Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

March 8, 2005

 

            The regular meeting of the Larimer County Board of Adjustment was held in the County Board Hearing Room in the Larimer County Courthouse, Fort Collins, Colorado at 7:00 p.m., March 8, 2005.  Members Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney David Ayraud.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of January 25, 2005 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved with the following addition:

 

Eric Berglund moved and Vincent Costanzi seconded that the Board, in accordance with the Colorado Open Meetings Law, post the Board’s hearing notice in the same location as the County Commissioner notices at the south and north entrances to the Courthouse Offices Building at 200 W. Oak Street, Ft. Collins, Colorado.

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the motion.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0529  (William Evans Setback Variance)

Owner:            William & Mary Louise Evans

Applicant:       William & Mary Louise Evans

Property Description:

 

Lot 66, Glacier View Meadows Fourth Filing, PUD

 

            The Petition of William and Mary Louise Evans, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a detached garage to be 35 feet from a side property line rather than the minimum requirement of 50 feet and to be 35 feet from the edge of the subdivision road easement rather than the minimum requirement of 45 feet in the E-Estate zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NE 23-9-72; 79 El Diente Court, located approximately 1.5 miles south of County Road 74E through gate 6 of Glacier View Meadows, about 11 miles SW of Livermore.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.31 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.    Existing Zoning             E-Estate

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  E-Estate

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.    Access:                                    El Diente Court

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage (24’x 28’) accessory to the existing single family dwelling.  The proposed garage would be located east of the residence, 35 feet from the side (east) property line and 35 feet from the edge of the subdivision road easement.  The E-Estate zoning district requires a 50 foot side setback and a 45 foot setback from the edge of the subdivision road easement.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            The steep topography to the rear of the lot and location of the house are exceptional physical conditions that limit the area in which a garage could be placed.  Based on these conditions, the location proposed is quite possibly the only one that could reasonably be used for a detached garage and require the least amount of variance.

 

            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; although, the applicant did purchase the property in its current configuration, knowing the limitations for building.

 

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

            The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other lots and structures in the area.  Properties in this area require variances at times for construction due to the steep and rugged topography.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Evelyn King moved and Vincent Costanzi seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

File No:           #05-BOA0534  (Joyce Setback Variance)

Owner:            David and Rebecca (Becky) Joyce

Applicant:       Rebecca (Becky) Joyce

Property Description:

 

Lot 126 Lindenwood 3rd Filing, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

Also known as:             1701 Lindenmeier Ct.

                                    Fort Collins, CO  80524

 

            The Petition of Rebecca Joyce, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow additions to an existing residence, resulting in a front setback of 17 feet rather than the required minimum of 20 feet and a rear setback of 23 feet rather than the required minimum of 25 feet on in the              R-Residential zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NE 6-7-68; 1701 Lindenmeier Court, located on the east shore of Lindenmeier Lake, north of Fort Collins.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.49 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:                                    Lindenmeier Court

 

5.         The applicant proposes to add onto the existing residence.  The additions are to the attached garage and the back deck.  The garage addition, as proposed, would encroach into the front yard setback by 3 feet, resulting in a final front setback of 17 feet.  The deck expansion would encroach into the rear yard setback by 2 feet, resulting in a final rear setback of 23 feet.  The required setbacks are 20 feet for front yard and 25 feet from rear yard.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  The location of the existing residence and the configuration of the lot are all special conditions that contribute to the variance request.  These factors limit the area available for the proposed addition.

 

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

 

  The special circumstances or conditions were not created by the applicant.  The applicant had no control of the configuration and size of the subdivision lot.

 

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

 

The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other lands in the area.  There are a handful of other properties in the general area that appear to not meet the required front or rear setback requirements.

 

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 utilize the proposed additions.

 

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 Lindenwood Subdivision Homeowners Association has reviewed the proposal and supports it.  No objections from surrounding property owners have been received at this time.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Evelyn King moved and Vincent Costanzi seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

File No:           #05-BOA0535  (Stoffregen Setback Variance)

Owner:            Harlan & Patricia Stoffregen

Applicant:       Van Horn Engineering/Surveying / Lonnie Sheldon

Property Description:

 

Lot 1; less beginning at the southeasterly corner of said lot, thence northwesterly along the south line of said lot 4 feet 6 inches, thence northeasterly to the center of the Big Thompson River, thence southeasterly along the centerline of said river 4 feet 6 inches, more or less, to the easterly line of said lot, thence southwesterly along the easterly line of said lot to the true point of beginning.

