Larimer County Offices, Courts & District Attorney are closed Friday, July 3 for Independence Day
Landfill, Hazardous Waste and Recycle Center are open Friday, July 3 but closed Saturday, July 4
Landfill Business Office are closed July 3 & 4 Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
Parts of the Larimer County Virtual Courthouse website may be unavailable during maintenance on Tuesday, June 30 from 5 - 7 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 27, 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., November 27, 2007. Members Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Greg Christensen, Evelyn King and Matt Strauch were present. Also in attendance were 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 meetings of September 25, 2007 and October 23, 2007 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved with a correction to the October minutes to reflect that only the August 28, 2007 minutes were approved at the October meeting.
File No: #07-BOA0684 (Arvidson Setback Variance)
Owner: James Arvidson
Applicant: James Arvidson
LOT 1 FORKS SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
The Application of James Arvidson, requesting variances was presented to the Board. The Application requested setback variances upon the above-described property (i) to allow an existing home to remain 55 feet from the ROW centerline of Highway 34, (ii) to allow a partially built replacement deck to be 51 feet from the centerline of the Big Thompson River, and (iii) to allow an existing garage/shed to remain 35 feet from the ROW centerline of Highway 34. The required setbacks for the property are 100 feet from the centerline of U.S. Highway 34, and 100 feet from the centerline of the Big Thompson River.
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:
1. This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.
2. The property location is Northeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 5 North, Range 72; U.S. Highway 34; located approximately 2 ½ miles east of Estes Park.
3. Site data is as follows:
a. Land Area: 0.15 Acres
b. Proposed Use: Single Family Residence
c. Existing Zoning: O-Open
d. Surrounding Zoning: O-Open
e. Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence
f. Surrounding Land Uses: Residential, Recreational
g. Access: U.S. Highway 34
4. Applicant requests setback variances to allow an existing home to remain 55 feet from the ROW centerline of Highway 34 and a partially built replacement deck to be 51 feet from the centerline of the Big Thompson River. Applicant is also requesting a setback variance to allow an existing garage/shed that the applicant is requesting to remain 35 feet from the ROW centerline of Highway 34. The setback requirement for a river is 100 feet from the centerline, the setback from U.S. Highway 34 is 100 feet from the right-of-way centerline.
5. There are no major issues or concerns with this request.
6. There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.
7. 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 in question is a small and narrow lot. The lot is bordered on one side by the Big Thompson River and on the other side by U.S. Highway 34. Given the setback requirements for these two features, 100 feet from the centerline of the river and 100 feet from the right-of way centerline of U.S. Highway 34, this lot would not have any buildable area. The only way to build on this lot is to grant variances.
B. The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.
The size and shape of the lot are not the result of 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 an unnecessary and undue hardship on the owner because there would be no buildable area on the lot because the river setback and the highway setback overlap.
D. Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.
Granting the variances is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structures. The setbacks for the river and highway prohibit any buildings on this property without obtaining variances.
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 variances 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 setback variances requested would 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 received and considered. No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.
8. 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 Jean Christman seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following 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 he hereby is granted his setback variances as requested subject to the following conditions:
1. Failure to comply with any conditions of the variances 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. Work cannot proceed on the porch addition, deck or residence until such time as a valid permit is obtained. If an addition to the detached garage was completed, a new permit and inspection approvals are required.
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 Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Greg Christensen, Evelyn King and Matt Strauch voted in favor of the Resolution. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variances were granted subject to conditions.
By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2007.
LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT