Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 08/14/2025 (2)8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 1 Land Use Review Commission REGULAR MEETING Thursday, August 14, 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 – Coffman, Gupta, Vogel, Lawton, Floyd, Carron Board Members Absent – San Filippo Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Brad Yatabe Guest(s) – Mayor Jeni Arndt 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Carron made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to approve the July 10, 2025, Minutes as written. The motion passed by all members present. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Special Guest: Mayor Jeni Arndt. Presenting message of thanks to LURC. -Mayor Arndt offered thanks to Commission members for their time served as volunteers for the City, serving on the Land Use Review Commission as her time as Mayor ends. 5. VARIANCE REQUESTS a. APPEAL ZBA250020 Address: 608 Peterson St Owner: JRA Property Solutions LLC Petitioner: Jamie Allen, Better Blueprint Realty Tom Martinez, Valiant Construction Holdings LLC Zoning District: OT-B Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: There are two requests associated with this variance application: 1. A request for a new detached accessory building (1-story garage) that is replacing an existing detached accessory building (carriage house converted to a garage) to be constructed 2 feet from the north (side) property line. The minimum required interior side 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 into the required side setback. 2. A request to allow the garage door of the proposed detached accessory building to be built 5 feet from the rear property line. The minimum setback for a garage door from a rear alley is 8 feet. The request is for the garage door to encroach 3 feet into the required 8-foot garage door setback from a rear alley. Staff Presentation: 8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 2 Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located near the corner of Peterson St and E Myrtle St. Beals reminded the Commission that this property was considered for a similar variance request two months agon. The current request is for a new detached accessory building that would be accessed from the alley. There is an existing structure that would be demolished and fully replaced with the proposed structure. The previous variance requested asked for two things: an increase in floor area for an accessory building and encroachment into the rear setback. This Commission chose to approve the increase in floor area, however the request for encroachment into the rear setback was denied. Since that time, the applicants have revised their plans and have identified an additional variance request, which is to place the new structure into both the side and rear setbacks. Beals presented site plans of the proposed accessory building, noting the greatest encroachment is 1.5 feet from the alley. The request is for a new detached accessory building, with a 3-foot encroachment into the side setback and rear (alley) side. A setback for a garage door is 8 feet from the alley, to help provide safe backing distance for vehicle entry into the alley, as well as providing more space for vehicles to pass each other when traveling through the alley. Elevations of the proposed accessory building were shown, as well as pictures of the existing accessory structure that at one time was used as a garage. Since its construction, vehicles have grown in size and can no longer be stored in the structure. Other garages along the alley that are closer to the alley are considered non-conforming, as they were permitted prior to the 8-foot requirement for garage doors on an alley. Chair Lawton confirmed with Beals that the increase in square footage is no longer in question. Today’s request now includes a new element of side setback encroachment variance request, as well as a correction to code verification that an 8-foot setback is needed from a garage door on the alley. Commission member Gupta asked Beals if this is considered to be a new request; Beals confirmed. Commission member Floyd asked Beals when the applicant came to understand that the 8-foot setback was required. Beals commented that the city identified the requirement upon application review and communicated this requirement to the applicant. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Tom Martinez, General Contractor,1398 Candleglow St, Castle Rock, CO addressed the Commission and offered comment. Martinez noted projects like this are complicated, as both the primary residence and the accessory building are being remodeled. The existing accessory building needs to be addressed to increase value and come into compliance. This project is being completed with two separate permits, one for the home and one for the garage. There is a large tree approximately 15 feet from the back of the garage. One concern is that if building occurs to close to the tree, it may damage or kill it according to an arborist that was consulted. Another item brought up by Martinez is the existence of other non-conforming garages along the alley. Martinez stated that a 5-foot setback would not be a problem, but the required 8-foot setback from the garage door would present a problem to the proposed project. Martinez noted that the existing structure is about 2.5 feet from the property line now. The goal is to keep the proposed structure in the approximate location of the existing accessory building that is planned for demolition. 8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 3 Commission member Gupta has some confusion between the 5-foot and 8-foot requirements. Beals explained that if the building didn’t have a garage door, it could be placed 5 feet from the alley. With the door, code requires that it be placed 8 feet from the alley. Gupta asked theoretically, could the garage door be recessed? Beals answered in the affirmative. Chair Lawton asked where the mature tree is located on the property? Martinez noted the base of the tree is approximately 15 feet from the back of the existing structure. Arborists have concern that roots could be damaged if building occurs any closer. Martinez described the tree as covering virtually the entire yard. Lawton stated that he was in the area recently and drove down the alley. Lawton contests Martinez’s assertation that most of the buildings along the alley encroach into the setback. Lawton calls out the need for safety and setbacks within alleyways to preserve safety and visibility. Lawton noted the garage could be moved over by approximately 3 feet along the north (side) setback. Martinez noted that line could potentially offer some wiggle room in the design. Commission member Coffman asked Martinez if there is any wiggle room on size; Martinez notes they are trying to achieve a “comp” size that meets buyers’ expectations of a home in the area. Gupta asked if the arborist had produced an official report or performed a more basic review. Martinez noted it was a more basic review and consultation. If a written report were needed, it could be pursued. Commission member Carron notes a written report could be helpful in providing justification based on hardship. Coffman noted Martinez referenced fitting a truck in the garage a few times. Would a truck be able to make the turn and enter the planned garage? Martinez confirmed it is tight in the alley, but most vehicles should be able to make the turn and enter the alley without problem. Public Comment: Audience member Mike Lyons, neighbor to the south, 612 Peterson St, addressed the commission and offered comment. Lyons referenced the site plan, noting the proposed building runs right along an existing sewer line. The proposed building may affect/disrupt the location of the sewer line. If the building were built over the line, it may have to be moved or sleeved. Martinez responded to Lyons’ comments, noting the sewer line is situated far enough south from the building that it shouldn’t be affected by the proposed building placement regardless of the encroachment. Commission member Coffman asked if there are any known utilities easements. Beals noted this part of town has few utility easements in place; most overlap fairly well with setback requirements. If the sewer line were extending to another home, that may need an easement, but generally not for utilities that run straight to a single home. Commission Discussion: Vice Chair Vogel asked if the garage door was not facing the alley, would they need the 8-foot encroachment? Beals confirmed that if the garage door were placed on the north or south, the side of the building could be placed 5 feet from the alley. Commission member Coffman noted that while that might be true, it could be a case of “malicious compliance”, as it wouldn’t be of benefit to the homeowner to put a door on the side of the garage or recess the door from the face of the garage along the alley. 8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 4 Chair Lawton noted the need for setbacks to provide safety in an alley. Lawton also acknowledged the difficulties that can be presented when trying to preserve large mature trees. Carron would support an encroachment of 5 feet, if an arborists report could be produced. Yatabe and Lawton discussed the mechanics of a motion that would include an arborist’s report as a necessary part of approval. Yatabe stated a desire what would specifically be required from an administrative standpoint. Lawton suggested that an arborist’s report could be required to be “satisfactory to the city”. Vogel commented that an arborist’s report would need to specifically identify a hardship. Coffman stated that a report would need to identify a hard limit as to how close to the trunk of a tree a structure could be built without adversely affecting the existing trees. Commission member Gupta asked Yatabe that this Commission isn’t ultimately deciding, then who is? Coffman answered this is why there needs to be a definitive measurement. Commission member Carron suggested that this could be achieved administratively, as presumably the arborist’s report would be submitted along with a building permit, which would then be reviewed by the City Forester. Beals suggested that the motion could stipulate that the chosen arborist be licensed with the city. If compliance with the 8-foot setback would cause damage or hardship to the tree, then the applicant would be allowed to instead meet the 5-foot setback. Commission member Gupta suggested there may also be an “option c”, which would be that the depth of the building could be adjusted to meet requirements. Beals commented that an arborist could identify a “no-build” zone. If an 8-foot setback could still be met with the no-build zone, then that would be the requirement. Commission member Coffman noted that the Commission can only approve/deny the building as proposed but is not able to dictate to applicants what/how to build a structure. Chair Lawton asked if the motion ought to include a statement referring to the acceptable building envelope. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Gupta to DENY IN PART ZBA250020, regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 regarding encroachment of the proposed accessory structure into the north side interior setback as shown in the hearing materials finding that the variance: • Would be detrimental to the public good, and: • The variance as submitted would not comply with any of the three Land Use Code variance standards contained in Section 6.14.4(H)(1) through (H)(3) because: o The proposed design does not comply with the standards equally well or better than a design meeting the standard. o In meeting the standard, no circumstances unique to the property would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardships. o A 60% encroachment into the north side setback and 37% encroachment into the garage door setback are not nominal and inconsequential in connection to the increased safety concerns. 8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 5 This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and Commission discussion. The Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings and conclusions in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Carron, Gupta, Vogel, Lawton, Floyd, Coffman Nays: Absent: San Filippo Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Vogel to APPROVE IN PART, WITH CONDITIONS ZBA250020, regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the proposed accessory structure to encroach 3 feet into the garage door alley setback as shown in the hearing materials. With The following conditions: a report shall be compiled by a licensed arborist, to be reviewed by the City Forester, stating that constructing the garage with an 8-foot garage door alley setback would cause irreparable harm to the existing tree in the backyard of the property. The Commission finds that the variance, with this condition, would not be detrimental to the public good; and by reason of exceptional hardship caused by the proximity of the proposed garage to the existing mature tree would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and Commission discussion. The Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings and conclusions in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Carron, Gupta, Vogel, Lawton, Floyd, Coffman Nays: Absent: San Filippo b. APPEAL ZBA250021 Address: 1805 Laporte Ave Owner: Colin Berry and Celeste Wieting Petitioner: Jeremy Cameron, General Contractor, Intelligent Designs Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: There are two requests associated with this variance application: 1. A request to construct a 175 square-foot addition (sunroom) to an existing 1,020 square-foot detached house. The proposed location of the sunroom is along the southwest corner of the house where the addition will follow the wall line of the existing attached garage, which was built up to the western property line. The minimum required interior side setback in the OT-A zone district is 5 feet. The request is to therefore allow an encroachment into the existing side setback by 5 feet. 2. An after the fact request for approval of an existing 5 feet 6-inch-tall x 25 feet long masonry wall located at the front of the property along Laporte Avenue. The maximum allowable fence/wall height located between the front building line and the front property line is four feet. The request is for approval to exceed the maximum allowable wall height by 1 foot 6 inches. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on Laporte Ave, just west of Frey Ave. 8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 6 The request is two-fold; one for placement of a new sunroom along the property line and an after-the-fact approval for increase in wall height along the front property line. Beals noted the purpose of the increased wall height is to block traffic noise and headlights along Laporte Ave and neighboring brewery. The fence is already in place and was identified as needing a variance during property review related to the proposed sunroom. The property has vehicle access from Laporte Ave and the alley, and there is a small ribbon of paving that appears to be shared with a neighboring property. The driveway creates essentially a 10-foot setback, but if a building were placed on the property line as proposed that distance would be reduced to only 5 feet. Setbacks between buildings are important to maintain health and safety, including proper water runoff, emergency responder/vehicle access, and proper fire rating of structures. Beals notes that staff are recommending denial of the setback encroachment and approval of the wall. If the applicant wanted to work with their neighbor and obtain a no-build easement on their neighboring property, approval could be considered more thoroughly. Without that easement, staff recommend denial of the encroachment as requested to maintain safe distances between structures now and in the future. The non-compliance fence is significantly set back from the sidewalk and thus does not contribute to a “tunneling” effect or create a “pedal catcher” hazard for bicyclists. Nothing currently prevents the neighboring property from constructing an addition to the 5-foot setback, which could create a potential safety hazard. Commission member Carron asked if the overhang of the garage is over the neighboring property line. Beals confirms that this appears to be true. Carron asked if overhang would start at the setback or the variance? Beals notes that all guttering and eaves must be maintained within the setback and may not hang over the neighboring property line. Chair Lawton asked about the history of the existing building. Beals believes it was originally built in the County and then was annexed at a later date as a non-conforming property. Commission member Gupta asked a question about the fence, asking if it is properly permitted outside of the height. Beals notes the minimum setbacks have been met. Normally, verification of permitting would be sought from the Engineering Dept. because this fence is along a public right of way. Engineering then checks with Zoning to verify fence height. Beals noted that a fence permit has not yet been issued as these items are investigated. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Colin Barry, owner,1805 Laporte Ave and Jeremy Cameron, General Contractor, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Barry provided information about the wall, noting that they live across the street from Stodgy Brewing. The pull- in/pull-out location of the brewery lot creates an effect where cars’ lights shine directly in their living room. They built the fence/wall to the precise height that would effectively block vehicular headlights. Barry did engage the Engineering Dept, with the help of their City Council member, to gather information about fence requirements. Cameron noted that transom windows on the side of the proposed sunroom could be eliminated. Placing the addition anywhere else would negatively affect sunlight into the living/dining room, as well as impacting egress from that portion of the residence. If the sunroom were reduced by 5 feet, it would create a less functional space. 8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 7 Cameron would be amenable to speaking to neighbor to seek a non-build agreement or other necessary easements that could facilitate the placement of the proposed sunroom. An agreement could also include an overhang clause to address gutter/eave overhang. Watershed could also be controlled with some adjustments to the proposed roof slope. Barry notes that an ILC was obtained for the structure. Barry has two kids, and they’d like to increase useable space for his family and stay in this type of home in this unique area of town. If the space were forced to be any smaller, they would most likely need to abandon the project. Commission member Carron asked if a 3-foot encroachment would be a game-breaker? Barry responded that it would impinge on garage access, which is now 2.5 feet off the back of the building. Cameron noted that it would also present some mechanical issues to the existing structure. Barry noted that these plans have been shared with neighbors, and they are in support. Chair Lawton asked if they had considered renovating the garage into a sunroom? Barry responds that the scope of the project is out of their means at this time. Cameron noted the proposed project is roughly $50,000; a project as described by Lawton may be close to $200,000 Commission member Floyd noted that the foundation may potentially be crossing property lines. Cameron noted that the image was a function of the CAD design software, but the actual building would be contained within the applicant’s property. Floyd asked if consideration had been given to wrapping the addition around the back? Barry responded that it would block the windows of the single kitchen; there are not many windows on the home as it is now. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Carron stated that he was not against the request in theory, but the practicality of getting permitted is perhaps more difficult. A smaller encroachment would allow for fire rating, gutter, etc. Carron proposed a 2-foot encroachment. Commission member Coffman would be in support of the request if applicants could obtain a no-build and/or overhang agreements. Beals notes those would be private easements that would be filed with the County for perpetuity. That would negate all concerns. Carron notes this could de-value the neighboring property. Coffman suggests this could be tabled to allow time to pursue easements. If those cannot be obtained, consideration could be given to granting an encroachment of 2 feet into the setback. Commission member Floyd asked if it would require another application fee? Beals responds that if a decision is made today, a new application fee would be required. If tabled, this application would remain open and would not require additional fees. Barry stated that he is amenable to the current application being tabled in order to pursue two options: agreements with neighbors regarding easements, as well as potential re-sizing if the proposed addition meets a smaller setback. Chair Lawton asked staff what actions might be most appropriate going forward. Beals responds that tabling the item may be most effective right now. That would then allow staff to most effectively review and assess in a professional way any future plans that are brought forth. 8/14/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 8 Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by member Gupta to APPROVE ZBA250021 (pt. 1) granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.3.5(C)(4) to allow the existing wall located between the front building line and the front property line to exceed the maximum allowed height by 1 foot 6 inches 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 the Land Use Code Section 1.2.2 because: • The increased height in combination with the increased setback does not create a tunnel effect along the sidewalk; and • The wall has been in place for four years This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and Commission discussion. The Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings and conclusions in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Carron, Gupta, Vogel, Lawton, Floyd, Coffman Nays: Absent: San Filippo Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Floyd to TABLE ZBA250021 (pt. 2) indefinitely regarding the requested variances to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the proposed addition to encroach into the interior side setback by 5 feet as shown in the hearing materials. Yeas: Carron, Gupta, Vogel, Lawton, Floyd, Coffman Nays: Absent: San Filippo 6. OTHER BUSINESS -Beals noted that the Commission has four (4) applications planned for the Sept. 2025 agenda. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 AM. Minutes Approved on September 11, 2025