The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/10/2024 - 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: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 10, 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, October 10, 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 – October 10, 2024 1. APPEAL ZBA240024 Address: 1321 Robertson St Owner/Petitioner: Rick Dailey Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 2.1.4 Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow for a proposed 160 square foot accessory building to encroach 2 feet into the required side setback and 12 feet into the required rear setback. The minimum side and rear setbacks for this property in the R-L zone are 5 feet and 15 feet, respectively. 2. APPEAL ZBA240025 Address: 924 W Magnolia Owner/Petitioner: Eleanor Pearson Living Trust / Eleanor Pearson Trustee Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow for a proposed 160 square foot carport to encroach 4 feet into the required side (street) setback. The minimum side (street) setback for this property in the OT -A zone is 9 feet. 3. APPEAL ZBA240026 Address: 6524 Lynn Dr Owner/Petitioner: Ruth Saaristo-Barber Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.3.1(E)(1)(a), 4.3.1(E)(1)(f) Project Description: There are three requests associated with this application for variance: 1. A request for approval to conduct the operations of a home occupation/business outside of the primary dwelling on the property. 2. A request to allow for more than 1 additional employee/co-worker on the premises (as needed). 3. A request to allow for exterior/outdoor storage on the premises of materials and equipment used for the home occupation. Per Land Use Code, Home Occupation use shall be conducted entirely within the confines of a dwelling unit with not more than one (1) additional employee or co-worker, and there shall be no exterior storage on the premises of material or equipment used as part of the home occupation. • 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: 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 All Commission members were present. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by member Coffman, to approve the August 8, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes. The motion was approved by all members present. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on the middle of the block along W Oak St, west of S Washington Ave. Beals MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 DRAFT Minutes – September 12, 2024 pointed out via aerial photograph that the original house is in line with most of the other houses on the block. The existing addition sticks further into the rear lot and creates a sort of courtyard. The request today is not to exceed allowable square footage for an accessory building, but instead to increase allowable space on the rear half of the lot. The proposed garage would be located in the northeast corner of the lot and would meet the required setbacks. An existing shed would be removed prior to the construction of the proposed garage. The shed has not been confirmed as counting towards floor area or not; if the applicant chose to keep it and it is confirmed to be over-sized, an additional variance request would be needed. The proposed garage is designed to contain a car lift that allows for the stacking of two vehicles in the footprint of a single vehicle bay. Beals presented photographs of the property taken from street view, in which the rear addition is visible. Photos taken from the alley contain the existing shed and the described location of the proposed garage. Chair Shuff summarized to the Commission his understanding that under the new code, this request only necessitates a variance to rear-lot maximum square footage. Beals confirmed. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Zach Hitchcock, owner, 914 W Oak St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Hitchcock stated that they are excited about the project after buying the house a few months ago. The seller indicated that a plan had already been drafted for a garage, and Hitchcock found out it would not be appropriately sized. With in-laws coming to move in and a baby on the way, this will help to alleviate congestion of on-street parking. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated that he sees no problem in granting the variance. A block south of this location has an example of similar garage addition that was constructed in the rear half of the lot. This is not out of line of the character of the neighborhood. Coffman supports the request. Vice-Chair Lawton lauded the plan as creative and a unique way to solve parking congestion along the street. Lawton supports the variance. Commission member San Filippo offered agreement with the previous comments and stated that he would support the variance as presented. Member Carron agrees, noting the design solution of stacking cars with a lift on a limited footprint. Chair Shuff concurs with previous comments, noting that he used to live across the street from this property. As presented, the garage would leave ample open space on-site with the courtyard. Shuff stated he would support the variance request as presented. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Carron, to APPROVE ZBA240021 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 700 square feet by an additional 203 square feet in order to construct a garage in the OT-A Zone District as shown in the materials for this hearing. 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 property still includes back-yard space; the proposed garage is considered one story; and the proposed garage is sized for one car in width. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 DRAFT Minutes – September 12, 2024 This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this variance contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. 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 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. Staff Presentation: *Prior to the staff report, Beals reported that the third variance request that was originally noticed for this project was deemed to be not needed. The application will continue with the two variance requests noted in the Project Description* Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the existing barn building in question is split along an original shared property line; in time, the current owner of the subject property purchased both lots and have been able to adjust the property line. Now, they would like to move the historic barn structure entirely to 509 Remington. This structure and proposal have been reviewed by Historic Preservation and have been given the ok. The proposal is to move the existing historic barn structure to the north and east. The barn encroaches into the public alley by a few feet and will be moved entirely onto the private property. Due to the barn being within the floodplain, it will also need to be raised up as well in order for people to use and be inside the accessory structure. Beals presented a boundary line adjustment, which has been completed to allow for Parcel 1 to fully contain the barn footprint as it currently sits. This did not create a new non-conformity. A new foundation will be poured for the new addition to the garage. The orientation of the barn will be maintained in order to preserve the historic context of the structure. The variance request also exceeds the maximum allowable square footage with the addition to the garage. Code requires separation of accessory and primary buildings by 10-feet; this would be hard to achieve given the size of the lot. Therefore, the barn/garage and proposed addition will be joined as one structure, which is bigger than the allowable square footage for a single accessory building. The existing structure does have a previous shed addition, that was not part of the original historic barn. This would be removed and replaced with the proposed garage addition. Chair Shuff asked to confirm his understanding of the variance request. Regarding setback requirements, was there a justification for why that could not comply with the 8-foot distance? Perhaps the applicant can provide explanation. Beals noted that preserving the historic spatial context was important. Because the garage door is present, it typically requires an 8-foot setback, but the 5-foot placement reduces encroachment into the back yard. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 DRAFT Minutes – September 12, 2024 Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Taylor Meyer, VFLA Architecture + Interiors, 419 Canyon Ave #200, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Meyer noted that his was a very special project with many layers of and many people involved. Meyer explained that the owners approached VFLA years ago with an idea of improving conditions on the lot and of the barn, which was becoming more and more dilapidated over the years. Initially, the property owner explored turning the building into a carriage house and garage. Pursuing that first step, conceptual review process brought up concerns about the feasibility of the project as it would trigger a change of use. Instead, a decision was made to turn the structure into an outdoor/backyard entertainment space, in addition to creating a garage. The property is a historic landmark, and the barn is a contributing factor. The applicants have reached out to Historic Preservation, and due diligence has been performed to preserve that status. Floodplain status also means the floor needs to be raised to 12 inches above flood plain, meaning an overall increase of about 6 inches from current. After revising plans and realizing the barn needed to be lifted, a structural engineer was engaged, and the lifting of the structure was deemed feasible. Building cannot be listed and moved and still leave space for the garage. The current proposal is a compilation of compromise, with many moving parts. The biggest area of improvement is that the barn is overlapping west property line by 6 inches; that will be alleviated by moving the garage 5-feet from the property line. Moving the barn to the north is already consuming some of the existing yard area. At present, the project has been through conceptual review, boundary line adjustment, floodplain review, structural engineering, and historic review. This is last piece. Commission member San Filippo asked about the impact on large evergreen tree on the lot. The barn will be moved farther away from that tree. Arborists were consulted to determine if it would be better to leave the barn where it is or leave close to tree. Arborists determined it was a wash either way. San Philipo asked if trimming would need to occur to allow for the increased height? Tree would be minimally trimmed. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Meyer how much of original structure would be maintained? Are existing materials being used? Meyer explained that the bottom 12 inches of frame walls would be cut off and removed due to wood rot. The entire barn will be refinished inside and out, which is allowed by historic preservation. Original design intent and architectural style of the barn will be maintained. Lawton asked if the intent is to gain vehicular access to the garage from the alley? Meyer responded that alley access will be utilized for garage. That section of alley is deemed to be renovated next spring; that timeline creates a sense of increased urgency to complete portions of the project prior to planned alley improvements. Public Comment: Audience member Sylvia Mucklow, owner, 516 S College Ave, noted a number of concerns. -The adjacent alley is used for commercial deliveries and will have increased public use. -Seems barn is being turned into a “venue” and may increase foot traffic. -Height is a concern, as is the space from the alley. -When the garage is opened up for access from the alley, traffic will be blocked. -Barn may have historic status, but could also encroach more into yard space. -Big City Burrito takes frequent delivery from the alley, directly across from barn location. -Will sight lines be impacted coming off of Mulberry as one enters the alley? -Concerns over increased unauthorized entry into her parking lot. Chair Shuff clarified that there is not a proposed door from the barn leading directly to the alley. Shuff acknowledged the alley is busy, in part due to Big City Burrito and other businesses. Land Use Review Commission Page 5 DRAFT Minutes – September 12, 2024 Commission member Coffman noted that this lot does not allow for commercial use, thus the building cannot be used as a public venue or small-scale reception center per code. However, it is being used to be occupied by people. Commission member Carron believes visibly concerns will be alleviated by moving the barn further away from the alley. By maintaining the existing driveway, vision out to the alley will be maintained. Coffman noted that he understands that the 8-foot garage setback allows for vehicular parking in front of garage. Beals confirms, noting that it allows for safe backing out of a garage as well. Shuff notes that 5 feet is pretty small area to make a turn into a garage; may need to approach from far side of the alley and perform multi-point turn. Coffman, referring to first variance, this this a benefit to the City and alleviates many long-term non- conforming issues. Continuous building is ok, the five-foot distance maintains face of existing barn. Lawton asked Beals for any more information about the alley improvements. Beals stated that he cannot speak for the Engineering Dept, but most of the time alley improvements consist of new asphalt and ensuring that grade directs stormwater off the surface appropriately. Garage will be kept at the grade of the alley, rather than building a ramp up to the raised grade of the barn. San Filippo noted the alley is signed as “No Parking” on either side. Would that change with the 5-foot space proposed? Beals clarified that the space created may be used for approaching cars to pass but is not intended for parking. San Filippo asked if the boundary line adjustment meant that if sold, the barn would be entirely on 509 Remington? Beals noted the boundary line adjustment would recognize the new boundary of adjustment. Sylvia M noted she met with City officials regarding alley improvements. The alley will be brick paved similar to others, with hanging flower baskets and trash receptacles. Utility wires will also be buried. Commission Discussion: Chair Shuff commented that he is struggling a bit with the request. He has no issues with the size of the structure; however, he does have some questions about the balance of setting the garage back and maintaining the historic placement. From an architectural perspective, Shuff can understand the argument to push the structure back. If not for historic considerations, he would not support the 5-foot setback and would ask for the required 8-foot setback. This alley is tight and busy, and a 5-foot setback from garage would be difficult and could lead to traffic backups and increased risk of vehicular accidents. Member Carron noted that Shuff’s comments make sense. Ideally, a new structure would comply with current standards and codes. Carron stated that he was starting to lean towards an 8-foot setback to ensure safety and conformity with code. This would also help to separate new and historic pieces of architecture. Member Vogel referenced the email received in support of the proposal, in which the owner stated they had also constructed a garage and were required to maintain an 8-foot setback. Vogel felt this email offered support for approval of the request. Member McCoy stated he has no problem with the proposed 5-foot setback, which may keep cars from parallel parking on the lot. Saving the barn is admirable. If the 8-foot space is maintained, McCoy feels there is a good chance that vehicles will use it for unauthorized parking from time to time. Vogel frequents this alley, and currently this building does stick out. With the combination of utility poles, navigating this alley can be a challenge. Vogel stated she has no problem with the proposed 5- foot setback, and feels that it will improve overall conditions. Vice-Chair Lawton commented that he likes the continuity of the face of the barn and garage both at the 5-foot setback. Alley improvements will get rid of many of the elements that make current navigation difficult and/or less safe. The project does present a combination of plusses and minuses, Land Use Review Commission Page 6 DRAFT Minutes – September 12, 2024 but overall improvement created with the proposal. Lawton stated he is in favor of approving the request. Member San Filippo stated his support of the application as presented. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA240023 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 3.1.8 to allow the allowable floor area for an accessory building to exceed the maximum of 600 square feet by an additional 298 square feet; and the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow an encroachment of 3 feet into the minimum garage door setback requirement of 8 feet, in order to relocate a historic barn and construct an attached garage in the OT-C Zone District, 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 Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 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 fact that the reduced setback lessens impacts to the barn’s historic character. Furthermore, due to extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, the strict application of Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 would result in undue hardship upon the applicant not caused by an act or omission of the applicant in consideration of the following facts: the historic barn limits the placement of new accessory structures; and the relocation of the barn and raising of the elevation are required. 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. • OTHER BUSINESS -There was one attempt at decision appeal last month (regarding ZBA240016), but the application was not sufficient as submitted and did not move forward. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:41 am Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 10, 2024 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA240024 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1321 Robertson St Owner/Petitioner: Rick Dailey Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 2.1.4 Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to allow for a proposed 160 square foot accessory building to encroach 2 feet into the required side setback and 12 feet into the required rear setback. The minimum side and rear setbacks for this property in the R-L zone are 5 feet and 15 feet, respectively. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is part of the 1957 College Second Annexation. It was later subdivided as part of the 1959 University Acres Third subdivision. This subdivision included 58 single unit residential lots within three new city blocks. All the lots included a 6-foot utility easement along the rear property line. The primary building was constructed in 1960 similar to most buildings in the subdivision. The R-L zone district requires a minimum rear-yard and side-yard setback. In general setbacks are for both safety concerns and to establish/maintain a neighborhood character. The subdivision plat included setbacks that are bigger than those required by the zone district. The plat note included a rear setback of 30’ and a side setback of 7.5’. Through a recorded agreement of the majority of property owners within the subdivision they removed the City the plat note. However, the setbacks within the RL zone district still apply. Structures that are under 120 square feet and are less than 8 feet in height require a building permit. The proposed structure is 160 square feet and 12+ feet in height. This puts the structure 6 feet taller than the maximum fence height along the rear and side property line. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval of only a rear-yard setback encroachment of 9 feet and finds that: • The variance of 9 feet is not detrimental to the public good • The proposed structure is 160 square feet • The setback aligns with the 6-foot utility easement • 6 feet provides a minimum safe distance from the rear-property line Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of only a 9-foot encroachment into the rear setback of APPEAL ZBA240024. and reviewed b the Buildin De artment se aratel . 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 Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s)Representative’s Address Justification(s)Additional Justification Representative’s Phone # Justification(s)Additional Justification Representative’s Email Reasoning WRITTEN STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST REQUIRED VIA SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Date Signature Building Code requirements w e e erm ne 5REHUWVRQ6WUHHW 5LFN'DLOH\ 5/ Wri$en Statement – # B2406221, 1321 Robertson St. Zoning Land Use Review Commission City Hall Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Land Use Review Commission, My wife, Lynn Badia, and I are applying for a variance to encroach into the setback of our property to build a shed (see documents Plans and Site Plans). Our permit applicaQon is B2406221, and we live at 1321 Robertson St., Fort Collins, 80524, in the University Acres 3rd Subdivision. The University Acres 3rd Subdivision signed a peQQon to amend an old covenant with a 30 U. setback on 6/18/2024 (see aWached Covenant Amendment). AUer our permit was denied, we learned there was sQll a setback standard of 15 U. from the rear and 5 U. from the side. This setback standard will sQll prevent us from moving forward with our landscape design plans (see document Landscape Plan and Project Drawings), and we hope a variance can be issued. Below, you will ﬁnd a more thorough explanaQon of why we believe our request would not be detrimental to the public good and why the variance should be granted. We want to install a Tuﬀ Shed on an exisQng concrete slab that is located 3 feet from the West and North-facing property lines. We believe our request only diverges from the Land Use Code standards in a nominal, inconsequenQal way due to similar shed setback placements in the context of our neighborhood, and our adjacent neighbors have given verbal approval for our proposed shed locaQon. 6 out of 9 houses on the same side of our street between E Lake and E Pitkin have similar shed setback placements as our request (see document Neighbor ’s Shed LocaQon–Google Maps). Furthermore, some of our neighbors’ shed structures are larger and closer to the property line than the shed we have proposed on our lot. This evidence alone makes us believe our shed site request aligns with our current neighborhood norms. Unfortunately, in the Spring of 2023, we poured the concrete pad in the proposed locaQon due to my misinterpretaQon of the county’s Detached Structures Guidelines and an 811 no-conﬂict declaraQon. We had iniQally been working from the Larimer County Building Division’s Detached Structures guide that was last updated on 01/25/2022 (see document Detached Structures Guide), which states that no permit was required for a one-story structure under 200 sq. U., roof under 12 U., and should be 3 feet from the property line. Our structure would only be 160 sq. U. with a roof that was iniQally under 12 U., so we didn’t think we needed a permit. It was only aUer working with Tuﬀ Shed that we were made aware that we needed a permit and were required to follow the City of Fort Collins’ shed guidelines. The City of Fort Collins’ Shed Guide revised 10/25/22 (see document Shed Guide) states that a permit is needed if the structure exceeds 120 sq. U., the roof is taller than 8 U., and is closer than 3 U. to the property line. With that informaQon, I believed we only needed a permit because the proposed structure exceeded 120 sq. U., and the roof was taller than 8 U. AUer applying for the permit, I learned that the structure setback should be 15 U. from the rear of the property and 5 U. from the side. Brandon Haynes informed me in an email on August 13, 2024, that: “Concrete foundaQons and other ﬂatwork projects can go up to the property lines, but any structures that require a building permit cannot be built within easements and setbacks.” With this standard, I think that our shed project might sQll be viable because the Tuﬀ Shed we ordered is built on steel joists, and the enQre shed is movable if future easement access is required (please see an example of a Tuﬀ Shed being moved in the document Tuﬀ Shed Moving Example). AddiQonally, we believe our proposed locaQon is in keeping with the exisQng sheds and norms of the neighborhood. With our proposed shed structure and site locaQon being similar to our neighbors, our adjacent neighbors verbally indicaQng they would approve our shed site, and the movability of Tuﬀ Sheds, we think our proposed structure and site locaQon would not be detrimental to the public good, and a variance should be granted. Thank you, Rick Dailey Lynn Badia 1321 Robertson St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 425-765-0532 rickdailey@gmail.com N PR O J E C T : Ba c k y a r d T u f f S h e d SI T E P L A N S Ri c k D a i l e y & L y n n B a d i a 13 2 1 R o b e r t s o n S t r e e t Fo r t C o l l i n s , C O 8 0 5 2 4 HOUSE 124’ PROPERTY LINE 77 ’ P R O P E R T Y L I N E 77 ’ P R O P E R T Y L I N E 124’ PROPERTY LINE SHED3’ 3’ 3URSRVHGVLWHRIVKHG7KHWUHHKDVEHHQUHPRYHG7KHSURSRVHGVKHGORFDWLRQLVORFDWHGIHHWIURP:HVWIDFLQJZRRG IHQFHDQGIHHWIURP1RUWKIDFLQJFKDLQOLQNIHQFHZDVFDOOHGDQGWKHUHZDVQRFRQIOLFWIRUDFRQFUHWHVODESRXU 3URSRVHG6KHG6LWH 1RUWK Ź 1HLJKERU V6KHGV Neighbor’s shed locations Proposed shed site and location of concrete pad Neighbor’s shed locations - Google Maps – # B2406221, 1321 Robertson St. Fort Collins. Google Maps, 9 September 2024. Building Services 281 North College Avenue, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.416.2740 www.fcgov.com/building *Denotes code updates per the 2021 IRC Revisions 10.25.2022 1 Shed Guide Engineered and stamped structural plans or letter are required to be submitted for any of the following conditions: 1. Ridge Beam Design (required for roof slopes less than 3:12) 2. Gusset plates (instead of ridge boards) 3. Barn/Gambrel shaped roofs 4. Wall height greater than 10ft 5. Prefabricated structures 6. Kits that do not meet prescriptive framing per this handout and the current International Residential Code 7. Foundations for lean‐to shed additions that are attached to another building (submit as an Addition Permit) 8. Materials not addressed in code 9. Designs outside of those presented in code Submittal Checklist (all documents must be in PDF format) Permit Application (Name PDF: Apps – Address – v1): include square footage of the shed and note other work is included (electrical/plumbing). o Homeowner Affidavit (for homeowner builders) Site Plan (Name PDF: Site Plan – Address – v1): Plans (Name PDF: Plans – Address – v1): o Floor Plan o Section/side view o Roof framing plan o At least 1 before photo showing where x will be located. Plan check fee is due at submittal o See step #6 here Required Inspections 1. Setbacks & Footings 2. Underground plumbing/electric (if provided) 3. Pre‐siding/sheer inspection (schedule as rough‐frame) ‐prior to installing building wrap 4. Rough electric/rough plumbing (if provided) 5. Rough Frame 6. Insulation (only if shed is heated) 7. Final Inspections Inspectors need to see all connections. Multiple rough frame inspections will need to be scheduled if using concealed connectors. ….. https://www.fcgov.com/building/inspections.php Any shed taller than 8 feet (measured from grade to the exterior roof peak) requires a permit. Any shed exceeding 120 square feet of floor area requires a permit. Any shed closer than 3ft to an adjoining lot line requires a permit. Any shed containing more than 10 gal of flammable liquid requires a permit. Building Services 281 North College Avenue, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.416.2740 www.fcgov.com/building *Denotes code updates per the 2021 IRC Revisions 10.25.2022 2 Shed Guide No Fire Blocking is required when wall is framed flush to the foundation Site Plan Provide the following drawings. All plans must be to scale. (example .: ¼ inch per foot). Can be hand‐drawn, but PDF format Site Plan Requirements: Show location of the new shed in relation to the house Provide measurements from shed to property lines and other structures Show overall length and width of the shed Newer homes may have an existing site plan available through public records, which can be used to create the NEW site plan. http://citydocs.fcgov.com/ Floor Plan Floor Framing Plan Sheds can be installed on a concrete slab or Skids. See next page for concrete detail Building Services 281 North College Avenue, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.416.2740 www.fcgov.com/building *Denotes code updates per the 2021 IRC Revisions 10.25.2022 3 Shed Guide ROOF RAFTER CHART * Maximum Roof Rafter Spans for Hem Fir #2 (feet and inches) R802.4.1(1) Interpolated for a 35psf ground snow load. NO CEILING ATTACHED Rafer Size Center to center member spacing (in inches) 12” 16” 24” 2x4 8’‐6” 7’‐8” 6’‐3” 2x6 12’‐11” 11’‐2” 9’‐2” 2x8 16’‐4” 14’‐3” 11’‐7” 2x10 20’‐0” 17’‐4” 14’‐2” 2x12 23’‐3” 20’‐1” 16’‐5” FLOOR JOIST CHART * Maximum Floor Joist Spans for Hem Fir #2 (feet and inches) R502.3.1(2) Joist Size Center to center member spacing (in inches) 12” 16” 24” 2x6 10’‐0” 9’‐1” 7’‐11” 2x8 13’‐2” 12’‐0” 10’‐2 2x10 16’‐10” 15’‐2” 12’‐5” 2x12 20’‐4” 17’‐7” 14’‐4” Code Access https://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.php Span Charts Section & Roof Framing Provide the following drawings 1. Ridge Board: Same depth or greater than cut rafter end. 2. Rafter (see span chart) 3a. 1x4min Collar ties every 4ft on center or 3b. 1 ¼” x 20 gage min. ridge strap (3) 10d common nails per rafter 4a. Ceiling joists fastened to the top plate or 4b. Rafter ties, min. 2x4 at max. 24” o.c. 5. 7/16 OSB Roof decking, 15# felt underlayment 6. Class 4 impact resistant shingles and Class A Fire resistant roofing material. Collar tie 3b 4 Last Updated 01/25/2022 Building Division 200 W. Oak Street Suite 3100 P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO (970) 498-7700 Detached Structures What is a “Detached Structure”? Residential or agricultural sheds, playground equipment, pump enclosures and gazebos (may be portable or permanent). These structures must be built to current building code standards. A Building Permit is Required When Any of the Following Apply … • The structure is used for any commercial purpose or residential dwelling/cabin. • The structure exceeds 200 sq. ft. in floor area or is greater than one story in height. * • There is an attached porch, which causes the footprint to exceed 200 square feet. • Utilities are added (electric, water, gas, heat). • An overhang or soffit exceeds 24 inches. • The eave height exceeds 10 feet. • The average roof height exceeds 12 feet. Foundations are required for structures that are two stories or more. *When a detached structure has an upper level with at least 70 square feet of floor area and a ceiling height of 7 feet, it will be considered a second story. If the upper level has sloped ceilings, at least 50% of the 70 square foot area must have a ceiling height of 7 feet, and no portion of the remaining 70 square feet can have a ceiling height less than 5 feet. This will be considered a second story. If the upper level does not meet the definition of a second story, it will be considered an attic. See page 2 for utility building permit submittal checklist No Building Permit is Required When All of the Following Apply . . . • The structure is a one-story, detached accessory structure used as a tool or storage shed, playhouse or similar use. • The floor area does not exceed 200 sq. ft. • There are no utilities added. • No overhang (roof or floor) exceeds 24 inches. • The maximum eave height is 10 feet. • The maximum average roof height is 12’. Fire Protection A detached structure within 6’ of a residential building, or within 3’ of a property line, including overhangs, requires fire-rated construction. Setbacks All detached structures, even those exempt from building permit requirements, must meet the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code as they relate to setbacks, flood plains, lot coverage and use. Examples: Structures should not be placed on or too close to any property line, road, stream or river setback, in the floodplain, in an easement or any other location that might be hazardous or create a life/safety concern. Please contact the Larimer County Planning Division at (970) 498-7683 to determine allowed uses, setback distances, or any other concerns with different zoning districts. Contact the Larimer County Building Division for any other structures not mentioned or related questions: 970-498-7700 Last Updated 01/25/2022 The following items are required, along with a completed permit application and fees, to init iate a permit for a utility structure. The applicant must be the homeowner or a County -licensed contractor. Plans will not be accepted that have been marked with a red marker or red pen (Plans Examiners use red ink to mark corrections on the plans). Wh en in doubt, please call the Building Staff on Call at (970) 498-7660. For properties located in or around a floodplain, see separate checklist for additional submittal items required by the Larim er County Engineering Department pursuant to the County’s Land Use Code. ____ THREE COPIES of a site plan drawn to scale (Scale 1″= 10’ or Scale 1″ = 100). Show entire property, location of all existing and proposed structures, natural water features, distance to property lines, easements, setbacks, direction north, roadways, streets and access, owner’s name, parcel number, address. TWO COPIES of the following stapled together and drawn to scale (1/8”, 3/16” or ¼” per foot) on maximum 24” x 36” paper: ____ Foundation Plan Engineered plans are usually required along the Front Range, and on steeply slop ed lots in the foothills and mountains. Engineered plans must be wet-stamped and signed by a Colorado Registered Structural Engineer. All plans must show footing size and location, pad sizes and location, foundation wall details and beam sizes. ____ Floor Framing Plan Show size, spacing, species and grade of lumber to be used for floor joists. All beam and header sizes are to be noted on the plans. (For a simple one-floor house, these may be noted on the floor plan). ____ Roof Framing Plan Show size, spacing, species and grade of lumber to be used for the rafters. If using engineered trusses, truss layout plans from the truss manufacturer are required. These plans must show beam and header sizes. A full set of stamped, engineered truss plans must be on site for the framing inspection. ____ Floor Plans of all levels. Label use of each room and show window sizes, door swings and sizes, plumbing fixture placement, stairways, etc. ____ Wall Bracing Plan Identify the bracing method used, location/spacing of braced wall lines, location and length of braced wall panels on each braced wall line, wall and floor diaphragm connections details, continuous load path from top of wall to foundation, and return panels or hold-downs at ends of braced wall lines. PLANS LACKING PROPER WALL BRACING INFORMATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. ____ Elevations of all sides. Show roof pitch, roofing material, window and door placements, siding, any steps to grade. ____ Frame Section Identify cross-section submitted with plan. (Foundation section is not adequate.) Must show section from bottom of footing to top of roofline. Identify framing and insulation details. ____ Detail Sections of critical construction or special structural items like decks, porches, retaining walls over four feet, etc. Shed Moving Example – # B2406221, 1321 Robertson St. "Moving A Shed Across The Yard To Make Room For A Garage." YouTube, uploaded by Marc The Shed Mover, 23 Jan. 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfoGTsdFMEg. Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 10, 2024 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA240025 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 924 W Magnolia Owner/Petitioner: Eleanor Pearson Living Trust / Eleanor Pearson, Trustee Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Variance Request: This is a request for a variance to allow for a proposed 160 square foot carport to encroach 4 feet into the required side (street) setback. The minimum side (street) setback for this property in the OT-A zone is 9 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City and platted in 1924 part of the Kenwood Heights subdivision. The plat included 78 single unit lots on 6 new city blocks. The property is on a corner and is smaller in width then the other lots facing magnolia street by 7 feet. The minimum street side setback in the OT-A zone district is 9 feet from the property line. Along the side street setback there is not public sidewalk. There is 8+ feet to the curb from the property line. The existing fence is 6 feet at the property line. The proposed setback of the carport will be 6 feet from the property line. This is 6 feet further back then the fence. The carport is open on three sides. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good • The setback to the curb to the carport is 14 feet • The carport is open on three sides • There is an existing 6-foot-tall fence that is located 8 feet from the curb 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 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA240025. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 10, 2024 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA240026 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 6524 Lynn Dr Owner/Petitioner: Ruth Saaristo-Barber Zoning District: U-E Code Section: 4.3.1(E)(1)(a), 4.3.1(E)(1)(f) Variance Request: There are three requests associated with this application for variance: 1. A request for approval to conduct the operations of a home occupation business outside of the primary dwelling on the property. 2. A request to allow for more than 1 additional employee/co-worker on the premises (as-needed). 3. A request to allow for exterior/outdoor storage on the premises of materials and equipment used for the home occupation. Per Land Use Code, Home Occupation use shall be conducted entirely within the confines of a dwelling unit with not more than one (1) additional employee or co-worker, and there shall be no exterior storage on the premises of material or equipment used as part of the home occupation. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City as part of the Southwest Enclave annexation phase three in 2006. It was platted prior to annexing into the City known as Lynn Acres subdivision. Upon annexation it was zoned Urban Estate. The Urban Estate district is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low-density and large-lot housing. The main purposes of this District are to acknowledge the presence of the many existing subdivisions which have developed in these uses that function as parts of the community and to provide additional locations for similar development, typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development and rural or open lands. It includes mostly residential uses but also some non-residential uses such as but not limited to: • Farm Animals • Neighborhood parks • Cemeteries • Places of worship • Child care and Adult day care centers • Bed and breakfast • Plant nurseries • Solar energy systems • Small scale reception centers All other uses not listed in the zone district are prohibited. Home Occupations are permitted in residential zone districts. The standards for home occupations are designed to keep the occupation subordinate to the primary use and have minimum impacts to the surrounding neighbors. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 2 The proposed request exists on the property without proper approvals from the City. The property is 2 acres in size and the area outline for the use of the home occupation is approximately .5 acre. The request includes an ask for more than one outside employee to work from the site. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The variance is larger than a home occupation. • The size of the area being used is approximately half the minimum lot size in the UE zone district • The proposed use would include more than one employee that doesn’t live on site. • The majority of the proposed home occupations is operating outside of the home. . 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA240026.