The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/13/2023 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting 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: Fort Collins Senior Center Prairie Sage 1 Room 1200 Raintree Dr. 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 JULY 13, 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, July 13, 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 the Prairie Sage 1 Room, Fort Collins Senior Center, 1200 Raintree Dr. 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 – June 8, 2023 1. APPEAL ZBA230010 Address: 3214 Burning Bush Ct Owner: Judith E. Pasek Petitioner: Randal A. Schroeder Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: This is a request to encroach 3 feet 6 inches into the required 15-foot rear setback. 2. APPEAL ZBA230011 Address: 829 W Mountain Ave. Owner: JD Padilla Petitioner: Jordan Locker Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(5) Project Description: This is a request for 3 variances: 1) Request to exceed the floor area of an accessory building with habitable space by 791.10 square feet. The maximum allowed is 600 square feet. 2)Request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the lot by 474.99 square feet. The maximum allowed based on lot size is 2696.4 square feet. 3) Request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the rear half of the lot by 487.10 square feet. The maximum allowed based on lot size is 904 square feet. 3. APPEAL ZBA230012 Address: 2843 Mercy Dr Owner/Petitioner: Josh Cornish Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(d) Project Description: This is a request to encroach 5 feet into the 15-foot corner side setback. 4. APPEAL ZBA230013 Address: 219 Park St Owner/Petitioner: Nicholas Michaelson Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3), 4.8(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 1 foot 6 inches into the 5 -foot rear setback. • 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 MAY 11, 2023 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of member Vogel. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by San Filippo to approve the April 13, 2023, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was adopted, with Coffman voting to abstain. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) -None- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 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. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 Minutes – May11, 2023 Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is at the corner of Bristlecone Dr. and Blue Spruce Dr. The request is to build a fence that incorporates the rear yard and side yards of the property. The need for the variance is that the code only allows for a 6-foot fence, while the request is for an 8- foot fence. The proposed fence is intended only for security purposes and is not intended to provided screening for additional outdoor storage. The fence would be placed along the north side of the property, starting at the northeast corner of the building, and continuing directly north to the easement. From the easement line, the fence would extend west along the easement to just past existing drive aisle. From then, extending south to the south property line and the easement. The fence would extend to the head of existing parking spaces and then return north to the building. The request for the variance is for an additional 2 feet of height for the fencing, for a total of 8 feet, which is not permitted by code at this time. There will be two gates that will go across the drive aisles on the north and south, as well as pedestrian gates along the side of the building. The proposed fence would be made with chain-link, with rolling gates that roll across the drive aisle then back in place. Beals presented pictures of the property currently, noting various views that show the unfe nced corner and street-facing lot. The fence is intended for security purposes; Beals noted this area does have some vehicles and campers that are currently parked on the street and are occupied. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Dan Olind, ETC Contracting, Representing Blue Ocean, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Olind added that the proposed fence would be vinyl-wrapped with black material, in an effort to add visual appeal rather than standard gray chain link. Olind also commented that the immediate area is heavily trafficked and populated by individuals experiencing homelessness, and some security concerns have been raised, such as vehicles being targeted for theft while still occupied. Olind also noted that staff on-site have raised concerns regarding their personal safety. Olind also described that the proposed fence would design would also add an additional gate on the west side to improve lot functionality. The gates will all be locked. Commission member Lawton asked Olind what the extra two feet of fence height being re quested would provide over the standard 6-foot fence? Olind stated that the extra height could act as a deterrent to potential acts of criminality, as the extra height might be too high to reasonably scale for one or two individuals. Additionally, other neighboring properties already have 8-foot security fences installed. Public Comment: -None- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated that he had no problem with the request, noting that it would match the character of the neighborhood, and seems nominal and inconsequential. Commission member Lawton agreed with the comments offered by Coffman, adding that from a standpoint of safety the proposed fence would increase the safety of those on-site as well as those that may attempt to trespass. Chair Shuff agreed, noting that the proposal is nominal and inconsequential, and appreciates the efforts to use vinyl wrap to increase visual appeal, and understands the need for improved safety and security on behalf of the business. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA230008 for the following reasons: 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 Land Use Review Commission Page 3 Minutes – May11, 2023 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 Yeas: Carron, Shuff, Coffman, San Filippo, McCoy, Lawton Nays: Absent: THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is near the corner of Sherwood and N Cherry St, approximately three lots south from the corner. The request is to build an accessory building on the rear of the lot. Beals presented images of the existing conditions on the property, as well as the proposed additions. Beals explained that renovations shown for the primary residence are not included in the request today, as it is concerned only with the proposed accessory building. Additional images were presented of the proposed floor plan; Beals explained the first floor would be primarily garage space, with a small, covered patio area beneath the proposed second -story overhang. The second floor includes habitable space. Beals explained that the primary difference between an accessory building with habitable space and a carriage house is the presence of a kitchen in the latter. In this case, the request does not include any plans for a kitchen. Therefore, the structure is considered to be an accessory building with habitable space, which also means the occupants in the primary building and the accessory building may not exceed the U+2 occupancy standards, which means no more than three unrelated adults may live in the buildings, or if it is a family in one of the buildings, they may only have one additional occupant. If this were a carriage house, those two buildings would act independently under U+2. Beals presented elevations of the proposed building, noting that the west elevation will be facing the primary residence. Beals explained that for this type of structure, the side facing the primary residence is considered the “front”. There is an overhang that happens on the front side of the proposed structure. The east, or alley-facing side is considered the rear, and thus an overhang would be allowable. Additionally, the proposed eave height exceeds the 13-foot allowance for the upper story. There is some allowance for a dormer to occur with an eave height greater than 13 feet, but the dormer is required to be no more than 25% of the wall width below it. The proposed dormer exceeds this. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 Minutes – May11, 2023 The third variance request concerns exceeding the allowable floor area. Beals explained that the floor area allowed by Code is 600 square feet. Floor area is calculated at 100% of the floor area of the f irst story, plus any floor area on the second floor that is beneath a ceiling height of 7.5 feet or greater. The proposed second-story ceiling height is over 7.5 feet; thus, the entire area counts towards the allowable floor area. If the ceiling height were to be reduced to below 7.5 feet, that area would not count against the maximum. There is also an allowance for a carriage house to go up to 1,000 square feet, but that is a means to incentivize the building of carriage houses as a means of increasing available housing stock in a neighborhood. The Code does allow for an additional 250 square feet of floor area on the lot as a whole when an accessory unit is present; however, this does apply to the accessory unit itself, which is still held to the 600 sq ft maximum as stated in the Code. The additional square footage allows for structures like a garage to be built to the alley, etc. Chair Shuff asked Beals to clarify that because the proposed structure does not include a kitchen, it is considered a detached structure with habitable space and would not qualify as a carriage house. Shuff also asked Beals if the eave-height standard is the same for both carriage houses and detached structures with habitable space. Beals responded that the eave height standard is usually at 10-feet, but when water/sewer are added to an accessory building, the eave height can then be increased to 13 feet. If water and/or sewer are not added, the eave height must be maintained at 10 feet. Shuff asked Beals to explain the intent of this code provision. Beals explained that provision may have originally stemmed from allowances given to carriage houses, but there is also an understanding that this allows the convenience of having a bathroom/washroom in an accessory building , as some folks may need a washroom adjacent to hobby space or desire a bathroom be closer than the primary residence. Shuff asked if the eave height is in place to maintain neighborhood compatibility; Beals confirmed that the eave height standard is intended to ensure neighborhood compatibility amongst individual lots and structures. Shuff asked if this lot technically could this lot be subdivided due to its size? If it is a question of scale, perhaps the lot could be subdivided to allow for the intended structure. Beals responded that the minimal lot width needed to subdivide may be a challenge in this instance. In N-C-M zone district, minimum lot size for a carriage house is 10,000 sq ft. In the N-C-L, it is 12,000 sq ft. Commission member Lawton asked Beals to clarify - this is not a carriage house because it does not have a cooking space? Beals indicated Lawton’s understanding to be correct, noting that if cooking appliances are not included the structure is no longer considered a “dwelling unit” but is instead an “accessory building with habitable space”. If standards were met, the applicant would be able to pull a building permit now. In this case, the design requires some variances to be approved prior to obtaining a building permit. Lawton noted that the only element missing from the proposed structure is a cooking space; the plan does include a refrigerator, dining area, and dishwasher. The intent seems to be that people would be using the space fully to eat and prepare meals. Beals noted the occupants can’t exceed the U+2 rules for whomever is living on the property, so the advantage of a carriage house would be that U+2 would apply to each structure independently. There are additional plan review and development costs associated with a carriage house, whereas a dwelling unit requires capital extension fees. Lawton observed occupants of the property could easily add a microwave or similar after the fact. Beals indicated that if complaints were received, the property would need to be investigated for unauthorized alterations and/or occupancy concerns. Commission member Coffman asked if the overhang ordinance applies to all structures on the lot. And is the purpose to not to have an overhang at the front of the lot? Beals answered that the code does not differentiate between the two structures. It is also a character element of that zone district to not have upper stories overhang the first story. Land Use Review Commission Page 5 Minutes – May11, 2023 Shuff commented that the other nuance present with these types of buildings is ceiling height. Typically, what is allowed per code is that if a second-story ceiling is below 7.5 inches, you don’t have to count floor area below that ceiling against the maximum allowed. Code is written wherein ceiling height is tied to eave height. If ceiling height and eave height were reduced, this proposal may not even need a variance. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Jason Harrington, 1006 W Mulberry, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Harrington noted for the record that he is the General Contractor, working on behalf of property owners Steve and Theresa Bins. Harrington explained that the owners are first looking to renovate the main house on the property, and temporarily live in the proposed accessory structure during the renovations. The applicants have owned the home for 8-10 years and are now wanting to age in place and are building their retirement home and want to increase their first floor living area. After renovations to the main house are completed and they have moved back in, t he proposed structure would then be used for their adult children and their families during visits. Harrington noted that the carriage house option was explored, but the added expenses and complexities were not feasible for the applicants at this time. The option may be re-considered in the future as the need for a caretaker or others to be living on-site present themselves. Describing the roof slope, Harrington explained that his understanding of the reasoning for increased eave height in the design is due to the fact that the structure is 24 feet from the south property line and 16 feet from the north property line. In other parts of the building code, eave height is allowed to increase at a set ratio based on increase in setback. Because of this expanded setback, eave height has been increased to give a sense that the roofline slopes back to maintain a reasonably scaled profile. Harrington stated the reason for the overhang being included is because the homeowner is a woodworker, and the first floor is planned as a workshop. The porch area below the overhang could be used seasonally for outdoor saw use and storage, etc. Some of the design theory is an attempt to stretch the footprint of the building so as to stretch the profile as it moves upward. Three dimensional renderings of the building as it would sit on the property were presented by Harrington for neighborhood context. Harrington also commented that all current accessory buildings on the property are planned to be moved/removed. Landscaping and hardscaping would then be put in place within the yard. Before Harrington was involved, the owners contracted with an architect and went through an initial review with the Zoning Department approximately 1.5 years ago. During the meeting, plans were reviewed and