Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

April 26, 2005

 

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

 

File No:           #05-BOA0550  (Reed Expansion of a Nonconforming Residence)

Owner:            Susan Reed

Applicant:       George Reed

Property Description:

 

Lot 9, Geist Subdivision, First filing according to the plat thereof, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

SWQ Section 24, Township 9N, Range 69W

 

Also known as:             201 E. County Road 66E

                                    Fort Collins, CO  80524

 

            The Petition of George Reed, requesting an expansion of a non-conforming residence by more than 25 percent upon the above-described property in the O-Open zone was presented to the Board. 

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is SW 24-9-69; 201 E. County Road 66E, located just east of County Road 15, near Waverly.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               16.88 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural, Residential

g.    Access:                                    E. County Road 66E

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing residence, which is currently approximately 76 feet from the center of E. County Road 66E.  This road is classified as major collector and requires a building setback of 125 feet from right-of-way center.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 125-foot setback from the road.  According to the applicant, the residence was constructed in 1973 prior to the road setback requirement.  The owner wants to add on to the existing structure to the south (rear).  The addition, expanded living area, is greater than 25% of the existing building.  The approximate size of the addition is 36% of the existing building.  Because the size of the addition is larger than 25%, the project requires approval by the Board of Adjustment to proceed.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The location and orientation of the existing residence are all special conditions that contribute to the expansion request.  The residence was constructed in its current location in 1973, per the application, prior to the road setback requirement. 

 

              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.

 

            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 are other buildings in the area that 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 request 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 request will adversely affect neighboring properties.

 

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

 

Granting the request 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.

 

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 and he hereby is granted his expansion as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner George Reed not act upon the expansion granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted expansion 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 Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King, Vincent Costanzi and Eric Berglund voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the expansion was granted subject to conditions.

 

 

File No:           #05-BOA0551  (Kelso Setback Variance)

Owner:            Larry & Kathleen Kelso

Applicant:       Larry & Kathleen Kelso

Property Description:

 

Lot 1, Amended Plat of Lots 46 and 47, Crystal Lakes, Eleventh P.U.D. and Lots 49-B of the Amended Plat of Lot 49-A of the Amended Plat of Lots 49 and 50, Crystal Lakes Eleventh Filing P.U.D. and Lot 48, Crystal Lakes Eleventh Filing P.U.D.

 

            The Petition of Larry and Kathleen Kelso, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a detached garage to be 73 feet from the center of the right-of-way of County Road 73 C, rather than the required minimum of 125 feet in the E-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 SE 12-10-74; 26 Chillicothe Court, located about 1 mile southeast of Crystal Lakes Reservoir, on the east side of Creedmore Lakes Road.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential w/garage

c.         Existing Zoning             E-Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  E-Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    County Road 73C (Creedmore Lakes Road)

 

5.         The applicant has constructed a detached garage accessory to the existing single family dwelling on the subject property.  A building permit for the garage was approved in April of 2004.  The site plan for the permit application showed the proposed location of the garage on the lot and its relation to Creedmore Lakes Road (CR 73C) and Chillicothe Court.  The distance shown on the permit plan was 45 feet from the edge of the road easement, which corresponds to a setback distance of 75 feet from the center of CR 73C.  The required setback from an interior subdivision road in the E-Estate zoning district is 45 feet from the edge of the road easement.  However, in this case, Creedmore Lakes Road is officially County Road 73C and is classified as a major collector for the Crystal Lakes area.  The required setback from a major collector is 125 feet from the center of the right-of-way.  The proposed setback on the permit was approved in error, and the owner proceeded to construct the garage.

 

6.         At the time of setback inspection for the permit, it was discovered that the garage was actually located 73 feet from the center of CR 73C and the owner inquired about a variance.  In the research process of the inquiry, it was discovered that the permit was mistakenly approved for a setback less than the required 125 feet for a major collector.  Due to the existing situation having resulted largely from the Planning Department’s mistake, the application fee was waived, and help in preparing the application materials was provided.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

There are topographical conditions that exist on the lot that include rock outcroppings that limit the area available for building.  The location of the existing house and driveway also somewhat restrict the area available for the garage.  These physical conditions combined with the error made in approving the original permit create special circumstances for the garage. 

 

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

 

The special conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant or owner.  The lot configuration and topographic constraints existed prior to the current owner.  The permit for the garage was mistakenly approved by the county, at no fault of the applicant or owner.

 

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

 

There are other buildings in the Crystal Lake area property that do not meet setback requirements from the same road.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of other area 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 retain and use the existing detached garage on the property.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Granting the variance request would be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan.  Nothing proposed with this variance was found to be contrary to the purposes of either the Code or the Master Plan.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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

 

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

 

File No:           #05-BOA0547  (Kuehl Setback Variance)

Owner:            Meredith & Patricia Kuehl

Applicant:       Meredith & Patricia Kuehl

Property Description:

 

Lot 2, Dana Edwards M.R.D. #S-39-87, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Meredith and Patricia Kuehl, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a pole barn (already started) to be located 15 feet from the side property line rather than the required minimum of 25 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 9-8-69; 6441 N. Taft Hill Road, approximately 1 mile south of County Road 60E.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               10 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Residential

c.         Existing Zoning             RE-Rural Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  RE-Rural Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural, Residential

g.         Access:                                    N. Taft Hill Road

 

5.         The owners began construction of a pole barn on their property without a permit.  A county building inspector red-tagged the building and the owners came in to apply for a permit.  At that time, it was discovered that the building did not meet the required 25 foot side yard setback.  The owners did not want to move the building and have applied for a setback variance to allow the barn to remain in its current location – 15 feet from the side property line.

 

6.         This application does not meet the review criteria, namely the lack of special conditions.  The property consists of 10 acres of level land.  There is sufficient room for locating the barn in such a manner that would meet the setback requirement and still allow full use of the building and property.

 

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.

 

Both a review of the application and a site visit showed no special circumstances on the property.  The property is ten acres in size and is level.  The applicant’s argument for making the pole barn symmetrical with existing buildings is not a special condition that warrants a variance.

 

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

 

The owners’ actions resulted in the situation that is now the subject of this variance request.  No special circumstances or conditions were found.

 

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.

 

Review of properties in the surrounding area indicates one building that encroaches into the side setback requirement, but this is not a right commonly enjoyed by other buildings in the area.  Upholding the setback requirement would require moving the initial construction elements of the building; however this is not an unnecessary hardship because the barn and property can still be utilized while meeting the setback requirement.

 

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

 

Granting the variance is not the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure.  The building and property can still be used for the owner’s intended purposes.  There are no circumstances preventing the proposed use.

 

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

 

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

 

Granting the variance would be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan because it does not satisfy the review criteria for granting a variance.  The property has plenty of area that is suitable for building and could meet the setback requirement.

 

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.

 

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

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioners be and they hereby are denied their setback variance as requested.

 

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  Members Vincent Costanzi and Eric Berglund voted against the Resolution. The Resolution did not receive the four votes in favor needed to pass, therefore the setback variance was denied.

                                                  

***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

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

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

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