County Offices, Courts and the Landfill will be closed Monday, May 25 in observance of Memorial Day. Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, NOVEMBER 5, 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 Gibson and Eubanks were present. Also present were: Sean Wheeler, Matt Lafferty, Samantha Mott and Toby Stauffer, Planning; Matt Johnson, Rusty McDaniel, and Mark Peterson, Engineering; Brenda Gimeson, Rural Land Use Center; 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.
Samantha Mott explained that the applicant requested that the CLARK LEGAL LOT APPEAL/EXEMPTION, FILE #07-G0145, be removed from today’s agenda. She stated that the applicant intends to pursue another process in this effort.
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. INDIAN CREEK MEADOWS LOT 7 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #07-S2731: In June of 1997, the plat for the Indian Creek Meadows Rural Land Use Plan (RLUP) received final approval. This was the first Rural Land Plan and was the pilot project. The project contained 547.77 acres and was approved with 19 single-family residential lots and 2 Residual Lots. The Residual Lots were protected from further development in perpetuity. Each new single-family dwelling had a building envelope placed to limit the development areas, and most of the single-family lots have sold.
This proposal is for an amendment to Lot 7 in the Indian Creek Meadows RLUP. The proposal is to add an additional 0.95 acre building envelope, so the owners can build a 36 x 36 barn west of the ditch. The size of the additional envelope is limited to 0.95 acres and will not have a huge impact on the irrigation on this lot. The ditch company and utility companies have no issues with the proposal. The owners will also have to get approval from their Homeowners Association for the design of the barn, and they indicate that this has already been accomplished. The existing access points will remain unchanged. All covenants, deed restrictions and other conditions which applied to the original Rural Land Use Plan will continue to apply. This proposal meets the review criteria. In addition, this proposal will cause no changes to historic drainage.
Staff finds that the proposed Amended Plat for Lot 7, Indian Creek Meadows meets all conditions of approval stated in Section 5.7.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the Amended Plat for Lot 7, Indian Creek Meadows 07-S2731 subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman 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 May 5, 2007, 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.
2. CRYSTAL LAKES 10TH FILING LOTS 10 AND 11 LOT CONSOLIDATION AND EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #07-S2732: This request is to combine two adjacent lots, Lots 10 and 11, into one lot in Crystal Lakes 10th Filing. This application also requests vacation of the utility easement located on the common lot line of the subject lots.
No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: Department of Health and Environment, Addressing Section, and Engineering Department Development Review Services. Comments from the Assessor’s office provide the new legal description of the resultant lot. Staff referred the application to other internal and external reviewing agencies and the affected utility companies; no other comments were received.
Staff finds that the proposed Lot Consolidation of Crystal Lakes 10th Filing Lots 10 and 11 and easement vacation, will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency. The lot consolidation will not result in any additional lots. 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 10th Filing Lots 10 and 11 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 May 5, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void. 2. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions and 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.
3. CRYSTAL LAKES 12TH FILING LOTS 114-117 TRAIL EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #07-S2728: This application requests the vacation of a 10-foot trail easement that crosses four properties. The easement runs generally northwest to southeast across four lots in Crystal Lakes 12th Filing. Originally the easement was planned for the neighborhood, to be maintained by the Crystal Lakes Road and Recreation Association, for the use and enjoyment of the overall development.
This application was forwarded to the appropriate departments and agencies for comment. The responses from these groups indicate that there are no other issues of concern.
Additionally the Crystal Lakes Road and Recreation Association has submitted a letter indicating that the Association’s Board of Directors voted on August 18, 2007, to unanimously vacate the trail easement. Please see the letter from the Crystal Lakes Road and Recreation Association dated August 19, 2007, for further information.
The trail easement was never utilized nor was it a prominent feature on the landscape. One house has been built on the easement, because the easement was not apparent. If the easement remains, it may need to be relocated around the existing house.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Crystal Lakes 12th Filing, Lots 114, 115, 116, and 117 Trail Easement Vacation, a request to vacate a 10-foot trail easement running generally northwest to southeast across lots 114-117 of Crystal Lakes 12th Filing.
