Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Review Commission - MINUTES - 10/09/2025 (2)10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 1 Land Use Review Commission REGULAR MEETING Thursday, October 9, 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 – Floyd, Vogel, Carron, Coffman Board Members Absent – Lawton, San Filippo, Gupta Staff Members Present – Noah Beals, Kory Katsimpalis, Brad Yatabe Guest(s) – Justin Moore, Joe Esposito (observing/training on behalf of Zoning Dept.) 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Floyd made a motion, seconded by Coffman, to approve the September 11, 2025, Minutes as written. The motion passed by all members present. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -NONE- 5. VARIANCE REQUESTS a. APPEAL ZBA250021 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 Project Description: This is 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located just west of Frey Ave. The request is to put an addition on the house. The appeal was originally heard in August of 2025, at which point the request was tabled to allowed for modification. The revised request is to now set the addition 3 feet from the side property line, which does comply with building code and fire rating, and maintains minimal safety requirements. The required setback by code for this zone district is 5 feet. There are no issues with the rear yard setback. Beals presented drawings and elevations of the proposed addition, as well as photographs of the subject property and the proposed location for the addition. There is a raised wooden fence already in place along the property line, so visibility of the addition from the neighboring property would be limited. Photographs also 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 2 show the existing home being built to the property line. Beals reminded the Commission that this property was originally built in the County and was subsequently annexed into the City. Applicant Presentation: Applicant petitioner Jeremy Cameron, General Contractor, Intelligent Designs Inc, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Cameron noted that the revised plan has pulled the addition back from the property line and has also been lengthened a bit to achieve the desired floor area. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Floyd asked Beals if there were any easements in place on the side of this property. Beals responded that there are no easements present at this time. Commission member Carron feels this is a good compromise and meets the intent of the code to maintain a setback for health and safety. Carron feels the scale of the addition is appropriate for the context of the neighborhood. Commission member Coffman agrees with previous comments. The current proposal strikes a good balance between code requirements and health and safety and the desires of the homeowner to increase useable space. Vice Chair Vogel agrees with the comments offered by other members and is in support of approval. Commission member Cofman made a motion, seconded by member Carron to APPROVE ZBA250021, regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Sections 2.1.6 to allow the proposed sunroom to encroach 2 feet into the required 5-foot side 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 2-foot encroachment is less than the existing garage encroachment; o The proposed addition is not visible form the front; and o The proposed addition is not visible from the front; and o The proposed addition maintains minimal building code separation requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings and conclusions in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Floyd, Vogel, Carron, Coffman Nays: Absent: Lawton, San Filippo, Gupta b. APPEAL ZBA250029 Address: 608 Peterson St 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 3 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. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located south of E Myrtle St and E of west of Whedbee St. To note, this property has requested two other variances this year; those are not a part of the request today. The request is to construct a new home with a total area of 3,165 square feet. Beals presented renderings and elevations of the proposed home, noting that the intent is to remove the current attic space of the existing home and build a full second story. Even if the existing structure was over 2,400 square feet, once a structure is self-demoed, code requires that a new structure be built to code, regardless of if the former structure was considered non-conforming. Beals noted that a demolition permit can be pulled prior to other permits being issued. That is what the applicant has done, and demolition has is currently underway on the property. “Floor area” is measured in total, across all stories, rather than by footprint. Additionally, financial hardships cannot be considered when seeking justification for variance approval. Commission member Floyd asked Beals to provide further details regarding requirements for a demolition permit. Beals noted that his understanding is that an applicant must identify what is being demolished, maintain a safe site, and mitigate any asbestos or other harmful materials. Floyd asked if demo permits required information on what will be rebuilt? Beals explained that demolition permits do not consider what will be built, only what is proposed to be demolished. Vice-Chair Vogel asked if the original structure was considered to be non-conforming based on floor area? Beals believes that was the case, noting the original structure was approximately 