Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

December 19, 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., December 19, 2006.  Members Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, 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 November 28, 2006 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0631  (Sugden Setback Variance Extension)

Owner:            David Wiedeman

Applicant:       David Wiedeman

Property Description:

 

Lots 7 and 8, and that portion of Lot 9, POUDRE PARK SECOND ANNEX  more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the SE corner of Lot 7,

thence South ten feet along the East line of Lot 9;

thence West parallel to the line between 7 and Lot 9 to the South 1ine of Lot 8;

thence in a northeasterly direction to the south line of Lot 7;

thence East 25 feet to place of beginning;

being a part of the E 1/2 of the SE1/4 of Section 2, Township 8 North, Range 71 West of the 6th P. M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Application of David Wiedeman, requesting an extension of time for compliance with the conditions of approval of the original Sugden Setback Variance 05-BOA0575 upon the above-described property was presented to the Board.  The variance allowed a proposed replacement single-family dwelling to be located 50 feet from the centerline of Falls Creek, rather than the required minimum of 100 feet in the O-Open 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:

 

Findings

 

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

 

2.         The property location is SE 02-08-71; 90 Falls Creek Drive, located south of Poudre Park in the Poudre Canyon.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.2 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.    Access:                                    Falls Creek Drive

 

4.         The applicant was granted a variance (05-BOA0575) by the Board of Adjustment in September 2005.  The application was for a setback variance from the creek setback requirement.  The standard expiration period for a variance is one year from date of approval.  The applicant is requesting more time, one year, to act on the variance.

 

5.         The Larimer County Development Services Team finds no major issues and has no concerns with this extension request.  All other conditions of the original variance will remain in effect with this extension request.

 

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

 

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 Jean Christman 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 applicant be and he hereby is granted his setback variance time extension as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

            1.         The applicant shall apply for a building permit for the proposed building and obtain all final inspections as necessary to finalize the permit.

 

            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.

 

 

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the extension was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0630  (Dehn Setback Variance Extension)

Owner:            Charles Dehn

Applicant:       Charles Dehn

Property Description:

 

Parcel 1:

Lot 1, Block 2, Laugh-A-Lot Subdivision, less the road right-of-way described in

Book 1106, Page 71 ; Larimer County, Colorado

 

Parcel 2:

Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, LAUGH-A-LOT, a subdivision of a portion of the SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 9 North Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. Larimer County, Colorado

 

            The Application of Charles Dehn, requesting an extension of time for compliance with the conditions of approval of the original Dehn Setback Variance (05-BOA0574) upon the above-described property was presented to the Board.  The variance allowed two single family dwellings, each on a separate lot, to be located 58 feet the center of State Highway 14, rather than the required minimum of 100 feet in the O-Open 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:

 

Findings

 

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

 

2.         The property location is SE ¼ of 32-09-73; located about ½ mile west of Rustic, on north side of Highway 14.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open          

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Vacant (both parcels)

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Colorado State Highway 14

 

4.         The applicant was granted a variance (05-BOA0574) by the Board of Adjustment in September 2005.  The application was for a setback variance from the center of State Highway 14 setback requirement.  The standard expiration period for a variance is one year from date of approval.  The applicant is requesting more time, one year, to act on the variance.  The applicant originally requested an 18 month extension but has revised his request to just one year.

 

5.         The Larimer County Development Services Team finds no major issues and has no concerns with this extension request.  All other conditions of the original variance will remain in effect with this extension request.

 

6.         There were no persons in attendance at the hearing who objected to the request.  There were, however, two letters in opposition submitted to the Planning Department.

 

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 Jean Christman 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 applicant be and he hereby is granted his extension as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The applicant shall apply for building permits for the proposed buildings and obtain all final inspections as necessary to finalize the permits.

 

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.

 

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the extension was granted subject to conditions.

 

 

 

File No:           #06-BOA0634  (Tedder Setback Variance)

Owner:            Clifford & Susan Tedder

Applicant:       Clifford & Susan Tedder

Property Description:

 

BEG AT SE COR OF NW OF SE 11-4-72, TH S 89 38' W 876.5 FT, N 2 E 459 FT, S 69 45' E 666 FT, N 22 23' E 295 FT TO S BDRY LN OF N ST VRAIN HWY, TH ERLY ALG S HWY TO PT N OF POB, TH S ALG E LN NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 551 FT M/L TPOB; ALSO BEG AT SE COR OF NW OF SE 11-4-72, TH N ALG 1/16 SEC LN 141 FT, N 69 45' W 251 FT TPOB, N 69 45' W 666 FT, N 2 E 218 FT TO S R/W N ST VRAIN HWY, TH SRLY & ERLY ALG SD R/W LN TO PT WH IS N 22 23' E 295 FT FROM TPOB, S 22 2.3' W 295 FT TPOB

 

            The Application of Clifford and Susan Tedder, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a partially built detached garage to remain in its current location which is 30 feet from the centerline of the Little Thompson River rather than the required minimum of 100 feet in the O-Open 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:

 

Findings

 

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

 

2.         The property location is 11-4-72; 7342 Highway 36, Estes Park; located approximately 7 miles east of Estes Park.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               8.0 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Highway 36

 

4.         The applicants request a setback variance to allow a partially built garage to remain in its current location.  The building is located 30 feet from the centerline of the Little Thompson and the setback requirement for a river is 100 feet from the centerline, section 4.1.5.B.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The applicant has also submitted an application for a concurrent Add On Agreement to combine his two metes and bounds parcels into one parcel so that the structure does not encroach into the side setback.

 

5.         The major concern with this application is that the applicant/owner not construct any structures within any of the setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code without going through the proper County processes, such as applying for a variance.

 

6.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to 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, 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 property is an 8.0 acre lot that slopes down towards a level area where an existing single family dwelling and detached garage are located.  This flat area is bordered on the south, east, and west sides by sloping topography and on the north by the Little Thompson River.  The only other flat areas on the south side of the river include land adjacent and parallel to the river but still within the required setback and a flat portion southwest of the partially built garage that would be accessible by stairs to the flat area with the existing house.  The new garage is closer to the river than the two existing structures but cannot be located any farther south because of the location of the existing structures and the topography of the lot.  These two existing structures are both considered nonconforming, because they do not meet the required setback from the river either.

 

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

 

The above circumstances are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  The terrain and lot configuration are not the fault of the applicant.

 

            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.

 

Strict interpretation and enforcement of the Code would cause unnecessary and undue hardship, because the only site that meets the setback requirement would be on the other side of the stream and is not near the existing single family dwelling or it is on the sloped portion of the lot.

 

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

 

Granting the variance is not the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure, however, because of the undue hardship noted above this criterion is considered to be inapplicable.

 

            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 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 variances 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.  No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

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 Jean Christman 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 applicants 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 this approval.

 

3.    The owners must pay the remaining fees owed to the Building Department for the garage under Building Permit # 06-B1258 and obtain final inspection approvals.

 

4.    The owners must complete and receive final approval for the concurrent Add On Agreement.

 

5.         All future additions or buildings that would be within setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper county review and planning process prior to construction.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants Clifford and Susan Tedder 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, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0632  (Hebbert Setback Variance)

Owner:            Bonnie Hebbert

Applicant:       Bonnie Hebbert

Property Description:

 

BEG AT E 1/4 COR 27-8-71, TH S 1214.27 FT TO RD C/L TPOB, TH S 1436 FT TO SE COR, S 85 42' 54" W 476.33 FT, N 38 51' 30" W 377.4 FT TO RD CL, SD PT ON CURL, C/A 11 40' 4", RAD 1779.14 FT, L/C N 48 29' 51" E 361.68 FT, TH NERLY

ALG ARC 362.31 FT TO PT COMPOUND CUR L, C/A 18 3' 40", RAD 535 FT, L/C N 33 37' 59" E 167.95 FT, TH NERLY ALG ARC 168.65 FT TO PT COMPOUND CUR L, C/A 16 50' 39", RAD 1244.2 FT, L/C N 16 10' 49" E 364.46 FT, TH NERLY ALG ARC 365.78 FT TO PT REV CUR R, C/A 14 33' 12", RAD 1062.88 FT, L/C N 17 56' 34" E 269.25 FT, TH NERLY ALG ARC 269.98 FT TO COMPOUND CUR R, C/A 21 40' 59", RAD 404 FT, L/C N 36 3' 40" E 151.98 FT, TH NERLY ALG ARC 152.89 FT, TH N 46 54' 10" E 101.22 FT TPOB (SPLIT FROM 18270 00 008)

 

            The Application of Bonnie Hebbert, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing storage shed/pole barn to be located 19 feet from the center of the road rather than the required minimum of 35 feet in the O-Open 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:

 

Findings

 

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

 

2.         The property location is 27-8-71; 15481 County Road 52E, Bellvue.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               12.5 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    County Road 52E

 

4.         On 4/4/05 the Planning Director determined that the setback for the owner’s proposed 24 x 32’storage shed/pole barn at 15481 County Road 52E, Bellvue, must be at least 35 feet from the center of the existing road.  This is based on the minimum road width of 20 feet established in Appendix G-Design and Construction Standards for Private Local Access Roads of the County Road Manual and 25' setback from the edge = 35'.  The owner was notified of the determination.

 

5.         The owners did not realize a building permit was needed and proceeded to set the poles.  The owners were then notified that a building permit was needed but were not told that the poles as set did not meet setback.  The owners applied for a building permit on 10/28/04 for the storage shed/pole barn, (Permit #04-B1547).  The plot plan that was submitted showed the structure to be 35 feet from the center of Fire Route 11.  Upon final inspection of the structure by the Building Inspector on October 31, 2005, it was determined that the structure was 19 feet from the centerline of the road.  Robert Hebbert testified that the Building Inspector told him that the problem could be solved by widening the road at that point to meet the setback requirement.  Hebbert complied by widening the road at the area where the shed/pole barn encroaches into the setback.

 

6.         The subject road is a private, fire road which is not County maintained.  Neighbors testified that there is plenty of room where the road is widened and only a corner of the structure encroaches into the setback area.  Fire trucks and other vehicles can get by the building with no difficulty.  There is very little traffic on the road.

 

7.         The County Engineering Department cited no problems with respect to the location of the building.

 

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

 

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

 

            A.        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 property is a 12.5 acre lot that consists of both generally level terrain as well as sloping terrain.  Moving the structure would be cause unnecessary hardship.  Technically, the building does meet the setback since the road has been widened.

 

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

 

Improper location of the structure was caused by failure of the building inspector to realize at the time the poles were set that that the building would encroach into the setback.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause on unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

Strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code will cause unnecessary and undue hardship in moving the structure.

 

D.        Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure in its current location.  Technically, the setback requirement has been met since the road has been widened. 

 

           


            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 would adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property owners at this time.

 

            F.         The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

            Referral agency comments were considered.  No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

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.

 

Jean Christman 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 applicant be and she hereby is granted her setback variance as requested.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicant Bonnie Hebbert 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, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted.


 

File No:           #06-BOA0633  (Damizzi Setback Variance)

Owner:            Lynne & Ronald Damizzi

Applicant:       Lynne & Ronald Damizzi

Property Description:

 

            LOT 27 CRYSTAL LAKES, 14TH

 

            The Application of Lynne and Ronald Damizzi, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a single family residence to be located 14 feet from the south side lot line rather than the required minimum of 50 feet in the E-Estate 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:

 

Findings

 

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

 

2.         The property location is SE 19-10-73; 142 Yuki Drive, Red Feather Lakes; located approximately 900 feet south of the intersection of Creedmore Lakes Road and Yuki Drive in the Crystal Lakes Subdivision 14th Filing.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.68 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             E-Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  E-Estate, O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Yuki Drive

 

4.         The applicants propose to construct a single family residence on the property.  The proposed structure would be located approximately 14 feet from the south side lot line.  The E-Estate zoning district requires a 50 foot setback from the side lot line, as indicated in Section 4.1.6.B.2.c of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

5.         This application doesn’t meet the review criteria, namely the lack of special conditions.  The property consists of 2.68 acres and has sufficient area where the single family residence could be constructed and still meet setback requirements.

 

6.         One letter was received in opposition.  Owners of the adjacent parcel appeared and spoke in opposition to the request.  They testified that they purchased their lot to the south a few weeks after the applicants purchased theirs.  The adjacent owners had a survey done to establish the location of the lot lines.  They also contacted the Crystal Lakes Architecture Committee who told them that the excavation was an illegal site.  The owners stated that they purchased their lot with the reasonable belief that there would be no house built in the excavated area.  To grant the variance to allow the house would compromise the value of their lot. 

 

7.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have not been met:

 

            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 property is a 2.68 acre lot with both generally level and sloping topography.  In addition, there are considerable rock outcroppings located on the lot.  There currently exists an open flat area on the lot where the ground has been excavated.  While this area would seem to be the logical place to build, it is not within the required setbacks.  The previous owner excavated this portion of the lot, not the current owner.  However, there is a flat area west of the excavation site towards Yuki Drive where the house could be located and meet setbacks, although trees would have to be removed.

 

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

 

The above circumstances are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  The property’s physical characteristics and the current excavation site were not created by the applicant, however the applicant did purchase the lot knowing about conditions.  The applicant could have determined that the excavation site did not meet County setback requirements. There are other areas where the home could be built and meet setback requirements although other areas have not been cleared or excavated.

 

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.

 

Strict interpretation and enforcement of the setback requirement would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other landowners.  There are other areas to build on.  Most property owners have to contend with removal of trees in clearing a site.  This is not a hardship unique to the applicant.

 

 

 

 

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

 

Granting the requested variance is not the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use a single family dwelling.

 

            E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

The variance would adversely affect other property in the vicinity.  In the E-Estate zoning district, side setback requirements are 50 feet from the property line resulting in homes being no closer than 100 feet from each other.  If this variance is approved, the result could be that this house and the house to be built on the neighboring property might be as close as 64 feet from each other.  Objections from two neighboring property owners, one of whom is the adjacent property immediately to the south, have been received in the form of e-mail, fax, phone, and by mail.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code and the Master Plan.

 

Granting the variance would be contrary to the purposes for which setbacks are imposed.  The requested variance does not satisfy the review criteria for granting a variance and it would adversely impact the adjacent property..

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

Referral comments were considered.  No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

8.         To approve this request would not promote the harmonious development of the area, would not 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 not be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King 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 applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested.

 

The question was called and member Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution; members Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Jean Christman voted against the Resolution. The Resolution did not receive the four votes needed to pass. Therefore, the variance was denied.

 

                                                     ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2007.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

 

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