MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

August 22, 2006

 

            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., August 22, 2006.  Members Larry Chisesi, Jean Christman, Evelyn King, Eric Berglund were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera, Casey Stewart and Samantha Mott and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of July 25, 2006 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0617  (John Watson Setback Variance)

Owner:            John & Ann Watson

Applicant:       John & Ann Watson

Property Description:

 

Crystal Lakes Subdivision, Filing 12, Lot 63

 

            The Application of John and Ann Watson, John Watson appearing before the Board, 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 26 feet from the edge of an interior subdivision road easement, rather than the required minimum of 45 feet in the E-Estate 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 SE 3-10-74; 3706 Ottowa Way; located approximately 1 ˝ miles northwest of Crystal Lakes Reservoir.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.64 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, Recreational

g.    Access:                                    Ottawa Way

 

4.         This project is in the Crystal Lakes 12 Filing P.U.D.  According to the Larimer County Planned Unit Development Regulation, setbacks are 15 feet from the traveled way of adjacent streets within the P.U. D. except that the setback for the applicable zoning district shall be met for through streets.  Ottawa Way is considered a through street and therefore, the applicable zoning regulation of 45 feet from the edge of the road easement applies.  The existing residence was permitted in 1995 and at the time the home was permitted it was 28 feet from the edge of the road easement.  The applicant proposes to replace the roof on the existing porch and extend the porch an additional 8 feet.  This addition will make the entire structure 26 feet from the edge of the road easement.

 

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 County issued a permit for the existing structure on the lot in 1995 without requiring the applicant to apply for a variance.  The home was within the setback for the road easement at that time.  The existing single family dwelling encroaches 17 feet into the front setback.  The addition to the porch only encroaches 2 feet further into the front setback.  This variance request will make the existing dwelling a legal conforming structure.

 

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. 

 

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.

 

Review of properties in the surrounding area indicates that encroachment into the front setback is a right commonly enjoyed by other buildings in the area.  There are other buildings in the immediate vicinity that do not meet the required setback distances because they were either granted variances or were built prior to the setback requirements.  If denied this request, the owners would be denied a similar right.

 

            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 porch addition. The current nonconforming building already encroaches into all the same setback.  The additional encroachment with the new building footprint is not significant due to the location of the house on the lot. 

 

            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.  In addition, the Crystal Lakes road and Recreation Association has approved this request.

 

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

 

Granting the setback variance requested will not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use 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 from 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 Eric Berglund 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.         This approval shall automatically expire in one year unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with this approval.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants John and Ann Watson 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 Application 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, Jean Christman, Evelyn King and Eric Berglund voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0619  (Prendergast Setback Variance)

Owner:            Michael & Kelly Prendergast

Applicant:       Michael & Kelly Prendergast

Property Description:

 

LOT 41, CEDAR PK 4th

 

            The Application of Michael and Kelly Prendergast, who appeared before the Board, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested setback variances upon the above-described property to allow an existing cabin to remain 29 feet from the edge of the road easement rather than the required minimum of 45 feet, and 16 feet from the rear property line, rather than the required minimum of 50 feet, and to allow an addition to the cabin 20 feet from the rear property line, rather than the required minimum of 50 feet in the E-Estate 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 SW 26-6-71; 6727 Storm Mountain Drive, Drake; Lot 41 in Cedar Park 4th Filing.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               3.5 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence, Recreational

c.         Existing Zoning:             E-Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  E-Estate and O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence, Recreational

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Storm Mountain Drive

 

4.         The applicant proposes to expand an existing cabin which is located 42.7 feet from the edge of the road easement rather than the required 45 feet and 16 feet from the rear property line rather than the required 50 feet.  The proposed expansion to the cabin will be 29 feet from the edge of the road easement and 20 feet from the rear property line rather than the required 45 and50 feet, respectively.

 

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.

 

Given the long and narrow shape of the lot the front and rear setbacks come within less than 20 feet from overlapping at the location of the existing cabin thereby making it impossible to expand the cabin in any way without obtaining a variance.  While the existing cabin does not have a building permit, building permits were issued for two sheds on the property, one in 1978 and one in 1979, and  it is very possible that one or both of the sheds were converted into the existing cabin. This was done prior to the current owners purchasing the property.  The current location of the cabin already encroaches into the both the front and rear setbacks for the lot.  The cabin expansion would not encroach any further into the rear setback but would encroach 14 more feet into the front setback.  Given the location of the lot, it is in a remote and mountainous area, this encroachment should not impact any adjacent neighbors.

 

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.

 

 

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 Code would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship on the owners.  The current structure already encroaches into the front and rear setbacks.  Where the cabin is currently located the front and rear setbacks come within less than 20 feet of overlapping thereby preventing any expansion without obtaining a variance.

 

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 applicant to construct the addition and use the current structure.  The current structure already encroaches into the front and rear setbacks.  Where the cabin is currently located the front and rear setbacks come within less than 20 feet of overlapping thereby preventing any expansion without obtaining a variance.

 

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. 

 

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

 

Granting the setback variance requested will not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use 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 from 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 Eric Berglund 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.    This approval shall automatically expire in one year unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with this approval.

 

3.    The applicant must resolve the current code violations by applying for a building permit for the existing cabin in addition to the expansion of the cabin.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants Michael and Kelly Prendergast 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 Application 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, Jean Christman, Evelyn King and Eric Berglund voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0616  (French Setback Variance)

Applicant:       Elaine Backman

 

            A request to table the Petition of Elaine Backman until September 26, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. was made by the applicant.

 

            Jean Christman moved and Evelyn King seconded the motion that the Board table this matter until September 26, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

 

File No:           #06-BOA0618  (Denny Setback Variance)

Owner:            Margaret Denny and Robert Webb

Applicant:       Margaret Denny and Robert Webb

Property Description:

 

A tract of land located in the East Half of Section 15, Township 6 North, Range 70 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado, said tract being more particularly described as follows:

 

Commencing at the East Quarter corner of said Section 15 and considering the East line of Section 15 to bear South 00°00’00” West, with all other bearings contained herein being relative thereto; thence South 88°22’24” West along the East-West centerline of said Section 15, a distance of 50.02 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 00°00’00” West, 1329.48 feet to a point on the South line of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter as previously monumented; thence South 88°22’35” West, 536.54 feet along said previously monumented South line; thence North 10°31’46” West, 383.42 feet; thence North 06°43’46” West, 191.26 feet; thence North 12°15’56” West, 208.58 feet; thence North 24°38’41” West, 247.04 feet; thence North 39°51’26” West, 282.16 feet; thence North 28°13’36” West, 118.10 feet to a point on the East-West centerline of said Section 15; thence North 88°22’24” East along said East-West centerline, 280.25 feet to the Southwest corner of a parcel described in Book 1863, Page 441, Larimer County Records: thence along the perimeter of said parcel by the following two courses: North 01°37’36” West, 19.56 feet; South 89°42’36” East, 584.77 feet to a point on the East-West centerline of said Section 15; thence North 88°22’24” East, 148.54 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said tract of land contains 21.452 acres,

 

TOGETHER WITH all mineral rights, if any, in, under or upon said premises, and

 

TOGETHER WITH all water and ditch rights, if any, in the Buckhorn and Perkins Ditch.

 

            The Application of Margaret Denny and Robert Webb, requesting four variances was presented to the Board.  The Application requested setback variances upon the above-described property to allow an already expanded pole building to remain in its current location 65 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 27 rather than the required minimum of 100 feet for a minor collector.  In addition, setback variances are being requested for three structures which are located 32 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 27 rather than the required minimum of 100 feet in the O-Open 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 SE 15-6-70; 9119 North County Road 27, Loveland; located at the intersection of N. County Road 27 and W. County Road 38E.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               21.45 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Recreational

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Recreational

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Tourist, Recreational, Agricultural,                                                                                 Residential       

g.         Access:                                    County Road 27

 

4.         The existing pole building was constructed in its current location sometime after 1987 without obtaining a building permit.  The bell tower was added onto this building and a permit was applied for in 2004 after the addition.  At that time it was determined that there was a setback problem.  The applicant is now trying to resolve the setback encroachment by applying for a variance.  The entire structure is approximately 65 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 27 rather than the 100 feet normally required for a minor collector.  In addition, setback variances are being requested for three structures (a mock store that houses mowers and equipment to maintain grounds, a mock jail, and a water tank and tower that house the hoses for watering and fire protection) which are located approximately 32 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 27.  This request is based on the drawing submitted with the variance application, and assuming that the right-of-way centerline for Count Road 27 is the east side section line of Section 15 Township 7 Range 70.

 

5.         Building permits are required for all accessory structures used for storage constructed after 1971 greater than 120 square feet in floor area and one story in height.  Building permits are required for all dwelling units, regardless of size, constructed after 1971.  This variance request would make the entire pole structure a legal, conforming building.  All three of the smaller structures are less than 120 square feet and one story in height and, therefore, do not require building permits, however, they are still required to meet setbacks.

 

6.         This application doesn’t meet the review criteria, namely there is plenty of room on the property to locate the structures elsewhere and still meet setbacks.  In addition, the location of the three smaller structures, because they are located within the 50 foot half right-of way for County Road 27, could impact public road right-of-way improvements or maintenance needs in the future and could become a potential hazard for public health and safety if the road is widened.

 

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

 

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, 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 property provides a unique entry/exit to the Masonville Area that is historic, green and recognizable.  This property is a gateway to the past and displays the agricultural history of the area.  The structures were built or brought onto the site to further enhance the character and quality of the rural area.  The property is across from the Masonville Mercantile, a 110 year old historic structure.  The “Jail” structure is comprised of jail cells from the old Larimer County Jail and the Lyons Jail.  A piece of Loveland’s original wood water pipe is housed on the property.  The l923 Road Grader used on the Buckhorn and pulled with horses is also housed on the property.  The bell on the bell tower is from a school in rural eastern Colorado.  The property is a point of destination for people who like to observe, take photographs of and reminisce about the structures. 

 

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

 

The historical value of the property is not a result of the owner’s actions or inactions.

 

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 will cause a hardship in that the bell tower and building is a spiritual and family memorial.  Removal of the other structures at this time will create unnecessary action for the owners and the community.

 

           


            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 building and structures to remain as attractions and landmarks for the Masonville area.

 

            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 subject to certain conditions will adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property owners at this time.  Applicant has provided 19 letters from owners of surrounding properties 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 variance for the smaller three buildings is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code or Master Plan because they maintain the historical character of the Masonville area and allow the landowner greater utility of his property.

 

            G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

            All referral agency comments have been considered for this application.

 

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.

 

Eric Berglund moved and Evelyn King seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution Re: Pole Barn and Bell Tower

 

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.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants Margaret Denny and Robert Webb 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 Application 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, Jean Christman, Evelyn King and Eric Berglund voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted.

 

Whereupon, Jean Christman moved and Evelyn King seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution Re: Mock Store, Mock Jail and Water Tank

 

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.         If requested by Larimer County, applicants or any successor owners of occupants shall move, at their sole cost and expense, the Mock Store, Mock Jail and Water Tank structures within 60 days following such request.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants Margaret Denny and Robert Webb not act upon the setback variances granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variances within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Application 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, Jean Christman, Evelyn King and Eric Berglund 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 9:00 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2006.

 

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________