The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/12/2024 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Ian Shuff, Chair Dave Lawton, Vice Chair David Carron Nathaniel Coffman John McCoy Philip San Filippo Katie Vogel Council Liaison: Julie Pignataro Staff Liaison: 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 DECEMBER 12, 2024 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Meeting Participation Participation in the Land Use Review Commission meeting on Thursday, December 12, 2024, will only be available IN PERSON in accordance with Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to nbeals@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable with public participation are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments 24 hours prior to the meeting to nbeals@fcgov.com. Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. If you need assistance during the meeting, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com. Land Use Review Commission Page 2 Agenda – December 12, 2024 1. APPEAL ZBA240022 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 10 feet into 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 ZBA240030 Address: 433 N Roosevelt Ave Owner/Petitioner: Matt Lawrence Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 2.1.4 Project Description: This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 10 feet into the required 15-foot rear setback. 3. APPEAL ZBA240031 Address: 5721 S College Ave Owner: WWW Properties LLC Petitioner: Marie Hashaw, DaVinci Sign Systems, Inc. Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 5.16.2(B) Table B Wall Signs, 5.16.2(B) Table (G)(1) Freestanding Permanent Signs Project Description: This variance has two requests: 1) This is a request for a wall sign to exceed the maximum wall sign height by 7 feet .58 inches. The maximum wall sign height is 7 feet in the commercial/industrial sign district. 2) This is a request to install a second primary detached sign along the east frontage. Only one primary sign per frontage is allowed in the commercial/industrial sign district. • OTHER BUSINESS Review and Approve 2025 Work Plan • 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 NOVEMBER 14, 2024 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present with the exception of Carron. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Commission member San Filippo to approve the October 10, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes. The motion was approved by all members present • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) -NONE- • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL 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. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Land Use Review Commission Page 2 DRAFT Minutes – November 14, 2024 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 Ave 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on S Roosevelt Ave, just south of W Mountain Ave. Beals presented aerial photographs of the property, noting that it abuts the alley that properties along W Mountain Ave use for access. The two lots were parceled off to create a third lot, which is the subject property. The request is to rebuild the garage that currently exists, which is inadequate for applicants’ needs. Additionally, the structure is beginning to fail. Showing site plans, Beals noted the location of the garage, which currently does not meet the side or rear setback requirements. The proposed garage would be similar in size and location to the current structure but would be a bit taller than current. The existing driveway that comes off of the street lines up with an existing garage door on the east; this door placement would be maintained with construction of the proposed new structure. Beals presented elevations of the existing and proposed structures, noting the slight increase in height from current to proposed. Beals stated that at this point in time, it would be difficult to shift the garage placement to the north, as it would conflict with the existing patio, and would not longer line up with the existing driveway. For those reasons, the applicants are proposing maintaining the existing location for the proposed garage. No questions for staff from the Commission. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Johnathan Day, 111 S Roosevelt Ave addressed the Commission and offered comment. Day noted that he did not have much to add beyond what was detailed in Staff Presentation, but did comment that the garage has become a bit of an eyesore. Day also noted that there is a concern that the overhang of the roof is encroaching more into the setback; however, overhang of the new garage will remain the same as current. Public Comment: Audience member Lloyd Wilson, 119 and 123 S. Roosevelt Ave, stated that they are in favor of replacement of the garage, and believes the new structure as proposed would add to the character of the neighborhood. Wilson also offered his opinion that replacing a structure that has been there for many years with a similar structure should not require a hearing. Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated that he has no issues with the proposal and appears to be a clear-cut case of hardship given the size and shape of the lot. Commission member San Filippo agrees with the statements offered by Coffman, and feels it is appropriate to replace in the same location and agrees with the public comment. San Filippo is in favor of approving the application as submitted. Land Use Review Commission Page 3 DRAFT Minutes – November 14, 2024 Vice-Chair Lawton shared his feeling that the new structure as proposed would be a big improvement over the current conditions. Lawton is in favor of approving the application as presented. Commission member Vogel offered agreement with previous comments and desire to approve. Chair Shuff concurred with previous comments and is in support of approval. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel to APPROVE ZBA240027 regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow an encroachment of 6.33 feet into the rear setback requirement of 8 feet, and an encroachment of 3.08 feet into the side setback requirement of 5 feet in the OT-A Zone District, as shown in the materials for this hearing. The Commission finds that the variances would not be detrimental to the public good; and the strict application of Section 2.1.6 would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the applicant not caused by an act or omission of the applicant, in consideration of the following facts: the 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; and the proposed location is limited due to the location of the primary house; and the proposed location is limited due to the location of the primary house. This decision is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Yeas: Lawton, Shuff, Coffman, San Filippo, Vogel, McCoy Nays: 0 Absent: Carron 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on N Grant Ave, just north of Sycamore St. The lot does have almost double the amount of area compared to others in the neighborhood, and most likely began as two separate lots that were subsequently combined into one. The subject property lot does have frontage along the alley, and the alley is uniquely designed in a “U” shape, known as a “goal post” alley. The request is to construct a new single-family house with an attached garage on the property. With the design of the garage, the proposal is to take access to the garage from the street. In the Old Town districts, if alley access is present, any new vehic le access areas are to take access from the alley, and not cut into the street. Beals acknowledged that there are some areas in the district that do have existing driveways that take access from the street, but any new driveways are required to take access from the alley. This is due in part to safety concerns, as the front of the lots in this district usually abut sidewalks and bike lanes, so adding more driveways to that mix can interfere with those pedestrian and bike travel routes. Additionally, when new curb cuts are added to the street, it diminishes the amount of on-street parking available, as well as the opportunity to plant/maintain street trees. Beals presented site plans as submitted, noting the location of the proposed house and attached garage. Beals noted that with the current proposed location of the garage, vehicle access from the Land Use Review Commission Page 4 DRAFT Minutes – November 14, 2024 alley could be possible. The driveway could lead from the east side of the garage to the alley and does not require access from the street to maintain the attached garage design. There are concerns that a driveway here could limit new accessory buildings in the future. There are setbacks along the alley, including 8-feet for a structure with a garage door. There is also the option of building a detached garage, though that is not the desired plan of the applicants. Showing images of the property, Beals noted the existing house has already been demolished, and construction of the new structures depends in part on the decision rendered regarding this appeal and subsequent building permit. There are some existing trees, thought it is unclear how many will remain. Trees in the public right of way are considered when granting permits. Pictures from the alley show an existing shed and current vehicle access; this could be improved with a concrete driveway if that is the desired outcome. Commission questions: Chair Shuff asked Beals if the curb cut requirements are specifically included I Code? Beals responded in the affirmative, noting that it is in the Old Town district language, stating that if alley access is present then new cuts are not allowed. Shuff questioned if this might really be an Engineering request, rather than an appeal to LURC? Beals explained that there is an Engineering permit required to put in a new curb cut, in addition to a required review. When a permit of this type comes in, they must consult with Zoning if there is an alley and a must render a decision from Zoning Dept. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Ryan Lewandowski and Christine Hudson, 311 Willow St., owners of 516 N Grant Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment. The applicants presented additional slides [included in the Supplemental Documents Log]. The reason for this request is to allow wheelchair access to the primary house. On their block, the only points of access for a wheelchair from the street to sidewalk is at either end of the block. They further shared variance criteria and feel that it is nominal and inconsequential within the context of the neighborhood. ADA access is the primary goal for this property as well as yard space preservation. The applicants also shared future design ideas for the property. Chair Shuff asked the applicants if they have explored other accessibility location options, including taking access from the alley? Sometimes it can be better to take access from the back alley, in order to take advantage of the driveway grade and additional space for loading of vehicles. Ms. Hudson responded in the affirmative and shared some photographs of other accessibility location options. The applicants continued their presentation to staff in regard to their findings for denial and why the commission should vote to approve the appeal. They commented that they will continue to plant trees and that the loss of 1 parking space actually means that the car that would be parked in that space will be parked in the garage. Ms. Hudson also commented that their neighbors have been great. Commission member San Filippo noted that one of the applicants’ initial slides showed a one-step up sidewalk to the front sidewalk where the house was, and asked why that could not be turned into ADA walk up to the front of the house as opposed to a curb cut? Seems a wheelchair van could be parked there and a wheelchair unloaded at that point. The applicants responded that this is an option/potential, however, it is not clear at this moment if that would be possible due to grade variants. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman asked staff if adding a curb ramp be possible, to allow ADA access from the street? And if so, would it require a variance? Beals explained that the code language is for new vehicle access areas. If they wanted to pursue a sidewalk ramp with Engineering, they would not need to seek approval from Zoning. Land Use Review Commission Page 5 DRAFT Minutes – November 14, 2024 Chair Shuff asked for clarification regarding some of the options included in the applicants’ presentation, asking that if they chose to pursue an attached garage accessed from the rear, would they be limited to a certain size of garage. Beals responded that once the garage is considered a part of the house, limitations on total footprint would come into play. Commission member Coffman addressed the applicants’ assertion that there is not concern of increased Traffic conflict. Coffman acknowledged there is no history of incidents, but this is a slippery slope to allow further curb cuts thus increasing issues. Coffman did believe the applicants have done a good job exploring different options. Commission member Vogel stated that she is conflicted with the variance request, adding that she is compassionate to the applicants’ desire to add/improve ADA access to their property. Vogel added that based on her knowledge of Old Town, a curb cut seems to be the best option as opposed to a driveway. Vice-Chair Lawton asked to clarify whether Vogel was referring to a curb cut for wheelchair access or just a ramp off of the sidewalk? Vogel described that there is a curb cut that could be done just for wheelchair access, or there could be a curb cut for the driveway. Beals clarified that the request is for a new driveway, however, Vogel is describing an alternative type of curb cut that is simply for sidewalk access, which might fit the needs of the applicants. Lawton also offered that perhaps there hasn’t been a history of traffic incidents at this location due to the fact that there are not curb cuts there. Lawton reiterated that there is opportunity for access from the alleyway, representing an ADA access solution other than a driveway. Commission member San Filippo asked Beals if were there any reason why new garage could not be moved toward the street and inline with the primary dwelling, to allow a driveway and access from the alley? Beals responded that because there would be no garage door on the side, it could potentially be relocated on the site plan. Beals confirmed that Staff’s conclusion is that the garage access could come from the alley. San Filippo added that moving the garage up to the house could also maintain usable rear-yard space. San Filippo further commented that upon an in-person review of the property, he observed that the alley is rather serpentine, while Sycamore is a straight shot to the alley and provides navigable access. Commission member McCoy commented that he appreciates the City’s efforts in minimizing curb cuts in this part of town. McCoy feels that the size of the lot is terrific, and the options from the alley because of the “goal post” design are terrific as well. McCoy stated that he does not like the idea of adding a curb cut to the street. Shuff agreed with the comments offered by San Filippo and feels the reality of providing ramping and handrails with the grade does not seem feasible. The lot is large, and the best solution would be an attached garage from the alley. Coffman asked Beals that if the applicant applies for a permit from Engineering to install a ramp from the sidewalk to the house and they are told it is not feasible, would they be able to reapply for this variance? Beals answered that in the end there is a way for the applicant to reapply with new information. Coffman stated that information may change his mind. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton to DENY ZBA240028 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 finding that the variance as submitted would be detrimental to the public good as it increases vehicle intersections with the public sidewalk and bike lane; a new drive access from the street would reduce on -street parking spaces and street tree locations; and the proposed new construction of the primary building could be designed to comply with the standard without eli minating the possibility of an attached garage. This decision is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Yeas: Lawton, Shuff, Coffman, San Filippo, Vogel, McCoy Nays: 0 Absent: Carron Land Use Review Commission Page 6 DRAFT Minutes – November 14, 2024 4. APPEAL ZBA240029 Address: 4424 Denrose Ct Owner: McDonald’s USA LLC Petitioner: Jordan Bunch, Holland and Heart / Bob Luther, Franchisee 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 th ree years to December 20, 2027. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Denrose Ct, just south of Mulberry St. near the southeast frontage road. Some members of the Commission may remember this variance request from the past; for context, Beals explained that this property has a freestanding sign that was installed when this property was in the County. The property has subsequently been annexed into the City and is now within City jurisdiction. Within the sign code, there is a standard that says that nonconforming signs may remain on the property up to seven years after annexation. At this time, the property owner has requested 3 different variances to extend the time for the nonconforming sign to remain, adding to a total of 12 additional years. Compliance was originally anticipated to occur in 2012. They are requesting another variance to extend that timeframe an additional 3 years. Beals presented an aerial view of the property and surrounding area, noting that all of Denrose Ct has now been annexed into the City. There is a housing development just south of this that recently annexed into the City as well, and is fully built out and occupied. The streets to the north and all CDOT right-of-way has been annexed into the City, as well as both sides of Mulberry St in this area. Beals also noted that there is an enclave that has been created, which can be annexed into the City, and an East Mulberry Annexation plan has been adopted. Thus, annexation around and including the subject property has already occurred, though the request is to extend the timeline for sign compliance an additional 3 years. Beals added that both the nearby gas station and hotel requested additional variances for non - conforming signs, and neither request was granted. Max sign height is 18 feet with additional design standard; the current sign is approximately 60 feet tall. Staff is asking that it be brought into current standards, including setback based on sign area and no longer utilizing a pole sign design. Commission member McCoy asked Beals to explain how these annexations work, specifically the manner in which enclaves/carve outs are created. Beals explained that annexation usually triggered when someone is proposing development, and if that development is touching City boundaries, the County will refer that development to the City and request a review and annexation. Beals does not recall specifically how this property was annexed. Lawton aske Beals how many years the sign has actually been out of compliance. Beals responded that the first seven years are granted, they would have come into compliance in 2012 and fell out of compliance but received variance approval since that time. Lawton asked if the intent was to have correction/compliance at the end of the variance? Beals noted that some previous arguments supporting the granting of the variance requests include the fact that there is very little context change in the area, and there are other freestanding signs in the area that are not required to comply. Staff’s thought is that there has been change in context recently and more are anticipated, and most likely other properties will not be granted an additional 12 years to achieve compliance. Land Use Review Commission Page 7 DRAFT Minutes – November 14, 2024 Chair Shuff asked Beals if the city zoning map be pulled up. He would like a bigger snapshot of design in the area. Based on the map, some properties that have tall pole signs appear to be on the west. Commission member Vogel asked if it is the nearby hotel that also has a nonconforming tall sign. Beals explained that the hotel property has not been annexed into the city and does have the tall sign. A portion of the property was sold for creation of the gas station, and that portion has been annexed into the City. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Jordan Bunch and Todd Sork with Holland and Heart, and Robert (Bob) Luther (McDonald’s franchisee) addressed the Commission and offered comment. Bunch noted that the owner company name has been updated to McDonalds USA LLC. Bunch commented that they feel that it will cause undue hardship if the sign has to change. They are requesting an additional 3 years (or more) of time, and feel it is warranted given the fact that previous requests have been routinely granted. For historical context, Bunch explained the McDonald’s was originally built in 2001, when the property was included in unincorporated Larimer County. It was annexed into the City in 2005. At the time the sign was constructed in 2001, in was in compliance with all codes and permit requirements. For all previous extensions, Commissions found that there would be nominal and inconsequential effects if the sign were left as-is, given the context of the surrounding area and the existence of other similar signs. Applicants feel granting the requested extension is appropriate, given the actual character of the immediate area has not changed, despite other properties being developed nearby. In fact, the limited changes that have occurred only highlight the need to keep the sign, given the cut-off of the frontage road and the fact that it is directly off of I-25 and the building is blocked by a new hotel. This sign is important in drawing traffic off of I-25 and to this commercial hub, which is a boon for the surrounding businesses. The nearby Maverik gas station has been in continued support of the variance. Additionally, there is no blue interstate “services” sign to indicate that the McDonald’s is nearby. Bunch further asserted that the existing sign satisfies the requirements of the sign code. Mr. Luther elaborated on how the construction has impacted the business, and the importance of the sign and its ability to draw traffic during that time. Commission member San Filippo asked that since McDonald’s USA LLC is the property owner, would they be responsible for erecting a new sign or would it be the franchisee? Mr. Luther indicated that he as franchisee would be responsible for a new sign, based on the franchise agreement he has with McDonald’s. San Filippo asked if Luther would be responsible for applying for a permit and/or variance for a wall sign? Luther confirmed it would be his responsibility, with the support of McDonald’s. San Filippo asked if Luther has considered applying for a wall sign along the frontage road , to increase visibility along Hwy 14? Luther stated additional signage was not granted during a previous remodel. Signage on the building currently is what was approved by the County. Luther has operated the building for 16 years. Commission member Vogel asked if a CDOT sign is not in place; can a request be made to have one placed? Luther responded it is his understanding that there is not enough room along the north travel lanes, and he is unclear if he can apply to have one place. Public Comment: Todd Sork, real estate portfolio manager for McDonald’s offered additional comments. Sork explained that McDonald’s’ business model is “QSR”, or quick serve restaurants. The most important things for this business model are access and visibility; this is what drives business and customer visits. Regarding the signage, McDonald’s has performed numerous studies in the past. What these studies have shown is that within 3 seconds of a customer seeing their sign, they make a decision to visit McDonald’s. With the hotel blocking the restaurant from northward travel, there is a very small window for customers to be able to see the sign and then exit off of the interstate. This particular location has more than average sales when compared to other McDonald’s location. If this change must be made, the reduced visibility has the potential to harm business. Land Use Review Commission Page 8 DRAFT Minutes – November 14, 2024 Commission member San Filippo stated that he is not sure who (Sork or Bunch) would be able to answers questions regarding Highway signage along north and south travel lanes. Bunch provided additional information, explaining that when McDonalds applied for CDOT/Interstate signage, they were told that there is not enough room on the northbound side of the highway. The request was not denied, CDOT has indicated that they are unwilling to put one in at the northbound location. San Filippo asked how long ago this decision was made. Luther indicated that it was 10-years ago. San Filippo asked if they have tried to approach CDOT since then? Luther answered no. San Filippo commented that if they could obtain that level of CDOT signage, possible along with Maverik, it would provide an amenable solution. Bunch stated that if the Commission could grant additional time through approval of the variance request and grant a shorter time of extension, they could potentially come back with a response from CDOT. San Filippo indicated that the Commission cannot speak to this question without conferring with legal counsel. San Filippo also noted that the sign is currently oriented north-south but might be more effective if it were oriented east-west to catch more traffic travelling along Hwy 14. San Filippo asked that if the Commission were to grant the requested three-year extension, what conditions would have to change? Bunch responded that is part of the problem – all the conditions that have supported the sign for the past 12 years still remain. If the development where this area is becomes residential, and McDonald’s were to be the only commercial property in a sea of residential, that would constitute a change. Other previous Commission members have also expressed frustration with the sign code as applied to this particular area. Vice-Chair Lawton questioned if there might be an opportunity to get a sign with “(business name) in x miles”? Bunch stated she was not sure; that may necessitate discussion with private property owners who would be willing to lease property space for sign placement. Lawton asked if there is there a plan for the future, or are the applicants planning to keep going after variances? What happens in another 3/6/9 years? Lawton spoke to changes in other jurisdictions to make these types of code changes and it was a good thing. Lawton feels like McDonald’s is just going to wait it out. Bunch feels that this sign should stay in place until the neighborhood changes. Beals responded to the question of what other opportunities there might be to place a sign as one approaches the highway exit. The city does not allow for off-premises signage. However, there are other options currently available, such as existing billboards. Commission Discussion: Commission member McCoy commented that with the signage currently in place by other businesses in the immediate area, he feels he cannot deny this request. The area is not fully annexed and contains multiple carve-outs of County land. Commission member Coffman noted the city has laid out annexation plans for years and with the expansion of I-25 it is very possible that things have changed, and they may put up a sign now. The overall context is largely unchanged at this point in time. If CDOT signage is an option, that may provide much of the functionality currently put forth by the nonconforming sign. A shorter variance appeals to Coffman so that answers can obtained regarding CDOT, alternate options. Commission member Vogel stated she is leaning toward denial of the variance request, due to lack of answers from studies regarding potential impact on sales if the sign were no longer present and considering the fact that it has been 12 years, and nothing has been done on McDonald’s part. Vice-Chair Lawton reiterated his previous statements that the main issue is that there is not a plan for the future. This has been going on for a long time. Lawton is in favor of denying the request. San Filippo agrees with Lawton, as current code states that properties have 7 years to come into compliance and McDonald’s is already way past that. 12 years is a long time to come up with an alternative plan. Lawton believed the applicants should pursue CDOT options rather than continue to request more time. San Filippo is not persuaded by the arguments made by the applicant to continue this variance for an additional three years. Land Use Review Commission Page 9 DRAFT Minutes – November 14, 2024 Chair Shuff acknowledged the hardships of annexation. The sign is no longer effective driving from the south, in large part due to the placement of the nearby hotel. The development has changed the landscape in the area. Shuff stated that he supports an extension, however, there should be conditions included is the final extension. Conditions may include development of a definite sign plan and/or a minimizing of extension time. Bunch stated that a condition like this would be acceptable to the applicant. San Filippo asked Beals if this item could be tabled until they receive a response from CDOT? Is there an outside time limit that would allow the applicant more time to carry this request and obtain more information? Beals responded that the Commission could choose to table the request and ask the applicant to pursue additional information. Usually, we see that within 6 months or less. San Filippo asked Beals if he had any experience with how long CDOT might take in reviewing and deciding on that type of application? Beals responded that he has some experience with CDOT, thought not specifically with this type of request. Beals again pointed out there are other existing billboards in the area that could potentially be used for advertising on behalf of the applicant. Vogel asked if the Commission were to deny the request, could the applicants re-apply with more information? Beals confirmed that the applicants could re-apply post denial, if there were new information and/or plans available for submittal. If the request were to be denied and the sign thus became non-compliance, would it need to be removed by the end of the year (expiration of current variance). Beals confirmed this as accurate. Fort Collins is a friendly community with compliance and wish to achieve voluntary compliance. Vogel stated that with this knowledge, she would be in favor of granting a limited extension, more in line with 6-12 months. Coffman would be in favor of granting a year extension, with the condition that alternate avenues be explored. They haven’t been expected to come up with a plan based on the history of indefinite extensions granted. CDOT processes do not move quickly, so time is needed to pursue. Shuff proposes sticking with the three-year extension, with the condition imposed that the extension granted is final. This sign has been out of compliance for a long time but needs to be resolved rather than additional series of extensions. Coffman asked legal counsel if that is a type of condition that can be applied? Cyril Videgar, City of Fort Collins legal counsel, explained the Commission could approve the variance with conditions, and one of those conditions could be that there be no further consideration of extension without the applicant performing a prescribed list of actions. A future Commission would then determine actions at the end of the three-year extension. Otherwise, the Commission does not have the ability to cut off the right of an applicant to seek an extension in the future. Lawton feels this request will come back again in three years. A shortened period of extension may be more amenable. If the sign needs to come down, the City will work with all parties involved to mitigate the sign. That process would demand a plan, which is what is really needed. Perhaps the extension offered is 1-2 years? Lawton feels there must be a plan request mandated. McCoy aske Beals if any development is anticipated at this corner? Currently it is not fully developed and is a mix of different signs at this point. Beals explained that some property owners in the area have been engaged in discussion, which has led to so me amount of proactive annexation. The goal is to avoid creating “islands” within the larger annexation. Additionally, County sign standards have been largely aligned with City standards. McCoy asked how the south-east corner became annexed? Beals explained it most likely occurred from the south but isn’t able to fully describe the annexation process for that area. Shuff is not in favor of a motion of denial; he is in favor of a motion that contains an extension with definite conditions. Vogel agrees with Shuff, so long as conditions require a plan and exploration of other options. Land Use Review Commission Page 10 DRAFT Minutes – November 14, 2024 Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel, to APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS ZBA240029 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 5.16.4(A)(2) to extend the time period in which a nonconforming sign on a property that is annexed into the City limits must be brought into compliance with the City’s regulations for an additional 18 months, allowing the applicant’s existing sign to remain until June 20, 2026, as shown in the materials for this hearing. With the following conditions: that upon the expiration of the variance period, applicant presents a plan for mitigation if the sign has not been brought into compliance, documenting options explored. The Commission finds that the variance in consideration of the conditions would not be detrimental to the public good; and a compliance period ending on June 20, 2026 will promote the general purpose of Section 5.16.4(A)(2) equally well or better than would the standard 7 - year compliance period in consideration of the following facts: the variance request will not diverge from Section 5.16.4(A)(2) except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code cont ained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the conditions given that this a plan for bringing the sign into compliance be developed and executed. This decision is based on agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this variance contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Yeas: Lawton, Shuff, Coffman, San Filippo, Vogel, McCoy Nays: 0 Absent: Carron • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:44am Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 12, 2024 STAFF Noah Beals, Development Review Manager PROJECT ZBA240030 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 433 N Roosevelt Ave Owner/ Petitioner: Matt Lawrence Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 2.1.4 Variance Request: This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 10 feet into the required 15 -foot side setback. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property annexed into the City in 1964 part of the Mountain View Heights Annexation. It was platted as part of an 83 residential lot subdivision, the Mountain View Heights subdivision. The 83 residential lots are similar in size. They have uniform front setback of 30 feet, rear setback of 15 feet and 5-foot side setbacks. Additionally, each lot has at least a 6-foot utility easement that runs along the rear property line. The request is to build a shed that is 120 square feet in size and 13.5 feet in height. The shed is proposed to be setback 5 feet from the rear property line, with the longer side of the building parallel to the rear property line. A shed is required to get a building permit when it is over 120 square feet in size or over 8 feet in height. In this case a permit is required because it is over 8 feet and therefore required to meet the setbacks. Accessory buildings are also required to be separated from the primary building by 5 feet. The lot size is 6,000 square feet and is large enough for the additional floor area. The property abuts four other residential lots. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval for a maximum of 8 feet encroachment and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The 8-foot encroachment will not overlap the utility easement. • The structure is 120 square feet in size • The shorter wall faces west. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA240030. Application Request IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH The /DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ has been granted the authority to approve variances IURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVH LQ D]RQLQJ GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVH XVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\ SHUPLWWHGLQ WKH ]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQ PD\JUDQW YDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good $GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRU RWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR WKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWR SK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFK DV H[FHSWLRQDO QDUURZQHVV VKDOORZQHVV RU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOG UHVXOW LQ XQXVXDODQG H[FHSWLRQDO SUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHV RUXQGXHKDUGVKLS XSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG WKDWVXFK GLIILFXOWLHV RU hardship DUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFW RU RPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWLHQRW VHOILPSRVHG WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOSURPRWH WKHJHQHUDO SXUSRVH RIWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LVUHTXHVWHG equally well or better than ZRXOG DSURSRVDO ZKLFKFRPSOLHV ZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LV UHTXHVWHG WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQ Dnominal, inconsequential way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQ WKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. +RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ PD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$Q H[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location9,578$/21/<YLD=RRP LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWR WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ Date6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPH DP Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s)Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s)Representative’s Address Justification(s)Representative’s Phone # Justification(s)Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ tZ/ddE^ddDEdyW>/E/E'd,Z^KE&KZd,sZ/EZYh^dZYh/Zs/ ^WZdKhDEd͘ ________________________________ Buildin od e uirements will be determined nd eviewed b the Buildin e artmen separatel 433 N Roosevelt Ave 80521 Matt Lawrence 2.1.4 Low Density Residential District 11/09/2024 3. Nominal and inconsequential 1. Hardship dditional Justification I am writing to explain why I’m submitting a request for a variance in the Fort Collins Land Use Code. I moved to 433 N. Roosevelt Ave. two years ago with my daughter. I'm currently getting medical treatment out of state and was looking for a place I could live with her about 50% of the time, the other half being in treatment. We're living in a section of the house that once had been the garage, before being turned into a living area. I rent the rest of the house out to help with the mortgage. I wanted to get a shed, both for storage and work space, as there is no garage and little storage in our small studio. With that in mind, I contacted Tuff Shed in Denver. The liaison I worked with handled the planning of the project. I paid for the shed and awaited delivery. However, on the morning of delivery day, I realized the foundation needed additional work, and postponed delivery while the issue was addressed. In the interim, the original employee left Tuff Shed and a new person was assigned to the project. When I called to reschedule, they informed me the shed would need to be placed in a different location, 15’ from the back lot line. I had already had a cement foundation poured at the original planned shed location, 5’ from the back lot line. The shed’s footprint is 10’x12’, within the 120 sq ft required for unpermitted sheds in Fort Collins. However, it has a storage loft and stands over 8’ tall (13’6” at its peak). To place the shed 15’ from the back lot line would put it very close to the back wall of my house, as well as leave the already poured concrete foundation unused. The neighborhood is characterized by many two-storey homes and a multitude of backyard structures, including sheds, chicken coops, tree forts and other constructions. I don’t feel the proposed shed would be an issue, in light of the context of the neighborhood. Additionally, to move the shed would require another foundation and leave a 120 sq ft cement pad, taking up much of the remaining backyard. It would also place the shed only 10’ from the house. In summary, I am requesting a variance because I believe placing the proposed shed on the existing foundation will only diverge from the Land Use Code in a nominal, inconsequential way given the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, placing the shed 15’ from the back lot line would mean another foundation, place the shed very close to the house, and break up the backyard in such a way as to make it less usable, as much of the remaining yard would be in the back corner behind the shed, and much of that would be covered by the original foundation. Thank you sincerely for your time and for considering my request. Please let me know if you would like any additional information or have any questions. Thank you again. Sincerely, Matt Lawrence Matt Lawrence Wall D Wall A Wall C Wall B Base Details Building Size & Style Premier Pro Tall Barn - 10' wide by 12' long Paint Selection Base: Sheffield Gray, Trim: Delicate White Roof Selection Shakewood Dimensional Premium Shingle Drip Edge White Is a permit required for this job? No,If local jurisdiction requires a permit, fees will be added before installation can take place Options Details Doors 6-Panel Residential Door (Left Hand Inswing), , Drip Cap Windows 2'x2' Insulated Horizontal Sliding Window 3'x3' Insulated Horizontal Sliding Window Transoms 6 Ea Transom Window (16"x8") Walls 414 Sq Ft House Wrap Roof 13 Lin Ft Ridge Vent Interior 88 Sq Ft Overhead Loft Vents 2 Ea 16"x8" Wall Vent - White 12 Ea Floor Track Vent Loft Full Loft - Verify opening size & placement, 4' Deep Wall A, 2' Deep Wall B, 4' Deep Wall C, 0' Deep Wall D Jobsite/Installer Details Do you plan to insulate this building after Tuff Shed installs it? Yes Is there a power outlet within 100 feet of installation location? Yes The building location must be level to properly install the building. How level is the install location? Within 4" of level Will there be 24" of unobstructed workspace around the perimeter of all four walls? Yes Can the installers park their pickup truck & trailer within approximately 200' of your installation site? Yes Substrate Shed will be installed on? Dirt/Gravel Matt Lawrence Signature: _\s1\___________________ Date: ____\d1\______ Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 12, 2024 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA240031 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 5721 S College Ave Owner/ Petitioner: WWW Properties LLC Zoning District: C-G Code Section: 5.16.2(B) Table B Wall Signs, 5.16.2(B) Table (G)(1) Freestanding Permanent Signs Variance Request: This variance has two requests: 1) This is a request for a wall sign to exceed the maximum wall sign height by 7 feet .58 inches. The maximum wall sign height is 7 feet in the commercial/industrial sign district. 2) This is a request to install a second primary detached sign along the east frontage. Only one primary sign per frontage is allowed in the commercial/industrial sign district. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City part of the Skyview LTD annexation in 1989. It remained undeveloped until in Aug 2023 the property was approved for a car dealership. This development proposal included two modifications approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; 1) locate the building further back from the street along College Ave and 2) increase the glare rating for lighting on the site. The design for the building included an entry feature that was designed to be a similar color of the other building materials. Additionally, the site design includes a display area for inventory at the corner of College and Venus Drive. Sign regulations are designed to reduce sign clutter and distraction. This includes both wall sign and freestanding sign standards. The proposed request clads the entire architectural feature with signage. This feature exceeds the height limitations for a wall sign. Also, the proposed request is for a second freestanding permanent sign. The applicant has already submitted and received approval for one freestanding sign that is located closer to the building. The proposed second sign is designed to be at the north corner of the property next to the display area. 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 will significantly increase the signage along the property, specifically a 100% increase in the number of ground signs and a 100% increase in the wall sign height. • The development requested to set the building back further from the public right of way. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 2 • The inventory display area is visible from the along 90% of the College Ave frontage • Insufficient evidence has been provided showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. • Insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA240031. From:Marcus Anderson To:Jared Eisenach; Marie Hashaw Cc:Shannan Hnatkowicz; Briana Little Subject:Fort Collins Nissan - Variance Request Date:Tuesday, October 22, 2024 6:48:45 AM Attachments:image001.png Good Morning Jared Please use the following narrative from Jay Weibel when applying for variances for sign A monument sign and exterior tablet sign for Fort Collins Nissan: “I am writing to express our deep concern regarding the recent restriction placed on the size of the signage for our newly constructed Nissan dealership in Fort Collins. As you may be aware, we have invested significantly in this project, totaling $20 million, and we believe that the signage is a vital component of the overall aesthetic and visibility of the dealership. The proposed 14-foot tablet sign is in line with the standard signage used by Nissan dealerships across the country. A smaller sign would not only look disproportionate and visually unappealing on such a large building but would also significantly compromise its visibility. This is particularly concerning given that our dealership is the only Nissan dealership in the area, and a prominent sign is essential for attracting customers and establishing our presence in the community. Furthermore, the restriction on signage has the potential to devalue both the dealership and the Nissan brand in Fort Collins. Nissan has invested heavily in building a strong brand identity, and a uniform appearance across dealerships is crucial for maintaining that brand recognition. A smaller sign would deviate from this standard and could negatively impact the perception of our dealership and the Nissan brand as a whole. Additionally, the restriction on signage runs counter to the growing trend of electric vehicle (EV) adoption in Colorado. As a leading automaker in the EV market, Nissan is committed to promoting sustainable transportation and reducing emissions. A visible and easily identifiable dealership is essential for attracting potential EV customers and supporting the state's efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources. We respectfully request that you reconsider the current signage restriction and allow us to proceed with the installation of the 14-foot tablet sign. We believe that this is a reasonable request that will not only enhance the appearance of our dealership but also contribute positively to the overall commercial landscape of Fort Collins. Thank you for your time and consideration.” Marcus Anderson Assistant Project Manager Signage Solutions 2820 Crusader Circle Virginia Beach, VA 23453 O 800.877.7868 ext.2118 manderson@AGI.net www.AGI.net 9 9 9 = = 9 99 9 9 5 9 9 9 = = 9 99 9 9 5 130104&%/*44"/%&"-&34)*1#6*-%*/( 4503*&4 '*/'-003hß h 4065)$0--&(&"7&/6& )8: h 308 53"4) &/$-0463& '%$ &-&$.&5&3 %*4$0//&$5 ."*/&/53: %0034 4&37*$&&/53: ("3"(&%0034 4&37*$&&/53: ("3"(&%0034 4&37*$&&9*5 ("3"(&%003 4&37*$&&/53: ("3"(&%003 4&37*$&&9*5 ("3"(&%0034 4)08300.&9*5 ("3"(&%0034 4)08300.&9*5 ("3"(&%0034 /&8$0/$4*%&8"-, 84/08.&-54:45&. 1&3.&$)$*7*- )"5$)&% 13*7"5&%3*7& " 3&"-*(/&% 7&/ 6 4 "7&/ 6& h 3 0 8 */7&/503:7&)*$-&4503"(& -05#-0$, 13*7"5&%3*7& $6 4 5 0 . & 3 1 " 3 , * / ( ' $6 4 5 0 . & 3 1 " 3 , * / ( /&8."*/#3"/%1:-0/4*(/ #:4&1"3"5&1&3.*5 1307*%&108&3"43&2h% 53"/4'03.&3 3&&-&$ 7&)*$-&%*41-": h%*".&5&3 3&$*7*--"/%4$"1&1307*%& 108&3"43&2h% 4&$0/%"3:#3"/%4*(/ '3&&45"/%*/( #:4&1"3"5&1&3.*5 1307*%&108&3"43&2h% ):%3"/5 $& 3 5 * ' * & % 1 3 & 08 / & % 7 & ) * $ - & 4 /& 8 * / 7 & / 5 0 3 : 7 & ) * $ - & 4 ("4.&5&3 3&1-6.# 4&37*$&)0-%*/( 7& ) * $ - & % * 4 1 - " : 7& ) * $ - & % * 4 1 - " : h ß $ - 3 hß$-3 hß$-3 h ß $ - 3 %*3&$5*0/"-4*(/ '3&&45"/%*/( #:4&1"3"5&1&3.*5 1307*%&108&3"43&2h% 7&)*$-&%*41-": h%*".&5&3 40*1&31-6.#%8(4 1"354 3&$&*7*/( 1301&35:-*/& 1301&35:-*/& /&8&71"3,*/( &7$)"3(*/(45"5*0/4 3&&-&$ 1307*%&30--07&3$63#4"5 7&)*$-&%*41":41&3$*7*- 1307*%&30--07&3$63#4"5 7&)*$-&%*41":41&3$*7*- ,*"%&"-&34)*1 '6563&#6*-%*/( 4065)$0--&(&"7&/6& )8: h 308 3&" - * ( / & % 7&/ 6 4 "7&/6& h 3 0 8 /*44"/ ,*" '6563& (DVWWK6WUHHW/RYHODQG&RORUDGR 6+((7,668$1&('$7( 3ORW'DWH 6HDO 127)25&216758&7,21 )255()(5(1&(21/< 30 " '0 3 5 $ 0 - - * / 4 / * 4 4 " / %& " - & 3 4 ) * 1 % & 7 & - 0 1 . & / 5 4 $ 0 - - & ( & " 7 & ' 0 3 5 $ 0 - - * / 4 $ 0 "3$)*5&$563"- 4*5&1-"/ &216758&7,21'2&80(176 ßhß" "3$)*5&$563"-4*5&1-"/ /035) '(6,*1'(9(/230(17 &'352*5(666(7 &'352*5(666(7 35(68%0,77$/6(7 h 4$"-& h h ßhß h "$$&44*#-&1"3,*/(41"$&44)"--#&-0$"5&%0/5)&4)035&45 "$&44*#-&3065&0'53"7&-'30."%+"$&/51"3,*/(50"/ "$$&44*#-&&/53"/$& "$$&44*#-&1"3,*/(41"$&44)"--#&"5-&"45*/$)&48*%& 8*5)-&7&-4-01&4/05&9$&&%*/(*/"--%*3&$5*0/4 "$$&44*#-&1"3,*/(41"$&44)"--#&%&4*(/"5&%"43&4&37&% #:"4*(/4)08*/(5)&4:.#0-0'"$$&44*#*-*5:"/"%%*5*0/"- 4*(/ß7"/"$$&44*#*-&ß4)"--#&.06/5&%#&-085)&4:.#0-0' "$$&44*#*-*5:46$)4*(/44)"--#&-0$"5&%405)&:$"//05 #&0#4$63&%#:5)&7&)*$-&1"3,&%*/5)&41"$& 4-01&40'$63#3".14"-0/("/"$$&44*#-&3065&4)"--/05 &9$&&%53"/4*5*0/4'30.3".14508"-,4 (655&3403 453&&544)"--#&'-64)"/%'3&&0'"#3615$)"/(&4 5)&.*/6.6.8*%5)0'"$63#3".14)"--#&*/$)&4 &9$-64*7&0''-"3&%4*%&4 3".1463'"$&44)"--#&4-*13&4*45&/5 $)"/(&4*/-&7&-6150ß.":#&7&35*$"-"/%8*5)065&%(& 53&"5.&/5$)"/(&4*/-&7&-#&58&&/ß"/%ß4)"--#& #&7&-&%8*5)"4-01&/0(3&"5&35)"/$)"/(&4*/-&7&- (3&"5&35)"/ß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ßhß" 07&3"--4*5&1-"/ 1301&35:-*/& 13 0 1 & 3 5 : - * / & /035) DDD REVIEW COORD 09/14/2022 74 5 . 8 7 f t pproved Monument Sign Proposed Monument Sign 10.42 ft 37 . 5 8 ft Fort Collins Nissan (5811) Fort Collins, CO February 29, 2024 1,66$11257+$0(5,&$ 'HDOHU3UHVHQWDWLRQ3DFNDJH 385326( 1(;767(36 6LWH3ODQDQG&RORU5HQGHULQJV 6FKHGXOHRI6LJQV 'HDOHU(QDEOLQJ:RUNV /RFDO0XQLFLSDO,QIRUPDWLRQ 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ$JUHHPHQW(VWLPDWHG/HDVHDQG0DLQWHQDQFH3D\PHQW 6LJQ3URJUDP5XOHV 1RQ&RPSOLDQFH9DULDQFH$SSURYDOV &217(176 7\SLFDO7LPHOLQH0D\9DU\ &RQVHQW)RUP 'UDZLQJV5HFHLYHG '33,VVXHGWR'HDOHU 6LJQHG'33 5HWXUQHGWR11$3HUPLWV$SSURYHG0DQXIDFWXUH 'HOLYHU\ ,QVWDOOHG6LJQV 7KH'HDOHU3UHVHQWDWLRQ3DFNDJH'33LVLVVXHGE\1LVVDQ1RUWK$PHULFD,QF´1LVVDQ´,W GH¿QHVWKHVLJQDJHVROXWLRQIRUWKHGHDOHUVKLSIDFLOLW\VXEMHFWWRVXFFHVVIXOSHUPLWWLQJE\ $UFKLWHFWXUDO*UDSKLFV,QF´$*,´7KHVLJQLQVWDOODWLRQSURFHVVFRPPHQFHVXSRQUHFHLSWE\ 1LVVDQRIWKH3DUWLFLSDWLRQ$JUHHPHQWH[HFXWHGE\WKHGHDOHU 'HDOHU3ULQFLSDO3OHDVHH[HFXWHWKH3DUWLFLSDWLRQ$JUHHPHQWSURYLGHGLQWKLVSURSRVDODQGUHWXUQ WR\RXU1LVVDQ5HJLRQDO5HSUHVHQWDWLYH Page 2 Page 3 NewA NewC 12'-11" 14 ' - 8 5 / 8 " C East Elevation East Elevation C: Large Slim Tablet Page 4 Fort Collins Page 8 Total of 1 LGST 190.12 sf 8' - 3 3 / 4 " 9'-9 1/4" New 12'-11" 14 ' - 8 5 / 8 " C 1'-1 1/2" Large Tablet - Slim Page 18 Total of 1 Main Brand MonumentMNT36 - Retro 37.67sf 6' - 6 5 / 8 " 2'-0" New 5'-9" 8' 8 7 / 8 " A Work Plan City of Fort Collins Land Use Review Commission 2025 Work Plan The Land Use Review Commission (LURC) will meet on the second Thursday of every month, providing that there are discussion items appearing on the regular monthly agenda. The Commission may also meet as needed in order to convene special meetings. All regular Land Use Review Commission meetings are scheduled for 8:30am and are typically held at Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue. The Land Use Review Commission 2025 meeting schedule is as follows: January 9 May 8 September 11 February 13 June 12 October 9 March 13 July 10 November 13 April 10 August 14 December 11 The primary purpose of the meetings will be to hear and decide appeals of certain administrative decisions made by City staff and to authorize variances from the requirements of the Land Use Code. It is estimated that the Commission will consider approximately 35 variance requests in 2024.