Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

July 25, 20 06

 

            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., July 25, 2006.  Members Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Jean Christman, Bridget Sudol and Alfred Shilling were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Casey Stewart 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 June 27, 2006 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0610  (Catlin Setback Variance)

Owner:            Nancy Catlin

Applicant:       Nancy Catlin

Property Description:

 

LOT 99, CRYSTAL LAKES EIGHTH FILING

COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Nancy Catlin, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed detached garage building to be 20 feet from the edge of an interior subdivision road easement rather than the required minimum of 45 feet in the E-1 Estate 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 12-10-74; 500 Ottawa Way, located approximately ¼ mile east of Crystal Lakes Reservoir.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.53 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Accessory Use - garage

c.    Existing Zoning:             E-1 Estate

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  E-1 Estate

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.    Access:                                    Ottawa Way

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage building accessory to the existing single family dwelling.  The proposed building would be located east of the existing dwelling and 20 feet from the edge of the road easement for Ottawa Way.  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 new building, a variance is required to be able to proceed.

 

5.         There are no major issues or concerns with the 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.

 

There are special conditions that exist on the lot, namely a steep topography to the north and the septic system behind (north) the existing dwelling that limits the area available for building and satisfying the setback requirement.

 

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

 

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 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.

 

The strict enforcement would cause an unnecessary hardship by preventing the applicants from building a simple detached garage.  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 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 will result in a substantial adverse impact on 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.

 

Granting the variance would be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan by allowing applicant greater use of her property without adversely impacting others.

 

            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.

 

Eric Berglund 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 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 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 Applicant Nancy Catlin 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 Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Jean Christman, Bridget Sudol and Alfred Shilling 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-BOA0614  (Stockton Setback Variance)

Owner:            Troy D. Stockton

Applicant:       Judy Emory

Property Description:

 

Glacier View Meadows, lot #41, 8th filing

 

            The Application of Judy Emory, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback upon the above-described property to allow a detached garage to be located 17 feet from the south side lot line rather than the required minimum of 50 feet in the E-Estate 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 24-9-72; 39 Mount Sherman Court, Livermore, in Glacier View Meadows 8th Filing, located at the intersection of Algonkin Court and Osage Trail.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.95 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:             E-Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  E-Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Mount Sherman Court or Pyramid Court

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage on the property.  The proposed structure would be located approximately 17 feet from the south side lot line.  The E-Estate zoning district requires a 50 foot setback from the side lot line, as indicated in section 4.1.6.B.2.c 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 is a steep and pie-shaped lot on 0.95 acres.  The steep topography and the shape of the lot are physical conditions that limit the area in which a garage could be placed.  If the garage were to be located farther back from the side setback it would place it almost directly in front of the entrance to the home, in addition, it would make turning into the garage a difficult endeavor.

 

            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 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 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.

 

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

 

Granting the setback variance would promote the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code by allowing applicant greater use of the property without adversely affecting others.

 

            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 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 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 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 Judy Emory 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 Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Jean Christman, Bridget Sudol and Alfred Shilling 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-BOA0512  (Newell Setback Variance)

Owner:            William Newell

Applicant:       William Newell

Property Description:

 

Parcel #2521311008

Schedule #0555258

 

West-half of lot 8 and all of lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in Block 7, BERTHOUD-DALE, a Subdivision of a portion of Section 21, Township 5 North, Range 72 west of the 6th P.M., according to amended Plat filed September 16, 1921; EXCEPT that portion sold for highway purposes by instrument recorded in Book 680 at Page 512.

County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Application of William Newell, requesting variances, was presented to the Board.  The Application requested setback variances upon the above-described property to allow two existing buildings, one used as a sales office and the other used as a workshop, to remain in their current locations – the first to be located 50 feet from the centerline of the Big Thompson River rather than the required minimum of 100 feet, and the second to be located 71 feet from the centerline of the river and 79 feet from the right-of-way centerline of U.S. Highway 34 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 SW 21-5-72; 2652 Big Thompson Canyon, located approximately 1 mile east of Estes Park city limits.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.38 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence, Commercial

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open, RE-1 Rural Estate, E-Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence, Commercial

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational, Commercial

g.         Access:                                    Big Thompson Canyon

 

4.         The applicant requests setback variances to allow two existing buildings, one a sales office and the other a workshop, to remain in their current locations.  The first building is located 50 feet from the centerline of the Big Thompson River, and the second building is located 71 from the centerline of the river and 79 feet from the right-of-way centerline of U.S. Highway 34.  The setback requirement for a river is 100 feet from the centerline, and the setback for U.S. Highway 34 is 100 feet from the right-of-way centerline pursuant to sections 4.1.5.B.2 and 8.17.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

 

5.         The two buildings are used for the applicant’s retail business, selling carved wooden bears.  The property in question is in the O-Open zoning district and that district prohibits retail businesses.  However, some type of retail business has existed on the property prior to the County’s first zoning regulations and some type of retail business has continued since the adoption of the current County Land Use Code.  The owner has since expanded the business by adding new buildings and increasing the outside display area.  The applicant is currently working with the County Code Compliance Department to resolve code violations on the property.  In order to resolve the code violations on the property, the applicant is applying for a variance for the sales office and the workshop and removing all other outbuildings from the property with the exception of two small storage units which are considered legal non-conforming structures.  In addition, there are two residences that exist on this property, both or which are considered legal and are not part of this variance request. 

 

6.         There are no major issues or concerns with these requests.

 

7.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to these requests.

 

8.         The applicable review criteria for the variances 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 in question is a very long and narrow lot.  The lot is bordered on one side by the Big Thompson River and on the other side by U.S. Highway 34.  Given the setback requirements for these two features, 100 feet from the centerline of the river and 100 feet from the right-of way centerline of U.S. Highway 34, this lot would not have any buildable area.  The only way to build on this lot is to grant a variance. 

 

            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 buildable area on the lot because the river setback and the highway setback overlap.

 

            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 structures.  The setbacks for the river and highway prohibit any buildings on this property without obtaining a variance.

 

            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, the applicant has provided letters from 6 of his neighbors in support of his variance request.

 

                        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 Land Use 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.

 

 No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

9.         To approve these requests 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 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 variances 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 William Newell not act upon the setback variances granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variances 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 Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Jean Christman, Bridget Sudol and Alfred Shilling voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variances were granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0611

Owner:            Ray & Bonny Davis

Applicant:       Ray & Bonny Davis

Property Description:

 

TRACT 1, EL CHAPARELL SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

Also known as:             5200 Norwood Ave.

                                    Loveland, CO  80538

 

            The Application of Ray and Bonny Davis, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed pole barn to be located 30 feet from the center of a 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 NE 36-6-70; 5200 Norwood Ave, located approximately 3 miles SE of Masonville and ½ mile E of County Road 25E.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.44 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

g.         Access:                                    Norwood Ave.

 

4.         The applicant is requesting a setback variance for a pole barn to be used for hay storage.  The property has an intermittent stream that generally splits the lot into east and west parts.  The location requested with this variance is 30 feet from the center of the stream rather than 100 feet as normally required in sections 4.1.5.B and 8.17.2 of the Land Use Code.

 

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

 

6.         The applicant’s request for a variance to allow a pole barn 30 feet from the center of the stream is excessive. The property consists of 2.4 acres and has sufficient area that is suitable for building with a lesser variance.  The Board finds that a variance allowing the pole barn to be constructed 50 feet from the center of the stream is warranted.

 

 

 

 

7.         The applicable review criteria for the 50-foot setback 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 approximately 2.4 acres in size and consists of sloping terrain.  There is an existing dwelling in the northwest quadrant of the lot.  The location of the stream in relation to the lot shape makes it difficult to satisfy the full 100 foot setback requirement, but the building could easily be located 50 feet from the stream.  This would allow the pole barn to be close enough to the house for the applicant to observe and protect livestock.  There are no conditions that warrant a variance to be 30 feet from the stream.

 

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

 

  The location of the stream in relation to the lot shape, the existing location of the house and the sloping topography are 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.

 

A property to the north has a barn 50 feet from the drainage.  There is also a barn to the south where the stream runs between the barn and the house.  Denying the applicant any amount of variance would deprive him of rights commonly enjoyed by other landowners.  It would also cause an unnecessary and undue hardship based on the distance between the applicant’s house and the livestock using the pole barn that applicant must protect and care for.

 

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

 

Granting a 50 foot variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure.    This will allow the proposed barn to be located further from the stream  and more substantially 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.

 

It is not anticipated that granting a 50 foot variance will result in a substantial adverse impact on 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.

 

Granting a 50 foot variance would be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.  It will allow the applicant reasonable use of the land 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 as to the requested 30 foot variance request.  Therefore, it is unlikely there would be any objections to a 50 foot variance..

 

8.         To approve a 50-foot setback variance 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.

 

Jean Christman moved and Bridget Sudol seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

Resolution

 

            NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicants be and they are hereby granted their variance to construct a pole barn 30 feet from the center of a stream as requested subject to the following conditions:.

 

1.         The applicant shall remove the dirt and culvert pipe he placed in the stream channel and restore the channel back to its original condition.

 

            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.

 

The question was called and members Evelyn King, Jean Christman, and Alfred Shilling voted in favor of the Resolution.  Members Eric Berglund and Bridget Sudol voted against the Resolution.   The 30-foot variance was denied for failure to receive the required four “yes” votes.

 

THEREAFTER, Jean Christman moved and Bridget Sudol seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicants be and they hereby are granted a setback variance to construct a pole barn 50 feet from the center of a stream subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The applicant shall remove the dirt and culvert pipe he placed in the stream channel and restore the channel back to its original condition.

 

            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 Applicants Ray and Bonny Davis not act upon the 50-foot 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 Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Jean Christman, Bridget Sudol and Alfred Shilling voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the 50-foot setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0613  (Birchette Setback Variance)

Owner:            Michael & Carleen Birchette

Applicant:       Michael & Carleen Birchette

Property Description:

 

That portion of the SW ¼ of section 2, township 7 north, range 69 west of the 6th P.M., described as follows: beginning at the NW corner of the SW ¼ of section 2, township 7 north, range 69 west of the 6th P.M., thence east along the north line 450.0 feet, thence south parallel with the west line of said SW ¼, 120.0 feet; thence west parallel with the north line 450.0 feet; thence north 120.0 feet to the point of beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Application of Michael and Carleen Birchette, 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 5 feet from the rear lot line rather than the required minimum of 10 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 2-7-69; 1004 Ackerman Court, Fort Collins; approximately ½ mile north of the intersection of Vine Drive and North Shields Street.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.23 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open and FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational, Agricultural

g.         Access:                                    North Shields Street

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage on the property.  The proposed structure would be located approximately 5 feet from the rear lot line.  The O-Open zoning district requires a 10-foot setback from the rear lot line for lots created prior to November 29, 1973, as indicated in section 4.1.5.B.2.c of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

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

 

6.         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 generally level 1.23 acre lot.  It is atypical because it includes a duplex as well as a single-family residence, both of which are considered legal structures.  The historical use of the parcel has established a frontage which differs from the “front boundary” as defined in the Land Use Code.  Both the house, built in l929, and the duplex, built in l962, face south (toward Ackerman Court) and are addressed as 1004, 1028, and 1030 Ackerman Court respectively.  The access for the driveways of both structures is from Ackerman Court.  The parcel’s current arrangement, use and addressing were established in the mid 20th century.  Consideration has been made to move the proposed building site 5 feet to the west in order to accommodate the 10-foot setback requirement from the back of the parcel as defined by the current code.  However, this would place the site closer to the existing house than the 6-foot spacing required by the Code.  This site would also require removal of existing sidewalk and fencing.  Furthermore, the required 160-foot setback from North Shields Street, an arterial, precludes a site proposal on available space between the duplex and N. Shields without a setback variance.  The proposed site is at the top of the driveway established by prior owners of the property.        

 

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

 

None of the circumstances of the established use and access of the property, nor the current configuration, are attributable to the actions or inactions of the applicants. 

 

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.

 

Proposing a site between the duplex and North Shields would require a setback variance.  Also, that site would be a considerable this distance from the residence where the applicants live.  To consider a site between the house and duplex would require a greater degree of alteration of the property than would the proposed site.  This would include removal of perimeter fencing installed by the previous owners, possible removal of mature trees, absolute reconfiguration of an existing automatic sprinkler system by a contractor, grade and fill work to create a driveway, and abandonment of the existing driveway.  Also, fence posts and new fencing would need to be replaced.  Landscape reestablishment would be necessary as well.  These substantial additional costs would make the project unaffordable.

 

            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 the use of the land with respect to the building permit application currently submitted.  With consideration of all other possible sites, the Board finds that the proposed site and variance are the best and least obtrusive use of the land for the addition of the proposed detached garage project..

 

           

 

 

            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.  This is especially so with respect to parcel numbers 9702300948 and 9702300909, both of which are owned by the City of Fort Collins and designated in the City’s Natural Areas Program.  The proposed site considers users of the Natural Area.  The building site is the least obtrusive and out of sight to those who enjoy this particular Natural Area.  Other building sites that have been considered would be more obvious to those using the area adjacent to the subject parcel.  There is only one other parcel that abuts the property—parcel number 9702200008.  All structures existing on this property are located at least 200 feet from the proposed site and would not be adversely impacted by the proposed building site. 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 be consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code as stated in Section 2.3.1 and with the Master Plan.  The proposed site preserves more of the rural and open character of the area than other locations that were considered.  No negative impact will result as the variance will not cause an incompatible nor harmful land use.  The proposed site will not have an impact on protection of critical environmental resources, i.e., wetlands, wildlife habitat, nor riparian areas.  There will be no excessive service demands on existing roads, street, utilities or other public services.

 

            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.

 

Jean Christman 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 applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants Michael and Carleen Birchette 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 Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Jean Christman, Bridget Sudol and Alfred Shilling voted in favor of 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 8:35 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.