MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
October 24, 2006
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., October 24, 2006. Members Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Kent Bruxvoort, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman were present. Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera 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 September 26, 2006 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved with a change to the Arnold Setback Variance (#06-BOA624) to note that a letter was received by a representative of a neighbor in opposition to the variance.
File No: #06-BOA0627 (Prieve Setback Variance)
Owner: Laura Lynn Newlin (Prieve) and H. Naomi Trippensee
Applicant: Mike and Lynn Prieve
LOT 7, AMENDED PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.
PARCEL ID #: 98363-09-007, which has the address of 1741 Valley View Lane, Fort Collins, CO, 80524
The Application of Mike and Lynn Prieve, requesting a variance was presented to the Board. The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a pole barn for use as a garage and workshop and for storage, to be located 3 feet from the north side property line rather than the required minimum of 10 feet in the C-Commercial 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:
1. This hearing has been duly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.
2. The property location is
SW 36-8-69; 1741 Valley View Lane, Fort Collins; located approximately 800 feet
south of the intersection of Spaulding Lane and Valley View Lane.
3. Site data is as follows:
a. Land Area: 0.33 Acres
b. Proposed Use: Single Family Residence
c. Existing Zoning: C-Commercial
d. Surrounding Zoning: C-Commercial and M-1 Multi-Family
e. Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence
f. Surrounding Land Uses: Residential, Mobile Home Park
g. Access: Valley View Lane
4. The applicants propose to construct a pole barn on the property. The pole barn would be used as a garage, workshop, and for storage. The pole barn would be located approximately 3 feet from the north side property line. The C-Commercial zoning district requires a 10-foot setback from the side lot lines as indicated in section 4.1.18.B.2.b of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
5. The property consists of 0.33 acres. There is an existing eight-foot privacy fence completely surrounding the perimeter of the back yard and also enclosing the area where applicants wish to locate the pole barn. The fence has a large double gate leading into the north side of the lot that would allow for the passage of vehicles into the structure. The house, existing garage, and fence prevent access to any other part of the yard. The proposed location of the pole barn is the only area of the lot where there are no utilities and where there is no formal landscaping, no mature trees and no permanent structures that would have to be removed or destroyed to accommodate the barn. The pole barn cannot be moved further south to increase the amount of the setback because of an existing sewer line.
6. Although the property is located in a residential neighborhood, the zoning is C-Commercial. The C-Commercial zone has much greater setbacks than those in residential zoning districts.
7. There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request. Letters in support of the request were received. Two neighbors spoke in support of 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 existing location of utilities and a sewer line, together with mature landscaping and permanent structures limits the area in which the pole barn can be located and meet the setback.
B. The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.
The location of the utilities, sewer line, landscaping and other structures and the C-Commercial zoning existed on the property at the time applicants purchased it. These circumstances were not the result of actions or inactions by 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.
Other structures in the area are located within the setback as a result of variances. Residences located in residential zoning districts enjoy lesser setbacks than those afforded to applicants due to the location of a residential neighborhood in a C-Commercial zone.
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 for the proposed pole barn to be constructed without impairing existing utilities, a sewer line and landscaping. The building and property can still be used for the owner’s intended purposes.
E. Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.
There is not evidence that granting the variance will adversely impact other property in the vicinity of the subject property. Four letters in support of the variance were sent by neighboring property owners.
F. Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.
Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and Master Plan because it allows the applicants a reasonable and greater use of their property without adversely impacting surrounding properties.
G. The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.
Referral agency comments were considered. No objections were offered from any 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:
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 Mike Prieve and Lynn Prieve 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 Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Kent Bruxvoort, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman 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 7:55 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