Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 06/12/2025 (2)6/12/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 1 Land Use Review Commission REGULAR MEETING Thursday, June 12, 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 – Gupta, San Filippo, Lawton, Vogel, Coffman, Floyd, Carron Board Members Absent – Carron Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Brad Yatabe Guest(s) – NONE 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES San Filippo made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to approve the May 8, 2025, Minutes as written. The motion passed by all members present. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -NONE- 5. VARIANCE REQUESTS a. APPEAL ZBA250012 Address: 2000 Timberline Ln Owner: Timberline Lane LLC Petitioner: John Humpal, Partner Zoning District: UE Code Section: 3.1.8 Project Description: This is a request for a proposed 2,400 square-foot detached accessory building (shop/garage). The maximum allowable building floor area for a detached accessory building for this lot in the Urban Estate zone district is 1,200 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory building by 1,200 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Timberline Ln, which is a small street just before Harmony Rd. This particular subdivision did develop in the County before being annexed into the city. The request is to build a new accessory structure that exceeds the allowable floor area for this zone district. Beals explained that the property currently has two buildings on the lot, one that is a primary residence and one accessory building. The request is to construct a new accessory building at the rear of the property. The UE Zone District has two setback standards: one for buildings that are newly constructed, and one for properties that were developed prior to 1997. Based on standards, multiple accessory buildings are allowed to be built on this lot. Minimum distances between multiple buildings would be required. This application requests to build one single accessory building 6/12/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 2 that exceeds the floor area requirements for a single accessory building. Floor area requirements pertain to individual buildings, but not the lot in total, as long as setbacks are being met. Beals described the lot features, noting an unimproved gravel drive for vehicular access, as well as pointing out that most properties in this area are not currently hooked into City sewer/water utilities. Mature evergreen trees are present on the property and do provide some amount of visual screening for the property. Chair Lawton confirmed with Beals that multiple accessory buildings could potentially be built on the property, as long as setbacks are met. Commission member Coffman asked Beals to explain the purpose of the 1,200 square foot limit on accessory buildings. Beals explained that this maintains a subordinate relationship between accessory and primary structures. Beals noted this may be a loophole that needs to be addressed in the future. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Gary Clark, co-owner, Timberline Lane LLC, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Clark stated that the primary reason for purchasing the property was to provide space for his father who recently vacated another property. In looking at the subject property, Clark believes that placing one single accessory structure is the most sensible option. Additionally, there is a large septic field towards the front of the lot that cannot be built over. By placing the accessory building in the proposed site, it would also prevent the cutting down of multiple existing large trees. The proposed placement also maintains the current view enjoyed by a neighbor. Clark stated that the neighborhood in general has given him feedback that a single, larger building is their preferred solution. Chair Lawton asked Clark about the intended use of the proposed accessory building. Clark stated that it would be used to store recreational vehicles, as well as serve as a woodworking workshop for his father. Clark indicated that there are also plans to beautify the property via upgrades to landscaping and some tree trimming. Clark noted that the small house on the property is currently being rented out to a tenant; the tenant enjoys the “rural” feeling of the lot amidst the otherwise busy urban surroundings. Commission member San Filippo asked if the existing shop is used for habitable space. Clark stated that it is only being used for storage by the current tenant. Commission member Floyd asked Clark to explain the intended access to the proposed accessory building. Clark explained that they are planning to construct a gravel drive off of the east side of the proposed accessory building. Public Comment: Leonard Ewy, owner, 4413 S Timberline Rd, explained that his driveway extends back from Timberline, and his property is directly north of the subject property. Ewy stated that he has been there since 1979 when it was County land. Ewy asked Clark if water and septic would be brought to the building? Clark stated that only electric utilities would be brought to the accessory building. Ewy asked if there were any windows or doors on the north side of the building? Clark confirmed that there would not be windows or doors on the north side. Ewy went on to state that he doesn’t want this potential variance approval to be a steppingstone to change the zoning of this area; he fought previously during annexation to create the current zoning designation. Ewy is concerned that zoning could change to allow more business uses in the area Commission Discussion: 6/12/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 3 Chair Lawton noted this seems to be an outcome of current zoning; this square footage or more could theoretically be achieved by building multiple smaller structures with less utility, without a variance request. Lawton is in support of the request. Commission member Coffman sees this as an instance of equally well or better than; he would be in support. Commission member San Filippo agrees with the statements of Lawton and Coffman, noting that one building results in more open space being maintained on the property. San Filippo is in support of the application. Vice-Chair Vogel is in support; she appreciates the neighbor’s concerns about potential zoning impacts, as well as the neighbor’s desire to have a minimal number of buildings on the property. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Floyd to APPROVE Appeal ZBA250012 granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 3.1.8 to allow the proposed detached accessory building to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by an additional 1,200 square feet as shown in the hearing materials. The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and will promote the general purpose of Section 3.1.8 equally well or better than would a proposal complying with the standard because: the proposed square footage would be allowed for a proposal to build multiple accessory buildings; multiple buildings would be allowed in the same footprint and location of the proposed design; and the parcel is large in size and requires bigger setbacks than other residential districts. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings and conclusions in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Gupta, San Filippo, Lawton, Vogel, Coffman, Floyd Nays: Absent: Carron b. APPEAL ZBA250013 Address: 608 Peterson St Owner: JRA Property Solutions LLC Petitioner: Jamie Allen, Owner Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6; 3.1.8 Project Description: There are two requests associated with this variance: 1. A request for a new detached accessory building (1 story garage) to replace an existing detached accessory building (carriage house converted to a garage) in the same location, which is currently 1 foot 7 inches from the rear property line. The minimum required rear setback for this lot in the OT-B zone district is 5 feet. The request is for the new detached accessory building to encroach approximately 3 feet 5 inches into the required rear setback. 2. A request for the new 720 square foot structure (1 story garage) to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory building. The maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory building for this lot in the OT-B zone district is 600 square feet. The request is to therefore exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory building by 120 square feet. Staff Presentation: 6/12/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 4 Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Peterson St, south of E Myrtle St. The property takes access from the alley, as do most properties along this block face. The current accessory building does encroach into the rear setback. Other buildings in the area do encroach as well, but as new garages have been built in this area they have been built to comply with the rear setback. The purpose of the setback is to provide vehicular safety during ingress/egress, as well as to provide relief space to pull off when cars are passing in the alley. The existing garage is approximately 605 square feet; the proposed garage would be 720 square feet. Beals provided site plans and elevations. Beals noted the plans indicate an encroachment of the side setback, but this was not included in the variance request; the applicant would have to come back and request a separate variance for encroachment into the side setback. Pictures of the existing structure were presented; the structure is not large enough to accommodate a car being parked inside of it. Beals noted that Staff’s recommendation is for approval of the increased square footage, with denial of the proposed setbacks in order to maintain alley safety. Chair Lawton confirmed with Beals that the applicants would need to come back for an additional variance if they intend to encroach into the side setback, as that was not included in this variance request. Beals noted that applications go through a process during intake when submitted, and variance request conditions are noted. Beals is not sure if there was a conversation about the side setback encroachment. One option for the applicant would be to postpone the application to include any additional variance requests that might be needed. Lawton asked about other properties in the block face that currently encroach into the rear setback, and how compliance might be achieved. Beals noted that new construction would be expected to meet the current setback requirements; if not, they would have required a variance. Commission member Floyd asked if there were any case studies that show the benefits of maintaining the 5- foot setback in the alley? Beals stated that he does not directly have a case study, but the Engineering Dept. may have that information. Lawton asked if there were any easements in the rear. Beals indicated there were none. Commission member San Filippo performed a site visit on Sunday, June 8 at approximately 10:00 am. San Filippo observed that the property and structure are well-maintained. When visiting the rear alley, San Filippo observed multiple garages and accessory buildings that appeared to meet the required 5-foot rear setback. Additionally, multiple garages were in the process of being built that also appeared to meet the required 5-foot rear setback. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Jamie Allen, owner, 608 Peterson St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Allen stated that they are attempting to construct an over-sized garage to provide more usable storage and vehicular parking. The proposed building would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would improve structural safety compared to the state of the existing building. Chair Lawton asked what hardship exists to keep the building from complying with standards? Allen stated the building would add value to the area. Lawton noted that usually an applicant would have a distinct hardship that would prevent compliance; there doesn’t appear to be a hardship created by the lot to prevent compliance. 