> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 04/11/11  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, April 11, 2011

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Donnelly presided and Commissioners Gaiter and Johnson were present. Also present were: Toby Stauffer, Rob Helmick and Michael Whitley, Planning Department; Eric Tracy, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Dana Bouchard and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerks.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the meeting with the pledge of allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code.

 

Chair Donnelly explained that the following items are on the consent agenda and will not be discussed unless requested by a member of the Board, staff, or the audience.

 

ENCLAVE AT EAGLE VIEW CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION, FILE #05-S2467:  This is a request to reinstate and extend the approval of Preliminary Plat Approval for a Conservation Development Land Division of 35 acres creating 7 lots (6 residential lots and 1 residual lot) with an existing dwelling and an appeal to Section 8.14.Q of the Larimer County Land Use Code for dead end road length.

 

The Enclave at Eagle View Conservation Development was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners on July 7, 2008, and the Findings and Resolution was approved on September 10, 2008.  A preliminary plat once approved, expires if not acted upon within one year.  This preliminary plat approval would have expired in September of 2009.  Staff has been working with the applicant to renew or extend the approvals since that time and has had requests for the applicant’s consultant in hand since late 2009.  Due to a number of both economic and personal issues the request to extend the preliminary plat approval was only formally received at the beginning of March of 2011.

 

This project originally began as Chaledon Estates Conservation Development which was approved in 2004 and withdrawn by the applicant in 2005.  This new project began in 2005 with a new sketch plan and ultimately was reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2008.

 

Staff recommends Approval of the Enclave at Eagle View Conservation Development reinstatement and extension of Preliminary Plat Approval File #05-S2467 subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    A complete Final Plat application shall be submitted no later than April 11, 2012.

 

2.    Changes in engineering standards since the 2008 approval shall be evaluated at the time of application for the final plat to determine the impact and importance of the application standards.

 

2.         LAKESHORE MARINA CONDOMINIUM MAP AMENDMENT, FILE #11-S3026:  This is a request to amend the Lakeshore Marina Condominium Map to add limited common area to each unit, reducing overall common area, so additions can be built on individual units in the future.

 

In their review of this request, staff found it consistent with the existing zoning of the site, complying with sections 8.5, 8.6 and 10 of the Land Use Code, and complying with the monumentation and plat preparation standards required by state statute.  The owners have submitted property association documents that include responsibilities of ownership and maintenance. Staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Lakeshore Marina Condominium Map Amendment file #11-S3026 subject to the following condition and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature.

 

1. One signature block for an attorney is shown on the plat; it is not needed and should be removed prior to final plat approval.

 

3.         ROSS ESTATES LOT 3 UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #11-S3025:  This is a request to vacate an 8-foot utility easement adjacent to the ditch easement on the north edge of the property for the entire width of the lot. The easement is no longer needed, all utilities have been removed from it, and a new utility easement was recently placed on the property for use by Xcel and other utilities. If approved, the recording instrument for this application will be a Findings and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Ross Estates Lot 3, Utility Easement Vacation; file #11-S3025, a request to vacate an 8-foot utility easement adjacent to the ditch easement on the north edge of the property for the entire width of the lot.

 

M O T I O N

 

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

 

Motioned carried 3-0.

 

4.         COLLAND CENTER SIGN APPEAL, FILE #11-G0212:  This is an Appeal to Section 10.5.E of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow two properties to share signage; one property would have an off-premise sign.

 

The applicant is seeking an appeal to Section 10.5. E, Prohibited signs - Off premise signs, in the Land Use Code. The request would allow two properties to share signage, resulting in one property with an off-premise sign.  The code indicates that no off premise signs are allowed in the county. The properties have several existing wall signs, and two existing monument signs. One monument sign along College Ave/Highway 287 would be shared by the businesses on both properties. No additional signs are being added to either property at this time, though other signage in accordance with the sign code could be added in the future. No additional square footage is being added to any existing sign at this time. Currently signs on both properties are conforming with respect to the code.

 

In review of this request, staff finds there are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions on this site which result in a hardship to the owners if the sign code is enforced. The owners have complied with the sign code to this point and have signage for all uses, which appears to be adequate and visible.

 

Therefore, staff recommends denial of this request, Colland Center Sign Appeal, given that it does not meet the review criteria as listed above. However, should the Commissioners wish to approve this request, staff offers the following conditions for consideration.

 

1.    No additional square footage shall be added to the existing freestanding signs.

 

2.    No additional freestanding sign shall be added to either property.

 

3.    All current and future signs on both properties shall comply with land use and building codes.

 

4.    Both properties shall conform with all other requirements in Section 10 of the Land Use Code.

 

5.    This approval is given for existing signs present on the property at the time of this approval.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to the applicant and Brad March, Attorney for the applicant, stated there is confusion with the request. The applicant is not seeking to share the existing signage on the adjacent property, but to add a third sign on the off-premise property, visible from Highway 287, only advertising the Colland Center. Additionally, the applicant would remove their existing sign on County Road 32.  Mr. March apologized for the confusion.

 

Staff explained that both lots are utilizing their allowance of free standing signs; therefore, an additional corner sign would require an appeal to the land use code, allowing three signs on one property instead of the allotted two. Mr. Lafferty expressed that the staff’s recommendation would still be to deny the request because they have always denied off-premise signage and want to remain consistent.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to public comment; however, no one from the audience addressed the Board regarding this matter.

 

Mr. March explained that the property owner originally wanted to configure the lots differently, to have access to signage on Highway 287; however, the Fort Collins Water District requested they configure the lots as they currently are due to the adjacent lot’s requirement to have multiple water taps.

 

Due to the change in request and limited information regarding what the proposed sign would look like, the Board agreed to table this item.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Colland Center Sign Appeal until May 2, 2011, at 3:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.         MAJESTIC ROOFING SIGN APPEAL, FILE #11-G0211:  This is an Appeal to Section 10.6 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, to allow a proposed sign to be up to 17-feet tall and 67 square feet in area. 

 

The applicant is seeking an appeal to Section 10.6 of the Land Use Code. Section 10.6 allows a home occupation to have a sign that is 4 square feet in area and 6-feet tall without a permit. The existing sign on the property is approximately 3.75-feet X 8-feet= 30 square feet. The sign appears to be non-conforming as it does not have a permit of record. Currently the use on the property is approved as a home occupation in a residential zone district. The proposed changes to the Majestic Roofing sign are more extensive than what is currently allowed for a home occupation and therefore need to meet current code requirements. The request would allow two cabinet signs with an overall area 67 square feet to replace the existing sign. The lower cabinet would be a 30 square foot LED sign; the upper cabinet would be in the shape of the majestic roofing logo, measuring about 37 square feet. The overall height of the sign, from ground to top, has yet to be determined. The proposed heights are 11-feet, 15-feet and 17-feet.

 

In review of this request, staff finds the existing sign is already larger than what is allowed currently for home occupation zoning, and there are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions on this site which result in a hardship to the owners if the sign code is enforced.

 

Therefore, staff recommends denial of this request, Majestic Roofing Sign Appeal, given that it does not meet the review criteria as listed above. However, should the Commissioners wish to approve this request, staff offers the following conditions for consideration.

 

1.    No more than one freestanding sign shall be added to the property.

 

2.    No additional signage shall be added to the property without prior approval.

 

3.    All signs shall comply with land use and building codes.

 

4.    Building permit application for the proposed sign shall occur within 60 days from the date of this approval.

 

5.    The property signage shall conform with all other requirements in Section 10 of the Land Use Code.

 

6.    This approval is only given for the signs included in this request.

 

7.    This approval does not constitute approval of the use on the site; for this request the use is considered a home occupation.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to the applicant and Dennis Jones, Co-owner of Majestic Roofing, explained that there has been a commercial business on the premises for the past 20 years and that the sign they are proposing would be acceptable under commercial zoning requirements. Mr. Jones also emphasized that the sign would be a valuable addition to the community.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to public comment; however, no one from the audience addressed the Board regarding this matter.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the hardship that is faced by the applicant. Commissioner Gaiter and Johnson agreed that there is no real hardship and the proposed sign is too large. Chair Donnelly disagreed and stated that hardship exists because this property is surrounded by commercial properties who advertise and this is a tough economy.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved to deny the Majestic Roofing Sign Appeal.

 

Motion carried 2-1, Chair Donnelly dissenting.

 

6.         NATURE’S MEDICINE SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #10-Z1806:  This is a request for Approval of a Medical Marijuana Dispensary and Grow Facility in the C – Commercial Zoning District and an appeal to Sections 4.3.3.F.1 & 4.3.3.G.1 of the Land Use Code to allow a dispensary and grow facility to be within 500-feet of two occupied and two unoccupied residences. This item was on the discussion agenda for the February 16, 2011, Planning Commission public hearing at 6:30pm.  At the hearing, staff recommended denial of the proposed Special Review and denial of the proposed appeal to Sections 4.3.3.F.1 & 4.3.3.G.1 of the Land Use Code.

 

The Planning Commission listened to testimony from the applicant, the applicant’s attorney, the owner of the subject property and three members of the public regarding the application.  The majority of the testimony from the public focused on concerns regarding safety and compatibility of the proposed medical marijuana dispensary with the surrounding businesses and residences. 

 

After taking testimony the Planning Commission deliberated and voted 4 to 3 to recommend denial of the Nature’s Medicine Special Review and appeal.  A summary of the Planning Commission’s discussion can be found in the attached minutes. 

 

Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has proposed a condition of approval that would limit approval to only the current business owner.  Special Review approvals are typically not limited to a particular business or property owner as the evaluation of the potential compatibility and impacts of a Special Review is a land use issue and not an ownership issue.  Staff does not support the proposed condition of approval. 

 

Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to the applicant and Scott Oliver, Attorney for the applicant, presented to the Board the necessity of this location for convenience and for the patients medical needs.

 

Chair Donnelly then opened up the hearing for public comment:

 

Nata Collins, Richard VanHacken, Joan Whittaker, Tyler Armstrong, David Edwards, Tammy Presson, and Steve Presson all spoke in favor of the business and the services offered and requested they be approved to remain in operation.

 

Karen Richardson and Rebecca Grove, adjacent business owners, expressed their concerns regarding the business.

 

Chair Donnelly closed public comment and opened the hearing to the business owner for rebuttal. Mr. Oliver reiterated his client’s desire for the business to remain in operation.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the compatibility of the business with the surrounding community. The Board agreed that this business was not compatible with the community and the location’s proximity to the City of Loveland.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the special review.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the appeal.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners find the business in violation of code compliance and require them to discontinue operations by September 1, 2011, or legal action will be taken.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY APRIL 12, 2011

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Donnelly presided and Commissioners Johnson and Gaiter were present. Also present were:  Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Justin Smith, and Nick Christensen, Sheriff’s Department; Carol Block, Finance Department;  Laurel Kubin, Extension Office; Michael Kirk, and Andy Paratore, Facilities and Information Technology Department; Mark Peterson, Engineering Department;  Jeannine Haag, Bill Ressue, and Linda Connors, County Attorney’s Office; and Dana Bouchard and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerks.

 

1.   PUBLIC COMMENT:   Tammy Presson requested further clarification as to why the Board denied their Medical Marijuana facility, and questioned where they “fell short” in providing this service.  Some discussion ensued.

 

 

2.   APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 4, 2011:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of April 4, 2011.

 

Motion carried 2-0; Commissioner Gaiter abstained.

 

3.   REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 18, 2011:   Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.   CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as listed below:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the county assessor, the following Petition for Abatement is denied:  John R. Sagraves.

 

04122011A001           NATURAL GAS SALES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SEMINOLE ENERGY SERVICES

 

04122011R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TCM INVESTMENTS MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW

CREST RESORT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP

 

04122011R002           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Department of Human Services Payments for February 2011.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following license was approved and issued:  Glen Haven General Store – 3.2% - Glen Haven.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  EXTENSION PROGRAM NEEDS ASSESSMENT: Ms. Kubin provided an in-depth review of the program needs assessment and explained how the data would be utilized for future work plans and Extension projects.  

 

6.    CRYSTAL FIRE:   Sheriff Smith provided an update regarding the Crystal Fire in Larimer County.  He stated that they reached full containment of the fire on Monday, April 11, 2011; however, they are still reviewing evidence to determine the cause of the fire.  The Board commended Sheriff Smith and his staff for their courageous efforts in this community emergency.

 

7.  REQEST FOR A FULL-TIME LIMITED TERM EMPLOYEE (LTE) FOR THE FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER AND A FULL-TIME LIMITED TERM EMPLOYEE FOR A FACILITIES PROJECT COORDINATOR POSITION:   Mr. Kirk requested approval for two LTE’s for the Facilities Department, in order to assist in completing a number large scale projects within the next two years.  The Board agreed that hiring the expertise to facilitate proper completion of these projects was necessary.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve of the Facilities Department hiring a full-time limited FTE for the Facilities Project Manager for two (2) years, and a full-time limited term FTE for a Facilities Project Coordinator Position for two (2) years.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster explained that the owners of the Mishawaka have requested a waiver of the 60-day requirement to apply for a Special Event Permit for shuttle and camping services for an upcoming event at their venue.  Discussion ensued and consensus of the Board was to disapprove the waiver for this application.

 

9.         COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board reviewed their activities from the previous week.

 

10.       LEGAL MATTERS:  Ms. Haag briefly discussed the Boards’ authority to review child protection records, noting that the Board is able to review such records during the grievance process, if the Board of County Commissioners is requested to do so by the parties involved.

 

Ms. Haag then requested that the Board go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving confidential legal advice.

 

M O T I O N

 

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

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The Executive Session ended at 10:45 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011

 

ABATEMENT HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:30 p.m. for an abatement hearing.  Chair Donnelly presided and Commissioners Gaiter and Johnson were present. Also present were: Greg Daniels, Assessor’s Office; Mahmoud Talea, Petitioner (via telephone); and Dana Bouchard and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerks.

 

Mr. Daniels reviewed the comparables used to arrive at the assessed value for the property located at 1010 South Saint Vrain Ave in Estes Park.  Mr. Daniels stated that based upon the comparables, and the sale of an exact same unit, he placed the value of the property at $150,700.

 

Mr. Talea, stated that he purchased the home in 2010 and paid $134,000 for it, and he asked that the Board reduce this property to reflect this new value. 

 

Commissioner Johnson explained how the appraisal process works, noting that the Assessor must use data that is at least two years in arrears.  Commissioner Johnson stated that this is always acceptable to citizens when the economy is good and property values are increasing, but that in order for all properties to be fair and equitable, he believes that it also needs to work in the same manner when properties are declining, as well.  Therefore, Commissioner Johnson stated that he was in favor of upholding the value and processes used by the Assessor’s office. 

 

Commissioner Gaiter and Chair Donnelly disagreed, and felt that the new value of the home should reflect the most recent purchase price of $134,000.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition for Abatement for 2010 for parcel number 25311-31-005, and set the new value at $134,000.

 

Motion carried 2-1; Commissioner Johnson dissenting. 

 

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

   TOM DONNELLY, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

_____________________________________

Dana S. Bouchard, Deputy County Clerk

 

 

 

_____________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk