HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/2025 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingLAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
9/11/25 – LURC SUMMARY AGENDA 1
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of August 14, 2025, Minutes.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
5. VARIANCE REQUESTS
a. APPEAL ZBA250023
Address: 1213 Ticonderoga Dr
Owner/Petitioner: Chad Philips
Zoning District: RL
Code Section: 4.3.5(C)(4)
Project Description:
This is a request for a proposed 6-foot-tall fence to be built between the front building
line and the front property line. The proposed section of fencing is 16.5 feet total in
length. The maximum height for a fence between the front building and the front
property line is 4 feet.
Additional items are included on Page 2 of the Agenda.
Participation in the Land Use Review Commission Meeting on Thursday, September 11,
2025 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.
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
9/11/25 – LURC SUMMARY AGENDA 2
b. APPEAL ZBA250025
Address: 35 S Taft Hill Rd
Owner/Petitioner: Andrew Martin
Zoning District: LMN
Code Sections: 2.2.1; 5.13.2(A)(6)
Project Description:
There are two requests associated with this variance application:
1. A request for a proposed 792 square-foot detached accessory building (2 car
garage) to be built 2 feet 6 inches from the rear property line. The minimum
required rear setback in the LMN zone district is 8 feet. The request is to
therefore encroach 5 feet 6 inches into the required rear setback.
2. A request for an eave of the proposed detached accessory structure to be placed
0 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required rear setback in the LMN
zone district is 8 feet, into which an eave can encroach up to 2 feet 6 inches. The
request is to therefore allow the eave to encroach an additional 5 feet 6 inches to
the required setback.
c. APPEAL ZBA250026
Address: 806 Peterson St
Owner/Petitioner: Mercedes Cooper
Zoning District: OT-B
Code Section: 2.1.6
Project Description:
This is a request for an 84 square-foot proposed front porch to be constructed 13 feet
from the front property line. The minimum required front setback in the OT-B Zone
District is 15 feet. The request is therefore to encroach 2 feet into the required front
setback.
d. APPEAL ZBA250027
Address: 307 S Loomis Ave
Owner: Fox Martin Joint Revocable Trust
Petitioner: Kathryn Fox
Zoning District: OT-A
Code Section: 3.1.8
Project Description:
This is a request for a proposed 868 square-foot detached accessory building
(garage with habitable space above). The maximum allowable floor area for a
detached accessory structure in the OT-A Zone District is 600 square feet. Their
request is to therefore exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a detached
accessory structure by 268 square feet.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT
8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 1
Land Use Review Commission
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, August 14, 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
Board Members Present – Coffman, Gupta, Vogel, Lawton, Floyd, Carron
Board Members Absent – San Filippo
Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Brad Yatabe
Guest(s) – Mayor Jeni Arndt
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Carron made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to approve the July 10, 2025, Minutes as written.
The motion passed by all members present.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Special Guest: Mayor Jeni Arndt. Presenting message of thanks to LURC.
-Mayor Arndt offered thanks to Commission members for their time served as volunteers for the
City, serving on the Land Use Review Commission as her time as Mayor ends.
5. VARIANCE REQUESTS
a. APPEAL ZBA250020
Address: 608 Peterson St
Owner: JRA Property Solutions LLC
Petitioner: Jamie Allen, Better Blueprint Realty
Tom Martinez, Valiant Construction Holdings LLC
Zoning District: OT-B
Code Section: 2.1.6
Project Description:
There are two requests associated with this variance application:
1. A request for a new detached accessory building (1-story garage) that is replacing an existing
detached accessory building (carriage house converted to a garage) to be constructed 2 feet from
the north (side) property line. The minimum required interior side setback for this lot in the OT-B
zone district is 5 feet. The request is for the new detached accessory building to encroach
approximately 3 feet into the required side setback.
2. A request to allow the garage door of the proposed detached accessory building to be built 5 feet
from the rear property line. The minimum setback for a garage door from a rear alley is 8 feet. The
request is for the garage door to encroach 3 feet into the required 8-foot garage door setback from
a rear alley.
8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 2
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is
located near the corner of Peterson St and E Myrtle St. Beals reminded the Commission that this property was
considered for a similar variance request two months agon. The current request is for a new detached
accessory building that would be accessed from the alley. There is an existing structure that would be
demolished and fully replaced with the proposed structure.
The previous variance requested asked for two things: an increase in floor area for an accessory building and
encroachment into the rear setback. This Commission chose to approve the increase in floor area, however
the request for encroachment into the rear setback was denied.
Since that time, the applicants have revised their plans and have identified an additional variance request,
which is to place the new structure into both the side and rear setbacks.
Beals presented site plans of the proposed accessory building, noting the greatest encroachment is 1.5 feet
from the alley. The request is for a new detached accessory building, with a 3-foot encroachment into the side
setback and rear (alley) side.
A setback for a garage door is 8 feet from the alley, to help provide safe backing distance for vehicle entry into
the alley, as well as providing more space for vehicles to pass each other when traveling through the alley.
Elevations of the proposed accessory building were shown, as well as pictures of the existing accessory
structure that at one time was used as a garage. Since its construction, vehicles have grown in size and can no
longer be stored in the structure.
Other garages along the alley that are closer to the alley are considered non-conforming, as they were
permitted prior to the 8-foot requirement for garage doors on an alley.
Chair Lawton confirmed with Beals that the increase in square footage is no longer in question. Today’s
request now includes a new element of side setback encroachment variance request, as well as a correction to
code verification that an 8-foot setback is needed from a garage door on the alley.
Commission member Gupta asked Beals if this is considered to be a new request; Beals confirmed.
Commission member Floyd asked Beals when the applicant came to understand that the 8-foot setback was
required. Beals commented that the city identified the requirement upon application review and communicated
this requirement to the applicant.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Tom Martinez, General Contractor,1398 Candleglow St, Castle Rock, CO addressed the
Commission and offered comment. Martinez noted projects like this are complicated, as both the primary
residence and the accessory building are being remodeled. The existing accessory building needs to be
addressed to increase value and come into compliance.
This project is being completed with two separate permits, one for the home and one for the garage. There is a
large tree approximately 15 feet from the back of the garage. One concern is that if building occurs to close to
the tree, it may damage or kill it according to an arborist that was consulted.
Another item brought up by Martinez is the existence of other non-conforming garages along the alley.
Martinez stated that a 5-foot setback would not be a problem, but the required 8-foot setback from the garage
door would present a problem to the proposed project.
8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 3
Martinez noted that the existing structure is about 2.5 feet from the property line now. The goal is to keep the
proposed structure in the approximate location of the existing accessory building that is planned for demolition.
Commission member Gupta has some confusion between the 5-foot and 8-foot requirements. Beals explained
that if the building didn’t have a garage door, it could be placed 5 feet from the alley. With the door, code
requires that it be placed 8 feet from the alley. Gupta asked theoretically, could the garage door be recessed?
Beals answered in the affirmative.
Chair Lawton asked where the mature tree is located on the property? Martinez noted the base of the tree is
approximately 15 feet from the back of the existing structure. Arborists have concern that roots could be
damaged if building occurs any closer. Martinez described the tree as covering virtually the entire yard.
Lawton stated that he was in the area recently and drove down the alley. Lawton contests Martinez’s
assertation that most of the buildings along the alley encroach into the setback. Lawton calls out the need for
safety and setbacks within alleyways to preserve safety and visibility.
Lawton noted the garage could be moved over by approximately 3 feet along the north (side) setback. Martinez
noted that line could potentially offer some wiggle room in the design.
Commission member Coffman asked Martinez if there is any wiggle room on size; Martinez notes they are
trying to achieve a “comp” size that meets buyers’ expectations of a home in the area.
Gupta asked if the arborist had produced an official report or performed a more basic review. Martinez noted it
was a more basic review and consultation. If a written report were needed, it could be pursued.
Commission member Carron notes a written report could be helpful in providing justification based on
hardship.
Coffman noted Martinez referenced fitting a truck in the garage a few times. Would a truck be able to make the
turn and enter the planned garage? Martinez confirmed it is tight in the alley, but most vehicles should be able
to make the turn and enter the alley without problem.
Public Comment:
Audience member Mike Lyons, neighbor to the south, 612 Peterson St, addressed the commission and offered
comment. Lyons referenced the site plan, noting the proposed building runs right along an existing sewer line.
The proposed building may affect/disrupt the location of the sewer line. If the building were built over the line, it
may have to be moved or sleeved.
Martinez responded to Lyons’ comments, noting the sewer line is situated far enough south from the building
that it shouldn’t be affected by the proposed building placement regardless of the encroachment.
Commission member Coffman asked if there are any known utilities easements. Beals noted this part of town
has few utility easements in place; most overlap fairly well with setback requirements. If the sewer line were
extending to another home, that may need an easement, but generally not for utilities that run straight to a
single home.
Commission Discussion:
Vice Chair Vogel asked if the garage door was not facing the alley, would they need the 8-foot encroachment?
Beals confirmed that if the garage door were placed on the north or south, the side of the building could be
placed 5 feet from the alley.
8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 4
Commission member Coffman noted that while that might be true, it could be a case of “malicious compliance”,
as it wouldn’t be of benefit to the homeowner to put a door on the side of the garage or recess the door from
the face of the garage along the alley.
Chair Lawton noted the need for setbacks to provide safety in an alley. Lawton also acknowledged the
difficulties that can be presented when trying to preserve large mature trees.
Carron would support an encroachment of 5 feet, if an arborists report could be produced.
Yatabe and Lawton discussed the mechanics of a motion that would include an arborist’s report as a
necessary part of approval. Yatabe stated a desire what would specifically be required from an administrative
standpoint. Lawton suggested that an arborist’s report could be required to be “satisfactory to the city”.
Vogel commented that an arborist’s report would need to specifically identify a hardship.
Coffman stated that a report would need to identify a hard limit as to how close to the trunk of a tree a structure
could be built without adversely affecting the existing trees.
Commission member Gupta asked Yatabe that this Commission isn’t ultimately deciding, then who is?
Coffman answered this is why there needs to be a definitive measurement.
Commission member Carron suggested that this could be achieved administratively, as presumably the
arborist’s report would be submitted along with a building permit, which would then be reviewed by the City
Forester.
Beals suggested that the motion could stipulate that the chosen arborist be licensed with the city. If compliance
with the 8-foot setback would cause damage or hardship to the tree, then the applicant would be allowed to
instead meet the 5-foot setback.
Commission member Gupta suggested there may also be an “option c”, which would be that the depth of the
building could be adjusted to meet requirements.
Beals commented that an arborist could identify a “no-build” zone. If an 8-foot setback could still be met with
the no-build zone, then that would be the requirement.
Commission member Coffman noted that the Commission can only approve/deny the building as proposed but
is not able to dictate to applicants what/how to build a structure.
Chair Lawton asked if the motion ought to include a statement referring to the acceptable building envelope.
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Gupta to DENY IN PART
ZBA250020, regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 regarding
encroachment of the proposed accessory structure into the north side interior setback as shown in the
hearing materials finding that the variance:
• Would be detrimental to the public good, and:
• The variance as submitted would not comply with any of the three Land Use Code variance
standards contained in Section 6.14.4(H)(1) through (H)(3) because:
o The proposed design does not comply with the standards equally well or better than a
design meeting the standard.
o In meeting the standard, no circumstances unique to the property would result in
unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardships.
8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 5
o A 60% encroachment into the north side setback and 37% encroachment into the garage
door setback are not nominal and inconsequential in connection to the increased safety
concerns.
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and
Commission discussion. The Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings and
conclusions in the hearing staff report.
Yeas: Carron, Gupta, Vogel, Lawton, Floyd, Coffman
Nays:
Absent: San Filippo
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Vogel to APPROVE IN PART,
WITH CONDITIONS ZBA250020, regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to
allow the proposed accessory structure to encroach 3 feet into the garage door alley setback as shown
in the hearing materials.
With The following conditions: a report shall be compiled by a licensed arborist, to be reviewed by the
City Forester, stating that constructing the garage with an 8-foot garage door alley setback would
cause irreparable harm to the existing tree in the backyard of the property.
The Commission finds that the variance, with this condition, would not be detrimental to the public
good; and by reason of exceptional hardship caused by the proximity of the proposed garage to the
existing mature tree would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties.
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and
Commission discussion. The Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings and
conclusions in the hearing staff report.
Yeas: Carron, Gupta, Vogel, Lawton, Floyd, Coffman
Nays:
Absent: San Filippo
b. APPEAL ZBA250021
Address: 1805 Laporte Ave
Owner: Colin Berry and Celeste Wieting
Petitioner: Jeremy Cameron, General Contractor, Intelligent Designs
Zoning District: OT-A
Code Section: 2.1.6
Project Description:
There are two requests associated with this variance application:
1. A request to construct a 175 square-foot addition (sunroom) to an existing 1,020 square-foot
detached house. The proposed location of the sunroom is along the southwest corner of the
house where the addition will follow the wall line of the existing attached garage, which was
built up to the western property line. The minimum required interior side setback in the OT-A
zone district is 5 feet. The request is to therefore allow an encroachment into the existing
side setback by 5 feet.
2. An after the fact request for approval of an existing 5 feet 6-inch-tall x 25 feet long masonry
wall located at the front of the property along Laporte Avenue. The maximum allowable
fence/wall height located between the front building line and the front property line is four
feet. The request is for approval to exceed the maximum allowable wall height by 1 foot 6
inches.
8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 6
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is
located on Laporte Ave, just west of Frey Ave.
The request is two-fold; one for placement of a new sunroom along the property line and an after-the-fact
approval for increase in wall height along the front property line.
Beals noted the purpose of the increased wall height is to block traffic noise and headlights along Laporte Ave
and neighboring brewery. The fence is already in place and was identified as needing a variance during
property review related to the proposed sunroom.
The property has vehicle access from Laporte Ave and the alley, and there is a small ribbon of paving that
appears to be shared with a neighboring property. The driveway creates essentially a 10-foot setback, but if a
building were placed on the property line as proposed that distance would be reduced to only 5 feet.
Setbacks between buildings are important to maintain health and safety, including proper water runoff,
emergency responder/vehicle access, and proper fire rating of structures.
Beals notes that staff are recommending denial of the setback encroachment and approval of the wall. If the
applicant wanted to work with their neighbor and obtain a no-build easement on their neighboring property,
approval could be considered more thoroughly. Without that easement, staff recommend denial of the
encroachment as requested to maintain safe distances between structures now and in the future.
The non-compliance fence is significantly set back from the sidewalk and thus does not contribute to a
“tunneling” effect or create a “pedal catcher” hazard for bicyclists.
Nothing currently prevents the neighboring property from constructing an addition to the 5-foot setback, which
could create a potential safety hazard.
Commission member Carron asked if the overhang of the garage is over the neighboring property line. Beals
confirms that this appears to be true. Carron asked if overhang would start at the setback or the variance?
Beals notes that all guttering and eaves must be maintained within the setback and may not hang over the
neighboring property line.
Chair Lawton asked about the history of the existing building. Beals believes it was originally built in the County
and then was annexed at a later date as a non-conforming property.
Commission member Gupta asked a question about the fence, asking if it is properly permitted outside of the
height. Beals notes the minimum setbacks have been met. Normally, verification of permitting would be sought
from the Engineering Dept. because this fence is along a public right of way. Engineering then checks with
Zoning to verify fence height. Beals noted that a fence permit has not yet been issued as these items are
investigated.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Colin Barry, owner,1805 Laporte Ave and Jeremy Cameron, General Contractor, addressed the
Commission and offered comment.
Barry provided information about the wall, noting that they live across the street from Stodgy Brewing. The pull-
in/pull-out location of the brewery lot creates an effect where cars’ lights shine directly in their living room. They
built the fence/wall to the precise height that would effectively block vehicular headlights.
Barry did engage the Engineering Dept, with the help of their City Council member, to gather information about
fence requirements.
8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 7
Cameron noted that transom windows on the side of the proposed sunroom could be eliminated. Placing the
addition anywhere else would negatively affect sunlight into the living/dining room, as well as impacting egress
from that portion of the residence. If the sunroom were reduced by 5 feet, it would create a less functional
space.
Cameron would be amenable to speaking to neighbor to seek a non-build agreement or other necessary
easements that could facilitate the placement of the proposed sunroom. An agreement could also include an
overhang clause to address gutter/eave overhang. Watershed could also be controlled with some adjustments
to the proposed roof slope.
Barry notes that an ILC was obtained for the structure. Barry has two kids, and they’d like to increase useable
space for his family and stay in this type of home in this unique area of town. If the space were forced to be
any smaller, they would most likely need to abandon the project.
Commission member Carron asked if a 3-foot encroachment would be a game-breaker? Barry responded that
it would impinge on garage access, which is now 2.5 feet off the back of the building. Cameron noted that it
would also present some mechanical issues to the existing structure.
Barry noted that these plans have been shared with neighbors, and they are in support.
Chair Lawton asked if they had considered renovating the garage into a sunroom? Barry responds that the
scope of the project is out of their means at this time. Cameron noted the proposed project is roughly $50,000;
a project as described by Lawton may be close to $200,000
Commission member Floyd noted that the foundation may potentially be crossing property lines. Cameron
noted that the image was a function of the CAD design software, but the actual building would be contained
within the applicant’s property.
Floyd asked if consideration had been given to wrapping the addition around the back? Barry responded that it
would block the windows of the single kitchen; there are not many windows on the home as it is now.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Carron stated that he was not against the request in theory, but the practicality of getting
permitted is perhaps more difficult. A smaller encroachment would allow for fire rating, gutter, etc. Carron
proposed a 2-foot encroachment.
Commission member Coffman would be in support of the request if applicants could obtain a no-build and/or
overhang agreements. Beals notes those would be private easements that would be filed with the County for
perpetuity. That would negate all concerns. Carron notes this could de-value the neighboring property.
Coffman suggests this could be tabled to allow time to pursue easements. If those cannot be obtained,
consideration could be given to granting an encroachment of 2 feet into the setback.
Commission member Floyd asked if it would require another application fee? Beals responds that if a decision
is made today, a new application fee would be required. If tabled, this application would remain open and
would not require additional fees.
8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 8
Barry stated that he is amenable to the current application being tabled in order to pursue two options:
agreements with neighbors regarding easements, as well as potential re-sizing if the proposed addition meets
a smaller setback.
Chair Lawton asked staff what actions might be most appropriate going forward. Beals responds that tabling
the item may be most effective right now. That would then allow staff to most effectively review and assess in a
professional way any future plans that are brought forth.
Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by member Gupta to APPROVE ZBA250021
(pt. 1) granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.3.5(C)(4) to allow the existing wall
located between the front building line and the front property line to exceed the maximum allowed
height by 1 foot 6 inches as shown in the hearing materials.
The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and will not
diverge from Section 4.3.5 (C)(4), except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the
context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code Section
1.2.2 because:
• The increased height in combination with the increased setback does not create a tunnel effect
along the sidewalk; and
• The wall has been in place for four years
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and
Commission discussion. The Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings and
conclusions in the hearing staff report.
Yeas: Carron, Gupta, Vogel, Lawton, Floyd, Coffman
Nays:
Absent: San Filippo
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Floyd to TABLE ZBA250021 (pt. 2)
indefinitely regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the proposed
addition to encroach into the interior side setback by 5 feet as shown in the hearing materials.
Yeas: Carron, Gupta, Vogel, Lawton, Floyd, Coffman
Nays:
Absent: San Filippo
6. OTHER BUSINESS
-Beals noted that the Commission has four (4) applications planned for the Sept. 2025 agenda.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 AM.
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT September 11, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA250023
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 1213 Ticonderoga Dr
Owner/ Petitioner: Chad Philips
Zoning District: RL
Code Section: 4.3.5(C)(4)
Variance Request:
This is a request for a proposed 6-foot-tall fence to be built between the front building line and the front property
line. The proposed section of fencing is 12.5 feet total in length. The maximum allowed height for a fence
between the front building and the front property line is 4 feet.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was annexed into the City in 1977 as part of the Harmony Annexation. It was later subdivided
and received development approval in 1979 as part of the Golden Meadows Second filing. The primary
building was constructed in 1984 as a single unit dwelling.
Fence regulations help to balance the needs of privacy, safety, and maintain the context of a residential
neighborhood. With a 4-foot height limit in the front yard a fence can both delineate private property and
maintain visual connection from the public sidewalk and the windows of the house.
The proposed fence is seeking a 6-foot height limit in the front yard. This fence would extend into the front
yard from the side of the house by 4 feet and run parallel with the front property line for 12.5 feet and extend
back to the rear property line. The east abutting neighbor’s house is setback 12 feet from the shared
property line and in this setback is a mature evergreen tree.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The increase fence height is to the side of the house and not directly in front.
• The east abutting neighbor has a mature tree that limits the view of the fence.
• The fence is 15% of the total length of the front yard.
Therefore, this 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 ZBA250023.
$SSOLFDWLRQ5HTXHVW
IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH
7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ KDVEHHQJUDQWHGWKHDXWKRULW\WR DSSURYHYDULDQFHV IURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV
RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQ D]RQLQJ
GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVH XVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\ SHUPLWWHGLQ WKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQ PD\JUDQW
YDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGZRXOGQRWEHGHWULPHQWDOWRWKHSXEOLF JRRG
$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV
E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRU RWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR
WKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWR SK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFK DV H[FHSWLRQDO QDUURZQHVV
VKDOORZQHVV RU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOG UHVXOW LQ XQXVXDODQG
H[FHSWLRQDO SUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHV RUXQGXHKDUGVKLS XSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG
WKDWVXFK GLIILFXOWLHV RU KDUGVKLS DUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFW RU RPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW
VHOILPSRVHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOSURPRWH WKHJHQHUDO SXUSRVH RIWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LVUHTXHVWHG
HTXDOO\ ZHOORU EHWWHUWKDQ ZRXOG DSURSRVDO ZKLFKFRPSOLHV ZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LV
UHTXHVWHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQ DQRPLQDO LQFRQVHTXHQWLDO
ZD\ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQ WKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
7KLVDSSOLFDWLRQLVRQO\IRUDYDULDQFHWRWKH/DQG8VH&RGH%XLOGLQJ&RGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHG
DQGUHYLHZHGE\WKH%XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQWVHSDUDWHO\ :KHQDEXLOGLQJRUVLJQSHUPLWLVUHTXLUHGIRUDQ\ZRUN
IRUZKLFKDYDULDQFHKDVEHHQJUDQWHGWKHSHUPLWPXVWEHREWDLQHGZLWKLQPRQWKVRIWKHGDWHWKDWWKH
YDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHG
+RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ PD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK
H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$Q H[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH
VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG
3HWLWLRQHURU3HWLWLRQHU¶V5HSUHVHQWDWLYH PXVWEHSUHVHQWDWWKHPHHWLQJ
/RFDWLRQ /D3RUWH$YH&LW\+DOO&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV
LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWR WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ
'DWH 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\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/dd E^dd D Ed yW>/E/E'd, Z ^KE&KZd, sZ/E Z Yh ^dZ Yh/Z s/
^ WZd KhD Ed͘
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________7/15/5
%XLOGLQ RGHH XLUHPHQWVZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHG
QG HYLHZHGE WKH%XLOGLQ H DUWPHQWVHSDUDWHO
1213 Ticonderoga Dr
80525
Chad Phillips
5.13.2(2)
RL
5.13.2(2). Setbacks. require conformance with Section 4.3.5(C). See attached narrative.
3. Nominal and inconsequential
2. Equal to or better than
dditional Justification
Zoning Variance Application Narrative
Land Use Review Commission and City Staff:
My wife and I recently purchased and moved into 1213 Ticonderoga Dr. We are now looking to relocate a
small section of our 6’ tall cedar fence into the front yard setback. We hope that you agree with us that
the project indeed meets the criteria for a variance approval as stated below.
Summary of request: To increase the proposed 4’ fence to 6’ for a short 20’6” (total front and sides)
section of fence located in the front/side yard setback.
5.13.2(2). Setbacks. requires conformance with Section 4.3.5(C). Fences and Walls. The specific
variance requested is for sub-section 4.3.5.(C)(4), which states: (4) No more than four (4) feet high
between the front building line and front property line . We are proposing to relocate the small section of
fence located in the east side/front yard setback to protrude four (4) feet past the front of the house.
Applicable criteria and compliance rationale.
As written in the Code, The Commission may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the
standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at
least one of the following justification reasons: Applicant Comment: We believe that the resulting
fence section relocation would not be detrimental to the public good because of its minuscule
impact on the neighborhood and for the reasons detailed below. The Code allows for this proposed
section of fence to be 4’ in height, but we feel that the full 6’ height allows for more of a visual
screen from the street and neighbors, security, and uniformity with the other 6’ high privacy fences
in our neighborhood.
(1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique
to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness,
shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property,
provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant or
applicant (i.e.; not self-imposed); Applicant comment: This section does not apply to our
justification.
(2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested
equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is
requested; Applicant Comment: The 2’ increase in height in the proposed location in front of our
house upholds the intent of this requirement by not resulting in an improvement that is contrary to
the aesthetic of the LDR zone district. This specific modification, we believe, supports the standard
equally well compared to an increased fence height elsewhere in the front yard setback closer to
the street. There are no “sight/distance” issues with the proposal from nearby intersections, so
safety is not a concern. Again, Code allows for a 4’ high fence in the proposed location. The
proposed section of fence is approximately 26 feet behind the sidewalk and approximately 18.5’
from front property line.
(3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential
way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Applicant Comment: We believe that this
proposal to add 2’ in height to a proposed, conforming 4’ high short section of fence in the front
corner of the house is nominal and inconsequential given the small section of fence, location, and
size of the front yard. When viewed from the street perpendicular to the existing fence, the
proposed fence section would result in only a slight visual difference, if any.
Figure 1 location
Figure 2 Existing Fence
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT September 11, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA250025
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 35 S Taft Hill Rd
Owner/ Petitioner: Andrew Martin
Zoning District: LMN
Code Section: 2.2.1, 5.13.2(A)(6)
Variance Request:
There are two requests associated with this variance application:
1. A request for a proposed 792 square-foot detached accessory building (2 car garage) to be built 2 feet 6
inches from the rear property line. The minimum required rear setback in the LMN zone district is 8 feet.
The request is to therefore encroach 5 feet 6 inches into the required rear setback.
2. A request for an eave of the proposed detached accessory structure to be placed 0 feet from the rear
property line. The minimum required rear setback in the LMN zone district is 8 feet, into which an eave
can encroach up to 2 feet 6 inches. The request is to therefore allow the eave to encroach an additional
5 feet 6 inches to the required setback.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property annexed into the City in 1963 part of the Maxwell’s First annexation. Prior to annexation the
primary building was constructed as a single unit dwelling in 1946.
The applicants submitted a building permit for a new garage to be built in the rear yard. This original
submittal complied with the rear yard setback of 8 feet. In further review of the proposed design the
applicant concluded there was not enough room to make a vehicle turn around so they could drive forward
back down the driveway. In order to provide more room for a turn around the applicant is proposing a 0-foot
setback to the rear property line.
The west abutting property is not developed. It is also zoned LMN and takes access from the dedicated
public right of way that is not constructed that extends Pennsylvania Street south of Laporte Ave. This
neighboring property is part of a development plan that is expired.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that:
• The variance is detrimental to the public good.
• The proposed design would increase the impact of water runoff on the abutting neighbor.
• The proposed design could result in buildings being less than 10 feet apart from each other.
• Other designs could be explored that would comply with the standard.
• A unique hardship not caused by the applicant has been identified.
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA250025.
$SSOLFDWLRQ5HTXHVW
IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH
7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ KDVEHHQJUDQWHGWKHDXWKRULW\WR DSSURYHYDULDQFHV IURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV
RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQ D]RQLQJ
GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVH XVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\ SHUPLWWHGLQ WKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQ PD\JUDQW
YDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGZRXOGQRWEHGHWULPHQWDOWRWKHSXEOLF JRRG
$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV
E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRU RWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR
WKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWR SK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFK DV H[FHSWLRQDO QDUURZQHVV
VKDOORZQHVV RU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOG UHVXOW LQ XQXVXDODQG
H[FHSWLRQDO SUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHV RUXQGXHKDUGVKLS XSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG
WKDWVXFK GLIILFXOWLHV RU KDUGVKLS DUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFW RU RPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW
VHOILPSRVHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOSURPRWH WKHJHQHUDO SXUSRVH RIWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LVUHTXHVWHG
HTXDOO\ ZHOORU EHWWHUWKDQ ZRXOG DSURSRVDO ZKLFKFRPSOLHV ZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LV
UHTXHVWHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQ DQRPLQDO LQFRQVHTXHQWLDO
ZD\ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQ WKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
7KLVDSSOLFDWLRQLVRQO\IRUDYDULDQFHWRWKH/DQG8VH&RGH%XLOGLQJ&RGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHG
DQGUHYLHZHGE\WKH%XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQWVHSDUDWHO\ :KHQDEXLOGLQJRUVLJQSHUPLWLVUHTXLUHGIRUDQ\ZRUN
IRUZKLFKDYDULDQFHKDVEHHQJUDQWHGWKHSHUPLWPXVWEHREWDLQHGZLWKLQPRQWKVRIWKHGDWHWKDWWKH
YDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHG
+RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ PD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK
H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$Q H[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH
VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG
3HWLWLRQHURU3HWLWLRQHU¶V5HSUHVHQWDWLYH PXVWEHSUHVHQWDWWKHPHHWLQJ
/RFDWLRQ /D3RUWH$YH&LW\+DOO&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV
LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWR WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ
'DWH 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\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/dd E^dd D Ed yW>/E/E'd, Z ^KE&KZd, sZ/E Z Yh ^dZ Yh/Z s/
^ WZd KhD Ed͘
%XLOGLQ RGHH XLUHPHQWVZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHG
QG HYLHZHGE WKH%XLOGLQ H DUWPHQWVHSDUDWHO
35 S TAFT HILL RD
80521
ANDREW MARTIN 970-310-8109
2.2.1 Setbacks andybobmartin@gmail.com
LMN
8/5/2025
1. Hardship
3. Nominal and inconsequential
dditional Justification
Andrew Martin
35 S Taft Hill Rd
Fort Collins, CO 80521
8 August 2025
Land Use Review Commission
281 N College Ave
Fort Collins, CO
Dear Commissioners,
I am requesting a variance for the garage I am building on my property for
reasons of safety.
An 8-foot setback' off the rear property line puts the garage too close to the
house to allow one to turn a vehicle around without hitting the house. Taft Hill
is a very busy road, and people regularly use my block (between Mulberry and
La Porte Ave) as an opportunity to put the "pedal to the metal." It is very
dangerous to back out of my driveway.
I have a large-ish family (4 kids and expecting more), and this requires larger
vehicles (one of which being a Ford Transit Passenger). These larger vehicles
will be very difficult to turn around in the currently permitted space. My oldest
son will also be a new driver in the next 6 months, and his brothers will follow
soon in the next 4 years, and I would like them to not have to back out onto
Taft Hill Rd as new drivers. Even as an experienced driver it is a risky move.
The original garage on the property (which I had to demolish a few years back
because of structural/safety concerns, yet the foundation remains) was on the
back property line. For the sake of safety, and having room to turn vehicles
around without hitting the house, I would like to request that the new garage
be permitted to have a 2.5’ setback. This will keep all overhangs and gutters
within my property boundaries, yet give us adequate room to turn vehicles
around on the property. Again, this will be much safer, allowing us to avoid
backing out onto a very busy and fast street.
$Q
G
U
H
Z
0
D
U
W
L
Q
6
7
D
I
W
+
L
O
O
5
G
)R
U
W
&
R
O
O
L
Q
V
&
2
:,
/
+
(
/
0
'
(
6
,
*
1
/
/
&
130104&%
("3"(&
4'
130104&%
-&"/50300'
4'
&9*45*/(
4)&%9
&9*45*/(
1-":)064&
&9*45*/(
1&3(0-"
*$5$*(6,7(3/$19$5,$1&(5(48(67·µ5($56(7%$&.
µ ·µ
&9*45*/(
)064&
4'.'
4'505"-
563*/(
3"%*64
6,
7
(
3
/
$
1
9
$
5
,
$
1
&
(
5
(
4
8
(
6
7
·
µ
5
(
$
5
6
(
7
%
$
&
.
40
6
5
)
5
"
'
5
)
*
-
-
3
0
"
%
:,/+(/0 % & 4 * ( /
"OUIPOZ8JMIFMN
XJMIFMNEFTJHOMMD!HNBJMDPN
$Q
G
U
H
Z
0
D
U
W
L
Q
6
7
D
I
W
+
L
O
O
5
G
)R
U
W
&
R
O
O
L
Q
V
&
2
:,
/
+
(
/
0
'
(
6
,
*
1
/
/
&
&9*45*/()064&
4'.'
4'505"-
130104&%
("3"(&
4'
130104&%
-&"/50
300'
4'
&9*45*/(
4)&%9
&9*45*/(
1-":)064&
&9*45*/(
1&3(0-"
6,7(6859(<,5/
µ ·µ
62
8
7
+
7
$
)
7
+
,
/
/
5
2
$
'
*$5$*(6,7(3/$1
µ ·µ
4*5&"/%#6*-%*/(%"5"
1SPQFSUZ"EESFTT 4PVUI5BGU)JMM3PBE
1SPQFSUZ0XOFS "OESFX.BSUJO
0XOFST1IPOF
(FOFSBM$POUSBDUPS "OESFX3FY
3FY(FOFSBM$POUSBDUJOH
1BSDFM/P
-FHBM%FTDSJQUJPO #&("51548'5'30./&$03
0'4&
/8'5
48'5
4&'550&-/
/&'5510#
'5$
;POJOH%JTUSJDU -%.6
4VCEJWJTJPO 4
/FJHICPSIPPE
4FUCBDL 'SPOU:BSE'FFU
3FBS:BSE'FFUGPSHBSBHF
4JEF:BSE'FFU
-PU4J[F
42'5 XJEF9EFFQ
1SPQPTFE'MPPS"SFB
&YJTUJOH.BJO'MPPS 4'
1SPQPTFE%FUBDIFE(BSBHF 4'
1SPQPTFE-FBO5P3PPG 4'
5PUBM 4'
:FBS#VJMU
(&/&3"-/05&4("3"(&
"--$0/4536$5*0/4)"--#&*/"$$03%"/$&8*5)5)&"11-*$"#-&3&26*3&.&/540'5)&
*/5&3/"5*0/"-3&4*%&/5*"-$0%&
5)&*/5&3/"5*0/"-&/&3(:$0/4&37"5*0/$0%&
5)&
*/5&3/"5*0/"-.&$)"/*$"-$0%&
5)&/"5*0/"-&-&$53*$$0%&
"48&--"4"--
-0$"-".&/%.&/54$0/53"$5034)"--0#5"*/"---*$&/4&4"/%1&3.*543&26*3&%#:5)&
+63*4%*$5*0/8*5)"65)03*5:07&35)&$0/4536$5*0/0'5)*4130+&$5
"--%*.&/4*0/4"3&50'"$&0'$0/$3&5&
#3*$,
800%'3".*/(03$&/5&3-*/&0'
4536$563"--*/&4
6/-&44/05&%05)&38*4&
"--8*/%08)&"%)&*()54"3&50"%+"$&/5'*/*4)'-003
"--*/5&3*03%003450#&-0$"5&%0''"%+"$&/58"--6/-&4405)&38*4&/05&%
"--&95&3*03"/%*/5&3*03."5&3*"-4"/%'*/*4)&44)"--#&"44)08/*/5)&%3"8*/(403
"4/&(05*"5&%#:5)&08/&3$0/53"$503'03*5&.4/05%&5"*-&%
$0/53"$5034)"--3&7*&85)&%3"8*/(40'5)*4130+&$5
"/%7&3*':"--&9*45*/(
$0/%*5*0/4
'*&-%%*.&/4*0/4
"/%05)&3"41&$540'5)*4130+&$513*0350#&(*//*/(
$0/4536$5*0//05*':08/&30'"/:%*4$3&1"/$*&4
5)&&9*45*/($0/%*5*0/4%&1*$5&%0/5)&4&%3"8*/(4"3&#"4&%0/5)&#&45"7"*-"#-&
*/'03."5*0/"/%4)"--#&7&3*'*&%#:5)&$0/53"$50313*0350$0/4536$5*0/
3&'&3504536$563"-%3"8*/(4'03"%%*5*0/"-*/'03."5*0/
64&0/-:"11307&%
/0/&91"/4*7&
(3"/6-"3."5&3*"-"4'*--"--'*--."5&3*"-50#&
"11307&%#:08/&3
"--."5&3*"-450#&*/45"--&%1&3."/6'"$563&341&$*'*$"5*0/46/-&4405)&38*4&
/05&%
&-&$53*$"-4:45&.44)"--#&%&4*(/#6*-%#:5)&4&-&$5&%46#$0/53"$503130104&%
-0$"5*0/40'-*()5*/('*9563&4
065-&54
48*5$)&4
"/%05)&3&26*1.&/5"3&4$)&."5*$
*//"563&"/%4)08/0/-:'03%&4*(/*/5&/5"--'*9563&4"/%%&7*$&44)"--#&6-
-*45&%"/%.&&55)&3&26*3&.&/540'5)&/"5*0/"-&-&$53*$"-$0%&1307*%&4.0,&
%&5&$50348*5)#"55&3:#"$,61"43&26*3&%#:5)&*/5&3/"5*0/*"-3&4*%&/5*"-$0%&
4*5&(&/&3"-/05&4
4-01&(3"%&"8":'30.#6*-%*/(50."*/5"*/".*/*.6.'"--0'w*/5)&'*34548"-&4
8*5)*/0'#6*-%*/('06/%"5*0/4)"--)"7&.*/*.6.4-01&
130104&%(3"%*/(*44$)&."5*$*//"563&"/%4)08/0/-:'03%&4*(/*/5&/5
$0/53"$503507&3*':"--'*&-%$0/%*5*0/4
&"4&.&/54
1301&35:-*/&4
&5$13*035045"35*/(
803,/05*':5)&%&4*(/&3*..&%*"5&-:*'"/:%*4$3&1"/$*&4
0.*44*0/4
03&330340$$63
5)&$0/53"$503*43&410/4*#-&'03-0$"5*/(65*-*5*&413*0350$0/4536$5*0/45"35
$Q
G
U
H
Z
0
D
U
W
L
Q
6
7
D
I
W
+
L
O
O
5
G
)R
U
W
&
R
O
O
L
Q
V
&
2
:,
/
+
(
/
0
'
(
6
,
*
1
/
/
&
6&$/(µ ·
*$5$*(3/$1
µ ·µ
3/
$
1
*
$
5
$
*
(
+
$Q
G
U
H
Z
0
D
U
W
L
Q
6
7
D
I
W
+
L
O
O
5
G
)R
U
W
&
R
O
O
L
Q
V
&
2
:,
/
+
(
/
0
'
(
6
,
*
1
/
/
&
*$5$*(522)3/$1
µ ·µ
52
2
)
3
/
$
1
*
$
5
$
*
(
6&$/(µ ·
·
$Q
G
U
H
Z
0
D
U
W
L
Q
6
7
D
I
W
+
L
O
O
5
G
)R
U
W
&
R
O
O
L
Q
V
&
2
:,
/
+
(
/
0
'
(
6
,
*
1
/
/
&
*$5$*(1257+6287+6(&7,21
µ ·µ
6(
&
7
,
2
1
6
*
$
5
$
*
(
6&$/(µ ·
$Q
G
U
H
Z
0
D
U
W
L
Q
6
7
D
I
W
+
L
O
O
5
G
)R
U
W
&
R
O
O
L
Q
V
&
2
:,
/
+
(
/
0
'
(
6
,
*
1
/
/
&
*$5$*(($67:(676(&7,21
µ ·µ*$5$*(($67:(676(&7,21
µ ·µ
6(
&
7
,
2
1
6
*
$
5
$
*
(
6&$/(µ ·
$Q
G
U
H
Z
0
D
U
W
L
Q
6
7
D
I
W
+
L
O
O
5
G
)R
U
W
&
R
O
O
L
Q
V
&
2
:,
/
+
(
/
0
'
(
6
,
*
1
/
/
&
'9,(:*$5$*(6:
6)Z6)/($172522)
'
9
,
(
:
*
$
5
$
*
(
'9,(:*$5$*(1:
6)Z6)/($172522)
'9,(:*$5$*(6(
6)Z6)/($172522)
$Q
G
U
H
Z
0
D
U
W
L
Q
6
7
D
I
W
+
L
O
O
5
G
)R
U
W
&
R
O
O
L
Q
V
&
2
:,
/
+
(
/
0
'
(
6
,
*
1
/
/
&
(/
(
9
$
7
,
2
1
6
*
$
5
$
*
(
*$5$*(($67(/(9$7,21
176
*$5$*(:(67(/(9$7,21
176
*$5$*(1257+(/(9$7,21
176
*$5$*(6287+(/(9$7,21
176
4:45&./05&4
&95 /&89%&$03"5*7&800%#3"$,&550
$0.1-*.&/5&9*45*/()064&1/5
3&4536$5
&95 /&8800%'3*&;�"3%50."5$)."*/
)064&
&95 /&8800%#&".1/53& 4536$5
&95 /&8800%10451/5
3&4536$5
&95 /&84.005)'*/*4)$&.&/5'*#&303
&/(*/&&3&%800%-"14*%*/(50."5$)."*/
)064&
&95 /&84.005)'*/*4)$&.&/5'*#&303
&/(*/&&3&%800%%00353*.50."5$)
&9*45*/( 1"*/5
1307*%&953*.#0"3%
"5"--8*/%08"/%%003)&"%4
+".#4"/%
4*--4
&95 /&89$0/5800%#"3(&3"'5&3
&95 /&84.005)'*/*4)$&.&/5'*#&303
&/(*/&&3&%800%9#&-5#0"3%1/5
&95 /&84.005)'*/*4)$&.&/5'*#&303
&/(*/&&3&%800%9$03/&3#0"3%1/5
&95 /&8'*#&3(-"44*/46-"5&%'6---*5&'3&/$)
%00348%06#-&*/46-"5&%(-";*/(
*/5&(3"5&%#-*/%4
&95 /&8$&%"34)",&4)*/(-&450."5$)
&9*45*/()064&("#-&&/%
' /&8$0/$3&5&4-"#0/(3"%&07&3
8"4)&%(3"7&-07&3$0.1"$5&%40*-3&
4536$5
' /&84$03&%$0/$3&5&%3*7&8":
4"/%
'*/*4)4-01&"8":'30.#6*-%*/(!w1&3
'005.*/
3 /&8$-"44*.1"$53&4*45"/5"41)"-5
4)*/(-&4 $0-035&9563&50."5$)
&9*45*/()064&300'
07&3-#4"41)"-5
*.13&(/"5&%#-%(1"1&307&3w04#
4)&"5)*/(0/1&800%"55*$53644&4!w
0$8w1-:800%'-003*/(3*/46-
1307*%&800%4)&"5)*/("/%%&$03"5*7&
3"'5&35"*-450$0.1-*.&/5&9*45*/()064&
!"--07&3)"/(41/5
3 /&8(655&348*5)445)"/(&34 '*/*4)
130'*-&50."5$)&9*45*/(
1307*%&
3&'*/*4)&%.&5"-%08/41065450."5$)
&9*45*/(8*5)0''4&54"/%&-#084"4
3&26*3&%50*/45"--"5300'&"7&4"/%
%*4$)"3(&-0$"5*0/4
3 40-"356#&4-0$"5&%*/#&58&&/53644&4
0/8&45'"$*/(300'
&7&/-:41"$&%"/%
-0$"5&%#"4&%0/3&$0./&%"5*0/'30.
."/6'"$563&33&1
8 /&8w5)*$,$*1$0/$'06/%"5*0/8"--
8$0/5*/606433*(*%*/46-*/5&3*03
4*%&1307*%&%".11300'*/(#&-08(3"%&!
&95&3*0313&4463&53&"5&%4*--1-"5&3&
4536$5
8 /&898"--'3".*/(!w0$83#"55
*/46-
7"103#"33*&31"*/5&%w(:1
#%!*/5&3*034*%&
w4)&"5)*/(
5:7&,
"*3#"33*&34.005)'*/*4)$&.&/5'*#&3
03&/(*/&&3&%800%)03*;0/5"--"18w
&910463& ."5$)&9*45*/()064&
1/54&&
#6*-%*/(&-&7"5*0/4'03-0$"5*0/4
8 /&8("#-&&/%5364483#"55*/46-w
4)&"5)*/(
5:7&,"*3#"33*&3"/%$&%"3
800%4)*/(-&44*%*/(50."5$)&945)064&
1/54&*-%*/(&-&7"5*0/4'03-0$"5*0/4
3
&95
&95
&95
&95
&95
&95
&95
&95
3
&95
&95
&95
&95
3
3
3
3
8
8
8
6WUXFWXUDO*HQHUDO1RWHV
'HVLJQ/RDGV
'HVLJQ&RGHV ,5&$6&($&,1'6DQGFODVVLILHGDVD&DWHJRU\>,,@VWUXFWXUH
5RRI/RDGV
5RRI'HDG/RDGSVI
5RRI/LYH/RDGSVI
*URXQG6QRZ/RDG3JSVI
)ODW6QRZ/RDG3ISVI
6QRZ([SRVXUH)DFWRU&H
6QRZ7KHUPDO)DFWRU&W
6QRZ,PSRUWDQFH)DFWRU,V
5DLQORDG KU
)ORRU/RDGV
DWWLF SVI
:LQG/RDGV
'HVLJQ:LQG6SHHG9XOW VHFJXVW PSK
:LQG([SRVXUH &
,QWHUQDO3UHVVXUH&RHIILFLHQW HQFORVHG
6HLVPLF/RDGV
6HLVPLF'HVLJQ&DWHJRU\ %
6RLO6LWH&ODVV '
$QDO\VLV3URFHGXUH (/)
)RXQGDWLRQ'HVLJQ
DIRXQGDWLRQGHVLJQLVEDVHGRQDVVXPHGEHDULQJYDOXHV
PD[LPXPEHDULQJFDSDFLW\ SVI
PLQLPXPGHDGORDG QD
EIRXQGDWLRQVSHFLILFDWLRQV
DOOIRRWLQJVWREHDURQQDWLYHXQGLVWXUEHGVRLO
WKHIRXQGDWLRQH[FDYDWLRQVKDOOEHREVHUYHGE\DJHRWHFKQLFDOHQJLQHHU
ILOOPDWHULDOXQGHUVODEVRQJUDGHVKDOOEHDQDSSURYHGPDWHULDO
VODEFRQWUROMRLQWVVKDOOEHSURYLGHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDFLUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV
*HQHUDO5HTXLUHPHQWV
DFRQVWUXFWLRQPHWKRG
WKHVWUXFWXUDOGUDZLQJVUHSUHVHQWWKHILQDOVWUXFWXUHWKHGUDZLQJVGRQRWLQGLFDWHWKHFRQWUDFWRUVPHDQVPHWKRGV
WHFKQLTXHVVHTXHQFHVRIFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGMREVDIHW\WKHHQJLQHHURIUHFRUGLVQRWUHVSRQVLEOHIRUWKHFRQWUDFWRU
V
IDLOXUHWRIROORZSODQVVSHFLILFDWLRQVDQGRUHQJLQHHULQJUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVQRULVWKHHQJLQHHURIUHFRUG
UHVSRQVLEOHIRUHFRQRPLFORVVDQGRUGHOD\VRQWKHFRQWUDFWRURUVXEFRQWUDFWRUV
DOOFRQVWUXFWLRQVKDOOEHDGHTXDWHO\EUDFHGWRSUHYHQWGLVWRUWLRQDQGGDPDJHGXHWRFRQVWUXFWLRQORDGVDQGQDWXUDO
IRUFHVWKHFRQWUDFWRUVKDOOPDNHDOORZDQFHVIRUGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWHPSHUDWXUHGXULQJHUHFWLRQDQGPHDQ
WHPSHUDWXUHZKHQVWUXFWXUHLVFRPSOHWHGDQGLQVHUYLFH
EWUDGHFRRUGLQDWLRQ
WKHVWUXFWXUDOGUDZLQJVDUHWREHXVHGLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKHDUFKLWHFWXUDOHOHFWULFDOPHFKDQLFDOSOXPELQJDQG
VLWHGUDZLQJVFRQIOLFWVLQGLPHQVLRQDQGLQWHUIHUHQFHVKDOOEHGLUHFWHGWRWKHDUFKLWHFWSULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQ
FVSHFLILFDWLRQV
LIFRQIOLFWVDULVHIURPWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHVHGUDZLQJVDQGWKRVHFRQWDLQHGLQWKHVSHFLILFDWLRQVWKH
DUFKLWHFWDQGHQJLQHHUVKDOOEHQRWLILHGRIWKHGLVFUHSDQF\SULRUWRFRQVWUXFWLRQ
GGUDZLQJGLPHQVLRQV
QRGLPHQVLRQLVWREHGHWHUPLQHGE\VFDOLQJWKHGUDZLQJVRUGHWDLOVLIDGLPHQVLRQLVQRWLQGLFDWHGRQWKH
GUDZLQJVDQGLVQHHGHGFRQWDFWWKHVWUXFWXUDOHQJLQHHUIRUFODULILFDWLRQLIGLVFUHSDQFLHVDUHIRXQGEHWZHHQWKH
VWUXFWXUDOGUDZLQJVDQGWKHDUFKLWHFWXUDOGUDZLQJVFRQWDFWWKHVWUXFWXUDOHQJLQHHURUDUFKLWHFWIRUFODULILFDWLRQ
0DWHULDOV
DIRXQGDWLRQFRQFUHWH I
F SVLIRXQGDWLRQI
FSVLJDUDJHVODERQJUDGH PLQLPXPRIVDFNVRI
W\SHLLLSRUWODQGFHPHQWSHUFXELF\DUG DLUHQWUDLQHGZLWKDLU
EUHLQIRUFLQJVWHHO I\ NVL JUDGH DOOUHLQIRUFLQJVKDOOEHSODFHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDFLUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV
LQFOXGLQJPLQLPXPODSVVSDFLQJVDQGFRUQHUEDUV
FZRRGIUDPLQJOXPEHUVKDOOEHVWUHVVJUDGHG+HP)LUQRRUEHWWHU
ODPLQDWHGYHQHHUOXPEHU /9/ VKDOOEHVWUHVVJUDGHGDVIROORZV EHQGLQJSVL WHQVLRQSDUDOOHOWRJUDLQ
SVL FRPSUHVVLRQSDUDOOHOWRJUDLQSVL KRUL]RQWDOVKHDUSVL FRPSUHVVLRQSHUSHQGLFXODUWRJUDLQ
SVL PRGXOXVRIHODVWLFLW\ NVL
/9/PHPEHUVL]HVDUHQHW OXPEHUVL]HVDUHQRPLQDO
WLPEHUFRQQHFWRUVFDOOHGIRURQWKHGUDZLQJVDUHDVPDQXIDFWXUHGE\6LPSVRQFRPSDQ\FRQQHFWRUVE\RWKHU
PDQXIDFWXUHUVPD\EHXVHGLIWKHORDGFDSDFLW\LVHTXDOWRRUJUHDWHUWKDQWKHFRQQHFWRUVSHFLILHGXVH
PDQXIDFWXUHU
VIXUQLVKHGQDLOVDQGEROWV
IDVWHQDOOZRRGPHPEHUVZLWKFRPPRQQDLOVDFFRUGLQJWRWKHEXLOGLQJFRGHXQOHVVRWKHUZLVHQRWHG
URRIVKHDWKLQJVKDOOEHVKHDWKLQJUDWHGIRUH[WHULRUXVHZLWKDQ$3$VSDQUDWLQJRIQDLOURRI
VKHDWKLQJZLWKGQDLOVDWRQFHQWHUDWSDQHOHGJHVDQGRQFHQWHULQWKHILHOGXQR
IORRUVKHDWKLQJVKDOOEHSO\ZRRGZLWKDQ$3$UDWLQJRIJOXHDQGQDLOWRIUDPLQJZLWKGQDLOVDW
RQFHQWHUDWSDQHOHGJHVRQFHQWHULQWKHILHOGXQR
H[WHULRUZDOOVKHDWKLQJVKDOOEHRVERUSO\ZRRGQDLOHGWRIUDPLQJZLWKGQDLOVVSDFHGDWRQFHQWHUDW
SDQHO HGJHVRQFHQWHULQWKHILHOGPLQLPXPXQR
'(127(667+'
+2/'2:16$7)281'$7,21 127,)<7'6758&785$/(1*,1((5,1*$1'$5&+,7(&7
,00(',$7(/<,)',6&5(3$1&,(6%(7:((13/$16
6+($5:$//6&+('8/(
3$1(/('*(63$&,1*0$5.),(/'63$&,1*6+($7+,1*
$//(;7(5,25
:$//6812
RVERU
SO\ZRRG
2&
)$67(1(56
GFRPPRQ
JDJHVWDSOHV
2&
2& 2&
x %/2&.,1*127/(667+$1120,1$/,1
7+,&.1(666+$//%(3529,'('$7$//
+25,=217$/3$1(/-2,176
)227,1*3$'6&+('8/(
7+,&.1(660$5.5(,1)25&,1*:,'7+
/(1*7+
&217)
&217
)
35
3
&217
&217
'(37+)8//+7
($&+:$<
758660$18)$&785(5
3529,'(),1$/758663$&.$*(727'6758&785$/
(1*,1((5,1*)255(9,(:35,2572&216758&7,21
,7,6$6680('7+$775866(6:,//%('(6,*1('
)25%($5,1*3(53(1',&8/$572*5$,1&217$&7
7'6758&785$/(1*,1((5,1*)25$33529$/,)(1'
*5$,1%($5,1*,65(48,5('7+(75866
0$18)$&785(5,6$/625(48,5('72127,)<7+(
6758&785$/(1*,1((5)2563(&,$/%($5,1*
5(48,5(0(176
$'',7,21$/+2/'2:160$<%(5(48,5('21&(
),1$/75866'(6,*1+$6%((15(&(,9('
1$,/6&+('8/(
',$0(7(57<3(
&20021
/(1*7+
6,=(
G
&20021 G
&20021 G
&20021 G
UHISODQ
IU
R
V
W
G
H
S
W
K
P
L
Q
EH
O
R
Z
I
L
Q
J
U
D
G
H
P
L
Q
P
D
[
F
O
U
UH
I
S
O
D
Q
UHISODQ
IU
R
V
W
G
H
S
W
K
P
L
Q
EH
O
R
Z
I
L
Q
J
U
D
G
H
P
L
Q
P
D
[
P
L
Q
P
D
[
F
O
U
GRRUIRXQGDWLRQGHWDLO
6
VORSHIW
H[WHULRUVODE
E\RWKHUV
IX
O
O
K
W
EHDP
SHUSODQ
UDIWHUEHDULQJDWEHDP
6
JDUDJHIRXQGDWLRQZDOOGHWDLO
6
IX
O
O
K
W
[
GRZHOV
#RF
W E
H[SDQVLRQMRLQWPDWHULDO
W\SLFDO
SRXUVODERYHU
ZDOODWGRRUV
H[SDQVLRQMRLQWPDWHULDO
FRQFUHWHJDUDJH
VODEWKLFNQHVVDQG
UHLQIRUFLQJSHU
SODQ
ZDVKHG
JUDGHGJUDYHO
[
GRZHOV
#RF
W E
RVERUSO\ZRRGDSD
UDWHGRYHUSHZRRGWUXVVHV#RF
FROXPQEH\RQGSHU
SODQZ&&FDSRU
VLPLODUWRSRVW
6':&WUXVV
VFUHZVW\SLFDODOO
UDIWHUEHDULQJRQ
H[WHULRUEHDP
ORFDWLRQV
PL
Q
I
R
U
IU
R
V
W
S
U
R
W
H
F
W
L
R
Q
VH
H
S
O
D
Q
I
R
U
D
F
W
X
D
O
G
H
S
W
K
FRQFUHWHSLHUSHU
SODQ
6LPSVRQ$%8
ZRRGSRVWWRSLHU
SLHUIRXQGDWLRQGHWDLO
6
[WUHDWHGSODWH
Z[$%#RF
RVESO\ZRRGRYHU[VWXGV#
RF
UHIHUHQFHDUFKLWHFWXUDO
SODQVIRUWUXVV
FRQILJXUDWLRQV
WUXVVEHDULQJ
6
RVERUSO\ZRRGDSD
UDWHGRYHUSH
ZRRGWUXVVHV#RF
IDVFLDSHU
DUFK
H[WRVESO\ZRRG
RYHU[VWXGV#
RF
PLQLPXP6LPSVRQ+$
KXUULFDQHWLHW\SLFDODOO
WUXVVUDIWHUEHDULQJ
ORFDWLRQV
YHULI\DGHTXDWHIRUXSOLIW
ZLWKILQDOWUXVVPDQXI
GHVLJQ
EORFNLQJEHWZHHQ
WUXVVHVWRSDQG
ERWWRP
DWWLFWUXVVERWWRPFKRUG
VHH6IRU
UHLQIRUFLQJ
VFKHGXOH
VHH6IRU
UHLQIRUFLQJ
VFKHGXOH
JDEOHHQGORRNRXWV
6
UHIDUFK
EORFNLQJEHWZHHQ
UDIWHUV
IDVFLDSHUDUFKLWHFW
[WRSSODWH
[VWXGVSHUSODQ
[WRSSODWH
DWEDOORRQ
IUDPH
EDOORRQIUDPHJDEOH
HQGZDOOVRUGURSWRSRI
JDEOHHQGWUXVVWR
DFFHSWORRRNRXWV
EUDFHVRFIRU
WZRWUXVVVSDFHV
SHZRRGDWWLF
WUXVVHV#RF
[ORRNRXWV#RF
W JRVERUSO\ZRRG
DSDUDWHGRYHUSH
ZRRGDWWLFWUXVVHV
ERWWRPFKRUGV ULPWRPDWFKERWWRP
FKRUGGHSWKRIWUXVV
O
D
S
W\
S
L
F
D
O
ODS
W\SLFDO
W\SLFDOFRUQHUEDUUHLQIRUFLQJ
KRUL]RQWDO
UHLQIRUFLQJLQ
JUDGHEHDPVDW
FRUQHUVDQG
LQWHUVHFWLRQV
6
VHHSODQ
W\SKROGRZQDWIRXQGDWLRQ
RVERUSO\ZRRGZG
QDLOV#RF#SDQHOHGJHV
RFLQILHOGHDFKVLGHRI
ZDOO
NLQJVWXGVDWHDFKHQGZLWKVLPSVRQ
VWKGVWUDSWLHKROGRZQQDLOWRWKH
LQVLGHVWXGVZGVLQNHUVWRWDO
6
H[WHQGFRQWLQXRXV
EDUVWRIDUIDFHRI
LQWHUVHFWLQJEHDP
DVVKRZQ
EHQGFRQWLQXRXVEDUV
RUSURYLGHFRUQHU
EDUVZ
ODS
VSOLFH
ZDVKHG
JUDGHGJUDYHO
FRQFUHWHJDUDJH
VODEWKLFNQHVVDQG
UHLQIRUFLQJSHU
SODQ
6
352-(&7*(1(5$/
127(6
'UDZLQJVVSHFLILFDWLRQVJHQHUDOQRWHVDQGRXWOLQHVSHFLILFDWLRQVDUHLQVWUXPHQWVRIVHUYLFHDQGVKDOOUHPDLQWKHSURSHUW\RI7'6WUXFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ,QF&RSLHVRIWKHVHGRFXPHQWVUHWDLQHGE\WKHFOLHQWDUHIRUWKHFOLHQWVXVHLQWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHSURMHFWIRUZKLFKWKHVHGRFXPHQWVZHUHSUHSDUHG$Q\XVHRIWKHVH
GRFXPHQWVLQZKROHRULQSDUWE\DQ\PHDQVZKDWVRHYHUWRFRQVWUXFWDQ\RWKHUSUR HFWRUWKHXVHRIWKHVHGRFXPHQWVLQZKROHRULQSDUWDVVWRFNSODQVRUSURWRW\SHGHVL QIRUPXOWLSOHEXLOGLQ SUR HFWVLVVWULFWO\SURKLELWHGH[FHSWZLWKWKHVSHFLILFZULWWHQFRQVHQWRI7'6WUXFWXUDO(Q LQHHULQ ,QFRI1RUWKHUQ&RORUDGR
2[IRUG&RXUW
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
ZZZWGVWUXFWXUDOFRP
7'6758&785$/(1*,1((5,1*,1&
352-(&7180%(5
'(6,*1('%< :7'
5(9,(:('%< :7'
'$7()25,668(
%,'6(7
5(9,6,21
0$
5
7
,
1
*
$
5
$
*
(
6
2
8
7
+
7
$
)
7
+
,
/
/
5
2
$
'
)2
5
7
&
2
/
/
,
1
6
&
2
/
2
5
$
'
2
'5237232):$//725(&(,9(6/$%
'5237232):$//725(&(,9(6/$%'5237232):$//
725(&(,9(6/$%
*$5$*(
7+,&.&21&5(7(
6/$%21*5$'(Z
::)[:[:
'(127(66,03621
675$3+2/'2:1
6/
2
3
(
6
/
$
%
)
7
))
)
)
33
))
35
35
35
)281'$7,213/$1
3/$11
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.</,*+767<3,&$/
9(5,)</2&$7,21
%(7:((175866(6
3(:22'$77,&75866(6#2&
5,'*([
#
2
&
[
'
)
1
2
&
2
1
7
%
(
$
0
)$8;%5$&.(7
7<3,&$/2)
'5237232)*$%/(
(1'7586672
$&&(37/22.2876
'5237232)*$%/(
(1'7586672
$&&(37/22.2876
;
;
;
;+'5:;75
5
$1'.,1*6($&+(1'
; /9/+'5:;
75
5$1'.,1*6($&+(1'
;/9/+'5:;75
5$1'.,1*6($&+(1'
522))5$0,1*3/$1
3/$11
6
6
6
$77,&
$&&(66
9(5,)<
/2&$7,21
6
)281'$7,21
522))5$0,1*
3/$16
'UDZLQJVVSHFLILFDWLRQVJHQHUDOQRWHVDQGRXWOLQHVSHFLILFDWLRQVDUHLQVWUXPHQWVRIVHUYLFHDQGVKDOOUHPDLQWKHSURSHUW\RI7'6WUXFWXUDO(QJLQHHULQJ,QF&RSLHVRIWKHVHGRFXPHQWVUHWDLQHGE\WKHFOLHQWDUHIRUWKHFOLHQWVXVHLQWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHSURMHFWIRUZKLFKWKHVHGRFXPHQWVZHUHSUHSDUHG$Q\XVHRIWKHVH
GRFXPHQWVLQZKROHRULQSDUWE\DQ\PHDQVZKDWVRHYHUWRFRQVWUXFWDQ\RWKHUSUR HFWRUWKHXVHRIWKHVHGRFXPHQWVLQZKROHRULQSDUWDVVWRFNSODQVRUSURWRW\SHGHVL QIRUPXOWLSOHEXLOGLQ SUR HFWVLVVWULFWO\SURKLELWHGH[FHSWZLWKWKHVSHFLILFZULWWHQFRQVHQWRI7'6WUXFWXUDO(Q LQHHULQ ,QFRI1RUWKHUQ&RORUDGR
2[IRUG&RXUW
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
ZZZWGVWUXFWXUDOFRP
7'6758&785$/(1*,1((5,1*,1&
352-(&7180%(5
'(6,*1('%< :7'
5(9,(:('%< :7'
'$7()25,668(
%,'6(7
5(9,6,21
0$
5
7
,
1
*
$
5
$
*
(
6
2
8
7
+
7
$
)
7
+
,
/
/
5
2
$
'
)2
5
7
&
2
/
/
,
1
6
&
2
/
2
5
$
'
2
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT September 11, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA250026
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 806 Peterson St
Owner/Petitioner: Mercedes Cooper
Zoning District: OT-B
Code Section: 2.1.6
Variance Request:
This is a request for an 84 square-foot proposed front porch to be constructed 13 feet from the front property
line. The minimum required front setback in the OT-B Zone District is 15 feet. The request is therefore to
encroach 2 feet into the required front setback.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property is part of the original Fort Collins Town Plat of 1873. The primary building was constructed in
1937. It is also located in the Laurel School Historic District and is considered part of the National Register.
As a single unit dwelling, the approval process from Historic Preservation will not include a formal review in
front of the Landmark Preservation Committee. However, a report from the Historic Preservation
department is required before a building permit can be issued.
The front setback is from the property line. The property typically aligns with the back of the sidewalk. In
this case the back of sidewalk is 4 feet further from the property line. This allows a 17-foot distance from the
back of sidewalk to the proposed porch.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The setback to the back of sidewalk is greater than the required 15 feet.
• The encroachment is for 11 feet in width along the 50-foot-wide lot.
Therefore, this 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 ZBA250026.
$SSOLFDWLRQ5HTXHVW
IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH
7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ KDVEHHQJUDQWHGWKHDXWKRULW\WR DSSURYHYDULDQFHV IURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV
RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQ D]RQLQJ
GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVH XVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\ SHUPLWWHGLQ WKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQ PD\JUDQW
YDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGZRXOGQRWEHGHWULPHQWDOWRWKHSXEOLF JRRG
$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV
E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRU RWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR
WKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWR SK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFK DV H[FHSWLRQDO QDUURZQHVV
VKDOORZQHVV RU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOG UHVXOW LQ XQXVXDODQG
H[FHSWLRQDO SUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHV RUXQGXHKDUGVKLS XSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG
WKDWVXFK GLIILFXOWLHV RU KDUGVKLS DUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFW RU RPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW
VHOILPSRVHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOSURPRWH WKHJHQHUDO SXUSRVH RIWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LVUHTXHVWHG
HTXDOO\ ZHOORU EHWWHUWKDQ ZRXOG DSURSRVDO ZKLFKFRPSOLHV ZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LV
UHTXHVWHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQ DQRPLQDO LQFRQVHTXHQWLDO
ZD\ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQ WKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
7KLVDSSOLFDWLRQLVRQO\IRUDYDULDQFHWRWKH/DQG8VH&RGH%XLOGLQJ&RGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHG
DQGUHYLHZHGE\WKH%XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQWVHSDUDWHO\ :KHQDEXLOGLQJRUVLJQSHUPLWLVUHTXLUHGIRUDQ\ZRUN
IRUZKLFKDYDULDQFHKDVEHHQJUDQWHGWKHSHUPLWPXVWEHREWDLQHGZLWKLQPRQWKVRIWKHGDWHWKDWWKH
YDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHG
+RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ PD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK
H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$Q H[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH
VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG
3HWLWLRQHURU3HWLWLRQHU¶V5HSUHVHQWDWLYH PXVWEHSUHVHQWDWWKHPHHWLQJ
/RFDWLRQ /D3RUWH$YH&LW\+DOO&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV
LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWR WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ
'DWH 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\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/dd E^dd D Ed yW>/E/E'd, Z ^KE&KZd, sZ/E Z Yh ^dZ Yh/Z s/
^ WZd KhD Ed͘
%XLOGLQ RGHH XLUHPHQWVZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHG
QG HYLHZHGE WKH%XLOGLQ H DUWPHQWVHSDUDWHO
806 Peterson
80524 806 Peterson
Mercedes Cooper 505-227-4464
us@hiveidea.com
NCM - NEIGHBORHOOD CONS Josh Roloff
3012 Warson Dr
970-413-2272
josh@buildfortcollins.com
August 11, 2025
3. Nominal and inconsequential
2. Equal to or better than
dditional Justification
806 Peterson Request for Variance
Record # B2505459 Mercedes Cooper / owner Josh Roloff / Laurel Street Design Build
To Whom it may concern,
The purpose of this request for a variance is to build a usable front porch for 806
Peterson. We are requesting extra square footage that encroaches on 15’ setback
requirement from the west property line by two feet. The proposed porch is 7’ x 12’
uncovered poured era appropriate decorative concrete with stairs and knee wall and
small sitting area.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mercedes Cooper
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT September 11, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA250027
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 307 S Loomis Ave
Owner: Fox Martin Joint Revocable Trust
Petitioner: Kathryn Fox
Zoning District: OT-A
Code Section: 3.1.8
Variance Request:
This is a request for a proposed 868 square-foot detached accessory building (garage with habitable space
above). The maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory structure in the OT-A Zone District is 600
square feet. Their request is to therefore exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory
structure by 268 square feet.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was annexed into the City in 1887, as part of the Loomis Addition Annexation. At the same
time, it received development approval for residential use. The primary house was constructed originally in
1905.
The proposed design includes space for a garage and finished square footage above the garage. The Land
Use Code defines floor area in accessory building as any square footage on the first floor and only floor
square footage that has a ceiling height of 7.5 feet or greater. In this design only the first-floor counts as
floor area. The square footage meeting the definition of floor area does exceed the allowed 600 square
feet.
The Land Use Code maximum floor area only applies to the structure. An owner could build multiple
accessory structures that are each 600 square feet in size, provided they do not exceed the maximum floor
area in the rear half the lot.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The floor area could be divided up into two structures.
• The proposed structure is designed to meet all setbacks
• The proposed structure is subordinate in size and height to primary structure.
Therefore, the proposal to build one building will promote general purpose of the standard equally well
or better than would building two structures.
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA250027.
Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code
Code Section: 3.1.8 Detached Accessory Structure
Reasoning: The proposal is in keeping with the context of the neighborhood and diverges
from the standard in a nominal and inconsequential way.
The proposal for a new garage o# the alley behind 307 S Loomis Street meets all Land Use
Code standards except for the Accessory Building floor area. In the OT zone district a
maximum of 600 SF per structure is allowed. The proposed garage is 868 SF.
1. Density. The lot is 9604 SF and the main floor of the house is 1199 SF. Replacing
the existing garage with an 868 SF garage would = 2067 SF developed footprint. This
still provides a 78.5% open space ratio which is similar to surrounding properties.
If the existing garage were to be kept and a 600 SF new garage added, the open
space on the lot would be greatly reduced – see Site Plan on sheet A1.
In this area of Old Town West, garages larger than 600 SF are fairly common as can
be seen in this snip from the zoning map. This accessory structure would not
impact the neighboring properties.
2. Character. The proposed garage will continue the same architectural proportions,
scale, and detailing of the existing house and covered porch.
Existing House, view from S Loomis Street
The form of the garage carries the same rooflines and dormers of the main house.
The siding, including decorative scalloped siding along with the columns and trim
will match. These details are found on many of the homes in this neighborhood.
Repeating them on this new garage will provide continuity with Old Town West.
Proposed Garage
3. Context. Other existing garages and ADUs accessed o# the alley behind 307 S
Loomis are a variety of sizes and architectural character. Here are some examples:
The proposed new garage would fit in nicely in this diverse alley way and not
negatively impact the neighborhood or be detrimental to the public good.