HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2025 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingLAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
12/11/25 – LURC SUMMARY AGENDA 1
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of November 13, 2025, Minutes.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
5. VARIANCE REQUESTS
a. APPEAL ZBA250035
Address: 2700 S Lemay Ave
Owner: Mill City Church
Petitioner: Brynn Arritola, Employee, Mill City Church
Zoning District: RL
Code Section: 5.16.2(G)
Project Description:
This is a request for a proposed freestanding permanent sign to be 60 square feet in
area and 6 feet in height. The maximum allowable sign area for a freestanding
monument sign in the residential neighborhood sign district is 32 square feet, and the
maximum allowable sign height for a freestanding permanent sign in the residential
sign district is 5 feet.
Additional items are included on Page 2 of the Agenda.
Participation in the Land Use Review Commission Meeting on Thursday, December 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.
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
12/11/25 – LURC SUMMARY AGENDA 2
b. APPEAL ZBA250036
Address: 7109 Sedgwick Dr
Owner: Tim Pfeifle and Kathy Loveland
Petitioner: Jeremiah Roepka, General Contractor, Bullfrog Builders LLC
Zoning District: LMN
Code Section: 2.2.1
Project Description:
This is a request for a proposed 120 square-foot detached accessory building (shed)
to be built 3 feet from the south (side) property line. The minimum required side
setback for this property in the LMN zone district is 5 feet. The request is to therefore
allow the structure to encroach 2 feet into the side setback.
c. APPEAL ZBA250037
Address: 815 W Magnolia St
Owner: Susannah Haberfeld
Petitioner: Aubrey Carson, Consultant, HighCraft Builders
Zoning District: OT-A
Code Section: 2.1.6
Project Description:
There are two requests associated with this variance application:
1. A request for a proposed residential addition (garage) to be constructed up to 5
feet from the rear property line. The minimum required rear setback for this
property in the OT-B zone district is 15 feet. The request is to therefore allow for
the proposed addition to encroach 10 feet into the required 15-foot rear setback.
2. A request for the garage door on the proposed residential addition to be built
approximately 5 feet 4 inches from the alley (side property line). The minimum
garage door setback from an alley for this property in the OT-B zone district is 8
feet. The request is to therefore allow for the proposed garage door to encroach
2 feet 8 inches into the required 8-foot garage door alley setback.
d. APPEAL ZBA250038
Address: 407 E Prospect Rd
Owner/Petitioner: Dudley and Mary Griggs
Zoning District: LMN
Code Section: 2.2.1
Project Description:
This is a request for a proposed freestanding pergola structure to be built 4 feet from
the side property line. The minimum required side setback for this property in the
LMN zone district is 5 feet. The request is to therefore allow for the structure to
encroach 1 foot into the required side setback.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 1
Land Use Review Commission
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, November 13, 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 – San Filippo, Lawton, Coffman, Carron, Gupta, Floyd
Board Members Absent – Vogel
Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Brad Yatabe
Guest(s) – NONE
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
San Filippo made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to approve the October 9, 2025, Minutes as
written. The motion passed by all members present.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
-NONE-
5. VARIANCE REQUESTS
a. APPEAL ZBA250030
Address: 525 Maple St
Owner/Petitioner: Emily and Sara Jeanes
Zoning District: OT-B
Code Section: 2.16
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.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is
located the corner of Maple St and N Whitcomb. Most of the lots in this area front onto Maple; the subject
property’s front door faces N Whitcomb.
The request is to rebuild the front entry with a covered porch. With the orientation of this lot, there is front
setback of 15 feet. The proposed porch would encroach into this setback by 10.9 feet. The proposed porch
would be placed approximately at the same location as an existing deck.
In the Old Town area, we often find that the front property line is not aligned with the back of sidewalk. In this
instance, there is more than the required 15-foot setback from the front of the property to the back of sidewalk.
Beals presented images of the property from the side and the front street views. Additional photographs show
the significant distance that exists from the back of sidewalk to the front of the property.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 2
Chair Lawton asked Beals about the existing addition that appears to have a flat roof and questioned whether
this would remain or be removed. Beals stated that the proposed porch addition would extend from this portion
of the home.
Commission member Carron asked Beals if there are any requirements that offer a different setback between
front and side. This property has a Maple St address, but the entrance faces Whitcomb. Will this addressing
remain? Beals confirmed that the address will remain on Maple St, and that Code defines the “front” of a
property based on entrance location.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Sara Jeanes, Owner, 525 Maple St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Jeanes
stated that the front of the home has been in its current location for decades. Jeanes has spoken to their
immediate neighbors who are supportive and looking forward to sharing the porch alongside Jeanes. This
space will provide a usable covered area for the family to enjoy in all seasons.
Chair Lawton asked Jeanes if there is currently a connection from the porch to the driveway. Jeanes noted
there are currently two entryways and paths that lead to the porch.
Carron asked if the proposed porch is larger than existing? Jeanes stated that the requested porch will extend
a bit beyond current, to better align with windows on the wall, as well as extending forward a bit to
accommodate furniture and to better align with paths and sidewalk access.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman is in favor, noting that porches are usually an addition to the public good.
Example of nominal and inconsequential, as it maintains a large setback from the sidewalk.
Commission member Carron agrees, noting the proposed addition is in line with the home. Additionally, Carron
shared his opinion that there ought to be more front porches in town
Commission member Gupta agrees, noting that the property line is not aligned with the sidewalk, and this
maintains the spirit of the Code.
Chair Lawton believes the proposal can be considered nominal and inconsequential, and the plan will improve
both the structure itself and the surrounding neighborhood.
Commission member San Filippo agrees with previous Commission comments and is in favor of approval. San
Filippo notes that the 12-foot distance between the proposed porch and back of sidewalk maintains appropriate
right of way.
Continued on the following page.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 3
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE ZBA250030,
granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the proposed covered porch
to encroach 10.9 feet into the required 15-foot front setback as shown in the hearing materials.
as shown in the materials for this hearing.
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 proposed porch is open on three sides and would be set back from the back of
sidewalk by 16.1 feet.
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: San Filippo, Lawton, Coffman, Carron, Gupta, Floyd
Nays:
Absent: Vogel
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.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is
located on Nancy Gray Ave, just across the street from the HOA pool. The request is to place a home
occupation within a detached accessory structure. Code does not allow for home occupation to be placed
within a detached accessory structure. If it were attached, a home occupation could take up to 50% of the floor
area of the primary dwelling.
Beals presented site and building plans, noting the accessory structure is one story and the primary structure is
two story. In this instance, the home occupation use would not account for more than 50% of the floor area of
the primary structure.
Beals presented pictures from the street and the alley, noting the location of the detached accessory structure
(garage). The garage has enough room for three cars, with one single space and one tandem space. The
assumption is that the machine shop will be set up in the back tandem parking spot.
Chair Lawton asked Beals if this were attached to the primary structure, is it true that a variance would not be
needed? What is the goal of the code as written? Beals explained that the intent of this Code section is to
ensure that the home occupation and associated structures remain subordinate to the primary structure. If the
garage were attached, a variance request would not be needed.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 4
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Raul Hernandez Herrera, Owner, 2332 Nancy Gray Ave, addressed the Commission and offered
comment. Herrera stated that the third parking space is where he would like to place equipment like 3D
printers and fabrication tools.
Herrera stated he is taking significant steps to reduce impact to neighbors, and has read through regulations
and rules regarding things like parking, signage, storage, etc.
Chair Lawton asked Herrera if he has a business currently; Herrera explained that he is taking his watch-
making hobby more seriously and would like to expand his ability to produce and fabricate. Herrera stated that
he has no plans to operate a storefront or expand in a large way. His goal is to produce more bespoke items
for himself and others.
Commission member San Filippo asked for more information about his hobby. Herrera explained that he can
turn antique pocket watches into wristwatches, repair movements, and fabricate custom items.
Public Comment:
Dr. James McDonagh, 2151 Yearling Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment. McDonagh
explained that he had initially come to the hearing with the intent of objecting, citing a lot of noise in the area
already from large trucks and other business operations in the neighborhood.
McDonagh explained that Mr. Herrera has taken many steps to reduce the sound coming out of his garage,
which would assuage much of his worry about increased sound in the area. While coming to the hearing with
the intent of opposing the variance request, McDonagh stated he is now in support of his neighbor and the
request.
Beals clarified that Zoning would not allow a retail store in this area, so that type of activity is already prohibited
by Code.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman considers this request to be nominal and inconsequential, noting the applicant
has taken necessary steps to mitigate impact. Coffman also noted that if the garage were attached, this
wouldn’t need a variance. The structrues are very close as-is. If approved, the request has potential for public
benefit by economic generation.
Chair Lawton agrees with the assessment that this variance can be considered nominal and inconsequential
and appreciates the efforts that have been put forth to reduce noise and impact on the surrounding area. As
long as the activity generates no retail traffic, it probably won’t be noticeable to the neighbors.
Commission member Carron agrees. The logistics of a machine shop often require dedicated shop space.
Placing the shop in the rear of the garage helps to isolate noise as well. Carron also considers the request to
be justified as nominal and inconsequential
Commission member Floyd agrees. Floyd stated that he lives in this neighborhood and is familiar with this
property. Floyd noted from personal experience that as one is walking behind these homes, there are a variety
of both attached and detached garages. This request seems nominal and inconsequential given that this
particular home has a detached garage.
Continued on the following page.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 5
Commission member Carrom made a motion, seconded by member Coffman to APPROVE ZBA250031,
regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.3.1(E)(1)(a) to allow the proposed home
occupation to be conducted in a portion of the detached garage as described in the hearing materials.
The Commission finds that the variance
• Would not be detrimental to the public good; and
• Will not diverge from Section 4.3.1(E)(1)(a) 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 use of the portion of the garage for a home occupation is less than 50% of the
square footage of the primary dwelling; and
o All other home occupation requirements will be met.
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: San Filippo, Lawton, Coffman, Carron, Gupta, Floyd
Nays:
Absent: Vogel
c. APPEAL ZBA250032
Address: 209 N Taft Hill Rd
Owner: Julie Savage
Petitioner: Theresa 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.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is
located near the corner of N Taft Hill Rd and Laporte Ave. There are two vacant lots to the south of the subject
property, but it is not actually a corner lot.
Because the accessory structure is detached, a variance is required in order to operate a home occupation out
of the accessory structure. If the structure were attached to the primary residence, a variance request would
not be needed.
This property backs to an alley along the west boundary, and fronts onto N Taft Hill Rd, which is considered an
arterial street. The initial variance request suggested that parking could occur at the front of the property and
then clients would walk back to the proposed business location through the property.
If the Commission were to be inclined to approve the variance request, Staff recommends the condition that
customers take vehicle access from the alley. This would reduce traffic on the arterial street and the nearby
intersection. Beals also noted if redevelopment were to occur, most likely vehicle access from the alley would
be required and the existing curb cut onto N Taft Hill Rd would be eliminated. Beals again stated that if the
Commission is inclined to approve this request, staff recommends a condition that vehicle access be taken
only from the alley. The applicant has stated that a maximum of six individuals are to be at a session at one
time; there may be multiple training sessions offered throughout a single business day. Staff agrees that six
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 6
individuals at a time is acceptable, but no more than that at one time. Multiple sessions of up to 6 clients at a
time could be offered throughout the day.
Beals presented street-level views of the property from N Taft Hill Rd, as well as alley-level views that show the
recommended vehicular access and parking lots. There is space to turn around within the property as well as
along the alley. The alley dead ends behind the property directly north of the subject property.
Commission member Carron noted this application may have more vehicular impact that then previous
application discussed. Carron asked how this type of occupation relates to others that may have less traffic,
such as a home accountant, etc?
Beals responded there is a wide range of home occupation types, that each have their own level of customer
traffic. Code does not favor one type over another. Zoning looks at each case and property individually to
determine best use case. Off street parking is considered as a part of this review.
Carron asked if there are any improvements pending for this section of N Taft Hill Rd? Beals stated that he
does not have that information directly but is aware of prelimary efforts that are being made by Streets and
Engineering departments to improve safety and accessibility along this portion of N Taft Hill Rd.
Chair Lawton referred to the aerial view, noting the apparent presence of a separate fence that runs along the
back of the property. Lawton noted this fence is no longer present in photographs supplied by Zoning. It
appears this fence has since been taken down and asked the applicant to provide clarification during their
presentation.
Commission member San Filippo noted for the record that he made two separate visits to this site in
preparation for this hearing. The first visit occurred on Friday, November 7th, at approximately 1:59pm. During
that visit, San Filippo noted the property appeared to be currently listed for sale. San Filippo observed the
presence of a wide driveway coming off of N Taft Hill Rd, as well as the presence of a 6-foot tall solid-wood
fence with gate at the front of the property, which was closed to prevent access to the rear of the lot. The
property to the south is a vacant lot with a small shed, with no apparent access from Laporte Ave. There is a
wide driveway on the subject property that could provide parking for 4-6 cars, however there is no exterior
lighting present.
San Filippo noted the alley from Laporte Ave is fairly narrow (about one lane wide) and appears to service two
houses on the west and three or four garages that face the alley. The alley is unmarked, and is close to the
intersection of N Taft Hill Rd and Laporte Ave. There is no visible 209 address sign on N Taft Hill Rd, other
than a small mailbox.
The second visit occurred on Monday, November 10th, at approximately 10:30am. San Filippo reported that he
visited with a range finder in order to get a sense of how far the driveway and alley each are from the
intersection. San Filippo was able to determine a distance of approximately 312 feet from the northern edge of
the driveway to the intersection of Laporte Ave and N Taft Hill Rd, and a distance from the alley to the same
intersection was measured to be approximately 229 feet.
San Filippo observed two turn lanes on the north-bound lanes of N Taft Hill Rd adjacent to this site. San Filippo
therefore observes that anyone travelling northbound on N Taft Hill would essentially have to cross two turn
lanes, a bike lane, and a right-turn lane in order to gain entry to the subject property.
Additionally, San Filippo noted that the distance from the alley entrance to the garage close to 150 feet.
San Filippo asked Beals if the applicant has the ability to place a sign on the alley to signify access to their
business? Beals responded that signage for home occupations is generally limited to one small sign affixed
directly on or in front of the primary structure.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 7
Commission member Floyd agreed that San Filippo brings up a fair point. We know N Taft Hill Rd is
considered an arterial street; do we know how Laporte Ave is classified? (Beals looked up information while
the Commission discussion continued).
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Theresa Rose Adams, owner, 209 N Taft Hill Rd,/business owner, Your Best Day Ever, addressed
the Commission and offered comment. Adams clarified that they are currently under contract to purchase the
property.
Commission member San Filippo asked Adams if their closing is contingent on this decision? Adams stated
that it is not contingent and the closing on her “dream home” is scheduled to continue.
Adams noted that 1616 Laporte Ave is her current business location, meaning that she currently operates
within the same neighborhood as the subject property. Adams reported that she teaches one class per day,
with a maximum occupancy of 15 clients. Adams plans to reduce this number to 6 participants at a time, with
no more than 1 session per day offered. Adams described her business as by appointment only, with no retail.
Adams expressed her desire to continue to serve existing clients in Fort Collins and noted that the business
would be moving less than a mile from current location.
Adams believes this request is in line with the intent of the city to support small local businesses.
Adams confirmed rear fence has been removed; the front fence will be removed as soon as closing is
completed. Adams in concerned that alley access would disturb neighbors and noted that vehicular access
from N Taft Hill Rd is preferred.
Commission member San Filippo asked if a sign would be present. Adams stated that she could install exterior
lights as needed. San Filipp asked for the intended hours of operation. Adams stated that she operates from
6am – 6pm currently. According to home occupation requirements, these times would need to be adjusted to
8am – 5pm. Adams again noted that parking lit lights could be installed, but she does not currently have clear
plans to do so.
Adams reiterated that she is planning to offer one six-person course per day, plus individual training
appointments. This is functional fitness training.
Also noted by Adames were the recent Laporte Ave improvements, which now have increased pedestrian
sidewalk traffic plus bike path traffic on either side of the alley access point.
Commission member Carron asked Adams for an estimate of how many clients drive. Adams stated that 3
clients drive and the rest of them walk or bike from the neighborhood to the current studio.
Beals responded to Floyd’s previous question and confirmed that Laporte Ave is classified as an arterial street.
Beals also clarified that home occupations can have a sign, but the size is limited. Lighting needs to be pointed
down and meet light pollution regulations.
Chair Lawton asked Beals about vehicular access from N Taft Hill Rd vs. alley. Beals explained that Staff feel
that alley access would be more predictable.
Commission member Carron noted that home occupation signage is limited to the subject property, so
additional signage on the alley may not be permitted.
Beals noted that home occupations are not intended to have general foot traffic, but instead an intentional
roster of clients and customers whom the business owner is able to communicate directly with regarding
access and directions.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 8
San Filippo asked if traffic lights would create some gaps in traffic flow to allow for access/egress? Beals
agrees and adds that preventing vehicles from backing onto N Taft Hill Rd is also a main safety concern. We
wouldn’t want vehicles traveling over the existing driveway area until it is appropriately surfaced to allow for
parking.
Carron has less concern about vehicles entering this property more than existing. Cars would need to stop in
the travel lane and then cross multiple lanes of opposite travel to access the property.
Public Comment:
Ashley Colemean, 4244 Nicks Tail Dr, client, Your Best Day Ever. Coleman noted there are currently only 3
indivuals who drive to training sessions. Coleman noted that drivers could make a turn around via the nearby
roundabout at N Taft Hill and Vine St. The fitness studio has provided some community engagement to the
neighborhood. Most of the clients that will be seen will be engaged in individual appointments.
Nick Adams, 2812 N Overland Trail, spouse of Theresa Adams, addressed the Commission and offered
comment. Adams stated that he is currently developing improvement plans for driveway. One other
consideration with the alley is the school traffic that runs along Laporte Ave. Adams imagines cars parking
perpendicular to the home and then exit onto N Taft Hill Ave for business access and exit.
Chair Lawton asked if there are any plans to install directional signage on the property? Adams stated they do
not have plans for signage but instead would be communicating directly with clients regarding property access
and egress.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Gupta asked Beals if the number of clients is restricted and/or included in application
materials? Beals noted that the limit of 6 clients at a time is included in the approval of their Home Occupation
license.
Gupta asked Beals if the Home Occupation license included that stipulation; Beals explained that the Home
Occupation license will need to align with the decision of this Commission. Home Occupation license would
require the business operate within the 8am – 5pm timeframe. Sundays are also excluded.
Commission member Coffman notes the activities of the business meet all requirements; the detached garage
is a nominal and inconsequential element. The main question here is centered around vehicular access to the
property. Access from Laporte Ave seems to be the worst option, considering the increased pedestrian and
bike traffic. N Taft Hill Rd may be a better option. Peak traffic is 7:30 – 8:30am at this intersection; this is only a
30min overlap with the business hours permitted by Home Occupation license. Coffman prefers that access be
taken from N Taft Hill Ave.
Commission member San Filippo agrees with Coffman’s assessment; access to the alley may increase risk of
rear-end accidents. Acces from N Taft Hill Rd provides more distance and time for vehicles to signal and
perform a turn.
Coffman notes that the applicant reports having a small clientele; it would be reasonably easy to communicate
traffic risk and needs to those clients. Could clients be asked to perform a “Right turn only” from Taft Hill Rd?
Commission member Carron agrees, believing that direct communication to clients would be the best method
to ensure traffic safety.
Chair Lawton stated that eliminating the front fence would provide more space for vehicles to turn around in
order to exit onto N Taft Hill Rd without backing out.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 9
Commission member Floyd asked Assistant Attorney Yatabe if a condition could be placed for “right in/right
out” traffic communication from the business owner? Yatabe confirmed, and Beals noted that enforcement of
that condition would be difficult.
Carron commented that as written, the variance could be considered nominal and inconsequential. Traffic is a
concern, but statements made by the applicants indicated a minimal amount of traffic present at any given
time.
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Floyd to APPROVE w/
CONDITIONS ZBA250032, granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.3.1(E)(1)(a) to
allow the proposed home occupation to be conducted in the detached garage as described in the
hearing materials with the condition that the applicant inform clientele to access the property from
south-bound Taft Hill Rd and exit the property via south-bound Taft Hill Rd with right turns into and out
of the property.
The Commission finds that the variance in consideration of the condition:
• Would not be detrimental to the public good; and
• Will not diverge from Section 4.3.1(E)(1)(a) 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 Sessions are limited to no more than 6 people;
o The accessory structure is 48% the size of the primary dwelling; and
o All other home occupation requirements will be met.
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: San Filippo, Lawton, Coffman, Carron, Gupta, Floyd
Nays:
Absent: Vogel
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.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is
located on Wood St just north of Laporte Ave. The request is to rebuild and enlarge an existing accessory
structure. The existing structure already encroaches into the side setback; the proposed addition would match
this encroachment.
A portion of the existing accessory structure would be removed and the proposed addition constructed in its
place. When a non-conforming structure or element is demolished, Code requires that any new structures or
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 10
additions be brought into compliance. The applicant has chosen to maintain the existing wall location and its
encroachment. If at any point that wall were to be demolished, they would again need to seek a variance is the
new wall were to encroach into the setback.
Beals presented site plans and renderings of the proposed addition, as well as photographs taken from street
level and describe existing conditions at the property. Staff report indicates the presence of a 6-foot fence on
the property, which is visible from alley-level views.
Commission member Coffman disclosed for the record that he knows the applicant but feels he can maintain
objectivity in this review.
Chair Lawton noted there is no fence between the property line and the accessory structure.
Commission member Carron noted that this is currently considered a legally non-conforming structure. The
north wall can stay legally non-conforming, with proposed structure being built onto that portion.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Aaron Fodge, owner, 216 Wood St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Fodge noted
this project is an attempt to extend the life of an existing structure. Fodge would like to add an additional
foundation to help right the structure. The project attempts to make the structure sound while utilizing the
existing footprint. The north wall needs to be fire rated for 1 hour; that is included in the project as proposed.
Chair Lawton asked if that would be done just for the addition or the full length? Fodge stated the entire length
of the wall will need to be fire rated; the clapboard siding will be removed in order to add fire rating materials as
needed.
Commission member San Filippo asked Beals if foundation work is considered to be new construction? Beals
answered that if walls needed to be removed to fix the foundation, it would then need to be constructed back to
Code requirements.
Applicant representative Nathan Epperson noted that based on visual inspection, the existing foundation
underneath the garage appears to be sound. The only new foundation planned would be for the proposed
addition.
Lawton asked Epperson to explain what works need to be performed. Fodge explained that the existing
structure needs to be righted and repaired. Big swinging doors have caused the building to sag due to weight;
the roof also needs to be replaced. One goal is to hide the existing structure a bit from street view with the
proposed addition.
Fodge noted the structure itself acts as a fence; there are no plans to extend the existing fence between the
two properties. That also may not be feasible given the need for the 1-hour fire rating.
Commission member Gupta asked Fodge for the intent of the 1-foot extension of the proposed structure
compared to the existing footprint. Fodge explained the additional area will allow for a larger foundation that
will help to right the remaining garage structure. No door will be included in the alley-facing portion of the
structure. There will be no vehicular access to the structure, though a doorway will be framed in the event that
future owner may desire a doord facing the alley.
Continued on the following page.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 11
Public Comment:
Neighbor George Quillan, owner, 218 Wood St, is in support of the application. Quillan noted the garage as it
stands now essentially acts as a fenceline between the properties. The portion that is being replaced is
essentially a “bump out” addition that was tacked on at some point in the past. Quillan noted that many
structrues in the area are pushed closer towards the front of the lot, given the long and narrow nature of the
lots.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Carron believe the plan represents good use and re-use of an existing structure. The
east side will include some tie-downs, which will help to plumb the existing garage. The addition will also
provide lateral structural support to the remaining accessory structure.
Commission member Floyd noted the proposal is an attempt to improve a situation that is currently less than
ideal. Floyd considers the proposal to be nominal and inconsequential and believes it will be an improvement
to the area.
Commission member Coffman agrees that the proposal can be considered nominal and inconsequential. The
proposed additional wall length is 12% of existing, which will not have a big impact.
Commission member San Filippo is in favor of approval, noting that it appears the existing structure is badly in
need of improvement. The proposal will improve the subject property and the area.
Chair Lawton agrees with previous comments.
Commission member Floyd made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE ZBA250033,
regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the proposed addition to
encroach 3.9 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 proposed addition extends the encroachment only 3.8 feet in length along the 180-
foot north property line.
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: San Filippo, Lawton, Coffman, Carron, Gupta, Floyd
Nays:
Absent: Vogel
Continued on the following page.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 12
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.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is
located on English Ct, just south of Enfield St and north of W Horsetooth Rd.
The request is to build structure that would encroach into the rear yard setback.
In the RL zone district, floor area is based on lot size, wherein maximum floor area is calculated at one-third of
the total square footage of the lot.
There is an existing addition used for tenant housing, as well as an accessory shed used for storage. This
property has evolved over time, with the garage space being finished as habitable space. The addition was
permitted with the intent of acting as additional habitable space for the occupants and not permitted to be used
for rental purposes. There are some indications that this space has been used as a rental unit. If cooking
appliances were present, a separate application review would be needed to establish a duplex or other form of
accessory dwelling unit.
Full access from the addition to the primary residence and vice versa must be maintained, regardless of where
there is an internal point of access between the two.
There is a utility easement present at the back of the property.
The proposed addition is to be used for storage and is not planned to be heated.
The existing storage shed encroaches into the side setback and appears to be unpermitted. This is not the
subject of the current variance request.
Beals presented photographs of the existing shed and pergola that would be removed in order to
accommodate the proposed addition. Photographs taken from the street were shown, showing the proposed
location of the addition as well as the location of the existing shed.
Beals noted that staff are recommendeing denial, as the addition could be placed elsewhere on the property
without variance,
Chair Lawton asked Beals for confirmation that the variance request includes both encroachment as well as
increase in maximum floor area.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 13
Commission member Carron asked if there is an allowance on this property for additional accessory structure
floor area on this lot? Beals noted that an allowance for a shed below 120 square feet and shorter than 8 feet
tall would not count towards the total floor area. Floor area is maxed out on this lot by the size of the primary
structure.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Erik Shollmier, owner, 3506 English Ct, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Shollmier
stated that his goal is to remove the storage sheds currently placed in the driveway, so that his RV can by
pulled back and parked. Shollmier acknowledges that the existing sheds have become a bit of an eyesore. The
additional storage would be used to store things like bikes, kayaks, yard tools, etc.
Commission member Floyd asked if there were a specific reason behind the size and location proposed for the
addition? Shollmier noted that the location of existing sheds is all paved driveway, that he’d like to utilize for RV
storage.
Shollmeir stated he bought the property in January of 2025; there is an existing concrete pad that appears to
have been used for a hot tub; this is the proposed location of the addition.
Chair Lawton asked Shollmier if there is an intent to use this addition for any purposes other than storage?
Shollmier stated the intended use for the addition is for storage only, not habitability. Shollmeir again reiterated
his plans to use the additional storage for sports equipment, family heirlooms, yard materials, etc.
Commission member San Filippo asked the length of the RV. Shollmier answered it is 23 feet in total. San
Filippo suggested that a shed could still be placed in the rear yard, despite the RV being parked. Shollmeir
noted that it could be parked at that location, but there would be no space to open the doors.
Commission member Carron asked Shollmier if he knew what the proposed height of the addition would be.
Shollmier invited his proposed contractor, Bryan Holman, 2307 Tunis Circle, to speak to the Commission and
clarify plans. Holman submitted hand-drawn sketches of the addition. [Sketches are included in the
Supplemental Documents Log.] An eave height of 8 feet is preferred, as it would match existing slope and
profile of the primary structure.
Floyd asked if any interior walls or partions are planned. Holman answered no and stated that some electrical
may be run to the addition for lighting.
Commission member San Filippo asked about access. Holman stated there is an existing door from the home,
and the potential for a garage door for exterior access. At minimum, double doors could be employed. Any
Exterior doors would exit to the driveway.
Public Comment:
No audience members offered comment.
Beals read into the record an email that was received prior to the hearing. [The full text of the letter is included
in the Supplemental Documents Log for this Hearing].
Commission Discussion:
Chair Lawton acknowledged that this variance has received two separate letters of opposition.
Commission member Carron noted that the additional bedrooms can be rented out without problems, as long
as those renters are provided with full access to the primary house and kitchen. Beals again reiterated that this
is not a portion of the request today, which only seeks variance for square footage and setback encroachment.
11/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 14
Commission member San Filippo stated that he is not seeing a hardship and doesn’t view this a nominal and
inconsequential. This would essentially double the current storage sise. San Filippo is not in favor of approval.
Commission member Coffman stated that if setbacks were met, he could see equal to or better than as
justification. Then it would be more of an attached shed. Can’t say the same for the setback variance. Looks
like the area has experienced a large amount of rear setback encroachment. If no access to the primary
residence were included, Coffman would feel more supportive.
Carron explained that rear setbacks are something we try to preserve. A six-foot eave or other height condition
may be necessary. Carron is in favor of the square area variance but not the setback encroachment.
Lawton stated that he has issues with both portions of the request. This house is by far the largest home by
area in the neighborhood. Adding to that would inly increase the disparity and be out of character with the
neighborhood. At this time, Lawton is not in favor of supporting.
Commission member Gupta agrees with Lawton and is not in favor of support.
Commission member Floyd explained that he is not seeing a hardship and acknowledges the intent of
setbacks to maintain distance between neighbors and protect induvial property uses.
Commission member Floyd made a motion, seconded by member San Filippo to DENY ZBA250034,
regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.4 finding that the variances:
• Would be detrimental to the public good.
• Other size sheds could be placed on the property in different locations in compliance with all
Land Use Code standards.
• The variances would contribute to a change in character of the existing neighborhood and are
not nominal and inconsequential.
• There is not a unique hardship that prevents the standards from being met.
• The proposed addition and location are not equal to a design that would comply with the
standard.
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: San Filippo, Lawton, Carron, Gupta, Floyd
Nays: Coffman
Absent: Vogel
6. OTHER BUSINESS
-Review and Approve 2026 Land Use Review Commission Work Plan.
Carron made a motion, seconded by Floyd, to approve the 2026 Land Use Review Commission
Work Plan as written. The motion passed by all members present.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 11:00 AM.
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT December 11, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA250035
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 2700 S Lemay Ave
Owner: Mill City Church
Petitioner: Brynn Arritola, Employee
Zoning District: RL
Code Section: 5.16.2(G)
Variance Request:
This is a request for a proposed freestanding permanent sign to be 60 square feet in area and 6 feet in height.
The maximum allowable sign area for a freestanding monument sign in the residential neighborhood sign district
is 32 square feet, and the maximum allowable sign height for a freestanding permanent sign in the residential
sign district is 5 feet.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property is a part of the 1976 Vance Annexation. It was platted and received development approval in
1980 to build a place of worship. The main building was constructed in 1981. The church property was
larger in size and included outdoor recreational fields. In 2014 a large portion of the property was
subdivided and the residential neighborhood to the east of the church was built.
In general sign regulations are in place to reduce sign clutter while providing opportunity to display
messages. Additionally, the residential sign district creates an additional layer of standards to limit sign
impacts on residential properties. All four corners of Lemay and Drake intersection are within the residential
sign district.
The existing sign has been in place since 2002. It sits on top of berm in front of the existing trees. There is
no tall landscaping between the sign and Lemay and Drake right-of-way.
A new sign could be placed closer to the corner to increase the visibility. The proposed sign is designed to
be illuminated adding to the visibility of the sign.
The proposed sign is 87% increase to the allowable sign size.
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:
• An 87% increase is not nominal design.
• No unique hardship has been identified that would prevent the sign from complying with the
standard.
• The sign already is taller than 5ft max on top of the berm.
• Other designs and locations could increase visibility of the sign and comply with the standard.
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA250035.
Application Request
IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH
The /DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ has been granted the authority to approve variances IURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV
RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVH LQ D]RQLQJ
GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVH XVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\ SHUPLWWHGLQ WKH ]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQ PD\JUDQW
YDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good
$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV
E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRU RWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR
WKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWR SK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFK DV H[FHSWLRQDO QDUURZQHVV
VKDOORZQHVV RU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOG UHVXOW LQ XQXVXDODQG
H[FHSWLRQDO SUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHV RUXQGXHKDUGVKLS XSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG
WKDWVXFK GLIILFXOWLHV RU hardship DUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFW RU RPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW
VHOILPSRVHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOSURPRWH WKHJHQHUDO SXUSRVH RIWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LVUHTXHVWHG
equally well or better than ZRXOG DSURSRVDO ZKLFKFRPSOLHV ZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LV
UHTXHVWHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQ Dnominal, inconsequential
way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQ WKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined
and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work
for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the
variance was granted.
+RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ PD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK
H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$Q H[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH
VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG
Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting
Location 9,578$/21/<YLD=RRP
LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWR WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ
Date 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
________________________
Buildin od e uirements will be determined
nd eviewed b the Buildin e artmen separatel
2700 S Lemay ave Brynn Arritola
Employee
80524 787 Ma Apple Lane
(541)-647-7107
5.16.2 (G) (table G1)brynn@millcitychurch.org
low density residential district Marie Beck
1401 Pikes Peak Ave
(970)-481-4850
marie@millcitychurch.org
see drawing set
11/10/2025
3. Nominal and inconsequential
2. Equal to or better than
dditional Justification
DESIGNER: Kevin Bowes
SIGN TYPE:
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
CLIENT: PROJECT TITLE:
PUSH-THRU ILLUMINATED CABINET SIGN ON FABRICATED BASE
MILL CITY CHURCH MONUMENT SIGN UPDATE
DRAWING TYPE: CONCEPT SPECIFICATIONS SITE MAP OTHER: ___
VARIANCE NARRATIVE:
New property owner needs to update existing permitted freestanding sign. Existing sign is at maximum height and area allowed in
residential neighborhood sign district, in which this sign is located. This sign is the primary signage for the church and it is critical
to their operations that the sign be visible and recognizable from the busy intersection of E Drake Rd and S Lemay Ave. The new
sign design is for a larger sign by height and area to meet that need at the same location as the current sign. The additional size
is required to create a more visible and recognizable sign at the setback. Reusing the existing steel poles that support the existing
signs is important to keep the job on budget, and the location is well thought out and appropriate for a free-standing sign.
The current sign and maximum size is 32 square feet of area, 5' tall. The proposed sign size is 60 square feet, 6' Tall. The justification
for this variance is that the size relief being requested is nominal and inconsequential in context of this property, where the larger
area and height are well proportioned with the surrounding landscaping, trees and the substantial frontages of this property. The
larger size furthers the UDC by creating an attractive sign that functions properly to identify the church from the intersection, with a
sign size similar to that would be allowed outside the residential sign district or across the street at the neighborhood convenience
center. The new sign, while larger than the existing, still follows the intent of the residential sign district because it is not visible from
residences closer than 1000 ft, and limits illumination to logo and text of the sign, which is approximately 16 Sq Ft per sign face.
To summarize, the new owner of this large property requires a larger sign but is limited by the residential sign district. The proposed
sign is designed specifically for this location and meets the needs of the owner and nominally impacts the surrounding area no
differently than the current sign.
DESIGNER: Kevin Bowes
SIGN TYPE:
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
CLIENT: PROJECT TITLE:
PUSH-THRU ILLUMINATED CABINET SIGN ON FABRICATED BASE
MILL CITY CHURCH MONUMENT SIGN UPDATE
DRAWING TYPE: CONCEPT SPECIFICATIONS SITE MAP OTHER: ___
This sign is intended to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Article 600 of the National Electrical Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign.
The location of the disconnect switch after installation shall comply with Article 600.6(A) (1) of the National Electric Code.
Site of existing and future sign.
Setback to Street: Approx 48'
2700 S LEMAY AVE
Approx. Property line
DESIGNER: Kevin Bowes
SIGN TYPE:
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
CLIENT: PROJECT TITLE:
PUSH-THRU ILLUMINATED CABINET SIGN ON FABRICATED BASE
MILL CITY CHURCH MONUMENT SIGN UPDATE
DRAWING TYPE: CONCEPT SPECIFICATIONS SITE MAP OTHER: ___
This sign is intended to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Article 600 of the National Electrical Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign.
The location of the disconnect switch after installation shall comply with Article 600.6(A) (1) of the National Electric Code.
SIGN AREA: 32 SQ FT
SIGN PERMIT: #B1800561
MAX SIZE PER SIGN CODE: 32 SQ FT
SIGN HEIGHT: 5 FT
MAX SIGN HEIGHT PER SIGN CODE: 5 FT
EXISTING SIGN
Existing Steel Poles
To be reused for new sign.
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
DESIGNER: Kevin Bowes
SIGN TYPE:
CLIENT: PROJECT TITLE:
PUSH-THRU ILLUMINATED CABINET SIGN ON FABRICATED BASE
MILL CITY CHURCH MONUMENT SIGN UPDATE
DRAWING TYPE: CONCEPT SPECIFICATIONS SITE MAP OTHER: ___
This sign is intended to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Article 600 of the National Electrical Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign.
The location of the disconnect switch after installation shall comply with Article 600.6(A) (1) of the National Electric Code.
SIGN AREA: 60 SQ FT
LOGO AND TEXT AREA: 16 SQ FT
MAX SIZE PER SIGN CODE: 32 SQ FT
SIGN HEIGHT: 6 FT
MAX SIGN HEIGHT PER SIGN CODE: 5 FT
SIDE A SIDE B
12"
60"
144"
Faux Wood Accents Fabricated Aluminum Cabinet Letters & Logo Light White at Night
Base is fabricated Aluminum
painted to match building color
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT December 11, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA250036
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 7109 Sedgwick Dr
Owner: Tim Pfeifle and Kathy Loveland
Petitioner: Jeremiah Roepka, General Contractor, Bullfrog Builders LLC
Zoning District: LMN
Code Section: 2.2.1
Variance Request:
This is a request for a proposed 120 square-foot detached accessory building (shed) to be built 3 feet from the
south (side) property line. The minimum required side setback for this property in the LMN zone district is 5 feet.
The request is to therefore allow the structure to encroach 2 feet into the side setback.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property annexed into the City in 1981 part of the Trilby Heights Second annexation. It was later platted
and received development approval for a single unit residential property in 2000. The primary building was
constructed in 2002.
The lot is 15,000 square feet in size. The footprint of the primary house is approximately 2,400 square feet.
The primary building is setback from the south property line 14 feet. There is approximately 8,600 square
feet of rear yard.
In general, residential setbacks are both for safety and maintain the character of a neighborhood. Examples
of safety include reducing negative impacts of storm water runoff and fire spread.
The abutting property to the south is oddly shaped for the neighborhood. This abutting property is flag
shaped. The driveway and landscape strip abuts the area of the proposed shed location.
The 2-foot encroachment is 40% of the total required setback.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommend denial and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The encroachment is 40% of the required setback
• The shed is less than 8 feet in height along the property line
• The shed is 120 square feet in size.
• The abutting property is driveway.
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 denial of APPEAL ZBA250036.
$SSOLFDWLRQ5HTXHVW
IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH
7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ KDVEHHQJUDQWHGWKHDXWKRULW\WR DSSURYHYDULDQFHV IURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV
RI$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
7109 Sedgwick Drive Jeremiah Roepka
General Contractor
80525 7535 Horsechestnut Street
Tim/Kathy Feifle/Loveland (970) 286-3458
Jeremiah@bullfrogbuildersllc.som
11/10/2025
2. Equal to or better than
3. Nominal and inconsequential
dditional Justification
Variance Request
Joe Esposito
Senior Zoning Inspector
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
City of Fort Collins
My name is Jeremiah Roepka with Bullfrog Builders. I am peoning for a variance request on
behalf of the homeowners at 7109 Sedgwick Drive to build a shed within the 5’ side zoning
setback from the south property line.
We are requesng the shed to be placed 3 feet from the south property line. If the setback were
to be followed here it would create too ght of a walkway between the house and the shed and
would lead to an overall reducon in usability, potenal hardships for the owner and would not
necessarily follow best building pracces. There are currently 2 downspouts from the roof, a
satellite dish and the condensing unit for the air condioner already occupying this space next
to the house. Pushing the structure closer would create a narrow walkway between the house
and the shed and would make these downspouts a trip hazard. Moving the shed closer to the
house would also put its footprint directly in the path of the water coming through the
downspouts from the house. It seems like this could lead to unwanted se0ling issues with the
shed as well as create possible slip fall issues in the winter as this would be the north facing side
of the shed. This cramping of the walkway could also potenally intrude on any service work
clearance needed at the air condioning unit and the satellite dish currently installed on the
south side of the house. It should also be noted that this shed is mostly concealed by the
neighbor’s fence and will be no more visible in the proposed locaon than the requested. The
HOA has also informed the owners that the shed would be ok if it were placed at that 3 foot
distance from the property line.
For the above listed reasons, it is my opinion that granng this variance would only be a
nominal and inconsequenal change that would allow the overall design to be equally well or
be0er than the current condions while avoiding potenal hardships to the owners and doing
so in a manner that would not be detrimental to the public good in any way; per the variance
request guidelines. We are requesng that the shed be placed 3 feet from the south side
property line. Please let me know if you need anything else from me in order to proceed.
Thank you,
Jeremiah Roepka
Bullfrog Builders
(970) 286 -3458
Jeremiah@bullfrogbuildersllc.com
Parcel No. (APN) 96143-18-357
Land Use RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
Lot Area 14,810 SF (0.34 ACRES)
ADDRESS:
Scale:1"=20'
N
THIS IS NOT A LEGAL SURVEY, NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE OR REPLACE ONE
This work product represents only generalized locations of
features, objects or boundaries and should not be relied upon
as being legally authoritative for the precise location of any
feature, object or boundary.
0' 10' 20' 40'
Graphic Scale
7109 SEDGWICK DR FORT COLLINS, CO 80525
SE
D
G
W
I
C
K
D
R
172.32
'
85
.
5
8
'
202.73
'
80
.
0
0
'
19
.
4
5
'
36.89'
11
.
1
9
'
8.47'
33
.
3
1
'
35.70'
6.4
3
'
23.35'
31
.
4
8
'
13.69'
17
.
4
2
'
21.97'
11
.
6
5
'
95.68'
Property Line
Driveway
Deck
6.0
0
'
20.00'
3.0
0
'
10.1
5
'
78.27
'
Proposed
Shed
74.17'
- 4" thick concrete slab.
- 1/2" anchor bolts @ 48" O.C, embedded 7"
- Treated bottom plate.
- 7/16" OSB Sheeting.
Framing Plan
Front Elevation
Blocking at
edges of
plywood
sheeting.
9'
20'
2-2x6 Headers
Floor Plan
Roof Framing Plan
20'
6'
3068 Entry Door
-2x4 rafters @ 2' O.C.
-Roof decking 7/16" OSB.
-#15 felt underlayment. Class 4 impact resistant shinlges.
Hurricane
Clips at each
end of
rafters.
Framing Plan Side Elevation Side Elevation
-8" Lap Siding
to match
house.
6'
9'
7' 6"
3
12
Roof Pitch #15 Felt underlayment.
Class 4 Impact
Resistant Shingles.
- 4" thick concrete slab.
- 1/2" anchor bolts @ 48" O.C, embedded 7"
- Treated bottom plate.
- 7/16" OSB Sheeting.
Front Elevation
-8" Lap Siding
to match
house.
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT December 11, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA250037
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 815 W Magnolia St
Owner: Susannah Haberfeld
Petitioner: Aubrey Carson, Consultant, HighCraft Builders
Zoning District: OT-A
Code Section: Code Section: 2.1.6
Variance Request:
There are two requests associated with this variance application:
1. A request for a proposed residential addition (garage) to be constructed up to 5 feet from the rear
property line. The minimum required rear setback for this property in the OT-B zone district is 15 feet.
The request is to therefore allow for the proposed addition to encroach 10 feet into the required 15-foot
rear setback.
2. A request for the garage door on the proposed residential addition to be built approximately 5 feet 4
inches from the alley (side property line). The minimum garage door setback from an alley for this
property in the OT-B zone district is 8 feet. The request is to therefore allow for the proposed garage
door to encroach 2 feet 8 inches into the required 8-foot garage door alley setback.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property is a part of the Loomis Addition Annexation of 1887. The primary building was originally
constructed in 1914. It is unclear the number of renovations that have taken place since then.
The parcel was originally platted as one lot with the parcel to the east. It was subdivided in time to create
two single unit residential parcels. The resulting parcel is smaller than the minimum lot size for the zone
district. It has also created a shallow lot, creating difficulties in meeting both the front and rear setbacks.
The abutting property to the south has a different setback requirement along the shared property line. This
abutting lot was not subdivided and fronts a different street. The setback requirement is 5 feet from the
shared property line.
Garage door setbacks are to increase safety conditions in an alley. The additional 3-foot setback allows
more visibility as a car is backing out. It also provides more room for a vehicle to pull over to the side to
allow another vehicle to pass.
This parcel size and shape make it difficult to place a garage on the site that could comply with the
standards.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
Continued on Page 2
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 - Page 2
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 parcel is shallow from the front to the rear property line.
• The parcel and existing improvements do not provide alternatives locations for the garage.
• The neighbor to the south enjoys only a 5ft setback along the shared property line.
And find that exceptional physical conditions are unique to the property not caused by the applicant that
result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties.
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA250037.
S I T E P L A N
Scale 1/4" = 1'-0"1
DRAWN:
CHECKED:
DATE:
1"
S
C
A
L
E
C
H
E
C
K
11 / 24 / 2025
A.C.
A.C.
SITE PLAN
1of 2
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
81
5
W
e
s
t
M
a
g
n
o
l
i
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
F
o
r
t
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
C
O
8
0
5
2
1
Re
m
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
Su
s
a
n
n
a
h
H
a
b
e
r
f
e
l
d
W E S T M A G N O L I A S T R E E T
100' R. O. W.
E X I S T I N G
S I N G L E S T O R Y
H O M E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
P R O P O S E D
N E W
G A R A G E
A D D I T I O N
A
L
L
E
Y
20
'
R
.
O
.
W
.
N O R T H
E X I S T I N G
F R O N T P O R C H
42
9
S
.
H
O
W
E
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
FO
R
T
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
8
0
5
2
1
(9
7
0
)
4
7
2
8
1
0
0
C
RAF
T
H
I
G
H
B
U
I
L
D
E
R
S
Lot 4
Western Half
of
Lot 3
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT December 11, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA250038
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 407 E Prospect Rd
Owner/Petitioner: Dudley and Mary Griggs
Zoning District: LMN
Code Section: 2.2.1
Variance Request:
This is a request for a proposed freestanding pergola structure to be built 4 feet from the side property line. The
minimum required side setback for this property in the LMN zone district is 5 feet. The request is to therefore
allow for the structure to encroach 1 foot into the required side setback.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was annexed into the City in 1955 as part of the Gray Strecker annexation. It received
development approval from the County in 1936 as a residential lot. The primary building was constructed in
1937.
The variance request is for a freestanding pergola to be located directly to the rear of an existing accessory
structure. The proposed encroachment is for the posts and eave of the pergola. The proposed structure
would be open on all sides and include solar equipment on top of the pergola.
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 encroachment is limited to posts and eaves.
• There is an established shared relationship between the subject property and the property to the
west, both have accessory structures that encroach into the side setbacks.
Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way,
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA250038.
Application Request
IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH
The /DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ has been granted the authority to approve variances IURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV
RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVH LQ D]RQLQJ
GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVH XVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\ SHUPLWWHGLQ WKH ]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQ PD\JUDQW
YDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGwould not be detrimental to the public good
$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV
E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRU RWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR
WKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWR SK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFK DV H[FHSWLRQDO QDUURZQHVV
VKDOORZQHVV RU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOG UHVXOW LQ XQXVXDODQG
H[FHSWLRQDO SUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHV RUXQGXHKDUGVKLS XSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG
WKDWVXFK GLIILFXOWLHV RU hardship DUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFW RU RPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW
VHOILPSRVHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOSURPRWH WKHJHQHUDO SXUSRVH RIWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LVUHTXHVWHG
equally well or better than ZRXOG DSURSRVDO ZKLFKFRPSOLHV ZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LV
UHTXHVWHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQ Dnominal, inconsequential
way ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQ WKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined
and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work
for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the
variance was granted.
+RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ PD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK
H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$Q H[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH
VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG
Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting
Location 9,578$/21/<YLD=RRP
LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWR WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ
Date 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\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/dd E^dd D Ed yW>/E/E'd, Z ^KE&KZd, sZ/E Z Yh ^dZ Yh/Z s/
^ WZd KhD Ed͘
Buildin ode e uirements will be determined
nd eviewed b the Buildin e artment separatel
407 E Prospect Rd
same
80525 407 E Prospect Rd
Dudley and Mary Griggs 303-803-4795
dudleygriggs@gmail.com
28 Oct 2025 Dudley Griggs
Choose One from List
dditional Justification
dditional Justification
What we as homeowners are seeking:
1. To have the City (permitting for electrical/solar install B2508044) to
proceed in processing in parallel with (permitting for garage modification
and freestanding steel Patio Cover/Pergola B2508164) and in parallel with
our pending request to gain zoning variance for the garage modifications
and the freestanding steel Patio Cover/Pergola. We are aware of their
interdependencies (3 then 2 then 1) but cannot accept linear processing as
that would prevent our ability to complete all 3 by 31 December 2025.
2. To have our pending variance request moved into the November 13
Land board meeting instead of waiting until mid-December to facilitate.
4 7 E t ,t ,.5 e n d g d e s r d
gara ge r l m d g e g a 4 t
75’
225’
18’
30’
75’
28’
52’
The overall property is 225’ north/south and 75’ width east/west.
Orientation on the overall property and modification intentions.
Electric Meter is located on the west side of the detached garage; it receives power
from the city (orange) coming from Peterson Pl) and then extends underground to the
garage meter and then extends into the home as depicted i to a 150A panel SE corner.
Gas line and meter come to the home from Prospect Rd underground as depicted in
green. We do not intend to extend gas to the garage.
Water comes to the home via Prospect as indicated in blue, we do intend to extend
water service to the garage.
Sewer line is shared with adjacent property (405 E) and is indicated in brown. We do
intend to extend this to the garage at the junction shown
Our initial plan to add a 540 sq ft second story addition to the detached garage was
approved by the City’s Variance board in May of 2024. However, it has also proved to
be very complex (requiring 7 piers within the garage and steel beams to support side
load) in order to be a mounting point for a planned solar array on it’s southern side
along with many unknowns in costs due to tariffs etc., so we have not moved forward
on that yet, we may in the future. In order to gain solar and backup battery systems
during 2025 we came up with a simpler solar platforms only design as depicted ahead.
Home
Garage
shed
gazebo
drivewayd
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
aaaa gggg
as an meter c
ga
m
ri
arrrraaaaaa
o
ara
House
Panel
Inbound City Power
Electric
Meter
150 Amp
wer li
picted
4 7 E Prospect Rd ,Ft Collins,C .5 e n d t r d e r l m d g e g a 4 t
75’
225’
18’
30’
75’
28’
52’
Our plan to add a 2d story addition and solar/backup battery systems changed
In 2025 due to the complexity of permitting + mitigating and building the new
Garage structure and the fact that federal solar/backup power incentives were
Sharply curtailed to expire on 31 Dec 2025 instead of 2034 .
Home
Garage
shed
gazebo
drivewayd
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
ollins,p ,
m
ri
ara
House
Panel
Inbound City Power
Electric
Meter
150 Amp
So, instead we designed a way to install a 10.5 KW array mounted in a fitted
Structure on top of the detached brick garage (12 panels, horizontally mounted,
In 4 rows of 3 panels) and same plan of 12 on a new freestanding Steel Pergola
structure at the height of the garage walls (9.5’). Further a planned backup
battery system will bee installed with the panels by Photon Brothers of Colorado
who have filed for installation permit on our behalf (B2508044) on 9 Oct 25.
These structures have been reviewed, approved and stamped by a structural
Engineer (Sheri Nichols, Level Engineering), the same engineer who provided
Us with plans to add the second story garage addition. Sheri will inspect the
New garage steel support and freestanding steel pergola structures
And provide a completion build verification letter. The welding was completed by
Certified welders (McCool welding) of Fort Collins.
Drawings of both structures along with structural engineer stamps are
Included in the permitting application for these structures (B2508164)
75
22
5’
18’
30’
75’
28’
52’
Home
Garage
shed
gazebo
drivewayd
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
m
r
’
Gara
House
Panel
Inbound City Power
Electric
Meter
150 Amp
405 E Prospect Rd 407 E Prospect Rd
Home
Garage
Shed
ADU
20’
24’
Prospect RoadBuilt in 1937, detached garage is 2’
From the Eastern Property line and
Is 20’ long N-S, 19’ wide E-W.
Built in 1937, detached garage is
2’ from Western Property line and
Is 30’ long N-S, 19’ wide E-W
Shed/ADU installed ~2010, stick
Construction, it walls are 4’ from
Property line, eaves/gutter 3’.
Unknown if variance was gained
For this building but the property
Transferred ownership in ~2012
Proposed new Garage Solar structure
Garage wall at all, perfectly flush and
FoCo Variance gained to add 2d
Story addition on garage in May 24’
Proposed freestanding steel
Patio Cover or Pergola to match
The width of the garage for a length
Of 22’ with:
•(4) 2”x6” cross beams (E-
•(2) western support posts at >4’
1’ inboard of the pergola structure
bounds, or approximately 3’ from
property line at height of 10’-
More detailed depiction of both sides of the Property Line (407 + 405 E Prospect)
Current homeowner has seen
And approves the proposed
407 E Prospect garage and
Freestanding patio/garden
Cover plan
Current homeowner resides
Out of state, rents home to
2 groups (2d Floor + Basement)
and runs his non-profit out of
The first floor during business hrs
N
Highly detailed view of proposed 407 E Prospect Rd Garage + Patio Cover + Panels Installation
Property
Line
Existing
Detached
Garage 19’
wide and 30’
long
Existing
Detached
Garage 19’
wide and 20’
long 2’ from
Property Line
405 E Prospect 407 E Prospect Propose Adding
•fitted 11 ga C-Channels on N-S brick Wall Caps to unify
each wall top for vertical weight and side load
•4 evenly spaced (68”) 19’ long 4”x6” steel square beams
to support the vertical + side load of solar panel
mounting structures at 9.5’-10’ height
•4 rows of 3 each horizontally mounted solar panels to
be installed on each cross (E-W) beam per structure
•22’ long 2”x6”x3/8” thick main beams mounted N-S at
4.5’ from property line on western side of structure
•4 support poles, 6’x6” by 10’ height, each mounted
onto 18” wide + 36” deep reinforced concrete piers
each > 4’ from property line
•4 evenly spaced (68”) 19’ long 2”x6” steel square cross
beams (E-W) to support vertical + side load at 9.5’-10’
height and to be at least 2’ from property line like the
existing and varianced garage to support rows of 3
horizontally mounted solar panels each
2012 Era
Shed/ADU,
stick/ siding
construction,
18’ wide, 24’
long. 4’ from
Prop-line at
wall, 3’ at
roof / gutter
Fenced In Garden
Area (raised beds)
-2-’
-- 4’--
-- 4’--
-- 7’---
Copy of stamped structural engineer endorsement to 407 E Prospect Rd Structures
Page 1: View From East with her instructions of materials & pier depths
Copy of stamped structural engineer endorsement to 407 E Prospect Rd Structures
Page 2: View From Above with her instructions of materials & pier depths