The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/08/2024 - 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: Julie Pignataro Staff Liaison: Justin Moore (Acting) 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 AUGUST 8, 2024 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, August 8, 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 jmoore@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable with public participation are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments 24 hours prior to the meeting to jmoore@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 – August 8, 2024 1. APPEAL ZBA240018 Address: 2145/2155 Midpoint Dr Owner: GYPRO Properties LLC Petitioner: Bobby Inabinet, Contractor, AMAROK, LLC Zoning District: E Code Section: 4.3.5(C) Project Description: There are two variance requests associated with this application: 1. Request to install a 10-foot-tall security fence along existing perimeter fencing at a commercial business. The maximum allowable height for fences is no more than 4 feet between the front building line and the front property line, and no more than 6 feet on rear and side portions of the property. 2. Request for installed wire security fencing to be electrified. Electrically charged fencing is not permitted in any zone district, except for the Urban Estate (UE), Rural Land (RUL), and Foothills Residential (RF) districts when utilized for the purpose of livestock and/or pasture management. 2. APPEAL ZBA240019 Address: 3041 S Taft Hill Rd Owner: Sarah McIntosh Trust Petitioner: Sarah McIntosh Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.3.1(G)(1)(a) Project Description: This is a request for approval to conduct the operations of a home occupation/business outside of the primary dwelling on the property. Per Land Use Code, Home Occupation use shall be conducted entirely within the confines of a dwelling unit. 3. APPEAL ZBA240020 Address: 505 Gordon St Owner: Bryan Brenning & Anne McKay Petitioner: Jeff Hansen, Architect, Forge and Bow Dwellings Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request to exceed the maximum allowable rear lot square footage for a proposed addition. The existing house is 1,592 square feet of floor area, of which 1,053 is located on the rear half of the lot. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of this lot is 1,419 square feet. The applicant is proposing an 808 square foot addition to the existing house, located entirely on the rear half of the lot. The proposed addition would therefore exceed the maximum allowable square feet for the rear half of the lot by 442 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: Julie Pignataro 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 JULY 11, 2024 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Commission members Carron, Lawton, Shuff, and Vogel were present; members Coffman, McCoy, and San Filippo were absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by member Carron, to approve the June 13, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes. The motion was approved by all members present. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) -NONE- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA240016 Address: 730 Colorado St Owner: Rebecca Benedict Petitioner: Steve Josephs, Contractor Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request to build a 2,714 square foot detached house with an attached garage. The maximum allowable floor area for a detached house in the OT-B zone is 2,400 square feet. The variance request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 314 square feet. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 DRAFT Minutes – July 11, 2024 Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located just south of E Laurel St. The property is currently a vacant lot. A public alleyway does come down the block but does not appear to be improved past the first few lots. The OT-B zone district represents a new naming convention based on the newly updated Land Use Code. That update also limited the maximum amount of floor area for a detached house within the zone to 2,400 square feet. The old Code calculated the maximum allowable floor area based on lot size. The proposal is to build a single-family residence with attached garage on the property. The proposed garage would take access from the street, which is not uncommon in this block. Based on plans submitted with the application materials, the structure otherwise meets all other standards of this sub-district, including back, front and side setbacks; the garage recesses behind the front porch, and the structure is single story. The request today is simply to allow an increase in allowable square footage. Beals noted that there does not appear to have been a previous home or structure on this lot. Vice-Chair Lawton asked to view the aerial view again and asked what the property to the southeast included. Beals responded that he believes it to be owned by the owner of the subject property as well and is an unimproved lot that is a separate parcel; it is not subject to the request today. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Steve Josephs, 319 E Magnolia St, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Josephs stated the project was designed under the old code, and the application date was missed by five days before the Code update. It would have met all of the requirements of the previous code. Josephs explained that this section of Old Town is unique in that is composed primarily of 1960’s ranches with attached garages. There is no alley access to speak of, as it has been taken over by vegetation and landscaping. If the design were for a detached garage, the allowable square footage would be 3,000 square feet. In that comparison, the proposed design is still less than what could be built on the lot in total. Josephs also noted that the adjacent lot is owned by the applicant’s parents, not the applicant directly. Vice-Chair Lawton asked for clarification regarding the direction of the staircase shown on the elevations and site plans. Josephs explained that the staircase provides access to the basement. Property owner Becca Benedict, owner, 730 Colorado St, addressed the Commission and offered additional comment. Benedict explained they had been working on the project since August of last year. Benedict confirmed the adjacent lot was owned by her parents and is not publicly accessible. Public Comment: -NONE- Chair Shuff asked staff if any additional materials had been received. Beals confirmed that one email had been received in support of the variance request. That email was provided to the Commission and will be posted as a supplemental document after the hearing. Commission Discussion: Vice-Chair Lawton acknowledged that a certain number of applications will be heard by the Commission that were “caught up” in the Land Use Code update timing. Lawton asked Beals to confirm the assertion made by Josephs that the home would comply with the Code if the garage were detached. Beals confirmed that as being correct. Beals also explained that the update in Code and allowable square footage was meant to incentivize the creation of more dwellings, rather than the construction of larger homes on individual lots within the district. Lawton stated he would be in support of the request. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 DRAFT Minutes – July 11, 2024 Commission member Carron added that because there is an unimproved alley, a rear detached garage would pose a particular hardship given the lack of reasonable access. Carron feels the proposal as submitted is reasonable and would be in support of the request. Commission member Vogel also feels the lack of reasonable alley access ought to be considered and is in favor of the application. Chair Shuff agreed with comments offered by other members. Looking past the timing of the LUC update it appears reasonable. The unimproved alley would not provide access to an attached garage, and the detached garage with street access meets the 1960s character of the neighborhood. Shuff noted that the Commission will at some point in the future need to come to grips with the updated code but acknowledge there will be some applications that are caught in between the transition of the updates. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA240016 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the allowable floor area for a detached house in the OT-B zone district to exceed the maximum of 2,400 square feet by an additional 314 square feet, in order to build a detached house with an attached garage as shown in the hearing materials. The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from section 2.1.6 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 proposed structure is a one-story building; other building design standards are being met, such as setbacks, roof pitch, and covered porch; and the total proposed floor area is 10% less than a design with a detached garage. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions in the staff report. Yeas: Lawton, Shuff, Vogel, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman, McCoy, San Filippo THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA240017 Address: 412 W Mountain Ave Owner: 412 W Mountain Avenue LLC Petitioner: Taylor Meyer, Architect, VFLA Architecture + Interiors Zoning District: OT-C Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request regarding a partial renovation of a detached house to increase its total square footage to 3,260 square feet. The maximum allowable floor area for a detached house in the OT-C zone is 2,400 square feet. The variance request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 860 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on W Mountain Ave, just west of Meldrum St; the property abuts the alley that splits this block. This house was originally built as a detached residence, then converted to an office space, and then recently reverted back to residential use. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 DRAFT Minutes – July 11, 2024 The request today is to remove part of the addition that existed on the house, and rebuild the addition to a bit larger scale than current. The addition would include a covered porch area; that portion does not count towards total floor area. The rear portion of the house straddles the line between the front and rear of the lot; this is the portion of the home that is being renovated within the current variance request. The request is only to exceed the allowable floor area for a detached home; the proposal meets the requirements of the Code in all other areas including setbacks, rear-half ratio, and building height. Beals presented floor plans and site plans with more detail, noting that the proposed addition is one- story. Renderings and elevations of the proposed addition were presented, as well as pictures taken from the east and west alley line that show the existing rear addition to the home that is proposed for demolition and renovation. There is also a parking pad present at the rear of the property. Commission member Carron asked if this property is subject to any historical designation. Beals responded that the home is not currently designated as historic property, and single-unit detached houses are exempt from most of the historic preservation code at this point. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals to confirm whether or not this property was being used as a business, referring to an apparent business sign seen in pictures of the property. Beals confirmed that the property was no longer being used as a business, and the sign was a remnant from previous business use. Commission member Vogel asked if the was home non-conforming prior to the recent Code updates? Beals responded that when the was unsure if the property was conforming prior to the updates, but when Code was updated, it became non-conforming, as the existing structure exceeds 2,400 square feet. Shuff noted the lot is 9,000 square feet; would have to perform calculations to determine if it was conforming under the previous Code. Beals explained that the goal of the current limitation on square footage within this zone has the intent of encouraging development of more housing units. Vogel asked if the property would be conforming if there were business being run out of the house? Beals explained that in that scenario, the property would be considered mixed-use, and would then be subject to a different floor area allowance. Carron asked if it had stayed a commercial property; would it still be conforming? Beals confirmed. It would also then be considered a mixed-use building, which requires upgraded fire rating, sprinkler systems, etc. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Taylor Meyer, 419 Canyon Ave #200, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Meyer noted this building has been used as a business for the past 17 years and did so without changing much in the interior layout. Lisa and PJ McGovern (current owners) saw the house for sale and fell in love with it. They have a passion for restoring and respecting original homes and it is their intent to preserve original architectural details and structures. Meyer noted that the existing rear addition is not original to the home, and it is probably dated to the 1960s -70s. They have already invested in the upgrading and preservation of the home and have contacted Meyer and VFLA for assistance in renovating the rear addition. According to Meyer, this property is the owners’ last big renovation project, and they intend to stay in the residence for quite a while. The current rear addition is a bit dilapidated and stepped down from the grade of the main home. The owners would like to instead utilize that area in the proposed renovation with an even floor level. This will help to modernize the livability of the home and will allow for the creation of an open floor plan kitchen/great room area. Measures have been taken to ensure the repair and updating of the original foundation. Land Use Review Commission Page 5 DRAFT Minutes – July 11, 2024 Meyer explained that the proposed addition is about 186 square feet larger than what is proposed. However, about a two-thirds of the upper floor is largely unusable/uninhabitable as defined by the Land Use Code, due to the steep slope of the roof that creates a ceiling under minimum of 7 feet for habitability. That creates an additional habitable floor area of only 70 square feet, which is a 3% increase in total area. The home was purchased under the previous Land Use Code, and at that time all proposed changes to the property would have been allowable (this property was in the NCB zone district). The changes to the Land Use Code pose challenges to designers and builders alike. Navigating those updates has posed some challenges as designs in-process may no longer be in compliance under the new Code. Vice-Chair Lawton noted the similarities in this proposal to the previous request. This application does represent an improvement to what is there currently, as the existing rear addition is dilapidated and in need of improvement. Again, the Commission needs to consider how far out we can approve these types of design requests that were developed under the previous Land Use Code and are now seeking variance approval under the newly updated Code. Chair Shuff asked Meyer to provide detail on calculating floor area based on ceiling height. Meyer again cited Building Code language stating that floor area under ceiling height lower than 7 feet (6 ft 8 in in bathrooms) is not considered habitable. Therefore, the upper story of the addition is only about 1/3 habitable space. Shuff noted the changes in zone district NCB to OT-C, and also noted the apparent attempts to minimize massing of the addition and acknowledged the difference in floor area/habitable space calculations. This is a buffer district, and perhaps for future updates perhaps there could be a gradation of allowable floor area. Meyer offered one more point – in other homes renovations designers have the luxury of increasing floor area by taking roof off, adding dormers, etc. However, the owners of this property don’t want to impact historic architecture or street view of the property. This design attempts to conserve the nature of the property as it is now. Shuff noted this could be considered as equal to or better than justification. Public Comment: Audience member Cara Harkin, 210 E Oak, owner/general contractor, Old Town Design/Build, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Harkin stated they have been working with the property owners and Meyer to develop this project. Harkin noted that there were some structural concerns with the building. It was determined that the east and west bump outs needed to be reinforced to address a significant sag in the foundation. Asbestos has also been discovered in multiple areas that is being mitigated. When the building was converted to a business, the upstairs was finished (no permit has been found). Those upgrades were found to be not up to standard, and now that load is pushing the walls out. Thus, the foundation needs to be repaired, and masons will be utilized to rebuild the bump outs. The entire structure needs to be reinforced. The proposed addition will add to the integrity of the neighborhood and the structure itself. The main floor system is pulling away from the foundation by up to 4-6 inches in some areas. Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron noted that this is a modification of existing conditions, which will result in improvements to the overall structure. This proposal is reasonable, and if this property was designated as a historic property, it would represent a clear hardship. The project appears to follow historic preservation principles, which could lead to historic designation in the future. Vice-Chair Lawton appreciates the extra information that demonstrates the care for the building as-is an intent to preserve the overall nature and character of the building. Putting the space on one level is also a sign that the owners intend to stay in the residence and utilize it fully. On another note, the Commission needs to take into account how many of these types of applications we will be seeing after the Code updates. Commission member Carron thinks the change in use back to residential is also a nuance of this application and could also represent a unique hardship to this application. Could be a case study for the impact of the new Land Use Code to historic properties. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 DRAFT Minutes – July 11, 2024 Commission member Vogel also mentioned the change in use as being a unique consideration to this application. Chair Shuff noted the proposal represents an improvement to existing conditions and preserves the character of the structure and surrounding neighborhood. Carron asked Beals to clarify the floor area and ceiling height relationship. Beals explained that for primary structures, habitable space is calculated from outside wall to outside under the Land Use Code. For accessory structures, the ceiling height standard counts habitable space as any floor area under a ceiling height of 7 feet or greater. Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by Carron, to APPROVE ZBA240017 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the allowable floor area for a detached house in the OT-C zone district to exceed the maximum of 2,400 square feet by an additional 860 square feet, in order to partially renovate an existing house as shown in the hearing materials. The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance will not diverge from Section 2.1.6 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 proposed increase is a 182 square foot difference from the existing house; other building design standards are met such as setbacks, roof pitch and height; and the property abuts an alley to the west and commercial use to the north. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions in the staff report. Yeas: Lawton, Shuff, Vogel, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman, McCoy, San Filippo THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25am Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 08, 2024 STAFF Justin Moore, Lead Zoning Inspector PROJECT ZBA240018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2155 Midpoint Drive Owner: GYPRO Properties LLC Petitioner: Bobby Inabinet, Contractor, AMAROK LLC Zoning District: (E) Employment Code Section: 4.3.5(C) Variance Request: There are two variance requests associated with this application: 1. Request to install a 10 foot tall security fence along existing perimeter fencing at a commercial business. The maximum allowable height for fences is no more than 4 feet between the front building line and the front property line, and no more than 6 feet on rear and side portions of the property. 2. Request for installed wire security fencing to be electrified. Electrically charged fencing is not permitted in any zone district, except for the Urban Estate (UE), Rural Land (RUL), and Foothills Residential (RF) districts when utilized for the purpose of livestock and/or pasture management. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is part of the East Prospect Street Annexation in 1973. It was platted original in 1978 in the NOR COLO subdivision plat as one lot. In 2003 It was later subdivided into three lots and a tract part of a replat named Centerpoint Plaza. The primary building was built in 1978 under the original plat and was accessed from Midpoint drive on the north and a railroad spur on the south. The current site is split into three parcels. Lot 2 of Centerpoint Subdivision is addressed 2145 Midpoint Drive and is considered a vacant lot. Lot 3 is addressed 2155 Midpoint Drive and has the existing 1978 building with a parking lot and outdoor storage yard. Tract A is the triangle parcel on the east that is used as an extension of the outdoor storage yard. One of the purposes of the fence standards is to avoid the appearance of being isolated or walled off from the rest of the community. The city does not have large areas of separation from industrial uses, residential uses and institutional uses. In this specific area the property is within a 0.5 mile of two schools, County Correctional Facilities which includes work release program, place of worship, neighborhood businesses, single unit houses and multi-unit apartments. The proximity to these other uses increases the chances of accidents with adults and kids. Additionally, electric fences have impacts on local wildlife. The proposed design includes a 10-foot high fence along the perimeter of the storage yard on Lot 3, Tract A and in front of the existing building on Lot 2. This fence is electrified and is behind the fencing that is installed in these parcels. Fences in the area including the jail limit the use of security fencing. Other designs in landscaping and building placement are used to create better visibility and limit access to secure areas. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 2 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The variance is detrimental to the public good because electrified fencing in urban areas increases safety risks. • Increase of fence height surrounding a majority of the property is not in context of the neighborhood. • There is no record of approval for the use of Lot 2 as an outdoor storage facility. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property that is different from other outdoor storage facilities. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA240018. and reviewed by the Building Department separately. Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Land Use Review Commission has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 5 and 2 of the Land Use Code. The Land Use Review Commission shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Commission may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1)by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2)the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3)the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Land Use Review Commission may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, City Hall Council Chambers (instructions will be emailed to the applicant the Monday prior to the hearing) Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’sEmail ZoningDistrict Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s)Choose One from List Representative’s Address Justification(s)Additional Justification Representative’s Phone # Justification(s)Additional Justification Representative’s Email Reasoning WRITTENSTATEMENTEXPLAININGTHEREASONFORTHEVARIANCEREQUESTREQUIREDVIA SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Date Signature Building Code requirements will be determined 2155 Midpoint Dr AMAROK/Bobby Inabinet 80525 550 Assembly St, Columbia, SC 29201 Beacon Sales Acquisitions, LLC 4.3.5(C)(3)binabinet@amarok.com Employment District 7/3/2024 Contractor 803-904-2544 July 3, 2024 City of Fort Collins – Zoning Department 281 N College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Beacon Building Products 2155 Midpoint Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 To whom it may concern, AMAROK, on behalf of Beacon Building Products, is respectfully requesting approval for a variance to allow the installation of a battery operated (12V/DC), low voltage, electric security fence/system. The proposed system will be installed per IEC and ANSI standards. x Located 4-8” inside the existing perimeter fence x Warning signs will be posted every 30’ x The system is powered by a 12V DC battery x The site is located in and bordered primarily by an Employment District. x Shall be 10’ in height as prescribed by IEC 60335-2-76 and ANSI standards The proposed system from AMAROK has proven to be the most effective theft and crime deterrent for businesses across the country such as Beacon Building Products. Even in cases where businesses were experiencing frequent criminal trespass, theft, and loss, the installation of our system immediately results in the prevention of any further break-in attempts, vandalism, and theft. If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me and I’ll be happy to provide additional information as needed. Thank you, Bobby Inabinet AMAROK, LLC 550 Assembly St., 5th Floor, Columbia, SC 29201 Email: binabinet@amarok.com Direct Phone: (803) 904-2544 July 3, 2024 City of Fort Collins – Zoning Department 281 N College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE FROM LAND USE CODE 4.3.5(C)(3) JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT (1) By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); This site has an extraordinary situation which necessitates a variation from the prohibition against electric fencing. Beacon Building Products, the tenant at this location, has incurred significant financial losses, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars, due to theft and damage caused by trespassers. Because Beacon must use outdoor storage, their inventory is rendered susceptible to criminal activity. Furthermore, the company’s delivery trucks delivery trucks have been targeted for theft, both for valuable parts such as catalytic converters, and for the vehicles themselves. To mitigate these security concerns, applicant proposes a 10’ tall, low voltage, 12V/DC battery charged electric security fence to be installed 4-8 inches inside/behind the existing chain link fence. This proposed security system will be installed at 2155 Midpoint Dr. This location provides easy access and getaway for criminals due to its proximity to S Timberline and E Prospect Rd. These busy thoroughfares have several cross streets which provide would-be criminals with numerous options from side streets to get clear with stolen goods. (2) The proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; This variance proposal promotes the general-purpose standard greater than a proposal complying with standards in place currently. The variance process is for the city to review and approve uses that enhance the city to residents and businesses, thus providing a high quality of life in the city to all who reside and work in Fort Collins. By granting the variance, the zoning code and planning remains intact with emphasis on keeping the city, businesses, and residents safe while providing a place of employment for residents, and tax revenue for the city by having a strong reputable business operate in the city of Fort Collins. The AMAROK perimeter security system conforms to international safety standards for such security systems as prescribed by IEC 60335-2-76 and has been certified, labeled, and listed by SGS, a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, multiple medical experts have completed studies and published findings confirming the safety of the proposed system. It should be noted that the proposed perimeter security system will be installed inside/behind the existing perimeter fence which has proven ineffective at deterring crime. (3) The proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Appellant affirms that the proposed perimeter security system will not impact the Land Use Code standards in the neighborhood. This area will continue to have businesses operated by local residents. The granting of this request is nominal and inconsequential when considering the protection of businesses and employees which historically has not only stopped crime where installed, but decreased crime in the area around each location. This in turn leads to increased property values and tax revenue for the city. The crime experienced in the area and the business are through no fault of the applicant. Applicant’s actions have not contributed to this result in any way. Applicant is a business owner contributing to the tax base, providing a valuable service to the community. The applicant should not be denied the right to protect the property and assets of the business as well as the safety and wellbeing of the employees. Not granting the variance places an undue burden on Beacon Building Products financially and poses no risk to anyone living nearby or in the area for legitimate, legal purposes. Therefore, we respectfully request that the variance be granted for Beacon Building Products. Thank you, DŝĐŚĂĞůWĂƚĞ ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚZĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐ DZK<͕>> DŽďŝůĞ͗;ϴϬϯͿϰϮϮͲϯϲϬϬ ŵƉĂƚĞΛĂŵĂƌŽŬ͘ĐŽŵ ǁǁǁ͘DZK<͘ĐŽŵ ŽďďǇ/ŶĂďŝŶĞƚ ^ƌ͘ŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞDĂŶĂŐĞƌ DZK<͕>> DŽďŝůĞ͗;ϴϬϯͿϵϬϰͲϮϱϰϰ ďŝŶĂďŝŶĞƚΛĂŵĂƌŽŬ͘ĐŽŵ ǁǁǁ͘DZK<͘ĐŽŵ EXISTING 6' WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' CHAINLINK FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' CHAINLINK FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' CHAINLINK FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' CHAINLINK FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING BUILDING APN:R1626626 APN:R1626625 APN:R1626627 MI D P O I N T D R SECURITY FENCE 4-8" MIN. FROM PERIMETER FENCE SECURITY FENCE 4-8" MIN. FROM PERIMETER FENCE SECURITY FENCE 4-8" MIN. FROM PERIMETER FENCE SECURITY FENCE 4-8" MIN. FROM PERIMETER FENCE SECURITY FENCE 4-8" MIN. FROM PERIMETER FENCE SECURITY FENCE 4-8" MIN. FROM PERIMETER FENCE SECURITY FENCE 4-8" MIN. FROM PERIMETER FENCEEXISTING 24' ROLL GATE EXISTING 4' SWING GATE EXISTING 11' DOUBLE SWING GATE EXISTING 20' ROLL GATE EXISTING 20' DOUBLE SWING GATE C1 1 C11 C12 C12 C1 1 C1 1 C1 1 C1 1 C11 C11 C1 2 LOCATION OF CHANGE IN PERIMETER FENCE TYPE LOCATION OF CHANGE IN PERIMETER FENCE TYPE LOCATION OF CHANGE IN PERIMETER FENCE TYPE LOCATION OF CHANGE IN PERIMETER FENCE TYPE KNOX DEVICE APN:R1671147 APN:R1626625 APN:R1673080 APN:R1673081 APN:R1673081 87'48' 120' 24' 73'10'386' 210'145' 250' 65'85' 10 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 4-8" MIN. EXISTING GRADE EXISTING 6'-0" WOOD FENCE PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE PERIMETER FENCE SECTION NTSC1 1 10 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 4-8" MIN. EXISTING GRADE EXISTING 6'-0" CHAINLINK FENCE PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE PERIMETER FENCE SECTION NTSC1 2 # DATE / DESCRIPTION SHEET SH E E T T I T L E : SCALE: SEE PLAN DATE: PR O J E C T : DRAWN BY: APPLICANT: AMAROK 550 ASSEMBLY ST 5TH FL COLUMBIA SC 29201 803-404-6189 C1 of 3 1/9/2024 BE A C O N B U I L D I N G P R O D U C T S 21 5 5 M I D P O I N T D R FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 5 SITE PLAN REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE A SECURITY FENCE FOR: BEACON BUILDING PRODUCTS 2155 MIDPOINT DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 LEGEND EXISTING FENCE ROAD/CURB EDGE PROPOSED FENCE LENGTH PROPERTY LINE / ROW EXISTING BUILDING VICINITY MAP N NOTES POLE LOCATIONS: STEEL POLES: TO BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ON EACH SIDE OF GATE(S) & EVERY 90° (OR GREATER) TURN IN FENCE LINE. FIBERGLASS/INTERMEDIATE POLES: TO BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY EVERY 30' DISCLAIMER: POLE LOCATIONS MAY SLIGHTLY DEVIATE FROM STIPULATIONS ABOVE DUE TO ON-SITE CONDITIONS STORM DRAIN: NO STORM DRAIN IS BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT PROJECT DATA APN: R1626626 ZONING: E ACRES: 2.22 PROPERTY OWNER GYPRO PROPERTIES LLC 7708 MCINTYRE CT ARVADA, CO 80007 SI T E P L A N RLR 040 16020 40 80 SITE PLAN SCALE : 1" = 40'-0" PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE N *PROPOSED LOCATION OF ELECTRONICS ONLY, SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS. *PROPOSED LOCATION OF KNOX DEVICE ONLY, SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS. PROJECT DATA APN: R1626625 ZONING: E ACRES: 1.87 PROJECT DATA APN: R1626627 ZONING: E ACRES: 1.87 SP E C H T P O I N T R D MIDPOI N T D R PR O S P E C T P A R K W A Y E PROSPECT RD S T I M B E R L I N E R D PROJECT LOCATIONS FOR STEEL POLE NOT TO EXCEED 300' MAX SPACING PER CALCULATIONS AND NOTES THIS SHEET ENGINEER: FDR ENGINEERS, PLLC. 121 KITTY HAWK DR MORRISVILLE NC 27560 919-957-5100 'LJLWDOO\VLJQHGE\+HDWK0+HQGULFN'DWH WARNING! Electric Fence 7,000 V !PELIGRO! Cerca Electrica WARNING! Electric Fence 7,000 V !PELIGRO! Cerca Electrica # DATE / DESCRIPTION SHEET SH E E T T I T L E : SCALE: SEE PLAN DATE: PR O J E C T : DRAWN BY: APPLICANT: AMAROK 550 ASSEMBLY ST 5TH FL COLUMBIA SC 29201 803-404-6189 C2 TY P I C A L D E T A I L S of 3 1/9/2024 BE A C O N B U I L D I N G P R O D U C T S 21 5 5 M I D P O I N T D R FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 5 RLR ENGINEER: FDR ENGINEERS, PLLC. 121 KITTY HAWK DR MORRISVILLE NC 27560 919-957-5100 4'-3" (MIN.) h>h> s/tͲ t/ZZhEd/>^ΘKhd^/DKhEd>dZKE/^ͬKEdZK>>Zt/d,^d>WK>d/> &ZKEd>sd/KE Z/',d^/>sd/KE h>h>& &h> KEEd/KEEKd^͗ 'EZ>EKd͗ EKd^͗ # DATE / DESCRIPTION SHEET SH E E T T I T L E : SCALE: SEE PLAN DATE: PR O J E C T : DRAWN BY: APPLICANT: AMAROK 550 ASSEMBLY ST 5TH FL COLUMBIA SC 29201 803-404-6189 C3 TY P I C A L D E T A I L S ASSEMBLY WEIGHT CHART DESCRIPTION SOLAR PANELS SOLAR PANEL MTG. KIT UNISTRUT OMNI ANTENNA ASSEMBLY SIREN WEIGHT (LBS.) 61.6 27.0 108.8 3.59 1.5 ELECTRONICS ARMATURE LOCATION MAIN GATE DESCRIPTIVE NAME HEAD-END ELECTRONICS of 3 1/9/2024 BE A C O N B U I L D I N G P R O D U C T S 21 5 5 M I D P O I N T D R FO R T C O L L I N S , C O 8 0 5 2 5 RLR ENGINEER: FDR ENGINEERS, PLLC. 121 KITTY HAWK DR MORRISVILLE NC 27560 919-957-5100 4'-9" (MIN.)4'-9" (MIN.) WŚǇƐŝĐĂůͮϭϮϭ <ŝƚƚǇ,ĂǁŬƌŝǀĞͮDŽƌƌŝƐǀŝůůĞ͕EϮϳϱϲϬ DĂŝůŝŶŐͮϭϯϮϬϬ^ƚƌŝĐŬůĂŶĚZŽĂĚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϭϭϰ͕ŽǆϯϯϮ͕ZĂůĞŝŐŚ͕EϮϳϲϭϯ W͗ϵϭϵͲϵϱϳͲϱϭϬϬͮ&͗ϵϭϵͲϵϱϳͲϱϭϬϭͮǁǁǁ͘ĨĚƌͲĞŶŐ͘ĐŽŵ WĂŐĞ ϭ ŽĨϭ January 12, 2024 Presented To: AMAROK Ultimate Perimeter Security 550 Assembly Street, 5th Floor Columbia, SC 29201 Project: Beacon Building Products 2155 Midpoint Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 FDR Engineers Project #: 24-002-003 Contents: Structural Calculations for Post Foundations By: Heath Hendrick, Professional Engineer CO P.E. # PE.0051327 This Coversheet and seal is applicable to the attached calculation sheets :,1',1387$6&( :LQGRQ)HQFH3RVWV5LVN&DWHJRU\, ≔Exp CC ≔kz 0.85 ≔D 4.5 ≔I .87 QRWXVHG≔kd 0.85 ≔G 0.85 ≔V 105 mph ≔kzt 1 ≔H 10 ≔qz =⋅⋅⋅⋅0.00256 kz kzt kd V 2 20.39 psf =――⋅H f t ⋅D i n 26.667 =⋅D ‾‾qz 20.321 >2.5 7KHUHIRUH≔Cf 0.7 SHU$6&()LJ ≔Pd =⋅⋅qz GCf 12.13 psf ≔wFence_Post =⋅⋅Pd ps f ⎛ ⎜⎝ +―――――――⋅⋅0.099 i n 300 ft 20 10 ft 4.5 in⎞ ⎟⎠ 64.609 plf ≔F =⋅wFence_Post H ft 646 lbf &RPELQHGZLUHWHQVLRQGXHWRZLQG :LQGRQ(OHFWURQLF&RPSRQHQWV3RVWV5LVN&DWHJRU\, ≔Exp C ≔kz 0.85 ≔D 4 ≔I .87 QRWXVHG≔kd 0.85 ≔G 0.85 ≔V 105 mph ≔kzt 1 ≔H 9.5 ≔qz =⋅⋅⋅⋅0.00256 kz kzt kd V 2 20.39 psf =――⋅H f t ⋅D i n 28.5 7KHUHIRUH≔Cf 2 SHU$6&()LJ ≔Pd =⋅⋅qz GCf 34.67 psf ≔wElectronics_Post =⋅⋅Pd p s f 4 i n 11.555 p lf ≔F =⋅wElectronics_Post H ft 110 lbf 6RODU3DQHO6LQJOH5RZ(OHFWULFDO&RQURO3DQHO ≔ASolar_Panel =⋅39.5 in 39 in 10.698 f t 2 ≔AElec_Panel 6.694 ft 2 ≔Cf_1 1.5 SHU$6&()LJ≔Cf_2 2 SHU$6&()LJ ≔Pd =⋅⋅qz GCf_1 26 psf ≔Pd =⋅⋅qz GCf_2 34.666 psf ≔FSP =⋅⋅Pd p sf ASolar_Panel 370.855 lbf ≔FEP =⋅⋅Pd p sf AElec_Panel 232.055 lbf ≔Total_F =++FFSP FEP 712.686 lbf 6(,60,&,1387$6&( 3HULPHWHU)HQFH3RVW ≔SDS 0.481 6KRUW3HULRG6SHFWUDO$FFHOHUDWLRQ ≔Ip 1.0 ,PSRUWDQFH)DFWRU ≔Wp 258 ll bf 7RWDO:HLJKWSHU3RVW ≔Fp =⋅⋅⋅1.6 SDS Ip Wp 198.557 l bf 6HLVPLFGHVLJQIRUFHPD[:LUHWHQVLRQGXHWRVHLVPLF ≔Fp =⋅⋅⋅0.3 SDS Ip Wp 37.229 l bf 6HLVPLFGHVLJQIRUFHPLQ:LUHWHQVLRQGXHWRVHLVPLF :LQGFRQWUROVSRVWGHVLJQ (OHFWURQLF&RPSRQHQWV3RVW ≔SDS 0.481 6KRUW3HULRG6SHFWUDO$FFHOHUDWLRQ ≔Ip 1.0 ,PSRUWDQFH)DFWRU ≔Wp 101.2 lbf 7RWDO:HLJKWSHU3RVW ≔Fp =⋅⋅⋅1.6 SDS Ip Wp 77.884 l bf 6HLVPLFGHVLJQIRUFHPD[:LUHWHQVLRQGXHWRVHLVPLF ≔Fp =⋅⋅⋅0.3 SDS Ip Wp 14.603 l bf 6HLVPLFGHVLJQIRUFHPLQ:LUHWHQVLRQGXHWRVHLVPLF :LQGFRQWUROVSRVWGHVLJQ 3267&+(&. 6WHHO)HQFH3RVW≔Mmax =――――――― ⋅wFence_Post ((10 fft))2 2 3230.45 ⋅l bf f t 6FK)\ NVL6WHHO3ROH ≔Sx1 =―――――――――⋅π ⎛⎝-((4.5 i n))4 ((4.03 i n))4 ⎞⎠ ⋅32 4.5 in 3.192 in 3 ≔fb =―― Mmax Sx1 12.146 ksi ≔Fb =―――35 ksi 1.67 20.958 ksi ≔Capacity =― fb Fb 0.58 >2.@ 6WHHO)HQFH3RVW≔Mmax =――――――― ⋅wFence_Post ((10 ft))2 2 3230.45 ⋅lbf f t JD)\ NVL6WHHO3ROH ≔Sx1 =―――――――――⋅π ⎛⎝-((4 in))4 ((3.8125 in))4 ⎞⎠ ⋅32 4 in 1.098 in 3 ≔fb =―― Mmax Sx1 35.311 ksi ≔Fb =―――50 ksi 1.67 29.94 ksi ≔Capacity =― fb Fb 1.179 >)$,/@ 6WHHO&RQWURO3DQHO3RVW [JD$6WHHO3ROH ≔Mmax =++―――――――― ⋅wElectronics_Post ((9.5 fft))2 2 ⎛⎝⋅FSP 8.25 ft⎞⎠⎛⎝⋅FEP 4 f t⎞⎠4509.213 ⋅lbf ft ≔Sx1 =――――――――――――-⎛⎝⋅4 in ((4 in))3 ⎞⎠⎛⎝⋅3.73 i n ((3.73 i n))3 ⎞⎠ ⋅64i n 2.601 in 3 ≔fb =――― ⋅Mmax ―1 2 Sx1 10.401 ksi ≔Fb =―――50 ksi 1.67 29.94 ksi ≔Capacity =― fb Fb 0.347 >2.@ 6WHHO&RQWURO3DQHO3RVW [JD$6WHHO3ROH ≔Mmax =++―――――――― ⋅wElectronics_Post ((9.5 ft))2 2 ⎛⎝⋅FSP 8.25 ft⎞⎠⎛⎝⋅FEP 4 f t⎞⎠4509.213 ⋅lbf ft ≔Sx1 =――――――――――――――-⎛⎝⋅4 i n ((4 in))3 ⎞⎠⎛⎝⋅3.8125 i n ((3.8125 in))3 ⎞⎠ ⋅64i n 1.864 i n 3 ≔fb =――― ⋅Mmax ―1 2 Sx1 14.517 ksi ≔Fb =―――50 ksi 1.67 29.94 ksi ≔Capacity =― fb Fb 0.485 >2.@ &RORUDGR%XLOGLQJ&RGH,%& Electronic Components Post Perimeter Fence Post Pole Footing Embedded in Soil LIC# : KW-06014943, Build:20.23.08.30 FDR ENGINEERS, PLLC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 DESCRIPTION:18"Dia. Perimeter Fence Steel Pole Foundation (Exp C) Project File: Amarok CO (105 mph).ec6 Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combinations Used : ASCE 7-16 General Information Circular 18.0 200.0 1,500.0 No Lateral Restraint at Ground Surface Pole Footing Shape Pole Footing Diameter . . . . . . . . . . in Allow Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pcf Max Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .psf Calculate Min. Depth for Allowable Pressures +0.60WGoverning Load Combination Lateral Load 0.3876 Moment 1.938 k-ft Minimum Required Depth 4.50 ft k NO Ground Surface Restraint Pressures at 1/3 Depth Actual 297.934 psf Allowable 299.459 psf Controlling Values ft^2Footing Base Area 1.767 Maximum Soil Pressure 0.0 ksf k k k k k Applied Loads k Lateral Concentrated Load (k) D : Dead Load L : Live Lr : Roof Live S : Snow W : Wind E : Earthquake H : Lateral Earth Load distance above 0.6460 0.1990 5.0 k k k k k k k ft Lateral Distributed Loads (klf TOP of Load above ground surface BOTTOM of Load above ground surface 10.0 k/ft k/ft k/ft k/ft k/ft k/ft k/ft ftground surface ft Vertical Load (k) k Load Combination Results Factor Soil IncreaseForces @ Ground Surface Load Combination Required Loads - (k) Moments - (ft-k) Depth - (ft) Pressure at 1/3 Depth Allow - (psf)Actual - (psf) 0.00.000 0.000 0.13 1.0000.0 297.90.388 1.938+0.60W 4.50 1.000299.5 266.80.291 1.454+0.450W 4.13 1.000267.4 200.40.139 0.697E Only * 0.70 3.13 1.000202.2 180.00.104 0.522E Only * 0.5250 2.75 1.000181.3 Pole Footing