Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/14/2023 - 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: 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 DECEMBER 14, 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, December 14, 2023, will only be available IN PERSON in accordance with Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to nbeals@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable with public participation are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments 24 hours prior to the meeting to nbeals@fcgov.com. Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. If you need assistance during the meeting, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com. Land Use Review Commission Page 2 Agenda – December 14, 2023 1. APPEAL ZBA230026 Address: 501 Edwards St Owner: On Track Homes LLC Petitioner: Adam Jaspers Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)2 Project Description: This is a request for a variance to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 150 square feet. The current maximum allowable is 2,480 square feet. • 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 NOVEMBER 9, 2023 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of member Carron. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by Coffman to approve the October 12, 2023, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was approved; Chair Shuff abstained. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) -NONE- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is at the corner of Tanager and Troutman, on the west side of the MAX Line, railroad, and ditch features. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINTUES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 DRAFT Minutes – November 9, 2023 The request is for an 8-foot fence along the north and south property lines. The request is for the fence to begin at the front of the property line and end at the rear property line, with 8-foot fences proposed on both north and south sides. During staff investigation of this property, it was found to be possible that the south fence line is not on the property line but may be in the public right of way. Any decision made today may only be made in regard to features placed within the private property lines. If the applicant wanted to pursue vacating the right of way with the City, that would be a different process. A true survey of the property could determine if the fence is within the property; staff recommendations are based off of the plat and plans currently available. Aerial views show a high volume of bike and pedestrian traffic utilizing the nearby trails and adjacent underpass. The fence would be installed as a means of increasing privacy; extra privacy is also desired for the backyard hot tub currently in place. As proposed, the existing 6-foot fence would be topped with 2-feet panels of latticework; under current code, the latticework element is considered opaque. The issue with the property line is thus – a fence over 6-feet will require a building permit, which cannot be issued if the fence is in the public right of way. Any decisions made today are done so with the assumption that the fence is within the property lines and not on public right of way. Photographs of the property show a current construction project and screening elements related to boring work happening within the public right of way. Normally the view would show the property lines as it transitions to the road dead-end and landscaped area adjacent to public right of way. Vice-Chair Lawton asked to clarify the status of the fence on the south side of the property. Beals commented that it is highly likely, based on aerial views, that the fence is within the public right of way. Only a survey could accurately determine this. Commission member San Filippo asked if the driveway in photos is also within the public right of way. Beals noted it the area in question may be used for RV and tool/equipment storage. That area may indeed encroach into the public right of way. Chair Shuff asked if the applicant could pursue a right of way use permit for portions of the south fence? Beals responded that a right of way use permit could not be issued for a structure or other permanent features that require a building permit. Applicant Presentation: **APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT** Public Comment: Audience member Charles Heinzmann, 4143 Tanager, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Heinzmann noted that they live across the street from the subject property. Heinzmann made a point to acknowledge the high volume of transient activity in the area, which has not been mentioned/addressed. The nearby detention pond, trails, and transportation center draw that population. According to Heinzmann, applicant Garcia has been a good neighbor and has upgraded property, and experienced multiple instances of transients climbing over the fence and entering the property. The City of Fort Collins has been made aware, including the Police Department, though no action has been taken. Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman commented that he does not see any problem with the proposed fence; the issue of whether or not it is in the public right of way is not up to this Commission. Additionally, the proposed lattice work seems to be attractive. Commission member San Filippo agreed that the proposed lattice work is attractive, and there would not be anticipated to be a noticeable effect on the neighbors at 4148 Tanager. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 DRAFT Minutes – November 9, 2023 Vice-Chair Lawton noted that he has walked this area several times; it is a high-traffic area due to the proximity of the Mason Trail. Additionally, Lawton acknowledged that there was some concern stated in the applicant’s application mentioning their dog’s ability to jump over the existing fence. The proposed lattice work is nice-looking and would be an appropriate solution. Chair Shuff stated he would be in support of the request; approval could be justified with nominal and inconsequential and/or hardship standards. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA230022 for the following reasons: 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 a neighbors’ house that has limited windows. 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: Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy Nays: Absent: Carron THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of Pearl St and Laporte Ave. The request is to build a new garage attached to the primary building. There is an existing garage and a canopy acting as a carport. Both would be removed and replaced with the proposed structure. The existing garage is not actually attached to the primary structure, but the two structures are very close to one another. To note – the properties to the east were one lot at one point in time; that has since been split in two, with a primary building on each. Currently, there is an accessory building that now splits those lots as well as encroaches into the required side setback. The neighboring property to the west faces Laporte Ave and thus also has a 5-foot setback along the shared property line. The property on the back end of the corner, which faces Pearl St, requires a 15- foot rear yard setback along the shared property line. Beals explained that any time a non-conforming structure is self-demolished, it is the responsibility of the property owner to build any new buildings to the current standard. In this case, because the subject property has a non-conforming garage encroaching into the side setback, self-demoing that building would require any new structure be built to the required 5-foot side setback. Based on the submitted application, the proposed structure would be attached to the primary structure and be placed less than one foot from the side property line. Beals showed elevations of the proposed structure, noting the street-facing and rear-yard facing sides. Images of the rear property show an existing fence; Beals noted the fence is not located on the property line. Beals noted the driveway present on the property, explaining that when it was originally platted there was an alley. That alley has been vacated, and now there is no public access on that driveway, and it Land Use Review Commission Page 4 DRAFT Minutes – November 9, 2023 is considered a private drive. Half of the alley went to properties along the north, and half went to properties on the south. The only public access that is maintained is for utilities access. It is unclear if all of the properties who enjoy that driveway have a private access agreement between themselves. It appears obvious from aerial images it is used and shared between the four adjacent properties. Chair Shuff asked how the alley was shared when vacated – was 10 feet given to those on the north and 10 feet to those on the south? It appears that there are no disputes amongst the neighbors. Beals indicated that the city is not aware of any disputes; there is a curb cut for utilities access, which the City maintains. Beals clarified the request here is only for side-setback encroachment, not rear. Commission member McCoy asked why property lines were not adjusted when the alley was vacated? Beals responded that it may have occurred when the previous multi-family development to the east occurred. Commission member San Filippo asked if there is anything keeping the subject property from accessing the rear of their property via the driveway? Beals responded that he is not legal counsel and can’t speak to their specific agreements regarding driveway use. In other similar situations, we would expect to see a private agreement detailing access amongst the neighboring properties. Vice-Chair Lawton asked for confirmation that as proposed, all vehicle access to the garage would be from Laporte Ave. Beals confirmed that as designed, all vehicle access to the proposed garage structure would occur off of Laporte Ave. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Coree Sullivan, Windsor, CO, addressed the Commission and provided comments, noting property owner Chris LaBerge was not able to attend the hearing. Sullivan stated the applicants are not interested in changing much of the back of the property. The bottom line is that the desire is to pull the existing garage up and maintain the current footprint with the new structure. The proposed deck feature will not have a stairway down, as it will be constructed at ground level. The property would be improved by constructing the proposed garage with a firewall adjacent to the house as well as the west side. The existing awning at the front would be removed, and the roofline would be extended from the primary home at the same slope as current. Per Sullivan, the applicants are expecting a baby in January, and would like to be able to access the garage more easily. The garage was built in 1930, and over time fumes have accumulated in the garage that could potentially pose a health risk to applicant Chris LaBerge, who is a former Marine and has previous chemical exposure and sensitivity to odors. New cement would help to alleviate this. The existing driveway from the side door location onwards would not change. The proposed garage would stay within the current footprint. Chair Shuff asked what Sullivan to clarify their relationship to the applicant. Sullivan responded she is a friend who was asked to represent the property owner in their absence. Commission member San Filippo asked Sullivan if she lives in any of the surrounding properties. Sullivan responded that she did not. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member McCoy asked staff if any public comment had been received regarding this appeal. Beals confirmed that none was received. Commission member Coffman acknowledged the previous discussion that had touched on whether or not the applicants were able to access the property from the rear driveway. Coffman stated there are Land Use Review Commission Page 5 DRAFT Minutes – November 9, 2023 two obstacles to that: 1) we don’t know if they have any kind of shared access agreement or other legal agreement for access; 2) there appears to be large mature trees along the back side of the lot that may need to be taken out if proposed access point is changed. Regarding the proposed garage location, Coffman noted that we the 5-foot side setback requirement is in place to maintain access around buildings. If the variance was approved, there would still be restricted access, but it does seem that approval would be an improvement to the property; access could be maintained; fire rating would be increased. Pending additional discussion, Coffman is in support. Commission member McCoy agrees with Coffman. Leaving the current non-conforming garage is not as good as the new structure, which would be built to current building codes. In the rear, it may not be feasible to get access because of the convoluted nature of the property lines. Commission member San Filippo stated he did have some problems with application. San Filippo recently walked through the area for information gathering, and the proposed proximity of the garage to 113 Pearl St. gives him pause. The subject property is a very deep lot, and San Filippo sees no reason why garage could not be placed in the rear of the lot with full compliance. The applicants could have also explored further the possibility of access from the driveway and could have worked to attain an access agreement for rear-access to a garage. At this point, San Filippo stated he is not in favor of supporting the application and noted the potential fire danger created with only a half-foot side setback. Assistant City Attorney Chris Hayes provided counsel, suggesting that the commission ought to afford the applicant or their representative a chance to respond to the observations and claims of San Filippo’s site visit, as they were not part of the presentation. Applicant representative Sullivan responded, noting the homeowner’s proposal is an attempt to maintain character of the neighborhood. To the best of Sullivan’s knowledge, the applicants have not sought access from Pearl St; it appears to be a shared area and they don’t want to change current status with neighbors. If the location of the proposed garage were pulled up 16 feet, the house on Pearl St would have a clear shot to the backyard. The existing shed on the neighboring property would then be next to the new garage. Chair Shuff noted he does have concerns, commenting it would be one thing if the attached garage were placed in the current location. However, as proposed with only a 6-inch setback, the proposal would not be improving a non-ideal situation currently. There may also be more impact to the abutting