The Larimer County Virtual Courthouse website may be unavailable during maintenance on Wednesday, June 3 from 6 - 8 p.m. MST.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were: Clint Jones and Tracy Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Candace Phippen, Toby Stauffer, and Michael Whitley, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Lafferty requested item #6, “Land Use Code Amendments – Nonconformities, file #12-CA0125,” be added to the consent agenda and the Board agreed.
Chair Gaiter explained that the following items would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or any member of the audience:
2. SOUTH NOKOMIS LAKE LOTS 1, 9-11, BLOCK 29 & LOTS 12, 13, 25-28, BLOCK 27 AMENDED PLAT, RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, AND APPEAL, FILE #12-S3116: This is a request to amend the plat of South Nokomis Subdivision to combine ten lots into one, vacate a portion of right-of-way that was supposed to contain Little Sioux Road, dedicate a permanent access easement that will contain the exiting Sinissippi Road, and allow an appeal to Section 5.7.3.D, of the Larimer County Land Use Code, to create a lot transected by a roadway.
Several neighbors have called requesting information on this project; however after receiving the information, there were no objections to this proposal. Additionally, the Addressing Section and the Department of Health and Environment have stated that they have no objections to this proposal, while comments received from the Land Surveyor and the Assessor’s office identify some required corrections to the plat.
The Development Review Team of the Engineering Department recommends that a portion of the right-of-way or a permanent easement remain in place to allow connectivity to the existing Little Sioux Road. The Team also recommends that the easement dedicated for Sinissippi Road be 40-feet wide.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the amended request of the Amended Plat of Lot 1 of the Amended Plat of Lots 7 & 8, Block 29 South Nokomis Subdivision and Lots 12,13,25,26,27,28, Block 27 and Lots 9,10,11, Block 29 South Nokomis Subdivision, and appeal to Section 5.7.3.D of the Land Use Code, file #12-S3116, 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. The final plat shall be recorded by January 23, 2013, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.
3. Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by the Assessor’s Office.
4. Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall show a permanent easement connecting the Little Sioux Road right-of-way to the south with Sinissippi Road on the property.
3. CRYSTAL LAKES 13TH FILING LOTS 54 & 55A LOT CONSOLIDATION AND EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #12-S3114: This is a request to combine two adjacent lots (Lot 54, Crystal Lakes 13th Filing PUD & Lot 55A, Amended Plat of Lots 55 & 56, Crystal Lakes 13th Filing PUD) into one lot and vacate the 10-foot wide utility easements located along the existing common lot line.
In 1993 the Board of County Commissioners approved an Amended Plat to combine Lots 55 and 56 into Lot 55A. However, Lot 54 is still vacant and Lot 55A contains a single-family home that was constructed in 1982. The property owners would like to consolidate the lots to reduce property owner fees which are assessed by the Crystal Lakes Road & Recreation Association, Water & Sewer Association and Fire Protection District.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Crystal Lakes 13th Filing Lots 54 & 55A Lot Consolidation and Easement Vacation, file #12-S3114 subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution recorded by January 23, 2013, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions, or other conditions that apply to the original lots.
3. The vacation of the utility easement and the reconfiguration of the lots lines shall be finalized at such time when the findings and resolution of the County Commissioners is recorded.
4. GLENDEVEY EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE FILE #12-Z1886: This is a request to expand a non-conforming use by constructing a caretakers’ residence on a property used as a private retreat. The property currently contains 2 residences and 4 cabins, situated on 160-acres. In 2006, one of the original cabins burned down and the owners would like to construct a caretakers’ residence in the now vacant location.
The Development Planning Team supports the proposed expansion because the alternative would be to create a 35-acre parcel just for this building, which would not change the physical nature of the use but would result in irregular and undesirable property boundaries. However, the Development Services Team does note that the applicant will need to provide documentation regarding the existing well and water usage to the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources and obtain a septic permit through the Health Department prior to construction of the new caretaker’s residence.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Glendevey Expansion of a Non-Conforming Use; file #12-Z1866, subject to the following conditions:
1. Unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with this approval (i.e. apply for building permit), the approval shall automatically expire one year from the approval of this application.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the caretakers’ residence the applicant shall be required to provide proper documentation to the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources regarding the existing well on the property to ensure adequate water service is available.
3. The applicant shall be required to obtain through the County health Department the necessary permits for a septic system for the caretaker’s building.
5. BROWNSTONE QUARRY 2ND AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW FILE #12-Z1875: This is a request to expand a previously approved 29-acre sandstone mining operation onto 3.03-acres of an adjacent 135.14-acre parcel.
This item was on the consent agenda for the Planning Commission Public Hearing on June 20, 2012, during which time, staff provided some brief information to the Planning Commission regarding the Special Review and the appropriate motion for approval. The Planning Commission had no questions for the applicant and voted 9 to 0 to recommend approval of the Brownstone Quarry Second Amendment Special Review.
The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of Brownstone Quarry 2nd Amendment Special Review, file #12-Z1875, subject to the following conditions:
1. This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
2. The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Brownstone Quarry Second Amended Special Review, file #12-Z1875 except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Brownstone Quarry Second Amended Special Review.
3. The hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
4. There shall be no blasting at any time.
5. When possible, the reclamation shall be accomplished in a phased manner, concurrent with the mining operation.
6. Should the mining activity still be active January 1, 2037, the Board of County Commissioners shall review and update the conditions approved for this Special Review. The Board of County Commissioners’ review may include additions, deletions, and modifications of the conditions as necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Larimer County. This review shall be completed in 25-year intervals thereafter. The quarry operator shall submit the following information by July 1 of the year that the review is to be completed:
a. A current site plan of the quarry. The site plan should be similar to those submitted as a part of the Special Review application. The site plan should clearly show:
· The property boundaries;
· The location of permanent identification posts on the perimeter of the quarry area;
· Current approved mining boundaries;
· Current and old mining areas, with acreage;
· Storage and loading areas;
· Processing areas and any structures or improvements on the property.
b. A narrative that describes the current operation and any reclamation efforts that have been completed.
7. Materials shall not be removed from the top of the hogback.
8. No material will be sold on-site.
9. Heavy equipment maintenance, including oil changes, shall be done off-site.
10. The mining operation shall comply with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance.
11. Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners.
12. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.
13. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the county, the county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.
14. The county may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
15. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the property. Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.
6. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS – NONCONFORMITIES FILE #12-CA0125: This is a proposal to amend the Land Use Code by Repealing/Replacing Section 4.8 to modify the standards and processes for the continuation and expansion of nonconforming uses, buildings and structures.
This item was on the discussion agenda for the Planning Commission Public Hearing on June 20, 2012. Staff moved the item to the consent agenda because no members of the public were at the hearing for the Code Amendment. Staff provided a brief overview of the amendment and the appropriate motion for approval to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code - non-conformities, file #12-CA0125, as follows:
Repeal and replace Section 4.8 with:
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. - Determination of nonconforming status.
The planning director shall have the authority to determine whether or not a use, building or structure is nonconforming. A property owner must make a written request for the designation of a nonconforming use, building or structure status. The burden of proof for establishing the date when a nonconforming use was established or when a nonconforming building was constructed shall be the responsibility of the applicant or property owner. The applicant or property owner shall present competent evidence to the planning director to support the claim of a legal nonconforming use or of a legal nonconforming building.
4.8.5. - Continuation of a nonconforming use.
A. A nonconforming use may be continued subject to this section 4.8. Normal or routine repairs and maintenance of a building, structure or area containing a nonconforming use are allowed. Unless specifically allowed by provisions within this code or allowed though approval pursuant to section 4.8.11, normal or routine repairs and maintenance do not include any repairs or maintenance that enlarge a building, structure or area containing a nonconforming use.
B. A nonconforming residence may be expanded as long as the residence addition is not more than 50 percent of the square footage of the initial residence and is not more than 2,000 square feet. The residence addition must be located outside the required setbacks.
C. The addition of accessory buildings or structures to a property containing a nonconforming residence or agricultural use and/or building does not constitute the expansion of the nonconforming building or use.
4.8.6. - Discontinuance or reduction in intensity of a nonconforming use.
A. 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.
B. If a nonconforming use is reduced in intensity for more than of 12 consecutive months, the nonconforming use may thereafter only be used or operated at that reduced intensity. The planning director shall make the determination regarding whether or not a nonconforming use has been reduced based upon competent evidence.
C. The planning director may grant a twelve-month extension to the discontinuance or reduction in intensity provisions on a case-by-case basis for reasonable cause. Reasonable cause may include, but is not limited to, the use being discontinued while the property is for sale or being reconstructed after a disaster. The property owner must make a written request for each twelve-month extension within 24 months of the initial discontinuance or reduction in intensity.
4.8.7. - Continuation of nonconforming building or structure.
A. A nonconforming building or structure may continue to be used and occupied subject to this section 4.8. Normal or routine repairs and maintenance of a nonconforming building or structure are allowed. Unless specifically allowed by provisions within this code or allowed through approval pursuant to section 4.8.11, 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.
B. A nonconforming deck with any finished floor elevation and associated stairs that does not meet setback requirements may be removed and reconstructed as long as the size of the deck is not increased and the nonconforming setback is not decreased. The replacement deck and stairs must meet all applicable building code requirements.
4.8.8. Destruction of a nonconforming use
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. Any repair or replacement of a damaged or destroyed building or structure containing a nonconforming use must meet the requirements of subsection 4.2.2 (floodplain overlay district).
4.8.9. Destruction of a nonconforming building or structure
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 complete 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. Any repair or replacement of a damaged or destroyed nonconforming buildings or structure must meet the requirements of subsection 4.2.2 (floodplain overlay district).
4.8.10. - Extension, expansion, enlargement or change in character of a use.
A. Except as otherwise specified in this code, 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 through the process found in section 4.8.11.
B. When a building is nonconforming only as to a required setback, it may be extended, expanded or enlarged as long as the following conditions are met:
1. The proposed addition is not more than 50 percent of the square footage of the original building and is not more than 2,000 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.
4.8.11. - Process.
A. Any request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure requires a pre-application conference pursuant to section 12 of this code.
B. Review of the request commences when a complete application is submitted.
C. Upon receipt of a complete application, the planning director will refer the applicable application materials to all appropriate departments and agencies and mail written notice of the application to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal.
D. Referral departments and agencies will have 21 days to review and provide written comments to the planning director. Referral departments and agencies may request additional review time in writing.
D. Neighbor notification and comment.
1. Written notice of the proposal shall be mailed to neighbors in the vicinity of the subject property.
2. The notice shall provide 14 days for neighbors to respond with any questions or concerns. Comments shall be provided to the planning department.
3. The planning department shall provide the applicant with a copy of any comments received.
4. If neighbors’ comments or concerns are raised, the applicant and the neighbor(s) have the opportunity to agree on a solution. The applicant and neighbor(s) have 14 days to agree to a solution unless an extension is requested by either party. Documentation of the solution shall be provided to the planning department prior to the director's decision and the administrative determination shall proceed including the agreed upon mitigation measures.
E. Administrative determination. Within five working days following the 21-day review period the planning director will provide a written determination stating that the request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure:
1. Is approved, with or without conditions, and complies with this code and any other approvals imposed by the county commissioners, the board of adjustment or floodplain review board.
2. Requires modifications, based upon the referral review and/or neighbor comments.
3. Requires a public hearing based on unresolved neighbor comments/concerns.
4. Is denied based upon an inability to comply with this code, including the review criteria contained herein, and any other approvals imposed by the county commissioners, the board of adjustment or floodplain review board.
G. The decision of the planning director may be appealed in writing to the county commissioners pursuant to section 22 (appeals) of this code.
H. Upon the determination of the planning director that the application:
1. Requires modifications, the applicant shall be required to make a revised submittal, for a subsequent review, that addresses the referral or other comments. Prior to the revised submittal the applicant may request a meeting to discuss the referral or other comments.
2. If approved, the applicant shall provide final versions of the site plan and supporting documents (quantities to be determined) for approval signature by the planning director.
I. Public hearing. If neighbor comments/concerns cannot be resolved, the application will be scheduled for a hearing by the county commissioners to resolve outstanding issues. To approve the request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure the county commissioners must consider the review criteria found in section 4.8.12 and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable.
4.8.12. – Review criteria for requests to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure.
To approve a request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure, the planning director or county commissioners must consider the following criteria and find that each has been met or determined to be inapplicable:
A. The extended, expanded, enlarged or changed use, building or structure is not more than 50% larger or more intense than the initial use, building or structure as measured by indoor area and/or outdoor use area or as measured by other means deemed applicable by the planning director or board of county commissioners;
B. The request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure complies with all applicable requirements of this code and any applicable supplementary regulations to the maximum extent practicable;
C. The request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure complies with all conditions of approval imposed by the county commissioners, the board of adjustment or floodplain review board under another approval process authorized by this code;
D. The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood;
E. The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject property.
4.8.13. – Determining whether there has been a change in character
A. 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 location, 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).
4.8.14. – Number of approvals.
Only one request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure shall be granted per nonconformity. Additional expansions or changes in character must be accomplished by following the appropriate procedure to make the use, building or structure conforming (see section 4.8.20).
4.8.15. - Conditions of approval.
The planning director or 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.
4.8.16. - Additional approval requirements.
Approval of a request for an extension, expansion, enlargement or change of character of a nonconforming use, building or structure does not relieve the applicant from complying with the building codes as adopted by the county or the building permit submittal requirements.
4.8.17. - Minor deviations.
Technical, engineering or other considerations may necessitate minor deviations from the approved plans. The planning director may approve minor deviations, in writing, provided they comply with this code and the intent of the original approval.
4.8.18. - Amendments.
Changes to the approval that the planning director determines not to be minor deviations require approval through the applicable process as described in this code. If the amendments are not minor deviations, a new application will be required and it will receive full review under the approval processes appropriate to the use as described in this code.
4.8.19. - Vesting.
An approved request for an extension, expansion, enlargement or change of character of a nonconforming use, building or structure does not create a vested right. Approved plans are effective for two years. If the use has not commenced and/or a building permit and/or development construction permit are not issued within two years of the approval, the approved plan will automatically expire.
4.8.20. - Changing nonconforming status to conforming.
A. A use that is nonconforming because it has not obtained approval through the require approval procedure may become a conforming use by gaining approval through the applicable review procedure.
B. A use that is nonconforming because it is not allowed in a zoning district may seek conforming status through a rezoning of the property (section 4.4) and subsequent approval through the appropriate review procedure or through the special exception process (section 4.7).
C. A building or structure that is nonconforming because it has not obtained approval by the flood review board or because it does not meet current setbacks or height restrictions may become a conforming building by obtaining flood review board approval and/or obtaining the necessary setback or height variance approval as applicable to address the nonconforming element(s) of the building.
4.8.21. - 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, 1972; or
2. Was approved by the county commissioners on or after May 5, 1972; 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.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
1. MAKSIMOV PUBLIC SITE PLAN REVIEW FILE #12-PSP0034: Mr. Lafferty noted that this item was tabled from its original hearing date due to High Park Fire evacuations.
This is a request to allow a proposed detached accessory living area to be up to 1,200-square-feet in size. The request includes unresolved neighbor comments and concerns and an appeal to the requirements of Section 4.3.10.H.2.c of the Larimer County Land Use Code for a detached accessory dwelling unit to exceed 800-square-feet.
The property is 0.46-acres on Shoreline Drive, west of Horsetooth Reservoir. The area is primarily residential with single family homes, on half-acre lots. The subject property contains a 1,723-square-foot house as the primary single family residence, there are no other outbuildings. An addition to the house is currently under construction and once complete, the house will be approximately 2,880-square-feet. The area of the proposed accessory living area is 1,200-square-feet.
The applicant submitted an application for Public Site Plan Review April 26, 2012. The detached accessory living area could be approved administratively through the Public Site Plan process by the Planning Director; however, for administrative approval, the request must meet all applicable criteria and all neighbor comments must be resolved. This request does not meet all criteria and there are unresolved neighbor comments; therefore, the Planning Director has determined that this request requires a public hearing.
After notification of this request, objections were received from neighbors. Comments indicated a concern with the size of the Accessory Living Area and the impact it might have on neighborhood character. Neighbors commented that the additional structure would make the lot “too crowded” or that the structure, in addition to the single family home, would have a “very large building footprint.” Concerns were also expressed about the impact on views of the reservoir, inadequate parking, construction access, and impacts to Kano Drive.
The applicant’s response to neighbor comments indicates that:
· The main house is smaller than indicated on the Assessor’s website.
· Parking space is available for the detached living area.
· Kano Drive will not be used to access the accessory living area.
· The proposed house will be one story with a loft, less than 40’ high.
· Views to the lake will not be blocked.
· The accessory living area will not be used as a rental unit.
· The applicant applied for approval of a 1,200-square-foot accessory living area to allow room to build on a site that is steep and challenging. The actual size of the unit might be closer to 800 or 900-square-feet at the time of construction and/or building permit application.
Review agencies had no major concerns or issues. The Engineering Department did note that the property appears to have sufficient parking.
Staff visited the site on June 1, 2012, and found that other properties in the area have primary houses of similar scale and style. Several other accessory buildings were also evident in the neighborhood. The lots in the area are very steep and most properties look over the top of the ones below and most all seem to have views of the reservoir. Additional research indicates that Kano Drive is dedicated for public use.
Therefore, the Development Services Team recommends denial of the Maksimov Public Site Plan Review, file #12-PSP0034, a request to allow a 1,200-square-foot detached Accessory Living Area. However, staff does support approval of an 800-square-foot Accessory Living Area on this property. Should the Commissioners wish to approve an 800-square-foot accessory living area, the team recommends the following conditions:
1. This approval shall automatically expire after two years if the use has not commenced and/or a building permit and/or development construction permit are not issued.
2. The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Maksimov Public Site Plan Review, file #12-PSP0034, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Maksimov Public Site Plan.
3. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approvals, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Public Site Plan, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the county, the county many withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Public Site Plan approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Public Site Plan. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Public Site Plan approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. The county may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Public Site Plan as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Public Site Plan approval.
4. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the property. Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Public Site Plan approval.
5. The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building and/or other permits for the Accessory Living Area. All applicable fees, including permit fees and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, shall apply to this use.
6. The habitable space of the accessory living area shall be limited to 800-square-feet.
7. The single-family character of the property must be maintained. The entrance(s) to the accessory living area must not be visible from any road.
8. The accessory living area is to be used solely for owners and guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling or those providing a service on site in exchange for their residency.
9. The accessory living area must not be rented or leased separately from the single-family dwelling.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to the applicant and Ms. Maksimov explained that she plans to build an 800-square-foot accessory living area; however, she has requested the approval for a 1,200-square-foot accessory living area to ensure compliance in the event that the actual structure is slightly larger than what is allowed as a use by right. Ms. Maksimov also stated that the proposed building will not affect the views of any surrounding land owners.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to the public and Franklin Aaron and Robert Smith addressed the Board in opposition to the request. Both cited the current construction on the property and the negative effect of the proposed accessory living area on view sheds.
Chair Gaiter closed the hearing to public comment.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he would approve the construction of an 800-square-foot accessory living area but not any larger. Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter agreed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Maksimov Public Site Plan Review, file #12-PSP0034, subject to the conditions outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. AMENDMENT TO RUBBISH ORDINANCE – SECOND READING FILE #12-CA0127: Larimer County Ordinance No. 04212008-001 concerning accumulation and removal of rubbish (“Rubbish Ordinance”), effective May 24, 2008, was adopted, in part, to streamline an enforcement process for complaints associated with rubbish, derelict/unlicensed vehicles, illegal outdoor storage and other junk.
Currently, the Ordinance provides that the Planning and Building Services Division Director may designate his or her authorities under the Ordinance to other Larimer County employees for enforcement. An amendment to the Rubbish Ordinance is proposed to allow the Planning and Building Services Director to also designate his or her authorities to employees of the Estes Park Community Development Department for enforcement of the Rubbish Ordinance in the Estes Valley Planning Area.
The Estes Valley Planning Area was established by agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, in part, for enforcement of the Estes Valley Development Code when it was adopted in 2000.
The first reading of the proposed amendment was made to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, June 26, 2012.
Ms. Phippen read aloud the following proposed amendments to the Rubbish Ordinance: Change Section 4.5 of the Rubbish Ordinance to read as follows:
“Planning and Building Services Division Director” is the designated Larimer County employee with the authority under this Ordinance to pursue rubbish violations. The Planning and Building Services Division Director may designate his or her authorities under this Ordinance to other employees of Larimer County or the Estes Park Community Development Department (if the property resides in the Estes Valley Planning Area) in his or her discretion.”
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the final reading of the Amendment to the Rubbish Ordinance, file #12-CA0127, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. AMENDMENTS TO ANIMAL ORDINANCE – SECOND READING FILE #12-CA0126: The County received a formal request from citizen Gertrud Mittermeier, requesting the establishment of a stricter animal control area, for the 59 parcels known as the Crystal View Subdivision, northwest of Horseshoe Lake.
Larimer County Revised Ordinance No. 11122002-00 (Animal Regulations) was adopted to provide economical, safe and humane animal treatment and control within the unincorporated areas of Larimer County.
The Larimer Humane Society, an independent, non-profit corporation, contracts with Larimer County to “operate all physical plant facilities and equipment necessary for the efficient, effective operation of an animal shelter” and to enforce the County’s Animal Regulations.
The Animal Regulations, at Section 6-84 "Neighborhood request for stricter controls", provides a process whereby the majority of property owners or residents in a neighborhood may request the establishment of a stricter animal control area.
The Animal Regulations define a stricter animal control area as follows:
Stricter animal control area means an area in the county, which has an average population density of not less than 100 persons per square mile, which is designated by the board of county commissioners in accordance with, section 6-84.
Ms. Mittermeier obtained 33 signatures from neighborhood residents, meeting the threshold of a “majority” of property owners or residents within the area. Also, assuming an average of three people to every household, the proposed animal control area meets the threshold of “not less than 100 persons per square mile,” as required by this section of the land use code.
Captain Porter, Larimer County Humane Society, addressed the Board and stated that while the incident which spurred the request for stricter controls was horrendous and inexcusable, the neighborhood does not typically experience animal control issues.
Discussion ensued between the Board and Captain Porter regarding the differences between the existing regulations and the proposed regulations.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to public comment and Gertrude Mittermeier and Norma O’Kelley addressed the Board in favor of the proposed amendments. Steve Loving, Victor Williams, Cody Bays, and Lyrel Olsen, all residents of Crystal Lakes Subdivision, spoke in opposition to the requested amendments. Many explained that dogs are regularly off leash and/or unrestrained by fences, yet, animal control is typically not an issue.
Chair Gaiter closed the hearing to public comment.
Commissioner Johnson thanked Ms. Mittermeier for initiating the request for stricter animal control, however, he stated that in his opinion, the problem had been resolved, and therefore, required no further action. Commissioners Gaiter and Donnelly agreed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the approval of a stricter animal control area, and deny the request to add section 6-85 to the Animal Regulations.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS MEETING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were: Donna Hart, Commissioners’ Office; Mark Pfaffinger, Facilities and Information Technology Department; Sheriff Justin Smith, Undersheriff Bill Nelson, and Dave Mosier, Sheriff’s Office; Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mel Hilgenberg addressed the Board and requested they return to traditional bonding methods to help raise the 7 million dollars lost annually due to the expiration of the jail sales tax.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 16, 2012:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of July 16, 2012.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 30, 2012: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as published below:
07242012A002 EXACUTRACK SERVICE AGREEMENT #120211VG1 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND BI INCORPORATED
MISCELLANEOUS: Annual Compliance Certification and Semi-Annual Monitoring Report; and Agreement and Release Between Employee and Larimer County.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were approved and issued: Al’s Canyon Grill – Hotel and Restaurant – Fort Collins; and A Hunt Club – Change of Corporate Structure – Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. “NATIONAL” DAY OF THE COWBOY PROCLAMATION: Chris Brown and Scott Butow, Jax Home and Ranch Store, addressed the Board and requested July 28, 2012, be proclaimed the “National Day of the Cowboy.”
Chair Gaiter read the proclamation aloud.
M O T I O N
Chair Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim July 28, 2012, “National Day of the Cowboy.”
Motion carried 3-0.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SITE AGREEMENT: Sheriff Smith, Undersheriff Nelson, and Mr. Mosier addressed the Board to request approval of an agreement with AECOM Technical Services to conduct an environmental study for a public safety radio communication site.
Sheriff Smith noted that this is simply a request to allow AECOM Technical Services to conduct the environmental impact study, as required by the United States Forest Service, in order to move forward with the proposed radio tower project on Middle Bald Mountain.
Discussion ensued between the Board, Sheriff Smith, Undersheriff Nelson, and Mr. Mosier regarding the proposed agreement.
M OT I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Environmental Study for Public Safety Radio Communication Site Agreement.
Motion carried 3-0.
07242012A001 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES
7. ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Mr. Gluckman requested a volunteer to attend the Colorado Counties Incorporated meeting on October 5, 2012, as Commissioner Johnson will be unable to attend. Chair Gaiter volunteered to attend the meeting.
Mr. Pfaffinger addressed the Board in regards to recent problems with the county’s audio and visual equipment. Mr. Pfaffinger stated that the department is looking into ways to manually back-up the equipment when a failure occurs in addition to seeking a contractor who is capable of rapidly responding to malfunctions.
Commissioner Johnson suggested a member of staff test the equipment before each meeting or hearing to ensure that a failure will not occur and Mr. Pfaffinger agreed.
Commissioner Donnelly noted that today was the last day for recently resigned Public Trustees to apply to Governor Hickenlooper for reinstatement to their positions, and therefore, he suggested the Board send a letter to the Governor requesting the role of Public Trustee be assimilated into the Office of the Treasurer.
Discussion ensued regarding ways in which the Public Trustee’s Office could be assimilated into other county offices, such as the Treasurer’s Office or the Clerk and Recorder’s Office. The Board agreed to send a letter to the Governor Hickenlooper informing him of Larimer County’s ability to absorb the functions of the Public Trustee’s Office into another county office.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve sending a letter to Governor Hickenlooper informing him of Larimer County’s ability to absorb the functions of the Public Trustee’s Office into another county office, specifically an elected official.
Motion carried 2-0, Chair Gaiter abstained due to a conflict of interest.
8. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board detailed their attendance at events during the last week.
9. LEGAL MATTERS: There were no legal matters to discuss.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
LEW GAITER III, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy Clerk