Larimer County Offices, Courts, District Attorney, Landfill, Household Hazardous Waste, and Recycle Center are all closed on Thanksgiving Day, November 26, 2015.
County Offices are also closed on Friday, November 27 while the Courts, District Attorney, Landfill, Household Hazardous Waste, and Recycle Center are open. Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2006
LAND USE HEARING
(#98 & #99)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present. Also present were: Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Matt Johnson, and Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Dave Shirk, Estes Park Community Development Department; Porter Ingrum, Larry Timm, and David Karan, Planning Department; Karlin Goggin, Building Inspection; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; George Haas, County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and the Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics. Chair Gibson noted that staff is requesting that Item 1, regarding the Eagle Rock School Trail Easement, be tabled to September 11, 2006.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Eagle Rock School Trail Easement to September 11, 2006, at 3:00 p.m.
Motion carried 3-0.
Chair Gibson then explained that Items 2 through 4 are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
2. HALLETT HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT: This is a request to subdivide a 2.5-acre “A-1” zoned property into five individual lots. Because this property is zoned “A-1” it may be used for either single-family residential or accommodation use. Either use density is calculated at four units per acre, adjusted for slopes greater than twelve percent. The lot size has been increased from the minimum of 15,000 square feet to account for slope (per Section 7.1), and the lots have been designed such that only one unit can be built per lot, providing a full build out of five units. Maximum allowed density for this property is nine units, if built as a “cabin resort” operation. Therefore, this proposed subdivision will reduce the potential density on this property from nine units to five units. Units built on a single lot require 10,890 square feet per unit, whereas the minimum lot size requirement for each lot is 15,000 square feet. This difference accounts for the reduction in density. The existing house will be located on proposed Lot 2, and will continue to receive access via the newly named Mary’s Lake Lane. Lot 1 will also have access via Lake Lane. This long established drive will need to be renamed in accordance with the Larimer County Street Naming system, but is something that will need to be done at some point anyway. Lots 3-5 will receive access from a shared driveway, also to be named, that will provide access from an extension of Silver Tree Lane (under construction). All utilities are available to serve the proposed subdivision.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Hallett Heights Subdivision Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions:
3. HALLETT HEIGHTS FINAL PLAT: This is a request subdivide a 2.5-acre “A-1” zoned property into five individual lots. This proposal complies with the preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval of the requested Hallett Heights Subdivision Final Plat subject to the following condition:
4. SILO ESTATES SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT - #05-S2394: This is a request for preliminary plat approval for a subdivision of an 18.27 acre parcel into 6 lots ranging in size from 2.3 acres to 3 acres. The request also includes two appeals to Sections 8.14.2.Q and 8.14.2. N of the Land Use Code, which concern emergency access standards and public right-of-way road standards.
The Planning Commission and Development Services Team recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Silo Estates Subdivision, File #05-S2394, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat of the Silo Estates Subdivision shall be completed in strict compliance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat and other information submitted by the applicant and contained File #05-S2394, unless modified by the conditions of this approval.
2. The applicant shall provide a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat. This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project. The notice shall include, but is not limited to; the issues related to rural development and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.
3. The following fees shall be collected prior to recordation of the development agreement: Larimer County fees for Transportation Capital Expansion and Development Construction Permit Fees, Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication and Thompson School District R2-J fees.
4. The applicant shall place a fire hydrant near the intersection of County Road 21 and Dune Place. The fire hydrant costs shall be included in the estimate for the subdivision improvement costs as outlined in the Development Agreement.
5. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures in this development. Radon detection tests are required in all new residential structures on this site. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the Planning Department once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for a radon tester that specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 2-4, as presented on the consent agenda and outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. MARY’S LAKE ROAD REZONING: The residents of 1750, 1840, 1850, 1854, and 1860, Mary’s Lake Road, have requested their properties be rezoned from “A-1” Accommodations to “RE” Rural Estate. The purpose of this “down-zoning” request is to minimize future development potential in this neighborhood, which has seen three subdivision proposals within the last two years (Mary’s Lake Ridge, Hallett Heights, and Silver Tree Lane). This proposed rezoning would reduce potential development in the area from approximately seventy-six units to approximately twenty-nine units, of which twelve have been built or are in the process of approval (leaving a maximum potential of seventeen additional units). This density calculation includes all properties accessed from Mary’s Lake Road, including those not proposed to be rezoned.
Mr. Shirk explained that there has been development pressure put on the current residents who do not want to see an increase in the growth of their neighborhood. He stated that this request is considered a voluntary down-zoning by the current residents. Commissioner Rennels explained that she would support the applicant's request.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed rezoning of 1750, 1840, 1850, 1854, and 1860, Mary’s Lake Road.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE: Mr. Shirk explained that this is a request to amend a portion of the Estes Valley Development Code that affects only downtown Estes Park and does not affect any portion of Larimer County. During the summer of 2005, Community Development Staff processed a variance to allow a computer kiosk in the downtown area. This variance request brought a needed code revision to staff’s attention. The code revision is intended to allow ATM machines and computer kiosks as an allowed outdoor activity in the downtown area. This change will not affect any property outside of the central downtown area. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Estes Valley Development Code.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to Section 4.4.D.1a(3) and Section13.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. BREITSTEIN-PHIPPS MINOR LAND DIVISION - #06-S2598: Mr. Karan stated that the applicant requests approval of a Minor Land Division to adjust a metes-and-bounds parcel boundary resulting in reduction of one lot to less than 35 acres. Also, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the processing fee.
The purpose of this Minor Land Division (MLD) is to move the property line between two meets-and-bounds parcels. Board of County Commissioners approval is required because this proposal results in one lot less than 35 acres. Therefore, the change in boundaries is being processed as a Minor Land Division. There will be two steps to the process: 1) Reconfiguration of parcels 35+ acres and, 2) recording of the MLD.
STEP 1: Parcel # 04130-00-009 (one Phipps parcel) is a tax parcel with two non-contiguous pieces. The two portions of the parcel are separated by an intervening parcel and a road. Mr. Phipps also owns the intervening parcel (04130-00-015). Prior to the recording of the MLD approval, Mr. Phipps shall reconfigure his two properties to consolidate the “orphan” portion of parcel #04130-00-009 with a portion of parcel #04130-00-015. Both parcels resulting from these Quit Claim Deeds will be 35 or more acres in accordance with the subdivision exemption allowed by Colorado Senate Bill 35.
STEP 2: The MLD involves the resulting parcel and Mr. Breitstein's land. Approximately 5 acres of Mr. Breitstein's property will be added to Mr. Phipp’s property (04130-00-015). An appeal to LCLUC (Larimer County Land Use Code) Section 8.14.2.I stating that, “Lots can not be divided by a . . . road or another lot” is not required due to the existing condition. A plat note and deed restriction will be included consistent with LCLUC Section 4.1.2.B.4 that, “No parcel can be used for more than one principle building . . .”
Staff has no objection to approval of the Minor Land Division. There are a number of engineering issues which need to be resolved and are covered by Conditions of Approval 2-4. Most importantly, this section of County Road 8E has not been dedicated to the County. It will be dedicated with this plat (see Condition #4). The Health Department commented on utility easements and future septic systems. No addressing changes are required at this time but may be imposed in the future due to the shared access to Lot 2. Code Compliance points out that there is an outstanding building permit for parcel #04130-00-015 for a horse barn and an unpermitted loafing shed.
The applicant is appealing the processing fee. He requests a reduction from the $1000 MLD application fee to the $300 fee for Boundary Line Adjustments. In his view, the changes could have been accomplished by a Boundary Line Adjustment and points out that processing as an MLD has resulted in: 1) an extended review, 2) being subject to additional review and 3) additional survey costs. Staff’s view is that other applicants have paid the full processing fee in a variety of situations requiring a Minor Land Division. There are no apparent extenuating circumstances. As a matter of fairness, the Planning Director denied the requested fee reduction.
Rob Persichette, applicant, addressed the Board and discussed the disadvantages to applying for a Minor Land Division as opposed to a Boundary Line Adjustment. He said that the additional submittal fees and survey fees were much more costly for a MLD.
Wayne Phipps, applicant, discussed the natural boundary that divides Outlot A from Lot 1. This is the section of land that Mr. Phipps wishes to buy from Mr. Persichette, with the intent that it will be used as a pasture and grazing.
At this time Mr. Helmick expressed his concerns with the isolation of Outlot A. He explained that the BLA process can’t be used, and there will need to be a plat for dedication purposes. An “orphaned parcel” would be created without the option to build on the land, and there is a strong need for the parcel across the road to be joined. Much discussion ensued among the Commissioners, the applicants, and staff.
Mr. Phipps explained that he wants the Outlot A to remain an Outlot, and would agree to a deed restriction on that particular lot, as long as it didn’t jeopardize the possibility to build on Lot 2. Commissioner Rennels agreed that the parcel could be left as Outlot A, but a deed restriction would be associated with that particular lot. Commissioner Gibson expressed his concern with restricting the use of the land, and questioned how this decision would affect owners in the future. It was discussed that a continued conversation with the Assessor’s office needs to take place regarding Outlot A, and Lot 2.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners table Item 7, regarding the Breitstein-Phipps Minor Land Division - File #06-S2598, to September 5, 2006, to allow time for more discussion between the applicants, staff, and the Assessor’s office.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. RURAL ADDRESSING RESOLUTION AMENDMENT - #06-CAC0002: Mr. Timm explained that this is a request to make a number of changes to the adopted Road Naming and Site Addressing Resolution. He stated that the project is taking much longer than anticipated, and it is critical to move forward with this portion of the project before the ground freezes. However, if a decision is made that community names will continue to be used, the process needs to be stopped now, so the appropriate changes can be made.
The Rural Addressing Improvement Project has completed the two test areas and completed all fieldwork in southern Larimer County. After several public meetings and citizen input regarding the resolution requirements, staff listened to concerns and gathered input. The Technical Committee realized that some of the guidelines set by the resolution seemed inflexible when applied to some address change situations.
The Technical Committee has been working for several months to draft more reasonable changes to the resolution as a result of citizen input. The first notable change pertains to the classification of naming new roads. As the resolution stands now, any access serving more than one (1) parcel or lot must have a road name. Many properties are served by a shared access or short roads that serve one, two, and sometimes three parcels/lots. Staff reviewed these under the current resolution and required a road name. However, practically speaking, in driving the County and seeing the situations, staff felt the resolution was inflexible and did not allow for these common access points serving one, two, and three parcels to be exempt from naming a road. Many of these situations were being appealed and upheld creating the exemptions to the resolution, thus, staff recognized citizens request and the situations presented by the appeals, and decided on the amendment to Section 5 B(1)(a). This section oversees the naming of new roads. Currently the resolution provides that any access and road serving more than 1 parcel/lot shall have a road name. Staff recommends the resolution be amended to allow flexibility in naming new roads which will comply with the United States Postal Service standards for the requirement of road naming. The section will now read: All public or private roads, including private access easements, that serve more than one (1) parcel shall be named, have road name signs, and have address ranges calculated, except that a road name and road name sign is not required when the road provides vehicular access to not more than three (3) parcels/lots, does not exceed one-quarter mile in distance (1320 feet), and address numbers for all parcels/lots are posted in a location visible from the intersection with the road having a name. This preserves the intent of the addressing resolution while meeting citizens’ requests for a more reasonable approach to naming new roads.
The second amendment staff is proposing is an addition to the resolution pertaining to historically significant road names. Over the course of completing the two test areas and some of southern Larimer County, many residents find the desire to name new roads after family longevity in the area. The resolution does not allow for proper names, however, the historical significance definition would allow for an exception. Staff finds no adequate resources available, for example a Historical Society that can verify the validity of historical significance for the road names being requested. Staff proposes that any proper name that is submitted for a new road name which desires to be classified as historically significant be appealed direct to the Board of County Commissioners for a public hearing and motion. The applicant would be required to provide recorded documentation and supporting evidence that a family surname is historically significant to Larimer County.
The third change to the resolution pertains to the current road sign standards. Associated with naming roads, the County has a responsibility to provide road signs that are compliant with road standards. After several public meetings staff has gathered information that our current standard green metal signs are too urbanized for rural Larimer County. Staff proposes the definition be changed to provide all new signs will be green background signs with reflective lettering in Ranges 68 & 69; and all new signs will be brown background signs in Ranges 70-78. In previous discussions with citizens, the brown reflective signs for use in the mountain ranges were received more openly than the current green background standard. Staff will also require the signs with a green background will be the standard used for all intersections with mainline County roads and state highways.
And lastly, Section 7 Appeals has been extended. Citizens expressed the need for further clarification on how appeals may be received, and what the process is regarding the appeal. Staff also recommends implementation of a deadline for appeals. Appeals may be received any time from the initial public meetings up to thirty (30) days after official notification of address assignment. This gives the citizens approximately seven (7) months from beginning to end for the appeal. The resolution currently does not have a set limitation on appeals, thus can create problems with appeal requests on addresses many years after the improvement project is completed.
Jacquelyn Harp, a resident of Sedona Hills Court, addressed the Board, and asked for another amendment to Section 5 B(1)(a) since her road slightly exceeds 1320 feet. It was explained that there is always a request for an amendment when specifics are included. However, it was stated that it would be possible for her to file an appeal to the proposed new rules.
Mark Worthington, Steve Childs, and Dennis Buck, all residents of the proposed addressing change area, explained the importance of maintaining community identity, and would like to see more time spent discussing options with United States Postal Service. They all wish to see the process stopped now before there is an impact on 100 year old community names.
Mr. Timm and Ms. Goggin explained that it is within the scope of the County’s authority to change the street number and road name, without question. However, it is not within the County's authority to allow residents to decide the city, state, and zip code. This option has not been part of the work plan, and changes now would be considered out of the scope of the initial project, and additional time and funding would be needed.
Discussion among the Commissioners and staff ensued, and it was decided that staff will continue to move forward with the original intentions of the project along with the creation of street signs, minus Section 6(B)(1)(d) of the resolution.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Larimer County Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution, minus Section 6(B)(1)(d) whereas the lettering of Section 6(B)(1) will need to be readjusted.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting recessed at 5:00 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
(#100 & 101)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present. Also present were: Al Kadera, Planning Department; Neil Gluckman, Commissioners' Office; George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Helmick requested that Item 1, regarding the Deep Water Metro District, be tabled to December 11, 2006 at the request of the applicant. Richard Seaworth, applicant, stated that he would like the hearing to be tabled for an additional 90 days.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table Item 1, concerning the Deep Water Metro District, to December 11, 2006, at 3:00 p.m.
Motion carried 3-0.
2. AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE - #06-CA0060: This is a request to make a number of changes to the Larimer County Land Use Code. Items number one and five were the only items that generated any discussion at the Planning Commission hearing. Items two through four were recommended for approval without any discussion.
Item number one, Group Homes, was opposed by several members of the audience. The testimony indicated that the state law was only changed because Jefferson County requested the amendment and Larimer County really had no reason to propose this amendment. Staff reviewed several Front Range County’s land use codes and found that none of those surveyed included the owner occupancy or operation by a non-profit agency in their definitions of group homes. Some of the Planning Commissioners reviewed the letter submitted by the State Civil Rights Commission and discussed the merits of the proposed Code amendment. Their general comment was that more of these facilities will be needed in the future and if the County puts too many restrictions on them, there will not be enough of them to accommodate the need. The Planning Commission recommended that the definitions of group homes be changed to allow from two to eight persons. In making the change to the number of persons to be accommodated in a group home, the Planning Commissioners noted that any time there are two to eight persons the facility should be defined as a group home so it has oversight by the state.
Item number five, Administrative Variance for Setbacks in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts, was opposed by one member of the audience who proposed that the setback requirements in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts be changed back the way they were before the adoption of the Land Use Code. At one point he Planning Commission moved to table this item when staff explained that the adoption of this amendment could be helpful to property owners who might want to take advantage of the administrative variance procedure and we can always go back and review the setback requirements of the Land Use Code. The Planning Commission rescinded the motion to table and, instead, voted to recommend approval and directed staff to bring the discussion of setbacks to a future work session.
Mr. Kadera stated that he had a request to table the first item listed in the amendments and asked if the Board wished to hear from Mark Korb regarding this request. The Board agreed to hear Mr. Korb's request. Mr. Korb, speaking individually and on behalf of the Terry Shores Homeowners Association, requested that the Board table the decision on amendments to Group Homes, as there are policy decisions to be made in light of the changes to the laws surrounding this issue. Brief discussion ensued, and the Board decided to proceed with the hearing as scheduled.
Mr. Kadera then presented the following changes concerning Group Homes:
Item 1. Group Homes
In Section 4.1, in each zoning district that includes the “Residential” category of uses, add Group Home for the Mentally Ill and change Group Home for the Elderly to Group Home for the Aged.
Amend Section 4.3.E and F as follows and add 4.3.I Group Home for the Mentally Ill
E. Group home for the developmentally disabled. A single-family dwelling occupied by two to eight people who are developmentally disabled.
1. A group home must be licensed by the State of Colorado as appropriate prior to occupancy.
2. No more than eight developmentally disabled persons can be housed in such a group home not including staff
3. Developmentally disabled means people having cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, mental retardation, autism or epilepsy.
4. Anyone proposing to occupy a single-family dwelling as a group home for the developmentally disabled must demonstrate by competent evidence that there are no other such group homes, as defined in Section 4.2 E, F, and I, within 750 feet of the proposed facility.
. A group home for the
developmentally disabled must be occupied by the owner or be operated by a
nonprofit agency as defined by the State of Colorado .
F. Group home for the
aged. A single-family dwelling occupied by two to eight
people who are 60 or older.
1. A group home for the
aged must be licensed by the State of Colorado as appropriate prior to occupancy.
2. No more than eight people
can occupy a group home for the
elderly aged not including staff
3. Anyone proposing to occupy a
single-family dwelling as a group home for the
elderly aged must
demonstrate by competent evidence that there are no other such group homes, as
defined in Section 4.2 E, F, and I, within 750 feet of the proposed facility.
A group home for the
elderly must be occupied by the owner or operated by a nonprofit agency as
defined by the State of Colorado .
4.3.I Group Home for the Mentally Ill A single family dwelling occupied by two to eight people who are mentally ill as defined in Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-115.
1. A group home for the mentally ill must be licensed by the State of Colorado as appropriate prior to occupancy.
2. Not more than eight people can occupy a group home for the mentally ill not including staff.
3. Anyone proposing to occupy a single family dwelling as a group home for the mentally ill must demonstrate by competent evidence that there are no other such group homes, as defined in Section 4.2 E, F, and I, within 750 feet of the proposed facility.
4. No person shall be placed in a group home for the mentally ill unless they qualify pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-115.
Chair Gibson opened the hearing up for public comment and the following individuals addressed the Board in support of Group Homes: Doug and Pat Macallister, John Slager, Jim and Lisa Barlow, Bob Hoffert, Gerald and Virginia Callahan, Gwen Feit, Scott Williams, Scott Beethe, Terry and Renee Mize, and Margaret Griffin. All explained the need for facilities for elder-care, and all agreed that the home-like/family style environment that the Macallister's provide in the Meadowlark and Terry Lake Assisted Living homes create a much better experience for the elderly than the typical institutionalized environment. All explained that the impacts to the neighborhood are negligible and they requested that the Board allow this practice to continue even if the homes are not owner occupied or operated by a non-profit organization.
Barbara Cavarra, Mike Loughlin, Kevin Pazdernik, Jim McCauley, Barbara Wolf, and Mark Korb, addressed the Board, all with some reservations about how group homes could have possible negative impacts to a neighborhood. They requested that the Board take time to fully consider all possible ramifications and proceed slowly and with caution in making changes to the Land Use Code concerning group homes.
Chair Gibson closed public comment. Some discussion ensured amongst the Board regarding the state requirements concerning group homes. Mr. Hass explained that the amendments must be adopted in order to comply with the law. He explained that there are no other provisions in the land use code requiring that certain properties be owner occupied, as owner occupancy is a licensing decision and it is not tied to land use. The Board agreed to adopt the proposed changes, and asked Mr. Kadera to schedule a worksession to discuss details such as the state licensing procedure for group homes.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed changes to the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding Group Homes, as amended and outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
Mr. Kadera then explained the remaining proposed changes to the land use code as follows:
Item 2. FO-Forestry and FO-1 Forestry Zoning
When Section 4 of the Land Use Code was compiled from the old Zoning Resolution the riding academy, boarding stable and country club/golf course uses were omitted from FO-Forestry and FO-1 Forestry. This amendment is to put these uses back into these zoning districts.
In Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 add Boarding Stable
(S) under the Agricultural heading and add Riding Academy (S), Golf Course (S)
and Country Club (S) under the Recreational heading. Renumber the uses
Item 3. Sawmill
Sawmill is listed as an industrial use in several zoning districts however there is no definition or use description.
Add a new definition of “Sawmill” and add a new subsection 4.3.7.L Sawmill to read as follows:
“A facility where logs or partially processed cants are sawn, split, shaved, stripped, chipped or otherwise processed to produce wood products, not including the processing of timber for use on the same lot by the owner or resident of the lot.”
Item 4. Section 5.13.6 Building Permits
Section5.13.6 indicates when building permit applications will be accepted and when building permits will be issued in new developments. Section 25 of the development agreement also includes information concerning the issuance of building permits. These two documents are not consistent and this amendment is intended to bring them together. This amendment will not change the current practice in the building department.
The Engineering Department is no longer inspecting individual driveway culverts therefore it makes sense to delete 5.13.6.B.2.c.
5.13.6. Building permits.
A. A building permit will not be accepted for processing on property that has a valid application pending for review of a variance, special exception, special review, site plan, rezoning, subdivision, conservation development, planned land division, minor land division, minor special review, amended plat or rural land plan.
B. The building department may accept applications for building permits after a site plan, variance or rezoning is approved. The building department may accept applications for building permits on property subject to a special exception or a special review after all requirements of Section 12.6 of this code are met. The building department may accept applications for building permits for individual lots in approved subdivisions, conservation developments and planned land divisions as follows:
1. Footing and foundation permits for new construction will be accepted only after the following have occurred:
a. Over lot grading is complete, and the county engineer has inspected and approved the grading;
b. Final grading of drainage easements and the installation of the stormwater drainage system is complete, and the county engineer has inspected and approved the grading and installation; and
c. Construction of the roadway sub-grade and installation of the aggregate base course, or other all-weather surface, for the roadway serving the project is completed and inspected and approved by the county engineer, and acceptable density tests for the subgrade and utility trenches have been submitted to and approved by the county engineer.
d. Street signs are properly installed at all intersections and have been inspected and approved by the county engineer.
2. Full building permits for new construction will be issued only after the following have occurred:
a. Roadway surfacing at least through aggregate base course or plant mix bituminous base application is complete; the county engineer has inspected and approved the surfacing and density tests for the applied material have been submitted to and approved by the county engineer;
b. Public water and sewer systems are completely constructed, and evidence of acceptance by the appropriate water, sewer and fire protection providers has been submitted to the county engineer; and
C. No structure can be occupied until a certificate of occupancy is accepted by the building department.
Item 5. Administrative Variance for Setbacks in O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts
Both of these zoning districts have a ten-acre minimum lot size. When the Steering Committee (Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners) was meeting to discuss the adoption of the Land Use Code there was a general review of all the zoning districts. It was noted that these districts had the largest minimum lot size and some of the smallest setbacks (five feet from side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line). The Steering Committee directed staff to change the setbacks in these districts to be 25 feet from both the side and rear lot lines. The thinking was that it is inconsistent to have the largest minimum lot size and smallest setback requirements in the same zoning districts. The E-Estate District, for instance, has a 2.5 acre minimum lot size and 50-foot setbacks. We slightly amended this directive because the ten acre minimum lot size in the O-Open District was not enacted until November 29, 1973 so we wrote the code to require the large setbacks only on parcels that were created after that date. The RE-Rural Estate District was not created until 1985 so we did not put a similar provision in this district.
At one of our work sessions there was a public comment about the setbacks and a recommendation to change them back to the way they were. Rather than changing the setbacks we could make this an administrative process with approval by the Planning Director, much like a minor variance. If an addition is proposed for an existing building that meets the previous setbacks or a new building “lines up” with an existing building that meets the previous setbacks, the Planning Director would be authorized to approve the addition. If anyone objects to the variance, the matter would be considered by the Board of Adjustment.
Add a new Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance.
The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts which meet the following criteria.
A. The required side and rear setbacks on the lot are 25 feet;
B. An addition to an existing building is proposed and the addition will be at least five feet from the side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line; or
C. A new building is proposed and the building will match the setback of an existing building along the same lot line that is at least five feet from the side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line;
D. A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners adjacent to the subject property and no objections were stated; and
review criteria in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable.
The decision of the planning director can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.
A reference to the administrative variance also needs to be added to the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts.
Amend Section 4.1.5.B.3 to read, “Minimum setbacks for lots created after November 29, 1973. See Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance.”
Amend Section 4.1.8.B.2, Minimum setbacks to read, “Minimum setbacks. See Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance.”
In order to keep all the variance references in one place we also recommend moving Section 8.17.3, Minor setback variances to Section 4.6.8. This results in Section 8.17.4 being renumbered to be 8.17.3.
Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment.
Evelyn King, concerned citizen and Board of Adjustment member, stated that she felt the proposal is too narrowly written. She stated that there needs to be broader administrative variance procedure in place and it needs to apply to all zoning districts, and be applied equally in all cases. She asked the Board to rescind the setback changes to the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts in order to allow property owners to utilize all of their property for their best interests. Ms. King further requested the Board to table the proposed changes and re-write them in broader terms.
Doug Kindsfater stated that he does not believe it is fair for the County to force these stringent requirements. He stated that $500 is a ridiculous amount to pay for a variance. Mr. Kindsfater explained that he would like to build a loafing shed on his property; however, the restrictive setbacks are creating a problem for him in placing this shed. Mr. Kindsfater stated that the cost to build the shed is approximately $1000, yet he will have to pay $500 just to present the idea.
Chair Gibson closed public comment. Under discussion of the proposed changes, the Board agreed that Ms. King had valid points, but they were not in favor of tabling the proposed changes, as their may be individuals that could immediately benefit from the changes once adopted. However, they agreed to put this issue on the agenda and continue to work with Planning Staff on resolving this issue.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Land Use Code amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, and outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2006
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Rennels and Wagner were present. Also present were: Deni LaRue and Neil Gluckman, Commissioners’ Office; Gary Buffington, Mike Carroll and Jennifer Gorek, Parks and Open Lands; Dave Spencer, Facilities; David Lentz, Forestry; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; Mark Peterson, Engineering; Dale Miller, Road and Bridge; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEKS OF AUGUST 8 and AUGUST 14, 2006:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of August 8, 2006, as amended.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of August 14, 2006, as amended.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 28, 2006: The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the schedule.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for August 22, 2006:
08222006A001 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND MID-ATLANTIC SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS, LLC
08222006A002 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CENTENNIAL FARM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY; SALOMONSON BROTHERS, LLC; SALOMONSON REVOCABLE TRUST; AND CENTENNIAL FARM RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION
08222006A003 AGREEMENT CONCERNING BUILDING IN PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY OF LARIMER COUNTY ROAD 23 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND CAREY J. SALOMONSON AND DONNA L. SALOMONSON REVOCABLE TRUST
08222006A004 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR LINK LANE AND LINCOLN AVENUE INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND DON KEHN CONSTRUCTION, INC.
08222006A005 UTILITY POTHOLING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND SAGE (STC)
08222006A006 LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY THROUGH LARIMER COUNTY WORKFORCE CENTER AND LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH
08222006A007 PROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY THROUGH LARIMER COUNTY WORKFORCE CENTER AND PROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY
08222006A008 CONTRACT FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND RKG, INC.
08222006A009 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SAGE VALLEY CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND JOSH AND PATTI SAGE
08222006R001 RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR SAGE VALLEY CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Closeout Package for Program Year 2005; Final Plat for Centennial Farm Conservation Development File 03-52207; Final Plat for Sage Valley Conservation Development; Governing Body Letter of Support for GOCO Grants for Hermit Park Project in the Estes Valley; Permit Renewal Application for Larimer County Landfill.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were approved and issued: Loveland Country Store, Loveland – 3.2% Beer Retail; City Limits Lounge, Fort Collins – Tavern.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. PURCHASE OF NEW WEEDS/FORESTRY BUILDING: Mr. Buffington explained that this is an opportunity for the Weed District/Forestry staff to be located in one place, and provides for improved customer service and efficiencies within the department. Mr. Spencer explained that Facilities has looked closely at this opportunity and is in full support of this purchase, based on the improved efficiencies and customer service it will provide.
Discussion ensued regarding the various efficiencies and improvements this purchase will provide when compared with how business is being handled at this point. Discussion continued regarding handling of chemicals in this new facility, accommodation of training programs, and the fact that this will be the purchase of a condominium property. Mr. Spencer explained that the County Attorneys have been active participants in the process thus far, and the condominium association is fully aware of how the County will be using this site.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve documents for the purchase of a commercial building for the Weed District and Forestry programs at a central location with improved public access; including: Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate; Resolution Approving Loan from Parks Fund to Weed District Fund; and Mulberry Commercial Park Condominium Consent.
Motion carried 3-0.
08222006A010 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE
08222006R002 RESOLUTION APPROVING LOAN FROM PARKS FUND TO WEED DISTRICT FUND
MISCELLANEOUS: Mulberry Commercial Park Condominium Association Consent/Larimer County Weed District
6. CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF ROADSIDE MEMORIAL SIGNING PROGRAM: Mr. Engemoen shared copies with all present of a brochure produced by the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding the State’s Roadside Memorial Signing Program. He explained that many families in Larimer County who lose loved ones to road fatalities erect roadside memorials to those who perished at that particular location. He went on to explain that the purpose of this discussion is to determine if the Board is interested in pursuing a program that would provide a roadside “memorial” option for families that has a more standard appearance and, at the same time, provides a public service.
Discussion ensued regarding how these signs would look, cost to the grieving families, the length of time such signs would be displayed, and similar practices in other areas. Discussion continued regarding the requests for such a program that have been made by grieving families, safety issues caused by “ad hoc” memorials, and how the program will be developed.
The Board unanimously agreed that Mr. Engemoen should pursue development of a roadside memorial signing program with anticipated presentation to the Board before the end of the year. The Board generally agreed that the grieving family should bare the cost of the second sign that includes the name of the lost loved one, and that the County would bare the cost of the public service portion of the sign. The Board also generally agreed that the program should provide a particular list of public service options for the families to choose from, rather than allowing families to author the public service portion.
7. REQUEST TO WAIVER 45-DAY APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EVENT: Mr. Lancaster explained that Circus Chimera of Hugo, Oklahoma, is scheduled to setup at the Cloverleaf Dog Track from September 11th through September 13th. This date is within the 45-day time frame for application for a special event on private land, which is why Circus Chimera is requesting a waiver of the 45-day window for the special event permit application.
Discussion ensued regarding the location of the Cloverleaf Dog Track and the suggestion that Cloverleaf Dog Track be reminded that such events typically require a 45-Day Application process.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a waiver for the special event permit application for Circus Chimera.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster explained that based on the premise that there probably needs to be an impact fee for use of the county jail by local cities, bids were requested from consultants who would perform a study to determine what this fee should be. Four bids were received, ranging in price from $19,700 to $37,266. None were from local or Colorado companies.
Discussion ensued regarding what types of things would be included in such a study, city involvement and/or “buy-in” of the concept of charging this additional fee, and what will be done with the information generated by such a study.
It was agreed that an email would be sent from Chair Gibson to the mayor of each city that would be affected by such a fee, in an effort to determine the likelihood they will support the charging of such a fee and whether or not they would be willing to assist in funding (even with a “token” amount) of the study to determine what a reasonable fee would be.
9. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week. There was some discussion regarding the procedures for County Commissioner Advisory Boards to follow when they desire to lobby or publicly comment on a specific issue.
10. LEGAL MATTERS: There were no legal matters for discussion at this time.
The meeting ended at 10:43 a.m.
GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk