MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

July 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. July 22, 2008.  Members Jean Christman, Alan Cram, Evelyn King, Matt Strauch, Peter Bohling were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff member Samantha Mott and Assistant County Attorney William G. Ressue.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0716  (Turner Setback Variance Extension)

Owner:            Jerry Darrell Turner

Applicant:       Jerry Darrell Turner

Property Description:

 

LOT 133A OF THE LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION OF LOTS 133 AND 137 GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 12TH PUD AND INCLUDING THE VACATION OF THE 20 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE COMMON LOT LINES, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Jerry Darrell Turner, requesting an extension of time for compliance with the approval of the original Turner Setback Variance 07-BOA0658 upon the above-described property was presented to the Board. The variance allowed a new home and a detached garage to each be located 20 from the edge of the road easement of Donald Peak Court rather than the required minimum setback of 45 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 SE 36-9-72; 48 and 56 Donald Peak Court, Livermore; located at the intersection of Donald Peak Court and Twin Pillars Drive in the Glacier View Meadows 12th Filing PUD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               5.0 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning:             E - Estate

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  E - Estate

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.    Access:                                    Twin Pillars Drive

 

4.         The applicant was granted a variance (File #07-BOA0658) by the Board of Adjustment in June 2007.  The application was for a setback variance from the edge of the road easement.  The applicant was required to act on the variance within one year of the date of approval.  The applicant is now requesting more time, one additional year, to act on the variance.

 

5.         The applicant requested a setback variance to allow a new home and a new detached garage to each be located 20 feet from the edge of the road easement of Donald Peak Court.  The required setback is 45 feet as indicated in Section 4.1.7.B.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

6.         This applicant was in the process of combining his two lots, Lot 133 and Lot 173, into one lot when he applied for the variance.  The lot consolidation was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on May 29, 2007.  Therefore, the lots in question have now been consolidated into one building lot.

 

7.         As originally configured Donald Peak Court provided access to both lots off of Twin Pillars.  No other lots gain access via Donald Peak Court.  Now that the two lots have been combined into one building lot, Donald Peak Court provides access to this one lot.

 

8.         There are no major issues or concerns with the request. All other conditions of the original variance will remain in effect with this extension request.

 

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

 

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.

 

Alan Cram 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 hereby is granted a one year extension of time to act on his setback variance 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.         The applicant shall apply for a building permit for the proposed building and obtain all final inspections as necessary to finalize the permit.

 

            3.         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.

 

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.

 

The question was called and members Jean Christman, Alan Cram, Evelyn King, Matt Strauch and Peter Bohling voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance time extension was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0717  (Eason Setback Variance)

Owner:            William Robert Eason

Applicant:       Julianna Delmonte

Property Description:

 

NW 1/4 OF W 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 25-5-69; LESS ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLAZA 1ST ADDITION

 

            The Application of Julianna Delmonte, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow storage modules to be 0 feet from the west and east side property lines and 0 feet from the rear lot line rather than the required minimum of 10 feet from the side lot lines and 20 feet from the rear lot line in the C-Commercial 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 25-5-69; 120 14th Street SE, Loveland; located at the intersection of  14th Street and Valency Drive ¼ mile west of S. Lincoln Avenue.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               4.33 Acres

            b.         Proposed Use:                          Commercial

c.         Existing Zoning:             C-Commercial

            d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  C-Commercial, FA-Farming, City of                                                                                         Loveland

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Commercial

g.                                                                                                         g.         Access:                                    Valency Drive/14th Street

 

4.         The application of Julianna Delmonte requesting a setback variance to allow storage modules to be 0 feet from the west and east side property lines and 0 feet from the rear lot line was presented to the Board.  The required setbacks in the C-Commercial zoning district are 10 feet from the side lot lines and 20 feet from the rear lot line.  (Section 4.1.18.B.2)

 

5.         This parcel is located in the City of Loveland’s Growth Management Area (GMA).  A GMA is an area of the County outside of a municipalities’ jurisdiction but is in an area that is subject to an intergovernmental agreement between the County and the applicable city or town.  The parcel is located in an enclave with six other parcels that are entirely surrounded by land within Loveland city limits.

 

6.         Applicant and his consultant testified that applicant wants to develop the property for bargain storage facilities.  The storage containers will be used as screens rather than fencing the property.  Applicant will engineer around any ditches.  Drainage will flow into the center of the site.  Applicants will build in stages, starting with the outside.  Applicant will use the interior for outdoor storage until there is enough demand to install interior pods.  Applicant will install a berm along the east sides.  Applicant will landscape the visible side (North and West).  Applicant desires more interior space for circulation.  Applicant will have a two hour burn rating on the interior back wall.  Applicant will paint the units so they blend.  Applicant believes putting the units on the property line will reduce fire danger because there will be no fuel in the form of brush and weeds.  Applicant notes that the areas of the property that are within the setback are full of weeds and trash.  Applicant doesn’t want to waste the setback areas.  The setbacks are not needed for utilities.  Applicant conceded that other are properties do not have zero foot setbacks.

 

 

 

7.         An adjacent property owner appeared and testified in opposition to the request, citing concerns about devaluation of her property if a zero setback were allowed and possible impairment of the irrigation ditches that bring water to her property.

 

8.         This application fails to meet each of the review criteria, namely the lack of special conditions.  The property consists of 4.33 acres and has sufficient area that is suitable for locating the storage modules while still maintaining the setback requirements of 10 feet from side lot lines and 20 feet from the rear property line. 

 

9.         This request is also inconsistent with the purpose and intent of setback regulations.  Setbacks are required for numerous reasons, including but not limited to preventing buildings from being placed too close together, providing room between properties to allow access for fire safety (not only to provide access for firemen but to prevent fire hazards created by buildings being too close together), to allow room for buffering, to allow room for drainage, to provide an area for utilities to be located, and to help with compatibility issues when you have different uses on adjacent lots.

 

10.       The applicable review criteria for the variance have NOT 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 consists of generally level, open terrain.  It is a 4.33 acre lot that is currently vacant.  There does not appear to be any special circumstances or conditions warranting this variance request.  There is sufficient area and satisfactory terrain on the property to locate and utilize the storage modules while still maintaining the required setbacks.  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. 

 

            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 requirements.

 

            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 unnecessary and undue hardship because the property is currently vacant and there is room on the property to locate storage modules and meet the required setbacks.

            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 and structure.  The property can still be used for the owner’s intended purposes.  There are no circumstances preventing the storage modules from being located elsewhere on the property where they comply with the setback requirement.

 

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

 

The required setbacks prevent buildings from being too close to the property lines and granting a zero foot setback from the side and rear lot lines could adversely affect property in the vicinity because it may affect future development on the adjacent lots with

respect to buffering, screening, etc.  Although a commercial use is allowed on this property because it is zoned C-Commercial, the lot directly to the south of this lot is zoned FA-Farming and allows residential uses.  Allowing a commercially zoned property to have a zero foot setback adjacent to properties that are zoned to allow residential uses may create compatibility issues with regard to buffering and screening.  Staff has received two phone calls and one e-mail objecting to this variance request. 

 

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

 

Granting the variance is contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan because it does not satisfy the review criteria for granting a variance.  The property has sufficient area that is suitable for building and could satisfy the setback requirements. 

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

Referral agency comments are noted in the next section “Other Review Agency Comments”. 

 

11.       To approve this request 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.

 

Jean Christman moved and Peter Bohling 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 hereby is granted her setback variance as requested.

 

The question was called and member Matt Strauch voted in favor of the Resolution.  Members Jean Christman, Alan Cram, Evelyn King, and Peter Bohling 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 8:10 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:

 

 

 

________________________________