MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

July 27, 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., July 27, 2004.  Members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King and Wilma Davis were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and David Ayraud, Assistant County Attorney.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of June 22, 2004 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0479 (Spillman Setback Variance)

Owner:            Richard and Nancy Spillman

Applicant:       Richard and Nancy Spillman

Property Description:

 

LOT 10, IMPERIAL ESTATES SUBDIVISION, THE NW ¼ OF SECTION 34, T7N, R69W OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO.

 

            The Petition of Richard and Nancy Spillman, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an addition greater than 25% to an existing nonconforming garage/shop to be 19 feet from the rear lot line on property rather than the required minimum 25 feet in the R-Residential zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NW 34-07-69; 3721 Goodell Lane; located one block south of Horsetooth Road & ½ block east of S. Taft Hill Road..

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.13 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Accessory Use – garage addition

c.    Existing Zoning             R-Residential

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  R-Residential

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.    Access:                                    Imperial Drive

 

5.         The applicant proposes to add on to a detached garage/shop on their property.  The addition, as proposed, is 20’ x 24.1’, which is greater than 25% of the current floor area and would encroach into the rear yard setback by 6 feet, resulting in a 19 foot setback.  The existing building is located 19 feet from the rear lot line and the addition would maintain the same setback.  Because of the size and location of the addition, a variance would be required to be able to proceed.

 

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 original garage/shop was constructed prior to building permit and setback requirements.  The location of the existing garage/shop and the date of original construction are special conditions that contribute to the variance request. 

 

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 garage/shop or the configuration and size of the subdivision lot.

 

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

 

            The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other lands in the area.  There are other properties in the Imperial Estates subdivision that have buildings within required setbacks or were granted setback variance.

 

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 addition.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Wilma Davis moved and 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 setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King and Wilma Davis voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0480 (Burk Setback Variance)

Owner:            Duane and Helen Burk

Applicant:       Duane and Helen Burk

Property Description:

 

Considering the North line of the NW ¼ of Section 23, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6th P.M., as bearing S 88°35’ W 3038.33 feet and with all bearings herein relative thereto: Beginning at the N ¼ corner of Section 23, thence along the North line of said Section S 88°35’ W 711.67 feet; thence S 0°33’ W 523.97 feet to a point which bears S 52°55’ W 898.12 feet from the N ¼ corner of said Section; thence S 54°00’ E 223.23 feet, more or less, to the centerline of the Big Thompson River; thence Northeasterly along said centerline to a point which bears due South from the point of beginning; thence North to the point of beginning; EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following, to-wit, Beginning at the N ¼ corner of said Section 23, thence along the North line of said Section S 88°35’ W 711.67 feet; thence S 0°33’ W 297.28 feet; thence S 42°48’ E 286.67 feet, more or less, to the centerline of U.S. Highway 34; thence Northeasterly along said centerline of Highway 185.00 feet, more or less, to the centerline of the Big Thompson River; thence Northerly and Easterly along said centerline of the River 483.00 feet, more or less, to a point which bears due South of the point of beginning; thence North 254.00 feet, more or less to the point of beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado; Also except any portion which may be included in Book 1931 at Page 570, EXCEPT any portion lying within the Right of Way for U.S. Highway 34.

 

            The Petition of Duane and Helen Burk, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested variances upon the above-described property to allow a building setback of 44 feet from the centerline of U.S. Highway 34 right-of-way, rather than 100 feet as required in the Land Use Code and a side setback of 4 feet rather than the required minimum 5 feet in the O-Open zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NW 23-05-72; 2301 Big Thompson Canyon (U.S. Hwy 34) near Glen Comfort.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.84 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Res. w/accessory building

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.         Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    U.S. Highway 34

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct a 20’ x 24’ detached garage on the subject property.  As proposed, the garage would be located 44 feet from the center of U.S. Highway 34, rather than 100 feet as required by the Land Use Code, and 4 feet from the northern property line, which has a minimum setback requirement of 5 feet.

 

The property is 0.84 acres in size. Only a small amount is buildable because of existing buildings and topography.  U.S. Highway 34 and the Big Thompson River run through the southern half of the property and a rock cliff lies at the northern end, severely limiting the area for development.

 

6.         Planning staff has determined there are no major issues and has no concerns with this 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.

 

            U.S. Highway 34 and the Big Thompson River run through the southern half of the property and a rock cliff lies at the northern end, severely limiting the area for development.  The proposed location shown on the site plan is practically the only location available.  The proposed building site meets the setback requirement of 100 feet from the centerline of the Big Thompson River.

 

            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 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, including the two adjacent properties to the west that do not meet the 100 foot setback requirement from the highway.  The property immediately west, 2305 Highway 34, was granted a variance for a residence to be 45 feet from the center.  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 this variance is minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the building 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 the Code and the Master Plan.

 

            Granting the variance requested would not impair the intent and purpose of the   Land Use Code or Master Plan.

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King and Wilma Davis voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variances were granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0481 (Redeemer Lutheran Church Sign Variance)

Owner:            Redeemer Lutheran Church

Applicant:       James Lafler/Shaw Sign & Awning Inc.

Property Description:

 

Lot 2 of Big Horn Ridge Subdivision, Larimer County, Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Shaw Sign & Awning/James Lafler, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a sign variance upon the above-described property to allow a sign 32 square feet in size rather than the allowed 15 square 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 19-06-68; 7755 Greenstone Trail, approximately ½ mile west of County Road 11, on south side of County Road 32 (Carpenter Road).

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.    Land Area:                               N/A

b.    Proposed Use:                          Sign for Church

c.    Existing Zoning             FA-1 Farming

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

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Church

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Agricultural

g.    Access:                                    Carpenter Road (CR 32)

 

5.         The Redeemer Lutheran Church is requesting a variance to allow one sign of 32 square feet to serve as an entrance sign for the church. The property is in the FA-1 Farming zoning district which limits signs to 15 square feet.

 

6.         The Larimer County Development Services Team (DST) is concerned with the number of temporary signs that are currently on the site.  The are at least 4 banners of about 15 square feet each that have been affixed to fence posts and power boxes that advertise the church.  These signs do not comply with the sign section of the Land Use Code and should be removed.  If this variance is granted, it should be conditioned upon removal of all existing banners.

 

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

 

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

 

            The property is occupied by the Redeemer Lutheran church building.  The church attendees will utilize this building for church services and activities and a sign is necessary to identify the entrance to the property.  The larger sign size of 32 square feet is necessary to allow for sufficient size lettering for easy public identification, especially for motorists traveling along County Road 32 which is a classified as an arterial road.

 

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

 

            The special circumstances above are related to the property’s location along an arterial road and the need for adequate identification for the public.  They are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.

 

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

 

            Strict interpretation or enforcement of the provisions of the Code may cause hardship for people and groups trying to find the church and contribute to confusion because of insufficient sign size for identification.

 

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

 

            Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to install the sign and better identify the church.

 

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 the Code and the Master Plan.

           

            With certain conditions as indicated under the recommendation, granting the       variance requested will not impair the intent and purpose of the Code or Master Plan.

 

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

 

Wilma Davis moved and 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 it hereby is granted its sign variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in total sign area.

 

2.         Upon installation of the proposed sign, the applicant shall remove the existing temporary signs and any future temporary signs shall fully comply with Section 8.7.6 Temporary Signs of the Land Use Code.

 

3.         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 Adjustment.

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King and Wilma Davis voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0483 (MCDS Lot Size Variance)

Owner:            MCDS, Inc. / Anthony Trujillo, President

Applicant:       Lawrence Sumerlin

Property Description:

 

E ½ of SW 32-9-68; LESS 1420-34, 1421-527, 1437-936,      1435-461, 95059879, 95062336, 95080034, 97006910

 

            The Petition of Lawrence Sumerlin, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a lot size variance upon the above-described property to allow a lot 7.81 acres in size rather than the required minimum 10 acres in the O-Open zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is SE 32-09-68; located on the north side of County Road 62, approximately ¼ mile east of County Road 11.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.    Land Area:                               7.81 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.    Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural, Residential

g.    Access:                                    County Road 62

 

5.         In 1977, a divorce decree was issued in district court that identified this new parcel containing 7.81 acres.  At that time, the minimum lot size requirement for new parcels in the O-Open zoning district was ten acres.  The courts are required to notify the County when properties are divided.  There was no record of this notification, and thus no opportunity for the County to make the court aware of the minimum lot size requirement.  The decree was issued and the County Assessor’s office began taxing on the new parcel.  The subject parcel never received proper lot size approval and therefore could not be granted a building permit.  The parcel has been vacant since creation.  The applicants recently purchased the property and have since submitted this application for a lot size variance.  The request is for approval of the same size that was created by the divorce decree – 7.81 acres gross.

 

6.         Usually the main concern with the small lot sizes is sufficient area for a septic system and well.  This concern is resolved by the fact that the proposed parcel size is 7.81 acres, which is sufficient area for a septic system.  The size also allows for sufficient separation distance between a well and septic system if a well is utilized as the domestic water source.  The Development Services Team has no issues or concerns with the variance proposal.

 

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

 

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

 

The property’s north boundary is a North Poudre irrigation ditch, which physically separates it from what was the original parcel to the north and east.  County Road 62 bounds the property on the south.  The property is adjoined by private property on the east and west.  These physical and legal boundaries result in the shape of the parcel as created by the divorce decree.  These special conditions are peculiar to this land.

 

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

 

The special conditions were not caused by any action or inaction by the owners.  The applicant/owner’s actions or inactions did not result in the special conditions above.  The owner purchased the property with the special conditions existing.

 

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

 

The strict enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause an unnecessary hardship to the owners by not allowing the designation as a legal, conforming parcel and would prevent this owner or future owners from the ability to build on the property.  There are at least three other properties in the immediate vicinity that have lots smaller than 10 acres.

 

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

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow the owners to utilize the property for single family residential purposes as proposed.

 

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 parcel has existed since the decree in 1977.  The applicant has spoken with the area’s water supplier and the state engineer’s office regarding obtaining a water supply for the residence.  Both agencies indicated that a water supply was available.  The size of property is such that an on-site septic system is feasible.

 

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

 

Granting the variance will correct the zoning problem created by the lot not meeting minimum lot size and will result in an appropriate outcome that considers the health, safety, and welfare of the owners and surrounding properties.  This would be consistent with the purpose of the Code and Master Plan.

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King and Wilma Davis voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the lot size variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

 

File No:           #04-BOA0484 (Jesser Setback Variance)

Owner:            John And Connie Jesser

Applicant:       John and Connie Jesser

Property Description:

 

Considering the North line of Section 34, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M. as bearing S 89°23’ E and with all bearings herein relative thereto:

 

Beginning at a point on the North line of said Section 34 whence the NW corner of said Section 34 bears N 89°23’ W 722.84 feet, thence S 00°57’ W 522.44 feet, thence S 89°30’ E 169.25 feet, thence N 00°25’ E 522.20 feet to the North line of said Section 34, thence N 89°23’ W 164.46 feet along said North line to the Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of John and Connie Jesser, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a detached garage 75 feet from the center of County Road 54G, rather than the minimum setback requirement of 160 feet in the C-Commercial zone.

 

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

 

 

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NW 34-08-69; 1909 W. County Road 54G, located just east of N. Taft Hill Road, east of LaPorte.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.    Land Area:                               2 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential – accessory                                                    building

c.    Existing Zoning             C-Commercial

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  Commercial, Farming

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential/Commercial

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Commercial, Residential, Agricultural

g.    Access:                                    W. County Road 54G

 

5.         The applicants propose to construct a detached garage on their property.  The proposed garage would be located 75 feet from the center of County Road 54G, which is classified as an arterial road and requires a building setback of 160 feet from center.  The existing residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 160-foot setback from the road.  The residence was constructed in 1955 prior to current county building permit and zoning setback regulations. 

 

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

 

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

             

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

 

            The location of the septic system to the rear of the residence, the narrowness of the property, and the location of other buildings on the property are all special conditions that limit the area for the building and contribute to this request.  The residence was constructed in its current location, approximately 79 feet from the center of the county road, prior to current zoning setback or permit requirements.  The detached garage would closely line up with the residence.

 

              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 and its septic system, or the configuration of the lot. 

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code 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 properties along this stretch road which do not meet the required zoning district and road setbacks.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Wilma Davis moved and 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 setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

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

           

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King and Wilma Davis 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-BOA0485 (Carlson Setback Variance)

Owner:            Steven and Kelly Carlson

Applicant:       Steven and Kelly Carlson

Property Description:

 

Lots 46, 47, and 48 in the Second Annex to Poudre Park, except a parcel of land described as beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 48, thence West 50 feet, thence South 10 feet, thence East 50 feet, thence North 10 feet to place of beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Steven and Kelly Carlson, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested setback variances upon the above-described property to allow an addition to a single-family dwelling to be located 40 feet from the centerline of Falls Creek, and 0.5 feet from the side property line, rather than the minimum setback requirement of 100 feet from the centerline and minimum setback requirement of 5 feet from the side property line in the O-Open zone. Also presented to the Board was a request to allow the expansion of a nonconforming residence by more than 25% of its existing size.

 

            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 02-08-71; 57 Falls Creek Drive, located west of Poudre Park and south of Highway 14.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.    Land Area:                               0.35 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:            Residential, recreational

g.    Access:                                    Falls Creek Drive

 

5.         There is an existing residence on the subject property.  The applicant proposes to remodel and add on to the existing residence.  The original building was located approximately 60-70 feet from Falls Creek.  The addition would extend the building closer to Falls Creek.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 100-foot setback from a stream centerline.  According to the applicant, the residence was constructed circa 1932 prior to County building permit and current zoning regulations.  The addition, expanded living area and a front deck, is greater than 25% in floor area of the existing building.  Because the size of the addition is larger than allowed for expansion of a nonconforming residence, and because the addition is closer to the stream, the project requires approval by the Board of Adjustment to proceed. The applicant has presented a request for the building to be located 40 feet from the center of Falls Creek.

 

6.         There are no major issues or concerns with the variance requests.

 

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 extremely steep topography to the rear of the lot creates limited area for building.  The existing building was constructed in 1932 and any additions to it would be within the required setback.  These special circumstances are peculiar to this land and structure and prompted the request for a variance.

 

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

 

            The special conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant.  The lot configuration and the original residence existed prior to the current ownership.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code 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 many other buildings in the vicinity that do not meet setback requirements from Falls Creek.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding property owners. 

 

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

 

            Granting the requested variances is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the single-family dwelling addition in its 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 variances 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 the Code and the Master Plan.

 

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

 

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

 

Wilma Davis moved and 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 setback variances as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The applicant shall complete all construction in accordance with permit number 04-B0626 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 Steven and Kelly Carlson not act upon the setback variances granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King, and Wilma Davis and voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variances were granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0486 (Unfug Expansion of Nonconforming Building)

Owner:            Theresa Unfug

Applicant:       Robert Unfug

Property Description:

 

Lot 1, Howard E. Evans Subdivision of part of Lots 41 and 42 in the Highland Place Subdivision of Section 25, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M. According to the Plat filed February 11, 1954, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Robert Unfug was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested approval to expand a nonconforming residence by more than 25% upon the above-described property in the R-Residential zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is SE 25-08-69; 701 Gregory Road, located east of State Highway 1 and north of CR 50E (Country Club Road).

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.    Land Area:                               1.1 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.    Existing Zoning             R-Residential

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  R-Residential

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.    Access:                                    County Road 52C (Gregory Road)

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing residence, which is currently approximately 61 feet from the center of County Road 52C (Gregory Road).  County Road 52C is classified as a minor collector and requires a building setback of 100 feet from center.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 100-foot setback from the road.  According to the applicant, the residence was constructed circa 1964 prior to County building permit and current zoning regulations.  The owner wants to convert the crawl space into a full basement and add on to the existing structure to the west (side).  The addition, expanded living area, is greater than 25% of the existing building.  Because the size of the addition is larger than allowed for expansion of a nonconforming residence, the project requires approval by the Board of Adjustment to proceed.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            The location and configuration of the existing residence and existing septic system are all special conditions that contribute to the variance request.  The residence was constructed in its current location in 1964, per applicant’s statement, prior to any permit requirements or current 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 applicant.  The applicant had no control of the placement of the residence or the configuration and location of the County road.

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code 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 cause an unnecessary hardship to the applicant by preventing him from adding onto the residence.  There are many buildings along Gregory Road that are closer than 100 feet from the center of Gregory Road.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King and Wilma Davis voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the request to expand a nonconforming residence variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0487 (Mabis 2nd Setback Variance)

Owner:            Harry E. Mabis, Sr.

Applicant:       Harry E. Mabis, Sr.

Property Description:

 

Lot 14, Block 2, CEDAR SPRINGS ESTATES, FILING NO. 4, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Harry Mabis, Sr., requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow two detached carports to be 10 feet from the edge of an interior subdivision road rather than the minimum setback requirement of 25 feet in the O-Open zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is SE 26-06-71; 115 Bobcat Drive, located approximately   2 ½ miles northeast of Drake, in the Cedar Springs area.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.71 acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Accessory Use - carports

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Bobcat Drive

 

5.         The applicant proposes to locate two detached carports, which would be accessory to the existing single family dwelling, 10 feet from the edge of an interior subdivision road.  The carports would encroach into the front yard setback by 15 feet, resulting in a 10 foot setback.  Because of the proposed location of the detached carports, a variance is required for applicant to be able to proceed.

 

This same applicant obtained a setback variance in August of 2002 for the residence on this lot.  That variance allowed for a setback of 15 feet from the same subdivision road

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            There are topographical conditions that exist on the lot, namely a steep slope that limits the area available for building.  The steep slope, shape of the lot, and location of the house all are exceptional conditions that contribute to the need for this setback variance.  Based on these conditions, the location proposed is quite possibly the only one that could be used for a detached carports.

 

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 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 carports.

 

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.  One adjacent neighbor provided written support for this proposal.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Wilma Davis moved and 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.         The applicant shall apply and obtain a building permit and final inspections for the carport structures within 60 days of variance approval.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King and Wilma Davis voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0482

Owner:            Frank and Janie Rinella

Applicant:       Frank and Janie Rinella

Property Description:

 

Lot 20 except the south 115.0 foot of the east 75.0 foot all in block 3 Glen Haven Subdivision. West ½ of Section 27, Township 6 N, Range 72 W, 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Frank and Janie Rinella, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested setback variances upon the above-described property to allow a single family residence 35 feet from the edge of an established private road rather than the required 45 feet, 20 feet from the west side property line and 15 feet from the south property rather than the minimum requirement of 25 feet from the west and south property lines in the E-1 Estate.

 

            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 W ½ 27-06-72; 137 Hummingbird Hill Road, located north of County Road 43 in the Glen Haven area.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                              

b.         Proposed Use:                         

c.         Existing Zoning            

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                 

e.         Existing Land Use:                   

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:           

g.         Access:                                   

 

5.         A building permit (permit no. 04-B0084) was approved for the residence in early February of 2004.  The site plan for the permit application showed the location of the house to be 47 feet from the edge of the road, and 27 feet from the west and south property lines.  These setbacks satisfied the required zoning setbacks.  The site plan showed decks on the front, towards the road, and on the rear, to the south. 

 

The Planning Department mistakenly considered the decks to be at ground level, which are allowed to extend up to six feet into the setback and the permit was approved.  Later, the applicant added decks to the sides of the house and extended the front deck.  The building inspector advised the applicant to apply for a revised permit for the changes and at that time the Planning Department became aware that the decks were second floor decks and subject to the setback requirements.  The applicant was made aware of his option to apply for a variance, which he has done, or remove the additional decks. 

 

In an attempt to bring the entire building into compliance, the applicant’s request also includes a variance from the side and rear setback requirements for the decks, those on the original permit and the other portions added after the permit was approved.

 

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 property consists of mountainous, hilly terrain; is bisected by a road, and is narrow in its shape.  These conditions create special circumstances and make it difficult to satisfy the required road, side and rear setback requirements with the building configuration proposed. 

 

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

 

            The geology/topography of the lot and its configuration are not the result of any action of the applicant.  The applicant/owner purchased the property in 2003 in its current configuration.

 

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

           

            There are other buildings in the vicinity that do not meet property line or road setback requirements.  The applicant provided photographs of these buildings.

 

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

 

            Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to locate and use the proposed single family dwelling.  This would result in the residence closely matching what was originally approved by the permit (04-B0084).

 

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

 

            The Planning Department has received inquiries indicating concern from three different area property owners.  It is not anticipated, however, that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties.

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King and Wilma Davis voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variances were granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0488 (Sonic Drive-In Setback and Sign Variance)

Owner:            Stark Free Enterprises

Applicant:       Scott Beard

Property Description:

 

A tract of land situate in the South ½ of Section 7, and the North ½ of Section 18, all being in Township 7 North, Range 68 W., 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which begins at a point on the South line of said Section 7, which bears S 89°23’ W 1529.80 feet from the Southeast corner of said Section 7 and run thence along the easterly right-of-way line of Air Park Drive, N 19°47’ E 256.70 feet and again along the arc of a 533.00 foot radius curve to the right a distance of 205.59 feet, the long chord of which bears N 30°50’ E 204.32 feet and again N 41°53’ E 90.53 feet; thence S 46°41’ E 52.29 feet to the Southeast corner of a tract of land described in Book 1320 at Page 98 of the Larimer County Records; thence N 47°47’30” E 100.31 feet; thence S 56°43’30” E 225.01 feet along the Southerly right-of-way line of County Road No. 54; thence S 33°16’30” W 648.09 feet; thence along the Northerly right-of-way line of Colorado Highway No. 14, N 86°06’ W 192.71 feet and again N 33°09’ W 63.30 feet; thence N 19°47’ E 88.50 feet to the point of beginning, EXCEPT any portion thereof conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners for road purposes by Adam Schneider in the Deed recorded April 26, 1944 in Book 769 at Page 298.

 

            The Petition of Scott Beard, requesting variances was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested setback variances and a sign variance upon the above-described property to allow building setbacks of 65 feet from Airpark Drive, a minor collector, rather than the minimum requirement of 100 feet, and 75 feet from Lincoln Avenue rather than the minimum requirement of 125 feet as required for a major collector. The Petition also requested a sign variance to allow a total of 3 signs with a total of 136 square feet rather than the requirement of one sign of 90 square feet as in the C-Commercial zone.  At the hearing, the applicant withdrew his request for the 75-foot setback variance and the sign variance  

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the request fore the 65-foot setback variance, 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 07-07-68; located at the northeast corner of Airpark Dr. and East Mulberry frontage road.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.    Land Area:                               4.5 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Drive-In Restaurant w/signs

c.    Existing Zoning             C-Commercial

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  C-Commercial

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Outdoor Storage

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Commercial

g.    Access:                                    Airpark Drive

 

5.         Applicant proposes to construct a drive-in restaurant on the subject parcel. The restaurant utilizes canopies, one attached to the building and one detached, to cover parking stalls for the drive-in customers.  The detached canopy is proposed to be located on the western side of the property, 65 feet from the center of Airpark Drive which is classified as a minor collector and requires a building setback of 100 feet from center.  The applicant’s request essentially sets forth a proposed building envelope, within which the applicant can proceed with the current project and future site development.  The 65-foot setback request pertains to the canopy for the restaurant.

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 current setback requirements from the center of Airpark Drive, 100 feet, limit the area available for the proposed restaurant buildings.  Based on traffic flow entering, through, and exiting the site, the location of the canopy works best and creates safer traffic conditions if it is located where proposed, on the west side of the building.  The canopy is accessory to the principal restaurant building and is not enclosed with walls, so it doesn’t have the same effect on visual impacts or safety as a fully enclosed, primary building would.  Also, the City of Fort Collins code typically allows for smaller building setbacks and this property is within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), where the City’s codes are encouraged when appropriate.  These circumstances warrant the 65-foot setback request for the canopy.

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

 

            The special circumstances related to the setback from Airpark Drive are in part related to the applicant’s action of proposing the main building and canopy in their respective locations, and in part, to providing for safer traffic flow through the site. 

                 

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

           

The strict enforcement of the setbacks would cause an unnecessary hardship by requiring a longer driveway to the restaurant, which incurs more cost and is out of line with the city development guidelines. 

           

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

 

            Granting the setback variance from Airpark Drive is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to proceed with the county’s site plan review and construct the proposed canopy. 

           

            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 for the 65-foot setback will adversely affect neighboring properties.

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

 

            Granting the setback variance requested from Airpark Drive would not impair the intent and purpose of the code or 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.

 

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

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner be and he hereby is granted the 65 foot 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 Scott Beard not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members MaryAnne Martell, Jeanne Laudick, Evelyn King and Wilma Davis voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance request for 65 feet from Airpark Drive was granted subject to conditions.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2004.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________

                                                                        Date

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________