The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/13/2025 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - REGULAR MEETINGLAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 11/13/25 – LURC SUMMARY AGENDA 1 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of October 9, 2025, Minutes. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. VARIANCE REQUESTS a. APPEAL ZBA250030 Address: 525 Maple St Owner/Petitioner: Emily and Sara Jeanes Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request for a proposed 154 square-foot covered porch to be built 4.1 feet from the front (west) property line. The existing front entry to the home is 16 feet from the front property line. The minimum required front setback for this property in the OT-B Zone District is 15 feet. The request is to therefore encroach into the minimum required front setback by 10.9 feet. Additional items are included on Page 2 of the Agenda. Participation in the Land Use Review Commission Meeting on Thursday, November 13, 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. If you need assistance during the meeting, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 11/13/25 – LURC SUMMARY AGENDA 2 b. APPEAL ZBA250031 Address: 2332 Nancy Gray Ave Owner/Petitioner: Raul Hernandez Herrera Zoning District: LMN Code Section: 4.3.1(E)(1)(a) Project Description: This is a request for a proposed home occupation business (machining shop) to be conducted from one third (200 square feet) of an existing 3-car detached garage. Per Section 4.3.1(E)(1)(a), home occupation use shall be conducted entirely within a dwelling. c. APPEAL ZBA250032 Address: 209 N Taft Hill Ave Owner: Julie Savage Petitioner: Thersa Rose Adams Zoning District: LMN Code Section: 4.3.1(E)(1)(a) Project Description: This is a request for a proposed home occupation business (personal training studio) to be conducted from a detached garage. Per Section 4.3.1(E)(1)(a), home occupation use shall be conducted entirely within a dwelling. d. APPEAL ZBA250033 Address: 216 Wood St Owner: The Fodge Hentschel Living Trust Petitioners: Aaron Fodge, Owner / J. Nathan Epperson, General Contractor, Skookum Craftmanship, LLC Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request for a proposed 226 square-foot addition to a partially demolished detached accessory structure (garage) to be built 1.1 feet from the side (north) property line. The minimum required side setback for this property in the OT-B Zone District is 5 feet. The request is to therefore encroach into the side setback by 3.9 feet. Additional items are included on Page 3 of the Agenda. LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 11/13/25 – LURC SUMMARY AGENDA 3 e. APPEAL ZBA250034 Address: 3506 English Ct Owner: Erik E Shollmier Family Trust Petitioner: Erik Shollmier, Owner Zoning District: RL Code Section: 2.1.4 Project Description: There are two requests associated with this variance application: 1. A request for a proposed 240 square foot residential addition to be built up to 6 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required rear setback for this property in the RL Zone District is 15 feet. The request is to therefore encroach 9 feet into the 15-foot required rear setback. 2. A request to exceed the maximum allowable buildable floor area for a lot in the RL Zone District. The total calculable floor area for the detached single unit residence including the proposed 240 square foot addition will be 2,726 square feet. The maximum allowable buildable floor area for this lot in the RL Zone District is 2,355 square feet. The request is to therefore exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 371 square feet. 6. OTHER BUSINESS -Review and Approval of the 2026 Land Use Review Commission Work Plan 7. ADJOURNMENT 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 1 Land Use Review Commission REGULAR MEETING Thursday, October 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 Board Members Present – Floyd, Vogel, Carron, Coffman Board Members Absent – Lawton, San Filippo, Gupta Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Brad Yatabe Guest(s) – Justin Moore, Joe Esposito (observing/training on behalf of Zoning Dept.) 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Floyd made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to approve the September 11, 2025, Minutes as written. The motion passed by all members present. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -NONE- 5. VARIANCE REQUESTS a. APPEAL ZBA250021 Address: 1805 Laporte Ave Owner: Colin Barry and Celeste Wieting Petitioner: Jeremy Cameron, General Contractor, Intelligent Designs Inc Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is 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 at the southwest corner of the house where the addition will extend from the existing attached garage. The existing garage was built up to the western property line, however the proposed location for the addition will be set back 3 feet from the 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 of 2 feet into the existing 5-foot side setback. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located just west of Frey Ave. The request is to put an addition on the house. The appeal was originally heard in August of 2025, at which point the request was tabled to allowed for modification. The revised request is to now set the addition 3 feet from the side property line, which does comply with building code and fire rating, and maintains minimal safety requirements. The required setback by code for this zone district is 5 feet. There are no issues with the rear yard setback. Beals presented drawings and elevations of the proposed addition, as well as photographs of the subject property and the proposed location for the addition. There is a raised wooden fence already in place along the 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 2 property line, so visibility of the addition from the neighboring property would be limited. Photographs also show the existing home being built to the property line. Beals reminded the Commission that this property was originally built in the County and was subsequently annexed into the City. Applicant Presentation: Applicant petitioner Jeremy Cameron, General Contractor, Intelligent Designs Inc, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Cameron noted that the revised plan has pulled the addition back from the property line and has also been lengthened a bit to achieve the desired floor area. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Floyd asked Beals if there were any easements in place on the side of this property. Beals responded that there are no easements present at this time. Commission member Carron feels this is a good compromise and meets the intent of the code to maintain a setback for health and safety. Carron feels the scale of the addition is appropriate for the context of the neighborhood. Commission member Coffman agrees with previous comments. The current proposal strikes a good balance between code requirements and health and safety and the desires of the homeowner to increase useable space. Chair Vogel agrees with the comments offered by other members and is in support of approval. Commission member Cofman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE ZBA250021, regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Sections 2.1.6 to allow the proposed sunroom to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot side setback 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 2.1.6 except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of Section 1.2.2 because: o The 2-foot encroachment is less than the existing garage encroachment; o The proposed addition is not visible form the front; and o The proposed addition is not visible from the front; and o The proposed addition maintains minimal building code separation requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings and conclusions in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Floyd, Vogel, Carron, Coffman Nays: Absent: Lawton, San Filippo, Gupta 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 3 b. APPEAL ZBA250029 Address: 608 Peterson St Owner: JRA Property Solutions LLC Petitioners: Jamie Allen, Owner, JRA Property Solutions LLC Tom Martinez, Valiant Construction Holdings LLC Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request for a proposed 1,531 square-foot second story residential addition to result in a 3,165 square foot structure that exceeds the maximum allowable floor area for a detached