Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/2023 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meetinglan 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 NOVEMBER 9, 2023 8:30 AM Meeting Participation Participation in the Land Use Review Commission meeting on Thursday, November 9, 2023, will only be available IN PERSON in accordance with Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to nbeals@fc�ov.com. Individuals uncomfortable with public participation are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments 24 hours prior to the meeting to nbeals@fc�ov.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@fc�ov.com. • 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 Page 2 Agenda — November 9, 2023 1. APPEAL ZBA230022 Address: 4154 Tanager St Owner/Petitioner: Jesus Garcia Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a request to build an 8-foot fence along the side property lines. The maximum height for a fence along the side yard is 6 feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA230023 Address: 1147 Laporte Ave Owner/Petitioner: Chris LaBerge Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 4.5 feet into the required 5-foot side setback. 3. APPEAL ZBA230024 Address: 115 N Shields St Owner: Hunter and Kate Swanson Petitioner: Sean Tomlinson, Designer Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4)(a) Project Description: This is a request for an addition to an existing home to have a side wall height of 21 feet 4 inches while abutting a property on the north side. This wall is setback a total of 7 feet 10 inches from the north side property line, which would allow the maximum wall height to be 16 feet. 4. APPEAL ZBA230025 - WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO HEARING Address: 5023 E County Rd 41 (Parcel# 871029702) Owner: Mark Krieger Petitioner: Zach Brammer Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a request to have an 8-foot-tall fence along the side property line, where the maximum height allowed is 6 feet. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT lan 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 OCTOBER 12, 2023 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of Chair Shuff and member Vogel. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by Coffman to approve the September 14, 2023, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was adopted; Vice-Chair Lawton abstained. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) -NONE- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA230018 Address: Owner/Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: 1401 Sugarpine St. Kevin & Diana Nelson R-L 3.5.2(E)(5) Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building to be 74 square feet over the maximum allowed. The maximum allowed in the R-L zone is 800 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is on the corner of Foxtail and Sugarpine, on a Cul-de-Sac. The request is to construct a new Land Use Review Commission Page 2 DRAFT Minutes — October 12, 2023 accessory building on the side of the primary house. The existing accessory building would be removed and replaced with the proposed structure. Site plans show the new structure meets both side and rear-yard setbacks. The request is to exceed the floor area for an accessory building. The max for this size lot within the R-L district is 800 square feet, the proposed structure would be 874 square feet. The new garage structure would be accessed from the existing driveway. Although no height limits are shown in the packet, there is a height limit for accessory structures within the R-L district. Staff believes the structure is below the allowable limit; if the height exceeds the allowable limit, an additional variance request would need to be made to this commission. Beals presented photographs of the property, describing views of the existing structure as seen from inside the yard as well as street view. Commission member San Filippo asked Beals to confirm the maximum the height limit for an accessory structure within the R-L zone. Beals stated the maximum is no greater than 28 feet, or a maximum of 2-feet taller than the primary structure. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Kevin Nelson, 1401 Sugarpine St, addressed the Commission and provided comments. Nelson has lived there since 1993. The proposed shop is for strictly hobby woodworking. The shop would provide more room for storage and parking. Additionally, the proposed dimensions allow for less waste, as they utilize dimensional numbers based on manufacturing. Vice Chair Lawton asked the applicant if the structure would be used for parking, as the property does have an existing garage as well. Applicant Nelson confirmed the structure would be used to park his truck, stating the proposed structure is longer than existing and would fit his standard-length truck bed. It would also provide cover for hail damage. San Filippo asked Nelson for the proposed wall heights, as they are not marked. Nelson explained that he is looking at both 11- and 12-feet height options; the 11-foot height option would increase materials waste. Both would keep the overall height of the proposed structure less than 20 feet. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member McCoy stated he had no problem with the request. Commission member Carron described that an applicant could theoretically have two larger buildings of more impact, without the need for variance. Thus, the request could be justified as nominal and inconsequential. Commission member Coffman agreed with the previous Commission members' comments. Commission member San Filippo — agreed as well, feeling the application presented is excellent and mostly follows the code. The potential impact would be minimal. Vice Chair Lawton agrees with previous statements and feels the proposed structure would be a good use of land and the intended use has already been established on the property. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA230018 for the following reasons: the application is not detrimental to the public good; the proposed structure complies with the required setbacks; the proposed structure does not exceed the allowable floor area for the property; two accessory buildings could be built in the place of the proposed single building; the proposed location of the structure is located behind the front wall of the primary structure. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the Land Use Review Commission Page 3 DRAFT Minutes — October 12, 2023 standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: McCoy, San Filippo, Coffman, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Shuff, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA230019 Address: Owner/Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: 143 N McKinley Ave. Ryan & Melinda Peterson N-C-L 4.7(E)(3) & 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: There are two requests for this variance: 1) Request for an accessory building to encroach 11 feet into the required 15-foot rear setback. 2) Request for an accessory building to encroach 2 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 near corner of Laporte Ave and N McKinley Ave. The request is to build a new shed in the back yard; there is an existing shed currently that would be demolished for the proposed shed. Beals made note that there is an detached garage that encroaches into the side-setback and is aligned with the existing side driveway. This property is not accessed by the alley but by the street. Beals explained that for this subject property, the south property line is considered a side setback; the west property line is considered a rear setback. When examining the abutting property to the south and the shared property lines to the south, that line is also considered a side setback. However, the abutting neighbors to the west front onto Laporte, so the shared property line is considered a side- setback for them rather than rear. The abutting property does have an accessory building that encroaches into the side setback, and the abutting neighbor to the south has mature landscaping along south property lines. The proposed structure would be three feet from the existing fence. Proposed 2.5 feet eave-to-eave from new structures to existing garage. Beals noted The property line is on the other side of the fence — there is 3 feet from proposed eave to property line on the west. Code requires a 15-foot setback; request is for a 3-foot setback (resulting in a 12-foot encroachment). Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals if the property lines depicted in aerial views are accurate, as it appears to cut through the neighbor's shed. Beals explained that there is a small discrepancy between aerial photography views and GIS data/actual property lines, and the true property line does not in fact bisect the existing shed. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Ryan Peterson, 143 N McKinley Ave., addressed the Commission and provided comments. Peterson noted that his wife, Melinda, was also present in the audience. Peterson explained that the proposed shed structure would provide more storage and more space for their toddler to play. Because of the placement of existing mature trees as well as zoning requirements, the proposed location is really the only solution on the lot. The new structure won't noticeably change the character of the neighborhood, as it would replace an existing similar structure. The proposed structure would be about 1 foot further away from the property line compared to the existing structure. Peterson stated they had consulted with both neighbors to the south and west, and both are in support of the proposal. Vice-Chair Lawton acknowledged the inclusion of the letters of support in the hearing packet. Commission member Coffman noted there appeared to be mature trees to the north. Coffman asked if pictures were available. Beals offered aerial views, wherein the trees are visible in upper-left corner of lot. Peterson explained that other shed options/placements would have required removal of the tree. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 DRAFT Minutes — October 12, 2023 Commission member San Filippo asked if the applicants have read the staff recommendations? Staff are recommending a 10-foot encroachment rather than 11-feet as requested on the west side. This would result in a spacing of 5-feet from the property line. San Filippo asked Peterson if he would be able to comply with this recommendation. Peterson responded to San Filippo's questions, noting a 10-foot encroachment would push the proposed structure closer to the existing garage, leaving only 1.5 feet spacing eave-to-eave. Peterson asserted the Building Dept. requires 2-feet eave-to-eave spacing, as communicated to Peterson during prior consultation with the Building Dept. Peterson offered that the location could instead be pushed 6 inches, to maintain 2-feet spacing. Beals responded that he could not speak on behalf of the Building Dept and can't speak to those specific regulations. Beals' understanding is that buildings can get closer together, but fire ratings of materials must increase. This may increase costs to fire rate materials. Beals stated that that threshold may actually be 3-feet spacing and closer. Peterson stated that his plans already include higher fire-rated materials. Peterson reiterated his understanding that a 2-foot minimum spacing needs to maintained eave-to-eave. Commission member Carron asked the applicant if the proposed exterior walls are fire rated? Peterson confirmed that the walls and eaves are fire rated as proposed. Vice-Chair Lawton asked for clarification that the purpose of property line variance is to maintain space between the proposed structure and the existing garage. Peterson confirmed that the purpose of the variance into the rear setback is to maintain the space between buildings. The proposed design splits the difference between the new shed to property line and the garage. Peterson agreed that the plans could be modified to maintain the minimum 2-feet spacing between eaves. Beals noted that eave is not required on this structure. Peterson responded that this is a pre-designed shed, and this is the package that fits on the property and matches the design of the primary structure. San Filippo asked the applicant if there is any reason, they can't comply with the 5-foot side yard setback in the construction of the new shed? Peterson acknowledged that plans could be modified to push the proposed structure out, to be further away from the fence (the current proposal is 3 feet). This could be increased; the initial plan was an attempt to fit the proposed structure to where the existing structure is. Neighbors to the south did not have a problem with their current location. San Filippo explained that one of the primary reasons for maintaining a 5-foot setback is to allow for emergency/fire dept access. If the proposed structure could comply with the 5-foot setback requirement, then it wouldn't need the second variance being requested. Peterson agreed they could comply with the 5-foot setback requirement. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron stated that he agrees generally with comments made previously by Commission members, as well as staff recommendation for denial of side yard setback encroachment. However, due to all of the existing constraints on the property, as well as the neighborhood already having numerous existing structures placed in the setback, the applicanYs request for a rear-yard encroachment of 11 feet is fine, given the nature of the neighborhood and existing conditions. Vice-Chair Lawton agreed, commenting that if there are no longer issues with the side setback, the requested rear setback encroachment doesn't pose an issue. San Filippo asked Assistant Attorney Chris Hayes if the applicanYs willingness to conform to the required 5-foot side yard setback, as stated on record, negate the need for the Commission to address the second variance? Land Use Review Commission Page 5 DRAFT Minutes — October 12, 2023 Hayes advised that the Commission should still address that portion of the request as it has been formally included in the application unless the applicant withdraws that request on the record. Applicant Peterson formally moved to formally withdraw the second portion of the variance request. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Carron, to APPROVE ZBA230019 for the following reasons: The application is not detrimental to the public good; the rear yard setback is not equal setback on the other side of the property line; an existing structure that will be removed already encroaches 12.7 feet into the same setback; the abutting property has an existing structure along the same property line. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: McCoy, San Filippo, Coffman, Lawton, Carron Nays: THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 3. APPEAL ZBA230020 Address: 220 Pitner Dr. Owner/Petitioner: Mason Burns Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) � Absent: Shuff, Vogel Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 7.5 feet into the required 15-foot rear setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is near the corner of Kevin Dr and Pitner Dr. The request is to build a new accessory building in the rear yard of the property. To note, two existing accessory structures would be removed. Also, there is essentially a delineation in the interior of the property — there is a 6-foot fence from the house to the middle of the yard, which essentially bisects the rear yard. The proposed structure would be built on the far side of this fence, within the rear yard. With any accessory building on residential properties, they are not to be used to run a business, even with a Home Occupation license (must be run out of primary building). The intent of use for the proposed structure is not known. Based on the submitted site plans, the proposed accessory building long side would run parallel to the rear property line and is proposed to be set back 7.5 feet from the property line; the required setback from rear property line is 15 feet. Side setbacks would be met from east and west property lines, which both require a 5-foot setback. The proposed structure is approximately 24.5 feet in height and 26 wide feet x 30 feet 5 inches long. Based on aerial photographs, it appears that accessory structures are being built into the rear setback in other rear yards in the area, but it cannot be determined if these are legal. Most of these structures are small in square footage as well as smaller in height when compared to the proposed structure. There are easements along the rear property line; the proposed structure would be outside of those easements. Images of the property depict the driveway for garage access, as well as a secondary drive that accesses the delineated rear of the property, behind the 6-foot fence. The existing structures are approximately 10 feet tall, and smaller in scale than what is being proposed. Vice-Chair Lawton asked for clarification regarding if the structure is clear of the easements in the rear yard — site plans show the building may impede existing easement. Beals confirmed the proposed accessory structure does not encroach on existing easements, and noted there is no minimum distance that the building must be maintained away from the easement. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 DRAFT Minutes — October 12, 2023 Applicant Presentation: Applicant Mason Burns, 220 Pitner Dr., addressed the Commission and provided comments. Burns reiterated that he is requesting an accessory building to be 7.5 feet from the rear property line. Burns stated that the rear fence is not in place to facilitate any sort of business use but is instead used to keep dogs within the yard. Burns stated that two existing structures encroach past the utility easement and would be removed for compliance. Also, would like to build the proposed structure that be used for hobby car mechanic activities and accommodate potential installation of a car lift. Burns explained that if the proposed structure were built to be compliant, it would necessitate the partial removal of the fence line as well as land excavation to level out a large sloping area between the fence line and the accessory building. The east side of the property has a retaining wall and a steep decline on the back side, Vice-Chair Lawton asked if the applicant could again expand on the intended purpose of the building. As proposed, it is quite large. Burns stated the proposed accessory building would be used for vehicle/trailer storage as well as theft deterrence, as well as hobby automotive pursuits. Currently, it is difficult to work on vehicles in the existing attached single-car garage. Lawton commented that a 24-foot building right up against a rear 6-foot fence is fairly massive. The Commission tries to consider impacts on neighboring properties. Burns stated that the south neighbor has accessory buildings and mature trees. Commission member San Filippo asked if the proposed structure would be prefabricated, or stick built. Burns answered that it would be stick-built. San Filippo asked if it would be possible to reduce the overall height of the structure, while maintaining the amount of space and storage needed for trailers and vehicles. Burns answered that the increased height for is intended to accommodate storage racking, as one sees in Lowe's or Home Depot, as well as the potential inclusion of a car lift. The goal was to be lower than the 28-foot maximum and not taller than the primary structure on the property. The reason for the extra height is due to the sloping grade at the rear of the property. Burns asked if San Filippo were proposing a specific reduced height. San Filippo indicated he was not trying to prescribe a specific design or height, merely asking questions. San Filippo asked for the height of the proposed garage door, noting that it appears to be approximately 20 feet tall based on the provided elevations. Burns explained that the elevations were drawn quickly; the walls themselves are measured at 20 feet, so the garage door would be approximately 16 feet. The garage door has not yet been specified but needs to accommodate a taller vehicle as compared to a standard-sized garage door. San Filippo asked if the lifts and storage would be used to support a hobby or business? Burns responded that he pursues a hobby of classic-car restoration. Lawton, when examining measurements from structure to required setbacks, asked the applicant to explain the interFerence between proposed building and interior fence line to meet the setback, the structure would run in to existing fence line? Burns explained that the existing structures are 2.5-3 feet from the rear lot line. Per the Assessor, there is a 7.5-foot utility easement line currently on the rear property line. If the proposed new structure was 15 feet from rear, it would encroach on the slope in the rear yard. In that scenario, Burns would have to put in a retaining wall and water run-off mitigation. Thus, the variance is being requested in order to place the proposed building within the leveled portion of the rear yard. Commission member Carron directed attention to pg. 69 of the agenda packet, which contains images that more clearly depict the slope of the rear yard. Mason Burns invited his brother, Matt Burns, to provide additional information. Matt Burns again explained that they would have to re-build the fence and install a retaining wall if the required 15-foot rear setback was met. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 DRAFT Minutes — October 12, 2023 Commission member Coffman asked if there was already an existing retaining wall? Mason Burns explained that there is a retaining wall on the east side of the lot currently; would need to be built on the west side if structure were compliant with the 15-foot setback. Commission member Carron asked to examine photos of the back yard again, to get a better sense of the topography conditions. Carron acknowledged that the grade is more substantial than what would be expected in a normal level lot. Coffman asked additional clarifying questions to orient views shown in photographs, as some photographs are not current compared to aerial view. Coffman asked what the distance is between the interior fence and the back fence. Burns calculated the distance at approximately 38.5 feet; Coffman verified this via a rough Google Earth measurement. Coffman asked the applicant if they knew what percentage grade was present in the back yard. Burns responded approximately 4-6 inches/foot. San Filippo asked Burns to confirm the height of the primary house as 30 feet tall. Burns confirmed this as accurate, noting the home is a tri-level design with a 6/12 pitch roof. San Filippo asked Burns to confirm that the proposed structure would appear to be considerable below the primary home when viewed from Pitner Drive, due to the grade of the back yard. Burns confirmed this as accurate, noting the roofline of the proposed structure would not be visible. Public Comment: -NONE- � v Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron stated that he agrees that existing sloping grade could be considered to be a hardship, while also agreeing that compared to the scale of the proposed structure, a 7.5-foot encroachment is too much. Perhaps a 10-foot encroachment could be a compromise. Commission member Coffman agreed with the sentiments offered by Carron, noting that there is a clear downward grade. Ideally the structure could be placed far away from the encroachment without necessitating significant retaining wall construction. Vice-Chair Lawton noted that when looking at measurements, with a slightly reduced building width of 26 feet and a 10-foot setback (5-foot encroachment), the proposed structure could fit well in the space. Commission member San Filippo stated he would be inclined to support a modified 5-foot encroachment. Because the proposed structure is to be stick-built, it could be modified in such a way that the gradient could be considered. Additionally, the structure may need to be downsized a bit to better fit a 10-foot setback. Applicant Mason Burns asked if the overall building height was reduced, would the encroachment request be acceptable? Carron commented that there are no other existing accessory structures in the neighborhood that match the scale of the proposed building, so placing it close to the property line would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Burns asked if the building were reduced in overall height, would the requested 7.5-foot encroachment be possible? Lawton mentioned that there is not a current variance request concerning overall height, but rather the question at hand is the request for reduced setback. Burns asked to clarify that the Commission feels that as proposed, the building is too tall compared to how close it is to the property line. San Filippo confirmed that the height does has an impact on the relationship to setback encroachment. Burns again asked if he were to lower the overall height of the proposed structure, could he achieve a setback encroachment closer to the 7.5-feet being requested? Land Use Review Commission Page 8 DRAFT Minutes — October 12, 2023 San Filippo responded that while he could not speak for the rest of the Commission, his personal feeling was that if the applicant could agree to a 10-foot setback and reduce the overall height of the building somewhat, then the variance application could be supported. Coffman clarified that the discussion amongst the Commission members is intentionally vague, as the Commission does not have the authority to dictate specific building heights. However, the Commission does have the ability to discuss conditional that a variance may be approved under. Coffman asked Assistant Attorney Chris Hayes for additional clarification and advisement. Assistant City Attorney Chris Hayes advised that to the extent which a condition is reasonably related to the variance being requested, there can be a condition imposed on the variance being granted. Based on discussion, it sounds as if the condition of building height is reasonably related to the variance request regarding setback encroachment. Coffman asked the applicant would propose for a revised building height if granted the 7.5-foot encroachment? Burns stated he would like to maximize the height of the building to make the project work it; understands it needs to be kept below the height of the primary residence. Coffman summarized the discussion around potential relationships between revised building height and a compromise in requested encroachment distance. The Commission is attempting to determine from the applicant how much of a reduction in height they are willing to entertain. Burns noted that when using dimensional lumber, costs can increase three-fold if building to a custom height. Burns asked if a reduction of 2 feet, from an overall height of 24.5 feet to 22.5 feet, be acceptable? San Filippo acknowledged the applicanYs desire to reduce cost, while noting the Commission cannot include financial considerations in their decision making. Beals asked the applicant to clarify if the proposed reduction in overall building height? Would this be a reduction in wall and total height? Or roof only. Matt Burns stated they were working to determine the best method to achieve height reduction. Matt Burns proposed bringing the wall height down by 2-feet, from 20 feet to 18 feet, which would bring total building height to 22.5 feet. Matt Burns also noted that there is a row of mature trees to the rear of the property that would hide the view of the proposed structure from neighbors' view to rear of the property. The Commission entered into discussion amongst members to gauge readiness of motion; Beals reminded the Commission that they were currently in the Commission Discussion portion of the agenda and could ask the Applicant for additional information in needed. Lawton commented that even with the reduced height, the proposed structure would be big. However, he appreciates the applicant's willingness to consider revising their plans to provide some accommodation. Some existing buildings are close to property lines now, the difference here is scale. Lawton asked how a business operating on the property would need to be licensed and/or identified. Beals explained that first a Home Occupation License would need to be secured, and then seek a variance from this Commission in order to operate out of an accessory building. However, an auto repair business is not permitted as a Home Occupation. Also, when considered a hobby, auto-repair work must only be performed on one's own vehicles, and not those owned by others, even if money is not being exchanged for the services. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS ZBA230020. Approval is granted on condition that the overall building height be reduced to 22.5 feet with 18-foot-tall walls on the north and south sides. Approval is additionally granted on the findings that the application is not detrimental to the public good; by reason of exceptional physical conditions due to the grade in the backyard, which is not self-caused, that the proposal will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Land Use Review Commission Page 9 DRAFT Minutes — October 12, 2023 Yeas: McCoy, San Filippo, Coffman, Lawton, Carron Nays: THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Absent: Shuff, Vogel • OTHER BUSINESS 0 2024 Work Plan o Boards and Commission input to Strategic Plan o Update: New Ordinances adopted 9/18 regarding Boards and Commissions Staff Liaison Noah Beals and Administrative Support staff Kory Katsimpalis provided business updates to the commission, including presenting a Draft 2024 Work Plan for staff review and adoption. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Carron, to approve the 2024 Work Plan as presented. The motion was adopted unanimously by all members present. Additionally, staff encouraged Commission members to submit any comments regarding the Strategic Plan input, Budgeting for Outcome (BFO), or Ex Officio member recruitment to Katsimpalis for aggregation and submittal to the City Clerk's office. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:03am. Agenda Item 1 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA230022 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4154 Tanager St Owner/Petitioner: Jesus Garcia Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Variance Request: This is a request to build an 8-foot fence along the side property lines. The maximum height for a fence along the side yard is 6 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Backqround: The property is annexed into the City in 1978 part of the Horsetooth-Harmony Annexation. Later that same year it received development approval for single-unit detached home subdivision. Fence requirements are universal for residential properties. The maximum height allowed in the rear and side yards is 6 feet. The 6-foot height is also the max height a fence can be without requiring a building permit. Anything above 6 feet will need to be reviewed for additional wind and snow loads. The proposed 2ft extension includes lattice. The lattice is still semi-transparent and would be located along the neighbor's house and backyard along the north property line and along public right of way that is landscape with turf and trees along the south. 2. Applicant's statement of justification: See petitioner's letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findinqs: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The 2-foot extension is semi-transparent. • The 2-foot extension occurs along public right of way to the south and to the north along the neighbor's house that has limited windows. 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 ZBA230022. Item # 1 - Page 1 c'`y°f Application Request Fort Collins '~�- 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 lhe Land Use Code. The Land Us� Review Commission sh�ll not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specific�lly permitted in the zoniny district. The Commission may grant variances where it finds tliat the modification of tlie standard would not be detrimental to tf�e 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 extraorciinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, inc!uding, 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 lhe occupanUapplicant of the property, provided that such difficuliies or ha�dship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupanUapplicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the stanciard for :��hich the variance is requested equally well or i�etter than would a proposal which complies �vith !he standard fcr which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential � when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained �vithin 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However. for good cause shown by the applicant, the Land Us2 Review Commission may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable �rd necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance �vas granted ha� lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner's fZepresentative must be present at the meeting Variance Address City Zip Code Owner's Name Code Section(s) Zoning District Justification(s) lustification(s) Justification(s) Reasoning Location: VIRTUAL ONLY via Zoom (ins�.r•.r.tions will be em?il:d to the app!icant the Friday or Mcnday prior to the h�aring) Date: Secono Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. 4154 Tanager st Fort Collins, CO 8052� Jesus Garcia Larimer 2. E,ual to or better than Additional Justification Additional Juslification Petitioner's Name, if not the Owner Petitioner's Relationship to the O�vner is � Petitioner's Address � Petitioner's Phone if Petitioner's Email Additional � I Representative's Name Representative's Address � � Representative's Phone �t Representative's Email 706909159 garciacp 101 @yahoo.com WRITT[N STAT[ME=N"T EXPIAINING TH� R(:ASON FOR 1HF VARIANCE REC�UEST REQUIRED VIA SEPARATE DOCUM[NT. �ti�//��/�/Ii�l�/� Reasoning We would like to put a fence fopper on both sides of the fence because on one side we have our dogs and people from the riiax parl<ing lot have been throwing trash or homeless people leaUe their stiaff there by the �ence and throw away any trash on tliis side ('m scared my 2 dogs that are husky so they are outsic�e alf day and night �von't eat or• consume anytl�ing bad for them and in the other side of the f�nce we woulcl lil<e to put a fence topper because we �ave a hot tube/pool that you can see o� the other side of the �ence us and our neigiibors v�ould be better with more privacy and so my dogs won't jump on the hufi-tub ancl jump over �to the other sicle the fence topper will be adciing 2 feet to �the existing fence. . � � �" � � � �'�'• �jr•. ` . �, •' �„ 'Y'� 1�,♦ f � � I �_�t . � � • d • • `; � - � . `�' �� � � �r �• f . � r. ��� � �� � •� II t • �+ � . � 1� { ' � . � � �i i� �A �+ ,� J � t � � . 1 r ,' 4 ► _ .�,� „ � �� � � �t f ' � � � r /� • / � � � �`s.-�,"��n7P� : - 4d� � .� �: � � � �• � � � .y ' d ;`�`� . - .►� � , 'w • � ,l•t' ,y► • ♦- �: . « s, � .. � �� ► ' �N �4 � � . `�- _- _ ___� � . ; � � � "�• � � � � , � ; / � . • • ` • . �" � r �. ., ,� '�r� � �•�. �4 �, II ,.' , � � ,. . ... � � , ��� ' � o y i � - � " ,- .r� N � � y , � • . � 1 • r . . . « `y t �a �F � *t • � �r .► �`•a:, r � , � � � � ���� � --• .1 ' � Y.,l � � � ' , � � �t � , -�r�. d � � � � ti ��-_ : � . , .� ' • r . • � - + - ' _ �� � ��• , , �� . , - -� . • �, , r • ,� � • � 0 � � � � � �� , � � ' , ' + t • .l �� ,���! O � ',�. �rr �' � '' �� � � �� � � ��' �r�` '� �� �� .- + , , _ . . ,.;- , - �r 1 � 1��� dl �, , : ��' �,r . � ��;� :�'�.� '. . ,y.q ,��' � - � . . . . . :,� � � ..�.4- �� Li ,: -, ', �- j i" � �,•: ��.;, � � . :� „ �r�' � -. .; . fi`� . . , . �0 � � . �- . ,. , � , � � �� . - , � �� . •- :, � � �Y ,�� , n•) -,• s� fi t�.�w�t ���•,., � ,+,���y�' � �r^ a "��:�� � � �._ p � . ,� a�. 5 �. ' Y � � ��! �3�L �� E �ri .0.7 1 �"-�' '� i . �� Y�r�.��i go �i .k.'s }'� 1 ..` ���� �� � J.� � �J � j d , � ���� � � �:�� �a � ` � ri 8 a � e . , ����� ��� �� � ��V` �1 l - '� � � ... ... � � - , ���, 7N .n a r�>'i „yri T; fi � �;� ,� � =� r r � ..- - � '..�4�� �' �.5� � `� ' .>� ti fi �1 fr k2 � �_ �' � -,�. � Y,�r'�� ����` ��� .1`-"= � 6 � . � n4 .3 ?�r s?"^f��. . � +-ji �: +'1 39� . f.�� � � y ...t �J .�%�'� ��' i: � �� � .. ,, � 0 ::r �c r � ... l � � ti, f�r.,�r6'j �J� y�% � - ' �� •� ... t�- _ "�. � �. � _., i F•r � � - ,z,+'�a � '7' i` 'iM : +`'. � . ��Y � 7 � s �, A�h �v� - � ,� �2�'�", �/�'��� � b ,ry+$�-y-�`F ` ��r�. �,,r-, � ' J`Y'�r d tt� �` ����� ,�� r i r ' �,4�4.~�C� ,,�-'�� o� �`�''' � `'��'�� ��y � �``�' w "' `ig�� � �' S��`�-R ����� � - � �� ; : y -.�,:� �..- I F.+.* �;�. b� �-,<fi.� ° �y`�'"'v`7�^° 'i �� . � � v / f- 'e � ��� � I '� � �'� .A I � �'a'�yr�r< <� � ` � � i.�s: � �..� �� 3� �, '� r d - '�" � .. a �" ,�.r- ' r .Y r��� � f -� ��1 Y J4 Lc.t �: . ._. I �� . s � �'� d,v � �?� �.� � w 4�2eY �,�2"� �v 3' . i. — . — - - - � .C4Y'-� . i �:3,��{i �} ,� �(' r . �+fl�+ � L. ' It�� .��.� ## �^..-.Y ;¢ E�i•�•�. .���"+i '. � r � �E � �-5 Y�,r! � /1� � Y ar--'- .m._' � - ._ _— - ' _ _ �T �.�'Sbf �,� �"�' qY' _� ., 'y'�`' I I � � 4 _ . . . �- . - � � . — -- - — �t' " r... ,6Y�"�r ��" �( — _ _._ ` _ f' _ � .�. Y�:�'��':- . —�� _ - : � I � � � � � � � I I � � � ����i . � � � � �� � _ - - - R _ � � I _ �' + I � : I i i : i I � � I I i ' ` I �Ir " _ . � I � I I � I �y� II ? .J -�- I � 4 . I I � I _� r d� �~� I I `� ilL-� j' �_ �` _3l� ' �' . I y � � ��� �! j ' � - � . _ �r� �+�'� y: . . . . I':� - � f'�� . . j � � "i `"T;.�; . .. - � i S . _ . � I � � I �� �,,\ � _ I: - F II i ,;:./// ��� F I I I I _ ��� � � - -�( j � � �� I !�� - � F-- 'r �i`:i� I I , ,�--- _ -.. � - -- - - _ t;.,�;'r; ,. _ ,,,�"- - � .. a-- f:. - - ., ,..- - _ - ,.- - � , _ ,. ; j _ -_ _ _- ; - -- ,� , - - - - - �. � . ..�- , � - �- �• � _ -- - - - - "t. �. � 7� J1' . I � '� - . , _ . _ � ti ,�y /�,u��/� �% t /�. y� '. � _ �\ . \ �._ ' - -.. -', �F'�� l . ,:..• ,Y - _ � � . '',)� 1 � a ��'��a/.�� �� i "_ _ - ,�. . r ��p1.� ��`C�rl✓ ��� /� rc �;'___ � _ _ ' .�� . __ . .. . \ Y 4'r ,. - ' . �r � � . . . ' � . . � ' �. 't i � ,' _ C> " .. _ - _ . a. t � /'- ��' ,_�/ .;� . .' �i: ._. -.-_- .�- .... � ' �� � = y _ � _ . . _ - - / � C:� _ i ..Y - ' � �� . �'` ..•'tr . ' , , ` . �.. -.- i � r - �pT: . R.- e . � �'� � � f . �'S` �,.� � � �� '� .�a . � �� a -�'' � �� ^ �� � 'q � �,�� P — .:� � � � � �"� . - - a �':tr� .. � `� - . 3,-... . ._ , � �; I I .ra�� � �, r7�' `h . , �� F : '' p-�'. _ "s �:.y� . . - - � � 4�ct, � +?t'� w .'. ' . S .. ' � _ ., �. �,. . _ �F. „\ ' , " , , ' - • . _ _ - y.1?� s : _ ^r.. `L.+�,. . , .. -'�`+. -. . � -ctt -a. � � - . � -.� ..n� �',\ - - ���:���y'�"�.� . . . � . �� „h;'� � -,..,� - � . .�� �� „�► �� „- tiT � �� ���� u�� N � ,� i_ V . } -�'t � a � . .. .,'-�� -. ` `� ti+._ --.^,y � .. . �� �s,i- I!w�r.. A. i!� ,� . �;��� �=�'� f�, R �a"""�. �": ,' ,. �• `•�� � �.r �' : �.. _ �..,;� �-- '�`""'� � � i � � �, � � � \ Y. ' i ! ti .4,� I � � I 'I ,� _. . �; ' �_ _ � �� , � �� '�� — f .� = � �� 1 — � � � �M. �' �' 7 ' � , � . . �. ` �t - �`'� •f , - 1 y � ...� �. � �+� ,` � `. � � � � � � � ` � � `� f, ,�i �, ti �, �` � '�,� .. ,} ` �, � _, . +�� � .�� ,��� ��� �. -'J�r' `''t:, "_ e�a; . � � � � j� a ��w : .� 4+ 1-' t � � �'�� '} . 4' ■ .' j • � ' � f � �• + i' I 1 . I . .r" - � . I i « � , � + . T � �� � , � �= �; � - . ' at .{ , �,: �'h.. • ; � i`-- �� '`' . � ` � i•. � ,`3' �� I ,�� .� � / / "— , � t 1 i ,; ' ��'-.� �i s� . * � It+ r. ''� �+ ' .►' ,'r �� .1� s/�` L. � `� . _ . .. � �f � . � y , �♦� � , � n� , ` . � . � • `... � � �, . � �` � � �! J 1'...-��`,f ` ✓{ • .,��� �, '� ' . , ..� � - S�'. . � � I � � r ; � ' -�'� . � , �,��.� , - ; ��, . • ,;���'. �-� � 1 ' � �� Y.+ Y � � '+ r Agenda Item � STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA230023 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1147 Laporte Ave Owner/Petitioner: Chris LaBerge Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4) Variance Request: This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 4.5 feet into the required 5-foot side setback. COMMENTS: 1. Backqround: The property is part of the Hensel's annexation and plat in 1908. The primary building was constructed in 1930. It is unclear when the accessory building was constructed. The subject property is interior to the block. The abutting neighbors to the west were a corner lot that was subdivided into two lots with one parcel fronting on to Laporte Ave and the other fronting on to Pearl Street. These abutting neighbors do have non-conforming structures as well that do not meet the required setbacks. There is an existing shared driveway that extends from Pearl Street to 4 different residential properties. This driveway was originally platted as a city alley but was vacated and ownership was given to these 4 properties. In addition to maintaining the zone districts existing character, setbacks establish minimum safety requirements for properties. A 5-foot setback helps provide access around the entire building in emergency situations. It also reduces the impacts on abutting properties if a structure catches fire. 2. Applicant's statement of iustification: See petitioner's letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findinqs: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The existing structure does not meet the required setback. • The 5-foot setback maintains minimum safety requirements in reducing impacts to abutting property. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA230023. Item # 2 - Page 1 FOrt CollinS Application Request �'L- 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 qood. 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 � when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the 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 Variance Address (instructions will be emailed to the applicant the Friday or Monday prior to the hearing) Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. 1147 LaPorte Ave. Petitioner's Name, if not the Owner City � Fort Collins, CO Zip Code Petitioner's Relationship to the Owner is Petitioner's Address Owner's Name Chris LaBerge Petitioner's Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner's Email Zoning District Additional Representative's Name Justification(s) I2. Equal to or better than � Representative's Address Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative's Phone # lustification(s) Additional Justification Representative's Email Reasoning 70 397-7961 �corees(a�msn.com � See attached letter WRITTEN STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST REQUIRED VIA SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Date October 10, 2023 Signature Chris LaBerge October 9, 2023 City Of Ft. Collins Zoning Department To Whom It May Concern, Please accept our application for a variance to accommodate moving the garage on our property up 16.5' in order to allow for more room in our backyard for a garden, our dogs and future family. We love this home and are wanting to keep the integrity of it but make the garage more functional. We are proposing to tear down the existing garage, as well as the existing carport, and remove the old cement, dispose of all the old materials, and build a new garage in the exact same parameters of the existing driveway and garage. However, by moving it up there will be an additional 12 ft. in the backyard. The current carport cover is made of a canvas type material and is unsightly. It detracts from the beauty of this almost 100 year home. Our architectural plans will show that we will tie the new roof line into the old roofline and make it slope in one direction from the existing roofline. We feel this will also enhance the outside appearance of our home and benefit the neighborhood by getting rid of the unsightly carport cover. Currently the garage sits 6" inside the west property line. We're keeping the same distance and integrity of the property and garage. Our variance request would be for 4.5 feet. However it is inline with the home and garage as it exists currently. We would also comply with the 1 hour fire rating requirement on the west side to make it safer than it is right now should there be a fire in the current garage. As you can see in the drawings, there will not be a soffit on the west side, or east side for that matter, in order to keep from encroaching on the neighboring property, as it does now. Please see the plot plan and architectural drawings that we're submitting along with our application to view these changes. To summarize, we believe these changes will enhance the appeal of the home while keeping the integrity of the home and the surrounding neighborhood plus making it safer for the home to our west by adding the firewall feature. We appreciate your consideration of our request. Respectfully, Kate Donnel Chris LaBerge � �LAPORTE AVENUE � ftEfE WALKWAT l RLMAIN IN PLACE) � �LAPORTE AVENUE � 10/09/23 SITUS ADDRE55: 114] LAPORIE NVENUE LOT: 20 BLOCK: SU�IVISION: HANSEL FlLING NO: 20230033645 PARCEL N0: 9"110406020 �nc� � H=C CHRISTOPHER LABERGE 8 CATHERINE DONNELL ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECK ADDITION - 1147 LAPORTE AVE. SITE PLAN CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SCALE: AS NOTEO I DRWG.NO.: 2305�-0�-1000 EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE: 1• = 10•-0• PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1' = 10'-0" m�nc� GENERAL i. HnLL ec s�ne��iiv nr�io iEmaoanav ExcnvnnoNMiHEftcoNmncioaGnr His�oiscacnor+FSHAu. ENPLO/ A IJCENSE� vROFE5510NAL i0 oESiGN IEMPORARY STSiEMS. 2. iHE CONTRACT�R SHALL ASSUME COMPI£TE RESPONSIBI�Itt FOR JOB SITE CONDITONS �l1ftING tHE COURSE OF CONSiRlICt10N, INCWfIING 5 �' OF ALL PERSONS ANp PFOPERtt, AND R115 FE�UIREMENT SHALL APPIT CONIINUOUSLY ANp NOT BE LIMITE� TO NORMAI. WORKING HOURS. ALL APPLICABLE JOB RELATEO SAFEtt STANDHR�S SUCH AS OSHA SHALL BE FOLLOWED. �. CONiRACiOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIDNS. ELEVAilONS PN� E%ISTING CONDITIONS PRiOR TO PROCEEDING WIiH WORK. VARIATONS BET4EEN R1E PLANS ANO ACiUAL CONDIilONS SHALL BE BROl1CHT 10 hIE ATfEN110N 0� TNE ENGINEEk PRIOR TO PROCEE�irvG WIiH THE WORK. DESIGN DATA 1. GOVERNING Bllll➢ING CO�E IL (ICCJ INNIERNAliONALCB�ILDING COpE 2021", IBC 21 z aEr�RENce cooEs: A. AMERICAN CONCREiE INSiIIlliE (ACI) Bllll➢iNG CO�E REQUIREMENTS FOft SIRlICl11RAL CONCREIE , aCl 310 B.AMERICAN INS11TUiE FOR STEEL CONSiRUCPON (AISC) "SPECIFiCAlION FOR SiRUCTURAL SiEEL BUILOINGS. AISC 360" "CO�E OF SiAN�ARO PRACIICE f�R SiEEL 6111L�INGS AN� 5RI�GES', AISC 305 C. A OCIEiV OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (ASCE) "M N�IMUM OESIGN LOqDS FOR B�IL➢It�GS AND OIHEft SiRULiURES", pSCE "1 D. AMERICAN WEIDING SOCIETT (AWS) "S1RUCiURAL WEIDING CODE" AWS �1.1 E. AMERICAN W000 COUNCIL "NATONAL �ESIGN SPECIFlCAiION FOR WOOD CONSIRUCTION'. NDS a �onos A. GARAGE FLOOR IJVE LOADS .......................................50 psf B. OECK IIVE �OADS ................................ ........ .......60 Csf D. WIND �OA�S P 140 mPM1 WINp E%POSURESCATECORY .......................................B TOPOGRAPHIC FACTOR. Nt .....................................1.0 MPORTANCE FACTOR ...............................................1.0 e. ssismic �oaos OCCVPANCY CAIEGORT ........................................... II sih anss ...............................................................o scismic oescN cnrzcoav ____._..._..__._..._.__e Stls..........................................................................0.213 Stlt...........................................................................0.090 IMPORiANCf FACTOR .................. ................ ......1.0 INSPECTIONS 1, SPECIAL INSPECilONS SHALL BE MFOE IN ACCOR�ANCE WIIH IBC 202t SECTION 1>04. iHE CONIRHCTOR IS RESPON516LE FOR SCHE�IILING SPECIA� INSPECl10N5 iN lHE BUIL� NGNOFFlCIAL ECSPECIALP NSPEC110NSREPORi5C5HALLEBEASUBMITiE�VTO lHE ENGINEER TO RESOLVE ANT �ISCREPANqES. 2. SiRUCTUftA� OBSFRVAl10N> MAY BE PCRFORMED BY iHE ENGINEER. A ftEPORT tNLL OBSERVAOONSAP�RDANCE UBSTITNiEC�OF SPECIqOCUMEN ¶ONS.Ru�BSFFAVhilONS WILI. BC MAD� TO pEfERMINE GENERA� CONFORMANCCNW ICTHE CONSIRUClION DOCUMfNiS HND DOES NOT RELIEVE THf CON�RACTOR fOR COMPLIANCE WIRi THE corvsraucnoN oocumervls. rvo�s: SAWCIIT CONIROL JOINTS SHALL BE MADE INiHIN 34 HOURS OF POUR. ], CONIROL JOINTS SPAQNG SHALL NOT EXCEE� 15'-0" IN EIiHER OIRECPON. -SLAB PER PLAN SAWCIIi CONTROL� :' OiSCONnNUE t/2 JOINi :' REINFORCEMENi F� / I- SECTON TYPICAL SLAB CONTROL JOINTS scA�� N.rs. SOILS & FOUNDATIONS I. a55UME� SOILS ARE SILiY CLaV PER IBC TABLE �806.2. PRESIIMPIIV£ ��AD BEnRIrvG VnLUES ARE n5 FOLLOWS: ALL�WABLE BEARING PRESSIIRE ............................1500 psi ASSUMEO ACiivE LAiERAL PRESSURE ..............55 pcf ASSIIME� AT RESt LAiERAL PRESSURE .................35 pcf PASSIVE LAiEFAL PRESSURE ...................................1�0 Ps!/fr 2. THE CONiRACTOR SHALL REViEW ME GEOiECHNICAL REPORT PN� SHALL FDLLOW ALL RECOMNEN�ATONS PROVIOED IHEREIN. 3. THE GEOiECHNICnL ftuGINFfR SHALL INSPECi qLL E%CAVAiIONS NrvD FiLL PLFlCENENT i0 ENS�RE CONFORMANCE WItH iHE SPEqFlCATI0N5. a. FOOTING E%CAvnTI0N5 SHALL BE CLEAN AND FREE �ROM LOOSE �EBRiS. STANDING wAIER, OR Uu-COMPACTED MAIERIAL AT TIME OF CONCftE1E 5. FOUNDATIONS SHALL BEAR ON 11N0151URBED SOIL OR APPROVE� ENGNEERED fILL PER iHE RECOMMENpAl10N5 OF 1HE GEOIECHNICAL REPOftT. CONCRETE �. CDNCREIE SH SUPPLIE� NN� CONSTFUCtE� IN ACCOR�ANCE WIiH ACIE318�LA�EST EDIl10N. 2. CONCREIE 5'IRENGiH f'c � 28 �AYS SHALL CONFORM TO 1HE FOLLOWING; roonHcs, waus ............._..................._...............r� = a000 p�� FLAiWORK. SLA85 ..................................................fc = 4000 Psi W/C RATIO SHALL NOT EXCEED O.L5 �. PORTLHN� CEMENT SHALL CONFOftM TO ASIM C-150 iYPE I/II. 4. WAIER FOR MI%IUG CONCREiE SHNLL CONFORM TO ASiM C1602. s. M ro n i ao� n rHc POINT Oi PLACEMENT. S�IIMP SMALL NOT EXCEE� 4 INCHESA ]. LTASH SH L CONFORM TO AStM C610 ClA C OR F. SHALL NOT E%CEED 2a% OF iHE TOTAL CEMENnlI0U5 IAAiEFIAL. 8. HOT WEFTHER PLALEMENT SHALL CONFORM i0 ACI }O5. 'SPEGIFlCAiION FOR HOi WEAiHER CONCRETING'. COLO WEPTHER PLACEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO Aq 306, "GUIDE TO COLD WEAn1ER CONCRETNG". 9. A�MI%NRES fOR WAiER RE�UCPON AND SETiING IIME MO�IFlCATION sHnu eE w corvFORunNcc w��ry nsna casn. 10. ADMI%NRES FOR USE IN ROWING CONCREfE SHALL CONFORM TO ASIM non. 11. ADMI%lURES SHALL NOT CONTAIN CALCIUM CHLOPIpE. CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE PLACE� IN CONTqCt WIiH AUIMINUM. 12. AIF ENIRAINMENT SHALL BE 4.0 - �.0%. AIR ENIRAINMENT ApMI%IIIRES SHALL CON(ORM TO ASTM C260, 13. HEAOE� STUOS ANp HEADE� SND ASSEMBLIES SHALL CONFpRM TO ASiM At04a. 14. H SiRENGiH NO SHRINK GROUT SHALL BE MASIERBUILDERS 92B OR APPROVED EOUAL. 15. ApHE51�E FOR DFIIL & EPDXY ANCHORS SHAII BE HIT RE500 AS MFG. BT HiLTiINC- OR APPROVEO EQUqL COrvGREIE WALL PER PLAN M��TCNRH�R Z��TPL BaRS � 30 30' a�ary � e• s io wnLL TYPICAL CORNER REWFORCEMENT scn�: u rs REINFORCING STEEL 1. FqBRICAPON PN� PLACEMENT OF REINFpRqNG BARS SHALL CONFORM i0: nCl 301 "SGECiGICnTION FOR STRUCiURPL CONCREiE" ACI SP-66 'ACI DETAILING YANUAL". 2. REINFORCING BnRS SHALL BE DEFORMED AND iN ACCOR�ANCE WIIH ASIM A6t5 GRA�E 60. 3. WEL�ING OF REINiORCING BARS IS PROHIBITE� WIlHOUT PR16R APPROVAL. WELOED BARS SHAIL CONFORM i0 ASiM A�O6 GRPDf 60. wc�owc sNnu corvForew -ro aws oi.n. a. CONCREiE COVER SHALL BE AS FOlLOWS: f,ASi AGAINSr OR PERMANENRT EXPOSE➢ TO EARTi ..................�" E%POSfO TO EARTI OR WEAhfER a5 BAR OR SMALLER . . . .......... .. .......... .......1 1/2" �6 BAR AND LARGER . . .......... . . ............. ..........2' NOT EXPOSED TO EARTH SlABS WALLS ANC JOISTS $�4 AN� p18 BARS ...............................................................i 1/2.. anRs nrvo a' p11 SMALLER ........................................................3 BEAMS AND COWMNS PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT, ilES, SIIftRlIPS AN� SPIRALS .........................................................i I/2' 5. PEINfORCING BARS k5 AN� SMALLER SHALL BE BENi LOL� ONE TIME ONLT. ALL O1HER BAftS REQUIRE PREHEAT. 6. LFlP SPUCES SHALL BE LLA55 'B" PNp SHALL pE STAGGERE�. SPlICES SHALL BE PROVI�EO AS REQUIRED GER THE THE FOLLOWING TABIE: IJCE LE BAfl SIZE SPLICE LENCTH (in.J SPLICE LEnGhI (�n.) VERTICALS & BOTTOM BARS TOP 8AR5 30" 5 }0" }9" 35" a6" J 63" 82" 8 J2 94 9 B1' lOfi" 10 99 29 ' TOP BnRS = HORIZONinL REINFORCEMENT 50 PLACED iHAT MORE h1PN �2" OF CONCRETE i5 CqSi IN MEMBEfl �ELOW THE SPLICE. l v. / � + �� ' '�' � TYPICAL REINFORCEMENT DETAILS scn�: N.rs. � H=C WOOD 1- W00� CONSiRUCliON SHALL CONFORM VA1H 1HE f"OLLOYANC REFEFENCE srnrvonaos: e.. NDS 'Nn110NAL DESIGN SPECiFiCn110ry FaR WO�p CONSiRlICiION" B. AN51 / 1P1 t"NAiiOuqL DESIGu STAN�ARD FOR METAL PLATE CONNECIE� w00� iR1155 CONSiRUCTON" C. iPl H B"CONMENTAftY AN� ftECOMNENpAltONS FOR H LING, INSTALLING & BRACING MEfAL PLAIE CONNECiEp WOOp TilUSSES"AN ]. MAIEHIAlS A. SAWN LUMBER 2r Sit1�5 .....................................................................�OUG-FlR No. 2 si�� a�s ..... ....__ .ar oouc-ria Ho. z JOISiS. RA(IERS ....... .......... .....DOUG-FIR No- 2 POSTS & BEAMS .........................................................�OUG-FIR No. i e. aoucN snwN wmecA N.N�o) 8x AN� SMALLER ........................................................DOU�FlR No. 1 tOx AN� LARGER ........................................................DOUG-FIR No. 2 C. LAMINAiE� �ENE£R WMBER (LVL) Fb = 2600 P51 Fv = 265 P51 e = teoo,aoo vs �. LAMINATE� S1RAN0 LUlABER (LSL) = 150�P5151 EV= 1,300.000 P51 }, qLL SAWN LUMBER AND ENGINEERE� LUMBER SHALL BE IDENIIFlED BT A GRAOE MnRK issuco ev w�wn, wc�e oa rv�cn. 4. NFILS SHALL BE COMMON NAllS. OFSIGN IS BASE� ON iHE FOLLOWING SIZES: 5 ZE 9L etE]€B �"cTM Btl 0.131' 2 1/2.. lOtl 0.148" }" 12tl 0.150' 3" 16tl 0�.162" 3 4/3•. 20d 192" 5, 60LT5 FOR w000 COUNECiIDNS SHALL BE Iry qCCORDANCE WIiH ASiM A30] GRA�E A. LAG SCREWS SHALL BE IN ACCOR�ANCE VPiH ASiM A30] GRAOE A. fi. CONNECnON HAROWARE SHALL BE AS MRNUFqCit1RE0 BY SIMPSON STRDNG-TIF OR APPROVEo Ept1AL. 'l. SHEnTHItuG SHALL LONFORM TO SiANDARDS PS-t AND PS-2 PND SHALL BEAR �rvc sraMv or *Hc nrncaicnry a�rw000 nssoannoN (ava). sHcn�rvinc mnr E PLTWO�o O B FOR WALLS AN ROOFlNG. FLOOR SHEAIHING SHALL 9E TONGUE & GROOVE PLTWOOp SiUR01�fL00F. i�ISK� SPAN ftAli G�t � E�pOS�U � a00F t9/32' 32/16 - FLDOR 23/J2" TkG 4B/24 S1UR01-FLOOR 1 WALLS t5/32" 32/16 C-0 t 0. ALL W000 PROOUCiS SHALL 9E KILN �RIED WITH A MA%IMUM MOISiURE CONrNi OF 199 MOISNRE CONiENT SHALL BE �E1EftMINED IN ACCORpANCE INTH nSiM 0<442. .. aaovi�e ooue� �msrs urvoea sruo wnus u.N.o. 10/09/23 �� HEvPESENtqiI�N ISNMADECBTOTMEONEq�STENCECFF U�E Ei�LLOJN� cs ns ro me exs� e re o Noereca iinunes. ceu z�nrs �N novnNce vaioa ro ��ceNe, ceaoiNc oR vAIIDN FOR iHE LOCniION AND MFlRHiNG OF UNDfRGROJND MENBER ViltltlES. CHLL iHE UPIJTY NOi1FlCATON CENtER OF OL�FApO AT I-800-922-199� OR 811. CHRISTOPHER LABERGE 8 CATHERINE DONNELL ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECK ADDITION - 1147 LAPORTE AVE. GENERAL NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SCALE: NONE DRWG. NO.: 2305]-00-100 25of 7 R� � �� �o��RE� CREiE ��� ' � ����� �,...�.�..�....,:..M�,.�a�.,„,.....,-: �=�■-�■ ��� �� PROPOSED SITE PLAN scn�: i/a' = r—o- CHRISTOPHER LABERGE 8 CATHERINE DONNELL ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECK ADDITION - 1147 LAPORTE AVE. EXISTING CONDITIONS AN� PROPOSED SITE PLAN CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SCALE: AS NOTEO I DRWG. NO.: 2305�-0�-101 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN scn�: i/a^ = Y—o^ EHISTING EXiERIOR WALL UPPER FLOOR (WHERE OCCURS)� EXISIING LOWER LEVEL ROOF IINE� 9-1/2" LVL LEDGER w/ (3) ROWS � LEOGERLOK SCREwS � 16" o.c.� SiAGGEftE� � 2x8 LEDGER w� CZ) R oWc.� IEDGER�OK SCREWS � 16"' STAGGEREO � _ REMOVE EXISiING SIDING INSTALL (2) LAVERS 5/8" TYPE X GYP. BD. ON COMMON WHLL UP TO ROOF SHEATHING 1-HR FIFE WALL EXISTING LOWER LEVEL/ FOUNDATION (V.I.F.) iLd.I EXISTING DRIVE REMOV`c EHSTG. OVERHANG AN� Pl1LL 6ACK R�OFING AS REq'D 30-YR ARCH. SHINGLES NEW SHINGLES TO OVERLAP SEAM B/N EXISTG. ANO NEW ROOF 2x10 RAFTERS � 16" o.c. C.ILING JOISTS w� OWENS-CCftNING ECO-TOUCH R-31 2x6 � 16" o.c BATT INSULATION w/ 1/2" GVP. 8�. 5/8" EXTERIOR RAiE� �z O58 ROOF SHEATHING � t� 31 w/ 30$ FELT ANO 30" �__ ICE BARRIER GARAGE DOOR �NEW FOUNUATION NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8' = 1'-0' / GRA�E r� NEW S�AB FOUNDATION FROST EDGE � =XTERIOR WALL LOWER LEVEL rv��.v..fION (V.I.�.) WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" No�s: oA,E ai:9n� - si�.iv �ansivc a � � weea�e s ooHNeu NEW SHEATHING TO MATCH EHISTG. ROOF LINE ELEV. AT EXSTG. EXiERIOR WALL STAi1C ROOF VENT J60 S0. IN. REQ'D 2x6 CEILING JOISTS � 16" o.c. w/ i/z� cw. ao. 2x10 RAFTERS � 16" o w/ OWENS-CORNING ECO-TOLICH R-31 9-i/2" INSULATION /_ CONT. EDGE FLASHING � GUT"fERS AS REQUIRED � ---------------------------' SIDING PER OWNER 2x6 STU05 � 16" o.c Y� _ _ w/ OWENS-CORNING i - ECO-TOUCH R-19 - BATT INSULAiION ; _ 1/2" EXiERIDR RATED OSB ', j ' WALL SHEATHING w/ O1 T1'VEK Bl11LpING WRAP OR EQUAI �'I � �5/8"' TYPE % GVP. BD. EA. SIDE OF WALL EXTEN� TO ROOF �ECKING 7-HR FlRE WALL SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0' EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" CHRISTOPHER LABERGE 8 CATHERINE DONNELL ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECK ADDITION - 1147 LAPORTE AVE. PROPOSED GARAGE ELEVATIONS CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SCALE: AS NOTEO DRWG.NO.: L205]-00-102 45of�7 R� EXISTING EHiERIOR WALL �uPPER F�ooR (wHERE occuas) �CONT. EDGE FLFSHING `EXISPNG LOWER LEVE� � � ROOF LINE (BEYON�) �r f 2x10 RIM BOARD � f I; _ GRADE � �� SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8' = 1'-0" eaz.�i AR RIM BD. zxz cEonR Rni�s 2x4 NOTCHED VERT. CEDAR TOP RAIL PER CITY OF FORT COLLINS REDUIREMENTS 4x4 CEDAR POST — 2x12 CEDAR RIM BD. — BEAM PER P�AN BC46 POST CAP 28 GA GALV.- FLASHING AS — 6x6 CE�AR REQ'D — PORCH POST — FlNISHED GRADE Q� �-�i- i _ _,, _ — PORCH POS� 8'-0" FOUNDATION EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0' -EXISPNG E%TERIOR WALL EXISTING UPPER LEVEL �F�ooR E�vnrioN (v.i.F.) �2x8 PT LE�GER CONT. w/ (2) ROWS LEOGERLOCK SCREWS � 16" o.c. EXISTING CONCftETE PORCH SLNB �EXISTING LOWER LEVEI FOUNOA110N (V.i.�.) ����� � �� / 10�09�23 ��� ' � ����� H=C CHRISTOPHER LABERGE 8 CATHERINE DONNELL ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECK ADDITION - 1147 LAPORTE AVE. PROPOSED DECK ELEVATIONS CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SCALE: AS NOTEO DRWG. NO.: L205]-00-103 5 o{T7 REV rvaicn� HEaoEa scHeou�. uN�ess NOTED OTHERWiSE ON THE DRAWiNGS: UPENINGS 4 FEET OR LE55 (2) 2x8 w/ i-2x SN� TRIMMERS & 1-2x KING STU� OPENINGS 4 FEET TO 6 FEET (2) 2x10 w/ 2-2r STU� iRIMMERS & 2-2x NING SND OPENINGS OVER 6 FEET SEE P�AN iRIMMER TO BE FASTENE� TO KING --�- -��-- ���VIMUTA OF 2 ROWS 16� CLIP RAfIER 'aa rx� ) VEL meara ONCREiE !�a PROPOSED FOUNDATION PLAN scn�: i/a. _ �._o. 10/09/23 ��� � ����� H=C CHRISTOPHER LABERGE 8 CATHERINE DONNELL ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECK ADDITION - 1147 LAPORTE AVE. PROPOSEO FOUNDATION 8 FRAMING PLAN CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SCALE: AS NOTEO DRWG. NO.: L205]-00-104 55o{T7 REV 4 ��- e�� � 7� � . _. >.6.._.r..cz _. `��_s �y�' -r',r.a � '�� � ,,� _ ���� �- ' . � - - _ �_ '� ) � � ,��_` J�fJ�''t��-��Z��'� �t.� � ��" . . f .� �r i: ��y��+t'FI . 1 _�ly �r � `•1� �j�-- 4,. fA 3'���/ .S� e'R o'e'U' R' .-,i ''L'C *� �. � .�f; �,.�r�" xa .� �'i t" `�, lry,N� ,l -L . ` Y. f . ! � t..1 �'" �.J i, .:.. .y���.� .` �� �. :.;�; � °� ! k . �., � c, �3� a• 1-ry�,�„ t , { � . a _ �y.l•t ('�, � a -,�� 3i �� - Z, 1'.:! b`x�. , .a �'�.� �{:' �.,e Q �''...� �; � j�G �,�� ' .; Lt . � L. � � 1 ��it �y � y;� � �: �LY �.4 ` t'� � �.. `y � �.�' L_ � � �. F + ° ''' .,A�#� �Pl �.r �i x`Y!� k '� �s ��" 1. �R ��� , �� f9 �%. a. '� ��'� �� � '' � v'��. i�� � >: � ` " '�', .�}�Y �' s .�, � .C�, j ' 'li� � � - � �4. �y. �,� �e � � .,4 4�, � � �. f �' .' "�` � 7 a. 3i:^ �. ���* � � � . � T�{K .�,���:r�'c ` ;+`L, �1�' b z�'�� 4� fi-, ��.:�+` , .��d � 'S � v�y�� ��� Q K � � � �" ' ,5���� .� � t 4'''� '' '�°''�' + � y ri `�.,> � , � � ,�' ..\� ... ���w � ,.\ "�. . _ .�:i .. F , "�--a . , � � r�i: '�_-WI ,I,' � ���-. � -i►; l � � . '.�A� •►-'� LY if a�, �� �- � T '� � I II�M1,.., .'. � , l II) I \, � .._ � i � III I I I I� � I\ .���llrrc; I` , - � If' ` � � \� i � � V �' ��, �� \I� ` � \ � \_ ,�r �R`. 1 ¢ � �. R P k �. Y } r . . p y .,r �j;� ..�� F �y �, � � r� �. � � ,ox '� C�•� , 1 r �." k t� J. .�r'F-s ���j,L.�V a1;j� y,�' . r ��� .� vo ,.. ,�1 - , , - ` .' " ,�,� i `i.'.S� FK.,' �'�'t�� ��.`' y,�� % "� y � ��.. �;k� c}-#'",`� `J �y�f � v- .�- `.y�'�� �: �y,�, � ,.,�'y��`� � ,j � �� 'Y, ���y �_4�, '+�tl`'I ��1",r .f-- ��,.1A ...i� .:h:. `� ;,,� .^�hyf.. F.:�, C� "�''� �' 1 _ �� ,:;."�i .,.:a _ •e�,�, ��'•.. L+ •�. 4�.� ��. k- �; ra,%r'+ ,^�_.� D r ���:"E -�,� �' :":� '�° r�.,4•h � un�,f' .1 � ..p:.Jk ,,,..';,�_- :..�� `J ��;ti- i'�r''� j�' '„�}t+� .f� j,14K. .j�y 4 �w- \_ . ��' �' 3 � - �;:'� , ��� ..���. i. �' • r �����+- '{7,.;' :f � ti?�. � ' ' ,� � ib..f. �p }x`J � .;��i..4 . "�, �. -i � A � -. '` y' T1 .i. `y .�ik. , �. . ��r �y,� .t`F, �yr � ,�i t �.asc.,` 'S^ L:�: �'�,: � �:�T .i � ��. �:},�.�d J � �+� _� �� �` �Y ��,�'� �,=�. ��.y,- r .�- - ;�. ,� qyf4 ��. z.i-.:: +�,rw .y'*� .,� � �°; 'rr � i r .. � S •e. e: r� ��Y.3? �.p• .� .�i . � �f i,. 9' �i } ,� �6p� i n i� � '� ' �� rd.;; 7� :,4 ��.a t �"�] Q' ..'S ~ i �-� � ':� ��' _ i4 �' , ��d� r � r ,�`�. 'r' �rf �-\� �._.':��y {-.n 3 A� A � �'. ' � �/r w � . J�� r ,A 5} . s 'TX�" �� Y.% � -�. ���� � ! . ��� J '� i e � �'�y ti � , .� r � � q�a, j. . ,� � i S. . � � .( j f W ..r r � ` ��'f91 '� � < t � t ,. p ,,,�; t �. f , w � . ��r n, , �,s� .�. +;` 4_iak �aJ.�f6',�,.Ry.r _ c� �• n . ;�.�,Yi,a,vl � �` d" �: r � ' ) �+�k f.a. �.: �.l �i y.-� � • �,i � t ��.,,�;- " y� *�� � �l� '� f' . �`. ��' �s '4 '��� f . r � �' .cK � �. s �+ �.` F' i... - �� �'� v�' r?'o��� . -�,.`� . . � ' . w/I�.� :.r,� j ; �+.t` �. � .: -'d.�,�,._. � ,� {-��•c vq.• � r �, r; .r} .r � .� i��� ;;tr"° t G�� '� e.�' i� sl,� �r t a;x_` �, �? a� ac �'-- ��c' y� a o,� w � �j t � � s. f. ,rf'�'.^ r 4 � �Y' :;i� �.,�_#"j�`�6'CE . {��i ' n . , �' �, � 'J' � �� �1 - . e Y .4't � +s.; s '�'t a. ► -e� '\ �:, . Y , �1, '` � t F a`in✓ y� � 4e � � � ► ': (� ��A� A � � 1 ',�Cµ� I ." � ��;+, � .- Y �!" � .4 : `It . }�n '�'9 4 � � a _ 4 . � >a �- �.> � � �. Y -"�" r,''`� �. � r � � . � s �"'�;_ i, f �+C � '� i ; r�` �+.,,m �' � 1 .�i�� ��x;,r 1��� � i / � C_ � 3 0� J.'�v y/ ,�'�� � � � �.► w v ,� .. Y� �Y ,a�-µ � i�' A, i -� a �- ",r� ! y��� � r �� .� fd,�yF.b��- � �•'��' �� � `�' ��� �- : �'��L� � �. .'i' � !` �6} _�,'� � a � �j . ,� � a . �, �.♦ l,� +2�_ _ _ L L Ri • .�, F'ww � �`�C � * .Fd `;T� .r"_ � )�'G ��$'� ~�� 4 � `{r��$J *�'�� ..,�,�������`�� � ' 4�� � . � r t �¢ r ;�,�r � ti i� �L ,s'+ t 5 F- t-'P��, �� c � �j •F !r � �, x �L! _ - �,.�,��7 ` ` ��" � � r '� a'�✓,'� � �+ . � s �"c"'P :� � '3�` 1� 'i- � }tJ .;�. � � ..4 "wa�� �+ � �'� ,:.; ��. `�, �* _ � r'.' ✓ M• _ - _� ; �L} ti.�a � ag '���` "�.4„ sar� �r � c'!k1 � �i;.^ic,: ' . �t�- � '� � �v_ _t-- �'+,+-��� i�" '�tK�'°'�. ���`��� t„�"�1,� � fi �" �� ✓ �' � �� � � �r 1 �• �+�� f -.. _'4 v '4. �� =,�t��'�' �'f�1tz `�,�'' - _ __ - ���,' � -` � ; �'��'i � � S� �,-� �' _ -� - � ' '_ � , ; -• ; e . y ,. , , -- � �/�^w�L�� iM' �; �f Y ��'� p . P � .' }k''gI ,�� y -��.__ .Fa. '`� ili. � p. � M ti `._ ..�^;`-_ � � I _'/}�� � . _ y_ �. -tl � "`r' r� � � �� � �.l� � ; f�� ' ,o s�' r� �.l _ - l'r ��� r, ���,f� �T�f.�I�, ry�. � ,9. 'C�.*���F �. � ` / F, � � _,�y>�,, � ��. , i� C i�,; ;/��1�' 4 j�t � i'': � r.�, ..`�• ,�, �, i . t- '� r � - ---- r� I ��'� __� �� _ -. ;� 6 p��1',;��I �°�; '�� ,, a � - - ~� I� �+:' i -�il§ �; .�' ' �� + "� '�j � 4 I � I , ��i�� ��:�-� ��. � ��� ��..; � I� � l� ' I �i , r� � �• .`�_.`,^ ' I I"._�/, �'.�n� 4". r � �.: _ - - t'� : � I 9 � w 9 .��.� � I � ��1 �p A �.. _ �. _ . ��' �-� �" �, I'�i 19 �. � � �� i�Y` ' � I �� i � . ,.�. IIi�IP'q�� I I III`�I,� � l4�, li 4� I, I�' 1�I '� I � � h� t(,I�IJI 1. I I � I� i ll i � ,�`� *� I II; I �� ,2` P -. �' V //' 'F � � ` � . _ �� Iry . '. _ I � x'' i e'' t� —. .�� � y � � � ,'�'. ' _ — -- _ �. ::3. - . ��, : � ' _ y.!, ;�Ty T�' • C _ - � �� �i � � .. .,� q 'd '_ ~- �e...,a¢ ' , ,�,. .—�,,�` Fn;� _, �, y 1, .� � � +siL ._r .� � ri,�.��f-�",� � . . �.^''4�.�` "_`i .. � . ,f�� e 4'.�'}1�i v'F �'�" r 2-Y,s `� twY�' t,l� i�'��`,t � . �4 ' . � r. +� F, t:`�1'�,� � } �. • � •. . -=�r ,t.; . ` 5 � i - ,� � �: �"....,''' � .� .i�, _.. ' City of � �,.�t CO��II1S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. • Fort Collins, CO 80524 • Phone: 970.416.2740 • www.fc�ov.com/building BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICATION DATE: Job Site Address Unit# PROPERTY OWNER INFO: (All owner information is required — NOT optional) Last Name LaBerge First Name Chris Middle Street Address 1147 LaPorte Ave. cty Ft. Collins State CO z�p 80524 Phone # 970 397-7961 Email COREES�MSN.COM N81Yle Of BUSIne55 (COMMERCIAL USE ONLY) CONTRACTOR INFO: Company Name License Holder Name HOME OWNER LIC # CERT # LEGAL INFO: Subdivision/PUD HENSEL SUB FTC Filing # �ot # 20 Block # �ot sq Ft 7,405 CONSTRUCTON INFO: Total Building Sq Ft (NOT including basement) 2,147 Total Garage Sq. Ft. 3� 2 Residential Sq Ft 2,174 Sf Commercial Sq Ft # of Stories 2 Bldg Ht 24 ft. # of Dwelling Units � 1st Floor Sq Ft 2nd Floor Sq Ft 3rd Floor Sq Ft Unfinished Basement Sq Ft Finished Basement Sq Ft # of Bedrooms 4 # of Full Baths 2 3/ Baths %2 Baths # Fireplaces � ENERGY INFORMATION: (CHECKONE) Prescriptive� Performance❑ U/Arescheck❑ ERI ❑ ASHRAE❑ Component/Comcheck� IDAP� Air Conditioning? YES ❑✓ NO ❑ City of Fort Collins Approved Stock Plan # SPO List Option #s Utilities INFO: New Electric Service ❑ Electric Service Upgrade ❑ Electric Meter Relocation ❑ Electric Main Breaker Size (Residential Only): 150 amps or less ❑ 200 amps❑ Other: ❑ Gas ❑ Electric ❑ Electric Temp Pedestal? Yes ❑ No❑ ZONING INFO: ICOMMERCIAL USE ONC Proposed Use: (i.e. medical, office, bank, retail, etc.J For Commercial remodels and tenant finishes, please answer the followin� questions: Is the remodel/tenant finishes for an existing or new tenant? (Please check one) Existing Tenant❑ New Tenant❑ If for a new tenant, is this the first tenant to occupy this space? Yes ❑ No ❑ If not for the initial tenant for this unit, what was the previous use of this tenant space? Are there any exterior building changes (including mechanical) associated with the work? Yes ❑ No ❑ If yes, please describe: Value of Construction (materials and labor): $�J�,��� Description of Work: Remove existing carport, garage and cement floor. Build new garage in the same driveway space, pulling it up 16.5 ft. from current location and attach it to the existing home on the west side. Everything will be in the same footprint as the current garage and drivewav are now. The east and west walls will comalv with the 1 hour fire code. JOBSITE SUPERVISOR CONTACT INFO: Name HOME OWNER Phone BCONTRACTOR INFO: Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Framing Roofing Fireplace Solar Other ASBESTOS STATEMENT DISCLOSURE: In accordance with the State of Colorado Senate eill 13-152, property owners, applying for a remodel permit shall indicate their awareness about their property having been inspected for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM'sJ. ✓❑ I do not know if an asbestos inspection has been conducted on this property. ❑ An asbestos inspection has been conducted on this property on or about (enter date) ❑ An asbestos inspection has not been conducted on this property. Applicant: I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the above information is correct and agree to comply with all requirements contained herein and City of Fort Collins ordinances and state laws regulating building construction. Applicant Signature Type or Print Name CHRIS LABERGE Phone # 970 397-7961 Email COREES(p7MSN.COM THIS APPLICATION EXPIRES 180 DAYS FROM APPLICATION DATE Agenda /tem 3 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA230024 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 115 N Shields St Owner: Hunter and Kate Swanson Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: Variance Request: Sean Tomlinson, Designer N-C-L 4.7(E)(4)(a) This is a request for an addition to an existing home to have a side wall height of 21 feet 4 inches while abutting a property on the north side. This wall is setback a total of 7 feet 10 inches from the north side property line, which would allow the maximum wall height to be 16 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Backqround: The property was annexed and platted in 1906. The original primary building was built in 1900. It is unclear the number of alterations which have occurred since the original construction. The original plat included a public alley on the west end of the property. This alley was vacated in 1978. A portion of the vacated alley is included in the overall property size of 13,957 square feet. The maximum wall height on the north side of a home in the N-C-L zone district is to help preserve solar access of the abutting neighbor. In this case the abutting neighbor's house is setback 13 ft from the shared property line. The 13-foot area between the neighbor's house and the property is used as a driveway to the detached garage on the rear of the property. As seen the shadow analysis provided by the applicant the proposed structure does not affect the potential production of solar panels on the roof of the abutting neighbor. Additionally, if there was not a solar access limitation on the north side of the proposed addition the wall height would meet the non-solar wall heigh standards. Non-solar wall height starts at 18 feet at a 5-foot setback. For every 2-foot increase or fraction thereof the setback is increased by 1 foot. The proposed additional wall height is setback 7 feet 10 inches. 2. ApplicanYs statement of iustification: See petitioner's letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findinqs: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The north abutting property's potential roof solar is not affected. • The north abutting neighbor has a driveway between the house and the potential addition. 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 ZBA230024. Item # 3 - Page 1 FOrt CollinS Application Request �'L- 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 qood. 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 � when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the 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 Variance Address City Zip Code Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, City Hall Council Chambers (instructions will be emailed to the applicant the Friday or Monday prior to the hearing) Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. 115 N Shields St Petitioner's Name, Sean Tomlinson if not the Owner Fort Collins, CO 80521 Petitioner's Relationship to the Owner is Petitioner's Address �Designer � 141 S Colle e Ave, Suite 102 (970) 372-0965 sean@tomlinsondesigns.com Stella Amedee Owner's Name Hunter and Kate Swanson Petitioner's Phone # Code Section(s) 4.7 E 4 a Petitioner's Email Zoning District NCL (Neighborhood Conservati Additional Representative's Name Justification(s) IChoose One from List I Representative's Address I141 S College Ave, Suite 102 � Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative's Phone # (970) 372-0965 lustification(s) IAdditional Justification I Representative's Email Istella@tomlinsondesigns.com I Reasoning WRITTEN STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST REQUIRED VIA SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Date October 10, 2023 Signature TOMLINSON DESIGNS �d Project Address: i�5 N Shields Street Fort Collins CO 8o5zi Wednesday, October r8, zoz3 Written Statement: We are pi-oposing a i�ninor roof adjustment to t11e already penl�itted pi-oject located at rT5 N. Shielcis St. '17�e allowed wall on a setback is i4', but we are stepping back almost 3' (z'-lo") which would then allow for a i�' walL We are requesting to have a zi'-4" wall where code reqtiires it to be i�'. This change will require a variance to the solar access setbacks oFLand Use Code 4.�(E)(4)(a). 'Il�e original design iY�tent was to create a nlulti-leveled residence while keeping the overall height down as n�uch as possible, thus resultin� in a stoi�y and a half type of structtitre. On the south u�per level we did design a shed gable to allow for moi-e head height in the bedi-ooms. The north roof line was designed to stay Lulder the solar access setback and not have a syminerrical shed gable roof. Upon further review of the areas tinder the main sloping roof we are constraining the s��aces for height, especially in the batl�room area where stancling around the toilet will not be possible. i ad�nit this was a design oversigl�t on my end and should have been dealt with before the perinitting process. The �roposed roof change does go into the solar access setbacl� being on the north side of the property but we feel it is nominal and inconsequenti�l due to tl�e small added size, sloped shed roof with sun angles, and current location of the property and driveway of ri� N. Shields St. As an added benefit, the view of the new addition from the street will be more symmetrical. The ctiu-rent hoti�se located at r1� N. Shields St just finished a whole house rei��odel and addition where tl�ey too applied and were approved for a solar access setback. 'I17e di$ere�7ce between rz� and rr5 is the shape of the roofs. ii� has two gable roofs that protrude higher and ef�ect the sun's shadow to the north inol-e than the pi-oposed shed roof for rr5. The residents at rr� ul�c�eY-stand the impact their roof has on their noi-rhern neighbors and also see the beilefits of�the available space created inside their holne. 'I1iey are in full support of this application and do not see a solar impact to their property du� to its current layout and configuration. Please see our drawing packet that accompanies this application for visual representation of our justifications. Thank vou, Seai1 Tom�inson 141 S. COLLEGL AVE, STE 102 • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO • 80524 PHONE 970.372.0965 . www.tomlinsondesigns.com . 866.353.5225 FAX Swanson Remodel Variance Application October lo, zoz3 PROJEGTINFORMATION PROJECTDATA PROPERTYDATA CONSTRUCTION OATA OM'.H P.2?.JFLippyR55 -^ei.a���.�.,�_...�i P—PFS�L: �F,��i 4�MiRK.t9.R . io-oy.;oe� _ _ __ _" icr_si nESL� ��ame. _r,...:m �yirvG_Pi_IEJ - , QzvT,/�H.LGl4 _ "' N€�41MR �I�c .N� N., �.4�9-✓9Re "� ������������������������������������ r_____________________________________ _______I..,,_..,,i I- ,i ________� ---------- i i i:,:;:._ � �':: := , i i I I .-..re.�e_ r l v J l v 1 i � I +� I � I e rzE,o�� I I I I I I 1 i � _ i I I I I I i i I I - P..,�o I I 1 I I I i i � � i i � i i i i i - E, �R �r, - i I N�� �o �o w L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — _ — _ _ _ — Ps15 — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ — — J m 1 ��������������������������������������������������.'!—���������`\.���������i������ i i .,� _ -- - - - ---- i i I I I I k'�.,a T — �°�,E,�,�. k � � � - � � �� � _ �. �_f =�.n �. � � I � 4�_� .��, � I � m � _ - T �� T � � = o���.._,�� �r_�, � � � � '�. _ , � � � � � , � � _ - _ «_,_ -. _ � , -, -,..-_ �-------------------------------------------------R_,E_,----�----------�-^--------� �€ 1 '5ite Plan ��.r.3.3.,,� Swanson Remodel , �� ,��„� �,��,��. �.,,<<:,�����,.��, .- Varianic.Application Il)�Ill��l)2'; • TOMLIVSON DEtiIGNti L'+ 5 ��t��7� ,p' ��� �� ���� � S� � C�� �,�� ,�.�o si:.n w,�u,x�. sr ,.��,�� ,,,,,_,, s«� i�i:,�, Page 1 Swanson Remodel ,; � ,i,�, i,�,,�. �,,,<<:,�����„��, ,- Varianic.Application io�io�au?�; _ � - TOMLI�ISON DEtiIGNti �,�� ��.�o si:.n w��u,x�. sr .,..i.i�ii ��;ii��/_,. � uF,��e� i.���•i r��,.,� i��.��, � ii��,+ i��:��, Page 2 J Roof Plan � �7 i Swanson Remodel Variance Application October lo, zoz3 Swanson Remodel ,��,��„��,��,�. �.,,<<:,�����,.��, .- Varianic.Application �_>.,._.�.E � � West Elevation ��a�e,<_ io�io�au?�; . .a_<,�.�. .�. � ,�� s��<- ti ; !FJ o arg � i.,m.i�...,,i r lii. _ � t - � — ,��' TOMLI�ISON DEtiIGNti CS dJ��pt� �p� ��� �� ���� c� ,� 1 ���� ,�.�„ ,�:.�� ���,���,k, �� �...��,�� „�n„r�„ r.r�•�;�,� ta�•,.:���„�„ 115 N SHEILDS 5T 119 N SHEILDS ST East Elevation J�aa,a=_� Page 3 119 N SHEILDS ST 115 N SHEILDS 5T � �i F-:� C :,, � �' ��� � , _ , �I ��I �-I, _'--� � � i WI � � Swanson Remodel Variance Application October lo, zoz3 \ .. __ •a9,I \ `' \ - �_ _�_.a 1 ` � � io9 ic �V � i -�- � ` v �I1 �a ti — — - a� ,3..;� '. � a,.�` ti ,, = 3,<- t E ioaeY9 �i �E o ,. � ; '. swanson Remodel ,��,��„��,��,�. �.,,<<:,�����,.��, .- Varianic .A}�p6cat on I l)� I ll�2l)_; — � — TOMLIVSON DEtiIGNti ���,5 � p� �0 ��� �� ���� � �� � C.�� ���,�.�„ ,�:.�� ���,���,k, �� �..���,�� „�n„i��, �\Cl'I'llll' �:�t'\�:Itillilti . Page 4 North Elevation � J=ae,�_�_� Swanson Remodel Variance Application October lo, zoz3 Swanson Remodel ,��,��„��,��,�. �.,,<<:,�����,.��, .- Varianic.Application � = s MA���.� � � ���� � 119 N SHEILDS 5T "' /� �r / // a���" ,/� / � � , � ,., ;' � I . � � � �/�; �a�„��._F . � �/ ,F - - `��� . I " - . h»j � � /i � i , ,� � � i WL �./ � � � �p � - - ��� , �� ��� _� � � ,� ; �n,_ � �- ,_ : � , �— _ � — — - fi �.�K �= —_ �a ; � w — � a��� _ � � J �� � � � _ ir _I ' "I � 115 N SHEILDS ST 5olar Section 1 J= a�e �,a _ � � io�io�au?�; _ � _ TOMLIVSON I)[:tiIC Nti CS„ �'��� ,o ���" T � �� I �p � �tJ °;4',ti ��r ��. s�-;�� . k, ,,,,, :C �- � � �, .��,., _ is����d��� s�-«��,�, � st�r�;�,� i>��„F�•����� Page 5 - 2 ; FrOnt ( EaSt) PeY5p2GtIV2 J xa� � � � �' `: ? L I — � - a�'�I =� =.i � O z C� w J J Q 4�L � z � � N I . / -� � i � j — 1 f_ � It W v � J � � W � � � � � I t— I Jj 1 r _ Winter Solstice, 115 N Sheilds � xa� W v � J 0 W H z � Swanson Remodel ; � ,i,�, i,�„ ��,<<�,�����,���� _ Varianic.Application io�io/au?�; — � — TOMLIVSON DEtiIGNti �,�� ��.�o si:sn w��u,x�. sr .,..����i ��;n��/_,. s�:�,�,�:d r:.�e�;�,�� re� ,��«�, e� Page 6 6 i Spring/Pall Eq,uinox, 119 N Sheildy 3 Spring/Pall Eq,uinox, 115 N Sheilds S� 5u mmer 5olstiice, 119 N 5heilds 2 5ummer 5olstice, 115 N 5heilds � ����- dpWinter 5olstice, 119 N 5heilds J s s�_ October 5, 2023 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Julie Mote, I am the owner of the property directly to the north of the Swanson property. My address is 119 N. Shields Street, I have reviewed the plans. I fully understand that they are adding a shed dormer. In our opinion, based on where our house sits and the existing windows, the new addition of the dormer would not impact our solar access. Also, because of the location of our driveway, and the distance between our house and the Swanson's north side, there will not be an impact to our solar access. We are in agreement with the new plans. Please feel free to reach out with questions or concerns. Julie Mote 970-599-3554 juliegmote@gmail.com