The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/14/2024 - 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 MARCH 14, 2024 8:30 AM Meeting Participation Participation in the Land Use Review Commission meeting on Thursday, March 14th, 2024, 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 — March 14, 2024 1. APPEAL ZBA240005 Address: Owner/ Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: 939 W Oak St AI Kulenski N-C-L 4.7(E)(4), 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2), 4.7(D)(3), 4.7(D)(5) Project Description: This is a request for four variances: 1. Request to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot side setback. 2. Request to have a total floor area on the lot of 2,352 square feet. The maximum floor area allowed on this lot is 2,345 square feet. 3. Request to have a total floor area on the rear half of the lot of 720 square feet. The maximum floor area allowed on the rear half of this lot is 685 square feet. 4. Request to have an accessory building with habitable space with a total floor area of 720 square feet. The maximum floor area for an accessory building in the NCL zone is 600 square 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 FEBRUARY 8, 2024 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of inembers Vogel and San Filippo. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by Carron to approve the January 11, 2023, Regular Hearing Minutes. The motion was approved by all members present. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA240001 Address: Owner: Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: 1426 E Harmony Rd Safeway Stores 46, Inc. Marie Hashaw/lan Senesac, DaVinci Sign Systems H-C 3.8.7.2(G) Table (G)(1) Project Description: This is a request for two variances: 1. Request for freestanding primary detached sign to be 10 feet tall. The maximum height is 5 feet in the residential sign district. 2. Request for a freestanding primary detached sign to contain a total sign area of 55 square feet. The maximum sign area is 32 square feet in the residential sign district. Land Use Review Commission Page 2 DRAFT Minutes — February 8, 2024 Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located at the corner of Wheaton Dr and Harmony Rd. The request is to locate a free- standing primary sign closer to Harmony Rd, which would be taller in size and larger in square footage than the existing primary sign. The existing sign would be removed. Regarding the residential sign district, which is limiting the height and area of the proposed sign, Beals noted that the intent of the code is to minimize the impact of signage to residential uses nearby. The residential uses near the subject property are primarily behind the Safeway store to the north and west of the shopping center. Freestanding signs are generally allowed to get taller in height and larger in area the further away they are located from the public right of way. In this case, the sign is proposed to be moved closer to the public right of way and increase in size compared to the existing sign, which is opposite of what code prescribes. Beals presented renderings and elevations of the proposed sign, which is planned to be illuminated. The sign is proposed to be 10 feet overall; code allows for 5 feet. Additional square footage is requested for both the tenant directory element as well as the general shopping center identification element. The site has significant tree growth based on photos of the existing sign location. Staff report recommends approval of increased square footage but not of increased height. The primary reason to recommend denial of increased height is based on the significant mature vegetation/trees in the immediate. Beals explained that the taller the sign is allowed to be, the more it comes into competition with the trees which necessitates more trimming/limbing of the trees to ensure sign visibility. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals if the Ent Credit Union (located in the same shopping center) was approved for a sign taller than allowed by code? Beals explained that that element was developed as part of a building/structure and contains ATMs within. Therefore, it is not considered a sign but is considered a building. Chair Shuff asked if the setback from Harmony Rd shown in site plans is 65 feet? Is there an easement? Beals responded that there is an 8-foot easement along Harmony, and an additional landscape setback. Thus, the total setback along Harmony Rd is 80 feet; but signs generally allowed to be within the easement due to ease of removal if/when necessary. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Marie Hashaw, DaVinci Sign Systems, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Hashaw stated that they appreciated the recommendations to approve square footage but stated that increased height will not have impact on the trees. The new proposed location is forward of the existing sign and will no longer interfere with the tree canopy. Hashaw stated that overall height of the sign is the same as the existing sign; for the proposed sign, the 10-foot height is achieved by a decorative element while the informative element achieves a height of 7 feet, which is 2 feet more than allowed by code. If the sign must be scaled down to 5-foot height, individual tenant panels will be so small as to be illegible. This is a commercial corridor, and the sign would be 535 feet away from the residential areas and would maintain a 55-foot setback from Harmony. Increased height is needed to maintain visibility based on the speed of vehicular traffic along Harmony Rd. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman asked if there are any restrictions on the width of the sign? Beals answered no, there are no width restrictions. Coffman asked if there are restrictions on the number of primary freestanding signs? Beals answered that applicants are limited to the one primary sign. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals to confirm that the subject property is located within the residential sign district, but this block is a commercial area, correct? Beals confirmed, describing that the Land Use Review Commission Page 3 DRAFT Minutes — February 8, 2024 shopping area is adjacent to residential areas to the north and west. Additionally, to the south across Harmony Rd., the shopping area faces multiple hotels, which are not considered residential. Commission member McCoy asked Beals what the sign limitations would be if it were not located in the residential sign district. Beals explained that sign height could increase in relation to distance from setback. In this case, the right of way line is the property line; traditionally, the property line is usually behind the sidewalk. In this case setback is being measured from the edge of asphalt. Height could increase to 18-feet at a 30-foot setback. Chair Shuff commented that it would be good to understand the ratio of height/distance, for comparison to limitations in this district. Lawton draws comparison to the Ent structure, noting that while it is not a pure sign the tallest portion of the structure functions as a sign and is clearly taller than the allowable 5-foot limit in the residential sign district. Carron asked if the existing sign is close to 10 feet tall? According to the staff report, it is noted as being 9.8 feet tall and nonconforming. Carron asked to confirm that there is no setback ration in this sign district, just a basic 5-foot limit. Beals confirms this description. Beals offered additional information regarding sign allowances in the non-residential sign districts, explain that at 0-5 feet from setback, maximum sign height allowed is 7 feet; at 5-10 feet from setback, maximum sign height allowed is 8.5 feet; at 10-foot setback, maximum sign height allowed is 10 feet. It is correct that if this sign were not in a residential sign district, this sign height would be allowable. Shuff commented that the side this sign faces is a commercial corridor, rather than residential. Because of this, it may be more appropriate to view this sign against the commercial sign code. Lawton noted that this request was similar to one included in last month's requests on behalf of the Original Pancake House, which was approved. Lawton would similarly support this request. Shuff noted that some scale would be appropriate given the larger setback. How do we frame the motion? Equal to or better than? Commission member Coffman stated that it appears that the nearest residential use areas to the west would be screened by existing tree growth and structures. Therefore, approval of this request could be justified as nominal and inconsequential. Don't foresee any visual impact from this sign on nearby residential properties. Carron asked if the hotels to the south are also included in the residential sign district? Beals confirmed the south side of Harmony Rd is NOT part of the residential sign district. The proposed sign would be consistent with the character of the surrounding Harmony Rd. commercial corridor. Shuff stated that residential sign district limitations seem reasonable on three sides of the property, but the south-facing side (facing Harmony Rd.) is actually more akin to a commercial sign district. Coffman suggested that nominal and inconsequential is the appropriate justification; cannot base approval on use equal to or better than, because the property is not actually in the commercial sign district. Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by Carron, to APPROVE ZBA240001 (Pt.1) regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 3.8.7.2(G) to allow a freestanding sign in the residential sign district to exceed the maximum allowable total area of 32 square feet by an additional 23 square feet as shown in the materials for this hearing. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Section 3.8.7.2(G) except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: The property has not used all its sign allowance. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 DRAFT Minutes — February 8, 2024 This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this variance contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Yeas: McCoy, Shuff, Carron, Coffman, Lawton Nays: Absent: Vogel, San Filippo THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Carron, to APPROVE ZBA240001 (Pt.2) regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 3.8.7.2(G) to allow a freestanding sign in the residential sign district to exceed the maximum allowable height of 5 feet by an additional 5 feet as shown in the materials for this hearing. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Section 3.8.7.2(G) except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the distance from existing residential uses; the presence of mature trees between the proposed sign and those residential uses; and the context of the commercial properties bordering the lot in question. Yeas: McCoy, Shuff, Carron, Coffman, Lawton Nays: Absent: Vogel, San Filippo THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA240002 Address: Owner: Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: �� 425 E Elizabeth St Scott and Karla Oceanak Taylor Meyer, VFLA Architecture + Design N-C-M 4.8i�)�2)�a)�2) Project Description: This is a request to have a total floor area of 2,847 square feet. The total floor area allowed, based on lot size in the NCM zone, would be 2,750 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of Whedbee St and E Elizabeth. The request is to build an addition to the rear of the property. There is an existing extension on the primary house that would be removed and replaced with the proposed addition. The existing garage would be maintained. The difference in square footage between what is allowed per code and what is being proposed is 97 square feet. Beals presented drawings of the proposed addition and photographs of the existing structure, noting a nearby volunteer tree would most likely need to be taken down. Another item to be aware of, though not a portion of the request today, is that there is an additional entrance to the basement being proposed. There has been no request for additional dwelling or kitchen unit to date. It is unclear how the final finish of the basement is intended to be accomplished. Commission member Coffman asked if square footage in a primary building with a ceiling less than 7.5 feet is not counted? Beals explained that all floor area in a primary building, floor area is counted from outside wall to outside wall, regardless of ceiling height. However, when/if a ceiling is 14 feet tall or higher, the floor area underneath is counted towards the maximum at 200%. There has been some allowance for attic spaces that are less than 5 feet and are behind a wall. Land Use Review Commission Page 5 DRAFT Minutes — February 8, 2024 Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Taylor Meyer, Architect, VFLA Architecture + Design, 419 Canyon Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment, beginning with some background information. Meyer explained that the owners purchased the lot almost 4 years ago. The house has been designated a historic landmark, and the original porch has been restored to its historical state. This was done via grant monies that were made available after the home was designated as a residential historical landmark. They subsequently moved away and rented the home but would now like to return to Fort Collins and retire into the home. To make the home more livable, the applicants would like to add additional great room/kitchen space to the rear, noting that all work is now constrained by the Secretary of the Interior standards due to the residence being designated as a historic landmark. The proposed design for the addition has attempted to add the minimal amount of floor area necessary to improve functionality. Some small modifications have been made to the roof to create more usable square footage upstairs. A portion of that space is also being counted towards the maximum. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if this proposal has already been approved by Historic oversight groups? Meyer answered in the affirmative. Chair Shuff noted the total requested increase is less than 100 square feet, which is pretty minimal. Public Comment: -NONE- �� v Commission Discussion: Vice-Chair Lawton shared an opinion that the request is pretty nominal and inconsequential, and a good use of space and layout. Because it is in the back, it will have minimal visual impact to surrounding properties. Commission member Coffman agreed with the comments offered by Lawton, adding that historic landmark requirements guidelines have already guided this design to be inconsequential, with minimal visual impact. Chair Shuff noted that the requested 3.5% increase is very nominal, and the plan is good. The design is sensitive and meant to showcase the historic landmark, which it achieves. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Carron, to APPROVE ZBA240002 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2) to allow the allowable floor area to exceed the maximum of 2,750 square feet by an additional 97 square feet in order to construct a new rear addition to a primary house in the NCM zone district as shown in the materials for this hearing. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from the Section 4.8(D)(2)(a)(2) except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: the addition has limited visibility from the street or neighboring properties; and an existing tree also blocks the view of the addition from the alley; and 97 square feet is 3.5 % of the total allowable floor area. Yeas: McCoy, Shuff, Carron, Coffman, Lawton Nays: Absent: Vogel, San Filippo THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED Land Use Review Commission 3. APPEAL ZBA240003 Address: Owner: Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: Page 6 DRAFT Minutes — February 8, 2024 1011 W Magnolia St Susan Davis Taylor Meyer, VFLA Architecture + Design N-GL 4.7(E)(4) Project Description: This is a request to have a building wall along an interior side lot line with a height of 18 feet 4 inches. The maximum building wall height in the NCL zone is 18 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on W Magnolia between Wayne St and Gordon St. The request is to build an addition to the house that will be slightly over the allowable wall height along the west side. Beals presented renderings of the proposed structure, noting that the new eave height was measured at 18 feet 4 inches. Eave height was measured at the intersection of roof and exterior wall. Renderings of the eaves structure depict the maximum wall height setback in comparison to what is being proposed, highlighting a small portion of the eaves that is measured at 18 feet 4 inches, which is just slightly taller than the 18-foot maximum allowable height. Beals noted that while the proposed overage is small, it does require the review of the Commission. The site condition unique to this proposal is that the west side of the structure abuts an alley, which creates a 20-foot buffer between the neighboring property. Beals also noted that wall height in this zone district can increase as it is further setback from the minimum setback of 5 feet. The subject property is placed at the minimal 5-foot setback, but due to the adjacent alley the functional space between the neighboring structure is at least 20 feet. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Taylor Meyer, Architect, VFLC Architecture + Design, 419 Canyon Ave, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment, noting that the project is actually planning to demolish the existing structure and perform a full re-build. Meyer explained that the building height/foundation cannot be lowered any more, as the property is in the moderate-risk flood zone, so the foundation has been sunk as low as possible without increasing risk. Floor joists will be hung from the foundation to minimize overall structure height. The lowest portion of the ceiling is planned to be 5 foot 6 inches as an additional means of limiting overall height. The original request asked for 16 inches over allowable, before the civil engineer noticed that the floor had been sunk to reduce height an additional 12 inches. After recalculating, it appears that the overage is merely 4 inches. Beals noted that a letter of support was received for this appeal from a neighbor. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member McCoy asked Beals if the Zoning or Building department measure the additional 4 inches? Beals responded that when plans are reviewed, those inches are measured and accounted for. Commission member Coffman noted that the alley creates twice the normal setback from neighbor; the additional 4 inches of wall height being requested would not create a discernible visual impact. Chair Shuff voiced his appreciation for the effort made to lower floor height and lower ceiling heights in upper bedroom. Shuff stated he would have no problems supporting the variance request. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 DRAFT Minutes — February 8, 2024 Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA240003 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.7(E)(4) to allow a building wall along an interior side lot line in the NCL Zone District to exceed the maximum building wall height of 18 feet by an additional 4 inches as shown in the materials for this hearing. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Section 4.7(E)(4) except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: the increase of 4 inches is indiscernible from the alley or front of the house; and the increased height faces the alley and does not loom onto another structure. Yeas: McCoy, Shuff, Carron, Coffman, Lawton Nays THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 4. APPEAL ZBA240004 Address: Owner: Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: Bloom Filing One (Parcel #8709307008) Mulberry Development, LLC Mallory Redmon, Norris Design GG 3.8.7.2(G) Table(G)(2) Absent: Vogel, San Filippo � Project Description: This is a request for two variances: 1. Request for a freestanding primary detached sign to contain 183 square feet of sign area. The maximum allowed sign area based on the setback from the property line to the sign structure is 90 square feet. 2. Request for a freestanding primary detached sign to be 22 feet tall. The maximum allowed height based on the setback from the property line to the sign structure is 18 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located along E Mulberry, as part of the Bloom Filing One development. The request is to put a primary sign on the property. To note, an existing frontage road that ran more parallel with E Mulberry St was abandoned prior to being annexed into the city. The frontage road has since been realigned to prevent congestion at the intersection of Mulberry St. Beals mentioned the existence of some easements, as well. The requested freestanding sign would be over the allowable total area and height. The public right of way/property line is closer to the edge of asphalt of the frontage road. There is a 40-foot easement (City of Greeley) that prevents the sign from moving any closer to the street, as well as an easement behind the street, which creates a"sweet spoY' for possible sign placement. Additionally, the site is planned for a large obelisk/focal point feature to be installed, as well as an entry sign that will be developed in partnership between Bloom and the City. The request is to build a sign at a location approximately 45 feet from the property line. However, the edge of asphalt to Mulberry St, is almost double that 45 feet. Thus, the sign would sit over 100 feet from the edge of asphalt, where people passing by would see it, because the old frontage road has been abandoned and will eventually be ripped up. Also of note, the property does not have mature vegetation currently. The requested sign height is 22 feet, 18 feet is allowed at a 36-foot setback. The requested sing would be double-sided, and each side would contain an equal amount of signage area. Beals detailed all elements that would be counted towards the sign area allowance. Renderings were also presented, which compared proposed and compliant versions of the sign. Land Use Review Commission Page 8 DRAFT Minutes — February 8, 2024 Vice-Chair Lawton inquired that when the frontage road goes away and the property line changes, would this sign then comply? Beals explained that there is a large amount of CDOT right of way between the property line and edge of asphalt. If the sign were constructed at 18 feet, it would need to be setback 36 feet. At the proposed 22-foot height, the setback would need to be 45 feet to comply. Chair Shuff offered clarification of the discussion, noting that the edge of right of way is much further away than normal, because of the presence of the CDOT right of way. Beals confirmed the right of way along that stretch of Mulberry St is CDOT, not City. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Brian Green, Norris Design, 244 N College Ave., addressed the Commission and offered comments. Green provided a presentation [see supplemental documents] for additional context and detail. As a portion of the PUD, the development includes a provision for an off-premise sign, in this particular area, because the current code does not allow for off-premise signs. A variance request was contemplated at that time as part of the PUD process, but because the sign had not yet been designed, staff asked that the request be made at a later date (which is the current request). Green explained that the application is asking for review based on extenuating circumstances and hardships in the form of unique property features and limitations, including multiple easements in the immediate area that will not allow placement of a sign. Another unique circumstance is that no development is allowed on this piece of land, as the PUD precludes it. The piece can only be used for purposes such as a detention pond, landscaping, and perhaps location of the proposed sign. The sign will be very far back, and this portion of road is a 55-MPH state highway. Signage is important to the viability of business in the area. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Green if the sign be backlit. Green responded that the sign will contain internal illumination and that it meets all requirements for lit signage. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated that he agrees with the applicants reasoning put forward regarding hardship justification. The sign cannot be placed any closer to the road, and the proposed placement is further than required setback. Coffman wondered if approval might also be justified based upon equal to or better than, as it follows trend prescribed by code to increase sign height the further away from setback it is placed. Commission member Carron acknowledged the safety considerations of the proposed sign, noting a larger sign is safer at high traffic speeds. Chair Shuff stated he would support the application as presented and would be comfortable basing approval on equal to or better than justification. Vice-Chair Lawton commented that there are a few somewhat artificial limitations in place at this site, such as the bend in the frontage road. No problem supporting the request as presented. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA240004 regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 3.8.7.2(G) to allow a freestanding primary detached sign to exceed the maximum allowable total sign area of 90 square feet by an additional 93 square feet, and the maximum allowable sign height of 18 feet by an additional 4 feet as shown in the materials for this hearing. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the strict application of Section 3.8.7.2(G) would result in unusual and exceptional Land Use Review Commission Page 9 DRAFT Minutes — February 8, 2024 practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the applicant not caused by an act or omission of the applicant by reason of the following facts: the sign's location is setback further than the required minimum setback from the public right of way; and the realignment of the frontage road creates a setback from the sign to the street of over 100 feet. Yeas: McCoy, Shuff, Carron, Coffman, Lawton Nays: Absent: Vogel, San Filippo THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS -Items have been submitted for the March 2024 hearing; please plan to meet. Agenda /terrr � STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA240005 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 939 W Oak St. Owner/ Petitioner: AI Kulenski Zoning District: N-C-L � Code Section: 4.7(E)(4), 4.7(D)(2)(a)(2), 4.7(D)(3), 4.7(D)(5) Variance Request: This is a request for four variances: 1. Request to encroach 13 feet into the required 15-foot side setback. 2. Request to have a total floor area on the lot of 2,352 square feet. The maximum floor area allowed on this lot is 2,345 square feet. 3. Request to have a total floor area on the rear half of the lot of 720 square feet. The maximum floor area allowed on the rear half of this lot is 685 square feet. 4. Request to have an accessory building with habitable space with a total floor area of 720 square feet. The maximum floor area for an accessory building in the NCL zone is 600 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Backqround: The property is part of the Washington Place subdivision that was platted prior to 1908 as single unit residential lots. The primary building was constructed in 1921 and is unclear the number of alterations that have taken place. Accessory buildings standards are designed to ensure new buildings are compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood, the structure is subordinate to the primary building, and impacts on abutting neighbors are limited. The property aligns with three different public right of ways. The front line abuts Oak Steet, the west side line abuts Mack Street and the rear line abuts a public alley. Also on site is an existing garage. This garage encroaches 13ft into the required 15ft side yard setback, leaving 2ft of separation from the wall to the property line. There is an additional 11ft from the property to the curb on Mack Street and there is no public sidewalk in this area. The existing garage is 720sf in size. The proposed structure seeks to maintain the existing setback encroachment for both the ground level and the upper level. It maintain the floor area of 720sf. Because the upper level does not have a ceiling height greater then 7.5ft it does not count towards the total allowable floor area. 2. Applicant's 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 existing structure already enjoys a 13ft encroachment and building size of 720sf. Item # 1 - Page 1 � �� , ''� • The property line is setback 11ft from the curb. • There is no public sidewalk along the west property line. • The upper level doors face the primary house and 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 ZBA240005. Item # 1 - Page 2 �.,,�tr t Calli�S Application Request for Var�ance 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 ood. AdditionaAy, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or ather e�raordinary 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 occupanUapplicant of the prope�ty, provided that such difficulties or hardship 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 standard ior which the variance is requested equalfy well or better than would a proposal which compiies 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, inconsepuential � when considered in the coniext of the neighborhoad. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requi�ements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Depart�t'tent 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 ctate 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 meetinq Location: 306 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 7ime: 8:30 a.m. Date � January 23, 2024 Signature AI Kulenski (� Al Kulenski, 939 W. Oak Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-310-6483 Hello, My name is A1 Kulenski, I live at 939 W. Oak Street. My wife and I are senior citizens who own a home together in old town Fort Collins. I would like to build a living space above my home's existing detached garage to be a retirement residence for me and my wife, who suffers from Alzheimer's. My adult son's family will live in the existing house and help with my wife's care. This additional living space is also beneficial to my son's family for they cannot afford the current housing market in Fort Collins. The issues with my plan for this second floor living space above the garage are as follows: l, West side setback is encroaching 3' into the setback for that side. 2, The existing 2 story home and garage square footage is 7 square feet beyond the current limit on square footage on this lot. 3, The existing rear garage building has more than 600 sq. ft. by 120 additional for a total of 720 sq. ft. Sincerely, Al Kulenski �,�/ � �� G� �� ' 1 � ! ____�__ �_. ' ____� _ _ ____� �_____ _ �. � � ��N i ��, � � i � 'r � jt � � � �� '�i � � � � N �nnn � # �rOKY w/�i��Mf�, �-�r�i�� i�� ' i , ; y� � � �.._._. _ 2= ; �11�� L�i� � � r f � � # � � � �'�XI�iTit�f NOUhE ��x�x� -� I� �A�k�� --) Gx 1 �� Z�� P_ �TO�� L I � G3z�. � r� ' ; , , , . ;� �� , Z7' � � �v' - �- �x�r�K� � �ox �-, , r��t�� w� ' ��r�y�v ipFT .� � NT �, � . I��. � � �L�� - !n` �'o' ��i.�T 1�S/. ��t K � I��t�� i�'� i� �,� I i7� �l �� ---��-�1 ►,-l�F-�ei/` l\�V ��'�- - �2�� , � � t.ar' ��, �o�c �-, - w�� W rr��a� �� u�vt��A� � . __ _ _ :-- zA��Ol�x�r1�� - � V ' � �} i � �� - .�_._- : �,�-- �� ,� _ I� I� � � �-- - _ � ��- �_��o / , �- �`��t41 - �_ --_' �� — � � '_ t . -----�� .� � � � � \� �� ; �- � - , �� : � __��--� r --Ar �� : � r�� : � � �= _: - �-W � � - z �� : ` ; � � ;, �„ - -. __--- —..�— v � � . ; �: � ' , �� !� � z � '-�---�-- �- �vt.7lX. 7= 6 � ', � � � �c `� _ � �tdi �-tti � I � � � m � � � � � � � � _.-e-N�u=Or� y,� � = ---' p v � 4 ' - � ` � N m r �� ' � � _. �.l � � � �r ��K � � � — _ �- r—�- ' �� ; � 2 � � � � -G-IY-[FrT� - -- { � �� -- ��-�--� __ _ . ,, � � � � i, --� — --- J---, �� , , , � � � __ _-�� ; �. a ��- �- � , �'!� � i , - - , � , - I U�, l , ' � �� - . o ; t� , �_ � � k � — -�= l�)� �i� t�H ' - - ----- - — � �-�' Fr �'l.�%(�_��=�;o I i �2 ��--- � l �- .i �f' v. F�r_( t,cl �N� i', � �; OII � i; � �j � Z/�Nfi1, � LAN �IN�i � I A'�O � � ,, �/ ��— � i ��y��,�,' \ / �MaX� % , I . \ / ��{ ; \ / oi � �xi�nr�, '� j � } ��aF � . � �� HEvV p�F[.OGr<.��i�fhlI _, � - - ---- --- -- --_�__Tl� _ -__ � � - � -CXI�iTING�.-� .��K�+G ---� � I � i� I ; --r-��------�--- —�- ----__— - _ _ _ _ - — N�� 0 Fi�j - ��G'i 1��1 ��.�,��;D _ �.._. _ �KOD_F FK�MIN� ---`k� L � . ��i� �;�' � �;� :I� ^ ��s�� GGK lv,'0 � �YF��T E�1.��Vf�1 l�i`�1 �i��►=,�o �----- -- -- - - i�10 K�l �-I � L��►fi,�� i � � �y i��- �-o _ - --- ---- - . _ ��'T--�I-��AT-�- -- 'i�''i'° _____�___, _ .�.�..�...__.�.r.,.�. . .�r �DUT _N � L� u� t I U i�t -Y�-"=I%0 ; .� � _ __ ..._.« �-.------