HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/2023 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting
David Carron
Nathanial Coffman
David Lawton
John McCoy
Philip San Filippo
Ian Shuff
Katie Vogel
Council Liaison: Shirley Peel
Staff Liaison: Noah Beals
LOCATION:
City Council Chambers
300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 9, 2023
8:30 AM
• 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
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
Meeting Participation
Participation in the Land Use Review Commission meeting on Thursday, March 9, 2023, will only be available IN
PERSON in accordance with Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code.
The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those
materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to nbeals@fcgov.com.
Individuals uncomfortable with public participation are encouraged to participate by emailing general public
comments 24 hours prior to the meeting to nbeals@fcgov.com. Staff will ensure the Commission receives your
comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the
subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting.
If you need assistance during the meeting, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com.
Land Use Review Commission Page 2 March 9, 2023
1. APPEAL ZBA220013
Address: 1309 Remington St.
Owner: Dan and Martha Connors
Petitioner: Jordan Oberman, Designer/Builder
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2); 4.7(D)(3); 4.7(D)(6)(b)
Project Description:
This is a request for 3 variances to rebuild an accessory building (garage):
1. Request to exceed the total square footage allowed by 389.2 square feet; the maximum
permitted is 2,394.8 square feet.
2. Request to exceed the total square footage allowed in the rear half by 139.25 feet; the
maximum allowed is 871.75 square feet.
3. Request to exceed the eave height for an accessory building without habitable space by 8 feet;
the maximum allowed along the side lot line is 10 feet.
2. APPEAL ZBA230001
Address: 4695 Hogan Dr.
Owner: Laurie & Sean Morris
Petitioner: Sam Rudkin, Contractor
Zoning District: U-E
Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d)
Project Description:
This is a request to encroach 5 feet into the 20-foot side setback along the south property line.
3. APPEAL ZBA230002
Address: 1316 Whedbee St.
Owner: Patty Huntley/Steve Nelson
Petitioner: Chris Gray, Architect
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(F)(1)(f)
Project Description:
This is a request to have a 0.25:12 roof pitch over the primary dwelling entry porch and attached
garage. Minimum roof pitch is 2:12.
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Ian Shuff, Chair
Dave Lawton, Vice Chair
David Carron
Nathanial Coffman
John McCoy
Philip San Filippo
Katie Vogel
Council Liaison: Shirley Peel
Staff Liaison: Noah Beals
LOCATION:
City Council Chambers
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 12, 2023
8:30 AM
• CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
Commission members Shuff, Lawton, Coffman, San Filippo, and McCoy were present; commission
member Vogel was absent.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING (December 8, 2022 Minutes)
Lawton made a motion, seconded by Coffman to approve the December 8, 2022, Regular
Hearing Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously.
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda)
• APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE
1. APPEAL ZBA220031
Address: 4624 S Mason St.
Owner: GKT Arbor Plaza LLC
Petitioner: Collins Corbett, Nat’l Acct. Mgr, Anchor Signs/Jim Donati, Project Mgr.
Zoning District: C-G
Code Section: 3.8.7.2(A) Table A
Project Description:
This is a request for the total sign allotted to the site to exceed by 42.55 square feet. The total sign
area allotted to the site, based on building frontage, is 170 square feet.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located south of Harmony Rd, west of S College Ave. The building was formerly occupied
by Fazoli’s and is now being prepared by a new tenant. They would like to increase the sign allowance
to the site.
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Land Use Review Commission Page 2 Minutes – January 12, 2023
When presenting an aerial view of the property, Beals called attention to S Mason St in the area,
which cuts through the large retail development between Harmony and College; the subject property is
located between this stretch of Mason and College Ave, but does not have frontage along S Mason St.
The property does have frontage along S College Ave. This is pointed out because sign allowance
calculations are based on frontage for a give property.
The request is for the installation of new signs on the north, east and south sides of the building, along
with a monument ground sign re-facing along S College. There is also a plan for a new menu board,
but under our sign code, menu boards do not count towards the overall sign allowance for the
property.
The proposed signage includes a large “Krispy Kreme”-branded sign on the north, along with a smaller
sign over the door. On the east and south sides would be additional “Krispy Kreme”-branded signs. All
signs are illuminated; one sign would be illuminated only when hot donuts are being made/sold. The
hot donuts sign element is also included on the bottom portion of the proposed monument ground.
sign. The existing ground sign will not be modified in shape or location but will instead be re-faced.
Beals commented that in general, there is not one sign that is considered a “tipping point” for what is
exceeding allowable area; when presented together, the total sign area is over the allowable maximum
based on calculated frontage. Beals presented additional images of the building, noting that the
previous tenant had signs in the same approximate locations as those being proposed.
Vice-Chair Lawton asked if this monument sign was the same as was considered in a previous
application, which was determined to need modification? Beals clarified that this ground sign is
different, and is probably now what would be considered a non-conforming ground sign, because it
has one individual tenant listed. Now, if multiple tenants share a drive aisle, they must share a ground
sign as well. If a non-conforming ground sign is taken down, any new signs must conform. In this
instance, the non-conforming sign structure is being kept, so it can simply be re-faced.
Commission member Coffman asked Beals if the previous tenant was within their allowable sign area;
Beals responded that the previous tenant’s signs were within/right below their maximum allowable sign
area. For comparison and reference, Beals looked up the sign area for the property to the south (Les
Schwab Tires), which does have frontage along Mason St. They are currently within 30sq ft of their
allowable maximum sign area.
Chair Shuff restated for clarification that the 25% increase requested is not tied to any individual sign,
but is calculated based on the total square footage of the requested signs. Beals confirmed, noting
that if the request were denied, the applicant would need to decide whether they were going to drop a
single sign, reduce all signs by a percentage, reduce one sign, etc.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Jim Hirni, 866 Island Park Dr, Daniel Island SC, addressed the Commission
and offered comment. Hirni commented that, as someone from the South, he recognized that the
Krispy Kreme brand is something of a regional icon. The “hot light” that comes on when the product is
fresh can be a “game changer” for communities, drawing large amounts of traffic and excitement. The
nearest Krispy Kreme currently is in Thornton, Colorado.
Hirni commented that as the national sign rep for Krispy Kreme, he has working with numerous
municipalities across the country, and the staff within City of Fort Collins have been some of the
easiest and friendliest to worth with!
Hirni described the new Krispy Kreme signage technology as being completely LED-based, as
opposed to older signs that were largely neon. The applicant’s hope is to present a new, beautiful
store to the community. The hardship reference in the request is one of safety, rather than marketing.
They would like to create effective sight lines from all traffic lanes, and fit naturally within the
surrounding retail environment.
Commission member San Filippo asked Hirni how often the “hot light” sign would be illuminated, and if
the illumination is flashing or constant? Hirni responded the illumination is constant when on, and the
light typically illuminates twice a day, from approximately 5am-10am and again in the
Land Use Review Commission Page 3 Minutes – January 12, 2023
afternoon/evening; specific times vary by store. Hirni again emphasized that these “hot light” sign is
completely LED-based and does not use neon tubing. Beals added that code does not allow flashing
signs.
Vice-Chari Lawton asked what times the signs generally would be illuminated during the day? Hirni
stated the store would comply with whatever the local codes require. Beals responded that current
code requires that illuminated signs be turned off at 11pm.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Lawton stated his opinion that the plan appeared to be good; this intersection
has seen a lot of sign variance applications. Because of the high density of existing signage in this
area, Lawton is cautious to not create sign clutter along the S College Ave frontage. This request does
a good job of spreading the multiple requested signs around the various sides of the building.
Commission member San Filippo stated he does not have any issues with this application.
Commission member Coffman stated his only issue is that the applicant already benefits from
increased exposure due to the presence of the monument ground sign. Going above that and increase
the signage allotment by 25 % seems unnecessary when visibility from college Ave is already
excellent due to the monument sign.
Chair Shuff thanked members for their input, adding that there does seem to be a hardship created by
the location of the building, wherein it is inset away from the College frontage area. Looking at the staff
recommendation and rationale, Shuff tends to agree. Either a removal of one sign or the reduction of
one sign as an alternative would not have a large impact. The majority of property is not well-seen due
to its location on S Mason St. Personally, Shuff is in support of the request and finds it reasonable.
Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to APPROVE ZBA220031 for the
following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the increase in sign area
is limited to three sides of the building and the ground sign; the ground sign is existing; the
proposed signs do not exceed overall height or location limitations. Therefore, the variance
requests 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
Yeas: Carron, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: Coffman Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
2. APPEAL ZBA220038
Address: 307 Wayne St
Owner: Dan Walter & Carolyn Schultz-Walter
Petitioner: Jeffrey J. Schneider, Contractor, Armstead Construction
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(D)(3), 4.7(E)(3)
Project Description:
This is a request for 2 variances:
1. Request for a new addition to encroach 5-feet into the required 15-foot rear setback.
2. Request to exceed the maximum floor area on the rear half of the lot by 628 square feet. The
maximum allowed on the rear half of the lot is 468 square feet.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located near the corner of Akin Ave and Wayne St; the lot is square-shaped and fronts on
the alleyway between Akin Ave and Woodford Ave, and faces Wayne St. The original lit was at one
point a single lot, which was subsequently subdivided into two, each with an existing residence. The
subject property is located on the southern lot. The shape of the lot then becomes unique within the
Land Use Review Commission Page 4 Minutes – January 12, 2023
neighborhood, as it puts a lot of the primary building on the rea-half of the lot. Also, the existing
structure encroaches into the rear setback as well.
The request would be to re-size the existing attached garage. There is now a single car attached
garage that meets the side setback but exceeds the rear setback. The proposed site plan shows the
new garage, which still encroaches into the rear setback and continues to meet the side setback. The
total square footage would exceed what is allowable for the lot. This size of lot is unique for the lot in
that it is smaller than normal, and in fact does not meet the minimum lot size as prescribed by the
Zone district; the primary building was constructed prior to existing Zone district standards.
Beals presented existing and proposed site plans, noting the proposed garage would also include a
new deck to provide entry to the upper-story office space which would be constructed as an element of
proposed new garage. Elevation renderings describe what would be visible from street and alley
views. Existing shed(s) are presumed to be moved or altered based on the proposed plans.
Commission member Coffman asked if there were any existing easements, particularly on the alley
side? Beals responded there are no known easements at this time.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Jeff Schneider, Armstead Constructions, addressed the Commission and
offered comment. Schneider reiterated that this is a non-conforming existing structure with the rear
setback encroachment, and the proposed structure conforms to all setbacks with the alley. The
proposal also complies to all FAR allowable for the lot. The overall allowable for the lot is not being
exceeded, merely the rear-half FAR.
Vice-Chair Lawton asked if there are any plans for utilities to be included in the proposed area?
Schneider stated that the homeowner is currently working from home post-pandemic, so this space
would be purely an office space. There is no planned bathroom or similar use of utilities.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman stated he did not find any problems with the request, noting there is
clearly a hardship due to the size and location of the lot, wherein exceeding the allowance for the rear
of the lot is unavoidable.
Chair Shuff commented for the benefit of new Commission members that this type of request is seen
frequently by the Commission, where an existing condition or shape of the lot creates a hardship
requiring variance requests.
Vice-Chair Lawton offered agreement with Shuff’s comments, and voiced his support for the request
as it has been proposed.
Commission Member Coffman made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE
ZBA220038 for the following reasons: granting of the modification of standard is not
detrimental to the public good; the lot size is significantly smaller in size within the context of
the neighborhood and the required minimum for the N-C-L zone district; the unique shape of
the lost results in more of the primary house to be in the rear-half of the property; the existing
house and attached deck already encroach into the setback. Therefore, the variance request is
moved to be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict
application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant.
Yeas: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
Land Use Review Commission Page 5 Minutes – January 12, 2023
3. APPEAL ZBA220039
Address: 305 Park St.
Owner: Dan MacKinnon
Petitioner: Jeffrey J. Schneider, Contractor, Armstead Construction
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8(D)(5)
Project Description:
This is a request to exceed the maximum square footage for an accessory building with habitable
space by 67 square feet. The maximum floor area for an accessory building with habitable space is
600 square feet.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located near the corner of Park St and Maple St. The request is to build a new garage
with habitable space on the upper story. There is an existing garage on the property, which would be
demolished, and the new garage take its place.
The existing garage does not meet the side setback along the north property line; the new garage
would meet the setback. Site plans show the new proposed garage as meeting both the side a rear
setback of 5 feet. The proposed structure would exceed the maximum allowable square footage for
an accessory structure by 67 sq ft.
Beals explained the way the code defines floor area, for this particular zone district and this
particular building, which is classified as an accessory building. In this instance, floor area includes
everything on the first floor, and any area on the upper story where the ceiling height is 7.5 feet or
above. Anything that is below a ceiling less than 7.5 feet high is not counted as floor area. The code
restricts this type of building to 600sq ft; the initial floor area of the building is less than 600 feet, and
some of the upper story does have area with ceiling above 7.5 feet, which does count towards the
allowable maximum. The applicant is thus asking for another additional 67 sq ft to be approved.
Elevations of the proposed structure were presented by Beals, along with pictures of the existing
property taken from street and alley side views. Beals noted that this residence is more setback
within the lot from the street side when compared to other residences in the neighborhood. The
existing garage is a single-story two-car structure which does not meet the setback; Beals stated
that the structure probably has some negative impact for stormwater runoff on to the neighbors’
property; the proposed structure would be setback and could decrease the negative impact. Pictures
of the alley provide some context for some existing two-story buildings.
*9:11am - Commission member Coffman recused himself from the discussion due to his residence
being in close proximity to the applicant’s subject property.
Vice-Chair Lawton asked if there were any limitations regarding the rear-half of the property, and
percentage of square footage allowed? Beals responded that this proposal meets all of those
requirements; the variance request here is only concerning additional square footage to an
accessory building, which is limited to 600 sq ft.
Chair Shuff asked if the applicant were to keep all ceiling heights below 7.5 feet, would they need a
variance, given that the garage is 400sq ft. The ceiling height seems to be the trigger for the
additional area calculation. Beals confirmed Shuff’s questions, stating that if ceiling heights were
adjusted in the interior, a variance may not be needed and no exterior changes to the building would
be needed regarding bulk or mass. Shuff noted that if ceiling heights were adjusted, it would then be
possible to build a bigger garage footprint theoretically.
Land Use Review Commission Page 6 Minutes – January 12, 2023
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Jeff Schneider, Armstead Constructions, addressed the Commission and
offered comment. Schneider stated that his client was begun working from home and is planning on
using the garage upper story for their home office. The planned bathroom would be used by the
resident when in the office, as well as by family and visitors during holiday visits and similar.
Schneider feels this is a nominal and inconsequential request.
Commission member San Filippo asked if there were any cooking facilities planned for the second
floor? Schneider responded there are not cooking facilities, only a restroom.
Chair Shuff commented that his understanding of the Land Use Code was that it did not allow for
cooking devices within an accessory building considered habitable space.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Vice-Chair Lawton stated he could understand the need for both the office space and the planned
bathroom and has no issues with the request.
Commission member Carron stated his opinion that the design seems thoughtful, and minimizes
height while still being a usable, livable space. Carron stated his support for approving the request.
Commission member San Filippo also commended the well thought-out design, noting the fact that
the side-yard setback would also now be brought into compliance.
Chair Shuff summarized his previous comments, noting the applicant could potentially build a larger
conforming structure with lower ceiling heights, but have chosen to trade internal ceiling height for a
smaller footprint. This minimizes the impact of the overall structure. Shuff state his support for
approving the request.
Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA220039 for the
following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the proposed structure
increases compliance with required setbacks; the proposed structure complies with the
maximum building height; the additional 67 square feet is an 11% increase of the allowed
floor area. Therefore, the variance requests 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.
Yeas: Carron, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel
Recusal: Coffman
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
4. APPEAL ZBA220040
Address: ZBA220040
Owner: Trinity Lutheran Church
Petitioner: Katie Barron, Sign Committee Chairperson
Zoning District: L-M-N
Code Section: 3.8.7.1(J)(2)(b)(1)
Project Description:
This is a request to replace an existing primary detached sign with a new sign that will have an
electronic messaging center display. The new sign will be 69 feet from the residential property to the
north, and 81 feet from the residential property to the east. Signs containing an electronic messaging
center display must be located 100 feet from the nearest residential property.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located on E Stuart St, and is owned by the Trinity Lutheran Church. The request is to
Land Use Review Commission Page 7 Minutes – January 12, 2023
take the exiting monument sign and convert it to an Electronic Message Center (EMC), where a
portion of the sign would include a digital display that could be changed remotely via computer. The
current sign is located on the east side of the property. Beals noted that if the request were
approved, there were need to be verification that the location of the existing sign is not on the public
right of way and is on private property.
When taking measure of the leading edge of the monument sign to nearby residential properties, it is
found that the distance is less than 100ft. From 400 E Stuart St it is 82 feet; from 404 E Stuart it is
70 feet; and from 408 E Stuart it is 73 feet. This is the code section that requires a variance, which
states that an Electronic Message Center sign is require to be 100 feet away from a residential
property. Beals noted the property to the east is not a residential property and does not need to
meet the 100-foot setback.
Beals noted that to comply with the standard the applicant could move the EMC further south on the
property, to meet the 100-foot setback from a residential property. This proposal is asking to keep
the existing monument sign in its current location to be able to reuse it for the proposed EMC.
Images of the proposed EMC were presented. The bottom portion of the sign would have illuminated
tenant panel signage, while the top-portion of the monument sign would contain the EMC. There are
other standards concerning EMC, being that it can only take up 50% of the sign area, as well as light
limitations pertaining to the color temperature and levels. Those elements are all in compliance
within the proposed request.
Street views east and west along E Stuart St. were presented by Beals, showing the location of the
current and existing monument signs. Beals also noted potential alternative locations for the
proposed signs that would comply with the required setback. Beals noted that because there is not
an EMC on the current sign, it is considered conforming.
Vice-Chair Lawton referred to packet materials, noting that the property to the east was measured
as being 81 feet from the sign and therefore part of the issue. Beals clarified that after further review,
it was determined that that property was not residential and thus does not require a variance.
Chair Shuff asked if the property to the west is residential, if so, would it need to meet the
requirement? Beals clarified the location of the sign as being on the east driveway; Shuff stated his
misunderstanding that he believed the sign to the on the opposite drive lane.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Katie Barron, 4003 Sunstone Way, addressed the Commission and offered
comment. Barron stated she was representing all tenants who share the property at 301 E Stuart
St., including three churches and one preschool. The groups are working to install a sign that
identifies each organization, as well as create a modern space that announces activities and events
to their own members as well as neighbors and the larger community.
Barron commented that with the street being tree-lined and the parking lot surrounding four sides of
the building, sign placement is limited. When viewing the sign from the street-side, trees and cars in
the parking lot can actually block the current sign. The existing sign is already electrified, and
neighbors are used to having the sign in the current location. Barron stated that she had previously
meet with three Zoning inspectors, and was told the proposed sign adheres to city code; the only
exception being asked for is the 100-foot setback from residential.
Barron shared that she had spoken with neighbors directly across the street, as well as the business
next door. Four neighbors have endorsed the project and have provided signed letters of support
(included in packet); two neighbors are concerned about light exposure. Barron responded that the
group is able to control the light amount in the proposed sign and would be open to keeping the sign
running during a reasonable timeframe each day to cut down on nighttime illumination. Barron noted
the sign would be using revers-cut lettering, which may also reduce the light pollution. The proposed
sign would be significantly shorter than the existing sign.
Barron shared images of example illuminated signs, showing the difference between printed letter
panels and reverse-cut lettering
Land Use Review Commission Page 8 Minutes – January 12, 2023
Commission member San Filippo asked the hours of operations of the four organizations using the
facility. Barron stated the pre-school keeps regular daytime/part-time hours, there are regularly
scheduled office hours for church organizations; Sunday services draw heavier traffic. San Filippo
asked what might be the latest hour of any given day the facility would be in operation? Barron
introduced Pastor Rick, of Trinity Lutheran Church, in order to better-explain facility hours of
operation. Rick stated the building is usually locked up by 9pm each evening. Daily hours tend to be
9am – 9pm. San Filippo asked if there may be special occasions that may go later than 9pm? Rick
stated that even with events, most of the time they are done by 9pm.
San Filippo asked if there were any need to have the sign illuminated past 9pm, when the building is
essentially non-operations? Barron responded she did not believe so. San Filippo asked if they
would be amenable to not illuminating the sign past 9pm? Barron answered that they would
absolutely be ok with agreeing to that. San Filippo stated this could alleviate some of the concerns of
the neighbors to the north. Barron acknowledged the sentiment of the residents that they would like
to maintain the neighborhood feel without businesses signage, while also acknowledging the desire
of the applicant organizations to effectively advertise their presence and events.
San Filippo asked what type of messaging would be displayed? Attorney Aaron Guin directed
commission that they are not able to consider the content of the sign; the variance here is solely
related to the fact that its an EMC that does not comply with the required setback.
Public Comment:
Member of the public Jan Friedlund, 2550 Custer Dr, Unit C11, addressed the Commission and
offered comment. Friedlund identified herself as a member of the of the leadership of St. Paul’s
Episcopal Church, one of the three faith partners using 301 E Stuart St. Friedlund stated that the two
letters in opposition to the request concern elements that are extraneous to the matter. The
neighbors within the 100-foot setback have all stated their approval for the request, with letters
submitted with application.
In response to the staff recommendation for denial of the request, Friedlund stated that the group
has spent a considerable amount of time for other locations that offer visibility, and there are none.
Additionally, the existing location already has electricity, so reusing the location would save a
substantial amount of money. Funds saved would be better spent serving the community, which is
their sole goal.
Member of the public Jill Barron, 400 E Stuart, addressed the Commission and offered Comment. J.
Barron stated that they did not approve of the request, feeling as though it represented a change of
the neighborhood character. They would like the church to be good neighbors even as they grow.
The sign is visible out their bedroom window, and would be even more apparent if it were to include
EMC/illuminated lighting.
Member of the public John Roberts, 224 Canyon Ave, Unit 628, addressed the commission and
offered comment. Roberts stated he was a member of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church. Roberts
explained that five years ago, three congregations got together to better utilize a building that was
able to house multiple groups. The facility is now home to Trinity Lutheran Church, St. Paul’s
Episcopal Church, and Mary of Magdala Ecumenical Catholic Church, in addition to a pre-school.
Fort the past five years, all three groups have not be seen on the existing sign due to its limitations.
Roberts noted that the end of the sign is seen from across the street, while the illuminated portions
are mainly visible from the travel lanes of the street.
Member of the public Felicia Smithgraybeal, Pastor of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, addressed the
Commission and offered comment. Smithgraybeal stated that as three congregations, they are doing
their best to be good stewards of the environment by sharing one space. Additionally, they want to
be good neighbors and believe that churches belong in neighborhoods. They will do their best to
mitigate light pollution by turning of the sign by 9pm.
Member of the public Katie Kline, 2507 Woodvalley Ct., addressed the Commission and offered
comment. Kline identified herself as a member of the clergy at Trinity Lutheran Church, and would
be speaking in favor of the request. Kline stated that they have attempted to design a sign that does
not appear to be a commercial sign, but more of a neighborhood-appropriate sign. They would be
Land Use Review Commission Page 9 Minutes – January 12, 2023
mindful of light levels as well as times of display. Without proper signage, they know that other
groups have at times missed their location.
Member of the public Leonard Russ, 931 Arbor Ave., addressed the commission and offered
comment. Russ stated that he is a member of Mary of Magdala, noting the congregation was formed
in 2012 and had not building at first. St. Paul’s then invited them to use their building on West
Elizabeth St. That property was subsequently sold, and Trinity Lutheran Church then invite both St.
Paul’s and Mary of Magdala to join them in 301 E Stuart. Russ noted that the proposed sign is very
important to them so that people will be aware of their location. Russ noted the existing sign stays lit
all night long and is much taller than 5 feet – the proposed sign is only 5 feet 9 inches.
Beals noted that the applicant did submit two additional letters of endorsement after the packet was
posted, and they would be read into the record now. Beals noted it is a similar letter to what was
provided in the packet, but now signed by two additional persons. Beals then read the following
letter:
The existing sign for Trinity Lutheran Church is located at the East driveway on Stuart Street. The
sign has been there for more than 18 years. Currently, there are three additional organizations that
use the facilities at 301 E. Stuart: Trinity Lutheran Church, Trinity Preschool, St. Paul’s Episcopal
Church, and Mary of Magdala Catholic Church. Collectively, the organizations would like to have a
sign that lists all the occupants as well upgrade from a changeable letter board toa digital sign that
can be programmed remotely to display various events and activities for the location.
The existing sign sits 69 feet from the property line of the North neighbor at 404 E. Stuart and 81
feet from Mountain Kid’s, the property line of the East neighbor. City code stipulates that a digital
sign – electronic message centers (EMC) – must be a distance of 100 feet.
On behalf of the organization at 301 E. Stuart, I would like to request a variance for distance that
would allow a new replacement sign, that meets all code requirements, be allowed to be placed in
the existing sign’s location.
The neighbors at 404 E. Stuart and 419 E. Stuart have been presented with our request for a
distance variance and have given their endorsement to both replace the sign and install an EMC.
Signed: Adam Stater, 340 E. Stuart St.
Signed: B. Lee 412 E. Stuart St.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman asked Beals to present the aerial view for consideration. For
clarification, Coffman asked if we had received letters of support from 400 and 408 E Stuart. Beals
stated that 400 E. Stuart had offered objection, and 408 E. Stuart had also submitted a letter of
objection,
Coffman acknowledged the need for a new sign, and noted the difficulties presented by tree
overhangs and parked cars. However, Coffman stated that he was having an issue with
understanding the necessity of an EMC, as opposed to a conventional lit sign.
Commission member Carron agreed with the thoughts of Coffman, that a new sign makes sense in
order to call out the various organizations that now occupy the facilities. However, Carron does not
see the need to an EMC. There may be other opportunities to replace an existing wayfinding sign on
the property in a way that would meet code and function well.
Commission member McCoy stated that he would have favored this request, but for the two dissents
from those within the 100-foot setback distance. Even though there are obstacles for moving the
sign back, they could probably still create a sign that functions just as well.
Commission member San Filippo stated he was pleased that the applicant showed willingness to
have the sign non-illuminated after 9pm at night, which factors into his thinking. However, a
message board sign/EMC may not be necessary for a church organization, where it can be
reasonably assumed that most members and visitors know the hours of operations and of individual
Land Use Review Commission Page 10 Minutes – January 12, 2023
services. The sign as proposed would likely have an impact on the neighborhood, and could be
more-shielded to direct the focus of the sign and illumination to the east and west, rather than having
any display to the property owners across the street. Additionally, posted speeds are low along this
street, and this would be a destination for travel, not an impulse stop. San Filippo stated that he
would not be in favor of supporting the variance application.
Vice-Chair Lawton applauded the church and facility for being able to accommodate multiple
occupants at different times, and giving them all opportunities to provide fellowship. Lawton stated
that regardless of the support/objection of neighbors, what the Commission needs to look at is long-
term implications. Neighbors may come and go – the code is in place to provide limitations based
upon whoever is there. Financial implications of moving the sign aren’t to be considered by the
Commission, and there does appear to the opportunity for compliance if the sign is moved. Lawton
would not be in support of the request.
Chair Shuff referenced the need to find balance between the neighborhood and church; having the
two letters of opposition causes pause, and this section of code is fairly specific in addressing this
particular application of this type of signage. Shuff would have a hard time supporting this request as
proposed. There may be other ways that the applicant could achieve their goals through alternative
means.
Commission Member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to DENY ZBA220040
under section 2.10.4(H) for the following reasons: the request is at least 30% deviation from
the standard; the sign can be setback further south to comply with the setback. Insufficient
evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship for 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.
Yeas: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED
5. APPEAL ZBA220041
Address: 135 Bockman Dr.
Owner: Boniuk Interests Ltd
Petitioner: Jeff Everhart, Sign Contractor, Concept Signs & Graphics
Zoning District: C-G
Code Section: 3.8.7.2 Table(B)
Project Description:
This is a request for a wall sign to exceed the maximum wall sign height by 1 foot 6 inches. The
maximum wall sign height is 7 feet.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that
application may be familiar to some members of the Commission, as the applicant came in front of
the Commission this past November asking for additional height to three wall signs. This
Commission approved two of those signs at additional increase in height and denied the third sign.
The approval increased those two wall signs to an additional foot and a half, from the allowed 7 feet
to 8.5 feet. At the time, the wall sign on the west side of the building, facing S College Ave., was
more than 1.5 foot increase and the Commission denied that request. The current request to is to
look at the west-facing wall sign again, and consider an increase of 1.5 feet that was granted for
signs on the east and south sides of the building.
For orientation, Beals noted that the property is located on Bockman Dr. and S College Ave, with
additional frontage along JFK Pkwy. The building is being converted into a new tenant space. Beals
showed images the south and east elevations, noting the sings that have already been granted a
variance. The new proposal would add the same size of sign to the front of the building.
Land Use Review Commission Page 11 Minutes – January 12, 2023
Beals also noted that this property does have a ground sign that fronts S College Ave, and this
ground signs gives them the ability to have a larger sign at that location than is allowed on the west
side wall. The previous tenant did employ this ground sign; current tenants are proposing re-using
the existing base for support of a new sign element.
Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals to describe the differences between what was previously denied and
what is being requested currently. Beals explained that the denied sign was requested to be
approximately 11 feet tall. The current request is for a sign 8.5 feet tall; code limits wall signs to a
maximum height of 7 feet. The previous tenant did not have a variance and was in compliance with
the 7-foot wall sigh height.
Commission member McCoy asked for clarification that this request deals only with the wall sign,
and does not affect the ground sign. Beals confirmed this as correct, noting that the ground sign can
be refaced as designed in the submitted packet. Because the property fronts on three or four streets,
there is a lot of total sign area available.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Jeff Everhart, Concept Signs & Graphics, 3307 S College Ave, addressed
the Commission and offered comment. Everhart explained that the previous request was for a 12
foot x 20 foot sign; the Commission determined that was just too large. Part of the challenge is that
the tenant’s branding logo is oval shaped, which limits readability when size is minimized. Now that
the other two signs have been approved at the 8.5 foot height, it seems reasonable to approve the
same height for the entrance side; it may look strange if the primary sign were smaller than the two
side-wall signs. Everhart noted that the distance from the street to the building is so large that there
really would not be a negative impact for having a sign at 8.5 feet height. The scale of the building
itself is fairly massive, so having a slight increase in sign height should not have an overall
detrimental effect or create additional distraction.
Vice-Chair Lawton asked Everhart to describe the sign’s lighting method. Everhart indicated the sign
would be lit internally with LED lights. The brown portions of the sign are block-out, so would not
actually be illuminated.
Commission member San Filippo commented that proposed sign seems primarily to function as a
designation for the front entrance. Additionally, San Filippo stated that there does not appear to be
anything physically preventing the applicant from conforming to the 7-foot maximum. Everhart
agreed with these statements. San Filippo questioned what the actual hardship is. Once customers
are on the property by virtue of the monument sign, the proposed sign essentially signals the
entrance to the actual building. Everhart stated that because the parking lot is so big, someone
parked at the far end of the lot would benefit from the increase sign visibility over the entrance.
Likewise, the tenant could theoretically install much more signage that conformed to code but would
fit in less well with the community feel. The company uses their single logo across the country, so
developing alternative signs may not be possible.
Commission member Carron commented that the proposed sign is 122.5 sq ft – how large of a sign
could technically be put on the face of the building per code? Beals explained that there is a
limitation on height, but not limitation on width. Width would be dictated by your total sign allowance
and how that total is being divided between multiple signs. Because there is so much frontage on
this property, there is quite a bit of associated sign allowance on the property. Everhart added that
the proposed sign is maybe a third to a half of the size of what the previous tenant had before.
Commission member McCoy asked if there had been a change to the gable design compared to
what was seen previously. Beals explained that the current proposed façade has not changed from
last time, but overall, the façade has been changed when compared to the previous tenant.
Lawton added that the oval shape of the sign is an allusion to the shape of a Western belt buckle,
and is an intentional design choice for their signage.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Land Use Review Commission Page 12 Minutes – January 12, 2023
Commission Discussion:
Vice-Chair Lawton continued his thought, noting that the previous request was denied because it
was simply too large; this new proposal has seen a reduction from that request. The setback from S
College Ave is quite substantial, so if the sign was much smaller it would begin to impede
readability. The applicant has come back with a fairly good revised plan, and Lawton would be in
support of granting the request.
Commission member Coffman agreed with earlier comments offered by Commission members,
noting that there really doesn’t appear to be a hardship here. Given the large setback and reduced
size of the proposed sign, Coffman feels that the overall visual impact is minimal. Shuff agreed,
stating that the actual justification for variance may be equal to or better than. The sign as presented
may have less visual impact than alternative designs that might be wider but held to the 7-foot
height.
Commission member San Filippo also alluded to the large distance from the street to the property,
stating that because of these expanded distances the increased sign height if approved would be
inconsequential. San Filippo would be in support of granting the variance.
Commission member McCoy commented that he tended to towards the first, larger sign given the
size of the building. The building is very big and could have been an multi-tenant facility, which
would potentially include numerous different signs. McCoy is in favor of this proposal.
Commission Member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE
ZBA220041 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not
be detrimental to the public good; the sign as proposed would serve equal to or better than a
sign conforming to the standard 7-foot height; the signage of the building is well within the
sign allowance given the street frontage of the building, which results in a nominal and
inconsequential impact to the surrounding neighborhood.
Yeas: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
6. APPEAL ZBA220042
Address: 4114 Rolling Gate Rd.
Owner/Petitioner: Susan and Terry Gibbons
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d)
Project Description:
This is a request for three pergolas to encroach 4.5 feet into the interior 5-foot side setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located on Rolling Gate Rd., and backs up against Webber Middle School sports fields.
The request is to build three pergolas along the side property line. Because these are structures,
and based on their distance to the property line, they do require a building permit and need to meet
the side setback. In this zone district the side setback is 5 feet.
The applicants noted that there is a shed along the neighboring property line, which did not require a
permit or need to meet setbacks due to its size. The issue here is that the pergolas act similar to a
structure and a fence at the same time. Lattice panels at the top of the pergolas extend the effective
fence height, acting as an extension of the existing privacy fence. There are two separate designs
for the pergolas: a smaller design for the middle unit and larger designs for each side pergola.
Beals noted that all three structures are open on all sides, except the sides that are against the
fence which creates the barrier. The roofs are open as well. Beals also presented images of the front
and rear of the property currently, calling out the approximate location of the pergolas along the rear
side fence line.
Land Use Review Commission Page 13 Minutes – January 12, 2023
Commission member Coffman asked Beals to explain why these pergolas require a building permit.
Beals explained that our building code requires a permit when a structure gets in within zero to three
feet of a property to ensure that they are fire rated. When that happens, Zoning must look to see if
they meet the setbacks as well. Because this a structure that requires a permit and also functions as
a de facto fence, it was suggested that they do need to mee the setback or seek a variance.
Coffman asked if a shed within three feet of the home would also require a building permit; Beals
answered that a fire rating building permit would be required in that scenario.
Commission member Carron asked if there were any type of setback reductions that may be
pertinent to this request, asking Beals to confirm the height of the pergolas. Beals confirmed the
height of the proposed pergolas as being 8 feet.
Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals if there were any effect created by the lattice element proposed with
the pergolas? Beals explained that it needs a variance because the lattice effectively extends the
height of the privacy fence beyond what is allowed within code.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicants Susan and Terry Gibbons, 4114 Rolling Gate Rd., addressed the Commission and
offered comment. S. Gibbons explained that she had the house built 21 years ago, and paid a
premium for the lot due to the view out the back. Recently, new neighbors moved in next to them
and subsequently put up a shed along their shared fence line. The shed now impedes a portion of
the Gibbons’ view out the back.
The applicants stated they have worked with numerous landscapers to develop a plan that would
help to block the view of the shed. New plantings are not feasible due to the risk of damaging the
root system of an extant tree. Terry Gibbons also alluded to the specific challenges of the property
due to tree roots, and indicated that they are trying to find a solution for themselves while also
acknowledging the right of their neighbors to have a shed on their own property.
Commission member Carron noted that the grade of the backyard is made apparent by the photo
included in the packet, which shows the visibility of the shed due to the difference in grade between
the home and the rear of the yard.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman stated that he did not see any detrimental impact from the proposed
design. The pergolas are not a full fence up to 8 feet, they are intermittent, the pergolas themselves
are transparent; and the grading of the lot towards the rear is going to reduce the impact event
further.
Commission member Carron stated that sometimes what does or does not need a permit can be a
bit confusing. In this condition, being closer to the fence doesn’t really change the impact.
Vice-Chair Lawton commented that from an aesthetic perspective, the proposed pergolas would be
a benefit. Event without an issue with the viewshed, these pergolas would be a nice addition to the
property. Lawton is in support of granting the variance request.
Commission member McCoy commented that we has surprised this project needed a variance, but
appreciated Beal’s explanation of why these structures required a building permit and variance.
McCoy is in support of granting the variance request.
Commission member San Filippo agrees with previous comments of the Commission, and added
that this was a very attractive solution for screening the view, and congratulates the landscape
company on their proposed design.
Chair Shuff also called out the possible gray area between what is considered a “structure”, but
regardless this represents a really nice improvement to the fence. Whether or not the purpose is to
Land Use Review Commission Page 14 Minutes – January 12, 2023
screen the view or not, this will be something that will be enjoyed the homeowners and will enhance
the view from the neighbor’s property as well. Shuff is in support of granting the variance request.
Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to APPROVE ZBA220042 for the
following reasons: the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the pergolas extend 2-
feet beyond the 6-foot privacy fence with semi-transparent lattices; two pergolas are 7.5 feet
in width and the other is 5.5 feet. Therefore, the variance will not diverge from the standard
but in a nominal and inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the
neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in
Section 1.2.2.
Yeas: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
• OTHER BUSINESS
1. Election of officers for 2023
Beals explained that Chair and Vice-Chair are elected each year, at the end of the regular January
hearing. Chair is elected first, followed by Vice-Chair. Each election needs to be done through a
motion. The Commission may hold discussion prior to each motion, followed by a roll call vote.
Responsibility of the Chairperson includes leading meetings and opening procedures, as well as
providing final discussion on each item. Vice-Chair steps into those responsibilities if/when the
Chair is unable to attend a meeting.
Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to nominate Ian Shuff as
Chairperson. Shuff accepted the nomination.
Yeas: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED; SHUFF WAS ELECTED CHAIR FOR 2023
Shuff stated his goals as Chair, including making sure discussion is focused on-topic and
centered, and that the legalese part is correct, with motions being tied to code and the three
standards of justification. Shuff indicated he may miss 1-2 meetings, but generally is available for
all meetings upcoming.
Chair Shuff made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to nominate Dave Lawton as Vice-Chair.
Lawton accepted the nomination.
Yeas: Carron, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff Nays: - Absent: Vogel
THE MOTION CARRIED; LAWTON WAS ELECTED VICE-CHAIR FOR 2023
Lawton stated he feels comfortable with the nominations, noting that he had previously served on
this Commission during the 1980’s -90’s, and feels comfortable with the process and types of
requests that come before this Commission. Lawton is also comfortable with taking over Chair
responsibilities if/when needed due to absence on behalf of Shuff.
• ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:55am
Ian Shuff, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT March 9, 2023
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA220013
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 1309 Remington St.
Owner: Dan and Martha Connors
Petitioner: Jordan Oberman, Designer/Builder
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2); 4.7(D)(3); 4.7(D)(6)(b)
Variance Request:
This is a request for 3 variances to rebuild an accessory building (garage):
1. Request to exceed the total square footage allowed by 389.2 square feet; the maximum permitted is
2,394.8 square feet.
2. Request to exceed the total square footage allowed in the rear half by 139.25 feet; the maximum
allowed is 871.75 square feet.
3. Request to exceed the eave height for an accessory building without habitable space by 8 feet; the
maximum allowed along the side lot line is 10 feet.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property is a part of the 1925 LC Moores Annexation and received development approval around the
same time. The primary structure was built approximately around 1933.
The existing garage is a one-story structure. Located 5ft of the rear property line with the garage door facing
the alley. The existing garage was built at a time when cars where shorter in length. The proposed garage
is located approximately in the same location but different width and length dimensions. It is 9sf less in size
and is a one-story structure.
The gable ends of the propose garage face the side property line. This creates an eave that is higher than
the allowed 10ft eave height.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval of the increase floor area for the lot and within the rear
half of the lot and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The existing structure is greater in size
• The proposed structure is located in the same location and maintains vehicle access from the alley.
Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way,
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 2
Further Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial of request to increase the eave height along the
side lot line by an additional 8ft:
• The eave height increase is over 50% of the allowed height.
• Insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in
a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard.
• Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property.
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval for 2 out of 3 request of APPEAL ZBA220013.
Application Request
IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH
The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI
$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJGLVWULFW
RWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH%RDUGPD\JUDQWYDULDQFHVZKHUHLW
ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFH
UHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV
E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWRWKH
SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVVVKDOORZQHVVRU
WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQGH[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDO
GLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHGWKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRU
hardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRWVHOILPSRVHG
WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHGequally
well or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG
WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential way
ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined
and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any
work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that
the variance was granted.
+RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK
H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVW
EHVXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG
Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting
Location /D3RUWH$YH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV)RUW&ROOLQV&2
Date 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPH DP
’s Name
)RUW&ROOLQV&2’s
Petitioner’s Address
’s NamePetitioner’s Phone #
!"Petitioner’s Email
’s Name
!"Representative’s Address
!"Representative’s Phone #
!"Representative’s Email
1309 Remington Jordan Obermann
Owner's Design&Builder
80524 120 W Olive St.
Dan and Martha Connors 970-412-9777
Division 4.7, (D)Jordan@forgeandbow.com
NCL
Current maximum allowable square footage for this lot is 2,645 above grade square footage.
Currently, there are 3043 above grade square footage, which is certainly way beyond what is
allowable, however, is acceptable due to the timing of when the code was adopted. Additional,
the existing garage is not structurally sound. We propose building a new garage that will reduce
the overall square footage by 10 feet, bringing us closer to code. Our alternative is to repair the
existing garage, keeping the size, and maintaining being an eyesore for the community.
March 7, 2022
2. Equal to or better than
Additional Justification
Additional Justification
To whom it may concern;
We would like to submit for two zoning variances in order to demolish and rebuild a garage at
1309 Remington Dr., Fort Collins, CO.
Currently, the house and garage sit on a 6,974 square foot lot. With current zoning codes, this
allows for 2,395 square feet of above grade floor area, plus 250 more because of the detached
garage. This gives us 2,645 above grade square footage for the Floor Area Ratio. Additionally,
we are allowed to have 871.75 square feet on the rear half of the lot.
In current conditions, there is 2,485 square feet of above grade square footage in the house,
and 558 square feet of garage space, totalling 3,043 total Floor Area on the lot. This is 398
square feet more than is allowable under current code. Additionally, the current conditions have
1,020 square feet on the rear half, 148.25 more than allowable.
Upon inspection of the existing garage by Jason Baker (Advanced Engineering), he determined
that the current garage is a safety risk due to its dilapidated condition, and should immediately
be repaired or replaced. After inspections by my company, Forge & Bow dwellings, we quickly
determined that the cost to repair will be nearly identical to the cost to replace.
We are aware that by removing the existing garage, current code would not allow us to rebuild.
Therefore, we are requesting variances that would allow us to do this work. We believe that the
variances should be granted due to the following reasons:
the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance(s)
is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the
standard for which the variance(s) is requested
The reason for the floor area limitations in the Old Town area, both in regards to FAR and rear
half ratio, is to limit the density of development on lots. Currently, the existing setup is beyond
what is currently allowed, and is only able to stay due to grandfathered codes. Though my client
could indeed repair (complying with current code) the existing garage so that it is safe, they
would rather build something new that is 10 square feet smaller than the existing garage.
Though it is minimal, this does indeed reduce the total floor area of the lot and the rear half ratio
closer to the general purpose of the standard.
Further, the new garage, even after repairs to the old garage, will be safer, and certainly much
more aesthetically pleasing for the community at large.
Thank you for considering this variance.
Jordan Obermann, Owner of Forge & Bow Dwellings
^/d W>EϭϯϬϵZ D/E'dKE^dZ d>Kdϵ͕><Ϯ͕>DKKZ ^ϭ^d͕&dнͬͲϵ͘ϴΖZ D/E'dKE^dZ dWd,tz;ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐͿ DK y/^d/E' ^^KZz>'͘ϱϱϴ^&WZ/DZzh/>/E';ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐͿhEKs Z WKZ,;ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐͿ>> zнͬͲϯϲ͘ϮΖZ/KEZ/s tz;ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐͿEEEнͬͲϯ͘ϵΖEWZK: ddZ ^^ͺϭϯϬϵZ D/E'dKE͕͘&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϰKE/E'/^dZ/dͺEͲͲ>>Kd^/ ͺϲ͕ϵϳϰ^&EhD ZK&^dKZ/ ^ͺϭ͘ϱ^dKZ/ ^н^ D Ed>>Kt> &>KKZZ ;ϮϬй>Kdсϭ͕ϯϵϱƐĨнϭ͕ϬϬϬƐĨͿͺϮ͕ϯϵϱ^&Dy y/^d/E'>>Kt> ^Y͘&d͘ͺϮ͕ϳϵϯ^&^ D Edͺ;ϲϲϳ^&EKd/E>h ͿD/E&>KKZͺϭ͕ϰϳϳ^&hW^d/Z^ͺϭ͕ϬϬϴ^& y/^d'Z' ͺϯϬϴ^&;ϱϱϴ^& y/^d/E'ͲϮϱϬ^&ͿE t'Z' ͺϮϳϮ^&;ϱϮϮ^&E tͲϮϱϬ^&ͿdKd>Z Z,>&Z ͺϵϴϰ^&;ϱϮϮ^&E t'Z' нϰϲϮ^&D/E,Kh^ ͿWZKW ZdzKhEZz/^^ KE y/^d/E'Z KZ^E^^hDWd/KE^͘E t'Z' ; ^^KZzͿϱϮϮ^&ϮϮΖͲϬΗϰΖͲϯΗ ϮϭΖͲϲΗϱ͘Ϯϱϱ͘Ϯϰϱ͘Ϯϯϱ͘ϮϭϮΖͲϵΗ ϭϲΖͲϬΗ ϮΖͲϵΗ^/ ^ d<ϱΖZ Z^ d<ϱΖ^/ ^ d<ϱΖ&ZKEd^ d<ϭϱΖͲϬΗϱϬΖϭϯϵΖͲϱΗ y/^d/E'&KKdWZ/EdϱΖD/>/E Z Z,>&D/E,Kh^ Ϯϴϵ^&;Ϯϴϵ^&D/Eнϭϳϯ^&hWW ZͿϱΖϱΖͲϯΗϭϭΖͲϲΗϱΖͲϯΗϮϱΖͲϵΗ&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^ϭϮϬt͘K>/s ^d͕^h/d ϮϮϬ͕&KZdK>>/E^͕KͬKEEKZ^Z ^/ E ϮϯͲϬϮͲϭϳZ D/E'dKEWZK: d^> ͗ϭΗсϭϬΖͲϬΗϭsZ/E Ͳ^/d W>E
^, EdZ/D d/>dKDd,t >>/E'ϳ͗ϭϮ >͘сϭϵΖͲϱϭͬϰΗнͬͲϳΖͲϳΗdK s >͘сϲΖͲϴΗ'> EdZ/D d/>dKDd,t >>/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKDd,t >>/E'^,< &/E/^,dKDd,t >>/E'ϭϮ͗ϭϮϲΖͲϬΗϮΖͲϴΗ >͘сϳΖͲϬΗ'> EdZ/D d/>dKDd,t >>/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKDd,t >>/E'^W,>d^,/E'> ^dKDd,t >>/E' >͘сϭϵΖͲϱϭͬϰΗϭϵΖͲϱϭͬϰΗdKZ/' ϭϮ͗ϭϮнͬͲϳΖͲϳΗdK s нͬͲϳΖͲϳΗdK s ϭϵΖͲϱϭͬϰΗϭϮ͗ϭϮϳ͗ϭϮ >͘сϭϵΖͲϱϭͬϰΗ'> EdZ/D d/>dKDd,t >>/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKDd,t >>/E'^W,>d^,/E'> ^dKDd,t >>/E'^,< &/E/^,dKDd,t >>/E'нͬͲϲΖͲϵΗdK s Z'͘,d͘d͘K͘&͘ >͘сϭϬϴΖͲ ϭϭͬϴΗ >͘сϭϬϬΖͲ ϬΗdZ/DdKDd,t >>/E' >͘сϭϵΖͲϱϭͬϰΗ'> EdZ/D d/>dKDd,t >>/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKDd,t >>/E'^,< &/E/^,dKDd,t >>/E'ϳ͗ϭϮϭϮ͗ϭϮϭϲΖͲϬΗ, >нͬͲϱΗ >͘сϳΖͲϬΗϭϮ͗ϭϮϭϮ͗ϭϮϳ͗ϭϮ&KZ' нKtt >>/E'^ϭϮϬt͘K>/s ^d͕^h/d ϮϮϬ͕&KZdK>>/E^͕KͬKEEKZ^Z ^/ E ϮϯͲϬϮͲϭϳZ D/E'dKEWZK: d^> ͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϰ'Z' Ͳ ^d > sd/KE^> ͗ ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϱ'Z' Ͳ EKZd, > sd/KE^> ͗ ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϯ'Z' Ͳ ^Khd, > sd/KE^> ͗ ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭ'Z' Ͳ t ^d > sd/KE^> ͗ ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮZKK&W>EͲ 'Z'
From:Paul Esposti paul@forgeandbow.com
Subject:Fwd: 1309 Remington
Date:March 4, 2022 at 12:18 PM
To:Jordan Obermann jordan@forgeandbow.com
Jordan,
Please see below.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jason Baker <jason@advancedengineeringllc.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:58 PM
Subject: 1309 Remington
To: Paul Esposti <paul@forgeandbow.com>
Hi Paul,
As we discussed at 1309 Remington, I feel the home has good bones and was built
with quality above the standard of that time. The floors felt relatively level and solid,
and there were no indications of instability or significant post-construction
movement. The cracks in the north exterior wall near the northwest corner are from
minor differential settlement, they only require cosmetic repairs. The settlement
likely occurred due to the downspout draining next to that corner. I recommend
improving the drainage in all areas as best possible.
Several of the interior walls are bearing for the second floor and roof framing. So,
moving the walls around will require structural repairs. The extent of the repairs will
depend on what walls move and how much they move. Modifying the walls around
the bathrooms, between those rooms and the adjacent closets, will be fairly easy
and friendly to your budget. Modifying the hallway walls will be a larger task and
will have the highest cost for design and construction. Given this, if there are
thoughts of moving a hallway wall just a few inches it may not be worth the cost.
But as with any project, we can do anything the owners want to pay for. We won't
be able to do the structural design until your plans are done and some finish
materials are removed to allow better observation of the existing framing. Design
fees could range from approximately $2k to $8k for the house remodel, depending
on the scope of work.
At the garage, the roof is shot and needs to be removed. This building is not safe
to be in when there is snow on the roof. But the structure can be saved, I feel the
walls are mostly in good shape, just needing some repairs. I recommend new roof
framing and repairing the walls as needed. The roof framing could be single slope
rafters as it was, or could be manufactured trusses with various shapes/slopes.
You could even consider attic trusses to gain some storage space. The building
could use more shear wall on the west side, you should plan on eliminating one of
the garage doors. Design fees could range from approximately $1k to $3k for the
garage project, depending on the scope of work.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Jason E. Baker, P.E.
President/Principal
Advanced Engineering, LLC
229 12th Street SW, Loveland, CO 80537
970-278-1909 of9ce, 970-690-4616 cell
jason@advancedengineeringllc.com
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT March 9, 2023
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA230001
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 4965 Hogan Dr.
Owner: Laurie & Sean Morris
Petitioner: Sam Rudkin, Contractor
Zoning District: U-E
Code Section: 4.2(D)(2)(d)
Variance Request:
This is a request to encroach 5 feet into the 20-foot side setback along the south property line.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property is part of the southwest enclave annexation phase two. The subdivision was approved in the
county and the original building was built in approximately in 1970. This subdivision was then annexed into
the City in 2007.
Upon annexation into the City the property was zoned Urban Estate U-E. This was based upon the lot sizes
of the existing subdivision. The U-E requires a minimum of .5 acre lot.
Based on the larger lot size the U-E zone district requires a 20ft side-yard setback. However, at the time the
subdivision was approved and many of the original building were constructed the county’s required side-
yard setback was less than 20ft.
In 2016 the same request was presented to the Commission. At that time, the Commission did approve the
request. This variance did expire because a building permit was not issued nor work completed within six
months of the approval.
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 request will not be detrimental to the public good.
• Conditions from the last time the variance was approved have not changed.
• The south addition will be setback approximately the same distance as the building on the abutting
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 ZBA230001.
Variance Reasoning Statement
4965 Hogan Dr.
2/9/23
The owners of the property (Laurie & Sean Morris) had previously applied
for a setback variance on the South side of the Property to change it from 20 ft to
10 ft. They were approved for the variance but the builder died and subsequently
the variance expired. The property was zoned as an Urban Estate which has a
much larger side setback than most residential properties in Fort Collins. We
would like to re-request that variance for a 10 ft setback on the south side of the
property so that we can build an addition. The property will still maintain
comfortable spacing between the new addition and the property
edge/neighboring structures.
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT March 9, 2023
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA230002
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 1316 Whedbee St.
Owner: Patty Huntley/Steve Nelson
Petitioner: Chris Gray, Architect
Zoning District: N-C-L
Code Section: 4.7(F)(1)(f)
Variance Request:
This is a request to have a 0.25:12 roof pitch over the primary dwelling entry porch and attached garage.
Minimum roof pitch is 2:12.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was annexed and plat in 1924 part of the LC Moore’s Third Addition. The existing house was
constructed in 1928. It is unclear the number of alterations that have occurred since original construction.
The Neighborhood Conservation Low Density District (N-C-L) includes standards to promote and preserve
the existing character of the neighborhood. It was found that a roof pitch less than 2:12 did not meet the
character of this area.
The neighborhood does have select number of varying roof pitches that are similar to the proposed pitch.
There are also some roof pitches not in compliance. However, those out of compliance tend to be
architectural features and not the primary roof.
If buildings were built not in compliance with roof pitches prior to this standard being adopted, new additions
could match existing roof pitches.
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 variance is for a portion of the building.
• The compliant roof can be seen from all sides of the 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 ZBA230002.
and reviewed by the Building Department separately.
Application Request
for Variance from the Land Use Code
The Land Use Review Commission has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements
of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Land Use Review Commission shall not authorize any use in a zoning
district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Commission 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
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 Land Use Review Commission 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, City Hall Council Chambers
(instructions will be emailed to the applicant the Monday prior to the hearing)
Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m.
Variance Address Petitioner’s Name,
if not the Owner
City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship
to the Owner is
Zip Code Petitioner’s Address
Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone #
Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email
Zoning District Additional
Representative’s Name
Justification(s) Choose One from List Representative’s Address
Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative’s Phone #
Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative’s Email
Reasoning
WRITTEN STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST REQUIRED VIA
SEPARATE DOCUMENT.
Date Signature
Building Code requirements will be determined
Chris Gray Digitally signed by Chris Gray
DN: C=US, E=chris@bldgcollective.com,
O="bldg.collective a+d", CN=Chris Gray
Date: 2023.02.14 12:02:08-07'00'
February 14, 2023
City of Fort Collins Zoning Department
281 N College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: 1316 Whedbee St., Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals,
I am an architect writing on behalf of our clients, Patty Huntley and Steve Nelson, who are the
owners of 1316 Whedbee Street located in the NCL District in Fort Collins. We have submitted
a building permit application for a new, one-story residence on the property. The design that
was submitted included a primary, mono-pitch roof at a 1:12 slope and a secondary, low slope
roof for the attached garage. The entry porch roof was also designed and submitted with a low
slope roof. The comments on our permit application from the zoning department pointed out a
minimum roof slope regulation in this district which referenced Code Section 4.7(F)(1)(f) which
states the minimum slope for a roof is to be 2:12.
We have modified the original design (included in this variance request) so that the primary roof
conforms to this 2:12 minimum slope regulation. What we are asking for in the variance
process is to keep the original design of the low slope roofs over the garage and entry porch.
Our clients have lived on this property for many years and are very sensitive to keeping the
design of their new home in character with the surrounding neighborhood. The one-story
design and its resulting low maximum height fits with the nature of many of the homes in the
district. Additionally, there are roughly 8% of the homes in the district that have low sloped roof
elements. There are a few properties that are within several blocks of our client’s home that
have low sloped roof elements. These properties are outlined in our attached presentation.
We are advocating for a variance based on justification #3 nominal, inconsequential way. We
do not believe that the secondary, low slope roof elements of this proposed design represent a
divergence from the Land Use Code standards. There are existing homes in the district that
include low slope roof elements. The one-story structure fits well within the fabric of the
neighborhood, and the low slope roof elements do not detract from or negatively impact the
character of the district.
In conclusion, we respectfully request that the board grant this variance for 1316 Whedbee
Street to allow for the low sloped roof elements. We thank you very much for your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris Gray
Architect / Principal
bldg.collective architecture + design
chris@bldgcollective.com
720-841-4185
'1'1/,1(2)+$/)/27 ( %/8(6358&(75((
)52176(7%$&.
6,'(6(7%$&.
6,'(6(7%$&.
%$&.6(7%$&.
3523(57</,1(6
(
3523(57</,1(1
:
3523(57</,1(6
:
3523(57</,1(6
(
6&833(5$1''2:1632876&833(5$1''2:163287352326('$&&(6625<%8,/',1* %8,/',1*
%
'2:1632876&833(5$1''2:163287'2:163287
&21&5(7(3$7,2
3$7,2%(/2::22')(1&(:22')(1&($//(<:+('%((675((7&21&5(7(/$1'6&$3(:$//&21&5(7(67(36&21&5(7(67(36&21&5(7(/$1'6&$3(:$//&21&5(7(5(7$,1,1*:$//&21&5(7(/$1'6&$3(:$//&21&5(7(/$1'6&$3(:$//6&833(5$1''2:163287352326('':(//,1*39$55$< ),1$//$<2877%' (;,67,1*&85%&87&21&5(7('5,9(:$<6/23('0(0%5$1(726&833(560,16/23(
/,1(2)+$/)/27
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
6,7(3/$1 352326('
6,7(3/$1 (;,67,1* 6758&785$/&225',1$7,21 3(50,7 3(50,79 3(50,7 *$5 9 /$1'86(352-(&7,1)250$7,21 )257&2//,16/$1'86(&2'(9(56,21 0$< 3523(57<6,=( 0($685(' VI0$;,080$//2:$%/($5($$//2:('VI )&/8& ' D 0$;,080$//2:$%/($5($3(5&(17$//2:('352326('727$/$5($VI 6((6+((7*6,=(2)5($5+$/)2)/27 0($685(' VI0$;,080$//2:$%/($5($215($5+$/)2)/27VI )&/8& ' 352326('$5($21%$&./27 VI6((6+((7*0$;$//2:('6725,(6$%29(*5$'(6725,(6352326('6725,(6$%29(*5$'(6725<0$;$//2:('+(,*+7$&&(6625<%8,/',1*6
352326('$&&(6625<%8,/',1*+(,*+7
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522)0(0%5$1(522)0(7$/3$5$3(7&$36&833(572/2:(5522)'2:163287$$'2:1632876&833(5$1''2:1632876&833(5$1''2:163287*877(5*877(5*877(5*877(5327(17,$/$5($2)396,=($02817 ),1$/$55$1*(0(177%'&/(5(6725<3/$16(($$$
&85%02817('6.</,*+7
&
&%$$%&
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
,
),77,1*%(/2:0,/32/<(7+</(1(62,/*$65(7$5'(59(173,3(7+528*+6,1*/(9(1767$&.72522) 7(50,1$7(0,1,080$%29(522)3(5,5&$)
522)3/$1
522)3/$1 &/(5(6725<3/$1 6758&785$/&225',1$7,21 3(50,7 3(50,79
Requested variance is for these two roofs
/9/
/9/
$$$$$&723$5$3(7
&5$:/
723/$7((175<
$%$ (;,67,1**5$'(352326('*5$'(
/9/
$$$$$$$$%%$723$5$3(7
&5$:/
723/$7((175<
(;,67,1**5$'(352326('*5$'((;7(172)/$1'6&$3(:$//6
/9/
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
1 6287+(/(9$7,21
1 :(67(/(9$7,21(;7(5,25),1,6+(60$7(5,$/6 520$1%5,&. 3(7(56(17(*/.2/80%$675(7&+(5%21'256,0 5$,16&5((13$1(/6 67(1,&2/253$1(/256,0 &$67,13/$&(&21&5(7( %2$5')250&21&5(7( %5$.(0(7$/ 720$7&+:,1'2:6 67((/&2/801 3$,17('720$7&+:,1'2:6 522)75,0 720$7&+:,1'2:6 3$5$3(7&$3%5$.(0(7$/ 720$7&+:,1'2:6 *877(5 720$7&+:,1'2:6 6&833(5 720$7&+:,1'2:6 29(5)/2:6&833(5 67$1',1*6($00(7$/522) &21&5(7(6,// 67((//,17(/ 3$,17('720$7&+:,1'2:6 &21&5(7(67$',806($7,1* 3DLQW%ODFN )OH[LEOHYLQ\OFRORUFRRUGLQDWHGWRSDQHOVHOHFWLRQ
6287+3$7,2:,1'2::$//(/(9$7,21 6758&785$/&225',1$7,21 3(50,7 3(50,79
/9/
( 723ODWH
$$$$%&&$%$%$%$%723$5$3(7
$% (;,67,1**5$'(352326('*5$'(/9/
$$$$$<=<&%$723$5$3(7
&5$:/
723/$7((175<
$%$(;,67,1**5$'(352326('*5$'(
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
1 1257+(/(9$7,21
1 ($67(/(9$7,21 6758&785$/&225',1$7,21 3(50,7 3(50,79
$$$$$$
327(17,$/$5($2)396,=($02817 ),1$/$55$1*(0(177%'522)02817('39$55$<$$$$$$$&&(6625<
%&$67((/&2/8015( 6758&785$/67((/&2/8015( 6758&785$/&21&5(7(3$7,2
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
522)3/$1 $&&(6625<%8,/',1*
3/$1 $&&(6625<%8,/',1* 3(50,7 *$5 3(50,7 *$5 9
$ 1 $&&)/225
$ 1 $&&)/225
$ 1 $&&)/225
$%&$ 1 $&&)/225
522)02817('39$55$<$ 1 $&&)/225
$
1 $&&)/225
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
(OHYDWLRQ :(67$&&(6625<
(OHYDWLRQ ($67$&&(6625<
(OHYDWLRQ 1257+$&&(6625<
(OHYDWLRQ 6287+$&&(6625<
$&&(6625<(:6(&7,21
$&&(6625<166(&7,21(;7(5,25),1,6+(60$7(5,$/6 520$1%5,&. 3(7(56(17(*/.2/80%$675(7&+(5%21'256,0 5$,16&5((13$1(/6 67(1,&2/253$1(/256,0 &$67,13/$&(&21&5(7( %2$5')250&21&5(7( %5$.(0(7$/ 720$7&+:,1'2:6 67((/&2/801 3$,17('720$7&+:,1'2:6 522)75,0 720$7&+:,1'2:6 3$5$3(7&$3%5$.(0(7$/ 720$7&+:,1'2:6 *877(5 720$7&+:,1'2:6 6&833(5 720$7&+:,1'2:6 29(5)/2:6&833(5 67$1',1*6($00(7$/522) &21&5(7(6,// 67((//,17(/ 3$,17('720$7&+:,1'2:6 &21&5(7(67$',806($7,1* 3DLQW%ODFN )OH[LEOHYLQ\OFRORUFRRUGLQDWHGWRSDQHOVHOHFWLRQ 6758&785$/&225',1$7,213(50,7 *$5 3(50,7 *$5 9
Previous Design w 1:12 shed roofThis is the design which was initially submitted for permit
Updated Design w 2:12 shed roof This is the revised design which we are seeking a variance for.
/9/
$$$$$$$$%%$723$5$3(7
723/$7((175<
(;,67,1**5$'(352326('*5$'((;7(17 2) /$1'6&$3( :$//6
/9/
$$$$$$$$%%$723$5$3(7
723/$7((175<
(;,67,1**5$'(352326('*5$'((;7(17 2) /$1'6&$3( :$//6/9/
$$$$$<=<&%$723$5$3(7
&5$:/
723/$7((175<
$%$
/9/
$$$$$<=<&%$723$5$3(7
&5$:/
723/$7((175<
$%$Previous Design 1:12 shed roofUpdated Design 2:12 shed roofWest ElevationEast ElevationWest ElevationEast Elevation
$$$$$$
327(17,$/$5($2)396,=($02817 ),1$/$55$1*(0(177%'522)02817('39$55$<Roof Plan - Detached GaragePrevious Design 1:12 shed Updated Design 2:12 shed$
edeeddedd1:12 she111:2hheeeeeeeeehheddddd$$$$$$
327(17,$/$5($2)396,=($02817 ),1$/$55$1*(0(177%'522)02817('39$55$<$
ddddeeeedd2:12 she222:22hheeheheddddd22$ 1 $&&)/225
$ 1 $&&)/225
$ 1 $&&)/225
$ 1 $&&)/225
West ElevationEast ElevationWest ElevationEast Elevation
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
60(0%5$1(522)0(7$/3$5$3(7&$36&833(572/2:(5522)'2:163287$$'2:1632876&833(5$1''2:1632876&833(5$1''2:163287****877(5327(16,=($&/(5(6725<3/$16(($$$
&85%02817('6.</,*+7
&
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
60(0%5$1(522)0(7$/3$5$3(7&$36&833(572/2:(5522)'2:163287$$'2:1632876&833(5$1''2:1632876&833(5$1''2:163287****877(5327(16,=($&/(5(6725<3/$16(($$$
&85%02817('6.</,*+7Roof PlanPrevious Design 1:12 shed Updated Design 2:12 shed
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
60(0%5$1(522)0(7$/3$5$3(7&$36&833(572/2:(5522)'2:163287$$'2:1632876&833(5$1''2:1632876&833(5$1''2:163287****877(5327(16,=($&/(5(6725<3/$16(($$$
&85%02817('6.</,*+7
&
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
60(0%5$1(522)0(7$/3$5$3(7&$36&833(572/2:(5522)'2:163287$$'2:1632876&833(5$1''2:1632876&833(5$1''2:163287****877(5327(16,=($&/(5(6725<3/$16(($$$
&85%02817('6.</,*+7Roof PlanPrevious Design 1:12 shed Updated Design 2:12 shed
$$&
ddeddeeeeheehhhhsssss2 22221221111:1::11111111:11222sshheeedd2:12 shed222:11222ssshheeedd222:11222sshheeedd2:12 shed22:1122sshhed221122sshheeddddddddddd
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
60(0%5$1(522)0(7$/3$5$3(7&$36&833(572/2:(5522)'2:163287$$'2:1632876&833(5$1''2:1632876&833(5$1''2:163287****877(5327(16,=($&/(5(6725<3/$16(($$$
&85%02817('6.</,*+7
&
Updated Design 2:12 shed$&
Variance request is for these two roofs:2:12 shed222:11222ssshheeedd222:11222sshheeedd2:12 shed22:1122sshhed221122sshheeddddddddddd
We believe the higher of the low slope roofs, hidden behind parapet, really hasno impact on the neighborhood. The canopy over the entrance shows a lowslope expression which is fairly common within the neighborhood.
pgThe Commission 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 or 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. We are respecting the heritage and domestic scale of the neighborhood and believe the visible entrance roof is a minor expression that is seen throughoutboth NCL districts and in very close proximity to the home at 1316 Whedbee.
111888 oooofffff ttttthhhhheeee aaaappprrroooxxxiiiimmmmaaattteeelllyyyy 22222255555 hhhoooommmeeessss wwwiitthhhhiiinnnn tttthhhhhiiissss NNNNCCCLLL hhhhaaaavvvvveeeee lllloooowww sssllloooooppppeee rrrrroooooooofffsss --- aaabbbooouuuttt 88888%%%% ooofff tttthhheeee nnnnneeeiiiigggghhhbbbooorrrrhhhhoooooooddd...113333111666 WWWhhhheeedddbbeeeee ssstttFCMapsHHHHHomes wwitthh llooww ssllooppeeeee rrooooffssMap of Zoning District showing site and other homes with Low slope roofsloperoofs
1316 Whedbee2 Circle Drive
613 ELakeSSt.t.1316 Whedbee
282 Circle dr
26660 0 0CiCiCircrrle dr
305 Circrle dr
Thank you!
March 2, 2023
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
The City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO. 890521
Re: Appeal: ZBA230002
1316 Whedbee Street
Owner: Patty Huntley/Steve Nelson
Dear Mr. Beals:
We, Sue and Ed Sparling of 1306 Whedbee Street, are writing regarding a variance on the
property at 1316 Whedbee requested by Patty Huntley and Steve Nelson.
This variance is requesting a flat roof on the awning over the entry and the roof along the north
side of the proposed house which is immediately adjacent to our property.
- This is nice because the flat (lower) roof lessens the visual impact of the new building.
- Also, we like the brick facing on the flat roof part of the house because it is in keeping with
the brick houses in the neighborhood, like ours. The proposed color and siding for the
remaining exterior is also something we appreciate.
- Since there are several flat roofs in our neighborhood, we think this new design will fit in well.
Patty and Steve have gone to great pains to have a design which will suit their needs; plus, the
neighborhood will be enhanced by this new residence.
If you have any questions regarding our feelings about this variance, please feel free to contact
us by phone at 970-407-1373 or email at edandsuesparling@comcast.net
Sincerely,
Sue and Ed Sparling
1306 Whedbee Street