2,800 square feet. Applicant Presentation: Applicant petitioner Tom Martinez, Owner, Valiant Construction Holdings LLC, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Martinez stated that he is a 25-year veteran of home building and has served on his local Building and Planning & Zoning boards. Martinez offered some additional history and context regarding this project. He also referenced current economic and market forces that are driving his project. Martinez noted the unusual physical conditions of the original home, in particular the second story. The demolished attic area shown in applicant materials is an example of the height restrictions present. Martinez asserted that the structure was unsafe and in need of substantial rehab and rebuilding. Additionally, the original structure was not going to be able to meet energy requirements. The home also needed substantive asbestos mitigation. These factors necessitated a demolition of the structure. 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 4 Martinez noted the home was close to 2,900 square feet prior to demolition. Martinez noted the square footage of the home presents a 310 square-foot increase over what existed, which is not as much as compared to the difference between 2,400 square feet as dictated by code. Martinez described his process with City staff within pre-project meetings. These meetings began in April 2025 with Justin Moore of the Zoning Department. Martinez described this process as progressing smoothly. From April through June, there has been a lot of back-and-forth discussions. Some of these have centered around bolt plane locations. Martinez stated that at no time was the 2,400 square-foot floor area requirements raised as a possible problem with the proposed plan. Martinez explained is opinion that there may be a semantic issue with terms like “floor area” and “square- footage” and “footprint”. He feels that there ought to have been more discussion about this being a potential problem during the project plan meetings. At this point, the project is far down the road, and many funds have been spent. There is a spirit of the law that need to apply to a human level here. Martinez explained that Planning is not responsible for reviewing a demolition permit and did not review the plans that were submitted with the demolition permit. Martinez stated that the building permit process was so excruciating that it delayed the project by three weeks. The process was the hardest that they’ve experienced compared to any other municipality that they’ve worked with. The review process then took a lot of effort to get materials submitted. Once submitted, Zoning department found that the project would not meet code, after seven months of working with the city to obtain necessary permits. Martinez stated that neighbors are excited to see this project come to fruition and he sees this building as something that will make the community better. The project is now stalled as it seeks variances and permits. At this point, it is highly unlikely the client will continue to move forward with the project without a variance. Martinez explained that his client as spent over $1,000,000 on this property and is now looking to sell it off unfinished. If they are unable to pursue a two-story home, they cannot create the value that they wanted from the property. Martinez believes this variance would not negatively affect the community but instead would only improve the look and feel of the neighborhood. If not finished, there is a good chance that it will sit incomplete for the next 3-4 years. Heather Attardo, Architect, Valiant Construction Holdings LLC, addressed the Commission and offered comment. She noted that other municipalities refer to lot coverage, but here in Fort Collins, the term used is “floor-area”. This property would have a 17% lot coverage ratio, compared to the 48% lot coverage achieved by a 5,000 square-foot lot with a 2,400 square-foot structure. This design includes an upper-floor master suite, which takes advantage of the space to use as a multi- generational floor plan that has two separate levels each with their own master suite. The 2,400 square-foot requirement in this zone poses challenges when attempting to maintain a single-family structure. In conclusion, Martinez stated that the goal is to improve the community and improve property value. There is sometimes initial pushback from neighbors as properties are renovated, but in the long term it is a good thing that raises property values. Commission member Floyd asked Martinez if he had a plan for the initial meetings, or if they came to Fort Collins with basic understanding? Martinez noted the nature and sprit of a pre-app meeting is to uncover and call out any potential challenges and code requirements up front, prior to a project proceeding. This floor area hurdle was not caught at that time, and here we are months later. Vice-Chair Vogel asked when the pre-app meeting occurred. Martines believed it was mid-April of 2025. Demolition permit application was submitted July 7, 2025. 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 5 Public Comment: Audience member Mike Lyons, 612 Peterson St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Lyons asked Attardo if the project was staying within the height limits of the code. Attardo confirmed. Lyons noted there is home being built south of the subject property. Back-fill efforts of that property shook his home. The fact that the subject property is not changing the foundation, and thus will not need back-fill, hopefully means his home will not experience more shaking and disturbance. Lyons does not understand the square-footage requirements, as the other home that is being built appears to be larger than the current standard. Thus, it was expected that the new home at 608 Peterson would also be larger. Lyons expects that if the project is not completed, another party will most likely come in and make a new structure even bigger. This may result in foundation work that could damage Lyons’ home, which is original to 1910. Commission Discussion: Assistant Attorney Yatabe asked for clarification, noting that the applicants’ argument is noted as hardship criteria, however the applicant has checked equal to or better than and nominal and inconsequential. Yatabe asks that the applicant clarify the hardship called out in the application compared to the hardship described today. Applicant representative Martinez stated that he now wants to focus on the improvement of the property rather than hardship. However, based on the submitted narrative, it would be detrimental to the builder, the client, and the community at large. It is hard to foretell what is going to happen but without approval, the applicants will not move forward with this project. Anyone who buys this out of foreclosure will also have to face the same challenges. Vogel notes that financial hardship is not an element of the Commission’s consideration. Commission member Coffman began by addressing hardship. Financial hardship cannot be considered. Another hardship called out was the physical condition of the existing attic and ceiling heights. While not being up to code, they are not “unlivable”. Asbestos would not have been uncovered prior to the demolition. However it is framed, this variance is indeed seeking an increase over 700 square feet of overall floor area. Looking at the upper store floor plan, it appears it could be easy to make this an upper/lower duplex by adding a kitchen area upstairs. This is only equal to or better than when thinking about current demolition conditions, which is a condition wholly created by the applicant. Commission member Floyd thinks the duplex option would both meet the spirit of the code as well as not creating an overly burdensome hardship for the applicant. Floyd asked Beals if he could provide any information for the process of creating a duplex. Beals explained the Development Review Process would go to a hearing officer for approval. Once approved, and building permit could be pulled to build a duplex. This would require capital expansion fees to the additional living unit. Vice-Chair Vogel notes the challenges inherent in this request. Vogel is struggling to find hardship significance for justification. A duplex solution is the most attractive to Vogel in this scenario. Commission member Carron feels that some portion of the hardships present are self-imposed. The misinterpretation of “floor-area” should have been remedied and understood early in the process. Carron would be okay with the structure being built to the same total floor area as the original home. Some of the after-the- fact effects cannot be remedied, but we can’t base our decision upon what might happen with foreclosure, etc. Carron is unsure how to reconcile keeping this as a single-family concept versus shifting to a duplex concept. Beals indicated that a duplex would require a Type 2 hearing. Floyd asked if ceiling heights were adjusted within the existing footprint, would the Commission be willing to hear the request again? 10/9/25 – LURC MINUTES – APPROVED 6 Carron would be amenable to hearing the variance again if ceiling heights were adjusted to reduce floor area. Coffman would be more sympathetic to a variance request as Floyd suggest. Beals noted that approval could be granted today at the 2,800 square foot limit or could request a table of the item in order to seem revised plans. Vogel requests comment from the applicants. Applicant Martinez introduced his colleague Jason Roberts, who has helped the project with real estate analysis. With regards to the floor area: if 380 of this area is unfinished and/or unlivable, is it counted towards floor area? Beals confirmed that floor area is counted from outside wall to outside wall. Roberts noted he has been retained as a consultant for the owner, Jamie Allen. Current real estate market prices prevent this project from shifting to a duplex concept, as it would no longer pencil out. Martinez also noted the process can be brutal to get P&Z approvals. This could take a year, in which they would have to be carry an additional interest debt. Vogel asked if the approval were to be granted for maximum of 2,800 square feet, would the applicants be amenable to that change? Martinez stated he would be ok with an approval of 2,800 square feet maximum. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by member Floyd to APPROVE WITH CONDITION ZBA250029 granting the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the proposed residential dwelling to exceed the maximum allowable floor with area with the following conditions: the allowable floor area may be exceeded by up to an additional 400 square feet, for a maximum floor area of up to 2,800 square feet. The Commission finds that the variance • Would not be detrimental to the public good; and • The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; and • The proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during this hearing, and Commission discussion. Yeas: Floyd, Vogel, Carron, Coffman Nays: Absent: Lawton, San Filippo, Gupta 6. OTHER BUSINESS -NONE- 7. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:52 AM. Minutes approved on 11/13/2025