The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/12/2019 - Zoning Board Of Appeals - Agenda - Regular MeetingRalph Shields, Chair Shelley LaMastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff 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 DECEMBER 12, 2019 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190046 Address: 515 Cowan Street Owner/Petitioner: Allison Shaw & Arjanus De Bruijn Zoning District: C-L Code Section: 3.8.3 Project Description: The variance is to store bicycles in an accessory building as part of a home occupation. Home occupations are required to operate from the primary building, not an accessory building. 2. APPEAL ZBA190047 Address: 1736 Concord Drive Owner/Petitioner: Devin A. Martinez Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Project Description: The variance is for a proposed accessory building to encroach 5 feet into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 December 12, 2019 3. APPEAL ZBA190048 Address: 821 W. Mountain Avenue Owner: Jim & Jane Grant Petitioner: Jeff Gaines, High Craft Builders Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4); 4.7(F)(2)(b)2. Project Description: The variance is to modify an existing garage. The proposed modifications will increase the wall height to 14.75 feet of an existing building that encroaches into the 5 foot required side-yard setback by 3.5 feet. Additionally, the proposal increases the eave height to 14.75 feet, the required eave height is 10 feet. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chair Shelley La Mastra, Vice Chair Bob Long John McCoy Taylor Meyer Ian Shuff Butch Stockover Council Liaison: Ross Cunniff 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 NOVEMBER 14, 2019 9:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Stockover made a motion, seconded by Shuff, to approve the October 10, 2019 Minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA190044 – DENIED Address: 201 S. College Ave. Owner: Fort Collins Museum of Art Petitioner: Nicole Vatrano, DaVinci Sign Systems Zoning District: D Code Section: 3.8.7.1[G][3][a]; 3.8.7.2[G][1]; 3.8.7.2[G][2] Project Description: This is a request to build an additional primary freestanding monument style sign at 201 S. College Ave. This building is in the (D) Downtown district and would require the following 3 variances: 1) Exceed the limit of 1 primary sign allowed per frontage. The proposed sign would be the third freestanding sign. 2) Exceed the height limit of 7 feet when setback 0 feet from the property line. The proposed sign is 11 feet tall setback 0 feet. 3) Allow an animated/wind driven design, such designs are prohibited. The proposed sign contains a "spinning" wind driven element. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request. The proposed sign would be placed on the north side of the current staircase at the building’s entrance. The proposal is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 November 14, 2019 for the sign to be 11 feet in height, have a center portion that spins from wind, and to be illuminated with multiple colors. Currently there is a tenant directory sign on the south side of the stairs. There is also an agave leaf, which is freestanding, representing the Blue Agave restaurant also in the building. The agave leaf does count as a sign since it is marketing for the business and the directory sign also counts toward the total amount of signs. The Museum of Art currently has a banner on the front of their building and a sandwich board sign, both of which are within code and are not counted as freestanding signs. The request is for a new sign to be right on the property line, which limits the height to 7 feet. Also, code prohibits any animation or motion of signs, whether wind-driven or not. Boardmember Meyer asked about the allowed signage per tenant. Beals confirmed that only one freestanding sign is allowed per building. This is common among current buildings, usually they use a directory type sign to address all tenants. There are additional signs attached to the building, which is not what we are addressing, they are allowed signs on the building itself. Discussion regarding signs versus art. According to the definition of a sign, this agave leaf would qualify as a sign. The element and color are used for the marketing of their business. Boardmember McCoy asked about the current banner sign and sandwich board on the stairs landing and asked if these count towards the total signage for the building. Beals explained these do not count towards the overall sign allowance as they are temporary. In this case, the permit allows the banner to be up for three months to advertise the exhibits on display in the museum. Permits can also be issued for the sandwich board sign from the engineering department to encroach into the public right of way. Boardmember Stockover requested additional information on the time limit for banners as this is different than the south end of town. Beals confirmed this schedule is specific to this type of banner in the Downtown district. Boardmember Shuff asked for clarification on the setback and height requirements when moved further from the property line. Beals will locate the exact code and report back. Assistant City Attorney VanHall clarified the definition of sign in our code, the exclusion is regarding works of art that do not include commercial speech. Commercial speech is any speech proposing a commercial transaction. Speech is a broad term, including graphics, writing, etc. and would be included in commercial transaction. Beals described the sign code setbacks, from 0-5 feet from the property line the sign would be limited to 7 feet in height, between 5-10 feet in setback the height is 8.5 feet, 10-15 feet in setback would be 10 feet in height and the numbers continue to increase. Boardmember Meyers asked if the blue agave leave was permitted and if there was a variance request as that was the second freestanding sign. Beals confirmed it was permitted, but not sure if there was a variance request or not. It’s possible the structure could have been placed as art and the owner was informed afterwards that it would count as a sign, requiring a permit. Applicant Presentation: John Shaw, representing DaVinci Signs Systems, and also serves on the museum board. Mr. Shaw has a long history with signs and they do not apply for a variance lightly. The museum currently has an identity crisis, the banner sign identifies the exhibit on display, but most people don’t realize this is the museum of art. The directory sign is used for all tenants in the building and it does not indicate the Museum of Art is the main owner/occupant of the building. Regarding the agave leaf sign/sculpture, Mr. Shaw believes this building would qualify for 2 freestanding signs as it has 2 street frontages – College and Oak Street even though Oak is a plaza. The agave leaf does not have verbiage and he considers it art. Museums across the country have been given more latitude regarding signage. The MOA letters are designed to be whimsical; the portion that turns is 18 inches in diameter and can be turned manually to engage pedestrians. They have no other area to place the sign. This building has specific rules under historic preservation, therefore items cannot be mounted on the face of the building. The banner itself is a challenge, there are cables that go into the ground, nothing permanently holds it to the building. The proposed sign is meant to be pedestrian friendly. There are trees, light fixtures, etc. as part of the plaza and the museum gets lost in the mix. Vice Chair LaMastra asked why the sign needs to be 11 feet in height. Mr. Shaw explained this is based on overall design and the other existing elements including the directory sign to be similar in height. LaMastra inquired if the “MOA” letters are something that will be easily recognized as the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 November 14, 2019 Museum of Art. Mr. Shaw replied maybe not. However, the sculpture attracts your attention and the “Museum of Art” is then printed at about 2 inches in height on the middle piece of the sign. LaMastra requested more information on how this helps to identify the business if the name is 2 inches in height on a piece of the sign that can rotate away from viewers. Mr. Shaw replied this size would allow both pedestrians and motorists in slow traffic to be able to able read the sign. The point is to spark interest and engage people to take a closer look. Boardmember Meyer wanted to clarify if the Museum of Art text is written on both sides, Mr. Shaw confirmed it is. Mr. Shaw also confirmed the MOA letters are one foot in depth with layering so they can still be seen from the side. Boardmember Shuff asked about the location in Oak Street Plaza, the nature of this area means the sign could be climbed on by children. Mr. Shaw explained they discourage kids from climbing on everything already, the current sign, the railing, etc. Shuff also asked about the Directory sign height, which is 10-11 feet. They are hoping to have 2 signs of similar height flanking the stairway. Lisa Hatchadoorian, Executive Director of the Museum, addressed the board. The museum has been in this community since 1983 and in this building since 1990. This is a 1911 second renaissance revival building. The museum features modern and contemporary art of local regional and national artists. They do get a lot of walk-in traffic, most of that is because of the exhibit banner. The building itself is a heavy, blank building and people don’t always realize they are there and open. For the past couple of years they have been making an effort to be more visible to the public, specifically from the Oak Street Plaza side. There are walls over the windows, the public cannot see anything coming from the inside especially at night during this darker time of year, and they want to grow their street presence. They have been fundraising for a couple of years for this sign and they would like the board’s support. Vice Chair LaMastra asked about nighttime visibility. The document submitted to the board says the proposed sign is non-illuminated. The applicant replied they are going to discuss external lighting. Discussion regarding lights pointing up and if they are allowed by code versus lights pointed down and how they would be attached to the landmarked building. The lighting will affect how the sign looks, that information would be appreciated. Vice Chair LaMastra questioned if they looked at revising the existing tenant directory sign. The applicant replied that they do not consider the sign theirs to change, that is Brinkman’s sign. There is also a tenant directory sign inside the building as well. Brinkman was never approached on re-doing the current sign. Boardmember Stockover inquired how long they plan to occupy this space. Ms. Hatchadoorian confirmed they do own the building with Brinkman, and they intend to be there forever. Mr. Shaw addressed the board again regarding the sign lighting. The initial design was for the whole sign to spin and therefore it would have been non-illuminated. Now the main part is static and only the small middle portion is spinning so they can illuminate the sign itself. The sign would either be non- illuminated or halo-illuminated. Audience Participation: Lili Francuz, boardmember of the museum, addressed the board. In the early 80’s she remembers visiting this building and the only reason she knew where it was located was when she was informed it was the old post office. Currently when she tells friends about an exhibit they still don’t know where the museum of art is unless she tells people it’s in the old post office building. She believes the proposed sign will increase traffic to above 30%. Cheryl Rogers, 230 Jackson Ave., addressed the board. She has been the proprietor of the museum for 30 years and continually explains to people where the museum is located. The banner on the building has a description of the exhibits, but they are not allowed to put their name on the banner, which also causes confusion. It would benefit the community to know where the museum is located. Ryan Norton, 201 S. College, addressed the board. Mr. Norton is a community member, born and raised in Fort Collins. He believes we can use this opportunity to propel Fort Collins forward and showcase another amenity available in our city. This is the right thing to do for this museum and this community. Board Discussion: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 November 14, 2019 Chair Shields asked staff about the Oak Street frontage comments. Beals explained that currently, Oak Street Plaza does not count as street frontage or public right of way. The language in our code defines public right of way as used for carrying car traffic. It’s possible this was approved under previous code and that Oak Street Plaza might have been considered a street frontage at that time. That does affect their current sign allowance. Boardmember Meyers asked about increasing their building frontage in order to increase their allowed signage. Beals confirmed there are 2 ways to calculate your sign allowance, based on the property line frontage, or building frontage. The City allows the greater of the two. This calculation does include both freestanding signs and wall-mounted signage. Boardmember McCoy questioned the historic preservation guidelines for wall mounted signs. Beals confirmed that historic preservation does review how the sign attaches to the building material. Proposals such as these have potential to go in front of the landmark preservation commission. Beals also addressed the applicant and explained they can have further discussion regarding Museum of Art verbiage on the exhibit banner. Boardmember Shuff stated the blue agave leaf is questionable as a sign, but he understands the color aspect and that Oak Street Plaza is not considered a street frontage. Vice Chair LaMastra understands using the company colors would still be considered signage as it ties back to the business. We don’t know the history on whether that was approved based on Oak Street being considered a public right of way or not. Regardless, this proposal is a large increase in signage, doubling the number of signs along College Ave. Chair Shields suggested they focus on College Avenue signage. The directory sign is more of a directory bar, but technically counts toward the number of signs. Boardmember Stockover requested specifications regarding directory signs, he thought they had to be 2 feet by 2 feet, 4 square feet. Beals confirmed traditionally those are the dimensions, however regarding freestanding sign regulations, the directory sign would still count as a sign. Vice Chair LaMastra questioned why re-doing the existing directory sign was not addressed with Brinkman. Boardmember Shuff commented the directory sign does fit into the design elements of Oak Street Plaza. There is a level of consistency, however the directory sign is somewhat ineffective. By adding another sign of similar scale, they may start to compete with each other. Vice Chair LaMastra is not inclined to grant two freestanding signs within a 12 foot span when the option to re-do the current sign was not pursued. Boardmember Stockover agreed the museum might have an identity crisis, when reading this proposal he was not sure which building this was referring to. However, Stockover believes this proposal would add to the sign clutter and still not accomplish the goal of driving traffic to their location. He is not willing to support a variance on the sign code if he doesn’t feel it will be successful. Even without the blue agave sculpture/sign, the number of signs is still being doubled. Vice Chair LaMastra stated that seeing the MOA letters would not communicate what this business is. The 2 inch lettering on a rotating panel does not convey their message and is not solving the marketing issue. There is already sign clutter in place and she cannot support adding another sign especially at this size and scale. Boardmember McCoy liked the sign itself, but can’t accept 2 monument signs on the front of the building. This is such a recognized building in Fort Collins, there is no other like it. Chair Shields stated he also really liked the sign, but would like to see coordination with other tenants regarding signage for this building. Boardmember Meyer believes there should be an exception within sign code for museums as they provide a cultural experience. It almost seems there was an oversight when the first sign was constructed. Would suggest the applicant pursues a redesign of the existing sign. Boardmember Shuff liked the sign as it makes a statement. Thinks the moving part is kinetic, not animated, so there are no issues for him. The flanking of 2 competing signs on either side of the stairs adds to the visual clutter. If there is already a directory within the building, then work with your partner to revise the current sign. Vice Chair LaMastra would be more supportive of one sign that is over the allowable height, making a statement as a sculpture, than 2 oversized signs 12-15 feet apart from each other. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 November 14, 2019 Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by McCoy, to deny ZBA190044 for the following reasons: the existing number of freestanding signs exceeds the standard by 100% and this would increase it even more, the one current freestanding sign could be redesigned, and insufficient evidence has been provided to determine if the proposal is detrimental to the public good. Yeas: Shuff, McCoy, Shields, Meyer, LaMastra, Stockover. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM WAS DENIED. • OTHER BUSINESS 2020 Annual Work Plan • ADJOURNMENT Ralph Shields, Chairperson Noah Beals, Senior City Planner-Zoning Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 12, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190046 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 515 Cowan Street Petitioner/Owner: Allison Shaw & Arjanus De Bruijn Zoning District: C-L Code Section: 3.8.3 Variance Request: The variance is to store bicycles in an accessory building as part of a home occupation. Home occupations are required to operate from the primary building, not an accessory building. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is in the Limited Commercial Zone district. Residential and nonresidential uses are both permitted. The property is approved for single family detached dwelling unit. The occupant of a residential dwelling unit may operate a home occupation in a dwelling unit subject to certain restrictions. The general purpose of these restrictions are to limit the home occupation from becoming a primary use and not subordinate to the dwelling unit. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The C-L zone district allows for a mix of uses. • On the same block face other residential structures have been converted to nonresidential uses. • The bicycles will be stored completely within the garage or trailer. • The use of the garage does not exceed 50% of floor area of the primary 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190046 Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Bikeadelic Rentals LLC 515 Cowan St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 November 6, 2019 Dear Zoning Board of Appeals members: I am respectfully requesting a variance to the following Home Occupation license requirements: • Such use shall be conducted entirely within a dwelling • There shall be no exterior storage on the premises of material or equipment used as a part of the home occupation. Because Home Occupations are by definition currently occupied homes rather than new development, I believe that the requirements for Home Occupation licenses are primarily designed to meet the following relevant and important purposes of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code: • (K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. • (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. I believe that our proposed home occupation meets both purposes because there is already a commercial property (Apparel Imaging Specialties LLC) two doors down from our house and our house falls within the same limited commercial district according to the City of Fort Collins FCMaps web map. Houses used for commercial purposes are well integrated in our neighborhood. The only outward sign of commercial use of our property in the foreseeable future would be a logo that we plan to put on our pick-up truck and cargo trailer, the latter being generally parked in our gravel parking area next to the garage, adjacent to the alley behind our house. We have no plans to receive customers at our house, as we deliver rental bicycles to them, so there would be no problems with traffic congestion nor taking up on-street parking. Therefore, it seems reasonable to request permission to store commercial property (bicycles) in our garage where our workbench is for convenience in bicycle maintenance, and in our cargo trailer in preparation for delivery. My justifications for this request are: #2: The proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard, as it: • Land Use Code Purpose K: maintains a rational pattern of relationships among residential and business uses for the mutual benefit of all • Land Use Code Purpose M: is sensitive to the character of the existing neighborhood. #3: The proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, because it only consists of the unobtrusive enclosed storage of bicycles, in numbers only slightly higher (10-20) than would be found in a normal residential garage, and cargo trailers are common residential property for owners of snowmobiles, ATV’s, etc. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your decision. Sincerely, Allison E. Shaw Sketch of 515 Cowan St. parcel showing the location of the garage and trailer where 10-20 bicycles would be stored if waiver granted Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 12, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190047 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 1736 Concord Drive Petitioner/Owner: Devin A. Martinez Zoning District: R-L Code Section: 4.4(D)(2)(c) Variance Request: The variance is for a proposed accessory building to encroach 5 feet into the required 15 foot rear-yard setback COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property is part of the Lexington Green subdivision that was approved in 1966. This property is a corner lot and abuts two other residential properties. The side setback approved for this subdivision is 7ft and differs from the standard zone district side setback of 5ft. The rear setback is the zone district standard of 15ft. In general, the purposes of setbacks, but limited to, are to preserve neighborhood character, provide safe passage for first responders and create separation for privacy. For this property the 15’ rear setback is the east property line. The abutting property to the east along the shared property line has a 7’ side setback. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The abutting neighbor enjoys a 7ft setback from the shared property line. • The width of the encroachment is 12ft. • The accessory structure is one story. 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190047 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 - Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 12, 2019 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT ZBA190048 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Address: 821 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Jeff Gaines, High Craft Builders Owner: Jim & Jane Grant Zoning District: N-C-L Code Section: 4.7(E)(4); 4.7(F)(2)(b)2. Variance Request: The variance is to modify an existing garage. The proposed modifications will increase the wall height to 14.75 feet of an existing building that encroaches into the 5 foot required side-yard setback by 3.5 feet. Additionally, the proposal increases the eave height to 14.75 feet, the required eave height is 10 feet. COMMENTS: 1. UBackground:U The property was annex and subdivided into the City in 1887. The original primary structure was demolished. The primary structure that exists today was constructed in 2006. The general purposes of building/eave height standards include, but are not limited to, maintaining the character of the neighborhood, reduce looming effects of buildings on adjoining properties and to help maintain sense of privacy. The accessory building was built when the original structure existed and has been updated in time. When the accessory structure was built it was setback 1.5ft from the property west property line. 2. UApplicant’s statement of justification:U See petitioner’s letter. 3. UStaff Conclusion and Findings:U Under Section 2.10.2(H), staff recommends approval and finds that: • The variance is not detrimental to the public good. • The increase eave height is 14.5ft in width of the building and tappers 0ft. • The overall wall increase is 40sf. • The proposed changes do not include a window on the west side. 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 as contained in Section 1.2.2 4. URecommendation: Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA190048 821 West Mountain Ave. Variance Request Explanation This variance request seeks the following modifications to Fort Collins NCL district standards: ● Increasing the height of an existing nonconforming wall within a side setback: Per LUC 4.7(E)(4), a 5’ side setback is required in the NCL district. The existing detached garage is located such that the west wall is approximately 1’-6” off the west side lot line. This existing wall terminates at an eave, at a height of 7’-6”. This proposal seeks to increase the height of this wall such that it would terminate into the rake of a modified roof, with the building’s ridge being rotated 90 degrees. While existing wall plate height will remain at 7’-6”, the wall would extend to a height of 14’-9” at the peak of the new roof. ● Exceeding the allowable eave height for a detached accessory: Per LUC 4.7(F)(2)(b)(2), the maximum eave height allowed along a side lot line is 10’ for a detached accessory without habitable space. As noted above, a triangular portion of wall would extend above this height limit to the new roof peak. The homeowners would like to make modifications to the existing detached garage at the rear of this lot to create a playful structure that would anchor and define the backyard as well as provide extending outdoor spaces. The volume in terms of area and height contained within the garage would not change through these modifications, nor would the use of the structure as a small two car garage. What the homeowners have asked for are alterations that will give the structure a sense of purpose and presence in the yard, making it a building they can enjoy both as an interesting backdrop to the house and as the starting point for several small outdoor living spaces. They have approached the design with a sense of lightheartedness and the inspiration of garden ‘follies’, which include whimsical elements and might bellie the actual use of a structure. While the walls of the garage will remain in place, changing the direction of the gable roof and increasing its slope has been central from the start in setting the stage for the homeowners’ goals. As an added bonus, turning the roof orientation would set the south side up for future solar panel installation. All new extensions off the building including a porch cover and pergola have been designed to meet current LUC requirements, meaning that the increase in roof and associated existing wall height within the setback is the only element of the project requiring a variance. To meet building code requirements based on fire separation distance from the property line, both the existing and extended sections of the west wall of the garage would be provided with one-hour fire resistance, and the rake would have no overhang. Justification Criteria 1 – By reason of exceptional physical condition or situation unique to the property, the strict application of the code requirements would result in undue hardship: Strict application would require the entire structure to be demolished and rebuilt to enable the gable roof to be turned as proposed. Justification Criteria 3 - Proposal will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood: Rear accessory structures are commonly located within side setbacks throughout old town neighborhoods including along this alley, and a variety of heights and roof forms are represented in these nonconforming structures. The proposed new roof form and orientation of the building is well within this typical range of volumes, and several garages that are substantially larger in size and height than the proposal, and do not meet current LUC criteria exist along this alley. Adjacent examples are garages serving 829 West Mountain Ave and 826 West Oak St. Several additional factors exist that ameliorate potential impacts of the proposed change. This garage is set back a generous 23’ from the alley, further than almost all other garages along the alley, and faces another nonconforming garage to its west. Lots along this section of the block slope down about 4’ from street-fronting buildings to the alley, meaning that even with the proposed modification the garage would remain relatively small in stature as viewed from primary buildings. As noted previously, the current 1’ eave overhang along the west side will be eliminated with the new roof having no overhang along this side. This will increase the effective separation between neighboring structures, and remove the garage’s current west side eave projection nonconformity under LUC 3.8.19(A)(6). X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X ( (E) GARAGE (E) SHED $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7<3812 0" O.H. 6+2:(6675((7 )257&2//,16&2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ' 5$:1 &+(&.(' '$7( NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6&$/(&+(&. JIM & JANE GRANT A REMODEL FOR: 821 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, 80521 A9.0 VARIANCE *$5$*(3/$16 &KHFNHU $XWKRU KEYNOTES 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) GARAGE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" (N) GARAGE PLAN $ $ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5()(5726+((7$ %8,/',1*(19(/23( )25,168/$7,215(48,5(0(176 7*$5$*(6/$% 7 ( *$5$*(3/$7( $ $ $ $&&(6625<($9(+(,*+7/,0,7 $ $ (1'2)75866/$<287+($'(5 $ $ $ 7*$5$*(6/$% 7 ( *$5$*(3/$7( $ $ $&&(6625<($9(+(,*+7/,0,7 1(::$//$%29(($9( +(,*+7/,0,7$7,21 1(::$// :,7+,16(7%$&. (;,67,1*:$// 725(0$,1 1(::$// +(,*+7 7*$5$*(6/$% 7 ( *$5$*(3/$7( $ $ 8x12 8x12 [ $&&(6625<($9(+(,*+7/,0,7 7 ( *$5$*(3/$7( 6+2:(6675((7 )257&2//,16&2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ' 5$:1 &+(&.(' '$7( NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6&$/(&+(&. JIM & JANE GRANT A REMODEL FOR: 821 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, 80521 A9.1 VARIANCE *$5$*((/(9$7,216 6(&7,216 &KHFNHU $XWKRU 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 N/S THROUGH GARAGE KEYNOTES SECTION NOTES &('$51$,/(5)520[ 6 [522)'(&.,1*3(5(1*,1((5,1* 6 %5$&(6)520[ V3(5(1*,1((5,1* 6 [5$)7(563(5(1*,1((5,1* 6 [%($03(5(1*,1((5,1* 6 +($'(53(5(1*,1((5,1*(;7(1'($&+6,'(2)23(1,1*$66+2:121 (/(9$7,21 6 /('*(5)520[3(5(1*,1((5,1* 6 [5$)7(57$,/63(5(1*,1((5,1* 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE WEST 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 DETAIL @ GARAGE ENTRY COVER 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 DETAIL @ WALL $//['(&.,1*72%(3$,17('3,1( $//[5$)7(5672%(3$,17(''28*/$6),5 $//[[[72%(67$,1('&('$5 127( 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE ROOF PLAN *$5$*( :02817$,1$9( 7:26725<6,1*/( )$0,/<':(//,1* 40.00' 180.00' 180.00' 40.00' 02817$,1$9(18( $//(< %$&.325&+ )5217325&+ 40.00' 180.00' 180.00' ( *$5$*( 1(,*+%25,1* *$5$*( 5(7$,1,1*:$// %5,&.:$// 67(3720$; +,*+#6(7%$&./,1( *$7( (;,67,1*&21&5(7($3521 3(5*2/$522)&29(532677<3 75(//,632677<3 3523(57</,1( 6(7%$&.($6(0(17 6+2:(6675((7 )257&2//,16&2 '5$:1 &+(&.(' '$7( 127)25&216758&7,21 127)25&216758&7,21 6&$/(&+(&. VARIANCE JIM & JANE GRANT A REMODEL FOR: 821 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, 80521 9 0+-* 1" = 20'-0" SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" ENLARGED SITE PLAN SITE PLAN LEGEND