MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

February 28, 2006

 

            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., February 28, 2006.  Members Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Jean Christman and Evelyn King 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 January 24, 2006 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0587  (Ellinger Setback Variance)

Owner:            Brian T. Ellinger

Applicant:       Brian T. Ellinger

Property Description:

 

Lot 5, Piney Knolls Subdivision, located in the Northeast ¼ of Section 32, Township 10 North, Range 73 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, at Red Feather Lakes, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Brian T. Ellinger who appeared before the Board requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing residence to remain in its current location being 125 feet from the center of Red Feather Lakes Road (arterial classification), rather than the required minimum of 160 feet in the O-Open zone. 

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

2.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.  One letter from a neighbor in opposition was received.  The letter cited concerns about the applicant building a garage to expand his business in a residential subdivision.

 

3.         The property location is NE 32-10-73; 24192 Red Feather Lakes Road, located about 1000 west of intersection of Red Feather Lakes Road and Prairie Divide Road.

 

 

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.67 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Residential

c.    Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

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

 

5.         The property owner proposes to remodel and expand an existing residence on the subject property.  The proposal involves adding a larger garage and more living area to the back side of the building.  The existing residence is nonconforming with respect to the building setback requirements from County Road 74E (Red Feather Lakes Road).  The project did not satisfy the criteria for expansion without a variance or appeal because the addition is greater than 25% of the existing building.  The existing cabin is currently approximately 125 feet (160 feet required) from the center of the road right-of-way. The applicant would rather obtain a setback variance than an appeal to expand more than 25%.  The application is also made to eliminate the “nonconforming” status of the existing residence and such that there will be no size restrictions for additions now and in the future.

 

6.         The County Engineering and Planning Departments are working together to revise right-of-way width requirements and setback requirements for County roads as part of the Transportation Master Plan update.  No amendments have been adopted yet but based on the current draft the setback requirement for this section of Timberline Road would be 110 feet.  The proposed distance is further than that.

 

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 building was constructed in 1973 and is considered nonconforming with respect to arterial road setback requirements.  The required road setback extends across the majority of the lot, due to its small size, limiting the area for building. 

 

            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 the original residence existed prior to the current ownership.

 

           

 

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions  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 building setback requirements from the same road.  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 remove the nonconforming status of the existing building and allow the applicant to construct the proposed addition to the existing residence without any restrictions on addition size.

 

            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 regarding the setback request have been received by the Planning Department. 

 

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

 

Evelyn King moved and Jean Christman 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 property owner shall resolve the expired permit for the existing residence prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for this proposed addition.

 

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 Brian T. Ellinger 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 Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Jean Christman and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0592  (Varner Setback Variance)

Owner:            Eric Varner

Applicant:       Eric Varner

Property Description:

 

A tract of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows:

 

Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 35, thence North 89°48’ East 1455.00 feet to the Northwest Corner of Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 70 West, thence North 32°20’ East 686.3 feet, thence North 73°17’ East 40.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence North 83°50’East 178.2 feet, thence South 00°29’ East 236.2 feet, thence South 89°45’ West 290.00 feet, thence North 34°08’ East 175.00 feet along a line also described as North 34°13’27” East, thence North 09°45’ East 74.5 feet to the true beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Eric Varner who appeared before the Board requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed garage/shop building to be located 34 feet from the edge of an interior subdivision road easement 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 SW 35-5-70; 3912 Lakefront Drive, located at the north end of Carter Lake.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.25 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Accessory Use - 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:                                    Lakefront Drive

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct a garage/shop building accessory to an existing single family dwelling.  The proposed building would be attached to an existing garage and would be located 34 feet from the edge of the road easement for Lakefront Drive.  The required front setback in the E-Estate zoning district is 45 feet from the edge of the road easement.  Because of the proposed location of the new building, a variance is required to be able 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 size and shape of the lot, location of the existing house and accessory buildings, and the required side and rear setbacks all are special conditions that limit the space available for 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 configuration and size of the subdivision lot or placement of existing buildings; however the applicant purchased the property in June of 2005, long after the setback requirements had been in effect.

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions 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 in the area.  There are a few other existing buildings in the vicinity that do not meet the front setback requirement.

 

            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/shop building.

 

            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 have been received from any neighboring property owners.

 

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

 

Evelyn King moved and Jean Christman 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.         Use of the proposed building shall comply with regulations for the E-1 Estate zoning district.

 

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 Eric Varner 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 Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Jean Christman and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0589  (Lofink Setback Variance)

Owner:            Adam Lofink, Luella Lofink, Jimmy Lofink and Diana Lofink

Applicant:       Adam and Luella Lofink

Property Description:

 

Lot 18 Block 33, East of Owassa Subdivision; and also: Beginning at the point whence the West ¼ Corner of Section 27, Township 10 North, Range 73 West bears N77°24’30”W 2077.87 feet; thence S 35° E 130.74 feet; thence N 33°29’30” E 110.18 feet, thence N 30°29’W 93.97 feet; thence S 54°45’ W 110 feet to the True Point of Beginning; County of Larimer, State of Colorado

 

            The Petition of Adam and Luella Lofink, Adam Lofink appearing before the Board, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing residence, an existing detached garage, and an existing shed to remain in their current locations.  The residence is 12.5 feet from the edge of an established subdivision road, the garage is 0.4 feet from the rear property line, and the shed is 2 feet from the rear property line.  The required setback distances are 25 feet, 10 feet, and 10 feet respectively 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 27-10-73; 90 Letitia Circle, located northwest of Dowdy Lake almost 2 miles.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.44 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence w/accessory                                                                buildings

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Single Family Residence

g.         Access:                                    Letitia Circle

 

5.         The applicant requests a setback variance for a single family residence, a detached garage, and shed.  These structures all currently exist on the property.  The single family residence was constructed in 1984 and was then expanded without a permit.  The expansion encroached further into the front setback requirement resulting in a setback of 12.5 feet from the edge of an established subdivision road.  The garage was constructed without a permit sometime in the 1980’s and is located 0.4 feet from the rear property line.  It is unclear when the shed was placed on the property and it most likely did not require a permit, however it would have been subject to setback requirement of 10 feet from rear property line.  The owner is now applying for all necessary building permits to correct the problems in preparation for selling the property.

 

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 size and shallowness of the property in relation to the established subdivision road combined with the setback requirements limit the area available for building.  Also, the road was established outside of the platted road easement for the subdivision, which compounds the front setback problem.

 

              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 lot size and road location were not the result of actions of the applicant.

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions 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 interpretation and enforcement of the provision of the Code would deny the applicant similar rights commonly enjoyed by other buildings in the vicinity.  There are other buildings in the immediate area, and the larger Red Feather Lakes 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 continued use of the existing structures and will serve in clearing up building and land use code violations 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 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 the Land Use 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.

 

Evelyn King moved and Jean Christman 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 property owner shall resolve all outstanding building violations on record with the Larimer County Code Compliance Department prior to the expiration of this variance.

           

            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 Adam and Luella Lofink 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 Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Jean Christman and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

File No:           #06-BOA0591  (Romero Setback Variance)

Owner:            Greg Romero, Charlene Romero and Justin Romero

Applicant:       Justin Romero

Property Description:

 

Lot 1 Block 1 of the Amended Plat of Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2 Block 4, Pleasant Acres 2nd Subdivision Replat, Located in the Northeast ¼ of Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Justin Romero who appeared before the Board requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a manufactured home to be constructed 18 feet from the front property line and 7 feet from the rear property line, rather than the minimum requirements of 20 feet and 25 feet respectively, in the  R-1 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; 700 Kimberly Drive, located about 1/3 mile southeast of intersection of E. Mulberry (Highway 14) and S. Summitview Drive.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.19 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning             R-1 Residential (FTC GMA)

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  R-1 Residential

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Pleasant Acres Drive


 

 

 

5.         The applicant proposes to replace an existing manufactured home with a newer manufactured home.  The proposed new residence would be 18 feet from the front lot line and 7 feet from the rear lot line instead of the standard setback requirements of 20 feet and 25 feet respectively.  The applicant is requesting a variance for this location.

 

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 lot is very small (0.19 acres) and the shape makes it difficult to place an average size residence on the property and still satisfy the setback requirements.  There is an existing garage on the lot that further restricts the area available to meet setback 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 owner or applicant.  The applicant had no control of the placement of the existing garage or the configuration and size of the subdivision lot.

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions 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 the required setback.  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 proposed single-family dwelling.

 

           

 

 

 

 

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

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties.  The Planning Department has received one inquiry from a neighboring property owner, but no objections have been received.

 

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

 

Alfred Shilling 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.         Prior to issuance of any building permits for this property, the applicant shall complete (record the plat) the amended plat process for their lot to correct the past reconfiguration of the lot done by deed, not amended plat as was required.

 

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 Justin Romero 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 Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Jean Christman and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0582  (Friedrich Setback Variance)

Owner:            Peter’s Old West, LLC / Jon Friedrich

Applicant:       Jon Friedrich and Gene Applegate

Property Description:

 

That portion of lot 7, Lying Northerly of the Jackson Ditch, and that portion of lot 8 lying northerly of the centerline of Jackson Ditch, and all of lot 9 in Lawrence Heights, a subdivision of the portion of the NE ¼ of Section 30, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Jon Friedrich and Gene Applegate, Jon Friedrich appearing before the Board, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed private, accessory shop building to be located 119 feet (revised from 56 feet) from the center of County Road 54G right-of-way, rather than the required minimum of 160 feet in the T-Tourist 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.         Several area residents appeared in opposition to the request.  They voiced concerns about the large size of the building, possible obstruction of views, and location of the building relative to property lines.

 

3.         The property location is NE 30-8-69; 4315 W. CR 54G, just north of intersection of CR 52E and 54G, west of Laporte.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.12 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Residential w/accessory shop

c.         Existing Zoning             T-Tourist

d.         Surrounding zoning:                   T-Tourist, O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use.                    Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential/Commercial

g.         Access:                                    County Road 54G

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct a private shop building (80’x 40’) on the subject property.  The application description also requests a setback variance for a shed but no distance was requested and the shed was not included on the site map for review.  Therefore, the shed is not part of this application.  The proposed shop would be located southeast of the residence, 119 feet from the center of the right-of-way for CR 54G.  Originally the request was for approval of a distance of 56 feet to the right-of-way center but after an accurate survey of the property and right-of-way line was conducted the applicant revised it to 119 feet.  CR 54G, classified as an arterial, requires a building setback distance of 160 foot from the center of the right-of-way.

 

6.         The owner and applicant should be aware that the use of building is not considered as part of the variance application, however it must be limited to uses that  are accessory to the principal residential use of the property.  No home occupations, commercial, or industrial uses are allowed without the appropriate land use review.  Applicant testified that he will use the building for his own personal use for classic car restoration.

 

7.         A variance request is not subject to the requirements of Section 8.8 (Irrigation Facilities).  The proposed location will, however, affect the ditch company’s ability to maintain the ditch.  Because the applicant is currently in a process to amend the plat for the two lots that he owns, the Board of County Commissioners can require dedication of a ditch easement as part of their approval if appropriate.  The applicant has worked with the ditch company to resolve the conflicts and insure that the proposed location in the variance request will be sufficient to accommodate the ditch company’s request for an easement.

 

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.

 

The shape and shallowness of the property in relation to the County Road create special conditions that make it difficult for the proposed shop building to meet the setback requirements.  The required road setback extends across the entire property, leaving no area that could meet the requirement.  Additional conditions include the Jackson ditch that serves as the western and southern lot line.

 

             

 

 

 

 

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

 

The conditions relating to the property shape are not the result of action or inaction of the owner/applicant.  The lot configuration existed prior to the current ownership.

           

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the Land Use Code provisions 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 along this same road, one-half mile either side of the site, indicates that encroachment into the road setback is a right commonly enjoyed by other buildings in the area. 

 

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

 

Any proposed building would require some sort of setback variance from the road setback requirement. 

 

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

 

The applicant has resolved issues with the Jackson Ditch Company.  The Board finds there is insufficient evidence to show that granting the variance will adversely affect property values in the vicinity.

 

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

 

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the Land Use Code or 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 Jean Christman 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 applicants shall apply for a building permit in accordance with condition “3” below for the proposed building and obtain all final inspections as necessary to finalize the permit.

 

            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 Jon Freidrich and Gene Applegate 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 Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Jean Christman and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0590  (Bertrand Setback Variance)

Owner:            Andres and Kristine Bertand

Applicant:       Gaylen Baker

Property Description:

 

            SE 29-7-69; Centennial Drive located ¾ mile north of intersection

            of CR 23 and CR 38 E.  (Lot 7A, Amended Plat of Lots 5, 6, 7 and

            8, Morrill Subdivision).

 

           

            A request to table the Petition of Gaylen Baker until March 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. was made by the applicant.

 

            Alfred Shilling moved and Evelyn King seconded the motion that the Board table this matter until March 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.

 

            The question was called and members Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Jean Christman and Evelyn King and voted in favor of the motion.

 

                                                     ***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2006.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________