Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 08/14/2025 7/10/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 1 Land Use Review Commission REGULAR MEETING Thursday, July 10, 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 – San Filippo, Carron, Lawton, Gupta, Floyd, Coffman Board Members Absent – Vogel Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Madelene Shehan Guest(s) – NONE 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES San Filippo made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to approve the June 12, 2025, Minutes as written. The motion passed by all members present. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -NONE- 5. VARIANCE REQUESTS a. APPEAL ZBA250016 Address: 3215 Burning Bush Ct Owner/Petitioner: Joel & Anna Goldetsky Zoning District: RL Code Section: 2.1.4 Project Description: This is a request for a proposed 16-foot deck to encroach 2 feet into the required rear setback. The minimum required rear setback for this property in the RL zone district is 15 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Burning Bush Ct, just north of Golden Currant Blvd and east of Banyan Dr. The subject property backs up to HOA property, and that line is considered to be the rear property line, which requires a 15-foot rear setback. The request is to encroach 2 feet into the rear setback. Additionally, there is a 6-foot utility easement at the rear of the lot; the proposed deck would not encroach into that setback. Beals presented drawings of the proposed deck as well as views of the home taken from the HOA property to the rear, noting the proposed distance from the edge of the deck to the rear property line. 7/10/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 2 Applicant Presentation: Applicant Anna Goldetsky, resident and owner, 3215 Burning Bush Ct addressed the Commission and offered comment. Goldetsky stated that the request comes down to function and practicality. The existing deck is original to the home and needs rebuilding. As is, the deck is a bit small and makes it difficult to place several deck chairs on the deck at once. Goldetsky doesn’t believe the proposed deck would impact on the neighborhood or the public good in any negative way. Lawton clarified with Goldetsky that this is a replacement of a current deck; Goldetsky confirmed. Lawton asked Beals about the nature of the rear easement; Beals indicated it was most likely for communications utilities. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman noted the proposal seems to be nominal and inconsequential and would have no negative impact on neighbors. Coffman is in support of the variance request. Commission member San Filippo agrees with Coffman’s analysis that the variance qualifies as nominal and inconsequential, with no negative impact. San Filippo is in support of the variance request. Chair Lawton agrees with the previous comments. Lawton noted that the proposed deck would be an improvement over current conditions and represents a better use of space. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE ZBA250016 granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.4 to allow the proposed deck to encroach 2 feet into the required 15-foot rear setback 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 2.1.4 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 HOA land abutting the rear property line will remain undeveloped; and • The deck is open on three sides. 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: San Filippo, Carron, Lawton, Gupta, Floyd, Coffman Nays: Absent: Vogel 7/10/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 3 b. APPEAL ZBA250017 Address: 719 S Lemay Ave Owner: The Riverside Wendy’s Inc / Aksan United Petitioner: Jason Graber, Chief Development Officer Zoning District: NC Code Section: 5.16.2(G)(1) Project Description: This is a request to allow for one additional existing freestanding permanent sign (pre-sale menu board drive-thru lane sign). The maximum number of drive-thru signs in all sign districts is one (1) per drive- thru lane. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located just south of Riverside Ave on Lemay Ave. The request is to replace an existing second drive-thru sign. The sign code has changed since the sign was installed. Currently, code only allows one sign to be displayed per drive-thru lane. Beals presented images showing the proposed sign format and location on the site. Of note, the signs being requested are within the sign allowance for the property, and all other existing signs are conforming. The sign in need of variance is about 6 feet tall and is significantly set back from the public right of way. Also, there are mature trees between the sign and the public right of way that limit visibility. Chair Lawton asked Beals how many signs there are on the property. Beals indicated that in total, there are seven signs on the property, including drive-thru signs and wall-mounted sign. Commission member Gupta clarified that there is already a secondary sign in place; Beals indicated that this request was necessary to replace the secondary drive-thru sign because it was being self-demolished. Gupta asked Beals to explain the intent of the sign code; Beals indicated that the general intent of the sign code is to avoid visual clutter and limit the number of signs on any given property. Commission member Coffman asked Beals how the proposed secondary sign compares to the existing sign? Beals indicated it was of similar size and would be placed in the same location as the existing secondary sign. Commission member San Filippo indicated that he visited the subject property on Monday, July 7 at 10:05am. According to San Filippo, the existing secondary sign is two-sided and visible from the drive-thru lane during approach to the ordering location. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Jason Graber, Chief Development Officer, Aksan United, 114 S 7th Street, LaSalle, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Graber stated that the sign is already in place and the request isn’t to add anything that isn’t already on-site, but rather to bring the sign into compliance. Graber noted that the building is undergoing comprehensive remodeling and renovations to comply with current Wendy’s brand standards and identity. During the renovations, the city indicated that a variance request would be necessary to replace the secondary sign. Beals stated that a reface would be possible without a variance request. Graber noted that the sign is not permitted and now needs to come into compliance with current City requirements. Beals stated that that was not the staff understanding of the application, which seemed to indicate that this was a sign that was going to replace an existing sign. Graber noted that other Wendy’s in town have this sign, as do multitudes of other Wendy’s franchises that he operates. 7/10/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 4 Chair Lawton asked for clarification of the need for an application. Beals explained that this sign was never permitted when originally installed, and now in order to come into compliance the sign needs to be permitted as well as obtain a variance in order to come into compliance with current city code. Lawton asked if the sign is illuminated; Graber confirmed, noting the sign faces southeast and is at an angle to Lemay. The sign is two-sided so that it can be turned to advertise breakfast or lunch/dinner items depending on the time of day. Beals clarified that sign regulations do not concern the messaging of a given sign. Gupta noted the sign is visible from the stop light but not conspicuous. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman noted that this is an existing condition that would have been permitted at the time of construction. Coffman sees no harm to the public and is in support of the variance request. Commission member Floyd agrees with Coffman and is in support of the variance request. Commission member Gupta also noted the sign is already in place, and that the property is not looking to expand its current sign program. Gupta is in support of the variance request. Commission member San Filippo sees this request as “no harm no foul”, noting a secondary sign has been in place for years. San Filippo is in support of the variance request. Commission member Carron has no problems with the variance request, noting that the secondary sign enhances wayfinding within the parking lot when trying to find the drive-thru entrance. Commission member Floyd made a motion, seconded by member Coffman to APPROVE ZBA250017, regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 5.16.2, Table(G)(1), to allow one additional permanent freestanding sign 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 5.16.2(G), Table (G)(1), 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 proposed sign replaces an existing sign; and • The message of the proposed sign is not visible at the same time a viewer is reading the other freestanding sign. 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: San Filippo, Carron, Lawton, Gupta, Floyd, Coffman Nays: Absent: Vogel 7/10/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 5 c. APPEAL ZBA250018 Address: 2318 Laporte Ave Owner/Petitioner: Forrest Schrupp Zoning District: LMN Code Section: 4.3.5(C)(4) Project Description: This is a request to construct a six (6) foot fence between the front building line and the front property line of the subject property. The maximum height for a fence between the front building line and the front property line is four (4) feet. The variance request is to exceed the maximum allowable fence height in this location by two (2) feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Laporte Ave, across from the PSD support building and bus barn. The request is for the construction of a fence in front of the residential property. During road improvements along Laporte Ave, the previous vegetation that provided cover was removed from the front of the property. The proposed fence would help to block vehicular headlights and road noise, as well as screen light and activity from the PSD properties that are directly across Laporte Ave. Improvements along Laporte Ave included more multi-modal lanes including a protected bike lane and an expanded paved sidewalk. Chair Lawton asked about measurements included on the hand-drawn plans submitted by the applicant, which show the fence being placed 7 feet from the sidewalk. Beals and applicant Schrupp confirmed the distance shown to be 7 feet. San Filippo visited the site on Monday, July 7 at 9:40am, noting two large trees that flank the residence on either side. San Filippo’s initial concern was that a 6-foot fence may impede visibility when a vehicle attempted to enter/exit the property via the driveway. Upon his site visit, San Filippo feels that visibility would be adequate with the construction of the proposed fence. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Forrest Schrupp, resident/owner, 2318 Laporte Ave, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Schrupp stated that he has been at the property for approximately 35 years. The improvements to Laporte have raised the roadway a bit, causing lights to shine onto the property at a level that was not experienced in previous years. Schrupp noted that other residents along Laporte also have 6-foot fences installed and described the neighborhood as “eclectic”. Schrupp reiterated that the main purpose of the fence would be to mitigate light, dust, and noise that are generated from the roadway and bike/pedestrian lanes. Chair Lawton asked if the side fence would extend to the front; Schrupp stated that the side fence would not extend all the way to the front, and it would be kept largely open. Commission member Floyd asked Schrupp if he had explored the possible effects of a 4-foot fence; Schrupp stated that he had placed markers at a height of 4 feet and then observed where light was shining; a fence of 6 feet would be more effective at blocking the light from the property. Public Comment: -NONE- 7/10/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 6 Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman asked staff if the Engineering Dept. would be looking at sight lines of the driveway? Beals indicated that Engineering would need to review given the proximity to pedestrian paths and trails. Coffman sympathizes with the resident and understands the noise and light pollution that can be generated from the bus barn. Coffman believes the impact of the proposed fence will be minimal to surrounding neighbors. Commission member Carron noted that he lives in this part of town as well and understands the manner in which the road improvements have pushed up against some properties in the area. Carron feels that this is a reasonable accommodation to provide screening from street activity as well as provide privacy for the property. Chair Lawton asked Beals about the process for Engineering review. Beals stated that a review by the Engineering Dept. would be the next step, to ensure the fence is at least 2 feet from the public right of way and to measure sight distances from the driveway. Lawton understands the need for fencing in this area and doesn’t feel that there is any problem with the proposed fence. Commission member Floyd made a motion, seconded by member Gupta to APPROVE ZBA250018 granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.3.5(C)(4), to allow the construction of a 6- foot-tall fence between the front building and front property lines which exceeds the allowable fence height by 2 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 4.3.5(C)(4) 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 additional height will help prevent direct glare from vehicles; and • The public right of way is still visible from other properties. 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: San Filippo, Carron, Lawton, Gupta, Floyd, Coffman Nays: Absent: Vogel d. APPEAL ZBA250019 Address: 614 W Mountain Ave Owner: Jennifer & Carlos Arguelles Petitioner: Taylor Meyer, Architect, VFLA Architecture + Interiors Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request for a proposed 773 square-foot addition to a 2,045 square-foot detached house. This will follow a demolition of an existing 239 square-foot addition on the rear of the existing 2,284 square- foot house. The maximum allowable floor area for a detached house in the OT-B zone district is 2,400 square feet. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area of a detached house in the OT- B zone district by 418 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on the north side if Mountain Ave, between Whitcomb St and Loomis St. Based on the site plan, a two- 7/10/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 7 story portion of the existing residence at the rear is to be removed, and will be replaced with a one-story addition with a deck. The deck does not count as floor area. A basement is also being added to the residence; basement square footage does not count towards allowable square footage for a property. Beals presented images of the front of the house, noting that the proposed addition does not change the front view; the rear view indicates the two-story area that would be removed and the one-story addition and deck that are proposed. Side elevations show how the proposed addition would extend further into the lot from the rear of the residence. Beals noted the presence of some accessory structures in the rear of the lot, noting they do not count towards the square footage allowance for the property. Beals noted that the above-grade addition is approximately 700 square feet. The difference in square footage between what is being removed and what is being added is approximately 250 square feet. The total additional square footage that would be created would be 418 square feet. Previous code allowed for structures to increase in size in relation to lot size; this lot is bigger than others in the area and thus the current residence is larger than the currently-required 2,400 square feet. This addition was initially planned before code changes. Commission member Coffman asked what the allowable floor area would be if this addition included a kitchen? Beals stated at minimum, 750 additional square feet would be allowed if this were an ADU. Coffman noted that the impetus of the rules was to encourage the construction of more living units. Chair Lawton asked about two different designations shown in the plans for the porch area. Lawton asked if there were a basement area included in the addition; Beals confirmed and noted that the basement portion does not count against the square footage calculations. Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Taylor Meyer, Architect, VFLA Architecture + Interiors, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Meyer stated that this project started with the property owners’ main goal of taking this older home and turning it into a more-comfortable place to live while they age in place. Another goal is to minimize the impact to the existing structure, recognizing that this is a beautiful historic home. To make the home more comfortable, the owners would like to expand the existing kitchen area as well as expand the living room area and create a new mud room off of the alley entrance. The portion planned for demolition is a later addition to the home and is not original. The proposed addition is not wider than the existing addition and will not alter the view of the property from the front. The plan also includes the strategy of introducing a master suite into the basement level and incorporate an elevator into the proposed addition. The space under the deck is actually a sunken patio that provides egress from the lower- level master suite. A design was considered that did not exceed the maximum floor area, but it did not fit the owners’ needs; the extra square footage being requested meets their needs and is no more than necessary. Chair Lawton asked if this building was designated as historic; Meyer noted it has not been designated. Commission member Coffman asked Meyer if there is any reason this cannot be designed as an ADU, as it appears it would just need a small kitchenette to be considered as an attached ADU. Meyer responded that his impression is that an attached ADU would need to be more separated from the main residence than what is desired by the property owners. Lawton asked if there is any living space in the garage? There appears to be a chimney coming out of the structure based on photographs. Meyer notes it is currently being used as just a garage. 7/10/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 8 Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Floyd noted that it is interesting to consider that if this were an attached ADU, it would still be within the scope of the new Land Use Code. It seems there is a way to attain increased square footage while also meeting the intent of the Code. Floyd stated he is a bit on the fence with the current application. Commission member Coffman agrees with the points put forward by Floyd. Coffman noted that an obstacle seems to be the large opening between the family room and the kitchen. Beals notes that full fire separation is required between two living units, as well as the installation of separate air handling units. For building code purposes, this potentially would be considered a duplex, which would require sprinkling as well as capital expansion fees. Commission member Carron stated that while he agrees the variance is inconsequential to the neighborhood, this is a self-imposed hardship that rests on the desire to simply increase square footage. Commission member Gupta appreciates the desire to remove the addition, as it clearly doesn’t match the rest of the home. He also appreciates the desire to age in place and increase livable floor space without impacting the nature of the neighborhood. Coffman stated that for him, it is hard to think about approval when the option to permit this as a second unit have not been fully explored and investigated. Coffman believes this is an option that should be looked at. Chair Lawton understands the idea behind this project is to use the entire structure as a primary residence. Coffman understands, noting that the impetus of the Code to create additional units may mean that future owners of the property then have the option to provide a second unit. Coffman asked the Commission if it is worth tabling this request until more information regarding attached dwelling units can be explored? Floyd noted that one question is whether 418 square feet can be considered nominal and inconsequential in the scope of the relevant code section. This represents an 11% increase over existing conditions, or 17% of the maximum allowable square footage. Coffman responds that if the only basis for approval is percentage of square footage that is over, we don’t want to set a de facto precedent. Functionally, the only thing that separates this proposal from the designation of the addition as a conforming attached dwelling, would be the addition of a small cook stove/kitchen utility. Lawton asked the applicant if tabling this proposal would be an acceptable action at this point in time. Meyer explained that to turn this into an attached ADU would require a bit more square footage. This would also require a new staircase, which also necessitates more square footage. The goal is not to add more square footage, and the end result would not be in keeping with the goals of the property owners. Lawton pointed out this design process was begun prior to Land Use Code changes, and to follow-through at this time requires a variance request. Floyd notes that this lot size is double the minimum size for this zone district. Coffman points out the goal of the new code requirements is to encourage ADU construction within the design process in this zone district when homes are constructed and renovated. Lawton likes that the proposal maintains the design of the home. 7/10/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 9 Commission member Carron states he is leaning towards approval; he feels this can be considered nominal and inconsequential, while noting the hardship is largely self-imposed based on the desire of the owners to increase square footage. Commission member San Filippo agrees with comments put forth by Carron. Gupta states he is in favor of the variance request. Floyd states his opinion that the proposal is an overall improvement to the property; the purpose is to serve the owners’ desire to age in place and maintain their current home. The purpose of the code section that limits home size also serves to limit potential capital investment in the district. Floyd is leaning towards approval. Coffman notes that he is not completely comfortable with approval. Commission member Floyd made a motion, seconded by member Gupta to APPROVE ZBA250019, granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6, to allow the construction of a 773 square foot replacement addition to the existing detached home which in total will exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a detached home of 2,400 square feet by 418 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 2.1.6 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 increased floor area is only an 11% increase from the existing conditions; and • The addition is one story and to the rear of the existing building reducing its visibility. 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: San Filippo, Carron, Lawton, Gupta, Floyd Nays: Coffman Absent: Vogel 6. OTHER BUSINESS -We will have at least two items for the August meeting 7. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 AM. Minutes Approved on August 14, 2025