HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2025 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - REGULAR MEETINGLAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
1
1. CALL TO ORDER
a. (TIME STARTED)
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5. NEW BUSINESS
6. VARIANCE REQUESTS
a. APPEAL ZBA240022
Address: 339 Wood St
Owner/Petitioner: Kirt Trujillo
Zoning District: OT-B
Code Section: 2.1.6
Project Description:
There are five requests associated with this variance application:
1. An after the fact request to allow for an existing carport to encroach 10 feet into the 15-
foot required rear setback.
2. An after the fact request to allow for an existing shed addition to encroach 3.5 feet into the
5-foot required side setback.
Participation in the Land Use Review Commission Meeting on Thursday, January 9, will
only be available IN PERSON in accordance with Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code.
The meeting will begin at 8:30am in City Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue
Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs
to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any
documents to nbeals@fcgov.com.
Individuals uncomfortable with public participation are encouraged to participate by emailing
general public comments 24 hours prior to the meeting to nbeals@fcgov.com
the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the
discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24
hours prior to the meeting.
If you need assistance during the meeting, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com.
Masks Strongly Recommended in Indoor Public Spaces
While there are currently no public health orders in place, Larimer County Public Health officials
strongly recommend that well-fitting, high-quality masks are worn in crowded indoor spaces.
For more information, please visit fcgov.com/covid
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
2
3. An after the fact request to allow for an existing shed addition to encroach 10 feet into the
15-foot required rear setback.
4. An after the fact request to allow for an accessory structure/carport to be placed 4 feet
from the primary dwelling. The minimum required distance between an accessory
structure and primary dwelling is 5 feet.
5. A request to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of the lot. There is
a total of 949 square feet of floor area currently building on the rear half of the property.
The maximum allowable floor arear for the rear half of this lot is 702 square feet. The
request is to exceed the maximum allowable rear-half floor area by 247 square feet.
b. APPEAL ZBA240032
Address: 3521 Wild View Dr
Owner: The BCF Family Trust
Petitioner: Brandon Farmer
Zoning District: L-M-N
Code Section: 2.2.0
Project Description:
This is a request for a variance to allow for a proposed 247 square foot accessory structure
(covered patio) to encroach 3 feet into the required rear setback. The minimum rear setback
for this property in the LMN zone is 8 feet.
c. APPEAL ZBA240034
Address: 1516 Remington St
Owner: Casa Forte Investments LLC
Petitioner: Maurizio Campana
Zoning District: OT-A
Code Section: 2.1.6; 3.1.8
Project Description:
There are two requests associated with this variance application:
1. A request to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of the lot. There
is a total of 5,789 square feet of floor area currently built on the rear half of the
property. The proposed remodel of the primary structure and addition of a new
detached accessory building will result in a total of 5,244 square feet of floor area on
the rear half of the lot. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of this lot is
2,125 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area rear-half
floor area by 3,119 square feet.
2. A request to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory
structure. The proposed detached garage is 972 square feet. The maximum allowable
floor area for a detached accessory structure is 600 square feet. The request is to
exceed the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory structure by 372 square
feet.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Review and Approval of the Land Use Review Commission 2024 Annual Report
8. ADJOURNMENT
a. (TIME ENDED)
Ian Shuff, Chair
Dave Lawton, Vice Chair
David Carron
Nathaniel Coffman
John McCoy
Philip San Filippo
Katie Vogel
Council Liaison: Julie Pignataro
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, 2024
8:30 AM
• CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
All members were present.
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by Commission member Coffman
to approve the November 14, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes. The motion was approved by all
members.
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda)
• APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE
1. APPEAL ZBA240022 POSTPONED
Address: 339 Wood St
Owner/Petitioner: Kirt Trujillo
2. APPEAL ZBA240030
Address: 433 N Roosevelt Ave
Owner/Petitioner: Matt Lawrence
Zoning District: R-L
Code Section: 2.1.4
Project Description:
This is a request for an accessory building to encroach 10 feet into the required 15-foot rear setback.
Staff Presentation:
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES
Land Use Review Commission Page 2 DRAFT Minutes – December 12, 2024
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located near the corner of Elm St and N Roosevelt Ave. It is part of a single unit residential
development.
The request is to build a shed in the back yard and encroach into the rear setback. The request has
been revised to request a 9-foot encroachment, or 6 feet from the rear property line. When originally
submitted, the request was for a 10-foot encroachment, meaning that the shed would be placed 5-feet
from the rear property line. The reason for the revised request will be discussed further.
Beals presented aerial views of the subject property, noting the proposed location of the shed. Present
in the back of the property is a 6-foot utility easement, thus the revised request so as to not encroach
into the easement. Staff recommend a 7-foot encroachment to provide space for the eaves of the shed
to clear the easement as well. 6 feet could work as well, as long as it is being measured from the
eaves and not the wall.
The proposed shed is approximately 13 feet in height, rectangular in shape, with the two taller walls
facing north/south. The longer walls with shorter height face the front and rear property lines
(east/west).
A concrete pad has already been poured, which may need to be adjusted based on the decision
rendered today. Currently it is 5 feet from the back property line. There is also a penned area intended
for goats and chickens located in the back yard.
Applicant Presentation:
Matt Lawrence, owner, 433 N Roosevelt Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment.
Lawrence noted that he and his daughter reside in the converted garage space on the property, while
renting out the primary residence to others, and desire a shed on-site to provide additional storage.
Lawrence stated his opinion that if approved, the shed would have a nominal and inconsequential
impact on the neighborhood. Lawrence further noted that other properties in the neighborhood have
animals, treehouses, sheds etc. present in their rear yards. Lawrence also noted that the previous
owners did have goats in the penned area, but there are currently no goats present. The renters who
live in the primary residence are currently raising chickens in the pen.
Lawrence stated that the concrete pad was poured 5 feet from the back property line, before he was
aware of the utility easement. He has contacted the concrete contractor, and shifting the pad wouldn’t
be difficult. Lawrence went on to commend staff for their efforts with this request, stating the variance
request process has been easy.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman sees no problem with allowing a 6-foot setback from the eave. Coffman
noted that this neighborhood has many structures within the 15-foot setback.
Commission member Carron agrees.
Commission member San Filippo agrees.
Vice-Chair Lawton offered his appreciation for the applicant’s attempt at making accommodations for
the utility easement. Lawton states he has no problems with application as presented.
Chair Shuff agrees. The property has a pretty big setback relative to adjacent Zoning Districts. Shuff
feels that this is a reasonable request.
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Carron to APPROVE ZBA240030
regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 2.1.4 to allow an encroachment of
9 feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 15 feet, in order to construct the proposed
accessory building in the R-L Zone District as shown in the materials for this hearing.
Land Use Review Commission Page 3 DRAFT Minutes – December 12, 2024
The Commission finds that the variances would not be detrimental to the public good; and the
variance request will not diverge from Section 2.1.4 except in a nominal and inconsequential
way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section
1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: The 9-foot encroachment will not overlap the utility
easement; the structure is 120 square feet in size; and the shorter wall faces north and south.
This decision is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented
during the hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item.
Further, this Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings of the fact, and
conclusions regarding the variances contained in the staff report included in the agenda
materials for this hearing.
Yeas: Coffman, Lawton, Shuff, San Filippo, Carron, McCoy, Vogel Nays: - Absent: -
3. APPEAL ZBA240031
Address: 5721 S College Ave
Owner: WWW Properties LLC
Petitioner: Marie Hashaw, DaVinci Sign Systems, Inc.
Zoning District: C-G
Code Section: 5.16.2(B) Table B Wall Signs,
5.16.2(B) Table (G)(1) Freestanding Permanent Signs
Project Description:
This variance has two requests:
1) This is a request for a wall sign to exceed the maximum wall sign height by 7 feet .58 inches. The
maximum wall sign height is 7 feet in the commercial/industrial sign district.
2) This is a request to install a second primary detached sign along the east frontage. Only one
primary sign per frontage is allowed in the commercial/industrial sign district.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is located at the south end of Fort Collins, at the corner of the new extension of Venus Ave
and S College Ave.
The request is for a sign to be over 7 feet tall on the front of the building, as well as a second free
standing sign to be placed on the property. This property recently received development approval and
is currently underway with the construction process.
The first sign request is for a new freestanding sign; Code allows for only one freestanding sign per
property. They are allowed to have additional accessory freestanding signs at the vehicle entrance to
the property and do have one currently at the vehicle entrance located on the south end of the
property.
The request today is to place another freestanding sign on the corner of Venus and College. The area
next to the proposed sign is reserved for inventory parking/display.
The approved monument sign is located at the front of the building, which is about midway along the
frontage along S College Ave.
Beals presented renderings of the proposed freestanding and building signs. The proposed sign on
the building is over 14 feet in overall height, or double what is allowed by code. This sign would be
placed on the front of the building, near the double-door entrance and would face S College Ave.
Other signage on the building is in compliance with the Code. There is enough signage allowance for
the signage being proposed, but it does not fit the other standards of the Code.
Referencing the development process, Beals described a “clip” element that was originally approved.
During Development Review process, the clip was designed to function as an architectural element of
the building denoting the main entrance. Signage is not reviewed or approved during the Development
Review Process. Since then, that plan has been revised to instead place a wall sign at the location of
Land Use Review Commission Page 4 DRAFT Minutes – December 12, 2024
the clip. Wall signs must not extend beyond the lines of the roof. The proposed sign lines up with the
top-most roofline.
This type of use in the Zone District would be required to be brought up to the public right of way, and
not include any display area between the property and the public sidewalk. The applicants chose
instead to request a modification to allow the building to be set further back from the public sidewalk.
Beals presented pictures of the property, noting the proposed location of the signs on the property.
From the south looking north, the accessory sign at the south vehicle entrance is visible. Vehicle
entrance area is only going into the dealership area; Venus Ave is considered public right of way and
thus is not considered a vehicle entrance.
Commission member McCoy asked Beals to reiterate his comments concerning Venus Ave extension.
Beals responded that Code does allow for a secondary sign along a vehicle entrance. However,
Venus Ave is a public street that extends all the way into the adjacent neighborhood and is not
considered the entrance to the property.
Commission member Carron asked if sign allowance is still available for the property. Beals explains
that while total sign allowance remains, the additional entrance signage is not permitted by Code. The
sign size is over what is allowed, and it is considered a second freestanding sign, not an accessory
sign.
Vice-Chair Lawton asked if the “Nissan” and “Fort Collins” words shown on the front of the building are
included in the sign allowance? Beals confirmed they are allowed and are in compliance. Beals
explained that the red background and text of the proposed sign is considered/measured in total.
Commission member San Filippo asked how the Nissan “badge” compares to the height of other
dealer signs in Fort Collins. Beals does not have those measurements at-hand
Commission member Coffman determined that the logo portion is approximately 8-feet tall based on
materials and measurements contained therein.
Applicant Presentation
Applicant rep Marie Hashaw, DaVinci Sign Systems, 907 Cameron Drive, Severance, CO, addressed
the Commission and offered comment. The request for increased sign size is related to the increase in
building setback that was requested and granted during the Design Review process.
Hashaw explained the “display” area adjacent to the public right of way is actually ADA and public
customer parking. Applicants feel the proposed sign is within the architectural elements of the building.
If reduced in size, the sign will no longer be legible by traffic.
Regarding the second monument sign proposed, dealership access can be taken from Venus Ave.
Monument signs would be approximately 700 feet apart, which mirrors other municipalities’ code.
Chair Shuff asked if the existing secondary monument sign differs in design. Hashaw responded no.
Commission member San Filippo asked if the existing facility to the south is to remain? Hashaw
explained it will become a separate Kia dealership, and all existing signage will come down. San
Filippo asked if the proposed secondary monument sign is intended to denote access to the
dealership for north-bound traffic. Hashaw confirms.
Public Comment:
Jay Weibold, property owner, residing at 16 Riverside Dr, Bellvue, CO states he is nervous. The
proposed signage is in line with Nissan’s global design standard. The proposed sign for the front of the
building was originally designed in black, but Nissan required red. Weibold hopes that the Commission
will approve the request as presented. The project has already cost approximately $20million, and he
feels the proposed red sign would be in line with the design of the building overall.
Commission Discussion:
Land Use Review Commission Page 5 DRAFT Minutes – December 12, 2024
Commission member Carron refers to photo taken from the north, where there is a line of site issue
due to grade change which partially conceals the building. Carron stated that there could be an
argument for secondary sign to assist with wayfinding.
Chair Shuff agrees, there is a lot of grade to overcome when considering south-bound visibility.
Commission member Vogel asks if what is shown in photograph being referenced is the main
entrance or a public street. Shuff confirms it is a public street – Venus Ave.
Commission member Coffman notes there is signage allowance, and thus the applicants could
potentially put a sign on the north face. Coffman doesn’t feel there is a visibility issue.
Vice-Chair Lawton has visited the location, and missed the turn off each time when going to old
building. Glad there is now a turn-off with the new extension of Venus Ave. Lawton understands it
could be on the building itself. It would be helpful to have some indicator that dealership entrance is
present. The front signage is big, and Lawton understands there was a proposal to move building
closer to street. This is a self-imposed condition.
San Filippo refers to the approved sign, asked if applicants would be able to move closer to the in/out
driveway apron to the south? This might alert one that property entrance is possible from south. Would
that require a variance to move? Beals explained that the secondary sign at the south entrance must
remain. The primary freestanding can be moved anywhere along the frontage and could be placed at
the location where the secondary sign is being requested. To clarify, Beals noted the development
always proposed to set the building back and requested a modification. San Filippo asked if two
monument signs could be present, with one approved being moved? Beals clarified that the vehicle
entrance sign can’t be moved; primary sign already approved could be amended and relocated
anywhere along the frontage. However, it must be a certain distance from the secondary sign.
Coffman is not seeing a good argument for either variance request. The second monument sign may
be nice, but this parcel has public access from the rear. That does not entitle them to an additional
monument sign. Sign on the face of the building may be redundant given the size of the “NISSAN”
text, which could be duplicated on the north side. The shape of logo provides recognition, not
necessarily just the legibility of text.
Shuff asked how tall was the horizontal band element on top of the building, where lettering is
located?
Jay Weibold answered that the glass elements at the top of the building is opaque glass/white so the
back of sign would not be visible from the inside of the building. The opaque glass is the same size as
proposed sign (14.8 feet). The black lettering is approximately 5.5 feet tall.
Weibold also explained that Venus Ave is easier and safer access than the south vehicle drive; if
missed, potential traffic increases within neighborhoods. Wiebold stated they vacated a portion of the
road to alleviate traffic concerns.
Weibold offered commented regarding the “tablet” sign proposed for the front of the building, stating
that a smaller size sign might look funny. They have already spent $20milllion on the building. The
variance to move the building back allows for six additional electric charging spots and ADA parking
spots. That area is not intended to be used for inventory display.
Shuff feels that having secondary signage at Venus Ave may help the facility function and customer
entry. Shuff agrees that we don’t want people circling the neighborhood because they have missed a
property entrance. If the secondary accessory sign complied with secondary signage standards, he
could be amenable to the request. The site is large and needs vehicular wayfinding. Shuff is more
hesitant to approve the requested main building signage. From a scale/proportion perspective, it can
become quite diminished. Guest parking and ADA is necessary for a dealership, so building setback
makes sense. Nuance comes into play when considering logo vs color vs overall sign area.
Carron agrees with Shuff’s idea to provide secondary signage at Venus Ave. City considers the main
sign area to include logo and brand-color background.
Land Use Review Commission Page 6 DRAFT Minutes – December 12, 2024
Coffman supports secondary signage standards for proposed monument sign. Coffman is not in
support of the primary wall sign.
Vogel agrees with Coffman and notes her challenge in approving large signage that appears to face a
residential area.
Weibold states there is not a neighborhood across the street, but is a neighborhood behind the
dealership, and there was a previous request to take down the oversized flag that used to be present.
That was the only issue brought forth by neighboring residents.
San Filippo has no issue with secondary signage at Venus Ave; motorists need to be alerted to access
point. However, the wall sign is troubling, as “NISSAN” and “Fort Collins” are present on the face of
the building. Tablet signs can be scaled by sign makers to maintain compliance with sign code and
could easily be sized down to 7 feet in order to comply with local sign standards.
Coffman asked Beals what the primary characteristics are that denote a secondary sign compared to a
primary sign. Beals notes it is based on overall area (16 square feet) and maximum height (4 feet).
Coffman clarifies that secondary sign could be approved if the sign is not associated with vehicle
entrance, based on current discussion.
Lawton offered comment on front wall sign; the time to take advantage of sign code is now, at the
beginning of development rather than granting variances in the future. There are options for bringing
the sign into compliance so as to maintain standards. The area will continue to develop, so it is
important to stick with current standards.
Beals gives reminder that content/colors/logos are not considered; sign code is related to overall sign
area, height, and other physical requirements set forth in code. Regulation is not based on content.
Hashaw commented that if the second monument sign were to be scaled down, it would be too small
to be visible by motorists. Hashaw is not in favor of conditional approval of a secondary sign that
would meet the standards of a secondary accessory sign.
Shuff notes intent if that sign is for folks travelling south. The Commission is trying to find a
compromise.
Weibold states his biggest concern is tablet sign. Opaque glass backing will then be visible bordering
a reduced-size wall sign. There used to be two billboards on the property. Weibold states he was
originally told that red color and clip elements were not desirable. The sign design was then changed;
Nissan Corp. then came back and would not allow black to be used and required that the sign be
created in red. He stated that he thought the sign package would be approved but is now facing
denial. If the monument sign is removed, could the tablet sign be sized at the proposed scale?
Weibold is concerned the building could look funny, after a $20million investment. The goal with the
monument sign is to provide safe access to the building. Biggest concern is the front tablet sign. They
could potentially remove signage to accommodate tablet sign as proposed.
Coffman states his thought is that the problem with the proposal is to avoid setting precedent to allow
national standards to overcome local standards. The reason for leaning towards approval of the
secondary sign is to achieve traffic safety. The proposed larger sign on the face of the building isn’t
fulfilling that purpose.
Shuff asked for thoughts on reducing the monument sign for relocation. Coffman responded that the
property already has excess signage allowance.
Vogel noted that standards are very different from what was been designed and built. She
understands the frustrations of corporate brand standards, but we need to maintain code standards
specific to Fort Collins. After discussion, Vogel would be open to allowing a secondary sign but not
comfortable with allowing a large wall sign as proposed.
Land Use Review Commission Page 7 DRAFT Minutes – December 12, 2024
Carron states that leaving the monument sign where it is currently improves traffic safety. Lots of sign
allowance remains; there are multiple opportunities to assist with wayfinding.
San Filippo asked Beals how large the approved monument sign is? Bigger than 16 square feet?
Beals responds yes, approximately 37 square feet, and is double-sided.
McCoy agrees with comments offered by Shuff, noting he has no problem with monument sign at
Venus Ave; this is a unique building for this portion of S College Ave. Unfortunate that it came to this
stage without design discussion before now. The Commission needs to maintain code standards.
McCoy understands corporate sign standards; however, the building itself is easily identified as the
Nissan dealership.
San Filippo recommends that the applicant table this request in order to reconsider potential sign
placement revisions, especially considering monument sign placement. Beals notes that the
intersection of Venus and College now has a traffic control light.
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel to APPROVE IN PART
ZBA240031 regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 5.16.2 (G), to allow an
additional secondary detached sign, separate from vehicle entrance, to be installed along the
east frontage in the C-G Zone District, as discussed in the hearing. The Commission finds that
the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the proposed signage will
promote the general purpose of Section 5.16.2(B) equally well or better than would signage
which complies with that Section, in consideration of the facts discussed.
This decision is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented
during the hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item.
Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and
conclusions regarding this variance contained in the staff report included in the agenda
materials for this hearing.
Yeas: Coffman, Lawton, Shuff, San Filippo, Carron, McCoy, Vogel Nays: - Absent: -
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel, to DENY IN PART
ZBA240031 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 5.16.2(B), finding that
the variance as submitted would be detrimental to the public good; and the variance as
submitted would not comply with the Land Use Code variance standards contained in Section
6.14.4(H)(1) through (H)(4), in consideration of the following facts: The variance will
significantly increase the signage along the property, specifically a 100% increase in wall sign
height; the inventory display area is visible along 90% of the College Ave frontage; insufficient
evidence has been provided showing how the proposal supports the standards in a way
equally better than a proposal that complies with the standard; and insufficient evidence has
been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property.
The decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented
during the hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item.
Yeas: Coffman, Lawton, Shuff, San Filippo, Carron, McCoy, Vogel Nays: - Absent: -
• OTHER BUSINESS
Review and approval of the 2025 Work Plan.
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Vogel to approve the 2025 Work
Plan. The motion was approved by all members present with clerical correction as requested.
• ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:47am
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT January 9, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
PROJECT
ZBA240022
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 339 Wood St
Owner/ Petitioner: Kirt Trujillo
Zoning District: OT-B
Code Section: 2.1.6
Variance Request:
There are five requests associated with this variance application:
1. An after the fact request to allow for an existing carport to encroach 10 feet into the 15-foot required rear
setback.
2. An after the fact request to allow for an existing shed addition to encroach 3.5 feet into the 5-foot
required side setback.
3. An after the fact request to allow for an existing shed addition to encroach 10 feet into the 15-foot
required rear setback.
4. An after the fact request to allow for an accessory structure/carport to be placed 4 feet from the primary
dwelling. The minimum required distance between an accessory structure and primary dwelling is 5 feet.
5. A request to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of the lot. There is a total of 949
square feet of floor area currently building on the rear half of the property. The maximum allowable floor
arear for the rear half of this lot is 702 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable
rear-half floor area by 247 square feet.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was annexed and platted into the City part of the Capitol Hill Addition annexation in 1907. The
primary building was constructed in 1954. The original subdivision included the parcel to the west and the
subject parcel as on single lot. It was divided into two parcels, and both are smaller than the required
minimum lot size in the OT-B zone district.
The property is at the corner of Cherry and Wood Street. The front door of the primary building faces Wood
Street making the east property line the front. Opposite the front property line is the west property and
therefore the rear property line. In time two accessory structures were built behind the house without
permits. Both structures encroach into the rear-yard setback and the shed additionally encroaches into the
side setback.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good
• The property is a corner property and access to the rear yard from both Wood and Cherry Streets.
• The abutting property to the west is only required to be setback from the shared property line by 5
feet.
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 2
• The lot size is smaller than the required size for the lot.
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 and 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 a practical difficulty upon the
applicant.
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA240022.
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT January 9, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA240032
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 3521 Wild View Dr
Owner: The BCF Family Trust
Petitioner: Brandon Farmer
Zoning District: L-M-N
Code Section: 2.2.0
Variance Request:
This is a request for a variance to allow for a proposed 247 square foot accessory structure (covered patio) to
encroach 3 feet into the required rear setback. The minimum rear setback for this property in the LMN zone is 8
feet.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property is part of the Fossil Lake PUD second filing. It received development approval in 2001 from Larimer
County. It was annexed into the City in 2002. The City maintained the approvals granted by the County to develop the
lot as single unit residential. In 2008 the primary building was constructed.
The original approval by the County required 15-foot rear yard setbacks. At the time it was annexed into the City the
subdivision was zoned LMN which allows for 8-foot rear yard setbacks. However, the City did not change the 15-foot
rear yard setback without a new development application. In this case the applicant did submit a Minor Amendment to
reduce the rear yard setback to 8 feet. This application was approved. The applicant is now requesting a variance to
reduce the rear setback to 5 feet.
Also, part of the original development approval was a plat. This plat included easements on the property. This is a 6-
foot drainage and Utility easement along the rear property line of this lot. This easement is still in place.
The proposed structure is open on all four sides. It is shielded by a 6-foot fence that encloses the rear yard.
A building permit is not required for most play structures. The application points out a play structure exists approximately
in the same area of the proposed patio cover. This play structure did not require a permit.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval of a 2-foot encroachment and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The proposed structure is open on four sides.
• The 2-foot encroachment does not extend into the existing easement.
• A similar sized structure exists in the same location.
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 partial approval of APPEAL ZBA240032.
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT January 9, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA240034
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 1516 Remington St
Owner: Casa Forte Investments LLC
Petitioner: Maurizio Campana
Zoning District: OT-A
Code Section: 2.1.6, 3.1.8
Variance Request:
There are two requests associated with this variance application:
1. A request to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of the lot. There is a total of 5,789
square feet of floor area currently built on the rear half of the property. The proposed remodel of the
primary structure and addition of a new detached accessory building will result in a total of 5,244 square
feet of floor area on the rear half of the lot. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of this lot
is 2,125 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area r ear-half floor area by
3,119 square feet.
2. A request to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory structure. The
proposed detached garage is 972 square feet. The maximum allowable floor area for a detached
accessory structure is 600 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for
an accessory structure by 372 square feet.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property is a part the of the LC Moores annexation and plat of 1923. The primary building was
constructed in 1940 as a single unit residence. The house included an attached garage that in time was
converted into living space. Then in 1957 an addition was built and the single unit residence and changed
the use into a sorority house. It has also served as a group home for children. In recent years it has been
vacant and purchased by the applicant to convert it back to a single unit residence.
In the OT-A zone district the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. This lot is 17,000 square feet in size.
The primary building was constructed mostly on the rear half of the lot. The building is considered to be
individually eligible for Landmark designation for its example of Moderne design.
The proposed design seeks to continue to preserve this eligibility. These changes would remove some
embellishments that occurred in time to the front of the building restoring its 1940 appearance. Additionally,
the changes will be to the rear of the building so as not to detract from the historic nature of the front of the
building.
The overall proposal reduces the amount of floor area in the rear of the lot. Removing a portion of the 1957
two-story addition reduces the floor area. The proposed garage being one story will be smaller in floor area
then what is being removed.
In the OT-A accessory buildings are limited to 600 square feet of floor area. However, more than one
accessory building can be built. In this case the applicant is seeking to increase the accessory structure to
avoid building another building.
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 - Page 2
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 2.10.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The existing eligible building was originally built mostly in the rear half of the lot
• There will be a reduction of floor area in the rear half of the lot
• The lot size is significantly larger than the minimum lot size
• The zone setbacks will be maintained.
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 ZBA240034.
December 19, 2024
Mr. Noah Beals, AICP
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: 1516 Remington Remodel
1516 Remington Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No. 2443
Dear Noah:
The intent of this letter is to provide the justification for two variance requests regarding the proposed remodel of 1516
Remington Street. The existing structure was constructed in 1940 in the Moderne Style on lots three and four of Block 7 in
the L.C. Moore’s 2nd Addition by Edward Curtis. It was later sold in 1952 where it was utilized by several sororities and
fraternities until it was purchased by the Applicant in 2024. Multiple additions were added to the original structure over the
years including a 2-story addition to the southeast and a one-story addition to the northwest of the house.
The scope of the remodel intends to change the use of the existing structure back to a single-family detached residence
including the removal of a majority of the non-original additions and includes a proposed detached 2-car garage structure.
The original house was constructed on two, 50’ x 170’ lots and was sited approximately 68 feet off the Remington Street front
yard street frontage, as is the case for both adjacent properties. The total area of the double lots is 17,000 SF and the existing
2-story structure is 6,444 SF on the main and upper levels with a 1,570 SF partial basement for a total of 8,014 SF. The
proposed remodel includes removing 1,459 SF of area from the existing structure and adding a new 972 SF detached 2-car
garage for a total of 5,957 SF above grade.
1st Variance Request: Article 2, Section 2.1.6 Floor Area – Rear Lot Area
The rationale for requesting this variance is that it is a Hardship since only 9.1% of the existing structure was constructed on
the front half of the lot with the approximately 68’ setback from the front yard setback along Remington Steet. In addition,
this is how the adjacent properties are situated. Therefore, conforming with the Rear Lot Area would be a divergence from
the character of the neighborhood.
2nd Variance Request: Article 2, Section 3.1.8, Detached Accessory Structure Floor Area: 600 SF max.
The proposed detached garage is 972 SF which exceeds the 600 SF maximum area. The rationale for this variance request is
that it is Equal to or Better Than and Nominal and Inconsequential in context of this property as the Owner could choose to
attach the proposed garage, there would not be a restriction to the size of the garage, and it would not appear any different.
The overall size of the double lot at 17,000 SF lot is nearly four times the 4,500 SF lot minimum for the OT-A district and this
size of property has the space available for this other multiple accessory structures alternatively.
Sincerely,
alm2s
Reed Good, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
^
d
<
ϱΖ
Ͳ
Ϭ
Η
^ d<
ϱΖͲϬΗ
Z
D
/
E
'
d
K
E
^
d
Z
d
>
>
z
E t'Z'
ϵϳϮ^Y&d
DK
ϭϬϯ^Y&d
DK y/^d/E'
ϭϯϵϴ^Y&ddKd>
E tZ/s tz
ϲϴϴ^Y&d
y/^d/E'Z/s
dKZ D/E
y/^d/E't><
y/^d/E'ϰ͕ϮϳϮ^Y&d
ϮͲ^dKZz,KD dKZ D/E
y/^d/E't><
dK DK
y/^d/E't><dKZ D/E
WZKWK^ WKK>Z
^, >/E /E/d ^ϱϬй>KdZ
ϮͲ^dKZzWKZd/KE
K& y/^d/E'
h/>/E'
ϮͲ^dKZzWKZd/KEK&
y/^d/E'h/>/E'
y/^d/E't><
dKZ D/E
y/^d/E't><
dKZ D/E
WZKWK^
KhdKKZ
KhZdzZ
ϭϬ
Ϭ
Ζ
Ͳ
Ϭ
Η
^
d
<
ϱΖ
Ͳ
Ϭ
Η
ϭϳϬΖͲϬΗ
^ d<
ϭϱΖͲϬΗ
ϴϱΖͲϬΗ ϴϱΖͲϬΗ
y/^d/E'
ϮͲ^dKZz,KD dK
Z D/E
DK
ϭϭϵ^Y&d
>Eh^ K Z Yh/Z D Ed^
KE/E'͗KdͲ
^ d<^͗
&ZKEd͗ϭϱΖD/E͘
^/ ͗ϱΖD/E͘
Z Z͗ϱΖD/E͘
Dy, /',d͗
^^KZzh/>/E';EKE,/d>Ϳ͗ϮϬΖDy
h/>/E', /',d͗ϯϱΖDy
&ZKEdWKZ,͗ϭ^dKZzDy
&>KKZZ Ͳ Z Z>KdZ ͗
KdͲ͗ϮϱйDyK&Z ZϱϬй>KdZ
>KdZ ͗
ϭϳϬΖyϭϬϬΖсϭϳ͕ϬϬϬ^Y&d
Z Z,>&>KdZ ͗
ϴ͕ϱϬϬ^Y&d
DyϮϱйh/>> ͗
Ϯ͕ϭϮϱ^Y&d
dKd>Z y/^d/E'WZKWK^
^ D Ed
&/Z^d&>KKZ
^ KE&>KKZ
'Z'
ϭ͕ϱϳϬ^Y&d ϭ͕ϱϳϬ^Y&d
ϵ͕ϵϮϴ^Y&d
ϯ͕ϲϬϰ^Y&d
ϭϬ͕ϭϮϵ^Y&d
Ϯ͕ϳϲϰ^Y&d
Ͳϲϭϵ^Y&dϮ͕ϮϮϭ^Y&dϮ͕ϴϰϬ^Y&d
ϵϳϮ^Y&d нϵϳϮ^Y&d
dKd>
нͬͲ Ϭ^Y&d
ͲϴϰϬ^Y&d
нϮϬϭ^Y&d
^Y&dнͬͲ
Ϭ^Y&d
Z ZϱϬйZ WZKWK^ Z DKs
&/Z^d&>KKZ
^ KE&>KKZ
'Z'
ϭ͕ϱϭϳ^Y&d
Ͳϳϱϴ͘ϱ^Y&d
нϵϳϮ^Y&d
dKd>
Ͳϳϱϴ͘ϱ^Y&d
^Y&dнͬͲWZKWK^
ϳϱϴ͘ϱ^Y&d
ϳϱϴ͘ϱ^Y&d
ϵϳϮ^Y&dϬ^Y&d
ϵϳϮ^Y&d
Ϭ^Y&d
Ϭ^Y&d
Ͳϱϰϱ^Y&d
Z/s tz ϭ͕ϵϭϰ^Y&d Ϯ͕ϲϬϮ^Y&d нϲϴϴ^Y&d
ϱ͕ϳϴϵ^Y&d; y/^d/E'^dZhdhZ KEZ Z>KdͿͬϴ͕ϱϬϬ^Y&d;,>&>KdZ Ϳсϲϴ͘ϭй
ϱ͕Ϯϰϰ^Y&d;WZKWK^ ,Kh^ Θ'Z' KEZ Z>KdͿͬϴ͕ϱϬϬ^Y&d;,>&>KdZ Ϳсϲϭ͘ϳй
y/^d/E'dKZ D/E
Ϯ͕ϭϯϲ^Y&d
Ϯ͕ϭϯϲ^Y&d
Ϭ^Y&d
ϰ͕ϮϳϮ^Y&d
dKd>WZKWK^ ,Kh^ Θ'Z' KEZ Z>Kd͗ϱ͕Ϯϰϰ^Y&d
Ϭ
ϭͬ
Ϯ Η
ϭΗ
ϮΗ
WƌŽũĞĐƚ
ĂƚĞ
ƌĂǁŶ
ϭϮϯEŽůůĞŐĞǀĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϬϰ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰ
;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬ
ǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵ
WZ
/
E
d
&/
>
>
K
d
/
K
E
͗
Ξ
Ăů
ŵ
Ϯ
Ɛ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
EKd&KZKE^dZhd/KE
Ƶ
ƚ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
Ɛ
Ŭ
Ž
Đ
Ɛ
͗
ͬ
ͬ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϰ
ϯ
Ͳ
ϭ
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Ŷ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
ů
ͬ
ϭ
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Ŷ
Z
Ğ
ŵŽ
Ě
Ğ
ů
͘
ƌ
ǀ
ƚ
ϭϮ
ͬ
ϭ
ϵ
ͬ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϰ
͗
Ϭ
ϵ
͗
ϭ
Ϯ
W
D
Z,/d dhZ>^/d W>E
Ϯϰϰϯ
ĂůŵϮƐ
ϭϮ͘ϭϵ͘ϮϬϮϰ
Ϭ͘ϱ
>
>
/
^
/
D
K
/
E
͘
ϭϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
D
/
E
'
d
K
E
^
d
͘
͕
&
K
Z
d
K
>
>
/
E
^
Z
D
/
E
'
d
K
E
Z
D
K
>
^> ͗
E
ϭΗсϭϬΖͲϬΗ
^/d W>E
EŽ͘ /ƐƐƵĞ ĂƚĞ
WƌŽũĞĐƚ
ĂƚĞ
ƌĂǁŶ
ϭϮϯEŽůůĞŐĞǀĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϬϰ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰ
;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬ
ǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵ
WZ
/
E
d
&/
>
>
K
d
/
K
E
͗
Ξ
Ăů
ŵ
Ϯ
Ɛ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
EKd&KZKE^dZhd/KE
Ƶ
ƚ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
Ɛ
Ŭ
Ž
Đ
Ɛ
͗
ͬ
ͬ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϰ
ϯ
Ͳ
ϭ
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Ŷ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
ů
ͬ
ϭ
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Ŷ
Z
Ğ
ŵŽ
Ě
Ğ
ů
͘
ƌ
ǀ
ƚ
ϭϮ
ͬ
ϭ
ϴ
ͬ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϯ
͗
ϱ
ϭ
͗
ϯ
ϭ
W
D
y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^
Ϯϰϰϯ
ƵƚŚŽƌ
ϭϮͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϰ
ϭͲϬϮ
>
>
/
^
/
D
K
/
E
͘
ϭϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
D
/
E
'
d
K
E
^
d
͘
͕
&
K
Z
d
K
>
>
/
E
^
Z
D
/
E
'
d
K
E
Z
D
K
>
^> ͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϮ
ϭ y/^d/E'^Khd,t ^ds/ t
^> ͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϮ
Ϯ y/^d/E' ^ds/ t
^> ͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϮ
ϯ y/^d/E'^Khd, ^ds/ t
EŽ͘ /ƐƐƵĞ ĂƚĞ
^> ͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϮ
ϰ y/^d/E'EKZd, ^ds/ t
^> ͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϮ
ϱ y/^d/E't ^ds/ t
E tWKZd,K> t/EKt
E t E>Z' t/EKt
KW E/E'Ks EdZz
E t EdZzKKZ;><ͬ&ZK^d '>^^Ϳ
E ttZWͲZKhE
KZE Zt/EKt
E tD d>Z/>/E'^d
WZW dt>>
E tKEZ d ^d W^ͬ
>E/E'd&ZKEdKKZ
E tD d>&^/
;><ͿKs EdZz
E tD d>KW/E'
W^;><ͿdWZW d
t>>^͕dzW/>
E tKtE>/',d&/ydhZ
;><Ϳ
E tt/EKt^;><&ZD ^Ϳd,ZhͲKhd
d y/^d/E'>Kd/KE^͕hEK
E t^dhK^z^d D
d,ZhͲKhd;>/',dͿ
y/^d/E'Z/<
s E ZdKZ D/E
y/^d/E''>^^>K<dKZ D/E;s/&Ϳ
y/^d/E'Z/<s E Z
KZE Z EddKZ D/E
E tZ/<t/EKt^/>>
dKDd, y/^d/E'
y/^d/E'Z/<t/EKt^/>>^
dKZ D/E
ϮϮ
Ζ
Ͳ
ϲ
Η
ϭϭ
Ζ
Ͳ
ϭ
Ϭ
Η
E t'>^^>K<dK
Dd, y/^d/E'
E tt/EKt
KW E/E'd^d/Z
E tZ/<s E ZKZE Z
EddKDd,
y/^d/E';s/&Ϳ
y/^d/E'Z/<s E Z
KZE Z EddKZ D/E
E tt/EKt^;><&ZD ^Ϳ
d,ZhͲKhdd y/^d/E'
>Kd/KE^͕hEK
E t^dhK^z^d D
d,ZhͲKhd;>/',dͿ
E tD d>KW/E'W^
;><ͿdWZW dt>>^͕
dzW/>
ϮϮ
Ζ
Ͳ
ϲ
Η
y/^d/E'Z/<s E Z
dKZ D/E
ϮϮ
Ζ
Ͳ
ϲ
Η
E t > D d Z
E tKW Z>
^>//E''>^^t>>
;><&ZD Ϳ
E t'^D d Z͕
E tD d>Z/>/E'^d
WZW dt>>
E tWKZd,K>
t/EKt
E tEd/> s Z D d>
EKWz;><Ϳ
E ttZWͲZKhE
KZE Zt/EKt
E tZ/<s E ZKZE Z
EddKDd, y/^d/E'
E tZ/<s E ZKZE Z
EddKDd, y/^d/E'
E tD d>Z/>/E'
dKKZKW E/E'
E tKtE>/',d&/ydhZ
;><Ϳ
E tZ/<t/EKt^/>>dK
Dd, y/^d/E'
E tt/EKt^;><
&ZD ^Ϳd,ZhͲKhdd
y/^d/E'>Kd/KE^͕hEK
E t^dhK^z^d Dd,ZhͲKhd
;>/',dͿ
y/^d/E'Z/<s E ZdK
Z D/E
ϭϭ
Ζ
Ͳ
ϰ
Η
Ϯϭ
Ζ
Ͳ
Ϯ
Η
ϵΖ
Ͳ
ϴ
Η
E tDEͲKKZ;Z<'ZzͿE tKh> DEͲKKZ
;Z<'ZzͿ
E tD d>Ks Z,E'
;><Ϳ dt Eh/>/E'^
E t'Z' KKZ
t/d,s/^/KEWE >
;Z<'ZzͿ
E ttZWͲZKhE
KZE Zt/EKt y/^d/E'Z/<s E Z
KZE Z EddKZ D/E
E tD d>&^/;><Ϳ
Ks EdZz
E tKEZ d ^d W^ͬ
>E/E'd&ZKEdKKZ
E ttZWͲZKhE
KZE Zt/EKt
E tD d>Z/>/E'^d
WZW dt>>
E tKtE>/',d
&/ydhZ ;><Ϳ
y/^d/E'Z/<s E Z
dKZ D/E
E tZ/<s E ZKZE Z
EddKDd, y/^d/E'
E tZ/<t/EKt^/>>dK
Dd, y/^d/E'
E tEd/> s Z D d>
EKWz;><Ϳ
E t^dhK^z^d Dd,ZhͲKhd
;>/',dͿ
E tt/EKt^;><&ZD ^Ϳ
d,ZhͲKhdd y/^d/E'
>Kd/KE^͕hEK
E tKh> DEͲKKZ
;Z<'ZzͿ
ϭϬ
Ζ
Ͳ
ϲ
Η
E t'Z' KKZ
t/d,s/^/KEWE >
;Z<'ZzͿ
E t^dhK^z^d D
d,ZhͲKhd;>/',dͿ
E tD d>KW/E'W^;><Ϳ
dWZW dt>>^͕dzW/>
E tKtE>/',d
&/ydhZ ;><Ϳ
E tDEͲKKZ
;Z<'ZzͿ
ϭϬ
Ζ
Ͳ
ϲ
Η
E t^dhK^z^d D
d,ZhͲKhd;>/',dͿ
E tD d>KW/E'W^
;><ͿdWZW dt>>^͕
dzW/>
E tKtE>/',d
&/ydhZ ;><Ϳ
E tDEͲKKZ
;Z<'ZzͿ
E t'Z' KKZ
t/d,s/^/KEWE >
;Z<'ZzͿ
ϭϬ
Ζ
Ͳ
ϲ
Η
E tKtE>/',d
&/ydhZ ;><Ϳ
E t^dhK^z^d D
d,ZhͲKhd;>/',dͿ
E tD d>Ks Z,E'
;><Ϳ dt E
h/>/E'^
ϭϬ
Ζ
Ͳ
ϲ
Η
E t^dhK^z^d D
d,ZhͲKhd;>/',dͿ
E tD d>KW/E'W^
;><ͿdWZW d
t>>^͕dzW/>
WƌŽũĞĐƚ
ĂƚĞ
ƌĂǁŶ
ϭϮϯEŽůůĞŐĞǀĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϬϰ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰ
;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬ
ǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵ
WZ
/
E
d
&/
>
>
K
d
/
K
E
͗
Ξ
Ăů
ŵ
Ϯ
Ɛ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
EKd&KZKE^dZhd/KE
Ƶ
ƚ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
Ɛ
Ŭ
Ž
Đ
Ɛ
͗
ͬ
ͬ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϰ
ϯ
Ͳ
ϭ
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Ŷ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
ů
ͬ
ϭ
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Ŷ
Z
Ğ
ŵŽ
Ě
Ğ
ů
͘
ƌ
ǀ
ƚ
ϭϮ
ͬ
ϭ
ϴ
ͬ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϯ
͗
ϭ
ϵ
͗
ϯ
ϵ
W
D
WZKWK^ h/>/E'
> sd/KE^
Ϯϰϰϯ
ƵƚŚŽƌ
ϭϮͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϰ
ϭͲϬϯ
>
>
/
^
/
D
K
/
E
͘
ϭϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
D
/
E
'
d
K
E
^
d
͘
͕
&
K
Z
d
K
>
>
/
E
^
Z
D
/
E
'
d
K
E
Z
D
K
>
EŽ͘ /ƐƐƵĞ ĂƚĞ
^> ͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϯ
ϭ W>EE/E' > sd/KEͲ Z ^/ E Ͳ t ^d
^> ͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϯ
Ϯ W>EE/E' > sd/KEͲ Z ^/ E Ͳ ^Khd,
^> ͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϯ
ϯ W>EE/E' > sd/KEͲ Z ^/ E Ͳ ^d
^> ͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϯ
ϰ W>EE/E' > sd/KEͲ Z ^/ E Ͳ EKZd,
^> ͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϯ
ϱ W>EE/E' > sd/KEͲ 'Z' Ͳ ^d
^> ͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϯ
ϲ W>EE/E' > sd/KEͲ 'Z' Ͳ ^Khd,
^> ͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϯ
ϳ W>EE/E' > sd/KEͲ 'Z' Ͳ t ^d
^> ͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭͲϬϯ
ϴ W>EE/E' > sd/KEͲ 'Z' Ͳ EKZd,
WƌŽũĞĐƚ
ĂƚĞ
ƌĂǁŶ
ϭϮϯEŽůůĞŐĞǀĞ͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϬϰ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϰ
;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬ
ǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵ
WZ
/
E
d
&/
>
>
K
d
/
K
E
͗
Ξ
Ăů
ŵ
Ϯ
Ɛ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
EKd&KZKE^dZhd/KE
Ƶ
ƚ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
Ɛ
Ŭ
Ž
Đ
Ɛ
͗
ͬ
ͬ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϰ
ϯ
Ͳ
ϭ
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Ŷ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
Ž
Ě
Ğ
ů
ͬ
ϭ
ϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
Ğ
ŵ
ŝ
Ŷ
Ő
ƚ
Ž
Ŷ
Z
Ğ
ŵŽ
Ě
Ğ
ů
͘
ƌ
ǀ
ƚ
ϭϮ
ͬ
ϭ
ϴ
ͬ
Ϯ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
Ϯ
͗
Ϯ
Ϭ
͗
Ϭ
ϴ
W
D
yd Z/KZϯW Z^W d/s ^
Ϯϰϰϯ
ƵƚŚŽƌ
ϭϮͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϰ
ϭͲϬϰ
>
>
/
^
/
D
K
/
E
͘
ϭϱ
ϭ
ϲ
Z
D
/
E
'
d
K
E
^
d
͘
͕
&
K
Z
d
K
>
>
/
E
^
Z
D
/
E
'
d
K
E
Z
D
K
>
^> ͗ϭͲϬϰ
ϭ yd Z/KZW>EE/E'W Z^W d/s Ͳ ^Khd,t ^d
^> ͗ϭͲϬϰ
Ϯ yd Z/KZW>EE/E'W Z^W d/s Ͳ EKZd,t ^d
^> ͗ϭͲϬϰ
ϯ yd Z/KZW>EE/E'W Z^W d/s Ͳ EKZd, ^d
EŽ͘ /ƐƐƵĞ ĂƚĞ
ANNUAL REPORT
City of Fort Collins
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
2024 Annual Report
BACKGROUND:
The Land Use Review Commission (LURC) consists of seven members. Meetings were held
the second Thursday of every month in-person. The Commission may also meet as needed
in order to convene special meetings but did not do so in 2023.
The commission members who served in 2023 were: Ian Shuff, David Carron, John McCoy,
Dave Lawton, Nathanial Coffman, Philip San Filippo, and Katie Vogel. The annual election of
officers resulted in Ian Shuff being elected as Chair and Dave Lawton as Vice-Chair.
City Council liaison to the Board during 2023 was Shirley Peel from January to March, and
Julie Pignataro from April to December. Staff support was provided by Noah Beals, Justin
Moore, Kory Katsimpalis, Sharlene Manno, Brad Yatabe, Madelene Shehan, and Cyril
Vidergar.
2024 YEAR IN REVIEW:
Thirty-four (34) applications for variances to the Land Use Code were submitted to the LURC
in 2024. In comparison, the number of applications for variances was thirty-one (31) in 2023;
thirty-one (31) in 2022; forty-nine (49) in 2021; fifty-five (55) in 2020, forty-six (46) in 2019,
forty-seven (47) in 2018; thirty-eight (38) in 2017; forty-one (41) in 2016; fifty-one (51) in 2015;
thirty-five (35) in 2014 and twenty-seven (27) in 2013.
During 2024, of the 34 variance requests submitted, twenty-one (21) were approved; three (3)
were denied; three (3) were approved with specific conditions; (1) was tabled to a later date
and three (3) were withdrawn by the applicant prior to their scheduled hearing. Three (3)
applications made in 2024 were scheduled to be heard by the Commission during the January
2025 hearing.