Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 10/09/20259/11/25 – 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 b. APPEAL ZBA250025 9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 3 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. Applicant Presentation: 9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 4 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. Public Comment: -NONE- 9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 5 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. 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 9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 6 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. 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. 9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 7 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 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 9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 8 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] 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. 9/11/25 – LURC MINUTES – DRAFT 9 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 Minutes Approved on 10/9/2025