Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 04/06/09  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, April 6, 2009

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present.  Also present were:  Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Karin Madson, Planning Department; Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Tamara Slusher, Deputy County 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.

 

Chair Rennels noted that Item 1 is on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or member of the audience:

 

1.         DISNER/SYBRANDTS EXTENDED FAMILY DWELLING, FILE #09-SP0242:   This is a request to approve the use of a one bedroom manufactured home as an Extended Family Dwelling (EFD) on a property with existing living quarters attached to an RV park store.  This request also includes an appeal to have the EFD on a parcel with less than 4 acres without public sewer service.

 

The Board of County Commissioners approval is only required because the property is less than 4 acres.  This is a new application for the previously approved Disner Extended Family Dwelling, File #06-SP0190, which expired in August 2008.  The previous EFD was requesting a permanent dwelling which was an appeal to the requirement that an EFD be in a manufactured home to be used on a temporary basis, but this application is for a manufactured home to be used instead.

 

The applicant and his spouse reside on the property in the one bedroom living quarters and operate the store and RV campground.  They plan to live in the one bedroom EFD and their daughter and her family will live in the existing living quarters attached to the store, for the purpose of providing care assistance to the applicant and helping with operating the campground.  The applicant submitted a doctor’s letter confirming a disabling medical condition requiring constant assistance.  A simplified site plan was included with the submittal.

 

The property’s size does not meet the criteria for an Extended Family Dwelling as found in Land Use Code Section 4.3.10.G.  The regulations require at least 4 acres unless public sewer service is used by the principal dwelling and the extended family dwelling.  The two dwellings will be served by an on-site septic system.  According to the Department of Health and Environment, the current septic system is not sized sufficiently to service 15 RV sites, the store, attached living quarters, and a one bedroom manufactured home.  The applicant has agreed to reduce the number of RV sites to a number acceptable to the Health Department.  This reduction will accommodate the increase caused by the new manufactured home.  Although the property size does not meet the size requirement, the Planning Department and the Department of Health and Environment are of the opinion that the proposal can be accommodated with the existing septic system, subject to the reduction in number of RV sites.  Proposed conditions related to the septic system, and the time period for this approval, are included in the recommendation at the end of this report.

 

The following agencies provided comments regarding this proposal:

 

1.   The Engineering Department provided comments with regard to drainage and erosion control, utilization of the existing access and applicable Transportation Capital Expansion Fees. 

2.   The Department of Health and Environment has reviewed the sewer system capacity for the property and has indicated that they can support the Extended Family Dwelling provided the number of RV spaces is limited to 14. 

3.   The Division of Water Resources indicated that the State Engineer’s Office does not have an objection to the existing well being used to supply water for the property as described provided the applicant has a totalizing flow meter installed, as required on his well permit, and use of well permit no. 17913-F does not exceed limitations. 

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Disner/Sybrandts Extended Family Dwelling, File #09-SP0242, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Applicable Transportation Capital Expansion and Building Permit fees shall be paid by the applicant at the time of building permit issuance for the manufactured home.

2.   The location of the extended family dwelling shall be consistent with the site plan and the information in File #09-SP0242.

3.   The applicant is responsible for payment of all required fees and obtaining required building permits.  A building permit for the manufactured home to be used as an extended family dwelling must be applied for and issued, all required inspections must be completed, and the owner must request that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy be issued within 90 days of this approval, otherwise this approval automatically expires. 

 

4.   Approval of the extended family dwelling will be in effect for a maximum of 3 years from the date the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is effective for the building permit, after which the extended family dwelling  must be removed within 3 months from the expiration date of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy OR upon application to the Planning Department, the extended family dwelling approval may be extended for an additional 3 year period provided that the conditions noted in Land Use Code Section 4.3.10.G. continue to exist and the Board of County Commissioners grant an extension.  Any application for additional time must be submitted prior to expiration of the approval in effect at that time.

5.   The applicant shall abide by the requirements of the Department of Health and Environment in regards to modifying the number of RV sites from 15 to 14 to accommodate the one bedroom manufactured home.

6.   Within 3 months of either of the following occurrences, the applicants or owners must notify the county planning department of the occurrence, and remove the extended family dwelling from the property: (a) upon sale of the property to someone other than the current owner (Disner and Sybrandts) or the applicant; OR (b) the death of Mr. and Mrs. Disner (applicants).

7.   The applicant shall comply with the requirements of well permit no. 17913-F.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda for April 6, 2009, as presented and outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.         CENTENNIAL FARMS CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FILE #03-S2207:  This is a request to consider a modification to the Development Agreement to include an extension of the construction completion date and replacement of construction collateral with a two year lot sale prohibition.

 

The Final Plat for the Centennial Farm Conservation Development was recorded on April 23, 2007.  The development consists of 56 residential lots and 3 residual land parcels (with building envelope for residence) on 328 acres. The Development Agreement for the property includes a completion date of April 22, 2009 and construction collateral in the form of a letter of credit to guarantee the improvements for offsite improvements totaling $280,125.79, on-site improvements totaling $1,836,060.17 and landscape improvements in the amount of $140,599.00.  The Developer has requested an extension of the completion date until October 22, 2011 (30 months),and extension to the completion of the landscape improvements until October 22, 2011, a lot sale prohibition to replace the letter of credit during this timeframe, and that the public improvements opinion of costs remain in effect.   The Developer requests that a proposed lot sale restriction apply to the portions of the development affected by construction requirements and that it not apply to Residual Lots A, B and C.  Residual Lots A, B and C are not affected with the improvements associated with the construction of the development.  Residual Lot B of the development has already been sold and has a single family residence. 

 

The Developer has indicated that they have concerns regarding extending the collateral that was posted for the development, noting the current economic downturn related to the housing market. The applicant indicated that the current market conditions do not support beginning construction of the development.  The Development Services Team believes that in general this request should be supported by the Board of County Commissioners as the current market conditions do not warrant additional residential lots at this time, but hopefully will in the near future at which time collateral can be posted and the development realized. 

 

The Development Services Team supports the r request to extend the completion date for a maximum of two years rather than the 30 months proposed, until April 22, 2011.  In addition, the Development Services Team supports a modification to the Development Agreement including a lot sale prohibition that will require collateral to be posted prior to the construction of the development, but within the 2 year time frame.  At the time the Developer decides to request a release of the lot sale prohibition, the Development Services Team recommends that the Development Agreement again be amended, the public improvements opinion of costs be updated to reflect construction costs at the time of the request (rather that using the estimate provided in 2006), and that collateral be provided to ensure completion of those improvements. 

 

For the applicant this arrangement allows the entitlements acquired through the final plat process to continue for two additional years and allows the requirement for the provision of construction collateral to be deferred until the time of construction. Without approval of this request the Development Services Team will request that the Board of County Commissioner vacate the approvals based upon failure to act on the application within a timely manner and the development application and all entitlements will be void. 

 

The Development Services Teams also recommends that the modification to the Development Agreement include provisions that if the development collateral is not posted in the two year time frame the development can be made void or extension must be granted. If extensions to the lot sale prohibition are proposed they will need to include revisions to the construction plans, to conform to current standards, and include updates to the construction collateral to reflect the real construction costs at the time collateral is posted. Finally, the Development Agreement and Lot Sale Prohibition state that no construction activity will occur on the property until such a time that construction collateral has been provided.

 

The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve a two year extension to the completion date for the Centennial Farm Conservation Development (file #03-S2207), an Amendment to the Development Agreement and a Lot Sale Prohibition for the development excluding Residual Lots A, B and C with the following condition:

 

1.   The Development Agreement for the development shall be amended and recorded by April 22, 2009.  The Development Agreement Amendment shall include a completion date no later than April 22, 2011, a Lot Sale Prohibition for all lots in the Development except Residual Lots A, B and C, provisions to require updated Public Improvements Opinions of Costs prior to construction and at the time of a request for release of the Lot Sale Prohibition, a requirement that  no construction activity will occur on the property until such a time that construction collateral has been provided, and that all property taxes be paid during the extension and prior to the release of the Lot Sale Prohibition.

 

Carey Solomonson addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant, Solomonson Brothers, LLC, to further explain the need for the extension.  He noted that he would prefer to have a 30-month extension to his development agreement, which would provide him with two complete construction seasons to finalize improvements.  Mr. Solomonson expressed his desire to cooperate with whatever conditions were required by staff and the Board.

 

Commissioner Rennels asked for further clarification on the consequences of extending this development agreement should the property taxes not be paid and the property were sold at the annual tax lien sale or if the existing utility company discontinued service to the undeveloped area.  Ms. Haag clarified that this is a problem that staff is concerned with and will be having a work session with the Board in the near future to resolve.

 

Mr. Solomonson again addressed the Board and stated that he would be willing to provide annual proof of taxes paid and documentation from the servicing utility companies to ease this burden.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a 30 month extension to the completion date for the Centennial Farm Conservation Development, File #03-S2207, an amendment to the Development Agreement, and a Lot Sale Prohibition for the development, excluding Residual Lots A, B, and C with the condition recommended above.  Commissioner Johnson further moved that this approval include the requirement that the applicant will provide an annual report of taxes paid and utility commitments.  If these documents are not provided, the development agreement would terminate.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING SETBACKS, FILE #09-CA0091:  Setbacks are designated in the Larimer County Land Use Code and they serve many purposes.  Setbacks help preserve the character of an area by maintaining open space between buildings and property lines.  Setbacks allow room for buffering for adjacent properties with different uses.  The setback area helps to reduce disturbance from noise and increase compatibility of different uses by providing space to screen and landscape each use.  The space also provides some distance between buildings for drainage and utilities.  Setbacks help make a property safer by providing space for firemen to access property and providing distance between buildings to limit fire hazards.  Setbacks from roads help make an area safer by allowing enough room for cars to park in front of buildings without blocking roads, easements, or right-of-ways.

 

The Land Use Code currently does not clearly define what the setbacks are from streets or roads in certain situations.  The intent of the following Code revisions is to clearly define how to apply setbacks and what the appropriate setbacks are.  There are many unique circumstances in the relationship of lot shapes to road access that are not appropriately addressed by current setback requirements.  Several definitions are in need of adjustment to coincide with setback clarifications. The reorganization and clarifications are intended to assist both staff and customers. 

 

The Code revisions consist of adding, deleting, and revising some of the current definitions in Section 0.1. Definitions, reorganizing and clarifying some of the setback requirements by revising Section 4.1. Zoning Districts, Section 4.6. Zoning Variances, and Section 4.9 Setbacks, Lot Requirements and Structure Height.  As a result of the proposed setback revisions in the above sections other sections are proposed to be revised or relocated for consistency such as Section 5.3 Conservation Development, Section 8.0 Standards for All Development, Section 18.2 Manufactured Homes and Manufactured Home Parks, and Section 22. Appeals.

 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE:

 

1. Amend the definitions in Section 0.1 for the following:

Building envelope .  An area within the property boundaries of a lot or property within which all buildings on the lot an allowed building or structure may must be placed.

 

Lot line, front .  The shortest lot line separating a lot from a street or road. right-of-way.  On a corner lot, the shorter lot line abutting a street or road is considered the front lot line.  The front lot line designation is for the purpose of identifying the side and rear lot lines and it is not based on the orientation of the house and/or buildings on the lot.

 

Setback .  The minimum required distance, measured at the shortest distance perpendicular or radial from, a property lot line, waterway, street or road, or right-of-way centerline between a building and the property lot line, waterway, street or road. or right-of-way centerline.

 

Structure .  Anything constructed or erected and that requires a permanent location on or in the ground or attachment to something having a permanent location on or in the ground, but not including fences six feet or less in height and retaining walls four feet or less in height, irrigation facilities, poles, lines, cables or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities.  Landscape and associated nonliving ornamental landscape features or materials, such as rocks and edging, are excluded from this definition

 

2.  Add definitions to Section 0.1 for the following:

Lot .  A designated parcel, tract, or area of land established by plat, subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, to be separately owned, used, developed, or built upon.

 

Roof .  The cover of any building, including the eaves and similar projections.  The cover may be solid, open beams, lattice, fabric, or similar materials.

 

3. Delete definitions in Section 0.1 for the following:

Lot width .  The distance between the side lot lines measured parallel to the front lot line at the front setback line.

 

Reversed corner lot .  A corner lot having its side street line substantially a continuation of the front lot line of the first lot to its rear .   (**Eliminating because all roads will have setbacks now.)

 

4. Amend the Code language for the following portions of sections 4.1.1 FA-Farming, 4.1.2 FA-1 Farming, 4.1.3 FO-Forestry, 4.1.4 FO-1 Forestry, 4.1.15 A-Accommodations, 4.1.16 T-Tourist, 4.1.17 B-Business, 4.1.18 C-Commercial, 4.1.19 I-Industrial, 4.1.20 I-1 Heavy Industrial, 4.1.21 AP-Airport as follows:

B.2. Minimum required setbacks:  (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is administered.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)  The Front yard setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

5. Amend the Code language for the following portions of sections 4.1.6 E-Estate, 4.1.7 E-1 Estate, 4.1.9 RE-1 Rural Estate, 4.1.13 M-Multiple-family, 4.1.14 M-1 Multiple-family as follows:

B.2. Minimum required setbacks:  (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is administered.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)  The Front yard setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 45 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

6. Amend the Code language for the  following portions of sections 4.1.10 R-Residential, 4.1.11 R-1 Residential, 4.1.12 R-2 Residential as follows:

B.2. Minimum required setbacks:  (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is administered.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)   The Front yard setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 20 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

7. Amend the Code language for the following portions of sections 4.1.5 O-Open and 4.1.8 RE-Rural Estate as follows:

B.2. Minimum required setbacks for lots created on or before November 29, 1973, including lots created on or before that date that have been reconfigured by amended plat, add-on agreement or boundary line adjustment:  (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is administered.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)   The Front yard setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

B.3. Minimum required setbacks for lots created after November 29, 1973. , see Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance(If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is administered.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)  The Front yard setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

8. Amend the Code language for the following portions of section 4.1.23 RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business as follows:

B.2. Minimum required setbacks:  (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is administered.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 for setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)  The setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater,  except for those lots fronting on Main Street between County Road 179 and Grand Drive, where the setback may be the lesser of 25 feet or the same setback established by an existing structure on the same side of the street in that block. 

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

9. Amend Section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways and county roads which contains general setback requirements applicable in all zoning districts as follows:

4.9.1.  Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.

A. Highways.  Setbacks from state and federal highways are 100 feet from the right-of-way centerline or 50 feet from the right-of-way line, whichever is greater, except those highways noted below where the minimum setback is 130 feet from centerline of the right-of-way or 80 feet from the right-of-way line, whichever is greater:

1. U.S. Highway 287 from Fort Collins city limits south to the Boulder County line.

2. Colorado Highway 68 (Harmony Road) from Interstate 25 west to Highway 287.

3. Colorado Highway 14 (Mulberry Street) from Fort Collins city limits east to the Weld County line.

4. Colorado Highway 392 from Interstate Highway 25 east to the Weld County line.

5. U.S. Highway 34 from Mourning Drive east to the Weld County line.

6. Fort Collins Expressway and those portions of U.S. Highway 287 and Colorado Highway 14 north of Fort Collins city limits that are four lanes.

7. Colorado Highway 402 from Loveland city limits east to the Weld County line.

 

B. County Roads.  Setbacks from Larimer County roads, as identified and classified on the Larimer County Functional Road Classification Map, shall be measured from the original right-of-way centerline, before any additional  right-of-way was dedicated, as determined by the County Engineer, as follows:

 

TABLE INSET:

 

Road Classification           Measured from right-of-way centerline

  Arterial   

110 feet *   

Major collector   

100 feet *   

Minor collector   

70 feet *   

Local, numbered county roads   

60 feet *   

 

*Setbacks for additions to existing buildings, which are nonconforming with respect to county road setbacks, are eligible for an administrative variance procedure. See section 4.6.7.

 

C.  All other streets and roads.

1.  Setbacks shall be measured from the lot line, nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

2.  Street and road setbacks are stated in each zoning district.

3.  The applicable street and road setback applies to both sides of a street or road adjacent to a lot or that goes through a lot.  When an applicable side or rear setback exceeds the street or road setback, the greater setback applies.

4.  Setbacks do not apply to streets or roads that are used for internal circulation in multi-family, commercial, or industrial developments.

 

10. Amend Section 4.9.2 Additional Setback Requirements as follows:

A. Setbacks from streets and roads.  Setbacks from interior subdivision streets and from public and private roads are stated in each zoning district. Setbacks are measured from the nearest edge of the right-of-way or access easement. 

 

B . AStreams, creeks and rivers.  The minimum required setback from any stream, creek or river identified on a U.S.G.S. quadrangle map is 100 feet from the centerline of the water course unless a greater setback is required by section 8.2 (wetlands); subsection 8.4 (wildlife); or section 4.2.1 (floodplains). 

 

C . BArchitectural features.  Architectural features such as cornices, canopies, eaves, awnings, bay windows, window wells, cantilevered walls, chimneys and mechanical equipment may extend two feet into a required setback. In all cases a minimum setback of three five feet for any structural component or architectural feature must be maintained from all property lines. No part of any building structure, including the architectural features mentioned above may extend outside a designated building envelope. No part of any building structure, including the architectural features mentioned above may extend into or above any easement. 

 

DC. Porches and Decks,  Open, unenclosed, uncovered porches or decks, located at grade have no setback restriction.  Open, unenclosed, uncovered porches or decks, with the finished floor elevation 30 inches or less above the average finished grade, must maintain a distance of five feet from all lot lines may extend six feet into a required side or rear setback.  All porches and decks with a finished floor elevation greater than 30 inches must meet the applicable building setbacks.  However a minimum setback of three feet must be maintained from all property lines. No porch or deck may extend into or above an easement or outside a designated building envelope.

 

E. Reversed corner lots.  The side setback along the street side of a reversed corner lot must equal or exceed the required front setback for that street. 

 

F. Setbacks for landscaping requirements.  Setbacks may need to be greater than those specified above as necessary to accommodate landscaping requirements of section 8.5 (landscaping).

 

D.  Structures .  All structures must maintain a distance of 5 feet from all lot lines.  Structures may be located outside a building envelope unless restricted to the building envelope as part of an approved development.   No part of any structure may extend into or above any easement.

 

E.  Fences

1.  Fences for individual residential uses must meet the following criteria.

a.  All fences are subject to sight triangle standards included in the Urban Area Street Standards and Rural Area Road Standards that are part of the technical supplement to this code.

b.  Fences in the required street and road front yard setback can must not exceed eight feet high. (Note:  Any fence over six feet requires a permit from the county building department.) 

 

2.  Requirements for all fences other than agricultural fences.

a.  The height of fences will be measured from ground level at the base of the fence except that depth-of-drainage channels under a fence can not be included in the height measurement.

b.  The height of fences built on berms or retaining walls must include the height of the berm or wall.

 

11.  Revise Section 4.6.7 Administrative Variance to eliminate repetitiveness and to add an additional administrative variance as follows:

4.6.7.  Administrative variance.

The administrative variance process requires a pre-application conference and review by the planning director. Administrative variances automatically expire if not acted upon within 12 months of the date of the written approval of the planning director.  The decision of the planning director may be appealed to the board of adjustment.  See section 22, Appeals.

 

A. The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from the required 100-foot setback from the centerline of streams, creeks and rivers up to 50% of the required setback provided the following criteria are met. The administrative variance process requires a pre-application conference and review by the planning director. The decision of the planning director may be appealed to the board of adjustment.

1. The review criteria for a setback variance in Section 4.6.3 are met o r determined to be inapplicable;

2. The proposed building site is not within a wetland area;

3. The proposed building site is not within a 100-year floodplain; and

4. The proposed building site is not within any federally designated threatened or endangered species critical habitat;

 

Administrative variances automatically expire if not acted upon within 12 months of the date of the written approval of the planning director.

 

B. The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from the county road setback requirements listed in section 4.9.1.B. for additions to existing buildings which are nonconforming with respect to county road setbacks, subject to the following criteria:

1. The proposed addition must meet the following minimum setbacks:

a. Arterial roads-90 feet from ROW centerline;

b. Major collector roads-80 feet from ROW centerline;

c. Minor collector roads-60 feet from ROW centerline;

d. Local roads-55 feet from ROW centerline.

 

2. A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners within 250 feet of the subject property or as determined by the Planning Director, and no objections were stated;

2.  Written documentation has been provided to the Planning Department that the property owners in the vicinity of the proposal, or as determined by the Planning Director, have been notified and they have indicated they support the variance request;

3. No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification.

4. The 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. See section 22, Appeals.

 

C. The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from the required setback on one side of a corner lot for an addition to an existing building which is nonconforming with respect to the required street or road setback provided the following criteria are met.

1.  The building is nonconforming with regards to the street or road setback that is not along the front lot line.

2.  The proposed addition must not come any closer to the road than the existing building.

3.  The lot is less than ½ acre in size.

4.  A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners within 250 feet of the subject property or as determined by the Planning Director, and no objections were stated;

4.  Written documentation has been provided to the Planning Department that the property owners in the vicinity of the proposal, or as determined by the Planning Director, have been notified and they have indicated they support the variance request;

5.  No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of Transportation.

6.  The review criteria for a setback variance in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable.

 

4.6.7.D C The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from all setback requirements up to ten percent of the required setback after finding the proposed setback is consistent with the intent and purpose of this code. The planning director's decision must be in writing and may be appealed to the board of adjustment. See Section 22, Appeals.

 

As a result of the above proposed changes, the following sections should be revised or relocated.

 

1.  Amend the following portions of Section 4.6. Zoning Variances as follows:

4.6.2.  Applicability.

When consistent with the review criteria listed below, the Board of Adjustment may grant zoning variances:

A. From the minimum setback requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21  and 4.1.23;

B. From the maximum structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23; and

C. From the minimum setback requirements and maximum height requirements of sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 and 8.19. 4.9.1, 4.9.2.

 

2.  Amend the following portions of Section 5.3 Conservation Development as follows:

5.3.5 Land Uses

E.  Existing rural features on the site, such as farmstead structures and fencing, should be preserved if the structures have historic value.

 

 

5.3.7.C. Building envelopes.   

1. In lieu of setbacks, building envelopes must may be designated for each lot to identify the area where all structures buildings may must be constructed and to provide adequate separation between structures buildings and uses or activities. Building envelopes must be designed to avoid hazard areas, the tops of ridgelines or slopes, view corridors, open fields, sensitive environmental areas, and agricultural infrastructure. To the maximum extent feasible, all building envelopes must be located at least one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) from the edge of the Interstate 25 right-of-way. In mountainous areas, building envelopes must be designated at the minimum size necessary to construct a dwelling on the lot so the area disturbed is minimized.

 

2. On a residual lot, if building envelopes are used, agricultural buildings may be located outside the building envelope only if specified as part of an approved development, but in those cases they must meet all the applicable building setback requirements.  Building envelopes must be established for buildings related to agricultural uses in the residual land and designed to cluster buildings and structures together in the least sensitive portion of the area.

 

3. The placement of structures buildings within building envelopes along the street frontage should be varied to minimize uniformity.

 

4. Existing rural features on the site, such as farmstead structures and fencing, should be preserved if the structures have historic value.

4.  A building envelope may be used to limit the location of various types of structures.  When so used, the types of structures limited to the building envelope must be clearly stated as part of an approved development with the implication that all other types of structures may be located outside the building envelope.

 

3.  Create a new Section 8.1.6 Fence Standards as follows:

8.1.6 Fence Standards

A.  Fences for individual nonresidential uses, excluding agricultural uses.

Fences for individual nonresidential uses, excluding agricultural uses, must meet the following criteria:

1.  Fences up to six feet high may be placed anywhere on the lot but are subject to sight triangle standards included in the county road standards that are part of the technical supplement to this code.

2.  Security fencing may include three strands of wire on top of the fence that will not be included in the height measurement. The wire strands must not extend beyond the property line.

 

B.  Development perimeter fencing (excluding agricultural fencing).

1.  If fencing is proposed around the perimeter of a development, any fencing adjacent to a county road or state or federal highway must be compatible with existing land uses, topography and landscaping in the immediate vicinity.

2.  Fences longer than 40 feet must include one evergreen tree or three shrubs for each 40-foot section or portion thereof planted on the outer or public side of the fence.

3.  Fences longer than 100 feet must provide variation by using changes in height, different material combinations, offset angles, articulation and/or plant materials.

 

C.  Requirements for all fences other than agricultural fences.

1.  The height of fences will be measured from ground level at the base of the fence except that depth-of-drainage channels under a fence can not be included in the height measurement.

2.  The height of fences built on berms or retaining walls must include the height of the berm or wall.

3.  All fences must be constructed in a professional manner and properly maintained.

 

D.  Wildlife.

Wildlife should be considered before the construction of any fence. The division of wildlife should be consulted for design criteria for fences in important wildlife habitat areas. If a development is subject to a wildlife conservation plan, there may be additional fence regulations based on the plan. See sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.6 for additional fence regulations.

 

4. Delete Section 8.16 Fences renumber the remainder of the section.

 

5.  Amend the following portions of Section 8.6 Off-Road Parking Standards as follows:

8.6.3.B.5.a Setbacks.    Parking Lot Location.

a. Parking lots must be set back  separated from road rights-of-way and from side and rear lot lines in accordance with the following:

 

TABLE INSET:

 

  Along an arterial road   

15 feet   

Along a nonarterial road   

10 feet   

Along a side or rear lot line   

8 feet   

 

 

b. Parking lot setbacks for rear and side lot lines may be waived for buildings or uses with shared parking facilities.

 

6. Amend the following portions of  Section 18.2.  Manufactured Homes and Manufactured Home Parks as follows:

18.2.3.C.   Minimum setbacks. The minimum setback along property lines of a manufactured home park are listed below. Structures Buildings, including manufactured homes, must not be erected, constructed or located closer to such property lot lines than the minimum setback distance, unless otherwise specifically provided.

1. Setbacks from public street or highway rights-of-way must comply with subsection 8.17 4.9.1.A and 4.9.1.B (setbacks from highways and county roads) of this Code.

 

7. Amend the following portion of  Section 8.14.2.E Development Design Standards as follows:

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

 

8.  Amend the following portions of  Section 22.0  Appeals as follows:

22.2.  Appeals To County Commissioners

22.2.1.  Applicability.

A. The county commissioners are authorized to hear and decide appeals where:

1. A person asserts that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or refusal made by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this code (administrative decisions) except:

a. The minimum setback or structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23; or

b. Sections 4.9.1, and 4.9.2., 4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6.

2. A person asserts that the planning director has made an error in interpreting the text of this code.

3. A person proposes to deviate from a standard or requirement imposed by this code, except standards or requirements which are subject to zoning variances from the board of adjustment in section 4.6.1 4.6.2.

22.3.  Appeals to the Board of Adjustment

 22.3.1.  Applicability.

A. The board of adjustment is authorized to hear and decide appeals where:

1. A person is aggrieved by his/her inability to obtain a building permit as a result of an error by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of:

a. The minimum setback or maximum structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23; or

b. Sections 4.9.1, and 4.9.2.,  4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6 .

2. An officer, department, board or bureau of the county is affected by the grant or refusal to grant a building permit as a result of an error by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of:

a. The minimum setback or maximum structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23; or

b. Sections 4.9.1, and 4.9.2., 4.9.3., 4.9.4 and  4.9.6 .

3. A person asserts that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or refusal made by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of:

a. The minimum setback or maximum structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23; or

b. Sections 4.9.1, and 4.9.2., 4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6.

B. All appeals of the planning director's interpretations of the provisions of this code are expressly reserved to the county commissioners.

 

Staff findings are as follows:

 

1.   The proposed changes are consistent with the Master Plan and the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code.

2.   The proposed changes are necessary to correct an omission or error in the Land Use Code.

3.   The proposed amendments satisfy the above review criteria for changes to the text of the Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Rennels commented that, although this topic was not discussed heavily by the Board, this has been the result of many months of hard work by staff.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding setback requirements, File #09-CA0091.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing recessed at 3:35 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present.  Also present were:  Rob Helmick, Planning Department; Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Chad Gray, Code Compliance, Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Tamara Slusher, Deputy County Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels opened the meeting by asking for public comment on the County Budget or the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.

 

1.         GRAYCOR BLASTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION, FILE #08-Z1691:   This is a special exception request for the use of a 40 acre parcel, including the use of an existing building and surrounding lands, for storage of company equipment, as the regional base of operations, and the storage of explosives used in the business.

 

This Special Exception request was submitted to the County for review in May of 2008, as the result of a Code Compliance issue.  The parcel is zoned O-Open and the uses currently and proposed on the site are not allowed by the zoning.  After the Sketch Plan and public hearing submittal and referral the Development Services Team formulated a recommendation for denial. 

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application in November of 2008.  They have forwarded a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners

 

The Board of County Commissioners opened the public hearing on February 9, 2009.  That hearing lasted over 2.5 hours and at its conclusion the Board of County Commissioners tabled the application and gave staff the direction to develop possible conditions of approval, if the Board were to approve the application.  The minutes of that hearing are attached for your review. 

 

After the hearing the staff generated a letter reflecting the Board of County Commissioners direction that was sent to the applicant and interested parties soliciting their input with respect to possible conditions of approval.  We did receive from the applicant and neighbor’s several documents with respect to this, they are attached.   We will not summarize those here but will note some specific issues. 

 

The applicant’s attorney, Mr. Goddard, provided a document indicating possible conditions with respect to the nature of the business.  This was provided after meeting with the staff and reviewing the understandings with respect to the business and the “commitments” made by the applicant.  In reviewing the “proposals” some confusion with respect to the actual traffic generated by the use, its frequency and duration and the nature of the traffic continues to exist.  For example, what does the typical day look like and what does a “busy” day look like.  The applicant also has proposed to store up to 8 business related vehicles outside for issues related to corporate security policy as well as the vehicles of employees.

 

The adjoining landowner and neighbor comments that were provided raise issues related to the condition of the road and its maintenance, lighting, on site security, notice regarding transportation of explosives, limits on traffic, business off site, expansion of the use, termination of the use and providing a variety of reports and or proofs.  It should also be noted that a number of these comments seek to further discuss the appropriateness of the use.

 

As the Board of County Commissioners considers this use as currently proposed there are a number of issues which arise:

 

  • If improvements are made to this site in support of the business, any future property owner will want to also operate a business at this site in order to recoup the financial investments made. 

 

  • The use here contains a single family home.  It is on the same parcel as the business and currently the owner of the business is the same as the parcel.  In the future the owner of the residence may not choose to operate the business.  There then results a “conflict” where we have a business on the same parcel as a home but the business owns no land or structures associated with the business.  Without an ownership interest in the parcel there may result a significant conflict in the long term. 

 

  • There may be aspects of the use which are inconsistent with the proposed conditions. This is clearly an argument to relocate the business or restructure the business so that there is no conflict. 

 

  • Travel associated with the business is all out of state.  There is no apparent “local” business beyond the off site maintenance and repair of vehicles and equipment. 

 

  • If the Board of County Commissioners is inclined to approve the business and anticipates that it will expand at this location beyond that which is currently proposed (not entirely clear), then more information will be needed to determine the extent and or appropriateness of the expansion. 

 

  • The following further explains the rationale behind the various Master Plan principles and strategies that deal with commercial and industrial development in the urban and rural areas of the County:

 

o  In terms of new or expanded commercial and industrial development, the Master Plan calls for the location to be either in a municipality or in a Growth Management Area (that would be eventually annexed) where the municipality’s land use plan supports such uses.  The idea behind this is that it is hoped that new commercial and industrial development will prosper and grow, and over time growing businesses will need or depend on a higher level of such services as fire protection, police protection, water, sewer, paved roads, etc.   Locating these businesses when they commence in municipalities or Growth Management Areas will greatly enhance the likelihood that they will not have to relocate when they grow.  For those businesses that wish to locate in a Growth Management Area that currently does not have the proper zoning, the Master Plan supports the idea of up-zoning these sites to PD-Planned Development, which is created to mirror the zoning the municipality would use if it were already annexed.  Typically, there will be a substantial amount of vacant land suitable and planned for commercial and industrial development in a municipality’s limits and/or GMA.

 

o  The Master Plan supports the location of those types of commercial or industrial activity in rural areas when and if such uses truly have specific requirements which justify their location in rural areas and are consistent with the principles of the Master Plan.  Examples are tourist-related businesses adjacent to major highways or tourist routes, agribusiness, utilities and mining operations. The Land Use Code supports business uses in rural areas that are supportive of and consistent with the preservation of rural character, including home occupations and agri-business.

 

o   The Master Plan discourages new commercial and industrial development from locating in rural areas (all areas outside Growth Management Areas, LaPorte and the Red Feather Lakes business zone) since such development will generally not have (now or in the foreseeable future) an “urban” level of services, may detract from the stated desire of preserving “rural character”**, or may otherwise not be compatible with the residential and agricultural neighborhood.  The concept of allowing new commercial and industrial development to “start up” in a rural area and then hope that they eventually move to an urban area after they grow to a certain size/intensity is fraught with difficulties. Specific examples of this situation in Larimer County show that businesses typically will not find it financially or organizationally feasible to make such a move.  Such properties typically have improvements on them that are specifically designed to serve the present business, and therefore difficult to sell to a different type of business or for non-business use. This perpetuates business uses in the rural area.  Also, the practice of County approval by Special Exception of existing non-approved (illegal) commercial or industrial uses sends the message that it is ok to start up a business in the rural area without the necessary county approval—that it is better to beg for forgiveness than it is to seek the required approval beforehand.

 

The Team in evaluating the file and record information and reviewing possible conditions of approval would suggest the Board of County Commissioners consider adopting findings to be incorporated as a part of an action to approve.  Those findings should relate to the approval criteria listed below. 

 

a.   The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area and will be in harmony with the neighborhood;

 

b.   The recommendations from referral agencies have been considered;

 

c.   The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject property;

 

d.   The applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this code;

 

e.   There is reasonable justification for the use being at the proposed location rather than in a municipality or where zoning would allow the use by right or by special review;

 

f.   The nature of the proposed use and its operations are such that there are significant benefits to the public to be located where proposed; and

 

g.   The proposed use is consistent with the county master plan.

 

Based upon the record and the direction received at the February 9, 2009 hearing the Development Services Team believes there continue to be three distinct courses of action available to the Board.  Those are:

 

  • To Deny as previously recommended by the Development Services Team and the Larimer County Planning Commission.  This would require the business operations to relocate to a site having the appropriate zoning for such a use (I-Industrial) or to an adopted Growth Management Area where it would be appropriate for the County to rezone the site to a PD Planned Development structured to accommodate the use.

