MINUTES OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

September 23, 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., September 23, 2008.  Members Jean Christman, Peter Bohling, Evelyn King, Matt Strauch, and Alan Cram were present.  Also in attendance were County Planning Staff member Samantha Mott and Assistant County Attorney William Ressue.

 

            By Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the reading of the Minutes of the meeting of August 26, 2008 was dispensed with and such Minutes were approved.

 

File No:           #08-BOA0729  (Westenhaver Setback Variance)

Owner:           Matthew Westenhaver

Applicant:      Ken Westenhaver

Property Description:

 

POR OF SE 1/4 29-8-69 DESC: COM AT PT WH BEARS N 571.50 FT & W 740.50 FT FROM SE COR OF SW 1/4 OF SD SE 1/4 OF SEC 29, TH W 28 FT TPOB, TH CONT W 158.50 FT, N 253.50 FT, W 112.20 FT, N 0 23' W 495 FT, E 269 FT, S 0 23' E  748.51 FT TPOB CONT 3.974 AC M/L

 

            The Application of Ken Westenhaver, 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 nonconforming house to be located 68 feet from the centerline of County Road 54G rather than the required minimum of 110 feet in the O-Open zone.

 

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

 

Findings

 

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

 

2.         The property location is SE 29-8-69; 3430 North Highway 287, Laporte; located approximately 800 feet west of the intersection of Overland Trail and County Road 54G on the north side of the road.

 


 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                              3.97 Acres

b.    Proposed Use:                         Single Family Residence

c.    Existing Zoning:                     O-Open

d.    Surrounding Zoning:               O-Open and M-Multiple Family

e.    Existing Land Use:                 Single Family Residence

f.    Surrounding Land Uses:         Residential, Mobile Home Park, School

g.    Access:                                    County Road 54G

 

4.         The applicant requests a setback variance to allow an addition to an existing nonconforming house to be 68 feet from the centerline of County Road 54G.  County Road 54G is classified as an arterial road and the required setback from the right-of-way centerline is 110 feet. 

 

5.         The existing house was built in 1923.  The porch on the front of the house has recently been removed and this addition is a replacement.  The addition will be wider than the original porch that has been removed, but will only extend one foot further than the steps for the original porch. The new addition will access from the east side instead of the south side.   

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

The special circumstance for this property is that there is an existing home on the property built in 1923 prior to the established setback requirements.  The existing home already encroaches into the front setback.  Because the house does not meet the current setback requirements and it is closer to County Road 54G than the required setback it is considered nonconforming.  The location of the addition will be in the same location as the original porch that has recently been removed except it will extend 1 foot closer to County Road 54G than the steps for the original porch.   

 

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 home was built in this location prior to the current owners owning the property.

 

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.

 

The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause on unnecessary and undue hardship.  In addition, review of properties in the surrounding area indicates that encroachment into the road setback is a right commonly enjoyed by other buildings in the area.  There are other buildings in the immediate vicinity that do not meet the required setback distances because they were either granted variances or were built prior to the setback requirements.  If denied this request, the owners would be denied a similar right.

 

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

 

Granting the variance will allow the owner reasonable use of the land will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.

 

            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.

 

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 have been considered.  No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

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.

 

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.    All future additions or buildings on the property shall conform to the required setbacks as defined by the Land Use Code and must obtain approval through the proper county review and planning process.

 

3.         The owner will need to obtain a building permit and inspection approvals for a front porch addition subject to this setback variance application.  The application for a building permit must be submitted within 30 days of approval of this variance request.

 

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 Bohling, 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-BOA0727  (RABS Amended Setback Variance)

Owner:           RABS, LLC

Applicant:      Mike Boyles

Property Description:

 

LOT 5, BUCKHORN ESTATES 1ST, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Mike Boyles, requesting a variance was presented to the Board.  The Application requested a setback variance upon the above-described property to allow an 8 foot by 16 foot upper deck to be located 16 feet from the center of a creek and 50 feet from the centerline of Buckhorn Road rather than the required minimum of 100 feet from the centerline of Buckhorn Creek and 70 feet from the right-of-way centerline 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 Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 72; 31439 Buckhorn Road, Bellevue; located approximately 10 miles west of the intersection of County Road 27 and County Road 44H/Buckhorn Road.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                              2.18 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                         Single Family Residential

c.         Existing Zoning:                     O-Open

d.         Surrounding Zoning:               O-Open

e.         Existing Land Use:                 Single Family Residential

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:         Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Buckhorn Road

 

4.         Applicant proposes an amendment to the RABS Setback Variance to allow an 8 foot by 16 foot upper deck to be 16 feet from the center of a creek and 50 feet from the centerline of Buckhorn Road.  This upper deck will not come any closer to the creek or to the road than what was approved with the original variance request.  The original RABS Setback Variance, approved on 5/27/08, allowed the existing house with an addition to be located 38.43 feet from the right-of-way centerline of Buckhorn Road and 7.8 feet from the centerline of Buckhorn Creek.  The required setbacks are 70 feet from the right-of-way centerline of County Road 44H/Buckhorn Road which is classified as a minor collector and 100 feet from the centerline of Buckhorn Creek.  (Sections 4.1.5.B, 4.9.1, and 4.9.2)       

 

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 property is a 2.18 acre lot with both relatively level and sloping topography.  The only relatively level area of the lot is constrained by a setback from the creek as well as the setback from Buckhorn Road.  In addition the existing structures on the lot already encroach into the road, creek, and side setback.

 

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 were not created by the applicant.  In addition, the existing structures were built prior to the current owner owning the property.

 

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 setbacks from Buckhorn Road and the creek as well as the topography of the lot, strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause unnecessary and undue hardship.

 

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

 

There currently exists a single family dwelling on the property.  Granting the requested variance is the minimum action that will allow the applicant to construct and use the proposed deck which does not extend any further into the setback for Buckhorn Road or the Buckhorn Creek than what was previously approved with the original variance request.

 

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 from 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 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.         All future additions or buildings on the property shall conform to the required setbacks as defined by the Land Use Code and must obtain approval through the proper county review and planning process.

 

3.         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 Bohling, 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-BOA0728  (Liepas Setback, Variance)

Owner:           Algirdas & Asta Liepas

Applicant:      Algirdas & Asta Liepas

Property Description:

 

LOT 5, FARRELL SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

            The Application of Algirdas and Asta Liepas, requesting two variances was presented to the Board.  The Application requested setback variances upon the above-described property (i) to allow an addition on the west side of an existing garage and north side of an existing house to be 7 feet from the north property line, and (ii) to allow an addition on the south side of an existing house to be 57.5 feet from the centerline of Overland Trail.  The required setbacks for this parcel are 25 feet from the north property line and 100 feet from the right-of-way centerline of Overland Trail. 

 

            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 32-8-69; 2132 North Overland Trail, Fort Collins; located at the intersection of Overland Trail and Bingham Hill Drive on the southeast corner.

 

3.         Site data is as follows:

 

a.         Land Area:                              0.34 Acres

b.         Proposed Use:                         Single Family Residence

c.         Existing Zoning:                     FA-Farming

d.         Surrounding Zoning:               FA-Farming

e.         Existing Land Use:                 Single Family Residence

f.          Surrounding Land Uses:         Residential, Recreational

g.         Access:                                    Overland Trail

 

            4.         This variance request involves two parts:

 

(i)         A setback variance to allow an addition on the west side of an existing garage and north side of an existing house to be 7 feet from the north property line.  This addition will connect the existing home with the existing detached garage.  The addition would be in-line with the existing detached garage and will not come any closer to Bingham Hill Road.  This addition will not come any closer to Overland Trail than the existing house.  The required setback from the north property line in the FA-Farming zoning district is 25 feet.

 

(ii)        A setback variance to allow an addition on the south side of the existing residence to be 57.5 feet from the centerline of Overland Trail.  This addition will not encroach into the south side setback which is 5 feet.  The existing house is approximately 70 feet from the centerline of Overland Trail.  There is an existing deck which is less than 30 inches above grade that extends further into the setback for Overland Trail.  The proposed addition would be in-line with the existing deck.  Overland Trail is classified as a major collector and the required setback from the right-of-way centerline is 100 feet.

 

5.         The existing home was built in 1955 prior to setback requirements and is considered nonconforming.  The existing deck along the west side of the house, facing Overland Trail is less than 30 inches above grade and does not require a building permit.  There is an existing access and parking area in front of the deck.

 

6.         Permit #98-F6197 was issued for an addition to the detached garage on 8/6/1998.   The addition to the detached garage was in-line with the garage at that time and did not come any closer to the north property line. 

 

7.         There are no major issues or concerns with the request for the addition on the north side of the existing house tying into the existing detached garage, There are no issues or concerns with the request for the addition on the south side of the existing house provided the distance from Overland Trail is slightly increased.

 

8.         There were no persons in attendance who objected to the requests.

 

9.         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 property is that there is an existing home on the property built in 1955 prior to the established setback requirements.  The existing home already encroaches into the setbacks for Overland Trail and the north property line.  In addition there is also an existing detached garage which already encroaches into the north property line setback as well.  Because the house does not meet the current setback requirements and it is closer to Overland Trail than the required setback it is considered nonconforming.  The location of the home and the detached garage limit the area for the addition on the north side of the property. This addition will not come any closer to the north property line or to Overland Trail than the existing buildings.

 

The addition on the south side of the property is proposed to be 13 feet closer to Overland Trail than the western face of the existing house.  There is currently a deck along that western side and the addition is proposed to be in-line with that deck.  The deck is currently less than 30 inches above grade and it is open and uncovered.  It therefore does not require a building permit.  The proposed renovation is designed so as not to bring the addition any closer to Overland Trail than the current existing structure, including decks. 

 

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 home was built in this location prior to the current owners owning the property. 

 

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.

 

The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship in regards to the north side addition to the existing house.  Denial of the variance for the residence would require impractical floor plans which would require sacrificing substantial parts of the backyard.  One of applicants’ objectives is to use areas of the lot that have been previously underused.  Another neighbor was granted a variance in 2002 to allow a structure 62 feet from Overland Trail.

 

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

 

Granting the variances will allow the owner reasonable use of the land and the existing residence and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.

 

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 variances would adversely affect any neighbors or their property.  No objections have been received by any of the neighboring property owners at this time. 

 

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

 

Granting the variances is consistent with the purpose of this Code and the Master Plan.  Granting the variances will allow the owner reasonable use of the land and will not adversely impact neighboring properties or their owners.  Because there is currently an existing nonconforming home on the property that encroaches into the setback from Overland Trail staff is be willing to support a request to have the addition in in-line with the western face of the existing house.

 

G.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

 Referral agency comments have been considered. No objections were offered from other agencies or departments.

 

10.       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 applicants be and they hereby are granted their setback variance to allow an addition on the west side of an existing garage and north side of an existing house to be 7 feet from the north property line 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.    All future additions or buildings on the property shall conform to the required setbacks as defined by the Land Use Code and must obtain approval through the proper county review and planning process.

 

3.    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.

 

The question was called and members Jean Christman, Eric Bohling, 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.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that applicants be and they hereby are granted a setback variance to allow the addition on the south side of an existing house to be 60 feet from the centerline of Overland Trail, which would be in-line with the western face of the existing house, 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.         All future additions or buildings on the property shall conform to the required setbacks as defined by the Land Use Code and must obtain approval through the proper county review and planning process.

 

            3.         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 Bohling, Evelyn King, and  Matt Strauch voted in favor of the Resolution. Member Alan Cram voted against 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 8:00 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:

 

 

 

________________________________