Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

June 22, 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., June 22, 2004.  Members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis 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 May 25, 2004 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0463

Owner:            J.R. Bonser

Applicant:       Marty Bonser

Property Description:

 

BEG AT CEN OF NE ¼ 13-5-68 FROM WH PT NE COR OF W ½ OF NE ¼ BEARS N 0°0’40” E 1326.6 FT, N 89°48’50” W ALG LN OF NW ¼ OF NE ¼ 330 FT, N 0°0’40” E 221.3 FT TPOB, N 0°0’40” E 360 FT, S 89°48’50” E 150 FT, S 0°0’40” W 80 FT, S 89°48’50” E 180 FT TO E LN OF NW ¼ OF NE ¼, S 0°0’40” W ALG E LN 280 FT, N 89°48’50” W 330 FT TPOB; LESS 96041951

 

            The Petition of Marty Bonser, requesting a Special Exception was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a Special Exception upon the above-described property to allow two principal buildings (single-family dwellings) on one parcel of land in the B-Business 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 13-05-68; 1209 Poplar Street, located in the Kelim area along U.S. 34, east of the Weld County Line.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.9 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential (2 dwellings)

c.    Existing Zoning             B-Business

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  Business, Commercial, Farming

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential (2 dwellings)

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Industrial, Agricultural

g.    Access:                                    Poplar Street

 

5.         The applicant is requesting a variance to allow two principal buildings (single- family dwellings) on the same property.  The property is zoned B-Business, which permits only one principal building on the same parcel and does not permit any residential uses.  The buildings and uses already exist on the property but do so as nonconforming uses.  The first residence was built in 1917 according to county assessor records and has been used as a residence ever since.  The second building has also been used as a residence in the past, but it is unknown when the second residential use commenced. The Planning Director has determined that it is nonconforming.

 

The second residence was remodeled and enlarged in the late 1990’s without appropriate permits and would have required approval by the Board of Adjustment to expand.  The applicant, after discussion with the County Planning Department, has submitted a broader request to the Board of Adjustment for a Special Exception to allow the two residences as legitimate uses, eliminating their nonconforming status and bringing them into compliance with the Land Use Code.  This would free the owners from the limits for expanding a nonconforming use found in Section 4.8.9 of the land use code.

 

6.         The Larimer County Development Services Team believes there needs to be assurance that proper building permits will be obtained for the structures as noted by the Building Code Enforcement division.

 

7.         The applicable review criteria for the special exception have been met as follows:

 

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

 

            The existing uses in the area are primarily residential and industrial/commercial.  As proposed, the residential uses would be compatible with surrounding uses because they are of similar type.  The uses have existed in harmony with the area for many years as nonconforming uses.

 

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

 

            The details of the proposal provide sufficient evidence that the application will comply with these criteria.  Residential uses do not typically exceed air, water, odor, or noise standards.  The County Health Department has reviewed the request and indicated that during the building permit stage, to follow an approval of this request, the owner would need to demonstrate that the residences have adequate sewer facilities.

             

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

 

            The use of property for residential purposes is common in the immediate vicinity of Kelim.  This proposal would not adversely affect property values in the area due to its benign nature and similarity to adjoining uses.

 

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

 

            The Larimer County Development Services Team (DST) is of the opinion that the application offers sufficient information about the uses to prove compliance, or the ability to comply, with the requirements of the Land Use Code and all County, state, and federal regulations.  As recommended in the conditions at the end of this report, the owner would be required to obtain a valid building permit for the remodel of the second residence.  During this process, the applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with requirements for septic systems and the appropriate building code.

The Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau commented that any new residential buildings constructed on the lot must comply with the current building and fire code requirements at the time of construction.  Currently, a residence must be located within 400 feet of a hydrant, however no new buildings are proposed with this application.

           

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

 

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

 

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

 

            There are no wetlands or significant wildlife habitat areas on or near the site.  The           site already has the buildings on it that will be utilized as part of the use.

 

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.

 

MaryAnne Martell moved and Jeanne Laudick seconded the motion that the Board adopt  the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be and he hereby is granted his Special Exception as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

            1.         The applicant and owner shall apply for a building permit for the work done on the second residence (built 1997 per assessor) as noted in the comments from the Building Code Enforcement department within 60 days of this approval.  The building permit applicant shall work with the building department to obtain the building permit certificate of occupancy within 90 days of the special exception approval.

 

2.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the special exception 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 Marty Bonser not act upon the Special Exception granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted Special Exception within the time limits provided in the conditions of approval, 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 said time limits.  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 MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the Special Exception was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0468

Owner:            Mike Odell

Applicant:       Mike Odell

Property Description:

 

Lot 158, Pinewood Springs 6th Filing.

 

            The Petition of Mike Odell, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an addition (attached garage) to a residence 4 feet from the side lot line rather than the side yard setback requirement of 5 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 NE 28-04-71; 1979 Kiowa Road, located approximately 1 mile northeast of Highway 36 and north of the S. Fork of the Little Thompson River. Lot 158, Pinewood Springs 6th Filing.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.37 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential – garage addition

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, National Forest

g.         Access:                                    Kiowa Road

 

5.         The applicant proposes to add on an attached garage to his existing residence on the property legally described as Lot 158 of Pinewood Springs 6th Filing. The addition, as proposed, would encroach into the side yard setback resulting in a setback or 4 feet rather than the required 5 feet.

 

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 floor plan of the existing house are special conditions that contribute to the variance request.  These factors limit the area available for the proposed attached garage 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 multiple properties in the Pinewood Springs area which do not meet the required zoning districts.

 

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 attached garage 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 this code and the Master Plan.

 

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

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Wilma Davis moved and Jeanne Laudick seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be and he hereby is granted his variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Mike Odell 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 MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis 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-BOA0469

Owner:            Laurence and Pia Budd

Applicant:       Laurence and Pia Budd

Property Description:

 

TR 3, SCOTT MRD S-62-91 AKA BEG AT CEN ¼ COR           23-7-68, N 88°50’50” W 66.21 FT, S 1°28’ W 546.88 FT, TH ALG CUR L, RAD 200 FT, L/C S 10°48’13” E 85.01 FT, S 23°4’26” E 123.48 FT, TH ALG CUR R, RAD 200 FT, L/C S 10°24’13” E 87.73 FT, S 2°16’ W 216.45 FT, TH ALG CUR L, RAD  200 FT, L/C S 13°44’ E 110.25 FT TPOB, TH ALG CUR L, RAD 200 FT, L/C S 35°52’11” E 42.76 FT, S 42°0’23” E 114.35 FT, TH ALG CUR R, RAD 200 FT L/C S 20°48’22” E 144.61 FT, S 0°23’ W 56 FT, S 60°30’ W 270 FT, N 29°30’ W 310 FT, N 53°30’ E 292.42 FT TPOB CONT 2.3138 AC M/L

 

            The Petition of Laurence and Pia Budd, requesting approval to expand a nonconforming residence was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested an approval to expand a nonconforming residence by more than 25 percent on property described 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 SW 23-07-68; 2317 S. County Road 3E, located northwest of Timnath Reservoir and west of County Road 3E.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.46 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential - addition

c.         Existing Zoning             FA-1 Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-1 Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural, Residential

g.         Access:                                    S. County Road 3E

                                                                                                      

5.         The applicant proposes to construct an addition to their existing residence, which is currently approximately 46 feet from the center of County Road 3E, which is classified as a local county road and requires a building setback of 60 feet from center.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 60-foot setback from the road.  According to County Assessor records, the residence was constructed in 1968 prior to County building permit and current zoning regulations.  The owner wants to add on to the existing structure to the south.  The addition, expanded living area, is greater than 25% of the existing building.  Because the size of the addition is larger than allowed for expansion of a nonconforming residence, the project requires approval by the Board of Adjustment to proceed.

 

In the application materials the applicant claims that failure to realign the road, as was required of the owners of the Scott MRD S-62-91, approved in 1991, resulted in his residence encroaching into the setback.  However, the road was physically within the right-of-way and was merely going to be realigned to course exactly through the middle.  The right-of-way was never intended to move, so any road realignment would not have affected whether or not the building was nonconforming.  The setback requirement is from the center of the right-of-way in this case, not the center of the 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 and orientation of the existing residence are all special conditions that contribute to the variance request.  The residence was constructed in its current location in 1968 and sometime between then and 1991, the County road was moved from the west side of the residence to the east side of the residence, which is evidenced by an existing ELCO water line and power line easement on the property located west of the residence.  This road movement contributed in part to the residences nonconformity.

 

                    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 location of the County road.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the code listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

           

            The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by another building along this same road.  The neighboring residence to the north is similar in size to the applicant’s residence after the addition is considered.  The addition is outside of the required setback and preventing the addition would prevent a reasonable addition to the residence, resulting in an unnecessary hardship to the owner.

 

                  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 this code and the Master Plan.

 

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

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Wilma Davis moved and Jeanne Laudick seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioners be and they hereby are granted their approval for expansion 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 Laurence and Pia Budd not act upon the approval for the expansion granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted approval 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 MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the approval for the expansion was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0470

Owner:            Mark and Tracy O’Connor

Applicant:       Armstead Construction/Jeff Schneider

Property Description:

 

Lot 2A, AMENDED PLAT OF CARLE SUBDIVISION, situate in the Northeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 5 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

Containing 0.55 Acres (24,203 Sq. Ft.), more or less, and subject to all existing easements and/or rights of way of record.

 

            The Petition of Armstead Construction/Jeff Schneider 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 70 feet from the center of County Road 27, rather than the minimum required 100-foot setback in the FA-1 Farming zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NE 02-05-70; 3809 N. County Road 27, located on the west side of CR 27, approximately 1.5 miles north of U.S. 34.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.56 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential - addition

c.         Existing Zoning             FA-1Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-1 Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Farming, Residential     

g.         Access:                                    N. County Road 27

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing residence, which is currently approximately 80 feet from the center of County Road 27.  County Road 27 is classified as a minor collector and requires a building setback of 100 feet from center.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 100-foot setback from the road.  The residence was constructed in 1912 prior to County building permit and zoning regulations.  The owner wants to add a covered porch to the east side of the house.  The porch would encroach further into the road setback of 100 feet, resulting in a final setback of 70 feet.

 

6.         There are no major issues or concerns with the request.

 

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

 

A.        There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

            The location and orientation of the existing residence are all special conditions that contribute to the variance request.  The residence was constructed in its current location in 1912, per County Assessor’s records, prior to any zoning or permit requirements. 

 

                    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 since all of these occurred prior to the property’s current 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.

 

            The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other buildings along this same road.  There are multiple properties in the immediate area which do not meet the required road 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 this code and the Master Plan.

 

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

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Wilma Davis moved and Jeanne Laudick seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be and it hereby is granted its setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner 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 MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis 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-BOA0471

Owner:            Jerry C. Daniel II, Daniel and Sarah Warner

Applicant:       Jerry C. Daniel II

Property Description:

 

Daniel Property:

Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 6 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; thence along the North-South centerline of said Section, South 792.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: hence continuing South along said North-South centerline 185.66 feet; thence West 557.83 feet to a point on the easterly right of way of County Road 25; thence along said right of way North 17°11’42” West 194.35 feet; thence East 615.28 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO.

 

Warner Property:

Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 6, North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado; thence along the North-South center line of said Section South 977.66 feet to the True Point of the Beginning; thence continuing along said North-South center line South 301.20 feet; thence West 464.62 feet to the point on the Easterly Right of Way of County Road 25; thence along said right of way North 17°11’42” West 315.28 feet; thence East 557.83 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

 

            The Petition of Jerry Daniel II, Daniel Warner and Sarah Warner, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a Lot Size Variance upon the above-described property to allow lot sizes of 2.5 acres and 3.5 acres, rather than the minimum lot size of 10 acres 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 36-06-70; 7420 Orchard Dr. and 5006 N. Glade Road, located on County Road 25E, approximately ½ mile north of County Road 24H.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               6 acres total

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

g.         Access:                                    Orchard Dr. and N. Glade Road

 

5.         In 1980, a deed was recorded with Larimer County that attempted to split a 6 acre parcel into two smaller parcels, 3.5 and 2.5 acres.  At that time, any land divisions that created lots less than 35 acres had to be reviewed and approved by the Larimer County Commissioners.  The deed was recorded and the County Assessor’s office began taxing on the separate parcels that were owned by two different parties.  The original 6-acre parcel was granted a variance in 1977 for two residences on the same parcel.  Mr. Daniel’s double-wide manufactured home was the first residence which got a permit in 1975.  The Warner’s residence was built on site and was the subject of the original variance.  The current owners were not the owners during either the time of the variance or the improper property division.  They are subsequent owners.  The parcels were given two different and distinct tax parcel numbers and have been taxed as such ever since.

 

A few months ago, while reviewing the building permit application made by Jerry Daniel to replace his manufactured home on one of the parcels (7420 Orchard Dr), it was discovered that the parcel had not been legally created, that is, approved by the County Commissioners.  Therefore, the permit could not be approved and it was determined by the Planning Director that the two affected parcels would need to be reviewed and approved by the County Commissioners as part of a valid land division process before any present or future building permits could be issued for either parcel.

 

The two parties have agreed to proceed with a land division application to correct the situation.  The properties in question are zoned O-Open, which has a minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres.  The size of the parent parcel, legally created in 1974 as part of the Keeton Exemption (file 126-74), was 6.0 acres.  To be able to proceed with dividing the parcel, the owners would need to be granted a variance from the lot size requirement.  The parcels proposed would be the same size and in the same configuration as the Assessor has them on record.  The sizes are 3.5 and 2.5 acres.

 

6.         Usually the main concern with the small lot sizes is sufficient area for a septic system and well. This concern is resolved by the fact that both residences are served by public water and each already has an independent, on-site sewer system. Individually, the two parcels have adequate area for septic system requirements. The Development Services Team has no issues or concerns with the variance proposal.

 

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 have been residences on the properties since 1975 for Jerry Daniel’s property and since 1977 for the Warner’s property, according to building permit records.  The original parcel was granted a variance for the two residences to be on the same parcel.  Each residence has and utilizes its own public water tap and each has their own on-site septic system.  The residences have existed in their current locations since originally constructed and no evidence of complaints was found.  The residences have operated independently, as if on separate parcels, since their construction.

 

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

 

            The special conditions were not caused by any action or inaction by the owners.  At the time of purchase, the current owners were unaware that the parcels had not been properly approved by the County Commissioners.

 

            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 of the provision of the code would cause an unnecessary hardship to the owners by not allowing legal creation of two separate parcels.  Thus two separate, unrelated owners would own one piece of property with two houses on it.  This could create legal problems that are unnecessary.

 

            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 the owners to utilize the properties as separate parcels, and allow each owner to own distinct real estate.

 

            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.  The residences have existed on the property for more than twenty years without any complaints or objections.

 

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

 

            By granting the variance, the owners will then be able to proceed through the     appropriate land division process.  This will clear up zoning and proper development        concerns and    result in an appropriate outcome that considered the health, safety, and          welfare of the    owners and surrounding properties.  This would be consistent with the        purpose of the Code and 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 Jeanne Laudick seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioners be and they hereby are granted their 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 lot size variance shall be considered null and void automatically, with no further public hearing required, if within one year of the granting of the lot size variance the lot has not gained final approval through the above mentioned Minor Land Division process.

 

3.         After approval of the land division application, the applicant shall obtain a valid building permit from the County Building Department for the dwelling that will replace the double-wide manufactured home.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Jerry Daniel, II, Daniel Warner and Sarah Warner not act upon the lot size 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 MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the lot size variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0472

Owner:            Josh and Shari Jo Robinson

Applicant:       Josh and Shari Jo Robinson

Property Description:

 

Beginning at a point on West line of Northeast ¼ of Section 1, Township 5 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., 721.95 feet South from the North ¼ corner of said Section, thence South 77°28’15” East 225.45 feet along the Southerly right-of-way line of the County Road, thence South 521.96 feet to a point on the South bank of Buckhorn Creek, thence North 78°05’ West 78.36 feet along the South bank of Buckhorn Creek, thence South 35°26’ West 181 feet to a point on a rock ledge, thence North 78°01’ West 39.34 feet along said ledge to the West line of the Northeast ¼ of said Section 1, thence North 693.97 feet along said West line to the point of beginning.

 

Less any portion contained in that deed recorded in Book 1723 at Page 283.  County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Josh and Shari Jo Robinson, requesting an approval for an expansion of a nonconforming residence was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested to expand a nonconforming residence by more than 25 percent upon the above-described property in the FA-1 Farming zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NE 01-05-70; 7252 W. County Road 24H, located just west of intersection of CR 25E and CR 24H.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.85 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential - addition

c.         Existing Zoning             FA-1 Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-1 Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural, Residential

g.         Access:                                    W. County Road 24H

 

5.         The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing residence, which is currently approximately 31 feet from the center of County Road 24H, which is classified as a local County road and requires a building setback of 60 feet from center.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 60-foot setback from the road.  According the applicant, the residence was constructed in 1908 prior to County building permit and zoning regulations.  The owner wants to add on to the existing structure to the west (side).  The addition, expanded living area, is greater than 25% of the existing building.  Because the size of the addition is larger than allowed for expansion of a nonconforming residence, the project requires approval by the Board of Adjustment to proceed.

 

6.         There are no major issues or concerns with the approval 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 and orientation of the existing residence are all special conditions that contribute to the variance request.  The residence was constructed in its current location in 1908, per applicants’ statement, prior to any zoning or permit requirements. 

 

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 applicants.  The applicants had no control of the placement of the residence or the configuration and location of the County road.

 

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 applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other buildings along this same road.  There are multiple residences in the immediate area which are similar in size to the applicant’s residence after the addition is considered.  East of the applicants’ property, along the same road, are three other residences which appear to encroach into the required 60-foot setback.

 

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 applicants 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 this code and the Master Plan.

 

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

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Wilma Davis moved and Jeanne Laudick seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioners be and they hereby are granted their approval for expansion 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 applicants take affirmative action consistent with the approval.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Josh and Shari Jo Robinson not act upon the approved expansion of a nonconforming residence granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted approval 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 MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the approval of the expansion was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0473

Owner:            Richard and Judith Hughes

Applicant:       Richard and Judith Hughes

Property Description:

A tract of land in the NW ¼ of Section 34, Township 5 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point U.S.B.L.M. AP. -1-, whence the South one-sixteenth corner of the SW ¼ of said Section 34 bears South 3°40’ East 2313.6 feet, thence North 10°47’ East 999.0 feet to the True Point of Beginning, thence North 71°33’ West 112.6 feet, thence North 86°57’, West 137.8 feet, thence North 53°19’ East 249.3 feet, thence North 79°39’ East 183.4 feet, thence South 31°09’ West 262.73 feet to the True Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Richard and Judith Hughes, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a single-family residence to be located 8 feet from the edge of a road right-of-way on the south and 8 feet from an access easement on the north, rather than the required 45’ in the E-1 Estate zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NW 34-05-70; 3200 Rainbow Lane, located approximately 1 mile northwest of Carter Lake.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.88 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential (replace)

c.         Existing Zoning             E-1 Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  E-1 Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Rainbow Lane

 

5.         The applicants propose to replace an existing manufactured home with a newer manufactured home.  The existing residence in its current location is non-conforming because it does not meet the 45-foot setback requirement from the road right-of-way on the south side or the road easement on the north.  According to the Assessor’s records, the existing residence was placed on the property in 1970 slightly south of the current residence.  The proposed new residence would be larger in size and would be placed 8 feet from the edge of a road right-of-way on the south and 8 feet from an access easement on the north.

 

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 property consists of mountainous, hilly terrain which limits the available building area.  This topography, coupled with the required setbacks, create special circumstances which would warrant a variance.  The deeded right-of-way to the south was created in 1979 but no road has been constructed there and it is unlikely that one would now that Rainbow Lane provides much safer access to the north.

 

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

 

            The geology/topography of the lot is not the result of any action of the applicants.  The applicants/owners purchased the property in 1990 in its current configuration and have not modified the special conditions in any way.

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the code listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

            There are other buildings in the vicinity that do not meet property line setback requirements.  Denying this variance would prevent the applicants from enjoying similar rights.

 

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 the applicants to locate and use the proposed single family dwelling.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Wilma Davis moved and Jeanne Laudick seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioners be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Richard and Judith Hughes 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 MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis 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.

 

 

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 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.