> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 11/16/15  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, November 16, 2015

 

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:  Jeannine Haag, County Attorney; Clint Jones, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Brenda Gimeson, Savannah Benedick, Karin Madson, and Rebecca Smith, Planning Department; Audem Gonzales, Estes Park Planning Department; and Craig Dorn, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gaiter opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that Mr. Gonzales, Planner I with the town of Estes Park, had provided legal notice of an item to be presented on today's agenda, however, the agenda was not prepared or delivered in time. Mr. Gonzales requested a continuance on the Voeks Appeal to Legal Lot Determination and for it to be tabled until the Land Use Hearing on December 21, 2015.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Voeks Appeal to Legal Lot Determination until December 21, 2015, at 3:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0

 

Mr. Lafferty asked that a condition be added to the Kerns Exemption, Cushman's Lakeview and Thompson's Lakeside Amended Plat and Boundary Line Adjustment, File #15-S3346. Mr. Lafferty explained that there is a portion of right of way being vacated in this development and the neighbor wanted to ensure that it does not affect his current access. Mr. Lafferty commented that his review of the material reveals it does not but they want the condition to be added to the staff report stating that prior to the recordation of the plat, the applicant will have a surveyor ensure that the neighbor's access will not be impacted by the vacation of right of way. Mr. Lafferty further noted that the applicant had agreed to this condition. None of the commissioners had any comment and Ms. Haag confirmed that the change would be included in the staff report as outlined below.

 

Chair Gaiter then noted that the following items were on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested to do so by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

1.    BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY LAW CHANGES:  The Board of Adjustment would like to change their meeting time from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Board met on October 27, 2015, and voted unanimously to approve the change. Further approval is needed from the Board.


The Development Services Team recommends approval of the proposed meeting time change as provided in the modified Supplemental Rules of Procedure for Larimer County Board of Adjustment


2.         VERIZON AT COLLAND CENTER CMRS APPEAL FILE #15-CA0159:  This is a request for an appeal to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 16.1.A.4. to allow equipment cabinets, utilities and an H-Frame to be located zero (0) feet from the property line rather than the required 10 foot setback.

 

Section 16.1.3.A.4. of the Land Use Code (LUC) contains setback requirements for guy wires, equipment buildings and cabinets which are the same as the minimum building setbacks in the underlying zoning district. In this case the C-Commerical zoning district requires a 10 foot side yard setback (there is no rear setback in the pie-shaped lot). In addition to the C-Commercial zoning district setbacks, section 4.9.2.D. requires that all structures maintain a distance of 5 feet from all lot lines. The equipment cabinet closest to the property line will be 2’3” from the west side and 2’6” from the north property line. The fence for the lease area would extend to the property line.


Per the request of the property owner, Verizon proposed to locate their equipment area for the facility at the property line with a 0 foot setback. Notice was sent to neighboring property owners since a 0 foot setback has the ability to affect the layout of new improvements on their property. No comments were received from the neighboring property owners.


The Development Services Team offers no specific findings or recommendation with regard to this request.


The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Verizon at Colland Center CMRS Appeal, File #15-G0297, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   This approval shall automatically expire in one year unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with this approval.

 

2.   Prior to further construction, the Larimer County Building Department must be provided with a written certification by a Colorado licensed land surveyor that the proposed structure is located where shown on the Larimer County approved plot plan for this department.

 

3.         AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS, FILE #15-CA0160:   This is a request to make several housekeeping amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code.


The Larimer County Planning Commission and Development Services Team recommend approval of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, File #15-CA0159, as follows:

 

1.   Modify the section 0.1 definition for bed and breakfast as follows:   Bed and breakfast. An owner-occupied, single family dwelling where short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided to transient guests for a fee. A guest is an individual over twelve years of age.

 

2.   Modify the first part of section 4.3.6.B (accommodation uses) as follows:   Bed and breakfast. Bed and breakfast. An owner-occupied, single family dwelling where short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided to transient guests for a fee. A guest is an individual over twelve years of age. The balance of the use description will remain the same.

 

3.   Add the category “Institutional” to section 4.1.18.A. (C-Commercial zoning district) between items 23 and 24 as follows: 23 - Retail marijuana testing facility (R)-See section 4. Institutional and 24 - Church (SP/S)

 

4.   Modify section 4.1.18.A.2. (C-Commercial zoning district) as follows:   25. Community Hall (SP/S)

 

5.   Modify section 4.1.19.A.6. (I-Industrial zoning district) as follows:   6. Automobile service station (SP/S)

 

6.   Modify the zoning table to add an “S” under the AP zoning district for the Commercial Category and the General Commercial use as follows:

 

 

7.   Modify section 4.9.2.B. (Additional Setback Requirements) as follows:   Architectural features. Architectural features such as cornices, canopies, eaves, awnings, windows, window wells, cantilevered walls, chimneys and mechanical equipment may extend 2 feet into a required setback or a setback approved by variance or administrative variance. In all cases a minimum setback of 5 feet for any structural component or architectural feature must be maintained from all property lines. No part of any building, including the architectural features mentioned above may extend outside a designated building envelope. No part of any building, including the architectural features mentioned above, may extend into or above any easement.

 

8.   Change section 5.3.6.B.e. (Conservation Development – Residual Land Design) to read:   Residual land areas must not include road rights-of-way or parking areas, except in projects with a ratio of 20 percent developed area to 80 percent residual land. The road right-of-way, up to 60 70 feet in width, may be included in the calculation of the required residual land.

 

9.   Modify section 10.6.J. (Signs Not Requiring a Permit) as follows:   J. Home occupation and accessory rural occupation signs. Signs for home occupations and accessory rural occupations shall be limited to one sign per property and be located on the same lot as the home occupation or accessory rural occupation.
     

1.   A home occupation sign shall not to exceed four square feet in area per face and six feet in height, located on the same lot as the home occupation or accessory rural occupation.

2.   A rural occupation sign shall not exceed 16 (sixteen) square feet in area per face and 6 feet in height.

 

10. Modify the following Section 4.3.2. - Residential uses as follows: A. Single-family dwelling. A structure designed, arranged or intended to be occupied by one living unit, containing a primary heat source and living facilities for sleeping, cooking, eating and sanitation. A dwelling may be leased or rented for any time period provided that the use of the property as a rental unit does not convert the property to a use contemplated by tourist or accommodation zoning, i.e. as a resort cabin, providing single night transient rentals.  A single family dwelling shall not be rented for less than 31 continuous days.

 

B.  Duplex dwelling. A structure designed, arranged or intended to be occupied by two separate occupants or living units containing a primary heat source and living facilities for sleeping, cooking, eating and sanitation. A dwelling may be leased or rented for any time period provided that the use of the property as a rental unit does not convert the property to a use contemplated by tourist or accommodation zoning, i.e. as a resort cabin, providing single night transient rentals. A duplex dwelling shall not be rented for less than 31 continuous days.

 

C. Dwelling, cabin. A structure that contains at least one habitable room for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation that is designed, arranged, and intended to be occupied by one occupant or living unit. A dwelling may be leased or rented for any time period provided that the use of the property as a rental unit does not convert the property to a use contemplated by tourist or accommodation zoning, i.e. as a resort cabin, providing single night transient rentals. A cabin dwelling shall not be rented for less than 31 continuous days.

 

1.   A cabin that includes a primary heat source will be considered to be a single-family dwelling.    

 

2.   Cabins are permitted in the applicable zoning districts (See subsection 4.1) only in the west half of Range 70, in Ranges 71-78, and in Townships 11 and 12, Ranges 68-78.

 

11.   Modify the following Section 0.1 definitions as follows:  Dwelling . A building or portion thereof used for residential occupancy, including cabin, single-family, duplex, and multiple-family dwellings. It does not include hotels, motels, boarding/rooming houses, resort cabins, cottages, lodges, guest houses, or manufactured homes that comply with the "National Manufactured Standards of 1974," 42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq., as amended. A dwelling may be leased or rented for any time period provided that the use of the property as a rental unit does not convert the property to a use contemplated by tourist or accommodation zoning, i.e. as a resort cabin, providing single night transient rentals.  A dwelling shall not be rented for less than 31 continuous days.

 

Transient . Of a temporary or short-term nature (30 or fewer consecutive days) and not to exceed 30 days in any calendar year.

 

Resort lodge/cabins resort cottage(s).  A building or group of buildings, under single management and ownership, containing rooms and/or dwelling units available for temporary rental to transient guests and where the primary attraction is generally recreational features or activities.

 

12.   Modify Section 4.3.6.D. as follows:  D. Resort lodge/ cabins resort cottage(s). A building or group of buildings, under management and ownership, containing rooms and/or dwelling units available for temporary rental to guests where the primary attraction is generally recreational features or activities.

 

13.   Change the zoning table as follows:

 

 

4.          AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTIONS 4.3.10.H. 73 and 4.6.3., FILE #15-CA0160:  This item was on the consent agenda.  There was one small change to the proposed variance review criteria, item 2 (reflected in the recommendation below). The Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously.

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission and Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, File #15-CA0160, as follows:

 

1.   Change Section 4.3.10.H. as follows:

 

      H. Accessory living area. Finished habitable space that is clearly accessory to the single-family dwelling and located in a single-family dwelling or in a detached building that is clearly accessory to the single-family dwelling.  Accessory living area may contain a complete living unit. 

 

1.   Accessory living area attached to or incorporated into a single-family dwelling.

 

a)   The single-family character of the structure must be maintained by providing one main entrance to the structure, one set of utility meters and one address for the property;

 

b)   An addition to a single-family dwelling to accommodate an accessory living area must be architecturally compatible with the existing structure and at least 12 feet along one wall of the accessory living area must be contiguous to a wall of the single-family dwelling with a doorway that allows passage between the single-family dwelling and the accessory living area. This door must connect to living area in the dwelling;

 

c)   Accessory living area may be placed in the basement of a single-family dwelling;

 

d)   The total square footage of the accessory living area must not exceed 40 percent of the total square footage of the single-family dwelling, excluding any basement or garage area, whether finished or not, or 800 square feet, whichever is less;

 

e)   Accessory living area is to be used solely for guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling or those providing a service on the site in exchange for their residency; and

 

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

 

2.   Accessory living area in a detached building .

 

H. Accessory living area. Finished habitable space that is clearly accessory to the single-family dwelling and located in a detached building or separated from the single-family dwelling such that it does not include interior passage between the accessory living area and the single family dwelling. 

 

a)   Accessory living area in a detached building is subject to review and approval through the public site plan review process in section 6.2;

 

b)   The single-family character of the property must be maintained. The entrance(s) to the accessory living area must not be visible from any road;

 

c)   The total square footage of the accessory living area is limited to 40 percent of the square footage in the single-family dwelling, excluding any garage or basement area, whether finished or not, or 800 square feet, whichever is less;

 

d)   One additional off-road parking space must be provided for each bedroom in the detached accessory living area;

 

e)   Building permit applications for accessory living area are subject to all applicable impact fees, including transportation capital expansion fees applicable to a multi-family land use type as defined in section 9.5;

 

f)   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; and

 

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

 

2.   Section 7.0 Special Events

 

Modify Section 7.3 as follows:

 

7.3. - SPECIAL EVENT DEFINED/RESTRICTIONS

 

A. A special event shall mean the use of privately owned land, buildings or structures for a gathering where it is reasonably anticipated that attendance will exceed 300 people at any single time, at any location, for any purpose. Special events include, but are not limited to:

 

1.   Carnivals

 

2.   Circuses

 

3.   Concerts

 

4.   Revivals

 

5.   Flea markets

 

6.   Craft fairs or markets

 

7.   Parades

 

8.   Fundraisers

 

9.   Farmers markets or stands for sale of seasonal products when sold other than on the site where the product is grown.

 

10.   Non-profit events

 

B. Special events do not include gatherings at any regularly established, permanent place of assembly such as:

 

1.   Place of worship

 

2.   Stadium

 

3.   Athletic field

 

4.   Arena

 

5.   Auditorium

 

6.   Fairgrounds

 

7.   Coliseum

 

8.   Picnic or camping area

 

9.   Sale or auction of agricultural lands or personal property

 

10.   Polling places for special or general elections

 

11.   Other similar permanently established place of assembly

 

Provided that:

 

1.    Such place is being used for its established and normal use allowed by zoning;

 

2.    Attendance does not exceed the maximum seating capacity of the structure or place where the gathering is held and;

 

3.    The gathering complies with all other county ordinances, resolutions and regulations.

 

Special events do not include temporary uses as identified in section 4.3.911 of this code.

 

C.  For-profit Special Events are not allowed in addition to already established and regulated events as approved through a discretionary land use approval process.

      

C D . A special event shall not exceed 30 days duration, either consecutively or cumulatively, in any calendar year.

 

D E . Events that will have attendance of 300 people or less, are permitted in all zoning districts (unless restricted above), and do not require a permit. The property owner or organizer of the event may apply for a permit, but in all cases they should consult with the department of health and environment and the emergency service providers (Sheriff, Fire Department, Ambulance Service) in that area.

 

3.    Variance Review Criteria.

 

Modify Section 4.6.3. to replace the existing Review Criteria with proposed new Review Criteria as follows:

 

To approve a zoning variance application the Board of Adjustment must find that A (1), (2), or (3), has been met and that B, C, and D have each been met:

 

A.   

1.         Strict compliance with the standard sought to be varied will cause either

 

(i)   a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty or,

 

(ii)   an exceptional and undue hardship on the owner by reason of:

 

an exceptional physical condition of the property such as narrowness, shallowness, topography or location of the property, or other extraordinary and exceptional situation unique to the property provided the difficulty or hardship is not caused by the act or omission of the applicant, or

 

2.         The requested variance will promote or maintain the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is sought and will be equal to or better than the standard, or

 

3.         The requested variance will diverge from the standard only in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure.

 

B.   Granting the variance will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other properties in the vicinity of the subject land or structure or be a detriment to the public good.

 

C.   Granting the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code and Master Plan.

 

D.   The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

5.         PINEWOOD SPRING TWELFTH FILING LOT 16 AMENDED PLAT AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, FILE #15-S3345:  This is a request to move the common lot line between Amended Plat of Lot 16, Replat of Pinewood Springs 12th Filing and an adjacent metes and bounds parcel.  This application coincides with a Boundary Line Adjustment for the metes and bounds parcel. The resultant lot size of the metes and bounds parcel will be 0.69 acres and the resultant lot size of Lot 16 will be 0.90 acres.


John Ruppert and Deborah Ruppert own a single-family home at 253 May Avenue in the Pinewood Springs 12th Filing Lot 16 (parcel number 14294-06-016), metal shop and wood barn on the metes and bounds parcel located at 199 May Avenue (parcel number 14294-00-01). This amended plat coincides with a Boundary Line Adjustment as well. With this amended plat and boundary line adjustment, 0.19 acres of 253 May Avenue Pinewood Springs 12th Filing Lot 16 will be added to metes and bounds parcel located at 199 May Avenue, to improve the ability to access the buildings on his property.


The resultant lot size of this amended plat of 253 May Avenue Pinewood Springs 12th Filing Lot 16 will be about 0.90 acres. The resultant lot will be named Lot 16-A. The resultant metes and bounds parcel located at 199 May Avenue will be about 0.69 acres.


No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies and outside review agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:

 

  • Engineering

 

  • Department of Health and Environment  

 

  • Code Compliance Section   

 

  • Addressing Review Section 

 

  • Megan Harrity from the Colorado Assessor had the following comment: The land needs to be described “as being in the southwest quarter of Section 29, Township 4, Range 71,” rather than as currently described as being in the northwest quarter.

 

  • Brian Helminiak, County Surveyor, commented with a list of technical corrections, of which will need to be modified prior to recording of the plat. Also see the condition added below.


The proposed amended plat will adjust the common lot line of Pinewood Springs 12th Filing Lot 16 and the adjacent metes and bounds parcel and will not adversely affect any surrounding property owners. Resultant lot 16-A of Pinewood Springs 12th Filing will be about 0.90 acres, and the resultant metes and bounds lot will be about 0.69 acres. The Development Review Team finds that the request meets the requirements for the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Pinewood Springs 12th Filing Lot 16 Amended Plat, File #15-S3345, 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 by or this approval shall be null and void.

 

  1. Prior to the recordation of the final plat the applicant shall add a note to the plat stating that the resultant lot will be subject to the same restrictions, covenants, and regulations as set forth in the plat of record for the Pinewood Springs 12th Filing Lot 16 Amended Plat, File #15-S3345.

 

  1. According to Megan Harrity from the Assessors Office, “the sub-title on the prelim will need to be corrected to describe the land as being in the southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 4, Range 71,” rather than as currently described as being in the northwest quarter.

 

  1. Prior to the recordation of the final plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Brian Helminiak, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

6.         KERNS EXEMPTION, CUSHMAN'S LAKEVIEW AND THOMPSON'S LAKESIDE AMENDED PLAT AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, FILE #15-S3346:  The subject request is to adjust the property lines between 8 properties, one of which is illegal and being eliminated. The application also includes the vacation of several utility easements and the vacation of a portion of the Brookside ROW.  If approved, the results of this application along with a coinciding boundary line adjustment application will be 7 legal lots.

 

The utility easement vacations being proposed will address easements no longer needed along vacated property lines. The Brookside ROW vacation will address an encroachment of an existing residence that extends into the existing ROW.

 

Comments received from the referral departments and agencies are attached.  Aside from technical comments, the referral comments do not pose any objections to this application as proposed.

 

The proposed amended plat has been reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and meets the requirements for approval as presented.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the amended plat, easement vacation and ROW vacation for the Kerns Exemption, Cushman’s Lakeview and Thompson Lakeside plats, File # 15-S3346, subject to the following condition(s) 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 by May 16, 2016 or this approval shall be null and void.

 

  1. Prior to the recordation of the final plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Brian M. Helminiak, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

  1. Prior to the recordation of the plat, the applicant will have a surveyor ensure that the neighbor's access will not be impacted by the vacation of right of way.

 

7.         HUNZIKER EXEMPTION LOT B AMENDED PLAT, FILE #15-S3344:  The request is for an amended plat of the Hunziker Exemption to adjust property boundaries with neighboring metes and bounds parcels.  The applicant is concurrently doing a boundary line adjustment with two existing legal lots which are located to the south and west of the property.  No new parcels or lots are being created with this amendment.  This request will decrease the lot size from 13.5733 acres to 13.484 acres in size.

 

The following agencies have provided comments or stated that they have no objections to this proposal:

 

  • Larimer County Department of Health and Environment 

 

  • Development Review Section of the Larimer County Engineering Department

 

  • Larimer County Addressing Section

 

  • Larimer County Land Surveyor

 

  • Larimer County Assessor’s Office

 

All the affected utility companies have agreed to the request stating no conflict.  The Larimer County Land Surveyor and Planning staff have made comments regarding some corrections that need to be made to the plat before recording.  A condition of approval is proposed requiring the changes be made before the plat is recorded (see condition #2).

 

The proposed amended plat will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The amended plat will not result in any additional lots.  Staff finds that with the conditions as listed below, the request meets the intent/requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Tract A, Hunziker Exemption, File # 15-S3344, 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 by May 16, 2016, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

  1. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by the Planning Staff and Brian Helminiak, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

  1. The reconfiguration of the lots lines shall be finalized at such time when the plat, findings, and resolution from the Board of County Commissioners are recorded. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as amended and outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.         COTTONWOOD FARMS RLUP AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, FILE #99-RLP0029:  The Cottonwood Farms RLUP was approved in 2001 with four single-family residential lots and two residual lots (Residual Lot A and B).  Residual Lot A is 44 acres in size and the recorded development agreement restricts its use as follows:  Development and construction of buildings and structures on residual lot A shall be precluded except for one-single-family dwelling and agricultural outbuildings which are clearly necessary and incidental to the use of residual lot A for agricultural purposes.

 

At the time of the Rural Land Plan approval and when the applicants purchased the lot, there was an existing modular home on the property that was the single-family residence.  In 2014, the applicants decided to build a new home on the property.  Since they have horses and desire help to care for them, they submitted an application in September of 2014 to the county requesting allowance to convert the modular home to a detached accessory living unit for a caretaker.  That use is allowed by the Land Use Code (Section 4.3.10) as an accessory use and structure if the following conditions can be met:

 

  1. Accessory living area in a detached building is subject to review and approval through the public site plan review process in section 6.2;

 

  1. The single-family character of the property must be maintained. The entrance(s) to the accessory living area must not be visible from any road;

 

  1. The total square footage of the accessory living area is limited to 40 percent of the square footage in the single-family dwelling, excluding any garage or basement area, whether finished or not, or 800 square feet, whichever is less;

 

  1. One additional off-road parking space must be provided for each bedroom in the detached accessory living area;

 

  1. Building permit applications for accessory living area are subject to all applicable impact fees including transportation capital expansion fees applicable to a multi-family land use type as defined in section 9.5;

 

  1. 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; and

 

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

 

As part of the review process for the accessory living unit, referral agencies and neighbors were notified of the proposal.  During that time, the neighbors raised several concerns about the proposal.  Most of the concerns were regarding a private covenant that they believe restricts the use of the property in addition to the development agreement language as well as concerns about the appearance of the structure and property.  In December 2014, a public hearing before the Board was held regarding the request for the accessory living unit.  At that hearing, the restriction in the development agreement (Section 3) was determined to be a limiting factor and the proposal was denied based on that restriction.  The applicants still wish to pursue the accessory living unit and are proposing to modify the language in the development agreement to allow for the addition of the detached accessory living unit on residual lot A. 

 

Section 38 of the development agreement for Cottonwood Farms R.L.U.P. outlines how the document can be amended.  It states:  Section 3 may be amended only with the written consent of the county and all the owners(s) of residual lots A and B and lots 1-4 after published notice and a hearing before the Board.  The applicants have obtained signed agreements with lots 1-4 and residual lot B to modify the language. 

 

With the agreement of lots 1-4 and residual lot B, they are now requesting a modification to the development agreement language allowing the right to submit an application for the accessory living unit.  If approval is granted for the development agreement modification, the County Attorney will need to review the proposed amended document for accuracy before final signatures are obtained.  Additionally, the applicant will need to pursue the public site plan approval for the accessory living unit as required by Section 4.3.10 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

There is also a recorded conservation easement on the property.  This easement is held by the Legacy Land Trust.  The Legacy Land Trust has submitted a letter stating they have no objection to the request for the detached accessory living unit.

 

This project was reviewed by the Rural Land Use Advisory Board on Monday, October 28, 2015.  The Board recommended approval of the amended development agreement.

 

Rural Land Use Advisory Board Recommendation: Member Carlson made the motion to approve the application to amend the development agreement as outlined.  Member Mergler seconded the motion.

 

Roll Call Vote:

 

Alan Carlson

Yes

Kristin Grazier

Absent

Debra Herston

Yes

Ryan Hostetler             

Yes

Randy Mergler

Yes

Joe Wise

Yes

 

Motion carried unanimously.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Cottonwood Farms RLUP Amended Development Agreement subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   The County Attorney must review and approve the amended development agreement for accuracy before the document can be approved and recorded.

 

Chair Gaiter asked Ms. Gimeson if they had made a modification to a development agreement like this in the past and if they would be setting precedent by amending the RLUP. Ms. Gimeson responded that they have amended RLUPs in the past. Chair Gaiter asked if they have ever done so by allowing an accessory living space to which Ms. Gimeson replied they have not done that since the staff has been under the impression that this type of structure has always been allowed.

 

Commissioner Donnelly questioned Ms. Gimeson about the basis for denial that occurred in December of 2014. Ms. Gimeson explained it was due to the structure being disallowed through the development agreement, though it did meet all requirements in the Land Use Code. Mr. Lafferty reviewed the requirement that caused the denial which states the plot of land is for a single family dwelling only, however, the building envelope allows for a farmstead accessory.

 

Chair Gaiter asked the applicants, Geir Kanstad and Roberta Greeno, to address the board. Mr. Kanstad spoke about the improvements he has attempted to make on a ditch running through several properties in the development and the lack of support he received from his neighbors in completing said project. Mr. Kanstad continued to explain that there was never an issue with the modular home he has had on the property up until he had built his single family residence. Mr. Kanstad stated that he is the only resident in the development not allowed to have an accessory dwelling. Mr. Kanstad concluded that he has kept the property aesthetically presentable and that each year when Legacy Land Trust visits the lot they are in agreement with what he has done.

 

Chair Gaiter questioned the staff regarding the comment Mr. Kanstad made about the accessory dwelling regulation only applying to him. Ms. Gimeson stated that the neighbors Mr. Kanstad referenced are not in the Rural Land Use Plan. Some conversation ensued between the Board and staff about what plots are managed by this rule and why this exception was made.

 

Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to public comment. Phil Ebersole, a resident in the development, spoke in opposition to the agreement. Mr. Ebersole stated that this amendment contradicts an agreement made with the Board years ago which restricted the development solely to agricultural purposes. Mr. Ebersole concluded that he opposes the commercial development taking place on the property and wishes to see it kept as a residence with agricultural use only. Commissioner Johnson questioned the staff whether the accessory dwelling is compatible with the allowed uses on the property. Mr. Lafferty responded that the current horse boarding operation falls under the category of use by right and is an accessory use. Ms. Haag commented that these parcels were purchased with the understanding by the prospective owners that the surrounding areas would not be developed beyond small herds of livestock and accessory agricultural buildings.

 

Ray Spencer, an adjacent neighbor to the applicants, spoke in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Spencer stated that when he signed the covenant with the HOA the parcels in the area were to be used only for single family dwellings and rural land use.


Kerrie Diamant, an adjacent neighbor to the west of the applicants, spoke in opposition to the amendment. Ms. Diamant raised concern over the commercial uses on the property such as the carriage service and the accessory dwelling being used for a family member instead of agricultural purposes.


Ben Haass, an adjacent neighbor to the north, stated he has no objection to what is being done on the applicants' property.

 

Tom Colvin spoke in favor of the amendment. Mr. Colvin urged the Board to evaluate the conservation easements on the property. Mr. Colvin questioned how the county can issue a building permit that is in violation of a development agreement.

 

Chair Gaiter confirmed that there is a conservation easement of the development with Legacy Land Trust. Chair Gaiter then proceeded to read a letter provided by the Trust stating that they have no opposition to the accessory dwelling on the property.

 

Chair Gaiter closed the hearing to public comment and asked Mr. Kanstad to again address the Board. Mr. Kanstad responded to the comment made about his carriage service on Sunday mornings stating he is only engaging in activities permitted through the Land Use Code. Mr. Kanstad then proceeded to present photos comparing the appearance of his property to those of his neighbors. Mr. Kanstad finished by explaining he has always kept his property in good condition, that the Legacy Land Trust has no argument with his operations, and what he is doing is permitted by the Land Use Code. Chair Gaiter inquired as to whether the people dictated by the rural use plan are in agreement with the amendment. Mr. Geir responded that the residents in the plan are in agreement and those who are against are not regulated by it.


Commissioner Johnson stated that input from neighboring residents is equally important as the code in regards to making a decision. Commissioner Johnson continued by saying he believes this is not in compliance with the character of the neighborhood nor is it consistent with the expectations of the development and therefore will not support the amendment.

 

Ms. Haag stated that when writing the development agreement they included a required approval from the Board in addition to the neighbors so that all factors could be examined and not be strictly determined by the code. Commissioner Donnelly stated that the nature of this property has changed and the use has become more intensive than what the neighbors had expected. Commissioner Donnelly concluded that he is inclined to not support the amendment.


Chair Gaiter commented that typically an accessory dwelling is not a significant issue but the fact that the use by right for the horses was not brought to the county for special review broke good faith with the neighboring residents. Chair Gaiter further stated that the reasonable interpretation of the accessory dwelling is that it was meant to house a land caretaker for agricultural purposes, not a family member. Chair Gaiter concluded that he is inclined to agree with his fellow Commissioners to decline the request for an amendment.

 

M O T I O N


Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to amend the Development Agreement for the Cottonwood Farms RLUP to allow a detached accessory living unit on residual lot A.


Motion carried 3-0.

 

With there being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2015

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS MEETING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Linda Hoffman, County Manager.  Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present. Also present were:  Donna Hart, Deni LaRue, and Jen Baker, Commissioners’ Office; Jeannine Haag, David Ayraud, and William Ressue, County Attorney; Terry Gilbert and Pam Marcus-Bause, Development Planning; Captain John Manago, Sheriff's Department; and Craig Dorn, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gaiter opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

1.         PUBLIC COMMENT:  Karen Herner, Beth White, Carol Sewell, Eric Sutherland, and Kenny Bearden addressed the Board.

 

2.          APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 9, 2015:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of November 9, 2015, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.    REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 23, 2015:   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 outlined below:

 

11172015D001           POUDRE VALLEY RURAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT


MISCELLANEOUS:  Board of Assessment Appeals State of Colorado, Stipulation as to tax year 2015 value by and between Larimer County and Oakridge Innovation LLP; Board of Assessment Appeals State of Colorado, Stipulation as to tax year 2015 by and between Larimer County and Jacobs Condo LLC; Little Thompson Watershed Coalition letter of support; Estes Valley Watershed Coalition letter of support; Coalition for Poudre River Watershed Letter of Support; Big Thompson Coalition letter of support.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES: The following liquor licenses were approved and/or issued:  Archer's Poudre River Resort – 3.2% – Bellvue; Vern's Place – Hotel and Restaurant – Laporte.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.         COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS' GUESTS:  There were no guests present for comment.

 

6.         CDBG-DR RESILIENCE PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION:  Mr. Gilbert and Ms. Marcus-Buase requested along with Community Development requested that the Board authorize the Chair to sign the CDBG-DR Resilience Planning Grant application to be submitted to DOLA by the deadline of 5:00pm on November 20, 2015. All resources are in place to complete the CDBG-DR Resilient Planning Grant application. No additional funds are being sought to accomplish the submission of this application.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chair to sign the CDBG-DR Grant application with the submission to DOLA being completed on or before November 20, 2015.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.         FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO SOLICITATION, INCLUDING PANHANDLING IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF LARIMER COUNTY; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT:  Mr. Ayraud and Captain Manago addressed the Board regarding the ordinance relating to solicitation and panhandling. Mr. Ayraud explained that this version in essence repeals several provisions stricken down by the Supreme Court decision. Captain Manago commented that the Sheriff's Department has reviewed this in detail with the County Attorney's Office and stated that they are in full agreement with the conditions being removed.

 

8.    WORKSESSION:  Ms. Hoffman updated the Board on various projects and activities.

 

9.    COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board reviewed their activities during the previous week. 

 

The meeting recessed at 9:40 a.m.

 

10.       LEGAL MATTERS: Ms. Haag requested that the Board go into executive session regarding County responsibility for maintenance of County Road 18.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into executive session for conferences with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402 (4) (b) C.R.S.


Motion carried 3-0.

 

The executive session ended at 10:25 a.m. with no further action being taken.

 

 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2015

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 1:30 p.m. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present.  Also present were:  Jeannine Haag, County Attorney's Office; Bridget Paris, Human Resources; and Craig Dorn, Deputy Clerk.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners enter into executive session for personnel matters as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S.


Motion carried 3-0.

 

The session closed at 2:25 p.m. with no action being taken.

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________

                                                                                              LEW GAITER III

                                                                                              BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

ANGELA MYERS

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

__________________________________________

Craig Dorn, Deputy Clerk