The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/13/2015 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingMichael Bello, Chair Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Bob Overbeck Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 2015 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA150031 Address: 1543 Freedom Lane Petitioner: Robert Hansen Owner: Hansen Family Trust Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Project Description: The variance would allow a second story addition above the garage to exceed the allowable floor area for the lot by 404 sq. ft. 2. APPEAL ZBA150032 Address: SW corner of S. Shields St. & Westbury Dr. Petitioner: Leigh Solo Owner: Le Jardin HOA Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.7(C)(1)(f) Project Description: The variance would allow a subdivision identification sign to be located on a street shared by other subdivisions. Additionally, the variance would allow for more than one subdivision identification sign at this shared street entry. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 August 13, 2015 3. APPEAL ZBA150033 Address: 642 Yarrow Circle Petitioner/Owner: Mark Laken Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c), 4.4(D)(2)(d), and 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: The variance would allow a new shade structure (posts and eaves) to encroach 5 ft. into the required 5 ft. side-yard setback and 10 ft. into the required 15 ft. rear-yard setback. 4. APPEAL ZBA150034 Address: 925 Cheyenne Drive Petitioner/Owner: Michael Quirk Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Project Description: The variance would allow a recently replaced fence varying in height between 6 ft. to 7 ft. to remain. The maximum height of a fence in the rear and side yards is 6 ft. 5. APPEAL ZBA150035 Address: 1137 Hawkeye Street Petitioner: Sundeck Designs, John Bridgham Owner: Robert Seybert Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: The variance would allow a 2nd floor deck to encroach 4 ft. into the required 10 ft. rear-yard setback. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Michael Bello, Chair Heidi Shuff, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long John McCoy Ralph Shields Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Bob Overbeck Staff Liaison: Noah Beals Location: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001 ) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 2015 8:30 AM • Call to Order and Roll Call Boardmembers Absent: Bello • Citizen Participation (Items Not on the Agenda) None • Appeals for Variance to the Land Use Code 1. APPEAL #ZBA 150015 (#2806) - Approved Address: Owner: Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 965 Bungalow Court Louis Sunderland Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction N-C-L 4.7(0)(3) and 4.7(F)(1)(c) At the May 14th, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) public hearing, this variance request was tabled to the June ZBA hearing. In preparation for the June hearing, the variance request has been amended. The existing structure exceeds the rear 50% of the allowable floor area by 25.75 sq. ft. The variance request would allow an additional 229 sq. ft. of allowable floor area in the rear 50% of the lot for a new 1 car garage. Included in the request is a variance to allow the garage to be placed at the same setback from the street as the primary structure. A garage is required to be setback an additional 10 ft. from the front portion of the primary structure. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal, noting the lot is on the corner of Bungalow Court. He stated Bungalow Court wraps around on two sides of this lot; therefore, the front door defines the front of the lot, placing the majority of the house in the rear half of the lot. Beals discussed the appeal Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 June 11, 2015 request for an additional 229 square feet of floor area in the rear half of the lot and the request to place the garage at the same setback as the house, noting other properties in the area are similarly oriented. Beals stated staff finds a hardship with this lot as it is far from the typical depth of a lot in the area. Applicant Presentation: Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, Fort Collins, stated the existing home is already nonconforming and discussed the need for the single-car garage. He stated the proposed orientation of the garage would fit the context of the neighborhood. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Long stated the proposal appears to fit in with the homes in the area and stated the lot does present challenges. Shuff agreed and noted the subject's front yard opens to others' backyards. Bear made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to approve Appeal No. 150015 (2806) for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the lot depth is 66 feet, shorter than the typical lot depth in the NCL zone district, the property faces the rear lot and accessory buildings of neighboring properties; garage locations vary in the block with some closer to the street; setting the garage further back to meet the standards creates other non-compliant issues. The proposal, as submitted, will not diverge from the standards in the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered within the context of the neighborhood, the variance request may be granted due to a hardship of the lot not caused by the applicant and a strict application of the Code results in practical difficulty upon the applicant. Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bear, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. APPEAL #ZBA150023 (#2814)-Approved with condition Address: Owner: Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 256 Linden Street Property Creations, LLC Brandon Silar, LARK Design/Build D-Old City Center 3.8.7(1), 3.8.7(H) At the May 14th, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) public hearing, this variance request was tabled to the June ZBA hearing. In preparation for the June hearing, the variance request has been amended. The request requires the following three variances: 1.) Allow a projecting sign to be 10.16 feet in height; the maximum height is 7 feet. 2.) Allow a projecting sign to have 21 sq. ft. of sign area per face; the maximum area per face is 12 sq. ft. 3.) Allow the flush wall sign to extend an additional 6 inches from the allowed 12 inches from the building face. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the adjustments made to the variance request since the May meeting. He stated staff is still recommending denial of the first two variance requests and approval of the third, but noted the applicant did reduce the size of the proposed signs. Applicant Presentation: Brandon Silar, Lark Design/Build, 607 E 5 1 h St, Loveland, stated the proposed sign sizes have decreased. He went on to address concerns of one of the neighboring properties. Shields asked how much sign area is allowed on the building and how much is being proposed. Mr. Silar replied 2 square feet of signage per linear foot of frontage is allowed; therefore, 300 square feet is allowed and the proposed sign is less than half of that square footage. Zoning Board of Appeals Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Page3 June 11, 2015 Bear asked if there are any similar signs in the neighborhood. Long replied the Lyric Cinema has a similar sign, and Beals stated there may be some larger signs in the area that are non-conforming. Shuff stated the issue is more related to the height and projection of the sign rather than the square footage. Long stated the sign fits the building; though it does not meet Code. Stockover asked if this would be all the signage allowed on the building if this were to be approved. Beals replied the applicant would be allowed to use the remainder of their allotted square footage. Shuff noted the Board could add a condition to an approval. Stockover commended the sign as fitting the building and its location and stated he is not concerned about setting a precedent. He did recommend limiting additional signage on the Linden frontage. Shuff noted the applicant may want to place poster signs which would not be as imposing. Mr. Silar stated a 4 square foot per side projection sign currently exists on the Linden side and flush mount indicators for the door frontages are planned as are three poster signs. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if other business will be placing signage on the building. Kent Bradley, building owner, replied the upstairs is occupied by an artist co-op and the goal is to support the community artistically, not to place a large sign on the building. Bear stated she is struggling with this decision as the sign, aesthetically, it is equal to or better than a complying sign; however, she expressed concern with diverging from the sign code. She also expressed concern regarding placing limits on additional signage. McCoy stated he likes the sign and asked if a variance could be granted due to the location of the building on a corner of two wide streets, which would make it difficult for the sign to block others' advertising. Shuff noted the sign is over 70 feet from any neighboring properties and therefore may be more appropriate. Additionally, she noted the building is unique in that it is relatively nondescript. Stockover asked about the grandfathering of the Northern and Armstrong signs. Beals replied he was unsure; however, he noted the Northern sign is historically protected. Stockover commended the effect of the sign code on the City and stated he rarely supports a sign variance; however, he stated this sign fits the building and the area. He stated he would like to limit additional signage on the second story along Linden, noting an appeal could always be granted at a later time. Long stated this sign improves the building; therefore, equal to or better than criteria seem to apply. Bear expressed concern regarding a condition limiting additional signage. Shuff agreed with Bear, but suggested the possibility of limiting projecting signs. Bear discussed the practicality of placing limitations on the appeal. McCoy stated he would prefer to look only at this request. Long agreed with McCoy. Stockover stated the applicant could always submit for another appeal. He asked the applicant if he would be opposed to a condition that no additional signage be allowed on the Linden Street fa9ade without approval of the Board. Mr. Silar replied it would be acceptable for the Board to limit signage beyond the door entry signs, poster signs, and the existing sign. Bear stated she could support the 21 square feet and the flush wall sign extending six inches as being equal to or better than; however, she could not support the ten feet, two inches in height. Shuff stated she would support the sign height because it is vertical and narrow. Long agreed with Shuff citing the scale of the building. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 June 11, 2015 Shuff stated the sign is an appropriate size given the scale of the building and its distance from neighboring properties. Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal No. 150023 (2814) for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the sign as proposed would promote the purpose of the Code equal to or better than one that follows the strict application of the Code because it is a corner property and would allow a projecting sign on both street faces for a total of 24 square feet, whereas the proposed projecting sign could be a total of 21 square feet per sign face. Additionally, the sign would be 70 feet from any neighboring properties and will therefore not obstruct views of neighboring signs. Also, the proposed signage is less than half of what is allowed, which is approximately 300 square feet of signage and allowing the sign to be 10 feet 2 inches in height is nominal and inconsequential due to the verticality and narrowness of the sign. Lastly, allowing the flush wall sign to extend 6 inches more than the allowed 12 inches from the face of the building is not the entire length of the sign and the variance is for a corner of the building making it difficult to see the entire sign at a single point of view and is therefore nominal and inconsequential. Additionally, the Board would impose a limitation on any additional signage on the Linden Street side to be no more than 7 square feet per sign face as well as the existing signs as currently installed. McCoy opposed the limitations in the motion. Shuff clarified the motion should state that there be no additional signs greater than 7 square feet, other than what is existing, on the Linden Street face of the building. Mr. Silar requested the poster signs be references as standard poster-sized cabinets rather than 7 square feet. Shuff modified the motion to state 7 square feet or a standard poster cabinet sign. The Board held a brief discussion regarding standard poster sizes. Stockover suggested a prohibition on additional signage on the second story of the Linden Street face. Shuff questioned where the second story begins. Stockover replied it would be above the sill of the second story windows. Shuff amended the motion, seconded by Stockover, to eliminate the previous limitations and stated the variance approval would be conditioned upon the fact that no additional signage would be allowed above the second floor height on the Linden Street face. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: Bear. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. APPEAL #ZBA150027 - Approved with condition Address: Petitioner/Owners: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 1921 Sheely Drive Al and Gloria Boersch R-L 3.8.16(E)(3)(c) The variance is to reduce the recess period from 2 months to 0 months requirement for renewing a Host Family Permit. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal noting the driveway allows plenty of tandem parking. He stated the Code allows a family to have one additional non-related person to live in the same dwelling; however, the Code allows for a host family permit which allows a family to provide housing for two non-related persons to live with a family for up to ten months with a two month break before applying for another permit. He stated this particular situation involves an older couple who has Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 June 11, 2015 invited another couple to live with them and provide assistance. Additionally, Beals stated staff is in support of the appeal given the size of the driveway and the age of the occupants. McCoy asked if this permit would need to be reissued every year. Eric Keselburg, Neighborhood Services Code Compliance, replied the applicant would need to reapply on an annual basis; however, this would allow the additional couple to live there without vacating for two months and this variance should apply to just these individuals rather than the property itself. Applicant Presentation: Alan Boersch, 1921 Sheely Drive, stated he and his wife have sought the assistance of Kevin Jones and his wife. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Bear made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. 150027 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the request is for two couples to live together with no dependents; the request is to accommodate the ability for one couple to provide assistance to an older couple; the request is to allow four adults who are older than the typical college-age student to live together; the property has adequate off-street parking for the vehicles owned by the residents. The variance request will not diverge from the standards but in a nominal an inconsequential way when considered within the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code. Additionally, the variance would be attached to the owners, Al and Gloria Boersch, and not to the property itself. Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bear, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. APPEAL #ZBA150024-Approved Address: Owners: Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 330 Smith Street Paul and Beverly Wehr Anthony Baietti, Build Smart Fort Collins N-C-M 4.8(E)(3) The variance request will allow an addition to match the existing dwelling 4 ft. encroachment into the required 15 ft. corner side-yard setback. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal, noting the property is at the corner of Smith Street and East Magnolia Street. He stated the existing house already encroaches into the side yard setback by four feet and the request is to build an addition to match the existing setback. He stated staff is recommending approval of the variance as the addition is only 8 feet in length and is only 8% of the total length along Smith Street. Applicant Presentation: Anthony Baietti, petitioner and general contractor, stated the owners would like to accommodate guests and family and the existing square footage is not adequate for their needs. Additionally, he stated this scenario has been found to allow the most space with the least impact. Long asked if there is an old porch. Mr. Baietti replied that old porch has been demolished. Audience Participation: Majel Martin, 608 East Magnolia Street, stated the construction involved in removing the old porch and digging the basement hole combined with heavy rains, and has pushed the retaining wall under the fence into her property. She supported the construction, but asked if the applicant would consider repairing the retaining wall. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 June 11, 2015 Shuff stated the Board cannot specifically address her concerns unless Ms. Martin has support or objection to the specific variance request. Board Discussion: Beals stated a building permit has not yet been issued; however, a demolition permit has been issued. McCoy asked why a variance is required if the structure already encroached. Beals replied the structure was built prior to the new Code and is therefore non-complying. Any new structure needs to comply with current Code requirements. Shuff stated the request is nominal and inconsequential and supported the variance. Shuff made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve Appeal No. 150024 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the variance request to allow an addition to encroach four feet into the required fifteen foot setback matches the encroachment of the existing structure and is only 8 feet in length along Smith Street, which is only 8% of the total Magnolia Street frontage; therefore, the variance request would not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered within the context of the neighborhood and would continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bear, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. APPEAL #ZBA 150025 - Approved Address: Petitioner/Owner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 1212 East Vine Drive Sterling Crane, LLC T 4.12(B)(1 )(b) The variance will allow the existing office/maintenance shop building to be enlarged by 1,000 sq. ft. and will allow the existing building height to be increased by approximately 8 ft. The 1,000 sq. ft. addition will be new office space. The property is in the T zone, which requires that a variance be obtained for any proposed new construction. The tenant and use of the property will ·not change. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal noting this variance request was approved in April of 2014 but has expired as building permits were never pulled. Dick Ferchak, owner of 1212 East Vine Drive, interjected that the existing structure will stay the same size, with a 1,000 square foot addition at the northeast corner, but will have a new shell to meet Code. Beals stated the property is in the T - Transition zone which requires any changes to come before the Board for approval. Shields asked when a Transition zoned property gets changed to another zone district. Beals replied that change usually occurs when a development or redevelopment occurs. Shuff stated this is not a change of use; therefore, the recommendation is for the property to remain in the T zone. Bear asked if the houses across the street were within the notification area. Beals replied in the affirmative and stated he did not receive any communication from any of the notified properties. Long noted there is a large berm between the houses and this property. Applicant Presentation: Dick Ferchak, owner of Sterling Crane, 1212 East Vine Drive, addressed the Board. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 June 11, 2015 Mr. Ferchak stated the use of the property would remain the same with the additional office space which is needed due to expansion of the company. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Long stated the land will likely change in use in the future and supported this transitional use. Beals noted the surrounding area is zoned LMN. Long made a motion, seconded by Bear, to approve Appeal No. 150025 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; a hardship exists if the Board does not grant a variance since a variance is the only way the addition can be approved while the property is in the T zone. Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bear, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 6. APPEAL #ZBA150026 -Approved with condition Address: Petitioner/Owners: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 201 South Grant Avenue and 807 West Oak Street Eric Odell N-C-L 4.7(0)(1), 4.7(E)(3), 4.7(E)(4) The request is to move a property line that divides an existing garage. Moving the property line would place the entire garage onto one parcel. This request would require the following three variances: 1.) Allow the existing garage to encroach 13 feet into the required 15 feet rear-yard setback. 2.) Allow the existing garage to encroach 3 feet into the required 5 feet sideyard setback. 3.) Allow the lot size at 807 W. Oak Street to be reduced to 5,671 square feet; 329 square feet less than the required minimum 6,000 square feet lot size. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal stating the applicant is seeking to re plat the property so the property line is extended, allowing the entire garage to exist on the Grant Avenue property. Beals discussed the implications of this change on setback requirements and lot size. He stated staff is recommending a condition to the variance approval; that one off-street parking space, accessed off the alley, is provided at the Oak Street property. Applicant Presentation: Eric Odell, 201 S. Grant Avenue, property owner, stated he owns both properties. The intent is to provide the garage for the Grant Avenue property and off-street parking for the Oak Street property. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Bear stated the property line boundaries will outlive the functionality and use of the garage and expressed concern about creating a potential hardship on a lot in the future in order to satisfy a temporary structure. Shuff stated the garage is in good shape and will exist for quite some time. Additionally, she noted a structure straddling a property line is not Code-compliant. Long agreed with Shuff. Shuff made a motion, seconded by Stockover, to approve Appeal No. 150026 for the following reasons: the granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public good; the variance requests do not include any new structures and very little visible changes to the properties; the existing structure at 807 West Oak Street still meets the allowable floor area and setback standards; therefore, the variance requests will not diverge from the standards but in a nominal an inconsequential way when considered within the context of the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 June 11, 2015 neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2. Additionally, one off-street parking space for the 807 West Oak Street property will be required to be accessed from the alley. Yeas: Stockover, Long, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: Bear. THE MOTION CARRIED. 7. APPEAL #ZBA150028 - Approved Address: Owner: Petitioner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 251 Boardwalk Drive Maguire Properties, LLC Randy Lerich, Action Signs E 3.8. 7(E)(8) The variance request is to allow a sign logo height to increase an additional 2.25 in. from the allowed 24 in. maximum height. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal stating the property is at the corner of Boardwalk and John F Kennedy. He stated the signs meet the letter height requirement; however, the logo height is beyond the allowed 24 inches. He stated staff is recommending approval as the increase in height is just for the logo. Applicant Presentation: Randy Lerich, Action Signs, stated this variance would allow the corporate sign to be more in proportion to the building. The intent is to repurpose a sign. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Bear stated this request is nominal and inconsequential. Shields noted the east side logo "flower" is 2.25 inches over and the west side " i " is 4.25 inches over the allowed height. Long stated the proposed sign fits the building. Bear made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve Appeal No. 150028 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; the increased height is not for the entire length of the sign but just on top of the letter" i ";the logo is incorporated in the letters of the sign making the increased height less visible. Therefore the variance request will not diverge from the standards but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered within the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Additionally, the variance request is for a 2.25 inch increase on the east elevation and 4.25 inch increase on the west elevation. Yeas: Stockover, Long, Shuff, Bear, McCoy and Shields. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 8. APPEAL #ZBA150029 - Approved Address: 517 Edwards Street Petitioners/Owners: Douglas Bennett Zoning District: N-C-M Code Section: 4.8(E)(3) Project Description: The variance will allow a 132 sq. ft. addition to match the 2 ft. encroachment into the required 5 ft. rear-yard setback of the existing garage. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 June 11, 2015 Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal noting that one home, straddling a lot line, was demolished. Two new single-family detached structures have been built; one on one lot and one on the other. The demolition did not include the detached garage, which is not in compliance with current standards. He stated the proposed garage addition only encroaches into the rear setback two feet because it is five feet off the alley and noted staff is recommending approval of the variance request given the addition is only 15% of the lot's frontage along the alley; the rear setback is to an alley, and the addition is limited to a single story with a 9 foot eave height. Applicant Presentation: Douglas Bennett, 521 North Whitcomb Street, stated this project would allow for a two-car garage to be built in the same style as other garages in the area. Stockover asked if this will be a complete rebuild of the garage. Mr. Bennett replied there will be a new roof system but he is unsure if there will be new siding. Stockover asked if the existing floor is concrete. Mr. Bennett replied in the affirmative and stated there will be new structural elements. Stockover asked if there would be any way to bring the structure into compliance given it is close to a complete rebuild. Mr. Bennett replied he is attempting to maintain as much yard as possible and maintain the existing footprint. Audience Participation: Christina Kuroiwa, owner of 523 Edwards Street, expressed concern about the possibility of the garage rebuild causing increased surface water and alley drainage issues. She discussed a letter she wrote to Glen Schlueter at the Stormwater Department regarding flooding issues and stated she is concerned about surface water flooding down the alley. Ms. Kuroiwa went on to discuss conversations held between the property owner, Mr. Schlueter, and herself indicating Mr. Schlueter would not have approved the new construction plans. Her garage is downhill from the appeal property. She invested in French drains to help with drainage issues. Paul Evangelista, co-owner of 523 Edwards Street, stated engineers have indicated that the new house next door has contributed to the drainage issue. He stated the French drain they have installed has worked; however, they are still dealing with water coming from the alley. Long asked if the placement of a gutter on the addition to run water into the yard rather than the alley would be helpful. Mr. Evangelista replied he was unsure and noted neither the contractor, homeowner, nor City has taken any responsibility for this problem. Shuff sympathized with the situation; however, she noted the purview of the Board is limited to the setback issue. She recommended the concerned parties pursue the civil issue with other avenues. Board Discussion: Bear questioned the definition of inconsequential with regard to impacts. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied the setback standard itself is what is considered when discussing inconsequentiality. He noted the variance approval may be considered detrimental to the public good should the stormwater issue be of concern to the Board. Long stated he is sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns but admitted they do not weigh heavily on this particular request. McCoy asked if the homeowner could build a new garage if one did not exist. Beals replied in the affirmative and stated the owner could still demolish this garage and build a new one as well. McCoy stated moving the garage could potentially make the situation worse; therefore, he stated he supported the variance. Shields asked if a building permit is in place. Mr. Bennett replied the application for the permit has been submitted and noted a grading plan is not required due to the size of the proposed addition. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 June 11, 2015 Shields asked why the floor of the garage is proposed to be raised by pouring concrete over the existing floor. Mr. Bennett replied that would save the construction of a new foundation. Stockover expressed concern with the proposal stating the setbacks could likely be met if the garage were to be reconstructed. He suggested requirements be made regarding gutters and proper drainage into the north side of the building. Bear stated the Board needs to make the affirmative statement that this is not detrimental to the public good and given there are two parties stating it is detrimental, she stated she cannot support the request. Stockover argued the garage could be rebuilt and moved without any need to go before the Board and that situation could potentially make the drainage worse. Bear replied that is an assumption and stated she cannot make the statement this request is not detrimental to the public good. Shuff stated the Board needs to evaluate whether or not the encroachment into the setback is detrimental to the public good. She stated the decision on this request cannot be changed based on things that should be regulated by other entities. Long stated the debate is only about two feet. Bear replied she cannot make the affirmative statement the variance is not detrimental to the public good. Shuff asked about the Code requirements regarding drainage. Beals replied his purview relates to setbacks; however, his understanding is that neighbors cannot be negatively impacted, though that would be a Stormwater Department review. Stockover asked if the Board could require the Stormwater Department to do a cursory review. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that would be outside the jurisdiction of the Board. Long stated he generally opposes conditioning approvals and stated he trusts gutters will be installed. McCoy made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve Appeal No. 150029 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, the addition is 15% of the total property frontage to the alley, the rear yard setback is from an alley and not an abutting residential property, the addition is limited to one story with an eave height of 9 feet; therefore the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered within the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Stockover, Long, Shuff, McCoy and Shields. Nays: Bear. THE MOTION CARRIED. 9. APPEAL #ZBA150030 -Approved Address: Petitioner/Owner: Zoning District: Code Section: Project Description: 612 East Pitkin Street Pat McGaughran N-C-L 4.7(F)(5} The variance request will allow a new home to be built with an attached garage that will be accessed from an existing street. (**Secretary's note: Shuff withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.) Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the request to use an existing curb cut for the new attached garage access rather than the alley. He noted many other houses in the area have street access to their garages and stated staff is recommending approval of the request. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 June 11, 2015 McCoy asked why a variance is required. Beals replied, because the building is new construction, the garage must meet the Land Use Code requirement to take access from the alley when an alley is present. Applicant Presentation: Pat McGaughran, 824 Whedbee Street, stated he intends to move his residence to this location where a one-story residence is planned. He stated he and an architect have determined using the existing curb cut would be the most optimal design for the property. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Bear stated this seems to fit the character and context of the neighborhood. Bear made a motion, seconded by Shields, to approve Appeal No. 150030 for the following reasons: the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; a majority of the neighboring properties are built with the same condition that is being requested, the existing home currently enjoys an attached garage that accesses from the street, there are no opposing neighbors; therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered within the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Yeas: Stockover, Long, Bear, Shields and McCoy. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11 :37 a.m. Heidi Shuff, Chairperson Butch Stockover, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2015 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # ZBA150031 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1543 Freedom Lane Petitioner/Owner: Robert Hansen, Hansen Family Trust Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(1) Variance Request: The variance would allow a second story addition above the garage to exceed the allowable floor area for the lot by 404 sq. ft. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow an additional 404 sq. ft. of allowable floor area for the lot size of 7,460 sq. ft. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The subject property is 7,460 sq. ft. in size and zoned R-L. The R-L zone district requires lots to be three times greater in size from the defined floor area of the structures on the lot. The current structure is 2,230 sq. ft. of floor area. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of an additional 404 sq. ft. of allowable floor area, and finds that: • The additional floor area is a 6% increase of the allowable floor area. • The additional floor area does not increase the footprint and height of the existing structure. 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 # ZBA150031. A= 07" =:>E" ARC"' 1!'5.00/ _ C.HD - f.J EB0 e4?'E • 14."'5' S \TE p, . .0....1, J 111 • e.?'-0 r\jORTH LOT BO VIL~!: \LE:'.::T e"fl..! FtLllJ(:, Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2015 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # ZBA150032 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: SW Corner of S. Shields St. & Westbury Dr. Petitioner: Leigh Solo Owner: Le Jardin HOA Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.7(C)(1)(f) Variance Request: The variance would allow a subdivision identification sign to be located on a street shared by other subdivisions. Additionally, the variance would allow for more than one subdivision identification sign at this shared street entry. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance requests to allow a subdivision sign to be located on a street shared by other subdivisions and more than one subdivision identification sign at the shared street entry with a condition that a site plan is provided that verifies the existing wall is on the HOA property. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The Westbury subdivision was approved in 1995. At the time the Westbury subdivision was approved an identification sign was permitted. Also, it was the only subdivision that took access from Westbury Drive. The Cottonwood Ridge subdivision was approved in 2000. The Cottonwood Ridge subdivision approved plans also took access from Westbury Drive. The HOA later renamed their neighborhood Le Jardin. Building Permits are not required for fences/walls that are 6 ft. in height. The proposed location on the identification sign is located on the wall that is on the southwest corner of Westbury Drive and Shields; the corner of the approved Cotton Ridge (Le Jardin) subdivision. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of the variance request and finds that: • The sign is within size and height limits of an identification sign. • The wall where the sign will be placed is an existing wall. • It will provide additional clarification that both subdivisions can be accessed from Westbury Drive. 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 # ZBA150032 with a condition that a site plan is provided that verifies the existing wall is on the HOA property. SWORN AFFIDAVIT I, RODNEY WONENBERG, DEPOSE AND SAY: 1) I currently reside at 1208 Bordeaux Drive, a physical address within the Le Jardin subdivision in Fort Collins, Colorado. 2) My home at 1208 Bordeaux Drive was the first residence built in the Le Jardin subdivision, and I was the first resident of the Le Jardin subdivision. My home at 1208 Bordeaux Drive has been my primary residence continuously since its original construction. 3) I witnessed the building of the subdivision wall on the east side of the Le Jardin subdivision. 4) The wall on the east side of the Le Jardin subdivision is unchanged from the time of its original construction, its original permitting by the City of Fort Collins, and its original inspections by the City of Fort Collins. Since its original construction, permitting, and inspections, the wall has never been moved, extended, or enlarged in any way. The wall's current location, dimensions, setbacks, etc., remain unchanged from those of its original construction, permitting, and inspections. FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NOT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand. July 14, 2015 Date STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me by Rodney Wonenberg on July 14, 2015. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires-----r -~\ --~~-IS"-. ------' OU "-" ( \\ \ . ~,£)~ [SE ERIK A KNOCHE NOTARY PUBLIC ST~ls OF COLORADO NOTNJY 1020114017119 t6'f COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 15, 2019 Notary Public Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2015 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # ZBA150033 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 642 Yarrow Circle Petitioner/Owner: Mark Laken Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c), 4.4(D)(2)(d), and 3.8.19(A)(6) Variance Request: The variance would allow a new shade structure (posts and eaves) to encroach 5 ft. into the required 5 ft. side- yard setback and 10 ft. into the required 15 ft. rear-yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a new shade structure (posts and eaves) to encroach 5 ft. into the required 5 ft. side-yard setback and 10 ft. into the required 15 ft. rear-yard setback with the conditions that the posts of the structure are setback 2 ft. from side property line and 12 ft. from rear property line and the structure remains open on three sides. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The property was replatted in 1986 as part of the Meadows at Redwood PUD Replat, which created detached single family lots. The plat includes a 20 ft. width Drainage and Utility Easement that adjoins the south property of the subject property. On the east side of the subject property is a large vacant parcel. This parcel has not been platted and does not have an approved Development Plan. However, the property to the west is zoned L-M-N; different than the R-L zoning of the subject property. In the L-M-N zone district, single family residential structures require an 8 ft. rear-yard setback. The primary structure was built in 1994 and received a variance to encroach into the rear-yard setback to allow its current encroachment of approximately 8 ft. into the required 15 ft. rear-yard setback. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of the two variance requests to allow a 5 ft. encroachment into 5 ft. required side yard setback and 10 ft. into the required rear-yard setback, with the conditions that the posts of the structure are setback 2 ft. from side property line and 12 ft. from rear property line and the structure remains open on three sides. With this recommendation staff finds that: • The easements on the south property provide a greater setback distance for a structure to another residential property. • The encroachments are limited to the corners of the shade structure. • The structure is open on three sides. • The primary structure currently encroaches into the rear-yard setback. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 2 • The adjoining property is permitted to build a structure the same requested distance from the same property line without a variance request. 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 #ZBA150033 with conditions. Zoning Variance Request for Mark Laken, 642 Yarrow Circle, Fort Collins, CO 80524 The owner, Mark Laken, is requesting a setback variance to build a 12’ x 12.5’ sunshade that will be attached to the south side of the house. The owner would like to build the sunshade within 0.6 feet of the south lot line and within 6.22 feet of the east lot line. The owner believes that this proposal meets two components of the City’s Zoning Variance Review criteria. 1. Criteria #1 – Physical conditions: The home is built at an angle to the platted property lines and thus it is difficult to build a useable sized sunshade on the side or back of the house that does not encroach on setback requirements. A variance was obtained to build the corner of the house 7.1’ from the east property line (at the rear SE corner of the house). Furthermore, given the southwest facing orientation of the house, the backside of the home would not provide much sunlight into the sunshade, as the backyard is completely shaded by the house in the afternoon. 2. Criteria #2 – Proposal meets the general purpose of the standard: The side yard setback criteria is established to maintain a safe distance from adjacent structures in case of fire. In this property’s case, there is a 20 foot wide HOA owned drainage property that separates the neighboring property. The nearest the adjacent properties could be to each other is 20 feet. t---;20.00011-----i 20' DRAIN 'Wmi E HOA PROP R Y -0 z J> 0.6384 PROPOSED SUNSHADE \ CONCRETE DRIVE'WAY 642 YARRO'v/ CIRCLE HOUSE ATTATCHED GARAGE DECK 6 1 'WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT SUNSHADE SITE PLAN 642 YARRDw FORT COLLINS) CIRCLE CD 80524 1 inch = 12 feet .0000 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2015 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # ZBA150034 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 925 Cheyenne Drive Petitioner/Owner: Michael Quirk Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) Variance Request: The variance would allow a recently replaced fence varying in height between 6 ft. to 7 ft. to remain. The maximum height of a fence in the rear and side yards is 6 ft. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a recently replaced fence varying in height between 6 ft. to 7 ft. to remain. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The subject property was platted in 1964 as part of the Indian Hills 7th filing, which created detached single family lots. The primary structure was built in 1967. The property is considered a corner lot with East Stuart Street adjoining the north property line and Cheyenne Street adjoining the west property line. The Land Use Code requires that residential lots fences are limited to 6 ft. in height. The code further defines that the height of the fence is measured from the grade below the fence. The applicant had recently changed the grade around the fence to landscape the area between the fence and the sidewalk. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of the following variance request to allow a fence varying in height from 6 ft. to 7 ft. and finds the following: • Along the entire length of the fence the height varies based on the variation of grade at the property line. • The additional increase of 1 ft. is 16% of the increase of the allowed 6 ft. maximum height. 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 #ZBA150034. Variance Request Documentation In support of the Variance Request submitted by: Marilyn and Michael S Quirk 925 Cheyenne Drive Fort, Collins, Colorado 80525 The replacement fence provides a definite improvement in appearance and will be even more attractive once the landscape work can be completed (see attached pictures 1 thru 4 and the Alpine Garden Landscape Plan). Many neighbors have had complimentary comments about the appearance of the fence. The gate construction and landscaping along the fence have been suspended until the variance hearing has taken place. While preparing for the variance meeting, we have found a number of “six foot fences” in our neighborhood that are also installed well above the level of the adjacent sidewalk. Our neighborhood is characterized by moderately rolling terrain with many lots that are not level. The slope of the lots results in lot boundaries that are not the adjacent sidewalk (including our property). Pictures of several of these fences are included (picture numbers 12 thru16). We had no idea that the fence was not compliant with the zoning code. It is our opinion that all of the fences shown diverge in a nominal, inconsequential way. We are hereby appealing to the board for a finding that our fence is not detrimental to the public good and that the divergence is nominal and/or inconsequential. We submit that the fence as installed falls within the equally well or better than standard. The appearance would not be enhanced if it were lowered in those places where it slightly exceeds the specified height from sidewalk. Further, our new fence was installed at the same height as the previous fence. The fence as installed also has three advantages. First, the recent survey found the old fence was partially outside the property line on the Stuart street side. The replacement fence is entirely within the property boundary making the fence better than the replaced fence (pictures 10 and 11 show old fence posts that were outside property the line in front of the new fence). Second, the new fence is helpful in reducing the huge increase in backyard traffic noise from Stuart Street traffic that has occurred since the massive apartment complex has been developed at the College Avenue / Stuart Street intersection area. Third, the headlights of cars exiting Springmeadows Drive are better blocked by the fence at the currently installed height. Springmeadows Drive dead ends at Stuart Street directly north of our home. The slope is upward at the intersection so headlights would shine over the fence into the windows that are replacing the old garage door. We submit that the fence diverges from the code in a nominal, inconsequential way; evidenced by the examples of other fences in the neighborhood that also diverge from the code in the same manner (pictures numbers 12-16). And, lowering the fence will result in a nearly identical appearance from the street side. From the backyard side of the fence, the current fence height is nearly all compliant (see pictures numbered 5 thru 9). Once the landscaping is complete and the gate is installed, we believe that the fence appearance along Stuart street will be even more of an improvement in appearance. Lastly, we submit that, if required, mitigation will cause hardship in terms of further delay in the completion of the project and potential expense that the remediation will impose. We secured a reputable contractor to install the fence and to provide the landscaping. We incurred the costs for an updated site survey to insure that the fence was installed within the property boundaries. We attempted to comply with zoning codes by the above actions. At no time during the process did any of the involved parties have the impression that a replacement six foot fence would deviate from the city zoning code. We deliberately contracted for a sturdy, attractive fence that is being installed elsewhere in our area of the city (Please refer to pictures numbered 19-24). Incidentally, it appears that the fence construction in the new development may also diverge from the code in a nominal, inconsequential way. In any case, we intend to comply with the decisions of the board and possibly the city commission in this matter. In the event remediation is required, we request a minimum of 90 days from the date of the determination to comply. In closing, we respectfully thank you for your consideration of our request. Marilyn and Michael Quirk July 14, 2015 Picture Index to Quirk Variance Request Picture Number Description of Picture and Related Remarks 1 Old Fence picture taken April 2015 view looking to the East along Stuart 2 New Fence picture taken July 2015 view looking to the East along Stuart 3 Old Fence picture taken April 2015 view looking to the West along Stuart 4 New Fence picture taken July 2015 view looking to the West along Stuart 5 New Fence outside property line along Stuart Person in picture is slightly taller than six feet 6 New Fence outside property line along Stuart Person in picture is slightly taller than six feet 7 New Fence outside property line along Stuart Person in picture is slightly taller than six feet 8 New Fence inside backyard along Stuart Person in picture is slightly taller than six feet 9 New Fence inside backyard along Stuart Person in picture is slightly taller than six feet 10 New Fence with three old fence posts in original post holes. These posts supported the fence that was outside the property line. 11 New Fence with three old fence posts in original post holes. These posts supported the fence that was outside the property line 12 Neighborhood fence – example of fence well above sidewalk 13 Neighborhood fence – example of fence well above sidewalk 14 Neighborhood fence – example of fence well above sidewalk 15 Neighborhood fence – example of fence well above sidewalk 16 Neighborhood fence – example of fence well above sidewalk 17 Neighborhood fence – example of fence well above sidewalk 18 Neighborhood fence – example of fence well above sidewalk 19 New Development using same fence type that we installed 20 We believe that the look is attractive and that the 21 fence will prove to be durable and long lasting+++ 22 continuation of New Development fencing 23 continuation of New Development fencing 24 continuation of New Development fencing #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 13, 2015 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT APPEAL # ZBA150035 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1137 Hawkeye Street Petitioner: John Bridgham, Sundeck Designs Owner: Robert Seybert Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: The variance would allow a 2nd floor deck to encroach 4 ft. into the required 10 ft. rear-yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a deck to extend 4 ft. into the original Paragon Point PUD Fourth required 10 ft. rear-yard setback, with the condition that the deck remains open as shown in the elevations submitted with the appeal application. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Background: The Paragon Point PUD Fourth filing allowed for structures to encroach 5 ft. into the R-L zone districts required 15 ft. rear-yard setback. Within the mentioned 10 ft. setback, there is a 6 ft. easement. In the approved PUD there are over 10 lots that have received a variance to the rear-yard setback that allows structures to encroach the same distance that is being requested on the subject property. The rear property line adjoins a tract of land that is identified as wetlands and structures are prohibited from being built. 2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter. 3. Staff Conclusion and Findings: Under Section 2.10.2(H), Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a deck to encroach into the rear-yard setback an additional 4 ft. from the previously allowed 10 ft. rear-yard setback and finds that: • Similar variance requests have already been approved in the approved PUD. • The structure is open on two sides. • The same uses associated with a deck are allowed, if it were at grade level. 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 #ZBA150035. To Who it may concern RE: Justification for Variance from the Land use Code. 1137 Hawkeyes St. Fort Collins, CO 80525 We ask that the board consider the following justification reasons in considering our request for a variance: 1: due to an uneven bend in the property line, the property in question has significantly less room between the rear of the house and the property line than do other properties adjacent to it and in the rest of the subdivision. As a result, the existing deck is considerably smaller than decks on all other properties in the immediate vicinity on either side of the subject property (90 sq. ft. compared to average of aprox. 240 sq. ft in the neighborhood.) This is a potentially negative property value factor, and certainly limits the homeowners ability to entertain guest, or to take advantage of the view of the open space behind their deck.. The current setback would allow for only a two foot extension of the current deck. The proposed variance will allow for a 5’ extension of the current deck, allowing the size of the deck to be increased to 176 sq. ft. 2: The proposed setback variance will allow the construction of a larger deck, which is more in keeping with the decks on other houses in the subdivision. Currently, the subject property stands out from other houses in the subdivision (when viewed from the rear) because it has a much smaller deck. 3: When considered in the context of the neighborhood, the proposed rear setback variance will allow the subject property to better conform to the standards already existing on almost all other houses in the neighborhood, as regards the size of the deck. An important consideration should be the fact that the subject property backs to a very large open space; construction of a larger deck will not make this house stand out as being different, will not infringe on any other house line of sight, and will not infringe on any other property open feel. To our knowledge, four other properties have applied for and received similar variances. c V> -+ Q ::!"; 0 :J Q CJ 0 < CD :V> :r 0 V> ~ "'O 0 "'O 0 V> CD Q_ Q_ CD 0 ?"' 0 0 ~ (Q c Q ::!"; 0 :J ro ..0 .~. .. :J (Q ~ V> CD -+ CJ Q 0 ?"' Q < ... Q :J 0 CD (') 0 ~ (") ~ -0 AJ ~ , 0 m ~ C§ -+ 0 ~ l 1 .. 1 I I I" ·1 I I ;;::j t: i- 1 ·· ~ ~ _..., ~ ~m~ - ~ ~bl bl ' tlww~ ,,. ~ ~~1111 1 1 L--J L--J a- ,_ , ·~· !:rt I SS~ i j •~• •~· I~ ,.,, ... _, .,·, .. \\.~ . -~ l I\ \ '' I\ Scale: 1/ 4" = 1' 11 I I I J I~ I TI ·~ ~ Date 5 I k D " Seybert deck addition project UnOeC es~nS 1137 Hawkeye St. fort Collins CO 80525 FortCollinsColoradoy70-6'}'o-}'+J7 Lot 39, paragon Point PUD, phase four, FTC Page Drawn By: (/\ ~ ('> m ('> C§ -+ 0 ~ ~ r ('> -h -+ m ('> C§ -+ 0 ~ '7:J lO :r -+ m ~ ~ -+ 0 ~ I ;.) I I 1 1 Scale: 1/ 4" = 1' Date Page Dr awn By: 5undeck Designs Fort Collins Colorado }' 70-6' }'0-}'"'f) 7 11 - \ \ LJ Seybert deck addition project 1137 Hawkeye St. Fort Collins CO 80525 Lot 39, paragon Point PUD, phase four, FTC c: ~ , 0 ~ ~ Cl.. , ~ ~ l.O ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ (") 0 ~ Date Page Drawn By: 5undeck Designs Fort C ollins C olorado }' 7 0-6' }'0 -}'"'f) 7 Seybert deck addition project 1137 Hawkeye St. Fort Collins CO 80525 Lot 39, paragon Point PUD, phase four, FTC c V> -+ Q :::!': 0 :J 0- CD 0 ~ :V> :r 0 V> ~ CD v;>< · :::!': :J (Q Q_ CD 0 ?"' 0 0 ~ (Q c Q :::!': 0 :J