Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

January 25, 2005

 

            The regular meeting of the Larimer County Board of Adjustment was held in the County Board Hearing Room in the Larimer County Courthouse, Fort Collins, Colorado at 7:00 p.m., January 25, 2005.  Members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney David Ayraud.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of December 28, 2004 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0526  (Robert Peterson Setback Variance)

Owner:            Robert and Georgia Peterson

Applicant:       Robert and Georgia Peterson

Property Description:

 

                        Replat of Tract B, North Woods Park

 

                        Located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, T6N, R69W of the 6th P.M. to the                 County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

                        Also known as:  301 Edgewood Drive, Loveland, CO  80538

 

            The Petition of Robert and Georgia Peterson, Robert Peterson appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an addition to a residence to be located 10 feet from the edge of an interior subdivision road, rather than the required minimum 20 feet in the R-2 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 36-6-69; 301 Edgewood Drive, located ½ mile south of County Road 28, between Horseshoe Lake and Highway 287.

 

            4.         Site data is as follows:

 

                        a.         Land Area:                               0.25 Acres

                        b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

                        c.         Existing Zoning             R-2 Residential

                        d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  R-2 Residential

                        e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

                        f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

                        g.         Access:                                    Edgewood Drive

 

            5.         The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing residence, which is currently approximately 22 feet from the edge of 50th Str4eet. The addition includes an additional bedroom, dining room, enlarged kitchen, and a covered porch. The covered porch portion would encroach into the required 20-foot setback, resulting in a final setback of 10 feet from the edge of 50th Street, an interior subdivision road.

 

            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 configuration of the lot are all special conditions that contribute to the variance request.  These factors limit the area available for the proposed addition.

 

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 commonly enjoyed by other lands in the area.  There are other buildings 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 addition.

 

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

 

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

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the 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.

 

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

 

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

 

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Robert and Georgia Peterson not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

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

 

File No:           #04-BOA0527  (Amended Powers Lot Size Variance)

Owner:            LJS, LLC

Applicant:       LJS, LLC / Jim Striggow

Property Description:

 

Lot 1, Powers MLD S-305-93, EXCEPTING the right-of-way granted in instrument recorded February 14, 1997 as Reception No. 97009575 and the Highway granted in instrument recorded June 26, 1997 as Reception No. 97040719, County of Larimer, State of Colorado

 

Together with:

 

A tract of land situate in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., which considering the West line of the said Southwest ¼ as bearing due North and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point on the North line of said SW ¼ of the SW ¼ which bears East 141.65 feet from the Northwest corner of the SW ¼ of the said SW ¼, and runs thence East 265.38 feet along the said north line, thence South 52 degrees 26 minutes West 165.11 feet to a point on the boundary line of Larimer County and Weld Reservoir Company property described in Book 913 at Page 507 of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s Office; thence along said boundary line North 74 degrees 20 minutes West 18.96 feet, and again North 55 degrees 45 minutes West 46 feet and again North 48 degrees 19 minutes West 104.74 feet to the True Point of Beginning.  County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of LJS, LLC, Jim Striggow appearing, requesting a modification to a previously approved lot size variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested modification of the condition limiting further development for lot size variance number 93-VR0206 upon the above-described property.

 

            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 36-08-69; 1932 Terry Lake Road, located just south of Terry Lake Reservoir.

 

            4.         Site data is as follows:

 

                        a.         Land Area:                               4.2 Acres

                        b.         Proposed Use:                          Commercial – stone/rock sales

                        c.         Existing Zoning             Commercial

                        d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  Commercial

                        e.         Existing Land Use:                    Commercial

                        f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Commercial, Residential

                        g.         Access:                                    State Highway 1

 

            5.         In l993, the Board of Adjustment granted a lot size variance for the property to allow a lot smaller than the required minimum. The Board approved the variance subject to a condition that read “Further Development on the remainder of the parcel shall not be permitted until such time as public sewer is available.” The lot size variance was for the ½ acre parcel where Trammel’s Automotive is located. The subject condition was placed on the larger parcel, which is the subject of this application. The current applicant plans to use this parcel for sale of stone and is therefore requesting that the condition of the previous variance be removed.

 

            The applicant will be required to go through the commercial site plan review to establish the stone business on the property.  The site plan review requires compliance with sewer standards in Section 8 of the Land Use Code and since the property is located inside the City of Fort Collins GMA, it is required to hook up to public sewer, unless the applicant can demonstrate that it is not feasible and would be financially impractical.  The applicant has provided evidence demonstrating such a scenario.  The City of Fort Collins and the Cherry Hills Sanitation District, which is the closest public sewer provider, both agree that it is not feasible at this time for the applicant to hook up to public sewer.

 

            6.         The Larimer County Development Services Team (DST) supports the application and the Board finds that approval of this application is justified based on the evidence provided by the applicant demonstrating the impracticality of complying with the condition of the previous variance. DST support is subject to the conditions listed under the recommendation below.

 

            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.

 

            Kent Bruxvoort 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 request to modify the conditions of approval of Lot Size Variance 93-VR0206 as follows:

 

            1.         The first condition of the Powers Lot Size Variance 93-VR0206 is hereby modified to read in its entirety:  “At such time that public sewer service is extended to this property, the owner at that time shall connect to it.  The connection shall be made for all buildings on the site that produce sewage.”

 

            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 Commissioners.

 

            The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the request for modification of a previous condition of approval was granted.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0528  (Buchholz Setback Variance)

Owner:            Leroy H. Buchholz, Jr.

Applicant:       Leroy H. Buchholz, Jr.

Property Description:

 

Township 4 North, Range 71 West of the 6th P.M.

 

Section 29: That part of the NW ¼ lying south of the right-of-way for U.S. Highway 36, and south of the following described line:

 

Commencing at the West quarter corner of said Section 29, thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes 46 seconds East along the West line of said NW ¼ with all bearings herein relative hereto, a distance of 244.86 feet to the beginning of said line; thence due east 476.61 feet to the Southernmost point on the right-of-way for U.S. Highway 36  in the W ½ of said NW ¼  and the end of the described line, according to Boundary Survey by William G. VanHorn recorded December 5, 1980 in Book 2090 at Page 212, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

                        Also known as:  11042 North St. Vrain Dr., Lyons, CO  80540

 

            The Petition of Leroy Buchholz, Jr., Leroy Buchholz, Jr. appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow first and second floor decks of an existing residence to be located 72 feet from the centerline of the Little Thompson River, rather than the required minimum 100 feet in the O-Open zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Petition, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

            3.         The property location is NW 29-04-71; 1 1042 Highway 36, located at mile marker 11, north of Lyons.

 

            4.         Site data is as follows:

 

                        a.         Land Area:                               13 Acres

                        b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

                        c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

                        d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

                        e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

                        f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Single Family Residential, Recreational

                        g.         Access:                                    U.S. Highway 36

 

            5.         The applicant was granted a setback variance in 2000 for the proposed residence to be 80 feet from the centerline of the Little Thompson River. The residence was constructed and the applicant added first and second floor decks onto the residence, without a permit, that extend closer to the river. The decks are subject to setback requirements. The applicant has presented a second variance request for a setback of 72 feet from the river’s centerline to allow for the existing decks.

 

            6.         A primary concern with the proposal was the building location in relation to the regulated floodplain. The engineering department determined that the location is not part of a FEMA-regulation floodplain, which resolved this concern.

 

            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 proposed width of the decks is minimal and is not anticipated to create any more potential danger than the residence without decks.  The property consists of hilly terrain with limited area for building – after required setbacks from river, highway, and property lines are considered.  The lower of the two decks is about 15 feet above the elevation of river and are supported by 4”x 4” posts. 

 

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

 

The special circumstances of the residence’s location are somewhat the result of the previous variance approval, which was granted based on the topographical conditions that existed on the lot.  Those conditions were not the result of actions or inactions by the 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.

 

At least two other variances for properties in the vicinity have been granted for buildings to be within the required 100-foot river setback.  Strict enforcement of the stream setback provisions would deprive the applicant of similar rights already allowed for buildings on this property as well as other area properties. 

 

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 utilize the decks.

 

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 the 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.

 

            Kent Bruxvoort 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 petitioner be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

            1.         The applicant shall apply for and obtain the proper building permits and final inspections for the residence and deck structures within 60 days of variance 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.

 

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

 

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Leroy Buchholz, Jr. not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

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

 

File No:           #04-BOA0530  (Lind Setback Variance)

Owner:            Robert Lind and Valerie Macri

Applicant:       Dave Phillips

Property Description:

 

Lot 14, Block 6, Cotton Willow Estates Fourth Filing, Larimer County, Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Dave Phillips (for owners Robert Lind and Valerie Macri), Robert Lind appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed covered porch addition to an existing residence to be located 19 feet from the front property line rather than the required minimum 25 feet in the FA-Farming zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Petition, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

            3.         The property location is SE 30-8-69; 2808 Galway Drive, located in LaPorte area, approximately ¼ mile SE of intersection of County Road 54G & 52E.

 

            4.         Site data is as follows:

           

                        a.         Land Area:                               0.21 Acres

                        b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

                        c.         Existing Zoning             FA-Farming

                        d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-Farming

                        e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

                        f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

                        g.         Access:                                    Galway Drive

 

            5.         The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing residence, which is currently approximately 24 feet from the front property line.  The residence is currently non-conforming with respect to the required 25-foot setback from the front property line.  The owner wants to add a covered porch to the west (front).  The porch would encroach further into the front setback of 25 feet, resulting in a final setback of 19 feet.  Because of the additional encroachment, a variance is required.

 

            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 in relation to the lot lines is a special condition that contributes to the variance request.  This factor limits the area available for the proposed addition.

 

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 commonly enjoyed by other lands in the area.  There are other 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 addition.

 

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

 

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

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the 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.

 

            Kent Bruxvoort 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 petitioner be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

            1.         The owner shall renew Building Permit 94-F6894 and obtain final building inspection approval.  The owner shall also obtain final inspection approvals under Building Permit 03-B0889.

 

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

 

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

 

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Dave Phillips not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

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

 

File No:           #04-BOA0499  (Dukart Setback Variance)

Owner:            Lane and Susan Dukart

Applicant:       Mark Benjamin

Property Description:

 

Parcel 4:

That portion of Section 25, Township 7 North, Range 71 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows:

Considering the West line of the Southwest quarter of Section 24, Township 7 North, Range 71 West of the 6th P.M. to bear North 00 degrees 04 minutes 55 seconds West with all bearings contained herein, relative thereto. Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 24; thence North 00 degrees 50 minutes 04 seconds East 229.82 feet; thence East 336.23 feet; thence South 02 degrees 06 minutes 16 seconds East 680.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 44 degrees 11 minutes 40 seconds East 1550.17 feet; thence South 06 degrees 26 minutes 54 seconds West 972.16 feet to the East-West centerline of said Section 25; thence along said centerline South 88 degrees 14 minutes 54 seconds West 894.50 feet; thence North 02 degrees 06 minutes 16 seconds West 2106.21 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

 

            The Petition of Mark Benjamin (for owners Susan and Lane Dukart), Mark Benjamin and Lane Dukart appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing single family residence and detached workshop to remain in their current locations; 14 feet and 72 feet from the center of Fish Creek, rather than the required minimum 100 feet in the O-Open zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Petition, and having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises adopted the following findings:

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

            3.         The property location is SW 25-7-71; 1622 Moondance Way, located approximately 3 miles southeast of the intersection of County Road 27 and 44H.

 

            4.         Site data is as follows:

 

                        a.         Land Area:                               41 Acres

                        b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence & Workshop

                        c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

                        d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

                        e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence & Workshop

                        f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

                        g.         Access:                                    Moondance Way

 

            5.         The applicant is requesting a setback variance for a single-family residence and a detached workshop that exist on the property.  The residence was built in 1991 and the workshop was constructed after that but neither building ever received a proper building permit.  The owner is now applying for building permits to correct existing building code and land use code violations.  The dwelling is located 14 feet from the center of Fish Creek and the workshop is located 72 feet from the center of the creek.  The variance request is for approval of these respective setbacks.

 

            6.         Staff tried to review this application to determine whether a variance would have been granted in 1991 when the buildings were constructed, had one been applied for.  It is difficult to reach a conclusion in this case because there appears to be other locations on the property (41 acres) that could have satisfied the setback requirement.  Whether or not the Board at that time would have agreed with the owners’ arguments is impossible to say.  Also, the workshop was located 72 feet from the creek.

 

            7.         The application was tabled from the September 28, 2004 hearing in order for the applicant to submit to the Board, a flood plain study conducted by a professional hydrologist or engineer experienced in hydrology concluding that the subject structures would not be threatened by a 100-year flood event.  The owner has presented the study and it was helpful in determining that the buildings, or neighboring properties would not likely be impacted a 100-year flood event – thus reducing the adverse impacts to the neighboring properties.

 

            8.         The variance application doesn’t indicate what the workshop is used for.  If the building is to be used for a home occupation - which includes personal services, professional office, writer studio, artist studio, or trade use - the owner should be aware of the regulations for home occupations as found in Section 4.3.10.B of the Land Use Code.  Home occupations operated in a detached accessory building require approval through the minor special review process.

 

            9.         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 consists of mountainous terrain which often limits areas available for buildings.  The applicant chose the current location in 1991 to avoid utilizing the meadow across the creek and because of topographic constraints.

 

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

 

The owner built the buildings in 1991 or later and in their current location without proper building permits.  Any topographic constraints would not have resulted from actions/inactions by 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.

 

Analysis of aerial photos, past Board of Adjustment records, and building permits did not indicate any other buildings within 100 feet of Fish Creek along its entire course.  The applicant noted, however, in the application, that other buildings along other streams and rivers in other areas of Larimer County are as close to the water course as this owner’s residence and workshop.  Strict enforcement of the stream setback would cause a hardship on the owner by forcing the residence to be moved.

 

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

 

Without a variance, the owners would not be able to use the property and buildings for residential purposes. 

 

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

 

The Planning Department has received no objections or complaints from surrounding property owners. A professional engineer conducted a floodplain study and prepared a drainage report.  The engineer found that, with some mitigation proposed in the report, the existing structures would not be damaged in a 100-year flood event.  The findings show that adverse impacts to properties or structures down stream are unlikely during a 100-year event.

 

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

 

Subject to certain terms and conditions, granting the variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan.

 

            10        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.

 

            Kent Bruxvoort 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 petitioner be and he hereby is granted his setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

            1.         The applicant shall obtain all required building permits and inspection approvals for the existing structures on the property within one year form the date of variance approval.

 

            2.         If a home occupation will be operated in the workshop building, it shall comply with all provisions of the Land Use Code, including those which regulate home occupations.

 

            3.         The wall protecting the house from flooding must be extended 1 foot in excess of the 100 year-year flood surface elevation.

 

            4.         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.

 

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

 

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Mark Benjamin not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

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

 

File No:           #04-BOA0517  (Gunderson Setback Variance)

Owner:            Kurt Gunderson        

Applicant:       Gary Weixelman

 

            Applicant Gary Weixelman, asked that the Gunderson Setback Variance be tabled until March 8, 2005.

 

            Kent Bruxvoort moved and Eric Berglund seconded the motion that the Board table this matter until March 8, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.     

 

            The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the motion.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0529  (William Evans Setback Variance)

Applicant:       William Evans

 

            Applicant asked that the William Evans Setback Variance be tabled until March 8, 2005.

 

            Kent Bruxvoort moved and Eric Berglund seconded the motion that the Board table this matter until March 8, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.     

 

            The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the motion.

 

 

***

 

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2005.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

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