Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 06/19/06  

 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, june 19, 2006

LAND USE HEARING

(#70)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Casey Stewart, Samantha Mott, and Matt Lafferty Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Matthew Johnson and Christie Coleman, Engineering Department;  Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  Chair Gibson explained that Item 1, River’s Edge Final Condominium Map; Item 2, Silver Tree Subdivision Preliminary Plat; and Item 3, Silver Tree Subdivision Final Plat, were being tabled to June 26, 2006.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table Items 1 through 3 from the Agenda to June 26, 2006, at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Chair Gibson further explained that Items 4 through 7 were on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

4.  X BAR SEVEN LOT 2 EASEMENT VACATION - #06-S2569:  This is a request to vacate two adjacent utility easements, one 10 feet wide and the other 16 feet wide that run through the middle of the property.  The Development Services Team recommends approval of the X Bar Seven Amended Plat, the Amended Plat of Lots 1 and 2 of the X Bar Seven Amended Plat of Lots 7, 8, and 9 of the X Bar Seven Subdivision, Lot 2 Utility Easement Vacation, request to vacate two adjacent utility easements.

 

5.  SIMPSON EXEMPTION LOT 2 AMENDED PLAT - #06S2569:  This is a request for an Amended Plat to reconfigure the boundary line between Lot 2 of the Simpson Exemption (File # 128-73-EX) and an adjacent metes and bounds parcel.  There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agency has stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment. Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identified several required corrections to the plat; The Larimer County Engineering Department provided comments regarding access to the proposed Lot 2.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 2 of the Simpson Exemption and a Portion of Section 22 Township 9 Range 69, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by December 19, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.
  2. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department, in his letter dated May 2, 2006.
  3. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall address the following comment from the Larimer County Engineering Department, in Christie Coleman’s letter dated May 3, 2006:  If the access to the proposed lot 2 is not located on lot 2 show an access easement for the existing access point on the amended plat.
  4. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the changes to the plat as required by Samantha Mott, Planner I of the Larimer County Planning Department, in her letter dated June 2, 2006.

 

6.  NYSTROM MINOR LAND DIVISION - #06-S2570:  This is a request to divide a 39.27 acre property into two lots, each with a single family residence.  Currently, there are 2 existing residences on the property, both of which share a common well, yet have separate septic systems and utilities.  However, unlike a typical scenario whereby a Minor Land Division splits the two units into two separate lots, the applicant is requesting that they be allowed to keep the existing dwellings on one lot and make the smallest residence into a guest quarters and create a separate lot for a new dwelling.  This action would result in no new dwellings on the property.  The purpose of the request is that one of the existing dwelling units is only 221 square feet in area, which for this day and age does not accommodate a family.  The subject property, which is located just east of Glen Haven, is a typical mountain property.  Access to the property is directly from County Road 43, which is situated along the properties southern boundary.

Referral comments from the Engineering Department indicate that Count Road 43 is classified as a minor collector, meaning that road classification requires a 100 foot right-of-way for the full width of the right-of-way and 50 feet for the half-width. To ensure that adequate right-of-way for County Road 43 exists, the applicant must dedicate up to 50 feet right-of-way as measured from the centerline of the existing facility.  Before the plat can be recorded, the dedication shall be illustrated on the Final Plat of the Nystrom Minor Land Division.  Additionally, the technical comments received from Dale Greer of the Larimer County Engineering Department dated May 9, 2006, will need to be addressed before the recordation of the MLD Plat.  As required, the applicant has submitted a signed Utility Checklist, which indicated that the utility providers in this area have no objections to the application.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Nystrom Minor Land Division subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

  1. All conditions shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by December 19, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.
  2. The Final Plat for the Nystrom Minor Land Division shall indicate a 50 foot half right-of-way dedication for County Road 43.
  3. The referral comments from Dale Greer of the Larimer County Engineering Department, dated May 9, 2006, shall be addressed before the MLD Plat is recorded.

 

7.  BUILDING 287 CONDOMINIUM MAP - #06-S2571:  This is a request to approve the Condominium Map which would create a total of 5 condominium units with common elements. The subject condominium application proposes to create 5 condominium units from the existing building situated on the east side of Highway 287, approximately 1/8 mile south of Trilby Road (also known as the Camco Site Plan).  The Building on the subject property has been under construction for the last six months and is now occupied by a mortgage company, coffee shop and a car wash.  The purpose for the subject request is to allow for separate ownership and use of the units within the existing building.

A condominium application requires that the applicant submit a condominium plat illustrating all the common elements such as parking and open areas, as well as the Condominium Declarations, which disclose the maintenance responsibility and use of property around and common to the condominium units.  These required items have been submitted to the Planning Department for review and processing.  The review of the submitted material reveals appropriate documentation of the common elements and adequately describes and assigns maintenance responsibilities of the property.

Parking areas, landscape areas, and the buildings for this development site are in place and are properly noted in the Condominium Declarations as common elements that are to be maintained by the property owners association.  All utilities serving this site are in place and functional.

The development of the subject site was reviewed and approved by the Development Services Team as a Site Plan application, and inspected for completion of the improvements outline in the site plan approval. To date, all on-site and off-site improvements are complete.  Additionally, the Development Services Team has reviewed the Condominium Map application and finds that the submittal materials have been provided and address all concerns regarding the application.  Therefore, the Development Services Team recommends approval of the Building 287 Condominium Map with authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 4 through 7 as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  STEPHENSON APPEAL - #06-G0114:  This is a request to appeal Section 4.8.9.A.1 of the Land Use Code that contains regulations for expanding nonconforming buildings.  This section of the Code limits addition size to not more than 25% of the square footage of the original building that legally existed on January 1, 2000.  The applicant proposes to construct an addition to his existing residence, which is approximately 75 feet from the center of North Overland Trail (County Road 21).  This section of Overland Trail is classified as an arterial road, which requires a building setback of 160 feet from the center of the right-of-way.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 160-foot setback from the road.  According to the County Assessor’s records, the residence was constructed around 1937, prior to the road setback requirement. 

Mr. Stewart explained that the existing residence is a non-conforming building based on the fact that the home was built before the code was adopted.  He also stated that the proposed addition would not be located any closer to the right-of-way than the existing building. 

The owner wants to add on to the existing structure to the north.  The addition, consisting of an attached garage, is greater than 25% (Existing = 1400 square feet; addition = 600 square feet) of the floor area of the existing building.  The proposed addition is located almost 85 feet from the center of the right-of-way, which is farther than the existing house. 

The following review agencies provided comments regarding the appeal request:  The City of Fort Collins, the County Engineering Department, and the Department of Health and Environment have no objections to this appeal request; The Code Compliance Department noted four outstanding building permits and one complaint for a use violation.  The building permit issues include this garage addition that was constructed without a permit, a storage shed constructed without a permit, a permit for an addition started in 2004 but has not received final approval, a permit in 1984 for an accessory building that never received final approval.  The Land Use Code violation involved operating a concrete business on the residential property.  The owner stated to the department that he is working to remove the equipment and business from the property. The department recommends that violations be resolved within 60 days of appeal approval.  Mr. Stewart made it clear that approval of the addition is subject to the dissolution of all existing Code violations. 

