Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

September 25, 2007

 

            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., September 25, 2007.  Members Evelyn King, Eric Berglund, Matt Strauch, and Greg Christensen were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Matt Lafferty, Samantha Mott, and Toby Ieuter and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

            The minutes of the meeting of August 28, 2007 were not available for reading or approval.

 

File No:           #07-BOA0676  (Ecton Setback Variance)

Owner:            Kraig & Laura Ecton

Applicant:       Kraig & Laura Ecton

Property Description:

 

Lot 36, Terry Shores 1st Filing, County of Larimer, State of Colorado

 

            The Application of Kraig and Laura Ecton, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a single family dwelling, after an addition, to be located approximately 13.8 feet from the front property line, rather than required minimum of 20 feet in the R-Residential zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, 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.         The property location is NW-25-8-69; 3525 Terry Ridge Road; located approximately 650 feet south of the intersection of Terry Ridge Road and E. Douglas Road on Lot 36 of the Terry Shores Subdivision 1st Filing.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.38 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:                                    Terry Ridge Road

 

4.         Applicants request a variance to allow a 13.8 foot setback for a garage addition to the front side of an existing residence where 20 feet is required by the R-Residential Zoning District.  The setback for the existing residence varies (23+ feet) because the front lot line for this property curves and the orientation of the existing residence is skewed.  Therefore, while the addition being proposed is fairly significant the addition encroaches less than anticipated because the addition is being added to the portion of the home that is furthest away from the front property line.

 

5.         There are no major issues or concerns with this request.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The lot is a 0.38 acre lot that backs up to the Jackson Ditch.  The existing garage is on the south side of the house.  The current driveway is sloped due to the need to address drainage issues associated with storm water outlet from a portion of Terry Ridge Road.

 

            B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The circumstances described in Subsection A above are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.  The property’s physical characteristics and location were not created or altered by the applicant and the existing house was located on the lot prior to the current owners’ purchase. 

 

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

 

Because of the topography of the lot, strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship. 

 

           

 

 

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

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land for such an addition.  This position is based upon the existing constraints due to storm water outlet issues on the south side of the lot leaving the only place for such an addition on the north side of the property. 

 

            E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property owners at this time.  The Planning Department has received a letter from three neighboring property owners in support of this variance request.

 

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

 

            Granting the setback variance requested would not impair the intent and purpose of the Code or Master Plan.  Granting the variances will allow the owner reasonable use of the land and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

No objections were offered by other agencies or departments.

 

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 Greg Christensen 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 applicants 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.         All future additions or buildings that would be within setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper county review and planning process prior to construction.

 

3.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicants (a) take affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submit a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that 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 Evelyn King, Eric Berglund, Matt Strauch, and Greg Christensen voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #07-BOA0675  (McNeal Setback Variance)

Owner:            Charles & Theresa McNeal

Applicant:       Charles & Theresa McNeal

Property Description:

 

Lot 51, Fairway Estates 3rd Filing, County of Larimer, State of Colorado

 

            The Application of Charles and Theresa McNeal, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a single family dwelling, after an addition, to be located approximately 12 feet from the south property line, rather than the required minimum of 25 feet in the FA-Farming zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, 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.         The property location is NW-1-6-69; 4815 Hogan Drive; located at the intersection of Hogan Drive and Palmer Drive on Lot 51 in the Fairway Estates Subdivision 3rd Filing.

 

 

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.39 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:             FA-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Hogan Drive

 

      4.         There is an existing residence on the property.  The applicant proposes an addition to the house that will be approximately 12 feet from the south property line.  The required setback is 25 feet from the front property line.  Because the lot is a reversed corner lot it has a front setback from both Hogan Drive and Palmer Drive.

 

5.         There are no major issues or concerns with this request.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The lot is a 0.39 acre reversed corner lot located at the intersection of Hogan Drive and Palmer Drive.  The lot has a 25-foot front setback along both Hogan Drive and Palmer Drive.  The side setback in the FA-Farming zoning district is 5 feet from the property lines.  The request is to allow an addition to be 12 feet from the property line which is almost 2 ½ times the requirement of a side setback in this zoning district, but half of the 25 foot required setback.  Given the fact that there is only one house along Palmer Drive to the west of this property which then abuts open space to its west, the intent of the reversed corner lot requirement does not appear to be relevant.  There is also a slope to the property on the west and the garage is located on the north side of the property limiting the area where the addition could be located.

 

            B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The above circumstances are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  The property’s physical characteristics and location were not created or altered by the applicant and the existing house was located on the lot prior to the current owner’s purchase. 

 

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

 

Because of the topography of the lot and the location of the garage on the north side of the house strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship in terms of adding the addition onto the house. 

 

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

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the addition because of the topography in the back of the house and the location of the garage on the other side of the house this is the only location for the addition.

 

            E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property owners.

 

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

 

Granting the setback variance requested would not impair the intent and purpose of the Code or Master Plan.  Granting the variances will allow the owner reasonable use of the land and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

            No objections were offered by other agencies or departments.

 

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 Greg Christensen 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 applicants 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.         All future additions or buildings that would be within setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper county review and planning process prior to construction.

 

3.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicants (a) take affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submit a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that 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 Evelyn King, Eric Berglund, Matt Strauch, and Greg Christensen voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #07-BOA0674  (Woolman Setback Variance)

Owner:            Leroy & Carolyn Woolman

Applicant:       Leroy & Carolyn Woolman

Property Description:

 

Lot 7, Arapahoe Hills Subdivision, County of Larimer, State of Colorado

 

            The Application of Leroy and Carolyn Woolman, requesting four variances was presented to the Board.  The Application requested  setback variances upon the above-described property (i) to allow a new garage/shop to be 17 feet from the front property line, (ii) to allow the existing residence to remain 8 feet from the front property line, (iii) to allow an existing 12’ x 14’ shed to remain 1’10” from the rear property line, and (iv) to allow an existing 19’ x 14’ shed to remain along the rear property line and 4 feet from the south side property line.  The required setbacks for the property are 25 feet from the front property line, 5 feet from the side property lines and 10 feet from the rear property line.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, 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.         The property location is SE 32-8-69; 3428 Arapahoe Drive, Fort Collins; located approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of Arapahoe Drive and Shilo Drive on Lot 7 of the Arapahoe Hills Subdivision.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.42 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:             FA1-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA1-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Arapahoe Drive

                       

 

4.         The applicant’s request includes four parts:

 

(i)  A setback variance to allow a new garage/shop to be 17 feet from the front property line when 25 feet is required.  This new building will be located further back from the front property line than the existing house.

 

(ii)  A setback variance to allow the existing residence to remain in its current location of 8 feet from the front property when 25 feet is required.  A permit was issued for the existing house on 1/20/1976, permit #76-5700.  Zoning and subdivision signed off on the permit.

 

(iii)  A setback variance to allow an existing 12’ x 14’ shed to remain 1’10” from the rear property line when 10 feet is required.

 

(iv)  A setback variance to allow an existing 19’ x 14’ shed to remain along the rear property line and 4 feet from the side property line when 10 feet is required from the rear property line and 5 feet is required from the side property line.

 

5.         There are no permits of record for the two sheds.  Aerial photos do not appear to show the sheds in 1987, and permits have been required for outbuildings over 120 square feet since 1972.

 

6.         The applicant is requesting the garage/shop to be 17 feet from the front property line because there is an existing shed located directly behind where it will be placed.  If the shed is relocated the building can be moved further back from the front property line.

 

7.         The Larimer County Development Services Team (DST) has no major issues or concerns with the existing house remaining in its current location. 

 

8.         DST does have concerns with the variance requests to keep the two existing sheds in their current locations due to their location in proximity to the rear property line.  Section 4.9.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code allows architectural features such as cornices, canopies, eaves, awnings, bay windows, window wells, cantilevered walls, chimneys and mechanical equipment to extend two feet into a required setback. In all cases a minimum setback of three feet for any structural component or architectural feature must be maintained from all property lines. In addition, there are restrictions to open, unenclosed, uncovered porches or decks, 30 inches or less above the average finished grade, may extend six feet into a required side or rear setback. However a minimum setback of three feet must be maintained from all property lines. Staff recommends that the back addition to the shed on the northeast corner of the lot be removed and the remainder of the shed remain in its current location.

 

                                                            9.         Staff recommends that the shed in the northwest corner of the lot be relocated to meet the setback requirements.

 

10.       There are site constraints limiting the location of the proposed garage/shop, but once the shed in the northwest corner of the lot is relocated, the proposed garage/shop could be located further back from the front property line and staff does support a variance of a lesser degree.

 

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

 

12.       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, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The lot is a 0.42 acres in size.  The property is constrained by the location of the leach field and it is an irregular shape.  Currently there is an exiting house that was permitted in 1976 but encroaches into the front setback.  The location of the septic tank, the leach field, and existing access on the south side of the property to maintain the septic prevent the new garage/shop from being located on the south side of the property. 

 

            B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The above circumstances are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  The property’s physical characteristics and location were not created or altered by the applicant.  In addition, the two sheds were located on the property prior to the current owners’ purchase in 1996.  Originally the owner submitted a variance for the new building only, but in an effort to resolve outstanding building permit issues and clear up all issues related to the other buildings and setbacks, the owners have included the two sheds and the house with this variance application. 

 

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

 

Strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause unnecessary and undue hardship because the County already permitted the house.  Moving the two sheds would not be feasible.  Removal of the addition to the 19’ x 14’ shed would not cause an undue hardship. The provisions of the Code would cause unnecessary and undue hardship for the proposed garage/shop due to the location of the sheds.

 

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

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the existing house.  The location of the septic tank, the leach field, and existing access on the south side of the property to maintain the septic prevent the new garage/shop from being located on the south side of the property.  Granting the variances for the sheds would allow these structures to remain in the same location they were in at the time the property was purchased by the applicants.

 

            E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance would adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property owners at this time.  An e-mail was sent from the adjacent property owners to the west in support of the variance request for the new building and for the existing house.  There are other buildings in the immediate area that encroach into the required setbacks because they were granted a variance, or built prior to the setback requirements, or built without proper approval.

 

 

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

 

Granting the variances with the condition that the addition to the 19’ x 14’ shed be removed is consistent with the purpose of this Code and the Master Plan.  Granting the variances will allow the owners reasonable use of their land and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners. 

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

           

            No objections were offered by other agencies or departments.

 

13.       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.

 

Greg Christensen moved and Matt Strauch 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 applicants 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 applicants take affirmative action consistent with this approval or submit a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

  3.       All future additions or buildings that are would be within setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper county review prior to construction.

 

              4.       The addition to the north side of the 19’ x 14’ shed must be removed and an “as-built” building permit and inspection approvals obtained within thirty days from the date of this Resolution.

 

              5.       An “as-built” building permit and inspection approvals for the 12’ x 14’ shed must be obtained within thirty days from the date of this Resolution.

 

            6.         The total ground floor area of all storage buildings and garages on a lot can not exceed ten percent of the lot’s net area.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that 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 Evelyn King, Eric Berglund, Matt Strauch, Greg Christensen voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variances were granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #07-BOA0673  (Rose Setback Variance)

Owner:            James & Jill Rose

Applicant:       George Hart / PLS Homes, Inc.

Property Description:

 

Lot 64, Poudre Overlook Subdivision, County of Larimer, State of Colorado

 

The Application of George Hart on behalf of PLS Homes, Inc., requesting two variances was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a new home to be 6.5 feet from the south side property line and a  setback variance to allow new window wells to be 2 feet from the south side property line rather than the required minimum of 7 feet from the side property lines in the R-Residential zone.

 

            The Board having heard the testimony and arguments concerning the Application, 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.         The property location is NW 4-7-69; 1351 Bubbling Brook Ct., Fort Collins; located approximately ½ mile east of N. Overland Trail, off Headwater Drive.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.24 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             R-Residential

            d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  R-Residential, R-1-Residential,

                                                            FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    N. Overland Trail, Headwater Drive

 

4.         The applicant is requesting two variances: (1) a setback variance to allow a new home to be 6.5 feet from the south side property line; and (2) a setback variance to allow two (2) window wells to be 2 feet from the south side property line. The window well variance request was contingent upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners of an easement vacation in the same area - File # 07-S2721.  The Board granted the variance on 9/24/07.

 

5.         There were no major issues or concerns with the variance requests.

 

6.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request, however, there were letters in opposition received by the Planning Department.

 

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, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the variance is requested.

 

The residence on the property has been recently built. The lot is adjacent to a 40’ drainage and utility easement that is part of the Poudre Overlook Subdivision. The house and lot are on the outside edge of the subdivision and there are no neighbors immediately adjacent to the south side of the lot. Some properties in the area have applied for and received minor variances. A minor variance allows a structure to be within 10% of the required setback.

 

            B.        The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant or the current owner.

 

The construction of the residence and the encroaching side of the structure and window wells are the result of actions by the applicant.  The applicant has indicated that the placement of the house on the lot was incorrect and not intentional.

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

Strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code will cause unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

           

 

 

 

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

 

Granting the variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land and structure. Eliminating the window wells and any structural changes that are related to the window wells would affect functional use of the basement due to limited ingress and egress.  Basement bedrooms must have ingress and egress to the outside.

 

            E.         Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance would adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  The side of the house where the variances are requested are not adjacent to any other homes.

 

            F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this code and the master plan.

 

Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of this Code and the Master Plan because it allows use of the house and basement for their designed and intended purposes.

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

                        No objections were offered by other agencies or departments.

           

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.

 

Greg Christensen 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 applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variances as requested subject to the following condition:

 

1.         Applicants shall place a cover over the west window well.

 

2.         This approval shall automatically expire one year from the date of this Resolution unless prior to expiration the applicants (a) take affirmative action consistent with this approval or (b) submit a written request showing good cause to extend the one year time limit.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that 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 Evelyn King, Eric Berglund, Matt Strauch, and Greg Christensen voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variances were granted subject to conditions.

 

                                                     ***

 

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

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2007.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

 

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