Embedded in Soil LIC# : KW-06014943, Build:20.23.08.30 FDR ENGINEERS, PLLC (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2023 DESCRIPTION:18"Dia. Control Panel Steel Pole Foundation (Exp C) Project File: Amarok CO (105 mph).ec6 Code References Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combinations Used : ASCE 7-16 General Information Circular 18.0 200.0 1,500.0 No Lateral Restraint at Ground Surface Pole Footing Shape Pole Footing Diameter . . . . . . . . . . in Allow Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pcf Max Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .psf Calculate Min. Depth for Allowable Pressures +D+0.60WGoverning Load Combination Lateral Load 0.3926 Moment 2.539 k-ft Minimum Required Depth 4.875 ft k NO Ground Surface Restraint Pressures at 1/3 Depth Actual 317.829 psf Allowable 318.203 psf Controlling Values ft^2Footing Base Area 1.767 Maximum Soil Pressure 0.03624 ksf k k k 0.060 k k0.1160 Applied Loads k Lateral Concentrated Load (k) D : Dead Load L : Live Lr : Roof Live S : Snow W : Wind E : Earthquake H : Lateral Earth Load distance above 0.3710 0.07780 8.250 k k k k k k k ft Lateral Distributed Loads (klf TOP of Load above ground surface BOTTOM of Load above ground surface 0.01150 9.50 k/ft k/ft k/ft k/ft k/ft k/ft k/ft ft4.50ground surface ft3.0 Vertical Load (k) k Load Combination Results Factor Soil IncreaseForces @ Ground Surface Load Combination Required Loads - (k) Moments - (ft-k) Depth - (ft) Pressure at 1/3 Depth Allow - (psf)Actual - (psf) 0.00.000 0.000D Only 0.13 1.0000.0 317.80.393 2.539+D+0.60W 4.88 1.000318.2 284.20.294 1.904+D+0.450W 4.38 1.000285.3 317.80.393 2.539+0.60D+0.60W 4.88 1.000318.2 161.80.054 0.449+1.067D+0.70E 2.50 1.000163.4 146.30.041 0.337+1.051D+0.5250E 2.25 1.000147.2 161.80.054 0.449+0.5327D+0.70E 2.50 1.000163.4 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 08, 2024 STAFF Justin Moore, Lead Zoning Inspector PROJECT ZBA240019 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 3041 S Taft Hill Road Owner: Sarah McIntosh Trust Petitioner: Sarah McIntosh Zoning District: (UE) Urban Estate Code Section: 4.3.1(G)(1)(a) Variance Request: This is a request for approval to conduct the operations of a home occupation/business training canine handlers and their canine team member outside of the primary dwelling on the property. Per Land Use Code, Home Occupation use shall be conducted entirely within the confines of a dwelling unit and only between 8am-6pm Monday-Saturday. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed in 2003 as part of the South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation. Prior to annexation the property was platted into a large lot subdivision named Taft Acres. The original lot was later subdivided into two parcels, each being approximately 1.5 acres in size. The primary building was constructed in 2009 in the City. The Land Use Code restricts the use of single unit residential properties for commercial uses. However, residents can obtain a home occupation License. These licenses restricted a business to operating in only 50% of the primary building and prevent exterior evidence of such business. Also, hours of operations are limited to 8am to 6pm Monday -Saturday. Unlike other residential zone districts, UE does allow a limited number of nonresidential uses. These uses include Adult Day Cares/Child Cares, Animal Boarding, Bed & Breakfast establishments, Plant Nurseries, and Small-Scale Reception Centers. Though these nonresidential uses are permitted they are still subject to a development review. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends approval with the condition no new parking areas between the public right of way and new building and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The property is 1.5 acres in size triple the minimum size for a single-unit house in the UE zone district • The UE does allow for other similar uses such as animal boarding and farm animals • No overnight boarding of the animals is proposed. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 2 • There are handlers with each canine the entire time. 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 with condition of APPEAL ZBA240019. Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Land Use Review Commission has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 5 and 2 of the Land Use Code. The Land Use Review Commission shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Commission may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupanUapplicant of the property, 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 for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal. inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined t,_iif;,reil•wjo by the Bullding Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Land Use Review Commission may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Date Petitioner or Petitioner's Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, City Hall Council Chambers (instructions will be emailed to the applicant the Monday prior to the hearing) Date : Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Signature <:....... Date: July 8, 2024 Re: Variance Request -Land Use Code Business Name: Journey Nose Work LLC Contact: Sarah McIntosh, Certified Nose Work Instructor, Certificate in Applied Animal Behavior, KPA CTP (303)520-5048 cell Sarah@JourneyNoseWork.com Address: 3041 S Taft Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Description of Business: Journey Nose Work (JNW) is a limited liability corporation licensed in the State of Colorado. JNW has been in business since June 10, 2018. Most recently, JNW has been operating out of a leased facility in Larimer County. This request is to start running the business on site of the owners property at 3041 S Taft Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526. The business is a professional services business training canine handlers/ owners and their canine team member to search and find specific articles and scents. The training is for sport purposes only and NOT professional canine teams (like SAR ,etc .. ). The training is done in 1.5 hour increments and there are typically 4 canine teams being trained at one time. Like professional scent detection training, only 1 team is working at a time. So, there are no dog/ dog interactions during the classes. Teams are trained to search interior, exterior and vehicles. No dogs are kenneled or kept on site for this training and the handler/ owner is always with their canine team member. Training is limited to a few times each week. Right now, classes are offered on Sundays at 2 times, Tuesday evening (1 class), Thursday evening (1 class) and Friday mornings (1 class). So there are a total of 5 classes during the week for a total of 7.5 hrs. JNW may add 2 additional classes on Saturdays if there is demand and availability. So, the maximum number of hours that there is training on the property would be 10.5 hrs. If you would like more information on the sport, you can go to this website. https:/ /k9nosework.com/about-us/philosophy-and-guiding-principles/ I I J ;ite Ian 1" = 20'-0" N88"57"21'E -416.85' I 87 .80 "~~ ~ C) ...t. ....._ -- Agenda Item 3 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 08, 2024 STAFF Justin Moore, Lead Zoning Inspector PROJECT ZBA240020 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 505 Gordon Street Owner: Bryan Benning and Anne McKay Petitioner: Jeff Hansen Zoning District: (OT-A) Old Town District, Low Code Section: 2.1.6 Variance Request: This is a request to exceed the maximum allowable rear lot square footage for a proposed addition. The existing house is 1,592 square feet of floor area, of which 1,053 is located on the rear half of the lot. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of this lot is 1,419 square feet. The applicant is proposing an 808 square foot addition to the existing house, located entirely on the rear half of the lot. The proposed addition would therefore exceed the maximum allowable square feet for the rear half of the lot by 442 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed and platted into the City in 1924 part of the Kenwood Heights annexation. The primary building was later built in 1926. The parcel configuration is varied from the original plat and is a unique shape in the context of the neighborhood as it includes both a front and rear property line and 6 side property lines. Not one property line is the same length. The resulting parcel places the primary building mostly in the rear half of the lot. The new Land Use Code recently adopted a minimum square footage for a detached house in the OT-A zone district. This limit is 2,400 square feet of floor area. The proposal does not exceed this limit. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The property has 8 unique property lines. • The existing primary building is mostly in the rear half of the lot. • The proposed design does not exceed the allowable floor area for the primary building. Therefore, the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA240020. and reviewed by the Building Department separately. Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Land Use Review Commission has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Land Use Review Commission shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Commission may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1)by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2)the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3)the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Land Use Review Commission may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location:300 LaPorte Ave, City Hall Council Chambers (instructions will be emailed to the applicant the Monday prior to the hearing) Date:Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’sAddress Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email ZoningDistrict Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s)Choose One from List Representative’sAddress Justification(s)Additional Justification Representative’s Phone # Justification(s)Additional Justification Representative’s Email Reasoning WRITTEN STATEMENTEXPLAININGTHE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUESTREQUIRED VIA SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Date Signature Building Code requirements will be determined 505 Gordon Street Jeff Hansen Architect 80521 jeff@forgeandbow.com Bryan Brenning (970) 797-2354 x2011 Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 OT-A 120 W Olive St. Fort Collins 7/9/2024 1 2 80521 Application Request for Variance from Land Use Code D'EK>/^dZd tKK&KZsEh Dh>ZZz^dZd 'K Z K E ^ d Z d t z E ^ d Z d t ^ , / E ' d K E ^ d Z d D'EK>/^dZd>sd/KE^D'EK>/^dZd>sd/KE^ 'K Z K E ^ d Z d > s d / K E ^ 'K Z K E ^ d Z d > s d / K E ^ D'EK>/^dZd 'K Z K E ^ d Z d ϱϬ ϱ ' K Z K E ^ d Z d KDW>/EdϴϬϴ^&/d/KE WZKWK^ϴϬϴ^&/d/KE Y Y >>z > > z ϵ͘ Ϭ Ζ ϮϬ͘ϬΖ ϱ͘ϬΖ Z Z , > & &Z K E d , > & ϱ͘ Ϭ Ζ ϭϱ͘ϬΖ ϱ͘ Ϭ Ζ ϱ͘ϬΖ ϱ͘ Ϭ Ζ >KdZ͗ >>Kt>h/>/E'Z͗ >>Kt>ZZ>Kdh/>/E'Z͗ Ks'Zh/>/E'Z͗ Ks'ZZZ>Kdh/>/E'Z͗ ϭϭ͕ϯϱϬ^& Ϯ͕ϰϬϬ^& ϭ͕ϰϭϵ^& ϭ͕ϱϵϮ^& ϭ͕Ϭϱϯ^& hZZEd ϭϭ͕ϯϱϬ^& Ϯ͕ϰϬϬ^& ϭ͕ϰϭϵ^& Ϯ͕ϰϬϬ^& ϭ͕ϰϭϵ^& KDW>/Ed ^/'E ϭϭ͕ϯϱϬ^& Ϯ͕ϰϬϬ^& ϭ͕ϰϭϵ^& Ϯ͕ϰϬϬ^& ϭ͕ϴϲϭ^& WZKWK^ ^/'E :2OLYH6WUHHW6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR86$_ZZZIRUJHDQGERZFRP_ 6,7(3/$1*25'21 *25'21675((7_$'',7,215(129$7,21_$8*867WK ^>͗ϭΗсϭϬϬΖͲϬΗϭǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽŶƚĞǆƚ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ ^>͗ϭΗсϰϬΖͲϬΗϮ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶ D'EK>/^dZd >>z ϱϬϱ'KZKE ϭϬϬϮD'EK>/ tKK&KZ sEh >>z ϱϮϱ'KZKE Dh>ZZz ^dZd ϱϬϵ'KZKE ϰϬϳ'KZKE ϭϬϬϳtKK&KZ D'EK>/^dZd >>z ϱϬϱ'KZKE ϭϬϬϮD'EK>/ tKK&KZ sEh >>z ϱϮϱ'KZKE Dh>ZZz ^dZd ϱϬϵ'KZKE ϰϬϳ'KZKE ϭϬϬϳtKK&KZ D'EK>/^dZd >>z ϱϬϱ'KZKE ϭϬϬϮD'EK>/ tKK&KZ sEh >>z ϱϮϱ'KZKE Dh>ZZz ^dZd ϱϬϵ'KZKE ϰϬϳ'KZKE ϭϬϬϳtKK&KZ :2OLYH6WUHHW6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR86$_ZZZIRUJHDQGERZFRP_ (OHYDWLRQV*RUGRQ6WUHHW *25'21675((7_$'',7,215(129$7,21_$8*867WK ^>͗ ϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ ϭ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ'ŽƌĚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ^>͗ ϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ Ϯ ŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚ'ŽƌĚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ^>͗ ϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ ϯ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ'ŽƌĚŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ 'KZKE^dZd >>z ϱϬϱ'KZKE ϭϬϭϭD'EK>/ϭϬϭϳD'EK>/ϱϬϮtzE tzE ^dZd>>z ϱϬϮ'KZKEϵϮϵD'EK>/ϵϭϳD'EK>/ϵϭϱD'EK>/ϵϬϯD'EK>/ t^,/E'dKE ^dZd 'KZKE^dZd >>z ϱϬϱ'KZKE ϭϬϭϭD'EK>/ϭϬϭϳD'EK>/ϱϬϮtzE tzE ^dZd>>z ϱϬϮ'KZKEϵϮϵD'EK>/ϵϭϳD'EK>/ϵϭϱD'EK>/ϵϬϯD'EK>/ t^,/E'dKE ^dZd 'KZKE^dZd >>z ϱϬϱ'KZKE ϭϬϭϭD'EK>/ϭϬϭϳD'EK>/ϱϬϮtzE tzE ^dZd>>z ϱϬϮ'KZKEϵϮϵD'EK>/ϵϭϳD'EK>/ϵϭϱD'EK>/ϵϬϯD'EK>/ t^,/E'dKE ^dZd :2OLYH6WUHHW6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR86$_ZZZIRUJHDQGERZFRP_ (OHYDWLRQV0DJQROLD6WUHHW *25'21675((7_$'',7,215(129$7,21_$8*867WK ^>͗ ϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ ϭ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐDĂŐŶŽůŝĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ^>͗ ϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ Ϯ ŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚDĂŐŶŽůŝĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ^>͗ ϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ ϯ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDĂŐŶŽůŝĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