Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

June 27, 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., June 27, 2006.  Members Jean Christman, Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera, Casey Stewart, 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 May 23, 2006 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0606  (Ward Setback Variance)

Owner:            James & Diana Ward

Applicant:       James & Diana Ward

Property Description:

 

Lot 47, Filing 13, Crystal Lakes PUD

 

            The Application of James and Diana Ward requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a detached garage to be located 23 feet from the edge of a 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 NW 2-10-74; 45 Algonkin Court, Red Feather Lakes, in Crystal Lakes 13th Filing, located at the intersection of Algonkin Court and Osage Trail.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.68 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning:             E-Estate

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  E-Estate

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.    Access:                                    Algonkin Court

 

4.         The applicants propose to construct a detached garage on the property.  The proposed structure would be located 23 feet from the edge of a road easement.  The E-Estate zoning district requires a 45 foot setback from the edge of a road easement, as stated in sections 4.1.6.B.2 and 8.17.2.E of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

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

 

6.         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 is a 2.68-acre heavily wooded lot with slopes.  The steep topography and location of the existing house are physical conditions that limit the area in which a garage could be placed.

 

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.

 

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 shape of the lot, the fact that it is a reverse corner lot and given that it is heavily vegetated and sloping, strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause on unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

            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.

 

 

 

 

 

            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.  However, a neighbor has voiced objections regarding the fact that he does not want to have to look at this additional structure or that it might appear as if 2 cabins were on the same lot.  In addition, the objection included the statement that others have had to meet the setback off of Osage Trail.  In contrast, the Crystal Lakes Road and Recreation Association has provided a letter that they are in full support of this variance request.

 

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

 

Granting the setback variance would not impair the intent and purpose of the code or Master Plan.  Locating the garage in a close proximity to the existing house will help preserve the character and quality of the area by helping to preserve more trees and give the appearance of the continuation of one structure instead of giving the appearance of two separate structures.

 

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

 

Referral agency comments are noted in the next section “Other Review Agency Comments”.  No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

7.         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.

 

Alfred Shilling 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 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 James and Diana Ward 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 Jean Christman, Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King 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-BOA0608  (Krell Setback Variance)

Owner:            Ron Krell

Applicant:       Ron Krell

Property Description:

 

A PORTION OF TRACT 3, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND ACRES SUBDIVISION, 1ST FILING, SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 8 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 3, BLOCK 2, THENCE SOUTH 04 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST 150 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 23 MINUTES WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT 3, BLOCK 2; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES EAST TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 3, BLOCK 2; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23 MINUTES EAST 341.48 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.

 

Also known as:             6751 NORTH COUNTY ROAD 15

                                    FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524

 

            The Application of Ron Krell, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a detached garage to be located 75 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 15 rather than the required minimum of 125 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 SW 1-8-69; 6751 North County Road 15, located approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of North County Road 15 and East County Road 60.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               1.12 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    North County Road 15

 

4.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage on the property.  The proposed structure would be located 75 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 15, which is classified as a major collector and requires a setback of 125 feet, as stated in sections 4.1.5.B and 8.17.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

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 narrow character of the lot combined with the current road setback requirement for County Road 15 limit the area available for the proposed structure.  There is an existing nonconforming house on the property.  The placement of the detached garage is farther back than the existing house which was built prior to this requirement.  In order to try and meet the setback requirement the applicant has placed the structure as far back as possible; however it is restricted by the location of the house, the placement of a utility pole, and the location of the septic field.

 

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

 

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

 

            C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the 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.

 

There are other buildings along County Road 15 and in the immediate vicinity that do not meet the required road setback distance because they were either granted a variance or were built prior to the setback requirements.  If denied this request, the owners would be denied a similar right.

 

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 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.  In addition, the structure would be located farther away from the road than the existing house.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Alfred Shilling 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 applicant be and he hereby is granted his 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 Applicant Ron Krell 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 Jean Christman, Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King 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-BOA0609  (Haskett Setback Variance)

Owner:            Mary Sue Haskett

Applicant:       Charles A. Phillips, III

Property Description:

 

LOT 4, BLOCK 6 AND THE EAST ½ OF LOT 5, BLOCK 4, GLEN HAVEN SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.

 

            The Application of Charles Phillips, III, requesting a setback variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow the replacement of an existing nonconforming house with a new house in virtually the same footprint.  The single family dwelling would be 34 feet from the edge of a road rather than the required minimum of 45 feet, 13 feet from the back of the property line rather than the required minimum of 25 feet, 23 feet from the side property line rather than the required minimum of 25 feet, and 82 feet from the centerline of a stream rather than the required minimum of 100 feet.

 

            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 27-6-72; 55 Fox Creek Road in the Glen Haven Subdivision, located approximately ¼ mile west of the intersection of County Road 43 and Fox Creek Road.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.35 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             E1-Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  E1-Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Fox Creek Road

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to replace an existing nonconforming house with a new house in virtually the same footprint.  The single family dwelling would be 34 feet from the edge of a road rather than the required 45 feet, 13 feet from the back of the property line rather than the required 25 feet, 23 feet from the side property line rather than the required 25 feet, and 82 feet from the centerline of a stream rather than the required 100 feet as stated in Sections 4.1.7 and 8.17.2 of the Land Use Code.

 

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

 

6.         Several neighbors appeared and testified about concerns that the property boundary lines are not correct, that granting setbacks from incorrect property boundaries would be meaningless, and that granting the variance would set a precedent for larger homes that would need to encroach into setbacks.  Applicant noted that the variance requests are based on the depiction of the property and improvements done by Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc.  The Board finds that in determining whether or not to grant the variance, the best information available is the depiction by Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying, Inc. and that its decision will be based on that depiction.  The Board has no authority to determine the correctness of any boundary lines.  Rather, this is a civil matter to be resolve among the applicant and surrounding property owners.  The Board takes no position on the boundary line issue.

 

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 nonconforming lot 0.35 acres in size.  The property has significant site constraints such as slopes and a large rock outcropping.  Currently there is an existing nonconforming home built in 1920 prior to the setback requirements.  Given the small size of the lot and the fact that it in close proximity to a stream; complying with the setback requirements severely restricts the buildable area of the lot.  The location of the new home will be on top of the existing home footprint.  The new home will be approximately the same distance as the current home from the side and rear setbacks.  The addition of a deck as well as an expansion of the footprint to the west makes the distances from the road and stream closer with the new home; however the existing home already encroaches into the stream setback.   The encroachment into the front yard setback, closer to the road, is in a direction where the lot has significant sloping and where the large rock outcropping is located.

 

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

 

The circumstances described in paragraph A above 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.

 

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 enforcement of the provisions of the Code will cause the owners an unnecessary hardship by limiting construction to an extremely small area of the property, much smaller than the footprint of the existing home.  In addition, review of properties in the surrounding area indicates that encroachment into the stream 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.

 

Considering all the setbacks in effect, the property only has a small area allowable for building, and the current nonconforming building encroaches already into all the same setbacks with the exception of the 45-foot from the edge of the road.  Granting three of the variances would be necessary to allow a building to be in the current building’s footprint.  The additional encroachment with the new building footprint is not significant due to the topographic constraint of the large rock outcropping and the steep slope.  These two factors provide a physical and visual barrier.

 

            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 since the house is replacing an existing residence in virtually the same footprint. 

 

                        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 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.

 

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Jean Christman 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 applicant be and he hereby is granted his 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 Applicant Charles Phillips, III 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 Jean Christman, Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King 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-BOA0599  (Smith, Dan Setback Variance)

Owner:            Dan & Louise Smith

Applicant:       Lonnie Sheldon / Van Horn Engineering

Property Description:

 

A tract of land located in the NE ¼ of Section 10 and the NW ¼ of Section 11, all in T4N, R72W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado being more particularly described as commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 10, as monumented by a brass capped pipe number 6499, and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the East line of the NE ¼ of said Section 10 considered as bearing N 00°41’07” E, said Northeast corner being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING:

thence S 89°45’24” W a distance of 1497.54 feet along the North line of said Section 10 thence S 00°21’55” W a distance of 1377.58 feet parallel to and 160.00 feet west of the West line of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of said Section 10 to the South line of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of said Section 10; thence S 89°47’48” E a distance of 160.00 feet along said South line to the SW corner of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of said Section 10; thence N 00°21’55” E a distance of 683.98 feet along the West line of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of said Section 10; thence East a distance of 1732.75 feet; thence S 45°24’19” E a distance of 16.00 feet; thence along the centerline of a dirt drive the following ten courses and distances;

thence 55.53 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the South, said curve has a delta angle of 61°09’25”, a radius of 52.03 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S 69°43’04” E a distance of 52.94 feet; thence S 39°08’30” E a distance of 68.92 feet; thence 112.75 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the Northeast, said curve has a delta angle of 26°04’03”, a radius of 247.82 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S 52°10’33” E a distance of 111.78 feet; thence S 65°12’33” E a distance of 142.06 feet; thence 49.98 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the Southwest, said curve has a delta angle of 16°00’22”, a radius of 178.90 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears S 57°12’20” E a distance of 49.81 feet; thence S 49°12’11” E a distance of 68.77 feet; thence 89.68 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the Northwest, said curve has a delta angle of 158°06’43”, a radius of 32.50 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N 51°44’30” E a distance of 63.81 feet; thence N 27°18’54” W a distance of 83.10 feet; thence 97.34 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the East, said curve has a delta angle of 78°40’30”, a radius of 70.89 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N 12°01’18” E a distance of 89.87 feet; thence                 N 51°21’27” E a distance of 102.83 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 36; thence N 34°49’10” W a distance of 129.97 feet along said right-of-way line; thence 714.08 feet along said right-of-way line on the arc of a curve concave to the Northeast, said curve has a delta angle of 07°04’43”, a radius of 5780.00 feet and is subtended by a chord which bears N 31°11’43” W a distance of 713.63 feet to a point on the North line of said Section 11; thence N 89°52’55” W a distance of 473.73 feet along said North line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

 

ALSO:

The East 200 feet of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 10, Township 4 North, Range 72 West of the 6th P.M., measured perpendicular from the East line of said NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of said Section 10.

 

            The Application of Van Horn Engineering, Bill Van Horn and Lonnie Sheldon appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed dwelling to be located 37 feet from the center of a stream rather than 100 feet as required 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 NE 10-4-74; 6470 Highway 36, about 6 miles southeast of Estes Park.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               40 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    U.S. Highway 36

 

4.         The applicants propose to convert the existing house into a garage/shop and construct a new residence on the property to be located 37 feet from the center of an intermittent stream rather than the 100 feet as required in sections 4.1.5.B and 8.17.2 of the Land Use Code.  The property is 40 acres in size and is located approximately 4.5 miles east of Estes Park.  It accesses off State Highway 36.  The existing well and leach field will be sued again for the new residence.  The proposed building location has been chosen so that the residence will not be seen from the Highway, will be secluded from neighbors, will be south facing, will be out of the wind, and will still be able to use the existing infrastructure (well, driveway and septic system).  Flooding from the intermittent stream is not a safety issue as the proposed house site will be 10 feet above the level of a 100 year storm over the upstream basin. 

 

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

 

6.         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 subject lot is mountainous and possesses exceptional topographic conditions.  A home could be built on the east side of the ridge, however, that location is very open and visible to the highway and adjacent properties.  That location would also require an extreme amount of trenching and site disturbance to utilize the existing well and leach field.  The applicant does not wish to remodel the existing home, rather to transform it into a shop and garage.  The location of the existing home is not desirable as living space given its north facing aspect, open exposure and proximity to the adjacent northern parcel line.

 

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

 

The applicants purchased the property with all of the current structures and facilities in place.  The applicants seek to reallocate and redefine the structures on the property.  Granting the variance would allow applicants to construct a secluded home out of public view in a south facing orientation while maintaining a view of the intermittent stream area at a safe separation distance. 

 

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.

 

A strict interpretation of the Code required setback of 100’ to the centerline of the intermittent stream puts the proposed home near the ridgeline and into very steep, rocky terrain.  There is a natural bench in the location of the proposed home, and the home is designed in a long-narrow shape to fit this natural topographic feature.  The downstream nearest neighbor has also constructed a home near the same intermittent stream.  Based on field measurements, the nearest neighbor’s house downstream is approximately 50 feet from the intermittent stream.  Strict interpretation of the Code requirement would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other landowners in the areas.

 

            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 construction of a new home on the subject property with minimum impact on the neighbors and the open views of passing motorists on the highway.  The applicants have worked with the topographic features on the lot (floodplain, rocky ridges, and existing utilities) to propose a safe build-out scenario with limited impact to all involved.

 

           

            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 result in a substantial adverse impact on 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 variance meets the purpose of the Code by allowing for the physical development of the County, while being harmonious with common land uses, maintaining property values, reducing density, and protection from flooding.  This proposal does not create adverse health, safety, or welfare impacts for property owners or area residents.

 

            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 Kent Bruxvoort 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.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants Lonnie Sheldon and Van Horn Engineering 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 Jean Christman Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, Kent Bruxvoort and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted.

 

File No:           #06-BOA0605  (Warren-Boyce Setback Variance)

Owner:            Jim & Gail Boyce / Jim & Cathy Warren

Applicant:       Jim & Gail Boyce / Jim & Cathy Warren

Property Description:

 

Lot 8, Block 5 Berthoud Dale

 

            The Application of Jim Boyce, Gail Boyce, Jim Warren and Cathy Warren, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing cabin to be located 35 feet from the center of the Big Thompson river rather than the required minimum of 100 feet; 5 feet from the edge of the subdivision road in front rather than the required minimum of 25 feet; and 2.5 feet from the north side lot line rather than the required minimum of 5 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 SW 21-5-72; 2611 “K” Big Thompson Canyon, located on the west side of Hwy 34 approximately 1 ½ miles east of Lake Estes.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.13 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Cabin

c.         Existing Zoning:             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Cabin

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    U.S. Highway 34

 

4.         The property owner proposes to remodel and expand an existing cabin on the subject property.  The existing cabin is nonconforming with respect to the building setback requirements from the Big Thompson River and the subdivision road that fronts the lot.  The project does not satisfy the criteria for expansion without a variance because the addition is greater than 25% of the existing building and would also encroach into the required setbacks from the river, road, and side lot line.  The existing cabin is approximately 45 feet (100 feet required) from the centerline of the Big Thompson River, 11 feet from the north side lot line, and 15 feet from the edge of the subdivision road.  The proposal involves constructing a screened-in, covered porch to the north side and constructing a deck to the front.  After the additions, the resultant setbacks would be 2.5 feet from the north side lot line, 35 feet from the center of the Big Thompson river to the east and; 5 feet from the edge of the subdivision road to the east.

 

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

 

6.         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 rock cliff immediately behind the existing cabin restricts any construction to the rear of the lot.  The access road is to the front of the cabin, which also restricts buildable area.  The cabin is flanked on both sides by cabins.  The conditions on this lot severely limit any expansion of the cabin.  The only suitable area for constructing an addition is to the north side as proposed by the applicant.

 

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

 

  The physical conditions described in paragraph A above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant. The owners had no control of the extreme terrain.  The lot configuration and existing buildings were established prior to the current ownership.

 

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

 

Strict enforcement of the setback provisions of the Code would require a 2.5 foot reduction in the length of the proposed porch addition, which would require cost to move the existing structural elements, and would not allow the deck addition to the front.  Strict enforcement of the front and river setbacks would prevent the new wood deck.  Other area property owners enjoy similar 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 continue to use the property for seasonal vacation purposes.  The covered porch to the side allows for protection from falling rocks.  The front wood deck would enhance the continued use of the property for vacation purposes.

 

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

 

The Planning Department has two letters from neighbors who support the applicant’s request. 

 

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

 

Granting the variance would be consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code and Master Plan by allowing for the physical development of the County, while being harmonious with common land uses and maintaining property values.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

           

The County Engineering department has requested additional information regarding the building elevation above sea level to determine what expansion could be approved under the FEMA floodplain regulations.

 

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.

 

Kent Bruxvoort moved and Alfred Shilling 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.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Applicants Jim Boyce, Gail Boyce, Jim Warren and Cathy Warren not act upon the setback variances granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with the 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 Jean Christman, Alfred Shilling, Larry Chisesi, and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  Member Kent Bruxvoort voted against the Resolution. The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted.

 

 

***

 

By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 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:

 

 

 

________________________________

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