MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

January 23, 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., January 23, 2007.  Members Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Jean Christman and Bridget Barclay-Sudol were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Matt Lafferty and Samantha Mott, and Assistant County Attorney David P. Ayraud.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of December 19, 2006 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0637  (Haas Setback Variance)

Owner / Applicant:     Frank & Karen Haas

 

Applicants Frank and Karen Haas requested that the hearing on their setback be  tabled until February 27, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.

 

Eric Berglund moved and Jean Christman seconded the Motion that the Board table this matter until February 27, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.

 

The question was called and members Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Jean Christman and voted in favor of the motion.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0639  (Smith Setback Variance)

Owner:            Marjorie Anne Smith

Applicant:       Lloyd Rowe

Property Description:

 

Lots 4B and 5B, Poudre City Subdivision, located in the SE ¼ of SE ¼ of Section 31, and SW ¼ of SW ¼ of Section 32, Township 9 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Application of Lloyd Rowe, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a single family dwelling and a garage to be located 64 feet from the centerline of Highway 14 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 Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 9 North, Range 73; Lots 4B and 5B in the Poudre City Subdivision; located at the intersection of W Highway 14 and Riverside Drive.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.46 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:                                    Riverside Drive

 

4.         The applicant is requesting a setback variance to allow a single family dwelling and a garage to be closer to the centerline of Highway 14 than allowed.  The buildings are to be located 64 feet from the centerline of Highway 14.  The setback requirement from the centerline of Highway 14 is 100 feet pursuant to Section 8.17.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.   The applicant has also submitted an application for a concurrent Lot Consolidation to combine two adjacent lots in the Poudre City Subdivision into one lot so that the structure does not encroach into the side setback. 

 

5.         Originally, the request was for the dwelling to be located 59 feet and a detached garage to be located 61 feet from the centerline of Highway 14, but after receiving Colorado Department of Transportation’s comments, the applicant is willing to relocate the house and garage in order to get as close as possible to meeting the 75-foot CDOT request.

 

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

 

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 narrow character of the two lots combined with the current road setback requirement for State Highway 14 severely limits the area available to build without obtaining a variance.  In addition, the setback from Meadow Lane is 25 feet.  The distance between the two required setbacks, Meadow Lane and Highway 14, does not allow enough room to build on the lots.   There is no way the applicant could build on the lot and meet the required setbacks.   The location of the existing well also prohibits locating a building further back on the east side of the lot.  The location of the leach field prohibits the buildings from moving farther to the west.  

 

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 way to build on the lot without obtaining a variance.  There are other buildings along Highway 14 and in the immediate vicinity that do not meet the required setback distance because they were either granted a variance or were built prior to the setback requirements.  If denied this request, the owners would be denied a similar right.

 

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

 

Granting a variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structures.

 

            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.  A letter in support of this variance has been submitted by neighboring property owners.

 

                        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 were considered and summarized in the Agenda under the heading “Other Review Agency Comments”.  No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

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.

 

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 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 Lloyd Rowe 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 Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Jean Christman and Bridget Barclay-Sudol 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-BOA0638  (Gottlieb Setback Variance)

Owner:            Stuart and Dianne Gottlieb

Applicant:       John MacFarlane

Property Description:

 

Lot 34, Spring Gulch Ranch Estates, 2nd Filing, County Larimer, State of Colorado

 

            The Application of John MacFarlane, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  Paul MacFarlane appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a horse barn to be located 35 feet from the centerline of an intermittent stream 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 Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 71; 1045 Colard Lane, Lyons; located approximately 1 mile west of the intersection of Colard Lane and County Road 71 North..

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               18.72 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:                                    Colard Lane

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow a horse barn to be built 35 feet from the centerline of an intermittent stream.  The setback requirement for a stream is 100 feet from the centerline, Section 8.17.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

5.         Concerns were raised by Gary McCulvey, Robert Ohlm and Mike Graf.  The primary concern was impact of animal waste upon down stream water wells.  Mr. McCulvey cited concern that this variance would run with the land, that a CSU study indicates 45 lbs of waste are produced per horse per day, that well water is his sole source of water and has witnessed water run off that would contaminate well and surface water if the structure was that close.  Mr. Ohlm agreed with those concerns.  Mr. Graf also agreed with those concerns and added that as a water treatment operator, his experience would increase his concern about livestock being enclosed at such a distance from the stream.  Opponents also stated they believe there is a flat area on the left side of the property which would be appropriate for this structure and would not have the same contamination concerns.  Contamination of the water would not only present a health hazard, but would significantly decrease the value of surrounding properties since well water is the only current source of water for the properties.

 

6.         There were persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

7.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have not been met:

 

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 steep and irregular lot on 18.72 acres.  The steep topography and the shape of the lot are physical conditions that limit the area in which a horse barn could be placed.  However, the representative of the owner did indicate it would be possible to construct the barn further from the stream.  The proposed location is not the only semi-flat area as there was information provided that another area on the property away from the stream may be a viable placement location. 

 

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

 

The circumstances are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  The property’s physical characteristics and location were not created or altered 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.

 

Because of the shape and slope of the lot strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause an 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 horse barn.

 

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

 

Based upon the objections of nearby property owners it does appear that granting of this variance may impact the health of surrounding property owners.  There was information provided that demonstrates construction of the barn at this distance from the stream may result in surface and well water contamination.  Such contamination would have detrimental impact on surrounding property owners.

 

                        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 variance will allow the owner reasonable use of the land, but may result in contamination of surface and well water, which would adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

Referral agency comments were considered and summarized in the Agenda under the heading “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 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 he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested.

 

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi and Eric Berglund voted in favor of the Resolution.  Members Kent Bruxvoort, Jean Christman and Bridget Barclay-Sudol voted against the Resolution. The Resolution did not receive the four votes needed to pass and therefore was denied.

 

                                                     ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:24 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

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________