Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

April 27, 2004

 

            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.  Members Wilma Davis, MaryAnne Martell, Evelyn King, Larry Chisesi and Vincent Costanzi, were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Jeannine S. Haag, Assistant County Attorney.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of March 23, 2004 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0456

Owner:            John William Lauer and Meaghan Lauer

Applicant:       John William Lauer and Meaghan Lauer

Property Description:

 

Lot 14, Spring Canyon Heights First Subdivision, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of John William Lauer and Meaghan Lauer, 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 5 feet from the edge of an interior subdivision road rather than the minimum requirement of 20 feet in the R-1 Residential 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 16-07-68; 4916 Lone Pine Dr., located west of Inlet Bay Marina (Horsetooth Reservoir) and north of County Road 38E.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.4 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Residential w/accessory detached garage

c.    Existing Zoning             R-Residential

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  R-Residential

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Single Family Residential

g.    Access:                                    Lone Pine Dr.

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage (720 sq. ft.) accessory to the existing single-family dwelling. The proposed garage would be located northeast of the residence, 5 feet from the edge of Brookside Drive, an interior subdivision road for the Spring Canyon Heights Subdivision.

 

6.         There are no major issues or concerns with the variance 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 location of the existing residence and the narrowness of the lot are all special conditions that contribute to the variance request.  These factors limit the area available for a detached garage.

 

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 subdivision lot.

 

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 of other lands in the area.  There are multiple properties in the immediate area which do not meet the required zoning district setbacks.

 

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 garage in the proposed location.

 

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. 

 

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.

 

Wilma Davis moved and Evelyn King 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.    This approval shall automatically expire in one year unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with the approval.

 

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.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners John William Lauer and Meaghan Lauer 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 Wilma Davis, MaryAnne Martell, Evelyn King, Larry Chisesi and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted subject to conditions.

File No:           #04-BOA0458

Owner:            Orin G. and Barbara A. Carney

Applicant:       Orin G. and Barbara A. Carney

Property Description:

 

Tract “A” : A tract of land situate in the SW ¼ of Section 33, Township 9 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., which considering the West line of the said SW ¼ as bearing North and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which bears N 89°58’E 473.70 feet from the SW corner of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of said Section 33; thence N 89°58’ E 160.00 feet; thence N 01°58’ W 98.45 feet; thence S 89°14’ W 128.46 feet; thence N 01°58’ W 117.87 feet to a point on the Southerly line of the right of way for Colorado State Highway No. 14; thence along said Southerly right of way line S 70°53’ W 145.20 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right whose radius is 746.30 feet; thence along the arc of said curve to a point resultant from a long chord which bears S 74°27’34” W 93.12 feet; thence leaving said Southerly right of way line S 68°05’ W 98.12 feet; thence S 73°33’25” E 307.05 feet to the point of beginning and containing 1.054 acres more or less.

 

Tract “B” : A tract of land situate in the SW ¼ of Section 33, Township 9 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. which considering the West line of the said SW ¼ as bearing North and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is more particularly described as follows; beginning at a point which bears N 89°58’ E 633.70 feet and again N 01°58’ W 98.45 feet from the SW corner of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of said Section 33; thence S 83°14’ W 128.46 feet; thence N 01°58’ W 117.87 feet to a point on the Southerly line of the right of way for Colorado State Highway No. 14; thence along said Southerly right of way line N 70°53’ E 133.96 feet; thence leaving said Southerly right of way line S 01°58’ E 146.63 feet to the point of beginning and containing 0.389 acres more or less. Note: Permanent access shall be granted to tract “B” to the existing well located on tract “A” along with sufficient water for domestic use.

 

            The Petition of Orin and Barbara Carney, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an addition to a nonconforming residence to be 54 feet from centerline of a State Highway (CO Highway 14) rather than the required minimum of 100 feet from the centerline 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 ¼ of 33-09-73; 31635 Poudre Canyon Road, located just west of Glen Echo, south side of Highway 14.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.   Land Area:                        

b.   Proposed Use:                               

c.   Existing Zoning                  

d.   Surrounding Zoning:                       

e.   Existing Land Use:             

f.   Surrounding Land Uses:     

g.   Access:                             

 

5.         Applicant requests a setback variance to allow addition to a non-conforming building.  The addition would encroach further into the required setback of 100 feet from State Highway 14.  The existing residence was built in 1982 and is currently within the required setback, approximately 65 feet from the highway center.  The addition would result in a final setback of 54 feet from the highway center. 

 

6.         The use of the property for resort cabins is considered the principal use, to which the residence is accessory. This proposed addition is to incorporate an office for guest registration and conducting the business during the guest season. It will be used for residential purposes during the off-season. The addition is considered accessory to the principal use.

 

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 property is bordered on the north by the highway and on the south by the Cache La Poudre River.  These physical constraints, combined with the shape of the property, make it impossible to add on to the residence without some sort of setback variance.

 

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

 

            The special conditions were not created by any action or inaction of the.  The river’s location and highway location are not under the control 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 along this stretch of highway that do not meet the required setback and the strict enforcement of setbacks would cause the owner an undue hardship by preventing reasonable improvements to the building.

 

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

 

            Granting the variance request is the minimum action that will allow the proposed addition to be constructed.

 

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. 

 

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

 

              Granting the variance requested would not impair the intent and purpose 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.

 

Wilma Davis moved and Evelyn King 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 variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    The addition shall not encroach into the right-of-way of Colorado State Highway 14.

 

2.    This approval shall automatically expire in one year unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with the approval.

 

3.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the variance approval may result I reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Adjustment.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Orin and Barbara Carney 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 Wilma Davis, MaryAnne Martell, Evelyn King, Larry Chisesi and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0457

Owner:            Gary Perry

Applicant:       Gary Perry and Toni Deines

Property Description:

 

Lot 10, Block 2, Foothills Estates Subdivision, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Gary Perry and Toni Deines, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a variance upon the above-described property to allow a detached garage 35 feet from the centerline of a stream, rather than the required minimum of 100 feet in the FA-1 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 30-04-69; 4725 Foothills Drive, located east of County Road 23E and north of County Road 4.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.5 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning             FA-1 Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-1 Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Foothills Drive

 

5.         Applicant proposes to construct a detached garage on the subject property. The property, 1.5 acres, has an existing residence which is located approximately 160 feet from an intermittent stream. The stream courses along the southern property boundary. Although applicant had requested a variance to allow the garage to be constructed 35 feet from the stream centerline, applicant testified that he would be willing to accept a variance to allow the garage to be constructed 50 feet from the stream.

 

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 proposed location for the structure is the flattest area of the property and will involve movement of the least amount of dirt.

 

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

 

            The need for the variance was not caused by action or inaction of the applicant.

 

B.   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 of the Code, specifically the provision for 100’ setbacks from river, would not cause an unnecessary hardship since the construction at other locations would involve movement of more dirt. 

 

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

 

            The revised variance request for 50 feet is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure.  

 

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

 

            Granting the variance will not affect other property in the vicinity.

 

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

 

Granting the variance, as requested, would be consistent with 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.

 

Wilma Davis moved and Larry Chisesi 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 variance to allow construction of a detached garage 50 feet from the centerline of the stream.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Gary Perry and Toni Deines not act upon the 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 Wilma Davis, MaryAnne Martell, Evelyn King and Larry Chisesi voted in favor of the Resolution. Member Vincent Costanzi voted against the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted.

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2004.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________

                                                                        Date

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

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