May 10, 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., May 10, 2005.  Members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Evelyn King were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.


File No:           #05-BOA0554  (Dreith Expansion of Dwelling)

Owner:            Richard Dreith

Applicant:       Richard Dreith

Property Description:


Lot 11, SPRING CANYON HEIGHTS, FOURTH SUBDIVISION, and a portion of Lot 12 of said SPRING CANYON HEIGHTS, FOURTH SUBDIVISION, more particularly described as commencing at the Most Northwesterly corner of said Lot 12 and running thence along the Northerly line of said Lot 12 to a point which is N 62°44’ E 50.02 feet from the Point of Beginning; and runt thence Southerly to a point which is  S 05°36’ E 85 feet from the Point of Beginning; thence N 05°36’ W 85 feet to the Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.


            The Petition of Richard Dreith, requesting an expansion of a nonconforming structure was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested an expansion of a nonconforming residence by more than 25% upon the above-described property and to allow an addition to encroach into the front setback resulting in a setback of 10 feet, rather than the minimum required 20 feet in the R-Residential zone.


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




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 6-6-69; 4629 Skyline Drive, located west of Inlet Bay of Horsetooth Reservoir. (Lot 11 and portion of Lot 12, Spring Canyon Heights, 4th Filing)




4.         Site data is as follows:


a.         Land Area:                               0.28 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Addition to Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning             R-Residential

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  R-Residential

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Existing Land Use

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Single Family Residence

g.    Access:                                    Skyline Drive


5.         The applicant constructed an addition to the existing single family dwelling on the property without proper approval. The addition is greater than 25% of the current floor area, and encroaches into the front yard setback by 10 feet, resulting in a 10 foot setback rather than the required 20 feet.  The existing building, prior to the addition, is located approximately 10.5 feet from the front lot line.  Because the size of the addition is greater than 25% of the existing building and the addition encroaches into the front setback, approval of the expansion is required to finalize outstanding building permit requirements.


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

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


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


  The original residence was constructed in 1965 prior to building permit requirements.  The topography of the lot and surrounding area combined with the location of the existing residence and the date of original construction are special conditions that contribute to the variance request. 


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


  The special circumstances or conditions were not created by the applicant.  The applicant had no control of the placement of the residence 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.  There are other properties in the area that have buildings within the required front setback.


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 residential 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.  No objections have been received in the planning department.


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.


Jeanne Laudick moved and Eric Berglund seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following 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 variance as requested subject to the following conditions:


1.         The property owner shall complete the process of connecting to the existing public sewer line in the area, as proposed in the application materials, prior to final inspection for the building permit.


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


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Richard Dreith 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 Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the variance was granted subject to conditions.


File No:           #05-BOA0544  (Mishawaka Parking Special Exception)

Owner:            Mishawaka Land and Cattle, LTD

Applicant:       Robin Jones

Property Description:


The North ½ of Southeast ¼ of Section 5, Township 8 North, Range 71 West of the 6th P.M., EXCEPT the West 1055 feet thereof; ALSO EXCEPT that parcel conveyed to the County of Larimer as recorded in Book 882 at Page 418 of the Larimer County, Colorado records, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.


The Petition of Robin Jones, requesting a special exception was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a special exception to allow a parking lot at the existing Mishawaka concert venue upon the above described property in the O-Open Zone.


The Staff report was presented after which the applicant, Robin Jones and applicant’s engineer, Mark Oberschmidt, testified about the proposed use and the feasibility of the project.  Thereafter, the applicant requested that the Board table the application to allow him additional time to work with agencies including the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Colorado Department of Wildlife, the Army Corp of Engineers, and the U.S. Forest Service.


Jeanne Laudick moved and Evelyn King seconded the motion that the Board table this matter until July 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.


The question was called and members, Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Larry Chisesi and Evelyn King voted in favor of the motion. Member Eric Berglund voted against the motion. The Motion to table the matter was passed.






By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.





            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:       __________________________________________