Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

September 28, 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., September 28, 2004.  Members Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi were present.  Alternate Member. Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of August 24, 2004 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0492 (Hughes 2nd Setback Variance)

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.A.P-1-, whence the South 1/16 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 point of beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

Also known as:   3200 Rainbow Lane, Loveland, CO  80537

 

            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 an existing garage to remain in its current location which is 0 feet from the edge of the Rainbow Lane access easement and 0 feet from the south property line, which is also the edge of a dedicated road right-of way, rather than the required minimum of 45 feet 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:                          Detached garage

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 are requesting a setback variance for a detached garage that exists on the property.  The garage never received a proper building permit and the owner is now applying for a building permit to correct the problem.  This same owner was granted a setback variance in June of 2004 for his proposed residence (replacement).  Through that process the owner was made aware that the garage did not have a permit.  The garage actually encroaches into the Rainbow Lane access easement and into the dedicated right-of-way to the south.  To correct the entire situation, the owner intends to apply for an easement/right-of-way vacation to modify the easement/right-of-way lines so the garage does not encroach, and has applied for this setback variance for a zero setback if/when the easement and right-of-way are changed.

 

6.         The request is for a zero setback from the edge of a road easement and a dedicated road right-of-way.  According to a survey provided with the application, the garage building encroaches into the north road easement by 2 feet and into the road right-of-way to the southwest by 1.3 feet.  The Board has no authority to grant a negative setback which would allow the building to encroach into either the easement or the right-of-way.  Consequently, if this variance request is approved, it must be subject to a condition that the owner successfully resolve the encroachments either by vacating/adjusting the easement and right-of-way or by moving the garage. 

 

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 be 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 applicant.  The applicant/owner purchased the property in 1990 in its current configuration and has 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 applicant 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 detached garage to remain in its current location.

 

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

 

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

 

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

           

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

 

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

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

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

 

1.         The owner shall correct the garage encroachment into the Rainbow Lane access easement and the dedicated road right-of-way to the southwest either by vacating or adjusting the lines to encompass the garage OR by moving or modifying the garage so it doesn’t encroach.  The encroachment problem shall be resolved prior to the one year expiration date of this 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 Petitioners Richard and Judith Hughes 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 Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King 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-BOA0493 (Stone Setback Variance)

Owner:            Betty Jo Patterson

Applicant:       Emerson Stone

Property Description:

 

Lot 8, Block 3, Bosworth Add., Bellvue, Larimer County, CO

 

Also known as:   150 Grizzly Street, Bellvue, CO  80512

 

            The Petition of Emerson Stone, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a new accessory building (garage/shop) to be located 60 feet from the center of a stream, rather than the required minimum 100 feet, and 18 feet from the front property line, rather than the required minimum 25 feet as required in the O-Open zone.

 

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

 

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is SE 25-08-70; 150 Grizzly St. in Bellvue, located west of County Road 23 and south of County Road 52E.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.    Land Area:                                    0.23 Acres

b.   Proposed Use:                                Garage/shop

c.   Existing Zoning                               O-Open

d.   Surrounding Zoning:                        O-Open

e.   Existing Land Use:              Single Family Residence

f.   Surrounding Land Uses:                  Residential

g.   Access:                                          Grizzly Street

 

5.         Applicant proposes to construct a detached garage building on the property.  There is currently a residence on the property.  The property is a lot in the platted area of the Town of Bellvue and a stream runs northwest of the property.  The proposed location for the garage is no less than 60 feet from the center of the stream and 18 feet from the front property line.  The topography of the lot is generally level and the lot shape is longer north and south (200’ x 50’).

 

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 shape of the lot being long and narrow, combined with the location of the existing residence and its associated septic system, severely limit the area available for the garage.  The proposed location is virtually the only location suitable.  These special circumstances are peculiar to this land and prompted the request for a variance.

 

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

 

            The special conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant.  The lot configuration and size was established when the Town of Bellvue was originally platted about 100 years ago.

 

                  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 setback requirements from front property lines or the same stream.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding property owners. 

 

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

 

            Granting the requested variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the detached garage.

 

                  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.  No objections or complaints from surrounding property owners have been received by the Planning Department.

 

                  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.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be and he hereby is granted his 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 Emerson Stone 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 Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King 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-BOA0500 (Acres Setback Variance)

Owner:            Mark and Julia Acres

Applicant:       Mark and Julia Acres

Property Description:

 

Lot 2, Double D Acres First Subdivision, City of Loveland, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

Also known as:   1313 Naomi Drive, Loveland, Colorado

 

            The Petition of Mark and Julia Acres, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an addition to an existing, nonconforming residence to be located 71 feet from the center of County Road 18, a minor collector, rather than the required minimum100 feet in the R-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 SW 20-5-69; 1313 Naomi Drive; located on the north side of County Road 18, ½ mile west of County Road 21.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.    Land Area:                                           0.40 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                                      Single Family Residential - addition

c.    Existing Zoning                         R-Residential

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                              R-Residential

e.    Existing Land Use:                                Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:                        Residential

g.    Access:                                                Naomi Drive

 

5.         The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing residence, which is currently approximately 75 feet from the center of County Road 18.  County Road 18 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 1969.  The owners want to expand the family room and dining room which would extend closer to the road.  The expansion would result in a final setback of 71 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 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 1969, per county assessor’s records, prior to 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 enjoyed by other buildings along this same road.  There is at least one other property in the immediate area that does 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.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that 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 Mark and Julia Acres 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 Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King 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-BOA0502  (Hennessey/St. Peters Setback Variance)

Owner:            David Hennessey and Michelle St. Peters

Applicant:       David Hennessey and Michelle St. Peters

Property Description:

 

 A portion of the NE ¼ of Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., and considering the North line of said Section 17 as bearing North 89°12’ West, and with all bearings herein relative thereto: Commencing at the most Southerly corner of PLEASANT ACRES SUBDIVISION according to Plat filed December 13, 1949, which said corner bears South 39°21’42” West, from the Northeast corner of said Section 17, thence North 54°05’ East, 293.25 feet along the Southerly line of said Pleasant Acres Subdivision, thence South 25°34’ West 246.7 feet, thence South 15°23’30” East, 218.06 feet to the Northeasterly line of County Road, thence North 35°55’ West along said County Road 322 feet to the point of beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. EXCEPT parcel conveyed in Book 1227 at Page 0445 described as follows: A parcel of land situate in the NE ¼ of Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which considering the North line of said NE ¼ as bearing North 89°12’ West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, begins at a point which bears North 35°55’ West 44.82 feet from the most Southerly corner of Lot 8 of the Pleasant Acres 2nd Subdivision and run thence North 35°55’ West 100.00 feet; thence North 54°05’ East 37.44 feet; thence South 15°23’30” East 106.68 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT parcel conveyed in Book 1412 at Page 0299 described as follows: A portion of the Northeast ¼, Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., begin at a point on the Northeasterly line of the County Road which bears South 35°55’ East, 110.47 feet more or less from the most Southerly corner of Pleasant Acres and run thence North 47°42’ East, 116.73 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Lot 8 of the Pleasant Acres Second Subdivision; thence along the Westerly line of said Lot 8, South 25°34’ West, 43.79 feet and again South 15°23’30” East, 114.32 feet; thence South 54°05’ West 37.44 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of the County Road, thence North 35°55’ West 115.0 feet along the Northeasterly line of the County Road to the point of beginning; Also a part of Lot 8 of the Pleasant Acres Second Subdivision  which begins at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 8 and runs thence South 15°23’30” East, 114.32 feet; thence North 54°05’ East, 78.56 feet; thence North 35°55’ West, 127.98 feet; thence South 25°34’ West 43.79 feet to the Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of David Hennessey and Michelle St. Peters, 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 65 feet from the center of S. Summit View Drive, a minor collector, rather than the required minimum100 feet in the R-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 NE 17-7-68; 722 S. Summit View Drive, located approximately 1/3 mile south of East Mulberry (Hwy 14).

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                                           0.47 Acres      

b.         Proposed Use:                                      Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning                         R-Residential

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                              R-Residential

e.         Existing Land Use:                                Single Family Residential

f.         Surrounding Land Uses:                        Residential

g.         Access:                                                S. Summit View Drive

 

5.         The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing residence, which is currently approximately 71 feet from the center of S. Summit View Drive.  S. Summit View Drive is classified as a minor collector and requires a building setback of 100 feet from center of the right of way.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 100-foot setback from the road.  The residence was constructed in 1948 prior to county building permit and zoning regulations.  The owner wants to expand the kitchen and add a covered porch both of which would extend closer to the road.  The kitchen expansion would encroach furthest into the road setback, resulting in a final setback of 65 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 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 1948, 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.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that 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 David Hennessey and Michelle St. Peters 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 Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King 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-BOA0504  (Gaebler Setback Variance)

Owner:            Karen and Alexander Gaebler

Applicant:       Alexander Gaebler

Property Description:

 

Beginning at the Southeast corner of Section 5, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., thence North along the East line of said Section, 170 feet, thence South 89°46’ West 195 feet, thence North 21.20 feet, thence South 89°46’ West 63.80 feet, thence South 191.20 feet, to a point on the South line of said Section, thence North 89°46’ East along South line of said Section, 258.80 feet to the Point of Beginnning; being a portion of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of said Section 5, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

Also known as:  3116 West Vine Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521

 

            The Petition of Alexander Gaebler, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed detached garage to be 5 feet from a rear property line rather than the required minimum 10 feet in the FA-1 Farming zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is SE 05-07-69; 3116 W. Vine Drive, located at the northwest corner of W. Vine Drive and N. Overland Trail, northwest of Fort Collins.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.    Land Area:                               1.04 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Residential w/accessory detached garage

c.    Existing Zoning             FA-1 Farming

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-1 Farming

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Single Family Residential

g.    Access:                                    W. Vine Drive

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached shop/private storage building (24’x 53’) accessory to the existing single family dwelling.  The proposed building would be located 5 feet from the rear (west) property line and would replace an existing, dilapidated, nonconforming garage.  The existing building is located on the side property line and is nonconforming with respect to side setback requirement of 5 feet.

 

6.         Planning staff has no major concerns with the setback variance but there is a concern with the use of the proposed building.  The initial building permit application indicated that the garage building would include a studio.  If the building is to be used for a home occupation, 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.  These requirements may affect the design and use of the building as proposed and should be considered prior to beginning construction.

 

 

 

 

 

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 existing garage building is very old and is falling down.  The applicant desires to replace it with a newer building and adjust its location slightly.  The proposed location would meet the required 5-foot side setback, but encroach into the rear (west) setback by 5 feet.  The location of existing buildings and other improvements on the property limit the area available for construction of the proposed building.

 

              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 existing improvements or the configuration of the 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 of the rear setback provisions would cause an unnecessary hardship by prohibiting the owner from constructing an accessory garage building in basically the same location of an old garage, for which no citizen complaints were received.

 

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

 

            Granting the requested variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the proposed garage in the proposed location.

 

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

 

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

 

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

           

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

 

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

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            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 Alexander Gaebler 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 Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King 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-BOA0505  (Lockman Setback Variance)

Owner:            Reuben Lockman

Applicant:       Ridgetop Builders, Inc. / Rick Emery

Property Description:

 

LOT 41, FOSSIL CREEK MEADOWS, PH I, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Ridgetop Builders, Inc., Rick Emery 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 an existing attached garage to be 3.5 feet from the side property line rather than the required minimum 7 feet in the R-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 SW 01-06-69; 5109 Griffith Drive, located ¼ mile east of Highway 287 and ½ mile south of Harmony Road. Lot 41, Fossil Creek Meadows, Phase 1.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.31 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential – garage addition

c.         Existing Zoning             R-Residential

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  R-Residential

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Griffith Drive

 

5.         The applicants propose to add onto their attached garage on their property.  The addition, as proposed, would encroach into the side yard setback of 7 feet, resulting in a final setback of 3.5 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 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 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 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.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that 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 Ridgetop Builders, Inc. and Rick Emery 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 Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King 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-BOA0506  (DAKA Properties Setback Variance)

Owner:            DAKA Properties, LLC

Applicant:       The Architects’ Studio / Carr Bieker

Property Description:

 

LOT 6, SMITHFIELD SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. CONTAINS 2.702 ACRES OR 117,706 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.

 

Also known as:  825 SW Frontage Road, Fort Collins, Colorado

 

            The Petition of The Architects’ Studio, Carr Bieker appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow proposed awnings on a building that is 30 feet from the front property line to be located 25 feet from the front property line, rather than the minimum setback requirement of 50 feet from the front property line in the C-Commercial 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 16-7-68; 825 SW Frontage Road, located in the southwest corner area of the intersection of I-25 and East Mulberry.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.7 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Awning

c.         Existing Zoning             C-Commercial

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  C-Commercial

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Warehouse

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Commercial
g.         Access:                                    I-25 S.W. Frontage Road

 

5.         The project involves re-facing an existing commercial warehouse building and installing 2 awnings on the east side of the building.  The building faces the southwest frontage road and is currently 30 feet from the front property line, which is also the edge of the federal interstate right-of-way and requires a 50-foot building setback.  The proposed awnings would extend 5 feet closer to the right-of-way edge resulting in a 25-foot setback.

 

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.

 

            When the building was constructed, the setback requirement was 25 feet rather than 50 feet.  The building was conforming at the time it was constructed and the awnings would have met the setback.   

 

              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 setback regulations affecting this request were changed by the county, resulting in the special circumstance.

 

            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 other buildings along this same road.  Other businesses along this road utilize awnings to help designate their entrances.

 

            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 awnings.

 

            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.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be and 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 The Architects’ Studio, by Carr Bieker 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 Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King 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-BOA0507  (Jeremy Johnson Setback Variance)

Owner:            Jeremy Johnson and Roger Johnson           

Applicant:       Jeremy Johnson

Property Description:

 

All that portion of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ lying North and West of Dry Creek in Section 22, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

Also known as:  1529 WCR 56, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524

 

            The Petition of Jeremy Johnson, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing garage/workshop to remain in its current location 15 feet from the center of Dry Creek, rather than the required minimum 100 feet in the RE-Rural 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 NE 22-08-69; 1529 W. County Road 56, located on the south side of W. County Road 56, approximately ½ mile east of N. County Road 19.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.52 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Garage/workshop

c.         Existing Zoning             RE-Rural Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  RE-Rural Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural, Residential

g.         Access:                                    W. County Road 56

 

5.         The applicant is requesting a setback variance for a detached garage/workshop that exists on the property.  The garage was constructed sometime between 1974 and 1981 (review of aerial photos) and never received a proper building permit and the owner is now applying for a building permit to correct past building code and land use code violations.  The building location is 15 feet from the center of the stream.

 

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 size and shape of the lot coupled with the location of the existing residence and its associated septic system, limit the area available for the garage.  The creek is the east and south boundary of the property and the required 100 foot setback would force the garage almost off the property.  These special circumstances are peculiar to this land and structure and prompted the request for a variance.

 

  The City of Fort Collins is installing a retention dam just upstream from this property.  This dam will serve to control the flow of the water and thereby removing the property from the designated FEMA floodplain.  In turn, this will eliminate potential damage to the building from flooding.

 

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

 

  The special conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant.  The lot configuration and size was established prior to the 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.

 

There is another building, a residence, north of this property that does not meet setback requirements from the same creek.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding property owners. 

 

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

 

Granting the requested variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the detached garage.

 

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.  No objections or complaints from surrounding property owners have been received by the Planning Department.

 

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.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

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

 

1.         The applicant shall pay all fees associated with the Building Permit 04-B0926 and will obtain all required inspection approvals for the building within 60 days from the date of the 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 Jeremy Johnson 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 Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King 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-BOA0503  (Scherrer Setback Variance)

Owner:            Paul and Molly Scherrer

Applicant:       Paul Scherrer

Property Description:

 

Lot 23, Amended plat of Lot 23, Second Crestview Subdivision and Lot 1, Third Crestview Subdivision, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

Also known as:  1019 Valley View Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524

 

            The Petition of Paul Scherrer, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed detached garage to be 10 feet from a rear property line rather than the required minimum 25 feet in the R-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 persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

3.         The property location is NE 36-8-69; 1019 Valley View Road, located north of Country Club Road (CR 50E) about ¾ mile east of Highway 1, north of Fort Collins.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                              

b.         Proposed Use:                         

c.         Existing Zoning            

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                 

e.         Existing Land Use:                   

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:           

g.         Access:                                   

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage (24’ x 32’) accessory to the existing single family dwelling. The proposed garage would be located north and east of the residence, 10 feet from the rear (east) property line.

 

6.         A letter was received from a nearby neighbor who wants the 25-foot setback enforced.  Other neighbors testified in opposition to the request stating that the criteria for approval of the variance had not been met and that the garage would be visually intrusive, would not be compatible with the area and would adversely affect property values.

 

7.         The applicable review criteria for the variance have not 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 east (rear) 16.5 feet of the original lot was sold to and merged with the adjacent lot to the east in 1998 and prior to the current ownership.  The lot is still 126 feet deep and meets the minimum lot size on the Re-Residential zoning district of .34 acres.  There are no topographic or other special circumstances or conditions that would prevent applicant from building the garage in a location that meets the setback requirements.  The site plan attached to the application clearly indicates that the proposed garage could be constructed on the lot without a variance from the setback requirements.

 

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

 

There are no special circumstances that warrant approval.  Any special circumstances which do exist (i.e., the lot being more shallow) are the result of applicant’s own actions.  The applicant purchased his property on March 5, 2004.  The conveyance of 16.5 feet of the east side of the lot occurred in l998.  The applicant knew the size and shape of the lot at the time of his purchase. 

 

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.

 

Denial of the setback variance request would not deprive the applicant of any rights enjoyed by other land in the area or within the same zoning designation.  The applicant’s site plan clearly shows that the garage can be constructed on the property  without a variance form the setback requirement by simply moving the garage closer to the applicant’s residence.  The setback does not prohibit applicant from constructing the garage on the property.  It simply requires that applicant move the garage closer to the residence.  Setback requirements are designed to protect neighboring properties. 

 

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

 

The minimum action necessary to allow the construction of the garage on the property is to grant no variance.  The garage can be constructed on the property without encroaching on the rear setback.

 

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

 

Construction of the garage will have a substantial and significant adverse affect on neighboring properties. 

 

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

 

Granting the variance would be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan, including preserving the character and quality of urban and rural areas, maintaining and enhancing property values by stabilizing expectations and fostering predictability in land development, promoting the economic stability of existing land uses and protecting them from intrusion by incompatible or harmful uses, preventing excessive population densities and overcrowding of land or buildings and ensuring the provision of adequate open space for fire safety, sunlight and air, and preventing or decreasing the danger to life and property from flooding, geological hazards, and wildfire.

 

8.         To approve this request would not promote the harmonious development of the area, would not be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would not promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would not be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Larry Chisesi 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 variance as requested.

 

The question was called and member Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  Members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Vincent Costanzi and Larry Chisesi voted against the Resolution. Member MaryAnne Martell recused herself from discussion and voting.  The Resolution did not receive the four votes needed to pass, therefore, the variance was denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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°04’55” West with all bearings contained herein, relative thereto. Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 24; thence North 00°50’04: East 229.82 feet; thence East 336.23 feet; thence South 02°06’16” East 680.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 44°11’40” East 1550.17 feet; thence South 06°26’54” West 972.16 feet to the East-West centerline of said Section 25; thence along said centerline South 88°14’54” West 894.50 feet; thence North 02°06’16” West 2106.21 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

 

Also known as:  1622 Moondance Way, Loveland, Colorado  80538

 

            Applicant and Planning Staff requested that this matter be tabled until January 25, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.  Kent Bruxvoort moved and Jeanne Laudick seconded the motion to table this application until January 25, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.  The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, Vincent Costanzi and Maryanne Martell voted in favor of the motion.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0494  (Fox Acres Signs Special Exception)

Owner:            Circle Ranches, Inc.

Applicant:       Fox Acres Country Club / Lawrence Lyon

Property Description:

 

W ½ 30-10-70; ALSO NW ¼, SW ¼, E ½ of SE ¼, W ½ of SE ¼; LESS POR LY N OF CO RD 74E 31-10-70; ALSO W ½ OF SW ¼ 32-10-70; LESS 1687-137, 98023529

 

            The Petition of Fox Acres Country Club, Lawrence Lyon appearing, requesting a Special Exception was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a Special Exception upon the above-described property to allow a sign on this property that is for an off-site development. County sign regulations limit signs for uses that are on the same site as the use (Sections 8.7.3.A and F).

 

            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 persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

3.         The property location is W ½ 30-10-70; 4554 W. County Road 74E, located approximately 4 miles west of Livermore.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               791 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Sign, off-site

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Farm, Agricultural

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural

g.         Access:                                    County Road 74E.

 

5.         As part of four separate applications, the applicant is requesting Special Exceptions to allow a total of four signs, each on a different property, for the Fox Acres development located in the Red Feather Lakes area. 

           

6.         The sign proposed for this property is 15 square feet in size.  The sign location is on top of a knoll that sits on the south side of the County Road 74E, about 4 miles west of Livermore.  The proposal involves using properties for off-site advertising, which is not listed as a permitted use in the Land Use Code.

 

            7.         The sign that is requested would advertise the Fox Acres development, but would not be located on the same property as the development.  The purpose of requiring all signs to be on-site is to limit the number of signs and clutter along major highways and roads and to avoid proliferation of billboards.  The County has been very diligent in its efforts to control sign proliferation by not allowing off-site advertising.  To allow this use to have such advertising would be an invitation to all businesses to request off-site signs.  This would be an unfortunate direction to take.  With more signs along the county roads it would be difficult to maintain the rural atmosphere of the area. 

 

            8.         The Planning Department is in the process of revising the sign regulations and is on target to adopt them near the end of this year.  As part of that process, the Department is investigating options for putting smaller, professional informational and/or directional signs within a public right-of-way.  The design might be similar to the brown colored signs that show the name, the distance to the location, and an arrow.  The County utilizes these for public uses and recreation areas.  This could be a way for the applicant to meet their goals but do so within the bounds of the sign regulations.

 

9.         Each of the applicable review criteria for the variance have not 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 sign proposed is intended to advertise and identify the Fox Acres development located off-site in the Red Feather Lakes area.  Signs like this one, although it will indicate distance to the development, are essentially off-site advertising (billboards) and do not contribute to the rural character of the area. They clutter the roadways, detract from the rural character of the area, and are not in harmony with what was intended for this area and set up by zoning regulations.

 

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

 

  The signs do not have any features that would exceed any air, water, odor, or noise standards established by County, state, or federal regulation.

           

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

 

It is not anticipated that this sign will adversely affect property values in the immediate area.  In the future, if more signs are allowed to be placed on properties, especially in rural areas, on properties other than where the use is, this will degrade the rural characteristics and could in turn property values for this area.

 

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

 

Aside from the Special Exception request itself, the Larimer County Development Services Team (DST) is of the opinion that the application complies with requirements of the County, state, and federal regulations..

           

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 known wetlands or significant wildlife habitat areas on or near the site.  It is not anticipated that the proposed use will adversely affect wildlife or wetlands.

 

10.       To approve this request would not promote the harmonious development of the area, would not be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would not promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would not be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Vincent Costanzi 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 granted his Special Exception.

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution; members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King voted against the Resolution. The Resolution did not receive the four votes needed to pass, therefore the Special Exception was denied.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0495  (Fox Acres Signs Special Exception)

Owner:            Cheryl and Duane Rennels

Applicant:       Fox Acres Country Club / Lawrence Lyon

Property Description:

 

S ½ of Section 27, Township 10 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., except right of way for Railroad; further excepting Colorado Highway 287; and further excepting parcel contained in deed recorded in Book 1188 at page 543, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Fox Acres Country Club, Lawrence Lyon appearing, requesting a Special Exception was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a Special Exception upon the above-described property to allow a sign on this property that is for an off-site development. County sign regulations limit signs for uses that are on the same site as the use (Sections 8.7.3.A and F).

 

            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 persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

3.         The property location is S ½ 27-10-70; located on the east side of Highway 287, approximately ½ mile north of intersection of Highway 287 and Red Feather Lakes Road.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               315 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Sign, off-site

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Agricultural

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural

g.         Access:                                    Highway 287

 

5.         As part of four separate applications, the applicant is requesting Special Exceptions to allow a total of four signs, each on a different property, for the Fox Acres development located in the Red Feather Lakes area. 

           

6.         The sign proposed for this property is 15 square feet in size.  The sign location is at the crest of a hill about ½ mile north of Livermore.  The proposal involves using properties for off-site advertising, which is not listed as a permitted use in the Land Use Code.

 

            7.         The sign that is requested would advertise the Fox Acres development, but would not be located on the same property as the development.  The purpose of requiring all signs to be on-site is to limit the number of signs and clutter along major highways and roads and to avoid proliferation of billboards.  The county has been very diligent in its efforts to control sign proliferation by not allowing off-site advertising.  To allow this use to have such advertising would be an invitation to all businesses to request off-site signs.  This would be an unfortunate direction to take.  With more signs along the county roads it would be difficult to maintain the rural atmosphere of the area. 

 

            8.         The Planning Department is in the process of revising the sign regulations and is on target to adopt them near the end of this year.  As part of that process, the Department is investigating options for putting smaller, professional informational and/or directional signs within a public right-of-way.  The design might be similar to the brown colored signs that show the name, the distance to the location, and an arrow.  The County utilizes these for public uses and recreation areas.  This could be a way for the applicant to meet their goals but do so within the bounds of the sign regulations.

 

9.         Each of the applicable review criteria for the variance have not 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 sign proposed is intended to advertise and identify the Fox Acres development located off-site in the Red Feather Lakes area.  Signs like this one, although it will indicate distance to the development, are essentially off-site advertising (billboards) and do not contribute to the rural character of the area. They clutter the roadways, detract from the rural character of the area, and are not in harmony with what was intended for this area and set up by zoning regulations.

 

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

 

            The signs do not have any features that would exceed any air, water, odor, or noise standards established by County, state, or federal regulation.

             

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

 

            It is not anticipated that this sign will adversely affect property values in the immediate area.  In the future, if more signs are allowed to be placed on properties, especially in rural areas, on properties other than where the use is, this will degrade the rural characteristics and could in turn property values for this area.

 

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

 

            Aside from the Special Exception request itself, the Larimer County Development Services Team (DST) is of the opinion that the application complies with requirements of the County, state, and federal regulations..

           

            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 known wetlands or significant wildlife habitat areas on or near the site.  It is not anticipated that the proposed use will adversely affect wildlife or wetlands.

 

10.       To approve this request would not promote the harmonious development of the area, would not be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would not promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would not be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be granted his Special Exception as requested.

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted against the Resolution.  The Resolution did not receive the four votes needed to pass, therefore it was denied.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0496  (Fox Acres Signs Special Exception)

Owner:            E. H. Barker

Applicant:       Fox Acres Country Club / Lawrence Lyon

Property Description:

 

A tract of land situate in the Northeast Quarter (NE ¼) of Section Thirty-two (32), Township 10 North, Range Seventy-three (73) West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Considering the East line of the Northeast Quarter (NE ¼) of said Section Thirty-two (32) as bearing North 01°22’ East and all bearings contained herein relative thereto:  Beginning at the Northeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter (NE ¼) of said Section Thirty-two (32), thence South 89°15’ West 270.00 feet, thence South 01°22’ West 702.25 feet, thence North 84°48’ East 271.60 feet, thence North 01°22’ East 681.15 feet to the point of beginning, subject to a 30.00 foot road right-of-way along the south side of the above described tract.

 

            The Petition of Fox Acres Country Club, Lawrence Lyon appearing, requesting a Special Exception was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a Special Exception upon the above-described property to allow a sign on this property that is for an off-site development. County sign regulations limit signs for uses that are on the same site as the use (Section 8.7.3.A and F).

 

            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 persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

3.         The property location is NE 32-10-73; 42 Lakeview Drive, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Red Feather Lakes Road (CR 74E) and Prairie Divide Road (CR 179).

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               4.28 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Sign, off-site

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Agricultural

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural

g.         Access:                                    Red Feather Lakes Road (CR 74E)

 

5.         As part of four separate applications, the applicant is requesting Special Exceptions to allow a total of four signs, each on a different property, for the Fox Acres development located in the Red Feather Lakes area. 

 

6.         The sign proposed for this property is 15 square feet in size.  The sign location is at the intersection of Red Feather Lakes Road (CR74E) and Prairie Divide Road (CR179).  The proposal involves using properties for off-site advertising, which is not listed as a permitted use in the Land Use Code.

 

            7.         The sign that is requested would advertise the Fox Acres development, but would not be located on the same property as the development.  The purpose of requiring all signs to be on-site is to limit the number of signs and clutter along major highways and roads and to avoid proliferation of billboards.  The county has been very diligent in its efforts to control sign proliferation by not allowing off-site advertising.  To allow this use to have such advertising would be an invitation to all businesses to request off-site signs.  This would be an unfortunate direction to take.  With more signs along the county roads it would be difficult to maintain the rural atmosphere of the area. 

 

            8.         This sign would be located at a significant intersection where many businesses would like to place signs directing people to downtown Red Feather Lakes.  It would be difficult to deny any future sign requests at this intersection if this request is granted.

 

            9.         The Planning Department is in the process of revising the sign regulations and is on target to adopt them near the end of this year.  As part of that process, the Department is investigating options for putting smaller, professional informational and/or directional signs within a public right-of-way.  The design might be similar to the brown colored signs that show the name, the distance to the location, and an arrow.  The County utilizes these for public uses and recreation areas.  This could be a way for the applicant to meet their goals but do so within the bounds of the sign regulations

 

10.       Each of the applicable review criteria for the variance have not 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 sign proposed is intended to advertise and identify the Fox Acres development located off-site in the Red Feather Lakes area.  Signs like this one, although it will indicate distance to the development, are essentially off-site advertising (billboards) and do not contribute to the rural character of the area. They clutter the roadways, detract from the rural character of the area, and are not in harmony with what was intended for this area and set up by zoning regulations.

 

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

 

  The signs do not have any features that would exceed any air, water, odor, or noise standards established by County, state, or federal regulation.

 

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

 

It is not anticipated that this sign will adversely affect property values in the immediate area.  In the future, if more signs are allowed to be placed on properties, especially in rural areas, on properties other than where the use is, this will degrade the rural characteristics and could in turn property values for this area.

 

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

 

Aside from the Special Exception request itself, the Larimer County Development Services Team (DST) is of the opinion that the application complies with requirements of the County, state, and federal regulations..

           

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 known wetlands or significant wildlife habitat areas on or near the site.  It is not anticipated that the proposed use will adversely affect wildlife or wetlands.

 

11.       To approve this request would not promote the harmonious development of the area, would not be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would not promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would not be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Vincent Costanzi 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 granted his Special Exception as requested.

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution; members Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King voted against the Resolution. The Resolution did not receive the four votes needed to pass, therefore the Special Exception was denied.

 

 

 

File No:           #04-BOA0497  (Fox Acres Signs Special Exception)

Owner:            Weaver Ranch, Inc.

Applicant:       Fox Acres Country Club / Lawrence Lyon

Property Description:

 

Township 9 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.

Section 7:   E ½ E ½ W ½ SE ¼; E ½ SE ¼;

Section 8:   W ½  W ½  W ½  SW ¼;

Section 17:  NW ¼ NW ¼; N ½  SW ¼  NW ¼;

Section 18:  E ½ NE ¼; E ½ W ½ NE ¼;   

 

County of Larimer, State of Colorado  (vacant land, no street address assigned)

 

TOGETHER WITH all of the right, title, and interest of the Grantor in and to all minerals and mineral rights, including oil, gas gravel, and other minerals, located in, or under the surface of the Property.

 

            The Petition of Fox Acres Country Club, Lawrence Lyon appearing, requesting a Special Exception was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a Special Exception upon the above-described property to allow a sign on this property that is for an off-site development. County sign regulations limit signs for uses that are on the same site as the use (Sections 8.7.3.A and F).

 

            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 persons in attendance who objected to the request.

 

3.         The property location is 18-9-69; located approximately 1 mile south of intersection of Highway 287 and Owl Canyon Road (CR 70).

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               446 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Sign, off-site

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Agricultural

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural

g.         Access:                                    Highway 287

 

5.         As part of four separate applications, the applicant is requesting Special Exceptions to allow a total of four signs, each on a different property, for the Fox Acres development located in the Red Feather Lakes area. 

           

6.         The sign proposed for this property is 15 square feet in size.  The sign location is approximately 1 mile south of intersection of Highway 287 and Owl Canyon Road (CR70).  The proposal involves using properties for off-site advertising, which is not listed as a permitted use in the Land Use Code.

 

            7.         The sign that is requested would advertise the Fox Acres development, but would not be located on the same property as the development.  The purpose of requiring all signs to be on-site is to limit the number of signs and clutter along major highways and roads and to avoid proliferation of billboards.  The county has been very diligent in its efforts to control sign proliferation by not allowing off-site advertising.  To allow this use to have such advertising would be an invitation to all businesses to request off-site signs.  This would be an unfortunate direction to take.  With more signs along the county roads it would be difficult to maintain the rural atmosphere of the area.

 

            8.         The Planning Department is in the process of revising the sign regulations and is on target to adopt them near the end of this year.  As part of that process, the Department is investigating options for putting smaller, professional informational and/or directional signs within a public right-of-way.  The design might be similar to the brown colored signs that show the name, the distance to the location, and an arrow.  The County utilizes these for public uses and recreation areas.  This could be a way for the applicant to meet their goals but do so within the bounds of the sign regulations.

 

9.         Each of the applicable review criteria for the variance have not 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 sign proposed is intended to advertise and identify the Fox Acres development located off-site in the Red Feather Lakes area.  Signs like this one, although it will indicate distance to the development, are essentially off-site advertising (billboards) and do not contribute to the rural character of the area. They clutter the roadways, detract from the rural character of the area, and are not in harmony with what was intended for this area and set up by zoning regulations.

 

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

 

  The signs do not have any features that would exceed any air, water, odor, or noise standards established by County, state, or federal regulation.

           

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

 

It is not anticipated that this sign will adversely affect property values in the immediate area.  In the future, if more signs are allowed to be placed on properties, especially in rural areas, on properties other than where the use is, this will degrade the rural characteristics and could in turn property values for this area.

 

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

 

Aside from the Special Exception request itself, the Larimer County Development Services Team (DST) is of the opinion that the application complies with requirements of the County, state, and federal regulations..

           

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 known wetlands or significant wildlife habitat areas on or near the site.  It is not anticipated that the proposed use will adversely affect wildlife or wetlands.

 

10.       To approve this request would not promote the harmonious development of the area, would not be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would not promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would not be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be granted his Special Exception as requested.

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted against the Resolution.  The Resolution did not receive the four votes needed to pass, therefore the Special Exception was denied.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0501  (Red Feather Library Setback Variance)

Owner:            Red Feather Community Library

Applicant:       CRM Architects / Charles Mayhugh

 

The Petition of CRM Architects and Charles Mayhugh requesting a setback variance was tabled until the October 26, 2004 Board of Adjustment meeting at the request of the applicant.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0498  (Van Horn Lot Size Variance)

Owner:            Joan Van Horn

Applicant:       Joan Van Horn

Property Description:

 

Lot 42A of the Amended Plat of Lot 48, and portions of Lots 36, 47 and 49, Block 11, and Lots 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, and Portions of Lots 36, 37, 40, 41, 42 and 43, Block 12, and Portions of Lots 42 and 43, Block 13, Glen Haven Subdivision, and Portions of the S ½ of the SW ¼ of Section 28, T6N, R72W, located in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ and the SW ¼ of Section 28, T6N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado.

 

Lot 43A of the Amended Plat of Lot 48, and portions of Lots 36, 47 and 49, Block 11, and Lots 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, and portions of Lots 36, 37, 40, 41, 42 and 43, Block 12, and Portions of Lots 42 and 43, Block 13, Glen Haven Subdivision, and Portion of the S ½ of the SW ¼ of Section 28, T6N, R72W, located in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ and the SW ¼ of Section 28, T6N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Joan Van Horn, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a lot size variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing, nonconforming lot of 0.48 acres to be further reduced in size to 0.18 acres.  The required minimum lot size is 2 acres for properties with an on-site sewage treatment system 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 SW 28-6-72; 1036 Fox Creek Road, located along Fox Creek, about 1.5 miles west of Glen Haven.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.48 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Residential

c.         Existing Zoning             E-1 Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  E-1 Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Fox Creek Drive

 

5.         The applicant owns Lots 42A (0.87 acres) and 43A (0.48 acres) in Block 12 of the Glen Haven subdivision.  The applicant wants to adjust boundary lines between 3 lots – Lots 42A, 43A, and 43B.  The resulting lot sizes would increase for Lots 42A and 43B and decrease for Lot 43A.  The resulting lot size for Lot 43, 0.18 acres, is the subject of this variance.

 

6.         Lot 43A has a residence on it that utilizes a well for water and a sealed vault for sewer.  Lot 42A is currently vacant.  Lot 43B has a residence on it.

 

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 applicant indicates that Lots 42A and 43B access Fox Creek Road though Lot 43A.  The applicant intends to adjust the boundary lines among the three lots to provide direct access to Fox Creek Road.  The access situation was partly the result of a BLM survey that changed boundaries.

 

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

 

  The BLM survey was not the result of the action or inaction 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.

 

Strict enforcement of the provisions of the code regarding lot size would  deprive the applicant of commonly enjoyed rights.  There are other lots in the subdivision that are smaller than 0.18 acres.

 

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 address applicant’s access concerns.

 

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

 

In this case, one of the primary concerns with reducing the lot size is the viability of on-site sewer systems.  The health department was unable to find any information on any existing sewer systems for Lot 43A.  Therefore, it cannot be stated with certainty that the variance will adversely affect properties in the vicinity.

 

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

 

The proposal is consistent with the goals of the Land Use Code and Master Plan.  The variance will improve an existing access situation for two lots (Lots 42A and 43A0 as well as for an adjacent property (Lot 43B).

 

9.         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.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Kent Bruxvoort seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be and she hereby is granted her lot size variance as requested.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Joan Van Horn 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 Jeanne Laudick, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the lot size variance was granted.

 

 

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 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.