Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 03/13/20253/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 1 Land Use Review Commission REGULAR MEETING Thursday, March 13, 2025 – 8:30 AM City Council Chambers, City Hall – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 1. CALL TO ORDER: 8:30 AM 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present – Carron, Lawton, McCoy, Shuff Board Members Absent – Coffman, San Filippo, Vogel Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Madelene Shehan Guest(s) – NONE 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by Carron, to approve the February 13, 2025, Minutes as written. The motion passed by all members present. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -NONE- 5. VARIANCE REQUESTS a. APPEAL ZBA250002 Address: 1105 W Mountain Ave Owner: Timock Family Rentals LLC Petitioner: Taylor Meyer, Architect, VFLA Architecture + Interiors Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a proposed 3,007 square-foot detached house. The maximum allowable floor area for a detached house in the OT-A Zone District is 2,400 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 607 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of W Mountain Ave and S Shields St. The request is for a new single-unit home to be constructed; the existing single-unit home would be demolished. The home would meet side and rear setbacks and would continue to use the existing alley access for vehicles. The driveway would be extended, and a new carport built over a portion of the driveway. The request is to exceed the allowable maximum floor area for this Zone District, which is limited to 2,400 square feet. The area which exceeds the allowable floor area is noted in floor plans; any area that exceeds ceiling height of greater than 14 feet in height is counted at 200% of floor area. Beals described the room in which the floor height exceeds the 14-foot height, noting that it supports an attic space which will not be finished. Elevations describe the portion of the room that goes above 14 feet, noting that it is not a full flat ceiling height, but instead tapers in both directions from maximum height down to 14 feet. Event with the attic space, the 3/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 2 structure does not exceed the overall allowable height for this Zone District. The structure could comply by maintaining a consistent 14-foot ceiling height throughout, which would not change the exterior dimensions. Renderings of the interior of the structure show the angled ceiling element that is intended. Beals also presented photographs of the existing home that would be demolished. Chair Shuff mentioned for the record that he does know the applicant, but that will not affect his decision regarding the appeal. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Taylor Meyer, Architect, VFLA Architecture + Interiors, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Meyer stated that the biggest point they would like to convey is the fact that regardless of approval or denial, the exterior dimensions and massing of the new home will not change. If approved, the homeowners will get to enjoy a slightly larger space/ceiling within their kitchen and dining area. If denied, truss designs can be adjusted, though it may feel unnatural as the rest of the interior ceiling in that space are sloping. Meyer offered a slight correction to his written statement: it notes that the peak of the ceiling was measured at 17 feet 3inches, which was based on earlier measurements. It is now correctly measured and noted at 16 feet 2 inches, representing a net increase of 2 feet 2 inches above allowable maximum of 14 feet. If flat-bottomed trusses were employed, the floor area of the house would be calculated as being under the maximum allowable floor area of 2,400 square feet. Again, exterior dimensions would not change with approval or denial. Vice-Chair Lawton confirmed this is an attempt to maintain the vaulted ceiling design and does not affect intended attic storage or other elements of the home. Public Comment: Steve Conrad, 1101 W Mountain Ave, spoke in support of the applicant. Conrad cited the lack of change to massing, noting that the project was amenable from a neighbor perspective and has been well developed. Commission Discussion: Vice-Chair Lawton noted the new design appears to have a lot of the same aesthetic elements of the current house that will be demolished. It doesn’t pose problems to the neighborhood, doesn’t exceed allowable floor area, and doesn’t increase massing. Lawton would fully support the variance request. Commission member Carron agrees, noting that the overall massing would not be impacted. Chair Shuff agrees with previous comments, noting that this is more of a function of the way that floor area measurements are made according to current Code. Shuff stated that he would support the variance. Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lawton to APPROVE ZBA250002, regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Sections 2.1.6 to allow the allowable floor area for a detached house in the OT-A Zone District to exceed the maximum of 2,400 square feet by an additional 607 square feet in order to construct a detached home 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 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 proposed building does not exceed the allowable building height; and the subject area slopes from 16 feet 2 inches and is only less than 5% of the total floor area. 3/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 3 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, Shuff, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman, San Filippo, Vogel b. APPEAL ZBA250003 Address: 1125 S Shields St Owner/Petitioner: Richard & Cynthia Previte Zoning District: OT-C and MMN Code Section: 4.3.5(C)(6) Project Description: This is a request to replace the existing six-foot fence with an eight-foot fence along the rear (west) and side (north) property lines. The maximum allowable fence height for a fence within any required rear- or side-yard setback is six feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable fence height in these areas by two feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of Westward Dr and S Shields St. The request is to build a fence that exceeds 6-feet with a new fence at a height of 8 feet. When platted, the property was platted with a property line that zig- zagged between the two. Later property line adjustments straightened the parcel lines a bit (but not the lot lines), with some bump-outs to allow for the placement of an accessory building. The applicant called out some security issues that have occurred in the past with intrusions into the property, with instances of trespassing over or through the existing six-foot fence. Beals noted that fence regulations do not allow a fence-height higher than four feet anywhere along the front line of the property. Behind the front line, a fence can reach a maximum height of six feet. If the Commission were to approve the appeal, staff recommends that the 8-foot height only be allowed in sections behind the front of the home. With a fence exceeding 6 feet, the next step would be to obtain a building permit. That permitting process would verify that the fence sits entirely within their property line. Photographs of the property and existing fence were presented, detailing some of the damage that has occurred to the existing fence due to forced intrusion and trespass activities. Aerial views show the commercial properties and multi-unit properties that are adjacent to the subject parcel. Chair Shuff asked if a cedar fence is intended for the requested new fence addition; Shuff will anticipate a clarification from applications during their presentation. Commission member Carron asked if there are any instances where 8-foot fences are allowed? Beals responded that the standard allowable fence height city-wide is 6 feet, and no barbed-wire or chain-link fence is allowed anywhere in the city. Applicant Presentation: Applicants Richard and Cynthia (Cindy) Previte, owners, 1125 S Shields St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Richard Previte stated that they have owned the property a little over 20 years. When they purchased, they remodeled the house interior without changing any of the exterior walls. The property at on 3/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 4 point extended from Shields to City Park; in 2000, the previous owners sold off a portion of the original 2-plus acre parcel, leaving the remaining 1-plus acre parcel they currently own. Several weeks ago, the Prevites experienced their latest in a series of intrusions into the property, wherein an individual came through by kicking in the fence and believed it may not have been the first time this individual entered the property. Security systems picked up the disturbance, and the individual was seen walking through the property. The existing fence is now close to twenty years old and due for replacement. Cindy Previte noted that the replacement would be done with cedar fencing and use 4-inch x 6-inch posts due to the increased fence height. The new fence would match the remaining south fence. Richard Previte noted they may turn the fencing so that rails face inside so as to deter them from being used as footing to scale the fence by possible intruders. Vice-Chair Lawton asked the Prevites if they are ok with the recommended condition of limiting the eight-foot height to portions behind the front of the home. Lawton asked if trespassers are merely passing through? Prevites explained that they appear to be intoxicated and/or likely burglars, as they have backpacks on. Individuals also appear to duck into the shadows when security lights and devices are triggered. Carron asked for clarification if a gate is present on the backside; Cynthia indicated that a well is present on the backside, underneath the multi-unit structure, which is not functional. The well is accessed through an easement agreement. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron doesn’t see an issue with the appeal, noting the difference in uses between the subject property and adjacent properties, also noting the seriousness of the past intrusions and trespassing activities. Vice-Chair Lawton agrees, adding that the fence and home are setback far enough so as to not create a noticeable visual impact from the street. Existing trees are also quite tall already along the property lines. This is a good plan to mitigate some of the nefarious traffic attempting to come through the property. Lawton stated that he is in favor of approval. Chair Shuff agrees with past comments and commends the applicants on maintain the existing beauty and design of the property. This type of approval may not be appropriate for every property that makes this type of request, but given the unique hardships and conditions present, this seems reasonable. Vice-Chair Lawton made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS ZBA250003, regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Sections 4.3.5(C)(6) to allow the allowable height for a fence within the required rear-yard and side-yard setback areas of a property to exceed the maximum of 6 feet by an additional 2 feet in order to install an 8-foot fence along the north and west property lines of a residential property, as shown in the materials for this hearing, with the following condition: the 8-foot height does not extend past the front of the house. The Commission finds that the variance, in consideration of the condition, would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance will not diverge from Section 4.3.5(C)(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 portions of fence being increased face the back of commercial buildings to the north and landscape area to the west. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. 3/13/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 5 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, Shuff, Lawton, Carron Nays: Absent: Coffman, San Filippo, Vogel 6. OTHER BUSINESS -Beals noted that we have three items for the agenda next month -Special thanks to members McCoy and Shuff, as this is their last meeting with the Land Use Review Commission, we appreciate your service -Richard Previte offered thanks to City Staff for their excellent work within the process. -Beals noted that Vice-Chair Lawton will lead the meeting next month; two new members will be appointed by City Council during the March 18 City Council meeting. Officers will be appointed during the May 2025 Regular Meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:17 AM. Minutes approved on April 10, 2025.