HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/2025 - Land Use Review Commission - AGENDA - REGULAR MEETINGLAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
10/9/25 – LURC SUMMARY AGENDA 1
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of September 11, 2025, Minutes.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
5. VARIANCE REQUESTS
a. APPEAL ZBA250021
Address: 1805 Laporte Ave
Owner: Colin Barry and Celeste Wieting
Petitioner: Jeremy Cameron, GC, Intelligent Designs Inc
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 at the
southwest corner of the house where the addition will extend from the existing
attached garage. The existing garage was built up to the western property line,
however the proposed location for the addition will be set back 3 feet from the
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 of 2 feet into
the existing 5-foot side setback.
Project Description continues on Page 2 of the Agenda.
Participation in the Land Use Review Commission Meeting on Thursday, October 9, 2025
will only be available IN PERSON in accordance with Section 2-73 of the Municipal Code.
The meeting will begin at 8:30am in City Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue
Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs
to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any
documents to nbeals@fcgov.com.
Individuals uncomfortable with public participation are encouraged to participate by emailing
general public comments 24 hours prior to the meeting to nbeals@fcgov.com
the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the
discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24
hours prior to the meeting.
If you need assistance during the meeting, please email kkatsimpalis@fcgov.com.
LAND USE REVIEW COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers – 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521
10/9/25 – LURC SUMMARY AGENDA 2
2. An after the fact request for approval of an existing 5 foot 6-inch-tall x 25-foot-
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.
b. APPEAL ZBA250029
Address: 608 Peterson St
Owner: JRA Property Solutions LLC
Petitioners: Jamie Allen, Owner, JRA Property Solutions LLC
Tom Martinez, Valiant Construction Holdings LLC
Zoning District: OT-B
Code Section: 2.1.6
Project Description:
This is a request for a proposed 1,531 square-foot second story residential addition
to result in a 3,165 square foot structure that exceeds the maximum allowable floor
area for a detached single unit residential dwelling. The maximum allowable floor
area for a single unit detached dwelling in the OT-B zone district is 2,400 square feet.
The request is to therefore exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 765 square
feet.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT
9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 1
Land Use Review Commission
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, September 11, 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, Gupta, Lawton, Coffman, Floyd, Carron
Board Members Absent – Vogel
Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Brad Yatabe
Guest(s) – NONE
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Floyd made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to approve the August 14, 2025, Minutes as written.
The motion passed by all members present.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
-NONE-
5. VARIANCE REQUESTS
a. APPEAL ZBA250023
Address: 1213 Ticonderoga Dr
Owner/Petitioner: Chad Phillips
Zoning District: RL
Code Section: 4.3.5(C)(4)
Project Description:
This is a request for a proposed 6-foot-tall fence to be built between the front building line and the front
property line. The proposed section of fencing is 16.5 feet total in length. The maximum height for a
fence between the front building line and the front property line is 4 feet.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is
located just E of S Lemay and west of Mt Vernon Ct. The request is to build a height in the front of the property
at a height of 6 feet and length of about 13 feet.
There is currently a 6-foot fence adjacent to the garage; the request is to push that fence forward. Per code,
the maximum height of a fence in the front of a home is 4 feet. The purpose of the request is to fit an RV
beside the home and screen with a fence, as well as provide screening for trash receptacles. The side yard is
currently covered with gravel and is used primarily as a driveway.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Chad Phillips, owner, 1213 Ticonderoga Dr addressed the Commission and offered comment.
Phillips stated the current fence sits about a foot behind the front plane of the house; the goal is to move that
fence line up about 4 feet, which would be roughly even with the plane of the neighbor’s home. Phillips’ home
9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 2
is a bit recessed compared to the neighboring home. Phillips believes that this request can be considered to be
nominal and inconsequential.
Chair Lawton asked to confirm that the purpose of the fence is to provide screening for RV and trash
receptacles. Lawton asked Phillips if there is a reason why this can’t be achieved today? Phillips
acknowledged there is no hardship at this point; if denied, he plans to still build a fence at a 4-foot height
(proposed location is not in need of a variance). Pushing the fence line forward as requested would provide
more ample space to store the RV.
Commission member San Filippo asked if the proposed fence location is roughly in-line with the neighbor’s
garage. Phillips stated that the proposed fence line would be no more than 18 inches past the neighbor’s
garage. Phillips also noted that he is planning on re-using as much of the wood from the existing fence as
possible when constructing the new fence.
Lawton asked Phillips if his neighbors are ok with the proposal. Phillips stated that his direct neighbors have
been engaged are receptive to the planned fence.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Coffman stated the request seems to be nominal and inconsequential; additionally, it is
good to hear that neighbors have been engaged.
Commission member Carron acknowledged the value of having a fence height of 6 feet instead of 4 feet, when
the goal of added screening is considered. The fence is appropriate in context of the neighborhood.
Commission member San Filippo stated he has no problems with the request as presented, and notes the
proposal appears to be a good plan.
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member San Filippo to APPROVE
ZBA250023, regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 4.3.5(C)(4) allowing the
proposed fence to be up to 6 feet tall between the front building and front property lines as described
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)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
Section 1.2.2 because:
o The increased fence height is to the side of the houser and not directly in front;
o The east abutting neighbor has a mature tree that limits the view of the fence; and
o The fence is 15% of the total length of the front yard.
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the 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, Gupta, Lawton, Coffman, Floyd, Carron
Nays:
Absent: Vogel
9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 3
b. APPEAL ZBA250025
Address: 35 S Taft Hill Rd
Owner/Petitioner: Andrew Martin
Zoning District: LMN
Code Sections: 2.2.1; 5.13.2(A)(6)
Project Description:
There are two requests associated with this variance application:
1. A request for a proposed 792 square-foot detached accessory building (2 car garage) to be built 2
feet 6 inches from the rear property line. The minimum required rear setback in the LMN zone
district is 8 feet. The request is to therefore encroach 5 feet 6 inches into the required rear setback.
2. A request for an eave of the proposed detached accessory structure to be placed 0 feet from the
rear property line. The minimum required rear setback in the LMN zone district is 8 feet, into which
an eave can encroach up to 2 feet 6 inches. The request is to therefore allow the eave to encroach
an additional 5 feet 6 inches to the required setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is
located on S Taft Hill Rd, just south of Laporte Ave. The subject property backs to a subdivision that was
approved but never completed its public improvements. That plat has not expired. The rear property line is
considered a shared rear property line with the conditions that exist today.
Based on the site plan, the subject property driveway extends all the way to the rear of the property. The
request is to build a garage at the rear of the property, with an eave that would extend to the rear of the
property.
This project was submitted to the Building Dept first, where it was discovered that they needed to meet the
required 8-foot rear setback. Since that time, the applicant has determined that they need more space to turn a
vehicle around, so they are able to perform a turn-around in their driveway so they are able to enter Taft Hill in
a forward direction.
Beals detailed a number of ways that the applicant could construct the desired building while still meeting the
standards laid out in the code. If the garage were completely attached to the home, a variance may not be
needed. If detached, the garage needs to maintain a 5-foot separation between buildings.
As proposed, the garage door would face east towards the rear of the home. Having a garage door so close to
a property line would also need a minimum of 3 feet space between the door and the property line. There are
no structures currently built in the lot to the rear of the subject property; however, as proposed the project could
impede adjacent buildings if/when there were to be constructed in the future.
Chair Lawton asked Beals about the location of the garage as shown in a “compliant” design; Beals noted this
was shown for illustrative purposes only, but the garage location could be adjusted as necessary. Lawton
asked if there are any easements on the property lines related to the failed subdivision.
Commission member Coffman asked Beals how far into the side setback a driveway can be constructed. Beals
explained that a driveway in this zone district can be built up to 0 feet from the property line.
Commission member Floyd asked Beals to describe the topography of the lot, wondering if water penetration
may be a problem in some parts of the lot and surrounding areas.
9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 4
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant Andrew Martin, owner, 35 S Taft Hill Rd addressed the Commission and offered comment. Martin
noted that the Farmstead plat to the west of the property is somewhat convoluted. In order to extend
Pennsylvania St, Martin’s neighbors would have to sell or give up some of their current land. Martin contended
that the Farmstead plat is not likely to develop given the zoning challenges present on the plat. Martin also
described a fire lane that is present in the undeveloped land.
Considering the rotation of the proposed garage, Martin explained that the land is sloped to the southern edge,
as well as there being a large mature maple tree that would make it difficult to reorient the garage. Martin’s
main point in asking for the variance is a safety issue, as he would like to prevent backing out onto Taft Hill.
Traffic is anticipated to increase along S Taft Hill as the Sanctuary on the Green development comes to
fruition.
Martin stated that the original garage was knocked down about 6 years ago, leaving behind the concrete slab.
That slab is approximately 12 inches from the rear property line.
Chair Lawton asked Martin how large a garage is needed; if the size of the structure is reduced, it seems a
vehicle could be more easily turned to approach the garage for entry. The bigger the garage, the more useful
as Martin currently has four vehicles. He would also like some space for play and project areas.
Martin described the door on the back of the garage as an “indulgence”, which would allow him easy access to
the open field behind his property, where he and his kids like to ride dirt bikes and go karts.
Commission member San Filippo asked Martin the purpose of the existing lean-to. Martin stated he uses it for
firewood storage and other outdoor storage where items are needed to be kept dry. San Filippo asked that if
the garage were turned to be attached to the house, would the pergola then be attached to the pergola? Martin
responded that we most likely wouldn’t consider orienting the garage that way, as it would consume too much
usable space in the backyard that they currently enjoy, as well as preserving the aesthetics of the backyard.
San Filippo asked Beals that if the garage were turned to be in line with the north side of the house, it would
eliminate the need for a variance for the eaves. Beals noted this might in fact meet both setbacks.
Martin stated that if the garage were oriented as suggested, it would kill the feeling of the back yard as far as
views of the sunsets, hills, etc.
Commission member Floyd asked Martin how he determined the turning radius indicated in site plans. Martin
consulted his friend Tony Wilhelm, Landscape Architect and Builder. Wilhelm stated that he designed the
project, with a goal of preserving the current state of the backyard. The turning radius is based on average 10-
foot turning radius. The proposed site is near the site of the previous structure and doesn’t dissect the yard.
The site is fairly flat but does slope down south to north. A garage in the middle of the yard may impede water
flow across the lot. Wilhelm also cited safety concerns when attempting to enter traffic along S Taft Hill.
Lawton asked Wilhelm to clarify what he meant by an “approved” plan. Wilhelm stated that he had obtained a
building permit.
San Filippo asked if the 10-foot turning radius will accommodate the Ford Transit van. Wilhelm stated that it
will, and he drives a Transit as well and can attest to the small turning radius.
Commission member Carron asked if flat work be performed at the front of the house, in order to make a 3-
point turn prior to entering the backyard and/or garage? Wilhelm stated this is doable but would completely
change the nature of the front yard to something more like a parking lot.
9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 5
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Chair Lawton appreciates the thought that has gone into to proposal, and as the Commission has discussed
there appear to be a number of other options that could be explored that may be compliant. What may happen
in the Farmstead plat is a big unknown and is part of the reason why we maintain setbacks and standards.
Lawton is having a hard time finding a hardship with this application when other options could be explored.
Commission member San Filippo agrees, noting that one goal of the design ought to be to avoid variances.
While San Filippo understands the desire to improve vehicular safety, he would like the applicant to explore
other options that could potentially be compliance without variances. San Filippo does not see a hardship.
Commission member Coffman notes that there is about 56 feet from the rear of the lot line to the rear of the
home, which could allow the back wall of the garage to be shifted north and/or rotated without being any further
north than what is being proposed. Other justifications are not found to be present either.
Commission member Floyd recognized that the Farmstead plat may or may not be developed, but we can’t
make a decision today that would be of detriment to a potential future building. Blocking the view from the
pergola cannot be considered to be a hardship.
Commission member Carron agrees with the comments offered previously, suggesting that there may be a
number of other options and orientations that could be achieved that would meet the needs of the applicant
and not necessitate a variance.
Commission member Gupta agrees with previous comments and has no further questions.
Commission member San Filippo wondered if the applicant ought to be give a chance to table to application to
explore other plans. Beals noted that most of the options suggested today would not require a variance.
Commission member Coffman aske Beals what the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building
would be in this zone district. Beals confirmed that in this zone district (LMN), there is not a limit on maximum
floor area for an accessory building.
Lawton notes that many of the hardships are self-imposed, and there are ways to achieve this structure without
any variances.
Commission member Floyd made a motion, seconded by member Gupta to DENY ZBA250025,
regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.2.1 to allow the garage to encroach into
the rear setback and Land Use Code Section 5.13.2(A)(6) to allow a garage eave to further encroach
into the rear setback, finding that the variances:
• Would be detrimental to the public good.
• 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 would increase the impact of water runoff on the abutting
neighbor;
o The proposed design could result in buildings being less than 10 feet apart;
o Other designs could be explored that would comply with the standard; and
o No unique hardship not caused by the applicant has been identified.
9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 6
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the 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, Gupta, Lawton, Coffman, Floyd, Carron
Nays:
Absent: Vogel
c. APPEAL ZBA250026
Address: 806 Peterson St
Owner: Mercedes Cooper
Petitioner: Josh Roloff, owner, Laurel Street Design
Zoning District: OT-B
Code Section: 2.1.6
Project Description:
This is a request for an 84 square-foot proposed front porch to be constructed 13 feet from the front
property line. The minimum required front setback in the OT-B Zone District is 15 feet. The request is
therefore to encroach 2 feet into the required front setback.
Staff Presentation:
Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is
located near the corner of E Plum St and Peterson St. The request is to improve and extend the front porch,
and in so doing it would extend into the front setback.
Beals noted the property is within a historic district, but the property itself has not been designated as a historic
structure.
To note, the front property line sits back from the back of sidewalk, so there is roughly 17 feet from the back of
sidewalk to the edge of the proposed addition. We do not have current elevations or renderings of the
proposed porch. The property currently has an uncovered stoop with two side staircases located at the front
door. The proposed porch would provide cover to this stoop area.
Beals noted that homes on either side of the subject property do have front porches.
Commission member Coffman clarified that we are not reviewing for appropriateness of design within the
historic district. Beals confirmed that we are not reviewing historical design standards.
Commission member Carron clarified that the proposed height of the porch is above grade and requires a
building permit and associated variance for encroachment into the front setback.
Chair Lawton asked Beals for more information about the home’s status within a historic district. Beals
explained that single-unit houses like this one are exempt from having to be reviewed through historic
preservation. If it was designated as a historic landmark, then it would have to come into compliance with
historic preservation requirements.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicant representative Josh Roloff, owner, Laurel Street Designs, addressed the Commission and offered
comment. Roloff explained that the request would include demolition of the existing stairs and replacement
with a concrete patio that is large enough for a few chairs, with stairs that are loaded towards the street.
9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 7
Roloff provided elevations to the Commission for review, which further illustrate the proposed porch. The
proposed design is intended to be “era specific” and would further the community feel of Old Town. Line of
sight wise, the proposed porch and stairs would extend only a bit past other stairs/porches in the area. Bushes
would be planted in front of the concrete wall, and stucco finish would be applied to the concrete exterior.
Chair Lawton asked about the width of the current landing. Roloff noted it is just shy of 4 feet, approximately 45
inches. Lawton asked Roloff if the plan represents an approximate 3-foot extension beyond the current stoop.
Public Comment:
-NONE-
Commission Discussion:
Commission member Carron feels this is a reasonable request; if the porch were lower, it probably wouldn’t
need a variance. The elevation of the older homes presents a unique hardship. The proposed design adds to
the aesthetic and usability of the home.
Commission member Coffman views front porches and adding to the public good, as they can increase
community interaction and safety within a neighborhood.
Commission member Gupta is in support and views the proposal as an improvement.
Chair Lawton agrees with previous comments and is in support of the plan as proposed.
Commission member San Filippo is sympathetic with the challenges posed by sideways staircases and is in
support of this application.
Commission member Floyd agrees with previous comments and has nothing more to add.
Commission member Carron made a motion, seconded by member Floyd to APPROVE ZBA250026,
regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the proposed front porch to
encroach 2 feet into the front 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 2.1.6 except in a nominal and inconsequential way when
considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of
Section 1.2.2 because:
o The setback to the back of the sidewalk is greater than the required 15 feet; and
o The encroachment is only 11 feet wide relative to the 50-foot lot width.
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the 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, Gupta, Lawton, Coffman, Floyd, Carron
Nays:
Absent: Vogel
9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 8
d. APPEAL ZBA250027
Address: 307 S Loomis Ave
Owner: Fox Martin Joint Revocable Trust
Petitioners: Kathryn Fox and Dale Martin
Zoning District: OT-A
Code Section: 3.1.8
Project Description:
This is a request for a proposed 868 square-foot detached accessory building (garage with habitable
space above). The maximum allowable floor area for a detached accessory structure in the OT-A Zone
District is 600 square feet. Their request is to therefore exceed the maximum allowable floor area for a
detached accessory structure by 268 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 Olive St and S Loomis Ave. The request is to build a new accessory structure in
the rear yard, which would take vehicle access from the alley. Beals notes the applicant can provide further
clarification of the intended use of the second-floor area and its intended habitability.
The proposed garage includes a covered porch area. This element does not count towards total floor area, as
a vehicle would not be able to be parked underneath the covered area.
Beals presented renderings of the proposed structure, noting that the structure meets all other requirements
with the exception of floor area. The upstairs floor area would have a ceiling height below 7.5 feet, so it is not
counted towards maximum floor area. Access is achieved via an attic opening, so the applicant can describe in
more detail the intended use and degree of habitability.
Each of the two parking spaces has a separate garage door and the structure includes extra space for bicycle
storage. The design of the proposed garage takes design cues from the primary structure; the existing garage
would be completely demolished.
Chair Lawton noted that the submitted plans show a flip-down ladder for access to the second story.
Applicant Presentation:
Applicants Dale Martin and Kathryn Fox, owners, 307 S Loomis Ave, addressed the Commission and offered
comment. Martin noted they have been in Fort Collins for 35 years but are new to Old Town. They would like to
utilize the long and skinny lot to accommodate vehicles and workshop items and activities.
The home is currently a legal duplex; the bottom unit is currently being used as storage. The hope is to move
some of those items into the proposed garage structure. If required setbacks were met, it would largely
consume the backyard and could negatively impact an existing mature Locust tree. The goal of the proposed
garage is to improve storage while also replacing the existing non-compliant garage with a structure that is
safer and offers improvement to the neighborhood.
Martin hopes to utilize the attic area as a man-cave of sorts, with a ping-pong table and some couches and
chairs. The garage as proposed would help to consolidate multiple existing accessory buildings into one newer
more functional structure.
Public Comment:
Beals read into the record an email received with a letter of support. [The email is available within the
Supplemental Documents Log associated with this meeting]
9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 9
Commission Discussion:
Chair Lawton noted we have seen this type of application before, wherein this amount of floor area could be
achieved through multiple accessory structures without variance, but with potential detriment to the
neighborhood. This plan appears to be well thought out and achieves the goal of increasing storage for the
property without multiple buildings.
Commission member Floyd agrees with the comments offered by Lawton.
Commission member Carron agrees, noting that multiple buildings often is disruptive to the aesthetic of the
neighborhood. Building Code requires a mini8mum of 7 feet ceiling height to be considered “habitable space”;
this appears to be merely “finished” space.
Commission member Coffman noted the increased floor area will not have any impact on the alley; the impact
is shouldered almost entirely by the property owner and can be considered nominal and inconsequential.
Commission member San Filippo reported that he visited this site over the weekend and noticed at least four
other properties in the area that appeared to have garage buildings with some amount of finished space above.
San Filippo stated that he is supportive of the application as proposed.
Commission member Gupta agrees with the previous comments, noting the design of the garage to be
attractive and is in line with the current renovations of the primary residence.
Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE ZBA250027,
regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 3.1.8 to allow the proposed detached
garage with habitable space to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 268 square feet as shown
in the hearing materials.
The Commission finds that the variance
• Would not be detrimental to the public good; and
• The proposal will promote the general purpose of Section 3.1.8 equally well or better than would
a proposal which complies because:
o The floor area could be divided up into two structures;
o The proposed structure meets all setbacks; and
o The proposed structure is subordinate in size and height to the primary structure.
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the 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, Gupta, Lawton, Coffman, Floyd, Carron
Nays:
Absent: Vogel
6. OTHER BUSINESS
-Brad Yatabe suggests that in the meeting script, a request be made to identify site visits up front. Lawton
suggests that this could occur prior to general discussion, or before/during staff report. Yatabe suggests
that announcements of site visits occur directly after an item description is read.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 10:04 AM
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT October 9, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA250021
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 1805 Laporte Ave
Owner: Colin Barry and Celeste Wieting
Petitioner: Jeremy Cameron, General Contractor, Intelligent Designs Inc
Zoning District: OT-A
Code Section: 2.1.6
Variance Request:
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 at the southwest corner of the house where the addition
will extend from the existing attached garage. The existing garage was built up to the western property
line, however the proposed location for the addition will be set back 3 feet from the 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 of 2 feet into the existing 5-foot side setback.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
This item was tabled in August of this year. At that time the Commission voted to allow the applicants more
time to refine their plans and explore other possible design options. The applicants did adjust the request
and is proposing only a 2-foot encroachment for the wall. This is different from the previous request of a 5-
foot encroachment.
The property is a part of the Frey Subdivision that was originally approved in the county in 1924. It was later
annexed into the City in 1967. The primary building was constructed in 1953.
Setback standards and wall height requirements maintain the character of the neighborhood and provide
minimum safety regulations.
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends approval and finds that:
• The variance is not detrimental to the public good.
• The 2-foot encroachment is less than the existing encroachment.
• The proposed addition is not visible from the front.
• The proposed addition maintains minimal separation for building code requirements.
Therefore, this variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way,
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land
Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2.
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of APPEAL ZBA250021.
INTELLIGENT DESIGNS INC
JEREMY CAMERON
1508 Briarwood Rd
Fort Collins Co
80521
970-402-9842
8/28/25
To: City of Fort Collins zoning department
With regard to the tabled variance from land use code
Revised statement for variance request reasoning.
To whom it may concern,
This request to revisit (tabled) variance is in regard to the single family home
located at 1805 Laporte Ave. After consideration of the options available to us from
the last meeting, the revised request is a variance to the setback of two feet into
the five foot setback, leaving three feet to the property line.
As mentioned in the previous meeting, the best (and only) placement for this is behind
the garage, tucked into an existing “L” shaped space that already serves as an open
patio. Placement of the proposed sunroom is not possible anywhere else on the south
side of the home, due to the narrowness of the lot, placement of the existing home
and the need to maintain egress and lighting to the existing south bedroom window. It
would also block the only kitchen window, serving as the only natural light to that
space. Blocking that would use additional electricity for lighting at times of the day
when it would be otherwise unnecessary.
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Jeremy Cameron, GC Intelligent Designs Inc
Celeste Wieting (homeowner)
Coilin Barry (homeowner)
SUNROOM MAP VIEW PICTURES
1805 LAPORTE AVE FRONT VIEW (highlighted area is the location of the proposed sunroom)
1805 LAPORTE AVE TOP VIEW (highlighted area is the location of the proposed sunroom) top of
frame is north
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 - Page 1
STAFF REPORT October 9, 2025
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
PROJECT
ZBA250029
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Address: 608 Peterson St
Owner: JRA Property Solutions LLC
Petitioners: Jamie Allen, Owner, JRA Property Solutions LLC
Tom Martinez, Valiant Construction Holdings LLC
Zoning District: OT-B
Code Section: 2.1.6
Variance Request:
This is a request for a proposed 1,531 square-foot second story residential addition to result in a 3,165 square-
foot structure that exceeds the maximum allowable floor area for a detached single unit residential dwelling.
