ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FINAL MINUTES
JULY 13, 2026
The Routt County Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
with the following members participating: Chairman George Blau, Brian Kelly,
Don Prowant, and David Hoffman. Todd Pedersen and Lyle Krug were absent.
Planning Director Kristy Winser and staff planner Greg Jaeger were also present.
Sarah Katherman prepared the minutes.
Ms. Winser explained that because only four members of the board are present,
a unanimous vote to approve would be required for an adjustment to be granted.
The applicant can choose to request a tabling to a future meeting at any time
prior to a motion being made.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
MINUTES – June 8, 2026
Mr. Kelly moved to approve the minutes of the above cited Board of Adjustment
hearing, as written. Mr. Prowant seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 –
0, with the Chair voting yes.
ACTIVITY: PL2026029
APPELLANT: Bruce Enever
REQUEST: Adjustment to the property line setback to allow an
existing barn to remain in its current location
Required: 50 ft. from the property line
Requested: 23.96 ft. from the east property line for an adjustment of
17.04 ft.
LOCATION: 28940 Valley View Lane; located 0.12 miles from the
intersection of Valley View Lane and Yellow Jacket Drive
Mr. Enever reviewed his request for an adjustment to the property line setback.
He said that they had purchased the property in 2017, but the property was not
surveyed. He said that he was not aware that the existing barn was out of
compliance until he pulled a permit to erect a steel barn/garage on the property.
He said that the new structure will not require an adjustment to the required
setbacks, but all structures must be brought into compliance prior to the permit
being issued. Mr. Enever said that he believes the existing barn was placed
where it is due to the unusual topography of the lot. Only 2 of the 9 acres of the
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES July 13, 2026
2
lot are buildable; the rest is very steep. He said that the barn is well-constructed
and serves its purpose.
Mr. Jaeger reviewed the petition to allow the existing barn to remain in its current
location. He reviewed the history of Blacktail Mountain Estates and described the
existing barn. He said that because the structure was built under the agricultural
permit exemption, it did not require a building permit. The barn continues to be
used for agricultural purposes. Mr. Jaeger described the property and noted the
prevalence of steep slopes. He presented a site plan and noted that the existing
barn, which has been in its location for over twenty years, is 23.96 ft. from the
east property line. The required setback is 50 ft. Mr. Jaeger presented a diagram
showing the steep slopes on the lot. He presented photos of the barn and the
main dwelling. Mr. Jaeger stated that staff is in support of approving the
adjustment. He reviewed the criteria and explained how the petition meets each
one. He reviewed the suggested conditions of approval.
Mr. Blau asked how far the barn is from the closest neighbor. Mr. Jaeger said
that the nearest residence is about 150 ft. from the barn. He added that the
neighbors had written a letter of support for the adjustment.
MOTION
Mr. Kelly moved to approve item PL2026029, an adjustment to the required
setback from the east property line of 17.04 ft, for a total setback of 23.96 ft. This
approval is based on the following findings of fact:
1.Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or an unnecessary and
unreasonable hardship will be imposed on the property owner if the
provisions of this UDC are strictly enforced because the barn is already
built, and it would be exceptionally difficult for the current owner to move
them today.
2.The requested Adjustment is the minimum deviation necessary to enable
reasonable use of the property. The barn’s location provides sufficient
space between the property line and the building to avoid any snow
trespass or utility placement issue. The topography beyond the 50-foot
setback becomes steep, limiting the developable area to accommodate a
reasonably sized barn.
3.The Adjustment is necessary to provide the property with comparable use
rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the
applicable zone district because it is common and customary for
agricultural properties to have a barn of this size and use in this zone
district.
4.The Adjustment, if granted, will not confer a personal convenience or
special privilege to the applicants, as they are only seeking to legalize a
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES July 13, 2026
3
barn that has been continuously used by-right for agricultural purposes
since it’s construction.
5.Circumstances creating the hardship were in existence on the effective
date of the regulations from which an adjustment is requested, or were
created subsequently through no fault of the applicant because the
applicants did not build this structure.
6.The property for which an Adjustment is requested possesses a site-
specific constraint, such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape
or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition
which does not occur generally in other properties in the same zone
district because this particular property has steep north-south slopes
running through the middle of the property, making development beyond
the steep slopes impractical, leaving a developable area exceptionally
narrow.
7.The Adjustment, if granted, will not diminish the value, use, or enjoyment
of the adjacent properties, nor curtail desirable light, air, and open space
in the neighborhood, nor change the character of the neighborhood
because the barn is already constructed it does not encroach upon any
adjacent dwellings, structures, or properties, nor impair neighboring
property owners own uses.
8.The Adjustment, if granted, will not be directly contrary to the intent and
purpose of this UDC or the Master Plan because the UDC and Master
Plan are intended to facilitate by-right uses such as agriculture, and
cannot anticipate every situation in which a reduced setback is beneficial
without creating negative impacts.
This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.This approval is specific to the plans submitted in the application. Any
change in footprint, size, height, or site location that increases the level on
non-conformance will be subject to a new application. Minor changes that
do not increase the level of non-conformance can be approved
administratively, without notice.
2.All development associated with this Adjustment, including lighting,
signage, utilities, stormwater, access, parking, landscaping/revegetation,
and snow storage, shall comply with the applicable standards in Chapter 3
of the UDC.
3.A building that is proposed to be used for a use other than residential
dwelling unit may contain plumbing for water and/or sewage system if the
owners signs a recordable agreement limiting the use of the building to
uses other than a dwelling unit. No planning approval may be issued
without the signed agreement per UDC 3.4.G. Therefore, a plumbing
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES July 13, 2026
4
agreement for this structure must be recorded within 6 months of
approval.
Mr. Prowant seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4 – 0, with the Chair voting yes.
ACTIVITY: PL2026044
APPELLANT: Kevin Rohnstock and Claudia Anderson
REQUEST: Adjustment to the property line setback to allow an
addition into the setback
Required: 50 ft. from the property line
Requested: 44.2 ft. from the west property line for an adjustment of
5.8 ft.
LOCATION: 31650 Aspen Ridge Road; located 0.22 miles from the
intersection of Aspen Ridge Road and Agate Creek
Road
Ms. Sally Kavanagh, an architect representing the petitioner, distributed a site
plan. She presented an aerial view of the site and stated that the existence of
steep slopes make the site challenging. She reviewed the history of the property
and stated that the existing garage is 24 ft. x 24 ft. 2 in. and is legally
nonconforming, as it encroaches slightly into the required setback. She offered
that the difficulties with the site stem from where the original home and garage
were sited over 40 years ago. Ms. Kavanagh stated that the goal of the
renovation is to update the garage and provide safe year-round access between
the house and the garage. She presented a site plan indicating the proposed
expansion of the existing garage, which would encroach 5 ft. 9 in. into the
setback. She noted that the proposal retains three of the four existing walls of the
current structure. Ms. Kavanagh stated the difference in elevation between the
garage and the house is approximately 9 ft. 3 in. Currently, there is no enclosed
or protected connection between the two structures. She presented photos of the
garage and indicated the required setback and the proposed setback. Ms.
Kavanagh offered that by cutting back into the existing slope, the visual impact of
the expansion and the disturbance to the site will be minimized. She presented a
photo taken from the roof of the garage of the corner of a tarp on the ground to
illustrate the total encroachment into the setback by the proposed expansion.
The total encroachment would be approximately 30 sq. ft. She stated that the
garage would not be visible from the roadway because the topography and the
vegetation serve to screen it. Ms. Kavanagh presented a photo showing the
existing outdoor stairs from the home to the garage and the driveway. She noted
that the existing stairway is not code-compliant. She said that the garage
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES July 13, 2026
5
expansion is primarily about creating a safe and protected access between the
parking areas and the house.
Ms. Kavanagh presented elevation drawings of the existing structure and the
proposed structure. She noted the overlapping roofs designed to provide
protection from ice and snow as people move between the garage and the home.
The design also provides interior stairs that would provide access to the upper
landing at the level of the residence. She presented floor plans of the existing
garage and the proposed expanded garage. Ms. Kavanagh offered that the
design is intended to minimize the modification necessary to provide a
reasonable improvement and to minimize the encroachment into the setback, as
well as minimize the visual impact. She said that the homeowners’ association
(HOA) has approved the encroachment, contingent upon the County’s approval
of the adjustment request.
Mr. Kevin Rohnstock stated that after purchasing the home they had to renovate
it extensively due to some structural issues. He said that since then they have
been working with the HOA on how best to improve the garage to raise it to the
standard of the renovated home and the neighborhood. He said that one of the
goals is to make the garage appear as if it were connected to the home, as
attached garages are preferred by the HOA. He said that the HOA is very
supportive of the interior staircase. He highlighted the dangerous nature of the
existing exterior stairs.
Mr. Jaeger reviewed the history of the Dakota Ridge Subdivision, which was
created in 1982. A blanket variance for relief from the required setbacks was
granted to 32 of the 73 lots. The subject lot was not part of the blanket variance.
The subject house and garage were built in 1983. The existing legally non-
conforming garage encroaches 8.25 inches into the setback. Mr. Jaeger noted
that the subject lot has steep slopes that constrain development elsewhere on
the property.
Mr. Jaeger described the proposal to reconstruct and expand the existing garage
in its current location, encroaching 5 ft. 9 in. into the setback. The proposal is to
expand the garage to accommodate modern vehicles, add an upper-level
residential area, and provide safe and protected circulation between the house
and the detached garage.
Mr. Jaeger presented site plans, mapping of the steep slopes, and mapping of
the skylined area of the lot. He also presented site plans and elevation drawings
of the existing structures and the proposed expansion. He described the proposal
and noted that the additional residential area cannot be converted to a secondary
dwelling unit because the property is under 5 acres and is not served by central
water and sewer. If approved, a plumbing agreement would be required. Mr.
Jaeger presented photos of the site and the structures.
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES July 13, 2026
6
Mr. Jaeger stated that staff has determined that the garage could be expanded to
the east, toward the existing front entrance to the house, which would allow the
desired improvements in functionality without requiring an adjustment. He
reviewed all eight of the adjustment criteria and stated that staff has determined
that criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 cannot be met. The detailed reasons are provided in
the staff report. He offered that the proposal represents a design preference
rather than a true hardship caused by the physical constraints of the property.
Mr. Jaeger stated that exterior access already exists, that expansion of the
garage to the east is possible, with sufficient room for the stairs to provide safe,
protected access. He stated that because alternatives are available, staff is
recommending denial of the request.
Mr. Prowant asked why the whole proposed structure could not be shifted to the
east. Ms. Kavanagh stated that the HOA is strictly enforcing its rules and does
not want the building to be visible. She stated that if the building were shifted to
the east, retaining the western wall of the garage, the exterior stair would be in
front of the entrance. She stated that the snow shedding from the roof of the
garage would drop directly in front of the door to the residence. Mr. Rohnstock
added that moving the proposed structure to the east would infringe upon the
view lines from the house.
Mr. Hoffman asked about positioning the interior stairs at the back of the garage.
Ms. Kavanagh stated that it was unreasonable to ask the residents of this home
in this neighborhood to weave through a garage to access the interior stairs at
the back of the garage.
Mr. Kelly offered that aesthetic considerations cannot be considered by the BOA.
Ms. Kavanagh stated that keeping three of the four walls in place and minimizing
the environmental disturbance is preferable to demolishing the garage and
starting over. She stated that she believes that there is the word of the code and
that there is the intent of the code. She stated that the design is intended to meet
the intent of the code by causing the least disturbance possible to achieve the
desired goal.
Mr. Kelly noted that in his experience he has not seen an application come
through where staff felt that five of the eight criteria could not be supported. He
said it was not clear to him why the structure could not be shifted to the east.
There was discussion of a site visit to the property. Mr. Kelly said that based on
the information presented, he was inclined to deny the request but that after
seeing the property he might change his mind. Ms. Winser stated that a site
inspection can be arranged.
Mr. Rohnstock stated that gaining approval from the HOA for the project was
difficult. He acknowledged that shifting the project to the east would be feasible,
but added that the roof overhangs on the new structure will block the views from
the house. Ms. Kavanagh offered that moving the garage to east would create
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES July 13, 2026
7
access issues. There was a discussion of the other properties in Dakota Ridge
that have reduced setbacks through the blanket variance and the discrepancies
between multiple surveys. Mr. Kelly noted that a 5-foot discrepancy is significant.
Mr. Hoffman said that he thinks the proposed design is a good one, but offered
that increasing the nonconformity when an alternative is available does not meet
the criteria for an adjustment. Ms. Winser stated that there is no flexibility for
mitigation in the adjustment process. She discussed the importance of being
consistent.
Mr. Prowant asked about truncating the corner of the proposed garage.
Ms. Winser noted that the applicant would be allowed to return to the BOA with a
different or reduced request. Mr. Jaeger explained that an adjustment would be
required even if the encroachment remains as it is because the second story
would also encroach. Mr. Rohnstock asked if the current encroachment of 8.25
inches could be approved at this hearing. He noted that the most important
aspect of the second story of the garage was not to add more living area but
rather to allow an exit from the interior staircase.
Mr. Hoffman stated that he could support a reduced encroachment that could be
created through shifting the structure to the east. He offered that doing the
minimum possible would be supportable. Mr. Kelly agreed. There was a
discussion of possible alternatives. Following discussion of the alternatives that
would result in a reduced adjustment to the setback, Mr. Rohnstock requested
that the item be tabled to allow for a redesign.
MOTION
Mr. Kelly moved to table item PL20260044, a requested adjustment to the
property line setback to August 10, 2026.
Mr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4 – 0, with the Chair voting yes.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Ms. Winser stated that the August meeting was likely to have two items.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.