The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/12/2024 - 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: Noa 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 SEPTEMBER 12, 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 AGENDA Meeting Participation Participation in the Land Use Review Commission meeting on Thursday, September 12, 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@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable with public participation are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments 24 hours prior to the meeting to nbeals@fcgov.com. Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. If you need assistance during the meeting, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com. Land Use Review Commission Page 2 Agenda – September 12, 2024 1. APPEAL ZBA240021 Address: 914 W Oak St Owner/Petitioner: Zachary and Kathryn Hitchcock 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 garage. The existing house is 1,850 square feet of floor area, of which 567 square feet is located on the rear half of the lot. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of this lot is 700 square feet. The applicant is proposing a 336 square foot garage on the rear half of the lot, which would exceed the maximum allowable square feet for the rear half of the lot by 203 square feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA240023 Address: 509 Remington St Owner: Kevin and Dawn Buffington Petitioner: Taylor Meyer, VFLA Architecture + Interiors Zoning District: OT-C Code Section: 3.1.8, 2.1.6 Project Description: There are three requests associated with this variance application: 1. To exceed the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building (existing barn and proposed attached garage) by 398 square feet. The proposed accessory building will be 998 square feet, and the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building in the OT Zone Districts is 600 square feet. 2. To encroach the 8-foot minimum garage door setback from an alley by 3 feet. The applicant is proposing to build the garage door 5 feet from the alley. 3. To exceed the maximum allowable wall height for an accessory building along an interior side lot line by 3 feet and 8 inches. The height of the walls of the proposed elevation for the barn will be 16 feet and 8 inches above grade. The maximum allowable wall height along an interior side lot line for an accessory building is 13 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: 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 Commission members McCoy, Lawton, Shuff, Carron and San Filippo were present; members Coffman and Vogel were absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by member Carron, to approve the July 11, 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 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. MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 DRAFT Minutes – August 8, 2024 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. Staff Presentation: Moore presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located across three separate parcels, generally located south-east of the intersect of Prospect Rd and Timberline Rd. Beacon Building Products is located on the property currently. The property was platted in 1973 as one lot and subsequently subdivided in 2003 into three lots. The existing primary structure was built in 1978 on lot 3; the building is accessed from Midpoint Dr through lot 2. Lot 2 is addressed as 2145 Midpoint and is considered a vacant lot. Lot 3 is addressed as 2155 and contains the business, comprised of the building, parking lot, and storage lot the southeast. Tract A off of lot 3 is an extension off of the lot and is currently being used as a storage lot. Existing fencing on the property does cross through all three parcels. This property is included in the E (Employment) district and abuts the industrial zone. The property is also immediately adjacent to the Larimer County BOCC and Corrections complex. Additionally, there are two schools within a half mile, as well as a place of worship and several designated Natural Areas. The applicant is proposing the construction within existing fencing of a 10-foot-tall, electrified fence though all three parcels. Applicant materials detail two potential anchoring solutions; both would support a 10-foot total height. Pictures of the lot detail existing use for business operations, including outdoor storage of building materials and commercial vehicles. Chain link fencing and wood privacy fencing are currently being used on-site. Moore explained that one of the purposes of the fencing standards is to avoid the appearance of walling properties off from the larger community. Commission member San Filippo asked Moore to confirm the height of current chain link fence in the rear of tract A; San Filippo commented that it appears to be more than 6 feet in height. Moore believes the fence to be 6 feet; applicant can confirm. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Michael Paight (sp?), Director of Government Relations, AMAROK Perimeter Security, Columbia, South Carolina, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Paight stated he was contacted by Beacon Building Materials to provide a security system solution after Beacon had been broken into several times. AMAROK’s primary business model is securing large outdoor spaces with their primary security system, the “electric guard dog”, which is an electrified security fence. Paight explained that the system is powered entirely by a 12-volt battery (similar to auto battery), and the system is never connected to electrical infrastructure. Solar panels provide power to the battery. A capacitor then amplifies the power to 7,000-9,000 volts in 1.9 seconds. Once charged, the system must release the energy mechanically down the interior line. It takes 3/10,000 of a second to perform a perimeter check. The system is connected to an alarm panel; if the panel detects 5 consecutive interruptions and is triggered, the alarm goes off on property as well as off-site dispatch. Thus, the system can provide a “verified alarm” status to local law enforcement. Industry standard for this type of fencing security system is 10-feet; this is adequate for crime deterrence. These systems are always constructed behind the primary barrier wall; separated by 4-8 inches. This system is the second line of defense and is separate from the primary fence/barrier. Electrified fences are already in place in agricultural settings here in Fort Collins and are generally much more powerful than the system being proposed today for business use. This system is restricted to 5 joules of energy due to its use in an urban environment. Commission member San Filippo asked for evidence that supported their claims of theft of materials and/or vehicular damage. Paight stated he does not have any direct evidence but could provide if necessary. San Filippo stated he thought that evidence to be critical. San Filippo asked if there are any insurance claims that can be provided as proof of theft occurring on the property? Paight stated that most folks won’t take out a claim if under the damage is substantially past their deductible. Paight stated that he did not think that was a critical piece of evidence. If the property owners feel that they Land Use Review Commission Page 3 DRAFT Minutes – August 8, 2024 are at risk, then why not secure the property? San Filippo stated that he was attempting to get to the bottom of the claims put forth in the applicant materials. San Filippo stated he is a big believer in evidence, and asked if there was anyone present from Beacon present at the hearing who had the authority to speak to the Commission. Jayden O, Assistant Branch Manager of Beacon, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Jayden O stated that this effort was coming to them from corporate, and that company wide Beacon has experienced thefts and is attempting to secure all locations. Jayden O did not have direct evidence of theft or vandalism occurring at the Fort Collins location but stated that theft occurs at many different branches and the company is trying to cover its bases at a corporate level; this location is part of that strategy. San Filippo asked why the applicant considers it ok to not provide any evidence supporting their claims of theft? This is heavy material and not very easy to take. The average person is not going to be able to pull up and take materials out of the lot. Jayden O agreed to a point, noting that some of the smaller, high-value materials be easier to take. San Filippo stated that he had recently performed an inspection of the property at dark and observed that most of Lot 2 was not illuminated. How will vehicles be secured on that lot? Jayden O stated that the vehicles are regularly locked and secured when parked. San Filippo questioned Jayden O regarding claims of theft of catalytic converter. Jayden O stated that the local Beacon located hasn’t experience catalytic converter theft within the last 9 months. San Filippo noted that the south side of the building has by his count four wall-mounted lights., roughly 16-20 feet high. Last night, only one was illuminated. Would that not be an effective security measure for the property? Jayden O conceded that was a good maintenance issue and would be addressed. San Filippo continued to note that along the west access drive, pole-mounted lights were also not illuminated. San Filippo again questioned why these means of security are not being utilized. San Filippo asked if any other alternatives for securing the property have been pursued? Jayden O again emphasized that this effort is above the local level and is coming from corporate leadership. Commission member McCoy asked about the need for a 10-foot fence height. Paight again noted that industry standard for this device is 10 feet. What is truly needed at minimum is 2-feet above the primary perimeter fence. Someone could potentially climb primary fence and then climb on top and jump over electrified perimeter. This system is only activated if someone is criminally trespassing on property. Vice-Chair Lawton asked if there has been any discussion with other businesses nearby? Paight stated that a handful of other businesses have contacted AMAROK, but nothing has moved forward so far. If the variance is denied, next steps might be an appeal to Council and/or amendments made to the Code. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Chair Shuff asked Moore to clarify that LUC does not allow for electrified fencing? Moore responded that three zone types (UE/RUL/RF) currently allow for electrified fencing, only for agricultural purposes. Maximum height allowed for fencing is 6 feet. Vice-Chair Lawton noted that one of his last jobs was with client in the area. They had similar concerns about theft and vandalism on their property. Lawton himself has observed the heightened crime in area. This solution was investigated but was rejected basically out of hand. AT that time, it was determined that energy was better-spent on increased on-site security, closer relationship with Sheriff’s office, and neighbor-neighbor communications. There could be other solutions that are more tenable before considering this. Commission member Carron noted that he previously worked with a self-storage business north of this site; those owners utilized a six-foot fence with pointed tops, and it has been apparently working. This Land Use Review Commission Page 4 DRAFT Minutes – August 8, 2024 variance request and application seems to be overkill for this property. Very much an urban environment. Carron had a question for Staff, noting that there appeared to be no approval of outdoor storage for Lot 2. Moore confirms that no development process or approval has been granted for outdoor storage on Lot 2. Lot 3 and Tract A have been approved for outdoor storage. Shuff stated his opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated the security issues stated as evidence within their application nor have they explored other options that would be compliant with current Code standards. Approving just one of the requests would be a challenge; approving both requests at this time is not supported. Appeals must be vetted against what is currently in the Code. San Filippo agreed with the sentiments of Shuff, noting that the information provided is not sufficient. Therefore, at this time he cannot support the application. Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to DENY in whole Appeal ZBA240018 regarding the requested variances to the fence height restrictions under Land Use Code Section 4.3.5(C); and the prohibition on electrically charged fences under Land Use Code Section 4.3.5(C)(3), finding the variances would be detrimental to the public good because electrified fencing in urban areas increases safety risks; and the variance as submitted would not comply with any of the four Land Use Code variance standards contained in Section 6.14.4(H)(1) through (H)(4). Specifically, the denied variances would not result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exception or undue hardship because insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property that is different from other outdoor storage facilities; and the denied variances are not nominal and inconsequential because increase of fence height surround a majority of the property is not in the context of the neighborhood, and there is no record of approval for the use of Lot 2 as an outdoor storage facility. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Yeas: McCoy, Lawton, Shuff, Carron, San Filippo Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED 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. Staff Presentation: Moore presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located off of S Taft Hill, between Drake and Horsetooth. The property was annexed in 2003 and is included in the U-E (Urban Estates) zone district. Prior to annexation it was included in the Taft Acres subdivision. The primary structure on the west side of the lot was constructed in 2009. Access from Taft Hill and Moffett Dr. The accessory building is currently located on the eastern side of the lot; it is not currently shown in aerial photographs included in materials. The petitioner today owns and operates a business (Journey Nosework) located on the property, and previously had been operating elsewhere in Larimer County since 2018. The applicant would like to Land Use Review Commission Page 5 DRAFT Minutes – August 8, 2024 move the business to their residential lot and operate within an accessory building. The request is to utilize the accessory building for business operations, which include Canine training. Land Use Code states that home occupations be operated entirely out of the primary residence, while utilizing not more than 50% of the dwelling. The request today is to operate a home occupation (dog training activities) out of the accessory building. Moore explained that Staff is recommending approval with the condition that no new parking be constructed between the front of the building and public right of way. Staffe would also ask that parking be contained to existing areas and/or recommend improvement of surface areas on the property. Commission member San Filippo asked if it would be appropriate to add condition that no overnight boarding of animals occur on the property? Moore confirmed the condition as appropriate. Home Occupation hours of operation are contained in code, and the petitioner has indicated that animals will not be kept on the premises overnight. Commission member Carron noted that the U-E zone district specifically calls out animal boarding as an approved use; does that definition apply to overnight boarding or just day-use? Moore looks for more information on how animal boarding is defined within code. Vice-chair Lawton asked for clarification as to whether this is two parcels, or one of the parcels that was earlier subdivided? Moore confirms the subject property is just one of the two parcels. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Sara McIntosh, 3041 S Taft Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. McIntosh provided a brief overview of scent work/nose work. McIntosh noted that she is trained by NAfCSW and has developed activities and protocol for home dogs to perform. When dogs are not working, they are not allowed to have dog-dog contact, are crated, and are closely supervised by handlers. During instructional times, McIntosh will only teach one dog at a time. Why do this? The sport of nosework is very good for dogs and supports their independence as well as a bond between dogs and owners. McIntosh doesn’t work with confident dogs; they only work with timid dogs that need support. McIntosh volunteers with three local shelters and provides nosework as enrichment. Also provides help to others’ foster dogs. Regarding the property, McIntosh described the accessory building as currently being used for RV storage as well as office space. Parking can be adjusted to accommodate conditions. Hours of operations are about 4-6 hours/day, 4-5 days/week. Dog boarding requires a special license, and no boarding will be performed on the property. Additionally, McIntosh stated that no vehicular access will be taken from Moffett, as access can be taken from S Taft Hill. McIntosh also stated that their neighbors are supportive of the activities of the business, and some have asked to have their dogs involved in the training. Commission member San Filippo asked what dogs are trained to search for? McIntosh responded they use essential oils (Birch, Anise, Clove) in small quantities as scent targets. Some then transition dogs to search for other materials/scents. San Filippo asked how this work different from typical Search & Rescue? McIntosh explained that Search & Rescue dogs work off-leash, are trained to track footsteps, and human scent. These elements are not trained by McIntosh. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: City Assistant Attorney Maddie Shehan provided the Commission with the definition of Animal Boarding as contained in the code. Shehan cited Land Use Code Section7.2.2: which defines animal boarding as “The operation of an establishment in which domesticated animals, other than household pets, are housed, groomed, bred, boarded, trained or sold; but this term shall not include the operation of a kennel.” Land Use Review Commission Page 6 DRAFT Minutes – August 8, 2024 Commission member San Filippo stated he had no issues with the application. The accessory building use has been well thought out; applicant testimony supports the use of this property as appropriate for this sport/activity. San Filippo is in support of approving the request. Commission member Carron agrees with the comments offered by San Filippo. Carron added that he admires the passion of applicant. Carron also noted that when dogs are engaged, they aren’t barking so there is a minimal chance of them becoming a nuisance while on the property. Vice-Chair Lawton applauds the applicant for proactively engaging with neighbors and noted that as long as parking isn’t intrusive to the street side of the property there should be no problems. Lawton stated he is in support of approving the variance request. Chair Shuff stated his agreement with previous comments; Shuff noted the proposed use in not detrimental to neighbors and is appropriate to the property location and site within neighborhood. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS Appeal ZBA240019 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.3.1(G)(1)(a) to allow the operations of a home occupation to be conducted outside the confines of a dwelling unit, in order to operate the applicant’s business training canines and their handlers from an accessory building and surrounding outdoor space, as shown in the materials for this hearing. With the following conditions: no new parking areas are added between the accessory building and the public right of way. The Commission finds that the variance, in consideration of the condition, would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Section 4.3.1(G)(1)(a) 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 of the following facts: the property is 1.5 acres in size, which is triple the minimum size for a single-unit house in the Urban Estate Zone District; the Urban Estate Zone District allows for other similar uses such as animal boarding and farm animals; no overnight boarding of the animals is proposed; and there are handlers with each canine the entire time. 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, Lawton, Shuff, Carron, San Filippo Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 3. APPEAL ZBA240020 Address: 505 Gordon St Owner: Bryan Brenning & Anne McKay Petitioner: Jeff Hansen, Architect, Forge + Bow Dwellings Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: Land Use Review Commission Page 7 DRAFT Minutes – August 8, 2024 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. Staff Presentation: Moore presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located at the corner of Magnolia St and Gordon St, north of Mulberry and northeast of the intersection of Mulberry and Shields. The primary structure was built in 1926. This parcel is unique in size and shape, with eight lot lines, none of which are the same size. The supplied site plan describes the difference between compliant and proposed addition options. Elevations describing these options were also shown. Vice-Chair Lawton asked about construction activities seen in photos; Moore explained that the construction is occurring on the neighboring lot, though visible in photos of the subject property. Commission member San Filippo also made mention of the observed construction occurring on the adjacent property. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Jeff Hansen, Forge + Bow, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Hansen explained that his clients have owned the house for a while and need the house to grow with their expanding family. They are trying to build as much as possible to fit the size of family. Hansen stated that he possesses a good appreciation and understanding of the Land Use Code; he originally set out to design something that was fully compliant. During design phase, it became obvious that meeting Code would disrupt the street corner and it’s open view; the Gordon St elevation of the house would be changed if the addition is built to be compliant, as the street appearance would be significantly changed. Pushing the addition to the west does not disrupt the character of the block and surrounding neighborhood. Commission member Carron noted that the rear half line includes the strange lot configuration. What would it look like if it were a square? Seems to be an obvious hardship considering the strange lot configuration. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member San Filippo stated he has no problems with the application; one staff slide essentially shows where the 808 square-foot addition would be located. As proposed, the plan is well thought out. Commission member Carron offered agreement to the comments offered by San Filippo. Carron again cited the uniqueness of corner lot plus unique lot size that were considered within the proposed design. Character of the house and neighborhood have been considered and preserved with the proposed design. Additionally, the proposal will not disrupt existing mature tree canopy, which may have been damaged or reduced with a compliant addition. Chair Shuff noted that he is personally familiar with property and aware of the unique constraints of the property shape. In light of these considerations, Shuff feels the proposal is well considered give the unique hardship present on the lot. Shuff is in support of approving the request. Commission member Lawton made a motion, seconded by San Filippo, to APPROVE ZBA240020 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot to exceed the maximum of 1,419 square feet by an additional 442 square feet in order to construct the proposed addition to an existing house as shown in the materials for this hearing. Land Use Review Commission Page 8 DRAFT Minutes – August 8, 2024 The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and by reason of exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the applicant not caused by an act or omission of the applicant, in consideration of the following facts: the property has 8 unique property lines; the existing primary building is mostly in the rear half of the lot; and the proposed design does not exceed the allowable floor area for the primary building. 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 in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Yeas: McCoy, Lawton, Shuff, Carron, San Filippo Nays: Absent: Coffman, Vogel THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:41am. Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 12, 2024 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA240021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 914 W Oak Street Owner/Petitioner: Kathryn and Zachary Hitchcock Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Variance Request: This is a request to exceed the maximum allowable rear lot square footage for a proposed garage. The existing house is 1,850 square feet of floor area, of which 567 square feet is located on the rear half of the lot. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of this lot is 700 square feet. The applicant is proposing a 336 square foot garage on the rear half of the lot, which would exceed the maximum allowable square feet for the rear half of the lot by 203 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is part of Washington Place subdivision that was recorded in 1903. The primary building was constructed in 1920, and an addition was completed in 2000. There is an existing accessory building in the rear yard that will be removed to accommodate the proposed design. In the OT-A zone district accessory buildings are limited to 600 square feet in size. Additionally, the rear half of the property has a limitation on the floor area. In this case it is 700 square feet of floor area is allowed in the rear half. With the primary structure already occupying 567 square feet the remainder is 133 square feet. The proposed garage is 336 square feet, exceeding the allowable floor area by 203 square feet. The proposed garage would be placed in the similar location of the existing accessory structure. However, the footprint and size are different. The proposed garage does meet the required side setbacks of 5 feet. It also appears there would be room to meet the rear setback for a garage door along an alley of 8 feet. The design is typical for one car width, though the proposal can accommodate two cars stacked vertically. The overall height of the new building and wall height meet the zone district requirements. The existing primary building is designed with a courtyard surrounded by three sides of the building. The design of the primary building extends into the rear half of the property. The primary building does not exceed the allowable floor area for a primary building. 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 still includes back-yard space • The proposed garage is considered one story • The proposed garage is sized for one car in width. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 2 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 ZBA240021. !!" # $% & '&( ) ' *( #+, & ! ) ' *( - (!. "!!" / + **0!& & ! .!*' ' *( / , 0%* */ ( 12 3' (. !/!& / "!&( (. (!* & (. ! .!*' ' (. *( 0/** 1 3 -4 5!/!& 6%( 7 /&. 8 9 !"#$%%## ( 7&(*/& ! "#!$ ! #%&$ ' #*"#!$ ! #%&$ ' $+, 5& - , & ! 6 $ - , - - . 0# & - , # 0 + & ! & + # 7 & . 8 ) ! 9 & ' : $ , # # % & $ ' * ! % & ! $ & ' - # !# ; / # Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 12, 2024 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA240023 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 509 Remington St Owner: Dawn and Kevin Buffington Petitioner: Taylor Meyer, Architect, VFLA Architecture + Interiors Zoning District: OT-C Code Section: 3.18, 2.16 Variance Request: There are two requests associated with this variance application: 1. To exceed the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building (existing barn and proposed attached garage) by 398 square feet. The proposed accessory building will be 998 square feet, and the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building in the OT Zone Districts is 600 square feet. 2. To encroach the 8-foot minimum garage door setback from an alley by 3 feet. The applicant is proposing to build the garage door 5 feet from the alley. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a part of the original town plat of 1873. The primary structure was built in1904. The accessory building was constructed prior in 1890 originally associated with the original farmhouse that resides on 503 Remington. The barn was divided in 1904 when the owner built the two houses on 509 and 515 Remington. In 1997 the subject property was designated a Landmark. The primary house was considered an excellent example of the American Foursquare with Italian features and detailing. The age of the barn was considered a contributing structure to the historic character of the property. The barn did receive an addition in time to the north wall. This addition would be removed and the proposed garage would be located in similar design. In finding ways to reuse the barn the applicants came across some complicated factors. First, the barn was shared by the two properties. The applicant was able to purchase both properties and has full control of the barn. Second, the barn is encroaching into the alley; any alteration of the barn would require it to be relocated. Third, the property is within a floodplain; the use of the barn for anything more than a garage requires it to be raised. Additionally, in the OT-C accessory structures are limited to 600 square feet. There can be more than one accessory structure, but they are required to be separated by 10 feet. The property is not wide enough to accommodate the existing structure and a new garage. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 2 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The historic barn limits the placement of new accessory structures • The relocation of the barn and raising the elevation are required • The reduced setback reduces the impacts to the historic character. 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 and 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 ZBA240023. 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 Choose One from List Representative’s Address Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative’s Phone # Additional Justification Representative’s Email Reasoning WRITTEN STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST REQUIRED VIA SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Date Signature 509 & 515 Remington Street 80524 Dawn & Kevin Buffington 2.1.6 OT-C Zone District Nominal, inconsequential Taylor Meyer, AIA VFLA Architecture + Interiors Architect 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 970-224-1191 taylor@vfla.com 08/13/2024 Hardship Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 970.224.1191 108 East Lincolnway Cheyenne, WY 307.635.5710 w w w . v f l a . c o m 08-13-2024 City of Fort Collins Land Use Review Commission 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Variance Request for 509 & 515 Remington St To the Staff at the Fort Collins Planning Department and to the Members of the Land Use Review Commission, On behalf of my clients, Dawn and Kevin Buffington, I am requesting a variance to the following Land Use Code sections: · Section 3.1.8 The maximum allowable floor area of an accessory building in an OT zone district is 600 sq ft · Section 2.1.6 The minimum garage door setback from a rear alley is 8 feet · Section 2.1.6 The maximum allowable wall height along an interior side lot line for an accessory structure is 13 feet The goals of this project are to repair and protect this existing historic barn and renovate the interior to provide functional spaces that encourage regular maintenance and upkeep, further extending the life of this structure. One of the reasons this barn needs such extensive repair is that’s current condition doesn’t offer any practical modern-day function to the property owner other than that of a rundown storage shed. The intent of this renovation project is to provide spaces that will be activated and used every day. The main level of the barn will contain a workshop area, an entertainment room, and a powder room will be tucked under a new stair to provide proper access to the upper level where an office space will be located. Also, a new single-bay garage will be attached to the side, offering sufficient space to park a car on this property where there previously was not one. The current location of the barn is problematic: it sits on two properties (both 509 and 515 Remington), straddling the property between the two. However, there is a unique opportunity now because both properties are owned by Dawn and Kevin Buffington making it less complicated to correct the problem than if these properties had different ownership. Our first step was to determine whether it would be better to move the barn to sit completely within a single property or to adjust the location of the property line between 509 and 515 Remington rerouting it around the barn. The result was a combination of both approaches. VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 970.224.1191 108 East Lincolnway Cheyenne, WY 307.635.5710 w w w . v f l a . c o m There are two main reasons why it is important to relocate the barn: · Non-compliance with Setback Requirements: The barn not only doesn’t comply with the 5’ rear yard setback from the alley, but it also currently straddles the west property line 6” into the alley. Moving the barn will allow it to be set back the required 5’ from the rear property line, thus bringing it into compliance. · Floodplain Concerns: The barn is located within the city-designated Old Town 100-year Floodplain. Since the renovated barn will be defined as an accessory structure with habitable space the new main level floor elevation will need to be 12” above Base Floodplain Elevation (4994.6 NAVD88) which is 1.6’ above the elevation of the existing barn floor. Relocating the barn provides the opportunity to lift it above the floodplain, further protecting the structure. Additionally, both 509 and 515 Remington Street are city-designated historic landmarks, and the barn is a contributing resource to these properties, lifting the barn elevation also protects this historic resource. Due to the historic value of the barn, it was crucial to evaluate the condition of the structure to assess the feasibility of moving it. An engineer was hired through the city’s Design Assistance Program from the Historic Preservation Department, and it was determined that the structure is a good candidate for lifting and moving. Please refer to the included report from PEN Engineering dated August 11, 2023. One important note from the structural report is the observed deterioration of the bottom of the wood studs in multiple locations. To prevent further deterioration, the bottom 12 inches of the wood studs will be cut and attached to a new treated sill plate bearing on a new foundation wall. This intent is depicted in the building sections on Sheet A1 of the included drawings for proposed barn renovation. Additionally, a new single-bay garage will be added to the north side of the existing barn. The garage will serve as an enclosed parking space for the primary residence of 509 Remington Street, which it currently lacks. The garage will be built directly adjacent to the existing barn to maximize the backyard space behind the residence. However, since the combined width of the barn and the garage is greater than the width of the lot, a Boundary Line Adjustment has been completed by a surveyor and recorded by the Larimer County Recorder. Please see the included Boundary Line Adjustment document. The new property line between 509 and 515 Remington jogs around the barn, allowing for a 5-foot side yard setback. · Section 3.1.8 The maximum allowable floor area of an accessory building in an OT zone district is 600 sf The total floor area of the barn and proposed garage is 998 sq ft combined, which exceeds the maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory building. While the combined building does not meet the code requirement, an option where the two buildings were separated by 10’ would meet the requirement because each building would be less than 600 sq ft. However, this option would not be feasible as there is insufficient space in the rear yard to accommodate 10’ separation between all three buildings: the barn, the garage, and the residence. Even if there were sufficient space, there would be no usable rear yard remaining. (Please note that the 998 sq ft barn/garage combination is less than the maximum allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot.) One might ask, “why not use a portion of the barn for the garage instead of building a new garage?” Unfortunately, the site is too constrained to achieve this because the barn floor must be lifted 18” above existing grade to accommodate the habitable portion of the barn. The length of driveway leading to the garage would be so long that it would leave no usable rear yard between the barn and the residence. VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 970.224.1191 108 East Lincolnway Cheyenne, WY 307.635.5710 w w w . v f l a . c o m · Section 2.1.6 The minimum garage door setback from a rear alley is 8’ The proposed new garage door will be setback 5’ from the rear alley. This will match the 5’ setback of the barn from the rear alley, which is a significant improvement compared to the existing condition where the barn crosses 6” over the rear property line. If the garage were setback 8’ from the alley it would reduce 3’ of usable rear yard space between the garage the residence. · Section 2.1.6 The maximum allowable wall height along an interior side lot line for an accessory structure is 13’ The height of the walls of the proposed elevation of the barn will be 16’-8” above grade. The height is due to a few factors: the height of the existing barn, needing a 10’ ceiling in the barn shop area, and raising the floor 18” above grade to elevate the barn above the floodplain. The resulting roof peak of the barn will be 3’-3” taller than the existing barn elevation after lifting the barn. Lastly, this project will require utility work that will affect the alley, which is scheduled to be improved by the City of Fort Collins next spring, so we’re wanting to complete this critical work before the city’s improvements to the alley begin to minimize rework. We started the design process on this project in January 2023, and it has been a lengthy journey to get to this point. Over the past year and a half, we have gone through the Conceptual Review process in the Planning Department, consulted with the Historic Preservation Department, and applied for a Boundary Line Adjustment. Our last step before submitting a building permit is to seek approval for this variance request. The proposed variances (increase of allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot, reduced setback for the garage door, and increased wall height along a side lot line) will not be detrimental to the public good and are the result of unusual and exceptional practical difficulties: · The barn is a contributing resource to the city-designated landmark properties and is therefore worth protecting, · The floodplain poses a risk to the structure so elevating the barn protects it, · The proposed relocation of the barn improves the existing conditions (it will be setback 5’ from the rear property line). · The proposed location of the barn will be completely contained within a single property instead of straddling property lines. Thank you for your time in considering our variance request. Sincerely, Taylor Meyer – VFLA, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 (970) 224-1191 [ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[ [ [ [[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[[ 6 : 6 : 1 : 1 : 6 ( (;,67,1* 6725< 5(6,'(1&( (;,67,1*&21&5(7('5,9( $/ / ( < 5( 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 6 7 5 ( ( 7 5(0,1*721 (;,67,1* 6725< 5(6,'(1&( 5(0,1*721 (;,67,1* *$5$*( VI &215(7('5,9( (;,67,1* 75(( 35 2 3 ( 5 7 < &( 1 7 ( 5 / , 1 ( VIDERYHJUDGH VIEDVHPHQW *$ 7 ( 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. 