house to the north due to the closeness of the buildings, wherein it could be that they have a structure within 7-8 feet of the east side of the house. Shuff also noted it was unclear what the status of the driveway access agreement is. In Old Town it is very common to have a detached garage, that is not a special condition. Because of these factors, Shuff doesn’t see rational or justification for hardship; not nominal or inconsequential, or equal to or better than. As a Commission, we must review the application under these three standards. If approval is to be granted, the Commission must come up with a rationale. Coffman noted the width of lot, the existing trees, and walking access to the lot, are all conditions that were not put in place by the applicant. Could these elements be considered hardships that would affect options? Vice-Chair Lawton commented that this lot is unique based on history and shape. Access could be along the side and then through back. May be some decking and other elements that indicate use. Why not access through the side of the house and back of the yard. Lawton stated his agreement with the city practice of requiring new buildings to be built to code when demolished. McCoy offered agreement with the hardship issue. McCoy observed that the existing condition is that a garage is present. Can’t access from the alley because we can’t assume there is an access agreement. Moving the garage to the rear and access from Laporte is a hardship because the yard will be consumed by the garage. This is not an ideal situation; however, the existing conditions would be improved by a new structure. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 DRAFT Minutes – November 9, 2023 Commission member Vogel stated she is very challenged with this proposal and is struggling to accept that this is a true hardship issue or that what is proposed would truly be an improvement. Hayes offered the Commission counsel to not consider access from the south if no evidence of ability to access exists. McCoy commented that the applicant has applied for a variance to re-build the garage, it seems the best solution may be to move this garage into the alley. Could request be withdrawn or tabled to attain more information regarding alley access? Beals responded that the ability to table or postpone the item now lies with the Commission; we could table the item with a request for more information regarding alley access. Beals informed a withdrawal would start the application process all over again including new fee. San Filippo asked if the applicant’s representative could also ask for the item to be tabled on behalf of the applicant? Beals explained that the suggestion to table normally comes from the Commission and then is verified with the applicant. San Filippo asked how long the item could be carried once tabled. Beals answered that he would prefer a motion that has some direction specifically regarding time frame i.e., specific month, 6-month timeframe, etc. Shuff summarized three options: 1) take the proposal as presented without consideration of alley access; 2) withdraw the application in total; 3) table the item (pause) to allow time for investigation and/or modification. Input from applicant representative is requested. Sullivan responded the applicants do not want to withdraw the item; it appears that votes are not present to approve at present. Sullivan explained that the applicants bought the property in August; according to Sullivan, the City told the applicants that as long as the new garage fit the footprint of the existing structure, it would be ok. The west side of the existing structure has eaves that go over the property line. The proposed structure would not have eaves, only gutters. Shuff asked Sullivan if she was comfortable in determining the best option? Sullivan responded that she would only want a vote if it was for approval. Sullivan then stated she prefers to have the item tabled rather than potentially denied. Sullivan asked if the structure were moved to the back and trees removed, that would necessitate a 15-foot setback. Would they be able to install a driveway? Maybe access could come back off the alley. Perhaps there are solutions in which no variance request would be needed, only a building permit. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel, to TABLE ZBA230023 to be re-heard at any point in the next six months. Yeas: Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy Nays: Absent: Carron THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS TABLED **Commission member John McCoy recused himself, stating that Sean Tomlinson, petitioner, is also working on one of McCoy’s projects**. Departed meeting at 9:33am. 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) Land Use Review Commission Page 7 DRAFT Minutes – November 9, 2023 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is on N Shields, and is a long rectangular lot stretching back to a vacated alley that is now a part of the subject property. The request is to build an addition to the primary house. In that addition, the wall along the north encroaches into the solar access of the adjacent property, and thus requires a variance. If there were not solar access, this wall is set back far enough from the property line that it would not need a variance. The addition is setback a bit from the required 5-foot setback. The first-floor wall has a cantilevered window that approaches but does not encroach the side setback. Beals showed elevations of the subject property and neighboring property, noting the previously approved solar encroachment present at 119 N Shields St. as well as the requested portion of the proposed addition that is within the solar access setback. It is smaller in nature compared to what was improved for the property to the north. Beals also presented north elevations of the proposed addition, comparing variance and non-variance design options. Shadow-casting drawings were presented, which depict shadow vectors for Winter Solstice, Summer Solstice, and Equinox. Equinox and Summer Solstice shadows will not affect neighboring property. Construction is currently underway, and a permit was pulled for this addition; mid-construction, the design is being altered thus a variance is now being requested. Beals noted that a letter was submitted from the neighbor at 119 N Shields in support of the project. A letter of opposition was received and subsequently rescinded, as the sender mistakenly thought he project abutted their west property line. Chair Shuff asked what time of the day is represented in the shadow-cast images? Beals responded that those images are based on the time of the Sun’s high point of the day. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Sean Tomlinson, 141 S College Ave, Ste 102, addressed the Commission and provided comments. Tomlinson confirmed that the project is underway, and the variance is sought for a modification to approved design. Tomlinson explained that access off of/on to Shields is challenging. 119 N Shields utilizes access from the south side of the property, and this represents an existing condition. The submitted site plan shows the distance between buildings and driveway location. The proposed modification to the design would mirror what happens on the south side of the property, which would allow for more usable space within a bathroom. Modified design includes a shed dormer on both north and south sides of the proposed new construction. Solar impact would be most pronounced in the Winter when light levels are at their lowest angle. Tomlinson provided video animations that describe the path and change of shadows throughout the day on Solstice/Equinox dates. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if the reason for modifying the original design is to produce increased head room? Tomlinson responded that kicked off the change, and it also made more architectural sense when considering neighborhood aesthetic. Land Use Review Commission Page 8 DRAFT Minutes – November 9, 2023 Public Comment: Audience member Cally Stockton, 110 S Mountain Ave, borders to the south. Own the vacated alley; current owners are communicative. In favor the design and symmetry. Not impacted by solar encroachment. Julie Mote, 119 N Shields, stated that she is perfectly ok with the proposal. It affects their home the most, and she has seen Tomlinson’s presentation beforehand and is comfortable with the proposal as presented. Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated he has no problem with the application. Solar access is the sole issue and is a non-issue due to the presence of the driveway adjacent to 119 N Shields. Vice-Chair Lawton stated he supports the application. Justification could be based on rationale of nominal/inconsequential or equal to or better than. The shadow study is a neat piece of evidence! Commission member Vogel stated she is in favor and appreciates the support of neighbors. Commission member San Filippo stated that he agrees with all comments; there appears to be no impact on neighbors, and he too appreciates hearing the support of neighbors. Chair Shuff stated that he appreciated the applicant presentation and shadow studies too. The proposal would have minimal impact, seems to be a reasonable request, and is evidence process works. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel, to APPROVE ZBA230024 for the following reasons: 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 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: Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Coffman, Lawton, McCoy Nays: Absent: Carron THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 14, 2023 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA230026 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 501 Edwards St. Owner: On Track Homes LLC Petitioner: Adam Jaspers Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(D)(2)(a)2 Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 150 square feet. The current maximum allowable is 2,480 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in as part of the Lake Park Addition in 1881. It received development approval at the same time but was later replatted as part of the Craft Resub Subdivision. The original building was constructed in the early 1900’s. The new primary building was constructed in the last two years. It received two different variances to encroach into the sided setback and increase the allowable floor area by 80 square feet. The request now is to allow additional square footage to construct a detached garage. The allowed square footage is based on the lot size and previous variance totaling 2,480 square feet. The primary structure has used all the allowable square footage. The code also gives an allowance of an additional 250 square feet for a detached accessory structure such as a garage. This means the maximum allowed with a detached accessory building is 2,630 square feet. The proposed would be 2,880 square feet, a difference of 150 square feet. The lot is on the corner. This corner lot comes with additional ROW on the back side of the sidewalk. There is an existing parking pad in the rear yard and vehicle access to the proposed garage will still come from the alley. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The additional ROW on the back side of the sidewalk along Whedbee Street gives the appearance of a larger lot. • Vehicle access remains from the alley. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA230026. Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The /DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ has been granted the authority to approve variancesIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQD]RQLQJ GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVHXVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQPD\JUDQW YDULDQFHVZKHUHLWILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the publicgood $GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRURWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR WKHSURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVH[FHSWLRQDOQDUURZQHVV VKDOORZQHVVRUWRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOGUHVXOWLQXQXVXDODQG H[FHSWLRQDOSUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHVRUXQGXHKDUGVKLSXSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG WKDWVXFKGLIILFXOWLHVRUhardshipDUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFWRURPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW VHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOSURPRWHWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLVUHTXHVWHG equallywell or better thanZRXOGDSURSRVDOZKLFKFRPSOLHVZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRUZKLFKWKHYDULDQFHLV UHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDOZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQDnominal, inconsequential wayZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQPD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$QH[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location /D3RUWH$YH&LW\+DOO&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWRWKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ Date 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPH DP Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City )RUW&ROOLQV&2Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ tZ/dd E^dd D Ed yW>/E/E'd, Z ^KE&KZd, sZ/E Z Yh ^dZ Yh/Z s/ ^ WZd KhD Ed͘ 502 Edwards St Adam Jaspers 80524 502 Edwards St Fort Collins, CO 8 Adam Jaspers 970-231-8632 4.8(D)(2)(a)2 adam@hwgcolorado.com NCM See written attached- project narrative. 11/06/2023 Adam Jaspers 3. Nominal and inconsequential Additional Justification Additional Justification 1 501 Edwards Street Variance Request for 150 Square Feet Proposed Two-Car Detached Garage Along Alley 501 Edwards is a 5,600 square foot lot (40’ x 140’) at the northeast corner of Edwards Street and Whedbee Street, zoned N-C -M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density. The house faces Edwards Street with 40 feet of lot width. The side yard adjoins Whedbee Street with 140 feet of lot length. (Improvement Location Certificate attached.) We recently built a beautiful new home . Now we would like to build a detached garage at the rear of our lot that would gain access from the alley. This garage would be 20’ x 20’ for a total of 400 square feet. This garage would be greater than 10 feet behind the house. And the garage would not have water and sewer so it would not be an Accessible Building with Habitable Space. It would simply be a typical, modestly sized two -car garage. To build this garage, we would slightly exceed the N-C -M maximum allowable floor area per the following standard: Variance Request to N-C-M Zone District Standard Section 4.8(D)(2)(a)2. On a lot that is between four thousand (4,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single -family dwellings and buildings accessory to single - family dwellings shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. Result Per Standard: 5,600 sq. ft. x 25% = 1,400 + 1,000 = 2,400 sq. ft. allowable floor area. Regarding detached garages located behind the house, the N-C-M provides further guidance per the following standard: Section 4.8(D)(2)(d) For the purpose of calculating allowable floor area, the floor area of the following spaces and building elements shall not be included: 2 The first two hundred fifty (250) square feet of a detached accessory building, provided that it is located behind a street-fronting principal building and is separated from such principal building by at least ten (10) feet. Result Per Standard: 400 sq. ft. – 250 = 150 sq. ft. for the newly proposed garage floor area. Result Per Two Standards: 2,400 sq. ft. + 150 sq. ft. = 2,550 sq. ft. maximum allowable floor area. On August 12, 2021, the Land Use Review Commission approved Case Number ZBA210033 (house only – no garage) which granted an 80 sq. ft. increase in the amount allowable floor area. Result: Our new home is 2,400 sq. ft. + 80 = 2,480 sq. ft. With 2,480 sq. ft. as the legally permitted baseline, and based on the 250 sq. ft. garage exemption, our desire to build a new 400 sq. ft. garage would increase our total square footage as follows: Proposed Garage: 400 sq. ft. – 250 sq. ft. (exemption) = 150 sq. ft. (net new) 2,480 sq. ft. + 150 sq. ft. = 2,630sq. ft. Therefore, our variance request can be summarized as: Current Maximum Allowable: 2,480 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,630 sq. ft. Variance: 150 sq. ft. Nominal and Inconsequential We respectfully ask the LURC to consider our proposal to be a plan that will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code, as stated in the N-C-M zone district under Section 4.8(D)(2)(a)2., except in a way that is nominal, inconsequential when consi dered from the perspective of the Whedbee Street block face, the Edwards Street development pattern and overall neighborhood character. We contend that our extra 150 square feet at 501 Edwards Street in the form of a new detached garage accessed from the alley will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. 3 Whedbee Street – 100 Feet of Public Right-of-Way • The total public right-of -way for Whedbee Street is 100 feet. • From flowline-to-flowline, the street measures 60 feet. • From street to property line, there is 20 feet of ROW on both sides of the street. • On the west side of the street, there is a 7’ wide parkway and 5’ wide detached walk. • On the east side of the street (our side), there is a 4.5 feet wide attached walk. • Behind the attached walk on the east side, there is 15.5’ strip of public right-of -way that runs the length of our property (140 feet) from Edwards Street on the north to the alley on the south. This strip, while dedicated as public, does not contain any public or private utilities, or serve any other specific purpose. There is nothing above ground and nothing below ground. It is simply unused left-over space between the back of walk and our west property line due to the 100 feet of Whedbee Street ROW. At 15.5’ x 140’, this is 2,170 square feet. For comparison purposes, please note that per the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, a street classified as a “Modified Arterial ” has a total right-of -way of 102 feet. We mention this because this strip adjoins our west property line and creates the seamless visual effect that our lot is wider and larger than it is. From the perspective of our neighbors and the general public, this strip has become a de facto part of our yard. Within this strip, we have added turf, irrigation and four shade trees that beautify the streetscape and our neighborhood. We take pride in our yard and have no problem maintaining and irrigating (at our expense) the turf and trees. (See attached images.) Combined with our 15-foot corner side yard setback, the 15.5 feet of public right -of -way, both of which are landscaped, creates a 30.5 feet wide “yard” between the garage and back of walk. We contend that these 2,170 square feet between our west property line and the back of walk along Whedbee Street is a significant mitigating factor that allows our request for 80 additional sq. ft. to be effectively nominal and inconsequential . In terms of neighborhood character, it reads as if it were part of our property. 4 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Just in case there may be an inclination on the part of the City of Fort Collins to ever need this strip for street widening, please note that Whedbee Street is classified as a Local Street. As a Local Street, Whedbee includes the following features that are in excess of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for a Local Street: • Center Left-Turn Lane • Separate on-street Striped Bicycle Lanes 6 feet wide. A new Local Street constructed today would be required to dedicate only 57 feet of total public right-of -way. As noted, this standard Local Street does not include a center left-turn lane nor separate bike lanes. Whedbee Street, platted in the 19th century, will likely remain classified as a Local Street and has 100 feet of right-of -way - 43 feet in excess of the current standard. Master Steet Plan The square mile section bounded by South College Avenue, East Prospect Road, South Lemay Avenue and East Mulberry Street is served by the following designated Collector Streets: • East Laurel Street • East Elizabeth Street • Pitkin Street • Stover Street Combined with Remington Street (Minor Arterial), this square mile is already well-served with a Collector Street network. Therefore, one cannot foresee Whedbee Street ever being widened or upgraded from its current classification and needing this 2,170 square foot strip of land. Whedbee Street Block Faces Between Elizabeth and Pitkin There is a mix of neighborhood character on the east side of Whedbee Street between Elizabeth Street on the north and Pitkin Street on the south. For example, beginning at Elizabeth these three blocks include: • Harris Elementary School • Lloyds Vehicle Minor Repair Shop • 1100 Whedbee St. house with front yard • 1104 Whedbee St. house with front yard • 502 Edwards St. – house with side yard • 501 Edwards St. – house with side yard • 502 Pitkin – Place of Worship Converted to Professional Office 5 As seen, these three block faces do not feature a continuous row of houses found on the intersecting east-west streets (Garfield, Edwards, Pitkin). We contend, therefore, that our request for an additional 150 square feet to allow our 400 square foot detached garage will have no impact on the residential character of the overall neighborhood. Garage Design The garage, at 400 square feet, will not be the largest garage on our alley. It will feature a hip roof with 4/12 pitch that matches our house. Furthermore, we will side the garage with stucco in style and color that also matches the house. And, as an upgrade, there will be two residential -style windows facing Whedbee Street to add architectural interest to the west wall. We contend that our proposed garage in its location and with its design would be entirely consistent with the established character of our neighborhood and will be an attractive addition to Whedbee streetscape. Neighborhood Support We have the support of our neighbors. Letters of support will be forwarded to the LURC. Conclusion We have upgraded this property from its previous use as a very small, older house used as a parsonage for the former church. In addition, we have replaced the church’s former g ravel parking lot with a nice, landscaped back and side yard. Now that our finances permit, we would like to continue to invest in our property by adding a modest two -car garage along the alley. Although our lot is 5,600 square feet, it reads as if it is 5,600 plus 2,170 for a total of 7,770 square feet by virtue of the excess Whedbee Street right-of-way that seamlessly adjoins our west property line and side yard. We respectfully ask the LURC to consider that our request for an additional 150 square feet would be nominal and inconsequential and would not have any impact on the broader neighborhood. 9/11/23, 11:31 AM 1200 Whedbee St - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5718999,-105.0701993,3a,75y,101.2h,87.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simcIZ0e0kZxkdhqVLox_xQ!2e0!7i13312!8i66…1/1 Image capture: Apr 2016 © 2023 Google Fort Collins, Colorado Google Street View Apr 2016 See more dates 1200 Whedbee St 501 Edwards street view before ne id�i�s ��V,vV�.)M_7N I — I � �� I I I L... ' I I I � � � o I I-, ' � � w � � r I � � a I �u � ti,� �rs_ I - I �l �Sl � , .... ; i „ i O O Q i , , � C� (�I — ---------------J ' ` ' I O � ---------------J �I � � I�1 d�774' - d��7V li Q eontM �< Stestd �n�nsn�i..ocss,eav � II N � � ----- �-- �- - - --- , Q � � r ,;', o �,i/ I=/ '� ... U o .,��, -.I i ---i � �II . . , :,:,,� � � Id S N � a i ui six I � � I`, L��I � . u� a�i nna � � �,�,� � � Id l.S .] . � � � � �� r. i- , � � � � � . �I �/ �� /+; I �, �- � I_;_ u �s � , � j� ��_ � � � � � X -T i � � �� ���_�� e � � �` � } , � � '�i o� � / 1=. � ;I � � Iw I � 9.� �� �>i �0 , _.,_ � � ��� � II� � ��y I u � (� , ., ,, ,� „��,. ,�, ,._,��� -- vI � � �, yg � i � � _ 'i—+ 1 I�I a �Plk � � ��'i I u h! - � _ (� 'OQVt1010J p - i �F�� y i e�'. '�. �' , a �, �`-� _' I (2� 3031F15 J3YW.IL 7jO�ROJ �"`f"` i : .- ,,,� � :" , I �; � I y 1770�1 10-I iOALJ'NOL Q I i i 'I �u I -�.�a . ., . „� , � ; .ai - .` .1 � I Y2(HrI7Y 7{O VOISIA(fll1 7 � � 'SN . . L( U6 - I . I , ..t . I 7 S:21 I i Y, . �� , . � � SljNT7J hl Y1fl OL,LO(:1�'S'7 � .' � I�> .e� . , , ��a � I i ' I ._ . , ,,:. :�. ' .. _,..��" ..,;� ..�., i I � 9 SOS -,.-.;- 1�j _ . I ��� � : opn�o�o��sinll�7]�oj 1aay5 pinnP3l05 I . ,I� " � .,. ,.._ ' ' ;.,. —' '� � _ t_��� ; �'�_ p '�,y - , „ ° ----- __ — _\. n0�t-i �SFFbS_ �� —"'—" �I11ti.,F��t3tdi5� �I � I I� � II ' i.' f ' � I ,_a_ i�—�r —� � � � � � � � j —"�_"r__—_ . _ . _ _-- r /' �..,�,—.. -- I .. -__ . Yr' � . .. ,._..i,'..,._./ O �U' .L:�.�X.LSSQ7/�'MQ.� ,L.�9N.LSSQ?INMQ,� n � y r� � f- ♦ � �. l� � � ! .•�G �/, , ,���1�, �. ' ,� s • f !�� L �Y t` �`, � t �♦� •' _ Xr � � r. + 1 . � : � . ,� • ► ��R' ''�►#-y�j , 'M,,, ` ;� �� + �•, � r � � � " �t'. �'�^�r��, `�� ' � �` � .'�� �l�r r �J , k.��'� � y����,� �� ,w. _ : ��. �.,,• �r�. �'� � ��' � . - �,y ' " � � i= r�l+ ^I� 1'��«� .•�.�ay, `t, t., 4�t� �»�k v , , �- �-�rT, » �. +7• �n '` �'� �'�,,. w`TM'� '`� � •� �S - - 'y � '" 'e _ .Y� ._1 �;� wt� , _ .�.,�, . .._ _ 'Y'' : `� * . , �C. � � ..,` . f.`" . -�F'. �til��� ".,�' •�y ,�t�4w�j y� n , �;. r ,�, 0� �,,rt F, .�9 .��� � r� �, � �.. � ��` - ,iy,�� �*, �'�� � ��'�+�<� � .-Y ♦ �'y�,` e , ��Z; "f � � ,5' 't •. "' �d �, r�, • j �• �� }` �' p � .A. di r. � � � s- _ �`� �� � �4\ ��- � a ���' . •4 .�',f s.� "�► •6 � �� �l � �'�4 �i �•�� '• i 4 i .` . '�y,�� t "� Y' r �, i �T' � � ,� �� l / ' '`'�'[' t�^�: � �' "" � .r ''�C ' ` !JF � ,.� � „I�'' - '� � �' `r y�� ,_'K„ _;�+� .� i�� , ,� � ''1�`� '�+'•. .. �� +�;k '�i�,1-' *�,�. �: s �. 1�v. ' � " � � � ��I � � ' �a � '� S. a'v.�,"' ('i�}._ . X� �•� �� - ` ` � ---� � . . ti�. _,��'�"� � � `'�'•.� < ��. � x4 1 °�`�`��y� ' ' 'f f� •�Y ,� � + � ':. ,� , �' �� ; � l � ,} �y . .. _ � „ } �, i , �} � ��� w+' j. t m ' ��Y � - �� �, ��(Y_M��� '� �' f ��^J�• , ?.� ,� ' + �y � V� �I� Y. '�` ('-�, • � x:� � '�'V�' - � 'lf _ _ _ -� ! ',vy-0� �1'" 4 -„_ ,-� �• ; � + :� � � * �:r , �•��� � rl � . yy �4,' �.'` r�' � `. �• T M.: -j .�.`. �� , � w � � � �,� � , ��� �� _ ��� �i ,j. � ;� . r,�, � � �� . � � �i � , �� � � � � ... , � � - C ri � l� t �' ,i , . � ,r � . � � _ �` �'w' h ` ' � �� �. � r �,�t� m , u.�,{< < a.�•.�. �I �t _ � �. ( � � ' � �.�-,� �� . � , �„ • - - r�'�''N��'� � I _ w�'"*�`�' �+.-�+ ,�,�,���iYr•,,,.�. � � " _ . . _ — — � _ 'Ft�. �. ' � - �, � �'�•� K�.�'�� "� . . . y'• . t r `+ � � . ����La�� ����R. ��'� . � ��M�� �r• ♦.y � ^W� S y w � ... ��� �wL+7����• . ��,�.+ }. ie.�����t. � ��� �`� n-♦ .��r �-1"l�i�f"- � +r �. � r , Y•*� Sy �t4` p»� • ..*�i. , �1� •� . -'(p�, ,- ���,"�I�i 4�K ' . : �l � .�� � ^ .�+. -y � ..•n,.,,wh�t+ . �.yr.�+ �+ � a '��f�d 1 r .14 �'� � .'• I� d .? � '� , � �� F. �X �. �� wJ� "�+' (1 ,"� A�`"�'� � -"�7 *. h� �.�, . .KA `.� ��'i ,'Y�' .'. ty'�° � ` �'.M. �.�J y i.1 n� u'' '�` r��-�OP�� ���j✓`t T S.• .'}.� t.'h� i, ��;y�� .�,i � . '• � � r �; r a�, �, �+ k��y rc:s��,,, ,��ry. � �f �r-,��y ���• �.�•:�'4>•.�„�,y��, ' ',� 'A�-�*� � y 1�.,' � y�,•iJry'�i�;r1NM� ^�+ Y i� y�r.,i ,1 �' � • ry x" , . 1"' � � 4' �T�i. o I . '� N�..'1°w:+ r =� �„h, ��►� � �" � �y�. i''�"�s �r+' �R�,�'► � l�'�tr�� F+ M *"�' �� �F• . � �'(�7 �a i V'u�,,�y�1 '1� ��, ..f ' •�'� �Irr� i�1ti . �'� .'c �� ��.• W�Y . ,�. • � _ ,y�_��I '' � �s�.'.���.�"r-'/EY'rfr��w e�1�.�0.4�� I' � �er• f �!',�. �R.� I �I�k' � • .� �aAJ . . I� �- ��`; �.y14- r� ,l • �i"ltT,a��4 i.�.�� ,r,• 'M�� � , +��/t"�' �,fi�"�r.^y�A•�� � ..'�r �� ,. t�! M 1 �� y '� � 1 � � '� V�� '�'� 'p V .�t '"�,� ;� R �i e ,' a. . � '� Y� ha j '��.� !'y, r,�'C Y�«. �.'� -' ^'��,. � � � � ; ..'F��c' 'r:�+�i r� . .. , .4 , , .`Y,' �� ' •�'i ,' I�}� y,+ ' ,��� . ..'NY _SfY. .i��- � .. F:��i.�.;,,! � '���J+'�\I"w�r . .• , fry�1 �eV'� �IM�. � � - ''I.r,A; rft� .. 1 � � �_ . �,►� y� '� � ' 'y ��' �.ti '�� .+ �. i�� /I't'r � . 1 " �d � `���'•F ��a','�ir 1 �1 ' � !v ..,r '�„J�„in,� � �.�•.� �" r r, " -L" il t � /•,��, A/l�I�'� �,-� w 5 �; , in , �� �. i��t r'a y A . 5 � � . �i"n Z 7��s � '��'� �f �'1 t/s !-�' i �: �`'����+ +'������ ,.'4,�'1 �4) �., �i �, i '� a i � �►i� 5.� . Io�1 �i 1 �� �i- vL+�1'/I .�y,j��n�r' { I" •i ���� . .� i. 1. ���I��.�' ��..Lti���'.I �1.�.•a`� �y. �_ .� i y��1 _��,M� �. �3� �,� �ur,� � �4i��{II;��^1.� �"r���17 � � � .kw� � , • � cJ 4� , i��� . .,t ,� .r � . . + � ..r Ii�.{� � 1 R . rr�i t f �^ t .. . , , , i ..� , _+ .w� � �I �f � . . �+�' • .�k: '1�. � - ' r . '�l � 1.- f, i 1��,�� . �1,�1'y�J� i �r� �,'"Y,� + �:. p r ' 1�� -•�� '.� ; �,k`I�'•�(��.- e;� t "� � .��.� , .y . �� 1,, ri•e�✓ �y � �'i►r° a _�n. 'i�,l.' r°"� 1.��1`� ��' } rj �li���,}_ ,Lr,, 1 i ��-� � . I . . . ' � .y i 4� �'�r 1"P, �'} � ! t,- �S d 0L ' ,Y4,��t ` i' �!IN �.rt'. • � ��� °� .l�.�ls r �F • '� � s�`�,���a k�3,i��i�yt -k 1 '41' .i�T_1� j;,`��. .I�'}¢ ���-� � � l�.l't4 �e �1 .��� k � .r' . . . �`� � � ' . . w' �4 .. � 17' 1� .�� -.� .��i � �J�.'ylf�i ( . �i5 _.Y� 'A il 1.� �+�i. 1� . ''j� 'S . y F, ' ��.�, �'�u b l'� 1 y, Mti�,! � ,r �,�. � �\' �. �K �:��'� � � � �.r. t+� � � ` � �y���'� ,,, ',� ' r . < _ �WI �•�� �t� �� J '�t i� , � ','+� 4 �, "�� � : - • ''� -. `'�r .' �� �h ,r'�. v � ���'�'i�' {�RS� . ,-�`�ti� " } +, �,'. �F�y, 'r�i ., h�'� • ti-y ��' ���' +' ' !' ���i1�' t �� l �+�� � i � �a.. ;� � ��"rt'� '' ���'� i� ?,� �1�� �' # � •'e .y5�,!�.L I „�,� ,� la .-.? +,' � �II ��lW '� l��� � � ��`_ f11'�t!� �.'!'•���% �.� :�7 .t y�.i � ,.'�,y� �i IL1� . b�- ��� 'faT� i�i',� .��1't�t '� M�, C�. *i . Y.e � rYt�i'.i� �("'l.�7'�l�_oM'�4i1i'i41 ��.'��? 1�� ''sy � �""'`!�1 � k ��tiR� ���'i, �G i ������ It �i� �"• �.r' i . �,' �> .0 '1. f ,�q ry �'IR �jyf ' iFrk� ? ,� � ��•��N�C4(�G. ��� �d .'���� /}l a � ��������tr �r. ,�, �(;, ,.•'� _,hw, �;' 7; d�, ,� , r A ii ' I k�. ���'ti'�'A)� �� � z��• rJ� 7 - ���� / � ' .It� �Qyl , � i ;�� �.1" . � . �� �, '�'� t � ',�. . * A �l�t� � t• -� � � �; �, � � �.-�� b� ���+ ��,-,�� ',> �� �� �j,. �, � ��`•1� ��; � ��� ��� ��t, i;"���y��h' �fi _ �' ,,�h,�f � c, 'Stg �„ ,G, � � � �`+ �f�,� r .. . ar:, , � � �' �� �,`y �d� • ��� �ir y �` :r� t' � �. p r }. ''� �� � ��.+� .���o- '�.!�w.'��a F.. 'r��tR.�r�.�1 . „�� � '! �':''4. '��, f'4�MV��j:`��-�`.� . ♦-,� ►�t�i �� '� � � • K,"� 'y � .�.) � . ���' � , r- , . .•�1 .�i 1. � 1•�.-�N. � �1 �'a�t+lr� � .��f � . '�,.�;;��iT y��a „``• J��i 71��,��e, , 4 �p • t �i �14 . �,� �kl�` ��' � ' �;T;i1"♦ �* 1r .•, o�;��,y�� '� i�� �' '�T.��r �r` µ�Y �+� � Y ��1',:.� 1. �`� � ,. .�;�,e .�6'4� ��-• .,� . p� � '�ie,�!' ;,�;'�7 � '.��'�+ * '�� 1 rw � } � i+,14 .� t �, �'I f�r ��,S I'��a' d F� , 1 .�1, `{� 1.� . � 4`� . y� � " nw 1� �r �, i�A,' '� ��Go� r*y` _ i ��.� �Il"�'� �r, ^ ��'. � � . t A �;�. �: . � • �r.- �� V:'.,=. '�+iV�'��i '�#��Y 1.h,��'!� : . . � w �r'.1� � � r: � .. ��, �� �K t!,Ll'�I�� • ,. ,..i��' i��, . . . �"j' l, . . - `r�I4♦ IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE EDWARDSSTREET 40.00� � FOUND # 4 REBAR W/ BLUE PLASTIC CAP ILLEGIBLE 19't � g'f 24.1' 7't 20 10 0 20 1'�= ZO� ;.� 2 STORY N HOUSE � #501 00 oi � � 4.5' � O 0 '� O � � '� 19.6' O W � qLOT 10 �T� 5,600 SQ.FT. nl 5 0 o GARAGE N �rJ�f 2�.�� �J�f 3 ta ' a . 40.00' ALLEY WA Y ADDRESS: 501 EDWARDS STREET, FORT COLLINS, C0. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: (source: CLIENT) LOT 10, CRAFTS SUBDIVISION, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. No title work was provided by our client for the purpose of preporing this Improvement Locotion Certificote. Only those easements on the recorded plat of this subdivision are shown hereon. I hereby certify that this Improvement Locotion Certificate was prepared for HWG SERVICES, thot it is not a Lond Survey Plat or Improvement Survey Plat, ond that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building, or other future improvement lines. This certificate is valid only for use by HWG SERVICES and describes the parcel's appearance on 6/15/2023. I further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on this date, 6/15/2023, except utility connections, ore entirely within the boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except as indicoted, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted. oQPpO UCF� 0" �••d' �:���3. PAUL B. GROVES — On ' 1p[p11�i urveyors COLORADO LICENSED PRO LAND SURVEYOR #36209 KING SURVEYORS PROJECT N0:20220064 DATE: 6/19/2023 650 E.Guden Drive � Windsor,Colorado 805�0 CLIENT:HWG phone:(970)G86-5011 � fax:(970)GSG-5821 DWG:20220064 L1 0 unvw.kingsun�ej�ors.com DRAWN• RDS CHECKED•PG SETBACK CERTIFICATION LOT �0 BLOCK - SUBDIVISION CRAFTS COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO ADDRESS 501 EDWARDS STREET, FORT COLLINS EDWARDSSTREET 40.00' � � �o�.o' �� o o LOT 10 0 � � 5,600 SQ.FT. � W � A � a CONCRETE o SLAB N W/ GARAGE 15.2'--- 4.9' 20.0' ~ f ,�.�� 40.00' ALLEY WA Y I, PAUL B. GROVES, A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO DO HEREBY STATE THAT THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE DETERMINED FROM THE RESULTS OF AN ACTUAL FlELD SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON 6/15/2023 AND THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY BELJEF AND KNOWLEDGE. � p4 L/CF /� ������ �a 38209 '•.G�zl�z3 PAUL B. GROVES ''A!LANO. DATE DRAWN BY: RDS LS 38209 SCALE: ��=20� KING SURVEYORS DATE: 6/19/2023 650 E.Garden Drive � Windsor,Colorado 805�0 JOB N0. 20220064 phone:(970)68G-5011 � fax:(970)686-5821 �nvw.contact@kingsurveyors.com CLIENT: HWG GRADE EXHIBIT LOT 10 BLOCK - SUBDIVISION CRAFTS COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO ADDRESS 501 EDWARDS STREET, FORT COLLINS EDWARI�SSTREET � 40.00' � 97.3 f �Z.Z X� 9�' � 0�.2 � -Q 98.1 -� �'� + � � � NOTE.• ENARE LOT LANDSC.4PE0 � � 98.3 FF=100.0 (BM) + g�.�' TOF=99.8 99.2=W � 98.7 � 98.1=G + g�,9' � 3 � � ll II � ��g� N � �� � n� � � "�" � � �� o � �l � + w LOT 10 0 � 5,600 SQ.FT. � 1 � '`�' `P' + �+ + � � � GFF=98.9 + + �`+ � • s�: + a + OO.OX = EXISTING GRADE � � 9� 00.0—W = ELEVATION � TOP OF WINDOW WELL 40.00� 00.0—G = GROUND ELEVATION � WINDOW WELL AI.I.F.y WAY I, PAUL B. GROVES, A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO DO HEREBY STATE THAT THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE DETERMINED FROM THE RESULTS OF AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON O6/15/2023 AND THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE. � vOPp,Ob LIC� :C �O•cn• �s' PAUI B. GROVES . DATE �s 3s2os •.•�q���ANOg DRANM BY: RDS KING SURVEYORS SCALE: �"=20' G50 E.Garden Drive � Windsor,Colorado 80550 DATE: 6/19/2023 phone:(970)68G-5011 � fax:(970)C8C-582] JOB N0. 20220064 www.con tact@king�urveyor,.com CLIENT: HWG �--•��{ �' I �1' Y O � FOR'I' �' OLLINS � �5 �1� MA � 'I� � R S�I� R � � 'l� YLA11 ��. � � � v� '�s oc �� . w F - ' rn � qL ': � O �` z � � ;T � - -� O z � � � cn - � � E ELIZAB ETH ST � „ � �� rn� � � � � � � n E PITKIN ST W . .� F �` > � O . � ° H- ��-� rn c� �,.�` � . E PROSPECT RD � ' ' ' �� � ,� Legend —Colleclo�2 La�s - -Cdlecto�2 Lanas-Ou WOe GMA """" ` . "-^ ` —Menal2�aries ---qr�er1a12Lanes-O�isqeGMA a�,..�„�a �,.,������_ �a r � m �� �Mena9Lares ���Merial9Lanes-O�ispeGMA ' �Mala�er al6 Lanes ALyor Arte�l 6 L -Ou610e GMA m� —InMntate �—� Crty Lim�i3 ""o s o u. r�, �_—_� ..v�umr��a sen an ue d wu..so ---Ra'IroeE L�res � PotenLal G�aOe Sepa2teC Ral Cross�ng SV¢e6 GrowViMana9emenlAreaO PolerrtiallnlercM1anpe r.m�...a.n...ne...u�+.orm.rne,x�k�..o�w=.r.�.,���.�..n '••n�N•�n�.��...+�.u...i..i niole: Ofhe�collecfor and/ocal sbeets nof shown will De developetl in aaoidance wiM adopted sub-area,conido�.antl neighbw7�ood p/ans oI tIre cdy Streets antl Menefs outside o/GMA a/e SliOwn fo�contextual puryOses ony and a/e not paR oI tl1e Masfe/Stree[R'an. The Crfy o7 FO/t Co/lins is irot fisCe/ty/esponsibb for Vrese impiovemenfs. From:Noah Beals To:Kory Katsimpalis Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] 501 Edwards, 80524 / Appeal ZBA230026 Date:Monday, December 4, 2023 11:56:34 AM From: @ TheWelshRabbit <dean@thewelshrabbit.com> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 11:49 AM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 501 Edwards, 80524 / Appeal ZBA230026 Mr Beals: My name is Dean Hines, my wife and I live at 509 Edwards Street Fort Collins Co 80524. We have lived on the 500 block of Edwards since 1993 when we first bought 515, lovingly restoring and starting our family there. When 509 came up for sale we jumped at the chance to purchase, both to make room for our growing family, but also because the 509 house was the "problem" of the block...an over/under duplex being rented out by the room and frankly an eyesore as well. The other eyesore and property that created problems for the block was 501 Edwards. While I am a strong supporter of outreach centers, this property was not kept up, had a dumpster in the back which was frequently abused and overflowing, and frequently had conflict with the previous owners who just weren't acting like good neighbors. When the property first sold and we heard the house was going to be razed and replaced with yet another new build, we had mixed emotions. However, contrary to our concerns, the house built does fit into the aesthetic of this part of Old Town and has been a welcome upgrade to our corner. Additionally, Adam Jaspers has been a great neighbor, not only during the build process, but also over the seasons as well. We worked together to re- landscape not only the 501 front yard, but also our next door neighbor and friends at 503, and ours here at 509. Adam will often take care of shoveling snow for at least half the block. Further, when our "alley neighbor" lost a long battle with injuries sustained from service to our country, Adam and his team have gone out of their way to look after his widow, and continues to do so. On the 500 block of Edwards we look out for each other, we have an annual (over 25 years!) Pumpkin Party, an annual summer party. We've watched each other's kids and pets, helped each other through hard times, and celebrated life together. The point that I'm looking to drive home is that we have built a true community. A garage may seem like just a garage, but in this case the garage will help pave the way for the next neighbor to come, be part of something special that is the 500 block of Edwards. As an owner of small businesses, a remodeler of old homes, I know that there are rules and reg's that are put in place for good reasons. But, in this instance I support a modification. As the conversation around Old Town density continues to percolate, having a wonderful single- family dwelling (which needs a garage for vehicles and other "stuff"!) will only be an added benefit. As next door neighbors, we are strongly in favor of allowing additional square footage for the construction of a two car garage. While I cannot make the 14 December hearing, feel free to contact me at dean@thewelshrabbit.com or on my mobile 970-232-6230. Kind Regards, Dean -- +--------------------------------------------------+ H Dean Hines Jr. The Welsh Rabbit Cheese Shop (970) 443-4027 The Welsh Rabbit Cheese Bistro (970) 232-9521 Old Town, Fort Collins, Colorado TheWelshRabbit.com Locally Owned and Operated by 2 Brothers & a Wife since 2011 Adam Jaspers From: josh randall <jrandall1224@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 5:18 PM To: Adam Jaspers Subject: 501 edwards garage To whom it may concern: I am the owner and resident of 426 E Pitkin St. My house shares the block of Whedbee St between Edwards and Pitkin with 501 Edwards. It is my opinion that the new proposed two car garage for this lot is a must have. The new construction on this lot has improved my neighborhood significantly and the lack of a garage is a glaring omission for this property. I have reviewed the proposed foot print and it is my opinion that the new structure fits nicely on the lot and will further compliment the existing home and my neighborhood. Josh Randall 970-449-2789 Jrandall1224@yahoo.com 1 Adam Jaspers From: Glen Vallance <gr-vallance@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 521 PM To: Adam Jaspers Subject: 501 Edwards St I have lived at 503 Edwards for 23 years. In the entirety of that time the house at 501 Edwards has been used exclusively as a parking lot and storage facility for the church property located behind the ally. In 2022 a new two story home was constructed directly next door to me at 501 Edwards. My wife and I both find this home to be a significant upgrade to the block and a general improvement to our properties value. For the first time in my memory this corner lot is now landscaped and maintained as an integral part of my community. It has come to my attention that Adam would like to construct a new two car garage behind the house connected to the ally. We have discussed the previous request that was made and I am aware of the stated reasons for denial previously. It is my understanding the newly requested structure is smaller than previously requested. All that being said I am strongly in support of allowing the construction of a two car garage on the back of this lot. As the adjoined neighbor it is most certainly in my best interest to have vehicles parked inside rather than on the street or in the ally and I believe that the proposed structure fits nicely on the lot and is i consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Glen Vallance 503 Edwards St Fort Collins Co 80524 970-420-6840 grvallance@msn.com � 1 � Letter of Support for 501 Edwards Street Garage. We are the beneficiary owners of 502 East Pitkin street. Our building occupies platted lots 500, 502, 504 East Pitkin. We share the east side of the Whedbee block of Edwards and Pitkin, and the alley with 501 Edwards.Since we purchased this property, we have had a number of incidents involving people sleeping in our parking lot, rummaging through bins in the ally and occasional vandalism. We are aware this is � not unique to our block of Whedbee but rather a byproduct of a more dense urban environment.We are also aware that any attractive nuance will further attract this kind of attention and behavior. This reason alone is enough for us to strongly support storing vehicles and personal belongings in a new garage on the 501 Edwards Lot but certainly not the only one. We believe that a stable neighborhood fosters a pride of ownership and a commitment to maintaining properties in good condition. In order for properties like SO1 Edwards to hold long term committed residents, it must offer the kind of amenities that families and professional households will demand such as a garage for cars and a place to store basic items such as garbage bins not in the open of a back yard. The lot at 501 Edwards benefits from the same municipal right of way that we share here at 502 East Pitkin. This causes our property to be presented as much larger than it actually is. Consequently, the proposed garage fits perfectly into our block and in no way detracts from the feel of our neighborhood. To the contrary, it will do a nice job of bookending our ally and lines up well with all the other garages along the alley way. As intended long term occupants of the neighboring lot to 501 Edwards we are in complete support of the construction of a two-car garage. Adam and ngela Jaspers 970-231-8632 05987s@�maiLcom To Whom it may concern: My name is Janet Mays, I and my family has lived at 516 E Pitkin Street Fort Collins Co since 1958. My home sits catty corner to 501 Edwars Steet and shares the alley access. From my house I have a direct view to the back of lot of 501 Edwards. My family and I have lived though a number of changes in the Crafts neighborhood during our 65 years of residence.The new home constructed at 501 Edwards has been a long needed and significant improvement to our district, but the project is not complete. This property needs a garage to fit the character and direction our neighborhood is moving. I have visited the property, reviewed the plans and find myself in complete support of the proposed two car garage. I would strongly encourage the city to grant any necessary variance so that the bock I have called home for so many years can be more complete than it has been in many decades. _ � Jan Mays 970-215-8408