Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

March 25, 2008

 

            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., March 25, 2008.  Members Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Alan Cram and Matt Strauch were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff member 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 February 26, 2008 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0696  (Grueff-1 Setback Variance)          

Owner:            Ed Grueff

Applicant:       Ed Grueff

Property Description:

 

LOT 19, THE RETREAT FILING 1, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Ed Grueff, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a new single family dwelling to be located 36 feet from the centerline of Miller Fork Creek rather than the required minimum of 100 feet from the creek centerline in the FO-Forestry 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 23-6-72; 677 Streamside Drive, Glen Haven; located at the intersection of Streamside Drive and Black Creek Drive on Lot 19 of the Retreat Filing #1.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.25 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning:             FO-Forestry

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  FO-Forestry

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Vacant

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.    Access:                                    Streamside Drive

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to locate a new single family dwelling on the property.  The single family dwelling would be 36 feet from the centerline of Miller Fork Creek rather than the 100 feet as required in Sections 4.1.3.B.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The lot is 2.25 acres in size.  The property has the following site constraints.  The setback requirement from the stream restricts building anywhere on the property east of the stream without obtaining a variance.  The portion of the property to the west of the stream has significant slopes.  The steep topography and setback requirements form the stream prevent the applicant from building on the lot without obtaining a variance.

 

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 topography of the lot and the required setback from the stream, 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 single family dwelling.

 

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 the use of 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 is consistent with the purpose of this Code and the Master Plan.  Granting the variance 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.

 

Referral agency comments have been received and 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.

 

Jean Christman moved and Matt Strauch seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that 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 variance is only for the building(s) as submitted with this variance application.  All future buildings, additions, and improvements must meet County setback requirements.

 

3.         Prior to building permit issuance, a Professional Engineer must provide documentation and drainage calculations that specify the lowest opening elevation.  This elevation must be above the 100 year flood limits.

 

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Matt Strauch and Alan Cram voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0697  (Grueff-2 Setback Variance)

Owner:            Ed Grueff

Applicant:       Ed Grueff

Property Description:

 

LOT 13, THE RETREAT FILING 1, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Ed Grueff, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an addition to an existing single family dwelling to be located 20 feet from the front property line and 25 feet from the centerline of Miller Fork Creek rather than the required minimum of 25 feet from the front property line and 100 feet from the creek centerline in the FO-Forestry 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 23-6-72; 1035 Streamside Drive, Glen Haven; located approximately ¼ mile northwest at the intersection of Streamside Drive and Black Creek Drive on Lot 13 of the Retreat Filing #1.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.01 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:             FO-Forestry

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FO-Forestry

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Streamside Drive

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to locate an addition to an existing single family dwelling on the property.  The addition would be 20 feet from the front property line rather than the required 25 feet and 25 feet from the centerline of Miller Fork Creek rather than the 100 feet as required in Sections 4.1.3.B.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The lot is 2.01 acres in size.  The property has the following site constraints.  The setback requirement from the stream restricts building anywhere on the property north of the stream without obtaining a variance.  The portion of the property to the south of the stream has significant slopes.  The steep topography and setback requirements from the stream prevent the applicant from building on the lot without obtaining a variance.

 

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 topography of the lot and the required setback from the stream, strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause on unnecessary and undue hardship in that the property owner would be deprived of the use of the property as intended when the lot was created.

 

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 addition.

 

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

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance would adversely affect any neighbors or the use of 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 is consistent with the purpose of this Code and the Master Plan.  Granting the variance 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.

 

Referral agency comments are noted in the next section “Other Review Agency Comments”.  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.

 

Jean Christman moved and Matt Strauch seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that 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 variance is only for the building(s) as submitted with this variance application.  All future buildings, additions, and improvements must meet County setback requirements.

 

3.         Prior to building permit issuance, a Professional Engineer must provide documentation and drainage calculations that specifies the lowest opening elevation.  This elevation must be above the 100 year flood limits.

 

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

 

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

 

The question was called and members Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Matt Strauch and Alan Cram voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variance was granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0695 (Robert Setback Variance)

Owner:            Billy and Nancy Roberts

Applicant:       Billy and Nancy Roberts

Property Description:

 

LOT 11A, BLOCK 7, LETITIA LAKE SUBDIVISION, OF LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION OF LOTS 10, 11, & 19, BLOCK 7, LETITIA LAKE SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Billy and Nancy Roberts, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing single family dwelling to remain 20 feet 9 inches from the front property line and 0.49 feet from the side property line rather than the required minimum of 25 feet from the front property line and 5 feet from the side property line 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 27-10-73; 410 Eagle Tree Circle, Red Feather Lakes; located on Lot 11A, Block 7 of the Letitia Lakes Subdivision.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.6 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:                                    Eagle Tree Circle

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow an existing single family dwelling to remain 20 feet 9 inches from the front property line and 0.49 feet from the side property line.  The dwelling was built in 1967 prior to permit requirements.  For lots created before November 29, 1973, in the O-Open zoning district the setbacks are 25 feet from the front property line and 5 feet from the side property line.

 

5.         Because the house was built prior to building permit requirements it is considered nonconforming.  Section 4.8.3 of the Land Use Code defines a nonconforming building or structure as:

            An existing building or structure that does not comply with the requirements of                           this code but did conform to all applicable regulations in effect at the time the                                building or structure was constructed.

 

6.         Section 4.8.10.B of the Land Use Code specifies the following restrictions on nonconforming buildings:

           

A nonconforming building or structure cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without the approval of the County Commissioners except where the building is nonconforming only as to a required setback and the following conditions are met:

 

1. The proposed addition is not more than 25 percent of the square footage of the original building and is not more than 1,000 square feet;

 

2. The proposed addition is outside the required setback; and

 

3. No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of Transportation.

 

7.         In order to avoid having to obtain County Commissioners’ approval each time the applicant wants to expand the nonconforming structure, the applicant requests approval of a variance which will effectively to change the status to conforming.  The applicant can then expand the building without County Commissioners’ approval as long as any future additions or expansions meet the required setbacks of the O-Open zoning district.  This variance request would only approve the 20 foot 9 inch setback for the portion of the existing dwelling that currently encroaches into the required setback and the 0.49 inch setback for the portion of the existing dwelling that currently encroaches into the required setback.  Any future additions or buildings that would be within setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code must go through the proper County review and approval process prior to construction.

           

9.         The applicant owned three adjacent lots in the Letitia Lakes Subdivision and combined them with a lot consolidation that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 4, 2007.  In 2004 the owners added on to the home and it met the criteria to expand a nonconforming structure.  However, any future additions would push it over the percent of the square footage of the original building and would therefore require Board of County Commissioners approval unless this variance is approved.

 

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

 

                        11.       There were no persons in attendance who objected to the request.  One neighbor appeared with questions and comments about survey lines/stakes.  The outcome of the variance has no impact or bearing on his issue.

 

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

 

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

 

The special circumstance for this variance is that the building was built in 1967 prior to permit requirements.  Therefore, the setback for the placement of the building in relation to the property lines was not verified which now affects property owners that were not part of the erroneous decisions at that time.

 

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

 

The special circumstances are not the result of action or inaction of the applicant.  These issues existed when the current property owners purchased the land and improvements.

 

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 owner primarily because the building was built prior to any requirements for building permits which now limits the owners’ ability to expand without obtaining appeals.

 

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

 

Granting the variance is not the minimum action that will allow use of the building because it could continue to remain where it is and keep its nonconforming status.  However, because the building was built prior to permit requirements staff believes this criterion is not applicable.

 

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.  The building has been in its current location for over 40 years.  A staff visit to the site reveals that the location of this building should not affect other buildings or structures in the area.  The property to the north which is adjacent to this lot has a septic field near the common lot line and therefore can not build near the property line.  In addition, staff has received three phone calls from neighboring property owners with no objections to 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 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.

 

Referral agency comments were reviewed and considered.  No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

13.       To approve this request would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Evelyn King moved and Matt Strauch seconded the Motion that the Board adopt the following Resolution:

 

Resolution

 

WHEREAS, the Board having adopted its Findings and said Findings being incorporated in this Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein;

 

NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback 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 variance is only for the building(s) as submitted with this variance application.  All future buildings, additions, and improvements must meet County setback requirements.

 

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

 

The question was called and members Jean Christman, Eric Berglund, Evelyn King, Matt Strauch and Alan Cram 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 7:27 p.m.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2008.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

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