6( 7 % $ & . *$7( /27$5($21 )5217+$/) 6) /27$5($21 5($5+$/) 6) $''('6,7($5($ [ VI 6( 7 % $ & . 6(7%$&. *$7( 1( : 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 1(:3523(57</,1((;,67,1*+,6725,&%$516758&785( 72%(5(/2&$7(' $3352; 727+(($67 $3352; 727+(1257+ 5(/2&$7('(;,67,1* +,6725,&%$516758&785( VIPDLQOHYHO VIXSSHUOHYHO $%$1'21$3257,212) (;,67,1*3523(57</,1( 352326('&+$1*(672(;,67,1*$&&(6625<6758&785( '(02(;,67,1*/($1726758&785( 5(/2&$7(+,6725,&%$516758&785(72:$5'7+(1257+($67 5$,6(7+(%$516758&785((/(9$7,21a &87 5(029(7+(%277202)5277(':22':$//6 $77$&+%$51727+(7232)1(:&21&5(7()281'$7,21 $''1(:&21&5(7(6/$%21*5$'(,16,'(%$51 $''1(: [ *$5$*(721257+6,'(2)%$51 (;,67,1*/($1726758&785( 72%('(02/,6+(' VI 1(:*$5$*( $'',7,21 VI 35 2 3 ( 5 7 < &( 1 7 ( 5 / , 1 ( /27$5($21 )5217+$/) 6) /27$5($21 5($5+$/) 6) )/225$5($21 5($5+$/)2)/27 VIXSSHUOHYHO VIPDLQOHYHO VI )/225$5($21 5($5+$/)2)/27 VIXSSHUOHYHO VIPDLQOHYHO VI 726/$%(/(9 (;,67,1**5281'(/(9$7,21 /$1'86(&2'(,1)2)255(0,1*721 /27$5($VIFXUUHQWORWDUHD VIFKDQJHLQORWDUHD VIORWDUHDDIWHUQHZSURSHUW\OLQHV =21(',675,&727&2/'72:1',675,&7+,*+ (;,67,1*5(6,'(1&(VI$%29(*5$'( (;,67,1*$&&(6625<6758&785(VI (;,67,1*727$/)/225$5($VI $//2:$%/()/225$5($217+(5($5+$/)2)7+(/272)VI VI 352326('217+(5($5+$/)2)7+(/27 VI VI(;,67,1*5(6,'(1&( VI(;,67,1*$&&(6625<6758&785(0$,1/(9(/ VI(;,6,7,1*$&&(6625<6758&785(833(5/(9(/FHLOLQJKHLJKWDERYH VI1(:*$5$*($'',7,21 1(:&21&5(7()281'$7,21 $''6721(9(1((5$%29(*5$'( 1(:&21&5(7(6/$%21*5$'( ,1&5($6(,1 (/(9$7,212) 522)3($. 6721(:$//&$3 522)%($5,1* 833(5/(9(/ 72)281'$7,21 (;,67,1*%2%$51 72&21&6/$% 522)3($. (;,67,1**5$'( (;,67,1*%$516758&785( 5(029(7+(/2:(52)$// 7+(:$//6'8(72:22'527 '(026(&7,212)$77,&)/225 7235(3)251(:67$,5 522)%($5,1* 833(5/(9(/ (;,67,1*%2%$51 /$1'86(&2'(,1)2)255(0,1*721 /27$5($VIFXUUHQWORWDUHD VIFKDQJHLQORWDUHD VIORWDUHDDIWHUQHZSURSHUW\OLQHV =21(',675,&727&2/'72:1',675,&7+,*+ (;,67,1*5(6,'(1&(VI$%29(*5$'( (;,67,1*$&&(6625<6758&785(VI (;,67,1*727$/)/225$5($VI $//2:$%/()/225$5($217+(5($5+$/)2)7+(/272)VI VI 352326('217+(5($5+$/)2)7+(/27 VI VI(;,67,1*5(6,'(1&( VI(;,67,1*$&&(6625<6758&785( &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR _ZZZ9)/$FRP '5$:,1*180%(5 352-(&7180%(5 6($/ ,1$662&,$7,21:,7+ 6WUHQJWKLQGHVLJQ6WUHQJWKLQSDUWQHUVKLS 6WUHQJWKLQFRPPXQLW\ 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621$5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256,1& 7+,6'5$:,1*0$<127%(3+272*5$3+('6&$11('75$&('25 &23,(',1$1<0$11(5:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)9)/$ &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< &23<5,*+7 6+((7,668$1&(6 '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 5(9,6,216 1R'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621 70 70 127)25&216758&7,21 )255()(5(1&(21/< $5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256 $ 0 $0* ? ? % X I I L Q J W R Q & D U U L D J H + R X V H ? 5 H Y L W ? % X I I L Q J W R Q & D U U LD J H + R X V H U Y W $ $5&+,7(&785$/6,7( 3/$1 %8,/',1* 6(&7,216 %8)),1*721 %$51 *$5$*( 5(0,1*721675((7 )257&2//,1&2 9$5,$1&(5(48(6768%0,77$/ 1257+ $5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1 %8,/',1*6(&7,21 352326(' %8,/',1*6(&7,21 (;,67,1* [[[[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [[[[[[ [[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[ $ $ 1(:3523(57</,1( (;,67,1*)(1&( 1(:[$1' [:,1'2:6,1 (;,67,1*:$// 23(1,1* 1( : 6 7 $ , 5 5 , 6 ( 5 6 # ( $ & + 75(( 7581. 1( : 3 5 23 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( (;,67,1* &21& '5,9( (;,67,1* 6725< 5(6,'(1&( 1(: *$7( 1(: *$5$*( $'',7,21 1(:'28%/( '225,1(;,67,1* :$//23(1,1* 1(::,1'2: ,1(;,67,1* :$//23(1,1* 1(:'87&+'225 ,1(;,67,1*:$// 23(1,1* 1(::,1'2: ,1(;,67,1* :$//23(1,1* 32:'(5 5220 )5,'*(': [ :,1'2: [7$%/( 75(('5,3/,1($%29( 1(: *$7( (;,67,1* 6725< 5(6,'(1&( 5(0,1*721 (;,67,1**$5$*( 5(0,1*721 1(:6/$%21*5$'( 3529,'(287/(7)25 &+$5*,1*(/(&&$5 5((/(& 6+236725$*( 63$&( 1(:6/$%21*5$'( [ *$5$*( '225 83 '2:1 [ '225 79 79 1(:[$1' :,1'2:6,1(;,67,1* :$//23(1,1* [)/22'23(1,1* #7232)6/$% [)/22'23(1,1* #7232)6/$% %8 , / 7 ,1 : 2 5 . % ( 1 & + 726/$%(/(9 (;,67,1**5281'(/(9$7,21 5,6(56 #($&+ '2:1 5,6(56 #($&+ 5,6(56 #($&+ [ *$5$*( '225 '2:1 ,1),// :$// [ +$/)/,7( '225 7 < 3 $ $ '2:1 6+236725$*( 63$&( 1(::,1'2: ,1(;,67,1* :$//23(1,1* 1(::,1'2: ,1(;,67,1* :$//23(1,1* 1(::,1'2: ,1(;,67,1* :$//23(1,1* 23(172 %(/2: 1(:67$,5 5,6(56#($&+ 7<3 5(029( (;,67,1*'225 35(3)251(: :,1'2:6 '(02:$// '(02/($172 6758&785( 5(029($// '2256$1' :,1'2:6$1' 35(3)25 5(3/$&(0(176 5(029( (;,67,1*'225 35(3)251(: :,1'2:6 '(023257,21 2):$// 35(3 )251(:'225 5(029( (;,67,1*'225 ,1),//:$// $77,& '(023257,21 2)$77,& )/22535(3 )251(:67$,5 '(02/($172 6758&785( 35(3)251(: :,1'2: 35(3)251(: :,1'2: &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR _ZZZ9)/$FRP '5$:,1*180%(5 352-(&7180%(5 6($/ ,1$662&,$7,21:,7+ 6WUHQJWKLQGHVLJQ6WUHQJWKLQSDUWQHUVKLS 6WUHQJWKLQFRPPXQLW\ 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621$5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256,1& 7+,6'5$:,1*0$<127%(3+272*5$3+('6&$11('75$&('25 &23,(',1$1<0$11(5:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)9)/$ &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< &23<5,*+7 6+((7,668$1&(6 '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 5(9,6,216 1R'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621 70 70 127)25&216758&7,21 )255()(5(1&(21/< $5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256 $ 0 $0* ? ? % X I I L Q J W R Q & D U U L D J H + R X V H ? 5 H Y L W ? % X I I L Q J W R Q & D U U LD J H + R X V H U Y W $ )/2253/$16 %8)),1*721 %$51 *$5$*( 5(0,1*721675((7 )257&2//,1&2 9$5,$1&(5(48(6768%0,77$/ 0$,1)/2253/$1 352-(&7 1257+ 833(5)/225 522)3/$1 0$,1)/225'(023/$1 833(5)/225'(023/$1 (;,67%2%$51 833(5/(9(/ 522)%($5,1* 72&21&6/$% &2558*$7(' 0(7$/522),1* 5(86(25,*,1$/:,1'2: ,16725$*( &2558*$7('0(7$/ 6,',1*0$7&+ &2558*$7('0(7$/ 522),1* &('$5'523%2$5' 6,',1* 75,0 67$,1 6($/ [)/22'23(1,1* #7232)6/$% (;,67%2%$51 833(5/(9(/ 522)%($5,1* 72&21&6/$% (;,67%2%$51 833(5/(9(/ 522)%($5,1* 5(029((;,67,1* 0(7$/6,',1*$'' 1(:'523%2$5' 6,',1* 75,0 67$,1 6($/ 72&21&6/$% 6721(:$//&$3 1(:6721(9(1((5 1(:&2558*$7(' 0(7$/522),1* &2558*$7('0(7$/ 6,',1*0$7&+ &2558*$7('0(7$/ 522),1* &('$5'523%2$5' 6,',1* 75,0 67$,1 6($/ 1(:75,0$1')$8;3$1(/72 6,0/8/$7(+,6725,&'22567</( (;,67%2%$51 833(5/(9(/ 522)%($5,1* 72&21&6/$% 1(:75,0$1')$8;3$1(/72 6,0/8/$7(+,6725,&'22567</( &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR _ZZZ9)/$FRP '5$:,1*180%(5 352-(&7180%(5 6($/ ,1$662&,$7,21:,7+ 6WUHQJWKLQGHVLJQ6WUHQJWKLQSDUWQHUVKLS 6WUHQJWKLQFRPPXQLW\ 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621$5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256,1& 7+,6'5$:,1*0$<127%(3+272*5$3+('6&$11('75$&('25 &23,(',1$1<0$11(5:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)9)/$ &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< &23<5,*+7 6+((7,668$1&(6 '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 5(9,6,216 1R'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621 70 70 127)25&216758&7,21 )255()(5(1&(21/< $5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256 $ 0 $0* ? ? % X I I L Q J W R Q & D U U L D J H + R X V H ? 5 H Y L W ? % X I I L Q J W R Q & D U U LD J H + R X V H U Y W $ (;7(5,25 (/(9$7,216 ' 9,(:6 %8)),1*721 %$51 *$5$*( 5(0,1*721675((7 )257&2//,1&2 9$5,$1&(5(48(6768%0,77$/ 1257+($67&251(5 1257+:(67&251(5 6287+:(67&251(5 6287+($67&251(5 1257+(/(9$7,21 6287+(/(9$7,21 ($67(/(9$7,21 :(67(/(9$7,21 (;,67,1*%$511257+($67&251(5 (;,67,1*%$511257+:(67&251(5 (;,67,1*%$516287+:(67&251(5 (;,67,1*%$516287+($67&251(5 7/24/2024 www.pen-engineeringllc.com STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION – EXISTING BARN 509 Remington Street, Fort Collins DocuSign Envelope ID: DA586E16-D21B-4337-AB80-9747F556B6C5 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 1 August 11, 2023 Jim Bertolini Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Project Name: 509 Remington barn Project Address: 509 Remington Street, Fort Collins Project Number: 23-04007 Dear Mr. Bertolini: Per your request, Wayne Thompson of PEN Engineering visited the subject site on April 21, 2023. The purpose of the visit was to review the structural integrity of the existing barn and determine whether the existing structure can safely be lifted onto a new foundation. The one-story, shed roof portion of the barn at the north end of the structure is anticipated to be removed and was thus omitted from this assessment. According to the Local Historic Landmark Designation Nomination Form for this property, the house and barn were both constructed in 1904. Structural System The roof is framed with uniformly spaced batten boards (purlins) bearing on 2x wood rafters. A corrugated metal roof is attached to the batten boards. Collar ties and the ceiling provide lateral restraint for the rafters. Refer to Figure 1. The ceiling / second floor of the barn is constructed with wood boards bearing on 2” x 7 ¾” (actual) joists spaced at 18” on center. Refer to Figure 2. The walls are framed with 2x4 (actual) studs spaced at 24” o.c. Nominal 1” horizontal boards are attached to the exterior face of these studs. In most locations, the bottom of these studs extend below finished grade. Refer to Figure 3. In some locations, a framed wood floor has been constructed at ground level. That floor system appears to consist of wood boards resting on 2x wood joists that fully rest on the ground surface. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA586E16-D21B-4337-AB80-9747F556B6C5 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 2 Figure 1: Existing Roof Framing DocuSign Envelope ID: DA586E16-D21B-4337-AB80-9747F556B6C5 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 3 Figure 2: Existing Second Floor Structure DocuSign Envelope ID: DA586E16-D21B-4337-AB80-9747F556B6C5 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 4 Figure 3: Wall Framing DocuSign Envelope ID: DA586E16-D21B-4337-AB80-9747F556B6C5 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 5 Structural Conditions As can be seen in Figure 1, the roof has been reinforced and possibly re-constructed since original construction. Although there is water staining on some of the structural members, no significant deterioration was observed. The second floor joists also exhibit some water staining, but no apparent loss of integrity. However, some joists have been cut or notched over the years and no longer have their original capacity. Joists that are cut and no longer have their original geometry (e.g. notched, discontinued) should be reinforced before lifting the structure. Along all sides of the barn, it appears that the finished grade has been raised since original construction. It is most apparent along the west side where the alley grade is pushed up against the siding and studs. Deterioration of the bottom of the studs can be observed in multiple locations. Figure 4 shows some areas of deterioration and the built-up grade. Feasibility of Lifting Structure This structure is a good candidate for lifting / moving for the following reasons: • The structure is relatively light. • The above-grade structural elements are in good condition. • Wall and roof finishes can flex without exhibiting major signs of distress. Lifting the structure in its current location will be easier than lifting and moving because it would take less effort to stabilize the base of the walls. Moving the structure would require temporary cross bracing between the bottoms of the walls to prevent lateral spread or distortion. Nevertheless, moving the structure vertically and horizontally is feasible if the walls are properly braced. Anticipated Final Condition Once moved, the structure will be supported on a new concrete foundation. That foundation will need to extend a minimum of 6 inches above final grade to allow for improved grading and good drainage, and prevent future deterioration of the wall framing. This can be achieved by cutting the deteriorated portions of the existing walls (estimated as the bottom 8-12 inches), then attaching the studs to a new treated sill plate bearing on a new foundation wall. If a higher ceiling is desired in the final configuration, the foundation walls could be raised to accommodate. Similarly, the alley-side foundation walls can be raised higher than the others to protect the structure from snow build-up and possible minor snowplow impacts. There is no limit on the height that the structure can be raised, so long as the new foundation supporting it is designed accordingly. Refer to Figure 5 for a schematic of the existing and proposed conditions. DocuSign Envelope ID: DA586E16-D21B-4337-AB80-9747F556B6C5 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 6 Figure 4: Base of Framing DocuSign Envelope ID: DA586E16-D21B-4337-AB80-9747F556B6C5 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 7 Figure 5: Schematic Sections DocuSign Envelope ID: DA586E16-D21B-4337-AB80-9747F556B6C5 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 8 Summary There is sufficient structural integrity of the existing barn to allow lifting and possibly moving of the structure, ultimately placing it on a new cast-in-place concrete foundation. Limitations This report is based upon site observations, PEN Engineering’s experience with existing wood structures, and the limited scope of the project. Future use of the structure will need to consider the final use, the capacity of the existing members, and whether interior structural reinforcing may be required. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. With regards, PEN Engineering, LLC Wayne Thompson, PE Principal, Structural Engineer wthompson@pen-engineeringllc.com Figure 6: Alley Side of Barn DocuSign Envelope ID: DA586E16-D21B-4337-AB80-9747F556B6C5 8/11/2023