MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 24, 2004
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., August 24, 2004. Members Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis, Maryanne Martell, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi were present. Also in attendance were Casey Stewart, County Planning Staff member and Jeannine S. Haag, Assistant County Attorney.
By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of July 27, 2004 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.
File No: #04-BOA0490 (Kortz Setback Variance)
Owner: Keith S. Kortz
Applicant: Jeffrey Schneider
Lot 1, AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 196 AND 197, HORSETOOTH LAKE ESTATES, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
Also known as: 4901 Sandstone Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
The Petition of Jeffrey Schneider, requesting a variance was presented to the Board. The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an addition to the attached garage to be located 15 feet from the front property line rather than the required minimum 25 feet from a front property line in the O-Open zone.
The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Petition, 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. There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.
3. The property location is NE ¼ of 01-06-70; located southwest of Horsetooth Reservoir, south of County Road 38E, on the south side of Sandstone Drive.
4. Site data is as follows:
a. Land Area: 0.39 Acres
b. Proposed Use: Single Family Residential
c. Existing Zoning O-Open
d. Surrounding Zoning: O-Open
e. Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential
f. Surrounding Land Uses: Single Family Residential
g. Access: Sandstone Drive
5. The applicant was granted a variance by the Board of Adjustment in November of 2002 for this same request. The effective period for a variance is one year from date of approval. That variance expired because the owner did not act on it within one year of the Board’s approval. The owner has submitted a new application for the request.
The applicants propose to construct an attached garage onto the existing residence on their property. The proposed garage would extend to a location that is 15 feet from the west front property line. The property is zoned O-Open which requires a building setback of 25 feet from a front property line.
6. The first variance application was approved with conditions relating to amending the lot line between the owner’s property and the property to the south and correcting building code violations. Those conditions have been satisfied and the Development Services Team has no outstanding concerns with this second 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, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.
There are topographical conditions that exist on the lot, namely a steep slope that limits the area available for building. The steep slope, shape of the lot, and location of the house all are exceptional conditions that contribute to the need for this setback variance. The location proposed is quite possibly the only one that could accommodate an attached garage.
B. The special circumstances are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.
The special circumstances or conditions were not created by the applicant. The applicant had no control of the topography or the configuration, location of the subdivision roads and his front property lines.
C. The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Land Use Code 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.
The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other lands in the area. Properties in this area require variances at times for construction due to the steep and rugged topography.
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 attached garage.
E. Granting the variance will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.
It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties. No objections had been received at the time of this report.
F. Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.
Granting the variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan.
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.
Wilma Davis moved and Vincent Costanzi 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 petitioner 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 the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Jeffrey Schneider 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 Petition 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 Jeannine Laudick, Wilma Davis, Maryanne Martell, King and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2004.
LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.