Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/14/2024 - 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 NOVEMBER 14, 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, November 14, 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 – November 14, 2024 1. APPEAL ZBA240022 POSTPONED Address: 339 Wood St Owner/Petitioner: Kirt Trujillo Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: There are three requests associated with this variance application: 1) An after the fact request to allow for an existing carport to encroach 1 foot in the 15-foot required rear setback. 2) An after the fact request to allow for an existing shed addition to encroach 5 feet into the 5-foot required side setback. 3) A request to exceed the maximum allowable floor arear for the rear half of the lot. There is a total of 949 square feet of floor arear currently build on the rear half of the property. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of the lot is 702 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable rear half floor area by 247 square feet. 2. APPEAL ZBA240027 Address: 111 S Roosevelt St Owner/Petitioner: Jonathan Day Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: There are two requests associated with this variance application: 1) A request for an existing accessory building to encroach 6.33 feet into the required rear setback. 2) A request for an existing accessory building to encroach 3.08 feet into the required side setback. 3. APPEAL ZBA240028 Address: 516 N Grant Ave Owner/Petitioner: Christine Hudson Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request to install a new curb with access off N Grant Ave. This property has alley access, and in the OT-B Zone District, new access must be taken from the alley, and not the street. 4. APPEAL ZBA240029 Address: 4424 Denrose Ct Owner/Petitioner: Archland Property I LLC Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 5.16.4(A)(2) Project Description: The variance will extend the seven-year period in which a nonconforming sign on a property that has been annexed into the City limits has to comply with the City's regulations by another three years. Specifically, the McDonalds' freestanding sign was required to be brought into compliance by Dec. 20th, 2012 (seven years from the date of annexation). Three variances have been granted to extend the seven years to an additional 12 years, currently having a compliance date of December 20, 2024. This request will extend the compliance date for at least an additional three years to December 20, 2027. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Ian Shuff, Chair Dave Lawton, Vice Chair David Carron Nathaniel Coffman John McCoy Philip San Filippo Katie Vogel Council Liaison: Julie Pignataro Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2024 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of Vogel and San Filippo. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by Commission member Coffman, to approve the September 12, 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 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located mid-block on Robertson, north of Lake St and east of Pitkin St. The request is to place a shed at the rear of the property, 3 feet from both the side and rear property lines. MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 DRAFT Minutes – October 10, 2024 There is a property easement of 6 feet at the rear of the property. The applicant is reporting that there are currently no utilities present in the easement. Beals presented a site plan and aerial view of the property, noting the site of the proposed shed. Elevations describe the shed as being large enough to necessitate a building permit. A sliding glass door on the front of the shed would be facing the home. Plans call for landscaping and yard elements that are yet to be installed. The pergola/fence item shown on the renderings may also need a variance and/or permit but is not included in the purview of today’s meeting. Beals presented photographs of the property taken from the street and alley, noting that the applicants have started to pour a concrete pad intended for the proposed shed, but have paused in order to request a variance. A shed in neighbors’ yard that is visible in submitted photographs appears to be unpermitted and will be investigated/inspected. Chair Shuff confirms the request as being based on setback variance. Beals noted this group cannot grant a vacation of easements. So, until that easement is vacated, one option available is that this Commission could grant a conditional approval. Vice-Chair Lawton asked about the neighbors’ shed and easement – Beals responded that it appears that the height alone would require a permit and may require the vacation of the easement. Lawton asked if this would set precedent for neighborhood? Beals responded that variances are granted on an individual basis for each separate property. Shuff confirms staff recommendation to maintain 5-foot side setback and grant a 9-foot encroachment into the rear setback in order to maintain 6-foot easement. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Rick Dailey, owner, 914 W Oak St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Dailey noted that he purchased the home three years ago and have been developing a landscaping plan. Dailey stated that he thought his plans complied until recently. Dailey noted that he is working with TuffShed as his shed vendor. The proposed shed would be built on steel joists, and thus could potentially be moved off of pad for easement access. Daily provided an aerial overview of the neighborhood to provide context. He stated that he learned after the concrete pad was poured that different requirements are in place, and he had originally misinterpreted the requirements. Daily also stated that he was unaware that this application and materials submitted might get some increased attention on neighbors’ sheds. Public Comment: -NONE- -Shuff acknowledged a Letter of Support was received via email. Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron agrees with staff recommendation for a 9-foot rear encroachment to maintain the 6-foot utility easement. Carron noted his thoughts are more conflicted regarding the side setback. Chair Shuff asked Beals how much over maximum area is the proposed shed? If it were smaller, it could theoretically be placed anywhere. Beals explained that the maximum height and floor area, without a building permit, is 8 feet and 120 square feet respectively. Carron notes that County requirements allow for a larger un-permitted shed. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 DRAFT Minutes – October 10, 2024 Commission member Coffman wondered if it is best to punt this item back to City to allow the shed in the easement or not. If the encroachment of the easement is not an issue, then Coffman doesn’t see a problem with the 3-foot setback. Coffman stated that he would be in favor of conditional approval of the rear encroachment. Shuff noted that some work has been done with the construction of a concrete slab. Shuff is not sure if encroachment or vacation of the easement would be granted. Pulling a building permit may trigger increased structural fire ratings required for the shed. However, there is an expectation of a 15-foot setback per code. Coffman notes that the aerial view shows many sheds near or at the rear property line. Vice-Chair Lawton suggested that if there were a problem with the easement, some sheds appear to be more movable than others. In this instance the pad has already been poured and would need to be removed for easement access. Easement considerations could impact this decision and others. Lawton stated that he would feel more comfortable if this shed is completely off of the easement. Lawton asked Beals if there is a safety issue with the proximity of the neighboring shed? Beals responded yes, with the unpermitted buildings, there is a concern that fire rating has not been met and could increase the possibility of fire jumping from structure to structure. Beals confirmed that a building permit request has been submitted for this proposed shed. Commission member McCoy stated that he is ok with the request. McCoy questioned what might happen in the scenario that this Commission grants approval, and the City denies encroachment easement? Beals explained that if the 3-foot setback is approved and easement is not vacated, then the city would honor building up to the line of the easement. Shuff notes he is a bit split. On one hand, if the easement hasn’t been used the chances are it will not be used. The issue then goes to the concept of whether a rear setback should be maintained. Lawton noted that he is also considering what the hardship is to adjust the additional 3 feet? As it is now, this could create a precedent of impeding easement access. Commission member Carron agreed with Lawton, noting there is a lot of space on this lot that would allow for a minimum of 5 feet of space on either side. Coffman noted that most sheds in the area appear to be smaller than the 120 square foot/8-foot height. Because it falls on the easement, it is hard to align potential approval with ant of the three standard justifications. Coffman stated that he was leaning towards partial approval as detailed in the staff recommendations. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE IN PART ZBA240024 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.4 to allow an encroachment of 9 feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 15 feet, in order to construct the proposed accessory building in the R-L 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 2.1.4 except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: the proposed structure is 160 square feet; and the rear setback aligns with the 6-foot utility easement; and 6 feet provides a minimum safe distance from the rear-property line. 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. Land Use Review Commission Page 4 DRAFT Minutes – October 10, 2024 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on the corner of W Magnolia and Gordon St. The request is to construct a carport; to note, the setback requirement changed during the recent Land Use Code update from a 15-foot to a 9-foot setback requirement. Applicant has a stated desire to create a carport in order to provide covered parking, as the existing single-car garage is proving to be too small for modern vehicles. To note, there is no public sidewalk on this side of the street, and there is a 6-foot fence that that runs along the street side of the property. The proposed carport would be behind the plane of the fence. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Eleanor Pearson, owner, 924 W Magnolia St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Pearson noted she is a single, senior person living alone. Her garage is too small for modern cars, and the proposed carport would provide coverage to the space the is currently parking in front of the garage. The four-foot setback would allow for construction of a carport big enough to cover her car and provide increased safety and improved conditions for storage and vehicle access. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated that he sees no problem with the application. Coffman also noted that there is no public right of way or sidewalk along the property, and the proposed carport would be set behind a fence. Commission member Carron agrees, noting the safety issues that will be mitigated by the addition of a carport and cover. Carron believes this application meets the justification criteria of being nominal and inconsequential. Vice-Chair Lawton agrees with previous statements offered by Commission members. Lawton also expressed an opinion that expansion of the existing garage is not feasible, so this is a good solution. Chair Shuff agrees and is in support of the request, also noting that this meets the justification criteria as nominal and inconsequential. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by Coffman 2.1.6, to APPROVE ZBA240025 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow an encroachment of 4 feet into the minimum side setback requirement of 9 feet, in order to allow for a proposed carport 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 setback from the curb to the carport is 14 feet; Land Use Review Commission Page 5 DRAFT Minutes – October 10, 2024 the carport is open on all three sides; and there is an existing 6-foot-tall fence located 8 feet from the curb. 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. 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located within Lynn Acres subdivision, on the corner of Lynn Dr and Vivian St. Vivian St is unimproved while Lynn Dr is asphalted. The applicants are requesting operation of a landscaping company from the property. The operation appears to take up the back half of the property, wherein trucks and equipment are being stored and parked. There is a house located on the other half of the lot. Beals noted that home occupation is intended for businesses to be operated entirely within the primary building of the property. In this case, the business is being run out of the back-half of the property (not out of an accessory building). This request also asks that outside employees be allowed to work on the property. Additionally, there should be no outside evidence of home occupation other than a small 4x4-foot sign. The request today is to allow for outside storage, allow for additional employee, and operate entirely outside of the home. Home occupation license allows for 50% of a primary residence to be used for the business. In this case, more than 100% of the equivalent area of the home is being used to conduct business operations on the property. The home on the property is surrounded by a solid fence, with separate driveways for the house and business access. The rear of the property where business operations are located is surrounded by a split-rail fence. Beals presented photographs of the property, noting the equipment and vehicles being stored. Chair Shuff confirmed with Beals that this property was originally platted in the County and was then annexed into the City within the U-E Zone District. Beals confirmed this history. Beals also noted that this type of business is not normally permitted within the U-E Zone District. Shuff asked Beals to display the zone map of the City, to get a sense of context for where the zone districts abut and transition. The subject property does not abut a different zone district. Surrounding properties are primarily single-family residences. Land Use Review Commission Page 6 DRAFT Minutes – October 10, 2024 Lawton asked if this property is being used as a business today. Beals responded that the property is currently being used as a business, and that this application was generated based on complaint. If a desired business is not included in the list of approved use, there is process in place to establish a new use within a zone district. This process has not been engaged by the applicant. Commission member Carron questioned whether this situation may have been created in part by the past transition of the property from County to City. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Ruth Saaristo-Barber, owner, 6524 Lynn Dr, addressed the Commission and offered comment. She noted that she has been in the area since 1997, and this type of use has been going on in other similar properties in the area for a while now. Some lots have vehicle storage, livestock, and business operations in place. Saaristo-Barber supplied additional materials for consideration, including neighbor signature and photos. Saaristo-Barber explained that some vehicles used by the business require CDL license, requiring additional employees. Vehicles are generally only running in the lot for 5-10 minutes at a time as the enter/exit the lot. Additionally, the applicant explained that there is no HOA in the area, and she is willing to add more methods of screening and privacy. The lot has been in use in this manner since 2006 until now, when the complaint was lodged with the city. Coffman asked when the applicant took ownership of this property. Saaristo-Barber responded it was some time in the early 2000’s. Public Comment: Audience Member Kenley Carson, 417 Vivian St., Fort Collins, CO addressed the Commission and offered commented. Carson explained that their property and the subject property are separated by a small parcel. Carson noted that they are not the complainant and are being asked to clean up their area as well. There seems to have been a sweep of the entire area. Additionally, Carson asserted that: - This business is not owned by Ruth Saaristo-Barber, thus is not a home occupation. -Stated he had not received notification of re-zoning. -Noted there is lots of traffic up and down Vivian St, becoming more congested. -The subject property began as a rental yard. -Believes this should be tabled, stated that neighbors were unaware. Would like more time for investigation. -Believes re-zoning would hurt his property value. Commercial properties accessed by S College Ave. -Located directly east of the property. -Pictures submitted are not recent – currently there is much more fill dirt present. Chair Shuff and Staff Liaison Beals discussed noticing requirements for variance requests and change of use, noting that standard practice is to send Adjacent Property Owner notification to properties within a 150-foot radius of the subject property. Applicant Ruth Saaristo-Barber stated she was the owner of the business being operated from the subject property. Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman suggested that the scale and scope of the current business operations is beyond what can be granted with a home occupation variance. This actually seems more in line with a re-zoning and/or re-use request. Based on Larimer County Assessor information, this property appears to have been purchased after annexation, so operations on-site were not grandfathered in. Chair Shuff noted that on one hand, transition from County to City can present challenges with existing uses. However, based on transaction timelines and history, the request is outside of what this Commission can evaluate. Shuff is not able to support variance. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 DRAFT Minutes – October 10, 2024 Commission member McCoy agreed with the comments of Coffman and Shuff, suggesting that this request ought to be made before the Planning and Zoning Commission, as this represents a commercial change of use. Vice-Chair Lawton noted that many variances and changes would need to be considered. Lawton stated that he would not like to set a precedent of approval rather than needing a re-zoning effort. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to DENY ZBA240026 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.3.1(E)(1)(a) and (f), finding that the variances as submitted would be detrimental to the public good; and the variances 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), in consideration of the following facts: the variance is larger than a home occupation; the size of the are being used is approximately half the minimum lot size in the U-E Zone District; the proposed use would include more than one employee that does not live on site; and the majority of the proposed home occupation is operating outside of the home. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 am Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 14, 2024 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA240027 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 111 S Roosevelt St Owner/ Petitioner: Jonathan day Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Variance Request: There are two requests associated with this variance application: 1) A request for an existing accessory building to encroach 6.33 feet into the required rear setback. 2) A request for an existing accessory building to encroach 3.08 feet into the required side setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is located it the Scott-Sherwood Annexation. It was annexed and platted at the same time in 1907. The original lot configuration of the lot were two lots that front on to Oak Street. It was later parceled into three lots with the subject property being a small parcel that fronts onto Roosevelt Street. The primary house was built in 1926. The lot is less than the required minimum lot size in the OT-A zone district. The required minimum is 6,000 square feet and the actual size is 5,000 square feet. The smaller lots also create a shallow lot in the neighborhood. There is an existing accessory structure in the same location of the proposed garage. The location of the proposed garage does not vary in setback. The proposed garage door aligns with the existing driveway. 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 lot size is smaller in size and shallow in the existing neighborhood. • The existing driveway cannot be moved further north due to the location of the primary house. • The proposed location is limited in due to the location of the primary house. 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 ZBA240027. 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, CO 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)Choose One from List 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 111 South Roosevelt Ave. 80521 Jonathan Day Div. 5.3.2 (F)(4) OT- Hardship Equally well o better than 10-4-2024 October 4th, 2024 Zoning Variance Request 111 South Roosevelt Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Project Description: The proposed project consists of removing a detached garage down to the foundation and rebuilding a nearly identical garage in the same location. The existing detached garage (bult at least 50 years ago) infringes on the setback limits as prescribed by the current Fort Collins Land Use Code. The south wall of the garage is approximately 3’-1” into the 5’-0” side setback, and the west wall is approximately 6’-4” into the 8’-0” rear setback. Variance Justification: We (the owners) are seeking a variance to allow the construction of the new detached garage in the non- compliant location of the existing garage. Our lot at 111 S. Roosevelt Ave is much smaller than most Old Town lots and given the size and location of the existing single family dwelling it would be very difficult to build a detached garage within the current setbacks. The existing garage offers the only practical location for such a structure given its proximity to the house and alignment with the driveway. We contend that there are exceptional practical difficulties and/or undue hardships unique to this lot with regards to building a detached garage in any complying location. Additionally, the existing detached garage is becoming increasingly dilapidated and has weather damage that needs to be addressed. Rebuilding the garage in its existing location with new roofing, siding, paint and modern material would improve not only its safety but also the appearance of the entire site, views of which are shared by our neighbors and by passersby on the street and alley. The design of the new garage is nearly identical to the original with the exception of an increase of 1’-0” in wall height to accommodate a garage door, and a more logical placement of the door openings. The roof overhangs will extend into the setbacks no more than they currently do. The historical aesthetic and appearance will be maintained. The proposed design 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. Compliance would result in a very small, oddly placed, impractical garage; an unattractive garage; no garage at all. This requested variance will maintain the value of, preserve the historic aesthetic of, and improve the appearance of the property. Granting this variance will not result in an adverse impact on other properties in the vicinity of the subject land or structure, or be a detriment to the public good. We believe that granting this variance will not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code standards. Please see the accompanying drawings that illustrate the situation. Sincerely, Jonathan Day and Martha Laughon 111 S. Roosevelt Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 14, 2024 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA240028 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 516 N Grant Ave Owner/ Petitioner: Christine Hudson Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Variance Request: This is a request to install a new curb with access off N Grant Ave. This property has alley access, and in the OT-B Zone District, new access must be taken from the alley, and not the street. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is part of the West Side annexation and subdivision in 1895. The subject property includes two lots. The existing primary building was constructed in 1910. This existing house is proposed to be completely demolished. The request is to build a single-unit house. The proposed design includes an attached garage that would take access from the street. The OT-B zone district limits new off-street parking spaces from taking access from the street when there is also an alley. This restriction is to maintain the character of neighborhood, promote multi-modes of transportation, and limit vehicle crossing of both sidewalks and bike lanes. Compliance with the code can be achieved in different ways. The design could be altered to incorporate and new detached garage that takes access from the alley. The design could also be modified to place the garage door on the east wall and driveway extending to the alley. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The variance is detrimental to the public good as it increases vehicle intersections with the public sidewalk and bike lane. • A new drive access from the street does reduce on street parking spaces and street tree locations. • The proposed new construction of the primary building could be designed to comply the standard without eliminating the possibility of an attached garage. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA240028. and reviewed by the Building Department separately. Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Land Use Review Commission has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 5 and 2 of the Land Use Code. The Land Use Review Commission shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Commission may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Land Use Review Commission may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, City Hall Council Chambers (instructions will be emailed to the applicant the Monday prior to the hearing) Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Choose One from List Representative’s Address Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Additional Justification Representative’s Email Reasoning WRITTEN STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST REQUIRED VIA SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Date Signature 516 N Grant Ave 80521 Christine Hudson 970-690-4290 christinelh@gmail.com OT-B 2.1.6 Michael Lewandowski 970-988-0253 rlewandowski@gmail.com 1 3 October 7, 2024 516 N Grant Ave Thank you for considering this variance request. We are requesting a variance to Land Use Code section 2.1.6 regarding access and parking. We are building a new home at 516 North Grant Avenue and we would like to include an attached, wheelchair-accessible, 1-car garage with street access from Grant Avenue. The primary reason for the requested street access and wheelchair-accessible, 1-car garage is so we can provide wheelchair access to my 85 year old mother when she visits (she lives in a full time nursing care facility), without wheeling her outside through the weather from a garage at the back of the property, or from far down the street. While Fort Collins weather is often amazing, wheeling her through the ice and snow across (sometimes uneven!) Old Town sidewalks is difficult and sometimes unmanageable. Ideally we can get Mom into the house through the proposed wheelchair-accessible garage, so we don’t have to try and wheel through snow/ice at all. Even shoveled sidewalks can be difficult to navigate when pushing a wheelchair. Our property is in the middle of the block, with the closest wheelchair access (without this variance) at the intersections with Sycamore St and Elm St., approximately 180 feet away from the house; the nearest curb cut (at 525 N Grant Ave) goes to gravel and has a big lip to the sidewalk so it is not accessible. Please see attached google maps image with street access for wheelchairs circled in yellow at the ends of the street. Front driveway access is not as uncommon on this block as it can be elsewhere in Old Town. There are 3 existing driveways on this 500 block of North Grant and one additional curb cut that is not currently being used as a driveway. See attached examples of existing driveways. We plan to have only a single car driveway/garage access from the front curb cut, consistent with other driveways on our block, and set back so it is (also consistently) non-prominent, and following the standards laid out in section 5.3.5 of the land use code. For these reasons, we believe that the proposed garage will not diverge from the standards except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. We have spoken with our neighbors to the north and south at 520 N Grant Ave and 512 N Grant Ave respectively and they are supportive of this request. We have also spoken with and emailed (via our GC) the Fort Collins Engineering Department about the necessary curb cut, and they have determined that our requested curb cut can be done within their usual guidelines if we obtain this variance. This is our only (known needed) variance request; we plan to meet all setbacks, front area ratio requirements, etc, along with all other code requirements per the 2024 Land Use Code updates. Thank you again, Christine and Ryan ADA Ramp locations relative to 516 N Grant Ave Example driveways on N Grant Ave 500 block Nearest existing curb cut to our property Site Plan This footprint is an estimate based on the latest drawings from our architect. The design is still in progress, and depends on the result of this variance request. DRAWING CONTENTS: DATE: REVISIONS: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: SI N G L E F A M I L Y RE S I D E N C E 51 6 N O R T H G R A N T A V E N U E FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 1 MAY 23, 2024 A0.0 .SITE PLAN. jas jas DRIVEWAY VARIANCE 10/7/2024 . . . . Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 14, 2024 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA240029 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 4424 Denrose Ct Owner/ Petitioner: Archland Property I LLC Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 5.16.4(A)(2) Variance Request: The variance will extend the seven-year period in which a nonconforming sign on a property that has been annexed into the City limits has to comply with the City's regulations by another three years. Specifically, the McDonalds' freestanding sign was required to be brought into compliance by Dec. 20th, 2012 (seven years from the date of annexation). Three variances have been granted to extend the seven years to an additional 12 years, currently having a compliance date of December 20, 2024. This request will extend the compliance date for at least an additional three years to December 20, 2027. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The sign code requires that all existing nonconforming signs located on parcels annexed into the City must be removed or brought into compliance within no later than 7 years after the date of such annexation. The McDonald’s Restaurant property is part of the Interchange Business Park development that was annexed on December 20, 2005. Therefore, before the variance was approved in 2012, the sign had to be removed or made compliant by December 20, 2012. The existing fast-food restaurant is located at the southeast corner of I-25 and East Mulberry and is surround by other properties and public right of way that have now been annexed into the city. There are other businesses west of I-25 and Mulberry that have similar sized signs at similar heights, but those businesses are still in the County. The applicant is proposing their sign be allowed to remain for another 3 years. The soonest the other nearby signs in the County would need to be brought into compliance would be 7 years. An enclave was created in 2018. The properties within the enclave can be annexed anytime now. The City is currently conducting public outreach concerning the annexation process on the enclave area. In the vicinity of the subject property there have been additional development applications. Just south, the Fox Grove second filing, residential development, was approved in 2020 and is mostly built out. To the west, Woodspring Suites, a lodging establishment, received approval of their project development plan in 2019 and is now fully constructed. Directly across the street the Maverik fueling station developed in 2018. 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: • That previous variances have more than doubled the length of time for a nonconforming sign to remain. • Other uses have development around the subject property and comply with current sign standards. • The sign height is over three times the current maximum limitation of 18ft. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA240029. WRITTEN STATEMENT This is an application for renewal of a three-year variance the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) originally granted in 2012 and extended for additional three-year terms in 2015, 2018, and 2021. The current variance expires on December 20, 2024. Pursuant to Section 2.10.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the “Code”), the Property owner McDonald’s USA, LLC (“Applicant”) is submitting this written statement in connection with its application for a variance from the provisions of Section 3.8.7.4(A)(2) of the Code requiring that “all existing nonconforming signs located on property annexed to the City shall be removed or made to conform to the provisions of this Article no later than seven (7) years after the effective date of such annexation.” Background: Applicant owns the real property having an address of 4424 Denrose Court, Fort Collins, CO 80524 (the “Property”). The Property is located at the southeast corner of I-25 and Mulberry Street and is part of the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation (the “Business Park”) which was annexed into the City effective December 20, 2005. The Property is zoned General Commercial. The Property is the site of a franchisee-owned McDonald’s restaurant, and contains an approximately 60-foot-tall 2-sided freestanding sign, with faces of approximately 176 square feet per side (the “Sign”) located in the northwest corner of the Property. At the time the Sign was constructed, the Property was in unincorporated Larimer County. The Sign was built in conformance with the conditions of Permit - #01-SN0008 issued by Larimer County (the “County”) on November 26, 2001. The Property was subsequently annexed to the City of Fort Collins on December 20, 2005. 2 In accordance with Section 3.8.7.2(G) of the Code, freestanding signs, like the Sign, may only have a maximum height of 18 feet above grade and faces may not exceed 90 square feet per side. On May 10, 2012, the City’s Zoning Board of Appeals granted Applicant a variance permitting the Sign to remain, as is, until December 20, 2015 because the Sign only diverged from the Code in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the Property's neighborhood (the “2012 Variance”). A second three-year variance allowing the Sign to remain was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 12, 2015 after finding that the neighborhood surrounding the Property was predominantly commercial with signage that does not comply with City standards and was likely to remain that way for many years beyond the 3 second extension date of December 20, 2018. For similar reasons, a third variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 13, 2018 which permitted the Sign to remain in place until December 20, 2021. The most recent variance was granted by the Land Use Review Commission on November 12, 2021 which permitted the Sign to remain in place until December 20, 2024, again highlighting that the variance grant would not be detrimental to the public good and would not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Request for a Variance: Applicant hereby requests a variance from Section 3.8.7.4(A)(2) of the Code to extend its use of the non-conforming Sign for at least an additional three (3) years, to December 20, 2027, or longer as deemed appropriate. The conditions which supported the prior variance approvals remain unchanged, including the support of the neighboring Maverick gas station. We understand that Maverick will be submitting a letter of support prior to the public hearing on this request. Much of the property located in the vicinity of the Property is located within the County and has not been annexed to the City. The areas shown in color below have been annexed into the City while the rest of the property shown remains in the County (the Property is circled in blue): In addition, virtually all nearby highway service uses, such as restaurants and hotels, are located West of I-25 and are located in unincorporated Larimer County with freestanding signage easily visible from I-25. These County service uses will be able to maintain large and tall freestanding signs for at least seven (7) more years (upon annexation to the City, a neighbor or competitor would have seven (7) years to cause its sign to be in compliance under the Code) and will continue to draw the majority of highway traffic into the Larimer County businesses, resulting in a loss of business, and City sales taxes, for the City’s service uses located on the East side of I- 25, including the McDonald’s restaurant and the Maverick store. If the Applicant’s request for an additional three-year variance is denied and Applicant is forced to remove its existing sign, no City businesses East of I-25 will have signage that is readily visible from I-25, and I-25 traffic will be drawn to the County businesses West of I-25. City businesses will lose traffic and sales revenue, and the City will lose sales tax revenue. Allowing Applicant’s sign to remain in place for an additional period of time will draw highway service traffic to the East of I-25 and enhance 4 the ability of Applicant and other City businesses at that location to remain competitive with the County businesses West of I-25. The differences between the City’s sign regulations and the County’s regulations put the Applicant, and any other City business in the vicinity of the I-25/Mulberry Road interchange, at a competitive disadvantage to the neighboring County businesses. Approving this request for a variance would enable Applicant to continue to maintain equal footing, with its neighbors and competitors along the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. Applicant’s Request Meets the Standards for a Variance under the Code: Applicant’s request satisfies the requirements for granting a variance set forth in Section 2.10.4(H) of the Code because such variance (i) is requested as the result of circumstances unique to the Property, (ii) will continue to advance the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code and promote the general welfare, (iii) diverges from the standards set forth in the Code “in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood,” (iv) is not “detrimental to the public good,” and (v) does not authorize “any change in use.” Considering the Variance in the Context of the Neighborhood: The Property is located at the southeast corner of the I-25/Mulberry Street interchange and is surrounded by commercial properties that form the eastern edge of the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. There are numerous freestanding signs along the Mulberry Street commercial corridor near the Property, including those shown below, which exceed 18 feet in height and some of which have faces larger than 90 square feet per side. Hence, when considering that other signs that are comparable in size to the Sign already exist in the neighborhood, extending Applicant’s deadline to remove the Sign would merely diverge from the standards of the Code in a nominal and inconsequential way. 5 6 Residential properties lie to the east of the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. We do not believe the residential properties are a part of our neighborhood. Instead, based on their location and character, they form a separate and distinct neighborhood. They are located to the east and beyond the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. They are located far enough from the Property that the Code does not require Applicant to give them notice of our variance application. Moreover, owners within the residential neighborhoods have no reasonable expectation that the Sign will be taken down and replaced with a smaller sign. The closest residential neighbors are in unincorporated Larimer County and would have no basis to object to the sign if the Property continued to be governed by Larimer County’s sign code. The Sign has been on the Property for twenty-three (23) years, and when erected the Property was in the County and conformed with the County’s regulations. The other signs in the County portion of the Mulberry Street commercial corridor that exceed the County's current sign dimension regulations have been there for years as well and will not be removed or replaced any time soon due to the County grandfathering-in these signs. In any event, even if one were to consider the residential neighborhood to be part of our neighborhood, the divergence from standards and impact of the variance are nominal. Replacing the Sign will not have a significant impact on the views from the residential properties given the number of other large signs in the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. Replacing the Sign will not create a view free of large signs – Applicant’s Sign is just one of many. As such, replacement of the Sign will not have a significant positive impact on the use, enjoyment or value of the homes. Advances the Purpose of the Code This variance would satisfy the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code by: 7 (i) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all; and (ii) being sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. First, as referenced above, the other three corners of the I-25/Mulberry Street interchange are in the County. As a result, many properties possess taller and larger freestanding signs than are allowed in the City. Granting the variance fosters a more rational relationship among the businesses in the Mulberry Street commercial corridor by allowing the Property to temporarily remain on equal footing with the neighboring County commercial properties. Second, the variance is sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods because the Sign is comparable in size with other existing signs along the Mulberry Street commercial corridor. By limiting the duration of the variance, Applicant is balancing the requirements of the Code with the competitive disadvantage that Applicant, a City business, will suffer because its Property was annexed into the City well before other competing businesses located along the Mulberry commercial corridor. The Variance Benefits the Public Allowing the Sign to stand for the requested extended compliance period would benefit the public by supporting employment and increased sales taxes to the City for years to come. McDonald’s Corporation’s studies show that up to 67% of sales for McDonald’s restaurants are impulse purchases and, as a result, lowering the height of a freestanding McDonald’s sign will certainly cause a further decline in sales for the restaurant. A significant drop in business will reduce sales tax revenues to the City and may result in the loss of some jobs. Allowing the Sign to continue in its current configuration will help prevent these additional declines. Allowing the sign to continue will also help drive traffic to the Maverick location, with a commensurate increase in City sales tax collections. As shown above, a traveler on I-25 heading northbound would not be able to see a shorter sign as the sign would be completely blocked by the building located to the southwest of the Property. Also, as shown above, the Sign clearly helps orient a traveler heading southbound on I-25 to the restaurant. Without the visual cues provided by the Sign, a traveler is likely to continue to a different restaurant which may be located outside the City resulting in a loss of tax revenues for the City. As such, requiring Applicant to remove the Sign is detrimental to the public good by decreasing sales tax revenues to the City and potentially resulting in a reduction of staffing levels at the restaurant. McDonald’s is Committed to Fort Collins McDonald’s and its franchisee (Bob Luther) are committed to the City. McDonalds has recently made major reinvestments of several million dollars in its Fort Collins stores. Mr. Luther is committed to quality and to the continued success of this location and the surrounding area. Mr. Luther owns five McDonald’s franchises in the City and operates those with the help of his wife and son. He has owned this particular franchise for sixteen years. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this McDonald’s location remained operational in accordance with the City’s 8 guidelines and Mr. Luther did not lay off any employees. Granting this variance request will contribute to the vitality of the City in general, and to nearby properties. No Change in Use Applicant is not seeking a change of use with this variance request; rather Applicant wants to temporarily maintain the status quo and merely extend its deadline for replacing the Sign. Conclusion: Applicant acknowledges that at some point in the future, the sign must be brought into conformance with the current City sign code. However, with the one exception of the Maverick site, conditions along the Mulberry commercial corridor have not changed materially since 2012 and that time has not yet come. Allowing the Applicant to maintain its existing sign for at least an additional three (3) year period will benefit Applicant, the City, and other City commercial uses to the East of I-25, and we respectfully request the Board grant the variance as requested. 32701953_v5 Interchange Business Park Second Annexation 4,514 752.3 FCMaps This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. City of Fort Collins - GIS 572.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet572.00286.00 Notes Legend 3,430 Parcels Growth Management Area City Limits Location of Sign on Property w± X,''± ±d>G± ^+S7± ± 0K,q±-a^oO47 ± >D± 8yz±tSe,0j± :=3>Qk± ¥¦±r §¨l )©± ª }~« ± 0VS05± u\##n6± (jySjF± ¡± %± 1+f_± s± ± ¬± >± N>ABCNmO± M`±.± j VE± L;]± Z>Z;± {G"± / TgiUb®± =VhiVc± [H± ?± !¢¯v£p¤!£± ± °j<I± @± ! ± W+±P&± *RY\± xJ±ja± $|+29± Sign Plans Larimer County Building Department 200 West Oak Street Permit Number: 01-SNOOOS Date Issued: P. 0. Box 1190 Date Expires: Fort Collins, CO 80522 Permit Type: LARIMER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT Work Description: FREE STANDING SIGN November 26, 2001 May27,2003 FREE ------Owner ------------Contractor------ INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK LLC, CO LIABILITY CO YOUNG ELECTRIC SIGN COMPANY Construction Address: 4424 DENROSE CT FTC Subdivision Name: ?? Parcel Number: 871520700 I Space: Lot: ?? Block/Tract: The owner/contractor agrees to perfom1 the work described according to the plans and specifications submitted and with all provisions of applicable ordinances, state laws, and building codes. The owner/contractor also acknowledges that the granting of this permit does not give authority to violate any of these regulations and understands that it is their responsibility to insure that compliance to the above provisions are met. The pennit is subject to all red line corrections as noted on the approved plans and attached conditions. The approved plans and permit card shall be avaHable at the construction site. A reinspection fee may be assessed if the approved plans are not available or for each inspection or reinspection when such portion of work for which the inspection has been scheduled is not completed or when corrections called for have not been made. THIS PERMIT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF THE BUILDING OR WORK AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED BY May 25, 2002, OR lF THE BUILDING OR WORK AUTHORIZED BY THIS PERMIT IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONDED AT ANY TIME AFTER THE WORK IS COMMENCED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS, OR IF THE PROPERTY OWNER, PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHOM THE PERMIT IS ISSUED FAILS TO REQUEST AN INSPECTION BY May 25, 2002. THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE ON May 27, 2003 UNLESS AN EXTENSION OF AN ADDITIONAL 18 MONTHS IS REQUESTED IN WRITING. FAILURE TO HAVE THE FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED, OR WHERE APPLICABLE, A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OBTAINED, OR AN EXTENSION APPROVED WILL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE ADOPTED REGULATIONS OF LARJMER COUNTY AND SUJECT TO REMEDIES AS ALLOWED BY LAW. I have read the above notification and attached conditions and agree to comply with these regulations and the County approved plans. If the signatory below is someone other than the property owner, the signatory represents and warrants that he/she has full authority to sign this permit on behalf of the property owner and to bind the owner to all terms and conditions herein. Name of Owner: --~-~Ju{ _____ f_J_-_2_6_-_Z_t1_'!1_J __ ~ ______ (Please Print) By: __________________________________ (Signature) __________________________________ (Titlror Relationship to owner if signed by someone other than owner) Larimer County Building Department 200 West Oak Street Permit Number: 01-SN0008 Date Issued: P. 0. Box 1190 Date Expires: Fort Collins, CO 80522 Permit Type: 970-498-7700 Inspections: 970-498-7697 CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS 1: Property owners/contractors are responsible for assuring that structures meet Larimer Countys' minimum requirements for setbacks from property lines, rights of way, and for the accuracy of any plans submitted showing these details. County Building Inspectors are not equipped to verify these distances/setbacks when making inspections. Property owners are strongly advised to hire a Colorado Licensed Land Surveyor that will locate the property lines and verify that the structure location is as shown on the approved plans and meets Larimer Countys' minimum setback requirement. 2: Inspection requests are to be made at least 24 hours prior to the requested inspection time. 3: -MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE IS 180 SQUARE FEET . -MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT IS 60 FEET. -ALL SIGNS MUS~ BE LOCATED COMPLETELY ON PRIVATE PROERTY AND SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON OR OVER ROAD EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY. -SIGN PLACEMENT MUST MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGHT TRIANGLE STANARDS AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 4.3.F OF THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE. -EACH LEGALLY ESTABLISHED PRINCIPAL USE IS LIMITED TO ONE SIGN. -NO SIGN MAY CONTAIN AN FLASHING, ROTATING, ANIMATED OR OTHERWISE MOVING FEATURES. SIGNS WITH A CHANGEABLE MESSAGE MUST REMAIN MOTIONLESS FOR NOT LESS THAN ONE MINUTE. -ANY LIGHT USED TO ILLUMINATE A SIGN. MUST BE ARRANGED TO REFLECT LIGHT AWAY FROM NEARBY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND AWAY FROM THE VISION OF PASSING MOTORISTS. -PORTABLE SIGNS, REVOLVING AND ROTATING SIGNS, OR STRINGS OF LIGHT BULBS USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES OTHER THAN TRADITIONAL HOLIDAY DECORATIONS AND WIND DRIVEN SIGNS ARE PROHIBTED. 4: 5: NO FINAL FLOOD INSPECTION NEEDED. 6: PLEASE READ RED-LINES ON PLANS OVER CAREFULLY. FINAL APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO ON-SITE INSPECTIONS. {ONE SINGLE POLE STYLE SIGN ONLY.} 7: *NOTE*: SPECIAL INSPECTIONS, BY THE DESIGNING OR PROJECT ENGINEER, AND WET STAMPED LETTERS ARE REQUIRED. SEE RED-LINES ON PLANSl PAYMENT HISTORY November 26, 2001 May 27 2003 FREE Item# Description Account Code Tot Fee Paid Prv. Pmts Cur. Pmts --- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 20 Plot Plan Revie 101.018110.0 30.00 30.00 30.00 .00 100 Building Permit 118.018300.0 162.00 162.00 162.00 .00 130 Use Tax Collect 118.018300.0 60.00 60.00 60.00 .00 TOTAL FEE PAID: TOTAL FEE $252 . oo o , ... 5AJooo~ $252.00 185 SOUTH STATE STREET SUITE 800 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 8 4111 801-936-5557 | M AVERIK.COM City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Variance Application for 4424 Denrose Ct. Dear Zoning Board: As the operator of the Maverik convenience store located at 651 Frontage Road in Fort Collins, I am writing to express my support for the referenced variance application. We are directly across the street from the McDonald's store, and as one of the few Fort Collins retail businesses located East of the Mulberry Road/1-25 interchange, we believe that the variance will result in additional traffic to our property and help to ensure our continued success at this location. We believe that the granting the variance will benefit each of Maverik, the applicant, and the City of Fort Collins. Sincerely, _________________________________ Name: Title: Niki Mason (Oct 8, 2024 16:16 CDT) Niki Mason Niki Mason Chief Development Officer Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair David Lawton John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Shirley Peel Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: Virtual Hearing The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 2021 8:30 AM CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All commission members except La Mastra and McCoy were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Lawton made a motion, seconded by Stockover to approve the October 14, 2021, Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION -NONE- APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA210043 – APPROVED Address: 4424 Denrose Ct. Owner: McDonald’s USA, LLC (dba Archland Property I LLC) Petitioner: Jordan Bunch Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 3.8.7.4(A)(2) Project Description: This is a request is for a variance which will extend the seven-year period in which a nonconforming sign on a property that has been annexed into the City limits has to comply with the City's regulations. Specifically, the McDonald’s freestanding sign was required to be brought into compliance by Dec. 20th, 2012 (seven years from the date of annexation). A previous variance was granted in May of 2012, extending the compliance date by an additional 3 years to Dec. 20th, 2015. A variance was granted again in 2015 to extend the compliance date to Dec. 20th, 2018; this request was approved, extending the compliance date to 12/20/2021. This request is to extend the compliance date for at least an additional 3 years to Dec. 20th, 2024. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DocuSign Envelope ID: 315CA8EF-8E68-4158-8974-3F718C222001 Land Use Review Commission Page 2 November 12, 2021 Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is at the corner of East Mulberry and SE frontage road. This McDonald’s location was annexed years ago and did have seven years to come into compliance. They have now requested an extension to allow their large free-standing sign to remain. Beals noted that some potential problems with the free- standing sign are that it is currently taller and larger than code allows. Beals described the way some adjacent properties have been annexed into City limits. One vacant lot is currently in review for development with the City. Before McDonald’s last request, a sliver of land about three years ago, began the annexation process for properties west of its boundary. That time frame is coming up and properties will begin to be annexed into the City. Public outreach efforts have begun. Beals noted that the sign in question is on NW corner of the McDonald’s parking lot, and currently rises over sixteen feet vertically. Beals presented pictures of the sign as well as sightlines in the immediate area, as well as other businesses with signs who have not begun their seven-year process to come into compliance. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Jordan Bunch, representing law firm Holland and Hart, 1800 Broadway Ste 300, Boulder CO, Todd Luther, franchisee for site, and Vanessa Williams, real estate portfolio manager for McDonald’s, addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Bunch shared a PowerPoint presentation, which included some history of the sign and franchise location. The site and sign were originally constructed in 2001, prior to annexation, and at that time were in full compliance with the County. Annexation occurred in 2005, which triggered the seven-year timeframe for compliance. Extensions have since been granted. Previous LURC Boards have found that the granting of extensions to be appropriate based on the fact that it had a nominal and inconsequential effect on the surrounding area, which remains largely commercial. All previous neighborhood conditions that supported previous variances currently remain. Even if adjacent properties become annexed, they will have seven years to come into compliance, so an additional three-year extension would be appropriate. Several proximate properties currently employ large pole signs similar in size and scale to the McDonald’s sign in question. Due to recent road closures and construction along I -25, access to McDonald’s has been hindered. Without the large pole sign, the site location would be virtually invisible from I-25, which currently acts as its main access point. Bunch noted the commitment to community shown by the franchisee, stating that they own several locations throughout Fort Collins, and during the COVID-19 pandemic response, this location was able to remain open for business and did not have to let any employees go. Additionally, this property is an “island” surrounded by non- annexed properties that don’t have to comply with the same code. This creates a hardship that was not of the applicant’s own making. Todd Luther, 144 John Deere Dr, Fort Collins, CO addressed the Board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Luther stated that he moved to Fort Collins in 2008 and has been a local resident since. He and his family are very invested in the town through work and school. They currently own five locations with a total of 360 employees (60 of which are at the location under review). Removal of this sign would result in a decrease of sales and tax revenue. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff stated his opinion, based on the history of previous board and existing context, that there is no issue with granting an additional extension. Annexation does take a long time, so impact on existing properties would be some ways out. Commission member Lawton stated his opinion that this sign is no different from what many other businesses, including other McDonald’s, have in terms of signage. There is time to change signage if the future if needed given the timeframe of annexation for nearby properties. Commission member Stockover stated he has no problem whatsoever with granting the extension. Stockover also stated that despite the generous donations and community work performed by the DocuSign Envelope ID: 315CA8EF-8E68-4158-8974-3F718C222001 Land Use Review Commission Page 3 November 12, 2021 Luther family (which is acknowledged as being appreciated!), those elements are not within the purview of this Board when making decisions regarding variance requests. Decisions need to be made solely on the merits of the sign and surround area as it relates to current code. Chair Shields stated that the context of the surrounding neighborhoods has not significantly changed, and they do have the support of neighboring businesses. Therefore, Shields would be in support of the request. Commission member Stockover asked Beals what sign district this resides in. Beals responded the sign in currently not in the residential sign district. Stockover questioned if, as Fort Collins grows towards the highway, are we looking towards creating a highway sign district? Beals answered that as code was updated, some of that was anticipated as citizens indicated they preferred a lower sign height. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Meyer to APPROVE ZBA210043 under section 2.10.4(H) to allow the variance to allow a 60-foot tall, 170 sq. ft. per-side free-standing sign to remain for another three years. This is based on the findings that the sign would not be detrimental to the public good, since there are numerous signs of the approximat e same height and size in close proximity to the McDonald’s sign, which will remain for numerous years; the neighborhood around the site is predominantly commercial, and have signs that are not up to code because they reside in the County; removal of the McDonald’s sign will have no immediate impact on the surrounding area. Therefore, the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standard except 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. Yeas: Shuff, Shields, Lawton, Meyer, Stockover Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 2. APPEAL ZBA210044 – APPROVED WITH CONDITION Address: 110 W Suniga Rd. Owner/Petitioner: Tucker Jordan Zoning District: C-S Code Section: 3.5.3(E) Project Description: This is a request to construct a new shed in the backyard on the property line, encroaching 8 feet into 8-foot rear setback and 5 feet into 5-foot left side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting when E Suniga went in, the road was changed to W Suniga so the roadway would have the same name as it crossed College Ave. This property is located in the C-S zone district, which allows for residential uses but is really designated to commercial services. With that, the residential uses default to the setbacks included in Art. 3, which describe an eight-foot rear setback and five-foot side setback, with no min/max floor requirements. Beals stated the original parcel has since been subdivided into two residential lots. Many of the surrounding structures were built prior to the setback requirement, so there are a lot of non -conforming structures currently in place. The applicant is proposing a shed which is next to the home, with an exterior-facing door. As proposed, the shed would follow along the existing fence line and exterior home contours. Prior to approval, staff would recommend at least a three-foot setback which is more inline with building code DocuSign Envelope ID: 315CA8EF-8E68-4158-8974-3F718C222001 Land Use Review Commission Page 4 November 12, 2021 standards. That would also help prevent any runoff coming off the proposed structure from having a negative impact on neighboring properties. Applicant Presentation: Jordan Tucker, 110 W Suniga Rd, Fort Collins, CO addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Tucker provided the board with pictures of the surrounding neighborhood, indicating that there are many structures in the area that are currently non-conforming. The proposed shed would thus be in line with the current character of the neighborhood. Tucker added that when he purchased the home in 2015, there was a shed existing in the proposed location. That shed was subsequently taken down based on a requirement from the City during renovation of the carport into a home addition. The shed area represents a valuable piece of storage space that could be better utilized. Tucker additionally commented that a current neighbor’s runoff from their garage currently flows to his property. One goal of placing the proposed shed against the property line within the setback would be capture and diversion of this runoff water. Commission member Lawton asked the applicant to describe the intended use of the proposed shed structure, as well as describing what their hardship would be if setback requirements were enforced. The applicant described the shed as being used for bicycles, which are their main mode of transportation. Additionally, the shed would provide a higher degree of safety for belongings. Hardship has occurred due to loss of previous shed and the ability to safely store belongings such as bikes. Lawton asked what the effect might be if the applicant was asked to reduce shed space to accommodate a three-foot setback, for example. Tucker stated that if he were to lose three feet on a side of the shed, it becomes difficulty to maneuver and move bicycles around. A resulting shed of 6 feet by 6 feet becomes a lot less ideal to store goods. Chair Shields questioned whether the concrete pad from the previous shed is still in place. The applicant explained that a portion of the pad is still in place, but a different portion was removed during the course of renovations. Shields questioned if there was any way to increase the size of the shed by pushing the east wall out a bit. Applicant stated this would not be possible, as it would impede an existing window. Commission member Shuff asked the applicant if the proposed roof projection shown in plan drawings has been resolved? It appears to be hanging over an adjacent property line based on drawings. The applicant indicated that the edge of the roof, even if gutter is installed, would not overhang the adjacent property, and would come up to his own property line. Drawing plans can be update d to reflect that detail. Chair Shields asked the applicant what kind of maintenance they anticipate needing to be performed in the space between the proposed new structure and existing fence. The applicant explained that in the past, they used a small, narrow rake to pull leaves and debris from the space between the shed wall and fence. The applicant was also able to work with a neighbor to access the backside of the area. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Shuff commented the site does present some hardships based on existing lot lines. We are into the minutiae of determining how close can we get to the property line, which was the genesis for some questions regarding gutter and roof/eave overhang. Giving a foot of set-back may be a good way to provide space for roof projections, gutter, etc. though it would impact the overall size of the finished shed. Commission member Stockover stated that he would defer to the architects present to a bit. If he were the applicant, he would consider removing the fence altogether, installing a concrete pan for drainage, and tying the fence line back into the corner of the shed. A narrow metal panel could be installed in a DocuSign Envelope ID: 315CA8EF-8E68-4158-8974-3F718C222001 Land Use Review Commission Page 5 November 12, 2021 way which would be removable for cleaning, mowing, etc. Stocker stated his opinion that having a small “tunnel” created between two structures is not ideal, as it creates a space for leaves and debris to collect. Stockover expressed his support for the request, assuming special attention will be paid to water/drainage mitigation and consideration of fence removal. Commission member Meyer agreed with Stockover and stated that perhaps the best solution is to terminate the fence against the corners of the shed. This would eliminate one “gross” condition wherein one wouldn’t be able to clean between the fence and the side of the shed. As far as the house is concerned, a concrete pad between the two would be ideal. Building up against the house will create more problems down the road if moisture can collect, etc. At least six inches is needed for airflow but isn’t enough for cleaning. Six inches or eighteen inches is still problematic. The homeowner will need to determine the balance between anticipated maintenance needs and usable storage space. Commission member Lawton stated he was a bit confused if there are two structures or not. Any open space created between properties may collect leaves and debris and would warrant a conversation between neighbors to address that responsibility moving forwa rd. Water mitigation needs to be thoroughly addressed considering how close to the house the shed would be. Applicant Jordan Tucker clarified on the other side of the fence, not visible in photos, there is a tree and open space. Commission member Shuff stated that it is a bit unclear where the property line is. The fence shown in photos appears to be a double fence and consumes approximately 12-18 inches of space. It may be helpful to know more about the lot line situation of that side. Applicant Jordan Tucker explained that the double fence belongs to a neighbor, and they may be amenable to removing a portion of fence to accommodate water mitigation features. A survey was performed a few years ago, and the property line pin was exposed. The double fence is within inches of the surveyed line. Chair Shields stated he is ok with the shed being as close to the property line as possible, if there are not projections coming off the roof line. Do we give it a foot, or six inches of spac ing? This would accommodate water runoff and gutter, etc. Do we need a condition? Commission member Shuff agrees that some amount of space would need to be maintained to keep the ability to clean, clear, and mitigate the space between shed and home. Commission Member Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover to APPROVE WITH CONDITION ZBA210044. The variance request is approved with the condition that a minimum 1- foot setback be maintained between the west side of the property and shed wall to allow for drainage via surface and/or gutter of the applicant’s choice. Additionally, there are to be no projections on the north side that extend beyond the property line. This finding is based on staff reports as well as staff and applicant presentations. Additionally, the variance is not detrimental to the public good; the 2615 sq ft parcel is small in size, and the square shape of the lot combined with the size of the existing primary building limit the placement of a new structure; other residential properties in the are not in compliance in side- and rear-yard setbacks. Therefore, the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant, and a strict application of the code results in a practical difficulty upon the applicant. Noah Beals asked for clarification regarding the Motion made by Shuff. Beals asked if the 1-foot setback for the wall on the west was intended to allow for roof overhang up to zero inches, with no condition on the north side. Shuff clarified the motion by stating that on the north side, there can’t be any projections beyond the property line. Chair Shields asked the Board for any additional comment; there were no comments offered. Yeas: Shuff, Shields, Lawton, Meyer, Stockover Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED DocuSign Envelope ID: 315CA8EF-8E68-4158-8974-3F718C222001 Land Use Review Commission Page 6 November 12, 2021 Commission member Stockover requested a five-minute break. Chair Shields granted a five-minute break at 9:38am. The meeting was resumed at 9:46m.* 3. APPEAL ZBA210045 – APPROVED Address: 903 W Mountain Ave. Owner: S & S 230 LLC Petitioner: Tara Palmer Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: This is a variance request for an 8-foot-tall fence along the west property line, resulting in fence totaling 61 feet long and 8 feet tall in both sides’ 5-foot side setbacks (the fence runs east and west across the width of the lot in middle rear yard). Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is located near the corner of W Mountain and S Washington. The maximum fence height allowed in the rear under code is 6 feet. The fence that has been installed is 8 feet tall. A fence in the required setback area must be 6 feet or less. The request covers the span which is in the setback area. The 8- foot fence is occurring between the primary structure and an ADU that is currently under construction. The 8-foot fence portions are visible from the front of the home looking towards the rear of the property. Commission member Meyer asks Beals if this is a case of the applicant having built something out of code and then asking for forgiveness afterwards. Beals responded that yes, that was the case. Beals explained that any fence over 6 feet requires a building permit to ensure that it meets wind and snow loads. If the variance is approved, the applicant will need to pull a building permit. Commission member Lawton asked if the fence was attached to another structure, as depicted in one of the photos. Beals stated that it appears the fence was up against the house, but there may be a post between and connect to the two. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Tara Palmer, 901 W Mountain Ave, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Palmer clarified that the green building and shorter fence shown in presentation photos belongs to their neighbor. Their fence buts up against that fence but is not physically connected to it. The 8-foot fence has been in place for approximately two years since the applicant purchased the property. The applicant stated their neighbor is totally okay with the fence; he owns a school bus and other mechanical projects, and most windows on his house are above the 6- foot fence line. The 8-foot fence provides a bit of privacy between the adjacent neighbors’ homes. The applicant stated that they own multiple properties in the area, including 901 W Mountain, 903 W Mountain, and 109 S Washington. Palmer explained all their fence lines that line city property is maintained at a 6-foot height. Fence lines between structures are now 8-feet. Once the garage is completed in the alleyway, the entire backyard will not be visible from the alley. That fence will be 6 feet. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Stockover stated his opinion that this seems to be a reasonable request, considering the location of the fence behind the house and in the back of the alley. The neighborhood is mature and already includes a high degree of screening. DocuSign Envelope ID: 315CA8EF-8E68-4158-8974-3F718C222001 Land Use Review Commission Page 7 November 12, 2021 Chair Shields agreed with the comments made by Stockover. Additionally, he observed 1) the fence was already in place prior to the applicant owning the property, 2) we have not received any opposition from adjacent neighbor to the west. Because of the reasons, Shields is in favor of supporting the variance request. Commission member Lawton agreed with the previous comments made by Stockover and Shields and commented that because the fence next to the garage will be reinstalled, only the adjacent neighbor will really see the 8-foot fence. It is basically invisible to everyone else. Because of these reasons, Lawton would support the granting of the variance. Commission member Meyer commented that it would help if the neighbor had provided a letter of support to add to the documentation, but they also haven’t shown up to speak in opposition of the request. Meyer agreed with the comments made by Stockover, in that the mature neighborhood already contains similar elements, and this fence will not stand out. Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE ZBA21004 5 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good. The extended fence height does not run the full length of the property line, and landscaping along the property line may exceed such heights as well. Therefore, the variance request as submitted will not diverge from the standard except 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. Yeas: Shuff, Shields, Lawton, Meyer, Stockover Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED 4. APPEAL ZBA210046 – APPROVED Address: 119 N Shields St. Owner/Petitioner: Julie Mote Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4)(a) Project Description: This is a request to increase the maximum wall height at the North side of the addition to 22.28 feet, the maximum height allowed is 14 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property has come forward previously with a request to build an accessory building in the backyard. The current request is regarding an addition to the primary residence. The requested addition would occur on the rear of the residence. Based on the current plans, the setback requirement is not being met based on wall height. The issue is in this zone district, we have solar access preservation to the north. Wall heights are limited at 14 feet at the minimum setback of five feet. If a taller wall height is desired, setback must be increased from the north side. This request proposed to encroach at that setback level. As seen in the elevation drawings, the only element that is not meeting the required wall height are the faces of the second story dormers, which are aligned flush with the plane of the first story walls. The wall below is meeting the 14-foot wall height, but the dormers extend that wall height to 22- plus feet. Chair Shields asked if the lower eave breaks up the wall height. Beals clarified that no, technically that element does not break up the wall height. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Julie Mote, 119 N Shields St., addressed the board and agreed to hold the hearing remotely. Mote explained that although their lot is very long, it is also very narrow. Per their engineer, Gary Weeks, they were told that they needed to go beyond the footprint of their existing house to maintain DocuSign Envelope ID: 315CA8EF-8E68-4158-8974-3F718C222001 Land Use Review Commission Page 8 November 12, 2021 the structural integrity of the existing brick home. Neighbors to the north are very aware of what is being proposed and are ok with it. Audience Participation: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Meyer commented that the request seems very reasonable and is very nominal and inconsequential. The actual area of shadow that would be created would hardly create a damaging shade scenario for potential solar gains. There is a potential in the future that adja cent properties may be modified but given the fact that the request only includes two dormers, it seems inconsequential. Commission member Shuff agreed with the comments made by Meyer and added one could actually put hip roofs on the dormer and thus comply with roof form and negate the need for wall-based setback. Shuff does not have any issues supporting the request. Commission member Lawton added his support for the request, noting that the dormers are more of a technicality than anything else. This wouldn’t really have any impact on that area and is a pretty good plan. Commission Member Meyer made a motion, seconded by Shuff to APPROVE ZBA21004 6 for the following reasons: the granting of the modification of standard would not be detrimental to the public good. The solar access is maintained for the majority of the north property line, and the increase in wall is limited to a 16-foot length of the property line. Therefore, the variance request as submitted will not diverge from the standard except 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 Yeas: Shuff, Shields, Lawton, Meyer, Stockover Nays: None THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS APPROVED OTHER BUSINESS Noah Beals announced that we do have variances for next month so plan to meet. Also, our December meeting will be our last with Commissioners Shields and Stockover, as they are term limited. Come January, please be thinking about who would be interested in serving as Chair and Vice Chair. Because we have two vacancies, we have been reviewing applications but have only received one. Please let Beals know if you have anyone who may be interested. ADJOURNMENT – meeting adjourned at 10:15am Ralph Shields, Chair Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning DocuSign Envelope ID: 315CA8EF-8E68-4158-8974-3F718C222001 12/22/2021 FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting -May 10, 2012 8:30 a.m. !~============================== ================================ll Council Liaison: Kell Ohlson air erson: Michael Bello iaison: Peter Barnes 416-2355 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 8:45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Daphne Bear Michael Bello Peter Bohling Bob Long Dana McBride John McCoy Heidi Shuff EXCUSED ABSENCES: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Marcha Hill, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF April 12, 2012 minutes was postponed until June meeting: 3. APPEAL NO. 2705 -Setback Variance Approved Address: 321 S Whitcomb St Petitioner: Zone: Section: Justification Description: Steve Whittall NCM 4.8(E)(2), 4.8(F)(1 )(a), 4.8(D)(4) See petitioner's letter This appeal was continued from April 12, 2012, at which time the Board approved a requested variance to allow the west wall of the new house to be built at an angle rather than parallel to or perpendicular to the lot lines of the lot. The Board also denied a variance request to allow a 900 s.f. garage/home office rather than the allowed 600 s.f. structure. STAFF REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Variance to Sections 4.8(E)(2), 4.8(F)(1 )(a) and 4.8(0)(4) -front setback, angled wall, and maximum size of detached building. 4. APPEAL NO. 2706 -Approved Address: Zone: Section: Justification: APPLICANT: OWNER: 4424 Denrose Ct CG 3.8. 7(A)(3)( c) See petitioner's statement of justification. STAFF REPORT Jacob Ross Archland Property I LLC PO BOX 182571 Columbus, OH 43218-2571 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 5 Request for Variance to Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) -extend the 7 year compliance period for a nonconforming sign. The variance will extend the seven-year period of time in which a nonconforming sign on property annexed into the city limits has to be brought into compliance with the City's sign regulations. Specifically, the McDonalds freestanding sign at this location will need to be brought into compliance by December 20, 2012 (seven years from the date of annexation). The variance would extend the seven year compliance period for three years, until December 20, 2015. The existing nonconforming sign is a two-sided, 60 ft. tall, 176 s.f. per side McDonalds Restaurant freestanding pole sign. To be brought into compliance, the sign would need to be removed and replaced with a sign at a maximum height of 18 ft. and an a maximum size of 90 s.f. per side. There are many commercial signs in the 'neighborhood', most of which don't comply with the City's sign regulations. The McDonald's sign is the only one located on property that is in the city limits. All of the other nonconforming signs are outside city limits. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the variance for Sec. 3.8.7(A)(3)(c). COMMENTS: 1. Background: The sign code requires that all existing nonconforming signs located on property annexed to the City must be removed or brought into compliance with the current provisions of the code no later than seven years after the date of such annexation. The McDonalds Restaurant property is part of the Interchange Business Park development that was annexed on December 20, 2005. Therefore, the sign must be removed or made compliant by December 20, 2012. The development is located at the southeast corner of 1-25 and East Mulberry, and is the only portion of the intersection or area along East Mulberry that has been annexed. Other businesses at the intersection and along Mulberry have similar sized signs at similar heights, but those businesses are still in the County. McDonalds is proposing that their sign be allowed to remain for an additional 3 years, believing that this would then maintain, for a relatively brief period of time, the level plain field with their competitors and other businesses that they now enjoy. The soonest the other nearby signs in the county would need to be brought into compliance would be 1 O years (three years from the date of the creation of an enclave plus the seven year compliance period). This time period would assume that an enclave is created immediately. However, since there's no way to know for certain when the enclave will be created, the 10 years could be considerably longer. ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 6 The applicant submitted a similar variance application for the March, 2012 ZBA hearing, but withdrew the application prior to the hearing due to a staff recommendation of denial. The original application requested that the sign be allowed to remain until such time as the other nonconforming signs in the area are annexed into the city and their 7 year compliance period ends. Staff believed that request was unreasonable because it essentially would have allowed the McDonalds sign to remain for an indefinite period of time, at least 10 years and likely much longer. The applicant has had further discussions with staff and has now submitted a new application requesting the 3 year extension. 2) Applicant's statement of justification: Pursuant to Section 2.10.2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Code"), Archland Property I, LLC ("Applicant") is submitting this written statement in connection with its application for a variance from the provisions of Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) of the Code requiring, "all existing nonconforming signs located on property annexed to the city shall be removed or made to conform to the provisions of this Article no later than seven (7) years after the effective date of such annexation." Property Description: Applicant owns the real property having an address of 4424 Denrose Ct, Fort Collins, CO 80524 (the "Property"). The Property is located at the southeast corner of 1-25 and Mulberry Street and is part of the Interchange Business Park Second Annexation which was annexed by the City of Fort Collins (the "City") effective December 20, 2005. The Property is zoned General Commercial. The Property is the site of a McDonald's restaurant and contains an approximately 60 ft. tall 2-sided freestanding sign, with faces of approximately 176 s.f. per side (the "Sign") located in the northwest corner of the Property. The Sign was built in conformance with the conditions of Permit -#01-SN0008 issued by Larimer County (the "County") on November 26, 2001. Without a variance, the Sign must be removed by December 20, 2012 because it does not conform to the sign regulations contained in Section 3.8.7(G)(2) of the Code, which allow freestanding signs with a maximum height of 18 ft. above grade and faces that do not exceed 90 s.f. per side. Request for a Variance: Applicant hereby requests a variance from Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) of the Code to extend its use of the non-conforming Sign for an additional three (3) years, to December 20, 2015. The neighboring commercial properties along the Mulberry St commercial corridor and the other three corners of the 1-25/Mulberry St interchange are located within the County and have not been annexed to the City. As such, Applicant's neighbors and competitors will be able to maintain freestanding signs pursuant to the Larimer County Code that are taller and have larger faces than those allowed within the City for at least ten (10) more years (three (3) years from the date of an enclave for annexation to the City, followed by seven (7) year compliance period under the Code). The differences between the City's sign regulations and the County's regulations put the Applicant, a City business, at a competitive disadvantage to the neighboring County businesses. Approving this request for a variance would enable Applicant to continue to maintain equal footing, on a short-term basis, with its neighbors and competitors along the Mulberry St commercial corridor for three (3) more years. Applicant's Request Meets the Standards for a Variance under the Code: Applicant's request satisfies the requirements for granting a variance set forth in Section 2.10.2(H) of the Code because such variance (i) diverges from the standards set forth in the Code "in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 7 neighborhood," (ii) will continue to advance the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code, (iii) is not "detrimental to the public good," and (iv) does not authorize "any change in use." Considering the Variance in the Context of the Neighborhood The Neighborhood: The Property is located at the southeast corner of the 1-25/Mulberry St interchange and is surrounded by commercial properties that form the eastern edge of the Mulberry St commercial corridor. There are numerous freestanding signs along the Mulberry St commercial corridor near the Property which exceed 18 ft. in height and some of which also have faces larger than 90 s.f. per side. Hence, when considering that other signs that are comparable in size to the Sign already exist in the neighborhood, extending Applicant's deadline to remove the Sign for three (3) years would merely diverge from the standards of the Code in a nominal and inconsequential way. Residential properties lie to the east of the Mulberry St commercial corridor. We do not believe the residential properties are a part of our neighborhood. Instead, based on their location and character, they form a separate and distinct neighborhood. They are located to the east and beyond the Mulberry St commercial corridor. They are located in the County, not the City. They are located so far from the Property that the Code does not require us to give them notice of our variance application. They are purely residential, not commercial, nor mixed-use. Moreover, owners within the residential neighborhood have no reasonable expectation that the Sign will be taken down and replaced with a smaller sign. As noted above, the residential neighborhood is located in the County, not the City, and is so far removed from the Property that we are not required to give the owners notice of our application. The Sign has been on the Property for ten years. It was erected when the Property was in the County and was built in conformance with the County's regulations. The other signs in the Mulberry St commercial corridor have been there for years as well and will not be removed or replaced any time soon, and other owners within the Mulberry St commercial corridor can continue to erect large signs under the County's regulations. In any event, even if one were to consider the residential neighborhood to be part of our neighborhood, the divergence from standards and impact of the variance should be deemed