Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

April 22, 2008

 

            The regular meeting of the Larimer County Board of Adjustment was held in the County Board Hearing Room in the Larimer County Courthouse, Fort Collins, Colorado at 7:00 p.m., April 22, 2008.  Members Matt Strauch, Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Greg Christensen and Evelyn King were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff member Samantha Mott, County Engineer Matt Johnson and Assistant County Attorney William G. Ressue.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of March 25, 2008 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.  Member Greg Christensen abstained from voting to approve the Minutes.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0699  (Elder Setback Variance)

Owner:            Darrell and Ann Elder

Applicant:       Intermill Land Surveying / Rob Persichitte / Liley, Rogers, &

                        Martell, LLC / Todd Rogers

Property Description:

 

LOT 30A, OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30, KISTLER SUBDIVISION AND THAT PORTION OF THE VACATED RANCH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITUATE IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOILOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30, KISTLER SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30. KISTLER SUBDIVISION NORTH 52°09'38" WEST 175.66 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30, KISTLER SUBDIVISION; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30, KISTLER SUBDIVISION AND ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINES OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30: KISTLER SUBDIVISION SOUTH 50°24'11" WEST 9.47 FEET AND AGAIN SOUTH 45°19'48" WEST 233.58 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30, KISTLER SUBDIVISION; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30. KISTLER SUBDIVISION AND ALONG THE SOUTHWESLERLY SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30. KISTLER SUBDIVISION SOUTH 38°49'31" EAST 151.32 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF' LOT 24 AND LOT 30. KISTLER SUBDIVISION; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30, KISTLER SUBDIVISION AND ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30, KISTLER SUBDIVISION SOUTH 38°49'31" EAST 10.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30, KISTLER SUBDIVISION AND ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND TEN (10) FEET SOUTHEASTERLY (MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30A, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30, KLSTLER SUBDIVISION NORTH 50°17'58" EAST 282.54 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 39°42'02" WEST 10.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 30.4, AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30. KISTLER SUBDIVISION AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 45,437.90 SQ FEET (1.04 ACRES), MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EXISTING EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD.

 

            The Application of Intermill Land Surveying, Rob Persichitte, Liley, Rogers and Martell and Todd Rogers, with Anne Elder appearing, requesting five variances was presented to the Board.  The Application requested setback variances upon the above-described property (i) to allow an existing home to be located zero feet from the side property line, (ii) to allow an existing tree house to remain 10 feet from the side property line, (iii) to allow a proposed sun room addition to be located zero feet from the side property line, (iv) to allow a proposed living room addition to be located 5 feet from the side property line, and (v) to allow a proposed storage shed addition to be located 10 feet from the side property line in the E-1 Estate zone. The required minimum is 25 feet from the side property lines.

 

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         The property location is Southwest quarter of Section 35, Township 05 North, Range 70; 3513 Ranch Road, north of County Road 31, off Prairie Way,  by Carter Lake.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.98 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning:             E-1 Estate

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  E-1 Estate

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Single Family Residential

g.    Access:                                    Ranch Road

 

4.         The applicant’s request includes five parts:

 

(i)         A setback variance to allow an existing home to remain zero feet from the side property line.

 

(ii)        A setback variance to allow an existing tree house to remain 10’ feet from the side property line.

 

(iii)       A setback variance to allow a proposed sun room addition to be located zero feet from the side property line.

 

(iv)       A setback variance to allow a proposed living room addition to be located five feet from the side property line.

 

(v)        A setback variance to allow a proposed storage shed addition to be located 10 feet from the side property line.

 

5.         The variance request was contingent upon Board of County Commissioner approval of an easement vacation and ROW vacation in the same area - File # 08-S2788.   The Board of County Commissioners approved the easement and ROW vacation on 4/21/08.

 

6.         The existing house currently extends into the Ranch Road ROW adjacent to the northeast side property line. The house has been in the same location for over 30 years and after recent purchase of this property the owners were made aware of the setback violation.

 

 

7.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

8.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

A.   There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The existing house has been on the property in its current location for over 30 years. Several County development actions have occurred on this property in the past and the house has been approved in its location for each action. Prior reviews and approvals should have discovered that the house was located in the setback.  Due to the existence of the house at its present location and the prior approvals for development made on the property, the special circumstance on this property is the long-term existence of the house at its present location and the various approvals without correcting the problem.

 

B.   The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The special circumstance is not the result of the applicant or the current owner.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

Strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would limit the use of this property and the structure. 

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and the existing structures.

 

E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect any neighbors or their property, especially in light of the fact that the residence has been in its current location many years. Several neighbors have contacted the Planning Department in regard to this matter and there have been no objections.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Under certain conditions granting the variance will not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code and Master Plan and will allow the applicant and owner reasonable use of the property.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

Referral agency comments have been considered.  There were no objections to the request by the referral agencies.  The County Code Compliance Section notes that upon approval of the variance a building permit can be applied for to complete the work on the carport addition and rear addition to the house. 

 

9.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Greg Christensen seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variances as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the variance approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

            2.         These variances are only for the building(s) as submitted with this variance application.  All future buildings, additions, and improvements must meet County setback requirements.

 

3.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicants (a) take affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submit a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Matt Strauch, Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Greg Christensen, and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variances were granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0700  (Handler Setback Variance)

Owner:            Michael and Wendy Handler

Applicant:       Christ Steadman / Steadman Contracting, Inc.

Property Description:

 

A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN A PORTION OF LOT 11, BLOCK 3, GLEN HAVEN SUBDIVISION, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONSIDERING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 11, BLOCK 3, GLEN HAVEN SUBDIVISION AS BEARING AN ASSUMED SOUTH 89 DEGREES 57 MINUTES EAST AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 11, FROM WHICH THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 27 BEARS NORTH 71 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 616.35 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST 61.88 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 11, AS MONURNENTED; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 16 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST 207.20 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 11, AS MONUMENTED; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST 198.21 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 11, AS MONUMENTED TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. AND LOT 10, BLOCK 3, GLEN HAVEN SUBDIVISION, LESS PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED JULY 28, 1988 AT RECEPTION NO. 88034874, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.

 

            The Application of Chris Steadman and Steadman Contracting, Inc., requesting three variances was presented to the Board.  The Application requested setback variances upon the above-described property (i) to allow an existing residence with a front addition and a new deck on the back of the house to located 20 feet from the edge of Hummingbird Hill Road, (ii) to allow an existing studio to remain 7 feet from the edge of Hummingbird Hill Road, and (iii) to allow an existing garage to remain 30 feet from the edge of Hummingbird Hill Road. The required minimum is 45 feet from the edge of the road in the E-1 Estate zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         The property location is SW 27-6-72; 230 Hummingbird Hill Road, Glen Haven; located approximately ¼ mile north and west of the intersection of Hummingbird Hill Road and Fox Creek in the Glen Haven Subdivision.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.91 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             E1-Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  E1-Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

            f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Hummingbird Hill Road

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct an addition onto the existing single family dwelling on the property.  The existing dwelling and the addition would be 20 feet from the edge of Hummingbird Hill Road.  There are also two existing accessory buildings, a studio and a garage that the owners wish to remain 7 feet and 30 feet respectively from the edge of the road.  The existing single family dwelling was built in 1947 and it is assumed that the two accessory buildings were built at the same time.  The E1-Estate zoning district requires a 45 foot setback from the edge of the road pursuant to Section 4.1.7.B.2. of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

5.         The property currently has two parcel numbers.  The owners are being required to do an amended plat to resolve a change in the property line with the property to the east.  The owners of the adjacent parcel split off a small portion of their lot by deed, but it did not go through the required amended plat process.  The owners are currently working on preparing the required documents to submit for the amended plat.

