The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/13/2025 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingLAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 1 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. VARIANCE REQUESTS a. APPEAL ZBA250001 Address: 415 S Mason St Owner: Plutus Holdings LLC Petitioner: Debra Ryan, Owner, Restaurant 415 Zoning District: D Code Section: 5.16.2 Project Description: There are two requests associated with this variance request: 1. An after the fact request for an existing 9-foot-tall painted wall sign to exceed the maximum allowable height by 4.5 feet. The maximum allowable height for this sign type and site conditions is 4.5 feet. 2. An after the fact request to exceed the maximum allowable sign area allowance for the property to account for the painted wall sign. Based on overall sign allowance based on property frontage, this property currently has 117 square feet of additional allowable sign area available. The sign in question is approximately 207 square feet. The request is to therefore exceed the amount of available sign area allowance by 90 square feet. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT Participation in the Land Use Review Commission Meeting on Thursday, January 9, will only be available IN PERSON in accordance with Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code. The meeting will begin at 8:30am in City Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue 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 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. 1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 1 Land Use Review Commission REGULAR MEETING Thursday, January 9, 2025 – 8:30 AM City Council Chambers, City Hall – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 1. CALL TO ORDER: 8:30 AM 2. ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present – McCoy, Coffman, Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Lawton, Carron b. Board Members Absent - NONE c. Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Madelene Shehan d. Guest(s) – Stefanie Boster, Deputy City Attorney 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by member Coffman, to approve the December 12, 2024, Minutes as written. The motion passed unanimously. 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. VARIANCE REQUESTS a. APPEAL ZBA240022 Address: 339 Wood St Owner/Petitioner: Kirt Trujillo Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: There are five 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 3.5 feet into the 5- foot required side setback. 3. An after the fact request to allow for an existing shed addition to encroach 10 feet into the 15- foot required rear setback. 4. An after the fact request to allow for an accessory structure/carport to be placed 4 feet from the primary dwelling. The minimum required distance between an accessory structure and primary dwelling is 5 feet. 5. A request to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of the lot. There is a total of 949 square feet of floor area currently building on the rear half of the property. The maximum allowable floor arear for the rear half of this lot is 702 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable rear-half floor area by 247 square feet. 1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 2 Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is on the corner of Wood St and Cherry St. There are other lots along Wood St that extend all the way to the alley. This particular parcel was subdivided at some point, and no longer extends to the alley. The lot is significantly smaller than others parcels along this block. Beals pointed out the existing shed and carport structures. The carport is within the rear setback; the shed is within both the rear setback and the side yard setback. Code requires that accessory structures be placed a minimum of 5 feet from the primary structure. The existing shed in question is about 4.5 feet from the primary structure. Additionally, within the Old Town Zone Districts, there are rear floor area requirements. Both the shed and carport count towards floor area and put the property over the allowance for rear-half floor area. The applicant provided a site plan which noted distances between primary and accessory buildings, as well as distances from setbacks/property lines. The drawings are to a rough scale but do describe the relationship between the various structures. The subject property does face onto Wood St; the existing driveway and carport take access from Cherry St. The fence line is approximately located on the property line; for the subject property this is a rear property line, while for the neighboring property the property line is considered a side setback. Chair Shuff asked Beals to clarify that the rear lot is functionally acting as a side yard. Beals explained that we typically get a handful of similar requests each year, wherein the applicants’ corner lot has difficulty complying with the rear yard setback, treating the rear yard as a side yard. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals to clarify whether or not these buildings are currently in place. Beals confirms, noting the buildings are not permitted. Beals noted that he was unaware of what triggered the inspection, but building inspectors did visit the property and verified that the buildings were unpermitted. In the midst of obtaining a building permit, it was determined that zoning variances would also need to be obtained prior to a building permit being issued. *Beals paused presentations to allow for introductions of new City Attorney Stefanie Boster* Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Naomi Kirchner, daughter of Kirt Trujillo, owner, 339 Wood St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Kirchner stated the carport has been in place since 2011. Neighbors had issue with chicken coop that was being built on the subject property, and their complaint triggered inspection and revealed a need for after-the-fact permits and variance requests. Kirchner stated her opinion that it would be detrimental to remove the carport, as it would take away covered parking from her father, who is a senior citizen with limited mobility. Financially, it is not feasible for the applicant to remove all existing accessory buildings. Kirchner also explained that the current building permit expired on January 7, 2025; she stated that she has been told it is on hold while the current variances are being determined. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Kirchner for clarification. Were accessory buildings in place prior to ownership? Kirchner stated the structures were previously built by her grandmother, who formerly lived in the home, and her father, around 2011 Public Comment: -NONE- 1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 3 Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman sees no problem with the variance. The structures have been in place for many years. There is a clear hardship given size of the lot and rear setback. Coffman stated he would support approval of the variance request. Vice-Chair Lawton agrees. The size of the house next to the subject property is very big, and dwarfs anything in place on the subject property. Additionally, there is no history of complaints. Lawton feels that the existing accessory buildings serve clear purposes. Commission member Carron commented that the existing dwelling is set far back from Wood St; had it been built closer this wouldn’t even be an issue. Carron stated he would support approval of the variance request. Based on the aerial photographs, the existing structures are consistent with the character of the neighborhood Commission member San Filippo noted that the age and infirmity of the occupants lends itself to needing covered parking and access to the rear of the house. He would support the variance. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE ZBA240022, PART 1 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 to allow: a carport to encroach 10 feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 15 feet, and 4 feet into the minimum required distance of 5 feet between an accessory structure and a primary dwelling; and to allow the allowable floor are on the rear half of the lot to exceed the maximum of 702 square feet by an additional 247 square feet, in order to bring the pre-existing carport on the applicant’s property in the OT-B zone district into compliance 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 will not diverge from Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in section 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: the property is a corner property and access to the rear yard is possible from both Wood Street and Cherry Street; the abutting property to the west is only required to be setback from the shared property line by 5 feet; and the lot size is smaller than required. Additionally, the strict application of Section 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the applicant not caused by an act or omission of the applicant. 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 his hearing. Yeas: McCoy, Coffman, Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE ZBA240022, PART 2 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow: a shed to encroach 3.5 feet into minimum side setback requirement of 5 feet, and 10 feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 15 feet; in order to bring the pre-existing shed on the applicant’s property in the OT-B zone district into compliance as shown in the materials for this hearing. 1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 4 The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Section 2.1.6 except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: the property is a corner property and access to the rear yard is possible from both Wood Street and Cherry Street; the abutting property to the west is only required to be setback from the shared property line by 5 feet; and the lot size is smaller than required. Additionally, 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. 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 his hearing. Yeas: McCoy, Coffman, Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: b. APPEAL ZBA240032 Address: 3521 Wild View Dr Owner: The BCF Family Trust Petitioner: Brandon Farmer Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 2.2.1 Project Description: This is a request for a variance to allow for a proposed 247 square foot accessory structure (covered patio) to encroach 3 feet into the required rear setback. The minimum rear setback for this property in the LMN zone is 8 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is mid-block just past Lake Ranch Rd, on Wild View Dr. The request is to construct a covered patio in the location of an existing play structure. The patio will have a hot tub, will be covered by a roof supported by four posts, and will be open on all four sides. There is a 6-foot fence around the patio location as well. Beals presented aerial view and photographs of the property and the proposed patio site. The request came in for a 5-foot setback (encroachment of 10 feet). There is a 6-foot utility easement, so the staff report recommendations is to encroach only to that easement. Chair Shuff clarified the distinction between easement and setback. With a setback, roof projections may enter. However, with an easement, all elements including roof projections must be outside of that easement. Beals confirmed this distinction as accurate. 1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 5 Applicant Presentation: Applicant Brandon Farmer, owner, 3521 Wild View Dr, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Farmer stated that he wasn’t clear on the utility easement when first planning for the patio, and that the easement was identified after the application was submitted. Any additional footage that can be approved would be appreciated. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman noted that the Commission has seen a few types of these requests recently, involving easements. Coffman stated that he would be in support of a 2-foot encroachment as recommended by staff report. Commission member Carron agreed with the comments of Coffman and would support approval. Chair Shuff stated he would support approval of the variance request with a 2-foot encroachment. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by member Coffman to APPROVE APPEAL ZBA240032 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.2.1 to allow an encroachment of 2 feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 8 feet in the LMN zone district in order to construct a covered patio 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 2.2.1 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 open on four sides; and a similar sized structure exists in the same location; and a 2-foot encroachment does not extend into the existing easement. 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 his hearing. Yeas: McCoy, Coffman, Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: *Chair Shuff left the meeting at 9:00am due to a stated Conflict of Interest concerning Appeal ZBA240034, noting that the architectural firm he is employed by is doing the work on the project. The meeting was resumed at 9:02, with Vice-Chair Lawton as Acting Chair* 1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 6 c. APPEAL ZBA240034 Address: 1516 Remington St Owner: Casa Forte Investments LLC Petitioner: Maurizio Campana Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6; 3.1.8 Project Description: There are two requests associated with this variance application: 1. A request to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of the lot. There is a total of 5,789 square feet of floor area currently built on the rear half of the property. The proposed remodel of the primary structure and addition of a new detached accessory building will result in a total of 5,244 square feet of floor area on the rear half of the lot. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of this lot is 2,125 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area rear-half floor area by 3,119 square feet. 2. A request to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory structure. The proposed detached garage is 972 square feet. The maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory structure is 600 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory structure by 372 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the property is mid-block on Remington St between, just south of E Lake St. When presenting the aerial view of the property, Beals noted that lots along this lot are similar size, but are large lots compared to others in the Old Town area. There is a lot of area within with structures could be placed. The recent Land Use Code change took away an allowance for more floor area despite a larger lot. This was done to incentivize the construction of more dwelling units on a given lot. This property began as a single-family residence, then in time was converted into a sorority, then later converted into a group home for youth. More recently it has been sitting vacant. The applicants today have chosen to return the structure to a single-unit residence. Some existing features and additions are to be removed, and a new detached accessory building is being proposed. The Land Use Code limits the size of a detached accessory building, but the number of detached accessory buildings is not limited by code. The applicant would like to exceed the 600 square foot limit for the proposed accessory building. There is the possibility of creating multiple accessory buildings that each would be below the maximum of 600 square feet, but the applicant’s desire is to limit the number of detached accessory buildings to a single structure. The request is to exceed the allowable floor area for an accessory building as well as to exceed the floor area in the rear-half of the property. The net floor area would be less than what is on the property today. This would be closer to compliance, but still over allowable maximum stated by code. If one self-demolishes a non- conforming structure, a variance is needed in order to bring back the structure as proposed. Beals presented elevations and renderings of the proposed residence and accessory structures. The accessory structure is proposed to be a single-story two-car garage with a single person door. The design does anticipate the construction of a pool, which would be fully screened with new fencing. The current mansard roof would be removed in order to return the structure to its original architectural style. The property is eligible for Historic designation, but because it is being used as a 1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 7 single-unit home, Historic Preservation requirements do not have authority over proposed designs. However, they have been contacted for input and guidance. Commission member Carron is curious what changed at some point with the Land Use Code to bring homes to the front of the lot, as many of the surrounding structures seem to be setback into the rear of the lots. Beals notes that Land Use Code goes back to 1929, though building permits were not required until the 1970s. Beals commented that when automobile ownership became more popular, and thus garages were more commonly built, reducing the length of driveways and having an attached garage of reduced size could be achieved by building closer to the alley. Carron asked that because this is existing structure (non-conforming) is being rebuilt, the process to bring to compliance is through variance. Beals explained that if nothing new was being built, no variance would be required. The fact that a new garage is being built puts the lot out of compliance, along with the size of the new garage. Vice-Chair Lawton asked for clarification between what exists today and what is being constructed. Beals noted that what is being demolished is a two-story structure, and the proposed is one-story. That results in a net reduction of square footage. Commission member Coffman asked Beals what the maximum allowable floor area for the entire lot. Beals explained that we don’t have that specific standard anymore. The Primary structure in this zone district is maxed out at 2,400 square feet. Each accessory building then has its own maximum. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Reed Good, Architect, ALM2S, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Good submitted and presented a brief PDF presentation containing additional information. [Presentation was uploaded as a Supplemental Document after the meeting.] Good described the portions of the residence that will be removed, noting that they are settling and cracking and were previously used to support the function of the property as a group home. This will also provide some additional yard space. The original garage was built to 1940s standards and does not fit modern car sizes. The garage being proposed would be a two-car garage. The existing garage would be converted to a pool equipment storage room. Massing of the proposed garage is intended to match the architectural style of the primary residence. Vice-Chair Lawton calls out the remaining garage and asked about intended use. Good confirms it no longer functions as a garage and will be converted to a storage room to support pool activities. Public Comment: Maurizio Campana, owner, 1516 Remington St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Campana stated he would also like to see this project move forward. Pointing out the character of the block, all houses along this block of Remington are similarly pushed back towards the rear of their respective lots. Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman noted that when considering rear floor area and maximum floor area for an accessory building, there really isn’t a way to achieve compliance except with a complete teardown; this isn’t feasible. The applicants could potentially build the garage as an attached garage or two garages – this would not be equal to or better than what is being proposed. Coffman stated he would be in support. Commission member Carron agreed with comments put forth previously. Carron feels that it makes sense to combine garage and pool shed into one structure. The proposed project fits the property 1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 8 well and allows for a vacant building to be occupied and used, which is a benefit to the public. Carron would support the request and noted that it looks like a well-designed proposal. Commission member McCoy noted the property has been on the market for a long time. McCoy is surprised that there is no one in the audience here with issues regarding the historic nature of the structures. Commission member San Filippo noted the lot is three times larger than what is required. Currently, the structure is an eyesore, so this project is well designed and well received. San Filippo is in support of approving the variance request. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE ZBA240034 regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 to allow: the allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot to exceed the maximum of 2,125 square feet by an additional 3,119 square feet; and the allowable floor area for a detached accessory structure to exceed the maximum of 600 square feet by an additional 372 square feet, in order to remodel a primary structure and construct a detached garage in the OT-A zone district as shown in the materials for this hearing. The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: the existing eligible building was originally built mostly in the rear half of the lot; there will be a reduction of floor area in the rear half of the lot; the lot size is significantly larger than the minimum lot size; and the zone setbacks will be maintained. 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 his hearing. Yeas: McCoy, Coffman, Vogel, San Filippo, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Shuff (excused, Conflict of Interest) 7. OTHER BUSINESS -Review and Approval of the 2024 Annual Report. Commission member Coffman made a motion to approve, seconded by member Carron. The motion passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 AM. Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Board/Commission on 2/13/2025 Signature: Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 13, 2025 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA250001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 415 S Mason St Owner: Plutus Holdings LLC Petitioner: Debra Ryan, Owner, Restaurant 415 Zoning District: D Code Section: 5.16.2 Variance Request: There are two requests associated with this variance request: 1. An after the fact request for an existing 5.83’ tall painted wall sign to exceed the maximum allowable height by 1.33 feet. The maximum allowable height for this sign type and site conditions is 4.5 feet. 2. An after the fact request to exceed the maximum allowable sign area allowance for the property to account for the painted wall sign. Based on overall sign allowance based on the property frontage, this property currently has 114 square feet of additional allowable sign area available. The sign in question is approximately 181 square feet. The request is to therefore exceed the amount of available sign area allowance by 67 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is annexed into the City part of the original town plat of 1873. It was later subdivided into developable parcels as part of the Magnolia Subdivision. In1959 the building was constructed for the purpose of a dry cleaners and laundry mat. In 2011 the building was approved to be converted from a laundry mat to a restaurant. The total sign allowance for the property is 140 square feet. Existing signage has taken 26 square feet of the allowance and is in compliance with height regulations. The new signage is 181 square feet total with both messages. The top message is 5 feet 10 inches tall and 23 feet long (134.09 square feet). The bottom message is 3 feet 9 inches tall and 12 feet 6 inches long (46.87 square feet). The top message is over height by 1.33 feet and both signs exceed the allowable sign allowance by a total of 67 square feet. These messages appear on the north wall of the building. This side has limited view from the public right of way and is not seen from the perspective where other signage of building is visible. 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 side of the building has limited view from the public right of way • The sign height varies through the message and does comply in some parts of the message. 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 ZBA250001. From:Debra Ryan To:Zoning Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Automatic reply: Restaurant 415 application for variance Date:Friday, January 10, 2025 1:58:52 PM Good afternoon Rob the dimensions of the sign are 23 feet wide by 9 feet tall. I will include a photo of the Best Debra Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2025, at 9:04ௗAM, Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Debra, We received your application packet. We’ll also need a document showing the sign, and calling out it’s measurements (height and width). Please send that over to us so that we can add it to your application packet. ROB BIANCHETTO Senior Zoning Inspector, Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 N College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524 From: Debra Ryan <debmacklove@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2025 3:52 PM To: Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Automatic reply: Restaurant 415 application for variance I wanted to clarify I am a native Fort Collins resident, not from indigenous people. Thank you Debra Sent from my iPhone On Jan 9, 2025, at 3:09ௗPM, Zoning <zoning@fcgov.com> wrote: ! Thank you for emailing the City of Fort Collins Zoning Team. Our goal is to respond to your request within 24 hours, but please be patient with response times (multiple email and/or voicemail messages will not give a faster response). In the future, please consider completing an online request through the Ask Us button at fcgov.com/developmentreview for faster service by getting you to the correct department. A referendum was received and certified sufficient by the City Clerk regarding the City’s new Land Development Code. The Fort Collins City Charter grants the registered electors of Fort Collins the power to refer a Council-adopted Ordinance to the voters for approval or rejection. As a result, the new code will not be going into effect on January 1, 2023. Please visit this website for additional information on the referendum: https://www.fcgov.com/elections/referendum-effort-land-development- code. Information on the code update can be found here: https://www.fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates. If you need to schedule a zoning inspection for your sign or building permit or send final documents for Certificate of Occupancy (ILC’s), emailing zoning@fcgov.com is the correct way to do so and the request will be added to the upcoming Friday’s inspection list. If you have Planning and Development questions, please use the online request above or email planning@fcgov.com. If you want to report a violation, for any City department, please use Access Fort Collins https://clients.comcate.com/newrequest.php?id=150 (you will have the option to create an anonymous case). Useful Resources: 1. Fort Collins Public Records Database – documents including approved site plans and subdivision plats. 2. Development Proposals Under Review - information on development proposals at various stages of the Development Review process. 3. Fort Collins Land Use Code - a set of City regulations that guide how property is used and developed 4. Municipal Code - a broader and more comprehensive set of City regulations not including the Land Use Code and Traffic Code 5. FCMaps - an easy, online mapping tool which provides current, local geographic and zoning information 6. Land Use by Zoning District Matrix - a quick reference as to the uses allowed within each Zoning District of the City's Land Use Code Please be aware that any information submitted to the City of Fort Collins may be considered a public record, available by anyone who requests it, including the media. All information provided is subject to review by Zoning and Planning staff and may also be shared with other City departments for review. Thank you, Zoning Team