nominal. The replacement of the Sign will not have a significant impact on the views from the residential properties given the number of other large signs in the Mulberry St commercial corridor. It is not as if the replacement of the Sign will create a view free of large signs --our Sign is just one of many. As such, the replacement of the Sign will not have a significant positive impact on the use, enjoyment or value of the homes. Furthermore, the variance is not perpetual. It is for a relatively short period of time -three years. Advances the Purpose of the Code This variance would satisfy the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code by: (i) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all; and (ii) being sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. First, as referenced above, the other three corners of the 1-25/Mulberry St interchange are in the County. As a result, those properties are allowed to possess, and many do possess, taller and larger freestanding signs than are allowed in the City. Granting the variance fosters a more rational relationship among the businesses in the Mulberry St commercial ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 8 corridor by allowing the Property to temporarily remain on equal footing with the neighboring County commercial properties. Second, the variance is sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods because the Sign is comparable in size with other existing signs along the Mulberry St commercial corridor. By limiting the duration of the variance, Applicant is balancing the requirements of the Code with the competitive disadvantage Applicant, a City business, will suffer merely because its Property was annexed into the City prior to the properties of its neighbors and competitors located within the County. The Variance Benefits the Public Allowing the Sign to stand for the requested extended compliance period would benefit the public by supporting employment and increased sales taxes to the City for three (3) more years. McDonalds Corporation's studies show that up to 45% of sales for McDonald's restaurants are impulse purchases and, as a result, lowering the height of a freestanding McDonald's sign will cause a direct decline in sales for the restaurant. Applicant anticipates a drop of at least 6% in sales upon lowering the Sign because the Sign provides critical sight orientation for travelers from 1-25 as described below. Such a drop will reduce sales tax revenues to the City and may result in the loss of some jobs. A traveler on 1-25 heading northbound would not be able to see a shorter sign as the sign would be completely blocked by the building located to the southwest of the Property. Also, the Sign clearly helps orient a traveler heading southbound on 1-25 to the restaurant. Without the visual cues provided by the Sign, a traveler is likely to continue to a different restaurant which may be located outside the City resulting in a loss of tax revenues for the City. As such, requiring Applicant to remove the Sign is detrimental to the public good by decreasing sales tax revenues to the City and potentially resulting in a reduction of staffing levels at the restaurant. No Change in Use Applicant is not seeking a change of use with this variance request; rather Applicant wants to temporarily maintain the status quo and merely extend its deadline for replacing the Sign. Applicant acknowledges that ultimately it will need to replace the Sign with a conforming sign. For the foregoing reasons, this variance should be granted. 1) Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of the variance and finds that: •The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good since there are numerous signs of the approximate same height and size in close proximity to the McDonalds sign, and those signs will remain long after the McDonalds sign is modified in 3 years. •The proposal will not diverge from the standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Staff believes that the proposal to allow a 60 ft. tall, 176 s.f. per side freestanding sign to remain for three years will satisfy the nominal and inconsequential standard. The neighborhood around the McDonalds Restaurant is predominately commercial, and the majority of those commercial uses have signs that don't comply with the City's regulations. But since they are in the county, those signs are likely to remain for many years, certainly for many years past the 3 year extension being requested. Removal of the McDonalds sign will have no immediate impact on the visual character of the area since many of the other nearby signs are of the same height and size, some taller and larger. Allowing an extra 3 years will be nominal and inconsequential when considered in the ZBA -May 10, 2012 -Page 9 context of the neighborhood. However, it is important that the extended compliance time be kept to a relatively short time period since there are other lots in the annexed development that could still develop with a commercial use in the coming years or convert to a different use. Such a future use would be required to erect a sign that complies with the City regulations. The granting of this variance would have consequences with regard to equitable treatment of future uses and buildings in the development if the time period extension is lengthy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance to Sec. 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) to extend the seven year compliance period for an additional three years. STAFF PRESENTATION: Barnes stated the existing nonconforming sign is a two-sided, 60 ft. tall, 170 s.f. per side pole sign. To be brought into compliance, the sign would need to be replaced with a sign with a maximum height of 18 ft. and 90 s.f. per side. There are many commercial signs in the area which do not comply with the City sign code; however, this McDonald's sign is the only one within the City limits. McDonald's is requesting an additional three years to keep the existing sign in order to maintain a level playing field with its competitors in the area. The other commercial signs cannot be annexed for at least ten years given that an enclave would need to occur first and an annexation cannot occur until three years following an enclave. Once the property would be annexed, the businesses have seven years to comply with the sign code. Barnes noted the original application for this variance, which was open ended to allow the sign until neighboring signs would need to comply, was withdrawn due to a staff recommendation of denial. The new request is for a three year extension. Barnes presented slides relevant to the application and noted the location of the McDonald's site relative to neighboring businesses, which are still in the County. He stated the annexation which would create the enclave is not yet proposed. Bohling requested additional detail regarding the annexation that brought McDonald's into the City limits. Barnes replied that the development was annexed in 2005 and it was voluntary. McCoy asked if the annexation occurred before the development. Barnes replied in the negative; the development was approved in the County and many of the buildings, including the McDonald's, were developed in the County. Bear asked if the sign code was in place at the time of the annexation. Barnes replied the City sign code has existed since the early 1970's. However, the McDonald's sign was erected pursuant to the County sign code and was up approximately three years prior to annexation. APPLICANT PARTICIPATION: Jacob Ross, 6666 E Jamison Ave, Centennial, noted the original developer of this area signed a pre-annexation agreement in 2000, in which he agreed the property would be annexed at a later date. Mr. Ross stated his client bought into the property without knowledge of the pre-annexation agreement and they placed the sign based on all of the County requirements. He stated the McDonald's franchise owner was surprised the sign would need to be replaced. Bob Luther, franchisee for the McDonald's at 4424 Denrose Ct, stated this sign will aid in attracting business and increased tax dollars for the location in question. Bello asked if any type of studies have been done regarding the impact of that particular sign. Mr. Luther replied he estimates that six to ten percent of the store business would be lost without that sign. He stated the store has been remodeled which has increased business, jobs, and sales tax revenue for the City. The visibility of the store will decrease without the sign. ZBA-May 10, 2012 -Page 10 Bello asked how many employees work at this store. Mr. Luther replied there are 50 employees at this store and he has five stores and about 250 employees in the City. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION: Roger Bank, 616 W Oak St, supported the variance to allow the sign as the elevation of the property is low and the store is hidden somewhat by other structures. BOARD DISCUSSION: Bear stated she does not have any concern with the request and does not see any detriment to the public good. Bello noted staff is recommending a three year extension. Bohling stated the sign is appropriate for the business district in the area and supported the request. Long stated it is unfortunate Mulberry looks the way it does, however, this sign is no worse than the others. He appreciated the decrease in time to three years. Bello asked if an additional variance could be requested in three years. Barnes replied in the affirmative. Bear moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve Appeal 2706 for the following reasons: the applicant's request satisfies the requirements for granting a variance set forth in the Code because such variance diverges from the standards in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and it will continue to advance the purpose set forth in Section 1.2.2 of the Code, it is not detrimental to the public good, and does not authorize any change in use. Bohling and Shuff seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Long, Bear, McCoy, Bello, Bohling, McBride, Shuff Nays: None. Abstain: None. 5. APPEAL NO. 2707 -Application Withdrawn Address: Petitioner: Zone: Section: Justification Description: 401 E Laurel St Paul Steinway NCM 4.8(E)(3), 4.8(E)(4), and 4.8(0)(5) See petitioner's letter The first variance requested will allow a first and second floor addition to be constructed at a 5 ft. rear yard setback instead of the required 15 ft .. The second variance requested will allow the proposed addition to be constructed at a 10'-4" setback from the street side lot line along Peterson St instead of the required 15 ft. Lastly, the variance requested will increase the maximum allowed floor area ratio for that portion of the house located in the rear half of the lot from .33 to .7 (an increase in the maximum allowed floor area in rear half of lot from 825 s.f. to 1,752 s.f). STAFF REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Variance to Sections 4.8(E)(3), 4.8(E)(4), and 4.8(0)(5) -rear setback, street side setback, and rear lot floor area. ZBA -May 10 , 2012 -Page 17 BOARD DISCUSSION: McBride stated he likes the open stairway from an architectural standpoint. Bohling moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve Appeal 2708 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, and the lot abuts an alley on the back and one side so the building has minimal impact on nearby lots. The additional 79 s.f. of floor area added by enclosing the open stairway will not add any functional floor space that can be used for other purposes. The two abutting alleys create exceptional physical conditions unique to the property and make it difficult to build on. Barnes suggested a reference to staff comments in the motion . Eckman stated the motion could be withdrawn and restarted . Bello stated this change is nominal and inconsequential rather than a hardship . He asked if Bohling would be willing to accept a friendly amendment referencing that reasoning . Bohling replied in the affirmative . Bohling amended his motion and stated the proposal, as submitted, would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Bear seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Long , Bear, McCoy, Bello, Bohling, McBride, Shuff Nays : None . Absta in : None . 7. Other Business: Bello discussed an upcoming meeting to discuss Board work plans . Barnes stated the work plan for the ZBA has remained the same every year and he discussed the Board's duties . He stated the Board will discuss the Eastside Westside Plan jointly with the Planning and Zoning Board at the end of the year. Barnes suggested motions can be made with reference to the recommendations in the staff reports . The Board discussed an email regarding MAX and Barnes asked if the Board would like to receive a presentation regarding the project. The Board replied in the affirmative . Barnes stated the groundbreaking for the project will follow the Federal signing of funding on May 21 51 . Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator