Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

April 12, 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., April 12, 2005.  Members Jeanne Laudick, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of March 8, 2005, was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved with corrections to page one to reflect that members Chisesi, Berglund, King and Costanzi voted on the Motion concerning the location for posting the Board’s hearing notices. .

 

File No:           #05-BOA0545  (Keeton Industries Special Exception)

Owner:           Keeton Corporate Ranch, LLC

Applicant:       Keeton Corporate Ranch, LLC / Jim & Linda Keeton

Property Description:

 

A tract of land being a part of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 31, Township 10 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being described as following:

 

Bases of Bearings: The South line of the Southeast one-quarter of Section 31 being monumented at the East end by a 2 ½" aluminum cap stamped "LS 25619 1997" and at the West end by a 2 ½" aluminum cap stamped :LS 25619” is assumed to bear N 89°36'04'' W.

 

Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 31; thence N 89°36'04'' W on the South line of said Southeast one-quarter a distance of 2644.13 feet to the South one-quarter corner thereof: thence N 89°38'24'' W on the South line of the Southwest one-quarter on said Section 31 a distance of 881.75 feet to the point of beginning, said point being the Southwest corner of Reception Number 98089743, Larimer County Records; thence continuing N 89°38'24' W on said South line of said Southwest one-quarter a distance of 733.90 feet; thence N 20°00'00'' W a distance of 1468.33 feet to a point on the Northwesterly line of Reception Number 99015669, Larimer County Records; thence N 59°43'41" E on said Northwesterly line and the prolongation thereof a distance of 567.13 feet; thence S 72°47'00" E a distance of 101.39 feet; Thence N 72°15'00" E a distance of 233.00 feet; Thence S 16°34'00" E a distance of 400.00 feet; Thence S 23°18'00" E a distance of 206.00 feet; Thence S 45°54'00" E a distance of 513.00 feet; Thence S 04°26'00" E a distance of 60.00 feet; Thence S 85°34'00" W a distance of 115.28 feet; Thence S 03°43'30" E a distance of 234.60 feet; Thence S 85°25'00" E a distance of 27.00 feet to the Northwest corner of said Reception Number 98089743; Thence S 08°02'46" W on the Westerly line of said Reception Number a distance of 494.00 feet (493.82 feet - record) to the point of beginning, containing a calculated area of 35,000 acres (1,524,600 square feet).

 

            The Petition of Keeton Corporate Ranch, LLC, Jim and Linda Keeton appearing, requesting a Special Exception was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a Special Exception upon the above-described property to allow a business that provides equipment and services to aquaculture, agriculture, and water quality industries on property in the O-Open 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 SW 31-10-68; 13751 N. County Road 11, located on the west side of CR 11 and south of CR 74.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                              35 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                         Light Industrial (similar)

c.    Existing Zoning                       O-Open

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                O-Open

e.    Existing Land Use:                  Agricultural (previous owner)

f.   Surrounding Land Uses:          Agricultural, Residential

g.    Access:                                   N. County Road 11

 

5.         Applicant is requesting a Special Exception to allow a business that assembles and provides equipment and services to aquaculture, agriculture, and water quality industries to be located on property at 10122 NE Frontage Road, northeast of Wellington.  The proposed use is similar to a light industrial use and is not allowed in the O-Open zoning district.

           

6.         Primary activities to be conducted at the site include assembly of water aeration systems from finished materials and equipment brought on site.  After assembly, these systems and other finished equipment are distributed to clients worldwide.  These same products are also available through catalogue and internet sales, and other advertising.  Many of the customers are local, state, and federal governments, aquaculture (fish farming), and agriculture operators who want to improve water quality for their particular jurisdiction or operation.  Keeton Industries, Inc also holds an aquaculture license approved by the Colorado Agriculture Department.  Aquaculture activity on the site would be considered an agricultural use allowed by right and does not require Special Exception approval.

 

7.         The subject property currently has buildings on it that were originally constructed in early 1970’s and used for bull semen collection, processing and distribution, which was likely considered an agricultural use at the time.  Keeton Industries, Inc operations fit well with the existing facilities for use as offices, laboratory, research, and warehouse space.  No new buildings are proposed by the applicant.  The existing buildings consist of the primary building (10,848 sq. ft.) housing the offices, laboratory, warehouse and assembly room.  There is a detached agricultural building that the applicant uses for storage of equipment and is proposed for use as aquaculture use in the future. 

 

8.         The building utilizes an on-site, commercial-sized septic system.  The applicant indicated that the waste produced on site will only be domestic sanitary waste associated with routine employee usage.  No processing waste flows or hazardous materials would be introduced into the septic system.  Water for the site is provided by the Town of Wellington.  There are existing telephone lines, REA power, and natural gas on site.  The existing parking is paved and has the capacity to hold 40 cars though the proposed use doesn’t utilize more than 15-20 maximum.

 

9.         Based upon the analysis provided by the Development Services Team (DST), the proposed use as described in the application materials is a reasonable use of the site.  If the proposed use expands, changes character, adds or alters activities, additional review and approval may be required.

 

10.       Staff attempted to consider this application in the context of the buildings not existing on the property.  In the end, it was determined that the same conclusions could have been made in regard to satisfying the review criteria.  Because the use is agriculture related and the assembly operations are limited, the use is considered compatible with the surrounding area.

 

11.       The applicable review criteria for the Special Exception have been met as follows:

 

  A.       The proposed use will be compatible with the existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and will be in harmony with the neighborhood.  

 

  The existing uses in the area are primarily agricultural, with accompanying residences.  The historic uses on the property have been agriculture related and the proposed use is similar in many characteristics but less intensive than bull and bull semen production.  Water use and waste production will be less than previous, permitted agricultural uses.  The assembly of parts, equipment, and materials into water aeration systems is considered more of an industrial type use, but it’s done all indoors with finished parts that are shipped in, not manufactured on site.  The secondary assembly would be compatible as long as it doesn’t exceed the limits described in the application materials.

 

  B.       The proposed use will not exceed air, water, odor, or noise standards established by County, state or federal regulation.

 

  In the application, the applicant stated that it will comply with all applicable air, water, odor, and noise standards.  The property has domestic water service provided by the Town of Wellington.  The applicant will continue to use the existing on-lot septic system, which was determined to be adequate by the County Department of Health and Environment as long commercial/industrial processing and hazardous wastes are not introduced into the system.   There does not appear to be any source of odor or noise on the property, and the Staff is not aware of any required air quality permits required for the proposed use. 

 

  C.       The proposed use will not adversely affect property values in the immediate area.

 

  The property has been used for intense agricultural uses in the past and this proposed use is not inconsistent with the previous uses.  Based on the project details and the applicant’s statements, the Board finds that the use will not adversely affect property values in the area.

 

  D.       The proposed use will comply will all requirements of this Code and all County, state and federal regulations.

 

  In the application, the applicant stated that the proposed use will comply with all requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code, and state and federal regulations.  The Board finds that the application offers sufficient information to prove compliance with the Adequate Public Facilities section of the Code.  The Engineering and Planning Departments agree that any remaining requirements of Section 8 such as traffic impacts, parking, road maintenance, etc. are minimal and can be worked out at the site plan stage subsequent to any special exception approval.

 

  E.       The proposed use will not adversely affect special places in Larimer County.

 

No special places have been designated on or near the site.

 

  F.       The proposed use will not adversely affect wildlife or wetlands.

 

There are no known wetlands or significant wildlife habitat areas on or near the site.

 

12.       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 Jeanne Laudick 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 petitioner be and it hereby is granted its Special Exception as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The applicant shall contact the Wellington Fire Department to perform an on site inspection for fire code related concerns and shall provide a copy of the inspection results to the Building Department prior as part of a required Certificate of Occupancy review.

 

            2.         The applicant shall pay associated Transportation Capital Expansion Fees at the time of issuance of the building permit.

 

3.         Failure to comply with any conditions of this Special Exception approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner not act upon the Special Exception granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted Special Exception 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.

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the Special Exception was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0546  (Melott Setback Variance No. 2)

Owner:           Ted Melott

Applicant:       Northstar Homes, Inc. / Jerrod Reichardt

Property Description:

 

A tract of land in the North ½ of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 71 West of the Sixth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which considering the West line of the Northeast ¼ of said Section 29 as bearing N 01°03' W and with all bearings contained herein thereto is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point on the centerline of a 60.00 foot wide access road, which bears S 02°41'28" W 347.64 feet, and again S 00°24'45" E 563.63 feet, from the North ¼ Corner of said Section 29, and run thence along the said centerline S 81°21' E 141.98 feet, and again along the arc of a 216.47 foot radius curve to the right, a distance of 281.24 feet, the long chord of which bears S 44°07'45" E 261.87 feet, thence N 88°28' E 365.31 feet; thence S 01°32' E 166.78 feet to a point on the South line of the North ½ of the said Northeast ¼ thence S 88°28' W 656.58 feet to the Southwest corner of the Northwest ¼ of the said Northeast ¼; thence S 01°03' E 1294.92 feet to the center ¼ corner of said Section 29; thence S 88°45' W 900.00 feet along the South line of the Northwest ¼ of said Section 29; thence N 01°03' W 1517.00 feet; thence N 89°00' E 870.20 feet to a point on the centerline of a 60.00 foot wide access road; thence along said centerline N 00°45'40" W 166.25 feet to the point of beginning, and being subject to a right-of-way for a 60.00 foot wide access road as described above, and also to the point which bears S 02°41'28" W 347.64 feet, and again S 00°24’45" E 563.63 feet, and again S 00°45'40" E 166.25 feet from the North ¼ corner of said Section 29; and run thence S 00°45'40" E 405.00 feet and again along the arc of a 101.99 foot radius curve to the right, a distance of 122.69 feet, the long chord of which bears S 33°42'10" W 115.43 feet, and again S 68°10' W 290.00 feet, and again S 84'36” W 215.00 feet, and again S 70°32' W 333.53 feet to the West line of said Tract 27, ALSO subject to a 60.00 foot wide right-of-way which bears S 02°41'28" W 347.64 feet, and again S 00°24'45E 563.63 feet, and again S 00°45'40" E 651.25 feet, and again S 33°42'10 W 115.43 feet, and again S 68°10' W 290.00 feet from the North ¼ corner of said Section 29, and run thence S 26°40" W 200.00 feet, and again along the arc of a 182.53 foot radius curve to the left, a distance of 150.80 feet, the long chord of which bears S 03°00' W 146.54 feet, and again S 20°40' E 408.96 feet, and again along the arc of a 400.00 foot radius curve to the right, a distance of 125.66 feet, the long chord of which bears S 11°40' E 125.15 feet to a point on the South line of said Tract 27, together with a right-of-access from County Road 74E, which begins at a point which bears S 02°41'28" W 347.64 feet, and again S 00°24'45' E 563.63 feet from the North ¼ corner of said Section 29, and run thence N 00°24'45" W 563.63 feet, and again N 62°34' W 291.96 feet, and again N 48°57'40" E 464.34 feet, and again N 41°53’20" W 479.96 feet, and again N 29°10'40" W 257.72 feet, and again N 05°20'40" W 396.56 feet, and again N 02°00' W 253.58 feet, and again along the arc of a 239.90 foot radius curve to the right, a distance of 172.20 feet, the long chord of which bears N 18°53'50" E 168.53 feet, and again N 39°07'40' E 425.79 feet, and again N 43°37'20" E 366.03 feet, and again N 32°30'20" E 466.25 feet, and again N 19°16'20" E 364.57 feet, and again N 31°12'20" E 286.04 feet, and again N 24°26'40" E 209.21 feet, and again N 02°34'40" E 330.10 feet and again N 29°44' E 619.25 feet and again along the arc of a 176.60 foot radius curve to the left a distance of 236.75 feet the long chord which bears N 08°10'20" W 219.42 feet, and again N 47°04'40" W 174.86 feet, and again along the arc of 206.66 foot radius curve to the left, a distance of 202.17 feet, and the long chord of which bears N 75°06'10" W 194.20 feet, and again S 76°52'20" W 150.03 feet, and again along the arc of a 345.89 foot radius curve to the right, a distance of 169.84 feet, the long chord of which bears S 65°57'38" W 167.95 feet, and again S 80°00'40" W 299.73 feet, and again along the arc of a 107.21 foot radius curve to the right a distance of 180.46 feet, the long chord of which bears N 51°46' W 159.90 feet, and again N 03°32'40" W 170.72 feet, more or less to a point on the centerline of said County Road 74E.

 

            The Petition of Northstar Homes, Inc., Jerrod Reichardt appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an addition to an existing residence to be 73 feet from the centerline of a creek, rather than the required minimum of 100 feet, in the E-Estate 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 29-9-71; 1169 Deer Meadow Way, located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Cottonwood Restaurant near Glacier View Meadows.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                              35 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                         Single Family Dwelling - addition

c.         Existing Zoning                       E-Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                E-Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                  Single Family Dwelling

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:          Residential, Agricultural

g.         Access:                                   Deer Meadow Way

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the existing single-family dwelling.  The existing dwelling is approximately 90 feet from the centerline of a creek that runs through the northeastern portion of the property line and has a required setback of 100 feet from the centerline. The owner was previously granted a minor setback variance which eliminated the nonconforming status of the existing dwelling and thus allowed for an earlier expansion.  The addition proposed under this new application extends closer to the creek.  The request is for a setback of 73 feet from the center of the creek.

 

6.         There are no major issues or concerns with 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, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The awkward shape of the lot, the construction date of the original dwelling (1942), and close proximity to other buildings on adjacent property are all special circumstances peculiar to this land and structure. 

 

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

 

The special conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant.  The lot configuration and buildings on adjacent properties existed prior to the current ownership.

 

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 on an adjacent lot that do not meet building setback requirements from the stream.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding property owners. 

 

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 construction of the proposed dwelling addition.

 

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

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties.  No objections or complaints from surrounding property owners have been received by the Planning Department.  The creek on the property has not been studied by FEMA and therefore has no regulated floodplain. 

 

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

 

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan.

 

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 Jeanne Laudick 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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their 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 Petitioner, Northstar Homes, Inc. and Jerrod Reichardt 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 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.

 

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

 

File No:           #05-BOA0517  (Gunderson Setback Variance)

Owner:           Kurt Gunderson        

Applicant:       Gary Weixelman

Property Description:

 

Amended Plat of Lot 57 and Lot 58A of the Amended Plat of Lots 30, 31, 55, 56, 59, 64, and 65 and part of Holiday Drive, Horsetooth Lake Estates

 

            The Petition of Gary Weixelman, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a detached garage to be 6.5 feet from the edge of an interior subdivision road, rather than the required minimum of 25 feet, in the O-Open 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 06-06-69; 5016 Holiday Drive; located west of County Road 38E, approximately 1 mile northwest of the southern tip of Horsetooth Reservoir.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                              1.64 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                         Single Family Residential w/garage

c.         Existing Zoning                       O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                  Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:          Residential

g.         Access:                                   Holiday Drive

 

5.         In October, the applicant applied for a building permit for the subject garage – 24’ x 28’.  The location was shown to be at least 25 feet from the edge of the interior subdivision road, and was approved to commence construction.  The foundation was poured and a distance certification was required to confirm the distance shown on the permit.  The foundation was found to be 6.5 feet from the edge of the road right-of-way rather than 25 feet as required and originally shown on the building permit application.

 

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, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

There are topographical conditions that exist on the lot, namely a steep slope that could become unstable with more excavation to move the building location further from the front property line.

 

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

 

The topography and steepness of the lot were 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.

 

The applicant presented evidence of other buildings in the area that encroach into setback requirements.  The additional excavation that would be required to move the building further from the property line could potentially jeopardize the stability of the slope and require extensive engineering design.  The adjoining property to the south would also likely be affected by reducing the slope stability.  These additional actions and safety hazards would cause an unnecessary hardship to the applicant and to the adjoining property owner

 

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

 

Granting the variance is considered the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure while maintaining the integrity of the existing slope.

 

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

 

Granting the variance will not adversely impact neighboring properties.  The adjacent property owner to the south provided written support of the variance.

 

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

 

Granting the variance would be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan.

 

7.         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.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Vincent Costanzi 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 petitioner be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner, Gary Weixelman, 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 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.

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0541  (Bauer Setback Variance)

Owner:           Chris & Jesse Bauer

Applicant:       Chris & Jesse Bauer

Property Description:

 

Lot 3, Cushman’s Lakeview Development 1st Filing

 

            The Petition of Chris and Jesse Bauer, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed single family dwelling to be located 36 feet from the centerline 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 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 SW 31-7-69; 4116 Ann Street, located west of Inlet Bay on Horsetooth Reservoir.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                              0.31 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                         Single Family Dwelling

c.         Existing Zoning                       O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                  Vacant

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:          Residential

g.         Access:                                   Ann Street

 

5.         The applicants own Lots 2 and 3, Cushman’s Lakeview Development.  Applicants reside on Lot 2.  Construction of a single-family dwelling is proposed for Lot 3.  The property is currently vacant and consists of approximately 0.31 acres.  A steep, intermittent stream courses generally through the middle of the lot from west to east, toward Horsetooth Reservoir.  The proposed building location lies north of the stream, between the stream and Lot 2.  The topography of the lot slopes down steeply from the northwest to the southeast, to the bottom of the creek bed and then slopes up the other side.  The proposed location of the dwelling would be 36 feet from the center of the creek.

 

6.         Two concerns remain with the request.  The first is the water line situation as pointed out by the adjoining neighbor and the water district.  If the variance is approved, it should be done so with some provision for resolving the water line problem so as to not create an adverse impact to the water supply to Lot 33.  This could be done by the applicant dedicating an easement and moving the water line to run along the north lot line of Lot 3, then south along the east lot line where there is an existing easement.  Another option is for Lot 33 to receive its water from the district’s line that runs along Kano Drive to the east of Lot 33.  This would require a new water tap but the distance from the line to the house is shorter.  According to the district’s informal cost estimates, it would be about the same cost for either option.  The cost and work issues could be worked out between the two properties involved.

 

7.         The second concern is the Preble's meadow jumping mouse.  The applicant has been made aware that this issue will have to be resolved with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service separately from any decision made by the Board of Adjustment.  Any decision made by the Board of Adjustment does not influence the Service’s review and does not relieve applicant from compliance with any federal regulations.

 

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, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The steep topography of the lot, combined with its small size, severely limit the opportunity for construction. 

 

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

 

The special conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant.  The lot topography and configuration existed prior to the current ownership.

 

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 vicinity that do not meet building setback requirements from the stream, and are closer than the proposed location in some cases.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding property owners. 

 

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 construction of the proposed dwelling.

 

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

 

There is a water line that runs west to east (parallel to and north of the creek) through the applicant’s Lot 3.  This line supplies water to Lot 33 of Thompson’s Lakeside Subdivision which was platted in 1952 (Cushman’s Lakeview was platted in 1965).  Lot 33 adjoins the subject property to the southeast.  The location of the water line is thought to be in direct conflict with the proposed house location.  The owner of Lot 33 objects to the construction of a building because of the likelihood that a building would jeopardize the water line and the potential for increased flooding through his property. 

 

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

 

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan.

 

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.

 

Eric Berglund moved and Jeanne Laudick 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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The applicant shall resolve the water line issue with the owners of Lot 33 of Thompson’s Lakeside Subdivision and present evidence of such to the Planning Department at time of or prior to building permit application.

 

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 Petitioners, Chris and Jesse Bauer, 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 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.

 

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

 

File No:           #05-BOA0547  (Kuehl Setback Variance)

Owner:           Meredith & Patricia Kuehl

Applicant:       Meredith & Patricia Kuehl

 

            The Petition of Meredith and Patricia Kuehl, was tabled until April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m., at the request of the applicant.

 

            Eric Berglund moved and Jeanne Laudick seconded the motion that the Board table this matter until April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

 

The question was called and members, Jeanne Laudick, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the motion.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0548  (Hopkins Expansion of a Nonconforming Use)

Owner:           Kenneth & Kathleen Hopkins

Applicant:       Kenneth & Kathleen Hopkins

Property Description:

 

A tract of land situate in the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 4, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, described as follows: Considering the East line of said NE ¼ as bearing South 00°16’30” East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the NE corner of the SE ¼ of said NE ¼ which bears South 00°16’30” East 1324.50 feet from the NE corner of said Section 4, run thence South 89°30’10” West 310.96 feet along the North line of the SE ¼ of the said NE ¼ to a point on the Northeasterly right-of-way line of the Colorado and Southern Railroad; thence South 56°29’30” East 374.13 feet along said right of way line to a point on the East line of said NE ¼; thence North 00°16’30” West 209.24 feet to the point of beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Kenneth and Kathleen Hopkins, requesting to expand a nonconforming residence was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested to expand a nonconforming residence by more than 25 percent in the FA-Farming 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 NE 4-7-69; 1421 N. Taft Hill Road, located 1 mile south of County Road 54G, between Fort Collins and Laporte.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                              0.75 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                         Single Family residence

c.         Existing Zoning                       FA-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                  Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:          Residential

g.         Access:                                   N. Taft Hill Road

 

5.         The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing residence, which is currently approximately 80 feet from the center of N. Taft Hill Road.  North Taft Hills Road is classified as an arterial and requires a building setback of 160 feet from right-of-way center.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 160-foot setback from the road.  According to the applicants, the residence was constructed in 1924 prior to County building permit and zoning regulations.  The owner wants to add on to the existing structure to the west (side).  The addition, expanded living area, is greater than 25% of the existing building.  Because the size of the addition is larger than 25%, it does not meet the criteria of Section 4..9.A.(1).  Therefore, the project requires approval by the Board of Adjustment to proceed .

 

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, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The location and orientation of the existing residence are all special conditions that contribute to the expansion request.  The residence was constructed in its current location in 1924, per county assessor’s records, prior to permit requirements and setback regulations. 

 

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

 

The special circumstances or conditions were not created by the applicant.  The applicant had no control of the placement of the residence or the configuration and size of the lot since all of these occurred prior to the property’s current ownership.

 

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.

 

The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other buildings along this same road.  There are other buildings in the area and along N. Taft Hill Road that do not meet the required road setback and are larger in size than the owner’s existing residence.

 

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

 

Granting the request is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the proposed addition.

 

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

 

It is not anticipated that granting the request will adversely affect neighboring properties.

 

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

 

Granting the request would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan.

 

7.         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 Jeanne Laudick 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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their expansion as requested.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Kenneth and Kathleen Hopkins not act upon the expansion granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted expansion 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.

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the expansion was granted.

 

 

 

 

                                                     ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:58 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:

 

 

 

________________________________

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.