November 25, 2008


            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 25, 2008.  Members Matt Strauch, Peter Bohling, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King and Greg Christensen were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff member Samantha Mott, and Assistant County Attorney William G. Ressue.


            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of October 28, 2008 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.


File No:           #08-BOA 0737  (Fuentes Setback Variance)

Owner:           Aspen Mobile Home Park, LLC

Applicant:      Yolanda Fuentes

Property Description:


BEG AT PT WH BEARS N 0 18' W 450.14 FT FROM SW COR OF  9-7-69, TH N 0 18' W 150 FT; S 89 36' 15" E 180 FT; S 0 21' E 150 FT; N 89 36' 15" W 180.26 FT TPOB & ALSO BEG AT PT WH BEARS N 0 18' W 600.14 FT & S 89 36' 15" E336.80 FT FROM SW COR OF 9-7-69, TH S 89 36' 15" E 313.57 FT TO WRLY LN OF COFFEE PK; TH S 0 21' E 235.30 FT; N 48 49' W 125.55 FT; N 69 47' W 64.16 FT; N 84 25' W 44.49 FT; S 75 15' W 118.98 FT; N 0 21' W 158.58 FT  TPOB (C33N0018W) LESS 1353-41 FOR RD PURPOSES


            The Application of Aspen Mobile Home Park, LLC, requesting a setback variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an addition to an existing manufactured home to be 78 feet 9 inches from the centerline of Overland Trail rather than the required minimum of 110 feet in the M-1 Multi-Family 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 9-7-69; 418 South Overland Trail, Fort Collins; located at the intersection of Overland Trail and West Magnolia Street on the southeast corner.



3.         Site data is as follows:


a.         Land Area:                              1.24 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                         Manufactured Home Park

c.    Existing Zoning:                     M-1 Multi-Family

            d.         Surrounding Zoning:               M-1 Multi-Family, FA Farming, and

                                                                        FA-I Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                 Manufactured Home Park

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:         Residential, Agricultural

g.         Access:                                    Overland Trail


4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow an addition to an existing manufactured home to be 78 feet 9 inches from the centerline of Overland Trail.  Overland Trail is classified as an arterial road and the required setback from the right-of-way centerline is 110 feet.  The existing manufactured home is currently 87 feet 3 inches from the centerline of Overland Trail.


5.         One issue relates to the density of a manufactured home park.  Manufactured home parks are intended to have a specific number of units and a certain number of spaces which are designed based on the size of the unit.  Although the Land Use Code does not prohibit additions to manufactured homes, the question comes up as to whether or not there is room for the addition.  When looking at density requirements in the Land Use Code for manufactured homes in manufactured home parks the density is based on the number of units and does not include additions.  The Code also allows accessory buildings in manufactured home parks provided such buildings and uses do not dominate in area, extent or purpose the principal use of the land as a manufactured home park and such buildings and uses must be only for the purpose of providing services, conveniences or comforts for the manufactured home park residents and their guest.  Review of the Land Use Code does not prohibit a manufactured home in a manufactured home park from having an addition.


6.         Another issues related to this request is that the addition was built without first obtaining a building permit or County approval.  If the variance is approved, the addition needs to comply with the building code requirements.  If the requirements cannot be met then the addition must be removed. 


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 special circumstance for this property is that there is an existing manufactured home on the property that already encroaches into the required setback from Overland Trail.  The Land Use Code does not prohibit additions to mobile homes in manufactured home parks.  Although the location of the addition is closer to Overland Trail than the existing building, the manufactured home is bordered on two sides by other manufactured homes and on the south by the internal access road.  The south side of the home is the only location where an addition could be located.  


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


The above circumstance is not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  The location for the manufactured home within the manufactured home park with its proximity to Overland Trail was not caused by the current owner.  The existing mobile home park was developed before the County adopted current regulations which now require approval through the special review process and site plan review.


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 interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.  The addition could not be built without a variance because the entire manufactured home is already within the required setback.


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


Granting the variance will allow the owner reasonable use of the land will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.


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 for the addition 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 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 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 addressed as appropriate.   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.


Greg Christensen moved and Evelyn King 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 applicant be and it hereby is granted its 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.    All future additions or buildings on the property shall conform to the required setbacks as defined by the Land Use Code and must obtain approval through the proper county review and planning process.


3.    The owner must obtain a building permit and inspection approvals for the addition.  The application for a building permit must be submitted within 30 days of approval of this variance request.


4.    After the applicant applies for a building permit, the Larimer County Building Department must be provided with a written certification by a Colorado Licensed Land Surveyor that the proposed structure is located where shown on the Larimer County approved plot plan for this development.


5.         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 Matt Strauch, Peter Bohling, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King and Greg Christensen voted in favor of 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 7:08 p.m.





            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2008.


                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT



                                                By:      __________________________________________