Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 05/16/05  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, MAY 16, 2005

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#47)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Wagner were present.  Also present were:  Sean Wheeler, Al Kadera, and Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Planning Department;  Dave Shirk, Estes Park Planner; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Christy Coleman, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  Chair Rennels explained that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

1.   MARY'S LAKE RIDGE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT:  This is a request to subdivide a 3.75-acre parcel into six lots.  The property is zoned “A-1” Accommodations, which allows either single-family residential or accommodations use.  The base density of 4 units/acre has been decreased to account for slope.  An open space lot will be dedicated.  Little Prospect Road will be paved from Mary’s Lake Road to the eastern property line, and the units will be served by the proposed Silver Tree Lane, a private driveway; right-of-way will be dedicated for both of these.  Larimer County Engineering has provided additional comments since the Planning Commission meeting.  Staff recommends these be incorporated as conditions of approval.  Staff recommends approval of the requested Mary’s Lake Ridge Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and compliance with the memo from Larimer County Engineering (Roxann Hayes) to Estes Park Community Development (Dave Shirk) dated April 28, 2005.  On Tuesday, April 19, 2005 the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:  1.  Staff has approved a modification to allow six units to access a private driveway.  2.  This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.  3.  Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed subdivision.  4. A development agreement will need to be reviewed and approved by Larimer County Engineering before final approval by the Board of County Commissioners.  5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.  No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Mary’s Lake Ridge Preliminary Plat conditional to:  1.  The required Disclosure Notice shall include the following:  limitations on Floor Area Ratio and impervious coverage, tree and vegetation protection, landscaping requirements, and the limit of one curb cut per lot (unless a waiver is granted).  2.  The required Development Agreement shall include the following:  landscaping, utility improvements, road and stormwater requirements, as-built plans, and removal of the existing barbwire fence.  3.  A road, landscaping, and drainage facility maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the final plat.  4.  Compliance with memo from Greg White dated February 14, 2005. 5.  Compliance with memos from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated February 11, 2005 (Ron Witt and David Brand).  6.  Compliance with memo from Town of Estes Park Public Works (Greg Sievers) dated February 10, 2005.  7.  Compliance with memo from Larimer County Engineering (Roxann Hayes) dated April 12, 2005.

 

2.  MARY'S LAKE RIDGE SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT:   This is a request to finalize the Mary’s Lake Ridge Subdivision.  Staff recommends approval of the requested Mary’s Lake Ridge Final Plat conditional to:  1. Compliance with the Preliminary Plat.  2.  The applicant shall record the development agreement, a Subordination Agreement, and Disclosure Notice, all of which shall be subject to review and approval by Staff.

 

3.  HARVEY ROLLING HILLS PLANNED LAND DIVISION LOTS 1, 2, & 3 AMENDED PLAT; 05-S2424:  This is a request for an Amended Plat to remove the building envelopes on Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Harvey Rolling Hills Planned Land Division.  The applicant seeks approval to remove the platted building envelopes from Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Harvey Rolling Hills Planned Land Division.  The building envelopes are not required for a Planned Land Division by the Land Use Code.  They were not recommended by Staff during the initial review process, but the applicant declined to have them removed before the Final Plat was recorded.  Removal of the building envelopes now will allow property owners greater flexibility in the placement of structures on their lots.  Staff findings are as follows:  1. The proposed amended plat complies with the Larimer County Land Use Code. 2. The proposed amended plat is compatible with other development in the surrounding area.  3. Approval of the amended plat will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment or the provision of services and infrastructure.  4.  The amended plat will not adversely affect property values in the surrounding area.  Staff recommendation is for approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, & 3 of the Harvey Rolling Hills Planned Land Division File #05-S2424, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:  1. The Final Amended Plat shall be consistent with the information contained in File # 05-S2424, or as modified by conditions of approval.  2. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by November 16, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.  3.  Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by the County Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

MO T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.  EASTWOOD/SWEET LEGAL LOT CHALLENGE:  This is an appeal of Staff determination that the applicant’s property is not a separate legal lot. The property owner has made a formal request that this PID is two separate lots, having been divided with the dedication of right-of-way for Little Valley Road in 1977.  Staff has consulted with the Larimer County Attorney, and determined that this action did not create two separate lots.  The right-of-way was dedicated through a deed of dedication, and was never formally subdivided as required by State law.  Section 13.3.135b defines a lot as follows:  “An individual parcel of land which was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed and otherwise used as a separate developable unit that was created by a legal conveyance of said parcel prior to May 5, 1972 and created in conformance with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations, if any, in effect at the time of creation.  In determining whether or not the individual parcel was intended at the time of its creation to be separately owned, developed and otherwise used as a separate developable unit, the procedure and standards for review set forth in §3.14 shall be used.”  Staff made the determination that PID 2406300012 is a single parcel based on the following factors: 1. The parcel in question does not meet the minimum lot size of 2 ½ acres, which has been in place since 1958. 2.  The parcel in question has never been owned or taxed separately.  3. The parcel in question has never been formally subdivided.  4.  The parcel in question has one legal description that encompasses the entire area and in no way indicates there are two parcels.  5.  There is no deed describing the parcel in question as a separate lot.  Staff recommends the Board uphold Staff determination that PID 2406300012 is a single legal lot.

Mr. Shirk displayed an aerial photo of the property as well as a drawing of the parcel lot lines; he explained that when the easement was dedicated it did not subdivide the property.  Mr. Shirk also noted that the parcel continues to be taxed as a single element.  Bill Van Horn, representative for the applicant, stated that historically, the Planning Department's policy supported the creation of a separate lot if the easement physically divided the property.    Mr. Van Horn stated that the severed piece of land is the most desirable piece of the parcel due to its location, and the owners surely did not intend to give up rights to this land by dedicating the road.  Mr. Van Horn stated that the current Land Use Code has a new list of rules and regulations and does not recognize the old policy.   Mr. Kadera confirmed that in the past there were circumstances in which a separate lot would be created when a road or easement divided a piece of property; however, it was not a hard and fast rule to do so.  Mr. Kadera stated that one of the reasons the current Land Use Code was created was to better define polices that may have been ambiguous in the past.  Commissioner Gibson asked if the applicant wanted the two lot designation in order to be able to build homes on each side of the road.  Mr. Van Horn replied in the affirmative.  Chair Rennels opened the hearing for public comment and Elise Sweet, co-owner of the property, addressed the Board stating that this property has been in their family for generations.  Ms. Sweet explained that her mother was the one who signed the dedication for the easement, and although there was no deed issued for the severed piece of land, their understanding was that it was a separate legal lot.  Ms. Sweet asked the Board to consider the history and approve the appeal.  Chair Rennels closed public comment.  Commissioner Gibson stated that he would support the appeal as long as the entire triangular piece of land on the west side of the road was included in the lot, which would comprise of approximately 1.5 acres.  Commissioner Wagner also supported the appeal, but wanted the property owner to understand that there is the potential for serious building restrictions on the newly created lot based upon the required setbacks and topography of the land.  Chair Rennels supported the appeal as long as the property owner was willing to recalculate the density on the east side of the parcel and add the condition that in no event would the combined total density of the original 10 acre parcel exceed 2.5 acres per unit

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Eastwood/Sweet Legal Lot Challenge with the above noted condition.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  SKI KIVA USE RESTRICTION COVENANT:   This is a request for a Use Restriction Covenant, prepared by Town Attorney White, to govern the future use of a 40-acre parcel located at 2120 McGraw Ranch Road (PID 2508105020), commonly known as “Sky Kiva.”  The structure sits atop a bluff overlooking the North End of Estes Park, and was originally built in 1957, becoming a local landmark over time.  This use restriction covenant is requested to allow the continuation of Sky Kiva as a family enclave.  The property currently has two summer cabins, and is considered legally non-conforming under the Estes Valley Development Code.  The property owner desires to build one additional cabin, one single-family residence, and one detached “barn” structure, thus totaling one single-family residence, three accessory dwellings, and one accessory building.  The property is zoned “RE-1”, which has density of 1-unit per 10-acres.  For this property, this equates to four units.  The applicant proposes only one single-family residence, and three accessory units.  Under the current lot size and zoning code, they owner could have one primary residence and one accessory dwelling.  Therefore, this is essentially a request to allow two additional accessory dwelling units.  Granting of the Use Restriction Covenant will maximize open space conservation for this 40-acre parcel.  The concept is to provide a family enclave with all structures being close together.  If the property were to be subdivided, each lot would need to be 10-acres, with 50-foot setbacks.  This would have the effect of spreading development across the entire parcel rather than clustering in one location.  Furthermore, each of the four potential single-family dwellings could be occupied year round and rented individually, thus increasing traffic in the neighborhood.  Finally, each of the four potential single-family dwellings could have an accessory building up to 5,400 square feet, whereas this proposal would allow only one accessory building.  In consideration of the Board allowing the continuation of the legal non-conforming use and the building of the single-family residence, accessory dwelling unit and barn, the owner agrees:  1.  The cabins may not be rented nor used year round (though the single-family dwelling could be occupied year round); 2.  To abide by applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code, including Ridgeline Protection Standards and maximum accessory dwelling unit and accessory structure sizes; and, 3. Not to subdivide the property.  Staff presented this proposal to the Estes Valley Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled April 19, 2005 meeting.  The Planning Commission had no objections to this proposal.  In addition, notice of this proposal has been given to the North End Property Owner’s Association, as well as surrounding property owners.  No objections have been brought forth. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Use Restriction Covenant for the “Sky Kiva” property located at 2120 McGraw Ranch Road.

Mr. Shirk described the proposal as outlined above.  Commissioner Wagner questioned what exactly represented summer months and whether or not the Board should define the months of use for the applicant.  Some discussion ensued and the Board agreed that it would be up to the property owner to define the months of use for the cabins, as they have already self-imposed a number of restrictions and they are not present to agree to changes of the Use Restriction Covenant.  Chair Rennels noted that there was no public present to comment on this item.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Sky Kiva Use Restriction Covenant.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS; 05-CA0054:  This is a request to make a number of changes to the adopted Larimer County Land Use Code and Road Manual.  The current Larimer County Road Manual does not include any specifications for traffic control devices and street name signs.  The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the governing standard for traffic control devices but additional standards are necessary to clarify standards specific to Larimer County.   This amendment is intended to standardize the specifications for all traffic control and streets name signs in the rural portions of the County.  The Urban Area Street Standards currently include specifications that apply in the urban portions of the County.  This amendment will add a new Section 4.5 to the County Road Manual and two new plates (29 and 30) which contain illustrations.

Mr. Kadera stated that the language listed below is identical except for the numbering as it is being published in both the road manual and the land use code.  The following are the proposed amendments to the road manual and the land use code:

            Add to Section 4 of the Larimer County Road Manual:

4.5  ROAD NAME SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

A.   General

This section describes general signing design requirements for use in unincorporated Larimer County. All design and construction of signing shall be in conformance with this section and the current requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  If there are discrepancies between these standards and the MUTCD, the MUTCD will take precedence. For the purposes of this section, ‘roads’ and ‘streets’ mean the same thing.

B.   Traffic Signing

1.   Type and Location of Signs

The County Engineer shall make the final determination regarding the type and location of signage controls within the right-of-way or access easement. These controls shall include traffic control signs, road name signs, delineators, and permanent barricades.

2.   New Roadway 

Permanent signage, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer, shall be completely in place before any new road or access easement is opened for use.

3.   Sign Posts, Supports, and Mountings

Sign posts and their foundations and sign mountings shall be constructed to hold signs in a proper and permanent position, to resist swaying in the wind or displacement by vandalism.

Sign Post. The post shall be constructed in two sections:
Anchor Sleeve. A 2-inch 12-gauge galvanized steel square stub section with holes, three (3) feet long, is driven into the ground 30 to 33 inches with 3 to 6 inches remaining above the final grade. The sign post system’s material specification is Telspar 22F12A 03PG, or approved equal, 2-inch x 3 feet anchor post with holes.
Post Section. A 1 ¾ -inch square galvanized steel post section with holes is inserted into the stub and bolted. The material specification is Telspar 20F12P-10PG, or approved equal, 1 ¾ -inch square 12-gauge 10-foot post with holes. Posts shall be installed 6 to 8 inches into the anchor (stub), which has 3 to 6 inches sticking out above the final grade.
Post Bolts. Two 2-1/2-inch long, 3/8-inch hex head bolts are used to attach sign posts to sign anchor (stubs). These bolts shall be separated by one predrilled hole space and installed 90 degrees to one another.
Sign Bolts. Signs are mounted to the post with a minimum of two bolts (5/16-inch with nylon and metal washers) or standard rivets (TL3806 EG, drive rivet) with nylon washers placed against the sign face. The bolt or rivet system is used to fasten signs to the square tube post.
Other Sign Mounts. Streetlights and approved utility poles, when located appropriately, may be used for signs such as warning, parking, and speed limit signs. Streetlight locations should be checked for potential sign installation during the design process and shown on the sign plan sheets.
Breakaway Post System. Posts must be of appropriate length to comply with MUTCD specifications for the location, must conform to CDOT Specification Section 614, and must meet the Federal breakaway standards.

4.   Sign Reflectivity 

All traffic control signs must be fabricated with reflective materials. All reflective materials must meet the requirements of the current requirements of the MUTCD. All signs or traffic control devices must have a 7-year materials warranty.

5.   Panel Gauge

Aluminum blanks of .080 gauge are standard, except for signs larger than 36 x 36 inches, which shall be .100 or .125 gauge aluminum.

C.   Intersections

 

1.   Street Name Sign

General. All road name signs must conform to these standards, See Plate 29 and 30. If the intersection has a traffic signal, road name signs will be designated as part of the signal.
Sign Assembly. All plates shall be installed with end bolts on all plates. There shall be two plates for each road, with a minimum of four plates per road sign assembly. For non-County maintained roads intersecting with numbered County roads, the only sign panels will be for the private road.  There will not be any sign panels for the County road.
Sign Face.
Letter Size. Refer to the following table and Plate 29 and 30 for letter size specifications.

Posted Speed Limit

Letter Size

Minimum Height of Sign Blank

25 mph or less

4”

6”, Lengths may vary

Greater than 25 mph

6” Caps / 4.5” lower case

8”, Lengths may vary

Multi-lane road greater than 40 mph

8” Caps / 6” lower case

10”, Lengths may vary

* The minimum letter height for the “PRIVATE” designation is 1.5 inches
Color. For all public and private roadways, including access easements, letters and numbers are to be white on a green background face. For all private roads, the word “PRIVATE” shall be included on the sign as shown on Plate 29 and 30.  The colors shall not fade when exposed to an accelerated test of ultraviolet light equivalent to 5 years of outdoor exposure. No silk screened signs are permitted.

 

Border. There shall be no borders on road name signs.

Road Name. Road name designations shall be obtained from the approved plat for a land division or shall otherwise be assigned by the County addressing coordinator.
Change of Name. At the point where a road changes names from one section to the next, the change should be designated on the road name assembly by using directional arrows and will require two additional plates.
No Outlet Signs. On any cul-de-sac, temporary dead-end road, or any other roads with only one access point a “No Outlet” (W14-2a) sign may be placed under the road name signs.

The Road Manual does not apply to the Rural Land Use Process therefore the same document needs to be added to Section 5.8.6.D.e.  This will be a new Subsection 4.  The two plates that are being added to the Road Manual will appear as exhibits in Section 5.8.6 of the Land Use Code to guide applicants for Rural Land Plans.  The Director of the Rural Land Use Center recommends the adoption of these standards.

5.8.6.D.e.4.      ROAD NAME SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

A.    General

This section describes general signing design requirements for use in unincorporated Larimer County. All design and construction of signing shall be in conformance with this section and the current requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  If there are discrepancies between these standards and the MUTCD, the MUTCD will take precedence. For the purposes of this section, ‘roads’ and ‘streets’ mean the same thing.

B.    Traffic Signing

1)         Type and Location of Signs

The County Engineer shall make the final determination regarding the type and location of signage controls within the right-of-way or access easement. These controls shall include traffic control signs, road name signs, delineators, and permanent barricades.

2)         New Roadway 

Permanent signage, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer, shall be completely in place before any new road or access easement is opened for use.

3)         Sign Posts, Supports, and Mountings

Sign posts and their foundations and sign mountings shall be constructed to hold signs in a proper and permanent position, to resist swaying in the wind or displacement by vandalism.

Sign Post. The post shall be constructed in two sections:
Anchor Sleeve. A 2-inch 12-gauge galvanized steel square stub section with holes, three (3) feet long, is driven into the ground 30 to 33 inches with 3 to 6 inches remaining above the final grade. The sign post system’s material specification is Telspar 22F12A 03PG, or approved equal, 2-inch x 3 feet anchor post with holes.
Post Section. A 1 ¾ -inch square galvanized steel post section with holes is inserted into the stub and bolted. The material specification is Telspar 20F12P-10PG, or approved equal, 1 ¾ -inch square 12-gauge 10-foot post with holes. Posts shall be installed 6 to 8 inches into the anchor (stub), which has 3 to 6 inches sticking out above the final grade.
Post Bolts. Two 2-1/2-inch long, 3/8-inch hex head bolts are used to attach sign posts to sign anchor (stubs). These bolts shall be separated by one predrilled hole space and installed 90 degrees to one another.
Sign Bolts. Signs are mounted to the post with a minimum of two bolts (5/16-inch with nylon and metal washers) or standard rivets (TL3806 EG, drive rivet) with nylon washers placed against the sign face. The bolt or rivet system is used to fasten signs to the square tube post.
Other Sign Mounts. Streetlights and approved utility poles, when located appropriately, may be used for signs such as warning, parking, and speed limit signs. Streetlight locations should be checked for potential sign installation during the design process and shown on the sign plan sheets.
Breakaway Post System. Posts must be of appropriate length to comply with MUTCD specifications for the location, must conform to CDOT Specification Section 614, and must meet the Federal breakaway standards.

4.   Sign Reflectivity 

All traffic control signs must be fabricated with reflective materials. All reflective materials must meet the requirements of the current requirements of the MUTCD. All signs or traffic control devices must have a 7-year materials warranty.

5.   Panel Gauge

Aluminum blanks of .080 gauge are standard, except for signs larger than 36 x 36 inches, which shall be .100 or .125 gauge aluminum.

C.    Intersections

1.    Street Name Sign

General. All road name signs must conform to these standards, See Exhibits (Same as Plate 29 and 30 added to the Road Manual). If the intersection has a traffic signal, road name signs will be designated as part of the signal.
Sign Assembly. All plates shall be installed with end bolts on all plates. There shall be two plates for each road, with a minimum of four plates per road sign assembly. For non-County maintained roads intersecting with numbered County roads, the only sign panels will be for the private road.  There will not be any sign panels for the County road.
Sign Face.
Letter Size. Refer to the following table and Exhibits (Plate 29 and 30) same as added to the Road Manual) for letter size specifications.

Posted Speed Limit

Letter Size

Minimum Height of Sign Blank

25 mph or less

4”

6”, Lengths may vary

Greater than 25 mph

6” Caps / 4.5” lower case

8”, Lengths may vary

Multi-lane road greater than 40 mph

8” Caps / 6” lower case

10”, Lengths may vary

* The minimum letter height for the “PRIVATE” designation is 1.5 inches
Color. For all public and private roadways, including access easements, letters and numbers are to be white on a green background face. For all private roads, the word “PRIVATE” shall be included on the sign as shown on Exhibits (Plate 29 and 30 added to the Road Manual).  The colors shall not fade when exposed to an accelerated test of ultraviolet light equivalent to 5 years of outdoor exposure. No silk screened signs are permitted.

 

Border. There shall be no borders on road name signs.

Road Name. Road name designations shall be obtained from the approved plat for a land division or shall otherwise be assigned by the County addressing coordinator.
Change of Name. At the point where a road changes names from one section to the next, the change should be designated on the road name assembly by using directional arrows and will require two additional plates.
No Outlet Signs. On any cul-de-sac, temporary dead-end road, or any other roads with only one access point a “No Outlet” (W14-2a) sign may be placed under the road name signs.

The Larimer County Planning Department and the Larimer County Planning Commissioners recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Road Manual and the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Chair Rennels noted for the record that there was no public comment on this item.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Road Manual and the Larimer County Land Use Code as outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  WATERDALE AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW; 04-Z1522:  This is a request to amend the Waterdale Special Review to add 16 home sites to the approved 177 home sites for a total of 193 home sites in a manufactured home park, and an Appeal to Sections 8.14.2.S, regarding connectivity, 8.14.2.P, regarding gated private roads, and 8.14.2.N, regarding private roads. At a public hearing on April 20, 2005 the Larimer County Planning Commission considered the Waterdale Amended Special Review, a request to amend an approved Special Review in order to add 16 home sites to the approve 177 home sites in the Waterdale Manufactured Home Park.  The site is located adjacent and south of Mulberry/State Highway 14, approximately ½ mile east of the intersection of I-25 and Mulberry.  The parcel is zoned M-1, Multi-family.  The property is bordered on the east by the Clydesdale Park Subdivision, on the north by Mulberry, on the west by Boxelder Creek and Interchange Business Park, and on the south by vacant land owned by Mr. Les Kaplan.  The minutes prepared for the Planning Commission is attached.  Staff and the applicant are in agreement on all proposed conditions of approval.  This request was a discussion item before the Planning Commission because a neighboring land owner, Mr. Les Kaplan, believes that his request should be considered as a part of this application. Mr. Kaplan owns the parcel south of and adjacent to Waterdale, and anticipates developing it.   He believes that in order to develop his property, he must acquire an emergency access to Mr. Gallenstein’s parcel on the south end of the property included in the previously approved Special Review. He has written numerous letters (attached), and had several meetings with both county and city staff members.  It is the position of Planning Staff that:

o  This amendment to the Special Review does not re-open the entire site to re-review, but only that portion submitted for in the application was considered for review;

o  This Special Review Amendment is a request for a use, and is clearly, not a land division or subdivision and not subject to those regulations that apply to land divisions;

o  Some properties in the county are more expensive or difficult to develop than others;

o  Staff will apply current Code requirements to current applications, and will not re-open for re-consideration applications that have successfully gained Board approval soley for the benefit of an adjacent landowner;

o  Mr. Kaplan’s request for an emergency access from Mr. Gallenstein is a private and civil matter that should be negotiated between them, and the county does not have the authority to use this process to require Mr. Gallenstein to grant Mr. Kaplan’s request;

o  This application, in consideration of the requested appeals, and with the stated and agreed upon conditions of approval, meets the intent and standards set forth in the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

 

Staff has considered Mr. Kaplan’s requests, but does not believe it is appropriate to change our recommendation.  The Development Services Team and Planning Commission recommends approval of the Waterdale Amended Special Review, file #04-Z1522, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Waterdale Manufactured Home Park Amended Special Review shall be developed consistent with the Amended Special Review information contained in File #04-Z1522, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Waterdale Manufactured Home Park Amended Special Review.

2.    A right-turn deceleration lane on Highway 14, per CDOT criteria, and converting the existing full-movement intersection of Sunchase Drive and SH 14 into a right-in/right-out intersection. The turn lane and intersection improvements will be constructed before a building permit is issued on the 193rd residential unit on the property, or within two years of the approval, whichever is first. A final design of this turn lane and intersection improvements will be provided to Larimer County Engineering and CDOT for review and approval, and appropriate collateral will need to be provided to Larimer County, before the Special Review Development Agreement is recorded. The applicant may be required to dedicate additional right-of-way or easements, subject to the final approved design of this turn lane and intersection improvements.

3.    The applicant shall submit final plans for the emergency access from Brant Lane to Highway 14 to Larimer County Engineering for final approval; the applicant shall acquire a CDOT access permit for the construction of an emergency access from Brandt Lane to SH 14.

4.    This application shall pay the fees and meet all associated conditions of the Development Construction Permit. In addition, if the construction of the turn-lane and associated off-site/adjacent improvements occur separately from construction of the interior road, a separate Development Construction Permit shall be acquired by the applicant.

5.    The applicant shall submit a final road design to Larimer County Engineering for review and approval, and appropriate collateral will need to be provided to Larimer County, before the Special Review Development Agreement is recorded. The applicant shall construct the interior road (currently named Brandt Lane) to meet or exceed Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards requirements.

6.    The applicant will also construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to SH 14, outside of the ROW. The applicant will dedicate a public pedestrian/bike easement before the Special Review Development Agreement is recorded. This sidewalk shall be constructed with the interior road improvements, and subject to the same conditions. The sidewalk shall be maintained by the Waterdale/Sunflower HOA.

7.    Traffic Signal at SH 14 and Clydesdale Parkway/Camino del Mundo. It is expected that the traffic generated by the Development, together with traffic generated by the Clydesdale Park P.U.D., the Trails at Vista Bonita P.U.D., and Waterdale SR, will warrant signalization of the intersection of SH 14 and Clydesdale Parkway/Camino del Mundo at an estimated cost of $275,000. The Developer agrees to pay its proportionate share of the actual signalization costs in the amount of $5,790 ($362/unit) at such time as signalization is warranted, as determined by the County and CDOT based on established traffic generation engineering criteria. In anticipation of this expense, the Developer agrees to establish an interest-bearing escrow account and deposit therein the sum of $5,790 before recording this agreement. In the event that signalization is not warranted within two years after full build out of the Development or within ten years of recording of this Development Agreement, whichever shall occur first, the escrowed funds shall be returned to the Developer and the Developer shall be relieved of any future obligation to participate in the cost of the signalization.

8.    The applicant will publicly dedicate Sunchase Drive from SH 14 to and through Brenton Drive, as shown in Exhibit A, Waterdale Right-of-Way Description in File #04-Z1522. This right-of-way shall be 51-feet in width, as specified in Figure 7-9F of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (Residential Local Street). This right-of-way will be dedicated and recorded with the Special Review Development Agreement recordation.

9.    The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre School District fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees and Drainage fees. 

10.   Prior to submittal of the first building permit on this amendment, the applicant shall obtain final approvals of the landscaping plans, per Sean Wheeler, Larimer County Landscape Planner.

11.   The applicant shall assure that all manufactured homes shall be built to meet the requirements of Section 18.2.1.B.

12.    The applicant shall submit a detailed site plan, including lighting levels, trenching for utilities, sidewalk details, and other site details at the time of Development to be approved prior to approval of the Development Agreement.

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore stated that the applicant and staff are in agreement; however, as outlined in the staff report above, an adjacent property owner, Mr. Les Kaplin, has requested that the developer create an emergency access point to Mr. Gallenstein’s parcel on the south end of the property. Ms. Ponce-pore stated that staff does not support this request, and noted for the record that Mr. Kaplin was not in attendance.  Don Brookshire, representative for the applicant, displayed a slide show presentation and requested approval to create 16 manufactured homes on the site.  Mr. Brookshire stated that the site was originally earmarked for commercial development, but they are now requesting approval to place homes there instead.   There was no public comment for this item.  The Board supported the request especially in light of the fact that the developer is creating more affordable housing.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Waterdale Amended Special Review, File #04-Z1522, as outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  WARD/BOYD PIT AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW APPEAL; 05-G0075:  This is a request for approval to submit an Amended Special Review request to Larimer County for a site located within the Loveland GMA, as required in Section 4.2.1.D.2.d of the Land Use Code.   The applicant seeks approval to submit an Amended Special Review request to the County for a site located within the City of Loveland Growth Management Area.  The property is adjacent to the City Limits and can be annexed.  Under the provisions of Section 4.2.1.D.2.d of the Land Use Code, certain types of development requests within designated Growth Management Areas must be processed through the City following annexation, unless the City and the County agree to allow the County to process the request.  Approval of the Board of County Commissioners is required before County Staff can process the request, following notification from the appropriate designee at the City that the City does not wish to pursue annexation.  If this appeal is approved, the property owner will submit an application for an Amended Special Review to add a batch plant at the Boyd Pit site.  The Board of County Commissioners approved the Boyd Pit Special Review in April, 2003, but a batch plant was not part of the request as a need for one was not anticipated.  However, the City of Loveland has now asked the applicant to process material to be used for City road projects, for which a batch plant is needed.  For a variety of reasons, the City does not wish to annex the property and process the request.  The City’s initial review concluded that the site is not eligible for annexation.  After meeting with County Planning Staff, the City now recognizes this site is eligible and subject to the terms of the GMA overlay zone district.  Regardless of the site’s location and the nature of the request being asked (to support City road projects) the City has expressed the desire to have the applicant process the request through the County.  The Planning Department did not refer the appeal request to other County offices or outside agencies for review.  If the appeal is approved and the applicant submits an Amended Special Review request, a thorough review of all relevant Code Sections and Development Standards will occur at that time.           The City of Loveland Planning Department has deferred processing of this request to the County.  In general the City Staff prefer not to process gravel pit requests, primarily stressing they lack the experience that County has in this area.  Staff recommendation is for approval of the appeal request to allow Larimer County to process an Amended Special Review request at a site located within the Loveland Growth Management Area, subject to the provisions of Section 4.2.1.D.2.d of the Land Use Code.

Mr. Wheeler explained that the City of Loveland is aware that the County has more experience with approving gravel pits and supports the Planning Department and the Board of County Commissioners to process the site plan review for this application.   Commissioner Wagner questioned whether or not the City of Loveland will annex this land and business in the future and Mr. Wheeler stated that they have not indicated this.  Mr. Dick Ward, representative for Ward Spaces, LLC., stated that they wish to have the ability to import and crush material, such as asphalt, on their site.  Mr. Ward stated that currently they are only allowed to process the material found on site.  Mr. Ward noted that in his opinion, the City of Loveland will probably not annex this site as it is not in a desirable area.  Mr. Helmick noted that the Board is only deciding whether or not to hear this appeal, and that the details of the project will be presented at a later date should the Board agree to accept this application.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to process an Amended Special Review request at a site located within the Loveland Growth Management Area, subject to the provisions of Section 4.2.1.D.2.d of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Their being no further business, the meeting recessed at 4:30 p.m.

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#48)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Al Kadera, and David Karan, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department;  Christy Coleman, Engineering Department;  Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

1.  LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS; 05-CA0053:   This is a request to make a number of changes to the adopted Larimer County Land Use Code.  Before the adoption of the Land Use Code there were individual resolutions for zoning, subdivisions, planned unit developments and other development review processes.  The red book was for zoning and all appeals concerning the red book were under the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment.  The white book was for subdivisions and all appeals concerning subdivisions went to the Board of County Commissioners, sometimes with a referral to the Planning Commission.  With a unified Land Use Code these distinctions have become less clear and have resulted in some confusion concerning the process for appeals.  This situation is compounded by the confusing wording in state law concerning the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment.  When non-conforming uses and buildings (those uses and buildings that existed legally prior to the adoption or amendment of a regulation but do not conform to the current rules) are added to the mix the situation becomes almost unmanageable.  Another area of discussion has been Special Exceptions, which are uses approved by the Board of Adjustment that are not consistent with the zoning of a parcel.  Since a Special Exception changes the use of a property and since changes in zoning (uses) are considered by the County Commissioners, it is appropriate to have the County Commissioners review Special Exception applications, with a recommendation by the Planning Commission.   The proposed amendment will limit the Board of Adjustment’s authority to “bulk” variances, basically setbacks and building heights.  This is consistent with the state statute (30-28-117) that requires a Board of Adjustment.  All other appeals, including anything to do with a nonconforming building, structure or use, will go the County Commissioners, with some of these items also going to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.  The proposed amendment will clarify the appeals process for all sections of the Land Use Code and provide a more comprehensive review of applications for Special Exception.

Mr. Kadera supplied the Board with a supplement to the code amendments pertaining to Section 4.7. Zoning Special Exceptions.  Mr. Kadera that the below noted changes deal with appeals to the Board of County Commissioners, the Flood Plain Review Board, and the Board of Adjustments; he explained that sometimes the boundary lines for review boards have overlapped, and the changes below are being proposed to help rectify this situation.    Mr. Kadera noted that part of the proposal tonight would be to place the responsibility for Special Exceptions from the Board of Adjustment's jurisdiction, and place them with the Board of County Commissioners, along with the Planning Commissions recommendation.  Mr. Kadera noted that in addition, a sketch plan review would now become part of the process for Special Exceptions.  Mr. Kadera stated that the Planning Commission has not been informed of this addition, but offered it as part of the recommendation being presented. 

Chair Pro-Tem Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Roger Seat thanked the Board for their efforts to clarify these sections, but is concerned that the standards do not reflect exactly what the Board wishes to accomplish.  Mr. Seat noted concern with the terms being used in the Code possibly being too restrictive; he stated that if there is something unique or unusual about a particular application that warrants giving a citizen or developer a variance or appeal to the Code standards, then it that should prevail.

There being no further comment, Chair Pro-Tem Gibson closed this section of the hearing.

 

PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS:

INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE TEXT

A.   All interpretations of code text are made by the planning director.

B.   The planning director's interpretations of the code text can be appealed to the county commissioners.

4.6. ZONING VARIANCES

4.6.1. Purpose.

The purpose of a zoning variance is to grant a landowner relief from certain standards in this code where, due to exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of the property, the strict application of the standard(s) would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship on the property owner.

4.6.2. Applicability.

  When consistent with the review criteria listed below, the board of adjustment may grant zoning variances:

A.  From the minimum setback requirements of Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21;

B.  From the maximum structure height requirements of Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21; and

C.  From the requirements of Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 and 8.19.


4.6.3. Review criteria.

To approve a zoning variance application, the board of adjustment must find the following conditions exist:

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 zoning variance is requested;

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

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

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

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

F.   Granting the zoning variance is consistent with the purpose of this code and the master plan.

4.6.4. Conditions of approval.

A.   The board of adjustment may impose conditions on a zoning variance necessary to accomplish the purposes and intent of this code and the master plan and to prevent or minimize adverse impacts on the general health, safety and welfare of property owners and area residents.

B.   All approved zoning variances run with the land, unless conditions of approval imposed by the board of adjustment specify otherwise.

C.   All zoning approved variances automatically expire within one year of the date of approval, unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with the approval.

D.   The board of adjustment may require, as a condition of approval, that the applicant sign a development agreement to ensure completion of any public improvements related to the approved zoning variance.

4.6.5. Process.

All applications for zoning variances require a pre-application conference and a public hearing before the board of adjustment. If the planning director determines a zoning variance may have a significant impact on a neighborhood, a neighborhood meeting is also required. Each of these processes is described in section 12.2 (development review procedures). All board of adjustment decisions must be recorded with the county clerk and recorder.


4.6.6. Decisions of board of adjustment are final.

All board of adjustment decisions with regard to a zoning variance are final. Decisions can be appealed to court.

 

4.7. ZONING SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS


4.7.1. Purpose.

Occasionally, a use is proposed that is not allowed in the applicable zoning district. The county commissioners may grant a special exception to allow the proposed use, if it determines the proposed use will not result in negative impacts on the neighborhood or county facilities and services and appropriate conditions are attached to the approval.

4.7.2. Applicability.

Only those uses that are not otherwise allowed by right, minor special review or special review, in a particular zoning district may be granted through this process, except that the county commissioners are not authorized to grant use changes (special exceptions) in a GMA district, PD-district or in the LaPorte Planning Area. The county commissioners evaluate each proposed special exception use for compliance with the review criteria in this section and the development standards that apply to all development.

4.7.3. Review criteria.

To approve a special exception application, the county commissioners must find the following conditions exist:

A.   The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area and will be in harmony with the neighborhood;

B.   The proposed use will not exceed air, water, odor or noise standards established by county, state or federal regulations;

C.   The proposed use will not adversely affect property values in the immediate area;

D.   The proposed use will comply with all requirements of this code and all county, state and federal regulations;

E.   The proposed use will not adversely affect special places in Larimer County; and

F.   The proposed use will not adversely affect wildlife or wetlands.

4.7.4. Conditions of approval.

A.   The county commissioners may impose conditions on a special exception use necessary to accomplish the purposes and intent of this code and the master plan; prevent or mitigate adverse effects on the public, neighborhoods, utilities and county facilities; and ensure compatibility of land uses.

B.   These conditions may include, but are not limited to:

1.   Limitations can the size, bulk and location of buildings;

2.   Limitations on the extent and intensity of the proposed use;

3.   Standards for landscaping, buffering and lighting;

4.   Requirements for adequate ingress and egress;

5.   A specific, limited time period to complete the project;

6.   Limitation on the duration of the use; and

7.   Limitations on the hours of operation.

C.   The county commissioners may require, as a condition of approval, that the applicant sign a development agreement (see section 12.6 (post-approval requirements) to ensure completion of any public improvements related to the approved special exception.

4.7.5. Minor deviations.

Technical, engineering or other considerations during construction or operation may necessitate minor deviations from the approved plans. The planning director may approve minor deviations if they comply with this code and are consistent with the intent of the original special exception approval. The planning director's approval must be in writing. The decision of the planning director can be appealed to the county commissioners.

4.7.6. Amendments.

Changes to approved special exception plans that the planning director determines are not minor deviations require approval through the special exception process. This requires a new application and receives full review under the process described below.

4.7.7. Process.

All applications for special exception require a pre-application conference, sketch plan review, a neighborhood meeting, planning commission review and county commissioner review.  Each of these processes is described in section 12.2 (development review procedures). All county commissioner decisions concerning special exceptions must be recorded with the county clerk and recorder.

. 12.2.6. Planning Commission.

A.   This advisory commission must conduct a public hearing and formulate a recommendation to county commissioners on rezonings, special reviews, special exceptions, appeals to minimum lot size requirements, amendments to the official zoning map, amendments to the text of this Code, interpretations of zoning maps, preliminary plats for subdivisions, planned land divisions and conservation developments, general development plans, appeals submitted as part of a development review application, and any other matter specifically referred by the county commissioners to the planning commission for a recommendation. 

B.   A checklist of submittal requirements is included in the technical supplement to this Code. Additional materials may be required, as identified in the sketch plan review.

C.   At the public hearing, the commission will consider all information presented by the applicant and the planning department and any verbal or written testimony. The commission will review the application with respect to the master plan, this Code and all information and testimony and make a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions or denial. The recommendation must include findings stating how the proposal meets or fails to meet the review criteria of this Code.

12.2.7. Board of County Commissioners.

A.   County commissioners will conduct a public hearing and make  final decisions about rezonings; special reviews; special exceptions; appeals to minimum lot size requirements; amendments to the official zoning map; amendments to the text of this Code; interpretations of zoning maps; preliminary plats for subdivisions, planned land divisions, conservation developments and preliminary rural land plans; TDU exemption plats; general development plans; amendments to boundaries of wetlands as shown on adopted wetland maps; appeals concerning the extension, expansions or changes in character of a non-conforming use, building or structure; appeals of planning director interpretations of this Code; appeals of decisions of administrative officers and agencies in the administration and enforcement of this Code other than those delegated to the board of adjustment; and appeals of standards and requirements imposed by this Code other than variances delegated to the board of adjustment.

B.  Prior to making a final decision on any appeal, the county commissioners may refer the matter to the planning commission for a recommendation.

C.   Public hearings will be conducted in accordance with subsections 12.4.1, 12.4.2 and 12.4.3 of this Code. At the public hearing, the county commissioners will consider all information presented by the applicant and the county staff, any verbal or written testimony and the recommendation of the planning commission or the rural land use advisory board. The county commissioners will review the application with respect to the review criteria of this Code and all information and testimony to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. The county commissioners may announce their decision at the conclusion of the hearing.  The county commissioners' official final decision will be in the form of a written resolution that states how the proposal meets or fails to meet the applicable review criteria of this Code.

D.   The county commissioners will administratively approve or deny final plats for subdivisions, planned land divisions, conservation developments, minor land divisions, and rural land plans and amended plats at an open meeting. The meeting will be open to the public and the date, time and location will be posted in the Larimer County Courthouse at least two days prior to the meeting. Notice of the meeting will also be given in the county commissioners' weekly schedule of meetings.

12.2.8. Board of Adjustment.

A.  The board of adjustment has authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny applications for zoning variances from certain requirements of this Code as specified in Section 4.6.1.  Applications submitted to the board of adjustment for these zoning variances require a pre-application conference and public hearing.  Applications may be subject to a neighborhood meeting at the discretion of the planning director.

B.   The board of adjustment has authority to hear appeals of certain administrative decisions as specified in Section 22.3.1.  These appeals follow the process in Section 22.3.2.

22.0  APPEALS

22.1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this section is to define circumstances under and processes by which persons may appeal: (i) decisions made in the administration, interpretation or enforcement of this Code, and (ii) standards and requirements imposed by this Code.

22.2. APPEALS TO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

22.2.1. Applicability.

A.  The county commissioners are authorized to hear and decide appeals where:

1.  A person asserts that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or refusal made by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this Code (administrative decisions) except:

a.  The minimum setback or structure height requirements of Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21; or

b.  Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19.
2.  A person asserts that the planning director has made an error in interpreting the text of this Code.
3.  A person proposes to deviate from a standard or requirement imposed by this Code, except standards or requirements which are subject to zoning variances from the board of adjustment in Section 4.6.1.

22.2.2. Process.

2.    Appeals of administrative decisions and planning director interpretations.

1.   Initiation of appeal.  A written application for appeal must be submitted to the planning department within 30 days of the decision or interpretation which the person believes to be in error.  The planning director may grant one 30-day extension of this time limit provided that a written request for such extension is submitted to the planning director within the initial 30-day period.

2.   Contents of appeal.  The appeal must be submitted on a form provided by the planning department and must include a statement of the decision or interpretation being appealed, the date of the decision or interpretation, and facts, legal authority or other evidence that supports the decision was in error.  An application fee established by the county commissioners must be paid when the appeal is submitted.

3.   Scheduling.  Upon receipt of the appeal, the planning director will schedule the appeal on the next available agenda of the county commissioners, no later than 60 days after the date on which a properly completed notice of appeal is filed.

4.   Notice.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date.  Notice by first-class mail may be sent to affected property owners if the planning director determines such notice is appropriate.

5.   Action by the county commissioners.

a.         At the appeal hearing the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, the administrative officer, planning director, county staff and any interested party.

b.    At the appeal hearing, the county commissioners will only consider the same application, plans and materials that were the subject of the original decision or interpretation, the record of that decision or interpretation and the issue raised by the person who submitted the appeal, unless the county commissioners, in their discretion, determine other evidence to be relevant and helpful.  Testimony from interested parties may be considered only as it relates to the administrative officer’s decision or the planning director’s interpretation.

c.    At the conclusion of the hearing the county commissioners will affirm, affirm with modifications or reverse the decision of the administrative officer or the interpretation of the planning director.

d.    The county commissioners may refer an appeal to the planning commission for a recommendation.  The decision to refer an appeal to the planning commission will be made by the county commissioners within 14 days of the date the appeal was filed.

6.   Burden of proof.  The administrative officer’s decision or the planning director’s interpretation will not be reversed unless the person who filed the appeal shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision is in error or inconsistent with the intent and purpose of this Code.

B.  Appeals to deviate from standards or requirements not filed concurrently with development applications.

1.   Initiation of appeal.  For appeals to deviate from Code standards or requirements that are not filed as part of a development review application, a written application for appeal must be submitted to the planning director.

2.   Contents of appeal.  The appeal must be submitted on a form provided by the planning department and must include a statement of the Code provision being appealed and evidence that supports the appeal, including evidence that demonstrates how Section 22.3.2 or 22.2.4 review criteria for the appeal are met.  The planning director may request additional information necessary to evaluate the appeal.

3.   Scheduling.  The appeal will be scheduled for hearing within 60 days after the date on which a properly completed notice of appeal is filed.

4.   Notice.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date.  Notice by first-class mail may be sent to affected property owners as determined by the planning director.

5.   Action by the county commissioners.

a.   At the hearing the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, county staff and any interested party.

b.   At the conclusion of the hearing, the county commissioners will approve, approve with conditions or deny the appeal.

c.   The county commissioners may refer an appeal to the planning commission for a recommendation.  The decision to refer an appeal to the planning commission will be made by the county commissioners within 14 days of the date the appeal was filed.

C.  Appeals to deviate from standards or requirements filed concurrently with development review applications.

    1. Initiation of appeal.  For appeals to deviate from Code standards or requirements that are filed as part of a development review application, a written application for appeal must be submitted to the planning director.
    2. Contents of appeal.  The appeal must be submitted on a form provided by the planning department and must include a statement of the Code provision being appealed and evidence that supports the appeal, including evidence that demonstrates how the Section 22.2.3 or 22.2.4 review criteria for the appeal are met.  The planning director may request additional information necessary to evaluate the appeal.
    3. Scheduling.  The appeal will be heard at the same time as the development review application.
    4. Notice.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation as part of the notice of the development review application.  Notice by first-class mail may be sent to affected property owners as determined by the planning director with the notice of development review.
    5. Action by the county commissioners.

a.   At the hearing, the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, county staff ana any interested party.

b.    At the conclusion of the hearing, the county commissioners will approve, approve with conditions or deny the appeal.  The county commissioners will make separate findings and take separate action on each appeal before taking action on the development proposal.

c.   Appeals of Code standards or requirements submitted concurrently with a development review application will be reviewed by the planning commission along with the development proposal.

22.2.3  Review criteria for appeals to deviate from standards or requirements other than minimum lot size requirements.

When considering whether to approve an appeal to deviate from standards or requirements of this Code, other than minimum lot size requirements, the county commissioners may grant the appeal subject to safeguards and conditions consistent with their findings concerning the following factors.  The county commissioners will consider each of the following factors and make findings pertaining to each one which, in their discretion, applies to the appeal:

A.        Approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose of the standard or requirement.

B.   Approval of the appeal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood.

C.   Approval of the appeal is the minimum action necessary.

D.   Approval of the appeal will not result in increased costs to the general public.

E.    Approval of the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Code.

 

22.2.4  Review criteria for appeals to deviate from minimum lot size requirements.

When considering whether to approve an appeal to deviate from the minimum lot size requirements of this Code, the county commissioners may grant the appeal subject to safeguards and conditions consistent with their findings concerning the following factors.  The county commissioners will consider each of the following factors and make findings pertaining to each one, which in their discretion, applies to the appeal:

A.   The lot size being proposed is consistent with the pattern of existing lots in the neighborhood.

B.   The proposed lot has sufficient area to support the intended use of the lot.

C.   There are physical features of the site or other special circumstances that support the proposed lot size.

D.   Granting the lot size appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Code.


22.3. APPEALS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

22.3.1. Applicability.

A.   The board of adjustment is authorized to hear and decide appeals where:

    1. A person is aggrieved by his/her inability to obtain a building permit as a result of an error by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of:

 

a.   The minimum setback or maximum structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21; or

b.   Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19.

    1. An officer, department, board or bureau of the county is affected by the grant or refusal to grant a building permit as a result of an error by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of:

 

a.   The minimum setback or maximum structure height requirements of Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21; or

b.   Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19.

    1. A person asserts that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or refusal made by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of:

 

a.   The minimum setback or maximum structure height requirements of Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21; or

b.   Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19.

 

B.  All appeals of the planning director’s interpretations of the provisions of this Code are expressly reserved to the county commissioners.

22.3.2. Process.

A.   Initiation of appeal. A written application must be submitted to the planning department within 30 days of the order, requirement, decision or refusal made by the administrative official or agency. The application must be on a form provided by the planning department. A fee established by the county commissioners must be paid when the appeal is submitted.

B.   Scheduling. Upon receipt of the application, the planning director will schedule a hearing before the board of adjustment no later than 60 days after receipt of the application (see Table 12.3.I).

C.   Notice. Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date. Notice by first-class mail must be sent to affected property owners as determined by the planning director.

D.   Action by the board. At the appeal hearing, the board of adjustment will take relevant evidence and testimony from the appellant, the administrative officer or agency and any interested party. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of adjustment will affirm, affirm with modifications or reverse the determination made by the administrative officer or agency. A concurring vote of four members of the board of adjustment is necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or refusal of the administrative official or agency or to decide in favor of the appellant.

E.   Burden of proof. An order, requirement, decision or refusal of the administrative officer or agency shall not be reversed unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that such order, requirement, decision or refusal is erroneous.

22.4. APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE FLOODPLAIN REVIEW BOARD

22.4.1. Applicability.

Any person aggrieved by a decision of the floodplain review board can appeal the decision to the county commissioners.

22.4.2. Process.

A.   Appeals may be initiated by filing a notice of appeal with the county commissioners within 30 days after the date of the floodplain review board decision and paying any applicable fees.

B.   Upon receiving notice of appeal, the county commissioners will set a date for hearing the appeal no sooner than 30 days and no later than 60 days after receipt. Written notice of the appeal designating the date, time, and place of the hearing along with the appellant's name must be mailed to the appellant (and to the applicant if the appellant is someone other than the applicant) at least 14 days prior to the hearing. Notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing must also be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Larimer County at least 14 days prior to the hearing.

C.   At the appeal hearing, the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the appellant and from any other interested party or person. At the conclusion of the hearing, the county commissioners will affirm, affirm with modifications or reverse the decision made by the floodplain review board.

D.   A decision of the floodplain review board shall not be reversed unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of evidence that the decision is in error or inconsistent with this Code.

The Larimer County Planning Department and the Larimer County Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code as outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.  WHITE BUFFALO QUARRY SPECIAL REVIEW; 04-Z1520:   Mr. Karin stated that the law requires the applicant to give a 30 day notice to the mineral interest holders surrounding the property and it has come to light that the applicant failed to comply with this statutory requirement.  The applicant, Victor Norris, requested the Board table this item to a later date so that he can meet the statutory requirement.  The Board apologized to the citizens in attendance, and encouraged them to submit their comments to the Planning Department, if they felt they could not be in attendance at the rescheduled hearing.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the White Buffalo Quarry Special Review, File #04-Z1520, to June 27, 2005, at 6:30 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005   

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#48)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster, Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Wagner were present.  Also present were:  Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Dale Miller, and Dennis Morrison, Road & Bridge Department; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; Mark Peterson, Engineering Department; Cliff Davidson, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization; Betsy Marky, Representative from Senator Salazar's Office; Ginny Riley, and Jim Drendel, Human Services Department; Paul Cooper, Probation Office; Wynette Cerciello, and John Gamlin, Human Resources Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Dave Marcus, Barbara and Duke Shaffer, Richard Peters, and Richard Norris all addressed the Board with concerns regarding maintenance of County Road 80C and County Road 82E.  Discussion ensued regarding maintenance of the roads, conduct of Road & Bridge employees who maintain work in this area, and whether or not the roads could be improved.  Mr. Engemoen stated that he would visit the area to insure that the employees are maintaining the roads properly, and apologized if there were incidents of employees being discourteous when plowing or grading these roads. 

 

2.   HONORING JIM DRENDEL AND PAUL COOPER FOR EARNING AWARDS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELDS:  Ms. Riley explained that on May 19, 2005, Mr. Drendel will be awarded The Colorado Department of Human Services Distinguished Worker Award.  Ms. Riley noted that Mr. Drendel was nominated for this award by his employees as well as members from the State Department; she further explained that Mr. Drendel is being honored because he consistently demonstrates outstanding practice in promoting safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families.  Chair Rennels stated that Mr. Cooper is being recognized as the Chief Probation Officer, and has been selected to receive the 2005 Governor's Community Corrections Award at the Colorado Association of Community Corrections Boards annual meeting in Glenwood Springs.  The Board congratulated both Mr. Drendel and Mr. Cooper on their awards and thanked them for their hard work in support of their programs.

 

3.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 9, 2005:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of May 9, 2005, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.  REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 23, 2005:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

5.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for May 17, 2005:

 

05172005A001           PARKING LOT INSTALLATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND DON KEHN CONSTRUCTION, INC.

 

05172005A002           ROOF INSTALLATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ACC ROOFING, INC.

 

05172005A003           LARAMIE FOOTHILLS MOUNTAINS TO PLAINS GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE BOARD OF THE GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, AND THE LEGACY LAND TRUST

 

05172005A004           PACIFICARE HEALTH PLAN ADMINISTRATORS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYER SELF-FUNDED WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PACIFICARE HEALTH PLAN ADMINISTRATORS, INC.

 

05172005A005           AMENDMENT TO THE 2005 PACIFICARE OF COLORADO MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL GROUP SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PACIFICARE OF COLORADO

 

05172005D002           DEED OF DEDICATION BY PAULA MOREHOUSE AND KAREN COX OF SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

05172005R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 18, 19, 20, AND 21, BLOCK 8, OF AMENDED MAP OF BERTHOUD-DALE SUBDIVISION

 

05172005R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TAFT HILL MINOR LAND DIVISION

 

05172005R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SHREINER SAWMILL SITE PLAN FEE APPEAL

 

05172005R004           RESOLUTION REGARDING PARTIAL RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR OVERLAND PONDS SPECIAL REVIEW

 

05172005R005           RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND THE STATE BOARD OF THE GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS:  Department of Human Services Payments for April 2005; Colorado Wireless Interoperability Network Grant.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following license was issued:   Sevy's Canyon Grille - Hotel & Restaurant - Loveland, CO. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.   REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR A NEW HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING SPECIALIST POSITION:  Mr. Gamlin stated that the Human Resources Department has gone through some restructuring in recent months and has realized a need to re-focus training on the "business needs" of the organization, and to develop core competencies for all employees.  Mr. Gamlin stated that having one person concentrate on the training needs of the organization will improve effectiveness and efficiencies, and increase the focus on supervisory training needs.  Chair Rennels clarified that the position will be funded through the Human Resources Department and Mr. Gamlin replied in the affirmative, noting that they will use funds currently within their budget to pay for the position.  Ms. Cerciello stated that the training position will take on additional responsibilities such as conducting liability and needs assessments. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Training Specialist position within the Human Resources Department.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.   APPROVAL OF AMENDED FOSSIL LAKE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FIRST FILING NORTH CONSERVATION EASEMENT: Mr. White requested the Board's approval to amend the Fossil Lake Planned Unit Development North Conservation Easement to eliminate the building envelope that was originally reserved for construction of a barn and to transfer the underlying land to the City of Fort Collins.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve of the First Amendment to the Deed of Conservation Easement for Fossil Lake Planned Unit Development 1st Filing North Property, which will eliminate the building envelope allowed in the original deed.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATOR POSITION:  Mr. Lancaster explained that this proposal is to create a Criminal Justice Coordinator position for Larimer County.  He noted that the position would report directly to the County Manager and would be responsible for identifying issues, developing strategies, monitoring data and pending legislation, and coordinating matters involving or impacting the criminal justice system.  Mr. Lancaster stated that the criminal justice systems are a conglomerate of the County Sheriff, Community Corrections, State Agencies (Judicial, Corrections, and Public Defender), municipal law enforcement, and the District Attorney.  Mr. Lancaster explained that a consultant has been hired to assist Larimer County in evaluating the system and to work on optimizing the use of alternatives to increase the efficiencies of the system; however, the consultant is only on site once every two months for approximately four days at a time.  The workload is then shifted to staff members who are not properly trained for this type of work, and it cuts into the workload of their daily jobs.  Some discussion ensued regarding the potential length of the position and whether it should be hired as a project manager versus hiring a full time employee.  Mr. Lancaster displayed a number of web sites from different counties and cities across the nation that have created a position similar in nature; he stated that in his opinion, this position will be required well into the future.  Commissioner Wagner questioned the funding for the position.  Mr. Lancaster explained that it would require use of carryover funds, and that it would be similar to the cost of retaining the consultant, but the County would benefit more from someone that is on-site and dedicated to the job full time.  Finally, Mr. Lancaster stated that the position will be assigned to the County Manager's office so that it remains neutral in light of all the departments it will coordinate.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the position of Criminal Justice Coordinator for Larimer County.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

9.  DISCUSSION OF REQUEST FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR:   Mr. Engemoen stated that they were in attendance at the request of the Board to discuss which federal road projects the Board would like to see prioritized and forwarded to Senator Salazar, per his request.  Mr. Davidson presented the Upper Front Range and the North Front Range Transportation Studies, both of which include 25 year plans for road updates and maintenance.  Mr. Davidson stated that their concern being that if the prioritization of the federal road projects are approved and work commences with no additional funding, then the counties end up having to pay for them out of existing monies, which limits the ability to complete local projects.  Commissioner Gibson stated that he would like to see the federal gas tax to continue to be earmarked for transportation systems, as there has been some indication that the Federal Government wants the ability to redirect those funds to pay for items other than transportation.  Some discussion ensued, with the Board directing Mr. Engemoen and Mr. Davidson to draft a letter to Senator Salazar and Senator Allard noting that the Board supports the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program; however, if new funding becomes available then the interchanges at Highway 34, 392, and Crossroads would be critically important road projects in Larimer County.

 

10.  WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster stated that he has received a letter from the Town of Timnath requesting a waiver of provision of the Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 31-12-108 (2), regarding notice timing, as the Town failed to send an annexation notice to the proper districts, municipalities, and counties 25 days prior to the scheduled public hearing.  Mr. Lancaster recommended support of this request due to the fact that the Planning and Engineering Departments have been able to comment on this application in a timely manner.  The Board agreed to honor the waiver request.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve waiving the provision of Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 31-12-108 (2), regarding notice timing for the Town of Timnath's annexation request.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Lancaster stated that there are many terms expiring on the Juvenile Services Planning Committee, and although Judge Hyatt ultimately appoints these positions, recommendations for the positions are forwarded for his consideration by the Commissioners of Jackson and Larimer Counties.   The Board indicated their desire to take applications for this committee utilizing their normal process of advertising and interviewing potential candidates.  Mr. Lancaster stated that he would follow up with his counter-part in Jackson County to coordinate this effort.

 

11.  COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week. 

 

12.  LEGAL MATTERS:  There were no legal matters to discuss.

 

The meeting recessed at 11:35 a.m.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARINGS

 (#50)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:00 p.m. to consider four Petitions for Abatement.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson presided and Commissioners Rennels and Wagner were present.  Also present were:  Jon Cowling, Patty Ring, Diane Norman, and Ann Piccone, Assessor's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR DAVID LAWSER; SCHEDULE #1601479:  Ms. Ring explained that Mr. Lawser protested this property in 2004 and it was adjusted downward from $399,000 to $315,000 and Mr. Lawser agreed to this adjustment.  Mr. Lawser has protested this property again in 2005 and also obtained an appraisal which supported the Assessor's office further lowering this property to $239,000 for 2005.  Ms. Ring stated that now Mr. Lawser would like to have an abatement of the taxes he paid in 2004, as he states the appraiser he spoke with in 2004 was a residential appraiser and led him to believe that the tax increase would not be significant.  However, it is commercial property which is taxed at a higher rate.   Ms. Ring explained that according to Colorado law, once a piece of property is protested, the individual cannot then come back and request a further abatement of taxes.  Mr. Lawser requested an exception in this case, as he believes he was misled by the appraiser and as a result has overpaid his taxes.  Some discussion ensued, and it was determined that the property has been designated as a historic site and the Assessor's Office has reduced the tax base on this parcel an additional 17% due to loss of certain rights on the property.   The appraisers apologized to Mr. Lawser for any confusion, especially if he was directed to a residential appraiser in 2004 instead of a commercial appraiser.  The Board noted that this is a commercial property, it was assessed as such for the year 2004, and since the petitioner already protested this property in 2004, he cannot also petition for an abatement of taxes. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny David Lawser's Petition for Abatement for the year 2004, regarding Schedule Number 1601479.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR BFN - LOVELAND, LLC; 1528602:

 

Mr. Cowling stated that the Assessor's Office is recommending denial of this abatement due to the fact that the petitioner already protested this schedule number in 2003 and it was subsequently lowered from $15,999,900 to $10,800,000.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson noted for the record that the petitioner was not present and there was no public attending this hearing.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny BFN - Loveland, LLC.'s Petition for Abatement for the year 2003, regarding Schedule Number 1528602.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR CIT GROUP EQUIPMENT FINANCING; 8272475:

 

Ms. Piccone explained that in this case, the petitioner is requesting a refund of taxes for a piece of equipment that was never put on the tax roll for 2002 or 2003.  In addition, the petition was not filed in the 2-year time limit as stated in Colorado Revised Statute 39-10-114(I)(a).  Therefore, Ms. Piccone noted that the Assessor's Office is recommending denial of this petition for abatement.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson noted for the record that the petitioner was not present and there was no public attending this hearing.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny CIT Group Equipment Financing's Petition for Abatement for the year 2003, regarding Schedule Number 8272475.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR ANTONIOS KATOPODIS; 8189013:

 

Ms. Piccone noted that the Assessor's Office is recommending denial of this petition due to the fact that the value of this account in 2003 was below $2,500 and was placed in an inactive status; therefore, no taxes were levied.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson noted for the record that the petitioner was not present and there was no public attending this hearing.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny Antonios Katopodis' Petition for Abatement for the year 2003, regarding Schedule Number 8189013.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

 

 

 

    __________________________________________

                                    KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

                        BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk 

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