The Larimer County Development Services Team recommends approval of the Stephenson Appeal, subject to the following condition:

  1. The applicant shall resolve, within 60 days of appeal approval, all Code violations (1 through 5) listed in the report from the Code Compliance Section (Candace Phippen) dated May 23, 2006.

 

 M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stephenson Appeal, subject to the conditions outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

9.  WESTERN RIDGE STABLES SPECIAL REVIEW - #03-Z1499:  This is a recommendation to deny an inactive application for Special Review requesting a horse boarding facility and an Appeal to Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code for Adequate Public Facilities for Water and Sewer.

The Western Ridge Stables Special Review application has been inactive for over one and a half years.  No action has been taken by the applicant to supplement the record or to provide information that the Larimer County Planning Commission felt was necessary to move the application forward with a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.  As an “inactive application” the staff has the authority, with notice to the applicant, to move the application forward to a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners.  The purpose of this hearing is to either deny the application so that the file may be closed, or to extend the processing time of the application only if the applicant participates in the hearing and agrees to an extension. 

The following is background information to provide insight into the reason for the denial of the requested application:

On Wednesday, May 19, 2004, the Larimer County Planning Commission tabled this application for Special Review and Appeal requests to July 21, 2004.  As part of the proposed Special Review, the applicant submitted a request to appeal Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 of the Land Use Code.  At the hearing, the applicants stated that they would like to have a letter that was not originally included in the packets be distributed to the Planning Commission. The letter was from the Glacier View Meadows Water and Sewer Association, and stated that the Association agreed to contract a 15-year lease for 130,000 gallons of water per year at a rate of 3.5 units, contingent upon factors detailed in their letter (dated May 15, 2004).  The applicants stated that the letter demonstrated that they would be able to meet the Code standards and would not have to request the appeals.  The item was tabled at this time so that Staff and the Planning Commission would have time to review the letter and determine if it did indeed demonstrate that the facility could meet Code standards for water and sewer. 

On May 20, 2004, Planning Staff received a letter from the applicant which stated that they wanted to revise their project description.  The proposed revision would include the addition of an employee and training days.  There would be one full-time employee who would not live on-site, and the training would consist of no more than 5 people training on-site once a week with the addition of two one-day classes per year.  The issue of water was not addressed in this letter.

On May 27, 2004, Planning Staff received a letter from Megan Sullivan P.E., of the State Division of Water Resources (dated May 24, 2004).  This letter states that the Division had reviewed the letter from the Glacier View Meadows Water and Sewer Association that addressed the vote to contract with Western Ridge Stables for water for the next 15 years.  However, the Division stated that the Association’s letter did not specify if the contract with the Association is for water to be hauled in and stored for use by the stables, or a contract to operate a well under the Glacier View Meadows Augmentation Plan.  

Prior to the July 21, 2004 meeting, the applicants advised that they needed more time to deal with the water issue and wished to remove the item from the agenda.  This was done for them by the staff at the July 21, 2004 meeting.  Since that time no significant new information has been received, and no action has been taken.  It is clear that staff and applicant were aware that the file record was incomplete and that the item had been removed from consideration by the applicant.  Mr. Helmick stated that since no contact has been made between the applicant and the Planning Staff, he recommends denial of the request.  Also, the Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners Deny Western Ridge Stables Special Review.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Western Ridge Stable Special Review.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing recessed at 3:15 p.m.

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#70 & 71)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Al Kadera, Planning Department; Matt Johnson, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerks.

 

1.   LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS - #06-CA0059:  This is a request to make a number of changes to the adopted Land Use Code.  Mr. Kadera explained that five of the 12 separate amendments scheduled to be considered were not properly noticed and will need to be rescheduled to a later date.   Mr. Kadera then presented the following changes to the Land Use Code and gave a brief explanation of each:

 

Item 1.  Home Occupations

Home occupations have always been in our zoning regulations.  The 1963 Zoning resolution listed home occupation as a use that was accessory to any single family use.  The home occupation was limited to the interior of the dwelling and, only those products produced on the premises could be sold as part of the home occupation.  No outside employees were allowed.

When the Land Use Code was written we updated the home occupation use a little to allow one full time equivalent employee and limited the area within the dwelling that could be used for a home occupation.

Recent work sessions with the Planning Commission and County Commissioners indicate a need for more opportunities for economic development in the County.  One way to accomplish this is to expand the home occupation regulation to allow more types of uses and to allow outdoor activities such as storage of items related to the home occupation.

 

One thing to remember is that a home occupation is accessory to the residential use of the site.  It is not intended to be a full blown commercial use.  The proposed limits on building size, retail sales events and outdoor storage will help insure that the residential use continues to be the principal use on the property.

The issues or factors that must be addressed are traffic generation, the visual appearance of the property and the character of the neighborhood.  Noise, dust, outdoor storage, signs, odors, parking and excessive lighting or vibration can adversely affect other properties in the area and all these factors may be attributed to an expanded home occupation regulation.

The proposed amendment will expand the opportunities for home occupations as a use by right and allow outdoor storage and larger areas of operations via the minor special review process. There will also be a registration requirement for all new home occupations so that we are aware of their existence in case we are asked about commercial activities on residential property and to make sure the property owner has a copy of the home occupation regulations. 

Because of the extensive changes to this section of the regulations we did not attempt to use strikeout or underline text to highlight the changes.  The current Code language will be repealed and replaced by the new language.  The current regulation is reproduced at the end of this section of the staff report.

 

Section 4.3.10

B.   Home occupation. A business use conducted as a customary, incidental, and accessory use in the resident’s dwelling unit, attached garage or detached building, including office work, the making of art or crafts, trade uses, the providing of personal or professional services, and similar activities, and including retail sales of products produced on the premises and products clearly incidental, secondary and ancillary to the home occupation.  Uses specifically excluded from home occupations include vehicle repair or similar activities.

 

Home occupations are allowed in all zoning districts by right and by minor special review as detailed below.

1.  All home occupations must meet the following criteria.   

a. The home occupation may utilize up to 50 percent of the square footage of the dwelling, including the basement and attached garage, not to exceed 800 square feet in the dwelling and attached garage.

b. Multiple home occupations are allowed on any lot provided that for all home occupations totaled together, the requirements for a single home occupation are not exceeded.

c. The home occupation is conducted only by members of the family who reside on the premises plus up to one full time equivalent person who does not reside on the premises.

d.  All parking required to accommodate the home occupation must be provided on the site of the home occupation and located outside of required building setbacks.

e.  The home occupation must not change the residential character of the lot or the exterior appearance of the dwelling.

f.  The home occupation is limited to one identification sign which must be flush mounted on the building containing the home occupation. The maximum size for an identification sign for the home occupation is three square feet.

g.  On site retail sales of products produced on the premises may occur only during retail sales events.  Retail sales of products clearly incidental, secondary and ancillary to the home occupation may occur throughout the year.

h.  On site retail sales events may occur no more than 30 calendar days in any year.

i.  The home occupation may also have one temporary on or off premise directional sign that is located on private property no farther from the subject parcel than the nearest arterial road, has a one or two sided sign face that is no more than 9 square feet per face, a sign height no more than 8 feet, and is in place only during allowed retail sales events.

j.  Any noise, dust, odors, vibration, or light generated as a result of the home occupation must be below, at the property line, the volume, frequency, intensity, duration or time of day such that it does not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life, quiet, comfort or outdoor recreation of an individual of ordinary sensitivity and habits.

k.   All applicable land use, health, and building codes must be met.            

l.  Any home occupation established after (the date of this amendment) must obtain a Home Occupation Registration Certificate from Larimer County prior to operation.

 

2.  A home occupation meeting the criteria in sub-section 1 and the following additional criteria are allowed by right.

a.  The home occupation is conducted in a dwelling and/or in a detached accessory building.  The detached accessory building must have had a building permit prior to (date of enactment of this amendment).

b.  The area used for the home occupation inside both the dwelling, attached garage and detached accessory building totaled together is no more than 800 square feet.

c. There is no outside storage associated with the home occupation, except that no more than one vehicle used in the home occupation may be stored outside, and such vehicle must be registered as either a passenger vehicle or light duty truck.

d.  Vehicle trips associated with the home occupation, except for retail sales events, will not exceed 5 trips in any one day.

 

3.  A home occupation meeting the criteria in sub-section 1 above and wishing to operate under the following conditions or circumstances may operate if approval is first obtained through the minor special review process.

a.   Outdoor storage of materials, parts, vehicles, equipment, finished product and other items  such vehicle being registered as either a passenger vehicle or light duty truck, is allowed if the outdoor storage will be effectively screened from surrounding properties and public roads, and is limited to the following:

 

Maximum area of screened outdoor storage          Minimum setback from all property lines

         200 square feet                                                          50 feet

         201- 400 square feet                                                 100 feet

         401- 800 square feet                                                 200 feet

       

b.  The home occupation is to occur in an accessory building that had or will have a building permit issued after (date of enactment of this amendment).

c.  The area used for the home occupation inside the dwelling, an attached garage, and detached accessory building totaled together is more than 800 square feet but no more than 1200 square feet.  Home occupations using a total area of more than 1200 square feet are not allowed.

d.  Vehicle trips associated with the home occupation, except for retail sales events, will not exceed 10 trips in any one day.

DEFINITIONS

 

Add:

Retail Sales Event:  An event for the purpose of selling, to the ultimate consumer, goods produced on the premises in a home occupation. 

 

Craft:  An item, not mass-produced, and made largely by hand and supplementary tools, by an artist or craftsperson.

 

Vehicle repair: The repair and maintenance of automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, trailers, recreational vehicles, or similar vehicles including but not limited to engine, body, fender, muffler, or upholstery work, oil change and lubrication, painting, tire service and sales, or installation of equipment.

Home occupation. A business use conducted as a customary, incidental, and accessory use in the resident’s dwelling unit, attached garage or detached building, including office work, the making of art or crafts, trade uses, the providing of personal or professional services, and similar activities, and including retail sales of products produced on the premises and products clearly incidental, secondary and ancillary to the home occupation.  Uses specifically excluded from home occupations include vehicle repair or similar activities.

 

Item 1.A  Concurrent Sign Code Amendment

 

In Section 10.5 Signs not subject to permit, add a new subsection 10.5.R to read, “A home occupation may have one temporary on or off premise directional sign that is located on private property no farther from the subject parcel than the nearest arterial road, has a one or two sided sign face that is no more than 9 square feet per face, a sign height no more than 8 feet, and is in place only during allowed retail sales events.”

In Section 10.6 Prohibited signs, amend subsection E to read as follows, “Billboards, off premises signs, except that a home occupation may have a temporary, off premises directional sign as described in Section 10.5.R.”

 

Current Land Use Code

Sec. 4.3.10.B

B.   Home occupation. A use conducted as a personal service, professional office or by a writer, artist or craftsman or trade use, but not including an automobile/truck/motorcycle repair shop, which use is conducted within a dwelling and/or attached garage. 

1.   All home occupations must meet the following criteria:

a.   A home occupation may utilize up to 50 percent of the square footage of the dwelling, including the basement and attached garage, but not more than 800 square feet. More than one home occupation is permitted on a lot but the total area occupied by all home occupations cannot exceed 50 percent of the square footage of the dwelling and/or attached garage, but not more than 800 square feet.

b.   The use must be conducted by members of the family who reside on the premises. A home occupation may employ one full time equivalent person who does not reside on the premises.

c.   All parking required to accommodate a home occupation must be provided on the site of the home occupation.

d.   There can be no outside storage associated with a home occupation.

e.   A home occupation cannot change the residential character or the exterior appearance of the dwelling.

f.   The maximum sign size for a home occupation is three square feet. Each home occupation is limited to one sign which must be located on the same lot as the home occupation.

2.   Uses described as home occupations in section 4.3.10.B may be conducted in detached accessory buildings or use more than 800 square feet within the dwelling and attached garage only if they are approved through the minor special review process.

 

3.   Home occupations that require approval through the minor special review process are limited to the FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, FO-Forestry, FO-1 Forestry, O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts.

4.   To approve a minor special review for a home occupation the county commissioners must find the following conditions exist, in addition to the review criteria for minor special review (section 4.5.5):

1.   All outdoor storage of materials, parts, equipment, finished product and other items associated with the approved home occupation will be effectively screened from surrounding properties and limited to an area not to exceed 200 square feet and set back at least 50 feet from all property lines;

2.   The home occupation will not occupy more than 800 square feet in a detached, accessory building. More than one home occupation may be approved on a lot but the total area occupied by all home occupations will not exceed 800 square feet;

3.   The use will be located on the same lot with the single family dwelling occupied by the owner/operator of the use;

4.   The proposed home occupation will not change the character of the lot or the neighborhood;

5.   The home occupation will be located at least 50 feet from all property lines;

6.   On-site retail sales will be limited to products identified and declared in the minor special review application for the home occupation and approved by the county commissioners;

7.   The home occupation will employ no more than one full time equivalent employee who does not reside on the premises as a member of the family;

8.   All parking required to accommodate a home occupation approved through the minor special review process will be provided on the site of the use; and

9.   The maximum sign size for a use permitted by home occupation will be three square feet. Each home occupation approved by minor special review is limited to one sign, which will be located on the same lot as the use.

 

Item 2.  Final Plat Deadline

When a preliminary plat for a subdivision, conservation development or planned land division is approved a final plat must be submitted within 12 months (see Section 5.13.4.I).  There is no requirement for completing the final plat process within a certain time frame.  Staff is obligated to begin the final plat review process within seven days of a complete final plat application.  There is no time limit for completing the final plat process.  Occasionally we have a final plat that sits in limbo for up to two or three years because the applicant lacks funding for the improvements or cannot meet some technical requirement.

A neighborhood can change a great deal in two or three years.  It may have been completely appropriate to approve a development when the preliminary plat was considered but a long delay in the construction of the improvements could cause serious concerns among property owners who are new to the area and had no idea the project was even proposed.  There should be a specific limit on the time allowed to complete the final plat process after which a public hearing would be required to resurrect the project.  Staff recommends that this time limit be set at one year to complete the final plat process which would include recording the plat and executing the development agreement.

The Rural Land Use Center was offered the opportunity to participate in this Code amendment and they respectfully declined.

  Add a new subsection 5.13.5.E, Final Plat Completion.  The final plat process must be completed within one year from the date that a complete final plat application is accepted by the planning director.  Completing the final plat process will require complete execution of the final plat and the development agreement and the recording of these documents in the Office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.

 

Item 3.  ADA Parking Lot Signage

The parking standards in the Land Use Code currently require handicapped parking spaces to be marked on the pavement and/or identified with signs.  We have had a few complaints that handicapped spaces should be identified with both pavement markings and signs.  When there is snow on the parking lot and the handicapped spaces are not signed, the snow covers the pavement markings and no one can tell where they are.

Amend Section 8.6.3.B.4.d by deleting the “or” so the code requires handicapped spaces to be pavement marked and signed.

 

Item 4.   Incorrect reference to Board of Adjustment in Section 12.2.4

When the appeals sections of the Code were amended we missed a couple of references to Special Exceptions in Section 12.2.4 which explains neighborhood meetings.  As you may recall we changed the jurisdiction over special exceptions from the Board of Adjustment to the Board of County Commissioners.

Amend Section 12.2.4.A to read as follows, "The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to allow the applicant to present the proposal to nearby residents and property owners who may be affected by the proposal.  A neighborhood meeting is required for amendments to the official zoning map, special reviews, special exceptions, subdivisions, planned land divisions or conservation developments.  (Note: A neighborhood meeting is also required for a rural land use plan but has different requirements.  See section 5.8.5.C.6) The Planning Director may require a neighborhood meeting for a variance or if he/she determines the meeting would benefit the board of adjustment’s review.”

Also in Section 12.2.4.B there is a reference to concept review.  We deleted concept review from the Code but did not catch the reference in the section on neighborhood meetings.

Amend Section 12.2.4.B to read, “The neighborhood meeting must be conducted after concept review (or optional sketch plan review) sketch plan review but before an application is submitted for any procedure requiring a public hearing.  Neighborhood meetings for special exceptions or variances, if required by the planning director, will be conducted before the board of adjustment hearing.

Item 5.   Section 4.2.3.F.9.d    PD/PLD Reference

Section 4.2.3.F contains supplemental regulations for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Overlay Zoning District.  This section currently reads, “Development must occur as a planned development and requires rezoning to PD planned development.”  When we changed the planned development land division to “planned land division” we missed this reference.

Amend this section to read, “Land divisions must occur as planned land divisions and all rezonings require rezoning to PD planned development district.

 

Item 6.   Section 22, Appeals

When the appeals section was amended last May we set up a process whereby the Board of County Commissioners would determine, in each case, whether the appeal should be referred to the Planning Commission.  This process has become rather burdensome for the staff and the Commissioners.  The decision to refer to the Planning Commission can be delegated to the Planning Director which will simplify and speed up the Appeals process.

Subsection A.6 should also be amended to allow anyone to submit evidence rather than just the person who filed the appeal.  This paragraph should also be added to Subsections 22.2.2B and 22.2.C.

Amend Section 22.2.2 as follows.  Strike through indicates text to be deleted and underlined indicates text to be added.

 

22.2.2. Process.

A. 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, with modifications or reverse the decision of the administrative officer or the interpretation of the planning director.

 

6. Burden of proof. The decision of the administrative officer or the planning director’s interpretation will not be reversed unless it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence by the applicant 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.  All appeals to the board of county commissioners will be reviewed by the planning director who will determine whether the appeal will be referred to the planning commission for recommendation prior to a county commissioners’ hearing on the appeal.

 

6.  Burden of Proof.

The appeal will granted only if the applicant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that granting the appeal will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Code.

 

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 and 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.

 

6.  Burden of proof.

 

The appeal will be granted only if the applicant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that granting the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Code.

 

Item 11.  Section 4.8 Nonconformities   

The section on nonconformities is very important to the administration of the Land Use Code.  There are always buildings and uses that have existed for a very long time but are now out of conformance with the regulations.  The proposed wording was written by the County Attorney in an effort to simplify the whole section and to bring it into line with the recent amendments to the appeals section of the Code.

We did not attempt the strike through and underline version because there are rather extensive changes to some of the subsections.  The current code is printed at the end of this section of the staff report.

4.8 Nonconformities

4.8.1          Purpose

This section governs uses, building and structures (except signs), and lots that were legally established prior to the adoption of this code but that do not comply with one or more requirements of this code.  The provisions of this section are intended to recognize the interests of property owners in continuing and putting to productive use nonconforming uses, buildings, structures and lots while also encouraging as many aspects of such uses, buildings, structures and lots to be brought into conformance with this code as is reasonably practicable.

4.8.2          Nonconforming use.

A nonconforming use is an existing use that does not comply with the requirements of this code but did conform to all applicable regulations in effect at the time the use commenced.

4.8.3.         Nonconforming building or structure.

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

4.8.4.         Continuation of a nonconforming use.

A nonconforming use may be continued.  Normal or routine repairs and maintenance of a building, structure or area containing a nonconforming use are allowed.  Normal or routine repairs and maintenance do not include any repairs or maintenance that enlarge a building, structure or area containing a nonconforming use.

4.8.5.         Substitution of uses.

A nonconforming use may not be replaced by another nonconforming use.

 4.8.6.        Discontinuance of a nonconforming use.

 

If a nonconforming use is discontinued for more than 12 consecutive months, the use may not be reestablished.  If a question arises as to whether a nonconforming use has been discontinued, the property owner has the burden to show by competent evidence that the nonconforming use has not been discontinued. 

4.8.7.         Continuation of nonconforming building or structure.

A nonconforming building or structure may continue to be used and occupied.  Normal or routine repairs and maintenance of a nonconforming building or structure are allowed.  A nonconforming building or structure may not, however, be repaired or altered in a way that would increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to this code.

4.8.9.         Destruction.

A.  If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed (i.e., incurs damages of more than 50 percent of the building or structure’s replacement cost) by a calamity beyond the control of the property owner, other than a flood, the property owner may repair or replace the nonconforming building or structure, provided that he/she submits a building permit application within 12 months of the calamity.  The nonconforming building or structure may only be replaced in the same location and size as the original building or structure.  Nonconforming buildings or structures damaged or destroyed by flood must meet the requirements of subsection 4.2.2 (floodplain overlay district).   

 

B.   If a building or structure containing a nonconforming use is destroyed by a calamity beyond the control of the property owner, the property owner may reestablish the nonconforming use and may repair or replace the building or structure, provided that he/she submits a complete building permit application within 12 months of the calamity.  The building or structure containing the nonconforming use and the nonconforming use may only be replaced in the same location, size and character as the original building or structure and use.

4.8.10.       Extension, expansion, enlargement or change in character.

A.  A nonconforming use or a building or structure that contains a nonconforming use cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without the approval of the county commissioners.

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

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

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

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

 

C.  A use that is nonconforming because it has been changed by regulation from a use by right to a use by special review or a use by minor special review cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without special review or minor special review approval by the board of county commissioners under Section 4.5.  In determining whether to approve the special review or minor special review, the county commissioners will consider the entire use, not just the elements of the use sought to be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character.

 

D.  In determining whether there has been a change in character of a use, building or structure, the following factors may be considered:

 

1.   Whether there has been a change in the nature, volume, intensity, frequency, quality or degree of the use, building or structure.  (For example, has there been a significant increase in the number of employees or traffic volume; has there been a change in the days or hours of operation; or have the physical dimensions of the building or structure       been increased);

2.   Whether there has been a change in the activity, products or services.  (For example, a dog grooming facility that has been converted to a retail store for pet supplies could be considered a change in the character of the use).

3.   Whether the new use, building or structure reflects the nature and purpose of the prior use or structure.  (For example, an air strip used for seasonal crop dusting operations that is subsequently used only for recreational parasailing could be considered a change in the character of the use);

4.   Whether the new use is different in kind on its effect on the neighborhood. (For example, has there been a change in environmental influences on the neighborhood, such as light, noise or air quality).        

 

4.8.11.       Review Criteria for requests to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure.

Except for requests involving special reviews or minor special reviews pursuant to Section 4.8.10.C, to approve a request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure, the county commissioners must find the following conditions exist.

A.  The proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood.

B.  The proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change will not adversely affect property values in the area affected by the proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change.

C.  The proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change will not impair the intent and purpose of this code and the master plan.

4.8.12.       Conditions of approval

The county commissioners may impose conditions on a request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure 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.  These conditions may include a requirement that some or all elements of the nonconforming use and/or that some or all areas of a nonconforming building, structure or site be brought into compliance with the standards in Section 8 of this code.

 

4.8.13.       Process

All applications for requests to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure require a pre-application conference and county commissioner review.  The Planning Director may require a neighborhood meeting if he/she determines that the meeting would benefit the county commissioners’ review of the application.  Each of these processes is described in Section 12.2 (development review procedures).

 

4.8.14.       Nonconforming Lots

A.  A nonconforming lot is a lot, parcel or tract of land that does not meet one or more of the requirements of this code and:

 

1.  Was created by deed or other instrument of property transfer signed  before May 5, l972; or

2.  Was approved by the county commissioners on or after May 5, l972; or

3.  Appears on a final plat of record approved by the appropriate authority at the time the plat was recorded.  (See definitions, legal lot).

B.   Nonconforming lots must meet all requirements of this code except minimum lot size and minimum lot width-to-depth ratio.

Current Section 4.8

4.8.1. Purpose.

This section governs uses, structures and lots that were legally established prior to the adoption of this code but that do not comply with one or more requirements of the code. The county seeks to allow nonconforming uses, structures and lots to continue to exist and be maintained and put to productive use and to encourage as many aspects of such uses, structures and lots to be brought into conformance with this code as is reasonably practical.

The limitations in this section are intended to recognize the interests of the property owner in continuing the nonconformity but also to preclude the extension, expansion or change in character of the nonconformity or the reestablishment of a nonconformity after it has been abandoned.

 

4.8.2. Nonconforming use.

A nonconforming use is a use that does not comply with the requirements of this code but legally existed prior to the adoption, revision or amendment of this code.

 

4.8.3. Nonconforming structure.

A nonconforming structure is a structure that, by reason of its height, size, distance from a lot line, encroachment on a setback or other dimensional or bulk requirement or its location within a floodway, flood fringe or flood hazard area overlay zone does not comply with the requirements of this code but did conform to all applicable regulations in effect at the time of its construction. A nonconforming structure may remain in its current location and condition under provisions noted below.

 

4.8.4. Nonconformities with respect to development standards.

A use or structure that does not comply with the requirements of section 8 (standards for all development), except subsections 8.17.1 and 8.17.2, of this code, but complied with all applicable requirements at the time the use or structure was established or approved is considered to be nonconforming with respect to the standards of section 8. Any addition or expansion of a building, structure or use approved by the board of adjustment that exceeds 75 percent of the building, structure or use as of the effective date of this code requires the entire site, building, use or structure to comply with the standards of section 8 of this code. Any addition or expansion of a building, structure or use that is equal to or less than 75 percent of the building, structure or use approved by the board of adjustment as of the effective date of this code, requires only the addition or expansion to comply with section 8 of this code.

 

4.8.5. Maintenance.

Normal repairs and maintenance of a nonconforming structure are allowed. A nonconforming structure cannot, however, be repaired or altered in a manner that increases its nonconformity with this code. The planning director may waive provisions of this section in writing if the chief building official determines that repairs or alterations to a nonconforming structure are necessary to correct a hazard to public health or safety or to comply with public health or safety requirements of another governmental entity having jurisdiction over the structure.

4.8.6. Discontinuance of use.

If a nonconforming use is discontinued for more than 12 consecutive months, the use can not be re-established. If a question arises as to whether a nonconforming use has been discontinued, the property owner must show by competent evidence that the nonconforming use has not been discontinued. The planning director will make the final decision concerning the evidence. The planning director's decision can be appealed to the board of adjustment under section 22 (appeals).

 

4.8.7. Destruction.

A. If a nonconforming structure is destroyed (i.e., incurs damages of more than 50 percent of the structure's replacement cost) by a calamity beyond the control of the property owner (other than a flood) the property owner may repair or replace the nonconforming structure, provided that he/she submits a building permit application within 12 months of the event that destroyed the structure. Nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed by flood must meet requirements of subsection 4.2.2 (floodplain overlay districts).

B. If a structure that contains a nonconforming use is destroyed by a calamity beyond the control of the property owner, the property owner may reestablish the nonconforming use when the structure is repaired or replaced, provided that he/she submits a building permit application within 12 months of the event that destroyed the structure.

 

4.8.8. Substitution of uses.

A nonconforming use cannot be replaced by another nonconforming use.

 

4.8.9. Extension, expansion or change in character.

A use, building or structure that is non-conforming with respect to section 4 (zoning) or subsections 8.17.1 or 8.17.2 (setbacks) cannot be extended, expanded or changed in character, except as noted in subsections A and B below.

A. A building that is nonconforming with respect to a required setback from a county road identified on the functional classification map or a state or federal highway may be expanded if the following conditions exist:

1. The proposed addition is not more than 25 percent of the square footage of the original building that legally existed on January 1, 2000 and is not more than 1,000 square feet;

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

3. The proposed addition is no closer to the right-of-way than the building as it legally existed on January 1, 2000; and

4. The proposed addition has been reviewed and approved by the county engineer.

 

B. A building that is nonconforming with respect to a required setback other than from a county road or a state or federal highway may be expanded if the following conditions exist:

1. The proposed addition is not more than 25 percent of the square footage of the building as it legally existed on January 1, 2000 and is not more than 1,000 square feet; and

2. The proposed addition is outside the required setback.

A structure that contains a nonconforming use cannot be extended, expanded or changed in character. Buildings, structures or uses that are nonconforming with respect to the standards of section 8 (standards for all development) of this code may be added onto or expanded upon approval of the board of adjustment if the requirements of subsection 4.8.4 are met.

 

C. In determining whether there has been a change in character of a use or structure, the following factors may be considered:

1. Whether there has been a change in nature, volume, intensity, frequency, quality or degree of the use or structure. (For example, has there been a significant increase in the number of employees or traffic volume; has there been a change in the days or hours of operation; or have the physical dimensions of the structure been increased);

2. Whether there has been a change in the activity, products or services. (For example, a dog grooming facility that has been converted to a retail store for pet supplies could be considered a change in the character of the use);

3. Whether the new use or structure reflects the nature and purpose of the prior use or structure. (For example, an airstrip used for crop dusting operations that is subsequently used only for recreational parasailing could be considered a change in the character of the use); or

4. Whether the new use is different in kind on its effect on the neighborhood. (For example, has there been a change in environmental influences on the neighborhood, such as light, noise or air quality).

(Res. No. 12092003R001, Exh. A., 11-10-2003)

 

4.8.10. Nonconforming lot.

A. A lot, parcel or tract of land that does not meet one or more of the requirements of this code is considered a nonconforming lot if:

1. The lot was created by deed or other instrument of property transfer signed before May 5, 1972; or

2. The lot was approved by county commissioners on or after May 5, 1972; or

3. The lot appears on a final plat of record approved by the appropriate authority at the time the plat was recorded. (See definitions, legal lot).

B. Nonconforming lots must meet all requirements of this code except minimum lot size and minimum lot width-to-depth ratio.

 

4.8.11. Decisions and appeals.

A. All decisions concerning nonconformities will be made by the planning director.

B. All decisions of the planning director concerning section 4.8 of the code may be appealed to the board of adjustment as described in section 22 (appeals), except decisions concerning the extension or expansion of a nonconforming use or structure in a floodplain may be appealed to the floodplain review board as described in section 4.2.2 (floodplain overlay zone districts).

C. All decisions of the flood review board may be appealed to the county commissioners as described in section 22, (appeals).

 

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Mark Korb addressed the Board.  Mr. Korb thanked the Board for removing the five items that had not been properly noticed so they could now go through the proper process.  Mr. Korb stated that it would be a mistake to allow the planning director to have the authority to decide whether or not appeals should be referred to the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners.  Mr. Korb stated that this authority should remain with the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Brian Schumm commented on home occupations and enforcement of the Land Use Code.  Mr. Schumm suggested the possibility of requiring that home occupations must allow access for compliance checks.  Mr. Schumm also stated that "home" is taken out of home occupations, once you allow outside storage and the use of detached accessory buildings for use in the business.

 

Neil Spencer stated that in his opinion some of the criteria for home occupations seems very restrictive, and does not encourage or support home occupations; such as the sign limitations, the number of employees allowed, parking restrictions and limitations placed upon trips-per-day, etc. 

 

Lisa Ashbach stated concerns with the requirement that home occupations must be registered, as in her opinion this is a violation of personal privacy.  Ms. Ashbach also stated that under the appeals section, the burden of proof should not fall upon the property owner to prove that appeal will be consistent with the Land Use Code. 

 

Amy Sasick expressed concern that home occupations will be negatively impacted and that artesian artists and craftsmen will be limited by the regulations that impose noise restraints and that use of outdoor workspace.

 

Evelyn King stated that property owners should not have to go through the variance process and the related expenses, especially in the instances where the County created the non-conformance to begin with.  (Such as the case when the setbacks were increased in certain zoning districts from 5 to 25 feet.)  Ms. King asked the Board to revisit the issue of setbacks and to not rush into making the proposed changes to the Land Use Code.

 

Doug Kindsfater explained that he would like to build a loafing shed on his property; however, the restrictive setbacks are creating a problem for him in placing this shed.  Mr. Kindsfater stated that it should not cost him to take back the area of land that was taken from him when the new setbacks requirements were adopted.

 

Chair Gibson closed public comment.

Mr. Kadera explained that when registering a business, the Planning Department will only require individuals to give their name and address and a description of the business they will be operating.  Chair Gibson asked why it will be upon the applicant to satisfy the burden of proof regarding appeals.  Ms. Haag stated that it is always the responsibility of the person submitting the appeal to prove their case.  Commissioner Rennels stated that if someone is operating a business, then there is the assumption of openness to the public.   Discussion ensued regarding Section 22.2.2.A.5.d, and whether or not the planning director should be evaluating which appeals should be directed to the Planning Commission and which appeals should be directed to the Board of County Commissioners.  With regard to the setbacks, Commissioner Rennels stated that reversing the setback requirements at this point may also cause issues for property owners.  At this time there was a request from the audience to re-open public comment.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners re-open public comment.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Ms. King stated that going from a larger setback requirement to a smaller setback requirement would not cause problems, and that non-conformities are only caused when you go from smaller to larger.  Mr. Kadera stated that if someone bought a piece of property with the assumption of 25 foot setbacks between neighboring properties, then reducing the setback requirements could cause issues as well.

 

Ms. Ashbach stated that there is a Special Review process in place for home occupations, and she expressed concern that the registration of home occupations could encourage non-conformities as well.  Mr. Kadera stated that requirement to register home occupations will only affect new businesses created after the proposed changes are adopted.  He noted that it does not affect those home occupations already in place; therefore, it will not create non-conformities for these businesses.

Chair Gibson closed public comment.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Land Use Code changes as outlined above, with the exception of: 22.2.2.A.5.d, which will read as follows: "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 is filed."  This is the appeal of a planning director interpretation or administrative decision.  The appeals of code standards will be sent to the planning commission at the discretion of the planning director."; and by changing 22.2.2.A.6 to read, "The appeal will be granted only if the applicant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that granting the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of this code."

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.  THREE BELLS PIT APPEAL - #06-G0103:  This is a request to appeal of the decision of the Planning Director that an amendment to the Special Review is required.

On May 8 2006, the Board of County Commissioners held a hearing on the appeal of Lafarge West, Inc. regarding an appeal of the Planning Director's interpretation.  That determination was; to reenter the pit the Special Review for the Three Bells Pit would require a full amendment.  At the hearing on May 8, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners tabled the appeal indicating that they were inclined to approve the appeal with certain conditions.  The applicant and staff have worked since that time to address the conditions suggested and have developed a list of additional conditions for the site.  Further direction from the Board of County Commissioners was to hold a neighborhood meeting.  That meeting was held on June 6, 2006.  Based on a phone conversation with the applicant, there were no substantial issues raised at the meeting. 

The following list of conditions has been developed with the applicant:

 

1.    The entire permit area, as originally approved – see map, will be mined within 5 years or no later than July 1, 2111.

2.    Reclamation of the site will occur concurrently mining cell by mining cell and will extend for an additional year to 2012.

3.    Any extension of operation beyond these times shall require review and approval of the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing.

4.    Hours and days of operation will be consistent with the Kyger Pit approval, M-F 7am -6pm and 7 am -12 pm Saturday.

5.    No batch plants for either asphalt or concrete are allowed at anytime.

6.    All haul will occur from the site east on CR 32E to WCR13/LCR 901 and then south to Hwy 392.  Local haul may deviate from this route but under no circumstance use westbound CR 32E.  Local haul is a haul of less than 2 miles.

7.    Operations at the site will come no closer than ¼ mile to the eagle nest along the Poudre River and will be coordinated with the CDOW and USFWS.

8.    A revised mining and reclamation plan will be submitted to the County within 60 days of the Board of County Commissioners hearing and no material will be removed from the site prior to receipt, review and approval of the plan by County staff.

9.    The applicant and landowners will develop a weed control plan with the Larimer County Weed District prior to the removal of any material from the site. 

10.   All permits required by other agencies of local, state or federal government shall be obtained and in effect at all times during operations at this site. 

11.   All other original or amended conditions of approval not superceded by those stated here shall remain in effect. 

 

The Development Services Team recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal of Lafarge West, Inc. regarding the Three Bells Pit, with the conditions of approval suggested above. 

Mr. Helmick explained the appeal and conditions as outlined above.  The applicant, Eric Recentine, stated that he was in agreement with the proposed conditions.  Discussion ensued regarding Condition 8, and the Board agreed to remove this condition, regarding the possible negotiation of a regional parks trail through the site, as this would need to be negotiated with the property owner and not the applicant.  (The above conditions have been changed and re-numbered as a result.)

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Bill Wollenberg, resident of Ptarmigan, commented that there may be enough space for a trail to go through property even while the site was still being mined.  He also noted that the members of the community are pleased that the conditions parallel the Kyger Pit.  Mr. Wollenberg stated that he had a list of questions pertaining to contact phone numbers, schedule of future meetings, etc. that he would give to the applicant after the meeting.

The Board was in support of the appeal, and Commissioner Wagner stated that she was pleased to see the site would be completely mined within 5 years.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal of Lafarge West, Inc. of the Planning Directors interpretation subject to the conditions as outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2006

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#72)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster.  Chair Pro Tem Wagner presided and Commissioner Rennels was present.  Also present were:  Deni LaRue, Donna Hart, and Cheri Pineda, Commissioners Office; Marc Engemoen; Public Works Department; K-Lynn Cameron, and Meegan Flenniken, Parks and Open Lands Department; Jay Hardy, Fairgrounds and Events Center; John Q. Hammons, and Veanne Stocking, Hammons Properties; Lew Wymisner, Workforce Center; Adrienne LeBailly, Janna West-Kowalski, and Bruce Peters, Health Department; Jerry White, and Charlie Johnson, Engineering Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerks.   

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 12, 2006

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of June 12, 2006, as presented.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 26, 2006Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA: 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items, as listed on the Consent Agenda for June 20, 2006:

 

06202006A001           ADDENDUM FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SERVICES BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND FELSBURG, HOLT & ULLEVIG, INC.

 06202006A002          ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR VARIOUS GENERAL/PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS IN THE ESTES PARK, COLORADO AREA BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ROD'S ROADS, INC.

06202006D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY JAMES A. WISE AND JUDITH WISE FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

06202006R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3 OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF TRACT 36-A OF THE AMENDED PLAT IN HIGHLAND PLACE TRACTS 35, 36 & THE SOUTH PORTION OF TRACT 32 & A PORTION OF TRACT 37 OF THE HIGHLAND PLACE SUBDIVISION

06202006R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACT B AND C IN DECKER-VAN HORN EXEMPTION

06202006R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1 AND A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 4 OF PLEASANT ACRES 2ND SUBDIVISION REPLAT

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were both approved and issued:  City Limit Liquor - Retail Liquor Store - Fort Collins; CSU Concessions & Stadium - 3.2% - Fort Collins.  The following licenses were approved:  ; Boyd Lake Marina - duplicate license - Loveland; Rocky Mountain Nature Association - Special Event 6% - Estes Park; Asia Transpacific Foundation - Special Event 6% - Estes Park.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

5.   DISCUSSION OF HOTEL AT THE RANCH WITH JOHN Q. HAMMONS:  Mr. Hardy explained that Larimer County had previously entered into a ground lease agreement and an escrow agreement with John Q. Hammons, in order to build a hotel at the Fairgrounds.  Mr. Hardy noted that both of the agreements have since expired.  Mr. Hammons explained that he still has a strong desire to build a hotel on the site; however, once they got into the plans they realized that it would cost $75 to $80 million to build, and he believes this area cannot support that value.  Mr. Hammons stated that they are re-designing the hotel to fall within the $55 to $60 million price range, and he reiterated that he still would like to build a hotel on this site.  Chair Pro Tem Wagner asked what the differences would be with the re-designed hotel.  Mr. Hammons presented a rendering of the proposed re-designed hotel and stated that it would be scaled down to 8-stories high (instead of the original 10-story proposal), and it will be 250 to 260 rooms (instead of the original 290 proposal); however, the size of the convention center will remain the same.  Chair Pro Tem Wagner also asked if Mr. Hammons would be willing to assist with improvements to the Crossroads Intersection, since most of the hotel traffic would be utilizing this intersection.  Mr. Hammons stated that he has never been approached to assist with improving the intersection and would have to do some research before he could commit to providing assistance of this kind.  Commissioner Rennels thanked Mr. Hammons and recommended tabling a decision regarding this matter until Commissioner Gibson could be present.  The Board stated that they hoped to have a decision on this matter by the following week.

 

6.  REPEAL OF SMOKING ORDINANCE:  Mr. Lancaster explained that the Smoking Ordinance that was adopted by the Board in 1994 has been superseded with the passage of the statewide smoking statute that goes into effect on July 1, 2006.  Ms. West-Kowalski presented a handout explaining the new smoking law and noted which establishments would be affected and which would be exempted.  Ms. West-Kowalski stated that the new law requires no smoking within 15 feet of an entryway; however, the local authority can either increase or decrease the 15 foot limit.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve of repealing the Ordinance Concerning Smoking in Public Places in Unincorporated Larimer County.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

06202006R006           RESOLUTION REPEALING CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE VI (SMOKING) AND CHAPTER 46, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2 (SMOKING) OF THE CODE OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO

 

7.  AMENDMENT TO THE LARIMER COUNTY ENTERPRISE ZONE:  Mr. Wymisner presented a diagram depicting the City of Loveland's request to amend their portion of the Larimer County Enterprise Zone to include two industrial sites (Hewlett-Packard/Agilent and WaterPik).  Mr. Wymisner stated that 400-700 jobs have been lost at these two sites and the Enterprise Zone designation will offer incentives (state tax credits) for new manufactures to move into the two existing sites.  He requested the Board's approval to forward the proposal to the Colorado Economic Development Commission.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve of allowing the Enterprise Zone Administrator to take the request for amending the Enterprise Zone to the Colorado Economic Development Commission for their decision.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

8.  DISCUSSION OF AMBULANCE REGULATIONS:  Dr. LeBailly presented a draft proposal of the revised Rules and Regulations Concerning Ambulance Services.  She noted that in order to be in compliance with new state laws and regulation, the County's Ambulance Licensing Resolution must be updated by July 12, 2006.  Dr. LeBailly presented the documentation for the Board to preview, and noted that the draft regulations will be considered in a public hearing scheduled for July 5, 2006.  Dr. LeBailly stated that fees are required to cover the costs of the ambulance inspection services; therefore, the costs of licenses will increase.  Some discussion ensued.

 

9.  RED MOUNTAIN RANCH TRADE PROCESS:  Ms. Cameron presented the evaluation criteria, process, and flow chart pertaining specifically to the Red Mountain Ranch Open Space.  She noted that the criteria will provide a guideline to be used in determining portions of the property that are suitable for trade, per contractual agreements with Great Outdoors Colorado and other partners.  The Board was pleased with the process and Commissioner Rennels stated that it was a good balance between the agricultural components and the public access components.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of the Red Mountain Ranch Trade Process and Evaluation Criteria.

Motion carried 2-0.


10.  RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY AND A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION CHARGE FOR THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY (LETA):
  Mr. Lancaster explained that LETA collects a surcharge on wireless and telephone lines to fund emergency telephone services throughout the county for public safety.   Mr. Lancaster explained that this is simply a renewal of the surcharge, with no change to the amount of the surcharge.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution Establishing a Telephone Exchange Access Facility Charge and a Wireless Communications Access Charge for the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority effective January 1, 2007.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

06202006R005           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY CHARGE AND A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS CHARGE FOR THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2007

 

11.  APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:  Ms. Pineda presented the following appointments to Boards and Commissions and requested approval of the same:  Board of Adjustment:  Bridget Barclay Sudol, appointment for a one-year term, effective July 1, 2006, and expiring June 30, 2007 (fills unexpired term of pervious alternate member); Larry Chisesi and Alfred Shilling, reappointed for a three-year term, effective July 1, 2006 and expiring June 30, 2009.  Environmental Advisory Board:  Jennifer Lee appointed for a three-year term, effective July 1, 2006, and expiring June 30, 2009; Victor Meyer appointed for a two-year term, effective July 1, 2006, and expiring June 30, 2008 (fill unexpired term of previous member); Dale Lockwood, Sherman Worthington, and William Zawacki reappointed for a three-year term, effective July 1, 2006, and expiring June 30, 2009.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve appointments the Boards and Commissions as presented and outlined above.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

12.  WORKSESSION:  There were no worksession items to discuss.

 

13.  COMMISSIONER REPORTS:  The Board discussed their attendance at events during the past week.  Chair Pro Tem Wagner took a moment to pay respects to David Lauer who recently perished in a climbing accident.

 

14.  LEGAL MATTERS:  (Affidavit provided.)

 

 M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving specific legal advice, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

The Executive Session ended at 11:30 with no further action taken.

 

 

PLAY POINTE INC. DBA FORT FUN

LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING

(#73)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:00 p.m. with Linda Connors, Assistant County Attorney.  Chair Pro-Tem Wagner presided and Commissioner Rennels was present.  Also present were: Jeffrey and Jan McClure, owners of Play Pointe Inc., dba Fort Fun; Patty Drieth, Clerk and Recording Department; and Gael Cookman and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerks.   (Commissioner Gibson joined the meeting several minutes after it began.)

 

The applicant, Mr. Jeffrey McClure, explained that he and his wife own Play Pointe Inc., dba Fort Fun, and he presented the following exhibits:  Exhibit A – photos of the notice posted on the premises informing the public of the pending application for a liquor license; and Exhibit B – the petitions of the surrounding neighborhood, which revealed that there was one person in opposition to the proposed Tavern Liquor License.  Ms. Connors asked if Mr. McClure has familiarized himself with the liquor license laws of Colorado and how he intends to handle intoxicated patrons.  Mr. McClure stated that he had previously been a silent partner in ownership of a liquor store.  He assured the Board that only managers would be authorized to sell and distribute the alcoholic beverages.  Mr. McClure addressed the potential problem of drinking and driving go-karts by suggesting that identifiable wrist bands or marks on the hand would prevent those that had been drinking from operating the go-karts.  He made it clear that Fort Fun would remain an entertainment venue for children and families, but felt that it was an important aspect of his business to offer alcohol to his eligible patrons.  Mr. McClure stated that he would only serve the spirituous liquor to private parties, and that alcohol sales to the general public would cease at 9:00 p.m.  Finally, Mr. McClure stated that personnel and security cameras are in place and signs will be located at the entrance to prohibit patrons from exiting the facility with alcohol.

For the record, Ms. Connors noted that there was no one present in opposition of this license.  The Commissioner’s were in support of this application; however, Commissioner Rennels recused herself from the vote because her son works part-time at Fort Fun.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the application and authorize issuance of a Tavern Liquor License for Play Pointe Inc., dba Fort Fun, located at 1513 E. Mulberry, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Motion carried 2-0; Commissioner Rennels abstained.

 

The meeting recessed at 2:25 p.m.

 

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT  (PID)

HEARING FOR BONNELL WEST SUBDIVISION

(#73)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m., with Rex Burns, Project Engineer.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Linda Sanders, Engineering Department; and Gael Cookman and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerks.

 

Mr. Burns explained that the Bonnell West Subdivision was developed in the 1980’s and 1990’s and portions of the streets are severely cracked and damaged.  He said that the purpose of the hearing was to provide an opportunity for public comment on the issue of creating a PID.  After sending out notices of the proposed hearing, staff received no written comments.  The Engineering Department received a petition signed by 74.6% of the owners in the Bonnell West Subdivision in support of placing the issue on the November ballot. 

Ms. Sanders addressed the Board and stated that the proposal is to raise $60,000 per year with a mill levy of 13.58 for the 21 parcels located in the Bonnell West Subdivision.  This averages out to $496 per lot, per year.  Commissioner Gibson questioned the flexibility of the 13.58 mill levy and Ms. Sanders explained that 13.58 was the maximum limit the mill levy could be set; however, it could be lowered over the years as improvements are made and maintained.  She also stated that the Commissioners would appoint a Road Advisory Board consisting of three to five members who would help with the formation of the PID.

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Gerald Shea addressed the Board.  Mr. Shea, who is a member of the Board of Directors for the Bonnell Subdivision, said that they have been talking about the road maintenance for two to three years and the support for creating a PID has been overwhelming.  He also noted that the Homeowners Association would contribute $70,000 into the PID fund immediately, as they have already been collecting monies for road improvement.  There was no further public comment.

Ms. Sanders noted that there will be an open application process where interested parties can apply to serve on the Road Advisory Board.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Resolution Approving Petition for the Organization of Larimer County Bonnell West Public Improvement District #36.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

06202006R004           RESOLUTION APPROVING PETITION FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF LARIMER COUNTY BONNELL WEST PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 36

 

The hearing adjourned at 6:45 p.m.

 

  __________________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk   

 

___________________________________

Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk   

 

 

 

 

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.