The maximum allowable floor area for a single unit detached dwelling in the OT-B zone district is 2,400 square
feet. The request is to therefore exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 765 square feet.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The property was part of the original town plat in 1873. The primary building was constructed in 1910. There is
an existing accessory that will be demolished and a new accessory building built in place.
The applicant has received two approvals from the Land Use Review Commission this year. The first was to
build an accessory structure larger than 600 square feet. The second was to allow an encroachment into the
garage door rear yard setback with the condition compliance with the standard would have impact on the
existing tree.
The current request is to build a detached house greater than 2,400 square feet of floor area. The existing
house had an upper story. The applicant proceeded with demolishing and gutting the existing house in
preparations for new second story and improvements to the first floor. A building permit was submitted and in
review it was found the new additions would increase the size of the house to greater than 2,400 square feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance to build the current design of the project.
Before the demolition the existing house was approximately 2,800 square feet of floor area. The upper story did
have varying ceiling heights that would make it hard to stand. Regardless of the ceiling height the total was
2,800 square feet. This structure was considered non-conforming. When a non-conforming structure is self-
demolished in portion or whole, it is required to be rebuilt to the current code requirements.
The Land Use Code was updated in May of 2024. This update focused on creating more housing. The
previous code would allow for a large house to be built on large lots. The updated code removed this standard
and now limits a detached house in this zone district to 2,400 square feet regardless of the lot size. It also
allows larger lots to be used for more than one unit.
In this zone district there are options for additional dwelling units for a lot size that is 9,500 square feet. On this
size lot a detached house could include one accessory dwelling unit detached or attached. Another option is to
build a duplex that could also include an accessory dwelling unit. A third option would be to build a triplex with
an accessory dwelling unit. A fourth option is to build an apartment building with four units.
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 - Page 2
2. Applicant’s statement of justification: See petitioner’s letter.
3. Staff Conclusion and Findings:
Under Section 6.14.4(H), staff recommends denial and finds that:
• The variance request is to use a lot that is 58% greater than minimum lot size for one dwelling unit.
• The proposed design does not meet the standard equally well or better than a standard that meets
the standard as it is larger than the demolished non-conforming structure.
• The proposed design is 31% increase to the allowed floor area.
• There is not a unique hardship that prevents the standard from being met.
4. Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of APPEAL ZBA250029.
$SSOLFDWLRQ5HTXHVW
IRU9DULDQFHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGH
7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ KDVEHHQJUDQWHGWKHDXWKRULW\WR DSSURYHYDULDQFHV IURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWV
RI$UWLFOHVDQGRIWKH/DQG8VH&RGH7KH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOQRWDXWKRUL]HDQ\XVHLQ D]RQLQJ
GLVWULFWRWKHUWKDQWKRVH XVHVZKLFKDUHVSHFLILFDOO\ SHUPLWWHGLQ WKH]RQLQJGLVWULFW7KH&RPPLVVLRQ PD\JUDQW
YDULDQFHVZKHUHLW ILQGVWKDWWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKHVWDQGDUGZRXOGQRWEHGHWULPHQWDOWRWKHSXEOLF JRRG
$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHYDULDQFHUHTXHVWPXVWPHHWDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJMXVWLILFDWLRQUHDVRQV
E\UHDVRQRIH[FHSWLRQDOSK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVRU RWKHUH[WUDRUGLQDU\DQGH[FHSWLRQDOVLWXDWLRQVXQLTXHWR
WKH SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWR SK\VLFDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFK DV H[FHSWLRQDO QDUURZQHVV
VKDOORZQHVV RU WRSRJUDSK\WKHVWULFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZRXOG UHVXOW LQ XQXVXDODQG
H[FHSWLRQDO SUDFWLFDO GLIILFXOWLHV RUXQGXHKDUGVKLS XSRQWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQWRIWKHSURSHUW\SURYLGHG
WKDWVXFK GLIILFXOWLHV RU KDUGVKLS DUHQRWFDXVHGE\DQDFW RU RPLVVLRQRIWKHRFFXSDQWDSSOLFDQW LHQRW
VHOILPSRVHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOSURPRWH WKHJHQHUDO SXUSRVH RIWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LVUHTXHVWHG
HTXDOO\ ZHOORU EHWWHUWKDQ ZRXOG DSURSRVDO ZKLFKFRPSOLHV ZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGIRU ZKLFKWKHYDULDQFH LV
UHTXHVWHG
WKHSURSRVDO ZLOOQRWGLYHUJHIURPWKH/DQG8VH&RGHVWDQGDUGVH[FHSWLQ DQRPLQDO LQFRQVHTXHQWLDO
ZD\ZKHQFRQVLGHUHGLQ WKHFRQWH[WRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
7KLVDSSOLFDWLRQLVRQO\IRUDYDULDQFHWRWKH/DQG8VH&RGH%XLOGLQJ&RGHUHTXLUHPHQWVZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHG
DQGUHYLHZHGE\WKH%XLOGLQJ'HSDUWPHQWVHSDUDWHO\ :KHQDEXLOGLQJRUVLJQSHUPLWLVUHTXLUHGIRUDQ\ZRUN
IRUZKLFKDYDULDQFHKDVEHHQJUDQWHGWKHSHUPLWPXVWEHREWDLQHGZLWKLQPRQWKVRIWKHGDWHWKDWWKH
YDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHG
+RZHYHUIRUJRRGFDXVHVKRZQE\WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH/DQG8VH5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ PD\FRQVLGHUDRQHWLPHPRQWK
H[WHQVLRQLIUHDVRQDEOHDQGQHFHVVDU\XQGHUWKHIDFWVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHFDVH$Q H[WHQVLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEH
VXEPLWWHGEHIRUHPRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHWKDWWKHYDULDQFHZDVJUDQWHGKDVODSVHG
3HWLWLRQHURU3HWLWLRQHU¶V5HSUHVHQWDWLYH PXVWEHSUHVHQWDWWKHPHHWLQJ
/RFDWLRQ /D3RUWH$YH&LW\+DOO&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV
LQVWUXFWLRQVZLOOEHHPDLOHGWR WKHDSSOLFDQWWKH)ULGD\RU0RQGD\SULRUWRWKHKHDULQJ
'DWH 6HFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWK7LPH DP
’s Name
)RUW&ROOLQV&2 ’s
Petitioner’s Address
’s Name Petitioner’s Phone #
!"Petitioner’s Email
’s Name
!"Representative’s Address
!"Representative’s Phone #
!"Representative’s Email
tZ/dd E^dd D Ed yW>/E/E'd, Z ^KE&KZd, sZ/E Z Yh ^dZ Yh/Z s/
^ WZd KhD Ed͘
608 Peterson Street Jamie Allen
Owner
80524 33 S. Boulder Circle, #302, Bould
JRA Property Solutions LLC 7206907131
LUCSec2.1.6; LUCSec3.1.8 jamie@betterblueprintrealty.com
OT District Tom Martinez
834 F S. Perry Street, Suite 119,
7202345207
tom.martinez@bevaliant.net
2. Equal to or better than
3. Nominal and inconsequential
Additional Justification
%XLOGLQ RGHH XLUHPHQWVZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHG
QG HYLHZHGE WKH %XLOGLQ H DUWPHQWVHSDUDWHO
608 Peterson Street
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
9/9/2025
RE: Request for Variance Consideration – Statement
• Variance Request - We are requesting the board allow for a 765 sq ft increase to the
OT zone district code, single unit dwellings that do not allow for these types of
dwellings to exceed 2,400 sq ft. This Zoning conflict OT-B was tied to the review of
building permit application (B2506769).
JRA Property Solutions LLC, the property owner’s request for this variance, is made for the
following reasons:
• Unusual physical Conditions- The pre-existing top floor of the home (which is now
Demo’d) was not simply not livable, due to the narrow cathedral style ceiling and
code-related design flaws. Items such as:
o Dormers were added which may or may not been safe to use without proper
egress.
o Minimum ceiling height.
o Stairs (rise & run too steep), which prove to be a tripping hazard for those
who went up and down the stairs.
o Energy requirements that do not meet today’s standards.
o Severe amount of asbestos had to be mitigated, which provided a significant
health concern for anyone living there. We obtained the state cert required
and proper testing (which can be provided as requested)
All of these factors made it inherently responsible to demo and rebuild the
structure for both health & safety concerns.
• Minimum Variance- The request for variance is the absolute minimum necessary to
afford relief and not to exceed normal industry standard enhancement. We are
requesting the 765 sq ft to the existing requirement, which has not materially
changed the look and feel of the hgt of the home as-is. We were intentional to meet
the bulk plane requirements and worked with the city to determine that. The
proposed 2nd story, which is a 1531 sf ft addition to the 1st story level will cause the
this single unit dwelling to exceed the 2,400 sf limit. This is based on Article 2:
Building Types pg 13 (attached).
• Unnecessary Hardship - Without this variance request it is highly probable this
home will not get rebuilt and could stay in its current status. See attached photo of
existing home in demo. Subsequently, we would not be facing this reality if we had
not submitted all of our plans for the demo permit which included everything
required for the demo permit (sqft, dimensions, elevations, asbestos reporting, etc).
Even though planning does not review these apparently, this has essentially put us
in a position where we cannot rebuild even what was there originally.
o Please note, it may be a best practice to consider planning to review demo
plans with its intended end use.
• Financial – It goes without saying, the financial impact to the owner is significant. To
date, we have spent over $1,000,000 on land acquisition, soft cost, fees, asbestos
mitigation, plan design, holding cost, demo, material, labor, management fees,
marketing, etc. The analysis provided at time of purchase required a specific type of
construction to justify the investment. Had these factors been clearly known, we
would never have proceeded with the initial purchase and certainly would not have
designed a home we could not build. Which has now potentially lead to a significant
financial hardship for the owner. Unfortunately, the home will remain as-is for the
foreseeable future if the variance is not passed as the owner cannot afford to
rebuild according to the new zoning requirements.
• Not Contrary to Public Interest - The variance will not negatively affect the
character of the neighborhood, nearby properties or general public as most of the
newly remodeled homes in this neighborhood are over the min 2400 sq ft
requirement. Our planned design will have a positive effect on the neighborhood,
specifically our north and south neighbors who have expressed recent concerns for
the new construction. We believe our intentions will have a positive impact on
design, both aesthetic and financial, for all involved. Around 80 - 90 properties that
exceed the code square footage requirement have sold in the past 2.5 years and
have had a positive impact on house prices and maintaining the wonderful
character of this neighborhood. Contrary, if we do not improve the property from its
current state, the effect will be resoundingly negative for all involved.
• Communication with the City – We have had great communication with the city
staff and appreciate their responsiveness, especially Brandon Haynes and Justin
Moore. However, during the Pre-Application meetings with staff in April of 2025,
specifically regarding the requirement on plan design and footprint, there was no
mention of the specific zoning requirement. Subsequently, we proceeded with
architectural design, which included a very thorough survey to determine the bulk
plane and communications with city staff to determine we were okay on floor plan
height. At no time was the size of the floor plan design called into questions. Not
blaming the staff but not even they caught the zoning code change.
o 3 Trees Design also found documentation that showed some contradictory
information to lot coverage and there are semantics to “floor area” vs “livable
square footing ” to this requirement and as a result, we used that information
to design the home as proposed.
o As a fact, the 2400 SQFT MAX ON A 5000 SQFT LOT is approx. 48% lot
coverage.
▪ Our proposed design is only a 17% of the lot coverage.
▪ Or 32.8% if they count both upper floors
We appreciate the board’s willingness to hear our situation with an open mind and
understand how much of an impact this will have to us all. We think this variance will prove
to be positive for our neighbors in particular. By working together, we can make this a great
project and a great outcome from all.
Thank you!
ENERGY COMPLIANCE SHEET
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
RE-IMAGINED LOWER FLOOR PLAN
EXISTING AND DEMO LOWER FLOOR PLAN
TYP. FLOATING WALL DETAIL
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
RE-IMAGINED MAIN FLOOR PLAN
EXISTING AND DEMO MAIN FLOOR PLAN
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
RE-IMAGINED UPPER FLOOR PLAN
EXISTING AND DEMO UPPER FLOOR PLAN
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
RE-IMAGINED FRONT ELEVATION
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION
SIDE VIEW
FRONT VIEW
BRACKET DETAIL
EXISTING REAR ELEVATION
RE-IMAGINED REAR ELEVATION
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
RE-IMAGINED RIGHT ELEVATION
EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
EXISTING LEFT ELEVATION
RE-IMAGINED LEFT ELEVATION
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
RE-IMAGINED ROOF PLAN
EXISTING AND DEMO ROOF PLAN
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
LOWER FLOOR THERMAL BARRIER PLAN
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
MAIN FLOOR THERMAL BARRIER PLAN
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
MAIN FLOOR THERMAL BARRIER PLAN
60
8
P
E
T
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
.
FT
.
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
,
C
O
BE
T
T
E
R
B
L
U
E
P
R
I
N
T
R
E
A
L
T
Y
64''5 &'5+)0#0&&4#(6+0)+0%
HCZ
64''5&4#(6+0)"%1/%#560'6
RJ
2-9 - ARTICLE 2: ZONE DISTRICTS - FORT COLLINS LANDUSE CODE
ARTICLE 2 - ZONE DISTRICTS
PURPOSE
ARTICLE 2 - ZONE DISTRICTS
OT
Old Town District
OT-A - Old Town District, Low
OT-B - Old Town District, Medium
OT-C - Old Town District, High
The Old Town District is intended to preserve the unique history, character, and scale of the
neighborhoods developed adjacent to Downtown and Colorado State University (CSU) and
given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. The District is divided
into three (3) subdistricts and is intended to encourage a mix of housing options, choices, and
intensities as permitted by each subdistrict, which is described on the following pages. The
Old Town Districts consists of the following three (3) sub-districts:
All standards within this zone district apply to all sub-districts, unless stated otherwise.
SECTION 2.1.6
W Vine Dr
"O
0::
City Park
W Mulberry St
Legend
City Zoning
-Old Town-A
-OldTown-B
-OldTown-C
Basemap
Streets
Bodies of Water
Parks and
Natural Areas
u5
en
"O
W Elizabeth St ]j
CJ)
CJ)
I
II
I
W Laurel St
Colorado State University
W Prospect Rd
E Vine Dr
~(b
~"?°
~'71
CZ,
-.I
E Lincoln Ave Z
·--••111 -•-••= E Mulberry St ~ 111=illiiiil ■-~l< i 111111111 r 0r%0
= 1·111·1---<11,: 8 I ■■■■ 0
CJ) I 111111111
' •••• ..J]
-
>, cu
E
(I)
...J
CJ)
0 0.25 0.5 1 111111-=~=--ic:==========i Miles
N
A
ARTICLE 2: ZONE DISTRICTS - FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE - 2-10
OT-A
Old Town District, Low
The Old Town District, Low (OT-A) subdistrict
has a predominance of single-unit dwellings,
complementary accessory dwellings and
uses, and supportive neigborhood uses.
BUILDING TYPES
The following building types are permitted in
the OT-A subdistrict:
PURPOSE
BUILDING TYPES UNITS *LOT AREA FLOOR
AREA
ADDITIONAL SITE
REQUIREMENT
Detached House
(Urban & Suburban)
1 max.6,000 ft² min.2,400 ft² max.N/A
Accessory Dwelling
Unit (Attached &
Detached)
1 max.N/A See Section
3.1.9
Located on the same lot with a
Detached House
Detached Accessory
Structure See Section 3.1.8 Located on the same lot with a
primary use
SECTION 2.1.6
Refer to Building
Types Article 3 and
Use Standards Article
4 for specific defini-
tions.
*The total number
of units shall not
exceed two (2)
on a lot.
2-11 - ARTICLE 2: ZONE DISTRICTS - FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
ARTICLE 2 - ZONE DISTRICTS
OT-B
Old Town District, Medium
BUILDING TYPES
The following building types are permitted in the OT-B subdistrict:
PURPOSE
The Old Town District, Medium (OT-B)
subdistrict is intended to preserve the
character of areas that have a predominance
of developed single-unit and low- to medium-
density multi-unit housing and have been
given this designation in accordance with an
adopted subarea plan.
BUILDING TYPES UNITS* LOT AREA FLOOR AREA ADDITIONAL SITE REQUIREMENT
Detached House
(Urban & Suburban)
1 max.5,000 ft² min.2,400 ft² max.N/A
Duplex 2 max.5,000 ft² min.40% of lot area max.N/A
Triplex 3 max.6,000 ft² min.70% of lot area max.N/A
Apartment Building 4 max.6,000 ft² min.85% of lot area max.N/A
Accessory Dwelling
Unit (Attached &
Detached)
1 max.N/A See Section 3.1.9 Located on the same lot with a Detached
House, Duplex, or Triplex
Detached Accessory
Structure See Section 3.1.8 Located on the same lot with a primary
use
SECTION 2.1.6
*The total number
of units shall not
exceed four (4)
units on a lot.
Refer to Building
Types Article 3 and
Use Standards Arti-
cle 4 for specific
definitions.
-
~ -
~ -
~ -
.
I I
~
ARTICLE 2: ZONE DISTRICTS - FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE - 2-12
OT-C
Old Town District, High
PURPOSE
The Old Town District, High (OT-C)
subdistrict is intended for areas that are
a transition between Downtown, the CSU
campus, and adjacent neighborhoods.
Intensive commercial-use areas or
high traffic zones have been given
this designation in accordance with an
adopted subarea plan.
Refer to
Building Types
Article 3 and
Use Standards
Article 4 for
specific
definitions.
BUILDING TYPES UNITS LOT AREA FLOOR AREA ADDITIONAL SITE
REQUIREMENT
Detached House
(Urban & Suburban)
1 max.4500 ft² min.2,400 ft² max.N/A
Duplex 2 max.4500 ft² min.No max.N/A
Apartment Bldg.
(Triplex and other)
3 min.4500 ft² min. &
additional 750 ft² min. for
each unit greater than 3 units
No max.N/A
Rowhouse 2 min. to 3
max.
4500 ft² min.No max.N/A
4 max.6000 ft² min.No max.N/A
5 max.7500 ft² min.No max.N/A
Cottage Court 5 min.9000 ft² min.See Section 3.1.3 N/A
Mixed-Use 3 min.4500 ft² min. &
additional 750 ft² min. for
each unit greater than 3 units
No max.N/A
Accessory Dwelling
Unit (Attached &
Detached)
1 max.N/A See Section 3.1.9 Located on the same
lot with a Detached
House, Duplex, or
Triplex
Detached Accessory
Structure
See Section 3.1.8 Located on the same
lot with a primary use
SECTION 2.1.6
BUILDING TYPES
The following building types are permitted in the OT-C subdistrict:
2-13 - ARTICLE 2: ZONE DISTRICTS - FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
LOT WIDTH
Detached House 40’ min.
Duplex 40’ min.
All Others 50’ min. *
ARTICLE 2 - ZONE DISTRICTS
* Exception for Rowhouse Building Type. See Section
3.1.4.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SETBACKS
Front Setback 15’ min.
Side Setback, Interior 5’ min.
Side Setback, Street 9’ min.
Rear Setback, No
Alley
15’ min.
Rear Setback, Alley 5’ min.
Garage Setback
(from walkway)
20’ min.
Garage Door Setback
(side or rear alley)
8’ min.
C
D
E
A
B
A
B
OT - Old Town District (Low, Medium, and High)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
BUILDING PLACEMENT
SECTION 2.1.6
SCHOOLS & PLACES OF WORSHIP &
ASSEMBLY SETBACKS
Front Setback 15’ min.
Side Setback
(interior and street)
25’ min.
Rear Setback 15’ min.
• • • • •
ARTICLE 2: ZONE DISTRICTS - FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE - 2-14
BULK PLANE
All Applicable
Buildings, as specified
in the Building Design
Table
Building shall be
setback an additional
1’ for every 2’ of height
above 18’.
North facing walls,
when along side-
interior lot line with
an adjoining property
Building shall be
setback an additional
1’ for every 1’ of height
above 14’.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
BUILDING ENVELOPE
OT - Old Town District (Low, Medium, and High)
SECTION 2.1.6
BUILDING HEIGHT
OT-A 28’ max.*
OT-B 28’ max.*
OT-C 4 stories max.
Front Porch 1 story max.
A second floor shall not overhang the lower front or side
exterior walls of a new or existing building.
*The max height may exceed 28’ by the height required to
raise the building to comply with floodplain regulations
BULK
PLANE
FRONT
FACADE
SIDE
FACADE
2-Story Dwelling
Replacing 1-Story
Dwelling
◉◉
New Buildings
> 2,500 ft2 ◉◉◉
Second Story
Addition
> 3,000 ft2
◉◉◉
BUILDING DESIGN
Additional design standards apply in the following
conditions. See Article 7 for measurement details.
At least one (1) front façade feature from the menu
below shall be included to promote pedestrian
orientation and compatibility with the character of
the structures on the block face. See Section 7.1.2 for
details.
• Limited 2-story facade• 1-story element• Covered entry
FRONT FACADE DESIGN
At least one (1) side façade feature from the menu
below shall be included to address potential looming
and privacy impacts on neighbors. See Section 7.1.2
for details.
• Wall Offset• Step Down in Height• 1-story element• Additional setback
SIDE FACADE DESIGNRequired◉
I
J
IJ
FLOOR AREA - REAR LOT AREA
OT-A 25% max. of rear 50% lot
area**
OT-B & OT-C 33% max. of rear 50% lot
area**
**All floor area of an ADU is excluded
•
•
Side Setback
Corner Setback
2-15 - ARTICLE 2: ZONE DISTRICTS - FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SITE DESIGN
ARTICLE 2 - ZONE DISTRICTS
OT - Old Town District (Low, Medium, and High)
LANDSCAPE / HARDSCAPE
Front Yard
Coverage1
Maximum 40% of front yard
can be covered with inorganic
material such as asphalt,
concrete, pavers, stone, rock or
gravel.
ACCESS & PARKING
Alley Access Whenever a lot has access along an alley,
any new off-street parking area located
on such lot must obtain access from such
adjoining alley.
Existing
Driveways
Alley access shall not be required when a
new detached garage is proposed to be
accessed from an existing driveway that
has a curbcut along a public street, or
when alley access is determined by the
City Engineer to be a hazard to persons
or vehicles.
Off-Street
Parking
Permanent open off-street parking areas
for all permitted principal uses, other
than single-unit dwellings, shall not be
located any closer to a public street
right-of-way than the distance by which
the principal building is set back from the
street right-of-way. This provision shall
not be construed to preclude temporary
parking in driveways.
C
D
D
C
A
*Unless otherwise required for ADA access.
ENTRANCES
Primary Entrance*Face street or common court
Primary Entrance shall include
architectural feature such as a
porch, landing or portico.
A
B
B
SECTION 2.1.6
I
I
I
• •
•
-------------------I
•
I
I
I
I
ARTICLE 2: ZONE DISTRICTS - FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE - 2-16
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
OT - Old Town District (Low, Medium, and High)
ACCESSORY BUILDING - LOT STANDARDS
ADU Floor Area 1000 ft² max. / or 45%
of primary dwelling unit
(whichever is less)
ADU Setback from
Primary Dwelling
5’ min.
DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
HEIGHT (Maximum)
ADU Height 24’ max. / or as tall as the
primary building (whichever
is less)*
Accessory Building
(Non-Habitable)
20’ max. or as tall as the
primary building (whichever
is less)*
Wall Height (along
interior side lot line)
13’ max.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
I
J
J
SECTION 2.1.6
DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
DORMER or SIMILAR ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURE
Width (along side
lot line)
8’ max.
Stepback from first
story
2’ min.
*Shall apply to buildings that have applied for a builidng
permit on or after January 1, 2024.
Building Height
-----~-
-----4.