ZRI $i". g z Z o F ° ».aw ws a 3 as4g� HN lyg° ei = a eg °sKa i LU z apt > �° ors"a a= a`a°°° s. s •x s ysa a Is as €m Via' a s ! 3'ss°» smsQ s 3 o ° ' go3 oW oa e se - ass aK € aS $gg a•=,F o^ g® §og o �a; v soE ._ c w sows:, b �s8§�ae w€w ns"iz'q'= °ag° •p za v `: g^€ as;^eesss Vi .o a• e$ a> 'sa$ s i� as a @•s" g,2= v z;^xsa� _ �b `$ ^ a g $ °�o m ° � - �aLL" ° €•€ a ca €E is easy °�a i $ ° "SFg.a° amo S iS "s ` psp° 4 �Eg&: < g e $p•fi t= 'sa:;y cge§s" w gSod WO ae.ea€-Pa q•s@a $$'i$>$epx s:sm_s ic e3aa W K O U I j U� z >g! C:o O JO Lu LU Z LLO 0 8 S P° os3 i�.m .o�aow F U E > r�gc =:aae sso i PRO W.JR oa 'ag's� s _• x W w „H, Ig•�se $sam via 5 mid s 3otl 4 °" �a° iE .1 i",� sa gnwso °w&=o °- oa LLs g3 bEas ,, & s a�. 3 c=e 55 It LLo`�=p�€Fay s`s - a deSa . b€., �¢ c<ps, sw � �a�go_w..< os o °zn === •e ;€ p » �.,";W.ge°:os �o4a 33 - • a�ag N €a :lap. °o: �gsas - eoze,o s e , Medea^. ^., :a s €agag a m =ss3YJEty> O O O O O G •s9 '� og o NI € _° <p d 8 �. Vim=. §o '� PO 3g k kg $'am b g a f a g iww WE'°d yy 2-asy°y si 0"LL$_€ g Via- - — E roam �i'0 6 5 600 N uNKZZ MITT - g• 'kON M, €m€o Ili- W_ �+ 17Z909 OO'sNnl0O ia0J =*kkl d I I I I I 1 1 I 2o�O� `m3m 3AV 3931100'N E4Z k E a a s- 7bo'�o�s e€ao£ Oo - � b G�-y od �geows ; NOINf11I432i01N3 B= IIeIIIIIII g Mdld 1NMdOMA30 31IS ._LI^I-I-I IIIIIIIII '�_ a �g s Ha < 3 bmoo O ., �eo'gRa Y E pads „y z p e€^a gas w €o»aa gaON HUI h. im =a � e$ o - a� �` g e es�a xa sees O g»a3 �€. �s€'s�=a Mg yG�� ,� y 5� $€�c� 0�.4 o eeeeeeee F�$���' y in! M � $9 €1M m c=k Z n�$a�� vas€ ' 40Y 0 � s= 3E 5 `��mg g% a pqa joy - - E k Y' �� �.f Bois n it _, �° 3 see ®_ ap xo Z vwo Q Q0 J OQLL '49x zK m W p P r P P P P P P P P P P P o R P P P P P P P P P P r a I— O F ZW °OZ�Ff gWz p � F. pJ W pP pP PPP PPPao PPp Pc pP pP PPPa PPPs &mgqfrF3 , — ��— W o > P P P P P p W z P as w W � "i J= Z �y F 8 8 3 P � P $ P p P P P P r a a r P P P 3x�a n ®®09 9 p P P oa § ze n! I' r r r P P r r - a x k 4 �aaaa �aa� p P P €m o LL$ § P P r f P IS P P ?W3geo 80- Q1p P p P p P �+ 17z909 0O'sNn10O 1a0j =*kkl d I I I I I 1 1 2o�Oo -N 3AV 3931100'N£4Z 1 M� NOINf111432i01N3 B=lt 101I I I I I I I I I g g.g�, w Mdld 1N3WdOl3A34 3AS i t � $ s" $i i�vaaaa !lirr h Ey { i{F!0 } hit s !1l�i15i { Ei o �lirlrl4ex.ss.s0ii,rrr .a - i� a•.iie�a�a5$$t..a t01 a 6a Z qa at.c mag}: ' fir wo i o° i y 1.ee ee#9�1 000 {{{aa10a}a���r a LU Y ¢p i 55 O W 0 0LL m0 a II U LJ W w t i Eli In1j o � .lyalS !; za o H. a €€y i3Oss;, ! 0.r{? � tlta��'%flat a�r t I1l1l0 a o a ga ! 1= Ii 1, w Q o i•:3i0{1 {r:. ,t���•jttal ��; a � s St �� a!11131 � wz 03`r$!' r?�' 1►1e!r}�!! 1 ai h �_ !r i r } f i` !! I�.ill I t i'e�EP t1�E I�t Cl=��l�;fit{:lll�l;;ii!�1iil;:�lfFr1 � r U Q 7 { Z ai1�S 11 { g ( ggg00 i A11 g ' !a w x ail E}El a {$ ��' D a ff00 v �a 2 0 I 0 G� � da �rr0t�j ei ai O , a t r ra a t • Hal 11 • • uolun ._ ti ti ti ti titi r �r • � I� , II'I , IIII - � titi ti ti titi ■ I ,- I I uj n UII ' W Iw UI� 'r i III ■■ r I ill 1 _ 7•. ill - I IW ! ! W _ ui I !I 1 1 Agenda Item 2 STAFF ■ - T January 13, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210050 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2555 Joseph Allen Dr. Owner: Ft. Collins VOA Senior Housing LLC Petitioner: Mark Tweed/Mark Tweed Design Inc. Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.8.7.2 Variance Request: This is a variance request for an additional wall sign to be placed on the south elevation of the building, the maximum limit is 1 (one). 1) Only 1 (one)wall sign is allowed per frontage, 3.8.7.2 Cabinet Wall Signs or Dimensional Wall Signs, Table (B). Sign Types EX-A and EX-B are shown on the same elevation. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property originally annexed into the City 1997 part of the Timberline Annexation. It received development approval in 2021. The project is under construction and is nearing completion. It includes a 3 story building with 55 dwelling units. The sign section of the Land Use Code is attended to reduce sign clutter. This property is located within the residential sign district. This district has a limit of 1 (one)wall sign per frontage. The proposed signs include two signs on the south elevation facing E Drake Road. These proposed signs do not exceed the allowable sign height or square footage for the property. Both are illuminated 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 signs do not exceed allowable square footage or height. • The sign placement fit within the articulations of the building created by the varying material. 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 ZBA210050. Item#2 -Page 1 City of fit Collins A Request , Application q for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner's Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address 2555 Joseph Allen Drive Petitioner's Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner's Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner's Address Owner's Name Petitioner's Phone# Code Section(s) Petitioner's Email Zoning District Additional Representative's Name Justification(s) Representative's Address Justification(s) Representative's Phone# Justification(s) Representative's Email Reasoning If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted Date Signature Updated 02.18.20 T R A N S M I T T A L MARK TWEED DESIGN MARK TWEED DESIGN INC. 335 WHEATBERRY DRIVE ERIE COLORADO 80516 303.926.1941 VOICE MTD@ECENTRAL.COM \�r TO Missy Nelson D A T E 12.14.21 WITH City of Fort Collins/Zoning ABOUT Volunteers of America/Cadence Primary ID Sign Variance Request Hi Missy, In reference to the Primary ID Sign on the SW corner of the Cadence project facing East Drake Road,we are requesting to position the Volunteers of America (VOA) name on a different, lower level from the project name CADENCE. Centering the name CADENCE at the base of the 3rd story windows between two contrasting brick courses respects and compliments the refined architecture Volunteers of America has invested in to honor its residents. Fitting to the architecture,the Volunteers of America name is centered below CADENCE adding symmetry to this entry facade. If the VOA signature were required to be positioned on the same line as CADENCE the presentation and layout would look off-balanced. It would diminish the sophistication of the project's thoughtful architecture, not only to Volunteers of America, but also to the residents who will be calling this building home and to the City of Fort Collins who has strived to provide a beautiful, engaging, creative urban environment for its good citizens. An added benefit to having Volunteers of America on a lower level is that it reduces the lighting/lumen level projecting out into the neighborhood from the 3'story.Also, having the names on two different levels establishes a hierarchy as opposed to forcing them on to the same level or baseline. Being on a separate line,Volunteers of America has a quiet prominence which communicates the important statement that the City of Fort Collins is committed to providing beautiful,thoughtful affordable housing to lower income residents,families,veterans and seniors. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to make this sign variance request. Mark Tweed )Pr u. • i n1• `. Z Z / p �p m w w p 3 N w Q J =mW V N: N W C U C — V V 7 y w 72 75 U �V N L U d v L Q ^ ° 0 V CO LL C A y A A 41 � vv L Z = b � V N W d C Y C V/ 0 O m 0 A _ W O O U s d N W C L L V V W Z m a O a J s - a p W v W u2 0 0 .- cc «V « W J O T N N Y � as V J ; L O � 00 W L � II A� J O JO W p J A a� - A H .� U �Q W Q Q O C i y W N �� C ~ J y"O J O e N O s as « O C w a y w � — w O C ' O� O v « a T O C N Ar "+V H w w y a« c V o ov I AIbO NI11V Hd]SOf I• 'I� I �II a �1 O IIW O Q I V LL > 'r no a ®® Q O o O LU Q�n � z Z w w 2_ W m0 r L r W -u U I - N i A. 1 a E Z g> Z °o Z W ,I 1 U M - - - - - _ - - _ - -I - - - - ■ N O y � N > c u V b O vuAi �„81 � /�••551 ��� E i - 81 A - N .0� A - li ❑� �r � Q _ - IIII IIII c o p w ao 3 ' Q IIIIIIII I I e0 0D A v U N IIIIIIII I b u� Aw IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII w o E� "w - IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII o„ ¢ a IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII L b dam ° H IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII i o OvtL. w A IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII L °1v� � v d IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Z v A =� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I °- L ._ A � � " o' a " i � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I (, ob � v o0.3 = 3Y Av Ea IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII _ v v01 v N IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII o "M C A idv � A o �' 3 v IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I All � TJF w 3 eca °Q-ap� C C a/_">"> � w IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AEviAO OOd> t s A =CBi UrN a � E III lh llll 11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I ' L 0 Ilhhllh hllllllhlllllll I II I Q �o_� ?;_ � iu� b d � � .>L, � H •••I•I•I•I•I I•I•I•I•I•I•JJlIJ •I �d-p N C Cy'a A N Y N u p V C L 6 E C a N A O -. NO���-tl p C 0 A ._ W o H O.N A N ¢ >=L N in > S. �C N -LE' C C O d L O d 3 0 c y 0 fN C itl L C J F O3 C wO p c N 2° ° _ 9 c c p N > A y' vAi c G u E a c« E o O teFE c L° Lao v.5 O v> `w� c ca ov c� os� A O ■ O=.0 .s, E V I A oL 0 va ow 3 °1= •K c c p w >.» $ E 3 0• L i °aw Yv a c y aL+ A `w L cF .e d . oU ca BE q? `OA os p FOY Q E L o p r ^+ c o m w a9 — F>F $0O F 6 2;c v F$ E F A - A A c W pp A E V O y C W W N N W w F E- Q u U ti ti ti ti _ , ..: Ile® � r ®■ ■� = O u •o- �N k ® o ®[O] a, mo Inn ®0 ® o 0 mC I WWI 0 o o No mo■■ - - - -- - - O- ��� Is■II ® me me me 0 �m■,� � Imo Imo 1 mod■ -1 0.;: 0 �I 'Rnl o me me■ III 11 0 0 'WE O-I 0 0 ° ®O � L■� a��� � o me me o me me moil■■ � 0_ � o @ 0 0 1■■■ O4' - a� To cl © � ■I ®° 0 �jpigs ■■ 0 0 0 0 e lo0l■�-1 0 � '� ®® �siasa�i0—i—i ®cl me BE®ol ®■I DI'' IIFurino a raw ME] me ° o � 0 ul �i ®C m0 mol ®J lmJ mmol loo 1.1 ermo � - � ® mIMI ° CI�I_II 0 me me ®cl ■ 0 0 0 0 ° ° �m u u ° ° o®■ a loci 0 u u o © u u 0 0 0 ®,NMI 0 Nr■� �r z w 20 (.)z Lu z LU LU LU LL c')w CL < 0 U) CL 0 >w W w.l mowR M., M, > LU z < 66 2 j-, w 0 2 z z U) LU ZOa3NIIa33MIU S LU HO SSVd OHVdVdVf Z 0 U) 0 210N3IIVHd3SOr Z -j ry Z z LL, E < < Z 0 0 0 15 0 z z 2 z z 0 0 ow z < 0 - 0 OW LU Iz >PMZ -LL, 0 Im < LL, < (!) W'(.)Ld 0 (.5 L: C) 0 �z � I 5) v) zRLjW W�- m 0 LL, 0 0 0 il LL, z Z Cf) 0 < < LL, w 0 0 LL, < 0 z ~ m co m z 0 0 x 0 Z 5 1 N13 it MM ffi PH A "M 9 '61 0 CHI g 5-0 § Z -IH 'H, H M" pq ps Wzs 9. o o e _$ ,Sa v> a $ 9 ZLu Z ww oa v J rymooG°' wCL g �� a Y ILLO� �CL p o sEga �q_ a =fir r �4�4oyyoo p5sz 0 SE 3' ms $qu a : � $ a� i4 o2 �� Wig- g mopo 3nR10 N3lltl Hd3SOf _ LOW3 � I I I I O I I , I i s w�11 I i —�-- _ aNZHN 01,J010' olNn 1 I Ili - g alw ri o o o zw�� ova yy D " ug w M - o2awawo �< ZQzW g ;ass ,o,_ 5 z LU z U) 0 0 Z 2 CY) LL 0<2 a Lu z LU w LU m (L LU w wYyd 00 U) CL M o w U)z a< 91 V.— w z 0 iffl H R R Me H, Lu d got I 98 ohF U UP 0 H M; co H23 Ru HI r H 'R ;u 5�.0 u-N R Mw LLLU, g €FomM fl weo MM 70 w w 31 z E IL w :5 a I I CD a. z Nq�l LLLU, p 'le z sb cc Iz Wh cc I jg w -, 4 W W z L) h w; H H -.4 1 H. J, z 2 Lu S-9 .9L z L M z L < z LU 0 z� < Lu > W CL 6 a w LU r w w z Bflp 8-p HEM 0 HIN i 9� ui x z L z w 0 LL LLI z w Cl) z 0 w N U) z Lu co W A� -M 'I IM 5ML F- n -,J ,,, !�, ....... ah Hfil -,-M ll - sqo-..l , - --j !--; 2 M ld HUI- - -1 -.-M-8 H.- -- -M 'H 'M -11H 0 g� —j�� . -,1 , M M -fl F N V-3 zwad flj 'M g t"' -, I'MM 14; "swHP Lu i q w ON H qjaM �'MM' Hfflq 4, NA 9 --9 VIM si 1. UH jh sad iFE"m naw %H—, M VU w 2 .1. < F- M Wan U; way h'-i 'M 0 wHo M W.d (-) - ws flgffi 0 co H M! i Hw I.-. nx--!" -m_4 Z z !M wgUilms MoP.I!o.. -pili gnjqj H OL Us qg— L M;-P H`o Vj'p M p p Q gas P�HIW N 42 �W,� L , iii" nE'l H 20 o in. Mg� j.Ml qH ign, �,21� RWp WHIM h4po ,j NPR AO 2�_ '-Hi IM UP. ... .... HPU 9 .10Wia 9 Wog iw 1 o.-'!-' W"fli HHE 0, ;v -H RH Lu Lu N q P nfl-q LU HIM �fi h afi - - g. Hffl -H I , I 1- 2; 1 F0 �M H 1`4 Lu 5 R N M I %H H.lo � M U e e M Ow aj " `v a yOG O) U W Z W W p as < zN d r'L��J1 d p �L (n UJ gel e ° w8 a .. Q .F, rYiO ¢0� �CL p ° sEz3 q_ a =fir N O wOf LU a f � W as W 5 `• a°'a� ws`°F$ ;o$ _ ":a°,� °p° w 3 =ft !HH Wig- g M o 6 F b o� u w Nsl awao.p LU alm.- -m-_"m al mm_e al<m"mm °s e s o x PHO'. �LLwa�w W ,w_ N W rc ap�3o a s<s�sx�aH OMU !F%'I ��u=3g 3lltl Hd3SOf I s 3AITJ0 N --- 6 = 3.1 1zl I � IN tgs M VY I - I 1� r � I I I! I I I I Q I s K ce I 11 I ul. H <rYi N I I � II' �I 0, .� 111 .ate �a'l rc 1 Vw i I �,. �� I � I ooEoxoadde , I I —� 1 ' L I I • I I � I I —�— _ m I III e _$ < � w H o ZZ ww oa = ry"°oF°' LL g: S - H r Of LU � LL w am " e _ w8 u J �4ti Y S rc ¢� Sao ° s t3 q_ a :�„ _ 2a '�°ago° ssz O '� " F o w G p o r z W 5 `• a°'a� ws`°Fp$ oFF _ °p° ~ ;z= 3 0 °E 3'U m's $4O'= : �0� a�n�e i 4 �oil, Wig' g ao w o 3 3 3 3 3 3 N Quag ' p a A O� 4 p iIS .€ "__� ' fag a 3:oG P-4 sp B 0. _� a=- a a fig;€ Cl) = mg �p 3w W- a<= w`=m ow= o; g� o o a LU I : A A o OY z TTR -� 9 p 9 9 9 Z €3 m _ wow £ `a :erg"< 2w�ap w H am2. A $ aZ. go Iz Wp W °o €3 �Yw aQe gg p §Ep 3'"€y 1 " �o (� z z z " z ° r u Z 0 w w f� 'g p F w W o C �y C g o p Q z N 3 < 5 < 8 o r C a r F Q~ --- w W llll;f( 1�11 1 ,\l \1 I II { � IT I II II II A LII I , \ 1 I II N I I II � I R it I T 'IIII� w I i T 1 w --- 1 j az. 1 P. N 1 I: T i I \ II I. 1 1 I -\ T. II 1 I III I1 ao ; I I I Agenda Item 3 STAFF REPORT January 13, 2022 Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210051 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1218 Canvasback Ct. Owner/Petitioner: Lee Xiang Hong Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Variance Request: This is request for a variance to increase the allowable floor area by 166 square feet by enclosing a patio area on more than three (3)sides. Will also be adding four(4)windows and a door. In the R-L (low density residential)zone district, the allowable maximum floor area is one-third (1/3)of the square footage of the lot. This is the third request to increase the allowable floor area for the lot. COMMENTS: 1. Background: This property is located in the Paragon Point P.U.D. Phase Four subdivision. This subdivision was approved by the City in 1993. The current Zoning of the property is Low Density Residential (R-L)Zone District. Within the R-L, the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet and the minimum square footage is 1/3 the lot the size. This property is 7,526 square feet,which allows for 2,508 square footage of building. In 2016, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a 224 square foot increase above the allowed floor area. This increase was for an addition to the front of the house. This approved addition continued to meet the setbacks of the property and aligned the existing building footprint. At that time this approved increase was a 4.6% increase of the allowable floor area. Later in 2020, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved an additional 242 square foot to enclose the patio area connected to the walkout basement. This approval brought the total increase to 6.5% Currently the existing floor area on the lot is 2,974 square feet. With the proposed increase of floor area, this number would rise to 3,140 square feet. The lot is 7,526 square feet and one-third (1/3) is 2,508 square feet. The proposed addition will bring the total floor area to 41.7% of the lot size. The proposed floor area is a result of alterations to an existing deck. This deck is covered and is open on two sides. The alterations include putting in windows and a door to fully enclose the deck. 2. Applicant's statement of justification: See petitioner's letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • There is a low visual perception of the increase • The Increase will total 8.4% increase of allowable floor area for the 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. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA210051. Item#3 -Page 1 Clty Fort°CotUns Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted Ilse authority to approve vdndnces''om ne rsquKMMrss of Articles 3 and 4 off"Lard t.sa Cone The Zor,ng Boaid of Appeas sna I iot ajt-rve 3,y use r!a zoning district oter lean moss uses Y.p�cn are spectkaiy pan^a'ed r me rorrg d s:rr. Trx F:urd may gran:vrences where 4 finds that the modtiratior of the sfarxii"w014d not be defrtmenlal to the DUDIIC good Aodsionsay,the variance request must meet at out one of ale k1lowng ji st 9eatton reasons (1)by reason of exceptonal physral conditions at Oder extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property.int1 trg,bat rot irnted tc physcM eondsons etch ale aaeeptional nay vm4ss.aha""n"Ss,a lopography.the SIM appscalson Of the code reounwitants would rests in unusual end exceptional practical diffioull es or Indue f.roship upon the Ooaipet7appiii of the property.provided that such d0cultie i or fltrtlffMD am not caused by an ad a or nasion o'IN occupamrapoacrt(is not self-imposed) (2)the proposal wi promote to general purpose of to standard for when the vrarice is requested equally stall or better than woad a proposal eRnch cornpiss wth slid standard for v**.n the valiance s re"es,ed (3)the propose;vita not ciiverye horn to Land Use Code standards except n a nornlnal.Imonsegtsentlal way Wen"nsider"in ne corrext of the rledntnorrtood This application is only for a variance to the t and Use Coop Building Code reglilrMnents wl if be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is requn�w my work for whic tT—a variance as n gran ,l tl r permt must be obtained within 6 months of the state that the variance was granted. Fic"ver for good cause snow';by the aopiUrY,the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-trre 6 math extension f reasorabla arc r scsssa-f jrCe 1-*facts end Clrcuntatwces of ire:ass An extensor request must be sabmined Deters 6 r�._rns Sy o 're cafe tnr'Ae vaonce was granted has lapsed Patittorw or Petitioners,Fepiasenfatiy n s(be orewnt W thy.meeting Location 300 t aP�rta Ave,Cot.ncv CharAers Fall Colima CO 6-524 Date Seco-d Tntrsday of the trot" T ma a 30 i m Vadann Address IMScanwasback a peutneers name. it not rave donIF City rod Coo".CO Miwis"es 1[drferlty is the Owaar is Zip Cork 80525 ►etiti-W,Address 1121E carwasback Cl owners Naiad IXOnglee petltloner s hens 9704127215 Code Sections) Petiti-ir".[sal JaSW2 a'qC Corr toilet District Addittosal Itti resentaeva'a dace lustikstfonls) 12 Eons;to Of oecer ran wRepresentative-1 Address Iusti6tati0e(s) 2 f qual tc cs oeeer can Rapr"-t3*e's Wive a i iisu6utiosls) t qt,' a:esa Ivan w peso—talire i[male Reasaast 10 create a char-ale-cxtuoec emarortttent separate I'om ere reran wig Srace tit Tansy pets. If nit at ao0itterL pruvW-Vistas tawfs to]revert pets worn rcaung on the ba nexi to ne rWOse. aaenarai rrmen rbmat'�en maY as sue nit" Date 12-3-21 Sitwatre Xiang Ilong lee Updsso sal sal create a climate )ntrolled ivirontment seperate om the main living )ace for the )usehold pets. dditionally, to provide visual block to revent the pets f rom arking at walkers on ie trail 1218 canvasback ct planning on converti 2nd floor 166 sgfe enclosed patio space to interior space in the home Independent gym room ')t!rty riI I I-Z-0 HIVI 07 canvasback ct 3,339 sqft lot 5,250 sqft 19 canvasback ct 3,427 sqft lot 6.248 sqft 24 canvasback br 4,048 sqft lot 6,969 sqft 18 canvasback dr 3,600 sqft lot 6,534 sqft 25 canvasback dr 3,408 sqft lot 6,315 sqft 27 Hawkeye ct 3,596 sqft. Lot 6,098 sqft. 30 Hawkeye ct 3,418 sqft. Lot 6,098 sqft. 24 Hawkeye ct 2,991 sqft. Lot 4,990 sqft. 18 Hawkeye ct 3,276 sqft. Lot 5,442 sqft. 42 canvasback dr 3,063 sqft lot 5,227 sqft 01 canvasback ct 2,910 sqft lot 5,662 sqft 48 canvasback ct 3,249 sqft lot 5,662 sqft 0 9 N 00 n n e 1 n S S s ill c>o y r .Le ,JJII �Y 1� t I '` kEl + Ito - O Ii I � r I I I Js•� rl � P 1 � ' ►'1ii1 K�' t � i � 5 1 5 Agenda Item 4 STAFF ■ - T January 13, 2022 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210052 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 116 N Washington Ave Owner/Petitioner: Robyn M Dolgin Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.3(1) Variance Request: This is a request to use a 10-foot x 8-foot shed to store materials relating to a horticultural design and maintenance home business. Issuance of home occupation license pending approval of variance to allow use of storage shed. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was part of the Loomis Addition that annexed into the City in 1887. The original primary building was constructed in 1928. Home Occupation regulations were created to keep the occupation subordinate to the residential use. Therefore home occupations are limited to operate only in the primary building. If an accessory space, such as a garage or shed, was attached to the primary it can be used. When these types of spaces are detached from the primary building, they are prohibited from use by the home occupation. The request is to use an accessory building for the storage of tools and materials for the applicants Landscaping Business. This structure will meet all other requirements for such as height, size and setbacks. 2. Applicant's statement of justification: See petitioner's letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • A landscape company may operate as a home occupation provided materials/tools are concealed and there is not more than 1 additional employee at the home. • The accessory structure has existing. • If the primary structure included an attached garage or shed, it would be considered part of the dwelling. • The primary use of the property will remain a residence. • The owner will reside at the residence in the primary building. 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 ZBA210052. Item#4-Page 1 City of Frt Collins Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner's Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner's Name, 116 N. Washington Ave.' if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner's Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code 80521 Petitioner's Address Owner's Name Robyn M. Dolgin Petitioner's Phone# 9704935681 Code Section(s) 3.8.3(1) Petitioner's Email robyn.dolgin@gmail.com Zoning District NCL Additional Representative's Name Justification(s) 3. Nominal and inconsequential Representative's Address Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative's Phone# Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative's Email Reasoning If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted Date 12/14/21 Signature Robyn M. Dolgin Updated 02.18.20 City of City of Fort Collins Zoning Fort Collins Fort 2t N College Ave Collins, CO 80524 Phone 970.416.2745 Zoning@fcgov.com Home Occupation License Location of Business: 116 N. Washington Ave. Street Address Zip Code Owner Name: robyn dolgin Sales Tax No. (if applicable): 047756 Business Name: Wild Iris Living LLC Business Phone: 9704935681 CHECK IF THIS A RENEWAL APPLICATION Email Address: robyn.dolgin@gmail.com City of Fort Collins Home Occupation Requirements Article 3.8.3 HOME OCCUPATIONS: "A home occupation shall be allowed as a permitted accessory use, provided that all of the following conditions are met: 1) Such use shall be conducted entirely within a dwelling unit and carried on by the inhabitants living there and not more than one additional employee or co-worker.The hours of operation during which clients, customers, employees or co-workers are allowed to come to the home in connection with the business activity are limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 2) Such use shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling purposes and shall not change the character thereof. 3) The total area used for such purposes shall not exceed one-half(1/2)the floor area of the user's dwelling unit. 4) There shall be no exterior advertising other than identification of the home occupation. 5) There shall be only incidental sale of stocks, supplies, or products conducted on the premises. 6) There shall be no exterior storage on the premises of material or equipment used as part of the home occupation. 7) There shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line. 8) A home occupation shall provide additional off-street parking area adequate to accommodate all needs created by the home occupation. 9) In particular, a home occupation may include, but is not limited to, the following provided all requirements contained herein are met: art studio, dressmaking or millinery work, professional office, office for insurance or real estate sales,or teaching. 10) A home occupation shall not be interpreted to include the following: animal hospital, long term care facility, restaurant, bed and breakfast, group home, adult-oriented use, vehicle repair servicing, detailing or towing if vehicles are dispatched from the premises, or are brought to the premises or are parked or stored on the premises or on an adjacent street. 11) A home occupation shall be permitted only after the owner has obtained a home occupation license from the City. The fee for such a license shall be twenty-five dollars ($25), and the term of such license shall be two (2)years. At the end of such term, the license may be issued again upon the submission and review of a new application and the payment of an additional twenty-five dollar($25)fee. If the City is conducting an investigation of a violation of code with respect to the particular home occupation at the time such renewal application is made, the license will not be reissued until the investigation is completed, and if necessary, all violations has been corrected. The term of the previous license shall continue during the period of the investigation. PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO DESCRIBE YOUR HOME OCCUPATION: 1) What is the nature of your business? Horticultural Consulting, Design and Light Maintenance 2) What areas of your dwelling will be used for the home occupation? Office 3) How many employees or co-workers will you have who do not live in your dwelling unit? 1 4) What size driveway do you have (1, 2, or 3-car wide)? 1 1 have read and do understand the home occupation ordinance, Article 3.8.3, Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins. I agree to comply with the permitted use and limitations of this ordinance in operating a business in my home. I understand it is my responsibility to comply with subdivision protective covenants which relate to home occupations. Signature: Robyn Dolgin Date: 11/22/21 COMPLETED APPLICATIONS CAN BE EMAILED TO zoning@fcgov.com The $25.00 fee can be made by one of the following: 1.) Email this form to zoning@fcgov.com. Once approved, we will contact you to complete payment by CC over the phone. 2.) Mail in, or drop off a check for$25.00 along with this completed application to the Zoning Department at 281 N College Ave. City Approval Date Special Conditions(as required by City) r 1 Rob Bianchetto From: Zoning Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 12:05 PM To: Robyn Dolgin; Zoning Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re:Application request Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Categories: Missy Wkdqrr)#Jre I q$# . .. . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . MISSY NELSON LEEDOAP Pronouns: she/her Senior Zoning Inspector Community Development& Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 N College Ave 970-416-2745 office zoninq(aD_fcgov.com From: Robyn Dolgin <robyn.dolgin@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 14, 2021 12:14 PM To:Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Application request Please confirm the attached PDF and sketch. Statement: I need a variance for the allowance of a shed which holds my hand tools for my landscape maintenance business - including shovels, rakes, small hand tools. It is in alignment physically - with all the other outbuildings to my south and north in this alley- from the alley and property lines. Thank you. r AP'A Virus-free. www.avast.com On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:47 PM Zoning<zoning@fcgov.com>wrote: 1 Kire I q/ Z hthh9#,kh*bsdPchkq4 G I#E-Lp d*Wlh*dq*7krz It*khi.h#1 rxth*dgg1 j#�:q#tAEutjj#kht dhabaditxlsp hqA dqgffit uUhq#mt&V hc*i{scu4lt#tkh#hdvrq#in#1 rxAdAJqfh#.htxhvA 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(aMcgoy.com From: Robyn Dolgin<robvn.dolgin@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 1:57 PM To:Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application request Here you go, please confirm receipt. Thanks! Robyn Dolgin www.WildlrisLiving.com robvn.dolgin@gmail.com (970) 493-5681 2 From: Noah Beals To: Kory Katsimpalis Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Appeal ZBA210052 116 N Washington Ave Date: Tuesday,January 4,2022 9:59:13 AM -----Original Message----- From:Braslau&Rachline<braslau@comcast.net> Sent:Monday,January 3,2022 5:49 PM To:Noah Beals<nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Appeal ZBA210052 116 N Washington Ave Dear Zoning Board of Appeals, As residents and property owners at 816 W Mountain Ave,we received notice of the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing regarding the Appeal ZBA210052, 116 N Washington Ave,owner Robyn Dolgin. We have NO OBJECTION to the request to use a 10-foot by 8-foot shed to store horticultural materials for the home business of our neighbor. We thank you for your attention. Alan Braslau&Nathalie Rachline 816 W Mountain Ave Fort Collins,CO 80521 braslau@comcast.net From: Noah Beals To: Kory Katsimpalis Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Appeal: ZBA210052 Date: Tuesday,January 4,2022 5:08:38 PM From: corey inniss<c9inniss@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,January 4, 2022 5:01 PM To: Noah Beals<nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal: ZBA210052 Good day Noah, This is Corey Inniss, property owner of 123 N Washington Ave,writing to provide my comments related to the above matter. I am in support of the variance request made by Robyn M Dolgin, proposing allowance of a 10 x 8 storage shed for her home business. Kind regards, Corey Inniss Agenda Item 6 STAFF REPORT January 13, 2022 Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA210054 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2721 S College Ave, Unit 7 Owner: JCRS II Colfax LLC Petitioner: Adam Ray Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.2(C) Variance Request: This is a request to display window signs that cover more than 50% of the architecturally distinct window. In the commercial/industrial sign district, a window sign covers up to 50% of the architecturally distinct window. A sign permit for the window signs will need to be applied for pending approval of this variance. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1966 as part of the Bartels' First Annexation. Development approval occurred after annexation and the subject building received approval in 1979. It is an existing shopping center with a mix of uses from retail and office. The sign code regulations are to prevent sign clutter. Window sign regulations are designed to allow the function of window to be maintained and avoid transparency from being completely blocked. 2. Applicant's statement of justification: See petitioner's letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • A 50% increase of signage on the window with signage is not nominal or inconsequential. • 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 ZBA210054. Item#6 -Page 1 Font Collins Application Request �••'"""�� for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally,the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1)by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant(i.e. not self-imposed); (2)the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3)the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted,the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner's Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address 721 S College Ave, Unit 7 Petitioner's Name, if not the Owner City Port Collins, CO Petitioner's Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code 80525 Petitioner's Address 926 Delphinus PI, Loveland, CO Owner's Name dam Ray Petitioner's Phone# 79-806-5805 Code Section(s) 3.8.7.2 Petitioner's Email amesahoyloveland@gmail.com Zoning District IFort Collins, CO Additional �— Representative's Name Justification(s) 1. Hardship Representative's Address Justification(s) 13. Nominal and inconsequential Representative's Phone# Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative's Email IF Reasoning 1.The storefront is tucked into a lesser trafficked interior corner of the shopping center and the if not enough room, windows lie deeply beneath a low overhang behind pillars causing difficulty in visibility. additional written 3. The window signs are mostly decorative and serve to liven up the storefront and the general information may atmosphere of the shopping center. The windows are somewhat obstructed, there are no streets in the immediate vacinity and our neighbor, Dollar Tree, offers completely different services and be submitted roducts with significantly higher visibilty therefore passersby would incur minimal distraction. 12/6/2021 Date Signature Updated 02.18.20 W LU N N V1 V1 W LU 2 2 N V1 W LU LU LU W N a a N FLA R: C:3 LLIL O O o � o � NLM zo Zo off/� � m � m � 00 � H W Q O O_ a W a a o R o zoo Z a2 p � vcc O O = cc =a cc c V a a z V N a a ~ o o m = 1 N 1 � G t� c L7 J t r W As jilm st ems. i 0 d V L � a J 1 C.3 ,t R � 1