> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 11/21/05  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, November 21, 2005

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#121 & 122)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Wagner were present.  Also present were:  Matt Lafferty, David Karan, Casey Stewart, Al Kadera, and Sean Wheeler, Planning; Christi Coleman, Engineering; Doug Ryan, Environmental; Dave Shirk, Town of Estes Park; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.

 

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

 

Chair Rennels noted that there would be some adjustments to the agenda for this meeting, as specified below.

 

10. JACKSON ZONING VIOLATION – 04-ZV0240:  Al Kadera indicated that County Manager, Frank Lancaster, requested that this item be tabled for 30 days, and Mr. Kadera proposed rescheduling this item for discussion on Tuesday, January 3, 2005, at 3:00 p.m.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Jackson Zoning Violation – 04-ZV0240 until Tuesday, January 3, 2005, at 3:00 p.m.

 

Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Chair Rennels explained that Item 6, Daelin Planned Land Division and Planned Development – 04-S2278, will be pulled from the Consent Agenda so that it can specifically be discussed.  She continued by explaining that the following items, with the exception of Item 6 which will be pulled for discussion, are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience:

 

1.   HILLCREST ESTATES AMENDED PLAT AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY VACATION:  This is a request to vacate the right-of-way between Lots 3 and 4 (“south stub”) and a portion of a right-of-way between Lots 4 and 5 (“west stub”), Hillcrest Estates.  Hillcrest Estates was originally platted in 1992.  At that time, the plat of subdivision included right-of-way that was intended to provide access to surrounding properties “to allow for future street connection” (per original Staff report).

 

South Stub:  The applicant proposes to vacate the “south stub” in hopes of preventing the lot to the south from creating a driveway through that area.  Since the time of platting, the property to the south has been developed with the Good Samaritan campus, and the “south stub” of right-of-way connects to a single-family lot that receives access from Ptarmigan Trail.  The area where the right-of-way connects to this lot is in a platted “no build” area.  Based on this, it is Staff’s opinion that the “south stub” right-of-way is no longer necessary and should, therefore, be vacated. 

 

West Stub:  The applicant proposes to vacate a portion of the “west stub” to ensure that her driveway is entirely on Lot 5.  The current configuration has the driveway crossing over right-of-way. 

 

The “west stub” still holds potential for an extension of Stonegate Drive. This could provide a valuable connection (either a through-street or trail) between Devil’s Gulch Road and Dry Gulch road at some point in the future.  This would require development of property to the west, which in turn would require either a rezoning to a higher density, or a land consolidation to provide adequate land area for subdivision potential. 

 

Because of the potential for an extension of Stonegate Drive, however remote, Staff recommends that a right-of-way width of 50-feet be maintained.  This would allow for a “local” street connection in the future (based on current EVDC standards).  This is the right-of-way width proposed.

 

Staff recommends approval of the requested Amended Plat of Lots 4 and 5, Hillcrest Estates and vacation of right-of-way described thereon and the vacation of the eastern half of the right-of-way between Lots 3 and 4, Hillcrest Estates Subdivision subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.

 

On Tuesday, October 18, 2005, the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:

 

  1. Pursuant to C.R.S.30-28-110, Subsection 4(a), “no plat for subdivided land shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners unless at the time of the approval of platting the subdivider provides the certification of the County treasurer’s office that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid.”

 

  1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.

 

  1. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.  No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.

 

  1. Within 30 days of the Board’s approval of the amended plat, the developer shall submit the final plat for recording.  If the amended plat is not submitted for recording within this 30-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void.

 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 4 and 5, Hillcrest Estates and vacation of right-of-way described thereon and the vacation of the eastern half of the right-of-way between Lots 3 and 4, Hillcrest Estates Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. Lot “5B” shall be labeled “4A,” and the dedication statement shall be amended accordingly.
  2. The dedication statement shall comply with the requirements set forth in Appendix B of the Estes Valley Development Code.

 

 

2.  OLYMPUS HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION LOTS 3 & 4 CONSOLIDATION LOTS:  The applicant proposes to consolidate two lots that he owns.  The property has been under common ownership since at least 1920, when the existing house was built straddling the common property line, thus effectively combining the lots at that time.  The applicant wishes to combine the lots through the lot consolidation process to clarify future sale of the property and ensure there is no “cloud” on the property title.  This will also lower the density in a neighborhood that has sub-standard road and utility networks, and will consolidate the tax bill.

 

Staff recommends approval of the proposed consolidation of Lots 3 and 4 of Olympus Heights Subdivision.

 

3.  HILLERY PARRACK EXEMPTION TRACT 1 REZONING:  This is a request to rezone a property from “CO” Commercial Outlying to “CH” Commercial Heavy.  The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and a 1,500 square foot, 20-foot tall storage building.  The property owner lives on site and rents the outbuilding for storage.

 

This rezoning request is to allow 80 additional mini-storage units to be built.  These units would be 12-feet tall with a matte finish, and those portions that are visible from off site would have either rock, stone, wood or brick finish.  An extension landscaping plan is proposed.

It is Staff’s opinion that the surrounding neighborhood has changed significantly since the implementation of the “Future Land Use Plan” in 2000.  These changes include the Good Samaritan campus, Talon’s Pointe, Vista Ridge, and the recent approval of The Neighborhood and the Salud Clinic, totaling over 280 residential units at full build-out.  These are multi-family units that have little storage area.

 

Furthermore, the property immediately to the west was recently rezoned to the “CH” district.  This zone change was done to reflect the historic use of the property, which has been “light industrial” since mid-1990.

 

It is Staff’s opinion that the proposal for a mini-storage development will address a need that has arisen due to the changes in conditions in this area.

 

The current “CO” designation has a variety of uses that are allowed as a use by right; these include:  building materials/services, vehicle repair, parking lot, livery stable, outdoor entertainment facility and limited warehousing and storage.  The rezoning provides an opportunity to impose restrictions on the use of the property, hours of operation, building design and exterior lighting.

