MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

December 18, 2007

 

            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., December 18, 2007.  Members Jean Christman, Evelyn King, Greg Christensen and Matt Strauch were present.  Also in attendance was County Planning Staff member Samantha Mott, and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #07-BOA0687  (Beavers Setback Variance)

Owner:            Max & Sandra Beavers

Applicant:       Max & Sandra Beavers

Property Description:

 

LOT 21, GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS, 7TH PUD

 

            The Application of Max and Sandra Beavers, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a detached garage to be located 25 feet from the property line rather than the required minimum of 50 feet in the E-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 NE 23-9-72; 155 Maroon Bells Circle, Livermore; located approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of Maroon Bells Circle and Green Mountain on Lot 21 of Glacier View Meadows, 7th Filing PUD.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.24 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning:             E-Estate

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  E-Estate, O-Open

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.    Access:                                    Maroon Bells Circle

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage on the property.  The proposed structure would be located approximately 25 feet from the south side lot line.  The E-Estate zoning district requires a 50 foot setback from the side lot line pursuant to Section 4.1.6.B.2.c of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

5.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.  An adjacent

neighbor sent a letter in support of the application.

 

6.         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 1.24 acre lot with sloping topography.  In addition there are considerable rock outcroppings located on the lot.  A level area where the garage could possibly be built and meet setback requirements is not suitable because there are utility lines (sewer, water and electric) in that area as well as an existing deck.

                                               

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

 

The circumstances described in 6A above are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  The property’s physical characteristics and the current excavation site were not created 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 interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause unnecessary and undue hardship because there are no other suitable areas on the property where the garage could be located and still meet setbacks. 

 

            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 garage.


 

            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 by 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 variance is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan because it satisfies the review criteria for granting a variance and allows the owners the reasonable use of their property without adversely affecting adjacent properties.

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

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

 

7.         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.

 

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

 

File No:           #07-BOA0688  (Suinn Setback Variance)

Owner:            Grace & Richard Suinn

Applicant:       Grace & Richard Suinn

Property Description:

 

LOT 46A, AMENDED PLAT LOTS 46 & 47, BLOCK 31, EAST OWASSA SUBDIVISION

 

            The Application of Grace and Richard Suinn, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a 280 square foot shed to be located along the front property line at a 0 (zero) foot setback rather than the required minimum of 25 feet in the O-Open 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 27-10-73; 333 Letitia Drive, Red Feather Lakes; located approximately ½ mile southeast of the intersection of Letitia and Fox Acres on Lot 46A, Block 31 of the East Owassa Subdivision.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.27 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            O-Open

g.         Access:                                    Letitia Drive

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct a 280 square foot shed on the property.  The proposed structure would be located 0 feet from the front property line.  The O-Open zoning district requires a 25 foot setback from the front property line pursuant to section 4.1.5B.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

5.         The applicant applied for a building permit, which is currently on hold until the decision concerning the variance is made.  The building permit application showed the new shed 10 feet from the front property line.  When the variance was submitted the drawing was revised to show the building 0 feet from the front lot line.  According to the applicants, their contractor believed the setback was to be measured from the center of the road instead of the from the property line.

 

6.         The applicant demolished an old shed during the summer of 2007.  The old shed sat on the property line.  The road adjacent to the property was originally next to the old shed.  It was later moved further away from the old shed.  The proposed new shed is planned to replace the old shed and will be in the same location.

 

7.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.  Planning Staff received one telephone call objecting to the variance.  The caller did not, however, state the basis for the objection.

 

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 0.27 acre lot with significant slopes and rock outcroppings.  The small size of the lot combined with the topography and rock outcroppings limits the area available for the shed.  The land on the east side of the cabin is taken by an underground holding tank of sewerage.  The land behind the cabin is made up of one continuous boulder pile that is higher than the cabin.  The proposed new shed cannot be moved further back and away from the front property line because of two very large and deep boulders at the back end which block the way for any further excavation.  The well is immediately to the east of the proposed site and the property line is 5 feet to the west of the proposed building site.

 

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

 

The circumstances outlined in 8A above are not 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 Code would cause unnecessary and undue hardship because it would prevent applicant from building a replacement shed.

 

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 construction of the replacement shed. 

 

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.  Applicant’s neighbors do not object to the construction of the new she and support re-building.  Because the road is now further from the old shed and the proposed new shed, safety concerns are lessened.

 

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

 

Granting the variance, as requested, is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan because the review criteria have been satisfied and because the variance allows applicant a reasonable use of the property without adverse impact to adjacent properties. 

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

 Referral agency comments were considered. No objections were offered 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.

 

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

 

 

 

                                                    ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 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:

 

 

________________________________