6/12/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 5 Commission member San Filippo asked if there were a reason why the structure can’t comply with the setbacks? Why not seek a variance for the side setbacks? Allen stated they thought this was included in the request and is not sure why it wasn’t. San Filippo explained that over time, accessory buildings in this area will eventually come into compliance. San Filippo doesn’t see a hardship present based on the application and applicant presentation. San Filippo asked the applicant if they would like to postpone the application; Allen indicated that they did not want to delay the process by postponing or tabling the application. Beals suggested perhaps the Commission provide a break in order for Allen to call his business partner to gather additional information and/or answers to the questions posed by the Commission. Commission member Coffman asked Beals if there would be a difference in cost and/or time if the item were postponed? Beals explained that there would be no additional cost to revise the application for next month; that would add an additional month of time. Assistant City Attorney Brad Yatabe feels it is appropriate to hear from the public as needed now, and again if additional information is presented by the applicant after a break. Lawton thinks the application is ok from a square footage perspective; it is the setbacks that are giving pause. The question becomes do we want to go through that whole process now or postpone for more time. If the square footage was approved and setbacks denied, would that stop the project? Public Comment: -NONE- *9:24am - Chair Lawton called for a 10-minute break to allow the applicant to call his business partner in order to gather additional information/responses based on Commission questions thus far. *9:33- Meeting resumed with Commission Discussion. Applicant Presentation, cont. Applicant Jamie Allen stated that the existing structure is already encroaching into side and rear setbacks; the purpose of maintaining these encroachments is to provide space for vehicle storage with the proposed structure. Beals notes that new construction is expected to comply with the current standards. Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman noted that the questions thus far have been illuminating. Coffman has no problem with the size variance, as increased floor area is pushing into the lot towards the residence. However, he does not find a compelling reason why the setbacks cannot be met. Coffman is not in support of the setback variance. Commission member Gupta agrees with the comments of Coffman. Gupta is ok with the increase in size but does not see the hardship that warrants encroachments into the setbacks. This would be an opportunity to improve conditions within the alley. Commission member San Filippo agrees with previous comments. San Filippo supports the increase in size but does not support rear setback encroachment. Commission member Floyd agrees. Vice-Chair Vogel agrees with the previous comments. Vogel also noted that the neighbor directly behind is not compliant with setbacks, so the need to maintain safety in that portion of the alley is paramount. 6/12/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 6 Chair Lawton stated that the planned building is an improvement for the property and the neighborhood; however, he has not found any clear hardship that necessitates encroachment into the setbacks. Beals noted that if this variance application were postponed, a new application is not needed. If a decision is rendered by the Commission now, and a variance is sought for side setback encroachment, a new application and fee would be required. This current application would not be re-opened if a decision is rendered today. San Filippo asked Allen if his partner wanted to postpone the application today or not in order to deal with a potential variance request regarding the side setback. Allen indicated that they would like to move forward. Floyd explained that if square footage was approved today, it would require modification to the proposed placement of the structure in order to comply with setbacks on the rear and the side. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member San Filippo to APPROVE IN PART Appeal ZBA250013 granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 3.1.8 to allow the proposed detached accessory structure to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 120 square feet as shown in the hearing materials. The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and will not diverge from Section 3.1.8 to except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of Land Use Code Section 1.2.2 because: the neighborhood has a mix of conforming buildings; the existing structure is similar in size; and the proposed structure is a single-story building. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings and conclusions in the staff report. Yeas: Gupta, San Filippo, Lawton, Vogel, Coffman, Floyd Nays: Absent: Carron Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Floyd to DENY IN PART Appeal ZBA250013 regarding the requested rear setback encroachment variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6, finding that the variance: Would be detrimental to the public good because the proposed encroachment would create traffic safety concerns; and the variance as submitted would not comply with the any of the three Land Use Code variance standards contained in Section 6.14.4(H)(1) through (H)(3) specifically: the proposed design does not comply with the standard equally well or better than a design meeting the standard; there is not a unique hardship preventing the standard from being met; and an 80% encroachment into the setback is not nominal in connection to the increased safety concerns. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the information, analysis, and findings and conclusions in the staff report. Yeas: Gupta, San Filippo, Lawton, Vogel, Coffman, Floyd Nays: Absent: Carron 6. OTHER BUSINESS Assistant City Attorney Brad Yatabe noted that there is a specific hardship provision; additionally, equally well or better than provides a bit more expansive standards for interpretation of what constitutes a hardship for any specific appeal/property. 6/12/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 7 7. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:49AM. Minutes Approved on July 10, 2025