Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

May 22, 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., May 22, 2007.  Members Bridget Barclay-Sudol, Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Jean Christman and Kent Bruxvoort were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Matt Lafferty 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 April 24, 2007 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #07-BOA0652  (City of Fort Collins Setback Variance)

Owner:            City of Fort Collins / Ken Mannon

Applicant:       City of Fort Collins / Steve White

Property Description:

 

A POR OF SW1/4 OF 15-6-70; COM AT S 1/4 COR OF SD SEC 15 AND POB; TH WRLY ALG S LN OF SD SW1/4 TO SW COR SEC 15; TH NRLY ALG W LN OF SW1/4 OF SW1/4 TO CNTY RD; TH ERLY WITH SD RD TO PT ON W LN OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4; TH DEPART FROM SD CNTY RD NRLY ALG SD W LN TO NW COR OF SD SE1/4 OF SW1/4; TH ALG N LN OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4, N 88 23' 04" E 985.86 FT M/L TO PT ON CEN LN OF ESMNT; TH N 30 37' 29" E 250.50 FT TO NW COR OF A TR DESC @ 88049434; TH N 88 23' 04" E 10 FT; TH S 21 30' 01" E 163.30 FT; TH S 40 30' 59" E 74.93 FT M/L TO PT ON N LN OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SEC 15 FROM WHENCE TH NE COR OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 BEARS N 88 23' 04" E 93.10 FT; TH S 01 59' 43" E 188.87 FT; TH S 35 12' 21" E 170.81 FT M/L TO PT ON E LN OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 FROM WHENCE SD NE COR BEARS N 00 12' 07" E 330.96 FT; TH S 00 12' 07" W 999.46 FT M/L TO POB; LESS AND EXCEPT THAT POR DESC AS TR D IN BK 881, PG 286;

 

            The Application of the City of Fort Collins, Steve White appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing residence in the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area to be located  46 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 32C rather than the required minimum of 60 feet, and 58 feet from the centerline of a creek rather than the required minimum of 100 feet.  The Application also requested a setback variance to allow a new detached garage to be 83 feet from the creek centerline.

 

            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 15-6-70; 8281 West County Road 32C, Loveland; located approximately ˝ mile west of the intersection of County Road 27 and County Road 32C.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2606 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Recreational, Residential

c.    Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Recreational, Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Recreational, Residential, Quarry

g.    Access:                                    County Road 32C

 

4.         The property is a recreational area known as the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area owned by the City of Fort Collins, but located within unincorporated Larimer County.  The property is a 2600 acre parcel with existing trails, parking lot, and a picnic shelter.  Currently there is an existing non-conforming residence on the property.  The City would like to renovate and expand the residence so that a ranger can live full time on the property.  The existing residence is 49’4” from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 32C and 62’9” from the centerline of an existing creek.  The applicant is requesting a setback variance to expand the existing residence such that the residence would be 46 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 32C and 58 feet from the centerline of the creek.  The required setbacks are 60 feet from the centerline of the road and 100 feet from the centerline of the creek.

 

5.         In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a detached garage on the property.  The garage would meet the setback requirement from the County Road, but would be 83 feet from the centerline of the creek.

 

6.         The Larimer County Development Services Team has no major issues or concerns with the request to expand the existing residence from 49 feet to 46 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 32C and from 62 feet to 58 feet from the centerline of an existing creek.  The proposed location of the new garage would allow the occupants of the home to see beyond the garage for safety.

 

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 Bobcat Ridge Natural Area is a located on a large 2606 acre parcel.  In addition to the trails, parking lot, and picnic shelter, there is an existing nonconforming home built in the 1880s prior to the setback requirements which already encroaches into both the road and creek setbacks.  The expansion of the existing residence is primarily located farther way than the existing house from the road and the creek.  However, because the house faces the road and the creek the addition of the porch encroaches 3 feet closer to the road and 4 ˝ feet closer to the stream. The circumstance peculiar to this piece of property is the existence of a nonconforming historic residence.

 

The residence has existed in its current location for over 100 years.  The proposed location of the garage is the most optimal site for use and safety relative to the location of the residence.  The Board finds that the existence of the residence is a special circumstance that warrants granting the variance for the garage.

 

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

 

The special circumstances stated previously supporting the variance request for expanding the existing residence closer to County Road 32C and the creek have existed on the lot for many years and have not recently occurred due to any actions or inactions of the owners. 

 

            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 location of the nonconforming house, the fact that it already does not meet setbacks, strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause on unnecessary and undue hardship with regards to the expansion of the house and location of the garage.

 

            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 use the land or structure.  Granting the variance to expand the existing house will the owner reasonable use of the land while retaining the building and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.  The house has been there since the 1880s and the expansion is intended to keep the orientation of the house the same.

 

Granting the variance for the detached garage is also the minimum action that will allow the most adequate use of the land and structure.  The garage will enhance the use of the site as a residence for a ranger.

 

            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 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 variances requested for the expansion of the existing residence and proposed garage will not impair the intent and purpose of the Code or Master Plan because it 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 are noted in the next section “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 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 applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variance for the expansion of an existing residence 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 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.

 

            3.         Any future additions or buildings that are proposed to encroach into setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper County review prior to construction.

 

            The question was called and members Bridget Barclay-Sudol, Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Jean Christman, and Kent Bruxvoort voted in favor of the Resolution. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

            THEREAFTER, the following Resolution was proposed:

 

            NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variance for a new detached garage to be located 83 feet from the creek centerline 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 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.

 

            3.         Any future additions or buildings that are proposed to encroach into setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper County review prior to construction.

 

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 Bridget Barclay-Sudol, Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, and Jean Christman voted in favor of the Resolution.  Member Kent Bruxvoort voted against the variance. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.


 

File No:           #07-BOA0653  (Smith, David Setback Variance)   

Owner:            David & Mildred Smith

Applicant:       David & Mildred Smith

Property Description:

 

THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. COUNTY Of LARIMER. STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

 

CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AS BEARING EAST AND WEST AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO:

 

COMMENCING AT THE N. 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF THE N.W. 1/4, WEST 1215.23 FEET DEEDED 1215.6 FEET THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE. SOUTH 840.53 FEET, DEEDED 843.62 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 1607 AT PAGE 971 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, WEST 264.61 FEET, DEEDED 264.19 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE WEST 138.12 FEET DEEDED 138.0 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 21; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NO4°39'00”W. 177.34 FEET, DEEDED 180.0

FEET THENCE .EAST, 138.12 FEET, DEEDED 138.0 FEET; THENCE S04°39'00”E 177.34 FEET, DEEDED 180.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, SAID PORTION OF LAND CONTAINING 0.562 ACRES, OR 24,494.201 SQ. FT., MORE OR LESS.

 

            The Application of David and Mildred Smith, 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 6 feet from the south side property line rather than the required minimum of 25 feet and to be 55 feet from the centerline of County Road 21 rather than the required minimum of 100 feet in the FO-Forestry 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 21-5-69; 300 South County Road 21, Loveland; located approximately 650 feet south of the intersection of 1st Street and County Road 21.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.56 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             FO-Forestry

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FO-Forestry and FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Vacant, Ditch Company

g.         Access:                                    County Road 21

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage on the property.  The proposed structure would be located 6 feet from the south side property line rather than the required 25 feet and 55 feet from the centerline of County Road 21, which is classified as a major collector, rather than the required 100 feet, as stated in sections 4.1.3.B.2 and 4.9.1.B of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

5.         The Larimer County Development Services Team has no major issues or concerns with the request to locate the detached garage 55 feet from the centerline of County Road 21. 

 

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 narrow character of the lot combined with the current road setback requirement for County Road 21 limit the area available for the proposed structure.  There is an existing septic tank and absorption field located to the south of the existing house.  While the house does meet the setback requirement, the location of the septic tank and absorption field prevent the garage from being located outside of the required setback from County Road 21.  In order to try and meet the setback requirement the applicant has placed the structure as far back as possible; however it is restricted by the location of the house, and the placement of the septic tank and absorption field.  These conditions support the request to locate the building within the setback requirement for County Road 21.  The request to be 6 feet from the south side property line is justified because moving the garage further to the north would seriously restrict the limited turning area for applicants’ truck and fifth wheel trailer. 

 

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

 

The special circumstances stated previously supporting the variance for the setback from County Road 21 and 6 have existed on the lot for many years and have not recently occurred due to any actions or inactions of the owners. 

 

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 location of the existing house, septic tank, and absorption field, strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause on unnecessary and undue hardship unless the requested variances are granted.

 

            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 with regards to the setback from County Road 21.

 

Granting the variance to be 6 feet from the south side property line is not the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure.  The building and property can still be used for the owner’s intended purposes.  There are no circumstances preventing the detached garage from complying 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 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.  One letter of support from the neighboring property owner to the south was submitted.

 

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

 

Granting the requested setback variances would not impair the intent and purpose of the Code or Master Plan because 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 are noted in the next section “Other Review Agency Comments”.  No objections were offered from any County agencies or departments. The City of Loveland did not find justification for the variance from the south side setback requirement.

 

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.

 

Evelyn King 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 applicants be and they hereby are granted their 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.         Any future additions or buildings that are proposed to encroach into setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper County review prior to construction.

 

3.         The access to the proposed garage from County Road 21 shall be taken from the existing property access.  No garage entrances shall be installed on the west side of the proposed structure.

 

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 Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Jean Christman, and Kent Bruxvoort voted in favor of the Resolution.  Member Bridget Barclay-Sudol 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 __________________, 2007.

 

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

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