Larimer County Offices, Courts, District Attorney, and Landfill are closed on May 29, 2017 in observance of the Memorial Day Holiday. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, JULY 3, 2006
LAND USE HEARING
(#77 & #78)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Al Kadera, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present. Also present were: Sean Wheeler, Casey Stewart, and Chad Gray, Planning Department; Matt Johnson, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; 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 Items 1 through 3 were on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
1. GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 12TH FILING LOTS 110 AND 111 LOT CONSOLIDATION - #06-S2577: This is a request for a lot consolidation to combine two contiguous lots into one lot in the Glacier View Meadows 12th Filing PUD. If approved, the recording instrument will be a Finding and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.
There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; and The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team. The proposed Lot Consolidation for Lots 110 and 111 Glacier View Meadows 12th Filing PUD will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation for Lots 110 and 111 Glacier View Meadows 12th Filing PUD, subject to the following conditions:
2. PLANK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNED LAND DIVISION - #06-S2484: This is a request to rezone the subject property from FA-1 (Farming) to PD (Planned Development); and to make a Preliminary Plat for the Plank Planned Land Division (PLD) to create a development comprised of 45 single family residential lots on the 18.55 acre property situated at the southeast corner of Kechter and Ziegler Road. The development will also contain 3 common area lots for open space and drainage; these common areas consist of 2.7 acres.
As proposed, the development is a single family residential development that will consist of 45 single family residential lots and 3 outlots. Two of the 45 residential lots proposed will contain the 2 existing residences on the property. Both of these residential units are currently on septic systems, but the western most will be connected to the sewer system with this application, and the other will connect to the sewer system in the future, when the existing septic system fails.
An overview of the site reveals a square shaped property that has frontage on Kechter Road and Ziegler Road, for which primary access is being taken from both. Surrounding the property to the west, east and south are existing residential developments, currently within the Fort Collins city limits. Also near the development site, within ¼ mile, there is a High School (North), a Junior High School (South) and an Elementary School (East).
The property, which has terrain that slopes from northwest to southeast, has been used for agricultural purposes in the past. On the site there are two existing residences, which residential units will remain on the property and be integrated into the development (Lots 44 and 45).
The proposed application has taken into consideration all existing roadway connections from adjacent developments, by connecting to them and carrying them through the development site.
During the review process of the Plank PD and PLD, the Development Services Team received several calls concerning the impact of this development on the school population. However, this application was sent to the Poudre School District and no response was received indicating that over-crowding of the schools was a concern. Aside from some minor technical roadway and drainage issues there are no other identified issues or concerns with the Plank PD and PLD development application.
The proposed Plank PD and PLD are in conjunction with the recommendation of the Development Services Team, and will meet the intent of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Additionally, it is consistent with the standards and requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code and Supplemental Regulations for this type of development.
The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the rezoning request subject to the following conditions:
The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Preliminary Plat for the Plank Planned Land Division, File #05-S2484, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the rezoning from FA-1 (Farming) to PD (Planned Development) subject to the following condition:
a. The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the final plat of Plank Planned Land Division.
2. The zoning designation for the Plank PD and PLD shall be PD (Planned Development, which zoning classification will be subject to the development standards and requirements of Subsection I.f. (Mixed Use Neighborhood Area Regulations) of the Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for in the Supplemental Regulations to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.9.2.A.1, or as amended.
3. PEMBERTON MINOR LAND DIVISION - #06-S2575: This is a request to approve a Minor Land Division to subdivide 13.89 acres with two existing residential uses into separate and legal lots. The residential uses exist at the site and were issued permits for construction by the County. Approval of the Minor Land Division would create separate, legal lots around each home. One of the structures existed prior to the County’s building permit process, and has since been modified to include the needed permits. The other structure was built with permits, and the record is unclear as to why a second residential use was allowed on a lot with an existing residential use. Based on representations made to staff, it appears that because more than one Assessor’s parcel number exists on the site, the current and previous owners assumed that each parcel number represented a legal lot. At the time of the building permit, the applicant may have assumed that the second parcel was vacant and eligible for a building permit. The project description further indicates that the second parcel existed by deed on May 16, 1972, but the deed was not recorded until 1976. These dates follow the May 5, 1972 date when the state adopted legislation that helped define the legal lot process used today. However, County policy in that year was to recognize lots created for several months after that time. Regardless of how the second home came into being, approval of this request would result in lots that are 2.37 and 11.54 acres in size, and meet the requirements for the placement of septic systems. In addition, the homes, septic systems, and other impacts created by development already exist and there would be no new impacts as a result of this request being approved.
No staff members from the County Planning, Engineering, and Health Departments objected to the proposed Minor Land Division. Each of these Departments have minor concerns the applicant should address prior to recording the final plat, as outlined below:
1. Planning Department: There are some outstanding building permits as indicated in the June 1, 2006, memo from Candace Phippen, Code Compliance Supervisor. These address some permit and inspection approvals for work done on additions to one of the residences. The requirements for building permits are in place because they address life safety, health and welfare issues. The inspections ensure that structures are built up to standard. Staff concludes that if the County is to formally recognize two legal lots at this site, the structures on these lots should comply with County Code requirements because they can be conveyed separately.
2. Engineering Department: In addition to the comments already discussed, the Engineering Department indicates that some technical items must be corrected on the survey before the plat can be recorded. Engineering will also need some data related to the survey as described in the May 19, 2006, memo from Dale Greer to the applicant’s surveyor.
3. Department of Health and the Environment: Prior to recording the final plat, the applicant must provide information to the Health Department to show that existing septic systems will be located within the boundaries of the new lots as shown on the final plat.
4. Staff referred the application to outside reviewing agencies including the Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau and the affected utility companies. None of the outside agents objected to the approval of the MLD.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Pemberton 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:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1 through 3 as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. BENSLEY ZONING VIOLATION - #04-ZV0264: Mr. Gray addressed the Board and explained the situation regarding the Bensley’s property. He said that currently, there are two Land Use Code violations. One violation refers to Section 21.B (LUC), and the other is Section 105.1 (LUC), by virtue of moving a DWMH (Double Wide Mobile Home) onto the property without a required move permit, and storing the DWMH on the property without a valid building permit. Mr. Gray said that a complaint was received by Zoning Code Enforcement staff in August 2004, alleging in part, that a modular home had been moved onto the property. Staff confirmed the modular home had been moved onto the property without required permits and inspection approvals. Despite several telephone calls, site visits, and a pre-application meeting with one or more of the owners, the DWMH remains on the property without valid permits and inspection approvals.
James Bensley, owner of the modular home, addressed the Board and stated his opinion on the issue. He says that he is in the process of remodeling the DWMH to be used as storage for a home based business. He has no intention of using the modular home as a primary living space. Mr. Bensley also feels as though it is too expensive to pay for the necessary permits when the actual mobile home is only 800 square feet. However, he has put a lot of time and money into remodeling the mobile home and doesn’t want it removed from the property.
Mr. Kadera explained that even under the Home Occupation Federal and State law, a manufactured home is intended for residential purposes only. Some discussion ensued among the Commissioners. Commissioner Rennels suggested that the applicant meet with Mr. Kadera and other Planning Department staff members to review Mr. Bensley’s options more thoroughly.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Bensley Zoning Violation, File #04-ZV0264, for 90 days.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. SPENCER/MUDARRI MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW/APPEAL - #06-Z1592: This is a request to approve a Minor Special Review for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, with an appeal to increase to 1017 square feet which is the 800 square foot allowance for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (Section 4.3.10). The applicant seeks approval for a Minor Special Review to allow for the continued use of an existing, detached, residential unit as an approved accessory dwelling use. According to the project description the main residence was constructed in the mid-1940’s. The detached residential use was first permitted in the 1970’s as a garage or utility building. It was later expanded and converted for habitation without review by the County. The detached building has since been used and possibly rented as living quarters. Because the remodel expanded the building to a size of approximately 1017 square feet, it exceeds the limit set by Section 4.3.10 of the Land Use Code for new accessory dwelling uses. Thus, the application includes an appeal to this standard so the structure can be approved in its current form.
Mr. Wheeler addressed the Board and provided background information on the Minor Special Review. He stated that the reason for the review is to legalize the existence of the accessory building. Staff has received at least three concerns from neighbors that this will become a rental unit.
A ten minute recess was taken to allow time for the County Attorney to arrive. Assistant County Attorney, David Ayraud, entered the hearing room and the meeting resumed.
Mr. Wheeler summarized the information that was previously presented when the County Attorney was absent. Then, the applicant was given the opportunity to respond to the issue. William Harper, Broker Associate for ReMax, who spoke on behalf of the property owners, addressed the Board. Mr. Harper explained that the accessory building had been used as a rental unit in the past. He stated that the property was purchased by the current owners in 1999, with the assumption that the home and accessory building were conforming. Once they discovered that this was not the case, they terminated the lease on the accessory building.
Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Steve Winer, owner of an adjacent lot, addressed the Board. Mr. Winer presented the results of a petition that was signed by ten neighbors, seven of which were against the use of the accessory building as a rental unit. He feels that there has been a lack of sensitivity by the homeowners and a misrepresentation of the actual use of the accessory building. Following public comment, discussion ensued among the Commissioners.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the appeal to the Section 4.3.10.F standard that limits the detached accessory dwelling use to no more then 800 square feet in size. The habitable space of the current structure shall not be further expanded beyond the existing 1017 square feet. Approval of the Spencer-Mudarri Minor Special Review is subject to the following conditions:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal to the Section 4.3.10.F standard that limits the detached accessory dwelling use to no more than 800 square feet in size. The habitable space of the current structure shall not be further expanded beyond the existing 1017 square feet.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Spencer/Mudarri Minor Special Review for a detached accessory dwelling use subject to conditions 1 through 6 as recommended by staff and outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
TUESDAY, JULY 4, 2006
There was no Administrative Matters meeting held this week, as the Courthouse offices were closed in celebration of the July 4th holiday.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
AMBULANCE LICENSING REGULATIONS
The Board of County Commissioners met at 6:30 p.m. with Dr. Adrienne LeBailly, Director of the Health Department. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present. Also present was Marie Macpherson, Health Department; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.
Dr. LeBailly explained that the reason for the changes in the current Rules and Regulations is for Larimer County to be in compliance with Colorado State law. The purpose of these Rules and Regulations is to set forth the requirements for the inspection, licensure and operation of ambulance services, ambulance personnel and ambulance vehicles operating in Larimer County pursuant to the Colorado Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Act. The State regulation passed in 2005, and Larimer County had twelve months to be in compliance with the new State law. Dr. LeBailly stated that all ambulance services were contacted in May 2006, informing them of the changes, and no negative feedback was received. Ms. Macpherson said that the larger ambulance fleets will be affected the most by the regulatory changes, the smaller fleets will not see much of a change.
After the presentation of the new Rules and Regulations by Dr. LeBailly, some discussion among the Commissioners ensued.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Rules and Regulations concerning ambulance service.
Motion carried 3-0.
07052006R001 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING AMBULANCE SERVICE
The hearing adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2006
The Board of County Commissioners met at 11:30 p.m. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Rennels and Wagner were present. Also present were: Frank Lancaster, Neil Gluckman, Angela Erker, Bob Keister, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The Executive Session ended at 12:05 p.m. with no further action taken.
GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk