Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

January 24, 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., January 24, 2006.  Members Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Alfred Shilling were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meetings of December 27, 2005 and January 3, 2006 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0583  (Sunrise Ranch Setback Variance)

Owner:            Emissaries of Divine Light

Applicant:       Emissaries of Divine Light / Charlene Hunter

Property Description:

 

THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., EXCEPT THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE WEST 550 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND ROAD AND RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 78 AT PAGE 273 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS.

 

TRACT 1

 

A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE NE ¼ OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., WHICH CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF SAID NE ¼ AS BEARING S. 01°27’ W. AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO BEGINS AT A POINT ON THE EASTERY LINE OF THE AGAIN S. 88°33’ E. 151.6 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NE ¼ AND RUN THENCE S. 17°51’ E. 1205.3 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CANAL; THENCE N. 01°27’ E. 1137.56 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SW1/4 OF SAID NE ¼; THENCE N. 88°33’ W. 398.4 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ALSO.

 

 

 

 

TRACT 2

 

A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE NE ¼ OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., WHICH CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID NW1/4 AS BEARING S. 01°27’ W. AND WHICH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO BEGINS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW ¼ AND RUNS THENCE S. 01°27’ W. 955.0 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW1/4 TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE HORSETOOTH FEEDER CANAL; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SAID CANAL N. 07°35’ W. 402.4 FEET AND AGAIN N. 15°40’30” W. 576.2 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NW ¼; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NW1/4, N. 89°43’ E. 232.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ALSO.

 

TRACT 3

 

THE E1/4 OF THE NE ¼ OF THE NE ¼ OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NE ¼ AS BEARING N. 88°34’20” E. AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO, BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34 AND RUN THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NE ¼, S. 01°17’30” W. 1588.45 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NE1/4 OF THE SAID NE ¼; THENCE N. 88°33’ W. 662.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01°19’40”E. 1555.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SAID NE ¼; THENCE N. 88°34’20” E. 662.40 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SAID NE ¼ TO THE POINT OF THE BEGINNING. 

 

ALL BEING IN THE COUNTY OF LARIMER AND STATE OF COLORADO.

 

THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SE ¼ AND SE ¼ OF THE SW ¼ OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. EXCEPT PARCEL CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 867 AT PAGE 23, LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS, AND EXCEPT PARCEL CONVEYED IN BOOK 1551 AT PAGE 806, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS.  TOGETHER WITH 70 ACRE UNITS OF BIG THOMPSON WATER ALLOCATED BY THE NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND TOGETHER WITH ANY AND ALL IMPROVEMENTS AND FIXTURES LOCATED ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY

 

            The Petition of Emissaries of Divine Light, Charlene Hunter appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow two church housing/educational buildings to be located 50 feet and 68 feet respectively from a stream rather than minimum requirement of 100 feet in the O-Open zone.  This request is related to a current Special Review File to expand the church facilities.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NE 34-6-70; 5569 N. CR 29, located about one mile SW of intersection of CR 27 and CR 29, south of Masonville.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               160 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Church and Educational facilities

c.    Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Church facilities

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Agricultural, Residential

g.    Access:                                    N. County Road 29

 

5.         The property owners operate a church facility and many residences on the property.  They propose to construct two additional housing/educational buildings on a portion of the property to accommodate increased number of participants.  The proposed buildings are part of a larger expansion of the church facilities that is being processed under the County’s Special Review process.  The proposed locations of the new buildings are at the north end of the compound in the area of some existing homes.  The new buildings are proposed to be 50 feet and 68 feet, respectively, from the center of an intermittent stream.  Section 4.1.5.B.2.d of the Land Use Code requires a setback of 100 feet from all streams, creeks, or rivers. 

 

6.         The building sites have been reviewed for environmental concerns and were determined to exhibit very little riparian vegetation.  There a many existing buildings close to the stream, even one that is already in the drainage.  The new structures pose no environmental concerns.

 

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

 

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

 

There are a number of existing residential buildings on the site and the new buildings would be in the same area.  The intermittent stream will be modified with engineered improvements to channel storm water runoff safely through the site as part of this new development.  To locate the buildings further from the stream than proposed, would require much fill because the area is lower and more susceptible to drainage.  The proposed location is higher on elevation and would mitigate drainage/flooding problems better than a site further from the stream.  The location of existing buildings in conjunction with the other physical features surrounding the site creates special conditions that are peculiar to the land.

 

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

 

The special conditions, specifically the topography, outlined above are not the result of action or inaction by the applicant.

 

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 of the code setback provisions would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other buildings in the same area.  There are other buildings on this same site that are currently closer to the stream than is being requested. 

 

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 the proposed buildings.

 

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 or complaints from surrounding property owners have been received by the Planning Department.  The development will undergo a storm water drainage review by the County Engineering Department as part of the Special Review.  The proposed engineered improvements to the stream channel will serve to mitigate any runoff impacts.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use 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.

 

Kent Bruxvoort 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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The variance shall only take effect if and when the proposed development gains approval through the county’s Special Review process.

 

2.         The building permits for the two buildings must be applied for within one year of Special Review approval otherwise this variance approval expires.

 

3.         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 Petitioners Emissaries of Divine Light and Charlene Hunter 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 Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Alfred Shilling voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0585  (Estes Setback Variance)

Owner:            Tom & Mary Estes

Applicant:       Tom & Mary Estes

Property Description:

 

LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 MILLER CREEK HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, LARIMER COUNTY COLORADO

 

            The Petition of Tom and Mary Estes, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed single-family dwelling and a detached garage to be located 10 feet and 14, respectively, from the edge of a subdivision road easement; and 43 feet and 32 feet, respectively, from the center of Miller Fork Creek rather than the required minimum of 25 feet from road and 100 feet from creek in the O-Open zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

2.         The property location is NW 25-6-72; 110 Streamside Drive, located about 2 miles east of Glen Haven.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.68 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning             O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Vacant lots

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential, recreational

g.         Access:                                    Streamside Drive

 

4.         The applicants own Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Miller Creek Heights Subdivision, which are currently vacant, and propose to consolidate the lots and construct a dwelling on the remaining lot.  The Miller Fork Creek runs from the northwest corner of the property through the center down to the southeast corner of the property.  The proposed location of the dwelling and detached garage would be 43 feet and 32 feet, respectively, from the center of the creek and 10 feet and 14 feet, respectively, from the edge of the road easement for Streamside Drive.  The required setbacks are 100 feet from the river centerline and 25 feet from the edge of the road easement.

 

            5.         The applicant intends to consolidate Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Miller Creek Heights into one lot thereby reducing the potential for three separate single-family dwellings to one.  This alleviates the future need for more variances and allows the resultant lot to better accommodate sewer systems and wells.  To approve the variance subject to a condition that the lots be combined will insure that no buildings are constructed until the lots are combined.

 

6.         Several area residents testified or submitted letters in opposition to the request.  They voiced concerns about traffic safety, environmental impacts, adverse visual impacts and diminution in property values if the proposed variance is granted.

 

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 extremely steep topography to the east of the lot prevents any construction on that side.  The only suitable building area is on the west side of the creek, between the creek and the road.  These special conditions are peculiar to the land and leave little area for building.

 

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

 

The special conditions above are not the result of any action or inaction of the applicant.  The owners had no control of the extreme terrain.  The lots were platted in 1945, prior to any stream or road setback regulations.

 

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.

 

There are other buildings in the vicinity that do not meet setback requirements from the creek or the road.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding property owners. 

 

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 single-family dwelling and detached garage.

 

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

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties.  The Planning Department has received one inquiry from a neighboring property owner, but no objections have been received.

 

F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use 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.

 

Eric Berglund 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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Using the County’s Lot Consolidation process, the applicant shall consolidate the three lots of Miller Creek Heights Subdivision into one lot prior to making application for a building permit for either the dwelling or garage.  A building permit application must be submitted within one year of the variance approval to comply with condition 3 below.

 

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

 

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

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners Tom and Mary Estes 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 Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Alfred Shilling voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #05-BOA0582  (Friedrich Setback Variance)

Applicant:       Jon Friedrich and Gene Applegate

 

            A request to table the Petition of Jon Friedrich and Gene Applegate until February 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. was made by the applicant.

 

            Evelyn King moved and Alfred Shilling seconded the motion that the Board table this matter until February 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.

 

            The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Alfred Shilling voted in favor of the motion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

File No:           #05-BOA0584  (Mountain Setback Variance)

Owner:            Geoff Mountain

Applicant:       Steve Nickel / The Portfolio Group

Property Description:

 

PART OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COMMENCING 250 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ IF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.; THENCE NORTH TO THE SOUTH BANK OF THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER; THENCE EAST 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE WEST 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Petition of The Portfolio Group, Steve Nickel appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed replacement single-family dwelling to be located 15 feet from the edge of an established road and 90 feet from the centerline of the Big Thompson River, rather than the required minimum of 25 feet and 100 feet in the O-Open zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

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

 

3.         The property location is NW 22-5-72; 2528 “T” Big Thompson Canyon, located about 2 ½ miles northeast of Lake Estes.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               .45 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 34

 

5.         There is an existing residence on the subject property.  The applicant proposes to demolish and remove the existing residence in order to replace it.  The current building is located 90 feet from the center of the Big Thompson River and 15 feet from the edge of an established road.  The applicant has presented a request for the new residence to be located 90 feet from the center of the Big Thompson River and 15 feet from the edge of the road, rather than the required setbacks of 100 feet and 25 feet, respectively.

 

6.         There are no major issues or concerns with this 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 extremely steep topography to the rear of the lot creates limited area for building.  The only suitable building area is in the same location as the existing building. 

 

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

 

The special conditions 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 existed prior to the current ownership.

 

            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.

 

There are other buildings in the vicinity that do not meet setback requirements from the river or the road.  The strict enforcement of the Code would prevent the applicant from enjoying similar rights of surrounding property owners. 

 

            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 replacement single-family dwelling.

 

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

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties.  The Planning Department has received a number of inquiries from neighboring property owners, but no objections have been received.

 

            F.         Granting the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use 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.

 

Eric Berglund 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 petitioners be and they hereby are granted their setback variance as requested subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The applicant shall apply for a building permit for the proposed building and obtain all final inspections as necessary to finalize the 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.

 

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

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioners The Portfolio Group and Steve Nickel 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 Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Larry Chisesi, Eric Berglund, Kent Bruxvoort, Evelyn King and Alfred Shilling voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

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