MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

November 22, 2005

 

            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., November 22, 2005.  Members Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of October 25, 2005 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0579  (Spurlin 2nd Setback Variance)

Owner:            Ronald and Guiditta Spurlin

Applicant:       Ronald and Guiditta Spurlin

Property Description:

 

                        Lot 17, The Retreat 4th, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Ronald and Guiditta Spurlin, requesting two variances was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested setback variances upon the above-described property to allow an existing single family dwelling, after an addition, to be located 42 feet from a creek rather than the minimum required 100 feet and to allow the dwelling to retain a current side setback of 15 feet from the southeast property line rather than the minimum required 25 feet in the FO-Forestry zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Petition, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

            1.         This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NW 23-6-72; 320 Fisherman’s Lane, located about 1 mile northeast of Glen Haven.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.32 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single-family dwelling

c.    Existing Zoning             FO-Forestry

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  FO-Forestry

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single-family dwelling

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Recreational, Residential

g.    Access:                                    Fisherman’s Lane

 

            5.         The property owner proposes to expand an existing single-family dwelling on the subject property.  The existing residence was built in 1983 and was granted a variance for its current location in relation to the portion of Millers Fork Creek that runs through the property.  The proposal involves adding additional living space which would result in a decreased distance from the creek – 42 feet instead of the current 62 feet.  Also, the existing residence was recently identified as being only 15 feet from the side property line rather than the required setback of 25 feet.  The owner is including a request for a variance from the side setback requirement to be allowed to retain the side setback of 15 feet.

 

6.         The topography to the rear of the house is an extreme up slope which prevents adding on in that direction.  The slope of topography to the south of the house is sufficiently shallow to accommodate an addition on that side.  If the addition was constructed on the south side, near the side property line, however, a larger side setback variance would be needed.

 

            7.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have been met as follows:

 

  A.       There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

  There are existing topographic conditions that create difficulty for building on this property.  The slope behind the house is very steep, limiting the ability to expand to the rear of the house.  The existing building was constructed in 1983 after receiving a variance to be 62 feet from the creek.  These same conditions contributed to the need for the side setback variance.

 

  B.       The special circumstances are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.        

 

  The topographic conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant. 

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the code listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

There are other buildings in the area that do not meet building setback requirements from this creek.  The strict enforcement of the code would prevent further encroachment into the setback than is already enjoyed.  In relation to the side setback request, the strict enforcement of the code would cause an unnecessary hardship for the existing residence.

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 expand the existing dwelling.  Although an expansion could be accommodated on the south part of the property, the would require a larger variance from the side setback than is requested.

 

E.         Granting the variance will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

One of the primary concerns in this case is how the addition might affect floodwaters of Miller Fork Creek and thereby impact neighboring properties.  Applicant explained the historical flow of water on the property.  Based on this information it appears that floodwaters will not adversely affect other property if the variance is granted. Granting the side setback would also not  adversely impact other properties.  The adjacent neighbor has provided no complaint or objection to the side setback request.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this code and the Master Plan.

 

            Granting the variances is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan because it allows more full use of the property with no or minimal impacts to other properties.

 

            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 Evelyn King seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution (re: Side Setback)

 

            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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their side 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

 

            3.         Applicant must comply with the recommendation of the Engineering Department as set forth in their letter dated October 26, 2005.

 

            The question was called and members Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the side setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

            Whereupon Evelyn King moved and Vincent Costanzi seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution

 

                                                Resolution (re: Creek Setback)

 

            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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their creek 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

 

            3.         Applicant must comply with the recommendation of the Engineering Department as set forth in its letter dated October 26, 2005.

 

            The question was called and members Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the creek setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Ronald and Guiditta Spurlin not act upon the setback variances granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with these 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 Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

 

 

                                                     ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

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

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________