intended uses were discussed, and the applicants left with the understanding that the proposed building would be approved. In terms of hardship, concept drawings were presented and felt like they were feasible. Harrington commented that as the project moves forward, more costs are expended for things like engineering, plan development, etc. Harrington indicated that the plans were initially based on a carriage house concept, but City Staff counseled them to re-present the plan as an accessory building as the structure was not intended to function as a rental unit. Based on this, all plans were re-labelled to indicate the building as an accessory structure. At this time, the customer is selling their existing house and closing on June 5th, and they are needing to live in the existing house prior to renovation, though that was not the intent because the project has taken so long. If the eave height needs to be changed and re-permitted and re-designed, it could potentially push the timeframe for completion back by approximately 9 months. Harrington stated that he believed there to be a discrepancy in interpretation for how square footage is calculated, saying that the Code doesn’t actually state that a 600 square foot maximum. According to Harrington’s interpretation, the first 250 square feet of an accessory building are not counted in the total of the lot, meaning that an accessory building could potentially be up to 850 square feet. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 Minutes – May11, 2023 Harrington commented that there has always been an awareness that the Code is understood to be changing, so the building is now being planned to conform with the new proposed guidelines and a 1,000 square foot maximum. Harrington believes that the proposed structure would comply with the proposed updated Land Use Code. Additionally, Harrington stated that he believes that the proposed structure is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. While walking through the neighborhood, Harrington stated that he sees similar structures that exploit the dormer issue that is tied with setback and eave heights. Therefore, the proposed structure would not be inconsistent with the neighborhood. Harrington presented multiple images of structures within the neighborhood that may not comply and/or have similar variances than what is being requested. Harrington argued that if code is apparently not being enforced on some of these structures, then it ceases to be considered a law. Ceiling heights could be reduced in order to reduce the calculated floor area, but that wouldn’t really change the outside dimensions. The height would still need to be maintained at 23 feet 10 inches to create attic space. Harrington questions if that would really be the best for the community, to create structures with sub-standard heights. Changing eave height would force a full re-design and is not feasible. Chair Shuff began discussion, asking if Harrington or the designer were aware of the code requirements around eave height? Those elements have always been present in the Code. Harrington stated that he became involved in the project around December 2022.Harrington noted read the code when the notice was published. As a builder, he is not typically involved with zoning code and was not involved in the design phase. Shuff gain asked simply if Harrington was aware of the code requirements specific to these structures. Olexa Tkachenko, Architect, DNA Design and Architecture, 407 Center Drive, provided background and information pertaining to some of the previous questions raised during discussion. Tkachenko stated that as a professional Architect, he has a responsibility to work within a community responsibly. In terms of the 13-foot eave height, Tkachenko commented that he was aware of the code. Tkachenko asserted that what code actually states is that a 13-foot eave height can be exceeded so long as the walls are set in a minimum of 2 feet. The proposed walls are set in 3 feet. The design must also include a dormer with a width of 25% or less of the total wall width. Tkachenko stated that when he was working on the design, he did speak with City Staff and discussed this element. In working with the Planning Dept, this the intent of this section of the Code is to prevent looming structures that impose on the privacy of neighbors. The goal of the design is to minimize massing; Tkachenko explained that the limiting factor is not so much the 13-foot eave height but is instead the 24-foot maximum building height. The proposed structure is within the allowable height, and a dormer element is not included as it immediately implies a gable-ended roof. A gable-ended roof facing north and south actually brings the ridge higher. The hip roof provides a lower profile, and attempts were made to minimize the height to maintain the character of the primary structure. The accessory structure is placed nearly on the mid-line of the property. All of these factors were considered in an attempt to minimize massing of the structure on the property. Regarding the variance request for additional square footage, Tkachenko stated that the request is not actually for additional square footage – the upper level is there, no denial. Ceiling height determining floor area is arbitrary. FAR for the property calculates out. The actual request is for additional ceiling height and not actually additional square footage. There is no attempt to manipulate math or square footage – the ceiling height is actually at the core of the request, as the second story floor area exists regardless of the ceiling height. A ceiling height lower than 7.5 feet is not the best design solution for occupants. Lastly, regarding the proposed overhang, Tkachenko asserted that the discrepancy is based on a definition of frontage. The primary home has a frontage along Sherman Street. At the rear of the lot there is an alley, and an alley is a public minor-way according to code. Thus, Tkachenko interprets the proposed accessory building as having frontage to the alley. One would not typically face a leisure/private patio that faces an alley, so the overhang was placed facing the primary residence. The alley is the “frontage” for the proposed building. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 Minutes – May11, 2023 Shuff asked for the specific height of the proposed eave, from grade, as it is variously marked as 18 feet in plans while the variance request denotes an eave height of 17.5 feet. Tkachenko and Harrington conferred, indicating that the eave height measures out to 17.5 feet. Tkachenko also indicated that he was not looking for variance approval based on precedent set by existing alley buildings but is instead attempting to design the best structure for the lot and clients’ needs. Public Comment: Mary Bashkin, 314 N Sherwood, commented that there was a concern regarding the west -facing wall and windows being proposed, as they will be looking directly into their yard. Bashkin indicated that many of their concerns could have been alleviated had they been able to speak with the property owners ahead of receiving the notice of appeal, which was their first indication that the project was taking place. She indicated that many of their concerns had been alleviated based on the information put forth during this hearing. Bashkin stated that her only remaining concern had to do with privacy within their own yard, as the proposed structure has windows with a clear view of Bashkin’s yard. Bashkin asked the applicants if the property owners might consider a fence and/or vegetation for installation between the properties as a means of creating a privacy barrier. Beals made the commission aware that Mary Bashkin had submitted written materials detailing her concerns as well, and those materials had been made available to the members of the Commission and were included in the hearing packet. Mary Bashkin commented that their letter was sent before the scope of the project was fully understood. Commission Discussion: Chair Shuff asked for clarification regarding interpretation of the code as put forth by the applicant. How does the 2:1 ratio of wall eave height/setback work? Beals clarified that this this ONLY applies to the primary structure and applies to the 18-foot maximum wall height of a primary structure and is not applicable to accessory structures. The code allows for an additional 1-foot of wall height for each 2- feet of additional setback. Shuff commented that examples shown by applicant had eaves that exceeded the 13-foot eave height requirement. Beals responded that it is not possible to explain why every example was created. Some may be compliant with the Code, others not. Can’t determine what exactly occurred in each instance without specific investigation. Some may be why the code was written. The way the Code is written today, there needs to be an eave height of 13 feet for an accessory building with water/sewer and/or habitable space. There is an allowance for a dormer to exceed that eave height if it is set back two feet from the face of the wall below if the dormer is no more than 25% of the width of the wall. This can often allow for the placement of a bathroom, as it allows enough height and width for a tub or shower. Alternatively, it can allow enough space for an entry door to be installed on the second story. Commission member Lawton stated that despite the previous history, the charge of the Commiss ion here today is to follow the current code. Lawton understands the architectural intent of the proposed structure. However, he is struggling with the number of variances that are being requested today that are outside of code standards. Commission member Coffman stated the aggregate of the variances is significant and wouldn’t allow for nominal and inconsequential justification. Nothing about the lot shape or size would qualify for hardship justification. Eaves and overhangs on both sides of proposed structure don’t jive with equal to or better than. For these reasons, Coffman is having a hard time with granting approval. Lawton observed that the main structure has a lot of renovations, so a lot of building square footage appears to be already accounted for/created on the lot. Beals stated that the assumption is that the applicant would bring something forward that meets the allowable floor area requirements for the lot. Commission member McCoy stated that for his consideration, the size of the lot allows the variance to move forward. Most requests that we see are right up against the lot lines. This one would have a lessened effect on the neighbors due to the placement of the structure. McCoy believes the total project is good for the neighborhood and would raise surrounding values. McCoy stated he would favor approving the variances. Land Use Review Commission Page 8 Minutes – May11, 2023 Commission member San Filippo commented that variances for existing structures are difficult. In cases of new construction, one should attempt to avoid as many variances as possible. San Filippo can sympathize with wanting to age in place and renovations to do so. However, it may result in square footage that is more than what is appropriate for the lot. At least two of the variances being requested could be avoided and therefore San Filippo does have a problem with approving the variance requests included in the application. Commission member Carron commented that he agrees that as the Code is written, the distinction between carriage house and accessory building with habitable space can be muddied. Overhangs and increased floor area may be considered to be nominal and inconsequential. However, the building height may be the most concerning element of the proposed design. Shuff appreciates the efforts and explanations provided by the applicant and representatives. However, he is still struggling with the need for certain specific types of structures (carriage house, accessory structures.) to comply with standards are place. What is the equity if this building is allowed, and others are not? Why do we have land use codes in place if they are not complied with? When attempting to apply each of the three standards, this proposal becomes hard to justify. If code were complied with in the initial designs, they may not even have to be here today to request variances. Lawton added that the design could be modified to comply with the Code while still providing value to the neighborhood and age in place capability. The building is not yet built and therefore could be re - designed for compliance while still maintaining the desired functionality. Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to DENY ZBA230009 for the following reasons: there has been insufficient showing of exceptional physical conditions or exceptional situations unique to this property; exceptional or undue hardship to the occupant or applicant; that the proposal would promote the general purpose of the standard; or that the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way. Yeas: Carron, Shuff, Coffman, San Filippo, Lawton Nays: McCoy Absent: Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50am. Agenda Item 1 Item #1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT July 13, 2023 STAFF Noah Beals, Development Review Manager PROJECT ZBA230010 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 3214 Burning Bush Court Owner: Judith Pasek Petitioner: Randal Schroeder Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: This is a request for a pergola to encroach 3 feet 6 inches into the required 15-foot rear-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property annexed into the City in 1994 in the Overland Trail 1994 annexation. Later in 1999 it received development approval for a residential unit part of the Ponds at Overland Trail Second filing subdivision. The primary building was constructed in 2000. The lot shape is not a perfect rectangle. The two side lot lines do run parallel to each other, but the rear and front lot line are at different angles. The primary house is parallel to the front property line. This condition results in the back of the house having a varying setback from the rear property line. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • The northeast corner of the structure meets the required setback . • The northwest corner is not an increase of distance from the house. • The rear property is not parallel to the front property line or house. The variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA230010. 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 $GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR WKHSURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVV VKDOORZQHVVRUWRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQG H[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG WKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRUhardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWLHQRW VHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG equallywell or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLV UHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential wayZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location9,578$/21/<YLD=RRP LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWRWKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP 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/ddE^ddDEdyW>/E/E'd,Z^KE&KZd,sZ/EZYh^dZYh/Zs/ ^WZdKhDEd͘ _________________________ 3214 Burning Bush Ct. 80521 3214 Burning Bush Ct Judith E Pasek 970-692-3261 4.4(D)(2)(c)pasekj@comcast.net R-L Low Density Residential Randal A Schroeder 3214 Burning Bush Ct, FC 970-817-1513 randalas@comcast.net 4/28/2023 1. Hardship 2. Equal to or better than 3. Nominal and inconsequential Statement Explaining Reason for the Variance Request KǁŶĞƌͬWĞƟƟŽŶĞƌ: Judith E Pasek WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĚĚƌĞƐƐ͗ϯϮϭϰƵƌŶŝŶŐƵƐŚƚ͕͘&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϭ ǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐƌĞĂƌƐĞƚďĂĐŬŽĨϭϱĨĞĞƚŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŽĨĂ ƉĞƌŐŽůĂŽǀĞƌĂŐƌŽƵŶĚ-ŇŽŽƌ-ůĞǀĞůĚĞĐŬĂƚƚŚĞƌĞĂƌŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞ͘ŶĞǁƌĞĂƌƐĞƚďĂĐŬŽĨϭϭ͘ϱĨĞĞƚ;ϭϭĨĞĞƚ͕ ϲŝŶĐŚĞƐͿŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶŽĨϯ͘ϱĨĞĞƚ;ϯĨĞĞƚ͕ϲŝŶĐŚĞƐͿ͘dŚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĨŽƌ ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞĂƐŽŶƐ͗ 1.,ĂƌĚƐŚŝƉ: dŚĞƌĞĂƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞĂŶĚĨĞŶĐĞƌƵŶƐĂƚĂŶĂŶŐůĞ;ŶŽŶ-ƉĂƌĂůůĞůͿƚŽƚŚĞƌĞĂƌŽĨƚŚĞ ŚŽƵƐĞ;ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŽƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞͿ͘dŚĂƚƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶĂƐŚĂůůŽǁŶĞƐƐŽĨƚŚĞďĂĐŬǇĂƌĚ͕ ƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůǇƚŽǁĂƌĚ ƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶ͘dŚĞǁĞƐƚĞƌŶ-ŵŽƐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞŝƐϱ͘ϬϱĨĞĞƚƐŚŽƌƚĞƌ than the eastern-ŵŽƐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞ͘dŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐϭϱ-ĨŽŽƚƌĞĂƌƐĞƚďĂĐŬŝƐƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞŽŶůǇϳĨĞĞƚ ĂǁĂǇĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚĞƌŶĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞ͘dŚĞĚĞĐŬĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽ ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĂƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐŝǌĞƉĂƟŽĨƵƌŶŝƚƵƌĞƐĞƚ͘ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŽĨϭϬĨĞĞƚĚĞƉƚŚ ;ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞͿ ŝƐŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽƐĂĨĞůǇĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĂƉĂƟŽƚĂďůĞĂŶĚĐŚĂŝƌƐ͘ƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚ͕ƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨ ƚŚĞĚĞĐŬƐŝƚƐĂƚϭϭĨĞĞƚϵŝŶĐŚĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƌĞĂƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞĂŶĚĨĞŶĐĞ ;ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚ the ŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚĞƌŶĐŽƌŶĞƌŝƐϭϱĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƌĞĂƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞĂŶĚĨĞŶĐĞͿ͘dŚĞǁĞƐƚĞƌŶ-ŵŽƐƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƉŽƐƚ ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ƚŚĞĐůŽƐĞƐƚƚŽƚŚĞƌĞĂƌŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚͿ ĨŽƌƚŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞĚƉĞƌŐŽůĂǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϮĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ ƌĞĂƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞĂŶĚĨĞŶĐĞ͘'ŝǀĞŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶƐ͕ĂƐĞƚďĂĐŬǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞŽĨϭϭ͘ϱĨĞĞƚ ;ϭϭĨĞĞƚ͕ϲŝŶĐŚĞƐͿŝƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ͘ 2.ƋƵĂůdŽŽƌĞƩĞƌdŚĂŶ: dŚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨĂƉĞƌŐŽůĂ, as designed, ƚŽƚŚĞƌĞĂƌŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞŝƐ ĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞŚŽŵĞǀĂůƵĞĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƚŚĞƵƐĂďŝůŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞŽƵƚĚŽŽƌůŝǀŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞ͘ dŚĞǁŽŽĚĚĞƐŝŐŶŽĨƚŚĞƉĞƌŐŽůĂŝƐĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚŝŶĂƉƉĞĂƌĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƐŝŵŝůĂƌƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘ƐŚĂůůŽǁĞƌƉĞƌŐŽůĂĚĞƐŝŐŶ;ƚŽĮƚŽƵƚƐŝĚĞ ƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐϭϱ-ĨŽŽƚrear ƐĞƚďĂĐŬͿ ǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚůŽŽŬƌŝŐŚƚĂĞƐƚŚĞƟĐĂůůǇ͕ŶŽƌƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞůĞǀĞůŽĨƐŚĂĚĞĚĞƐŝƌĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞĐŬ͘ 3.EŽŵŝŶĂůĂŶĚ/ŶĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶƟĂů: dŚĞƉĞƌŐŽůĂǁŝůůďĞǀŝƐŝďůĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞďĂĐŬǇĂƌĚƐŽĨĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŚŽŵĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͖ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝƚŝƐĂŶŽƉĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶ͘/ƚǁŝůůŶŽƚĂůƚĞƌƚŚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘ KƚŚĞƌŚŽŵĞƐŝŶƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŚĂǀĞĂůƐŽĂĚĚĞĚĚĞĐŬƐĂŶĚƉĞƌŐŽůĂƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞƐ͘dŚĞ ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞŽĨƚŚĞŚŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ;dŚĞWŽŶĚƐĂƚKǀĞƌůĂŶĚdƌĂŝů,KͿ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƉůĂŶƐ ĨŽƌďŽƚŚƚŚĞĚĞĐŬĂŶĚƉĞƌŐŽůĂ. House Driveway ExisƟng 15’ rear setback Variance request 11.5’ setback (reducƟon of 3.5’) NW NE SW SE Site Plan Rear setback variance request to accommodate addiƟon of pergola over low deck in outdoor space ExisƟng 15’ rear setback Variance request 11.5’ setback (reducƟon of 3.5’) NW SE SW NE 3214 Burning Bush Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80521 è«À£È]ÓäÓÎ*>ÌÀÌ ÕÃÌÃ}NÇä®{£ÓÎÓ{È NÜÜÜ°«>ÌÀÌVÕÃÌvÃ}°Vä£8ÎÓ£{ ÕÀ} ÕÃ Ì°*iÀ}> *>ÌÀÌ ÕÃÌÃ}NÇä®{£ÓÎÓ{ÈNÜÜÜ°«>ÌÀÌVÕÃÌvÃ}°Vè«À£È]ÓäÓÎäÓ8ÎÓ£{ ÕÀ} ÕÃ Ì°*iÀ}> ([LVWLQJGHFNEHORZ [URXJKFHGDUORXYHUV [URXJKFHGDUORXYHUV *iÀ}>*>SCALEèg([LVWLQJ6WUXFWXUH[URXJKFHGDUOHGJHUDWWDFKHGWRH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUH[URXJKFHGDUUDIWHUV è«À£È]ÓäÓÎ*>ÌÀÌ ÕÃÌÃ}NÇä®{£ÓÎÓ{È NÜÜÜ°«>ÌÀÌVÕÃÌvÃ}°VäÎ8ÎÓ£{ ÕÀ} ÕÃ Ì°*iÀ}> ([LVWLQJGHFN([LVWLQJ6WUXFWXUH*iÀ}> iÛ>ÌSCALEèg 6LPSVRQ2XWGRRU$FFHQWKDUGZDUHFRPSRQHQWV&HQWHUSRVWSDVVHVWKURXJKH[LVWLQJGHFN[URXJKFHGDUSRVWV[URXJKFHGDUEUDFHV[URXJKFHGDUEHDPVFRQFUHWHSLHUV è«À£È]ÓäÓÎ*>ÌÀÌ ÕÃÌÃ}NÇä®{£ÓÎÓ{È NÜÜÜ°«>ÌÀÌVÕÃÌvÃ}°Vä{8ÎÓ£{ ÕÀ} ÕÃ Ì°*iÀ}> *iÀ}> iÛ>ÌSCALEèg ([LVWLQJ'HFN([LVWLQJ6WUXFWXUH Agenda Item 2 Item #2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT July 13, 2023 STAFF Noah Beals, Development Review Manager PROJECT ZBA230011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 829 W Mountain Ave Owner: Post Modern Development LLC, JD Padilla Petitioner: Jordan Lockner Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(D)(5), 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2), 4.7(D)(3) Variance Request: This is a request for 3 variances: 1. Request to exceed the floor area of an accessory building with habitable space by 791.1 square feet. The maximum allowed is 600 square feet. The existing garage already exceeds the maximum by 150 feet. 2. Request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the lot by 474.99 square feet. The maximum allowed based on lot size is 2696.4 square feet. 3. Request to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on the rear half of the lot by 487.10 square feet. The maximum allowed based on lot size is 904 square feet. 1. Background: The property annexed into the City in 1887 as part of the Loomis Addition annexation. Later in 1999 it received development approval for a residential unit part of the Ponds at Overland Trail Second filing subdivision. The primary building was constructed in 1900. 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 8-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. 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: • The existing structure already exceeds the allowable floor area by 150 square feet. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA230011. 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 $GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR WKHSURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVV VKDOORZQHVVRUWRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQG H[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG WKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRUhardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWLHQRW VHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG equallywell or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLV UHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential wayZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location/D3RUWH$YH&LW\+DOO&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWRWKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPHDP Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City )RUW&ROOLQV&2Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ tZ/ddE^ddDEdyW>/E/E'd,Z^KE&KZd,sZ/EZYh^dZYh/Zs/ ^WZdKhDEd͘ 829 W Mountain Avenue 80521 144 N Mason St Unit #4, Fort Colli JD Padilla 970-222-4040 jd@postmoderndevelopment.com NCL Jordan Lockner 9217 Eastman Park Drive Unit #3, 970-215-9907 jordan@collabarchitects.com The owner of the property is looking at adding a guest suite above the existing garage as the current floorplan/home is very limited in SF and guest bedroom opportunities. The project goal is to add SF to the existing garage without jeopardizing the character and original design aesthetic of the structure. The original garage size does not leave adequate size or space for the addition of the family guest suite with the current regulation being limited to 600 SF. The request is to allow a SF increase to maintain the garage footprint and keep the original 5/8/2023 JD Padilla 2. Equal to or better than 3. Nominal and inconsequential Additional Justification tƌŝƚƚĞŶ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ZϮϬϮϮ͘Ϭ Ϭϰ ϱͬϮϲͬϮϯ :0RXQWDLQ$YH ϴϮϵtDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀĞ ^h:d͗sĂƌŝĂŶĐĞZĞƋƵĞƐƚʹtƌŝƚƚĞŶ ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ &ƌŽŵ͗:ŽƌĚĂŶ>ŽĐŬŶĞƌ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ ũŽƌĚĂŶΛĐŽůůĂďĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ͘ĐŽŵ ϵϳϬͲϮϭϱͲϵϵϬϳ :ULWWHQ 6WDWHPHQW WůĞĂƐĞĂĐĐĞƉƚƚŚŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌ;ϯͿƚŚƌĞĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƐƚŽ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰ͘ϳ;Ϳ;ϮͿ;ĂͿ;ϮͿĂŶĚ ;ϯͿE^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰ͘ϳ;Ϳ;ϱͿ;ϱͿŽĨƚŚĞ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞ͘ ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ dŚĞŽǁŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŝƐůŽŽŬŝŶŐĂƚĂĚĚŝŶŐĂŐƵĞƐƚƐƵŝƚĞĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ ŐĂƌĂŐĞĂƐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŇŽŽƌƉůĂŶͬŚŽŵĞŝƐǀĞƌǇůŝŵŝƚĞĚŝŶ^&ĂŶĚŐƵĞƐƚďĞĚƌŽŽŵ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŐŽĂůŝƐƚŽĂĚĚĂƐĞĐŽŶĚĨůŽŽƌƚŽƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞ ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚũĞŽƉĂƌĚŝǌŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶĂĞƐƚŚĞƚŝĐŽĨƚŚĞ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘dŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶƐŚŽǁƐŵŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĚĞƚĂŝůƐŽĨƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ͘ sĂƌŝĂŶĐĞZĞƋƵĞƐƚηϭ ŽĚĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰ͘ϳ;Ϳ;ϮͿ;ĂͿ;ϮͿůůŽǁĂďůĞ&ůŽŽƌƌĞĂŽŶ>ŽƚƐ͘ KŶĂůŽƚƚŚĂƚŝƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶĨŝǀĞƚŚŽƵƐĂŶĚ;ϱ͕ϬϬϬͿƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚĂŶĚƚĞŶƚŚŽƵƐĂŶĚ ;ϭϬ͕ϬϬϬͿƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ͕ƚŚĞĂůůŽǁĂďůĞĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂĨŽƌƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƐĂŶĚ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂĐĐĞƐƐŽƌǇƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƐƐŚĂůůŶŽƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƚǁĞŶƚǇ;ϮϬͿ ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚĂƌĞĂƉůƵƐŽŶĞƚŚŽƵƐĂŶĚ;ϭ͕ϬϬϬͿƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚsĂƌŝĂŶĐĞ͗ dŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝƐƚŽƉĞƌŵŝƚƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂŽĨƚŚĞƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞůůŝŶŐĂŶĚ ƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƚŽĞǆĐĞĞĚϮϬйŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚĂƌĞĂďǇϳϭϰ^&͘ dŚĞ^&ĂŵŽƵŶƚƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĂĚĚĞĚďĞůŽǁĨŽƌǇŽƵƌĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁ͗ >ŽƚƌĞĂ͗ϳ͕ϮϯϮ^& •ϳ͕ϮϯϮ^&ǆϮϬйсϭ͕ϰϰϲ^&ƉůƵƐϭ͕ϬϬϬ^&сϮ͕ϰϰϲ^&ŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĂůůŽǁĞĚ DĂŝŶ,ŽƵƐĞ͗ϭ͕ϳϴϬ^&dŽƚĂů Ɣϭ͕ϯϵϯ^&ŽŶƚŚĞDĂŝŶ&ůŽŽƌ Ɣϯϴϳ^&ŽŶƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŇŽŽƌ;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐƚĂŝƌĂƌĞĂͿ 'ĂƌĂŐĞǁŝƚŚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͗ϭ͕ϯϴϬ^&dŽƚĂů ƔϲϵϬ^&ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ'ĂƌĂŐĞ&ŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚ ƔϲϵϬ^&WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ;ϮŶĚ&ůŽŽƌͿ KǀĞƌĂůůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ^&͗ϯ͕ϭϲϬ^&ǁŝƚŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ :ƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ dŚĞƉůĂŶĂƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚŝƐŶŽŵŝŶĂůĂŶĚŝŶĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶƚŝĂů͘dŚĞĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂŵĂǆŝŵƵŵ ŝƐĞǆĐĞĞĚĞĚďǇϳϭϰ^&͘dŚĞŚŽƵƐĞǁĂƐďƵŝůƚŝŶϭϵϬϬĂŶĚƌĞŵŽĚĞůĞĚŝŶϭϵϵϵ͘/ƚŝƐ ĂŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞǁŝƚŚŶŽƉůĂŶƐĨŽƌĞǆƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͘dŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚ ĨůŽŽƌĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƐƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚĂŶĚŬĞĞƉƐƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘ sĂƌŝĂŶĐĞZĞƋƵĞƐƚηϮ ŽĚĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰ͘ϳ;Ϳ;ϮͿ;ĂͿ;ϯͿůůŽǁĂďůĞ&ůŽŽƌƌĞĂŽŶZĞĂƌ,ĂůĨŽĨ >ŽƚƐ͘dŚĞĂůůŽǁĂďůĞĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂŽŶƚŚĞƌĞĂƌŚĂůĨŽĨĂůŽƚƐŚĂůůŶŽƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƚǁĞŶƚǇͲ ĨŝǀĞ;ϮϱͿƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĨŝĨƚǇ;ϱϬͿƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚ͘ ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚsĂƌŝĂŶĐĞ͗ dŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝƐƚŽƉĞƌŵŝƚƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂŽĨƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƚŽĞǆĐĞĞĚϮϱйŽĨ ƚŚĞƌĞĂƌϱϬйŽĨƚŚĞůŽƚďǇϰϳϲ^&͘ dŚĞ^&ĂŵŽƵŶƚƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĂĚĚĞĚďĞůŽǁĨŽƌǇŽƵƌĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁ͗ dŽƚĂů>ŽƚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶƐ͗ϰϬ͛ǆϭϳϵ͛ ZĞĂƌϱϬйŽĨ>Žƚ͗ϯ͕ϲϭϲ^&ǆϮϱйсϵϬϰ^&ĂůůŽǁĂďůĞ 'ĂƌĂŐĞǁŝƚŚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͗ϭ͕ϯϴϬ^&dŽƚĂů ƔϲϵϬ^&ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ'ĂƌĂŐĞ&ŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚ ƔϲϵϬ^&WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ;ϮŶĚ&ůŽŽƌͿ :ƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŐĂƌĂŐĞƐŝǌĞĚŽĞƐŶŽƚůĞĂǀĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƐŝǌĞŽƌƐƉĂĐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůǇŐƵĞƐƚƐƵŝƚĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶďĞŝŶŐůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽϲϬϬ^&͘ dŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝƐƚŽĂůůŽǁĂϰϳϲ^&ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚŚĞĂůůŽǁĂďůĞĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂƚŽ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚĂŶĚŬĞĞƉƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘ sĂƌŝĂŶĐĞZĞƋƵĞƐƚηϯ ŽĚĞ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͗ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰ͘ϳ;Ϳ;ϱͿ;ϱͿĐĐĞƐƐŽƌǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝƚŚ,ĂďŝƚĂďůĞ^ƉĂĐĞ;ŽƌWŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů &ƵƚƵƌĞ,ĂďŝƚĂďůĞ^ƉĂĐĞͿ͘ŶǇĂĐĐĞƐƐŽƌǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚǁĂƚĞƌĂŶĚͬŽƌƐĞǁĞƌ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐŚĂůůďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƚŽŚĂǀĞŚĂďŝƚĂďůĞƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŶǇƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƉƉůǇŝŶŐĨŽƌĂ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚĨŽƌƐƵĐŚĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŚĂůůƐŝŐŶĂŶĚƌĞĐŽƌĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ>ĂƌŝŵĞƌ ŽƵŶƚǇůĞƌŬĂŶĚZĞĐŽƌĚĞƌĂŶĂĨĨŝĚĂǀŝƚƐƚĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƐƵĐŚĂĐĐĞƐƐŽƌǇƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ ƐŚĂůůŶŽƚďĞƵƐĞĚĂƐĂĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚ͘ůůďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚƐŝƐƐƵĞĚĨŽƌƐƵĐŚ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐƐŚĂůůďĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĞĚƵƉŽŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚŝŽŶ͘ŶǇƐƵĐŚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐŚĂďŝƚĂďůĞƐƉĂĐĞƚŚĂƚŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚďĞŚŝŶĚĂƐƚƌĞĞƚͲĨƌŽŶƚŝŶŐƉƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŚĂůůĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĂŵĂǆŝŵƵŵŽĨƐŝǆŚƵŶĚƌĞĚ;ϲϬϬͿƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚŽĨĨůŽŽƌ ĂƌĞĂ͘&ůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂƐŚĂůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂůůĨůŽŽƌƐƉĂĐĞǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚĨůŽŽƌƉůƵƐƚŚĂƚ ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂŽĨĂŶǇƐĞĐŽŶĚƐƚŽƌǇŚĂǀŝŶŐĂĐĞŝůŝŶŐŚĞŝŐŚƚŽĨĂƚůĞĂƐƚ ƐĞǀĞŶĂŶĚŽŶĞͲŚĂůĨ;ϳЪͿĨĞĞƚĂŶĚďĂƐĞŵĞŶƚĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂǁŚĞƌĞĂŶǇĞǆƚĞƌŝŽƌ ďĂƐĞŵĞŶƚǁĂůůŝƐĞǆƉŽƐĞĚďǇŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƚŚƌĞĞ;ϯͿĨĞĞƚĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŐƌĂĚĞ ĂƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌƐŝĚĞůŽƚůŝŶĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞǁĂůů͘^ƵĐŚĂĐĐĞƐƐŽƌǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŵĂǇ ďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶĂŶǇĂƌĞĂŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĂƌƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨĂůŽƚ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŚĂƚŝƚĐŽŵƉůŝĞƐ ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĞƚďĂĐŬƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚŝƐŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƚůĞĂƐƚĂƚĞŶͲĨŽŽƚ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ͘ ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚsĂƌŝĂŶĐĞ͗ dŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝƐƚŽĂůůŽǁƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƚŽĞǆĐĞĞĚƚŚĞϲϬϬ^&ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĂůůŽǁĞĚŝŶ ƚŚĞŽĚĞ͘ :ƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŐĂƌĂŐĞƐŝǌĞĚŽĞƐŶŽƚůĞĂǀĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƐŝǌĞŽƌƐƉĂĐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůǇŐƵĞƐƚƐƵŝƚĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶďĞŝŶŐůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽϲϬϬ^&͘ dŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝƐƚŽĂůůŽǁĂϳϴϬ^&ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚĂŶĚ ŬĞĞƉƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘ dŚĞ^&ĂŵŽƵŶƚƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĂĚĚĞĚďĞůŽǁĨŽƌǇŽƵƌĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁ͗ 'ĂƌĂŐĞǁŝƚŚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͗ϭ͕ϯϴϬ^&dŽƚĂů ƔϲϵϬ^&ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ'ĂƌĂŐĞ&ŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚ ƔϲϵϬ^&WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ;ϮŶĚ&ůŽŽƌͿ tĞĨĞĞůƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƉůĂŶĞŶƐƵƌĞƐƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀŝƚǇƚŽƚŚĞ ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝǀĞ͕ĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŶĂŶ ŝŶĨŝůůƐŝƚĞǁŝƚŚĂƉƌŝĐĞƉŽŝŶƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŵĂƌŬĞƚĚĞƐŝƌĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĐĂŶ ďĞƉƌŽƵĚŽĨ͘ůƚŚŽƵŐŚŶŽƚƐƚƌŝĐƚůǇĂĐƌŝƚĞƌŝŽŶĨŽƌũƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ ǁŽƵůĚďĞĂďĞŶĞĨŝƚƚŽƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘dŚĞŵŽĚŝĮĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ ǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĚĞƚƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŐŽŽĚĂŶĚŝŶĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶƚŝĂůƚŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŝŶƚĞŐƌŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘ ϴϮϵtDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀĞ͘ DĂǇϮϲƚŚ͕ϮϬϮϯ 522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*::::::::::::::*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;((((((((($//(<*5$9(/ *5$66 *5$66 *5$66 *5$66 9/1706#+0#8'59#5*+0)610#8':62:62)2(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1( (;,67,1*'(&.(;,67,1*%8,/',1*)22735,17 ),567)/225727$/$5($6)&(,/,1*+(,*+7 *$5$*((;,67,1*%8,/',1*)22735,17 *$5$*(),567)/225727$/$5($&(,/,1*+(,*+7 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. )5217/275($5/27&(17(5/,1(2)6,7(&(,/,1*+(,*+7 6,7((/(&75,&0(7(5:$7(59$/9(),5(+<'5$17+$1',&$35$03)281'02180(17$6'(6&5,%(')(1&(),%(5237,&/2&$7()/2:/,1(*$6/2&$7(/(*(1':$7(56+872))9$/9(),%(5237,&9$8/7('*(2)*5$9(/()2:62;)2*$6('*(2)/$1'6&$3,1*::$7(5/2&$7(3523(57</,1(&217285/,1(((/(&75,&352326('5($5/276)6)727$//27$5($6)0$;$5($$//2:('6)727$/5($5/27$5($6)0$,1+286(6)6)0$,1)/2256)6)6(&21')/2256)6),1&/8',1*67$,5$5($*$5$*(:,7+352326('$'',7,216)(;,67,1**$5$*(6)352326('$'',7,216)1')/2256)29(5$//3523(57<6)352326('6)9$5,$1&(/276),1&5($6(9$5,$1&(5($5/276),1&5($6(727$/$//2:$%/(5($5/276)6)727$/$//2:$%/($5($3(5&2'(6)9$5,$1&($&&(6625<%8,/',1*6)(;,67,1**$5$*(6)352326('$'',7,216)1')/2256)522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*522)29(5+$1*::::::::::::::*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6*$6)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2)2;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;((((((((($//(<*5$9(/*5$66*5$66*5$66 *5$66 9/1706#+0#8'59#5*+0)610#8':62:62)2(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1( (;,67,1*'(&.352326('6(&21')/2256)2)+$%,7$%/(63$&(&(,/,1*+(,*+7 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. (;,67,1*6(&21')/225727$/$5($6)&(,/,1*+(,*+7 )5217/275($5/27&(17(5/,1(2)6,7(6''' 3HUPLW &RQVWUXFWLRQ127)25&216758&7,215HYLVLRQV'5$:1%<%0=&+(&.('%<-:/*22'0$1675((77,01$7+&2/25$'2A0.53(50,76(75:02817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2829 W MOUNTAIN5(02'(/$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1176>5($@$$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1),567)/2251257+176$$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$16(&21')/2251257+ Agenda Item 3 Item #3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT July 13, 2023 STAFF Noah Beals, Development Review Manager PROJECT ZBA230010 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2843 Mercy Drive Owner/Petitioner: Josh Cornish Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: This is a request to encroach 5 feet into the 15-foot corner side-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property annexed into the City in 1989 part of the Quail Hollow Annexation. Later in 1991 it received development approval for a residential unit part of the Quail Hollow Fifth Filing subdivision. The primary building was constructed in 1992. The lot is a corner lot, therefore abuts two streets. The primary house faces and is addressed from Mercy Drive making the property line along this street the front. The property line along Mercy Court is considered the side. The side setback is along a street is 15 feet. Within this side setback is an 8 ft utility easement. The proposed encroach does not overlap the existing easement. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • The proposed structure is open on three sides. • The property line is 5ft behind the back side of the sidewalk , resulting in the proposed structure to be 15ft from the sidewalk Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA230012. Cornish Porch Variance Supplement2843 Mercy DriveFort Collins, CO 80526June 13, 2023Low Density Residential DistrictQuail Hollow – 5thPlat, lot #19 Resources:2843 Mercy Dr.Land UseCode Section 4.4(D)(2)(d)Low Density Residential District -https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART4DI_DIV4.4LODEREDISetback Regulations – 3.8.19(A)(6):https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use?nodeId=ART3GEDEST_DIV3.8SURE_3.8.19SEREQuail Hollow 5thPlat, Lot 19 –https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=11632687&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins&searchid=65344adb-b352-49af-9bfe-b844658e6755Quail Hollow Site/Landscape Plan –https://records.fcgov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=11632690&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins&searchid=65344adb-b352-49af-9bfe-b844658e6755 Goal:2843 Mercy Dr.To grant a variance to the Land UseCode Section 4.4(D)(2)(d)to reduce the setback distance from 15’ to 10’ on the south side of our corner lot Reasons why we are applying:2843 Mercy Dr.1. Making a porch extension under the current land use code would only allow a few feet of depth for a porch design. Not enough for a useable space containing a table and chairs.2. To differentiate our property from many other homes in the neighborhood with the same design3. To provide useful outdoor living space on the south side of our property4. To save water and maintenance by eliminating a plant bed which isn’t important to us5. To add equity to our home Lot:2843 Mercy Dr.Proposed build site Existing Site:2843 Mercy Dr.22884433 MMeerrccyy DDrr. 2843 Mercy Dr.Existing Site: 2843 Mercy Dr.2843MercyDrExisting Site: 2843 Mercy Dr.Design Overview:Shingled roofWooden fencePoured concrete padWooden pergola6” wooden support posts 2843 Mercy Dr.Property line15’ Setback10’ Setback10’5’Proposed Addition:Concrete padConcrete pad 17’12’ 3”4’ 3”Proposed Addition:Concrete pad2234.5 square feet2843 Mercy Dr. 2843 Mercy Dr.Proposed Addition: 2843 Mercy Dr.Proposed Addition: 2843 Mercy Dr.Proposed Addition:2843 Mercy Dr 1.5’7’9’ 9”Easement6” gapProposed Addition:Roof structure2843 Mercy Dr. Shingled area:234 square feet33’ 4”Proposed Addition:Roof structure2843 Mercy Dr. 14’ 4”Proposed Addition:Roof structure2843 Mercy Dr. 2’ 5”38’ of new fenceProposed Addition:Fence2843 Mercy Dr. Thanks for your consideration!- The Cornish Family2843 Mercy Dr.-TThhee CCoorrnniisshh FFaammiillyy Agenda Item 4 Item #4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT July 13, 2023 STAFF Noah Beals, Development Review Manager PROJECT ZBA230013 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 219 Park Street Owner/Petitioner: Nicholas Michaelson Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) and 4.8(E)(4) Variance Request: This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 1.5 feet into the 5ft rear-yard setback and 1.5 into the side-yard setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property annexed into the City in 1888 in the Doty and Rhodes Subdivision and later replatted part Capitol Hill Addition and received development approval for a residential unit at that same time. The primary building was constructed in 1929. The lot is a rectangle and abuts a public alley. The required setback for an accessory structure along both property lines is 5ft. The owner submitted for a building permit to construct the structure in 2020. A permit was issued later that same year. The site plan submitted for the permit showed a 7ft setback along the alley and 5ft setback along the side property line. The structure was constructed not meeting the stated setbacks. The request to allow the structure to remain in place as constructed. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval provided the storm water runoff is captured on the applicant’s property: • The variance request is not detrimental to the public good. • The structure is lower in height in the encroaching area. • The six ft tall fence sits between the property and the structure on both sides. • The rear property setback is along an 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 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA230013. 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’sAddress Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email ZoningDistrict Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’sAddress Justification(s)Additional Justification Representative’s Phone # Justification(s)Additional Justification Representative’s Email Reasoning WRITTEN STATEMENTEXPLAININGTHEREASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUESTREQUIRED VIA SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Date Signature Building Code requirements will be determined 3DUN6WUHHW 1LFKRODV0LFKDHOVRQ 1&0 'HY( 1RPLQDO,QFRQVHTXHQWLDO 6/12/2023 Dear Zoning Board, I am writing to request a zoning variance for a greenhouse in my backyard. The zoning variance is needed to obtain final approval of the building permit. The greenhouse is located in the southwest corner of the property, with one side facing the alley and the other facing the adjacent neighbor’s yard. The walls of the greenhouse facing the adjacent property and alley are approximately 3.5’ from the property line. I believe that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and that the deviation from the minimum setback distance requirement is nominal and inconsequential. I have included with my variance application a plot plan of the property, a satellite image with plat lines obtained from the Larimer County GIS, and various views of the greenhouse to assist in demonstrating the structure does not impose on other properties or the alley. I am hopeful I can address any concerns or questions the zoning board may have may this request. I believe that the greenhouse is a positive addition to the neighborhood and does not detract from the character of the surrounding area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Nicholas Michaelson Lot171ft. 0.00in. X 51ft. 9.00in.3'6"3'6"AlleyHouseGarage(Shed)Greenhouse0 ft. 12 ft. 20 ft. 40 ft.Sidewalk & CurbPark StreetPrivacy Fence(inside property line)ϮϭϵWĂƌŬ^ƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƉůŽƚƉůĂŶ Larimer County Web Map This map was created by Larimer County GIS using data from multiple sources for informal purposes only. This map may not reflect recent updates prior to the date of printing. Larimer County makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content represented.Date Prepared: 6/12/2023 3:40:35 PM Miles0.0 0.0 600 0 Legend 1: Notes Scale Addresses Subdivisions Tax Parcels Platted Lots Home Owners Assoc & Severed Mine Rights City or Town County State Federal Other Front View of GreenhouseFence on left shows adjacent property. Structure off to left of tree is aanother property’s shed across the alleyRear View of GreenhouseView from alley, looking at fence line between adjacent propertyWhite pole indicates location of property stake South-facing View of Greenhouse from alleyStructure behind greenhouse is a small playhouse two properties south. White pole indicates property stake.North-facing View of Greenhouse from alleyWhite pole indicates property stake From:Noah Beals To:Kory Katsimpalis Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Appeal ZBA230013 Date:Monday, July 3, 2023 8:48:23 AM -----Original Message----- From: missydawnsimpson@gmail.com <missydawnsimpson@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 2, 2023 11:56 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Appeal ZBA230013 I own 225 Park street and received notice that my neighbor at 219 Park Street is applying for a variance to the setback in the alley. I am unable to attend the hearing regarding 219 Park Street. I support granting this variance and do not have any objections. Thank you ~Melissa Simpson