Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

August 23, 20 05

 

††††††††††† 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 23, 2005.† Members Jean Christman, Alfred Shilling, Kent Bruxvoort, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi were present.† Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

††††††††††† By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of July 26, 2005 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:†††††††††† #05-BOA0570† (Blevins Setback Variance)

Owner:††††††††††† Blevins Family Trust

Applicant:†††††† Ted Blevins

Property Description:

 

Glacier View Meadows, Filing 6, Lot 71, Larimer County, State of Colorado

 

††††††††††† The Petition of Ted Blevins, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.† The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed detached garage to be 11 feet from the edge of a road easement rather the required minimum of 45 feet in the E-Estate 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:

 

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 22-09-72; 775 Haystack Drive in Glacier View Meadows.

 

4.†††††††† Site data is as follows:

 

a.†††††††† Land Area:†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 2.57 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:††††††††††††††††††††††††† Accessory Use - Garage

c.    Existing Zoning†††††††††††† E-Estate

d.    Surrounding Zoning:††††††††††††††††† E-Estate

e.    Existing Land Use:††††††††††††††††††† Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:††††††††††† Residential

g.    Access:††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Haystack Drive

 

5.†††††††† The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage accessory to the existing single family dwelling.† The proposed garage would be located north of the residence, 11 feet from the edge of the road easement for Haystack Drive.† The required front setback in the E-Estate zoning district is 45 feet from the edge of the road easement.† Because of the proposed location of the detached garage, a variance is required to be able to proceed.

 

6.†††††††† There is a concern with the proposed request that must be resolved before applying for a building permit for the new structure.† There is an existing, platted 20-foot utility, drainage, irrigation easement on the property parallel to the front property line.† The proposed buildings encroach into that easement by approximately 9 feet.† The Board does not have authority to approve encroachment into the easement or to vacate the easement.† The owners have applied to the Board of County Commissioners to vacate a portion of the easement so that the garage does not encroach.† The Staff recommendation for the variance request is for approval subject to the condition that the owner resolves the encroachment into the easement.

 

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, septic system and power utility lines all are exceptional conditions that severely limit the space available for the 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 and size of the subdivision lot or utilities.

 

††††††††††† C.††††††† The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the land Use Code 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.

 

††††††††††† 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 detached 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 have been received from any neighboring property owners.

 

††††††††††† 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.

 

Eric Berglund moved and Alfred Shilling 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 petitioner be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.†††††††† The applicant shall apply for a building permit for the proposed building and obtain all final inspections as necessary to finalize the permit.

 

2.†††††††† The owner shall correct the proposed encroachment into the 20-foot utility easement along the front property line by vacating or adjusting the easement boundaries OR by moving or modifying the buildings so they donít encroach.† The encroachment problem shall be resolved and the building permits applied for prior to the one year expiration date of this variance approval.

 

 

 

 

3.†††††††† 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.

 

4.†††††††† 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 Ted Blevins 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 Jean Christman, Alfred Shilling, Kent Bruxvoort, Eric Berglund 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.

 

File No:†††††††††† #05-BOA0571† (Kullman Setback Variance)

Owner:††††††††††† Caleb Kullman

Applicant:†††††† Caleb Kullman

Property Description:

 

Lot 1, Meadow Lane Subdivision, Larimer County

 

††††††††††† The Petition of Caleb Kullman, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.† The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing detached garage to remain in its current location which is 7.7 feet from the rear property line rather than the minimum requirement of 10 feet in the FA-Farming 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:

 

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 SW 9-7-69; 300 Sitzman Way, located northeast of W. Mulberry and N. Overland Trail.

 

4.†††††††† Site data is as follows:

 

a.†††††††† Land Area:†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 0.49 Acres

b.†††††††† Proposed Use:††††††††††††††††††††††††† detached garage (existing)

c.†††††††† Existing Zoning†††††††††††† FA-Farming

d.†††††††† Surrounding Zoning:††††††††††††††††† FA-Farming

e.†††††††† Existing Land Use:††††††††††††††††††† Single Family Residence

f.††††††††† Surrounding Land Uses:††††††††††† Single Family Residence

g.†††††††† Access:††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Sitzman Way

 

5.†††††††† The applicant is requesting a setback variance for a detached garage that exists on the property.† The garage was constructed sometime in the 1980ís, prior to the current owner, and never received a proper building permit.† The owner is now applying for a building permit to correct the problem.† The garage is located 7.7 feet from the rear property, which has a setback requirement of 10 feet.

 

6.†††††††† There are no major issues or concerns with 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, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

Locations for the proposed garage are limited by the location of the existing house and trees.  Other possible locations would interfere with views and would place the garage at a distance from the house that would create practical difficulties. 

 

† 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 placement of the residence or the configuration and size of the subdivision lot.

 

C.††††††† The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Land Use Code 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.

 

The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provision of the Code would deny the applicant of a close, safe, convenient access to a garage.† There are other buildings in the immediate area which do not meet the required zoning district 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 proposed addition.

 

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 any neighbors or their property.  The property to the east, directly adjacent to the rear lot line, is a large vacant lot which will experience no adverse impacts if the garage remains in its current location.† 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 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.

 

Eric Berglund moved and Alfred Shilling 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 petitioner be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.†††††††† No later than one year from the date of this Resolution, the property owner shall resolve all outstanding permits noted by the Building Code Enforcement memo dated August 4, 2005.

 

2.†††††††† 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.

 

3.†††††††† 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 Caleb Kullman 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 Jean Christman, Alfred Shilling, Kent Bruxvoort, Eric Berglund 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.

 

File No:†††††††††† #05-BOA0559† (Haines Setback Variance)

Owner:††††††††††† Brandon Haines

Applicant:†††††† Brandon Haines

Property Description:

 

††††††††††† The applicant, Brandon Haines, asked that his petition be tabled until September 27, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

 

††††††††††† Eric Berglund moved and Vincent Costanzi seconded the motion that the Board table the hearing for the Brandon Haines setback variance until September 27, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

 

††††††††††† The question was called and members Jean Christman, Alfred Shilling, Kent Bruxvoort, Eric Berglund, and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the motion.

 

File No:†††††††††† #05-BOA0544 (Mishawaka Parking Special Exception)

Owner:††††††††††† Mishawaka Land and Cattle, LTD

Applicant:†††††† Robin Jones

 

††††††††††† The petition of Robin Jones was withdrawn by the applicant.

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

††††††††††† By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2005.

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† By:†††††† __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

 

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