> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 01/12/09  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, January 12, 2009

 

 

LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 11:00 a.m. with Linda Connors, Assistant County Attorney.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present.  Also present were Denise Ruybal, Clerk and Recorder’s Office;  Andrea Absmeier, Court Reporter; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

Due to inclement weather, the Board waited thirty (30) minutes for the applicant to arrive. After thirty (30) minutes, the applicant still had not arrived, so the hearing was rescheduled.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners reschedule the Liquor License Hearing regarding Gail’s Liquor.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the Board recessed at 11:30 a.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Rennels was present. Also present were: Traci  Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Wendy Dionigi, Candace Phippen, Toby Stauffer, Sean Wheeler, and Michael Whitley, Planning Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget or Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding either of these topics.

 

Chair Gibson addressed the audience and explained that the items on today’s consent agenda would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience.

 

1.         RANCHO DE EL RAY MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW:  This is a request for approval of a Minor Special Review for an accessory living area. The property is located on South County Road 31, south of Carter Lake, and contains a 500-square-foot accessory living  area in a detached barn, which is currently used to support employees of the horse boarding facility and riding academy. The apartment was built without permits or inspections, but these have been addressed with the County Building Department and the applicant will be required to finalize a “change of use” permit with the county, but this is not anticipated to be problematic. If the request is approved, the applicant will be granted a final Certificate of Occupancy for the apartment.

 

During a review of the application, staff found the proposed use to be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and in harmony with the neighborhood. The detached guest quarters will be restricted to use by family or friends, with no visible changes to the outside of the existing structure. The proposed use is consistent with the County Master Plan and there are no known conflicts with the requirements of the Land Use Code. The proposed use is not anticipated to have any impacts on other property.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Rancho De El Ray Minor Special Review for an Accessory Living Area, file #08-Z1727, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Rancho De El Ray Minor Special Review for an Accessory Living Area, file #08-Z1727, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement between the county and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Rancho De El Ray Minor Special Review.

 

2.         This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the county, the county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to the applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Minor Special Review approval, the applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. The county may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of approval.

 

3.         The findings and resolution shall be a servitude running with the property. Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the findings and resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Minor Special Review approval.

 

4.    The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits and approvals for the accessory living area. All applicable fees, including permit fees and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, shall apply to this use. Within 90 days from the date of approval, the owner shall obtain all outstanding the outstanding building permits and inspections for all previous work in the existing building.

 

5.         The accessory living area is to be used solely for guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling or those providing a service on site in exchange for their residency.

 

6.         The accessory living area must not be rented or leased separately from the single-family dwelling.

 

7.         This Minor Special Review approval will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

 

2.         OWASSA SUBDIVISION LOT 1, BLOCK 31 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #08-S2846:  This is a request to amend the plat of the Owassa Lake Subdivision in order to consolidate one of the lots with a portion of the Quaintance property, and vacate a 10-foot access and utility easement.

 

Staff has found that the proposed plat amendments to the Owassa Lake Subdivision, will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency and the amendments will not result in any additional lots. Therefore, this request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 1, Block 31 Owassa Lake Subdivision, file #08-S2846, and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    The final plat shall be recorded by July 12, 2009, 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 the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

3.    Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall provide an exhibit and written explanation detailing legal access for Lot 3A.

 

4.         Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall provide confirmation that telephone lines are not located in the utility easement to be vacated.

 

3.         ALEXANDER RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, FILE #08-S2847:  This is a request to vacate a 10-foot-wide "access road right-of-way" along the western property line of Tract One of the Bruce Porter Exemption and a 10-foot-wide access right-of-way along the eastern property line of Tract Two, located directly to the west. Together, the two rights-of-way would have allowed for the development of a 20-foot-wide shared access between the two lots; however, each property owner built their own driveway and a joint access was never developed, so the right-of-way is no longer needed.

 

Although the term “access right-of-way” is used on the exemption plat, the rights-of-way are contained within the boundaries of the tracts and function as easements to accommodate private driveways rather than functioning as public right-of-way.

 

Tract One gains access to Club View Terrace via a 20-foot-wide access road right-of-way along the northern property line of Tract Two which is located immediately to the west of Tract One. The property is developed with a single-family home and the property owner intends to extend his garage to the west. The Land Use Code requires a setback from right-of-way and access easements.  If the right-of-way is not vacated, the Land Use Code would require a 20-foot setback from the 10-foot-wide right-of-way for a total setback of 30-feet, from the western property line.  If the right-of-way is vacated, there would be a 7-foot side setback required from the western property line.

 

There are no utilities located in the right-of-way and a completed Utility Check Sheet was provided by the applicant.

 

The proposed right-of-way vacation will not adversely affect any neighboring properties, county agency, or utility provider. Staff finds that the right-of-way vacation request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code and recommends approval of the Alexander Right-of-Way Vacation, file #08-S2847.

 

M O T I O N 

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Consent Agenda for January 12, 2009.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

Commissioner Rennels explained that at this time, the Board would approve the minutes for the week of January 5, 2009, and the Administrative Consent Agenda, due to the upcoming change in Commissioners.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of January 5, 2009.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for January 12, 2009:

 

ABATEMENTS:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petition for Abatement is presented for approval:  Mason Street North LLC.

 

01122009A001           AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE TOWN OF BERTHOUD REGARDING THE 2009 RURAL LARIMER COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE (BERTHOUD)

 

01122009D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND LARIMER COUNTY FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

01122009R001           RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDED PLAT FOR SIERRA VISTA TERRACES LOTS 1 AND 3 AMENDED PLAT

 

01122009R002           RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR AMENDED PLAT FOR THOMPSONS LAKESIDE LOT 4 AND 5 AMENDED PLAT

 

01122009R003           LARIMER COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 10 ARTICLE VIII BUILDING CONTRACTORS LICENSING PROGRAM

 

01122009R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE S&H REZONING

 

01122009R005           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MCBLAIR RANCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION            

 

01122009R006           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MILLER AND SON SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT

 

01122009R007           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BECKER SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND APPEAL TO SECTIONS 8.14.2.Q AND 8.14.2.S OF THE LAND USE CODE           

 

01122009R008           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MOEN RANCH ROAD ACCESS CHANGE APPEAL  

 

01122009R009           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE JOHNSON-LEUTHOLD BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT                      

 

01122009R010           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 52 AND 54 IN CHARLES HEIGHTS 2ND AMENDED FILING OF THE 1ST ADDITION AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION

 

01122009R011           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF AN EASEMENT IN PONDEROSA LANE

 

01122009R012           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE STEVE SARNO ADDRESSING APPEAL        

 

01122009R013           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TEN BEARS WINERY SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS

 

01122009R014           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEWT PLANNED LAND DIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT, REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND APPEAL

 

MICELLANEOUS:  Larimer County Contributory Retirement Plan.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following license was approved and issued:  Boyd Lake Marina – 3.2% – Loveland.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

4.         CLINTON/NISSEN ZONING VIOLATION:  The owners of the subject property have been in violation of Section 4.3.10.H of the Larimer County Land Use Code by virtue of allowing more than five horses/equines on the property. The Larimer County Land Use Code states only one horse is allowed per half acre of land, and the subject parcel is 2.5-acres in size, permitting a total of five horses/equines. The property is zoned FA-Farming with several surrounding residential properties.

 

Numerous complaints have been received since 2001 regarding the number of horses on the property. Three previous code compliance files (Nos. 01-ZV0042, 02-ZV0146 and 06-CC0145) have been initiated, in 2001, 2002, and 2006 for the same violation – exceeding the number of horses allowed on the property. All three files were closed because the property owner reached compliance.

 

When asked about the most recent complaint, the property owner stated the excess horses would be removed by the end of October 2008, but because of unexpected delays, they were not removed until November 15, 2008.  

 

Staff recommends that the Board find a re-occurring violation of the Land Use Code exists and authorize legal action if the number of horses on the property exceeds five, at any time in the future.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners find a re-occurring violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code, for exceeding the number of horses allowed on the property, exists. Due to the re-occurring nature of the violation, the Board will also authorize legal action if the number of horses on the property exceeds the total number allowed by code.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

5a.       SUNNY JIMS CANDY RANCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION, FILE #08-Z1710:  Staff and the applicant are in agreement regarding all items associated with this request except one. The applicant would like the ability to have five trucks on site at any time, with one 32-foot-long truck. The total number of spaces requested is eleven, five truck spaces, and six candy spaces.

 

Staff has recommended twelve spaces total, six spaces for candy customers, four spaces for trucks, one space for a trailer, and one additional space for either business. Staff also recommended the applicant only have one 32-foot-long truck on site.

 

Staff recommends approval of Sunny Jims Candy Ranch Special Exception, file #08-Z10710, with the following conditions:

 

1.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the special exception approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners.

 

2.         The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and information contained in the Sunny Jim’s Special Exception, file #08-Z1710 except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement by the county and the applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Sunny Jim’s Special Exception, file #08-Z1710.

 

3.         This application is approved without the requirement for a development agreement.

 

4.         The findings and resolution shall be a servitude running with the property. Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the findings and resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the special exception approval.

 

5.         The special exception is approved with the following requirements:

 

a.         Four parked U-Haul trucks or other rental vehicles will be allowed on-site at any one time, with the primary parking spaces being on the east side of the property.

 

b.         Three rental vehicles shall be a maximum of 22-feet-long, one rental vehicle shall be a maximum of 32-feet-long.

 

c.         All vehicles must be parked so that all parts of the vehicle are within the property boundary and not in the adjacent right-of-way.

 

d.         One additional space for rental vehicles 22-feet-long or smaller will be allowed on the west side of the property. That space shall be for temporary parking only and any vehicle in that space must be moved off site or to another permanent space within 24 hours.

 

e.         If the property has more than four trucks, trailers or other rental vehicles on-site, the extra vehicles must be removed within 24 hours.

 

f.          Parking or storage of any vehicles associated with this use is not allowed off the property or in the Highway 34 right-of-way.

 

g.         No maintenance of rental vehicles is allowed on site.

 

h.         No additional businesses are allowed on-site without going through an approved county process.

 

i.          No additional structures or changes to the site are allowed without going through an approved county process.  

 

 

6.         The applicant shall provide a revised site plan to the Planning and Engineering Departments that shows proposed signage and striping for the property within 30-days of approval.

 

7.         Within 60-days of approval, the applicant shall sign and stripe the property to delineate parking spaces for rental vehicles, one overflow space, and spaces for candy customers.

 

8.         The applicant shall pay $4,250 in Transportation Capital Expansion fees within 60-days of approval.

 

9.         The applicant shall provide a narrative detailing the maintenance plan for rental vehicles to the Planning Department within 30-days of approval.

 

10.       The applicant will provide a 25-foot Right-of-Way (ROW) Reservation for Highway 34 with approval of this application. The 25-foot ROW reservation begins at the existing ROW line and extends 25-feet to the north, along the entire length of the property.

 

11.       The Larimer County Planning, Engineering, and Code Compliance Departments will conduct periodic site visits to confirm that the use is meeting all conditions of approval. If the use is not in compliance with the conditions of approval, county staff will document the violation and begin the process for a Show Cause hearing. The Show Cause hearing is a hearing before the County Commissioners, during which the Commissioners will evaluate if the use is in compliance with the conditions of approval and decide if the business will be allowed to continue. This Special Exception approval is considered notice of these conditions. If at any time after this approval the property is found to be not in compliance, the process for the Show Cause hearing will begin.

 

The applicant, Ida Suppes, addressed the Board and stated that she is in agreement with staff regarding all of the conditions listed above.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Sunny Jims Candy Ranch Special Exception, file #08-Z1710, subject to the conditions outlined aboved.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

5b.       SUNNY JIMS CANDY RANCH CODE COMPLIANCE:  This code compliance file was initiated in September 2006, upon receipt of a referral about an incompliant U-Haul truck rental business being operated from the site.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners find a violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code does not exist for operating a U-Haul truck rental business on the property, pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners’ approval of the owner’s special exception application, file #08-Z1710, on this date.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing recessed at 3:30 a.m.

 

           

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present. Also present were: Karlin Goggin, Building Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Karin Madson, Planning Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.   

 

Chair Gibson asked for public comment on the County Budget, Land Use Code or Rubbish Ordinance.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding any of these topics.

 

1.         RED MOUNTAIN ROAD ADDRESSING APPEAL:  This is a request by the residents of Red Mountain Road to retain the alias road name over the use of the county road designation, North County Road 37. As part of the Road Naming and Site Addressing System, staff  is proposing changes to existing addresses currently using Red Mountain Road, located north of Highway 287, on North County Road 37. Staff reviewed this road and addresses for compliance and found addresses are using an alias road name over the adopted road hierarchy.

 

The appellants seek to retain an alias road name designation in rural Larimer County rather than assume  North County Road 37. An alias road name is not an official road name unless approved and recorded by Findings and Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners. The appellants request the road name of Red Mountain Road to be retained due to preference in road names,  and possible historical value.

 

Staff has found:

 

1.         The county Land Use Code provides the ability to override the road name hierarchy on the basis of  historical significance, to be to provided by the recorded documentation and supporting evidence.

 

2.         The Larimer Emergency Telephone Agency (LETA) and the county have funded monies toward this project to ensure a systematic addressing system is achieved. County staff  has no objection with this appeal provided the intent of the resolution is fully met to override the North County Road 37 designation. 

 

3.         Prior appeals have been upheld and denied on the basis of historical significance due to various reasons and staff requests this appeal be reviewed on specific merits of importance as demonstrated by residents for this situation.

 

4.         The purposes of the Site Addressing and Road Naming Resolution is to provide property owners, the general public, and Larimer County with an accurate and systematic means of identifying and locating property. This includes the modification of address numbers and changing road names when found to be inconsistent. The county is working to establish a system of unique and consistent road names and address points while providing efficient public services and response.

 

5.         The appellant states there are two segments to North County Road 37, which could cause confusion. However, staff does not believe this would cause confusion, as the road segments have specifically different road ranges and present no issues for Emergency providers.

 

6.         Upholding this appeal will result in out-of-scope work and additional costs to this project, which are currently not funded.  Since the request was not found to be historically significant, the out-of-scope fees must be covered either by residents or the Board. The fees are not within the current allocated budget of this project.

 

Staff does not have a recommendation at this time and, instead, requests the Board make their decision based upon resident input at the hearing and consistency with the historical significance requirements of the county code.

 

Chair Gibson opened the hearing to public comment and Karen Lallemand-Smith addressed the Board. Ms. Lallemand-Smith stated that although documentation of the name’s historical significance may not be easily located, she felt the name was historical and provided a sense of place to residents.

 

Commissioner Rennels stated that she had discussed the name “Red Mountain Road” with long time residents of the area who agreed that the name had been in use for a significant amount of time. Commissioner Eubanks stated he felt it was important to honor the request of residents to retain historically significant road names.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to  retain the alias road name, “Red Mountain Road,” over the use of the county road designation, North County Road 37.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.         AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING CEMETERIES, FILE #08-CA0088:  This is a request to make changes to the adopted Land Use Code to amend the definition of a cemetery, include definitions for funeral homes and crematoriums, and include funeral homes in the C-Commercial, I, and I-1 Industrial zones. The majority of the discussion surrounding this request was whether crematoriums should be allowed in the C-Commercial zoning district. The proposed amendment would allow crematoriums in the C-Commercial and I-Industrial zoning districts with special review approval.

 

The Board of County Commissioners heard the proposed amendments at their hearing on December 8, 2008. After much discussion by the Board, the item was tabled and staff was directed to amend the proposal to include funeral homes and crematories as part of a cemetery.  Those directions resulted in the modified proposal outlined below:

 

1.         Amend the definition of cemetery as follows:

            Cemetery.  A tract of land set aside for interring four or more bodies, including columbariums and mausoleums when operated in conjunction with, and located on the same premises as, a cemetery. 

 

2.         Add definitions for the following:

 

            Funeral home – a building used for the preparation of the deceased for burial or cremation, for the display of the deceased, and/or for ceremonies or services related thereto, excluding a crematorium.

 

            Crematorium – a crematorium is a structure that houses one or more crematories.  A crematory is an incinerator, furnace, retort, or oven used for the purpose of cremation of human or animal remains.

 

3.         Amend the 4.3.4. Institutional Use Descriptions as follows:

 

C.        Cemetery.  A tract of land set aside for interring four or more bodies, including columbariums and mausoleums when operated in conjunction with and located on the same premises as the cemetery

 

1.         A funeral home or crematorium may be allowed by special review if located and operated on the same premises as the cemetery. 

 

4.         Add the following new 4.3.4 use descriptions following C-Cemetery and renumber the remainder of the section:

 

D.        Funeral home – a building used for the preparation of the deceased for burial or cremation, for the display of the deceased, and/or for ceremonies or services related thereto, excluding a crematorium.

 

E.         Crematorium – a crematorium is a structure that houses one or more crematories. A crematory is an incinerator, furnace, retort, or oven used for the purpose of cremation of human or animal remains.

 

5.         Amend the C, I, and I-1 zoning districts to allow a funeral home by right (R) and a crematorium by special review (S). List these uses under the “Institutional” category and renumber the remainder of the section:

            Funeral homes (R)

            Crematorium (S)

 

6.         Amend the zoning table inset in Section 4.1 to include the following in the C, I, and I-1 zoning districts:

 

Category:

Use:

Zoning districts C, I and I-1:

Institutional

Funeral Home

R

Institutional

Crematorium

S

 

Staff recommends the Board approve the request to make changes to the adopted Land Use Code.

 

Chair Gibson opened the hearing to public comment and Paul and Linda Kaiser, Dennis Lynch, Patrick Davies, Ph.D., Bridget Morse, Chris Vanwoerkom, David Sweetser, Nicholas Mondy, Karyssa and Katrina Richmond, Laura Bailey, and Eloyd Keesley spoke in favor of the recommended amendments. All were against allowing crematoriums to be located in residential areas due to the harmful effects of mercury on the health and wellbeing of nearby residents.

 

Mark Griffith also spoke in favor of the proposed amendments because he felt they were less restrictive than those presented by staff on November 3, 2008.

 

Chair Gibson closed public comment.

 

Commissioner Rennels clarified that the Board was not addressing a specific crematorium at this hearing, they were only addressing the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code. She also pointed out that both I-Industrial and C-Commercial zoning are located in populated areas of the county, therefore, this restriction may allow a crematorium to be located near residential areas and schools.

 

Commissioner Eubanks agreed with Commissioner Rennels and explained that the requirement for a special review is the key to protecting citizens. With the preceding clarifications, Commissioner Eubanks requested that public comment be re-opened to allow citizens to revise their statements.   

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners re-open public comment on the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code Regarding Cemeteries, file #08-CA0088.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Chris Vanwoerkom readdressed the Board and stated that until the Land Use Code was amended to prevent crematoriums from being located in populated areas, the current amendments would suffice.

 

Patrick Davies readdressed the Board and stated that he was content with the proposed amendments to the code, to allow crematoriums in cemeteries under special review, as this would ensure the public would be able to voice their opinions and protect surrounding neighborhoods.

 

Paul Kaiser also readdressed the Board and requested that Larimer County require scrubbers to be used on all crematoriums to mitigate and prevent mercury emissions.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code Regarding Cemeteries, file #08-CA0088, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING THRESHOLDS AND HOUSEKEEPING, FILE #08-CA0089:  This is a request to make changes to the adopted Land Use Code regarding thresholds for livestock veterinary clinics/hospitals, churches, community halls, pet animal facilities, pet animal veterinary clinics/hospitals, and a few housekeeping amendments. The Land Use Code currently has land use applications that have “thresholds” to determine whether the use is allowed by right, by minor special review, or special review. In many cases, the threshold used is “vehicle trips per day” (VT/D) and while thresholds are appropriate and necessary, this type of threshold is problematic in that one doesn’t know what the actual VT/D count is until after the use is in operation, and that count can vary over time.  Enforcement is difficult, if not ineffective with the use of VT/D as a threshold. The proposed amendments include thresholds based on gross floor area that can be clearly quantified before the land use application is processed and can be checked at the building permit stage.

 

Housekeeping amendments are proposed to address errors and inconsistencies in the Land Use Code.

 

Threshold Amendments:

 

1.         Add the following definition for gross floor area to Section 0.1, based on the building code definition:

 

Gross Floor Area: The floor area within the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the building under consideration, exclusive of vent shafts and courts, without deduction for corridors, stairways, closets, the thickness of interior walls, columns, or other features. The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls, shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. The gross floor area shall not include shafts without openings or interior courts.


2.         Delete Section 4.3.1.H. (this has been replaced and moved from Section 4.3.12.B).

 

3.         Change Section 4.3.1.O to read as follows:

 

O. Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital. A facility for the diagnosis, treatment and/or hospitalization of livestock.

 

1.       Minor special review is required for any livestock veterinary clinic/hospital:

 

a.         that generates 50 or fewer vehicle trips on any day  with a facility of up  to 2500-square-feet gross floor area (all indoor), except in the B-Business, C-Commercial or I-Industrial zoning districts where such a livestock veterinary clinic/hospital is a use by right: and/or

 

b.       that has an any outdoor activities other than the parking of customers' cars and an animal use area of up to 1000-square-feet.

 

2.       Special review approval is required for any livestock veterinary clinic/hospital:

 

a.       that generates more than 50 vehicle trips on any day with a facility of 2501-square-feet or more gross floor area (all indoor), except in the B-Business, C-Commercial and I-Industrial zoning districts where a livestock veterinary clinic/hospital is a use by right; and/or

 

b.       that has an any outdoor activities other than the parking of customers' cars and an animal use area of 1001-square-feet or more.

 

4.         Add Section 4.3.1.Q. and R (this is from deleted and modified Section 4.3.12).  

 

Q. Pet animal facility.  Any place or premise, used in whole or in part, for the keeping of pet animals for the purpose of adoption, breeding, boarding, day care, training, grooming, handling, selling, sheltering, trading, or otherwise transferring such animals. Pet animal facility also includes any individual animals kept by such a facility as breeding stock. Pet animal facility does not mean a common carrier engaged in intrastate or interstate commerce. Two or more pet animal facilities that have the same or similar purpose and operate from one place or premise are considered a single pet animal facility.

 

1.         Minor special review is required for any pet animal facility with up to 2500-square-feet gross floor area or less (all indoor) and generates 50 vehicle trips or less per day, except in the B-Business, C-Commercial and I-Industrial zoning districts where a pet animal facility is a use by right.

 

2.        Special review is required for any pet animal facility that:

 

a.       generates more than 50 vehicle trips on any day  with 2501-square-feet or more gross floor area (all indoor), except in the B-Business, C-Commercial and I-Industrial zoning districts where a pet animal facility is a use by right; and/or

 

b.       that has any outdoor animal use  area or more than ten animals outdoors at any time.

 

R. Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital.  A facility for the diagnosis, treatment, and/or hospitalization of pet animals. 

1.       Minor special review is required for any pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital :

 

a.         that generates 50 or less vehicle trips on any day with up to 2500-square-feet gross floor area or less (all indoor), except in the B-Business, RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business, C-Commercial and I-Industrial zoning districts where such a pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital is a use by right; and/or

 

b.         that has up to 200 square feet of outdoor animal use area

 

2.       Special review approval is required for any pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital that:

 

a.       generates more than 50 vehicle trips on any day  with a facility of 2501-square-feet or more gross floor area (all indoor), except in the B-Business, C-Commercial or I-Industrial zoning districts  where such a pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital is a use by right; and/or

 

b.       that has an any outdoor activities other than the parking of customers' cars and an animal use area of 201-square-feet or more.

 

5.         Delete Section 4.3.12 Pet Animal Regulations.

           

6.         Change Section 4.3.4.E and J. to read as follows:

 

E.       Church.  A facility that is intended for conducting organized religious services. A single-family dwelling, located on the same lot as a church and occupied by the pastor or other similar church leader, is allowed as an accessory use to a church.

 

A church is allowed by right in the T-Tourist, B-Business, C-Commercial, I-Industrial, and RFLB-Red Feather Lake Business zoning district except as noted below.

 

A church in the FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, FO-Forestry, FO-1 Forestry, O-Open, E-Estate, E-1 Estate, RE Rural Estate, RE-1 Rural Estate, R-Residential, R-1 Residential, R-2Residential, A-Accommodations, and AP-Airport zoning district that generates more than 100 vehicle trips on any day, and a facility with 2000-square-feet or less gross floor area (all indoor), requires approval through the minor special review process.

 

A church in the FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, FO-Forestry, FO-1 Forestry, O-Open, E-Estate, E-1 Estate, RE Rural Estate, RE-1 Rural Estate, R-Residential, R-1 Residential, R-2Residential, A-Accommodations, and AP-Airport zoning district that generates more than 100 vehicle trips on any day, and a facility of more than 2000-square-feet gross floor area (all indoor), requires approval through the special review process.

 

A church with an outdoor recreation area greater than 5000-square-feet gross area, requires approval through the special review process in all zoning districts where churches are allowed.

 

A church that includes a school or daycare requires approval though the special review process in all zoning districts where churches are allowed.