 

Several neighbors wrote letters of opposition.  However, no one was present at the Planning Commission meeting.  All of these letters were written by residents of Talon’s Pointe, which is a multi-family residential development currently under construction to the immediate east of this property.  Talon’s Pointe is a project being developed by the Estes Park Housing Authority and contains a mix of market-rate and attainable housing.

 

The Planning Commission has approved the accompanying development plan, conditional to approval of this rezoning.

 

Staff recommends approval of this requested Rezoning of Tract 1, Hillery Parrack Exemption from “CO” commercial to “CH” commercial, subject to the conditions recommended by the planning commission.

 

Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation:  On Tuesday, October 18, 2005, the Estes Valley Planning Commission found: 

 

  1. If all recommended conditions of approval are required, the development plan will comply with all applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code.
  2. The development plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
  3. A deed restriction for the manager’s quarters shall be recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
  4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.

 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Rezoning of Tract 1, Hillery Parrack Exemption from “CO” commercial to “CH” commercial, subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. Approval and compliance with Development Plan 05-08.
  2. Use must be limited to the approved development plan for the North End Storage (Development Plan 05-08).  Any change in land use shall require approval of the governing body.
  3. Applicant must file for annexation to the Town of Estes Park within three months of approval of the rezoning and development plan.

 

4.  POUDRE SPRINGS 1ST FILING LOT 92 LOT CONSOLIDATION – 05-S2501:  The request is for a change of lot status for Lot 92, Poudre Springs First Filing from a single-family residential lot.  The owners of the property wish to relinquish their ability to build a residence on the lot and are requesting that it be changed to a non-buildable out-lot.  The County does not have a process specifically designed for this type of request.  As a result, this application is being processed as a modified Lot Consolidation, with resulting Findings and Resolution being the mechanism that serves as a record of the lot status change. 

 

The Larimer County Land Use Code (Section 5.7.3) allows for the approval of an amended plat if the following review criteria are met:

 

  1. No new lots will be created by the amended plat:  The proposed amended plat will not create any new lots.  It will convert an existing single-family residential lot to a non-buildable out-lot.
  2. The resulting lots will meet the required minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district and the lot dimension ratio required by Subsection 8.14.2.K:  If any of the lots are nonconforming with respect to the minimum lot size or the lot dimension ratio, the Amended Plat must not increase the non-conformity.  The size and dimension of the lot will not change.
  3. The Amended Plat will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing building:  There are no existing structures on the lot.
  4. The Amended Plat will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area: Existing easements will remain. 
  5. Any covenants or deed restrictions that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the Final Plat: This requirement has been included as a condition of approval.

 

The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment has no objections to the proposal.   The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review staff has no major concerns or issues with the proposal.  The proposed Poudre Springs 1st Filing, Lot 92 Change of Lot Status will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or result in any new lots.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation application for Poudre Springs 1st Filing, Lot 92 Change of Lot Status, subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by May 21, 2006 or this approval shall be null and void.
  2. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.

 

5.  FORT COLLINS INDUSTRIAL PARK 1ST FILING LOTS 2 AND 3 AMENDED PLAT – 05-S2475:  The applicant proposes to amend the lot line between lots 2 and 3 of the Fort Collins Industrial Park 1st Filing Subdivision.  The amended plat will have the affect of moving the existing lot line to accommodate a new building design on both lots and a new common access point.  No easements or utilities are being affected by this action.  Existing uses on the site are being demolished, and new structures are being evaluated through the Site Plan Review process.

 

The Larimer County Land Use Code (Section 5.7.3) allows for the approval of an amended plat if the following review criteria are met:

 

  1. No new lots will be created by the amended plat:  The proposed amended plat will only modify the lot line between two existing parcels, and will not create any new lots.
  2. The resulting lots will meet the required minimum lot size and lot width of the applicable zoning district:  If approved, the resulting lots proposed by this application will meet the minimum lot requirements of the “I” (Industrial) Zone District.
  3. The Amended Plat will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing building:  Redevelopment of the site is being evaluated through the County Site Plan Review process, during which review setbacks will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the Code.
  4. The Amended Plat will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area:  Access, drainage, utility easements and rights-of-way are all being reviewed as part of the Site Plan Review for the redevelopment of the site.  Additional right-of-way dedications are being provided with this amended plat.
  5. Any covenants or deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the Final Plat:  Prior to the recordation of the Amended Plat, the applicant will be required to place a note on the plat stating that all covenants or deed restrictions that apply to the original lots will continue to apply to the amended lots.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat for Lots 2 and 3 of the Fort Collins Industrial Park 1 Filing Subdivision, (File #05-S2475), subject to the following conditions, and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by May 21, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.
  2. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

c.   Prior to the recordation of the Amended Plat, the applicant will be required to place a note on the plat stating that all covenants or deed restrictions that apply to the original lots will continue to apply to the amended lots.

 

7.   POUDRE CITY LOTS 1B, 2B, 3B and 17B AMENDED PLAT AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT – 05-S2502:  This request is for an Amended Plat of five lots currently operated as one resort property.  No new lots will be created.  The Mountain Greenery Resort consists of one restaurant, one motel (eight units), one cabin, eight RV sites and outbuildings.  The property is adjacent to the Poudre River and is only 2.29 acres in total.  Under current zoning, restaurants and motels are not allowed uses.  RV campgrounds require Special Review approval as does a Resort Lodge/Resort Cabin(s). 

 

One parcel is a meets-and-bounds parcel and will be incorporated into the Amended Plat as a platted lot (Lot 2).  No evidence of Special Review approval has been found in County Records.  Another nonconformity is the location of a structure on a boundary line.

 

The proposal is to return the five lots to single-family residential, a use-by-right in the O-Open District.  The land use would then conform to the zone district.  The owners intend to demolish the existing motel.  The restaurant would be converted to a single-family residence as would the cabin.  All RVs will be removed from the property.  Portions of four of the five lots (Lots 2-5) are within the Poudre River 100-year flood plain.

 

The applicant has exhaustively explored the options for redevelopment of this property and the legal status of the parcels.  After much study, the applicant has decided that terminating the nonconforming commercial activity and converting the property to a use allowed by right in the O-Open zone district is the best course of action. 

 

The Larimer County Land Use Code (Section 5.7.3) allows for the approval of an amended plat if the following review criteria are met:

 

  1. No new lots will be created by the amended plat:  No additional lots will be created by reconfiguring this lot line. 
  2. The resultant lots will meet the required minimum lot size and lot width of the applicable zoning district:  Minimum lot size in the O-Open District is 10 acres. None of the lots currently meet the minimum lot size requirement for the Open District.  The proposal does not substantially increase or decrease this non-conformity. 
  3. The Amended Plat will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing building: The proposed demolition will rectify all existing nonconforming setbacks, except for the setbacks from Colorado Highway 14 and the Poudre River.
  4. The Amended Plat will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area:  No rights-of-way or utility easements are proposed to be vacated. 
  5. Any covenants or deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the Final Plat:  The applicant has noted on the Amended Plat that the resultant lots will be subject to the same restrictions and covenants as set forth in the plat of record of Poudre City Subdivision.

 

Planning Department finds that the property does not conform to required setbacks from Colorado Highway 14, the Poudre River and lot lines.  Some of these non-conformities are resolved by this Amended Plat/Boundary Line Adjustment.  The setbacks from the highway and the river will remain nonconforming.  As the proposal will result in considerable reduction in intensity of use and traffic generation, Staff supports this proposal, even though some nonconformities will remain.

 

To resolve as much non-conformity as practical, the Planning Department recommends placing residential development envelopes on Lots 2-5.  Other buildings and structures would be allowed outside the development envelope if construction conforms to LCLUC Section 4.2.2, Floodplain overlay zone districts; the International Building Code; Section 8, Standards for all Development; and all other applicable regulations.  The Planning Department recommends that all buildings in the floodplain be brought up to current standards or demolished.

 

A plat note should be prominently displayed on the plat notifying future lot owners that well and septic permits will be needed directing them to contact the Health Department for information.  Please fill in the File #05-S2502 on the plat and add “Meridian” to the end of the plat title.

 

No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal.  The County Engineering Department finds that any new access must be taken from Riverside Drive, not directly from Colorado 14; the existing ditch should be placed within a drainage easement; and all changes required in Dale Greer’s 10/11/05 letter must be corrected prior to recording of the plat. 

 

The County Health Department finds that all restrictions apply to new septic systems and wells; septic systems must be located outside the floodplain, 100 feet from any well and be designed for on-site soils; and voluntary consolidation of lots, at this time or in the future, could make provision of these Adequate Public Feasibilities easier and less costly. 

 

Code Enforcement finds that a change in occupancy permit will be required for the restaurant conversion.

 

The proposed Amended Plat and Boundary Line Adjustment will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The conversion from intensive commercial uses to strictly single-family residential will significantly reduce impacts on the property, traffic generation and other impacts on neighbors. The submittal resolves a number of setback issues.  The proposal will not result in any additional buildable lots.  Five legal lots exist and five will result.  The submittal does not bring the property into compliance with current setbacks from a state highway or from the Poudre River.  However, the improvements to sewage disposal should reduce negative impacts on the river as well.  On balance, the proposed changes yield substantial public benefit.  The Development Review Team finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of File #05-S22502, the Amended Plat of Lots 1b, 2b, 3b, 12b of Poudre City Subdivision and a Boundary Line Adjustment of a meets-and-bounds parcel in the southeast ¼ of Section 32, Range 9N and Township 73W of the 6th Principal Meridian, subject to the following conditions, and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

a.   The Final Plat shall be recorded by May 21, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

b.   The existing motel and RV sites will be demolished and removed by November 8, 2006, or prior to the issuance of any building permits on any of Lots 1-5, whichever comes first.  Should demolition of both the motel and RV facilities not be completed by that date, this Amended Plat/Boundary Line Adjustment approval will be null and void.

c.   Development envelopes for Lots 2-5 shall be shown on the plat and approved by County Planning and Engineering Departments prior to recording.  Development envelopes shall restrict locating of residential buildings, wells and septic systems to areas outside the floodplain and outside of the following setbacks:

§  Side setback – 5 feet;

§  Rear setback – 10 feet; and

§  Front setback – 25 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement. 

d.   Plat notes will specify what types of buildings and structures are allowed inside and outside the development envelopes.

e.   A legal document defining each of Lots 1 and 2 property owner’s rights and responsibilities for maintaining the shared well, supplying water to Lots 1 and 2, will be recorded and referenced in both deeds.

f.   The septic system currently serving the motel and restaurant buildings shall be properly abandoned under County Health Department permit.

g.   The existing sheds shall be removed from the property or moved so they are located outside of the following setbacks: 

§  Side setback – 5 feet;

§  Rear setback – 10 feet; and

§  Front setback – 25 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement. 

h.   All of Dale Greer’s October 11, 2005, comments shall be addressed prior to recording.

 

8.  WILSON PLANNED LAND DIVISION – 05-S2399:  This request is for a Planned Land Division to subdivide 25.96 acres into two residential lots.  The request includes appeals to two Standards in the Land Use Code, Section 8.14.2.S (Connectivity) and Section 8.14.2.N (Right-of-Way Design Standards).

 

This application was heard at a public hearing before the Larimer County Planning Commission on October 19, 2005, as a discussion item.  Before the hearing Staff and the applicant had reached agreement on the proposal.  This normally would have placed the item on the Consent Agenda.  However, a neighboring property owner had contacted staff and indicated they would be at the hearing to discuss the request, but this neighbor did not appear to testify.  Because the request includes two appeals, along with the request to subdivide, a total of three motions were required.

 

The Planning Commission concurred with the recommendations by Staff without amendment for approval to the appeals to Section 8.14.2.S (Connectivity) for the Wilson Planned Land Division and the appeal to Section 8.14.2.N (Right-of-Way Design Standards) for the Wilson Planned Land Division, File #05-S2399, subject to the conditions recommended above.   The Planning Commission recommends that the Wilson Planned Land Division, File #05-S2399, appeal to Section 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.

 

The Planning Commission recommends that the Wilson Planned Land Division, File #05-S2399, appeal to Section 8.14.2.N of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved, subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. The applicant must provide an easement, agreement, covenant or other appropriate document to be recorded in the County records that grants the right of access for emergency and service vehicles and that defines the persons/entities entitled to use the roads, the purpose for and manner in which the roads may be used, any limitations on the use of the roads, the persons/entities authorized and responsible to construct and maintain the roads, the persons/entities authorized to enforce the terms of the easement and the penalties for violation of the terms of the easement.
  2. The design and construction of the private road will meet applicable County road or street standards.
  3. Provisions acceptable to the County Commissioners have been made for maintenance of the private roads.
  4. County requirements for road naming, road name signs and addressing have been, or will be, met prior to the issuance of any building permit.

 

The Planning Commission recommends that the Wilson Planned Land Division, File #05-S2399, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved, subject to the following conditions and added Condition K:

 

  1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Wilson Planned Land Division, File #05-S2399, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Wilson Planned Land Division.
  2. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre School District fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion and the Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.
  3. The new residential use shall include a residential fire sprinkler system that must be designed and installed to meet NFPA standards.
  4. Engineered footings and foundations are required for new habitable construction.
  5. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.
  6. Prior to obtaining a building permit to install a septic system on Lot 2, the lot owner must consult with the Health Department on the need for advanced secondary treatment for the sewer system.
  7. Blasting is prohibited on-site from March 1st through July 1st in order to minimize disturbances to a nearby eagle’s nest during the critical nesting period.
  8. The Final Plat shall include a note that advises lot owners of the presence of the eagle’s nest and the restricted access near it.
  9. An out-lot incorporating the common well, together with adequate area for access and maintenance, must be included on the Final Plat. 
  10. The disclosure agreement and covenants shall outline the provision for a well sharing agreement to allow the owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 to have access and use of the water well located on a jointly owned out-lot.  An acceptable well sharing agreement shall be submitted prior to approval of the Final Plat.
  11. The Final Plat shall include a two acre building envelope on the eastern end of Lot 2 as shown on the Preliminary Plat.

 

9.   INTERNATIONAL APPROVALS LABS SPECIAL EXCEPTION AMENDMENT – 05-Z1569:  This is a request to remove a previously approved Special Exception condition that limits the business operation to the original applicant and to add an accessory storage shed to the site.  The original Special Exception (V-26-90) was approved in 1990 and only for Amador Corporation.

 

In 1990 a Special Exception (V-26-90) was granted to Amador Corporation for the operation of electromagnetic testing facilities on the subject property.  The conditions of approval included the two below that are pertinent to this request:

 

a.   The project shall comply with and conform to the site plan and supporting documents submitted with the application (and any modified plans or documents which may be submitted).

b.   The special exception shall apply only to the petitioner, Amador Corporation, (a true copy of the Findings and Resolution shall be recorded in the office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder).

 

The applicant purchased the property from the original applicant, Amador Corporation, and TUV Product Service, Inc.  The two entities merged in 1994 to become TUV Product Service, Inc.  International Approvals Labs, Inc. continued the same testing facility business on the property from the time they purchased the property in 2003.  The applicant was unaware that there was any condition that would have precluded them from conducting the same use of the property.  The conflict was discovered during the review of a recent building permit application which the applicant submitted for a small storage shed, accessory to the use.

 

The applicant is requesting the removal of the original condition that limited the Special Exception only to Amador Corp.  They also request approval of the addition of a small shed to the site for storage of property maintenance equipment such as mower, ATV and smaller equipment.  The use of the property would continue to be only that which was approved originally.  The applicant has provided an updated site plan showing the current buildings and the proposed shed location.

 

The use of the property, as granted by the Special Exception, has continued since 1990 without complaint from surrounding property owners or violation of any land use regulations.  The original conditions of approval are difficult to monitor and make it difficult and cumbersome for a new company to continue the same approved activities.  The Development Services Team can find no reason in the record to retain the original condition linking the use only to Amador Corporation.  The use itself tends to be unobtrusive and quiet, with minimal impact to surrounding neighbors, so limiting it to a certain operator is not necessary.

 

The only concern stems from the site plan and the area depicted as the non-leased area.  While the County has no regulation against leasing a portion of the property, all current and future owners should understand that the property has only been approved for the proposed use and buildings.  No additional principal uses or buildings are permitted either in the leased area or non-leased areas shown on the site plan that accompanied this submittal.

 

The Development Services Team finds that granting the request to amend the original Amador Corporation Special Exception, with the conditions proposed at the end of this report, will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety or welfare and would not be contrary to the purpose of the Land Use Code. 

 

The Larimer County Development Services Team recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the International Approval Labs Amended Special Exception, File # 05-Z1569, subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. The project shall comply with and conform to the site plan and supporting documents submitted with this application.
  2. No additional principal uses other than the use permitted by this Special Exception are allowed on this property, unless proper approval is granted in the future.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Consent Agenda Items 1 through 9, with the exception of Item 6.

 

Motion Carried 3-0.

 

6.  DAELIN PLANNED LAND DIVISION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – 04-S2278:  This request is for Preliminary Plat review for a Planned Land Division (PLD) for three single-family residential lots and rezoning to Planned Development (PD).

 

This project proposes to subdivide 8.073 acres into three lots of 2.69 acres each.  Being located within the City of Loveland GMA, a rezoning to Planned Development (PD) is necessary in addition to the Planned Land Division. (PLD).  The main issue concerning this development has been consideration of potential water quality impacts on the adjacent Drinking Water Reservoir (see Section 8.12.6 of the LCLUC).  The applicant proposed a limit of three horses per lot and provided a full pasture management plan.  The Planning Commission, on a split vote (see enclosed minutes), recommended one horse per lot.  Since that time, the applicant and Staff have reached a compromise of two horses per lot, with revisions to the Pasture Management Plan to ensure infrequent grazing in the lower pasture adjacent to Boyd Lake.  These differences between the Planning Commission and Development Services Team recommendations are shown in bold/italics below.  Four appeals are also before the Board.  Both the Staff and the Planning Commission support these appeals.

 

The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve:

  1. The Appeal to the LCLUC, Section 8.1.1.B.2., a requirement to provide public sewer. 
  2. The Appeal to LCLUC, Section 8.14.2.S, on connectivity.
  3. The Appeal to the provision of LCUASS, Chapter 7, which requires 660’ spacing between entrances. 
  4. The Appeal of LCLUC, Section 8.5.5.A.3, requiring streetscaping.
  5. The Planning Commission recommends the Board of County Commissioners approval of rezoning to Planned Development as follows:

1)   PRINCIPAL USES

a)  Agricultural.  A maximum of one horse and/or livestock may be kept or grazed on each of the three Daelin Planned Land Division lots. 

b)  Residential.  Single Family Dwelling

c)  Institutional.  In-Home Child/Elderly Care

 

2)   ACCESSORY USES:  Additional accessory structures on a parcel are allowed if they meet the Accessory Use Criteria in Subsection 4.3.10 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

3)   LOT, BUILDING, AND STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

a)   Minimum lot size - 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres), if a well or septic system is used.

b)   Minimum Setbacks

1.   Front Yard – 125’ from County Road 11C east right-of-way line;

2.   Rear Yard – 300’ from the rear property line;

3.   Side Yard – 5’;

4.   Steams, creek, rivers-100’ from the centerline of established water course; and

5.   Maximum structure height – 40’.

6.   Rezoning to PD will not be effective until and unless the Board of County Commissioners approve a Final Plat, and the plat and all necessary documents are duly recorded.

4)   No parcel can be used for more than one principal single-family residential building.

 

  1. The Planning Commission recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the Daelin Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:

1)   A maximum of one horse may be kept or grazed on each of the three Daelin Planned Land Division lots. 

2)   A drainage easement for proposed irrigation structures shall be shown on the plat during the Final Plat process.    

3)   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Daelin PLD/PD (File #04-S2278).  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Daelin PLD/PD.

4)   Engineered foundations are required for new habitable construction on this site as recommended by the Colorado Geologic Survey. 

5)   No basements will be allowed unless potential groundwater issues are resolved during the Final Plat process or if during Final Plat it is demonstrated on a lot-by-lot basis that the lowest floor elevation would be at least three feet above the seasonal high ground-water level.

6)   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester that specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

7)   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single-family dwellings: Thompson R-2 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion (TCEFs), Larimer County Regional and Community Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fee.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. Both the Development Agreement and the Disclosure Affidavit will reference this requirement.  The County Engineer’s office also requires a Developmental Construction Permit, prior to commencing development construction.

8)   The applicant shall execute a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice shall provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall include, but not be limited to, the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for any access permits and culverts, the recommendations of the State Geological Survey (addressing foundations), building envelopes, the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and/or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

9)   Applicant shall provide a signed Annexation Agreement prior to the recording of the Final Plat and related documents.

 

Mr. Helmick explained that there is some disagreement between the Staff’s recommendations and the actions the Planning Commission took and he asked David Karin to explain.  Mr. Karin explained that the allowance for livestock, particularly horses on the property, is the point of disagreement between Staff and the Planning Commission.  He went on to explain that, after continued discussions with the applicant, Staff supports all of the conditions for approval, including the recommendation that two horses (or livestock) be allowed per lot.  The Planning Commission recommended one horse (or livestock) per lot, which is the only difference of opinion between the Staff and the Planning Commission.  Mr. Karin also asserted that Staff is not aware of any citizen in opposition to this proposal at this time.

 

There was no public comment on this item.  Discussion ensued between the Board and Staff regarding the history of discussion about livestock on the lots, the size of the lots and the proximity of Boyd Lake to the property. 

Chair Rennels welcomed the applicant to provide input to the Board.  Tiffane Johnson from Landmark Engineering addressed the Board.  She explained that originally the request was for three horses per lot, which would have been about a 44% reduction in the total number of livestock or animals currently allowed on the property.  Ms. Johnson went on to explain that the applicant has been working to outline specific criteria that the applicant could offer in conjunction with providing a Pasture Management Program.  She stated that the applicant also sought to compromise with the Planning Commission and changed the request to two horses per lot. 

 

Ms. Johnson further explained that the applicant currently owns four horses and intends to pass the two lots on to his two daughters, which would allow the applicant to keep all four horses.  Ms. Johnson also commented that two horses per lot would still be a 60% reduction from what the current code allows.  She explained that the Pasture Management Program would accompany the Development Agreement, so that each lot owner would have guidelines, in case they haven’t had the experience of owning a small acreage before.  She went on to explain that, as it is right now, there is approximately 1.5 acres of pasture set aside for the two horses on the property, as they are 2.67-acre lots with half-acre building envelopes. 

 

Discussion ensued regarding Ms. Johnson’s comments, impact of the livestock on Boyd Lake, and the applicant’s agreement with all the other requirements made.  Discussion continued regarding the Pasture Management Program and how it would work, the applicant’s history of land stewardship, and anticipated land management by future owners.

 

Chair Rennels asked Mr. Ryan if the Pasture Management Program has been reviewed by Staff.  He indicated that Staff believes it to be a great plan for small property management.  Mr. Ryan explained that this is one of the first cases to test the Land Use Code provision for protecting drinking water reservoirs.  He concurred with the applicant that Boyd Lake has intense recreational use, farming use, etc.  Mr. Ryan commented that he is satisfied that limiting the horses to a reasonable number and encouraging this professionally prepared pasture management program adequately answer the concerns regarding livestock on the properties.  He went further to say that he concurs with Staff’s position that allowing two livestock per lot is acceptable.  Mr. Helmick commented that the elements involved are relatively obvious and that a drive-by inspection will likely reveal violations, making enforcement more manageable.

 

Chair Rennels commented that the Pasture Management Program provided appears to be very well done and succinct.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that Board of County Commissioners approve the Daelin Estates Planned Land Division and Rezoning to Planned Development, with the conditions recommended by Staff.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

11. SCHNEIDER APPEAL – 05-G0092: 

12. SCHNEIDER APPEAL – 05-G0092: 

 

Mr. Karin explained that the first appeal (Item 11) is to allow separation of the Schneider property into two legal parcels.  The Schneiders have owned the subject property for approximately 21 years.  The property in question was created through an exemption plat recorded on May 1, 1978 (Reception #246829 – Waag Exemption). 

 

The original exemption plat created three parcels; Tracts A, B and C.  The plat was subsequently amended in 1984 (see File #26-84EX – Waag Exemption).  The exemption plat shows Tracts A-1, A-2 and A-3.  Tract A-2 describes 0.99 acre which was located outside of the original Waag Exemption.  Essentially an approximately one-acre property was added to the original exemption, the equivalent today of an Amended Plat.  A plat note clearly designates “Combined Tracts A-1 and A-3.”  It appears that “Tract A-3” was defined to indicate that additional property was involved. 

 

Other evidence that the intent was to add property without creating an additional lot is in the Staff Report and the line types used on the plat.  The Staff report states that this was a “request to combine a portion of Tract A of the Waag Exemption with an adjacent legal lot.”  The line between Tracts A-1 and A-3 is a dotted line.  Dotted lines are by convention used to indicate an existing property line which will be removed by the recording of the new plat.  A solid line surrounds the combined Tract A-1 and A-3. 

 

Mr. Karin indicated that one of the final steps in the process at that time was for the landowner to go to the Assessor’s office to, for tax purposes, combine those two parcels so that they were only paying taxes on one parcel.  However, he explained that this final action was never taken by the landowner; and therefore, the Assessor’s office has continued to tax them based on two separate tax parcels (when there is only one legal lot).

 

The owners of Tract A-1/A-3 state that they were told upon purchase that the parcels were to be two separate parcels.  They then received two tax notices for the past 21 years which, in their minds, confirmed the existence of two legal parcels.  The Schneiders have been unable to provide any specific documentation that would support their claim.

 

Mr. Karin explained that the applicants are asking that the Board overturn the provision on the existing Amended Exemption Plat and allow that there are two separate legal lots.  He went on to explain that the Staff’s position is that there is no basis in record for allowing two lots (essentially approving a land division that did not take place); and Staff, therefore, recommends denial of this application.

 

Mr. Karin explained that the second appeal (Item 12 above) is a request to waive and refund the $200 County fee for processing the first Schneider Appeal (Item 11 above).   He explained that the Schneiders assert that they have already paid in excess of $15,000 on vacant land taxation for property that they believed was a separate legal lot.  Mr. Karin indicated that Staff takes no formal position on the fee waiver.

 

Commissioner Gibson requested clarification as to whether the Planning Department is indicating that it is one legal parcel while the Assessors Department (where people pay their taxes) says it is two lots.  Mr. Karin replied that, in a sense, that is correct; however, he went on to explain that there are two parallel systems in the County, one of which is for the purpose of land use (subject to the Land Use Code and Building Permits) and the other is for the purpose of taxation.  He went on to explain that, at times, the Assessor has said there is one legal lot and a portion of it will be taxed at a different low rate, but the Assessor is not creating two legal lots – that is the situation that occurred with respect to this property.

 

Commissioner Gibson made the point that there are two systems within the County which should be combined into a single system, so everyone is talking in the same language. 

 

Commissioner Wagner asked about the systems used back when the amended plat was produced and whether the Schneider’s received any documentation after the fact that would have clarified for them that they did, in fact, only have one lot.  Mr. Karin indicated that at that time, an amended plat could not be used to create an additional lot.  He went on to explain that there is nothing in the record that creates any doubt in his mind about the intent at that time for the property to remain one lot.  However, he said he is not knowledgeable about whether the Schneiders were notified in writing after approval of the amended plat.  Mr. Helmick interjected that the first approval in 1984 was a little sloppy, and that perhaps a new deed should have been filed at that time.  However, he indicated his concurrence with Mr. Karin’s analysis that the file record is very clear from Staff’s standpoint; but it is not clear in terms of communications with the Schneiders and what they thought they were doing at the time or regarding any follow-up.

 

Commissioner Wagner commented that many people in the county get two tax bills on a single property and have the assumption that they have two separate properties.  Mr. Helmick concurred that he receives communications from citizens with that perspective at least twice a week.  Commissioner Wagner commented that this request is an understandable and unfortunate result of the separate systems that the County has in place for land use and taxation.

 

Chair Rennels requested comment from the applicant.  Joyce Schneider approached the Board, representing her and her husband Kenneth as applicants.  She explained the reasons for these two appeals.  She commented that allowing two lots is not detrimental in any way, that they have been paying property taxes on two lots at higher rates than they would have had to pay, and that overpaid property taxes are not refundable.  She indicated their interest in working cooperatively with the Planning office to determine appropriate lot sizes and other matters. 

 

Commissioner Gibson asked how the property was originally purchased.  Ms. Schneider indicated that the properties were purchased at two different times; the one-acre plot was purchased in 1968, and then they purchased the other four acres in 1984.  She went on to explain that she did visit with the Planning office after the amended plat, and that the person she spoke with confirmed her understanding that they did have two different lots.  She indicated that she did not realize there was any follow-up required.  She explained that the receipt of two tax notices also confirmed, from their perspective, that there were two lots.

 

Commissioner Wagner asked Ms. Schneider to explain why they had originally wanted this property to be two lots back in 1984.  Ms. Schneider indicated that she and her husband intended to sell off the larger portion at a later date as part of their retirement plan, which is something they have been considering in recent years.

 

Seeing no public requesting to comment, Chair Rennels opened and closed public comment regarding this matter.

 

Commissioner Gibson asked for clarification regarding how these two properties, purchased as such different times, were determined by the Planning Department not to be two separate lots.  Mr. Helmick explained that there was an application filed by the property owners back in 1984, resulting in one approximately five-acre parcel.  He commented that perhaps there was no follow-through on someone’s part (whether it be the Schneiders or the County) at that time.  Commissioner Gibson commented that combining the two parcels would have resulted in some loss of value to the properties.  He further commented that he understands the property owner’s confusion, and indicated that he would vote in favor of the property owners in the instance.

 

Commissioner Wagner commented that this is an understandable, unfortunate result of the two systems the County has, and that it is unfortunate that the County, at this point, is not working to combine the two systems.  She indicated that, until the County does what it needs to do to correct the two separate systems causing confusion, she is going to be inclined to support appeals like this, if she knows that doing so will not affect the public health and safety, won’t result in any greater cost in taxation to the County, and the request is not in conflict with the Land Use Code.  She indicated she would approve of this appeal, but would not be inclined to approve the appeal to waive the $200 fee, considering the cost to the County in time and effort to resolve this issue.

 

Chair Rennels commented that she sees why there is confusion.  She indicated that she would agree with both Commissioners about how important it is that the confusion caused by the two County systems be corrected.  She commented that because the records at that time were not as clear as she would like them to be, she prefers to err on the side of the applicant and will support the appeal.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal of the Waag Amended Exemption Plat.

 

Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Karin explained again that the second appeal (Item 12 above) is requesting waiver of the $200 fee associated with the first appeal (Item 11 above).  Mr. Helmick commented that the Planning Department has no basis or review criteria for a fee appeal and indicated that the decision is entirely up to the Board.  There was brief discussion among the Board regarding this request.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the appeal of the process fee.

 

Motion Carried 3-0.

 

13. YOUNG’S LIQUOR APPEAL – 05-G0091:  Matt Lafferty explained that the subject request is an appeal to Section 10.14.B (Freestanding Signs) and 10.17.B (Nonconforming Signs), allowing the property owner to retain an existing nonconforming freestanding sign on the property.  The sign in question is situated along the southern property boundary adjacent to the Highway 14 Frontage Road.  The three-sided sign is approximately 29’ tall and is positioned approximately 2.5’ from the property line adjacent to the Highway 14 Frontage Road.

 

Mr. Lafferty went on to explain the history and reasoning behind signage codes in Larimer County.  He also explained how and when the new signage codes are put into affect, and he reviewed the history of the Young’s Liquor building project.

 

According to Section 10.19 (Definitions) a nonconforming sign is defined as follows:  “Nonconforming Sign – A sign the does not meet one or more of the requirements of this Section 10, but which was erected in conformance with any adopted standards and procedures in existence at the time.” 

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that the sign being discussed today stands approximately 29’ tall and sits 2.5’ off of the right-of-way line for the frontage road of East Mulberry.  He went on to explain that, based on current regulations, the sign, in its current location, would only be allowed to be approximately 5’ tall; as it is moved further away from the property line it could be taller, upwards of 30’.  Mr. Lafferty showed a photograph of the site, described the other previously existing signs on the property and how they will or will not be relocated, and showed the location of the sign in question.  He went further to comment on his thoughts for an alternative location for the sign, which would likely require a variance on height, but not on setback.  He continued by explaining roadway visibility of the current sign location and of the suggested new location.

 

With regard to the existing sign in question, it is considered nonconforming because it does not comply with the height, setback and size requirements of Section 10.14 (Standards for Nonresidential Districts). Additionally, because a “change of use” is occurring on the property and new signs are proposed, the applicant is required to eliminate all nonconforming signs.

 

According to Section 0.1 (Definitions) of the Land Use Code, a “change of use” is defined as follows:  “Change of use – Any use that substantially differs from the previous use of a building or land, including a change from a public use to a private use, in which a new use requires additional parking, landscaping, screening, buffering, drainage facilities or other changes to the site addressed in Section 8, standards for all development.”

 

Furthermore, Section 10.17.B (Nonconforming Signs) states the following regarding nonconforming signs:  “All nonconforming signs on a property must be bought into conformance with this Section 10.0 when a change of use, as defined in the Land Use Code, occurs on the property.”

 

Based upon the definitions and standards listed above, the Development Services Team cannot support the applicants request for the following reasons;

 

a.   A “Change of Use” has occurred. This change of use of the property has been approved and is being constructed at this time.  The change of use involves the destruction of the existing Young’s Liquor Building on the site and its replacement by a larger building that will, in addition to allowing for the expansion of Young’s Liquor, also accommodate new uses.  As part of this change of use, the applicant was required to provide new parking facilities, landscaping, drainage facilities and access.  The decision that this constitutes a “change of use” has been reviewed and upheld by the Board of Adjustment.

 

b.   The sign in question is nonconforming.  The sign that the applicant wishes to maintain on the property cannot meet the standards for a freestanding sign, because it stands too tall, is not setback far enough from the property line, and exceeds the sign area allowances for its location.

 

c.   The sign in question is 35 to 40 years old, and the applicant has proposed to update the sign if it is allowed to remain.  By allowing the sign to remain and be updated, the life of the nonconformity will be extended.  This is also addressed in the nonconforming section of the sign regulations where it states “a nonconforming sign shall not be structurally or physically altered in order to prolong the life of the sign, including a change from the original materials of the sign, except to meet safety requirements.”

 

d.   Removing the sign does not create an unfair market condition. Property owners in the area with nonconforming signs will be required to bring their signs into conformance with Section 10.0 (Signs) when they change their use, expand or choose to update their existing sign program.

 

e.   Adoption of the Section 10.0 (Signs) of the Land Use Code intended to allow greater sign opportunities from the previous County sign regulations (which allowed only one sign of 90 square feet per use) and, at the same time bring business signs within the County to a level consistent with City regulations, so that signs would not be considered nonconforming when those properties are annexed into the City.

 

f.   Lastly, the adoption of the new sign regulations of Section 10 were intended to reduce the height of signs throughout the County and to improve the visual qualities of the main thoroughfares to enhance and encourage higher quality development in the commercial corridors.

 

Overall, the new sign standards of Section 10 allow the applicant to have sign allowance of 400 + square feet, which can be distributed through numerous signs on both street frontages of the property.  The previous standards only allowed one sign totaling 90 square feet for these properties. 

 

Mr. Lafferty described, from his perspective, the applicant’s position regarding this sign; highlighting the applicant’s concerns about competition and the Supermarket Liquor sign on the same street, which is not currently in compliance with the sign code either and would not be required to make a change at this point in time.

 

Commissioner Gibson commented on the competition issue and asked if there had been consideration given to requiring that if one sign has to be modified, both signs must be modified, to put the competition on equal footing.  Mr. Lafferty commented that, if this sign is allowed to remain, the next person will also expect to be able to locate a sign under similar conditions.  He went further to address the fair market condition, and the option of allowing the applicant to keep this sign on the property until the other sign went away or market conditions evened themselves out, but he expressed concern that the applicant is going to put a significant amount of money into updating this sign, making its removal at a later date a significant monetary loss.  Commissioner Gibson asserted that it would be the owner’s choice whether to put the money into this expense, knowing when he does so that he may lose the investment in a short time if conditions change. 

 

Mr. Lafferty indicated that, when the County put these new sign codes into place, there was a conscious effort to indicate that the County would not be chasing down the non-conformities, but rather that non-conformances would be brought into conformance when the opportunity calls for it.  He emphasized that, if the properties are annexed into one of the cities, they will be brought into conformance with those applicable codes on an amortization schedule, with potential significant loss to the property owners, if they are not required to come into compliance by the County when major changes occur to the property.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the current sign size, the proposed location for the sign, and the likelihood that the sign would have to be further altered if the property is annexed into the city.

 

Discussion continued regarding the building location, meetings between the property owner and the Planning Department regarding same, the property owner’s options regarding this location, and the property owner’s final decision about building placement.

 

Further discussion continued regarding the number of signs and square footage of signage allowed by code on a site, whether the applicant has reached the limit for signage at this location, and what the applicant’s options are regarding the signage with and without the subject sign.

 

The Applicant, Gerald Granberg, approached the Board at this time.  Mr. Granberg clarified that this is his first appeal in front of the Commissioners to address this particular item, and commented that Mr. Lafferty has only taken into account westbound traffic as he regards the sign and the impact of its removal, and he emphasized that he also gets customers from the east.  He further explained that, under the current sign code, he would not be able to use the existing sign in any circumstances, because it is 19’ tall.  Mr. Granberg explained that the object of this appeal is to allow him to keep an existing 40-year-old sign, which has been kept in good condition and requires no refurbishment.  It has been well maintained and is ready to turn on, so he is not intending to put any investment into improving it.  Rather he thinks Mr. Lafferty was referring to another sign that was removed from the roof of the building that will be refurbished as part of the sign plan. 

 

Mr. Granberg reviewed the history of his and his wife’s ownership of the store, the property and the current rebuild.  He further described the various meetings he has had with Planning regarding the upgrade, and eventually rebuild, of his building.  He showed photographs of the signs along the Mulberry corridor and described the importance of such signage.  Mr. Granberg stated that he believes his sign fits the stated purpose of the sign code (10.1), and meets the general sign regulations (10.2).  He explained that, although he had addressed various other issues with the Planning Commission over a period of time, it wasn’t until he signed the Development Agreement in May that Mr. Lafferty told him of the fact that his sign will not comply with the sign code and would have to be removed.  Mr. Granberg appealed to the Board to let him keep his sign, stating that requiring him to remove it would add $30,000 to $40,000 to a project that is already over budget and behind schedule.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the importance of the sign code, the provisions of the current sign code, the perceived need for tall signs on higher speed roadways, and the appearance of the Mulberry corridor as a “gateway into Fort Collins.” 

 

Discussion continued regarding Mr. Granberg’s perspective on changing the signage, should his property be annexed into the City of Fort Collins; his intent for signage on the building; how his signage intent compares to the amount allowed by code; and the intended use of his new building.

 

Chair Rennels opened the meeting to public comment.  Gary Callahan, Attorney for Young’s Liquor addressed the Board.  He commented on the philosophical questions about who should be the first to conform to the new sign code.  He said that an applicant in review should be provided the full opportunity of understanding the economic and design consequences of going into a project.  He explained that part of the difficulty in this instance is that the process has taken so long, and so many code changes have taken place during this time.  He indicated that if the property owner knows going in what all of the economic and design issues are, then this issue does not arise at all. 

 

Chair Rennels commented on the difficulty associated with being the first to conform to the new sign code and the fact that the new sign code provides more flexibility with respect to total sign square footage allowed.  Commissioner Wagner asked Mr. Callahan how this project would have been affected had Mr. Granberg known these requirements at the onset.  Mr. Callahan indicated that the project was budgeted at the onset, and that Mr. Granberg’s budget, his borrowing ability, completion dates, etc. would have been affected.  He could have decided at that time whether he could move forward with the project, or whether he would have chosen not to move forward with the project at all.

 

Mr. Callahan explained that Mr. Granberg’s project is well over budget and that this sign change would result in another significant expenditure for which he was not able to plan.

 

Mr. Granberg again approached the Board and explained that every proposed site plan throughout the process had the existing sign on it, and no one told him there would be any issue with it.

 

Discussion ensued regarding participation in the public process of developing the current sign code and when Mr. Granberg was told he would have to modify the sign.

 

Jay Curtis of Da Vinci Sign Systems approached the Board.  He commented that it would be extremely costly (as much as $20,000) to relocate this sign, and he appealed to the Board to allow Mr. Granberg a variance to keep this sign in its current location.  Mr. Curtis further stated that he believes this sign to be a local landmark and that it is a critical component to the success of Young’s Liquor.

 

Casey Stewart, of the Planning Department, commented on the difference between how the old and new sign code would have impacted Mr. Granberg.  He further commented that his initial communication with Mr. Granberg about this sign took place in April.

 

Chair Rennels closed public comment regarding this matter.

 

Chair Rennels commented that she very much believes in the County’s new sign code.  She stated that Mr. Granberg’s project has been involved in the process with the County for a very long time, and she reviewed some of the details of the project and the timing of his being informed of the sign issues.  She expressed concern about the late date at which Mr. Granberg was informed that there would be an issue with his sign.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that the Site Plan Process, as it existed at the time, did not evaluate signage, because there is a separate permit by which signage is approved; and he again commented on the difference between how the old sign code and the new sign code would have affected Mr. Granberg.

 

Commissioner Wagner asked if this is the first appeal the County has received regarding the sign code.  Mr. Lafferty indicated that this is the first one heard by the Board to this point, but indicated that there is another pending.  Discussion ensued regarding potentially perceived similarities