4. SOUTH NOKOMIS LAKE LOTS 3-5, BLOCK 26 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #07-S2727: This request is to combine three adjacent lots, Lots 3, 4, and 5, into one lot in the South Nokomis Lake Subdivision.
No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: Addressing Section, Engineering Department Development Review Services, and Department of Health and Environment
Comments received from the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identify several required corrections to the plat. Staff referred the application to other internal and external reviewing agencies and the affected utility companies, no other comments were received.
The proposed Amended Plat to combine South Nokomis Lake Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 26 will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agencies. The amended plat 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 South Nokomis Lake, Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 26, Amended Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by May 5, 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.
5. RAMONA HEIGHTS LOTS 1, 2, AND 5 BLOCK 4A AMENDED PLAT, FILE #07-S2726: This request is to amend the plat of Ramona Heights to combine Lots 1 and 2 and a portion of Lot 5, Block 4A, with an adjacent metes and bounds parcel.
No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: Engineering Department Development Review Team, Addressing Review Section, and Department of Health and Environment.
Comments from the Assessor’s office and the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identified several required corrections to the plat.
The proposed plat amendment to combine Lots 1, 2, and a portion of Lot 5, Block 4A, Ramona Heights with an adjacent metes and bounds property, will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency. The amended plat will not result in any additional lots. Staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
The Development Services Team Recommends approval of Ramona Heights, Lots 1, 2, and 5, Block 4A, Amended Plat and combination with an adjacent metes and bounds parcel, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature: 1. The Final Plat shall be recorded by April 5, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void. 2. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department and the Larimer County Assessor’s Office.
6. FORT COLLINS INDUSTRIAL PARK 4TH FILING LOTS 95A AND 96A AMENDED PLAT, FILE #07-S2725: This request is to amend the plat of The Fort Collins Industrial Park, 4th Replat to adjust the interior lot line of two lots to allow for vehicle passage on one lot. Lot 96A will increase in size, Lot 95A will decrease in size; both lots will be greater than the minimum lot size for the zoning district.
No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: Code Compliance Section, Engineering Department Development Review Team, Addressing Review Section, and Department of Health and Environment.
Comments received from the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identified several required corrections to the plat.
The proposed plat amendment to adjust the lot line between Lots 95A and 96A in the Fort Collins Industrial Park, 4th Filing Replat, will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agencies. The Amended Plat 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 the Fort Collins Industrial Park 4th Filing, Lots 95A and 96A Amended Plat, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature: 1. The Final Plat shall be recorded by April 5, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void. 2. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.
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.
7. FOOTHILLS WESLEYAN CHURCH SIGN HEIGHT APPEAL, FILE #07-G0149: Toby Stauffer addressed the Board and explained that the applicant is seeking an appeal to the sign height requirement in residential zoning districts, Section 10.12.B. of the Larimer County Land Use Code. The Church had an existing sign which was removed by county road improvements to North Taft Hill Road. The applicant indicates that the county agreed to replace the sign for the Church, because they had removed it during the ROW acquisition. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that the new sign is not an exact replacement for the old sign. Section 10.12.B. requires, in part, that ground signs in residential zoning districts are limited to six feet in height.
Ms. Stauffer explained the review criteria utilized by staff during the process of reviewing this application. Development Review Services for the Larimer County Engineering Department has no comment on the appeal. The Development Services Team recommends denial of this request, Foothills Wesleyan Church Section 10.12.B Sign Appeal; because staff finds that this request does not meet the review criteria regarding extraordinary or exceptional conditions on the site which would result in undue hardship on the property owner.
Brief discussion ensued regarding the location of the original sign, the current temporary sign and the intended location for the new sign.
Pastor Dan Dennison, Representative for the Applicant, Colorado District of the Wesleyan Church, approached the Board and explained the history of the signage at this location, the impact of the current road grade on the visibility of the signage and the intended location and appearance of the new sign. He showed a photograph of the current temporary signage compared to a passing vehicle. Pastor Dennison also showed a drawing of the new sign and explained that the design of the sign has a peak at the top, which actually causes the added height, in an effort to match the architectural style of the building(s) on the site.
Chair Rennels asked staff about the intended grade of the road affront this property. It was understood that the road has not yet been repaved, and staff did not know at this time what the actual grade of the new road would be. Chair Rennels asked that this matter be tabled momentarily until County Engineering staff be located and brought to the meeting to address the question of future road grade in this area.
After discussion of Item 8 in this meeting (see below), discussion of the Foothills Wesleyan Church Sign Height Appeal resumed. Mark Peterson arrived at the meeting and explained that the road height would likely increase by as much as seven inches by future road work in the subject area.
Chair Rennels opened the meeting for public comment; seeing none, public comment was closed.
Commissioner Gibson commented that the impact of the road height on the visibility of signage in that area would cause him to approve the applicants request in this instance.
Commissioner Eubanks commented that his review of the three criteria considered by staff in this instance leaves him in disagreement with staff with respect to their determination that there is no undue hardship in this instance. He spoke to the fact that the original sign was more than six-feet in height and the fact that the road grade will be raised by future work in this area. Commissioner Eubanks also commented that the pitch of the desired sign is actually what makes it so tall, rather than having a full rectangular sign eight feet in height; and he indicated his inclination to approve the applicants request in this instance.
Chair Rennels concurred with the other commissioners and indicated her inclination to also approve this request.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Foothills Wesleyan Church Section 10.12.B. Sign Appeal.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. JACOBSON AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #07-Z1661: Sean Wheeler addressed the Board and explained that the applicant seeks approval to sell an existing stockpile of Class 5 road base from a site located approximately three miles northwest of the Masonville area, on the east side of North County Road 27. The size of the stockpile is estimated at between 30 and 40 thousand tons. The road base has been extracted, and the applicant is not seeking approval for new or extended mining activities. For these reasons, Staff did not send this request to the Planning Commission for consideration. However, two neighbors have contacted the Planning Department about this request and are anticipated to raise objections.
Mr. Wheeler reviewed some history regarding this application. The site is located at 13076 North County Road 27 within the Mountain Ranch RLUP (98- RLP020). This property has been the subject of a series of previous approvals and other actions by the County over the past two decades.
In 1987 the County granted Special Review approval to operate a borrow pit on 60 acres at the site.
In 1992, Larimer County entered into an agreement with the applicant to remove road material from the property for use in improving North County Road 27.
In 1998, the County considered an alleged zoning violation at the site and required the applicant to submit an amended Special Review application to extend mining activities. The applicant opted not to pursue the Special Review because of costs related to the flood plain study requirements and other issues.
In 1999, the County Attorney sent a response to several neighbors (Carl Spina, Ellen Luster, Joseph Dion) indicating the Board of County Commissioners had considered their concerns alleging the applicant was mining in continued violation of County regulations. The county advised the neighbors that the Board determined Mr. Jacobson was in compliance with county zoning rules, and that no additional county resources or staff time would be dedicated to resolution of this issue.
In 2000, the Mountain Ranch RLUP Development Agreement was recorded. It allowed the applicant to continue existing sand and gravel operations in the areas identified as Residual Lots B and C on the plat until complete. Use of the material was restricted to roads within the Mountain Ranch RLUP.
In 2007, construction fill was removed from the site for use at a County project at Red Stone Canyon.
At this time the applicant has indicated that all roads in the Mountain Ranch RLUP are built out and that no additional material is required for that development. He now seeks approval to sell the remaining road base (again estimated at 30 to 40 thousand tons of extracted material) to any interested buyer.
Planning staff support this request. The material has been extracted through a variety of processes including Special Review, the Rural Land Use Plan and via contracts with the County’s Road and Bridge Department. The argument against the request is that some of the material was extracted illegally. It is unclear if this is correct based on the information in the file. In addition, the stockpile exists and returning it to the ground is not an option, nor does simply leaving it in place at the site present a reasonable alternative. Also, applicant has indicated that he will divest himself of the mining equipment and not pursue any further mining activities on site. He has also agreed to pay a Transportation Capital Expansion Fee to address road impacts caused by removing this much material from the site.
The Engineering Department does not object to the request. They have recommended conditions of approval shown below, including the payment of a Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) for impacts from truck traffic needed to remove the material from the site. They have also asked the applicant to provide evidence that the bridge into the RLUP can support the added truck traffic, and for a supplemental road maintenance agreement to address impacts caused by the added traffic on Mountain Ranch Drive. Finally, they have asked for information on drainage and erosion control measures.
The Health Department does not object to the request. Their comments indicate that the typical requirements from the Health Department for this type of use have been covered under previous reviews.
The Development Services Team supports approval of the request to allow the applicant to sell the remaining stockpile to any buyer, subject to the recommended conditions of approval below. The County allowed mining at the site under various requests from the initial Special Review, to contracts with the County Road and Bridge Department, to approval of the Mountain Ranch RLUP. In addition, the material has been extracted and is ready for hauling off site. Returning it to the ground or requiring that a 30 to 40 thousand ton stockpile of road base remain in place at the site are not reasonable or practical options. Also, the applicant has agreed to pay a Transportation Capital Expansion Fee. To mitigate concerns from neighbors about continued mining in the future, he has agreed to sell all of his mining equipment. Please note, this does not mean that the applicant (or any other owner of the property) is precluded from seeking approval of a new Special Review request in the future, subject to the requirements in place at that time.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Jacobson Amended Special Review, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee as determined by the County Engineer within 90 days of the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, in accordance with the duly enacted TCEF regulations then in effect.
2. Off-site hauling of the material is restricted to the hours of 8:00 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday, and from 9 am to 1 pm on Saturdays. No off-site hauling shall be allowed Sundays or on county recognized holidays.
3. The applicant must provide a supplemental Road Maintenance Agreement for the Mountain Ranch RLUP review and approval by the county, to ensure any road damage caused by the additional heavy truck traffic will be repaired by the applicant.
4. Applicant must provide verification to the County Engineer that the Buckhorn Creek Bridge can support the additional load generated by the added truck traffic.
5. Applicant shall provide a drainage and erosion control plan and narrative detailing recommendations for measures to control erosion and sedimentation during all phases of disturbance. Applicant shall also provide a copy of the state approved plan for erosion control and reclamation after the material is removed, or must address this issue as a component of the county required erosion control plan and narrative.
6. Further mining is prohibited at the site.
Gary L. Jacobson, Applicant, approached the Board and reviewed the history of activities at this site and previous dealings with the county regarding same. He explained that he desires now to retire from mining and to create a lake in the area, which will eventually result in increased property values. Mr. Jacobson further explained that a portion of the material stockpiled will be used to finish some driveways on the property, but that he desires to sell the rest in order to clear the area of stockpiles.
Chair Rennels asked about the anticipated timeline for removal of all of the stockpiled materials. Mr. Jacobson responded by stating that he has no way of knowing, but it might take as long as two years.
Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of moving the stockpile elsewhere, rather than selling it off from this location.
Jim Martel, Attorney for Mr. Jacobson, approached the Board and addressed the concerns raised by a neighbor’s letter on the subject. He stated that Mr. Jacobs did nothing wrong or improper when he sold some of the materials to the county contractors for roadwork in the area. He further stated that Mr. Jacobson had the right to originally mine the materials, utilized them in the manner intended, and now wishes to sell the excess.
Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Jacobson’s past ability to sell materials from one pit, but not the other; the possibility that materials from the two pits were co-mingled, special allowances for sale of materials for county work in the area, and whether or not Mr. Jacobson sold materials illegally in the past.
Chair Rennels opened the meeting to public comment. Connie Stowers, neighbor of Mr. Jacobson, approached the Board and explained her frustrations. She stated that the stockpile Mr. Jacobson pulled materials from was to be used solely for work on the ranch site and was not to be sold; yet he sold materials from that pile in the past to county contractors performing roadwork in the area. She expressed her frustration that, from her perspective, he illegally sold materials from this location and should not now be allowed to sell the materials, especially after doing so illegally in the past.
Discussion ensued regarding the typical practice of county or county contracted roadwork in using materials from nearby areas. Commissioner Gibson asked Ms. Stowers why she would not wish for the large piles of gravel to be removed. Ms. Stowers indicated that she believes Mr. Jacobson should not be allowed to sell materials simply because he over estimated and dug more material than was needed for road projects within the site. She further stated that Mr. Jacobson should be required to redistribute the materials throughout the site, as she believes he should not be allowed to profit financially from over-digging.
Chair Rennels commented that Mr. Jacobson is applying for this amended special review in order to receive approval to sell the stockpiled materials, and that this is the process he must use in order to do so.
Larry Jacobson, property owner adjacent to the stockpiled materials, stated that his property is closer to the stockpile than any other in the area and that he is happy that the applicant is seeking to remove the stockpile and complete efforts to create a lake in the area. He further stated that the he has observed that the applicant has removed all of the crushing equipment in the area and believes that the applicant will not be resuming mining operations in the future.
Sabina Michael, next closest neighbor to the site, approached the board and stated that she is pleased that the stockpile will be moved out and that a lake will be completed in the area. She stated that she has also observed that the crusher is up for sale and won’t be used for future mining in the area. She further stated that the mining operations in the past have been active during normal business hours on weekdays only and that it has not caused significant disruption in the area.
Ms. Stowers again approached the Board and expressed her disagreement with Ms. Michael regarding past hours of operation, noting that she has observed activity as early as 7 a.m. and sometimes on Saturdays.
Cecilia Jacobson, wife of the applicant, approached the Board. She contradicted Ms. Stower’s statements regarding past hours of operation and noise caused by operations in the area. Mrs. Jacobson further commented about the bridge Mr. Jacobson constructed in the area and the flood plain study Mr. Jacobson has accomplished as required before he can pursue this current process to subsequently sell the materials. She stated that there is a personal vendetta in the neighborhood, which is why certain neighbors do not want Mr. Jacobson to profit from sale of the materials.
Tim Neeson of 12892 Buckhorn Road, located 200 feet from the pit, approached the Board and stated that he has lived at this location for two years and has no problem with Mr. Jacobson’s desire to sell the stockpile. He further stated that he believes Mr. Jacobson has a very good reclamation plan in place. Mr. Neeson also explained that there is a shooting range in the area that creates noise on the weekends and that the noise caused by Mr. Jacobson’s activities have not been bothersome to him.
Ms. Michael approached the Board again to comment that the weekend noise Ms. Stowers commented on was likely caused by her landscaping business, rather than Mr. Jacobson’s activities at the site.
Ms. Stowers approached the Board to express her surprise that Mr. Neeson has no problem with the noise created by Mr. Jacobson’s operations, when he had expressed frustration in the past with the noise caused by the shooting range.
Chair Rennels closed public comment at this time.
Mr. Jacobson again approached the Board to respond to the public comment received. He stated that the crushing operations have ceased. He further explained the history of activities and past concerns expressed by neighbors in the area. Mr. Jacobson commented that he has done his best to follow the rules and requirements throughout the years, which ultimately is what brings him to pursue this application process.
Chair Rennels requested clarification from Rusty McDaniel of Engineering regarding county or county contractor utilization of materials available in the nearby area for use in roadwork for the county. Mr. McDaniel explained that it is the material quality that is specifically outlined as a requirement for contractors when performing roadwork for the county. He stated that it would be extremely unlikely that county specifications for a specific job would state that the product must be obtained from a specific supplier. Mr. Helmick commented that CDOT allows contractors free reign to obtain materials from areas within a one-mile radius of the project, whether or not local government has provided approval allowing the owner of the product to sell it. He further commented that many contractors who also do work for the county are simply used to this allowance and apply it whether they are working on CDOT or county projects.
Discussion ensued regarding the specifics of Mr. Jacobson’s dealings with the contractors working on county roads in the area and the information they provided him when they came to him for materials to use on the roadwork project in the area. Discussion continued regarding the specific approval being desired by Mr. Jacobson in this meeting.
Commissioner Gibson commented that the materials currently stockpiled on the property must be dealt with, have value, and should eventually be removed from the site. He further stated that he believes the materials have value and should be put to good use.
Commissioner Eubanks requested that Mr. Wheeler review the conditions of approval, and he did so. Commissioner Eubanks then asked Mr. Jacobson if he was in agreement with the conditions; and after some discussion, Mr. Jacobson stated that if these are the conditions required for approval, then he is in agreement with them.
Chair Rennels indicated that she would be in support of approval if all of the conditions noted are included, along with a sixth condition prohibiting further mining at the site. [Note: The sixth condition has been added to the list of conditions above.]
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to allow the sale of the existing stockpile of extracted road base located in the Mountain Ranch RLUP on North County Road #27 to any buyer, subject to the conditions of approval 1 through 6 as recommended.
Motion carried 3-0.
9. A TO Z UNLIMITED SIGN APPEAL, FILE #07-G0146: Matt Lafferty addressed the Board and explained that the applicant is requesting an appeal of Section 10.5.j and 4.3.10.B.1.f of the Land Use Code, to be allowed to have two signs totaling 32.25 square feet of sign face (24 sf. and 8.25 sf.) for a home occupation where only three square feet is allowed. The property for the subject request is situated in the Loveland Growth Management Area and is Zoned T (Tourist).
The subject property is situated behind the Jamoka Joes coffee stand on the north side of the intersection of Eisenhower Blvd. (Hwy 34) and Rossum Road on the west side of Loveland. The property is occupied by a residence and detached accessory building. The detached building is utilized for a home occupation that makes graphic logos and small signs. Access to the property is Eisenhower Blvd. via a gravel drive. The applicant is proposing to be allowed to have two signs with a total of 32.25 square feet because of the limited visibility of the residence by passing traffic and identification of the home occupation on the property.
By way of background the subject request is for signage greater than that allowed for a home occupation by virtue of the fact that the property is zoned T (Tourist). In the T (Tourist) zone district the subject use (the business of making graphic designs and signs) is not considered an allowed use. However, because residential uses are permitted in the zone district, the applicant has agreed to confine his operation to the home occupation regulations. As a home occupation, the use is limited to 3 square feet of signage, whereas the T (Tourist) zone district would allow 200 square feet signage for allowed uses, even if a residence was present.
By way of context the property is surrounded by FA-1 (Farming) zoning to the west and T (Tourist) zoning to the north east and south. A residence does exist on the property to the west, while properties to the east and south are non-residential or vacant land.
The County Engineering Department stated that a sign is subject to sight triangle requirements and cannot be placed within the public right-of-way. The Colorado Department of Transportation offered no objections to this request, since they do not have any setback requirements for signs.
With regard to signs for home occupations in general, it is not hard to justify denial of such a request as the intent of the Home Occupation regulations is clear and states that such uses are incidental to the primary use of a residence and should not change the residential character of the residential use or residential neighborhood. However, given the zoning for the subject property and its context to residential uses, this request has unique circumstances that the Development Services Team believes warrant deviation from the regulations.
The Development Services Team finds that the A to Z Unlimited Sign appeal does meet the review criteria of Section 22.2.5 as outlined in the Land Use Code. The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the A to Z Unlimited Sign Appeal.
Douglas Zender, Applicant, approached the Board and relayed recent experiences he has had with various individuals who were trying to locate his business and stated that the signage is obviously not obtrusive, because they did not even see it as they were searching for his business location. He further stated that he simply desires approval for the signage he currently has; and that if he were restricted to the three-square-foot requirement, he would be virtually invisible to his customers and suppliers.
Chair Rennels opened the meeting to public comment; seeing none, public comment was closed.
Commissioner Gibson commented that he passes this location regularly and has never noticed the signage, so he does not have an issue with allowing it as is. Chair Rennels echoed Commissioner Gibson’s perspective. Commissioner Eubanks commented that other similar requests that were denied did not have the unique circumstances that this location has, in that the surrounding area, in this instance, will likely never be residential in nature.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the A to Z Unlimited Sign Appeal.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 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; Matt Lafferty, Planning Department; Mark Peterson, Scott Cornell, Martinez Wilkinson, and Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Margaret Long, Office on Aging; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jim and Terri Storer, along with a number of other citizens, addressed the Board with concerns regarding legal access to properties in the Carter Lake area. Mr. Storer explained that a public Right-of-Way that had been used as access for 26 properties in this area since 1979, was vacated in 2005. Mr. Storer stated that he believes this was performed without proper notification to all parties involved, including the county, and asked the Board to look at reversing the vacated Right-of-Way. Discussion ensued, and Mr. Lafferty stated that he has discussed this issue with the county attorney, and since the property was transferred back it is now in private ownership, and the county attorney seemed less inclined to recommend a public hearing on this matter. The Board will revisit this issue with the county attorney, and Mr. Lafferty will meet with Mr. Storer to obtain more information.
Sergeant David Hurley, CSU Police Department, requested the ability for more diverse representation on the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) Board for small town communities. He explained that they have recently been listed as a small town community for inclusion in LETA; however, the representation for all seven small towns is being fulfilled by two members from Estes Park. John Fry, attorney for the LETA Board, explained that the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), outlines who is represented and it does not include CSU. He further explained that they solicited nominees to serve on the Board and the only interested parties were from Estes Park and CSU. The Board agreed to look at the possibility of future IGA changes to include CSU as a small town community.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 26, 2007:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of October 26, 2007.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 12, 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 November 6, 2007:
11062007A001 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND LORA MAE PHILLIPS
11062007A002 GRANT CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICE (Hermit Park Fuels Treatment and Forest Stewardship Project)
11062007A003 GRANT CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICE (Carter Lake Fuels Treatment and Forest Stewardship Project)
11062007A004 SUBGRANT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND THE STATE OF COLORADO
11062007A005 AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND ANTONIOS AND EVANGELIA KATOPODIS FOR PROPERTY AT 418 E 4TH STREET, LOVELAND, COLORADO
11062007R001 RESOLUTION FOR CONVEYANCE AND QUIT CLAIM DEED BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
11062007R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TURNER MINOR LAND DIVISION
11062007R003 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MONDRAGON MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW
11062007R004 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COLLEY MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL
11062007R005 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BRUCKBAUER MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW
11062007R006 RESOLUTION RELEASING LOT SALE PROHIBITION ON LOTS 1-5 OF THE SQUIRES R.L.U.P. (FILE #03-S2127
11062007R007 RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED PLAT FOR TRACT G, REPLAT OF RANCH ACRES 2ND AND LOTS 1 AND 2 OF AMENDED PLAT OF TRACTS L AND M IN RANCH ACRES 2ND ADDITION (FILE #07-S2681)
11062007R008 RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF THE HERSH MINOR LAND DIVISION (FILE #06-S2554)
11062007R009 RESOLUTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED PLAT FOR THE HERSH MINOR LAND DIVISION AND MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (FILE #06-S2555)
MISCELLANEOUS: Findings and Order - Approval of JerCat LLC, dba Hideout Patio Bar and Grill Liquor License Application.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following liquor licenses were approved and issued: Ptarmigan County Club - Hotel & Restaurant with Optional Premises - Fort Collins; Poudre Spirits & Wine - Retail Liquor Store - Bellvue; Gateway Liquors - Retail Liquor Store - Loveland; Fort Namaqua Liquors - Retail Liquor Store - Loveland. The following licenses were issued: Columbine Lodge - 3.2% - Bellvue; Cache Inn - Beer and Wine - Bellvue; Westlake Liquors - Retail Liquor Store - Red Feather Lakes.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. FIRST READING OF LARIMER COUNTY STORMWATER QUALITY ORDINANCE: Mr. Peterson explained that staff has created a draft Illicit Discharge Ordinance, which will be applicable in unincorporated Larimer County, to facilitate enforcement of the Stormwater management plan to the maximum extent practicable. He explained that a public hearing, scheduled for December 17, 2007, will follow and that the Ordinance, if approved, would become effective 30 day after the hearing.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 1st reading of the Larimer County Stormwater Quality Ordinance, and direct staff to move towards the hearing scheduled for December 17, 2007.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS FOR THE OFFICE ON AGING ADVISORY COUNCIL: Ms. Long presented changes to the Bylaws for the Office on Aging Advisory Council noting that in order to make more effective use of the members; they will be reducing the number of committees from eight to five. She also explained that it would eliminate the requirement of seeking active recruitment of an elected official to the Council. Chair Rennels stated that she was opposed to removing this clause, because having it stated in the Bylaws helps to ensure that this requirement is being upheld, and will continue to be upheld in future years and with future commissioners. Ms. Long agreed, and stated that she will re-write the Bylaws and bring them back for approval at a later date.
7. LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY (LETA) APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS: The Board considered the following LETA appointments and reappointments: Reappointment of Merlin Green, effective January 1, 2008, for a two-year term expiring December 31, 2009. Appointment of Chief Lowell Richardson, effective January 1, 2008, for a two year term, expiring December 31, 2009. And reappointment of Ray Miller, effective January 1, 2008, for a two-year term, expiring December 31, 2009.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the reappointment of Merlin Green, representing fire districts, effective January 1, 2008, for a two-year term expiring December 31, 2009.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Appointment of Chief Lowell Richardson, representing communities of Berthoud, Estes Park, Johnstown, Timnath, Wellington, and Windsor, effective January 1, 2008, for a two year term, expiring December 31, 2009.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the reappointment of Ray Miller, representing the City of Loveland, effective January 1, 2008, for a two-year term, expiring December 31, 2009.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster asked if the Board still wished to draft a letter regarding the Farm Services office in Fort Collins, since Senator Salazar has stopped the closing of this office. The Board directed Mr. Lancaster to draft a thank you letter, which will also encourage the efforts in maintaining this office in Larimer County.
Mr. Lancaster then informed the Board that a new policy regarding customer service bonuses is in the works and he will be bringing this to the Board shortly.
Finally, Mr. Lancaster suggested the possibility of closing county offices on the Monday prior to Christmas, since Christmas falls on a Tuesday this year, and due to the fact that county business is typically very slow during this time. The Board said they would discuss this with the elected officials at their monthly luncheon on November 7, 2007.
Chair Rennels suggested that the Board meet with the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Berthoud to review the Specific Ownership Tax, as these two entities have expressed concern with the county's proposed implementation of the measure. Mr. Lancaster will set a meeting with the Town Mayor's and Administrator's regarding this subject.
9. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: The Board reviewed their activities at events during the past week.
10. REQUEST FROM BEE FAMILY CENTENNIAL FARM MUSEUM FOR WAIVER OF CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION FEES: Mr. Lafferty explained that the Bee family has requested a waiver of the Capital Transportation Fees related to their application for a non-profit farm museum project. Ms. Downs explained that the project will generate 19.9 trips-per-day, and the fee imposed is $3000. Chair Rennels stated that she was not in favor of waving the fee, as this is a project that will generate additional traffic and will have an impact in the area. Commissioner Eubanks agreed, noting that if the Board waived the fee, it might also set the wrong precedent for future applicants. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to not grant the waiver request.
8. LEGAL MATTERS: There were no legal matters to discuss.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m..
KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk