Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > 2004 Minutes > BCC Minutes for 12/13/04  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, December 13, 2004

LAND USE HEARING

(#143)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner; Chair Rennels presided, and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present.  Also present were:  Traci Downs, Christi Coleman, and Roxann Hayes, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Matt Lafferty, Porter Ingrum, Al Kadera, David Karan, Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, and Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center; Ron Perkins, County Surveyor; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels called the meeting to order and asked the audience to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance; she then asked for public comment on the Larimer County Land Use Code and the County Budget.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  Chair Rennels noted that the following items on the agenda are consent items and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience:

 

1.  GRANT-STEPHENS MINOR LAND DIVISION; 04-S2359:  This is a request for Minor Land Division request to replat the common lot line between a metes and bounds parcel and an exempt lot.  No additional lots will be created and there will be no increase in impacts as a result of this application.  For some time, it was believed by both parties involved in this application that an existing fence, located between their parcels of land, followed the legal boundary between these two parcels, the northern parcel owned by the Grants, and the southern exempt lot, owned by the Stephens.  In fact, the fence was mis-located approximately 70 feet too far to the north.  Over time, the Stephens’ built several structures on and made improvements to their land in reference to this existing fence. Consequently, a part of the improvements on the Stephens’ land are actually located not on their land, but on the Grant property, adjacent and north. This MLD will relocate the common lot line, and assure that all improvements owned by the Stephens' are located on their property, and the fence will in fact accurately reflect the boundary of the lot. No additional lots or impacts will be created by this application.  The northern parcel of 37.4 acres, created by a metes and bounds deed recorded October 17, 1980 at Book 2079, Page 0340.  The second parcel is an exempted lot of 23 acres, known as Tract B of the Rosgen Exemption (Book 1858, Page 165; File # 139-78; recorded May 17, 1978).  The request includes two parcels and of 68 total acres.  The proposed Minor Land Division is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Minor Land Division process as contained in Section 5.4.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Staff findings are that the proposed Grant-Stephen’s Minor Land Division complies with the Review Criteria for Minor Land Divisions as contained in Section 5.4.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Staff recommendation is for approval of File #04-S2359, the Grant-Stephen’s Minor Land Division, with the following conditions, and authorize the Chair to sign the plat when it is presented for signature:  1.  As requested by Mr. Dale Greer of Larimer County Engineering, minor technical changes to the plat shall be made prior to recordation.  2.  Prior to recordation of the plat, the required road rights-of-way will be dedicated on the plat, per Larimer County Engineering.

 

2.  ROSTEK 2ND ADDITION, BLOCK 2, LOTS 22 AND 27A AMENDED PLAT; 04-S2366:  This is a request for an Amended Plat to move boundary line so all greenhouses operated by applicant will be located on one lot.  The applicant requests an amendment of the Rostek 2nd Addition (file #35-79) and the Amended Plat of Lots 27 and 28 of the Rostek 2nd Addition (file #98-SA1222).  The purpose of this Amended Plat is to adjust a boundary line to consolidate all greenhouses associated with Summit Construction and Leasing LLC on one lot (Lot 2).  The greenhouse business in question currently exists and is in operation.  There are single-family dwellings on each of the two lots.  The residence on Lot 2 will be designated as accessory to the agricultural business.  Occupancy of the residence on Lot 2 will be limited to an owner or manager of said business.  The Development Services Team Recommendation is for approval of the Amended Plat for Amended Plat of Lots 22 & 27A, Block 2 of the Rostek 2nd Addition (File # 04-S2366) subject to the following condition(s) 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 June 13, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.  2.  Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the application shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department (see November 15, 2004 memorandum).  3.  The reconfiguration of the lots lines shall be finalized at such time when the plat and findings and resolution of the County Commissioners are recorded.  4.  The new lots created by this action are subject to the same restrictions, covenants, and regulations as set forth on the recorded plat of the Rostek 2nd Addition (see file # 3579).  5.  The primary use of Lot 2 will be agricultural.  Any single-family residential use of Lot 2 will be accessory to that use and the residential building will be occupied only by the owner or manager of the agricultural operation on Lot 2.

3.         COLORADO CAR CLINIC APPEAL; 04-G0070:  This request is an appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1.a of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow storm water detention within the parking lot, which is prohibited.  On June 3, 2004 a site plan application to construct the Colorado Car Clinic was submitted to the Larimer County Planning Department.  The building proposed for the site will consist of a 13,680 square feet building, along with the necessary site improvements, which includes parking, landscaping and drainage facilities.  On October 26, 2004, the applicant filed an application to appeal Section 8.6.3.C.1.a to allow for some storm water detention within the proposed parking lot.   According to Section 6.0 (Site Plan Review) of the Land Use Code, prior to the acceptance of a building permit for a non-residential use, review and approval of a site plan is required.   Additionally, Section 6.4.A (Site Plan Review Criteria) states that a site plan application must comply with all standards imposed by the Land Use Code, which standards are defined in Section 8.0 (Standards for all Development) of the Land Use Code.  Consistent with these provisions of the Land Use Code the applicant has submitted a site plan for review and approval, which plans the Development Review Staff, is unable to approve due to the fact that portions of the storm water detention generated by the development will occur within the parking lot area.  According to Section 8.6.3.C.1.a of the Land Use Code the use of parking lots for storm water detention is not permissible. Therefore, the applicant is seeking and appeal to this standard to allow for some storm water detention within the parking lot.  Based upon the Development Services Teams analysis of the storm water plans it appears that only a small portion of the overall detention required for this application will occur in the parking lot, which detention will not adversely affect adjacent properties or the use of the parking facilities.  As such, the Development Services Team supports the appeal request to Section 8.6.3.C.1.a of the Land Use Code as proposed by the applicant.   As a closing to this report, the Development Review Staff believes that the standards and regulations as adopted for Larimer County are essential to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community and should be upheld.  However, in some limited circumstances it is practical for the County to consider, and support reasonable appeals to the current regulations and standards so long as the appeals do not affect the public at large.  Given this, the Development Services Team has carefully considered this application and believes that this is a reasonable alternative to the requirements of the Land Use Code. The Development Review Staff finds that allowing storm water drainage detention within the parking lot for the Colorado Care Clinic will not have any adverse affects to adjacent properties or the public health, safety and welfare.  Staff recommendation is for approval of the Colorado Car Clinic Appeal (04-G0070) to Section 8.6.3.C.1.a of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow storm water detention within the parking lot.

 

4.  EMGE/WHITAKER PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND USE PLAN; 04-S2346:  This is a request for Preliminary approval to divide 70 +/- acres into four (4) single-family lots (2 new residential lots and 2 existing residences).   All residences and accessory buildings will be located within a 21 ˝ acre area, leaving 48 ˝ acres of residual land (private open space—about 69% of the total assembly) protected from any further development, in perpetuity, by either a covenant or conservation easement, as required by the Rural Land Use Process.  The two residual lots contain a total of sixty (60) acres:  48 ˝ acres of protected land, and building envelopes (11 ˝ acres—the area in which buildings are allowed).  The residual land parcels will remain as dry pasture land.

The property is located in Section 25, Township 5 North, Range 70 West.  It is generally located 2 miles southwest of the City of Loveland, 5/8 of a mile southwest of the County Road 18 (14th Street SW) and the County Road 23E intersection, west of Old Stage Road.  The property consists of dry pasture land.  The land could be divided into two (2) 35-acre parcels without County input.  The property is zoned O-Open.  Under the property’s current O-Open (1 home site per 10 acres) zoning, up to 7 homes could potentially be built if brought through the County's Conservation Development (CD) process if adequate public facilities are provided.  Two of the residences already exist; the one in Residual Lot A is located at the end of a draw, out of conspicuous view from all directions.  The second existing residence, located in Residual Lot B, is near the existing road.  Lot 1 is situated out of conspicuous view of neighbors.  Both Lots 1 and 2 will be located near the existing road to minimize additional infrastructure requirements and they are specifically sited to avoid a prominent ridge which runs between Residual Lot A and B.  Access to these new lots is proposed by an existing road that will take access from County Road 18 (SW 14th Street).  This existing road is an all-weather gravel surface and currently serves this property and several other properties north of this proposal.  During this process, that road will need to be named in accordance with the County’s new road naming criteria.  The applicants are aware of this requirement.  The residential lot sizes will be 5 acres in size.  Water to these lots will be provided by on-lot wells; each lot will have individual septic systems.  The applicant is proposing appropriate architectural guidelines for this project to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed new residences and associated structures.  The surrounding properties consist of the parcels ranging in size from 17 ˝ acres to the west, Bonnell West Subdivision and Pregel’s Farm Rural Land Plan to the southeast, and 35-acre parcels and larger to the north and east.  There is significant development pressure in this area for 35-acre parcels and smaller residential lots, if available.  This pressure is caused by general growth along the Front Range, as well as by pressure specifically associated with growth in Loveland and Berthoud and attractiveness of “close-in” foothills property.  The proposed density of the Emge/Whitaker Rural Land Use project, one unit per 17.5 acres, appears to be compatible with the neighborhood.  The residual land, approximately 48 ˝ acres and comprising roughly 69% of the property, will be protected from further development in perpetuity.  It will have a management/use plan to foster its long-term health.  The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land and for providing a periodic monitoring report(s) to the County.  A road maintenance agreement will include provisions for access road maintenance.  Lots 1 and 2 and Residual Lots A and B will be party to this agreement.  A neighborhood meeting was held on November 3, 2004, at the Pulliam Community Building in Loveland.  Two area residents attended. The concerns were mainly about road naming requirements and limits on number of animal allowed on the residual land in order to minimize potential for over grazing.   (Please see the attached list of questions and answers from the neighborhood meeting.)   Referral agency comments were also solicited.  Representatives from the County Engineering Department, Health Department, and Rural Land Use Advisory Board have visited the site and have consulted with the Rural Land Use Center during the conceptual design phase.

Staff findings are that the proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Support for the Emge/Whitaker Preliminary Rural Land Plan is based on the following:  1.  Applicant’s planning and design rationale for the project, which is consistent with the RLUP.  2.  Conservation values of the residual land, including preservation of grazing land, open space and wildlife habitat.  3.  The plan is generally compatible with the existing neighboring land uses.

 

Support for this proposed plan takes into consideration the various other land development and design options, particularly the 35-acre alternative, for which there is no County review.  The greater number of residential units possible under the zoning and the general development pressure within the immediate area for use-by-right 35-acre division of land supports our belief that this is an appropriate project.

 

As proposed, this project will also provide commensurate long-term benefits to citizens of Larimer County.  Those benefits are summarized below:

·  Perpetual protection of residual land.

·  Transportation capital expansion fees received from the project.

·  School and park fees received from the project.

·  Fewer residences than likely allowed through subdivision process.

·  Ability to influence design of project, as compared to use-by-right division of property into 35-acre parcels.

 

The Rural Land Use Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Emge/Whitaker Rural Land Plan.  The following contingencies must be met prior to approval of final plat by the Board of County Commissioners:

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Emge/Whitaker Rural Land Plan (File # 04-S2346) 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 Emge/Whitaker Rural Land Plan.

2.   All roads constructed within the Rural Land Plan shall be in accordance with Section 5.8.6.D of the Rural Land Use Process.  All designs must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified before final approval.  Internal roads shall be contained in a public access and utility easement unless a public right-of-way vacation is approved by the Board of County Commissioners for the existing public right-of-way.  Road names and addressing shall meet standards in Section 5.11 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

3.   Documentation to prove legal access status for existing road needs to be provided before final approval.

4.   Building envelopes shall be placed on each lot.  All building envelopes shall be located outside the drainage areas and shall meet minimum setback requirements listed in the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

5.   All lots shall contain a minimum of 5 acres to allow options for septic system placement and separation distance from wells.

6.   A fire protection plan must be submitted and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director and the Larimer County Emergency Management office before final approval.  OR Automatic fire protection sprinklers will be required for all new residential structures or written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district.

7.   The residual land protective covenant and use plans must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval.  The Use Plan must contain a maintenance schedule to keep the grasses to a minimum height, reducing the potential wildfire threat.

8.   Restrictive covenants, if any, and provisions for internal road maintenance, must be reviewed and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director prior to final plat approval.

9.   The applicant shall consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and a qualified wetland consultant or wildlife biologist before beginning any improvements to salt meadow wetland and pond in southeast portion of Residual Lot B.  Staff can provide a list of qualified wetland consultants and wildlife biologists to assist the applicant. 

10.   The final Development Agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval.

11.   A Lot Sale Prohibition shall be placed on this property preventing the sale of any new lots until the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements.  The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed.  The Lot Sale Prohibition will be recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and will be a covenant running with the Lots.  Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for the particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed. 

12.   The following must be listed as a note on the final plat and on a disclosure statement, approved by the County Attorney, available to lot buyers through the public records at the time of purchase:

a)   LOT SALE PROHIBITION.  Developers will execute a Lot Sale Prohibition Agreement which stipulates that Lots 1 and 2 and/or Residual Lots A and B cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developers provide to County a written designation stating that all the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements.  The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed.  The Lot Sale Prohibition will be recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and will be a covenant running with the Lots.  Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed. 

b)   Depending on the fire protection plan, this note may need to be added:  The construction of any single-family residence in this development will require the installation of residential fire sprinklers if fire hydrants and/or a public water supply are not present to provide fire protection unless written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district is received.

c)    Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of structures designed for habitable space on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

d)   Some or all lots in this development include building envelopes.  All structures must be located within these Larimer County approved building envelopes, as shown on the approved subdivision plat.  If a structure is within 5’ of the building envelope, the owner/applicant for a building permit will be required to demonstrate that the structure(s) is located within the building envelope prior to the approval of the footing and foundation inspection.  This shall be accomplished by a written certification by a Colorado Licensed Surveyor.

e)   Engineered footings and foundations may be required for new habitable construction. Please check with the Larimer County Building Department for requirements prior to submitting a building permit application.

f)   Lot owners should be advised that there is a potential for nuisance conflicts from wildlife (such as skunks, mountain lions, bears, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, prairie dogs and snakes).  The Colorado Division of Wildlife can provide information to property owners about how to handle these situations, but lot owners are responsible for addressing wildlife conflicts if they arise.

g)   No feeding of any wildlife.  Any food placed for wildlife will eventually attract the Black Bears traveling through the area.  Once a bear finds food around homes and trailers, they become habituated to humans, often causing damage to property in their search for food.  The State of Colorado is not liable for damages to non-agricultural property.  Homeowners insurance is strongly advised.

h)   Keep trash and garbage removed from site.  Bear proof containers are commercially available and they work.  Garbage and trash can be as attractive to bears as placing out food for wildlife.

i)   It is strongly recommended that trailers and motor homes not be left on site unattended.  These items may be destroyed by bears if left unattended.  This is particularly important during the months of July to September, when the bears are most active in their search for food.

j)   Many other species of wildlife live in the area; some can be dangerous to humans and pets.  It must be remembered that landowners will be living with wildlife.  Species that may be found in the area are coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, skunks, badgers, raccoons, deer, elk, hawks, owls and eagles.

k)   Pets must be contained on property, either by leash or enclosure.

l)   During certain times of the year mosquitoes may present a significant nuisance.  Larimer County does not have a mosquito abatement program.  Any mosquito abatement activity will be the responsibility of the homeowner; such activity must be according to applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations.

m)   Prairie dog colonies exist in the general area; prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property.  At times these animals are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets.  It is important for residents to observe animal control requirements for dogs and cats.

n)   Agricultural operations and farming practices on adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust.  These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur.  In addition, plowing, planting, cultivating, spraying, harvesting, and various livestock operations may be carried out at all times including nighttime.

o)   If livestock will be kept on these lots, it will be important to carefully manage grazing in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture.  Overgrazing will produce bare ground, weeds, erosion and polluted runoff.  Management of these lots should be coordinated with drainage and erosion control issues, siting of sanitation systems, fencing and feeding.

p)   Larimer County has adopted a Right to Farm Resolution.

q)   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Park Fees (in lieu of dedication), and Rural Land Use Process fees.  The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply.

r)   Larimer County shall not maintain roads or streets in this development.  Maintenance of the streets shall be the responsibility of the property owners.  Failure to maintain streets may result in a lien being placed on these lots.

s)   At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential lots and residual lands with the Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County.

t)   The owners of the residual land parcel shall be responsible for providing a periodic monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center.

u)   Lots in this Rural Land Plan are subject to the conditions and requirements of a Development Agreement.  The Developer and Larimer County executed this agreement in consideration of the approval of this Development.  This Agreement was recorded in the Larimer County Clerk’s and Recorder’s office immediately after this plat.  All purchasers should obtain and read the Development Agreement.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1 through 4 as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  SHREINER SAWMILL SPECIAL REVIEW; 01-Z1406:   This is a request for Special Review approval for an illegal wood processing / sawmill facility within the LaPorte Plan Area.  Mr. Wheeler explained that following the direction from the Board of County Commissioners at the November 1, 2004 public hearing, Staff drafted a list of proposed conditions for approval of the Shreiner Sawmill Special Review.  To craft these conditions, Staff reviewed conditions approval from existing commercial / industrial uses in rural or residential areas.  These conditions attempt to focus on ways to allow the continued operation of the sawmill in a compatible fashion with the adjacent residential uses.  The conditions further address the concerns of adjoining lot owners voiced at the November 1, 2004 hearing.  Mr. Wheeler noted that there are some disagreement between what the applicant would like compared to what staff is proposing.  The Board went through the conditions one by one with Staff, the applicant Steve Shreiner, and the applicant's attorney, Mr. Stuart Olive.   The following conditions were agreed upon based on the discussions that took place:

 

1.  This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.

2.  The applicant shall submit a complete site plan application for review by the Larimer County Planning Department within 60 days of this approval.  The Site Plan shall be consistent with the information contained in File #01-Z1406, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.

3.  The Site Plan application shall include information on the number of vehicles related to the use that enter and leave the site.  Operation of the Shreiner Sawmill Special Review shall not be expanded beyond the current levels, as specified by the representations of the applicant and in the information contained in File #01-Z1406.  The applicant is subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Shreiner Sawmill Special Review.

4.  If required by the County Engineer during Site Plan Review, the applicant shall upgrade the existing access road and access point onto the U. S. 287 Bypass to comply with the current Larimer County Road Standards within 3 months of the approval of the Site Plan.  The design must be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer prior to beginning construction.

5.  The applicant must pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee as determined by the County Engineer during the Site Plan Approval process, prior to obtaining any building permits and no later then 60 days after approval of the Site Plan application.

6.  The approval of the Shreiner Sawmill Special Review, File #01-Z1406 shall be null and void if, at any time after the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the subject sawmill operation substantially ceases for a period of 3 years.

7.  The Site Plan application shall include a noise plan to be reviewed and approved by the Health Department during the Site Plan Review Process, under the standards set found in the Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County (Ordinance No. 97-3).  Operation of the sawmill shall be in accordance with the approved noise plan.

8.  The applicant shall obtain approval for a sanitary waste system and for a plan for the provision of water to employees, from the Health Department as part of the Site Plan Review process.  The applicant has 6 months to complete a perk test and 2 additional months to complete construction.

9.  The applicant shall provide a Landscape Plan in compliance with Section 8.5 standards in the Larimer County Land Use Code, for review and approval by the Planning Department during the Site Plan Review.  Landscaping and hardscape elements shall be installed and maintained in good condition for the duration of the use.  Fencing may be removed after the use ends, but mature plants shall be left in place on site unless they pose a health or safety issue.

10.  The stockpiling of materials shall be kept at least 150 feet back from all property lines.  Piles of wood chips or other materials shall not exceed 12 feet in height from ground level.  Byproducts such as wood chips must be removed at least twice monthly, or more often during peak season operations as needed to meet this standard.

11.  Operation of the sawmill, deliveries and order shipments shall occur during the following hours:  Monday through Friday, 7 30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.  Operations are allowed on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. during peak season from October 15th through March 15th annually.  No operations are allowed on Sunday.

12.  Owner is responsible to ensure that no parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the County or State rights-of-way

13.  Owner is responsible to ensure that trucks shall not back onto or use the shared road or State Highway for a turnaround.

14.  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 County, 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 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 County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees should the County prevail.  If the County does not prevail, then each party is responsible for paying their own fees.

15.  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.

16.  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.

17.  The Site Plan application shall include a copy of their State Well Permit to show evidence that the State has approved the wells for use by a business and for landscaping.  

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Shreiner Sawmill Special Review, file number 01-Z1406, subject to conditions 1 through 17 as outlined and amended above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  CATTAIL POND LEGAL LOT AND WETLANDS BUFFER APPEAL; 04-G0064:   This is a request for an appeal for an exemption from Section 5.2 (Planned Land Divison) of the Larimer County Land Use Code to change the legal lot status of a lot that has an non-legal status based upon the requirements of Senate Bill 35, by allowing use of the Minor Land Division Process to create a plat of record, and an appeal to Section 8.2.8.A.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow a Wetland Buffer that is less than 100 feet.   On March 26, 1957 a deed was recorded at Book 1041, Page 143 of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorders office.  This deed described a 297.22 acre parcel, which included the Parcel(s) for the subject request.   On April 22, 1965 a new deed was recorded at Book 1288, Page 40 of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorders Office.  This deed described the same 297.22 acre property, but this time excluded 4 parcels that had been deeded off of the property during the time period between the 1957 and this deed.  The resulting parcel included the parcel(s) for the subject request and consisted of 152.12 acres.  After the recordation of the 1965 deed, there appears to have been no further action on the resulting property, which includes the subject site, until 1987 when the overall property was subdivided as the Cattail Pond Subdivision.  According to the Larimer County Clerk and Recorders Office and the County Assessors Office, the Cattail Pond Subdivision, which was approved by the City of Loveland not Larimer County, did not encompass the entire property, but rather excluded the subject parcel(s) from the annexation and Cattail Pond Subdivision. Based upon these actions to not include all of the property within the Cattail Pond Subdivision and annexation, a non-legal lot was created, as Senate Bill 35 precludes the division of land into parcels less than thirty-five acres without approval by the appropriate governing body, which should have included the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. Because the parcel(s) not included in the Cattail Subdivision were not annexed leaving them in the County’s jurisdiction the Development Services Team has determined that the property for the subject request did not receive proper approvals by the Board of County Commissioners and are therefore deemed non-legal.   In addition to the above factual information, it is the opinion of the Development Services Team that the subject parcel(s), which includes and encompasses Cattail Pond, were excluded from the Cattail Ponds Subdivision approval so that the property could be held in private ownership, for management purposes, rather than be part of the subdivision ownership.  Furthermore, it is believed that this situation was deemed acceptable at the time because there was no apparent development opportunity remaining on the parcel(s). 

 

The current request is to consider allowing a change to the non-legal status of the property to legal, so that a dwelling can be constructed on the premises.   According to the Larimer County Land Use Code, changing the status of the property in question would involve the submittal and approval of a Planned Land Division application, which in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Loveland would not be permissible due to the properties contiguity with the existing boundaries of the City of Loveland.  Therefore, the applicant is appealing Section 5.2 of the Land Use Code to not be required to seek approval of a PLD with the provision that the Minor Land Division process be utilized to legally document the property as a legal lot, as well as ensure compliance with Section 8 of the Land Use Code.  With regards to the applicants appeal the Development Services Team believes that changing the status of the property in question to legal by utilizing the MLD process is a way to avoid annexation into the City of Loveland because a Planned Land Division can not be applied for due to the contiguity with the City.  Prior to the submittal of this application the applicant was informed the discuss development options with the City of Loveland.  In addition to the procedural issues surrounding the applicant’s request, the applicant is also requesting an appeal to Section 8.2.8.A.2 of the Land Use Code to allow deviation from the buffer requirements for wetlands, which buffers are a minimum of 100 feet from any designated wetland and must be complied with if a Minor Land Division is to be approved.  The purpose for the appeal stems from the fact that the majority of the subject property is either under water or wetlands and the applicant’s desired building site could not be accomplished without a reduction to the wetlands buffer.  While the wetlands on the property are not jurisdictional, meaning the Army Corps of Engineers does not have jurisdiction regarding these wetlands, they are documented by the County’s wetlands mapping as Class 2 wetlands, which requires the minimum 100 foot buffer.   In all instances throughout the county, the 100 foot buffer is required to avoid direct disturbance of the wetland habitat, which includes wetland vegetation and wildlife, but also to ensure adequate spacing between site development and the wetland for the purposes of water quality.  Given the importance of wetlands and the limited opportunity for building placement on the property, the Development Service Team does not support the appeal to the required wetlands buffer.  In addition to the Development Team informing the applicant of the wetland standards and their purpose, the applicant was also directed to provide sufficient evidence that the property possessed a building site that could meet all of the standards of the Land Use Code.  To this point the applicant has provided some limited information, but this information is not sufficient for such a determination.  Additionally, during the Development Services Teams visit to the site it became evident that the site constraints, which are primarily wetlands, included limited building sites as the result of setbacks from adjacent properties, setbacks from roadways and potential high groundwater all of which create significant development constraints that will be extremely difficult to overcome.   Given the uncertainty of why the subject property was not included in the development of the adjacent subdivision and annexed to the City of Loveland at the time of development, as well as the myriad of site constraints and procedural issues surrounding this application, the Development Services Team can not support the applicant’s request.  What is apparent is that the applicant should approach the City of Loveland and seek approvals, if possible, through the City’s development review process.

The Development Services Team Recommendation is for the Board of County Commissioners to deny the Cattail Pond Legal Lot Appeal (04-G0064).  The Development Services Team also recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the appeal to Section 8.2.8.A.2 (wetland buffers) to allow a wetland buffer less than 100 feet.

Mr. Lafferty briefed that Board on the history of this application and displayed drawings of the proposed site.  Commissioner Gibson questioned the 100 foot buffer requirement from the wetlands areas as it seems the existing homes surrounding the Cattail Pond are not located 100 feet from the wetlands.  Mr. Lafferty stated that the existing homes were built within the City of Loveland in 1987 and there probably were no standards for buffering wetlands at that time; however, the Board has since adopted these standards and that is what the Planning Department uses to review applications and base their recommendations on.  Mr. Lafferty also noted that County approval would require the applicant to have public sewer and water, and the City of Loveland has indicated they will not supply these utilities unless the applicant annexes the property into the City.  At this time the applicant's attorney Roger Clark and the applicant Richard Turner addressed the Board.  Mr. Clark asked Mr. Turner a series of questions regarding his intent with the property and the pond, the research he has done regarding development restrictions on the property, and the effort he has made to contact the surrounding neighbors regarding his development ideas.   Mr. Clark submitted the following five exhibits:  1. Affidavit from Steven L. Buckner, principle of Bell Homes, LLC which owns the property Mr. Turner is seeking to purchase.  Mr. Buckner's affidavit explained the development rights of the property as he recalls.  The affidavit is dated December 9, 2004  2.  Major activity notice from the City of Loveland, dated May 5, 1987.  3.  Letter from the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, dated June 15, 2004; pertaining to the Approved Jurisdictional Determination of Isolated Wetland.  4.  Letter from the United States Department of Agriculture, dated October 13, 2004; pertaining to seeding methods and weed control.  5.  Petition of surrounding neighbors indicating support for building on the east or west side of the lake.  Some discussion ensued regarding the road on the south side of the pond, the water rights, and what the life expectancy of the pond is.  Commissioner Gibson noted that the pond will need to be dredged at some point and Mr. Turner stated that this has been done at least once.  Chair Rennels asked why the applicant did not go through the City of Loveland.  Mr. Turner stated that he did approach the City of Loveland and they sent him back to the County.  Chair Rennels asked if Mr. Turner received anything in writing from the City of Loveland regarding this.  Mr. Turner stated that he did not receive anything in writing from the City of Loveland.

 

At this time Chair Rennels opened the hearing for public comment and Rob Stafford and approached the Board and indicated his support for the project.  Mr. Stafford also gave the Board some history on the initial construction of the pond and stated that there is the potential for water for the property via a well, the City of Loveland, or the Big Thompson Water District.  Mr. Stafford stated that the applicant and his wife own acreage in Boulder and have proven themselves to be good stewards of the land.  Laurie Bosley stated that she has know all along that the property would be developed at some point and she stated that she would rather have one home built than risk the possibility of some other developer filling in the pond and building homes on it.  Sally Marshall stated that there is an abundance of wildlife on the pond and she voiced her concerns that the wildlife might be disrupted due to development.  She further noted that the house being proposed is too big and would not fit in well with the existing homes.  Ron Harden, speaking on behalf of the Fort Collins Audubon Society, the National Audubon Society, and the Fort Collins Audubon Club, noted that they are opposed to the application as they are very concerned about the wildlife that is dependant upon the wetlands.  Connie Rockwell stated that she has kept a diary of the wildlife utilizing the pond and she has noted that the flight pattern for the swan is directly over the proposed building site.  Ms. Rockwell stated that she is very concerned with adding a larger home with no buffer; she noted that she is opposed to the application and asked the Board to recognize and protect the wildlife habitat.   Mark Shinkle stated that the pond is critical to the bird species and stated that development activity would have a damaging effect to the wildlife.  Barry Bosley stated that in all fairness to the applicant, he did not believe that adding one home would affect the area that much.  Mr. Bosley was concerned about someone else filling in the pond and building homes on it, or the possibility of the City putting Wilson Road all the way through the subdivision.  Graham Rinehart stated that there were no buffering restrictions in 1987 which is why, in his opinion, there is such a mess around the pond now.  He submitted a recent Denver Post newspaper article regarding the demise of bird habitats across the state.  Mr. Rinehart asked the Board to respect the wetland buffer zone with regards to this application.  Judy Schroeder stated that the 100 foot buffer zone was created for a reason and if the Board were to ignore it and approve the appeal then it could set a precedent for future developers.  Bob Hassett voiced his opposition to the applicant utilizing motorized boats on the pond.  Louise Brant was concerned with the affect on wildlife with the proposed increased use of the water by individuals such as the boy scouts.  Ms. Brant also questioned the association that would allow neighbors to purchase rights for the use of the pond.  Alan Jones noted that he is the real estate listing agent for this property.  Mr. Jones stated he was please that the applicant is only proposing to build one home, as he had anticipated the more likely scenario would be that someone would annex the property into the City of Loveland and develop the land at a much higher density.   Mr. Jones noted that the land belongs to Bell Homes and they will sell it and the land does come with development rights.  Finally, Mr. Jones stated that it would be good to have a property owner on this land as children come to play and go out on to the thin ice on the pond during the winter, which of course is a safety issue.  Commissioner Gibson noted for those present that the pond could indeed be filled in and the resulting land could be developed.  Commissioner Bender questioned who was taking care of the weed control management in this area.  Mr. Jones noted that the owners of the property mow one to two times per year.   Mr. Hassett again addressed the Board noting that at least 20 homes keep an eye out daily in order to keep the children off the pond.  Ms. Marshall stated that the residents all do their part in maintaining the property and mowing the areas adjacent and up to the pond.  At this time Chair Rennels closed public comment and asked for the applicant's rebuttal.

 

Mr. Olive stated that Mr. Turner has no intention of putting motorized boats on the pond.  He stated that this is not a situation where a property owner intentionally created an illegal lot, and that it does not make sense to leave a piece of property in limbo.  Mr. Olive stated that this could be the neighborhoods best opportunity for development to occur at a minimal level.  Mr. Olive stated that the Turner's love the land and will be good neighbors; he stated that the Turner's are also willing to restrict development on the rest of the property.  Commissioner Gibson asked about the viewing rights across the pond and whether or not the land owner has given consideration to the possibility of selling those viewing rights.  Mr. Turner stated that he is willing to stipulate that he will leave the viewing rights unobstructed.   At this time Mr. Ingram from the Planning Department showed some photos that were taken of the proposed development site.  Some discussion ensued regarding the site and which trees might have to be removed, how far the home site and the boat house will be from the wetlands, and whether or not the property was one parcel or two.  Mr. Turner assured the Board that there would be no motorized boats on the pond, and that he has worked very hard to present an application that will maintain the current feel of the neighborhood. Commissioner Gibson stated that in his opinion, the community should embrace this application as it will keep the neighborhood pretty much as is, in addition to preventing the pond from being filled in and developed at a higher density.  Commissioner Bender stated that he was not in support of the appeal to the 100 foot wetlands buffer requirement, as he believes this would set a precedent.  Commissioner Bender stated that the 100 foot buffer from a wetlands area should be the bare minimum.  Chair Rennels agreed and stated that she would not support the appeal for the 100 wetlands buffering requirement.  Chair Rennels noted that she is in support of the MLD if there were no further development on the property.   

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Cattail Pond Legal Lot Appeal (04-G0064) subject to the applicant performing an Minor Land Division compliant with and subject to all standards listed in Section 8 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, and with the caveat that no further development will occur on this property.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the appeal to Section 8.2.8.A.2 (wetland buffers) to allow a wetland buffer less than 100 feet as recommended by the Development Services Team.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  GRIFFITH ZONING VIOLATION; 04-ZV0202:  This is an alleged violation of Section 4.1.2, Regulations for the FA-1 Farming Zoning District.  Storage of a manufactured home is not a permitted use.  And Section 4.1.2.B.4, One principal building is permitted on each lot.  Mr. Kadera explained the background information as follows:  A building permit was issued for a new manufactured home on this property on October 24, 2002.  Since there was an existing manufactured home on this lot, a condition was added to the building permit that required removal of the existing manufactured home before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the new dwelling.   The new dwelling is in place and has been inspected by the Building Department.  A temporary certificate of occupancy was issued on August 8, 2003 and has been extended to allow additional time for the old unit to be removed.  The property owner has supplied the Planning Department with a copy of a contract with a house mover to have the old unit removed.  Apparently the property owner paid the house mover and is now having trouble getting them to do the job.  Staff has been working with the property owner to get the problem resolved but we have been getting complaints about the old manufactured home.  The complaints have been primarily about the appearance of two dwellings close together on the same lot.  There is also concern that the old unit will be allowed to deteriorate because it is no longer occupied.   Staff findings are as follows:  1.  The property is zoned FA-1 Farming.  2.  The FA-1 Farming district does not permit outdoor storage.  3.  The Land Use Code restricts the use of any parcel to one principal building.  4.  The continued use of the property, in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code, will affect property values in the neighborhood.  5.  The property owner has made an effort to get the old manufactured home removed but has not been successful.

 

Staff recommends that the Board find that: 1.  A violation exists.  2. Require compliance within 90 days. Compliance would require that the old manufactured home be removed from the site.  3.  Authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

Mr. Kadera noted that a representative for the property owner was present but had to leave.  The representative stated that they would agree to the 90 days to comply.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists, and require compliance within 90 days.  Compliance would require that the old manufactured home be removed from the property.  Legal action is also authorized if the deadline is not met.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  WENDEL/US CABLE ZONING  VIOLATION; 02-ZV0208:  This is an alleged violation for failure to comply with conditions of Special Review approval.  Section 4.1.5, Outside storage and a junkyard, by definition in the Larimer County Land Use Code, are not permitted uses in the O-Open zoning district.  Mr. Kadera explained the background as follows:   In 1989 the property owner, Dan Wendel, applied for and received special review approval for a head-end facility for a cable television operation.  The Findings and Resolution of the County Commissioners for the special review included a condition that “the applicant shall resolve any zoning use violations which exist on the property”.  A second condition required that “Unless modified by the above conditions, all development and operation of the facility shall be consistent with zoning File Exhibit A (application for Zoning Action)”.  Both conditions have been violated since the existing violations were never corrected and the head-end facility was expanded beyond the approved special review.  Some progress ahs been made in cleaning up the junk on the south parcel, where the head-end facility was approved.  The north parcel is also a junk yard although it is not related to the special review.  U. S. Cable would like to obtain approval for the additional facilities but staff will not support such a request until the original conditions are met.  Additionally, staff would recommend that the County Commissioners consider revocation of the original special review approval if the property is found to be in violation.  The Development Services Team Findings are as follows:  1.  The property is zoned O-Open.  2.  Outdoor storage of junk is not a permitted use in the O-Open zoning district.  3.  A junkyard is not a permitted use in the O-Open zoning district.  4.  A previous special review approval required compliance with zoning.  Such compliance has not been achieved.  5.  The property is being used for outside storage of miscellaneous junk & derelict vehicles.  6.  The continued use of the property, in violation of the Land Use Code, will affect property values in the area. 7.  The continued use of the property, in violation of the Land Use Code, has affected the neighbor’s ability to enjoy their own property.

Staff recommendation is as follows:  1.  Find that a violation exists.  2.  Require compliance within 60 days. Compliance would require:  A.    All outdoor storage of miscellaneous junk/derelict vehicles be removed.  B.  Special review approval is sought for the additions to the cable television facilities on the site.  3.  Authorize legal action if the deadline is not met and/or consider revocation of the previously approved special review.

At this time Chair Rennels opened the meeting up for public comment and Guy Danner with US Cable stated Mr. Wendel has made some efforts to clean up the property, but that it still needed work.  Mr. Danner stated that he will do his best to encourage continued clean up of the property as they need this site to house their equipment.  There being no further public comment, Chair Rennels closed this section of the hearing.

M OT I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners finds a violation exists and requires compliance within 60 days. Compliance would require that all outdoor storage of junk/derelict vehicles be removed and special review approval is completed for the additional cable television facilities. In addition, legal action is authorized and the County Commissioners may consider revocation of the special review approval that was conditionally approved in 1989, if the deadline is not met.

Motion carried 3-0.

The hearing recessed at 6:05 p.m.

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#140)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Russ Legg, and Al Kadera of the Planning Department.  Chair Rennels presided, and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present.  Also present were:  Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT SIGN CODE; 04-CA0050:  This is a request to delete Section 8.7 Signs and replace with a rewritten Section 10 Signs; to add Section 8.19.1.D. regarding maximum height of flagpoles.  The Larimer County Planning Commission discussed and considered revisions to the Sign Code and related Land Use Code amendments at a public hearing on November 17, 2004.  No public testimony was presented at the hearing.  Staff Planner Jill Bennett presented a memo dated November 17, 2004, recommending several additional changes based on comments received prior to the hearing.  The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Land Use Code amendments, including the changes presented in the staff memo.  These additional changes are included in the Planning Commissioners and Development Services Team Recommendation below.  The Planning Commission also approved the Development Services Team Recommendation that the Proposed Amendments be adopted with an effective date of March 1, 2005, in order to allow sufficient time for necessary administrative changes and training.  Mr. Legg noted that they have worked to model the sign amendments after the Cities of Fort Collins, Loveland and other municipalities sign codes so that in the event that property is annexed, then hopefully the signs would already be in compliance with City regulations.  Some discussion ensued regarding the height limitations of signs, the length that temporary signs can be in place, and the use of alternative methods of signage, such as the utilizing hot air balloons for advertising purposes.  Mr. Legg noted that the hot air balloons are covered under Section 10.6(G) with regard to inflatable signs; he displayed visuals of the new height restrictions, and he noted that he would research the laws regarding elections camping signs regarding the length of time that they can be in place, as the Board directed this to be consistent other uses of temporary signage. The Planning Commission and Development Services Team Recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code as follows:

 

Delete:

            Section 8.7 Signs.

 

            Add:

            Section 10 Signs.

 

10.1 Purpose

The purpose of this section is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public; to provide the public and property owners with an opportunity for safe and effective identification of uses and locations within the county; and to avoid clutter and protect and maintain the visual appearance and property values of the agricultural, residential, business, commercial and industrial areas of the county.

10.2. General Sign Regulations

A. The regulations of this Section 10.0 shall apply to all signs in all zoning districts including signs not requiring a sign permit, except for official government signs, street name signs and bus stop signs.

B. Signs may not be placed on or over public roads or rights-of-way, or in road or access easements except for utility warning signs.

C. No sign shall be located to impair traffic visibility or the health, safety and welfare of the public.  Sight Triangle Standards for signs are contained in the Larimer County Road Manual Section 4.3.F.

D. Any light used to illuminate a sign must be oriented to reflect light away from nearby residential properties and away from the vision of passing motorists and pedestrians.  See also Section 8.4.5.B.6 regarding wildlife development standards for exterior lighting.

E.  All signs must be permanently affixed or attached to the ground or to a structure, except for those temporary signs and vehicle signs that are specifically allowed in this chapter 10.0.

 

10.3. Calculation of Sign Area

The following methods shall be used to calculate the total square footage of the sign area of any sign. 

A. All sign faces shall be counted and considered part of the maximum total sign area allowance.  The sign area of building mounted signs shall not include structural elements used to attach or support the sign that do not contribute to the display.

B. Cabinet signs and signs other than individual letter signs.  Sign area shall be determined by the outer edge of the sign background, frame or cabinet that encompasses all text, decorative artwork, logos, or other information displayed.  In instances where the background, frame or cabinet is an irregular shape, the sign area shall be calculated as the entire area within a continuous perimeter drawn with not more than eight straight lines enclosing the extreme limits of the background, frame or cabinet encompassing the background material.

C. Individual letter signs.  Signs which consist of individual letters that are mounted to a wall, or “race-way” type signs that consist of individual letters that are mounted to a base that is mounted to a wall, which utilize the building wall as the background, and freestanding individual letters that are mounted to a monument base shall be considered individual letter signs.  The sign area of such signs shall be calculated as the entire area within a continuous perimeter drawn with not more than eight straight lines enclosing the extreme limits of the sign.

D. Freestanding base measurement.  The sign area of a freestanding sign shall include, in addition to the sign face area, any portion of the freestanding sign base which exceeds one and one-half times the area of the sign face.  The base shall include any structural component of the sign, including raised landscape planter boxes. 

 

            10.4. Calculation of Sign Height and Setback

A. The height of a freestanding sign shall be measured as the vertical distance from the average finished grade of the ground below the sign excluding any filling, berming, mounding or excavating solely for the purposes of increasing the height of the sign, to the top edge of the highest portion of the sign including any architectural appurtenances.  For purposes of this Section, average finished grade shall be considered the lower of: 

1. The lowest elevation where the base of the sign meets ground level or

2. The nearest public or private sidewalk within 25 feet of the sign.

B.  The required setback for freestanding signs shall be the distance between the sign’s leading edge and the edge of the road right-of-way.

10.5. Signs Not Subject To Permit 

Due to their small size, limited time duration, limited aesthetic impact and strong community interest in identifying land uses, locations and historic structures, the following signs may be erected without a sign permit, but shall meet all applicable standards of this Section 10.0 and any other applicable requirements of the County or the State of Colorado.  These signs are not included in the Total Allowable Sign Area for non-residential districts, as described in Section 10.14.

A.   Nameplate signs.  One nameplate sign which does not exceed a total of two square feet in area, per street frontage.

B.   Rural property identification signs.  One sign per primary driveway entrance to the property and located at that entrance, not exceeding six square feet of total sign area for properties that are less than ten acres and thirty-two square feet of total sign area for properties that are ten acres or greater.

C.   Agricultural product signs.  One sign per frontage of a property, advertising agricultural products that are produced and available for sale on the property, not exceeding sixteen square feet in sign face area per sign.

D.   Business vehicle identification signs.  See Section 10.10.

E.    Commemorative signs.  One commemorative sign, tablet or plaque per property, not exceeding a total of two square feet in sign face area.

F.    Crop signs.  Signs identifying seed brands and varieties in use, test plots, and similar signs that are customary in agricultural production areas.

G.   Daily special signs. Signs for daily specials such as menu boards, sandwich boards or A-frame type signs shall be allowed for the purpose of advertising nonrecurring daily specials. Such signs shall be limited to one sign per business and a maximum of six square feet in area per side and two sides.  Signs shall be placed within fifteen feet of the business entrance and shall not impede pedestrian sidewalk circulation. Such signs shall be taken in daily at the close of business.

H.   Flags, commercial.  No more than one commercial flag per property, where no single side exceeds forty-eight square feet.

I.    Flags, non-commercial. No more than two governmental or other non-commercial flags per property, where no single side exceeds forty-eight square feet. Note that flags of the United States are not defined as signs.

J.    Home occupation signs. Signs for home occupations and uses approved by minor special review shall be limited to one flush-wall nameplate sign, not to exceed three square feet in area, at or near the entrance to the business.

K.    Non-commercial signs. See Section 10.7.

L.    On-site traffic directional signs. Signs may not exceed four square feet per face or ten feet in height.  The minimum horizontal distance between such signs shall be fifteen feet, except for signs designating the purpose for which parking stalls may be used, such as for handicap parking.

M.    Private sale signs. One on-premises sign per street frontage which does not exceed four square feet per sign face.  Signs shall be displayed only during the sale or event specified.

N.    Real estate signs. One sign per street frontage on the property being advertised.  Each real estate sign advertising a single-family or two-family dwelling unit is limited to eight square feet in area per face and six feet in height.  Each real estate sign advertising vacant land or development other than single-family or two-family development is limited to forty-eight square feet in area per face and six feet in height.  Real estate signs may not be illuminated.

O.    Signs over gas pumps. One per pump that is no larger than two square feet per face. 

P.    Warning signs. Signs with messages of warning, danger or caution such as underground utility location signs, no trespassing, no hunting, and similar warning messages.

Q.    Window signs.

 

10.6. Prohibited Signs

The following signs are not allowed in any zoning district.

A. Rooftop signs.

B. Signs which contain any flashing, rotating, animated or otherwise moving features.  Signs with a changeable message must remain motionless for not less than one minute.

C. Strings of light bulbs used for commercial purposes other than traditional holiday decorations.

D. Wind-driven signs, except as allowed in Section 10.5 (flags) and Section 10.8.

E. Billboards, off-premises signs. 

F. Searchlights, whether stationary or revolving, beacons or other similar devices used for the purpose of advertising or attracting attention to a property.

G. Inflatable signs such as blimps, animals, inflatable representations of a product for sale and other inflatable devices used for the purposes of advertising or attracting attention, but not including ordinary balloons with a diameter of 2 feet or less that are used for temporary non-commercial displays.

H.  Signs mounted to landscaping, trees, traffic signage, utility and light poles or other similar structures.

10.7. Non-commercial signs

The following non-commercial signs are allowed in all zoning districts without a sign permit, but are subject to the standards below and all applicable standards of this Section 10.0.

A. Temporary signs that are not commercial in nature (such as campaign, election, community event or nonprofit fund raiser signs).

1. The maximum sign size is nine square feet in residential and rural districts.

2. The maximum sign size is thirty-two square feet in non-residential districts.

3. Signs must be removed within five days after the campaign, election or event.

4. As added by the BCC at their hearing, wording will be added here to make sure that campaign and election signs are consistent with state statute.

B. Ideological signs. Any number of signs are allowed, provided such signs do not exceed ten square feet in area per face with a maximum aggregate of twenty square feet in face area per lot and are unlighted.  In addition, where an identification sign is allowed, all or any portion of said sign may be used as an ideological sign. 

10.8. Reserved.

[Note: this Section is reserved for Sign Plazas, Tourist Oriented Directional Signs, or another off-premises directional sign program to be developed]                    

10.9. Temporary commercial signs.

A. Temporary signs that promote a temporary commercial event such as a sale or grand opening on the property of a principal legal non-residential use may be erected on that property, subject to the following conditions: 

1.  Allowed sign types:

a. A banner or banners that do not cumulatively exceed 100 square feet in total sign area and which are mounted flush to a building wall.

                        b. Pennants.

c. Balloons and other types of lighter than air objects which have no linear dimension greater than two feet.

2.  A temporary sign permit is required.  The permit may specify such conditions and limitations as are deemed necessary to protect adjoining properties and the public.

3.  A temporary sign permit may not be approved for a time period that exceeds thirty consecutive days, and a total of fifty days in any calendar year for each property, or each business in a multi-tenant center. 

4.  The applicant shall remove any temporary signs on or before the expiration date of the permit.

5.  If a person erects any temporary commercial signs without receiving a permit as herein provided, the person shall be ineligible to receive a temporary sign permit for the remainder of the calendar year.

10.10. Business Vehicle Identification Signs

The following business vehicle identification signs are allowed without a permit, but are subject to the standards below and all applicable standards of this Section 10.0.

A. All business vehicle identification signs shall be permanently affixed, painted, magnetically applied or otherwise mounted upon a vehicle.

B. For purposes of this section, the term vehicle shall include trucks, buses, vans, railroad cars, automobiles, tractors, trailers, motor homes, semi-tractors, hot air balloons or any other motorized or nonmotorized transportational device, whether or not such vehicle is in operating condition.

C. The primary purpose of any vehicle upon which a sign is affixed must be to serve a useful, current function in the transportation or conveyance of persons or commodities from one place to another, including transportation to and from work, and such intermittent delays and stops as are customary in the routine conduct of the business or activity for which the transportation or conveyance occurs.

D. No vehicle upon which a sign is affixed may be parked on any property for the primary effect of directing or attracting the attention of the public to a building, institution, product, service, organization, event or location offered or existing elsewhere than upon the same property where such vehicle is parked.

E.  Signs mounted on construction trailers directly related to construction on a site shall be allowed to be located on the site for the duration of construction, and shall be removed immediately upon receipt of the last certificate of occupancy for the site.

10.11. Temporary Construction and Project Marketing Signs

A permit is required for the following construction and project marketing signs.

A.  One construction sign shall be allowed per street frontage per property not exceeding sixteen square feet in area per face in residential districts or thirty-two square feet in area per face in non-residential districts.  Such signs must be removed within one week of final inspection or completion of the project.

B.  One project marketing sign per project shall be allowed per entrance from any adjacent street and no more than two signs per project or phase of a project.  The maximum sign face area shall be fifty square feet in residential districts and sixty-four square feet in non-residential districts and all such signs shall be located within the development.  

1.  Signs shall be allowed to remain for no more than two years following issuance of the temporary sign permit.

2.  In addition to the sign(s) above, a subdivision sales office shall be entitled to one indirectly lit sign not to exceed ten square feet in size.

10.12. Standards for Residential Districts

The following regulations shall apply to all signs in residential zoning districts.

A. In addition to those signs which are allowed without a permit, signs in residential zoning districts may include the following signs: 

1. One identification sign for a multi-family complex per driveway access from the public street, not exceeding thirty-two square feet in area per face, and one wall sign per multi-family structure, not exceeding twenty square feet in area per face per street frontage. 

2. One identification sign per entrance to the property identifying a residential subdivision or housing project, provided that such sign does not exceed thirty-two square feet in area per face.  When such signs are placed on subdivision entry wall structures, only the sign face shall be used to calculate the size of the sign.  In the event that entrance identification signs are proposed for both sides of the street at any one entrance, this “set” of signs shall be considered as one identification sign.

3. One identification sign per street frontage for a principal legal non-residential use in a residential district including non-conforming uses and uses approved by special review and special exception shall be allowed, subject to a maximum sign area of twenty square feet per sign face and not to exceed a total of two such signs per property.  

4.  One identification sign per street frontage or per structure for public or semipublic facilities, such as churches, libraries, schools, fire stations and public recreation facilities, subject to a maximum sign area of thirty-two square feet per sign face and not to exceed a total of two such signs per property.  

B. All freestanding and ground signs in residential zoning districts are limited to six feet in height, excepting rural property identification signs located on entryway arches over private driveways.

C.  All signs in residential districts shall be unlit or indirectly illuminated.  All lighting shall be aimed and/or shielded to insure that no direct light is seen upon any nearby street or upon any nearby residential property.

10.13. Standards for Rural Districts

The following regulations shall apply to all signs in rural zoning districts.

A. In addition to those signs which are allowed without a permit, signs in rural zoning districts may include the following signs: 

1. One identification sign for a multi-family complex per driveway access from the public street, not exceeding thirty-two square feet in area per face, and one wall sign per multi-family structure, not exceeding twenty square feet in area per face per street frontage. 

2. One identification sign per entrance to the property identifying a residential subdivision or housing project, provided that such sign does not exceed thirty-two square feet in area per face.  When such signs are placed on subdivision entry wall structures, only the sign face shall be used to calculate the size of the sign.  In the event that entrance identification signs are proposed for both sides of the street at any one entrance, this “set” of signs shall be considered as one identification sign.

3. One identification sign per street frontage for a principal legal non-residential use in a rural district including non-conforming uses and uses approved by special review and special exception shall be allowed, subject to a maximum sign area of thirty-two square feet per sign face and not to exceed a total of two such signs per property.  

4.  One identification sign per street frontage or per structure for public or semipublic facilities, such as churches, libraries, schools, fire stations and public recreation facilities, subject to a maximum sign area of thirty-two square feet per sign face and not to exceed a total of two such signs per property.  

5. Signs for home occupations and uses approved by minor special review shall be limited to one flush-wall nameplate sign, not to exceed three square feet in area, at or near the entrance to the business.

B. All freestanding and ground signs in rural zoning districts are limited to six feet in height, excepting rural property identification signs located on entryway arches over private driveways.

C.  All signs in rural districts shall be unlit or indirectly illuminated.  All lighting shall be aimed and/or shielded to insure that no direct light is seen upon any nearby street or upon any nearby residential property.

10.14. Standards for Non-Residential Districts

All permanent signs in non-residential zoning districts shall be subject to the following standards.

A. Total Allowable Sign Area.

1. The total sign area for all signs for which permits are required shall not exceed two square feet per linear foot of building frontage for the first two hundred linear feet of building frontage, plus one square foot per linear foot of building frontage thereafter.  No more than two sides of a building may be counted as building frontage.  The total sign area shall include all sign faces and shall be calculated according to the standards of Section 10.3.

2. For the purpose of this section, the sign allowance shall be calculated on the basis of the length of the one building frontage which is most nearly parallel to the street it faces.  If a building does not have frontage on a dedicated public street, the owner of the building may designate the one building frontage which shall be used for the purpose of calculating the sign allowance

3. However, each property shall be at a minimum entitled to the lesser of one square foot of sign allowance per linear foot of lot frontage, or one freestanding sign per street frontage of fifty square feet per face and one wall sign per business of thirty-two square feet in size so long as all other requirements of this Section 10.0 are met.  If permits are approved for signs based on the minimum provisions of this paragraph, the allowable sign area based on the building frontage as set forth above shall not be recognized as allowable sign area for the property.

B. Freestanding Signs.

1. The total number of freestanding signs allowed shall be one per street frontage per property.

2.  The maximum size per side for freestanding signs shall be ninety square feet per side.  The maximum height for freestanding signs shall be eighteen feet above grade.  No freestanding sign shall be built within fifteen feet of any interior side lot line.  (See accompanying table below.)

Requirements for Freestanding Signs

Setback (feet)

Maximum height (feet)

Maximum size allowed per side (square feet)

0

8  

20  

5

8  

27  

10

10  

33  

15

12 

50 

20

14 

60 

25

16 

70 

30

18 

80 

36 and more

18 

90 

 

3. The required setback of any freestanding sign shall be measured from the right-of-way line.

4. When electrical service is provided to freestanding signs, all such electrical service shall be underground.

5. A drive-in restaurant shall be allowed one freestanding sign per drive-thru lane, for the sole purpose of a menu board for drive-thru customers that shall not be included in the number of such signs allowed for the property.  Such sign(s) shall not exceed five feet in height and thirty-five square feet in sign face area.  Fifty percent of the square footage of such sign(s) shall be exempted from the total allowed for the property.  Individual drive-in menu boards that are four square feet or less shall be exempted from the total sign area allowed for the property.

6. In order to encourage their use, the following modification of the freestanding sign requirements table is allowed for monument signs.

Requirements for Monument Signs

Setback (feet)

Maximum height (feet)

Maximum size allowed per side (square feet)

0

7

45

5

8.5

60

10

10

75

15 and more

12

90

 

C. Signs Mounted to Structures.

1. Wall Signs.

No wall sign or individual letter sign shall exceed one hundred square feet in sign area or seven feet in height.  A wall sign may not extend above the top of the wall or parapet wall of the building to which the wall sign is attached.  Signs may not project more than twelve inches horizontally from the face of the building on which they are erected. Signs that are mounted on mansards or similar architectural features may not project more than twelve inches horizontally, measured at the bottom of the sign, from the surface to which they are mounted. 

2. Canopy signs.

No canopy sign shall project above the top of the canopy upon which it is mounted.  No canopy sign shall project from the face of a canopy.  Under-canopy signs which are perpendicular to the face of the building shall be deemed to be projecting signs.  Under canopy signs which are parallel to the face of the building shall be deemed flush wall signs and shall be a minimum of eight feet above grade.

3. Projecting Signs.

No sign may project over a public right-of-way. Signs may not project more than six feet from the face of the building or into the minimum required building setback for the zone district in which they are located.  Such signs shall not exceed fifteen square feet per face and must be a minimum of eight feet above grade. 

4. Awning Signs.

Awning signs shall not be allowed above the first story of a building. No awning sign shall project above the top of an awning on which it is mounted.  No awning sign shall project from the face of an awning.  The maximum amount of sign area allowed on an awning per street frontage shall be fifty square feet excluding banding and striping. When extended over either a public or private sidewalk, the minimum clearance from the lowest point of the awning to the top of pavement shall be eight feet.  No awning sign shall be allowed to project over a private or public vehicular way.

10.15. Maintenance

A.  All signs shall be maintained in good condition at all times.  All signs shall be kept neatly finished and repaired, including all parts and supports.  The Building Official may inspect any sign governed by this code and shall have authority to order the painting, repair, alternation or removal of a sign which constitutes a hazard to safety, health or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation or obsolescence.

B.  The Building Official shall have the power to order a change in the illumination of any sign that becomes a hazard or nuisance.

10.16. Sign permits

A. A sign permit is required prior to the placement or remodeling of any sign except that no permit shall be required for those signs regulated by Section 10.5.

B. Electrical signs.

1.  All electrical signs placed in Larimer County shall bear the label of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

2.  All electrical service to a freestanding sign that is illuminated shall be underground.

C.  Approval criteria.  No permit for a new sign shall be approved unless such sign is in conformance with the requirements of this Section 10 and with an approved sign plan if one is required.  See Section 10.18.

10.17. Nonconforming signs

A. A nonconforming sign shall not be:

1.  Structurally or physically changed to another non-conforming sign, although its content may be changed;

2.  Structurally or physically altered in order to prolong the life of the sign, including a change from the original materials of the sign, except to meet safety requirements;

3.  Altered so as to increase the degree of non-conformity of the sign; or

4.  Enlarged.

B. All nonconforming signs on a property must be brought into conformance with this Section 10.0 when a change of use, as defined in the Land Use Code, occurs on the property.

C.  A nonconforming sign shall not be re-established after damage or destruction if the estimated cost of reconstruction exceeds fifty percent of the appraised replacement cost.

D.  A nonconforming sign and sign structure shall be removed from a property in the event that the sign is blank or displays obsolete advertising material for a period 12 consecutive months.

10.18. Sign Plans

A.  A Sign Plan shall be prepared for all permanent signs in non-residential districts that require a sign permit under this Section 10.  The plan shall include a graphic representation showing a comprehensive detailed presentation of all existing and/or proposed signage for the subject property.

B.  Properties and uses subject to the Site Plan requirement (Section 6.0) shall include a Sign Plan as part of the Site Plan review process.

            10.19. Definitions

As used in this Section 1.0, the following words and phrases have the meanings set out in this section:

Agricultural product sign.  A sign advertising agricultural products that are produced and available for sale on the property

Awning sign.  A sign which is mounted on a temporary shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of the building.

Banner.  A sign which is constructed of cloth, canvas or other type of natural or man-made fabric, or other similar light material which can be easily folded or rolled, but not including paper or cardboard.

Billboard.  See off-premises sign. 

Building frontage.  The side of the building which aligns with a street or parking lot.

Bus stop sign.  Signs located on benches or shelters placed in the public rights-of-way or in private property adjacent to public rights-of-way at a bus stop pursuant to a written agreement with the county which sets forth the regulations for the size, content, placement, design and materials used in the construction of said signs, benches and shelters. 

Business.  An activity concerned with the supplying and distribution of goods and services.  For purposes of this section, the term “business” shall not include an activity which is accessory to a residential use, such as a home occupation.  The term “business” shall include principal agricultural uses.  See also “Multi-tenant center” regarding two or more businesses located on a single property.

Business vehicle identification sign.  A sign which is painted on, affixed to or otherwise mounted on any vehicle or on any object which is placed on, in, or attached to a vehicle.  For purposes of this definition, the term “vehicle” shall include trucks, buses, vans, railroad cars, automobiles, tractors, trailers, hot air balloons, motor homes, semi-tractors or any other motorized or non-motorized transportational device, whether or not such vehicle is in operating condition.

Cabinet sign.  A sign that contains all the text, artwork, logos and/or other information displayed within an enclosed cabinet.

Canopy sign.  A wall sign which is mounted on a permanently-roofed shelter covering a sidewalk, driveway or other similar area, which shelter may be wholly supported by a building or may be wholly or partially supported by columns, poles or braces extended from the ground.

Commemorative or memorial sign.  A sign, table or plaque commemorating or memorializing a person, event, structure or site.

Construction sign.  A temporary sign erected on the property on which construction, alteration or repair is taking place, during the time of active continuous construction, displaying only the names of the architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the owners, financial supporters, sponsors and similar individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the structure or project.

Flag, commercial. A flag displaying the name, insignia, emblem or logo of a for-profit entity.

Flag, non-commercial.  A flag displaying the name, insignia, emblem or logo of any nation, state, county, municipality or non-profit organization.

Freestanding sign.  A non-moveable sign that is anchored directly to the ground or supported by one or more posts, columns, or other vertical structures or supports, and not attached to or dependent for support from any building.

Government sign.  A sign erected and maintained by or on behalf of the United States, the state, or a county or city for the purpose of regulating traffic or for civic purposes.

Identification sign.  A sign giving only the name, logo or other identifying symbol, address, or any combination of name, symbol and address of a building, business or residential development, establishment or rural property.

Ideological sign.  A sign conveying a philosophical, religious, political, charitable or other similar non-commercial message.

Indirect lighting.  A source of external illumination of any sign.

Menu board sign.  A wall or freestanding sign which lists the foods or other products available at drive-through facilities.

Monument sign. A freestanding sign where the base of the sign structure is on the ground or a maximum of twelve inches above the adjacent grade.  The width of the top of the sign structure can be no more than one hundred twenty (120) percent of the width of the base.

Multi-tenant center.  One or more buildings, located on a single property, containing two or more separate and distinct businesses or activities which occupy separate portions of the building with separate points of entrance, and which are physically separated from each other by walls, partitions, floors or ceilings.  For purposes of this Section 10, the term “multi-tenant center” shall include buildings containing condominium units.  See also “Property.”

Nameplate sign.  A sign, located on the property, giving only the name or address or both, of the owner or occupant of a building or property.

Neon sign.  An illuminated sign consisting of a neon or gas tube that is bent to form letters, symbols or other shapes that advertise or identify a product, business, organization or location.  For purposes of this Section 10, neon tubing that is used as an architectural decoration is not considered to be a sign.

Non-commercial sign.  A sign containing no commercial content, including signs conveying a philosophical, religious, political, charitable or other similar message.

Nonconforming sign.  A sign that does not meet one or more of the requirements of this Section 10.0 but which was erected in conformance with any adopted standards and procedures in existence at that time.

Non-residential districts. The A-Accommodations, T-Tourist, B-Business, C-Commercial, I-Industrial, I-1 Industrial zoning districts, and areas of the AP-Airport and PD-Planned Development zoning districts approved for non-residential uses.

Obsolete advertising material.  Advertising material that has gone out of date; for example, the name of a business that no longer exists.

Off-premises sign. A sign which is used or intended for use to advertise, identify, direct or attract the attention to a business, institution, product, organization, event or location offered or existing elsewhere than upon the same property where such sign is displayed.

On-site traffic directional sign.  A sign intended solely for the purpose of guiding or directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic within an establishment and not including promotional advertising unnecessary to such directional purpose. Examples of such signs include “entrance”, “exit”, “no parking”, “loading only” and other similar directives.

Permanent sign.  A sign that is permanently affixed or attached to the ground or to a structure.

Portable sign.  A sign that is not permanently affixed or attached to the ground or to a structure and that is designed to be easily transportable from one location to another, including but not limited to a sign designed to be displayed while mounted or affixed to the trailer by which it is transported.

Premises.  See “property.”

Private sale sign.  A sign advertising a private sale of personal property such as a house sale, garage sale, rummage sale and the like.

Project marketing sign.  A sign that is placed at one or more locations within a project, which identifies the project and offers for sale or lease, as part of the original marketing of the project, the lots, tracts, structures or units within the project.

Property.  A lot, tract or parcel of land together with the buildings or structures thereon.  For purposes of this Section 10, individual condominium ownerships in a structure shall not be considered separate property.  See also “Multi-tenant center.”

Real estate sign.  A sign indicating the availability for sale, rent or lease of a specific parcel, building or portion of a building, and the name, address and telephone number of the owner or listing of the real estate broker. 

Remodeling.  A change in any aspect or character of a sign including addition or change in the type of lighting, increase in height or size, addition of sign faces or change from wood posts and frame to metal posts and frame, but not including a change in the content or message of the sign face.

Residential districts.  The FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, FO-Forestry, FO-1 Forestry, E-Estate, E-1Estate, RE-Rural Estate, RE-1 Rural Estate, R-Residential, R-1 Residential, R-2 Residential, M-Multiple Family, M-1 Multiple Family and AP-Airport zoning districts; the O-Open zoning district located within a Growth Management Area (GMA) overlay zoning district of Larimer County or the LaPorte Plan Area; and areas of the PD-Planned Development zoning district which have been approved for residential use.

Rooftop sign.  A sign erected upon or above a roof or above a parapet wall of a building.

Rural districts.  The O-Open zoning district located outside a Growth Management Area (GMA) overlay zoning district of Larimer County, and located outside the LaPorte Plan Area.

Rural property identification sign. A sign intended to identify the entrance to a rural property.  For purposes of this Section 10.0, the term rural property shall be limited to properties that are located outside a Growth Management Area (GMA) overlay zoning district of Larimer County.

Setback.  The distance, measured perpendicular or radial from a street right-of-way or property line, between the leading edge of a sign and the right-of-way or property line.

Sign.  Any object, device or structure, or part thereof, which is visible beyond the boundaries of the property upon which it is located, and which advertises, identifies, directs or attracts the attention of the public to a business, institution, product, organization, event or location by any means, including, but not limited to, words, letters, graphics, fixtures, symbols, colors, motion, illumination and projected images. The term “sign” shall not include the following:

(1) works of fine art which in no way identify a product or business and which are not displayed in conjunction with a commercial enterprise, which enterprise may benefit or realize direct commercial gain from such display;

(2) temporary decorations or displays clearly incidental and customary and commonly associated with national, local or religious holiday celebrations;

(3) products, merchandise, materials or equipment which are offered for sale or used in conducting a business, along with any incidental and customary product labels on such items, when such items are kept or stored in a location which is designed and commonly used for the storage of such products, merchandise, materials or equipment; and

(4) flags of the United States, provided that such flags are sized and displayed in such a  located, and that they do not interfere with utility lines.

Sign face.  The area of a sign upon or through which the message is displayed.

Sign plan.  A graphic representation showing a comprehensive detailed presentation of all signage proposed for a particular property.

Street frontage.  A property line that abuts a public right-of-way that provides public access to or visibility to the property.

Temporary sign. A sign which, due to the materials used or the method, manner or location of display;  is suited only for brief display, including but not limited to those signs regulated under Section 10.7 and Section 10.8.

Wall sign.  A sign attached to, painted on or erected against the wall of a building or structure in such a manner that the wall is the supporting structure for, or forms the background surface of, the sign.

Warning sign.  A sign limited to a message of warning, danger or caution such as underground utility location signs, no trespassing, no hunting, and similar warning messages.

Wind-driven sign.  Any sign consisting of one or a series of banners, pennants, ribbons, spinners, streamers, captive balloons or other objects or material fastened in such a manner as to move, upon being subjected to pressure by wind or breeze.

Window sign.  A sign that is applied to or attached to the exterior or interior of a window or located in such a manner within a building that it is visible from the exterior of the building through a window.

            Add:

Section 8.19.1

D. The maximum height of flagpoles is 40 feet in all zoning districts, provided that the height of the flagpole does not exceed the distance to the nearest property line.

 

Chair Rennels opened up the hearing for public comment and Larry Enke addressed the Board and requested clarification on the sign height and set back requirements.  Mr. Legg stated that the maximum height allowed is 18 feet, that being from the ground to the top of the sign.  Chair Rennels explained to Mr. Enke that there is a variance procedure if a business owner wished to appeal the height limit; she then asked Mr. Legg to explain the appeals process.   Chair Rennels closed public comment. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment to the Larimer County Land Use Code to delete Section 8.7 Signs, add Section 10.0 Signs, and add Section 8.19.1 Maximum height of flagpoles.  And to direct Planning Staff to change to Section 10.7 pertaining to election campaign signs in order to make it consistent with State Statute, if necessary. The Code amendments to be effective March 1, 2005.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.   LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS; 04-CA0051:  This is a request to make a number of changes to the adopted Land Use Code.   Mr. Kadera stated that during the Code adoption hearings the concept of a living Land Use Code that would be amended as needed to make it function properly was often discussed.  Mr. Kadera noted that some changes are minor wording changes because of typographical errors and other changes have to do with inconsistencies between parts of the Code.  A few of the changes are needed because there are unintended consequences resulting from the current wording.  Most of the following code amendments are housekeeping in nature.  There are inconsistencies with respect to the sections that apply, versus those that do not apply, to Rural Land Plans.  These amendments will clear up those issues.  There are also some issues concerning minimum lot size and densities in Rural Land Plans that will be cleared up.  The most substantive change has to do with public versus private roads in new development and gated roads in new development.  Please note “new development”.  These changes are in Section 8 of the Code which only applies to new development that is reviewed under this Code.           This section does not apply to existing development or to 35-acre parcels.  This amendment has no effect on someone’s ability to put a gate on their driveway. In Section 8.14 there are some “Planning Considerations” and “Development Design Standards”.  The Planning Considerations were intended to be guidelines but some of the wording is regulatory in nature and should be included in the design standards.  Mr. Kadera went through the following changes to the Land Use Code section by section for the Board:

 

      Underlined text is new text and strike through text is to be deleted from the code.

1.  Section 4 includes use restrictions and bulk requirements such as density, setbacks and building heights.  Each zoning district in Section 4.1 that allows residential development includes a subsection on minimum lot size.  These subsections include information about the density calculations and lot sizes in Conservation Developments.  The same information should be provided for the Rural Land Use process.

Sec. 4 Zoning

Amend the subsection on “minimum lot size’ in each zoning district to read, “Maximum density in a conservation development is calculated by dividing the total developable area by insert minimum lot sizeMaximum density in a Rural Land Plan is determined by subsection 5.8.6.A.  Lots in a conservation development or Rural Land Plan that use a well or an individual septic system must contain at least two acres (87,120 square feet).  Lots in a conservation development or Rural Land Plan connected to public water and either a public sewer or community sewer system are not required to meet minimum lot size requirements (except for the purpose of calculating density).

2.  Section 5 includes various processes that apply to land divisions.  Some apply to the rural land use process and some do not.  Staff recommends amending certain subsections in Section 5 to make it clear what applies.

Section 5.4 Minor Land Division

Section 5.4 Minor Land Division does not apply to rural land plans just as it does not apply to subdivisions, CD’s or planned land divisions.

Amend Section 5.4.3.A to read, “The property is not part of an approved or recorded subdivision plat, conservation development, planned land division, rural land plan or planned unit development.”

Section 5.5 Boundary Line Adjustment

Section 5.5 Boundary Line Adjustment does not apply to rural land plans.

Amend Section 5.5.2. B to read, “Lots in recorded minor land divisions, subdivisions, conservation developments, planned land divisions or rural land plans.”

Section 5.6 Add-On Agreement

Section 5.6 Add-On Agreement does not apply to rural land plans.

Amend Section 5.6.2.B to read, “Lots in recorded subdivisions, conservation developments, planned land divisions, minor land divisions or rural land plans.”

Section 5.8.5.B.1.c indicates that the RLUC director will maintain a list of volunteers who will assist in the rural land use process.  The RLUC Director would like to amend this section to say “may” maintain a list of volunteers.

Amend Subsection 5.8.5.b.1.c to read, “Volunteers:  The RLUC director will may maintain a list of persons who are willing to volunteer their time and expertise to assist the RLUC director, applicants and the neighborhood in the design and development of a RLUC project.”

Section 5.8.6.A includes principles that are used to evaluate rural land plans.  Subsection 5.8.6.A.6 allows the transfer of dwelling units between non-contiguous parcels that are included in a rural land plan.  This subsection should also give notice of the existing limitation that the total number of lots cannot exceed the density allowed by the zoning of the parcel receiving the transferred dwelling units.

Amend Section 5.8.6.A.6 to read, “Subject to the requirements of section 5.8.4.A, plans may be submitted for projects involving two or more parcels, including non-contiguous parcels.  Development rights may be transferred between parcels, however the maximum number of dwelling units on the receiving parcel cannot exceed the maximum number of dwelling units allowed by the current zoning of the receiving parcel.  In deciding whether to approve projects involving the transfer of development rights, the county commissioners will consider the degree to which the receiving parcel and properties surrounding the receiving parcel benefit from the non-development of the sending parcel.”

Another addition should be made to Section 5.8.6.A to indicate that if an entire parcel is not included in a rural land plan, any left over parcel must contain at least 35 acres.

Add Subsection 5.8.6.A.7 to read, “Any remaining, undeveloped parcel that is not included in a rural land plan must contain at least 35 acres.”

Section 5.13 Land Division Process.  Some subsections should be amended to include a reference to rural land plans so this section is consistent.

Amend the first sentence of Subsection 5.13.2 to read, “The processes for subdivision, conservation development, planned land division and rural land plans are described in the process section for each of these developments land divisions.”

Amend Subsection 5.13.5.A.1, Final Plat to read, “All applications for subdivision, conservation development, planned land division and rural land plan require final plat review by the county commissioners.”

Section 5.13.6. A includes a reference to “rural land use plan”.  This reference should be amended to read, “rural land plan” so it is consistent with the rest of the Code.

      3.  Section 8.01 Generally

The rural land use process does not follow the same procedures as other land division processes.  Decisions concerning compliance with standards are made at the preliminary rural land plan hearing before the County Commissioners.  To make this clear we should add a new subsection E that refers to rural land plans.

Add Subsection 8.01.E to read, “The applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards for all rural land plans at the county commissioners’ hearing on any preliminary rural land plan”.

Amend Section 8.1.B Adequate Public Facilities as follows:

Applicability. Adequate public facilities requirements apply to all applications for conservation development, planned land division, subdivision, special review, site plan review, special exception and minor land division submitted under this code.  APF requirements also apply to rural land plans as specified in Section 8.1.

Amend Section 8.1.1B to read:

B.   New development, including rural land plans, must comply with one of the following criteria:

Amend Section 8.1.1.B.2.a as follows:

a.   The development is not located within a GMA district, except in the case of a rural land plan, on-site sewage treatment systems may be allowed if the municipality recommends approval of the rural land plan with on-site sewage treatment systems.

Amend Section 8.1.1.B.3.a as follows:

a.   The development is not located within a GMA district, except in the case of a rural land plan, community sewer systems may be allowed if the municipality recommends approval of the rural land plan with a community sewer system.  

Amend Section 8.1.2.A.1 as follows:

A.   New development must comply with one of the following criteria, except that wells may be allowed in a rural land plan pursuant to state statute.

Amend Section 8.1.3.A as follows:

A.   General. Dedicated facilities for stormwater drainage pass-through flows and outfall to an acceptable point of discharge is [are] required for all developments in the county, except rural land plans. (See Section 5.8.6.D for drainage requirements for rural land plans). Adequate facilities may consist of natural drainages or manmade channels. To be adequate, facilities must be legally and physically acceptable (see Larimer County Stormwater Management Manual).

Amend Section 8.9.1 Supplementary Regulations by adding:  “Supplementary regulations are contained in a separate volume from the land use code.  The supplementary regulations listed below are an integral part of the land use code and the development review processes described in the code.  Subsections 8.9.1.D and E apply to rural land plans.”

Section 8.10, Use Plans for Residual Land and/or Common Area applies to rural land plans.  However, Section 8.10.2 Applicability makes reference to rural land use plans in two places.  These references are not consistent with the rest of the code and should be amended to reference “rural land plans”.

Section 8.14.1 Planning Considerations.  Subsections C and E are actually standards and should be combined with subsections 8.14.2.B and N. 

8.14.1.  Planning Considerations.

Planning Considerations apply to all development applications, except Rural Land Plans.

A.  Applicants must identify resources and environmental conditions potentially impacted by proposed development at the earliest stage of the development review process. Applicants must complete a site inventory at the concept review (or optional sketch plan review) stage of the process. The inventory must include existing manmade features, floodplains, geologic hazards, drainage, topography, wildfire hazards, special places of Larimer County, wetlands, important wildlife habitat and corridors, rare and endangered plants and animals and commercial mineral deposits. These land conditions must be identified on the site and within at least 1,200 feet of the site.

B.  Land found by the county commissioners to be unsuitable for development due to physical constraints can not be developed unless methods authorized by this code are used to solve the problems created by these unsuitable land conditions.

C.    Consideration will be given to topography.  Building sites can not be placed on land with a slope of 30 percent or greater; with geological hazards greater than 5, 6, or 7 on geological hazard maps adopted by the County Commissioners, or in 100 year floodplains.

C.  Applicants who do not develop an entire parcel must indicate the intended plans for the remainder of the parcel.  Any remaining undeveloped parcel must be at least 35 acres if it is not included in the development.

E.   All development must be designed to permit the continuation of streets, roads, trails, pedestrian access, utilities and drainage facilities into adjacent property, unless there is sufficient justification for an alternate design.  The connection must proved a logical, safe, and convenient circulation link for vehicular, bicycle and/or pedestrian traffic with existing or planned circulation routes and, in particular, to destinations such as schools, parks, and business or commercial centers.

8.14.2  Development design standards.

The following design standards apply to all development applications except rural land plans:

A.  All land divisions must create lots that can be developed consistent with this code and other adopted county standards and regulations;

B.   The development must be designed to avoid, eliminate or mitigate potential effects of natural hazards and other hazardous site conditions. New building sites and building envelopes cannot be placed on land with a slope of 30 percent or greater, with geologic hazards rated 5, 6 or 7 on geologic hazard maps adopted  by the county commissioners or in a designated floodplain, unless the Federal Emergency Management Agency approved a letter of map amendment or a conditional letter of map revision (see the technical supplement for amendments and revisions to National Flood Insurance Program maps);

C.  Lots must be laid out to provide positive drainage away from all building sites, and the overlot grading must be designed and maintained consistent with the general storm drainage pattern for the area;

D.  Lot area, width, depth, shape, location and orientation must conform to this code;

E.   In cases where the access route between the subject site and a county road identified on the Larimer County Functional Road Classification Map is anything but a public right of way, the applicant must demonstrate by, competent evidence, the legal right to use any and all portions of that access route to the extent required for the pending development.

F.  All roads within the boundaries of land divisions and site plans, in both urban and rural areas, must be a public right of way.  An appeal to this requirement may be approved by the county commissioners if In order for the County Commissioners to approve an appeal to allow a private road within a land division or site plan, the County Commissioners must find that both of the following criteria are met:

1.  The County Engineer has determined that there clearly is no current or future need for connectivity of the road(s) in the subject parcel with existing or potential roads in adjacent parcels;

1.  There would be no foreseeable public purpose or benefit in having a public right of way; and

2.  There is an easement, agreement, covenant or other appropriate document to be recorded in the county records that grants the right of access for emergency and service vehicles and that defines the persons/entities entitled to use the roads, the purpose for and manner in which the roads may be used, any limitations on the use of the roads, the persons/entities authorized and responsible to construct and maintain the roads, the persons/entities authorized to enforce the terms of the easement and the penalties for violation of the terms of the easement;

3.  The design and construction of the private road will meet applicable county road or street standards;

4.  Provisions acceptable to the county commissioners have been made for maintenance of the private roads; and

5.  County requirements for road naming, road name signs and addressing have been or will be met prior to the issuance of any building permit.

2.  The county commissioners have found that road connectivity to adjacent parcels is not needed or practical and have granted an appeal to Section 8.14.2.M (connectivity).


If an appeal to this Subsection F is granted, the following standards shall apply to the private road:

1.  There is an easement, agreement, covenant or other appropriate document to be recorded in the county records that grants the right of access for emergency and service vehicles and that defines the persons/entities entitled to use the roads, the purpose for and manner in which the roads may be used, any limitations on the use of the roads, the persons/entities authorized and responsible to construct and maintain the roads, the persons/entities authorized to enforce the terms of the easement and the penalties for violation of the terms of the easement;

2.  The design and construction of the private road will meet applicable county road or street standards;

3.  Provisions acceptable to the county commissioners have been made for maintenance of the private roads; and

4.  County requirements for road naming, road name signs and addressing have been or will be met prior to the issuance of any building permit.

FG.      The maximum length of a dead-end access must be 660 feet in Ranges 68 and 69 and 1,000 feet west of Range 69. Land divisions that cannot meet this standard must provide a second point of access. The second access must be either a dedicated, public right-of-way or an easement specifically granted for emergency access purposes;

GH.      Lots can not be divided by a municipal or county boundary line, road, alley or another lot;

HI. Corner lots must have adequate width and depth to meet applicable setbacks from and orientation to both roads. Setbacks on corner lots must be designated on the final plat;

IJ.  Side lot lines must be substantially at right angles or radial to road right-of-way lines;

JK. Irregular or wedge-shaped lots must have sufficient width at the front setback line to permit construction of a building that meets side setback requirements;

KL.      Lots can not exceed a depth-to-width ratio of 3-to-1. Lots can not exceed a width-to-depth ratio of 1.5-to-1;

LM.     Reserve strips to prevent access to roads are prohibited;

MN.     All roads in new land divisions must be designed to connect to adjacent property to allow a neighborhood traffic circulation system and to improve emergency and service access;  All development must be designed to permit the continuation of streets, roads, trails, pedestrian access, utilities and drainage facilities into adjacent property.  The connection must provide a logical, safe and convenient circulation link for vehicular, bicycle and/or pedestrian traffic with existing or planned circulation routes to allow a neighborhood traffic circulation system and to improve emergency and service access.  Particular attention must be given to access to destinations such as schools, parks and business or commercial centers.

NO.     Outlots. All parcels that are to be used only for drainage easements, rights-of-way or other uses that do not need any buildings must be labeled "Outlot" followed by consecutive letter designations beginning with "A";

OP.      Residual lots. All parcels in conservation developments and rural land plans that are considered to be residual land must be labeled "Residual Lot" followed by consecutive letter designations beginning with "A". Residual lots must be further identified by one of the following applicable designations that must be placed in parentheses after the residual lot label:

1.   “Buildable/residence(s)" for those residual lots that may be occupied by one or more single-family dwellings;

2.   “Buildable/support buildings only" for those residual lots that may be occupied by buildings that are accessory to the use of the residual lot;

3.   "Nonbuildable" for those residual lots that are not intended to be occupied by any buildings.

PQ.      Common area lots. All parcels in subdivisions, conservation developments, rural land plans, planned land divisions and minor land divisions that are common open space for the development must be labeled "Common Area Lot" followed by a consecutive letter designation beginning with "A". Common area lots must be further identified by one of the following applicable designations that must be placed in parentheses after the common area lot label:

1.   “Buildable/support buildings only" for those common area lots that may be occupied by buildings or structures that are intended for use by the lot owners in the development;

2.   "Nonbuildable" for those common area lots that are not intended to be occupied by any buildings or structures.

R.  Gated public roads are prohibited.

S.  Gated private roads are prohibited unless the County Commissioners approve an appeal allowing private gated roads.  In order for the county commissioners to approve gated private roads, the county commissioners must find that all the following criteria are met:

1.  The subject road is a private road and all owners of property having a legally established right to access via the private road have approved gating the road;

2.  The standards for private roads in Subsection 8.14.2.F are met;

3.  The appeal request has been referred to the applicable fire protection entity and the Sheriff’s Department, Emergency Services for their review and comment, and such comments have been duly considered; and

4.  The design provides for adequate vehicle stacking distance and turn around.

8.14.5. Easement and utility standards.

The following easement and utility standards apply to all development, except rural land plans:

A.  Utility easements must be a minimum of eight feet on each side of abutting rear lot lines. Rear lot lines not adjacent to subdivided property must have ten-foot utility easements. Side lot line easements, where needed, must be five feet wide. Front lot line easements, where needed, must be 15 feet wide. These are minimum standards. Additional or wider easements may be needed to accommodate certain utilities;

B.   Utility easements must be approved by utility companies serving the project;

C.  Utility easements must be designed to allow efficient installation and maintenance of utilities and multiple installations wherever possible;

D.  Utility lines must be placed underground unless the applicant demonstrates to the county commissioners specific engineering considerations that necessitate aboveground utility installations;

E.   Transformers, switching boxes, pedestals and other such necessary facilities may be placed aboveground. All such facilities must be placed within easements or rights-of-way provided for these facilities; and

F.      Utilities must be extended to each lot or building site.

8.14.6. Block standards.

The following block standards apply to all development, except rural land plans:

A   Block lengths must be designed to provide safe and convenient access to the lots; and

B.   Block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet may require pedestrian access approximately midway through the block.

8.14.7.    Road surfacing requirements.

The following road surfacing requirements apply to the interior roads of all development, except rural land plans:

A.  The selection of road surfacing material should be based on factors including but not limited to safety; convenience; dust control; and maintenance considerations. Acceptable road surface types vary with traffic volumes and location: urban (within GMA districts) versus rural (outside GMA districts) and plains versus mountains.

B.   The minimum road surfacing requirements for various traffic volumes and locations are:

TABLE 8.14.7(B).II

MINIMUM ROAD SURFACING REQUIREMENTS

 

Pavement Type

Traffic Volume (ADT)

Material

Rural-Mountains

Less than 50

Native Material1

Rural-Mountains

51--200

Gravel

Rural-Mountains

Greater than 200

Chip seal2 or pavement

Rural-Plains

Less than 200

Gravel

Rural-Plains

Greater than 200

Chip seal2 or pavement

Urban

All roads

Pavement

 

1 Native material surfaces will normally not be acceptable but may be allowed in exceptional cases when, in the opinion of the county engineer, the location, material characteristics, drainage conditions, road geometry and traffic volumes are suitable for this type of surface.

2 Chip seals will normally not be acceptable but may be allowed in exceptional cases when, in the opinion of the county engineer, the location, drainage conditions, road geometry and traffic volumes are suitable for this type of surface

C.  Pavements must consist of either asphaltic concrete pavement or Portland cement concrete pavement, with base course and subbase course where required, placed on compacted subgrade.

D.   Structural design criteria for road surfaces are contained in chapter 5, structural design criteria, of the technical supplement to this code, Larimer County road standards.

 

4.  Section 9.0 Land Dedications, Fees-in-Lieu of Dedications, Facility Fees and Capital Expansion Fees

Section 9.2 Drainage/Stormwater Facility Fees.  This section has been applied by the Rural Land Use Process and the Code should clearly indicate that it applies.

Amend Section 9.2.2 Applicability to read, “This section applies to all plats and plans approved by the county commissioners under any application as a subdivision, conservation development, planned land division or rural land plan.”

There are two other issues with Section 9.2 that should be addressed at this time.  Fees in lieu of drainage basin improvements are calculated by dividing the total cost of major improvements by the number of developable acres in the drainage basin.  The fee is charged on each lot based on the amount of acreage that is actually developed.  For conservation developments and rural land plans, the residual land is not charged a fee because there is no increase in runoff on land that is not developed.  The Code should indicate that individual drainage fees for each lot are based on the developed area in the development.  Also in Section 9.2.5 Drainage report required, there is a reference to facilities required for construction of the “subdivision” improvements.  Since “subdivision” is a specific type of land division in the Code it would be more clear if the reference was to “land division” improvements.  (See amendment to Section 9.2.5.B below.)

Amend Section 9.2.3.E to read, “Drainage basin master plans must contain an estimate of the cost of all such major drainage system facilities within the basin.  Drainage/stormwater facility fees must be a dollar amount per acre of developable land calculated by dividing the total cost of major drainage facilities by the number of acres within the basin.  Fees for individual building sites will be based on the developed area within the project.”

Section 9.2.5.A makes reference to “planned development” plat.  A previous Code amendment was intended to change references to planned development to planned land division.  Apparently one of the references was missed and we should take this opportunity to correct the error. 

Amend Section 9.2.5.A to read,  “Prior to final approval of a subdivision, conservation development or planned developmentplanned land division plat or plan and prior to commencement of construction on any lot or parcel of land, the owners of the lot or parcel of land must (at the owners' expense) prepare and submit to the county engineer a detailed drainage report and construction plans for the installation of all stormwater facilities required for the lot or parcel, including any off-site facilities required to convey stormwater to existing drains, streams, channels, detention ponds or other points.  All of these facilities must conform to the drainage plan for the respective drainage basin as adopted under subsection 9.2.3 of this code and comply with the Larimer County Stormwater Management Manual included in the technical supplement to this code.

Amend Section 9.2.5.B to read, “The report must contain an estimate of the cost of all major drainage system facilities required for construction of the subdivision land division improvements in conformity with the applicable drainage basin master plan.”

Section 9.3 Community Park Land Dedication/In-Lieu Fee Standards.  To be consistent with the rest of the Code we should also list all of the development processes that are subject to the fee standards.

Amend Section 9.3.2.C to read, “As of the effective date of this regulation, the community park land dedication/in-lieu fee standards shall apply to all landsapplications for subdivision, conservation development, and planned land division in the unincorporated county within the Fort Collins and Loveland GMA districts, within the Berthoud GMA as shown in the intergovernmental agreement dated August 22, 2000, or as amended and within the Estes Park GMAValley Planning Area. ”

Section 9.4 Regional Park Land Dedication/In-Lieu Fee Standards.  It appears that the end of Subsection C was truncated when the Code was printed.  We should take this opportunity to complete the last sentence in Subsection C.

Amend Section 9.4.3.C Application to read, “The regional park land dedication/in-lieu fee standards apply to all applications for subdivision, conservation development, and planned land division in the unincorporated county and, under intergovernmental agreements, all other lands within the boundaries of participating local governments.”

Section 9.7 Right –Of-Way Dedications applies to rural land plans.  However, the reference to “rural land use plans” should be changed to “rural land plans”.

Amend Section 9.7.2 Applicability to read, “Right of way dedications apply to all applications for conservation development, subdivision, planned land division, minor land division, rural land use plan rural land plan, special review, site plan review and special exception submitted under this code.”

5.     Section 12.2.5 General Development Plan

Amend Section 12.2.5. A to read, “A general development plan is an intermediate step in the land division process.  It is required for all land divisions, except rural land plans, that will be completed in more than one phase.  A general….”

Section 12.3.4 includes a reference to “rural land use plan”.   This reference should be changed to “rural land plan”.

Section 12.5 Development Construction Permit

Amend Section 12.5 to read, “Prior to the commencement of any improvements associated with an approved project, except rural land plans, the applicant must obtain a construction permit from the Larimer County Engineer.”

      6.  Section 21.1.E Violations

Since we are not requiring a construction permit for rural land plans we need to have some way for applicants to know it is okay to begin construction.  We should add information to indicate that construction cannot commence until authorized by the Director of the Rural Land Use Center.

Amend Section 21.1.E to read, “It is unlawful to commence construction of roads or other improvements until a construction permit is issued by the county engineer after final approval by the county commissioners and all post-approval requirements are met.  For rural land plans, construction cannot commence until the Director of the Rural Land Use Center authorizes the commencement of construction in writing. The county engineer may permit.…”

7.   Section 8.3  Hazard Areas

Sections 8.3.8.D and 8.3.11.A include information about documents that should be used when preparing wildfire mitigation plans.  These documents have been updated by the Colorado State Forest Service and the code should be amended to refer to the new document.

In Subsections 8.3.8.D and 8.3.11.A replace “Wildfire Mitigation Plan Standards and Guidelines (Appendix D), written by the Colorado State Forest Service, April , 1977” with “Colorado Landowner Forest Stewardship Plan (LFSP) Guidelines (Code 30), prepared by the Colorado State Forest Service.”

8.   There are a few typographical errors that need to be fixed.

            Section 4.3.3.L.5 replace the word “mariner” with “manner”.

            Section  4.3.3.A.B replace the word “tricks” with “trucks”.

 

The Development services team findings are as follows:   1. The proposed amendments to the Land Use Code are necessary to correct errors and to ensure consistency between various sections of the Code.  2.  The proposed amendments satisfy the review criteria for changes to the text of the Land Use Code.  The Development Services Team Recommendation is for approval of the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #04-CA0051 as outlined above.  Chair Rennels noted for the record that there was no one in attendance in the audience to address this issue.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Larimer County Land Use Code amendments as recommended and outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

The hearing adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2004

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#146)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioner Gibson was present.  Also present were Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioner’s Office; Russ Legg, Engineering Department; Carol Block, Director of Finance; Jeff Self and Gail Grant, Wells Fargo Bank; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Wayne Groom requested the Board's authorization to meet with the Assistant County Attorney regarding the horse boarding that is taking place next door to his property.  Mr. Groom noted that he has received correspondence from the County Attorney's office pertaining to this issue, but would he like further clarification and the County Attorney stated that she could not meet with Mr. Groom unless the Board authorized it.  The Board stated that they would not authorize a meeting as the issue is pending in court; however, they would respond to Mr. Groom in writing with clarification to his research.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 6, 2004:

 

Chair Rennels noted that Commissioner Bender is not present and requested that approval of the Minutes be tabled until December 21, 2004.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table approval of the Minutes for the week of December 6, 2004, to Tuesday, December 21, 2004.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 20, 2004: 

Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for December 14, 2004:

 

12142004A001           ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN AVI PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR NON-PROJECT SPECIFIC BRIDGE ROADWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

 

12142004A002           HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM AGREEMENT CPP003-05 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SPRINGFIELD COURT EARLY LEARNING CENTER, SUNSHINE SCHOOL AND UNITED DAY CARE d.b.a  THE CHILDCARE ALLIANCE

 

12142004A003           HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM AGREEMENT CPP010-05 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ISLAND GROVE REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTER, INC.

 

12142004A004           HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM AGREEMENT CPP011-05 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH

 

12142004R001           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following license was both approved and issued:  Fort Collins Country Club - Club license - Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

5.         ISSUANCE OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND - RIVENDELL SCHOOL PROJECT AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR INTERPRETATION (NAI)  PROJECT:  Mr. Hass noted that the Rivendell School has not obtained their 501 3C status and the must be qualified as such for the County to be able to issue the Bond.  Mr. Hass stated that they are trying to expedite the process and hopefully the Rivendell School will receive the qualification prior to December 31, 2004.  Mr. Hass stated that all is in order with the NAI project and the documents are ready for signature; however, he requested the Board approve the Rivendell School Bond Issuance subject to receipt of evidence that they become 501 3C qualified on or before December 31, 2004.  Commissioner Gibson asked if it would be better to wait and see if the qualification goes through.   Mr. Hass stated that due to the expedited nature of this issue, it would be better to have Board approval it today and then once the qualification comes through, then they can sign the documents right away and another meeting with the Board would not be necessary.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the issuance of Larimer County, Colorado Development Revenue Bond for the Rivendell School Project, and authorize the Chair to sign related documents, subject to receipt of evidence that they become 501 3C qualified on or before December 31, 2004.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the issuance of Larimer County, Colorado Development Revenue Bond for the National Association for Interpretation.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

12142004A005           FINANCING AGREEMENT AMONG THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR INTERPRETATION, AND WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

 

12142004R003           RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR INTERPRETATION PROJECT) SERIES 2004, IN A TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $730,000; MAKING DETERMINATIONS AS TO SUFFICIENCY OF REVENUES AND AS TO OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AND APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO

 

6.         REQUEST FOR A PERPETUAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON A LOT IN THE DOUGLAS FARM EXEMPTION TO ELIMINATE ALL ITS RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL:  Mr. Reidhead stated that Doug the owners of Lot 10 in the Douglas Farm Exemption wish to place a perpetual conservation easement on this lot to eliminate all its residential and commercial development potential.  Mr. Reidhead stated that this easement will remove the right to build a single-family dwelling on this lot, preserve open space and views, and allows for continuation of its historic agricultural use.  Mr. Reidhead presented and requested Board approval on the following two documents: A Deed of Conservation Easement for Lot 10, and a Resolution releasing lot sale prohibition on Lot 10, as their will be no infrastructure required on this lot once the Board accepts the easement. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Perpetual Conservation Easement on Lot 10 in the Douglas Farm Exemption to eliminate all its residential and commercial development potential by signing the Resolution and Deed.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

12142004D001           DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT (LOT 10 DOUGLAS FARM EXEMPTION 01-S1800)

 

12142004R002           RESOLUTION RELEASING LOT SALE PROHIBITION ON LOT 10 OF THE DOUGLAS FARM EXEMPTION

 

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

 

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

 

8.  LEGAL MATTERS:   (Affidavit provided) 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners to into Executive Session for Specific Legal Advice as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

The Executive Session ended at 9:50, and the following action was taken:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Attorney to work with the Building Department concerning purported zoning, building and health code violations in a building owned by Thomas J. Bassat and occupied by Mountain States Finishing as tenant, and take appropriate enforcement action including possible court action against if necessary.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.

 

 

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2004

 

BUDGET ADOPTION HEARING

(#147)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 10:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Chair Rennels presided, and Commissioners Gibson and Bender were present.  Also present were Robert Keister, County Budget Manager; Cheryl Miget and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; and Angela Myers, Deputy County Clerk. 

 

Chair Rennels explained that the purpose of the meeting is to adopt the 2004 Amended Budget and 2005 Budget and Mill Levy Certification; she then turned the meeting over to Mr. Keister.  Mr. Keister explained that the steps contained in this meeting follow the public hearings which were held on November 15 and 23, 2004, that were specifically scheduled for public comment.  Mr. Keister went on to explain that the Revised 2004 Budget contains significant revisions for the county due to carry-overs for construction projects that are carried from 2003 into 2004 and additional new revenues.  He explained that the 2004 budget would be revised by $37.624 million.  He then explained where that revision comes from and how it is financed, with the end result being $8.7 million more in the ending fund balance.

Chair Rennels asked if the additional $8.7 million in reserve funds are actually earmarked funds.  Mr. Keister answered in the affirmative and referred to the Larimer County Budget System Report summary that shows where the fund changes are to be directed.  He confirmed that each fund has to be expended only for the purposes noted and that each has its own purpose.  He went on to explain that each of the changes have already come before the Board of County Commissioners for approval and have been approved, or they are items that the County Manager has authority to grant.

Commissioner Gibson asked for clarification of the Line Item 214 on the Larimer County Budget System Report, regarding Open Lands-Community Park Fees.  Mr. Keister explained that the amount in Line Item 214 represents the Commissioners agreement to take the fund balance from the long-term management fund and allow it to be used for purchases, which, therefore, decreases the fund balance of the long-term management fund by $3.631 million.  Mr. Keister then asked if that explanation is what the Commissioners understood, and he received an affirmative response.

Mr. Keister requested that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Notice and Resolution to Transfer Funds and Amend the 2004 Budget.

Chair Rennels invited public comment prior to the motion.  There was no public comment.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Notice and Resolution to Transfer Funds and Amend the 2004 Budget.

Motion carried 3-0.

12172004R001 NOTICE TO AMEND THE 2004 BUDGET

 

Mr. Keister continued by explaining that the second item of business is to adopt the 2005 Budget and to review changes that have been made since the 2005 Budget was presented and proposed to the Commissioners on October 15th by the County Manager and what will be adopted today.  He went on to explain that the final budget, with all of the changes, is $692,021 less than originally proposed.  The changes were discussed. 

Commissioner Gibson asked about the change on the Public Trustee line item of $73,000 in additional expenses.  Mr. Keister explained that statutes do not provide for the Commissioners to have any authority over the Public Trustee’s budget, rather statute requires that the Public Trustee creates their own budget and merely lists it inside the county budget.

Mr. Keister explained that Commissioner Gibson requested that language in Section 10 be added to the resolution indicating that the Commissioners put money into the Sheriff’s budget for the specific purpose of five additional patrol deputies and that the money must be used solely for that purpose.  Much discussion ensued.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2005 Budget with the language in Section 10.

Motion failed 2-1 (Chair Rennels and Commissioner Bender dissented).

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2005 Budget without the language in Section 10.

 

Chair Rennels asked if there was any discussion on the topic prior to a vote.  Commissioner Gibson clarified that the Commissioners’ intent for the additional dollars added to the Sheriff’s budget is specifically for the addition of five deputies.  Chair Rennels and Commissioner Bender responded in the affirmative.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12172004R002 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR LARIMER COUNTY GOVERNMENT

 

Mr. Keister explained that the next item on the agenda provides for adoption of a series of resolutions for separate taxing entities, as listed, which sets the budget and mill levy for each of the entities listed.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution to Adopt the 2005 Budgets and Set Levies: Other Entities.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12172004R003 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PEST DISTRICT

12172004R004 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER PUBLIC TRUSTEE

12172004R005 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #1 IMPERIAL ESTATES

12172004R006 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #2 PINEWOOD SPRINGS

12172004R007 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #4 CARRIAGE HILLS

12172004R008 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #8 NAMAQUA HILLS

12172004R009 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #10 HOMESTEAD ESTATES

12172004R010 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #11 MEADOWDALE HILLS

12172004R011 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #12 CLUB ESTATES

12172004R012 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #13A RED FEATHER

12172004R013 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #14 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD

12172004R014 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #15 SKYVIEW SOUTH

12172004R015 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #16 KITCHELL SUBDIVISION

12172004R016 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #17 COUNTRY MEADOWS

12172004R017 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #18 VENNER RANCH

12172004R018 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #19 HIGHLAND HILLS

12172004R019 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #20 PTMARIGAN

12172004R020 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #21 SOLAR RIDGE

12172004R021 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #22 SADDLEBACK

12172004R022 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #24 WESTRIDGE

12172004R023 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #1991-1 ARAPAHOE PINES

12172004R024 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #28 TROTWOOD

12172004R025 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #29 VINE DRIVE

12172004R026 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2005 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #30 POUDRE OVERLOOK

Mr. Keister proceeded on to the next agenda item concerning approval of a resolution appropriating (setting spending limits) sums of money for each department and provided some explanation of the resolution.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution to Appropriate Sums of Money for 2005, which sets the limits for spending for each Larimer County department.

Motion carried 3-0.

12172004R028 RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY FOR 2005

 

Mr. Keister proceeded on to the next agenda item concerning designation of the ending fund balances, and some discussion ensued.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution to Designate Ending 2005 Fund Balances.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12172004R027  RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE ENDING 2005 FUND BALANCES

Mr. Keister went on to explain the final agenda item, certification of levies and revenue. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Certification of Levies and Revenue.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Lancaster requested that the Commissioners consider approving the letter regarding Highway 287, in order to get it on the record.  Chair Rennels explained that the Commissioners have discussed this issue in the past.  She explained that the letter will be sent to JF Sato & Associates to record the LaPorte bypass environmental assessment, and must be post marked by today’s date.  The letter quantifies that this is a significantly different project than the Commissioners saw in 1999, since now the project impact 40 to 45 structures, including two businesses, rather than the original 7 structures understood in 1999.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the letter be sent to J.F. Sato & Associates regarding the Highway 287, LaPorte bypass project.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________________

                                                                        KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

                                                                        BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

 

ATTEST

 

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk

 

 

___________________________________

Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk

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