Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

November 23, 2004

 

            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., November 23, 2004.  Members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Wilma Davis and Evelyn King were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff members Al Kadera and Casey Stewart and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine S. Haag.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of October 26, 2004 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0512 (Aguirre Expansion of Nonconforming Use/Setback Variance)

Owner:            Michael Aguirre

Applicant:       Michael Aguirre

Property Description:

 

Lot 17, Block 2, West-Acres Subdivision, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Michael Aguirre, Michael Aguirre appearing, requesting an expansion of a nonconforming use and variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested an expansion and setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an expansion of a nonconforming residence by more than 25% and a setback variance to allow the addition to be located 2 feet from the side property line, rather than the minimum 5 feet as required in the FA-Farming 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 SW 09-07-69; 107 S. Sunset Street; located between W. Mulberry and LaPorte Ave. and east of Overland Trail. (Lot 17, Blk 2, West Acres Subdivision).

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.92 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential

c.    Existing Zoning             FA-Farming

d.    Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-Farming

e.    Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.    Access:                                    S. Sunset Street

 

5.         The applicant proposes to add on to an existing single family residence on his  property legally described as Lot 17, Block 2 of West Acres Subdivision.  The addition, as proposed, is greater than 25% of the current floor area, and would encroach into the side yard setback by 3 feet, resulting in a 2-foot setback.  The existing building is located 2 feet from the side lot line and the addition would maintain the same setback.  Because of the size and location of the addition, a variance is required for applicant to be able to proceed.

 

6.         The comments from the City of Fort Collins do not offer a specific objection to the request but they were considered by planning staff.  Staff determined that the application met the review criteria and that the existing special conditions were sufficient to grant a variance.  There are no major issues or concerns with the variance request

 

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

 

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

 

The original residence was constructed prior to building permit and setback requirements.  The location of the existing residence and the date of original construction are special conditions that contribute to the variance request. 

 

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

 

The special circumstances or conditions were not created by the applicant.  The applicant had no control of the placement of the residence or the configuration and size of the subdivision lot.

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the code listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other lands in the area.  There are other properties in the area that have buildings within required 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 construct and use the proposed residential addition.

 

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

 

It is not anticipated that granting the variance will adversely affect neighboring properties. 

 

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 the requested expansion of a nonconforming residence and setback variance would promote the harmonious development of the area, would be in the best interest of the people of Larimer County, would promote the convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the applicant and the immediate inhabitants of the area, and would be in consonance with the intent and purposes of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and 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 petitioner be and he hereby is granted his expansion and 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 the approval.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Michael Aguirre not act upon the expansion and setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted expansion and variance within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

            The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Wilma Davis and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the expansion and setback variance were granted subject to conditions.

 

 File No:          #04-BOA0513 (Erion Setback Variance)

Owner:            Justin W. and Marcie J. Erion

Applicant:       Justin W. and Marcie J. Erion

Property Description:

 

A portion of the Northeast Quarter Section 36, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Section 36; thence along the North line of said Section North 89°49’40” West 665.51 feet to the Easterly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed recorded in Book 1386, Page 231, records of said county; thence along said Easterly line South 0°10’20” West 1080.25 feet more or less to the Southerly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed recorded in Book 1386, Page 231 records of said County; thence along said Southerly line South 75°20’ West 96.50 feet, thence along the Southerly line and its Westerly prolongation of that certain parcel of land described in deed recorded Book 1386, Page 231, records of said County North 78°52’45” West 12.50 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said line North 78°52’45” West 129.21 feet; thence South 03°46’40” East 685.29 feet to the Southerly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed recorded in Book 577, Page 526, records of said County; thence along said Southerly line North 88°55’00” East 125.00 feet; thence North 03° 46’40” West 657.94 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

 

ALSO:

 

All that portion of the Northeast Quarter (NE ¼) of Section 36, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of that certain parcel of land described as Tract 5, recorded in Book 1585 at Page 771, records of said County; thence South to the high water line of Horseshoe Reservoir; thence along said high water line Southeasterly, Easterly and Northeasterly to the Easterly prolongation of the South line of said Tract 5 in Book 1585, Page 771; thence along said prolongation and said South line South 88°55’00” West to the point of beginning.

 

EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the public for a 60-foot road right-of-way as contained in Deed of Dedication recorded May 18, 1977 in Book 1770 at Page 184.

 

            The Petition of Justin and Marcie Erion, both appearing, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow a proposed boathouse to be located on the rear property line, rather than the required minimum 10 feet from the property line as required in the FA-Farming zone. If approved, the applicant requests that the variance be valid through April 30, 2006.

 

            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 36-06-69; 1100 Ptarmigan Run, located on the north shore of Horseshoe Lake.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               2.41 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Single Family Residential w/boathouse

c.         Existing Zoning             FA-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Single Family Residential w/boathouse

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    S. Sunset Street

 

5.         The applicants propose to replace an existing boathouse in disrepair with a new, slightly larger boathouse.  The boathouse, as proposed, would encroach into the rear yard setback by 10 feet, resulting in a 0 foot setback.  The rear property line is legally described as the “high water line” of Horseshoe Lake.  The existing building is located 0 feet from the rear lot line and the replacement boathouse would maintain the same setback.  The applicants have submitted a variance request to allow the boathouse in the proposed location shown on the site map.

 

6.         As part of the request, the applicants propose that the variance not be subject to expiration until April 30, 2006.  This request is due to the scheduled draining of the lake for repairs to the reservoir structures and the applicants plan to begin construction of the boathouse and rebuilding of the sea wall during this time.  Because of recent modifications to the lake project’s timeline, the extra time may be needed by the applicants.

 

7.         There are no major issues or concerns with the variance request.

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed building is a boathouse to be used for storage of the applicants’ boat in the lower level and for residential accessory uses on the upper level.  A boathouse is typically at the water’s edge to allow for entrance/exit of the boat while still in the water.  The property’s rear line is legally described as the “high water line” of the reservoir.  The proposed use of the building and the property line description are both special circumstances that are peculiar to the structure and property proposed. 

 

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

 

Although it is the applicants’ proposed action to replace the boathouse and use it as such, the customary reasons for setback requirements don’t appear in this case.  Building setbacks are typically established to maintain distance between buildings on adjacent properties, allow for utility and emergency access, and to maintain a safe distance from certain features such as roads, streams, etc.  The adjacent property that would be most affected by the proposal is a reservoir that is used for boating by the surrounding properties.  The property has legal access to use the reservoir for recreational purposes, which is common for a waterfront property. 

 

C.        The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the code listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

The strict enforcement would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other lands surrounding the reservoir.  There are other properties surrounding the reservoir that have either a boathouse or boat dock to utilize for their boating activities.

 

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 applicants to construct and use the proposed boathouse.

 

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.  Seven Lakes Reservoir Co., which owns and operates the reservoir, provided a letter to the applicants stating the company has no objection to the proposal. 

 

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.

 

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

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and 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.         At time of building permit application, the permit applicant shall provide evidence to the Planning Department confirming that the lowest habitable area of the boathouse building is above the reservoir spillway elevation.

 

2.         This approval shall automatically expire on April 30, 2006 unless the applicants take affirmative action consistent with the approval.

 

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 Justin and Marcie Erion not act upon the setback variance granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variance on or before April 30, 2006, 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  before April 30,2006.   If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

            The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Wilma Davis 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:           #04-BOA0514 (Mirich Setback Variance No. 2)

Owner:            Pete Mirich

Applicant:       Van Horn Engineering/Surveying and Drew Sartell

Property Description:

 

Lot 2 of the Amended Plat of the North half of Lot 31, Block 9, Glen Haven Subdivision lying west of Larimer County Road No. 43, Larimer County, Colorado.

 

            The Petition of Van Horn Engineering/Surveying, Lonnie Sheldon appearing, requesting variances was presented to the Board.  The Petition requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an existing residence to be expanded, resulting in the following proposed setbacks: 86 feet from right-of-way center for County Road 43 (a minor collector) rather than the minimum requirement of 100 feet, 72 feet from the centerline of West Creek rather than the minimum requirement of 100 feet, 5 feet from north side property line rather than the minimum requirement of 25 feet, and 23 feet from rear property line rather than the minimum requirement of 25 feet in the E-1 Estate 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 26-11-72; 6781 Devil’s Gulch Road (CR 43), in Glen Haven Area.

 

4.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                               0.15 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                          Cabin

c.         Existing Zoning             E-1 Estate

d.         Surrounding Zoning:                  E-1 Estate

e.         Existing Land Use:                    Cabin

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:            Residential

g.         Access:                                    Devil’s Gulch Road (CR 43)

 

5.         The property owner proposes to expand an existing cabin on the subject property.  The existing cabin is nonconforming with respect to various building setback requirements and the project didn’t satisfy the criteria for expansion without needing a variance. 

 

6.         The existing cabin is currently 85 feet (100 feet required) from the centerline of West Creek, 17 feet (25 feet required) from the side property line, and 81 feet (100 feet required) from the right-of-way center of County Road 43. The addition is greater than 25% of the existing building and would also encroach into the required setbacks from the road, the creek, the side yard, and the rear yard resulting in the following proposed setbacks: 86 from right-of-way center for County Road 43 (minor collector), 72 feet from centerline of West Creek, 5 feet from north side property line, and 23 feet from rear property line.

 

7.         There are no major issues or concerns with the variance request.

 

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

 

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

 

The steep topography to the front of the lot creates limited area for additions.  The existing building was constructed in 1957 and is considered nonconforming with respect to setback requirements.  Any additions to it would further encroach into at least one required setback.  The lot shape was changed via an amended plat that was completed within the last year, however this did not result in the need for the variance, in fact it lessened the degree of nonconformity and maintained the original lot sizes.  The amended plat corrected building encroachment problems. 

 

  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 lot configuration and the original residence 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 West Creek, County Road 43, and side setbacks.  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 the proposed addition to the existing cabin.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and 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 petitioner be and he hereby is granted his setback variances 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 the approval.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Petitioner Van Horn Engineering/Surveying by Lonnie Sheldon not act upon the setback variances  granted herein by using the above-described property in accordance with this granted variances  within one year from the date of this Resolution, this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further force and effect unless upon good cause shown to this Board, and said period of time shall have been extended; such application for an extension of time shall be made by Petition to this Board on or before one year from the date of this Resolution.  If this action involves approval of a use (or expansion of a use) not otherwise permitted on the subject property, and if in the future the subject property is divided, then this action shall only pertain to one parcel resulting from any such division(s) and the Board of County Commissioners shall in its discretion determine which one of the resulting parcels shall enjoy the benefits of this action.

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Wilma Davis and Evelyn King voted in favor of the Resolution.  The Findings and Resolution were duly adopted and the setback variances  were granted subject to conditions.

 

File No:           #04-BOA0515

Owner:            Randall and Brenda Howard

Applicant:       Randall and Brenda Howard

Property Description:

 

The petition of Randall and Brenda Howard was tabled until December 28, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the request of Planning Staff member Casey Stewart.  Steward noted that there are discrepancies in certain measurements showing on applicant’s sketch on Page 35 of the Agenda.  The tabling will allow additional time to investigate and/or resolve this issue.

 

Jeanne Laudick moved and Evelyn King seconded the motion that the Board table this matter until December 28, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.

 

The question was called and members Jeanne Laudick, Kent Bruxvoort, Wilma Davis and Evelyn King voted in favor of the motion.

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried the above and foregoing minutes were approved on the _____ day of __________________, 2004.

 

                                                            LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

 

                                                By:       __________________________________________

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

________________________________

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