Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

September 26, 2006

 

            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., September 26, 2006.  Members Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and 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 August 22, 2006 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved with a change to the Denny Setback Variance (#06-BOA0618) to delete reference to the financial impact of moving the structures.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0621  (Koloski Setback Variance)

Owner:            Kathryn Plummer and Deirdre Koloski

Applicant:       Scott Waterhouse

Property Description:

 

LOT 1, FERNBROOK MEADOWS, LESS RD AS PER # 85013572

 

            The Application of Scott Waterhouse, 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 42 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 24H rather than the required minimum of 60 feet on a local, numbered county road 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 NW 1-5-70; 7505 West County Road 24H; located approximately ½ mile west of the intersection of West County Road 24H and North County Road 27.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.0 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.    Existing Zoning:             FA-1 Farming

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-1 Farming

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.    Access:                                    West County Road 24H

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage on the property.  The proposed structure would be located 42 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 24H, which is classified as a local numbered county road and normally requires a setback of 60 feet, as indicated in sections 4.1.2.B.2 and 8.17.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

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 fronts along County Road 24H and has a stream running through the back of the lot.  The property has a steep drop off from County Road 24H. and therefore, the proposed garage would not interfere with visibility from the road.  In addition, the property has a steep drop-off behind the house down to the stream.  Given the particular topography of this lot, the 60 foot setback requirement for County Road 24H, and the 100 foot stream setback requirement, the area available for the proposed structure is severely limited.  In order to try and meet the setback requirement the applicant has placed the structure as far back as possible; however it is restricted by the location of the house, the location of a utility easement, the stream setback, as well as the location of the septic field.

 

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

 

The special circumstances stated previously, have existed on the lot for many years and have not recently occurred due to any actions or inactions of the owners.

 

            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.

 

Because of the slope of the lot and the stream and road setbacks, strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause on unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

            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 detached 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 would adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property owners at this time.  In addition, we have received an e-mail from a neighboring property owner in support of this variance request.

 

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

 

Granting the setback variance would not impair the intent and purpose of the Code or Master Plan.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

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

 

Eric Berglund moved and Kent Bruxvoort 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 he hereby is granted his 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 approval shall automatically expire in one year unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with this approval.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicant Scott Waterhouse not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Application to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  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 Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0622  (Cobb Setback Variance)

Owner:            Louis and Christine Cobb

Applicant:       Louis and Christine Cobb

Property Description:

 

COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7, RANGE 71 OF THE 6TH P.M. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; THENCE N 89°58’27” EAST 1295.204 FEET TO THE NE CORNER OF THE  NW ¼ OF THE NW ¼, THENCE SOUTH 00°21’38” EAST 1288.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NW ¼ OF THE NW ¼ TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE SOUTH 89°38’7” WEST ALONG SOUTH LINE OF THE NW ¼ OF NW ¼ 50 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 3’10” WEST 939.4 FEET, NORTH 81°19’43” EAST 2007.44 FEET, NORTH 3°14’15” WEST 650 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SW ¼ OF THE NE ¼, THENCE SOUTH 89°39’9” WEST 605.34 FEET TO THE NW CORNER OF THE SW ¼ OF THE NE ¼, THENCE SOUTH 89°34’7” WEST 1291.617 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (SPLIT FROM 1715000032)  

COUNTY OF LARIMER,

STATE OF COLORADO

 

Also known as: 20545 BUCKHORN CANYON RD,                                                 BELLVUE, CO

 

            The Application of Louis and Christine Cobb, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a partially built shop/barn to be located 50 feet from the centerline of a stream, to allow an existing nonconforming pole barn to be 66 feet from the stream centerline and to allow an existing gazebo to be 43 feet from the stream centerline rather than the required minimum of 100 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 NW 15-7-71; 20545 Buckhorn Road, located approximately ½ mile west of CR 27 on the north side of Buckhorn Road (CR44).

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               35 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:                                    Buckhorn Road

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow a partially built shop/barn to remain in its current location 50 feet from the centerline of a stream rather than the 100 feet required by sections 4.1.5.B and 8.17.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  In addition, the applicant is requesting a setback variance to allow an existing pole barn to be 66 feet from the stream centerline and an existing gazebo to be 43 feet from the stream centerline.

 

5.         The property immediately to the south received a setback variance, Schauer Setback Variance File #06-BOA0598, for an existing dwelling to remain 33 feet from the same stream.  The structures for which variances are requested will not be any closer to the stream than the previously granted variance.  The existing pole barn was built in the early 1980s and is exempt from permit requirements and therefore does not require a building permit but must still meet setbacks.  The barn under construction has a current building permit pending the outcome of this variance request.  The existing gazebo does not require a building permit but must also meet setbacks or get a variance.

 

6.         In an effort to resolve outstanding building permit issues and clear up issues related to buildings and setbacks, the owner has submitted this variance application.  The owner has been compliant with all Code Compliance Section requests and continues to work toward a final resolution of code violations.

 

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 35 acre lot that slopes down towards the level area where the buildings are located.  The two pole barns are located up against the side of a hill preventing them from being located farther east of the stream.  The existing gazebo is also located adjacent to the well and leach field thus preventing it from being located further east of the stream as well.

 

            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 terrain and lot configuration are not the fault 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 the only site that meets the setback requirement would be on the other side of the stream and is not near the access road.

 

            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 structure because of the undue hardship noted above.

 

           

 

 

            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 would 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.

 

Although the property offers other potential sites that could meet the setback requirements, granting the variances will allow the owner reasonable use of the land while retaining the buildings and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

No objections were offered 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.

 

Eric Berglund moved and Kent Bruxvoort 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 approval shall automatically expire in one year unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with this approval.

 

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.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants Louis Cobb and Christine Cobb not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Application to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  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 Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0616  (French Setback Variance)

Owner:            Deborah and Thomas French

Applicant:       Elaine Backman

Property Description:

 

Lot 10, Block 2, Replat of a part of Pleasant Valley Acres 2nd Subdivision, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Application of Elaine Backman, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an attached garage to be located 11.9 feet from the front lot line rather than required minimum of 20 feet in the R1-Residential 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 -17-7-68; 737 Rene Drive, Fort Collins; approximately 250 feet east of the intersection of South Summit View Drive and E. Locust Street.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.18 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             R1-Residential

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  R1-Residential

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Rene Drive

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct an attached garage on the property.  The proposed structure would be located approximately 11.9 feet from the front lot line.  The R1-Residential zoning district requires a 20 foot setback from the front lot line.

 

5.         The property consists of 0.18 acres a due to its odd shape and small size we feel that it is not feasible to construct a garage on this property.  There are no other structures that encroach into the front setback to this extent.  Granting this variance would allow the structure to be extremely close to Rene Drive and this would be the closest structure to Rene Drive on the whole block.

 

6.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request. One letter in opposition was received..

 

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 is a small triangular shaped 0.18 acre lot.   Given the orientation of the house on the lot, allowing an attached garage does not seem feasible for this property.  The garage would be substantially out of line with the buildings along the same road.

 

            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 limit its use and was not the result of actions or inactions 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 will cause unnecessary and undue hardship because it limits the utility of the property.  The additional structures enhance the use of and benefits to the single family dwelling.

 

            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 as a residential property in that it allows for the accessory structures to remain on the property.

 

            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 variance would not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.  The garage has been in place for several years and no adverse impacts have resulted.  The location of the other structures has minimal impact.

 

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 or Master Plan because it allows greater use of the property for residential purposes.

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been 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.

 

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Jean Christman 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 their setback variance as requested.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicant Elaine Backman not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Application to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  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 Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted.

 

File No:           #06-BOA624  (Arnold Setback Variance)

Owner:            Dennis and Patricia Arnold  

Applicant:       Dennis and Patricia Arnold

Property Description:

 

LOT 2, WATERCREST SUB

 

            The Application of Dennis and Patricia Arnold, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a pole barn to be located 6 feet from the rear property line rather than the required minimum of 25 feet in the R-Residential 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 25-8-69; Lot 2 Watercrest Subdivision; located approximately ½ mile from the intersection of Terry Lake Road and Country Club Road.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.46 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Accessory Building-Future Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:             R-Residential

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  R-Residential

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Terry Lake Road

 

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct a pole barn with covered porch and covered walkway on the property which is currently vacant (Lot 2, Watercrest Subdivision).  The proposed structure would be located 6 feet from the rear property rather than 25 feet as required by section 4.1.10.B.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

5.         This application doesn’t meet the review criteria, namely the lack of special conditions.  The property consists of 0.46 acres and has sufficient area that is suitable for constructing the pole barn while still maintaining the setback requirement of 25 feet from the rear lot line.

 

6.         There were objections to the request.

 

7.         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 0.46 acre lot that is currently vacant.  Given the above circumstances, there is sufficient area and satisfactory terrain on the property to locate and utilize the pole 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.  There are no exceptional conditions on the property that would force the pole barn to within 6 feet of the rear property line.

 

            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.

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code 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 there are other areas on the property where the buildings 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 variance is not the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure.  The building and property can still be used for the owner’s intended purposes.  There are no circumstances preventing the pole barn from being located elsewhere on the property that could 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.

 

A letter was received from and a phone call was made by a representative of one of the neighbors stating their objections to the variance request.

 

            F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this code and the master plan.

 

Granting the variance would be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code and 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 easily satisfy the setback requirement.

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered

 

Referral agency comments are noted in the next section “Other Review Agency Comments”.  No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

8.         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.

 

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Eric Berglund 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 he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested.

 

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman voted against the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was denied.

 

 

 

 

File No:           #06-BOA0623  (Magana Setback Variance)

Owner:            Arthur and Mary Lou Magana

Applicant:       Arthur and Mary Lou Magana

Property Description:

 

LOT 14, BLK 1, EVANS #2 AS AMD

 

            The Application of Arthur and Mary Lou Magana, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an already built addition to an attached garage to be located 2.5 feet from the north side lot line rather than the required minimum of 7 feet in the R-Residential 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 24-8-69; 3916 La Mesa Drive; located approximately ¼ mile north of the intersection of West County Road 54 and La Mesa Drive.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.72 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             R-Residential

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  R-Residential

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    La Mesa Drive

 

4.         The owners are constructing the attached garage addition and have submitted a variance request for the location of the addition.  The addition is located 2.5 feet from the side property rather than 7 feet as normally required in section 4.1.10.B.2.b of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Construction was started without a permit and the owners have submitted this variance request seeking approval for the building’s current location.

 

 5.        The property consists of 0.72 acres.  Logically, the proposed location for the detached garage may make sense.  Parking the RV further toward the front of the lot would impair the sight distance of the neighbor when backing out of their driveway and would present a safety problem.  Access is not available off of Highway One.  There are utilities and landscaping in the back yard that  create problems in placing the garage in the backyard area.

 

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 is a relatively level, long and narrow shaped lot.  The shape of the property (tapering from wide to narrow) along the house creates the need for the variance.  This allows the RV to be located in a way that it does not impair the neighbor’s site distance.

 

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

 

The shape of the lot and location of the house are special circumstances and conditions that  limit the  location of the garage.

 

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 because locating in the backyard area would require landscaping to be removed.  There are also utility and access issues.  Others in the neighborhood are able to use their properties for their vehicles and amenities.

 

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 structure for residential purposes, including the accessory use of providing protection for the owners’ RV. 

 

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 would adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  One e-mail has been received from a neighboring property owner detailing questions and concerns, but is neither supportive nor against this variance request.  One neighbor appeared and spoke in favor of the request.

 

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

 

Granting the variance is consistent the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan because it allows greater utility of the property for residential purposes without significant adverse impacts.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been 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.

 

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Evelyn King 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.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants Arthur Magana and Mary Lou Magana not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Application to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  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 Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Jean Christman voted in favor of the Resolution. Member Eric Berglund voted against the Resolution. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted.

 

 

                                                  

***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2006.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.