single unit residential dwelling. The maximum allowable floor area for a single unit detached dwelling in the OT-B zone district is 2,400 square feet. The request is to therefore exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 765 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located south of E Myrtle St and E of west of Whedbee St. To note, this property has requested two other variances this year; those are not a part of the request today. The request is to construct a new home with a total area of 3,165 square feet. Beals presented renderings and elevations of the proposed home, noting that the intent is to remove the current attic space of the existing home and build a full second story. Even if the existing structure was over 2,400 square feet, once a structure is self-demoed, code requires that a new structure be built to code, regardless of if the former structure was considered non-conforming. Beals noted that a demolition permit can be pulled prior to other permits being issued. That is what the applicant has done, and demolition has is currently underway on the property. “Floor area” is measured in total, across all stories, rather than by footprint. Additionally, financial hardships cannot be considered when seeking justification for variance approval. Commission member Floyd asked Beals to provide further details regarding requirements for a demolition permit. Beals noted that his understanding is that an applicant must identify what is being demolished, maintain a safe site, and mitigate any asbestos or other harmful materials. Floyd asked if demo permits required information on what will be rebuilt? Beals explained that demolition permits do not consider what will be built, only what is proposed to be demolished. Vice-Chair Vogel asked if the original structure was considered to be non-conforming based on floor area? Beals believes that was the case, noting the original structure was approximately 2,800 square feet. Applicant Presentation: Applicant petitioner Tom Martinez, Owner, Valiant Construction Holdings LLC, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Martinez stated that he is a 25-year veteran of home building and has served on his local Building and Planning & Zoning boards. Martinez offered some additional history and context regarding this project. He also referenced current economic and market forces that are driving his project. Martinez noted the unusual physical conditions of the original home, in particular the second story. The demolished attic area shown in applicant materials is an example of the height restrictions present. Martinez 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 4 asserted that the structure was unsafe and in need of substantial rehab and rebuilding. Additionally, the original structure was not going to be able to meet energy requirements. The home also needed substantive asbestos mitigation. These factors necessitated a demolition of the structure. Martinez noted the home was close to 2,900 square feet prior to demolition. Martinez noted the square footage of the home presents a 310 square-foot increase over what existed, which is not as much as compared to the difference between 2,400 square feet as dictated by code. Martinez described his process with City staff within pre-project meetings. These meetings began in April 2025 with Justin Moore of the Zoning Department. Martinez described this process as progressing smoothly. From April through June, there has been a lot of back-and-forth discussions. Some of these have centered around bolt plane locations. Martinez stated that at no time was the 2,400 square-foot floor area requirements raised as a possible problem with the proposed plan. Martinez explained is opinion that there may be a semantic issue with terms like “floor area” and “square- footage” and “footprint”. He feels that there ought to have been more discussion about this being a potential problem during the project plan meetings. At this point, the project is far down the road, and many funds have been spent. There is a spirit of the law that need to apply to a human level here. Martinez explained that Planning is not responsible for reviewing a demolition permit and did not review the plans that were submitted with the demolition permit. Martinez stated that the building permit process was so excruciating that it delayed the project by three weeks. The process was the hardest that they’ve experienced compared to any other municipality that they’ve worked with. The review process then took a lot of effort to get materials submitted. Once submitted, Zoning department found that the project would not meet code, after seven months of working with the city to obtain necessary permits. Martinez stated that neighbors are excited to see this project come to fruition and he sees this building as something that will make the community better. The project is now stalled as it seeks variances and permits. At this point, it is highly unlikely the client will continue to move forward with the project without a variance. Martinez explained that his client as spent over $1,000,000 on this property and is now looking to sell it off unfinished. If they are unable to pursue a two-story home, they cannot create the value that they wanted from the property. Martinez believes this variance would not negatively affect the community but instead would only improve the look and feel of the neighborhood. If not finished, there is a good chance that it will sit incomplete for the next 3-4 years. Heather Attardo, Architect, Valiant Construction Holdings LLC, addressed the Commission and offered comment. She noted that other municipalities refer to lot coverage, but here in Fort Collins, the term used is “floor-area”. This property would have a 17% lot coverage ratio, compared to the 48% lot coverage achieved by a 5,000 square-foot lot with a 2,400 square-foot structure. This design includes an upper-floor master suite, which takes advantage of the space to use as a multi- generational floor plan that has two separate levels each with their own master suite. The 2,400 square-foot requirement in this zone poses challenges when attempting to maintain a single-family structure. In conclusion, Martinez stated that the goal is to improve the community and improve property value. There is sometimes initial pushback from neighbors as properties are renovated, but in the long term it is a good thing that raises property values. Commission member Floyd asked Martinez if he had a plan for the initial meetings, or if they came to Fort Collins with basic understanding? Martinez noted the nature and sprit of a pre-app meeting is to uncover and 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 5 call out any potential challenges and code requirements up front, prior to a project proceeding. This floor area hurdle was not caught at that time, and here we are months later. Vice-Chair Vogel asked when the pre-app meeting occurred. Martines believed it was mid-April of 2025. Demolition permit application was submitted July 7, 2025. Public Comment: Audience member Mike Lyons, 612 Peterson St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Lyons asked Attardo if the project was staying within the height limits of the code. Attardo confirmed. Lyons noted there is home being built south of the subject property. Back-fill efforts of that property shook his home. The fact that the subject property is not changing the foundation, and thus will not need back-fill, hopefully means his home will not experience more shaking and disturbance. Lyons does not understand the square-footage requirements, as the other home that is being built appears to be larger than the current standard. Thus, it was expected that the new home at 608 Peterson would also be larger. Lyons expects that if the project is not completed, another party will most likely come in and make a new structure even bigger. This may result in foundation work that could damage Lyons’ home, which is original to 1910. Commission Discussion: Assistant Attorney Yatabe asked for clarification, noting that the applicants’ argument is noted as hardship criteria, however the applicant has checked equal to or better than and nominal and inconsequential. Yatabe asks that the applicant clarify the hardship called out in the application compared to the hardship described today. Applicant representative Martinez stated that he now wants to focus on the improvement of the property rather than hardship. However, based on the submitted narrative, it would be detrimental to the builder, the client, and the community at large. It is hard to foretell what is going to happen but without approval, the applicants will not move forward with this project. Anyone who buys this out of foreclosure will also have to face the same challenges. Vogel notes that financial hardship is not an element of the Commission’s consideration. Commission member Coffman began by addressing hardship. Financial hardship cannot be considered. Another hardship called out was the physical condition of the existing attic and ceiling heights. While not being up to code, they are not “unlivable”. Asbestos would not have been uncovered prior to the demolition. However it is framed, this variance is indeed seeking an increase over 700 square feet of overall floor area. Looking at the upper store floor plan, it appears it could be easy to make this an upper/lower duplex by adding a kitchen area upstairs. This is only equal to or better than when thinking about current demolition conditions, which is a condition wholly created by the applicant. Commission member Floyd thinks the duplex option would both meet the spirit of the code as well as not creating an overly burdensome hardship for the applicant. Floyd asked Beals if he could provide any information for the process of creating a duplex. Beals explained the Development Review Process would go to a hearing officer for approval. Once approved, and building permit could be pulled to build a duplex. This would require capital expansion fees to the additional living unit. Vice-Chair Vogel notes the challenges inherent in this request. Vogel is struggling to find hardship significance for justification. A duplex solution is the most attractive to Vogel in this scenario. Commission member Carron feels that some portion of the hardships present are self-imposed. The misinterpretation of “floor-area” should have been remedied and understood early in the process. Carron would be okay with the structure being built to the same total floor area as the original home. Some of the after-the- 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 6 fact effects cannot be remedied, but we can’t base our decision upon what might happen with foreclosure, etc. Carron is unsure how to reconcile keeping this as a single-family concept versus shifting to a duplex concept. Beals indicated that a duplex would require a Type 2 hearing. Floyd asked if ceiling heights were adjusted within the existing footprint, would the Commission be willing to hear the request again? Carron would be amenable to hearing the variance again if ceiling heights were adjusted to reduce floor area. Coffman would be more sympathetic to a variance request as Floyd suggest. Beals noted that approval could be granted today at the 2,800 square foot limit or could request a table of the item in order to seem revised plans. Vogel requests comment from the applicants. Applicant Martinez introduced his colleague Jason Roberts, who has helped the project with real estate analysis. With regards to the floor area: if 380 of this area is unfinished and/or unlivable, is it counted towards floor area? Beals confirmed that floor area is counted from outside wall to outside wall. Roberts noted he has been retained as a consultant for the owner, Jamie Allen. Current real estate market prices prevent this project from shifting to a duplex concept, as it would no longer pencil out. Martinez also noted the process can be brutal to get P&Z approvals. This could take a year, in which they would have to be carry an additional interest debt. Vogel asked if the approval were to be granted for maximum of 2,800 square feet, would the applicants be amenable to that change? Martinez stated he would be ok with an approval of 2,800 square feet maximum. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Floyd to APPROVE WITH CONDITION ZBA250029 granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the proposed residential dwelling to exceed the maximum allowable floor with area with the following conditions: the allowable floor area may be exceeded by up to an additional 400 square feet, for a maximum floor area of up to 2,800 square feet. The Commission finds that the variance • Would not be detrimental to the public good; and • The proposal as submitted 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; and • The proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and Commission discussion. Yeas: Floyd, Vogel, Carron, Coffman Nays: Absent: Lawton, San Filippo, Gupta 6. OTHER BUSINESS -NONE- 7. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:52 AM. Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 13, 2025 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA250030 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 525 Maple St Owner/Petitioner: Emily and Sara Jeanes Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Variance Request: This is a request for a proposed 154 square-foot covered porch to be built 4.1 feet from the front (west) property line. The existing front entry to the home is 16 feet from the front property line. The existing front entry to the home is 16 feet from the front property line. The minimum required front setback for this property in the OT-B Zone District is 15 feet. The request is to therefore encroach into the minimum required front setback by 10.9 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property is a part of the original town plat of 1873. The existing primary structure was constructed in 1925. It is unclear how many remodels have occurred since. A front property line is identified by the location of the front entry to the building. The existing front door faces west; therefore, the front property is on the west. The setback is currently being met from the building wall. However, there is an uncovered deck that extends further than the wall into the setback in similar location of the proposed covered porch. Additionally, there is 12 feet from the property line to the back of the sidewalk. The proposed covered porch will be 4.1 feet from the property line. It will be 16.1 feet from the back of the sidewalk along N Whitcomb Street. 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 proposed covered porch is open on three sides. • The proposed covered porch is set back from the back of sidewalk 16.1 feet. 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 ZBA250030. Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Land Use Review Commission has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 2 and 5 of the Land Use Code. The shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The 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: by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); 2 the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. etitioner or etitioners Representative must be present at the meeting Location: Date: Second Thursday of the month ime :8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s)Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s)Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ This variance request is for 525 Maple st, OLD TOWN DISTRICT, MEDIUM planning zone, made by the home owners Emily and Sara Jeanes. We request a variance in the Old Town planning zone residential building front setback requirement (2.1.6) to permit us to build an improved covered porch and front entry on the house to better align with the design standards described for the planning zone. “Primary Entrance shall include architectural features such as a porch, landing or portico.” We are following the recommendations in city code section 7.1.2 - Front Facade Design. (C) Covered entry. Decades ago, our front door was moved to the Whitcomb (long side of the lot) so as described in 3.1.6 in the city land use code, our front door is officially on the Whitcomb side of our lot, rather than where it is addressed on the Maple St side. OT zoning is intended for the front of the house to be on the narrow end and assume sufficient setbacks to build a front porch. As seen on the attached site plan, the front of the house is 16 ft from the property line, leaving only 1 ft of setback to build a porch. See included drawings for site plan and elevation, as well as a photo of the existing deck. We foresee this modification having no detrimental impact to the public good, and only positive impact on our neighbors by improving the prominence and esthetics of the front porch. It will also give us outdoor space to enjoy with our three year old daughter, friends and neighbors. It is better and more delightful than our existing front entry. Thank you for your consideration. Sara and Emily Jeanes 525 Maple St Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 13, 2025 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA250031 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 2332 Nancy Gray Ave Owner/Petitioner: Raul Hernandez Herrera Zoning District: LMN Code Section: 4.3.1(E)(1)(a) Variance Request: This is a request for a proposed home occupation business (machining shop) to be conducted from one third (200 square feet) of an existing 3-car detached garage. Per Section 4.3.1(E)(1)(a), home occupation use shall be conducted entirely within a dwelling. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1997 as part of the Timberline Annexation. It was later subdivided and received development approval in 2012. The dwelling and detached garage were constructed in 2018. In general, home occupations are to be subordinate to the primary use of residential property. The standards require that home occupations operate within the primary structure and are limited to 50% of the floor area. When garage space is within the primary dwelling then the garage space can be used for a home occupation. When the garage is detached from the primary dwelling it cannot be used. The existing garage is one story and 810 square feet in size. The primary house is two stories and 1,817 square feet in size. These two structures are separated by 8 feet in the closest points. The proposed use of the garage for the home occupation is for a portion of the 810 square-foot and space to store two vehicles are proposed to be maintained. 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 use of portion of the garage for a home occupation is less than 50% of the square footage of the primary dwelling. • All other requirements of a home occupation will be met 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 ZBA250031. Raul Hernandez Herrera - Reasoning for Requesting Variance October 9, 2025 I am setting up a new business in my detached garage at my home, 2332 Nancy Gray Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80525. I plan to use approximately one third (200 sq ft) of my 3-car garage for my business. Both the garage and the house follow the building requirements specified in the Land Use Code. My business will be a machine shop, and I will complete work for online clients who need small prototypes and components made of metal, plastic, or wood. Once the work is complete, I will ship it to them. There will not be clients nor employees coming to my home. I will use manual and CNC machines, 3D printers, and laser engravers. The garage is fully insulated, closed, and sound proofed. This will mitigate any noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat or glare detectable from beyond our property line. I was told by the Zoning Office that I need to apply for a variance, because my garage is detached from my home. My justification for the variance is that: 1. My garage is detached from my dwelling unit. The property was built like this, and it would be a hardship to attempt to attach the garage to the dwelling unit, or to use the dwelling unit for my business. 2. Using my detached garage for my business serves the general purpose of the land use standards better than attempting to use my dwelling. The garage is fully insulated, sound proofed, and closed, and it’s tucked into the back of my property, away from the main street and neighbors. Additionally, running my business from my garage will prevent it from interfering with the daily lives of my family within the dwelling unit. 3. Using my detached garage for my business is a nominal deviation from the land use standards, because my detached garage is not being fully utilized. (We don’t have 3 cars, and it’s a 3 car garage.) There is no need to change anything visible outside of the garage, or use external space for anything in my business. The garage is already a finished unit following all the HOA and building rules. Thank you for your consideration, Raul Hernandez Herrera Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 13, 2025 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA250032 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 209 N Taft Hill Ave Owner: Julie Savage Petitioner: Theresa Rose Adams Zoning District: LMN Code Section: 4.3.1(E)(1)(a) Variance Request: This is a request for a proposed home occupation business (personal training studio) to be conducted from a detached garage. Per Section 4.3.1(E)(1)(a), home occupation use shall be conducted entirely within a dwelling. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1970 part of the West Laporte Avenue Third Annexation. Prior to annexation the original primary structure was constructed in 1920. It is unclear the number of remodels that occurred since and when the accessory detached structure was built. In general home occupations are to be subordinate to the primary use of residential property. The standards require that home occupations operate within the primary structure and are limited to 50% of the floor area. When garage space is within the primary dwelling then the garage space can be used for a home occupation. When the garage is detached from the primary dwelling it cannot be used. The proposed use of the detached garage will include the studio sessions of 4 to 6 people at a time. As outlined in the application patrons will be able to access parking areas from both the alley on the west side and on the front of the property on the east side of the property. North Taft Hill is considered an arterial street. Backing out onto an arterial street has increased risk. The garage is one story and 800 square feet in size. The primary dwelling is two stories and 1,649 square feet in size. They are separated from each other by 8.5 feet. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends approval with the condition that patron vehicle access be taken from the alley and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The Home Occupation will continue to meet all other standards. • Sessions are limited to no more than 6 individuals. • The accessory structure is 48% the size of the primary dwelling. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 2 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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¶V5HSUHVHQWDWLYH PXVWEHSUHVHQWDWWKHPHHWLQJ /RFDWLRQ/D3RUWH$YH&LW\+DOO&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWR WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ 'DWH6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPH DP ’s Name )RUW&ROOLQV&2 ’s Petitioner’s Address ’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # !"Petitioner’s Email ’s Name !"Representative’s Address !"Representative’s Phone # !"Representative’s Email tZ/ddE^ddDEdyW>/E/E'd,Z^KE&KZd,sZ/EZYh^dZYh/Zs/ ^WZdKhDEd͘ %XLOGLQ RGHH XLUHPHQWVZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHG QG HYLHZHGE WKH %XLOGLQ H DUWPHQWVHSDUDWHO 209 N. Taft Hill Rd Theresa Rose Adams 80521 2812 W Woodford Avenue Julie Savage 7632577347 Land Use code 3.8.3 A 1 Theresaroseadams@gmail.com LMN To allow a home occupation(personal training studio) in a detached garage less than 800 sq ft on property. 10/14/25 Theresa Rose Adams Choose One from List dditional Justification dditional Justification Variance Application for 209 N. Taft Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO Applicant: Theresa Rose Adams Business Name: Your Best Day Ever Movement Studio Variance Type: Use of Detached Garage for Home Occupation (Personal Training Studio) Project Description The applicant proposes to use the existing detached garage (less than 800 sq. ft.) located at the rear of 209 N. Taft Hill Rd as a small personal training studio for Your Best Day Ever Movement Studio. The studio will operate by appointment only, serving a maximum of 4–6 clients per session. Clients will park in the gravel lot located north of the garage, accessed directly from N. Taft Hill Rd. No use of the alley is proposed for studio entry or exit. The request represents a nominal deviation from the home occupation standards to allow a detached structure to be used as the studio space. Written Statement – Justification for Variance This variance request represents a nominal and inconsequential deviation from the Land Use Code standards and will not be detrimental to the public good. The proposed use is low-impact, consistent with surrounding properties, and aligns with the intent of the City’s home occupation standards—to permit small-scale, unobtrusive businesses operated by residents. 1. Nature of the Use The space will be used as a quiet personal training studio, operating strictly by appointment only with no more than 4–6 clients per session. Activities are conducted indoors, without amplified sound, and within normal daytime hours. There will be no exterior signage, outdoor activity, or modifications that alter the residential appearance of the garage or property. 2. Traffic and Parking All client parking will occur in the existing gravel parking area on the north side of the garage, accessed directly from N. Taft Hill Rd. No use of the alley is proposed for business access. This parking arrangement minimizes any potential impact on neighboring residences and avoids increased alley traffic. 3. Neighborhood Context The property is located across from a busy gas station and liquor store and kitty-corner from a cemetery, in an area that already experiences moderate vehicular activity and mixed neighborhood character. The garage itself is located along an alley shared with other garages, and its use as a small training space will not alter the established rhythm or appearance of the area. 4. Scale and Compatibility The detached garage is less than 800 sq. ft., and no exterior structural changes are proposed. Noise, lighting, and activity levels will remain consistent with typical residential use. The operation will maintain the quiet, residential character of the neighborhood while allowing a local, woman-owned business to thrive responsibly. Summary This variance meets justification criterion (3) of the Land Use Code: '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.' The proposed use will preserve neighborhood integrity, create minimal impact, and uphold the spirit and intent of the home occupation standards. Approval of this variance will allow the applicant to operate Your Best Day Ever Movement Studio in a safe, controlled, and professional environment while maintaining the residential quality and visual character of the property. OVERVIEW & LEGEND SITE PLAN FOR 209 N. TAFT HILL De t a c h e d Ga r a g e Home Occuptation + Movement Studio (Your Best Day Ever Movement Studio) Applicant: Theresa Adams 1" = 30ft Illustrated Site Plan Resident Parking Primary Residence (1,649 sq. ft)20 9 N . T a f t H i l l Pr i m a r y H o m e NORTH SOUTH 7- 1 1 Cemetary N. T a f t H i l l N. T a f t H i l l W. Laporte AveW. Laporte Ave Re s i d e n t A l l e y A c c e s s Gravel parking for up to 4 client parking spots 800 sq. ft. Garage Client walking path to detached garage Add clear walking path to detached garage for clients from parking located off N. Taft Hill. Convert detached garage to Movement Studio. Install bathroom in detached garage for clients. The transition of the detached garage to a resident own business will not impact traffic on Laporte or Taft Hill. All activity will remain on the home owners property. City Park LIquor Store Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 13, 2025 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA250033 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 216 Wood St Owner: The Fodge Hentschel Living Trust Petitioners: Aaron Fodge, Owner/J. Nathan Epperson, GC, Skookum Craftmanship, LLC Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Variance Request: This is a request for a proposed 226 square-foot addition to a partially demolished detached accessory structure (garage) to be built 1.1 feet from the side (north) property line. The minimum required side setback for this property in the OT-B Zone District is 5 feet. The request is to therefore encroach into the side setback by 3.9 feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1896, part of the West Side Annexation. The original primary structure was constructed in 1910. It is unclear how many remodels have occurred since and when the existing accessory structure was constructed. In general side setbacks provide both safety minimums and establish consistent character to a neighborhood. The proposed request is to build an addition to an existing one-story structure. The existing structure is considered non-conforming as it does not meet the minimum side setback and encroaches 3.9 feet into the required 5-foot setback. The new addition will retain the existing wall that is encroaching into its design. It further adds an additional 3.8 feet in length to existing the 32.16 foot wall for a total of 35.96 feet encroaching into the side setback. The existing structure can be accessed from the west and east side of the property. It is separated by 60’ from the primary dwelling. 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 proposed addition extends the encroachment 3.8 feet in length along the 180-foot north property line. • The addition is one story and is separated by a 6-foot-tall fence. 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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¶V5HSUHVHQWDWLYH PXVWEHSUHVHQWDWWKHPHHWLQJ /RFDWLRQ/D3RUWH$YH&LW\+DOO&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWR WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ 'DWH6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPH DP sĂƌŝĂŶĐĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶĞƌ͛ƐEĂŵĞ͕ ŝĨŶŽƚƚŚĞKǁŶĞƌ ŝƚǇ WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶĞƌ͛ƐZĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŝƉ ƚŽƚŚĞKǁŶĞƌŝƐ ŝƉŽĚĞ WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶĞƌ͛ƐĚĚƌĞƐƐ KǁŶĞƌ͛ƐEĂŵĞ WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶĞƌ͛ƐWŚŽŶĞη ŽĚĞ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ;ƐͿ WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶĞƌ͛ƐŵĂŝů ŽŶŝŶŐŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ͛ƐEĂŵĞ :ƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ;ƐͿ ZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ͛ƐĚĚƌĞƐƐ :ƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ;ƐͿZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ͛ƐWŚŽŶĞη :ƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ;ƐͿZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ͛ƐŵĂŝů ZĞĂƐŽŶŝŶŐ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ tZ/ddE^ddDEdyW>/E/E'd,Z^KE&KZd,sZ/EZYh^dZYh/Zs/ ^WZdKhDEd͘ 216 Wood St.J. Nathan Epperson, Skookum General Contractor 80521 313 N. Whitcomb St. Fort Collins, Aaron Fodge 970-690-1341 2332 (Acsry Bldg <650 sf-res)skookum.epperson@gmail.com OT-B - Old Town District, MED Aaron Fodge 216 Wood St. Fort Collins, CO 970-556-5624 Aaron.Fodge@colostate.edu 3. Nominal and inconsequential dditional Justification dditional Justification %XLOGLQ RGHH XLUHPHQWVZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHG QGHYLHZHGE WKH%XLOGLQ H DUWPHQWVHSDUDWHO ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ To: City of Fort Collins Zoning & Development Review 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Variance Request – Side Setback Encroachment Permit No.: B2506599 Property Address: 216 Wood St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Zoning District: OT-B (Old Town – Medium Density) To Whom It May Concern, We are requesting a variance from the Fort Collins Land Use Code to allow a portion of an existing detached accessory structure (an old barn/garage located at the rear of the property adjacent to the alley) to encroach into the required minimum 5-foot side setback along the north property line. The existing structure has stood in its current location for many decades and sits approximately 1.1 feet from the north property line. As part of our project (Permit #B2506599), we are seeking to rehabilitate and structurally improve the existing barn rather than demolish and rebuild it elsewhere. The proposed improvements include keeping and incorporating the existing north wall into the rebuilt structure, while replacing deteriorated walls and foundation elements on the other three sides. This approach ensures the variance is only needed for the 3.8-foot extension beyond the existing footprint, not the entire structure. Because replacement of structural walls and foundation qualifies as “new construction,” the rebuilt portion along the north property line technically requires a variance to continue in its current location within the side setback. The total floor area of the resulting structure, including the 3.8-foot extension, is approximately 580 square feet, which is under the 600-square-foot maximum allowed for a detached accessory structure in the OT-B district. Therefore, no variance is required for floor area. We believe this variance request satisfies the intent and criteria outlined in Section 6.14 of the Land Use Code, as outlined below. Variance Criteria Justification 1. Exceptional Practical Difficulty or Hardship The existing structure was built long before current setback requirements and sits just over one foot from the north property line. Moving or reducing the structure to meet the current 5-foot setback would require full demolition and substantial reconfiguration of the site, which would cause unnecessary hardship and diminish the functionality and historical character of the property. 2. No Detriment to Public Good or Neighborhood Character The encroachment does not interfere with adjacent properties, light, air, or safety. The neighboring property owner to the north has been informed and supports this request. The structure’s rehabilitation will improve the visual and structural integrity of the site and contribute positively to the neighborhood’s established pattern of historic accessory buildings near alleys and property lines. 3. Preservation of Intent and Purpose of the Land Use Code The purpose of the side setback requirement—to maintain separation and reduce impacts between structures—will still be met. This variance allows the continuation of an existing, historically placed structure without expanding its massing or creating new impacts inconsistent with the Code’s intent. 4. Minimum Variance Necessary The request is limited strictly to the portion of the structure requiring a 3.8-foot extension beyond the existing north wall. No other dimensional or use variances are being requested. This is the minimum variance necessary to allow for structural rehabilitation while maintaining safety and compliance with building standards. We respectfully request that the Land Use Review Commission approve this variance to permit the rebuilt portion of the detached accessory structure to maintain a 1.1-foot setback from the north property line, while keeping the total square footage at ~580 square feet, under the 600-square-foot maximum allowed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to contact me at 970-690-1341 or skookum.epperson@gmail.com with any questions or requests for additional information. Sincerely, J. Nathan Epperson, Owner Skookum Craftsmanship 313 N. Whitcomb St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-690-1341 Ex. Outbuilding 32'-2 1/2" DEMO EX. ADDITION Addition 15'-9" 1 HR WALL Existing House Scale Urban|Rural Design, Inc. 11 Old Town Square, #260 Fort Collins, Colorado 970.889.4004 brian@urbanruralarch.com 1" = 20'-0"8/18/2025 2:09:40 PM A1.1SITE PLAN FODGE GARAGE ADDITION & REMODEL 216 WOOD STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO August 18, 2025 Aaron Fodge 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN ( ( )/22'/,*+7 ( $'',7,21 (;,67,1**$5$*( ( ( ( *$5$*()/225 $ZQLQJ%HDULQJ &2%%:$//6 29(5%8,/'720$7&+(;,67,1*522) 0DLQ:DOO%UJ ,163,5( /(70(.12::+$76,=(-2,676$1')5$0,1*6<67(0,61(('('+(5(:+(1<28&$1,:$67+,1.,1*;5$.('+,3625$6&,6625+,3758666<67(0 3$5,(';5$)7(56 1(:&21&5(7(6/$% 0DLQ:DOO%UJ 85%$1585$/'(6,*1,1&:,//2:675((7)257&2//,16&2/25$'2 30 8QQDPHG 3URMHFW1DPH *$5$*()/225 522)3/$1 6287+(/(9$7,21 :(67(/(9$7,21 6(&7,21/22.,1*1257+ S0.0 PROJECT INFORMATION GA R A G E A D D I T I O N & R E M O D E L 4803 INNOVATION DRIVE, SUITE 4 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 PHONE: (319) 631-5935 CLIENT: DATE: PROJECT #: REVISION 0 PERMIT SET 1 CHANGES 2 3 4 5 NTR DATE SCALE:PER PLAN AARON FODGE DRAWN BY: ENG23.0102 216 WOOD STREET FORT COLLINS, CO CLIENT PHONE: (970) 556-5624 21 6 W O O D S T R E E T FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8/13/2025 DESIGN BY:NTR 8/13/25 10/9/25 GARAGE ADDITION & REMODEL SHEET INDEX S0.0 PROJECT INFORMATION S1.0 PLAN VIEWS GENERAL NOTES 1. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES THESE PLANS ARE DESIGNED FOR THE FINISHED PRODUCT. SHORING, STAGING, AND ORDER OF OPERATION ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF OUR SERVICES AND SHOULD BE DESIGNED AND MONITORED BY THE CONTRACTOR DURING CONSTRUCTION. FINISH MATERIAL, INSULATION REQUIREMENTS, AND WATERPROOFING ARE OUTSIDE OF OUR SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SHOULD BE DESIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS WITH ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT INSPIRE ENGINEERING IF DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND. SHOP DRAWINGS AND SUBMITTALS, WHERE REQUIRED, SHALL DEMONSTRATE HOW THE CONTRACTOR IS PROPOSING TO CONFORM TO THE INFORMATION GIVEN ON THESE PLANS AND THE DESIGN CONCEPT EXPRESSED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. PRIOR TO PROVIDING INSPIRE ENGINEERING SUBMITTALS TO REVIEW, THE CONTRACTOR MUST: a. REVIEW & APPROVE THE SUBMITTAL b. DETERMINE AND VERIFY MATERIALS, FIELD MEASUREMENTS, AND FIELD CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA c. CHECK & COORDINATE THE INFORMATION IN THE SUBMITTAL WITH THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 2. DESIGN CRITERIA THESE PLANS WERE PREPARED FOLLOWING THE 2021 IRC CODES AND ANY LOCAL AMENDMENTS. OUR DESIGN WAS PREPARED USING ASCE 7-16, ACI-332, AND THE 2018 NDS. RISK CATEGORY: II WIND SPEED: Vult = 140 mph EXPOSURE CATEGORY: B GROUND SNOW LOAD: 35 psf ROOF LOAD: 30 psf (SNOW) / 15 psf (DEAD) SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: B 3. SOILS SOILS REPORT BY: ASSUMED REPORT DATE: N/A REPORT NUMBER: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: FOUNDATION TYPE: SPREAD FOOTINGS (SHALLOW) MAX. BEARING PRESSURE = 1,500 PSF MIN. BEARING PRESSURE = N/A BALANCED PRESSURE = 750 psf SOIL SITE CLASS = D EQ. FLUID DENSITY = 50 PCF FOUNDATION DESIGN WAS BASED ON ASSUMED BEARING SOILS CONSISTING OF SILTY, SANDY CLAY AS DESCRIBED IN TABLE R401.4.1 OF THE IRC. WE REQUIRE AN OPEN HOLE OBSERVATION BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO POURING THE FOUNDATION FOOTINGS. OPEN HOLE OBSERVATIONS ARE TO VERIFY THAT THE SOILS CONDITIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ASSUMED SOILS. IF SOIL CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM THE ASSUMED SOILS, CONTACT INSPIRE ENGINEERING. THIS MAY RESULT IN AN ADDITIONAL EVALUATION OR FOUNDATION RE-DESIGN. WE RECOMMEND FOUNDATION WALLS NOT BE BACKFILLED FOR A MINIMUM OF (8) DAYS AFTER PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE. ALL FLOOR SYSTEMS SHOULD BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO BACKFILLING AGAINST ANY FOUNDATION WALL. ADEQUATELY BRACING THE FOUNDATION WALLS MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE. 4. CONCRETE STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOR FOUNDATION ELEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (f'c) OF 4,000 psi, WITH A MAX. W/C RATIO OF .45, AND AIR ENTRAINMENT OF 5-8%. CONCRETE FOR INTERIOR SLABS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (f'c) OF 3,500 psi. INTERIOR SLAB SHRINKAGE SHALL BE MAXIMUM OF .04% AS DETERMINED BY ASTM C157. CONCRETE FOR EXTERIOR SLABS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (f'c) OF 4,500 psi, WITH A MAX. W/C RATIO OF .45, AND AIR ENTRAINMENT OF 5-8%. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE DESIGNED, MIXED AND PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI-301 "SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOR BUILDINGS". CEMENT SHALL BE TYPE I/II AND FOLLOW ASTM C150. AGGREGATES SHALL BE PER ASTM C33. COLD WEATHER CONCRETING REQUIREMENTS PER ACI-360R SHALL BE FOLLOWED WHEN THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE IS 40°F OR BELOW. HOT WEATHER CONCRETE PRODUCTION, DELIVERY, PLACEMENT, CURING, TESTING AND INSPECTIONS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI-305R. READY MIXED CONCRETE SHALL COMPLY WITH ASTM C94. 5. FOUNDATION FOUNDATION WALLS WERE DESIGNED BASED ON AN 8" THICK WALL. ADDITIONAL WALL THICKNESS WAS UTILIZED IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS IN ORDER TO INCREASE BEARING WIDTH AND IMPROVE CONSTRUCTABILITY. FOOTINGS SHALL BEAR A MINIMUM OF 30" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. FOOTINGS OVER 24" WIDE REQUIRE #4 TRANSVERSE REINFORCING BARS AT 24" O.C. REINFORCING SHALL BE DEFORMED GRADE 60 STEEL, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE (U.N.O.) ON THE PLAN AND SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A615. ALL FOUNDATION WALL REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE WIRED IN PLACE. SLAB AND FOOTING REINFORCEMENT SHALL UTILIZE CHAIRS OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE METHODS TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED CROSS SECTION. MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER SHALL BE 2" U.N.O. ON THE PLAN. REBAR OVERLAPS SHALL BE 40xBAR DIAMETERS BUT NOT LESS THAN 24". DETAIL REINFORCING BARS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE ACI DETAILING MANUAL AND ACI CODE. FOUNDATION ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A307 AND BE 12" DIAMETER BY 10" LONG, SPACED AT 4'-0" O.C. MAX AND 12" MAX FROM CORNERS AND PLATE SPLICES. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR/OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY AND COORDINATE ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 6. SLAB ON GRADE WE RECOMMEND CONCRETE SLABS BE FREE OF ALL CONSTRUCTION AND/OR OTHER LOADING, STAGING, OR STORAGE FOR A MINIMUM OF (5) DAYS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF CRACKING. MAX CONTROL JOINT SPACING (IN FEET) SHALL BE 2x THE SLAB THICKNESS (IN INCHES). CONTROL JOINTS SHALL BE 14" WIDE WITH A DEPTH OF 14 x SLAB THICKNESS PLUS 14". CONTROL JOINTS SHALL BE CUT AND/OR TOOLED AS SOON AS PRACTICAL. REINFORCING SHALL BE PER THE PLANS. CENTER REINFORCING IN THE SLAB. SLABS SHALL BE CURED PER THE METHODS DESCRIBED IN ACI-302.1, R-15 "GUIDE TO CONCRETE FLOOR AND SLAB CONSTRUCTION". SECTIONS OF SLABS SHALL ONLY BE POURED IN LARGE SQUARES OR RECTANGLES. PROVIDE A GRANULAR LEVELING COURSE CONSISTING OF 38" MINUS CLEAN GRAVEL UNDER SLABS, EXCEPT WHERE NOTED AT EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL SLABS. 7. WOOD FRAMING MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS: DIMENSIONAL LUMBER: HEM-FIR #2 TIMBER BEAMS & POSTS: DOUG-FIR #2 GLULAM BEAMS: ALASKAN YELLOW CEDAR 20F-V13 (A.Y.C.) LVL BEAMS: 1 34" WIDE GRADE 2.0E MICROLLAMS (OR EQUIVALENT) WITH: MODULUS OF ELASTICITY (E): 2.0 x 106 FLEXURAL STRESS (Fb): 2,600 psi HORIZONTAL SHEAR (Fv): 285 psi FLOOR SHEATHING:3 4" T&G WALL SHEATHING:716" OSB ROOF SHEATHING:15 32" OSB ALL FRAMING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNING CODE. ALL CONNECTIONS OR MEMBERS NOT SHOWN ARE PER CODE. ALL MANUFACTURED WOOD PRODUCTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE MANUFACTURERS PRINTED INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. FLUSH MULTI-PLY LVL BEAMS ARE TO BE ATTACHED PER THE BELOW SCHEDULE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE PLANS. ALL EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING SHALL BE WALL SHEATHING PER ABOVE OVER 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C., U.N.O. SHEATHING SHALL BE ATTACHED PER THE SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE TO THE RIGHT. BUILT UP COLUMNS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF (3) 2x STUDS, U.N.O. ON THE PLANS 1 18" MINIMUM SOLID RIM REQUIRED AT FLOOR SYSTEM. FLOOR SHEATHING SHALL BE GLUED AND NAILED TO THE FLOOR FRAMING WITH 8d NAILS @ 6" O.C AT THE EDGES AND 12" O.C. IN THE FIELD. PROVIDE BLOCKING AT SUPPORTS AS REQUIRED BY CODE. ROOF SHEATHING SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE ROOF FRAMING WITH 8d NAILS @ 6" O.C AT THE EDGES AND 12" O.C. IN THE FIELD. PROVIDE BLOCKING AT SUPPORTS AS REQUIRED BY CODE. ALL WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED. PROVIDE SOLID BLOCKING TO TRANSMIT ALL POINT LOADS CONTINUOUS TO THE FOUNDATION. IF THERE ARE 20% OF OVERDRIVEN NAILS IN SHEATHING, THEN SHEATHING MUST BE RE-NAILED WITH PROPER GUN PRESSURE NOT TO BREAK SURFACE OF SHEATHING. ALL FASTENERS AND CONNECTORS IN CONTACT WITH PRESSURE TREATED LUMBERS HALL BE G185 HOT-DIP GALVANIZED, TYPE 304 STAINLESS STEEL OR TYPE 316 STAINLESS STEEL. 8. QUALITY ASSURANCE WE RECOMMEND THE ABOVE COMPANIES FOR OBSERVATIONS. OTHER COMPANIES MAY BE USED AT THE CLIENTS DISCRETION. CONTACT FOR PRICING PRIOR TO SCHEDULING OBSERVATIONS. OTHER OBSERVATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION OR OTHER ENGINEERS WORKING ON THIS PROJECT. OBSERVATION/SUBMITTAL PERFORMED BY (RECOMMENDED) OPEN HOLE/FOOTING HEADER SCHEDULE HEADER DESIGNATION HEADER MATERIAL # OF TRIMMER STUDS (U.N.O.) INSPIRE ENGINEERING LLC KING STUD SCHEDULE OPENING WIDTH # OF KING STUDS PER SIDE (U.N.O.)NOTES KING STUD SCHEDULE IS BASED ON 9'-0" TALL STUDS. SEE PLAN FOR NUMBER OF KINGS STUDS AT TALLER WALLS 1'-4" TO 4'-0" 1 4'-1" TO 8'-0" 2 8'-1" TO 12'-4" 3 FASTENER TYPE NUMBER OF ROWS FASTENER ON-CENTER SPACING NUMBER OF PLYS 2 3 4 10d NAIL (0.148"x3") 10d NAIL (0.148"x3") 6" LONG SIMPSON SDS SCREW 3 12" FASTENER ON BOTH FACES NO 3 6" YES 2 24"YES MULTI-PLY CONNECTIONS FOR FLUSH LVL BEAMS NOTE: CONTACT INSPIRE ENGINEERING FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE ABOVE FASTENERS, IF REQUIRED HF26 (2) 2x6 HEM-FIR 1 FOUNDATION REINFORCEMENT INSPIRE ENGINEERING LLC WALL SHEATHING & SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE WALL TYPE SHEATHING TYPE SHEATHING THICKNESS FASTENERS EDGE SPACING FIELD SPACING EXTERIOR, U.N.O. 1 OSB OR PLYWOOD (EXTERIOR)7/16"YES EDGE BLOCKING 8d COMMON 16 ga. x 1 34" STAPLES 6" 12" 3" 6" NOTES: 1. ALL EXTERIOR SHEATHING VERTICAL EDGES SHALL FALL UPON 2x6 STUDS SPACED AT 16" O.C. MAX. 2. HORIZONTAL JOINTS SHALL OCCUR OVER BLOCKING EQUAL IN SIZE TO THE WALL STUDS, EXCEPT WHERE INDICATED ABOVE. 3. EXTERIOR WALL SOLE PLATES AND TOP PLATES SHALL BE ATTACHED TO FRAMING ABOVE AND BELOW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE I-CODES. 4. WHERE JOISTS ARE PERPENDICULAR TO THE INTERIOR SHEAR WALL LINES ABOVE, BLOCKING BETWEEN JOISTS SHOULD BE INSTALLED BELOW THE SHEAR WALL. 5. WHERE JOISTS ARE PARALLEL TO THE INTERIOR SHEAR WALL LINES ABOVE, DOUBLE JOISTS SHOULD BE INSTALLED BELOW THE SHEAR WALL. 6. ATTACH INTERIOR SHEAR WALLS TO FRAMING ABOVE AND BELOW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE I-CODES. HOLD DOWN SCHEDULE HOLD DOWN DESIGNATION HOLD DOWN NOTES 1 SIMPSON STHD14/14RJ INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. HOLD DOWNS ARE SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ON THE PLANS. FIELD LOCATE HOLD DOWN'S AT CORNERS, EDGE OF WINDOW & DOOR OPENINGS, OR ENDS OF REQUIRED SHEAR WALLS (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DIMENSIONS) 3" 12"OSB OR PLYWOOD (EXTERIOR)7/16" YES 8d COMMON HF28 (2) 2x8 HEM-FIR 1 FRAMING HARDWARE SCHEDULE CONNECTION TYPE HANGER NOTES: 1. HANGERS SHALL BE PROVIDED PER SCHEDULE U.N.O. ON THE PLANS. 2. SOME HANGERS MAY BE SPECIAL ORDER. 3. HANGERS SHALL HAVE ZMAX CORROSION PROTECTION FOR ALL EXTERIOR APPLICATIONS OR WHERE PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER IS USED. 4. CONTACT INSPIRE ENGINEERING IF ALTERNATIVE HANGER OPTIONS ARE PREFERRED. 5. ALL HANGERS ARE SIMPSON MFR. INSTALL HANGERS PER MFR. SPECIFICATIONS. SAWN RAFTER TO HIP BEAM LSSJ-SERIES SAWN RAFTER TO BEAM/HEADER - FLUSH LS70 (2) SAWN HIP BEAM TO WALL PLATE (2) A34 - SD SCREWS SAWN RAFTER TO WALL PLATE H2.5A SAWN HIP BEAMS AT PEAK HHRC-SERIES 10/9/2025 12" TE 12 " T E 12 " T E 12" TE 15'-8" 15 ' - 8 " 6' - 4 " 3' - 0 " 6' - 4 " 15'-8" 6'-4"3'-0"6'-4" (SCALE: 34" = 1'-0")DC A (SCALE: 34" = 1'-0") GARAGE FOUNDATION WALL (SCALE: 34" = 1'-0") 12 " M I N . FRAMING PER PLANS ANCHOR BOLTS PER GENERAL NOTES ON SHEET S0.0 NEW 4" SLAB & THICKENED EDGE PER PLAN. PROVIDE (3) CONTINUOUS #3 BARS AS SHOWN 6" MI N . TURN DOWN SLAB EDGE PER PLAN. REINFORCE WITH (2) CONTINUOUS #4 HORIZONTAL BARS AS SHOWN (1) #3 DOWEL BARS AT 24" O.C. TO TIE INTO EXISTING SLAB 12 " 25" (SCALE: 34" = 1'-0")E FOUNDATION WALL PER PLAN. (2) STUDS MINIMUM AT HOLD DOWN STRAP HOLD DOWN STRAP PER PLAN. INSTALL PER MFR. FOUNDATION HOLD DOWN 1' - 0 " EXISTING WALL FRAMING. IMPROVE AS REQUIRED. SIMPSON TIE DOWN PER HARDWARE SCHEDULE (9) 16d NAILS AT CEILING JOISTS TO RAFTERS CEILING JOISTS PER PLAN RAFTERS PER PLAN CEILING JOISTS TO RAFTERSBNEW FDN. AT EXISTING (SCALE: 34" = 1'-0") ADD.EXIST. NEW SLAB & THICKENED EDGE PER PLAN EXISTING SLAB TO REMAIN NEW FOUNDATION PER DETAIL A/S1.0 EXISTING FOUNDATION TO REMAIN RAISED WALL DETAIL DOUBLE 2x4 RAFTERS NAIL 2x4 RAFTERS TO MAIN RAFTERS PER PLAN WITH (4) 10d NAILS MAIN RAFTERS PER PLAN SIMPSON LS70 ANGLE EACH RAFTER SET STRUCTURAL HEADER TO INSIDE OF WALL FOR RAFTER ATTACHMENT WALL BEYOND 12" 18 " M I N . 12" 2'-0" EXISTING SLAB TO REMAIN. CUTBACK AS REQUIRED FOR NEW FOUNDATION DRILL & EPOXY NEW DOWELS INTO EXISTING SLAB (4" EMBEDMENT) S1.0 FLOOR PLANS GA R A G E A D D I T I O N & R E M O D E L 4803 INNOVATION DRIVE, SUITE 4 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 PHONE: (319) 631-5935 CLIENT: DATE: PROJECT #: REVISION 0 PERMIT SET 1 CHANGES 2 3 4 5 NTR DATE SCALE:PER PLAN AARON FODGE DRAWN BY: ENG23.0102 216 WOOD STREET FORT COLLINS, CO CLIENT PHONE: (970) 556-5624 21 6 W O O D S T R E E T FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8/13/2025 DESIGN BY:NTR 8/13/25 10/9/25 FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EX I S T I N G HE A D E R (M I N . H F 2 6 ) GARAGE ADDITION EXISTING SLAB TO REMAIN 2K, 2 T S1.0 A S1.0 A ROOF FRAMING PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DOOR OPENING DOOR OPENING DOOR OPENING. LOCATE AT EXISTING OPENING TO GARAGE S1.0 A S1.0 B 2x6 SILL PLATE, TYPICAL EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING HEADER (MIN. HF26) EXISTING HEADER (MIN. HF26) MAY REQUIRE A FLUSH HEADER AT DOOR. ATTACH RAFTERS WITH LUS-SERIES HANGER RAISE CEILING JOISTS 12". INSTALL 2x10 OR 714" LVL RAFTERS WITH 2x8 CEILING JOISTS AT 24" O.C. 2x8 RAFTERS AT 16" O.C. NOTE: PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING GARAGE WALLS ARE SHOWING SIGNS OF ROT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WALL. REMOVE THE ROTTED WOOD AND SISTER NEW FULL HEIGHT 2x STUDS TO MATCH EXISTING EAST WALL IS LEANING. STRAIGHTEN WALL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THIS MAY REQUIRE RE-FRAMING THE EXISTING WALL 1 1 1 1 1 SHEATH NEW WALL PER STANDARD EXTERIOR SHEATHING HF28 CONTINUOUS HF 2 8 CO N T I N U O U S 2T 2T 2K, 2 T 2K, 2 T 2T2T2K, 2 T HF 2 8 2x8 RAFTERS AT 16" O.C. 2x 8 R A F T E R S AT 1 6 " O . C . 2x 8 R A F T E R S AT 1 6 " O . C . MIN. ( 2 ) 2 x 8 HIP B E A M MIN. ( 2 ) 2 x 8 HIP B E A M MIN. ( 2 ) 2 x 8 HIP B E A M MIN. ( 2 ) 2 x 8 HIP B E A M 1 1 10/9/2025 From:Noah Beals To:Kory Katsimpalis Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Public comments on Appeal ZBA250033, 216 Wood Street Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 8:52:59 AM From: Seth Pearson <scp.pearson@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 11:28 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comments on Appeal ZBA250033, 216 Wood Street Hi Noah, I got the letter in the mail about this appeal. Thank you for the work you do and for collecting community comments. I will not be attending the hearing for this proposal, but live at 211 N Grant, immediately "behind" (across the alley) from the proposed development. I am in favor of allowing the proposed variance for setback and allowing the building plan to continue. The narrow 35-foot lot width of the properties in this neighborhood can make modernization difficult; especially making a usable garage if any structure (or trees) are already present. I believe that garage parking instead of parking on the street provides a positive externality for those in the area: adding ease of guest/ event parking, increasing cosmetic appeal of the neighborhood to have the historic homes featured from the street view rather than parked cars, simplified logistics on trash day, better access for street sweeping, etc. I also believe that driveway/garage approaches that are opposite each other (or somewhat aligned) across an alleyway are a benefit to the parties on both sides. Aligned driveways allow navigation of vehicles when backing in or other maneuvering is necessary without running over vegetation. My only recommendation with the narrower setback to the north property line would be to make sure there is a surface water drainage plan in place for the watershed of the garage roof, which will presumably have to flow West all the way along the property line to Wood Street. The high point on this block is the alley itself, meaning water needs to flow west from the alley to Wood Street, and east from the alley toward Grant Ave. Even though the lot to the north of the proposed site is currently empty, there is no guarantee that it will remain so. Again, I support the proposed building plan, and trust the judgement of Aaron Fodge to serve the community well, as he has always done. Happy to chat as well if there are any follow-up questions. 970.227.0700. Seth Seth Pearson Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 13, 2025 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA250034 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 3506 English Ct Owner: Erik E Shollmier Family Trust Petitioner: Erik Shollmier, Owner Zoning District: RL Code Section: 2.1.4 Variance Request: There are two requests associated with this variance application: 1. A request for a proposed 240 square foot residential addition to be built up to 6 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required rear setback for this property in the RL Zone District is 15 feet. The request is to therefore encroach 9 feet into the 15-foot required rear setback. 2. A request to exceed the maximum allowable buildable floor area for a lot in the RL Zone District. The total calculable floor area for the detached single unit residence including the proposed 240 square foot addition will be 2,726 square feet. The maximum allowable buildable floor area for this lot in the RL Zone District is 2,355 square feet. The request is to therefore exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 371 square feet. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was annexed into the City in 1978 part of the Trend Homes 1st annexation. It was subdivided and received development approval for a single-unit house in 1988. The primary building was originally constructed in 1988. Since then, the attached garage was converted to living space and an additional living space was added to the rear. In the RL zone the rear setback is 15 feet. This applies both to primary structure and detached accessory buildings requiring a permit. Setbacks are for both safety and retaining the character of a neighborhood. The existing conditions of the property include sheds along the south property line that do not conform to the setbacks. Although they both appear to be under 120 square feet in size individually, it is unclear if they are under 8 feet in height. If they were over 8 feet they would have required a building permit and to meet the setbacks. No permits have been found for these sheds. The proposed addition is designed for storage space; however, it is considered an addition to the house. As an addition regardless of its size or height it is required to obtain a building permit and meet setbacks. Also, in the RL zone the amount of floor area is limited by the size of lot. A lot is required to be 3 times larger than the total floor area. The existing lot size only allows for 2,355 square feet of floor area and the proposed addition exceeds the limit by 371 square feet. In general, most of the surrounding neighbors are in compliance with both rear and side yard setbacks. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 2 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that: • The variance will contribute to a change in character of the existing neighborhood. • Other size sheds and locations could be placed on the property complying with all standards. • There is not a unique hardship that prevents the standard from being met. • The proposed addition and location is not equal to a design that would comply with the standard. 4. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA250034. From:Noah Beals To:Kory Katsimpalis Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Zba250034 Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 8:23:12 AM -----Original Message----- From: kevin <kevintompsett@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 7:21 PM To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zba250034 I’m not close enough to have too much say on this, but I think its really unfair to encroach so much on the 15’ setback. I would not want the house behind mine to extend that far back. The total square foot I don’t care about. Seems like they could extend over their patio if they want a larger house without encroaching on their neighbors. Sent from my iPhone Work Plan City of Fort Collins Land Use Review Commission 2026 Work Plan The Land Use Review Commission (LURC) will meet on the second Thursday of every month, providing that there are discussion items appearing on the regular monthly agenda. The Commission may also meet as needed in order to convene special meetings. All regular Land Use Review Commission meetings are scheduled for 8:30am and are typically held at Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue. The Land Use Review Commission 2026 meeting schedule is as follows: January 8 May 15 September 10 February 12 June 11 October 8 March 12 July 9 November 12 April 9 August 13 December 10 The primary purpose of the meetings will be to hear and decide appeals of certain administrative decisions made by City staff and to authorize variances from the requirements of the Land Use Code. It is estimated that the Commission will consider approximately 35 variance requests in 2026.