Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

December 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., December 28, 2004.  Members Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis, Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of November 23, 2004 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

File No:           #04-BOA0518   (Squire Setback Variance)

Owner:            Robert W. and Kathy E. Squire

Applicant:       Robert W. Squire

Property Description:

 

Lot 6, The Retreat, Filing No.4, Larimer County, Colorado

 

Also known as:   1407 Miller Fork Road, Glen Haven, Colorado 80532

 

            The Petition of Robert Squire, 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 14 feet from the edge of an interior subdivision road, rather than the required minimum of 25 feet in the FO-forestry 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 22-6-72; 1407 Miller Fork Road, located approximately 2 miles NE of Glen Haven.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.87 Acres      

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.    Existing Zoning             FO-Forestry

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  FO-Forestry

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.    Access:                                    Miller Fork Road

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct and locate a detached garage on his property at 1407 Miller Fork Road.  The garage, which would be accessory to the existing single family dwelling, would be 14 feet from the edge of an interior subdivision road.  The required setback is 25 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 steep topography and location of the house are exceptional physical conditions that limit the area in which a garage could be placed.  Based on these conditions, the location proposed is quite possibly the only one that could reasonably be used for a detached garage.

 

              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 topography 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.  Properties in this area require variances at times for construction due to the steep and rugged topography.

 

            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 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.

 

            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 Evelyn King seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis, Larry Chisesi, 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-BOA0520   (Groth Setback Variance)

Owner:            Mark and Anna Groth

Applicant:       Mark and Anna Groth

Property Description:

 

Lot 1, Amended Plat of Lot 10 Applewood Estates and Lot 10A Amended Plat Applewood Estates Subdivision, Apple Drive Right of Way Vacation Lots 1A, 3A, 9A, and 10A, Larimer County Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Mark and Anna Groth, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed barn to be located 53 feet from the centerline of Fossil Creek, rather than the required minimum of 100 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.         An adjacent property owner appeared and discussed concerns he had about adverse impacts, aesthetics of the barn and drainage issues.

 

3.         The property location is SW 02-06-69; 740 Fossil Creek Drive, located ¾ mile west of Highway 287 and 1 mile south of Harmony Road (Lot 1, Amended Plat of Lots 10 and 10A Applewood Estates.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.17 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Residential w/accessory barn

c.         Existing Zoning             FA-1 Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-1 Farming, City of Fort Collins

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Single Family residential

g.         Access:                                    Fossil Creek Drive

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct a barn (14’x 34’) accessory to the existing single family dwelling.  The proposed barn would be located in the northwest corner of the lot.  Fossil Creek flows east through the property and divides it into a north and south half.  The barn would be located on the north side of the creek.  The house and garage are located on the south side.  The barn, as proposed, would be 53 feet from the centerline of Fossil Creek.  The required minimum setback is 100 feet.

 

6.         A concern with the proposal was the building location in relation to the regulation floodplain.  The engineering department determined that the location is outside of the floodplain, which resolved this concern.

 

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

 

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

 

Fossil Creek divides the lot roughly into a north and south half.  The lot is 199 feet from south line to north line.  This condition creates a situation where almost the entire property is within the setback distance from the stream. 

 

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

 

The special circumstances of the stream’s location in relation to the lot configuration were not created by the applicant; although, the applicant did purchase the property in its current configuration, knowing the limitations for building. The lot was platted in 1964 as part of the Applewood Estates Subdivision.

 

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 residence was constructed in 1978 and the detached garage in 2002.  The garage received variance approval to be 50 feet – to the south - from Fossil Creek.  Strict enforcement of the stream setback provisions would deprive the applicant of similar rights already allowed for buildings on the property. 

 

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 barn 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 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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

           

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis, Larry Chisesi, 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-BOA0521  (Robeson Setback Variance)

Owner:            Norma Cutts/Trustee

Applicant:       Michael Robeson

Property Description:

 

Lot 53, Lake Shore Gardens, Larimer County, Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Michael Robeson, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed single-family residence to be located 68 feet from the right-of-way center for Monroe Avenue, and a detached garage to be located 82 feet from the right-of-way center for Monroe Avenue, rather than the required minimum of 100 feet from a minor collector in the FA-Farming zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is SE 36-6-69; 4800 N. Monroe Avenue, located on the west side of Horseshoe Lake approximately ½ mile south of County Road 28.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.31 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning             FA-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Monroe Ave. or Knobcone Place

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct a single-family dwelling on the subject property.  The property is currently vacant and consists of approximately 0.31 acres.  It is bordered on the west by Monroe Avenue – a minor collector, by Knobcone Place on the south, and by other residential lots to the north and east.  The proposed locations of the dwelling and detached garage would be 68 feet and 82 feet, respectively, from the right-of-way center for Monroe Avenue.  All other building setbacks would be satisfied.

 

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 subdivision was platted in 1962, prior to road setback requirements.  The property is narrow running north to south, parallel to Monroe Avenue and this condition makes any building on the lot unlikely to satisfy the 100-foot setback requirement. 

 

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

 

The special conditions listed above were not created by any action or inaction of the current property 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 at least seven surrounding properties as noted in the application that have residences as close or closer than what the applicant is requesting.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding properties.

 

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

 

Granting this variance is minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the residence 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.  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 Evelyn King seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis, Larry Chisesi, 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-BOA0523   (McConathy Extension of Variance)

Owner:            Steven & Renate McConathy

Applicant:       Steven and Renate McConathy

Property Description:

 

Lot 1, Wilson Homestead MLD No. 02-S2041  (2003-0031462)

 

            The Petition of Steven and Renate McConathy, requesting an extension of time for a previously granted variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a one year extension of time upon the above-described property to comply with the conditions of the approved Wilson Setback Variance (02-BOA0348).  That setback variance allowed for a final setback of 62.5 feet from a minor collector, rather than the required minimum of 100 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 ¼ of 26-04-69; located on west side of County Road 15 approximately ½ mile south of the Little Thompson River.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.73 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single family residential

c.         Existing Zoning             FA-1

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-1 Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural and Single family residential

g.         Access:                                    County Road 15

 

5.         The applicant was granted a variance by the Board of Adjustment in December 2002.  The application was for a lot size variance and a setback variance.  Both requests were approved and the owner proceeded through the Minor Land Division process to create the 1.73 acre Lot 1 of the Wilson Homestead Minor Land Division.  Subsequently, the McConathy’s hired a contractor to begin construction of their residence and applied, and received, a building permit for the residence.  After receiving the initial payment to begin construction, the contractor disappeared and never completed more than excavation for the foundation.  Since then, the McConathy’s have been involved in trying to get their money back, which has involved additional time and expense.  The owners then withdrew the permit and have resolved to sell the property to pay these fees and have requested an extension of the setback variance so a new owner may be able to finish the residence.  The standard expiration period for a variance is one year from date of approval.  The applicant is requesting more time, one year, to act on the variance.

 

6.         The Larimer County Development Services Team has no major issues or concerns with this extension request.  Except for the variance expiration, all other conditions of the original variance have been satisfied.

 

7.         The Board finds that the requested extension is justified.

 

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 applicants, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Evelyn King seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioners be and they hereby are granted their time extension of one year as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The extension shall be for one year from December 28, 2004, during which time applicants must apply for a building permit or file an application for a further extension of time.

 

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

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Steven and Renate McConathy not act upon the time extension granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with the variance and conditions of this extension 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 December 28, 2004.  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, Wilma Davis, Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the time extension was granted subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

File No:           #04-BOA0515   (Howard Setback Variance No.2)

Owner:            Randall and Brenda Howard

Applicant:       Randall and Brenda Howard

Property Description:

 

Lot 56, Kistler Subdivision, Larimer County, Colorado.

Parcel #05353-05-056

 

            The Petition of Randall and Brenda Howard, 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 located 10 feet from the side property line rather than the required minimum of 25 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 SW 35-05-70; 9001 Sunflower Road, located northeast of Carter Lake Reservoir.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.85 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single family residential w/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:                                    Sunflower Road

 

5.         The applicants were granted a variance by the Board of Adjustment in June of 2001 for a side setback of 15 feet.  The applicants applied for a building permit for the garage and were approved to commence construction.  When the foundation was poured, it ended up being a few feet closer to the side property line than was approved by the previous variance and shown on the building permit application.  The applicants have submitted the current application requesting a larger variance.  If the variance is approved, the proposed garage will be 10 feet from the east side property line.  The property is zoned E-1 Estate which requires a minimum building setback of 25 feet from a side property line.

 

6.         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.

 

This request stems from the garage’s foundation being located further into the setback than allowed by the previous variance (01-BOA0227).  According to the applicant Randal Howard and his father-in-law, the contractor slightly modified the building location to avoid a rock in the ground.  If the building had been located in the exact location planned, the rock would have prevented the footers from being deep enough.  The rock is a topographical condition that justifies granting the variance.

 

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

 

The rock and the action of the contractor to avoid it are not the result of 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.

 

The relocation of the building would require additional funds to be spent which, may be considered a hardship.

 

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

 

Granting the additional requested variance is the minimum action will allowed the applicants to use the garage in its current location.

 

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

 

The application states that granting the variance would not affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections or other comments have been received by any of the neighboring property owners.

 

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

 

Granting the variance would be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan.

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicants 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 Larry Chisesi 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.

 

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

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis, Larry Chisesi, 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-BOA0517   (Gunderson Setback Variance)

Owner:            Kurt Gunderson

Applicant:       Gary Weixelman

 

The petition of Gary Weixelman was tabled until January 25, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the request of the applicant. 

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Vincent Costanzi seconded the motion that the Board table this matter until January 25, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis, Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, and Vincent Costanzi, and voted in favor of the motion.

 

 

File No:           #04-BOA0519   (Troccoli Setback Variance)

Owner:            Andrew and Kerry Troccoli

Applicant:       Andrew and Kerry Troccoli

Property Description:

 

Lot 3, Reu Ranch R.L.U.P. 00-S1707, Larimer County, Colorado

 

            The Petition of Andrew and Kerry Troccoli, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a barn to be located 44 feet from the right-of-way center for County Road 60E, rather than the required minimum of 60 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 SE 03-08-69; 1405 W. County Road 60E, on the south side of CR 60E, approximately ½ mile east of CR 19.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               4 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single family residential w/barn

c.         Existing Zoning             RE-Rural Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  RE-Rural Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single family residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Agricultural

g.         Access:                                    County Road 60E

 

5.         In September of this year, the applicants applied for a building permit for the subject barn.  The location was shown to be at least 61 feet – the requirement is 60 - from the right-of-way centerline for County Road 60E. The permit was approved to commence construction.  As a result of the proposed location, and prior to setback inspection, a distance certification was required to confirm the distance shown on the permit.  The building was found to be 45 feet from the center of the road right-of-way rather than 60 feet as required and originally shown on the building permit application.  The owner has submitted this variance application requesting approval of the building’s location.

 

6.         The applicants testified that they relied on the contractor who constructed the barn to comply with all terms of the permit.  The contractor did not check the permit requirements and will not stand behind his contract and the permit.  Applicants’ only remedy is to sue the contractor and/or relocated the barn which will be extremely costly.

 

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 improper actions of the applicants’ contractor in failing to comply with the conditions of the permit constitute a special circumstance in this particular case that justify a variance.

 

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

 

The actions of the applicants’ contractor, not the applicants themselves, resulted in the erroneous location that is now the subject of this variance request. 

 

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.

 

Upholding the setback requirement would require moving the building which would incur additional cost to the applicants.  It would also deprive the applicants of rights enjoyed by others, namely the ability to use the barn as constructed.

 

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 use of the land and structure. 

 

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

 

The application states that granting the variance would not 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 is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan.

 

8.         To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicants 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 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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested.

 

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

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution. Member Larry Chisesi voted against the Resolution. The Resolution received the four votes needed to pass, therefore the variance was granted. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted

 

File No:           #04-BOA0522

Owner:            Michael and Renee Gallegos

Applicant:       Michael and Renee Gallegos

Property Description:

 

A portion of the Southwest ¼ of Section 24, and the North ½ of the North ½ of Section 25, Township 10 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows:

 

Considering the South line of Section 24, Township 10 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., to bear S 89°23’22” E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:

 

Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southwest ¼ of said Section 24; thence N 00°17’47” W along the West line of the Southwest ¼ of said Section 24, a distance of 1201.39 feet; thence S 76°09’52” E along an existing fence line a distance of 1348.38 feet; thence S 00°00’00” W a distance of 1186.69 feet; thence N 89°23’22” W and parallel with the South line of the Southwest ¼ of said Section 24, a distance of 1013.86 feet; thence N 00°30’40” E and parallel with the West line of the North ½ of the North ½ of said Section 25, a distance 27.61 feet; thence N 89°23’22” W, and parallel with the South line of the Southwest ¼ of said Section 24; a distance of 291.88 feet to the West line of the North ½ of the North ½ of said Section 25; thence N 00°30’40” E along the West line of the North ½ of the North ½ of said Section 25, a distance of 266.24 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Reserving the Westerly 30.00 feet thereof for roadway purposes. County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Michael and Renee Gallegos, 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 barn to be located 80 feet from the right-of-way center for County Road 15, rather than the required minimum of 100 feet from a minor collector in the O-Open zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is SW 24-10-69; 15720 N. County Road 15, located at the intersection of CR 15 and CR 78..

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               40 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Agricultural – addition to barn

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Agricultural

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural, residential

g.         Access:                                    County Road 15

 

5.         The owner has an existing barn that was initially 100 feet from the right-of-way center of County Road 15, which is classified as a minor collector.  The barn complied with the setback requirement of 100 feet.  The barn was built in the l940’s. The applicants then added to the barn without obtaining any building permits.  The additions were lean-to’s and were constructed on either side (east, west) of the barn.  The east side addition extended away from the road but the west side addition extended closer to the road, resulting in a setback distance of 80 feet from road’s right-of-way center, rather than the required 100 feet..

 

After receiving a violation letter from the building department, the applicant applied for the building permits.  The permit for the addition to the east side was approved since it complied with the Land Use Code setback regulations.  The permit for the west side addition is on hold pending a decision on this variance request.  The request is to allow an 80-foot final setback from the road right-of-way center.

 

6.         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 barn was initially constructed in the l940’s and was in its present location when the applicants acquired the property.  The barn is somewhat of an historic structure.  Applicants wished to preserve the structure rather than demolish it and build a new barn. In order to shore up the existing barn and protect it from wind damage , applicants constructed  the  additions on either side.  The existing location of the barn, its historic character, and the value of preserving it are special circumstances that justify the variance. 

 

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

 

The location of the barn is not the result of actions of inactions by the applicants.

 

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.

 

Upholding the setback requirement would require removing the addition from the west side, which would incur additional cost to the owner.  This would deprive applicants of rights enjoyed by others, namely the use of a barn as structurally reinforced.

 

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 use of the land and structure.

 

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 is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan.

 

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

 

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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested.

 

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

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Wilma Davis, Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted.

 

                                                     ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

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

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.