 

  • To Approve with Conditions.  The conditions as listed below would be those that limit the use to NO outside storage or parking of any vehicle associated with the business at any time.  Any vehicle which needs to be stored outside instead must be stored inside or parked off site on a properly zoned parcel.  Because these are business vehicles they cannot be parked on an employee’s property but on a site zoned for the parking and/or storage of vehicles.  (include conditions #1-12, 16-18 & 20-21)

 

·   To Approve with Conditions.  The conditions are as listed below with the inclusion of those that would allow for the outdoor screened parking of employee vehicles and no more than two business vehicles (explosives) also screened.  Any vehicle which needs to be stored outside, beyond those identified above, must be stored inside or parked off site on a properly zoned parcel.  Because these are business vehicles they cannot be parked on an employee’s property but on a site zoned for the parking and/or storage of vehicles.  (include all conditions except #2)

 

If the Board of County Commissioners determines to approve the Graycor Blasting Special Exception and File #08-Z1691 the Development Services Team recommends the following condition(s):

 

  1. The maximum number of Graycor trucks and trailers on site, exclusive of employee owned or employee leased light duty trucks shall be 21.
  2. There shall be no vehicles parked outside beyond the personal non-business vehicles of the land owner.
  3. The hours of operation shall be 7 am - 6 pm Monday through Friday Weekend and after hours use is limited to emergency mobilizations and vehicle drops.  The operator is obligated to inform the Planning Department of these occasions in writing within 5 working days of the event.
  4. The maximum number of vehicle trips to and from the site on any calendar day for any business purpose shall not exceed 20.
  5. No later than 60 days from approval the applicant shall provide a final executed agreement with the City of Fort Collins regarding the type and frequency of maintenance of Rawhide Flats Road from CR 84 north to Rodeo Hills Drive.  This agreement may either be for physical maintenance or compensation to the City.
  6. No later than 60 days from approval the applicant shall improve Rodeo Hills Drive as detailed in the report from CTL Thompson Engineering.
  7. No later than 60 days from approval the applicant shall provide and have approved by the Larimer County Engineering Department a maintenance plan for Rodeo Hills Drive, which shall include at a minimum condition analysis and frequency of maintenance.  Operator is obligated to comply with the approved plan for the life of the use.
  8. There shall be no parking, loading, or unloading of vehicles or trailers on any roadway. 
  9. There shall be no expansion of the amount or nature of explosives stored at the site.
  10. The applicant shall insure that all licenses and permits which control or regulate the storage and/or transportation of explosives are current. 
  11. Beyond personal storage related to the residential use of the lot, there shall be no outside storage of any materials, tools, equipment, vehicles or trailers.
  12. No later than 60 days from approval the applicant shall provide a final site drawing that clearly shows the location of all personal and business related uses, any parking areas and any screening proposed.
  13. If any parking related to the business is allowed outside a structure it shall be clearly designated on the drawing and delineated on the ground and screened. 
  14. The only business related parking shall be employee personal vehicles no larger than a light duty truck.
  15. No business vehicles larger than a light duty truck and no trailers shall be parked outside or stored/parked off site, i.e. at an employee home, unless on a properly zoned site. 
  16. Parking of vehicles and trailers at an offsite location is only allowed if the property is zoned for such use.
  17. The applicant shall pay the Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee of $13,070.00 at time of issuance of the building permit to convert the existing "garage/barn” structure on site to the business use.
  18. All structures and buildings on site that are used in the business shall comply with the requirements of the Larimer County codes for those structures and their use.  Additionally, all parking shall be ADA compliant as required by the ADA. 
  19. Fences required for the screening of parking or any other aspects of the use shall be required to obtain a building permit even if the fence is not over 6 feet in height.
  20. The operator shall insure that the explosives storage area is properly secured at all times. 

21.   All business operations except the current office use shall be conducted outside the residence.

 

Tim Goddard, a representative for Graycor Blasting, addressed to Board to have clarifications made to the following conditions:

 

3.   Should the applicant provide notification of working outside the set hours 5 days prior or within 5 days following the incident? Furthermore, what would the added benefit be to the County?

 

11. The garage currently located at the site is not large enough to house all of the equipment required for operations of the business.  It is also impossible to house 2 specific vehicles due to the requirements of the GPS units affixed to them.

 

18. The applicant needs clarification of the ADA rules. 

 

Mr. Goddard further requested that, should the application be denied, Graycor would be allowed 6 months to relocate their business operations.

 

Discussion ensued regarding clarifying the amount of equipment used by Graycor which would be stored at the site.  Jeff Smith, Mike Selby and James Salvage addressed staff and the Board regarding these topics.  They clarified that the existing garage would not be sufficient to house all of the trailers that are used.  They further explained that the trailer and box truck that are housed with GPS units could not be stored indoors, since the structure is steel and the GPS would cease to function if brought indoors.

 

Kirsten Westerlund (a representative for the surrounding neighbors), Clint Borkowski, Catherine Critz, and Julie Hodziewich addressed the Board in opposition of approval stating that property values, safety and public health, and the over-all residential feel to the neighborhood would be compromised. They also expressed concern that it would be up to the neighbors to enforce the 21 conditions by complaint, enhancing tensions in the area.

 

Amanda Selby and Carrie Holbrook spoke in support of the approval, stating that Graycor was a respectable business and employer in Larimer County which only adds value to the community. 

 

Discussion ensued regarding the conditions proposed by staff and the applicant willingness and ability to comply.  Ms. Haag clarified for the applicant that should an additional building be required to house the vehicles they could work with the Building Department to obtain the necessary permits, which would not be in violation of the conditions proposed.

 

The Board discussed the three actions presented by staff in detail.  Since Graycor is operating in full compliance with federal regulations regarding the explosives and storage, the Board concluded that Option 2 was the most acceptable to the applicant and the surrounding community. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception as recommended by staff in Option 2 including the 21 conditions set forth above. Commissioner Johnson further moved that: Condition #3 be amended to state that the applicant shall provide notice within 5 days after an event, and all conditions referring to vehicle storage be amended to allow the trailer and box truck housed with GPS units under federal regulation be housed outdoors.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.         SELBY COMPLIANCE HEARING:  The property owner is in violation of Section 4.1.5, O-Open Zoning District of the Larimer County Land Use Code, by virtue of operating a commercial trucking and blasting company, AKA Graycor Blasting, in the O-Open Zoning District without Special Exception approval. The property owner is also in violation of the International Building Code, by virtue of the residential accessory buildings being used as commercial buildings.

 

From February through July, 2008, Code Compliance staff received multiple phone and written complaints about Graycor Blasting company located on this property rapidly expanding in regards to the amount of vehicles, employees, and a huge building being constructed. Code Compliance staff immediately searched the building permit records for this property and contacted the owner. Staff informed the owner that the permit for the 5000 square foot steel building was issued for personal use only with a condition on the permit stating no commercial or home occupation use allowed. The property owner was then invited in to speak with a County Planner about his options for running the business from the property.

 

Several adjoining property owners have raised concerns about impacts on their quality of life from traffic, dust, noise, storage of explosives and the visual impacts caused by this business.  The site is a residential lot, in a semi-rural area, and it is reasonable to assume that adjoining residential properties will not become commercial properties.

 

Staff findings are as follows:

 

1.  The property is zoned O-Open.

 

2.  A trucking and blasting company is not allowed in the O-Open Zoning District without Special Exception approval.

 

3.  The 5000 square foot steel building is being used illegally as a commercial building.

 

If the Commissioners’ determination on land-use application No. 08-Z1691 resolves the Land Use Code violation for operating a trucking/blasting company in the O-Open Zoning District, staff recommends the Commissioners approve Option #1 under proposed motions below.

 

There was no public comment or Board discussion regarding this topic.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners finds a violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code does not exist for operating a trucking/blasting company in the O-Open Zoning District on the subject property pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners’ approval of the owner’s Special Exception application, File #08-Z1691, on this date.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

 

 

Tuesday, APRIL 7, 2009

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present.  Also present were:  Frank Lancaster, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Ginny Riley, and Scott Yoder, Human Services Department; Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Workforce Center; Kelly Peters, Rocky Mountain Innovative Initiative; Mark Peterson, and Charlie Johnson, Engineering Department; George Hass, Jeannine Haag, and Bill Ressue,  County Attorney’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.         PUBLIC COMMENT:  Joe Rowan, Executive Director for Funding Partners, presented a certificate to Chair Rennels for serving on the Funding Partners Board of Directors, and for her continued efforts and support of expanding this organization.

 

Mr. Lancaster had a discussion with the Board regarding the McWhinney’s request to re-prioritize the I-25, Highway 34, and Crossroads exchange road improvements as they relate to the original agreement.  He noted that the Loveland City Council will be meeting this evening consider the re-prioritization request.  The Board asked to discuss during the Administrative Matters meeting.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 30, 2009:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of March 30, 2009.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 13, 2009:   Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.         CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for April 6, 2009:

 

ABATEMENTS:   As proposed by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are presented for approval: Harmony Ambulatory Surgery Center LLC (2006, 2007, 2008); Timberline at Rigden Farm LLC; Everitt Enterprises Inc/Harmony Hotels LLC; Long View Partners LLC; and Rolando and Kathleen L Santos.

 

04072009A001           SUBCONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO PERTAINING TO COLORADO YOUTH WINS EVALUATIO CONTRACT RENEWAL

 

04072009A002           DOCUMENT 105 STANDARD FORM AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND INDEPENDENT ROOFING SPECIALISTS LLC FOR ROOF REPLACEMENT AT 2555 MIDPOINT DRIVE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

 

04072009A003           EXPENDITURE AUTHORIZATION BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS GRANT AGREEMENT AS AN ATTACHMENT

 

04072009A004           DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BLADEWORKS, INC.

 

04072009A005           AMENDMENT #4 TO ORIGINAL CONTRACT CLIN#08 NAA 00104; 08 NAA 00057; 08 NAA 01962; BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION, AND THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT – TORNADO DISASTER RELIEF

 

04072009D001           DEED OF DEDICATION JEFFERY M DONALDSON

 

04072009D002           DEED OF DEDICATION ACKERMAN LAND AND LIVESTOCK COMPANY

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:   The following Liquor Licenses were approved and issued: Loveland Country Store – 3.2% – Loveland; The Baldpate Inn – Hotel and Restaurant – Estes Park; Glen Haven General Store – 3.2% – Glen Haven; CLEAR – Special Event 6% – Loveland; Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment – Special Event 6% – Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.         CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH PROCLAMATION:  Ms. Riley requested that the Board proclaim the month of April as Child Abuse Prevention Month.  Mr. Yoder explained their role in the child protection unit, noting that they promote safety in the home and maintaining the family unit.  Commissioner Johnson read the proclamation aloud.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim the month of April 2009, as Child Abuse Prevention Month. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.         ROCKY MOUNTAIN INNOVATIVE INITIATIVE PRESENTATION:   Ms. Peters explained that the Rocky Mountain Innovative Initiative is a regional business incubator located in Fort Collins that supports small business and start-up company entrepreneurs grow their businesses.  She presented a slide show depicting the statistics, goals, grant applications, investors, and benefits to the region.  The Board thanked Ms. Peters for her thorough presentation.

 

7.  APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY SURVEYOR:  Chair Rennels explained that they had interviewed the candidates to finish out the four-year Surveyor term that was vacated by Tom Donnelly, prior to his being sworn in as Commissioner.  Chair Rennels recommended that Chad Washburn be appointment as the new County Surveyor.  Commissioner Donnelly abstained from the vote to avoid any perceived conflict of interest, as he was the last to hold the position of Surveyor.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners appoint Chad Washburn as the County Surveyor to finish out the current four-year term ending January 2011.

 

Motion carried 2-0.  Commissioner Donnelly abstained.

 

8.  ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Mr. Gluckman noted that there are meetings taking place with division and department representatives regarding enhancement of internal services.

 

Mr. Lancaster continued the conversation regarding re-prioritization of the I-25, Highway 34, and Crossroads exchange road improvements.  Discussion ensued, and the Board decided to withdrawal their previous letter and request more data so they could make an informed decision on which avenue to support.

 

Mr. Gluckman then updated the Board on pending legislation.

 

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

 

10.       LEGAL MATTERS:  Ms, Haag requested that the Board go into executive session to receive legal advice on specific legal questions. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to receive legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(a) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The Executive Session ended at 11:25 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

________________________________

                        KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

______________________________________

Tamara L. Slusher, Deputy Clerk

 

­­­________________________ ______________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk

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