HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 01/09/2025 (2)1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 1
Land Use Review Commission
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, January 9, 2025 – 8:30 AM
City Council Chambers, City Hall – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
1. CALL TO ORDER: 8:30 AM
2. ROLL CALL
a. Board Members Present – McCoy, Coffman, Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Lawton, Carron
b. Board Members Absent - NONE
c. Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Madelene Shehan
d. Guest(s) – Stefanie Boster, Deputy City Attorney
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by member Coffman, to approve the
December 12, 2024, Minutes as written. The motion passed unanimously.
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.
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.
Docusign Envelope ID: DCA0971A-6783-45F4-AEF2-B9A529453912
1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 2
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the
property is on the corner of Wood St and Cherry St. There are other lots along Wood St that extend
all the way to the alley. This particular parcel was subdivided at some point, and no longer extends
to the alley. The lot is significantly smaller than others parcels along this block. Beals pointed out
the existing shed and carport structures. The carport is within the rear setback; the shed is within
both the rear setback and the side yard setback.
Code requires that accessory structures be placed a minimum of 5 feet from the primary structure.
The existing shed in question is about 4.5 feet from the primary structure. Additionally, within the
Old Town Zone Districts, there are rear floor area requirements. Both the shed and carport count
towards floor area and put the property over the allowance for rear-half floor area.
The applicant provided a site plan which noted distances between primary and accessory buildings,
as well as distances from setbacks/property lines. The drawings are to a rough scale but do
describe the relationship between the various structures.
The subject property does face onto Wood St; the existing driveway and carport take access from
Cherry St. The fence line is approximately located on the property line; for the subject property this
is a rear property line, while for the neighboring property the property line is considered a side
setback.
Chair Shuff asked Beals to clarify that the rear lot is functionally acting as a side yard. Beals
explained that we typically get a handful of similar requests each year, wherein the applicants’
corner lot has difficulty complying with the rear yard setback, treating the rear yard as a side yard.
Vice-Chair Lawton asked Beals to clarify whether or not these buildings are currently in place. Beals
confirms, noting the buildings are not permitted. Beals noted that he was unaware of what triggered
the inspection, but building inspectors did visit the property and verified that the buildings were
unpermitted. In the midst of obtaining a building permit, it was determined that zoning variances
would also need to be obtained prior to a building permit being issued.
*Beals paused presentations to allow for introductions of new City Attorney Stefanie Boster*
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Naomi Kirchner, daughter of Kirt Trujillo, owner, 339 Wood St, addressed
the Commission and offered comment. Kirchner stated the carport has been in place since 2011.
Neighbors had issue with chicken coop that was being built on the subject property, and their
complaint triggered inspection and revealed a need for after-the-fact permits and variance requests.
Kirchner stated her opinion that it would be detrimental to remove the carport, as it would take away
covered parking from her father, who is a senior citizen with limited mobility. Financially, it is not
feasible for the applicant to remove all existing accessory buildings.
Kirchner also explained that the current building permit expired on January 7, 2025; she stated that
she has been told it is on hold while the current variances are being determined.
Vice-Chair Lawton asked Kirchner for clarification. Were accessory buildings in place prior to
ownership? Kirchner stated the structures were previously built by her grandmother, who formerly
lived in the home, and her father, around 2011
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Docusign Envelope ID: DCA0971A-6783-45F4-AEF2-B9A529453912
1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 3
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman sees no problem with the variance. The structures have been in
place for many years. There is a clear hardship given size of the lot and rear setback. Coffman
stated he would support approval of the variance request.
Vice-Chair Lawton agrees. The size of the house next to the subject property is very big, and
dwarfs anything in place on the subject property. Additionally, there is no history of complaints.
Lawton feels that the existing accessory buildings serve clear purposes.
Commission member Carron commented that the existing dwelling is set far back from Wood St;
had it been built closer this wouldn’t even be an issue. Carron stated he would support approval of
the variance request. Based on the aerial photographs, the existing structures are consistent with
the character of the neighborhood
Commission member San Filippo noted that the age and infirmity of the occupants lends itself to
needing covered parking and access to the rear of the house. He would support the variance.
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE
ZBA240022, PART 1 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Sections 2.1.6 and
3.1.8 to allow: a carport to encroach 10 feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 15
feet, and 4 feet into the minimum required distance of 5 feet between an accessory structure
and a primary dwelling; and to allow the allowable floor are on the rear half of the lot to
exceed the maximum of 702 square feet by an additional 247 square feet, in order to bring
the pre-existing carport on the applicant’s property in the OT-B zone district into compliance
as shown in the materials for this hearing.
The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the
variance will not diverge from Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 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 property is a corner
property and access to the rear yard is possible from both Wood Street and Cherry Street;
the abutting property to the west is only required to be setback from the shared property line
by 5 feet; and the lot size is smaller than required.
Additionally, the strict application of Section 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 would result in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the applicant not caused by an
act or omission of the applicant.
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented
during this 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 his hearing.
Yeas: McCoy, Coffman, Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Lawton, Carron
Nays:
Absent:
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE
ZBA240022, PART 2 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to
allow: a shed to encroach 3.5 feet into minimum side setback requirement of 5 feet, and 10
feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 15 feet; in order to bring the pre-existing
shed on the applicant’s property in the OT-B zone district into compliance as shown in the
materials for this hearing.
Docusign Envelope ID: DCA0971A-6783-45F4-AEF2-B9A529453912
1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 4
The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the
variance request will not diverge from Section 2.1.6 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 property is a corner property and access to
the rear yard is possible from both Wood Street and Cherry Street; the abutting property to
the west is only required to be setback from the shared property line by 5 feet; and the lot
size is smaller than required.
Additionally, strict application of Section 2.1.6 would result in unusual and exceptional
practical difficulties and undue hardship upon the applicant not caused by an act or
omission of the applicant.
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented
during this 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 his hearing.
Yeas: McCoy, Coffman, Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Lawton, Carron
Nays:
Absent:
b. APPEAL ZBA240032
Address: 3521 Wild View Dr
Owner: The BCF Family Trust
Petitioner: Brandon Farmer
Zoning District: L-M-N
Code Section: 2.2.1
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.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the
property is mid-block just past Lake Ranch Rd, on Wild View Dr. The request is to construct a
covered patio in the location of an existing play structure.
The patio will have a hot tub, will be covered by a roof supported by four posts, and will be open on
all four sides. There is a 6-foot fence around the patio location as well. Beals presented aerial view
and photographs of the property and the proposed patio site.
The request came in for a 5-foot setback (encroachment of 10 feet). There is a 6-foot utility
easement, so the staff report recommendations is to encroach only to that easement.
Chair Shuff clarified the distinction between easement and setback. With a setback, roof
projections may enter. However, with an easement, all elements including roof projections must be
outside of that easement. Beals confirmed this distinction as accurate.
Docusign Envelope ID: DCA0971A-6783-45F4-AEF2-B9A529453912
1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 5
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Brandon Farmer, owner, 3521 Wild View Dr, addressed the Commission and offered
comment. Farmer stated that he wasn’t clear on the utility easement when first planning for the
patio, and that the easement was identified after the application was submitted. Any additional
footage that can be approved would be appreciated.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman noted that the Commission has seen a few types of these requests
recently, involving easements. Coffman stated that he would be in support of a 2-foot
encroachment as recommended by staff report.
Commission member Carron agreed with the comments of Coffman and would support approval.
Chair Shuff stated he would support approval of the variance request with a 2-foot encroachment.
Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by member Coffman to APPROVE
APPEAL ZBA240032 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.2.1 to
allow an encroachment of 2 feet into the minimum rear setback requirement of 8 feet in the
LMN zone district in order to construct a covered patio as shown in the materials for this
hearing.
The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and
the variance request will not diverge from Section 2.2.1 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 proposed structure is
open on four sides; and a similar sized structure exists in the same location; and a 2-foot
encroachment does not extend into the existing easement.
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented
during this 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 his hearing.
Yeas: McCoy, Coffman, Vogel, Shuff, San Filippo, Lawton, Carron
Nays:
Absent:
*Chair Shuff left the meeting at 9:00am due to a stated Conflict of Interest concerning Appeal
ZBA240034, noting that the architectural firm he is employed by is doing the work on the project.
The meeting was resumed at 9:02, with Vice-Chair Lawton as Acting Chair*
Docusign Envelope ID: DCA0971A-6783-45F4-AEF2-B9A529453912
1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 6
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.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting the
property is mid-block on Remington St between, just south of E Lake St.
When presenting the aerial view of the property, Beals noted that lots along this lot are similar size,
but are large lots compared to others in the Old Town area. There is a lot of area within with
structures could be placed.
The recent Land Use Code change took away an allowance for more floor area despite a larger lot.
This was done to incentivize the construction of more dwelling units on a given lot.
This property began as a single-family residence, then in time was converted into a sorority, then
later converted into a group home for youth. More recently it has been sitting vacant. The applicants
today have chosen to return the structure to a single-unit residence. Some existing features and
additions are to be removed, and a new detached accessory building is being proposed. The Land
Use Code limits the size of a detached accessory building, but the number of detached accessory
buildings is not limited by code. The applicant would like to exceed the 600 square foot limit for the
proposed accessory building. There is the possibility of creating multiple accessory buildings that
each would be below the maximum of 600 square feet, but the applicant’s desire is to limit the
number of detached accessory buildings to a single structure.
The request is to exceed the allowable floor area for an accessory building as well as to exceed the
floor area in the rear-half of the property.
The net floor area would be less than what is on the property today. This would be closer to
compliance, but still over allowable maximum stated by code. If one self-demolishes a non-
conforming structure, a variance is needed in order to bring back the structure as proposed.
Beals presented elevations and renderings of the proposed residence and accessory structures.
The accessory structure is proposed to be a single-story two-car garage with a single person door.
The design does anticipate the construction of a pool, which would be fully screened with new
fencing.
The current mansard roof would be removed in order to return the structure to its original
architectural style. The property is eligible for Historic designation, but because it is being used as a
Docusign Envelope ID: DCA0971A-6783-45F4-AEF2-B9A529453912
1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 7
single-unit home, Historic Preservation requirements do not have authority over proposed designs.
However, they have been contacted for input and guidance.
Commission member Carron is curious what changed at some point with the Land Use Code to
bring homes to the front of the lot, as many of the surrounding structures seem to be setback into
the rear of the lots. Beals notes that Land Use Code goes back to 1929, though building permits
were not required until the 1970s. Beals commented that when automobile ownership became more
popular, and thus garages were more commonly built, reducing the length of driveways and having
an attached garage of reduced size could be achieved by building closer to the alley. Carron asked
that because this is existing structure (non-conforming) is being rebuilt, the process to bring to
compliance is through variance. Beals explained that if nothing new was being built, no variance
would be required. The fact that a new garage is being built puts the lot out of compliance, along
with the size of the new garage.
Vice-Chair Lawton asked for clarification between what exists today and what is being constructed.
Beals noted that what is being demolished is a two-story structure, and the proposed is one-story.
That results in a net reduction of square footage.
Commission member Coffman asked Beals what the maximum allowable floor area for the entire
lot. Beals explained that we don’t have that specific standard anymore. The Primary structure in this
zone district is maxed out at 2,400 square feet. Each accessory building then has its own
maximum.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Reed Good, Architect, ALM2S, addressed the Commission and offered
comment. Good submitted and presented a brief PDF presentation containing additional
information. [Presentation was uploaded as a Supplemental Document after the meeting.]
Good described the portions of the residence that will be removed, noting that they are settling and
cracking and were previously used to support the function of the property as a group home. This will
also provide some additional yard space.
The original garage was built to 1940s standards and does not fit modern car sizes. The garage
being proposed would be a two-car garage. The existing garage would be converted to a pool
equipment storage room. Massing of the proposed garage is intended to match the architectural
style of the primary residence.
Vice-Chair Lawton calls out the remaining garage and asked about intended use. Good confirms it
no longer functions as a garage and will be converted to a storage room to support pool activities.
Public Comment:
Maurizio Campana, owner, 1516 Remington St, addressed the Commission and offered comment.
Campana stated he would also like to see this project move forward. Pointing out the character of
the block, all houses along this block of Remington are similarly pushed back towards the rear of
their respective lots.
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman noted that when considering rear floor area and maximum floor area
for an accessory building, there really isn’t a way to achieve compliance except with a complete
teardown; this isn’t feasible. The applicants could potentially build the garage as an attached
garage or two garages – this would not be equal to or better than what is being proposed. Coffman
stated he would be in support.
Commission member Carron agreed with comments put forth previously. Carron feels that it makes
sense to combine garage and pool shed into one structure. The proposed project fits the property
Docusign Envelope ID: DCA0971A-6783-45F4-AEF2-B9A529453912
1/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 8
well and allows for a vacant building to be occupied and used, which is a benefit to the public.
Carron would support the request and noted that it looks like a well-designed proposal.
Commission member McCoy noted the property has been on the market for a long time. McCoy is
surprised that there is no one in the audience here with issues regarding the historic nature of the
structures.
Commission member San Filippo noted the lot is three times larger than what is required. Currently,
the structure is an eyesore, so this project is well designed and well received. San Filippo is in
support of approving the variance request.
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE
ZBA240034 regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 to
allow: the allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot to exceed the maximum of 2,125
square feet by an additional 3,119 square feet; and the allowable floor area for a detached
accessory structure to exceed the maximum of 600 square feet by an additional 372 square
feet, in order to remodel a primary structure and construct a detached garage in the OT-A
zone district as shown in the materials for this hearing.
The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the
variance request will not diverge from Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 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 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;
and the zone setbacks will be maintained.
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented
during this 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 his hearing.
Yeas: McCoy, Coffman, Vogel, San Filippo, Lawton, Carron
Nays:
Absent: Shuff (excused, Conflict of Interest)
7. OTHER BUSINESS
-Review and Approval of the 2024 Annual Report.
Commission member Coffman made a motion to approve, seconded by member Carron.
The motion passed unanimously.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 AM.
Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Board/Commission on 2/13/2025
Signature:
Docusign Envelope ID: DCA0971A-6783-45F4-AEF2-B9A529453912
February 13, 2025