Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

May 25, 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., May 25, 2004.  Members Larry Chisesi, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and David P. Ayraud, Assistant County Attorney.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of April 27, 2004 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0464

Owner:            Anetta Marlow and Robert Lermeny

Applicant:       Anetta Marlow and Robert Lermeny

Property Description:

 

BEGINNING at a point 152.0 feet East of the Southwest corner of Section 36, Township 5 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M.; thence North 291.5 feet; thence East 50.0 feet; thence South 291.5 feet; thence West 50.0 feet to the point of BEGINNING, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Anetta Marlow and Robert Lermeny was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested approval to expand a nonconforming building and a variance to allow an addition to a residence to be 4 feet from the side lot line rather than the minimum required 7 feet in the R-1 Residential zoning district on the above described property.

 

            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 36-05-69; 105 SE 42nd St. (CR 14), located ¼ mile west of Highway 287 on the north side of County Road 14.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.33 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential - addition

c.    Existing Zoning             R-1 Residential

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  Residential, Business, Industrial

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Business, Industrial

g.    Access:                                    SE 42nd Street (County Road 14)

 

5.         The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing residence, which is currently approximately 75 feet from the center of County Road 14, which is classified as a major collector and requires a building setback of 125 feet from center.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 125-foot setback from the road.  The residence was constructed in 1921 prior to county building permit and zoning regulations.  The owner wants to add on to the existing structure to the north (rear).  The addition, 3 bedrooms, 2 ½ baths, and basement, is greater than 25% of the existing building and would also encroach into the side yard setback of 7 feet, resulting in a 4 foot setback.  Because of the size and location of the addition, a variance is required for applicants 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 location of the existing residence and the narrowness 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 placement of the residence or the configuration and size of the subdivision lot. The house was constructed in 1921 prior to any setback and permit requirements.

 

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

 

            The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other lands in the area.  There are multiple properties in the immediate area 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.  The applicant claims that the adjacent neighbors have given verbal consent to the addition. 

 

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 approval to expand a nonconforming building and are granted a 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 Anetta Marlow and Robert Lermeny not act upon the approval to expand a nonconforming building and 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, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the approval to expand a nonconforming building and setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0465

Owner:            Robert Green

Applicant:       Robert Green

Property Description:

 

Commencing at a point 1050 feet South of the Northeast corner of NE ¼ of Section 9, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., thence West 210 feet; thence South 55 feet; thence East 210 feet; thence North 55 feet to the Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Robert Green was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested approval to expand a nonconforming building and a variance to allow an addition to a residence to be 86 feet from the center of County Road 19 (N. Taft Hill), rather than the minimum required 160 feet in the FA-Farming zoning district on the above-described property.

 

            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 09-07-69; 417 N. Taft Hill Road (CR 19), located on the west side of North Taft Hill Road, between LaPorte Avenue and West Vine St.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.   Land Area:             0.25 Acres      

b.   Proposed Use:                    Single Family Residential          

c.   Existing Zoning                   FA-Farming

d.   Surrounding Zoning:            Farming

e.   Existing Land Use:  Single Family Residential

f.   Surrounding Land Uses:      Residential, Farming

g.   Access:                              N. County Road 19 (Taft Hill)

 

5.         The applicant proposes to construct an addition to his existing residence, which is currently approximately 94 feet from the center of County Road 19. County Road 19 is classified as an arterial road and requires a building setback of 160 feet from center.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 160-foot setback from the road.  The residence was constructed in 1955 prior to county building permit and zoning regulations.  The owner wants to add a covered porch to the east (front) and more living space onto the west (rear).  Combined, the additions are greater than 25% of the existing building and the porch would also encroach further into the road setback of 160 feet, resulting in a final setback of 86 feet.  Because of the size and location of the addition, a variance is required for applicant to be able to proceed.

 

6.         This property is located in the floodway of the West Vine study 100-year floodplain.  Any additions to structures in this area require review by the Floodplain Review Board.  The Board of Adjustment may rule separately on the setback variance; however the property owner will still be required to present his request to the Floodplain Review Board for its decision.  If this variance is approved, it in no manner indicates any type of approval from the Floodplain Review Board.

 

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 narrowness of the lot are all special conditions that contribute to the variance request.  The residence was constructed in its current location prior to any zoning or permit requirements.  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 placement of the residence or the configuration and size of the subdivision lot. The house was constructed in 1955 prior to any setback and permit requirements.

 

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 buildings along this same road.  There are multiple properties in the immediate area 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 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 he hereby is granted his expansion and setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Robert Green not act upon the approval to expand a nonconforming building and 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, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the approval to expand a nonconforming building and variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0466

Owner:            Gary and Tamara Miller

Applicant:       Gary and Tamara Miller

Property Description:

 

Lot 46, GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, TWELFTH FILING, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Gary and Tamara Miller, 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 10 feet from a rear property line, rather than the minimum setback requirement of 25 feet in the E-1 Estate zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NW 36-09-72; 77 Bobcat Mountain Court, located approximately 2 miles south of County Road 74E through gate 1 of Glacier View Meadows, about 10 miles SW of Livermore.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.   Land Area:             1.0 Acres

b.   Proposed Use:                    Accessory Use - garage

c.   Existing Zoning                   E1- Estate

d.   Surrounding Zoning:            E1-Estate        

e.   Existing Land Use:  Single Family Residential          

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:      Residential

g.   Access:                              Bobcat Mountain Court

 

5.         The applicants propose to construct a detached garage (20’x 24’) accessory to the existing single-family dwelling.  The proposed garage would be located south of the residence, 10 feet from the rear (east) property line.  The garage would encroach into the 25-foot rear yard setback of 25 feet, resulting in a 10-foot setback.  Because of the proposed location of the detached garage, a variance is required for applicants 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.

 

            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.  The location proposed is quite possibly the only one that could be used for a detached garage.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties.  One adjacent neighbor provided written support for this proposal.

 

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 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 Gary and Tamara Miller not act upon the 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, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0467

Owner:            Virginia S. Slatten and David L. Slatten

Applicant:       Virginia S. Slatten and David L. Slatten

Property Description:

 

A tract of land situate in the Southwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 34, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which, considering the West line of said Northwest ¼ as bearing North and South and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begins at a point which bears south – 1327.83 feet from the Northwest corner of said Section 34 and run thence along the north line of said Southwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼,                   S 89°48’30” E – 1309.81 feet to a point on the East line of said Southwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼; thence along said East line S 00°04’ W – 332.83 feet; thence N 89°48’30” W – 1309.42 feet to a point on the West line of said Northwest ¼; thence North – 332.83 feet to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPT that portion of the above described land as conveyed by deed recorded November 4, 1971 in Book 1482 at page 196, Records of Larimer County, Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Virginia and David Slatten was presented to the Board. The Petition requested approval to expand a nonconforming residence and a variance to allow the addition to a residence to be 99 feet from the center of County Road 19, rather than the minimum required 160 feet in the FA-Farming zoning district on the above-described property.

 

            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; 2412 N. Taft Hill Road (CR 19), located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately ¼ mile south of County Road 54G.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.   Land Area:                         5 Acres

b.   Proposed Use:                                Single Family Residential - addition

c.   Existing Zoning                               FA-Farming

d.   Surrounding Zoning:                        FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming

e.   Existing Land Use:              Single Family Residential

f.   Surrounding Land Uses:                  Residential, Farming

g.   Access:                                          N. County Road 19 (Taft Hill)

 

5.         The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing residence, which is currently approximately 99 feet from the center of County Road 19, which is classified as an arterial road and requires a building setback of 160 feet from center.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 160-foot setback from the road.  The residence was constructed in 1965 prior to current county building permit and zoning setback regulations.  The owner wants to add more living space onto the south (side) of the existing residence.  The addition would maintain the current setback of 99 feet.  Because of the size (greater than 25% of existing) of the addition, approval from the Board of Adjustment is required for applicants 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 location and floor plan of the existing residence are special conditions that contribute to this request.  Adding on to another portion of the residence couldn’t accomplish what the applicant is proposing.  The residence was constructed in its current location prior to current zoning setback or permit 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 of the floor plan. The house was constructed in 1965 prior to current setback and permit requirements.

 

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

 

            The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other buildings along this same road.  There are other 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 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 approval to expand a nonconforming residence and are granted a setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

           

            1.         The applicant shall contact the Building Code Enforcement department within 60 days following the date on which the Board signs these minutes to rectify the expired building permits 89-F4418 and 97-F0235.

 

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 Virginia and David Slatten not act upon the approval of the expansion of the nonconforming residence and the variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted approval and 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, MaryAnne Martell, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Vincent Costanzi voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the approval of the expansion of the nonconforming residence and variance 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 7:20 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________

                                                                        Date

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

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