 

            The Petition of Van Horn Engineering/Surveying, Lonnie Sheldon appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing residence, proposed for remodeling and expansion, to be located 76 feet from the centerline of The Big Thompson River rather than the required minimum of 100 feet, and 3.8 feet from the side lot line rather than the required minimum of 5 feet, as required in the O-Open zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NW 23-5-72; 2358 E. Highway 34, located in the Glen Comfort Area in Big Thompson Canyon.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.42 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Cabin

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

e.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

f.          Existing Land Use:                    Cabin

g.         Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

h.    Access:                                    U.S. Highway 34

 

5.         The property owner proposes to remodel and expand an existing cabin on the subject property.  The existing garage is single story and extends from the front of the cabin.  The proposal involves rebuilding the garage and adding a second level to it for increased living area for the cabin.  The existing cabin is nonconforming with respect to the building setback requirements from the Big Thompson River and the side lot line.  The project didn’t satisfy the criteria for expansion without needing a variance because the addition is greater than 25% of the existing building and would also encroach into the required setbacks from the creek.  The existing cabin is currently 76 feet (100 feet required) from the centerline of the Big Thompson River and 3.8 feet from the side lot line. The application is made in hopes of eliminating the “nonconforming” status from the existing residence.  If this variance were approved, the owners could then proceed to apply for a building permit for the addition. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The steep topography to the rear of the lot creates limited area for additions to the rear.  The existing building was constructed in 1948 and is considered nonconforming with respect to side yard and river setback requirements.  The lot shape and size also limit the area available for additions.

 

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 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 Big Thompson River and property lines.  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 the proposed addition to the existing cabin.

 

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

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties.  No objections or complaints from surrounding property owners have been received by the Planning Department.  The building was determined to be out of the FEMA 100-year regulated floodplain by the county engineering department and is therefore unlikely to cause damage to adjacent properties in a 100-year flood event.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Evelyn King moved and Vincent Costanzi seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

File No:           #05-BOA0536  (Sykes Lot Size Variance)

Owner:            William and Tonya Sykes

Applicant:       StanTec / Tom Nicholas

Property Description:

 

The West ½ of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 30, Township 5 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:

 

Basis of Bearings: the North line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 30, being monumented at the North ¼ corner of Section 30 by a 2 ½ ” aluminum cap in a range box stamped “LS 12374” and at the Northeast Corner by a 2 ½” aluminum cap stamped “LS 12374” with a line between assumed to bear South 89°48’29” East, with all bearings herein relative thereto.

 

COMMENCING at the North ¼ Corner of said Section 30, Thence South 00°06’58” East, 30.00 feet along the West line of Northeast Quarter of said Section 30 to the South Right-of-Way of Larimer County Road No. 18 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 89°48’29” East, 662.40 feet along said South Right-of-Way to a point on the East line of the West ½ of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of said Section 30; Thence South 00°03’54” East, 1303.34 feet along said East line to the SE corner of the West ½ of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of said Section 30; Thence North 89°46’03” West, 661.23 feet along the South line of the West ½ of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 30 to the West line of the NE ¼ of Section 30; Thence North 00°06’58” West, 1302.87 feet along the West line of the NE ¼ of Section 30 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

 

The above-described tract of land contains 19.797 acres, more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights of way of record or existing.

 

            The Petition of StanTec, Tom Nicholas appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a lot size variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed lot of 1.85 acres rather than the allowed minimum lot size of 2.3 acres in the B-Business 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 30-05-68; 1954 SE 14th St., located southeast of Loveland, approximately 1 ¼ miles east of Hwy 287, on the south side of Hwy 402.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               19.8 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Land division

c.         Existing Zoning             B-Business, FA-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  C-Commercial, FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Business (truck toppers), Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Commercial, Residential, Agricultural

g.         Access:                                    SE 14th Street (Hwy 402)

 

5.         The owners desire to divide their 19.8 acre property into three lots – 15.6 acres, 2.3 acres, and 1.85 acres – the last one being the subject of this variance request.  The property currently has an existing single family dwelling and a retail business that sells pick-up truck toppers and accessories.  The dwelling has been on the property since the early 1900’s.  The business was allowed on the same parcel by a Board of Adjustment approval in 1996 (file 96-VE0914).  The land division proposal would result in separate lots for the business (2.3 acres), the dwelling (1.85 acres), and the remaining undeveloped, agricultural portion (15.6 acres).

 

6.         The property is affected by two different zoning districts – B-Business covers approximately the front 4.6 acres, with the balance zoned FA-Farming.  The zoning district boundary line is the basis of the proposed lot lines separating the two smaller lots (zoned B) from the larger agricultural lot (zoned FA).  It is thought that the split zoning situation occurred when the county first adopted zoning districts in 1963 but it is unknown as to the reasoning for the split zoning.

 

7.         Two of the primary considerations of this request were the abnormal situation of split zoning districts and the sewer situation.  The sewer service concern is resolved by the fact that both existing buildings are served by their own independent, on-site sewer systems. By coinciding the zoning district line with the lot lines will eliminate dual zoning for one piece of property, which eliminates problems with zoning regulations in the future.  The Development Services Team has no other issues or concerns with the variance proposal. 

 

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 special conditions in this case are considered to be the fact that the property is split by two different zoning districts.  The line between the two zoning districts serves as the rear lot lines for the two smaller lots.  The area in the B zoning district is approximately 4.6 acres, which is enough for two 2.3-acre lots.  The proposed lot for the business meets the size requirement, however, due to county development standards that require a dedicated right-of-way of 60 feet for the purpose of an access road to the resultant 15.6 acre lot, the owner decided to reduce the size of the lot for the residence by the amount of the right-of-way.  This results in a lot size of 1.85 acres.

 

The owner could have enlarged the lot in the southerly direction, extending into the FA zoning district, but this was determined undesirable from both the owner’s and county’s point of view because of the confusion it causes with applying zoning regulations.  It seems reasonable in this case to follow the same line between the zoning districts and maintain the 1.85 acres.

 

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 zoning district boundary was established by the action of the county.

 

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

 

The strict enforcement of the provision of the code would deprive the owner of a similar right enjoyed by a couple of other properties in the vicinity which do not meet the lot size requirement.  It would also create an undesirable situation of a lot that would be regulated by two different zoning districts.  The hardship that strict enforcement would cause is unnecessary in this case.

 

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 continue the process of dividing their land and utilize the properties as separate parcels.

 

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 concerns have been received so far.

 

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

 

By granting the variance, the owners will then be able to proceed through the appropriate land division process.  This will result in an appropriate outcome that considered the health, safety, and welfare of the owners and surrounding properties.  This would be consistent with the purpose of the code and 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 Vincent Costanzi seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioners be and they hereby are granted their 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.

 

2.         This lot size variance shall be considered null and void automatically, with no further public hearing required, if within one year of the granting of the lot size variance the lot has not gained final approval through the above mentioned Minor Land Division process.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners StanTec and Tom Nicholas 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 Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi 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:           #05-BOA0537  (CamCo Setback Variance)

Owner:            Scott & Shawn Charpentier

Applicant:       Land Images, Inc. / Michael Chalona

Property Description:

 

A Tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being the same Tract of land as described in a Warranty Deed recorded at the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office at Reception No. 2004-0068832, and being more particularly described as follows:

 

Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 13, and considering the West line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13 to bear S00°02’20” W with all other bearings herein relative thereto; Thence along said West line S00°02’20” W, 477.13 feet; Thence N89°47’50”E, 52.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, said point being on the East right-of-way line of State Highway 287; Thence N89°47’50”E, 320.00 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way line of Debra Drive as shown on the plat of Trilby Heights Second Subdivision, said plat recorded at Book 1594, Page 110 in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; Thence along said right-of-way S00°12’10”E, 30.00 feet to the Northeast corner of Tract One as described in Warranty Deed recorded February 6, 1975 in Book 1634 at Page 81 in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; Thence along the Northerly and Westerly boundary of Tracts One through Six as described in said Warranty Deed the following two (2) courses:

1)  S89°47’50”W, 120.00 feet;

2)  S00°12’10”E, 410.00 feet;

Thence S89°47’50”W, 200.00 feet to the East right-of-way line of State Highway 287; Thence along said right-of-way line N00°12’10”W, 440.00 feet to the point of beginning.

 

Said Tract contains 2.10 acres (91,600 square feet) more or less and is subject to any rights-of-way or other easements as granted or reserved by instruments of record or that currently exist on said described tract of land.

 

            The Petition of Land Images, Inc., Michael Chalona appearing, requesting a setback variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a commercial carwash building to be located 47 feet from the edge of Highway 287, rather than the required minimum of 80 feet in the C-Commercial zone. This distance also corresponds to 101 feet from the west line of land section 13.

 

            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 13-6-69; 6700 S. College Ave. (Hwy 287), approximately 1/8 mile south of Trilby Road, on the east side of S. College Ave..

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.10 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Commercial Car Wash

c.         Existing Zoning             C-Commercial

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  C-Commercial, FA-Farming, Multi-Family

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Commercial, Residential

g.         Access:                                    S. College Ave. (Hwy 287)

 

5.         The applicant is proposing to construct a commercial car wash on the subject parcel. The building is proposed to be located on the western portion of the property, 47 feet from the edge of the current right-of-way for Highway 287, which requires a setback of 80 feet.  The request is for a variance from the setback requirement as it applies to the edge of the right-of-way because that is how the regulation language reads, however the starting point for the measurement shall be the west line of section 13, in which the property is located.

 

6.         The reason for this results from the fact that the CO Dept of Transportation has requested additional right-of-way as part of the county’s site plan review process.  CDOT and the owner are still negotiating the amount of additional right-of-way and therefore the edge of the new highway right-of-way is unknown at this time.  Rather than grant a variance from a line that will be moved in the near future and create a nonconforming building, the measurement will be from the west line of Section 13 of the respective Township and Range.  This measurement is 101 feet.

 

7.         In the end, it may not be a problem because of the probable annexation into the City of Fort Collins.  At that time the county setbacks would not apply.  For clarification and absoluteness of this application though, the distance will be from the section line to the building.

 

8.         Comments from the County Engineering Department indicated the Department could not support the variance since it didn’t meet its established review criteria.  Considering that the setback request is from a federal highway, not a county road; that CDOT offered no objections to the variance; and the probable annexation of the property into the City of Fort Collins, the planning department recommends approval of the variance.

 

9.         As a final point of clarification, even though the setback request is from the edge of the right-of-way based on the way the regulation reads, if this variance is granted, it is intended that the variance be valid even if the edge of the right-of-way is extended closer to the building’s proposed location.  The distance between the proposed building and the current edge of the right-of-way is 47 feet.  In utilizing the west section line of Section 13, the distance is 101 feet.  Since the section line will not move, as long as the building is no closer than 101 feet from the section line, or until annexation into the city, the variance will remain valid.

 

10.       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 shallow character of the lot; the current setback requirements from the edge of the Highway 287 right-of-way, 80 feet; the existence of a 20-foot sewer line easement that runs along the east property line; and some topographic constraints as indicated by the applicant all combine to limit the area available for the proposed carwash building.  Also, considering some site design guidelines established by a preliminary site plan review process, mainly a frontage style road to run behind the building that would connect Rick Drive to the north and the property to the south, the proposed location of the building is more suitable. 

 

The City of Fort Collins code typically allows and encourages smaller building setbacks and this property is within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA), where the city’s codes are encouraged when appropriate.  The property is likely to be annexed in the next few years.  The city offered no objection to the proposed setback.

 

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

 

The special circumstances stated previously, have existed on the lot for many years and have not recently occurred due to any actions or inactions of the owners.

 

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

 

There are buildings along Highway 287 that do not meet the required setback because they were either granted a variance or were built prior to the setback requirements.  If denied this request, the owners would be denied a similar right.  Also, because the property is likely to be annexed into the City of Fort Collins in the future, encouraging developments to conform to the city’s design guidelines is reasonable.

 

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

 

Granting the setback variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to proceed with the county’s site plan review and construct the proposed car wash according to the desired design guidelines. 

 

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 back will adversely affect neighboring properties and will result in the property development more closely following the city’s design guidelines.

 

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

 

Granting the setback variance requested would not impair the intent and purpose of the code or Master Plan.

 

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

 

Evelyn King moved and Vincent Costanzi seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

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

 

1.         No portion of the building shall be closer than 101 feet from the west section line of Section 13 of Township 6 North, Range 69 West.

 

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

 

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

 

File No:           #04-BOA0517  (Gunderson Setback Variance)

Applicant:       Gary Weixelman

 

            Applicant requested via a facsimile, that the Gunderson Setback Variance be tabled until April 12, 2005.

 

            Eric Berglund moved and Larry Chisesi seconded the motion that the Board table The Gunderson Setback Variance until April 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Larimer County Courthouse Offices Hearing Room.      

 

            The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the motion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

File No:           #05-BOA0538 (Pettit Lot Size Variance)

Owner:            Colleen Pettit

Applicant:       Gene Fischer

                                               

            Evelyn King moved and Larry Chisesi seconded the motion to table the Pettit Lot Size Variance to July 26, 20 05 at 7:00 p.m. in the Larimer County Courthouse Offices Hearing Room.

 

            The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the motion.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0539 (James Lot Size Variance)

Owners:          Bill James

Applicant:       Gene Fischer

 

            Eric Berglund moved and Vincent Costanzi seconded the motion that the Board table the James Lot Size Variance until April 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Larimer County Courthouse Offices Hearing Room.      

 

            The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the motion.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0540 (Smith Lot Size Variance)

Owners:          Ollie Smith

Applicant:       Gene Fischer

Property Description:

 

A tract of land situate in the East ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 32, Township 9 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:

Considering the North line of said East ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 32 as bearing S 89°34’23” E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; Commencing at the Northwest corner of said East ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 32; proceed S 89°34’23”E, 207.73 feet along said North line to the point of beginning. Thence continuing along said North line; thence S 01°23’57” W, 345.30 feet; Thence N 89°34’23”W, 290.27 feet more or less to the point of beginning. The above described tract contains 2.301 acres more or less gross and is subject to a 30-foot wide county road right-of-way along the north side thereof and a 15-foot wide access easement along the West side thereof and all other rights-of-way, easements, or restrictions as now in use or on record.

 

            The Petition of Gene Fischer, requesting a lot size variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a lot size variance upon the above-described property to allow a lot size of 2.3 acres for an existing lot rather than the required minimum lot size of 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 SW 32-09-68; located on the south side of County Road 62E, approximately ½ mile west of County Road 9.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.3 Acres each parcel

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Residential, Vacant (89320-00-021)

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural, Residential

g.         Access:                                    County Road 62E

 

5.         In 1984, a Partition Order (Case No. D-644) from the Larimer County District Court, was executed as the result of a previous divorce decree issued in 1977.  The order divided up the farm owned by Robert E. Smith and Francis M. Smith, parents of the current property owners Colleen Pettit, Sharon James (recently deceased), and Ollie Rae Smith and distributed 2.3 acres to each party. 

 

6.         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 by the court.  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 partition was ordered and the County Assessor’s office began taxing the three new parcels.  The subject parcels never received proper lot size approval and therefore can not be granted building permits.  Two of the parcels have mobile homes on them, which do not have valid permits.  The third parcel, owned by Ollie Rae Smith, is vacant.  Upon discovering that the parcels were ineligible for permits, the applicant has submitted this application for lot size variances for each of the three parcels of land.  The request is for approval of the same sizes that were created by the divorce decree – 2.3 acres (gross) each.

 

7.         In considering the lot size variance requests, the Development Services Team has one concern.  The concern, regarding a water supply for the Ollie Smith parcel, was offered by the Department of Health and is addressed in the recommendation in the March 8, 2005 Board of Adjustment agenda. 

 

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 special conditions related to this application is not topographic in nature as is usually considered.  The special conditions peculiar to this land are the past legal actions taken by the court.

 

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, but rather those of the district court.

 

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

 

The strict enforcement of the provision 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 other properties in the area that have lots smaller than 10 acres, one of which also resulted directly from the same divorce decree and was recently granted a lot size variance (MCDS Lot Size Variance 04-BOA0483).

 

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

 

Granting the variances is the minimum action that will allow the parcels to be eligible for building permits.

 

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.  The parcels have existed since the decree in 1984.  The size and soil characteristics of the property described in the memo from Dept. of Health are 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.

 

By granting the variance, it will clear up the unintended consequence of ineligibility for building permits and result in an appropriate outcome that considered the health, safety, and welfare of the owners and surrounding properties.  This would be consistent with the purpose of the code and Master Plan.

 

11.       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 Larry Chisesi seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

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

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that petitioner, Gene Fischer be and he hereby is granted his lot size variance for #05-BOA0540 as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Prior to approval of any use of the parcel requiring a domestic or commercial water supply, the Ollie Smith parcel (89320-00-021) shall be required to hook up to a public water supply if it is available.

 

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.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Gene Fischer 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 Larry Chisesi, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

WORKSESSION ON PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS

 

            The Board met to discuss proposed Code Amendments to Sections 3.2.H (General Rules)  Section 12.2.6.C (Planning Commission), Section 12.2.7.B (Board of County Commissioners), Section 12.2.8 (Board of Adjustment), and Section 21.1.G (Violations) of the Land Use Code and the criteria for reviewing applications.

 

***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

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

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

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