 

J.        Community hall.  A facility used for recreational, social, and cultural activities, open to the public or a designated part of the public, usually owned and operated by a public or nonprofit group or agency. 

 

A community hall is allowed by right in the RFLB-Red Feather Lake Business zoning district except as noted below.

 

A community hall in the FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, O-Open, and AP-Airport zoning districts that generates more than 100 vehicle trips on any day with a facility of 2000-square-feet or less gross floor area (all indoor) requires approval through the minor special review process.

 

A community hall in the FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, O-Open, and AP-Airport zoning districts that generates more than 100 vehicle trips on any day with a facility of more than 2000-square-feet gross floor area (all indoor), requires approval through the special review process.

 

A community hall with an outdoor recreation area greater than 5000-square-feet gross area, requires approval through the special review process in all zoning districts where community halls are allowed.

 

7.         Change the zoning table as follows:

 

Category:

Use:

Zoning districts:

Agricultural

Livestock Veterinary Clinic/Hospital 

No change

Agricultural

 Pet Animal Facility

B,C and I – R/S

FA, FA-1, FO, FO-1, O, RE, AP – MS/S

Agricultural

Pet Animal Veterinary Clinic/Hospital 

B,C, I and RFLB– R/S

FA, FA-1, FO, FO-1, O, RE, AP – MS/S

Institutional

Church

FA, FA-1, FO, FO-1, O, E, E-1, RE, RE-1, R, R-1, R-2, A and AP - MS/S

T,B,C,I and RFLB – R/S

Institutional

Community Hall

RFLB - R

FA, FA-1, O, and AP – MS/S

 

8.  Change the following portions of the zoning districts as follows:

4.1.1. FA-Farming A

9.       Pet animal facility (MS/S) - See section 4.3

13.     Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

14.     Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

25.       Church (RMS/S) See section 4.3

28.       Community Hall (RMS/S) See section 4.3

4.1.2. FA-1 Farming A

9.       Pet animal facility (MS/S)

13.     Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

14.     Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

26.       Church (RMS/S) See section 4.3 - See section 4.3

29.       Community Hall (RMS/S) - See section 4.3

4.1.3. FO-Forestry A

5.         Pet animal facility (MS/S) - See section 4.3

8.       Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

9.       Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

18.       Church (RMS/S) - See section 4.3

4.1.4. FO-1 Forestry A

5.       Pet animal facility (MS/S)

8.       Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

9.       Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

18.       Church (RMS/S) - See section 4.3 (use descriptions and conditions)

4.1.5. O-Open A

10.     Pet animal facility (MS/S) - See section 4.3

15.     Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

16.     Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

28.       Church (RMS/S) - Sec section 4.3

29.       Community Hall (RMS/S) - See section 4.3

4.1.6. E-Estate A

9.         Church (RMS/S) - Sec section 4.3

4.1.7. E-1 Estate A

9.         Church (RMS/S) - Sec section 4.3

4.1.8. RE-Rural Estate A                     

3.       Pet animal facility (MS/S) - See section 4.3

7.       Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

8.       Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

19.       Church (RMS/S) - Sec section 4.3

4.1.9. RE-1 Rural Estate A

6.         Church (RMS/S) - Sec section 4.3

4.1.10. R-Residential A

10.       Church (RMS/S)  - Sec section 4.3

4.1.11. R-1 Residential A

10.       Church (RMS/S) - Sec section 4.3

4.1.12. R-2 Residential A

11.       Church (RMS/S) - Sec section 4.3

4.1.16. T-Tourist A

16.     Church (R/S) - See section 4.3

4.1.17. B-Business A

1.         Pet animal facility (R/S) - See section 4.3

2.         Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/MS/S) - See section 4.3

3.         Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/MS/S) - See section 4.3

12.     Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S) - delete

13.     Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S) - delete

21.     Church (R/S) - See section 4.3

4.1.18. C-Commercial A.

3.       Pet animal facility (R/S) - See section 4.3

4.       Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/MS/S) - See section 4.3

5.       Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/MS/S) - See section 4.3

27.     Church (R/S) - See section 4.3

4.1.19. I-Industrial A

1.       Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/MS/S) - See section 4.3

2.       Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/MS/S) - See section 4.3

3.       Pet animal facility (R) - See section 4.3

47.     Church (R/S) - See section 4.3

4.1.21. AP-Airport  A

10.     Pet animal facility (MS/S) - See section 4.3

12.     Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

13.     Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S) - See section 4.3

31.       Church (RMS/S) - Sec section 4.3

32.       Community Hall (RMS/S) - See section 4.3

4.1.23. RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business A

11.     Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R /MS/S) - See section 4.3

12.       Church (R/S) - See section 4.3

13.       Community Hall (RS) - See section 4.3

 

9.         Add the following to the Accommodations zoning district as follows:

4.1.5.A. Institutional

14.       Church (MS/S) - Sec section 4.3

 

Housekeeping Amendments:

 

1.         Delete section 4.3.1.B items F and I (home occupation signs) since these are included in the Section 10 sign code.  Renumber the section. 

 

2.         Add  the phrase "for residential use" to section 9.1 since the section is only applicable for land divisions for residential use as follows:

 

9.1.2.  Applicability

This section applies to all plats and plans approved by the County Commissioners under any application to develop property as a subdivision, conservation development or planned land division for residential use.

 

3.         Place of Amusement. There is a discrepancy between definition and the Section 4.3.5 use description. Delete the “for a fee” portion of the definition section.

 

Place of amusement or recreation. A facility offering games, sports, exhibitions, and/or rides. This does not include golf courses, country clubs, shooting ranges or livery stables. 

 

4.         Zoning districts in which a nonpublic school, is allowed by right (R/S).  This is incorrect as all non-public schools require Special Review.  

 

5.         Institutional uses.

 

N.      School, nonpublicAny private or parochial school or any school operated as a commercial enterprise that provides education to more than eight unrelated pupils of compulsory school age. All nonpublic schools require approval through the special review process.  

 

6.         Change the designation for nonpublic school, in the 4.1.1. FA-Farming, 4.1.2 FA-1 Farming, 4.1.3 FO-Forestry, 4.1.4 FO-1 Forestry, 4.1.5 O-Open, 4.1.6 E-Estate, 4.1.7 E-1 Estate, 4.1.8 RE-Rural estate, 4.1.9 RE-1 Rural estate, 4.1.10 R-Residential, 4.1.11 R-1 Residential, 4.1.12 R-2 Residential, 4.1.17 B-Business, 4.1.18 C-Commercial, and 4.1.21 AP-Airport zoning districts as follows:

 

7.         Change the zoning table inset in Section 4.1 for the use Institutional/School, Nonpublic to appear as follows:

 

Category:   

Use:   

All zoning districts:

Institutional

School, Nonpublic 

R/S

 

8.         Sec. 4.5.6.A mentions the Planning Commission. “Planning Commission” should be deleted since Minor Special Review does not go to the Planning Commission for review or recommendation. Modify the section as follows:

4.5.6. Conditions of approval for minor special review applications.

 

A.      The planning director and planning commission may recommend and the county commissioners impose conditions on a minor special review use necessary to:

 

1.       Accomplish the purposes and intent of this code and the master plan;

 

2.       Prevent or minimize adverse effects on the public, neighborhoods, utilities and county facilities and services; and

 

3.        Ensure compatibility of land uses.

 

9.         Section 18.3.5.B.2. contains a reference to a permit that is no longer used. Delete that reference as follows and renumber the remainder of the section.

 

Some discussion ensued regarding  the restrictions placed on mobile vet clinics and the phrase “organized religions;” however, the amendments were ultimately agreed upon as they appear above.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code Regarding Thresholds and Housekeeping Items, as they appear above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009

 

 

BOARD REORGANIZATION MEETING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 10:30 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Commissioner Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelley and Johnson were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Assistant Count Manager; Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

The Commissioners discussed Board appointments and committee assignments.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners appoint Commissioner Rennels as the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners for 2009, and authorize her to buy and sell real estate, upon approval of the Board.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners appoint Commissioner Johnson as the Chair Pro-Tem of the Board of County Commissioners for 2009, and authorize him to buy and sell real estate, in the absence of the Chair and upon approval of the Board.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution Designating the Public Place in Which Notice is Posted Regarding Meetings of the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

1.         COLORADO COUNTIES, INC (CCI) COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:  The Board discussed assignments to various CCI committees for 2009.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Colorado Counties, Inc. Committee Assignments for 2009.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 20, 2009:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

 

 

 

 

________________________________

                                    KATHAY C. RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

­­­______________________________________

Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy Clerk