Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

January 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., January 27, 2004.  Members Wilma Davis, Kent Bruxvoort, MaryAnne Martell, Evelyn King and Larry Chisesi were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart, and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of December 16, 2003 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #03-BOA0419

Owner:            Larimer County Parks and Open Lands

Applicant:       Werthwhile Enterprises, LLC / Glen Werth

Property Description:

 

BEG AT CEN ¼ COR 31-7-69, TH ALG S LN OF NE ¼ 31-7-69 S 89 57’ 40” E 100 FT, N 6 15’ W 400 FT, N 24 E 300 FT, N 10 E 470 FT, S 57 E 300 FT, S 27 47’45” E 1098.6 FT, TH E TO E 1/16 COR, N 0 4’57” E 1304.32 FT, N 89 56’ E 1317.42 FT, TH S ALG E LN TO E ¼ COR, TH S TO SE ¼ COR, TH W TO S ¼ COR, N 89 47’ 13” W 942.45 FT, N 0 0’ 47” W 655.22 FT, S 89 52’ 49” E 948.56 FT, TH N ALG N/S C/L TPOB.

 

Wilma Davis moved and Evelyn King seconded the Motion to table until February 24, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. the final approval of the Inlet Bay Marina variance application heard by the Board on October 28, 2003, and action on the Request to Reconsider/Rescind the initial Board’s initial decision filed by Tom and Carole Dougherty.  Members Wilma Davis, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Larry Chisesi voted in favor of the Motion. Member Maryanne Martell abstained from voting.

 

File No:           #03-BOA0437

Owner:            Joseph E Cunningham and April M . Trust

Applicant:       Joseph Cunningham

Property Description:

 

A tract of land situated in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 32, Township 9 North, Range 74 West of the 6th P.M. and in the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 31, Township 9 North, Range 74 West of the 6th P.M. Larimer County, Colorado and is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which bears N 66°17'50" W 4997.0 feet from the closing corner common to Section 4 and Section 5, Township 8 North, Range 74 West of the 6th P.M. and which is located at the South line of said Section 32; thence by magnetic bearing (variation 15° East) North 296.0 feet; thence West 296.0 feet; thence South 296.0 feet; thence East 296.0 feet to the point of the beginning. Containing 2.0 acres more or less.

 

            The Petition of Joseph Cunningham, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a variance upon the above-described property to allow a setback of 45 feet from the centerline of a stream, rather than 100 feet as required 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 NE 25-06-72; located on the south side of the Poudre River and State Highway 14, ¼ mile west of the State Fish Hatchery.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.0 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Shed

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:                                    State Highway 14

 

5.         Applicant proposes to construct a shed building for storage of personal recreational vehicles and machinery.  The property currently has an old, uninhabitable residence, a dilapidated garage, and two small pump houses on it.  An unnamed, intermittent stream runs west to east through the property and divides the property into two parts.  The proposed building location lies north of the stream, between the river and a neighboring parcel to the north.  The topography slopes from the southwest to the northeast.  The Cache La Poudre River lies about 500 feet to the north.  The proposed location of the shed would be 45 feet from the center of stream.

 

6.         The Engineering Department recommends that the building be rotated to gain more distance from the stream and that the building’s lowest opening be located to minimize potential injury and structural damage if a major flood event occurs.  Planning staff has visited the site and observed the conditions that exist.  Based on this site visit and discussions with the applicant, planning staff has concluded that rotating the building will not reduce any potential flood damage due to the topography of the site.  Rotating the building will destroy a number of trees and important vegetation that would not be damaged otherwise.  Subsequent discussions (after initial review comments) with the Engineering Department about the observations during the site visit have resulted in Engineering Staff agreeing that rotating the building would not likely be as beneficial as originally thought.  Therefore, the concerns of the Development Services Team have been resolved and no other concerns remain.

 

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’s size and shape, combined with the course of the stream are all special circumstances that contribute to the need for a variance.  On the north side of the stream, where the shed is proposed, there is no location that could satisfy the 100-foot setback without crossing property lines.  On the south side, there are existing buildings and the only feasible area on the property for a septic system to serve a future replacement residence that the owner is planning.  These conditions limit the available area to place a building.

 

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

 

            The special circumstances outlined above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant.  The buildings on the property were constructed in the early 1900’s, 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 existing buildings on site that do not meet the required setback distance from the stream.  The strict enforcement of the Code would cause an unnecessary hardship by forcing the building off the parcel on the north side or into the area for a future septic system on the south side.

 

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

 

            Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow construction and use of the structure with the least amount of adverse effects.

 

     

 

                  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, 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 Kent Bruxvoort 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 variance as requested.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Joseph Cunningham 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, Kent Bruxvoort, MaryAnne Martell, Evelyn King and Larry Chisesi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted.

 

 

 

 

File No:           #03-BOA0438

Owner:            PIOS Revocable Trust

Applicant:       Rachel Donnell

Property Description:

 

Parcel 2:

A tract of land located in the South ½ of Section 18, Township 4 North, Range 71 West of the 6th P.M., lying West of U.S. Highway 36, Larimer County, Colorado and more particularly described as follows:

 

Commencing at the SE corner of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of said Section 18, also being the True Point of Beginning; thence South 77°50'14" West 1,164.24 feet to the SW corner of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of said Section 18; thence North 00°03'00" West 1,285.02 feet to the NW corner of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of said Section 18; thence North 79°11'10" East 687.80 feet; thence South 01°47'16" East 238.23 feet; thence North 70°06'54" East 494.42 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way of said Highway 36 and continuing along said right-of-way for the next four calls; thence South 15°38'52" East 16.02 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right (radius of said curve being 497.99 feet, chord of said arc bears South 10°18'18" East 365.70 feet) a distance of 374.46 feet; thence South 33°43'00" West 65.38 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the left (radius of said curve being 456.00 feet, chord of said arc bears South 18°59'19" East 461.12 feet) a distance of 483.22 feet; thence South 39°30'00" West 302.20 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

 

County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

TOGETHER WITH a non-exclusive permanent easement and the right to construct a road or other improvements for ingress and egress over real property located in Larimer County, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as:

COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of said Section 18; thence South 04°28'17" East 84.52 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 36 and the True Point of Beginning; thence North 52°21'41" West 112.24 feet; thence South 39°10'59" West 30.00 feet; thence South 15°13'33" East 153.17 feet; thence North 70°06'54" East 93.00 feet to the intersection of an ancient fence line and the aforementioned right-of-way; thence along said right-of-way North 15°38'52" West 73.59 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

 

County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Rachel Donnell, requesting a setback variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed single-family dwelling to be located 61 feet from the centerline of the Little Thompson River rather than 100 feet as required 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 18-04-71; 9144 Highway 36, located on the southwest side of U.S. Highway 36, approximately 2 miles north of County Road 47.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               35 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, recreational

g.         Access:                                    U.S. Highway 36

 

5.         Applicant proposes to construct a single-family dwelling on the subject property.  The property is currently vacant and consists of approximately 35 acres.  The Little Thompson River courses through the eastern side of the property.  U.S. Highway 36 borders the property to the east.  The location for the residence is in between the highway and the river.  The terrain drops steeply from the highway down to the river and then rises steeply to the west of the river.

 

A building permit to begin footing and foundation work only was approved for the residence in early December of 2003.  The site plan for the permit application showed the location of the house and illustrated a small portion of the river.  The line used to illustrate the river was confused by the Planning Department for a trail or two-track road and the permit was approved.  The applicant obtained the building permit and then noticed the setback requirements noted on the permit itself.  Upon realizing that the house would not meet the setback requirement from the river, he contacted the Planning Department to try and rectify the situation and decided to proceed with a variance application.

 

 

 

6.         A board member of the Pinewood Springs Water District board called to voice objection to the variance request on the grounds that an additional residence in the Little Thompson River drainage area would further exacerbate the water shortage in the area.  He does not object to the setback distance requested, but rather to the potential of an additional water user.  This objection does not affect the request because the Board of Adjustment is only ruling on the setback request, not whether or not a residence can be built on the property.  Before the full building permit (not just the footing and foundation permit), can be approved, the applicant must provide a valid well permit from the State or demonstrate that she has an acceptable source of potable water for the dwelling.

 

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.

 

            There are topographical conditions that exist on the lot, namely steep slopes on either side of the river that limit the area available for building.  The location proposed is one of the few areas to construct a building.  The proximity to the highway also further restricts how far away from the river the site could be before encroaching into the required highway setback.  These conditions create the need for a variance to be able to feasibly build on the property. 

 

                  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 or owner.  The lot configuration existed prior to the current owner.  The permit for the house was mistakenly approved by the County, at no fault of the applicant or owner.

 

                  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 of the property, along Highway 36 that do not meet setback requirements from the same river.  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 applicant to construct and use the single-family dwelling on the property.

 

                  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 request would be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan.  Nothing proposed with this variance is found to be contrary to the purposes of either the Code or the 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 Kent Bruxvoort 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 she hereby is granted her variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    This approval does not release the applicant from compliance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act regarding the Preble’s Meadow jumping mouse or the state requirements for placement of a septic system leach field.

 

2.         Failure to comply with any conditions of this 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 Petitioner Rachel Donnell 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, Kent Bruxvoort, MaryAnne Martell, Evelyn King and Larry Chisesi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #03-BOA0439

Owner:            Laura Hargett

Applicant:       Laura Hargett

Property Description:

 

Lot 16, Block 4, Westfield Subdivision, Larimer County, Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Laura Hargett for approval to expand a non-conforming duplex on the above-described property by adding a bedroom in the FA-Farming zone was presented to the Board.

 

            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 ¼ 34-07-69; 4021 Lynda Lane, located approximately ½ mile south of Horsetooth Road and 1000 feet east of S. Taft Hill Road.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.59 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Addition to a non-conforming residence

                                                            (duplex)

c.         Existing Zoning             FA-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Residential (duplex)

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, both Single and Duplex

g.         Access:                                    Lynda Lane

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing non-conforming residence (duplex).  The addition is for a bedroom.  The existing residence is non-conforming with respect to uses allowed in the FA-Farming zoning district because duplexes are no longer permitted as a use in the zoning district.  This particular duplex was constructed in 1969, prior to the current regulations.  At that time, duplexes were allowed in the FA-Farming zoning district.  The owner is the applicant and owns the existing building.  She also resides in one unit of the duplex with her family.  She wants to add on another bedroom to the rear of the unit to provide room for her increasing family.

 

6.         Based on the neighborhood, which contains at least 4 duplex/triplex units on the same street, the use is not out of place.  The addition of a bedroom will not adversely affect any neighboring properties and denying it would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property.  The Larimer County Development Services Team has no issues or concerns with this appeal request.

 

7.         Section 4.8.9A. (Extension, Expansion or Change in Character) states in part that a use, building, or structure that is non-conforming with respect to Section 4 (Zoning) cannot be extended, expanded or changed in character.  The County Commissioners, Board of Adjustment and Planning Director and Staff have never interpreted or applied this provision as an absolute prohibition.  Rather, they have interpreted and applied the provision to mean that non-conforming uses cannot be extended, expanded or changed in character without County approval.  The Review Criteria for this appear are most appropriately those for Special Exceptions.  This is based on the premise that a property owner who might seek to construct a duplex on a vacant parcel in the FA-Farming Zone District would be required to obtain a Special Exception.  A property owner with an existing duplex should be subject to the same Review Criteria and the same requirement to obtain approval from the Board of Adjustment.  The Special Exception review criteria have been met as follows:

 

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

           

The subject duplex is surrounded by at least three other duplexes on the same side of the street and therefore is compatible and in harmony with the neighborhood.

 

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

 

            The expansion of the duplex will not exceed county, state or federal standards.

 

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

 

The expansion of the duplex will not materially affect property values in the immediate area due to the existence of the duplex and other duplex's in the area.

 

            D.        The proposed use will comply with all requirements of this code and all county, state and federal regulations

           

            The expansion will comply with the Land Use Code and other required regulations.

 

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

           

            No special place designations exist in the area.

 

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

 

            Neither wetlands nor wildlife habitat are known to exist in the area of the request.

 

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 Kent Bruxvoort 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 she hereby is granted her petition to expand a non-conforming duplex.

 

IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Laura Hargett not act upon the petition to expand a non-conforming cuplex granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with the granted petition 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, Kent Bruxvoort, MaryAnne Martell, Evelyn King and Larry Chisesi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the request to expand a non-conforming duplex was granted.

 




File No:           #03-BOA0440

Owner:            Four Sons, LLC

Applicant:       Bill Darrough

Property Description:

 

The SW ¼  of the SW ¼ of Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Bill Darrough to allow expansion of a nonconforming youth camp on the above described property by adding a dwelling for single-family use was presented to the Board. 

 

            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 27-04-73; 1207 Longs Peak Road, located approximately 9 miles south of Estes Park.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               40 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Dwelling

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Commercial – Seasonal Youth Camp

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Recreation, Seasonal residence

g.         Access:                                    Longs Peak Campground Road

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling on the same site as an existing youth camp (Camp Timberline).  The dwelling would provide residence for the property owners, who are also the camp directors, during the camp season (May – September).   The dwelling would be closed up and not used during the off-season.  The owners currently reside in a portion of the existing girls’ dormitory during the camp season.  The new dwelling would provide a separate residence for the owners/directors. 

 

The camp is considered nonconforming with respect to uses allowed in the O-Open zoning district because under the County’s current land use regulations youth camps require approval through the Special Review process.  The use was established prior to the current regulations.

 

6.         The Larimer County Development Services Team has no issues or concerns with this appeal request.

 

7.         Section 4.8.9.A. (Extension, Expansion or Change of Character) states in part that a use, building, or structure that is non-conforming with respect to Section 4 (Zoning) cannot be extended, expanded or changed in character.  The County Commissioners, Board of Adjustment and Planning Director and Staff have never interpreted or applied this provision as an absolute prohibition.  Rather, they have interpreted and plied the provision to mean that non-conforming uses cannot be expended, expanded or changed in character without County approval.  The Review Criteria for this application are most appropriately those for Special Exceptions.  Those review criteria have been met as follows:

 

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

 

The property has been used for recreational/retreat purposes for many years. Since the start of the current youth camp, the directors have occupied the dorms during the camp's season. The proposed dwelling merely moves the location of the owners/camp directors’ residence into a new building. Granting the appeal will be compatible with neighboring properties.

 

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

 

No known county, state or federal regulations will be exceeded.

 

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

 

As noted in Review Criteria Section A above, it is not anticipated that granting the petition will adversely affect property values in the area.

 

D.        The proposed use will comply with all requirements of this code and all county, state and federal regulations.

 

The proposed use will comply with the County Land Use Code and requirements.

 

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

 

No officially designated special places are known to exist in the vicinity of the proposal.

 

 

 

 

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

 

No known important wildlife habitats or wetlands exist in the area of the expansion.

 

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 Kent Bruxvoort 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 petition to expand a non-conforming youth camp as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The applicant shall obtain a valid building permit prior to commencing construction of the dwelling.

 

2.         The dwelling shall only be used as a residence for persons involved in directing the camp and during the camp season.

 

3.         Failure to comply with any conditions of this 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 Petitioner Bill Darrough not act upon the petition to expand a non-conforming youth camp granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with the granted petition 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, Kent Bruxvoort, MaryAnne Martell, Evelyn King and Larry Chisesi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the petition to allow expansion of a non-conforming youth camp was granted subject to conditions.

 

 

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 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: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.