 

6.         There are no major issues or concerns with this request. 

 

7.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

8.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

 

A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The property is a 0.91 acre lot with both level and sloping topography.  The lot is  narrow with a road going through the middle of it.  The road was not constructed in the correct location according to the recorded plat.  This is a small mountainous property and numerous other structures in the area also encroach into the required setback.  The required setback of 45 feet from the edge of the road takes up the majority of the buildable area of the lot.  Given these constraints, complying with the setback requirements severely restricts the buildable area of the lot.  Currently there is an existing nonconforming home built in 1947 prior to established setback requirements.  The existing home already encroaches into the front setback.  The location of the addition will not be any closer to the road than the existing house.

 

B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The above circumstances are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  The property’s physical characteristics were not created by the applicant and the locations of the buildings were there prior to the current owners purchasing the property.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause on unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

Because of the topography of the lot and the road going through the middle of the lot, strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.  In addition, review of properties in the surrounding area indicates that encroachment into the road setback is a right commonly enjoyed by other buildings in the area.  There are other buildings in the immediate vicinity that do not meet the required setback distances because they were either granted variances or were built prior to the setback requirements.

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the requested variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the proposed addition to the single-family dwelling.  With setback from the road that goes through the middle of the property, there is only has a small area allowable for building, and the current nonconforming buildings already encroach into the setback. 

 

 

 

 

E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received from any of the neighboring property owners at this time.  Staff has received one letter in support of this setback variance request.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this Code and the Master Plan.  Granting the variance will allow the owner reasonable use of the land and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

           

Referral agency comments have been considered.  No objections were received from other agencies or departments.

 

9.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Greg Christensen seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variances as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the variance approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

2.         These variances are only for the building(s) as submitted with this variance application.  All future buildings, additions, and improvements must meet County setback requirements.

 

3.         The owners must apply for and complete an Amended Plat adding on the small portion of the lot to the east prior to receiving a building permit for the addition to the existing dwelling.

 

4.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicants (a) take affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submit a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Matt Strauch, Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Greg Christensen and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variances were granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0701  (Combs Setback Variance)

 

            A request to table the Combs Setback Variance was made by the applicants.

 

            Evelyn King moved and Greg Christensen seconded the motion that the Board table this matter until May 27, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.

 

            The question was called and members, Matt Strauch, Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Greg Christensen, and Evelyn King voted in favor of the motion.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0706  (Branstner Setback Variance)

Owner:            Terry and Lorraine Branstner

Applicant:       Walt Gant / Kenney & Associates

Property Description:

 

LOT 78, AMENDED PLAT OF NAMAQUA HILLS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Walt Gant and Kenney & Associates, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow the replacement of an existing nonconforming house with a new house that would be located 15 feet from the front property line rather than the required minimum of 25 feet in the FA-1 Farming zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

 

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         The property location is SE 8-5-69; 55 2008 Skyrock Road, Loveland; located on the east side of the intersection of Skyrock Road and Ponderosa on Lot 78 of the Amended Plat of Namaqua Hills.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.45 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             FA-1 Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-1 Farming and R1-Residential

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Skyrock Road

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to replace an existing nonconforming house with a new house.  The single family dwelling would be 15 feet from the front property line rather than the 25 feet normally required in the FA-1 Farming zoning district, Section 4.1.2.B.2. of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

5.         Currently there is an existing nonconforming home built in 1969 prior to permit requirements.  The new home will not be closer to the front property line than the existing home.  The applicant is proposing to tear down the walls of the existing home, but keep the floors and the foundation.  The house will include an expansion in the back, but the new home will meet the side and rear setbacks.

 

6.         The applicant applied for a building permit to add on to the back of the existing home.  It was determined that the house was nonconforming with regard to the front setback.  An application was then submitted to expand a nonconforming structure because the addition was more than 25% of the square footage of the original structure although the addition was entirely outside of the required setback.  After submitting the application that would have gone to the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant contacted the County about keeping the floors and foundation but tearing down the front walls of the house.  If the walls are to be torn down this would now be considered a replacement home.  The new process is to request a variance for the new home for the front setback because once the structure is gone, the nonconformity goes with it.  If the new home is built and does not meet setbacks, the process is to obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment.

 

7.         There are no major issues or concerns with this request.

 

8.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

9.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The lot is 0.45 acres in size.  The property has significant slopes.  The site constraints, such as the steep topography and the small size of the lot, severely restrict the area where the proposed building could be located.

 

B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The above circumstances are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  The property’s physical characteristics and location were not created or altered by the applicant.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

Strict enforcement of the provisions of the code will cause the owners an unnecessary hardship by limiting construction to an extremely small area of the property.  In addition, review of properties in the surrounding area indicates that encroachment into the front setback is a right commonly enjoyed by other buildings in the area.  There are other buildings in the immediate vicinity that do not meet the required setback distance because they were either granted variances or were built prior to the setback requirements.  If denied this request, the owners would be denied a similar right.

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the requested variance is not the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure because there already exists a single family dwelling on the property.  However granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the proposed single-family dwelling because of the small size of the lot and the steep topography.  Granting the variance would be the minimum action necessary to allow a building to be in the current building’s footprint.  There will be no additional encroachment into the front setback or the side or rear setbacks.

 

E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

 It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received from any of the neighboring property owners at this time.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the setback variance requested will not impair the intent and purpose of the Code or Master Plan.  Granting the variances will allow the owner reasonable use of the land and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

Referral agency comments were considered.  No objections were received from other agencies or departments.

 

10.       To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Greg Christensen seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the variance approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

2.         This variance is only for the building(s) as submitted with this variance application.  All future buildings, additions, and improvements must meet County setback requirements.

 

3.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicants (a) take affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submit a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Matt Strauch, Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Greg Christensen and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0703  (Baird Setback Variance)

Owner:            Darrell and Diana Baird

Applicant:       Darrell and Diana Baird

Property Description:

 

LOT 30, COFFEE PARK ADDITION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Darrell and Diana Baird, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing carport to remain 13 feet 6 inches from the front property line and 3 feet from the side property line rather than the required minimum of 25 feet in the FA-Farming zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         The property location is SW 9-7-69; 309 Arlene Drive, Fort Collins; located approximately 200 feet south of the intersection of W. Olive Street and Arlene Drive on Lot 30 of the Coffee park Addition.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.23 acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:             Residential

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  Residential

e.         Existing Land Use:                    FA-Farming

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            FA-Farming, R2-Residential

g.         Access:                                    Arlene Drive

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow an existing carport to be located 13 feet 6 inches from the front property line and 3 feet from the side property line.  The required setback in the FA-Farming zoning district is 25 feet from the front property line and 5 feet from the side property line.

 

5.         The carport was built without a permit.  The garage does not meet the required front and side setbacks.  The owner is now correcting these issues by obtaining all necessary building permits and applying for variances.

 

6.         There are no major issues or concerns with this request 

 

7.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

8.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The property is a small 0.23 acre lot.  The carport cannot be moved west on the concrete drive because the roof slope would cause snow and water to run into the side of the house.  If the carport were placed on the south of the garage, it would not allow cars in and out of the garage.  The carport is placed in the most functional location on the property.

 

B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The house existed in its current location at the time applicants acquired the property.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

Strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code will cause unnecessary and undue hardship.  There are other structures in the neighborhood that encroach into the front setback.

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land in a reasonable and functional manner.


 

E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

Granting the variance will not adversely affect property in the vicinity.  A number of area resident appeared and spoke in favor of the variance. 

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance will not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan because it allows for a reasonable use of the property without impairing neighboring properties.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

Referral agency comments were considered.  The Code Compliance Section noted that applicant will need to renew Permit 89-F5050 and obtain a final inspection if the variance is granted.

 

9.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Matt Strauch seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the Variance approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

2.         All future additions or buildings that would be within setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper county review and planning process prior to construction.

 

3.         The car port must remain a non-permanent structure.  

 

4.         The applicant must obtain a building permit and inspection approvals for the carport within thirty days of the date of this Resolution.

 

5.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicants (a) take affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submit a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Matt Strauch, Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Greg Christensen and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0702  (Deyen Setback Variance)

Owner:            Deanna Deyen          

Applicant:       Deanna Deyen

Property Description:

 

LOT 2, GILMORE ACRES, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Deanna Deyen, requesting three variances was presented to the Board.  The Application requested setback variances upon the above-described property (i) to allow an existing 2240 square foot garage/barn to be located 37 feet from the centerline of County Road 21, (ii) to allow an existing home to remain 53 feet 2 inches from the centerline of County Road 21, and (iii) to allow an existing barn (34’ x 64’) and 2 three-sided sheds to be 20 feet from the north property line.  The required minimum is 70 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 21 which is classified as a minor collector and 25 feet from the north property line in the RE-Rural Estate zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

2.         The property location is NW 4-8-69; 7220 N County Road 21, Fort Collins; located at the intersection of County Road 60E and County Road 21 on Lot 2 of Gilmore Acres.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               8.75 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Rural Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:             RE-Rural Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  RE-Rural Estate, O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Rural Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Rural Residential, Agricultural

g.         Access:                                    County Road 21

 

4.         The applicant’s request includes three parts:

 

(i)         A setback variance to allow an existing 2240 square foot garage/barn to be located 37 feet from the centerline of County Road 21 when 70 feet is required.

 

(ii)        A setback variance to allow an existing home to remain in its current location of 53 feet 2 inches from the centerline of County Road 21 when 70 feet is required.

 

(iii)       A setback variance to allow an existing barn (34’ x 64’) and 2 three-sided sheds to be 20 feet from the north property line when 25 feet is required. 

 

5.         The house was built in 1972 prior to building permit requirements.  The existing 34’ by 64’ barn on the north side of the property was issued a building permit is 1987.  The two sheds appear to have been on the lot prior to building permit requirements.

 

6.         In May of 2007, the applicant applied for a building permit for a 56 foot by 40 foot barn which did not meet setback requirements.  The applicant met with staff to discuss the variance process.  The applicant also spoke with Matt Johnson in the Larimer County Engineering Department who indicated that Engineering would most likely not support a setback variance request for the proposed building location.  The applicant later built the barn without obtaining a building permit in a location that does not meet setbacks.  In December of 2007, the Building Inspector issued a Notice of Building Code Violation.  The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow the building to remain in its current location by obtaining a variance from the required setback from County Road 21.  Code Compliance Supervisor, Candace Phippen’s, Staff Report dated April 4, 2008 contained in the agenda for the April 22, 2008 meeting of the Board of Adjustment includes an ‘Event log’ showing applicant was aware of the setback requirement prior to constructing the garage/barn.

 

7.          The Board shares Planning staff’s concerns with the variance request for the 2240 square foot garage/barn due to the building’s location in relation to County Road 21.  The Larimer County Engineering Department has indicated that the location of the building 37 feet from the right-of-way centerline would likely have an impact on road improvements or maintenance needs in the future.  This information was communicated to the applicant before the structure was constructed.  In addition, the Board finds this request does not meet the review criteria.  The property consists of 8.75 acres and has sufficient area that is suitable for constructing the garage/barn while still maintaining the setback requirement of 70 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 21.  Applicant’s need for a variance is a self-imposed hardship.

 

8.         The Larimer County Development Services Team (DST) has no major issues or concerns with the existing house, barn (34’ x 64’), and 2 three-sided shed remaining in their current locations.   

 

9.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

10.       The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met for the existing home, the 34’ x 64’ barn and the two sheds but not for the 2240 square foot barn as follows:

 

A.   There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The property is a large relatively flat 8.75 acre lot.  There currently exists a single family home on the property as well as several accessory buildings.  Given the above circumstances, the large size of the lot combined with the relatively flat topography, there is sufficient area and satisfactory terrain on the property to locate and utilize the 2240 square foot garage/barn while still maintaining the required setback.  Both a review of the application and a site visit resulted in no special circumstances - topographical, narrowness, shape, or otherwise – being found on the property.  Therefore, there are no exceptional conditions on the property that would force the pole barn to within 37 feet from the centerline of County Road 21   The decision to locate the garage/barn  as presently sited is for applicant’s convenience.

 

The special circumstance that applies to the existing home and two sheds are that they were built prior to permit requirements. The special circumstance that applies to the existing 34’ by 64’ barn on the north side of the property is that it was issued a building permit is 1987.

 

B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

No special circumstances or conditions were found that would prevent the applicant from complying with the setback requirement for the 2240 square foot garage/barn.

 

The circumstances outlined above regarding for the existing house, two sheds, and 34’ x 64’ barn are not the results of any action or inaction of the applicant. 

 

 

 

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

Strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code will not cause an unnecessary and undue hardship because there are other areas on the property where the garage/barn could be located and still meet setbacks. 

 

Strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause unnecessary and undue hardship with regards to the 34’x 64’ barn because the building received a building permit from the County and the house and 2 sheds were located on the property prior to permit requirements.

 

D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting the variance is not the minimum action that will allow use of the land.  There currently exists a single family dwelling on the property and numerous outbuildings built prior to setback requirements.  These structures could continue to remain  

 

There are no circumstances preventing the 2240 square foot garage/barn from being located elsewhere on the property and meeting the setback requirements.

 

Granting the variance is not the minimum action that will allow use of the house and accessory structures that were built prior to building permit requirements because they could continue to remain where they are and keep their nonconforming status.  However, because the buildings were built prior to building permit requirements the Board finds this criterion is not applicable to these buildings.

 

E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

Granting the variance for the 2240 square foot garage/barn will adversely affect property in the vicinity.  The setback from County Road 21 is 70 feet from the right-of-way centerline.  Given the buildings location of 37 feet from the right-of-way centerline the building will likely have an impact on road improvements or maintenance needs in the future.  This building location is closer to the County Road than any other structure within the area. 

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance for the existing house or any of the other accessory structures that have been there for an extended period of time will adversely affect property in the vicinity.

 

No objections have been received from any of the neighboring property owners at this time for any portion of this variance request.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance for the 2240 square foot garage/barn would be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan because it does not satisfy the review criteria for granting a variance.  It would be much closer to the property line than was intended by the setback requirement.  The property has sufficient area that is suitable for building and could easily satisfy the setback requirement.

 

Granting the variance for the existing house and accessory buildings that were either built prior to permitting requirements or issued a building permit is consistent with the purpose of this Code and the Master Plan.  Granting the variance will allow the owner reasonable use of the land and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.  None of these structures would likely have an impact on road improvements or maintenance needs in the future.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

Referral agency comments were considered.  The Larimer County Engineering Department is opposed to the variance for the garage/barn.

 

11.       To approve the variances for the house, two sheds and 34’ x 64’ barn would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  To approve the variance for the 2240 square foot garage/barn would not promote the harmonious development of the area, would not be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would not promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would not be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Matt Strauch seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicant be and she hereby is granted her variance to allow the existing home to remain 53 feet 2 inches from the centerline of County Road 21 and to allow an existing34’ x 64’ barn and 2 three-sided sheds to be 20 feet from the north property line, subject to the following conditions:

 

            1.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the Variance approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

            2.         This variance is only for the building(s) as submitted with this variance application.  All future buildings, additions, and improvements must meet County setback requirements.

 

3.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicants (a) take affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submit a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Matt Strauch, Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Greg Christensen and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variances were granted subject to conditions.

 

THEREAFTER, Evelyn King moved and Jean Christman seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED, that applicant be and hereby is granted her setback variance to allow an existing 2240 square foot garage/barn to be located 40 feet from the centerline of County Road 21.

 

The question was called and members Jean Christman, Greg Christensen and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  Members Matt Strauch and Eric Berglund voted against the Resolution. The Resolution did not receive the four votes needed to pass. Therefore, the variance was denied.

 

THEREAFTER, Greg Christensen moved and Matt Strauch seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED, that applicant be and hereby is granted her setback variance to allow an existing 2240 square foot garage/barn to be located 37 feet from the centerline of County Road 21.

 

The question was called and members Greg Christensen and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  Members Matt Strauch, Jean Christman and Eric Berglund voted against the Resolution. The Resolution did not receive the four votes needed to pass. Therefore, the variance was denied.

 

 

                                                     ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2008.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

 

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.