MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, September 17, 2007
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Gibson were present. Also present were: Dave Shirk, Estes Valley Planning; Christie Coleman, Engineering; Samantha Mott, Planning; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health; Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics. Dave Shirk addressed the Board and explained that there had been an administrative oversight and that the third item on the agenda, as staff and applicant are in agreement on the matter and there have been no objections from neighbors or others.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve moving the High Drive Heights, Lots 5 and 6 Division 7, Amended Plat onto the Consent Agenda.
Motion carried 3-0.
Chair Rennels explained that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience:
1. BRUCKBAUER MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #07-Z1656: This a request to consider allowing a Home Occupation to be conducted in a detached accessory building, and to allow the use to occupy the maximum allowance of 1200 square feet. According to the Home Occupation regulations these requests can be approved through the Minor Special Review process if the Board of County Commissioners find compliance with the standards can be achieved.
The applicant intends the building for machine shop/trade use, which is use allowed as a home occupation. The nature of this use is the making of small parts for motorcycles, which process involves machinery such as lathes and cutting devices. The applicant has indicated that the machines generate some noise, but the noise is no greater than that produced by an idling car.
The property where this proposed use is planned is situated on the west side of County Road 25E (Glade Road), approximately one mile north of County Road 24H. The property is 1.26 acres in area and is occupied by a single family residence and a small detached garage. The applicant desires to add a new detached structure along the western boundary of the property, which building will be 1600 square feet in area.
The terrain of the property slopes to the west away from the roadway and the views of the new building will be minimal from the road. Several hundred feet to the west of the property is a single family residence and accessory buildings. The accessory buildings on the adjacent property are situated between the residence and the proposed use site.
The Development Services Team believes that the Bruckbauer Minor Special Review application meets the minimum requirements for such a use, and meets the requirements for a home occupation in a detached accessory building. As proposed, the use will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
The Development Services Team finds that the proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and will be in harmony with the neighborhood; that the property is outside a GMA district, and the proposed use is consistent with the county master plan; this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this code; and the proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on property in the vicinity of the subject property
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Bruckbauer Minor Special Review subject to the following conditions:
1. This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
2. The Bruckbauer Home Occupation shall be limited to 1200 square feet of use area, which area shall be confined to the detached accessory building identified in the application materials.
3. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Bruckbauer Minor Special Review (File #07-Z1656), 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 Bruckbauer Minor Special Review.
4. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.
5. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor 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 Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor 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 Minor Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.
6. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review approval.
7. 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 Minor Special Review approval.
2. CRYSTAL LAKES 12th LOTS 146 & 147 LOT CONSOLIDATION AND EASEMENT VACATION, FILE 07-S2716: This request is to combine two adjacent lots, Lots 146 and 147, into one lot in Crystal Lakes 12th Filing. This application also requests the vacation of the utility easement located on the common lot line of the subject lots.
The proposed Lot Consolidation of Crystal Lakes 12th Filing Lots 146 and 147 and easement vacation, will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of Lot Consolidation for Crystal Lakes 12th Filing Lots 146 and 147 and the vacation of the 20-foot utility easement located on the common lot line subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by April 17, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.
3. The vacation of the utility easement and the consolidation of the lots shall be finalized at such time when the findings and resolution of the County Commissioners is recorded.
4. An existing driveway/access easement will need to be vacated by a separate instrument upon completion of this process.
3. HIGH DRIVE HEIGHTS, LOTS 5 AND 6 DIVISION 7, AMENDED PLAT: This is a request is to combine two existing parcels into a single lot. This proposal will not result in the creation of any new building sites and will eliminate development potential for one lot.
The purpose of this request is to allow a detached garage to be built on the eastern portion of the site (Lot 6, which is currently undeveloped). The Estes Valley Development Code prohibits accessory uses from being built on a lot without a principal use (i.e. dwelling unit). Therefore, the property owner proposes to combine the lots, thus ensuring the proposed garage is on the same lot as the principal use (the existing house).
Staff recommends approval of the requested Amended Plat of Lots 5 and 6 Division 7 High Drive Heights subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
On Tuesday, August 21, 2007, the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:
1. Pursuant to C.R.S.30-28-110, subsection 4(a), “no plat for subdivided land shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners unless at the time of the approval of platting the sub divider provides the certification of the county treasurer’s office that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid.”
2. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
3. Approval of this plat will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code.
4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
5. Within sixty (60) days of the Board’s approval of the amended plat, the developer shall submit the final plat for recording. If the amended plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void.
6. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 5 and 6 Division 7 High Drive Heights conditional to a vicinity map being provided on the final mylars (staff note: this has been completed).
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting recessed at 3:07 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Sean Wheeler from the Planning Department. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Gibson were present. Also present were: Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Christie Coleman, Engineering; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health; Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels opened by asking for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
1. TRAIL RIDGE TIMBER FRAMES SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS, FILE #07-Z1652: Sean Wheeler explained that this request is for Special Review approval for an existing timber frame sawmill business located on both lots of the “Forget Me Not Farm” Minor Residential Development (MRD) and includes two appeals: 1) Request to remove an MRD condition of approval that limits the site to single-family residential uses; and 2) Appeal to 8.1.4.C of the Land Use Code that requires commercial uses in rural areas utilize structural fire sprinklers.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at its August 15, 2007, Public Hearing. This project is somewhat unique as it involves the use of both lots in the Forget-Me-Not Farm MRD (Minor Residential Development). The applicants own both lots and created the MRD in the 1990’s. Because of the unusual nature of the request, there was a considerable amount of discussion on several points at the Planning Commission hearing as described below.
A. Appeal to Lift the Condition of Approval: One issue that generated discussion was the applicants seeking approval to remove a condition on their Minor Residential Development (MRD) lots. That condition limits MRD lots to single-family residential uses. As MRDs were created by the exemption process, any requests to lift conditions on them will typically only go to the Board of County Commissioners. However, because the appeal is tied directly to the Special Review use, Staff informed the Planning Commission of the applicant’s request. Some Planning Commission members expressed the view that the MRD process “supersedes” the O-Open zoning. They suggested requiring the applicant to vacate the MRD plat before they are allowed to pursue the Special Review use. Staff also suggested re-combining the MRD lots as one option available to the applicants but not as a requirement for approval.
Staff’s assessment is that, regardless of how a lot was created, the property owners can still ask for Special Review approval. For MRD lot owners, this will include the extra step of asking to have the restrictive condition lifted, as the County imposed it on MRD lots to limit them strictly to residential uses. In addition, the County did not subject MRD lots to the same level of review as a subdivision, since the process created fewer lots than a typical development and would have fewer impacts. MRD lot owners thus have the extra step of asking to remove the condition of approval, but this does not preclude them from having the ability to do so and to seek consideration for a Special Review use. For this project, Staff provides an assessment of the size and scope of the existing sawmill in the Planning Commission report. As noted in that report the County has never formally approved this use, but there have been no complaints of record about the sawmill in its 10 years of operation, nor have any neighbors contacted Staff to oppose the current request to expand the use. For these reasons and the others outlined in the Planning Commission report, Staff supports the appeal to lift the condition of approval. This recommendation is for the sawmill only, and not for any other non-residential uses. Since the condition remains in place for all other non-residential uses, Staff does not recommend requiring the applicants to vacate the MRD plat in order to gain the Special Review approval.
B. Additional Rental Unit: The applicants also expressed a desire to use their existing residence as a rental unit, independent of the Special Review use, when they build a new home on the larger MRD lot. They made this request after the Staff sent the written report to the Planning Commission for consideration. It too generated a considerable level of discussion at the hearing, in large part because the request was not included in the application materials. As a general rule Staff will recommend that applicants not introduce new information at the hearing, but applicants are told they can raise new issues if that is their choice. However, the Planning Commission has the option of tabling the item, or not supporting additional requests. The Planning Commission clearly did not support allowing the rental use along with the Special Review sawmill. Staff suggested the applicants may be able to rent the home to an employee of the sawmill, thus making it an accessory use to the Special Review and generating some rental income for them. This suggestion received general support from the Planning Commission.
Staff does not support allowing two principal uses on the MRD lot, as this provides a mixed level of uses that is more appropriate to urban centers and is not appropriate on MRD lots. MRD lots were created on the basis that they would have a low impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and allowing multiple principal uses seems to violate the intent of the MRD process. Finally, the Code limits the number of allowed principal uses on any lot, and changing this should be done by formal appeal to that standard. Please note that this is the type of issue the Sketch Plan process is intended to uncover. However, this project received an accelerated review at the applicants’ request. It was allowed to forgo the Sketch Plan process and proceed to the next available Planning Commission hearing. After the applicants informed Staff they wanted the rental unit use, Staff advised them they could raise the question at the public hearings, but that Staff would not support the request. Based on the discussion about this issue at the Planning Commission hearing, Staff also anticipates the Planning Commission would not be supportive of the appeal to allow two principal uses on one lot.
C. Other Issues: Other topics of discussion at the Planning Commission hearing included increasing the number of employees from six to eight, and an appeal to fire protection requirements. There were no objections from Staff or the Planning Commission on increasing the allowed employees from six to eight, not including the two applicants. However, the general consensus was that eight employees should be the maximum allowed. Some Planning Commission members also expressed concern about the fire sprinkler appeal. The Fire Bureau and the County’s Chief Building Official have indicated support for the appeal as it relates to the individual standards they administer related to fire protection. This support is based on the applicants proposed alternative fire protection measures. Staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the applicant provide a letter from the Fire Bureau confirming their support, and acknowledging that the Fire Bureau is responsible for monitoring compliance with standards that deviate from those in the Land Use Code.
Chair Rennels asked for input from the applicant. Deanna Fredrickson of Fredrickson Landscape Architects, representative for the applicant, approached the Board. Ms. Fredrickson gave a PowerPoint presentation which listed the professionals involved in the project and outlined the type of craft being performed by the applicant, the existing location and layout of the subject property, the proposed site plan and the intended fire protection plan.
Chair Rennels then opened the meeting to public comment. No one approached the Board to comment at this time.
Mr. Wheeler explained to the Board that there have been some changes made to the conditions received by the Board in advance of this meeting. He reviewed the changes and explained that they are primarily for clarification purposes. Chair Rennels commented on the confusing nature of the verbiage in Condition 11 and discussion ensued with Jeanine Haag and staff regarding the need to “tidy” this condition during the ongoing processes associated with this request. Chair Rennels asked Ms. Coleman about consideration of traffic issues associated with this location and discussion ensued.
Staff recommends approval of the request to lift the single-family residential use restriction on both lots of the “Forget Me Not Farm” Minor Residential Development (MRD) for the Special Review Sawmill Use only. No other non-single family residential uses for either lot are allowed for either lot.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal to Section 8.1.4.C of the Land Use Code that requires commercial uses in rural areas provide structural fire sprinklers, if the applicant provides written support for the appeal from the Loveland Rural Fire Prevention Bureau at time of building permit, or a commercial sprinkler system will be required., File #07-Z1652.
The Planning Commission further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Trail Ridge Timber Frames Special Review, File #07-Z1652, for the property described on Exhibit “B” to the minutes, subject to the following updated conditions:
1. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Trail Ridge Timber Frames Special Review (File #07-Z1652) 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 Trail Ridge Timber Frames Special Review.
2. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, the 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. 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.
3. 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 the applicants, shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.
4. All applicable fees, including permit fees and the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee shall be paid within 90 days of the date of approval of the Special Review use, or at time of building permit application, which ever comes first.
5. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review use as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
6. The applicants shall provide secondary containment for hazardous materials and fuel storage in outdoor storage areas, sized correctly to contain possible spills. All flammable or combustible liquids shall be stored per the requirements in the 2003 International Fire Code, and review and approval by the Loveland Rural Fire Prevention Bureau.
7. Applicants shall obtain written approval from Little Thompson Water District and pay their fees by time of building permit for the existing and expanded uses, or make alternative arrangements agreeable to the Water District and provide evidence to the County within 90 days of the date of approval of the Special Review use or at time of building permit application, which ever comes first.
8. The applicants shall provide a Final Site Plan for review and approval by Staff consistent with the requirements outlined in Section 6.0 of the Land Use Code, no later than 90 days from the date of approval of the Special Review use. No building permits will be issued until Staff has reviewed and approved the Final Site Plan.
9. The applicants shall provide written approval from the Loveland Rural Fire Protection Bureau within one year of the date of approval of the Special Review use or at time of building permit application, whichever comes first, in support of their alternative fire safety plans. Without a letter of support from the Fire Bureau at building permit, all new construction is subject to the applicable sprinkler system requirements in the Land Use Code, the International Building Code and the 2003 International Fire Code. The Fire Bureau, and not Larimer County, shall be responsible for monitoring compliance with approved alternative plans.
10. The business is limited to eight full time employees, not including the applicants.
11. If either property is sold, the Special Review approval can continue with either Lot 1 or Lot 2 but not with both lots, unless both lots are sold together to the same party. The existing residential use is limited to accessory use on the property. A second new residence cannot be constructed unless the present structure was converted to business use (business use can be as an office to the Special Review use or as a rental to employees to the business). The present residence may only be used as a non-business residential use, if the lot is sold as a residential lot.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to remove an MRD condition of approval that limits the site to single-family residential uses.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal to 8.1.4.C of the Land Use Code that requires commercial uses in rural areas utilize structural fire sprinklers.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Special Review request for an existing timber frame sawmill business located on both lots of the “Forget Me Not Farm” Minor Residential Development (MRD) with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Eubanks were present. Also present were: Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Angela Mead, Human Services; Rob Helmick, Planning Department; Jerry White, Engineering Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. and Mrs. Baccili addressed the Board with concerns regarding the County budget. Mr. Baccili stated that the Sheriff's request for additional funding is excessive and suggested other possibilities the Sheriff might consider that could be more cost effective. Mr. Baccili stated his opinion that County officials need to balance the budget and learn to do without, if they cannot afford it within the existing budget.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2007:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of September 10, 2007.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for September 18, 2007:
PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT: As recommended by the County Assessor, the following abatements are approved: Linda and John Hanak; Apparel Imaging Specialties, Inc., Richard Taranow; Center for Orthope dic Rehab & Exercise.
09182007A001 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE STATE OF COLORADO AND WELD COUNTY FOR REPLACEMENT OF WELD COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 13/54A OVER THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER
09182007A002 PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS AND SIGNAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NETWORK, INC.
09182007A003 GRANT CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS
09182007A004 DRAINAGE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO AND JOMIDA, LLC
09182007A005 STATEMENT OF GRANT AWARD BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, AND THE STATE OF COLORADO
09182007D001 DEED OF DEDICATION - DARE CO. - RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR COUNTY ROAD 38E
09118007R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FOX HOLLOW PLANNED LAND DIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT, REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND APPEAL
09118007R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 35 IN THE HILL CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following liquor licenses were approved and issued: The Canyon Grill - Hotel and Restaurant - Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. PROCLAMATION FOR FAMILY DAY: Ms. Mead presented the proclamation for "Family Day - A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Family." She explained that the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University recommends participation in this event to promote family time, as studies indicate that families who regularly sit down to eat meals together, often have less instances of teenage substance abuse. Commissioner Gibson read the proclamation aloud.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim September 24, 2007, as Family Day - a Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. WORKSESSION: Mr. White explained that the Board previously approved a document regarding the First Right of Refusal from the City of Fort Collins pertaining to the Mountain and Plains property. He stated that the document stated that Larimer County owned the property, when it should have said that Larimer County is under contract to acquire the property. Mr. White requested action to correct this wording.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners ratify the Chair's signature and authorize correction of the Right of First Refusal agreement (Document number 08282007A004).
Motion carried 3-0.
7. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: The Board reviewed their activities at events during the past week.
8. LEGAL MATTERS: At this time Mr. Hass joined the meeting for an Executive Session (affidavit provided).
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402-(4)(b) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m., with no further action taken.
KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk