Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

February 26, 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., February 26, 2008.  Members Matt Strauch, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Peter Bohling and Alan Cram were present.  Also in attendance was County Planning Staff member Samantha Mott, and Assistant County Attorney William G. Ressue.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of December 18, 2007 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved with corrections to several typographical errors.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0691  (Davis, Janie Setback Variance)

Owner:            Jeanie Davis

Applicant:       Jeanie Davis

Property Description:

 

LOT 42, TRACT 6, BIG ELK MEADOWS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Jeanie Davis, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing single family dwelling to remain 19 feet from the front property line rather than the required minimum of 25 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 SW 35-4-72; 645 Hickory Drive, Lyons; located approximately ¼ mile west of Big Elk Meadows Road on the north side of the road on Lot 42, Tract 6, of the Big Elk Meadows Subdivision.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.35 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:                                    Hickory Drive

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow an existing single family dwelling to remain 19 feet from the front property line.  The dwelling was built in 1961 prior to setback requirements.  The required setback in the O-Open zoning district is 25 feet from the front property line.  It appears that there have been additions to the house after the original home was constructed in 1961; however all the additions are outside of the required setbacks. 

 

5.         Because the house was built prior to setback requirements it is considered nonconforming.  Section 4.8.3 of the Land Use Code defines a nonconforming building or structure as:

 

An existing building or structure that does not comply with the requirements of this code but did conform to all applicable regulations in effect at the time the building or structure was constructed.

 

6.         Section 4.8.10.B of the Land Use Code specifies the following restrictions on nonconforming buildings:

           

A nonconforming building or structure cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without the approval of the County Commissioners except where the building is nonconforming only as to a required setback and the following conditions are met:

1. The proposed addition is not more than 25 percent of the square footage of the original building and is not more than 1,000 square feet;

2. The proposed addition is outside the required setback; and

3. No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of Transportation.

 

7.         In order to avoid having to obtain County Commissioners’ approval each time the applicant wants to expand the nonconforming structure, the applicant wishes to change the status from nonconforming.  If this request is approved, the applicant can expand the building without County Commissioners’ approval as long as any future additions or expansions meet the required setbacks of the O-Open zoning district.  This variance request would only approve the 19 foot setback for the portion of the existing dwelling that currently encroaches into the required setback.  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.

 

8.         There are no major issues or concerns with this request.

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

10.       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 situations or conditions of such piece of property that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The special circumstance for this variance is that the building was built in 1961 prior to setback and permit requirements.  In addition, the property in question is a very small lot with significant slopes. 

 

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

 

The special circumstances 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 the building was built prior to any requirements for building permits or 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 building because it could continue to remain where it is and keep its nonconforming status.  However, because the building was built prior to setback requirements, the Board has determined this criterion is not applicable.

 

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.  The building has been in its current location for over 45 years.

 

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

 

Granting the setback variance 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 have been considered.  No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

11.       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 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 she hereby is granted her 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 variance is only for the building that is the subject of this variance application. All future buildings, additions, and improvements must meet County setback requirements.

 

3.         Obtain building permits and inspection approvals for conversions of space to living areas, and for decks and walkways more than 30” above grade level.

 

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 Matt Strauch, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Peter Bohling, and Alan Cram voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

 

File No:           #08-BOA0692  (Hall Setback Variance)

Owner:            Kurt Hall

Applicant:       Kurt Hall

Property Description:

 

LOT 29, LIN MAR ACRES, THIRD FILING, PART OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO

 

            The Application of Kurt Hall, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing carport to be located 0 feet from the front property line rather than the required minimum of 25 feet in the FA-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 4-7-69; 2603 Wakonda Drive, Fort Collins; located approximately ½ mile east of Overland Trail on the south side of the road on Lot 29 of Lin Mar Acres 3rd Filing.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.0 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:             FA-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-Farming, R1-Residential    

            e.         Existing Land Use:                    Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            FA-Farming

g.         Access:                                    Wakonda Drive

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow an existing carport to be located 0 feet from the front property line.  The required setback in the FA-Farming zoning district is 25 feet from the front property line, as stated in section 4.1.1.B.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

 

The carport is currently located in the right-of-way for Wakonda Drive.  The applicant proposes to remove the portion of the carport from the right-of-way and line it up so that it is on the right-of-way line, which is also the property line, with a 0 foot setback.  The applicant’s request to have the carport at the property line is to prevent people from using applicant’s concrete driveway to turn around in when vehicles reach the end of the dead end road.  The carport is being used to provide a cover for vehicles. 

 

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 special circumstance related to this property relates to the Board of County Commissioners approved barricade separating Lin Mar Acres 3rd from the adjacent subdivision. The approved plat for the Lin Mar Acres Subdivision indicates a temporary cul-de–sac bulb that was never constructed.  It would be unreasonable to require applicant to construct that cul-de-sac to enable vehicles to turn around without using the applicant’s driveway.

 

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

 

The special circumstance listed above was not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant/current owner. 

 

            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.

 

            Other landowners do not have to suffer the inconvenience of vehicles turning around in their driveway as a result of a barricade or platted cul-de-sac bulb that was never constructed.  Not allowing applicant to retain the carport in its current location as a deterrent to this activity causes an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.

 

            D.        Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.

 

Granting this variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the existing carport structure. 

 

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

 

Granting the variance could adversely affect property in the vicinity.  Staff has received one phone call and one letter objecting to this variance request. Applicant presented 6 letters and one e-mail from the neighboring property owners to the east in support of this request.

 

            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 and Master Plan because it allows a reasonable use without significant adverse impact on neighboring properties.

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

All referral agency comments have been considered. 

 

9.         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 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 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.         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.         The carport must remain a non-permanent structure, with only a roof and no walls.  

 

4.         The section of the car port that is within the right-of-way limits must be removed by April 26, 2008.  

 

5.         The County Engineering Department reserves the right to require the owner of the subject property to remove the carport at the owner’s expense if it is determined at any point in the future to be detrimental to the operation, maintenance, or safety of the road. 

 

6.         The applicant must obtain a building permit and inspection approvals for the carport.

 

7.         If the barricade is removed from Waconda Drive, the owner of the subject property must remove the carport within sixty (60) days following the date of removal of the barricade.

 

8.         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 Matt Strauch, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, and Peter Bohling voted in favor of the Resolution.  Member Alan Cram voted against the Resolution. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

                                                     ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 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:

 

 

 

________________________________

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