HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/2023 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting
David Carron
Nathaniel 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
MAY 11, 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, May 11, 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 Agenda – May11, 2023
1. APPEAL ZBA230008
Address: 1415 Blue Spruce Dr.
Owner: Blue Ocean Real Estate Management LLC
Petitioner: Dan Olind, General Contractor, ETC Contracting
Zoning District: C-S
Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3)
Project Description:
This is a request to install an 8-foot-tall fence in the side yard and rear yard setback area; the
maximum height permitted is 6 feet.
2. APPEAL ZBA230009
Address: 318 N Sherwood St.
Owner/Petitioner: Jason Harrington
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8(D)(5), 4.8(E)(6)(a), 4.8(F)(1)(d)
Project Description:
This is a request for three variances for a new accessory building with habitable space:
1. Request for the total floor area for an accessory building with habitable space to be 1,198 square
feet; the maximum square footage allowed is 600 square feet.
2. Request to exceed the eave height for an accessory building with habitable space by 4 feet 6
inches; the maximum allowed height is 13 feet.
3. Request to have a portion of the second floor overhang the first-floor front wall.
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Ian Shuff, Chair
Dave Lawton, Vice Chair
David Carron
Nathaniel 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
APRIL 13, 2023
8:30 AM
• CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
All Commission members were present with the exception of member Coffman.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING (March 9, 2023 Minutes)
Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by San Filippo to approve the March 9,
2023, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously.
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda)
-None-
• APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE
1. APPEAL ZBA23003
Address: 2615 Chase Dr.
Owner/Petitioner: Brian and Tamora Hood
Zoning District: L-M-N
Code Section: 3.5.2(E)(3)
Project Description:
There are two requests for an accessory structure:
1. Request to encroach 6.5 feet into the required 8-foot rear setback.
2. Request to encroach 3.5 feet into the required 5-foot side setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located mid-block on Chase Dr, north of Topeka Ln. The request is to get a building permit
for a shed that has already been installed. The shed is approximately 1.5 feet from the rear property
line and from the side property line. The shed is the size and height that requires a building permit.
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Land Use Review Commission Page 2 Minutes – April 13, 2023
When a building permit is required for an existing structure, it is required to meet the setbacks of the
zone district. In this case, that means an 8-foot setback from the rear property line and a 5-foot
setback from the side property line.
Beals presented images of the property that show the shed in its current location; pictures show how
close it is to the rear and side property lines; there is also a patio that extends from the back of the
house into the yard. The shed location was chosen so as to maintain some amount of usable yard
area.
In evaluating this request, Staff determined that the subdivision was originally platted with easements
along the property lines. There is a 5-foot drainage utility easement on the rear property line, as well
as a 5-foot drainage utility easement on the side property line. This means that even if this
Commission were to grant a variance for the requested 1.5-foot setbacks, the applicant would still
have to either move the shed out of the easements, or would need to request an easement vacation
from the Engineering Dept.
At this time, Staff is recommending allowing the encroachment to match the easements, meaning a 5-
foot setback from both the rear and side property lines. That is one option; the other option would be
to grant the variance as requested, and then allow the applicant to pursue an easement vacation from
Engineering. Additionally, the Commission could table the item until an easement vacation is
achieved. Beals stated that he was unsure if utilities were currently running within the easement, or if
the utilities partners would be amenable to vacate the easement. Therefore, it would be a risk to
approve a variance without knowing if an easement vacation would be permissible.
Chair Shuff asked Beals if, from a building permit standpoint, an accessory building under a certain
height does not require a building permit or have to meet any setback requirements, and what that
height is? Beals responded that 8 feet is the maximum height allowable without a permit. Shuff asked
for the height of the shed in question; Beals stated the height of the shed is over 8 feet, but no sure of
the exact height.
Commission member San Filippo asked staff if a third possibility would be for the Commission to
approve the request as-is, with the applicant agreeing on-record that if there was work to be done in
the easement then the applicant would move the shed, at their expense, to allow the work to occur?
Beals stated that would be out of the scope of this Commission, as it does not deal with easements.
That issue would need to be taken up with the City Engineer.
Commission member Lawton asked if the shed was located on a concrete pad or free-standing? Beals
responded that he was unsure and would look to the applicant to clarify during their presentation.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicants Brain and Tamora Hood, 2615 Chase Dr., addressed the Commission and offered
comment. Mr. Hood began by stating that he did not have new information above what had been
presented and was looking forward to answering questions. Mr. Hood also apologized to the
Commission for not being aware that a building permit was needed six years ago when the shed was
constructed; the contractor at the time informed them that no permit was needed.
In response to a question of height from Chair Shuff Hood stated that the shed is approximately 9-feet
tall. Additionally, Hood noted that the shed is built on a foundation of pressure-treated 4”x4” timbers.
Hood stated that they would be amenable to some sort of agreement regarding movement of the shed
if/when easement work is needed as discussed by San Filippo.
Hood stated the shed has stood for the past six years without any issue. Hood recently served on his
HOA Board, and during that time the Board had to enforce a CCR violation who, by process of
elimination and timing, seems to have filed a complaint against the shed as a retaliatory measure.
Hood noted that while CCIOA [Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act] may not pertain to
municipalities, it does have a stature that HOAs only have one year to enforce HOA violations. No
violations have been noted regarding the shed in the previous six years.
Continuing, Hood noted that as soon as they received their notice, they immediately called Building
Services and spoke with staff-person Jacob Hoffman. Hoffman was very helpful and performed an on-
Land Use Review Commission Page 3 Minutes – April 13, 2023
site meeting and acknowledged that the City is often used as a tool when neighbors feel there is a
dispute or an “axe to grind”. The Hoods also contacted two experts; the company that originally built
the shed and Colorado Shed Movers. Both advised that custom-built sheds are not meant to be
portable, meaning that whether the shed is moved one inch or across the yard, it would risk damaging
the structural integrity of the shed. At that point it would not be repairable and would need to be torn
down. Even if the shed were to be re-located, it would require a complete re-design of existing
irrigation systems and would greatly reduce usable portions of the back yard.
Hood stated that their property manager and HOA Board Member submitted a letter that described
HOA policy that does not allow the placement of sheds but in the corner of rear yards. Most shed
owners in the HOA have neglected to seek HOA approval and/or building permits. If the shed were to
be moved, they would need to address the HOA policy as it is currently drafted. During a walk around
the neighborhood, the Hood’s counted no less than 19 sheds that were located in a similar manner to
their shed. How would this requirement apply to all the other existing sheds? No one would even be
aware of this had complaint been lodged in a retaliatory manner. Hood then reiterated his reasoning
and justifications for the current placement of the shed as well as the variance request.
Commission member San Filippo asked if the drainage and utility easements were currently being
used and/or filled with utilities? Hood stated the drainage utility to the north between their property and
a neighbor’s is active; there may also be a telecom line in the rear easement, but there is no
electrical/water/sewer.
Public Comment:
Audience member David Bonelli, 2609 Chase Dr. appeared in support of the variance request. Mr.
Bonelli appeared in support of the request and stated that the shed in question in no way impedes the
use or enjoyment of their property. Placing a shed in the middle of the yard, to meet setback and
easements, would not allow full use of the yard.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Lawton asked staff if the shed height was at the approved maximum of 8 feet,
would the Commission even be hearing this appeal? Beals responded no, if the shed were under 8
feet in height and less than 120 sq ft, it would not require a variance from this commission. Lawton
asked staff if it would still be an issue from the easement standpoint; Beals responded that easements
could still pose a problem in this scenario, but that is outside of the scope of this commission and is
instead within the purview of the City Engineer.
Commission member Lawton offered his opinion that the Commission appears to be a bit “hamstrung”
with what we can approve. In one case or another, despite what this Commission can approve, the
shed may still have to be moved due to easements. Moving the shed could potentially destroy the
shed, which is not the desired outcome.
Commission member San Filippo wondered whether the applicant would be willing to carry the
application until they are able to contact the City Engineer to determine if a waiver can be granted
regarding the utility easements. That may then inform how this commission could address the setback
variance request in the future.
Commission member McCoy stated that he has seen this scenario before many times in the
community within his professional work as a real estate broker, wherein sheds are placed within
easements. McCoy stated his understanding that when a homeowner places a shed (or similar) within
an easement, they do so at their own risk. The shed may never have to be moved depending on
how/when the easement may need to be accessed in order to service or place utilities. McCoy asked
Beals what his experience has been with the City/Engineering Dept.’s determination regarding
structures placed in easements. Beals stated that he has previously seen scenarios where the
Engineer requested that structures (sheds, garages, above-ground pools) be removed from
easements. Regarding drainage easements, those are intended to move stormwater away from
structures and drain towards catchments. Even if that type of drainage doesn’t have active utilities
installed, it is still an important piece of our stormwater infrastructure.
Commission member Carron offered his agreement with the previous statements and feels that even if
the setback variance were to be granted today, the issue of the easement remains outside of the
Land Use Review Commission Page 4 Minutes – April 13, 2023
scope of this commission. Therefore, it may not be best to reach a decision today, prior to the
applicant engaging the City Engineer regarding the easement.
Chair Shuff commented that from his perspective, the height of the existing shed could be considered
nominal and inconsequential and does not present an issue. This commission in the past has dealt
with other variances that are dependent on additional permitting or decision, mostly having to do with
Historic Preservation and associated reviews. What are the options available to this commission? We
could recommend alignment with the easements, per staff recommendation: we could consider
approving existing shed location with additional conditions/agreements regarding moving of the shed
if/when needed to clear the easement; or the item could be tabled. (Chris Hayes, Assistant City
Attorney, advised the commission that the question to be decided by the commission today relates
solely to Land Use Code Section 2.10.4, and the standards set forth in that section. To the extent that
there may be future issues with Engineering, that could be addressed at a later date).
Shuff commented from a justification standpoint, if a motion is made based on staff recommendations
that is one option. If a motion is made allowing the shed to remain where it is, we must ask if the
height of the shed is considered nominal and inconsequential enough based on what would be
allowed if it was slightly smaller.
Lawton asked to clarify, that we could approve the variance as presented today with the condition that
it must also be reviewed and approved by City Engineering. Carron offered some discussion on what
the conditions may be. Beals added that the appeal could be approved without conditions, and the
applicant would still need to go before Engineering – that is one option. If the request were denied by
Engineering, the applicant would need to submit another variance request to this commission, which
would also require a new application fee. Beals explained that the item could also be tabled today,
which would give the applicants time to engage with Engineering and still be able to continue this
discussion under the current application, at a later date, and see what would be allowed.
San Filippo asked if the applicant would be amenable to having the application tabled, to allow as
much time as possible to work with Engineering to determine whether or not the easement needs to
vacated?
Applicant Hood, while acknowledging the time of the Board and his own time and costs, agreed that
the best course of action today is for the item to be tabled. That would allow them to speak with
Engineering at other departments as needed, without having to pay an additional fee,
Carron asked if the commission were to grant the requested 18-inch setbacks now, and Engineering
later determined that it must be moved back to a 5-foot setback, is that still within the variance? Shuff
stated that might start the “vicious cycle” of uncertainties between variance requests and engineering
requirements.
San Filippo asked if the item is tabled, it is done so without further notice? Beals commented that is
correct – the applicant would have six months to come before the commission again under the same
application. San Filippo commented that six months should be adequate to attain the necessary
information from Engineering and other departments as needed.
Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to TABLE ZBA230003. The item
may be re-heard by the Commission within six months of today’s hearing date.
Yeas: McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff, Vogel, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS TABLED
Land Use Review Commission Page 5 Minutes – April 13, 2023
2. APPEAL ZBA230004
Address: 137 2nd St
Owner/ Petitioner: Darel N. Emmot
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d)
Project Description:
This is a request for a single-family dwelling to encroach 1.63 feet in the required 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 2nd Street, just south of Logan Ave. The request is for a new addition to an
existing house, to meet the existing encroachment of the existing house.
Beals showed pictures of the property, describing the existing portion that is planned for demolition as
well as the rendering of the proposed new portion. Outside walls along the front would be maintained;
the new addition would extend to an existing garage and would meet the current encroachment of the
current structures.
Elevation drawings were presented, showing front and side elevations, including the portion that would
encroach into the side property.
Beals noted the original structure was built into the setback; there are numerous other homes within
the neighborhood that were similarly built into the setback as well. Beals noted, however, that most of
these structures are single-story, and the proposed new design places the tallest wall elevation within
the side setback.
Chair Shuff asked in this residential zone district, is there any eave-height restriction? Beals clarified
that within the R-L district, there is not a restriction on eave-height.
Shuff also asked clarifying questions regarding some of the measurements. Shuff asked if we know
approximately what portion of the existing building is remaining, and from a lineal-foot standpoint, how
much is being proposed within the encroachment vs. existing. Based on the provided renderings, it
appears to Shuff that the proposed addition would place more linear feet of wall within the
encroachment than what is there currently. Beals agreed with Shuff’s observations, estimating that
more than 50% of the existing structure is planned to be demolished. More than 50% of what is left is
being built up. The length of the addition is longer than existing.
Commission member San Filippo asked that if the request were to be approved, would we also be
approving the existing structure remaining at a setback of 1.63 feet? Beals answered that the existing
structure is not part of the current request and is considered “legal non-conforming”. If/when the
existing structure were to be demolished, they do not have a right to build back to current but would
instead need to be built to current code.
Shuff summarized that if the proposed addition were to setback 1.63 feet, and they left the existing
portion not to be demoed, that would be allowed because existing walls can be maintained within their
setback. Beals responded that what is out there currently, if they were to build a second story above
existing, the second story would be required to conform to code as well because it is considered new
construction.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Darel N. Emmot, 137 2nd Street, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Emmot
stated for clarification that the proposed addition is not actually a two-story, but instead includes two
rows of high windows for the purpose of solar collection. The space above the additional bathroom
and bedrooms is actually quite short and is considered a storage space. Therefore, it is really a tall
one-story.
Emmot clarified that the 1.63 feet identified is the measurement of the encroachment into the setback,
so the setback is maintained at 3.37 feet. In respect to the existing structure, the back-half is built to a
much lower quality than the front half of the residence. Where one could, by default, have a longer
section at the existing setback by extending from the existing structure. The problem is that the
Land Use Review Commission Page 6 Minutes – April 13, 2023
existing structure has a very shallow foundation that would have to be mitigated without being
destroyed. Therefore, the two main advantages the application is seeking are to maintain the
continuity of the north side of the house without having a 1.63-foot jog at the point of joining, as well as
the creation of an additional 68 square feet (which is about 10% of the overall addition).
Emmot also noted that the surrounding neighborhood has many structures that are within the setback,
including their own. Emmot cited a count of 92 different structures in the neighborhood that are
currently within the setback. Therefore, the request does not pose a hardship to neighbors or the
context of the neighborhood.
Chair Shuff asked for the height of the tall eave included in the renderings: Emmot responded the
eave height reaches a maximum of 21 feet. Shuff asked how close the adjacent property is to the
property line; Emmot responded the distance is measured to be 18 feet.
Commission member San Filippo asked applicant Emmot if they had given any consideration to
meeting the required 5-foot setback, due to the fact that the proposed is considered new construction?
This would potentially create a jog along the north wall, but San Filippo feels the applicant would have
the latitude to do so give that this is a full demolition of that portion of the existing structure. A variance
could be avoided all together if a 5-foot setback were to be maintained. Emmot answered this would
reduce the planned addition by about 68 square feet; that doesn’t seem like the preference given a
choice. While it does not represent a big hardship, it may require incorporating the existing foundation
into the new/proposed structure.
San Filippo commented that he was not so much troubled by the eave height/second story, if in fact
the setback is complied with. San Filippo recently toured this area and observed many homes that
have “mushroomed”, where second story additions have been added on top/behind the existing one-
story residences.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Chair Shuff offered his opinion that even though this is a one-story with a loft, it is still a very tall
building for the site. It feels like the same ceiling height could be achieved for the loft without as much
heel length in the truss. Even beyond that, it is a taller faced up against an encroachment. Hardship
justification is not apparent, and there appears to be several other options that could be pursued with
the design of the addition. Based on those aspects, Shuff is not comfortable with approving the
request.
Commission member Carron agreed with the statements offered by Shuff, stating that because of the
extent of the demolition and rebuild, this addition is essentially new construction (as opposed to
renovation), and building code concepts tend to support the notion that new construction ought to be
built to meet current code.
Commission member San Filippo offered his agreement, noting that the hardship cited seems to be
purely self-created and could be avoided with compliance with the code and setback requirements.
Commission member Vogel agreed with the statements offered by members and noted the lack of
supporting letters or correspondence from neighbors. The impact on the neighborhood is therefore
unknown and potentially detrimental.
Carron added that the proposed addition wall is located on the north side of the property, so shading
issues on adjacent lots need to be considered as well.
Commission member Lawton commented that there are multiple opportunities to correct and revise
the design at this point, so it is hard to find justification for hardship at this point.
Land Use Review Commission Page 7 Minutes – April 13, 2023
San Filippo made a motion, seconded by Carron, to DENY ZBA230004 for the following
reasons: a two-story building encroaching into the setback creates increased looming
structure along the north property line; though other buildings in the neighborhood encroach
into the side setbacks these buildings all tend to be one-story; 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.
Yeas: McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff, Vogel, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED
3. APPEAL ZBA230006
Address: 5238 Apple Dr
Owner/Petitioner: Patrick and Karen Murphy
Zoning District: U-E
Code Section: 3.5.2(F)(1)
Project Description:
This is a request to use chain link fencing with PDS slats as screening material for the outdoor storage
of materials and inventory. Chain link fencing with or without slats cannot be used for screening
purposes.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located at the corner of Apple Drive and Apple Blossom Lane. The request is to build a new
addition to the house that would include an attached garage. The proposed garage would be forward
of the primary residence by 12 feet. In the current garage standards, garage doors are required to be
recessed behind the primary wall of the residence façade by at least 4 feet.
To note, this neighborhood was originally developed in the County and was later annexed into the city
after most of the homes had been built. Most of the homes do not comply with the standard.
Additionally, the diagonal orientation of the home on the corner lot makes it more difficult to determine
what is considered the “front” property line. One way to comply with the standard is to “side load” the
garage, so the garage door doesn’t face the property line. This situation is unique in that the residence
on the lot angles to the corner apex, rather than parallel to a lot line.
The proposed garage would maintain a significant distance away from the required setbacks. Within
this subdivision, there are no sidewalks at this time. Elevations drawings presented show the current
structure compared to what is being proposed.
Commission member San Filippo asked if the proposed garage is intended to be a two- or three-door
garage? Beals responded that, based on the supplied renderings, it appears that the proposed garage
would be changed from the existing two-car space to a larger three-door garage to accommodate
vehicles and perhaps and RV.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Patrick Murphy, 5238 Apple Dr., addressed the Commission and offered comment. Murphy
stated they currently have a 1.5-car garage and lots of space, so with the addition would like to create
a larger 3-car garage in order to take advantage of the space on the lot. Murphy directed discussion to
the code issue of recessed garage.
Murphy explained that he was not aware of this code requirement when initially working with his
architect. The first plans included a garage that was 14 feet in front of the home, then was adjusted to
8 feet in front of the home. That still maintained 25+ feet from the setback.
When walking down the street, the garage is off to the left and is partially obscured by vegetation. All
houses are angled in different directions, and few houses face each other head-on. The proposed
garage would not obscure any existing views and is not noticeable from the street level.
Land Use Review Commission Page 8 Minutes – April 13, 2023
Murphy stated that his architect had advised that an 8-foot extension of the garage may be acceptable
under code given the presence of a front porch; Murphy stated he never envisioned an 8-foot
extension and is thus asking for the garage to extend 12 feet beyond the face of the home. At this
size, Murphy is confident that the garage impact would be nominal and inconsequential to both the
neighborhood and his lot.
Public Comment: -NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Lawton noted that due to the unusual nature of the lot and the meeting of the
required setbacks, the intent of the code to dissuade structures from being placed too close to the lot
lines is intrinsically met. Lawton stated his opinion that the proposed garage would be acceptable due
to the orientation of the lot and large setbacks previously noted in staff and applicant presentations.
Commission member Carron stated the proposed garage would not detract from the neighborhood
character. Due to the nature of this neighborhood being first developed in the County and later
annexed to the city, the proposed addition would maintain the current character of the neighborhood,
and its impact would be considered nominal and inconsequential.
Commission member San Filippo agreed with the previous statements of Lawton and Carron, adding
that he was cognizant of the fact that there are not persons in attendance today who are speaking in
opposition of the request. San Filippo also appreciated the large setback distance that would be
maintained between the garage and the lot line, despite the challenges posed by the “curse of the
corner lot”.
Chair Shuff agreed with the statements offered by other members and noted that this development is
unique compared to others due to the fact that it was originally within the county and was later
annexed to the city boundaries. Additionally, the applicant has demonstrated that a large setback
would be maintained even with the proposed new garage. Therefore, Shuff has no problems
supporting the application request.
Prior to a motion being made, applicant Murphy stated to the Commission that he would be happy with
a 14-foot extension of the garage past the primary residence wall; if not 14 feet, then 12 would be fine
as well. If neither of those measurements is acceptable, Murphy stated he would accept whatever the
Commission decides today. Shuff clarified that because the variance request called out a 12-foot
extension, and only have plans describing that dimension, they are limited to approving or denying
that dimension as requested/presented.
San Filippo added that because the request and notice both referenced the 12-foot dimension, the
Commission is limited to considering only that measurement. Murphy then stated that the notice he
received via mail indicated an 8-foot dimension being requested, which is incorrect. After multiple
attempts to reach the Zoning department, Murphy was able to speak to staff to indicate the correct
request dimension is 12 feet. [This is reflected in the Staff Report included in the Agenda Packet].
Beals indicated that the application materials listed both an 8- and 12-feet dimensions; the 12-foot
dimension was ultimately included in Staff Report and Agenda Packet. If the applicant would like to
request a 14-foot extension for the garage, the current item could be tabled and re-noticed, or a
decision could be made to approve/deny the request for a 12-foot extension for the garage. Shuff
clarified to the commission that the motion to approve or deny would be considering the 12-foot
extension as requested.
Carron made a motion, seconded by Vogel, to APPROVE ZBA230006 for the following reasons:
the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the existing neighborhood does not comply
with the garage standards; the house sits further back by more than double the required front
setback. 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: McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff, Vogel, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED
Land Use Review Commission Page 9 Minutes – April 13, 2023
4. APPEAL ZBA230007
Address: 6004 S College Ave
Owner: Spas R Us, dba Aqua Spas Inc
Petitioner: James Matt (“Jaws”) Davis, Owner
Zoning District: C-G
Code Section: 3.8.11(B)
Project Description:
This is a request to use chain link fencing with PDS slats as screening material for the outdoor storage
of materials and inventory. Chain link fencing with or without slats cannot be used for screening
purposes.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located north of E Skyway Drive, along South College Ave. The property consists of two
parcels, and both are under the ownership of the same owner.
The request is for a new business to move into the site from their current location further south along S
College Ave. The applicants are attempting to prepare the subject property for the move and new
business activities. With that, they would like outdoor storage. Under code, outdoor storage is required
to be screened. Our Land Use Code prohibits the use of chain-link fencing to be used for screening
purposes, regardless of whether the chain-link has slats installed or not. Chain link fence is allowable
for security purposes, but when it is used for screening purposes as well it is prohibited by code.
The request is to use the currently fenced area, as a storage area for inventory and use the chain-link
fence for screening purposes as well.
Beals presented aerial views of the property, noting the chain link fence is not present in the photos
and was installed more recently. Chain link fencing can be installed without a permit and is prohibited
from having any barbed wired (unless being used to hold livestock) and must be maintained at a
height of 6 feet or less. When items are to be stored outside on-premises, it triggers a requirement for
a screening fence.
Pictures of the property were presented by Beals, which show the current chain-link fence installed
with slatting. Beals explained that some portions of S College Ave have a frontage road in place,
though it is not maintained consistently along this area. In the future, there might be a change where
an existing, unimproved public right of way (Aran St) is improved and existing vehicle access from S
College Ave would be moved to Aran St.
Across Aran St, there is a residential neighborhood with a direct view of the rear of the subject
property and outdoor storage lot. Beals again noted that if the outdoor lot is to be used for storage
purposes, code requires that it be screened from public view.
Commission member San Filippo stated he was trying to understand the comment included in the
Staff Report, which states “The use for outdoor storage is currently being reviewed for approval
through a Minor Amendment process.” San Filippo asked if outdoor storage is permitted within this
zone, but only after seeking specific approval to do so? Beals clarified that this property needs to seek
approval for outdoor storage, as it has not previously been authorized for this property in the past.
Thus, there is a Minor Amendment application that will be reviewed for the outdoor storage allowance.
Part of that review is to verify that the site complies with the screening material that is required by
code. The Minor Amendment does not grant approval to use different types of materials for screening
purposes – that is what this Commission is deciding today. The Minor Amendment application will
need to be adjusted accordingly based on the approval/denial of the current request before the
Commission today.
San Filippo asked if this application is premature; Beals answered no. The business owners could
potentially move into the new location and submit a Minor Amendment application for outdoor storage
afterwards, or they could attempt to get the approval beforehand, like they are currently doing.
Land Use Review Commission Page 10 Minutes – April 13, 2023
Commission member McCoy asked Beals for clarification, as he understood that chain-link fencing is
acceptable for security purposes, but not for screening if/when the fenced area is used for storage or
even fleet vehicle parking. Beals stated that “storage” is considered to be any materials, supply
materials, products, or vehicles that are to be stored longer than 24 hours. If they wanted to simply
create a parking lot, then a security fence would be fine (assuming the lot conformed to parking lot
design standards). The intent here is to use the area for product and inventory storage, along with the
necessary trucks and lifts needed to move inventory.
Shuff commented that the Minor Amendment application seems logical at this point, as it is almost a
concurrent process to the variance request at this point.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicants James “Jaws” Davis, 6004 S College Ave, addressed the Commission and offered
comment. Davis stated that Aqua Spas has been in business more than 17 years, in a location just a
few buildings south of the subject property. The decision to move locations was made in part due to
some issues with the city regarding loading/unloading practices.
Davis explained the district used to be County and was then annexed into the city approximately 10
years ago. Thus, most of the buildings along this corridor had existent chain link fences. When Davis
began engaging the development process, he became aware of the need for a permit for outdoor
storage. Davis directed attention to aerial views of the property, noting that the building has always
had storage behind it. Also, the lot sits far enough back from College Ave that most of the storage area
is blocked or hard to see.
Once the area was annexed, the existing location of 6024 S College was negatively impacted due to
street changes that caused their loading docks to now be oriented sideways to the direction of semi
travel. Therefore, when semis come to make delivery, that stretch of road is blocked. Police have
made contact multiple times and have directed the semi drivers that they must place cones when
blocking the street to allow them to back up to the loading docks. Davis stated that approximately 6-9
months ago, city staff told them that they did not have the authority to put out cones, despite the
instructions from police.
Due to these difficulties, an alternative property was identified that would fulfill the needs of the
business. Aqua Spas has been in their current location for a long time and didn’t want to uproot and
relocate to a different part of town – the area is colloquially known as “spa row” because of the multiple
spa dealers. Davis stated the subject property was currently purchased by a neighboring property
owner and then soon after was sold to Davis/Aqua Spas. Davis stated the chain link fence was already
installed at the time of purchase.
The building fits the needs of Aqua Spas due to the ample storage and aesthetically pleasing nature of
the chain link fence. The current location at 6024 S College is not zoned for outdoor storage, though
there is an area that is currently fenced with chain link being used for storage. Davis stated that for
them to operate, they needed approval of the chain link in order gain approval of outdoor storage.
Davis commented that this entire area needs cleaning up, and they are attempting to do their part by
using nice chain link fence. Davis stated that in conversations with Zoning inspectors, inspectors have
acknowledged that many neighboring properties are not compliant, but have been grandfathered in.
When Davis pulled a permit for sign and electrical, it triggered the need for a permit/variance to allow
for outdoor storage. Over $300,000 has been invested in the location to bring it into compliance with
new zoning requirements.
Davis explained Aqua Spas operates six locations, but the Fort Collins store is used as the primary
inventory storage location and central delivery hub. The site has recently been improved with asphalt
and ADA parking spaces. The new location now takes deliveries fully off of Skyway and fully onto the
new property. Davis noted the frontage road in front of the property was very recently re-paved and is
now in much better condition than what is visible in the presentation pictures.
Public Comment:
Romika Chandra, Office Manger for Aqua Spas, addressed the Commission and offered comment.
Chandra stated that the new location compared to current is almost twice as big. Chandra asserted
Land Use Review Commission Page 11 Minutes – April 13, 2023
that the chain link fence was in place prior to the purchase by Aqua Spas. Chandra stated that in
previous discussion with Zoning staff, they were told that chain link fence was ok for security, and for
privacy purposes they could use irrigation cloth wrapped around the fence. Chandra commented that
for aesthetic reasons, this was not an acceptable solution.
While many of the neighboring properties along S College Ave have existent chain link fencing, none
have slatting installed like the fence in question. Chandra stated Aqua Spas has nearly $700,000
worth of equipment that needs to be securely stored on-site, and the area inside of the chain link fence
would be the perfect place for storage. Nearly 27 security cameras have been installed on the
property, encompassing the perimeter of the building as well as the chained storage area. There is
also a natural/landscaped area directly behind the property.
Chandra stated that many of the other buildings along the corridor have visible “junk” on their lots, and
that Aqua Spas is trying to avoid that. The current chain link fence is compliant with the maximum
height of 6 feet tall, which can be included in the commission’s decision-making.
Commission member San Filippo asked for clarification regarding the “landscaped area”, asking if
Chandra was referring to the area between the fence and the unpaved portion of Aran Dr. Chandra
responded that she was referring to the entire area adjacent to Aran Dr, midway between E Saturn Dr
and E Skyway Dr. San Filippo commented that he had visited the area recently, and it appeared to be
a drainage ditch, which is significantly below where the fence ends on the east side of the property.
Commission Discussion:
Chair Shuff began discussion by asking for some points of clarification from staff. Shuff asked what
triggered the need for a Minor Amendment – is it the change in use to outdoor storage on the
property? Beals responded that Shuff’s understanding is correct, a Minor Amendment is triggered by
outdoor storage on the site.
The city was made aware of the need for outdoor storage on this property and has experienced
problems with storage overflowing into the public right of way on the current site. When staff became
aware that the business was moving, they wanted to be sure that the property was set up so the
owners could use the site with outdoor storage. Shuff asked if the purchase of a property triggers a
Minor Amendment? Beals explained the sign and electrical permits probably came in first; Zoning
Dept. performs a review of all incoming permit applications. When staff determined that Aqua Spas
was moving locations, they made the applicant aware that outdoor storage was not yet permitted for
that property, which then triggered the need for a Minor Amendment.
Commission member Carron asked to verify one of the images included on pg. 61 of the Agenda
Packet, which seems to show a portion of solid fencing. Upon review, it was determined that the fence
in the picture was chain link with slatting, and that shading in the photograph creates an optical illusion
that makes it appear solid.
Applicant Davis provided additional comment, explaining that the fence does go around the side and
entire back of the property. Davis also stated that he purchased the business from the previous owner
within the last five years, and many of the previous problems with outdoor storage were associated
with the previous owner. Moving to 6004 S College Ave is a means to comply with local rules and
regulations.
Commission member Vogel asked what type of fencing is “supposed” to be installed for screening, if
not chain link. Beals responded that options are a bit more open. It could be a fence or wall; usually
materials need to tie into the primary structure or neighborhood context. An example would be a wood-
panel fence; brick wall; brick panel fence with brick columns; corrugated metal could potentially be
justified; similarly siding to that which is on the building currently could also be employed.
Vogel commented that she was struggling to determine when the existing chain link fence was actually
installed. Applicant Davis stated the fence was installed prior to their purchase of the building. Vogel
stated that we have several different Google Earth images of the property, including one from 2021
that does not show the fence. Davis and Chandra indicated that they purchased the property in
December of 2022.
Land Use Review Commission Page 12 Minutes – April 13, 2023
Commission member McCoy asked Beals if there is a zone within Fort Collins where chain link fencing
is acceptable? Beals responded no zones allow chain link fence for screening purposes. If screening
is required anywhere within Fort Collins, chain link fencing is not allowed to be used.
Shuff asked if the applicants could choose to screen within or outside of the existing chain link security
fence? Beals responded yes – the current chain link fence is considered security fencing, so screening
could be placed in a different location, or they could fully remove and replace the chain link with
screening fence.
Shuff asked if it matters from a public view perspective, does an existing neighboring building that
blocks the view of a subject property count as screening, or does each property need to stand on its
own regarding the screening requirement? Beals answered that each property does need to meet the
requirement independently of what is occurring outside of their property, as that is always subject to
change.
San Filippo asked if landscaping materials can be used for screening? Beals responded that it is
possible but is very hard. Planting vegetation now to provide screening is difficult, as plantings would
need to be placed with such density as to create full opacity. However, we can’t wait multiple years for
the landscaping to come to maturity to achieve compliant screening.
San Filippo relayed his observations from a recent tour of the area and subject property, noting the
patch-work nature of the frontage road and adjacent properties. San Filippo also noted that of the
many chain link fences he observed in the area, none appeared to have slatting installed similar to the
applicant’s fence. In San Filippo’s view, this area is considered the “working end” of Fort Collins and is
due for some improvements. The fence is not readily visible when travelling at speed along S College
Ave. As chain link fencing goes, San Filippo does not find this unattractive and would support this
application.
Shuff commented that it is always difficult when areas are annexed into the city and are required to
comply with new and different regulations. Part of the issue is that those who apply for permits first are
expected to bring properties up to code. This requirement is in our Land Use Code, and this
commission is not allowed to look at financial costs or impacts when deciding. Shuff agreed that while
the fence is not visible from S College Ave, this represents the transition that occurs with annexation.
Carron asked if the north property line, adjacent to the detention pond, is currently fenced. Davis
responded that area currently belongs to Ace’s – the subject property is screened along that property
line back to the building. Chandra added explanation, noting that there is a fence gate along the west
side of the fence, and the fence is present along the entirety of the east side of the property.
Shuff asked Commission members to begin considering the justification rational as put forth by the
applicant, in an attempt to move towards a motion.
Commission member Lawton agreed with the previous comments, and greed that this is the
opportunity for the property to be brought up to code and provide the kind of screening that is
necessary or desired in this area. Lawton acknowledged the nature of the business as a combination
of industrial and retail and understands the need for outdoor storage. However, the character of the
storage screening provides a fit with the buildings in the area as well as the neighbors to the back.
Most likely, Aran St will be improved to provide continued access to the neighborhood behind the
subject property. At that point it will be even more important to have adequate screening around the
storage area. Again, this is an opportunity to upgrade the property and come into compliance with
code. While particular materials have not yet been determined, chain link fence is not the solution.
San Filippo explained that while he previously stated that he had no problems with the application, he
certainly understands that code compliance generally starts one property at a time. Over the course of
time, as the properties along this corridor come before this commission, screening requirements will
have to be complied with unless there is significant hardship. As much as San Filippo is not troubled
by the application at face value, it is understood that each application is taken individually and stands
on its own. Consideration is also given to the precedent being set with each application. Therefore,
San Filippo believes the applicant needs to comply with the screening requirements set forth by code.
Land Use Review Commission Page 13 Minutes – April 13, 2023
Carron offered his agreement, commenting it can be hard when an area begins to come into
compliance one property at a time, and can be somewhat haphazard in the application. Storage is
present and is being reviewed for permits through the Minor Amendment. Because this is effectively a
new use/new business, current screening requirements ought to be met.
McCoy agreed with the previous comments. In terms of hardship, screening fences can be expensive
and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of latitude for what is considered a fence. Therefore, McCoy would
like to offer a period of time for wherein the applicant is able to come into compliance, especially
considering that many of the surrounding properties are not in compliance and are indeed using chain
link fence to screen storage areas. McCoy is unsure of the timeline that could be offered, but in the
meantime the existing chain link fence looks better than most of the other existing chain link fencing in
the area.
Shuff asked staff and legal counsel if there is a precedent for applying time-based condition to a
potential motion. Assistant Attorney Chris Haynes advised that he was unaware of any existing
precedent that would provide guidance, but also is not aware of any reason why this type of condition
could not be placed within a motion to approve. Beals attempted to recall any situations where time
conditions were placed on approval; as an example, Beals cited sign code, which places a time limit
on annexed properties to come into compliance. There is some thought of time limits in the code – in
this case, a motion may allow outdoor storage to be “unscreened” for x-number of months, so that it is
clear the chain-link fence is not considered screening. Details could then be worked into the Minor
Amendment once a decision is made by this commission.
Shuff discussed possible elements that could be included in a motion to improve, including a time
element to allow the applicant due time to procure and install appropriate screening. There may be an
element of hardship in the applicant being one of the first asked to comply with city regulations.
However, we need to ensure that the code is being followed in this area.
San Filippo asked if the security gate could remain as-is with slatted chain link, due to the need for
opening and closing. Beals noted that gates are often clad with elements like wood or metal that would
be considered screening. Some gates are not built to hold that material or amount of weight; there are
gates available for purchase for that purpose. San Filippo shared his opinion that screening the gate
may be overkill, as the gate will most likely be opening and closing quite frequently.
Carron noted that the gate is a cantilever-style, and therefore subject to certain structural
requirements. Carron asked I the gate is motorized; applicant Davis responded that it is not.
Shuff advised the commission that a potential motion may also include language indicating which
specific sections of fencing need to be screened. Consideration can be given to the setback distance
from S College Ave as well as visibility from the road for each distinct portion of the fence. San Filippo
asked Shuff if he were proposing a schedule of sorts; Shuff responded that schedule had been
mentioned, as well as the option to not screen the gate, etc.
McCoy spoke to due diligence of the purchase process, noting how easy it would have been to
discover that the fence was not compliant with current requirements prior to purchase. Knowing that
his area would have a lot of buyers asking about storage and fencing requirements, this seems to be
an easily discoverable requirement for those wanting to utilize outside storage within this zone.
Beals confirmed that the Zoning Department is receiving an increasing number of questions regarding
outside storage and fencing/screening requirements. Beals also spoke to Chair Shuff’s comment
regarding the possibility of making a motion that places conditions on specific portions of the fence.
Carron suggested that the code requirement as written pertains to “fences” rather than “gates”, so the
existing gate with covering could potentially be maintained. That may strike more of a middle-ground
balance when crafting conditions for approval.
Commission member Vogel agreed with the statements made by Carron, supporting the desire to find
an appropriate middle-ground for approval with conditions.
Land Use Review Commission Page 14 Minutes – April 13, 2023
Lawton asked, from a procedural perspective, is it better to approve but only for a section or to deny
with caveats? What is the most appropriate manner to craft a decision in this scenario?
Beals responded to Lawton by suggesting that if the intent is to allow some sections of the fence to
remain, that the Commission put forth an approval motion with conditions, specifically relating to
individual sections. Shuff clarified that a motion could be made that allowed some of existing slatted
chain link fence to remain while requiring screening in other portions. Beals confirmed, noting that
because the request was for the entire fence to be maintained as “screening”, to allow a portion to do
so would necessitate a motion of approval with conditions.
Assistant Attorney Chris Hayes urged the commission to be as specific as possible in terms of
phrasing, perhaps using terms such as “Approved in part”.
Shuff voiced his comfort with drafting a conditional approval, suggesting that the North and East
portions of fence be required to comply with the screening requirement, while maintaining the chain
link slatted fence on the South. The west portion of fixed fencing needs to be screened, but the gate
may be maintained as-is.
McCoy asked how close the Minor Amendment is to approval; Beals indicated that the process is
close to finishing. This variance decision is one of the final pieces that need a determination prior to
approval of the Minor Amendment. Shuff asked if six months was appropriate as far as a timeframe for
compliance; San Filippo and others offered their agreement.
San Filippo made a motion, seconded by Vogel, to APPROVE with CONDITIONS ZBA230007 for
the following reasons: subject to the condition that within six months of the approval of the
Minor Amendment, that screening compliant with City code be installed along the North and
East sides of the property, as well as the portion of the West side that faces College Ave,
excluding the gated portion. The South portion of the fencing is also excluded from the need
for screening. Additionally, reasoning deduced by the Commission during their discussion
regarding this application before considering the motion. Justification for approval is also
based upon hardship described and evidenced by the applicant.
Yeas: McCoy, San Filippo, Shuff, Vogel, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman
THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED with CONDITIONS
• ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:47am
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT May 11, 2023
STAFF
Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
PROJECT
ZBA230008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 1415 Blue Spruce Dr.
Owner: Blue Ocean Real Estate Management LLC
Petitioner: Dan Olind, General Contractor, ETC Contracting
Zoning District: C-S
Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3)
Variance Request:
This is a request to install an 8-foot-tall fence in the side yard and rear yard setback area; the maximum height
permitted is 6 feet.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was annexed into the City in 1972 as part of the Pine Tree Park annexation. It was platted and
received development approval in 1974 as part of the Evergreen Park Replat. The primary building was
constructed later in 1977 as a warehouse.
In 2017 a minor amendment was approved to add 6-foot tall fencing and new accessory structures used for
storage.
The applicant is now requesting to install an 8-foot-tall chain-link fence on the sides and rear of the property.
This fence is for security purposes and is not needed for screening purposes.
The property is surrounded on three sides by public right of way. The other side abuts a vacant lot. Any
fence is required to be set back a minimum of 2 feet from the back of the sidewalk.
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 fence is not required for screening.
• The fence is setback at least 9 feet away from the sidewalk and outside of the utility easement.
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 ZBA230008.
Application Request
IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH
The /DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV
RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJ
GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQPD\JUDQW
YDULDQFHVZKHUHLWILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the publicgood
$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV
E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR
WKHSURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVV
VKDOORZQHVVRUWRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQG
H[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG
WKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRUhardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW
VHOILPSRVHG
WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG
equallywell or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLV
UHTXHVWHG
WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential
wayZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined
and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work
for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the
variance was granted.
+RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK
H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH
VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG
Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting
Location 9,578$/21/<YLD=RRP
LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWRWKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ
Date 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPH DP
Variance Address Petitioner’s Name,
if not the Owner
City )RUW&ROOLQV&2Petitioner’s Relationship
to the Owner is
Zip Code Petitioner’s Address
Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone #
Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email
Zoning District Additional
Representative’s Name
Justification(s) Representative’s Address
Justification(s) Representative’s Phone #
Justification(s) Representative’s Email
Reasoning
Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________
tZ/dd E^dd D Ed yW>/E/E'd, Z ^KE&KZd, sZ/E Z Yh ^dZ Yh/Z s/
^ WZd KhD Ed͘
1415 Blue Spruce Dr Dan Olind - ETC Contracting
General Contractor
80524 PO Box 268, Timnath, CO 80547
Blue Ocean Real Estate Managem (970) 290-7250
3.8.11 - Fences and Walls dan.olind@etccontracting.com
Land Use Review Commission Robin Busteed
401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 200,
970.494.5413
robin.busteed@blueoceanrem.com
04/07/2023 Dan Olind - ETC Contracting PM
1. Hardship
2. Equal to or better than
Additional Justification
ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌsĂƌŝĂŶĐĞ
ZĞĂƐŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞ͗
ϭ͘,ĂƌĚƐŚŝƉ͗dŚĞĂƌĞĂƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞϭϰϭϱůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞƌ͘ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐŝŶƵŶĚĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ
ƉĞŽƉůĞĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐŝŶŐŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐŶĞƐƐĂŶĚƚŚŝƐĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂŶƵŶƐĂĨĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞǁŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞ
ĂŶĚƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĨŽƌƚŚĞĨƚĂŶĚǀĂŶĚĂůŝƐŵ͘
Ϯ͘ ƋƵĂůŽƌďĞƚƚĞƌƚŚĂŶ͗dŚĞĞŝŐŚƚͲĨŽŽƚĨĞŶĐĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝƐĞƋƵĂůƚŽƚŚĞŚĞŝŐŚƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĨĞŶĐĞƐŽĨƚŚĞ
ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĂŶĚǁŝůůďĞďƵŝůƚŝŶĂŶĞƋƵĂůƚŽŽƌďĞƚƚĞƌƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͘
These drawings areinstruments of serviceprovided by NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.and are not to be used forany type of constructionunless signed and sealed bya Professional Engineer inthe employ of NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONEHTRONRNFORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631970.221.4158northernengineering.comC1003NORTHLEGEND:EXISTING STORM DRAINSTEXISTING VALVEEXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTALEXISTING TREES (TO REMAIN)FIELD SURVEY BY:EXISTING SANITARY SEWERSSEXISTING WATERWEXISTING WATER METEREXISTING FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING ELECTRIC VAULTPROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFERZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL.2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER AFOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THEDISTURBANCE.3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRYSTANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS ACURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTEDEXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET INHEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF(½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OFEQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE.5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANINGOF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS,OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OFA TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES.6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE.7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION ORLAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF,"RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION(G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50)FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OFSUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRINGEXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOTSYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THEAUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROMTREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW:9. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1-JULY 31)WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTINGSURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND,THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER WILL DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREEREMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.10. REFER TO LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL TREE PROTECTION MEASURES.TREE PROTECTION NOTES:1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHENSHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFYTHE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCINGNEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING DEMOLITION, REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT,AND DISPOSAL OF ALL FACILITIES AND MATERIAL.3. CONTRACTOR IS ENCOURAGED TO PERFORM DEMOLITION IN A MANNER THAT MAXIMIZES SALVAGE,RE-USE, AND RECYCLING OF MATERIALS. THIS INCLUDES APPROPRIATE SORTING AND STORING. INPARTICULAR, DEMOLISHED CONCRETE, ASPHALT, AND BASE COURSE SHOULD BE RECYCLED IFPOSSIBLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREET DEPARTMENT OPERATES A CRUSHING OPERATIONTHAT WILL ACCEPT CONCRETE MATERIAL AT NO COST FOR CRUSHING AND RE-USE AS RECYCLEDAGGREGATE. THIS OPERATION IS LOCATED AT 1380 HOFFMAN MILL ROAD AND CAN BE REACHED AT(970) 482-1249.4. ALL SYMBOLS ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT TO SCALE.5. CONTACT THE PROJECT SURVEYOR FOR ANY INQUIRIES RELATED TO THE EXISTING SITE SURVEY.6. LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THECITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STREET REPAIRSTANDARDS.7. ADDITIONAL TREES NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS MAY EXIST AND MAY REQUIRE REMOVAL.COORDINATION OF WHICH TREES ARE TO REMAIN AND WHICH ARE TO BE REMOVED SHOULD BECOORDINATED WITH THE CITY FORESTER. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS AND TREE MITIGATION PLANFOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.8. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH FORT COLLINS UTILITY FIELD OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT AT(970) 221-6700 FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE ABANDONMENT.9. NO DEMOLITION MAY OCCUR ONSITE UNTIL THE APPROPRIATE PERMITS AND APPROVALS HAVE BEENISSUED BY THE CITY. THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED, TO THE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ANDTHE REMOVAL OF TREES.10. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1-JULY 31)WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTINGSURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BESENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILLCOORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHERADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.11. CURB GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE REMOVED TO THE NEAREST JOINT.12. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL UTILITY DEMOLITION AND/OR RELOCATION ITEMS WITH THEAPPROPRIATE UTILITY PROVIDER PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY ONSITE DEMOLITION.TREE DIAMETER AT BREASTHEIGHT (INCHES)AUGER DISTANCE FROMFACE OF TREE (FEET)0-213-425-9 510-14 1015-1912OVER 1915( IN FEET )1 inch = ft.Feet020 202040 60EXISTING CONCRETE TO BE REMOVEDWVEXISTING TREES (TO BE REMOVED)EXISTING ASPHALT TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING GASLINEGEXISTING LOT LINENOTES:KING SURVEYING, INC.PROJECT NO. 2007123DATE: APRIL 2007CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOUDIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OFUNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OFCOLORADORPlan for fence location & setbackinformation ONLY - none of the proposeddemo is planned or scheduled.
Plan for fence location & setback information ONLY -none of the proposed demo is planned or scheduled.
Agenda Item 2
Item #2 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT May 11, 2023
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA230008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 318 N Sherwood St
Owner/Petitioner: Jason Harrington
Zoning District: N-C-M
Code Section: 4.8(D)(5), 4.8(E)(6)(a), 4.8(F)(1)(d)
Variance Request:
This is a request for three variances for a new accessory building with habitable space:
1. Request for the total floor area for an accessory building with habitable space to be 1,198 square feet; the
maximum square footage allowed is 600 square feet.
2. Request to exceed the eave height for an accessory building with habitable space by 4 feet 6 inches; the
maximum allowed height is 13 feet.
3. Request to have a portion of the second floor overhang the first-floor front wall.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was platted and received development approval as part of the original 1873 platting when Fort
Collins was established. The primary building was later constructed in 1905. It is unclear the number of
improvements or alterations that have occurred since.
The lot is approximately 11,400 square feet in size. In the NCM zone district the minimum lot size is 5,000
square feet and to construct a carriage house the lot is required to be 10,000 square feet. An accessory
building with habitable space does not require additional lot size and can be built on a 5,000 square foot lot.
Accessory buildings and carriage houses, both, have design standards to maintain a subordinate
relationship to the primary building. These standards are also intended to reduce impacts on the abutting
properties.
An accessory building is permitted to 600 square feet of floor area. Floor area includes all the first story and
the upper story that has a ceiling height of 7.5 feet or greater. The proposed design has 9-foot ceiling
heights, which increases the total floor area. Additional floor area is allowed for carriage houses as an
incentive to establish a dwelling unit.
Accessory buildings with habitable space are allowed a 13-foot eave height along the side property line.
The proposed design has a 17.5-foot eave height along the side property increasing wall heights.
Additionally, both primary and accessory buildings are prohibited from having an upper story overhang on
the front of a building. This particular standard is a design element that was identified as part of the
architectural character of many of the original buildings in the zone district.
Agenda Item 2
Item #2 - Page 2
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that:
• The variances create an accessory structure that is approximately the same size as the existing
primary structure.
• The proposed structure does not exceed the 24-foot height maximum, however additional square
footage allowed by code is for proposals that establish a carriage house. The proposed design
does not create an additional housing unit but only additional space for those living in the primary
structure.
• These variances all contribute to enlarge the size of the structure, reducing its ability of being
subordinate to the primary structure.
• Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property.
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA230009.
Application Request
IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH
The /DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV
RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJ
GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQPD\JUDQW
YDULDQFHVZKHUHLWILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the publicgood
$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV
E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR
WKHSURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVV
VKDOORZQHVVRUWRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQG
H[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG
WKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRUhardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW
VHOILPSRVHG
WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG
equallywell or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLV
UHTXHVWHG
WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential
wayZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined
and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work
for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the
variance was granted.
+RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK
H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH
VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG
Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting
Location 9,578$/21/<YLD=RRP
LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWRWKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ
Date 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPH DP
Variance Address Petitioner’s Name,
if not the Owner
City )RUW&ROOLQV&2Petitioner’s Relationship
to the Owner is
Zip Code Petitioner’s Address
Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone #
Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email
Zoning District Additional
Representative’s Name
Justification(s) Representative’s Address
Justification(s) Representative’s Phone #
Justification(s) Representative’s Email
Reasoning
Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________
tZ/dd E^dd D Ed yW>/E/E'd, Z ^KE&KZd, sZ/E Z Yh ^dZ Yh/Z s/
^ WZd KhD Ed͘
318 N SHERWOOD ST JASON HARRINGTON
BUILDER
80521 1006 W MULBERRY ST
JASON HARRINGTON
970.281.5022
Division 4.8 D, E, F
jason@harrington.build
NCM Olexa Tkachenko (architect)
407 E Saturn Dr
970.443.5289
olexa@digis.net
4/11/23
3. Nominal and inconsequential
3. Nominal and inconsequential
3. Nominal and inconsequential
Jason Harrington Digitally signed by Jason Harrington
DN: C=US, E=Jason@Harrington.build, O=Harrington Construction LLC,
CN=Jason Harrington
Reason: I have reviewed this document
Date: 2023.04.11 14:05:18-06'00'
The purposes of this application are to request variances on the Land Use Code regarding Article 4-
Districts, Division 4.8- Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District. Below are the listed
sections of which we are requesting variance to.
Variance Request to Land Use Code regarding Article 4-Districts, Division 4.8- Neighborhood
Conservation, Medium Density District Section D-Land Use Standards (5) Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space. The request for a variance in regard to this section pertain to the maximum six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area with a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet.
We would like to request the variance to allow the currently proposed project to include upper level
ceilings at nine feet (9’) as discussions regarding changes to the land use code and taller ceiling heights
for such structures may be adopted. The proposed structure does not exceed the maximum required
height of 24 feet, and is well within the allowable FAR calculations. The requested ceiling height does
not affect the overall building height. If not accepted, the structure will be built as documented and the
internal ceiling height on the second floor would be reduced to the habitable space height of 7’-6”.
Variance Request to Land Use Code regarding Article 4-Districts, Division 4.8- Neighborhood
Conservation, Medium Density District Section E-Dimensional Standards (6) Eave Height. Current
standard requires a maximum eave height at 13’ only to be interrupted by dormers less than 25% of the
area that are stepped back 2’ from wall edge. The proposed design/project includes upper level side
walls set 3’-0” inward from the building footprint. The proposed roof edge (eave) has been deigned to
reduce the building mass to the greatest extent possible. In addition the proposed structure has been
located such that the setback at the north property line is 10’-9” and the setback at the south property
line is 20’-0”. We believe that the proposed project/roof eave is not looming in relation to the adjacent
properties .
Variance Request to Land Use Code regarding Article 4-Districts, Division 4.8- Neighborhood
Conservation, Medium Density District Section F (1) (d): “Second Floor shall not overhang the lower front
or side exterior walls of a new or existing building”. Regarding the proposed structure, the overhang as
documented is located at the “rear” of the of the proposed building based on the definition of
building frontage per the land use code. The overhang faces the private (backyard) portion of the home
and is not visible to the public. If not accepted then we can propose a wall to be built below in order to
have a supporting structure for the overhang.
MASONRY:CONCRETE:EARTHWORK:SETTING BEDS:FINISH MATERIALS:INSULATION:FINISH MATERIALS:METAL:PLASTER/BACKING BOARDS:FLOOR COVERING:CAULK AND SEALANTS:A4/A2.04/A2.0LIVING2011024/A2.09/A6.1
7/A6.18/A6.110/A6.12/A3.02/A5.0318 Sherwood Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525Issue Date:Project Number: 2021-12211/29/2022Sheet Index:A Proposed Accessory StructureGeneral Contractor:Graphic SymbolsMaterial IndicationsBinns ResidenceProject InformationStructural Engineer:Architect:Fort Collins, Colorado 80525970.443.5289 phone407 East Saturn DriveDNA Design+ArchitectureG 1.0INFORMATIONGENERALGENERAL INFORMATIONSITE PLAN - EXISTINGSITE PLAN - PROPOSEDWINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULEMAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANUPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANROOF PLANBUILDING ELEVATIONSBUILDING ELEVATIONS-3DBUILDING SECTIONSG1.0SP1.0SP1.1A1.0A2.0A2.1A2.2A3.0A3.1A4.02021-122PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:OTCHECKED BY:SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:407 e Saturn Drive- Fort Collins- Colorado- 80525Ph 970.443-5289DNA DESIGN + ARCHITECTUREDESIGN+ARCHITECTUREDNAGENERAL CONTRACTOR:PROJECT:NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEOTCTL Thompson Inc.400 N. Link LaneFort Collins, CO 80524970.206.9455 phoneMajestic Surveying1111 Diamond Valley Dr970.833.5698 phoneHarrington Construction LLC1006 W Mulberry Street970.391.1528 phoneWindsor, CO 80550Fort Collins, CO 80521Land Survey:BINNSRESIDENCE318 Sherwood DriveFort Collins, Colorado805251006 W Mulberry StFort Collins, Colorado80521HarringtonConstruction LLCLEGAL DESCRIPTION: 318 North Sherwood Street Fort Collins, ColoradoPARKING: REQUIRED: 1 PROVIDED: 1PROPERTY SETBACKS:FRONTSIDESIDEREAR (ALLEY)24'-0" Allowed, 24'-0" Proposed598 SF600 SF1198 SF11453 SF15'5'5'5'BUILDING HEIGHT:BUILDING AREA:GARAGE LEVEL:UPPER LEVELTOTAL SF:LOT COVERAGE: LOT SIZE:FAR CALCULATIONS: 35% (11453) + 250 = 4258 sf Allowable, 4017 sf ProposedREAR 50% FAR CALCULATION 1890 sf Allowable, 1198 sf ProposedNCM-RESIDENTIALR-3TYPE 52SINGLE FAMILY2021 IRC WITHLOCAL AMENDMENTS5PROJECT DATA:ZONING:OCCUPANCY GROUP:TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:NO. OF STORIES:BUILDING TYPE:BUILDING CODE:CLIMATE ZONE:
BINNSRESIDENCE318 Sherwood DriveFort Collins, Colorado805252021-122PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:OTCHECKED BY:SHEET NUMBER:A 1.0SHEET TITLE:407 e Saturn Drive- Fort Collins- Colorado- 80525Ph 970.443-5289DNA DESIGN + ARCHITECTUREDESIGN+ARCHITECTUREDNAGENERAL CONTRACTOR:PROJECT:NO. DESCRIPTIONDATEOTDOOR/WINDOWSCHEDULEwindow scheduledoor scheduleABCDEF4123561006 W Mulberry StFort Collins, Colorado80521HarringtonConstruction LLC
BINNSRESIDENCE318 Sherwood DriveFort Collins, Colorado805252021-122PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:OTCHECKED BY:SHEET NUMBER:A 2.0SHEET TITLE:407 e Saturn Drive- Fort Collins- Colorado- 80525Ph 970.443-5289DNA DESIGN + ARCHITECTUREDESIGN+ARCHITECTUREDNAGENERAL CONTRACTOR:PROJECT:NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEOTFLOOR1/A2.0 floor plan - main levelPLAN2/A2.0 floor plan - upper level(2) CARGARAGE101COVEREDPATIO104SHOPAREA103BEDROOM200CLOS.
CLOS.BATH201LIVINGAREA204DININGAREA203KITCHEN202DECK205100101102200201202203205204EEDDDDBCFFA4/A3.0
3/A3.01/A3.02/A3.0
4/A3.0
3/A3.01/A3.02/A3.0 1006 W Mulberry StFort Collins, Colorado80521HarringtonConstruction LLC
BINNSRESIDENCE318 Sherwood DriveFort Collins, Colorado805252021-122PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:OTCHECKED BY:SHEET NUMBER:A 2.1SHEET TITLE:407 e Saturn Drive- Fort Collins- Colorado- 80525Ph 970.443-5289DNA DESIGN + ARCHITECTUREDESIGN+ARCHITECTUREDNAGENERAL CONTRACTOR:PROJECT:NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEOTROOFPLAN1/A2.1 roof plan1006 W Mulberry StFort Collins, Colorado80521HarringtonConstruction LLCR1 - COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF
BINNSRESIDENCE318 Sherwood DriveFort Collins, Colorado805252021-122PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:OTCHECKED BY:SHEET NUMBER:A 3.0SHEET TITLE:407 e Saturn Drive- Fort Collins- Colorado- 80525Ph 970.443-5289DNA DESIGN + ARCHITECTUREDESIGN+ARCHITECTUREDNAGENERAL CONTRACTOR:PROJECT:NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEOTBUILDINGELEVATION1/A3.0 building elevation - west2/A3.0 building elevation - north3/A3.0 building elevation - east4/A3.0 building elevation - southCFFDDADDBEE102101100wall typesW2-CONCRETE/FOUNDATION WALLroof typesR1 - COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFfloor typesW1-HORIZONTAL COMPOSITE SIDING WALLF1 - WOOD FRAMED FLOORW-1R-1W-2W-2W-2W-2W-1W-1W-1W-1R-1R-1R-1R-1F2 - CONCRETE GARAGE FLOOR1006 W Mulberry StFort Collins, Colorado80521HarringtonConstruction LLC
BINNSRESIDENCE318 Sherwood DriveFort Collins, Colorado805252021-122PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:OTCHECKED BY:SHEET NUMBER:A 3.1SHEET TITLE:407 e Saturn Drive- Fort Collins- Colorado- 80525Ph 970.443-5289DNA DESIGN + ARCHITECTUREDESIGN+ARCHITECTUREDNAGENERAL CONTRACTOR:PROJECT:NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEOTBUILDINGELEVATION1/A3.1 building elevation - south/east2/A3.1 building elevation - south/west3/A3.1 building elevation - north/east4/A3.1 building elevation - north/west1006 W Mulberry StFort Collins, Colorado80521HarringtonConstruction LLC
BINNSRESIDENCE318 Sherwood DriveFort Collins, Colorado805252021-122PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:OTCHECKED BY:SHEET NUMBER:A 4.0SHEET TITLE:407 e Saturn Drive- Fort Collins- Colorado- 80525Ph 970.443-5289DNA DESIGN + ARCHITECTUREDESIGN+ARCHITECTUREDNAGENERAL CONTRACTOR:PROJECT:NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEOTBUILDINGSECTION1/A4.0 building sectionwall typesW2-CONCRETE/FOUNDATION WALLroof typesR1 - COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFfloor typesW1-HORIZONTAL COMPOSITE SIDING WALLF1 - WOOD FRAMED FLOORF2 - CONCRETE GARAGE FLOORW-2W-1R-1F-1F-2(2) CARGARAGE101LIVINGAREA2041006 W Mulberry StFort Collins, Colorado80521HarringtonConstruction LLC
BINNSRESIDENCE318 Sherwood DriveFort Collins, Colorado805252022-122PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:OTCHECKED BY:SHEET NUMBER:SP 1.0SHEET TITLE:407 e Saturn Drive- Fort Collins- Colorado- 80525Ph 970.443-5289DNA DESIGN + ARCHITECTUREDESIGN+ARCHITECTUREDNAGENERAL CONTRACTOR:PROJECT:NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEOTSITEPLANSP/1.0 site plan - existing318 N. SHERWOOD STREETEXISTINGSINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCELOT 10318 N. Sherwood St.1006 W Mulberry StFort Collins, Colorado80521HarringtonConstruction LLC
BINNSRESIDENCE318 Sherwood DriveFort Collins, Colorado805252022-122PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:OTCHECKED BY:SHEET NUMBER:SP 1.1SHEET TITLE:407 e Saturn Drive- Fort Collins- Colorado- 80525Ph 970.443-5289DNA DESIGN + ARCHITECTUREDESIGN+ARCHITECTUREDNAGENERAL CONTRACTOR:PROJECT:NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEOTSITEPLANSP/1.1 site plan - proposedNORTH SHERWOOD STREETLOT 10318 N. Sherwood St.Patio&TrellisAutoParking1006 W Mulberry StFort Collins, Colorado80521HarringtonConstruction LLCDriveway/Parking