County Offices, Courts and the Landfill will be closed Monday, May 25 in observance of Memorial Day. Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present. Also present were: Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Samatha Mott, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance, and explained that the following item was on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested to do so by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
1. DISNER/SYBRANDTS 2ND EXTENDED FAMILYDWELLING FILE # 12-SP0292: This is a request for approval of a three-year time extension to the approval of an Extended Family Dwelling (EFD). The subject property is a 2.69 acre parcel located at the intersection of County Road 31 and North Shore Drive on the north side of Carter Lake. The property is zoned T-Tourist.
On April 6, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners approved the use of a one-bedroom manufactured home to be used as an Extended Family Dwelling (EFD) on a property with an existing one bedroom living quarters attached to an RV park store on the subject property. The request included an appeal to have the EFD on a parcel with less than 4 acres without public sewer service. The Board of County Commissioners approval was required because the property is less than 4 acres.
The applicant and his spouse reside on the property in the EFD and operate the store and RV campground. Their daughter and her family live in the existing living quarters attached to the store for the purpose of providing care assistance to the applicant and help with operating the campground. The applicant submitted a doctor’s letter confirming a disabling medical condition requiring constant assistance.
Larimer County Land Use Code Section 4.3.10.I. provides the standards for administrative approval of Extended Family Dwellings. Extended Family Dwellings are defined as living quarters in a manufactured home to temporary house immediate family members. The permit is issued for a term not to exceed three years, and may be extended for additional three-year periods as long as at least one occupant of the extended family dwelling is age 65 or older or is disabled.
The only comments received for this submittal were from the Building Department indicating that if the extension is approved internal files should be updated.
The Development Services Team finds the request for a three year extension of the Extended Family Dwelling approval meets the requirements of Section 4.3.10.I of the Land Use Code.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the three year extension of the Disner/Sybrandts Extended Family Dwelling, File #12-SP0292, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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 Extended Family Dwelling, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Extended Family Dwelling approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Extended Family Dwelling. All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Extended Family Dwelling approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Extended Family Dwelling as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Extended Family Dwelling approval.
2. 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.
3. The location of the extended family dwelling shall be consistent with the site plan and the information in File #09-SP0242.
4. 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.
5. 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.I. 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.
6. The applicant shall abide by the requirements of the Department of Health and Environment in regards to keeping the number of RV sites at 14 to accommodate the one bedroom manufactured home.
7. 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 both family members residing in the Extended Family Dwelling.
8. 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, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
2. COLLAND CENTER SIGN APPEAL #2, FILE # 12-G0239: This is a request to amend conditions of approval on file 12-G0212 to allow:
1. Three sides of a n existing sign pedestal to be used, change to condition #7
2. To place three 5’2” cabinets on top of the pedestals, change to condition #7
3. To allow an existing sign to remain up during construction of new signs, change to condition #1
4. To extend the 180 day deadline to meet these conditions, change to condition #6
On June 13, 2011 the Board of County Commissioners approved a sign appeal for Lots 4A and 4B of the Amended Plat of Lot 4 of Colland Center 3rd Filing. The approval allowed:
1. Signage to be added along Highway 287 to be shared by both properties
2. An off premise sign for 4B, the property further from Highway 287
3. Sign totals for 4A to exceed allowable sign square footage
4. Lot 4A to have more freestanding signs on one frontage than is allowed on other commercial properties in the County.
· Condition #7 of the approval allowed two sides of a three sided existing sign pedestal to be used for shared signage for the two lots on the corner of Hwy 287/ College Road and Highway 392.
· Condition #7 also allowed sign cabinets to be placed on the pedestal at the same height as the existing pedestal, meaning a portion of the pedestal would need to be removed to accommodate the cabinets.
· Condition #1 indicated that an existing sign needed to be removed prior to construction of the new signs on the pedestal, and condition #6 indicated work needed to be complete within 180 days of the approval, that deadline was January 12, 2012.
Lots 4A and 4B of Colland Center have several existing wall signs, and three existing double sided monument signs. Lot 4A is allowed 254 SF of signage; total existing signage is 252 SF, including wall signs. Lot 4B is allowed 240 SF of signage; total existing signage is 234 SF, including wall signs. Currently signs on both properties are conforming.
In 2005, two new freestanding signs were added to each frontage of Lot 4A under the condition that the monument signs, the three sided pedestal, on the northwest corner of the lot would be removed. The signage was removed; however the pedestals of the signs remain.
To approve an appeal from the applicable requirements in Section 10 of this Code, the County Commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:
A. Approval of the appeal is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Code;
The purpose of the sign code is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, provide property owners with an opportunity for safe and effective identification of uses, avoid clutter, and protect and maintain the visual appearance of the county. Lots 4A and 4B currently have safe and effective identification of uses with existing signage as allowed through the Land Use Code and the properties were grated additional signage through the appeal which further supports the ability of the businesses to advertise. Adding an additional sign or one side of the three sided sign, to the corner of Lot 4A is not necessary, given that the uses are safely and effectively identified. The additional sign would add visual clutter to the intersection and may impact safety. A taller sign may impact sight distance for drivers turning right off Hwy 392 onto Hwy 287.
Based on the way the pedestal is angled, two sides are visible to drivers on 287, the third side is visible to drivers heading west on 392. By the time a driver on 392 sees the sign for the shopping center, the driver has passed the entrance to the center. The original purpose of the appeal was to allow better visibility for Lot 4B on 287. At that time it was indicated that 4B did not need signage for drivers on 392. Adding the third sign to the pedestal does not achieve the purpose of adding more advertising for drivers on 287.
Additionally, keeping the signage up on Parcel 4B during construction may be unnecessary. Again, the purpose of the original appeal was to provide an opportunity for the back lot to advertise its businesses on 287. The sign along 392 advertises only to drivers on 392. Since the purpose is to advertise only to drivers on 287, there is no reason to keep the sign up.
The proposed changes to condition #7 and condition #1 are not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Code.
B. There are extraordinary or exceptional conditions on the site which would result in a peculiar or undue hardship on the property owner if Section 10 of this Code is strictly enforced;
There are not extraordinary or exceptional conditions on this site which result in a hardship to the owners if the sign code is enforced or if the conditions of approval are enforced. The previous approval allowed signage in excess of what is allowed to other businesses in a method that allowed reasonable use of existing infrastructure.
C. Approval of the appeal would not result in an economic or marketing advantage over other businesses which have signs which comply with Section 10 of this Code.
Approval of the appeal could result in an economic or marketing advantage over other businesses in the area. This property has been granted approval for a special circumstance which allows additional advertising and may give them an advantage over others that could not achieve the same results without going through a similar process. An additional approval does seem to give this property an even greater economic advantage. The appeal would allow additional signs under conditions that have not been allowed for other similar appeals or uses. There are no other properties in the area that have a legal off-premise sign advertising their business to travelers on Highway 287, and there are no other properties that have been allowed to have multiple freestanding signs on one frontage. Additionally, the approval may not be equitable to other property owners that have complied with the code. The approval of this appeal and change of the conditions would not be consistent with the intent of the code and it would give an advantage to this specific property, for which an appeal has already been granted.
The Engineering Department had no specific comments, indicating the CDOT has jurisdiction over both roads in question. During a site visit one staff member indicated that the additional height of signage may have an impact on sight distance.
New comments have been provided by CDOT for this request. A summary of comments from the previous request is provided here as well as correspondence between CDOT and Schrader Oil, describing how the sign can be allowed.
One of CDOT’s requirements for signage in this situation is that the lots must be created at the same time; if that is the case then the property is governed by CDOT “comprehensive development” provision. Because the properties were developed at the same time, the lots can share advertising without the creation of an off premise sign; in this way the two lots are considered to be a business park. However, the CDOT “comprehensive development” provision which (Colland Center properties) are requesting to be governed by, allows for only one double sided sign or two single sided signs to advertise the entire business park.
After the previous appeal hearing, the property owners understood that an agreement with CDOT was needed for the new sign in addition to the BCC approval. The Schrader proposal to CDOT was to create an easement between the properties for signage, so that the sign could be considered “on premise” and in good legal standing with CDOT. This proposal has been accepted by CDOT, pending submittal of legal documents to CDOT.
The Development Services Team recommends denial of this request, Colland Center Sign Appeal, given that is does not meet review criteria A, B or C as listed above.
Should the Commissioners wish to approve this request, the Development Services Team offers the following conditions for consideration.
1. Three sides of the three sided sign pedestal may be used for new signage.
2. Sign cabinets shall be 5’ 2” in height or less, and no more than 7’ in width.
3. Overall sign height for the three sided pedestal shall be no more than 8’ tall from average finished grade to top of sign, per Section 10.4 of the Land Use Code.
4. The freestanding sign on Lot 4B shall be removed upon completion of the new sign(s) on Lot 4A.
5. All permits and inspections for signs covered in this request shall be finalized within 90 days of this approval.
6. This approval is the maximum allowable for the proposed sign(s) as presented in the application materials.
Mr. Lafferty explained the appeal, as out lined above.
Brad March, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that they felt there was some confusion regarding how high the sign could be, and whether or not they could use all three sides of the pedestal, etc.
There was no public comment.
Much discussion ensued. Commissioner Donnelly stated that he also found some of the previous findings a bit confusing, and that the visibility of the signs should be considered. Commissioner Johnson disagreed and stated that in his opinion the findings were clear and complete.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal with the conditions, as outlined and amended above.
Motion carried 2-1; Commission Johnson dissenting.
3. BOXBERGER MINOR LAND DIVISION, FILE #12-S3108: This is a request is for a Minor Land division to recognize existing previously divided parcels and realign boundaries.
The three parcels involved in this Minor Land Division were not created by any approved County process but have existed as separate parcels since the 1970’s. Two of the parcels contain residences and outbuildings and one is vacant. The two larger and western parcels are zoned commercial and the smaller eastern parcel is zone FA-1 Farming. All of the parcel are currently shown as in the Fort Collins GMA, but are also in the area affected by the agreements between Fort Collins and Timnath regarding future GMA’s and annexation. One of the existing parcels predates the regulations and is non-conforming with respect to lot size. Its boundaries are being altered to maintain the lot area resulting from a previous ROW acquisition for Highway 14.
The two western lots in this Minor Land Division are affected by the Boxelder Creek flood plain. The Engineering Department has requested that the approximate limits of the current FEMA floodplain be shown on the plat.
This site is within the area of the original Fort Collins GMA and is also now in the Timnath GMA agreement area. A standard condition of approval for a Minor Land Division in any GMA is to require an agreement to annex for municipality. In this case, a “modified” annexation agreement, which will direct annexation to either, is suggested as a condition of approval.
The Development Services Team finds that this request meets the approval criteria for a Minor Land Division:
· No parcel is a part of any previously approved land division by Larimer County
· The lots created will either meet the minimum lot area or are previously created and non – conforming,
· Access to the lots will remains as it exists; and,
· The impacts of this are the same as existing conditions.
The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Boxberger Minor Land Division file # 12-S3108, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded December 18, 2012, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Poudre School District school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Community Park Fee (in lieu of dedication) and Boxelder drainage fee. The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.
3. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the application shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.
4. The Final Plat shall depict and note the approximate limits of the Boxelder Creek floodplain, as it affects the lots.
5. The applicants shall execute a modified annexation agreement permitting either Fort Collins or Timnath to request annexation at the appropriate time based on resolution of the agreement between the two cities with respect to GMA’s and annexation.
Mr. Lafferty briefly explained the application as outlined above.
The applicant, Jim Mokler, stated that he simply wants to make the lots legal once and for all and requested Board approval on the application.
There was no public comment on this item.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners Approve the Boxberger Minor Land Division file # 12-S3108 subject to the condition(s) as outlined above and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
TUESDAY, JULY 3, 2012
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Linda Hoffman, County Manager. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, and Donna Hart, Commissioners’ Office; Sheriff Justin Smith, Sheriff’s Department; John Gamlin, Human Resources Department; George Hass, and Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Gaiter opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mel Hilgenberg again urged the Board to create an Internet retail sales tax, to support recreational drug legalization and taxation, and to support a 1% increase in sales tax to support county programs and the jail.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 25, 2012:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of June 25, 2012.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 9, 2012: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as listed below:
07032012A001 RMSAWWA PROJECT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH THE LARIMER COUNTY WORKFORCE CENTER AND THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN SECTION OF THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
07032012A002 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT DEED AND AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, FOR THE MASON CORRIDOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
07032012A003 FIRST AMENDEMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WILSON PLANNNED LAND DIVISION, FILE #05-S2399, BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND CAROLINE J. WILSON
07032012A004 SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PEARL VISTA CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT, FILE #05-S2427, BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WARREN D. AND BARBARA J. KROEKER, TONY FERRO/MANAGER OF FERRO HOLDINGS, LLC, AND PEARL VISTA
07032012R001 RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR NATURE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, FILE #11-S3033
07032012R002 RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR MARIANNA PARK SUBDIVISION, LOTS 28 & 29, FILE #11-S3084
07032012R003 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REFEREES TO CONDUCT HEARINGS ON BEHALF OF THE LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
MISCELLANEOUS: Findings and Order – Cutunilli Enterprises LLC, dba Inferno Event Center – to transfer ownership of tavern liquor license.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were approved and/or issued: North Shore RV and Store, Inc – 3.2% - Loveland; The Hideout Patio Bar & Grill – Modification of Premises – Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Ms. Hoffmann reported on several fire recovery issues for the Board. She also noted that FEMA is only providing limited support at this time in the form of crisis counseling, mission assignments, and disaster un-employment (for those whose employment has been disrupted due to the fire). She also noted that the County’s Disaster Recovery Center, located at CSU’s Johnson Hall, will cease operations at close of business on Friday, July 6, 2012.
6. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board detailed their attendance at events during the last week.
7. LEGAL MATTERS:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into executive session for confidential legal advice, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
LEW GAITER III, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk