Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Monday, May 15, 2000

WORK SESSION

(No Audio Available)

The Board of County Commissioners met in a work session at 10:00 a.m. Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present were Larry Timm, Director of Planning; Marc Engemoen, Director of Public Works; Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Mark Peterson, County Engineer; Rusty McDaniel, Project Engineer; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; Joe Plummer, Windsor Director of Planning; Dennis Wagner, Director of Engineering- Windsor; Rick Anderson, Civil Engineer- Windsor; Tess Jones, Access Manager- Colorado Dept. of Transportation (CDOT); Rick Gabel, Region Traffic Engineer- CDOT; and Gloria Hice-Idler; Assistant Access Manager- CDOT. Recording Clerk, Jean O'Connor.

Ms. Haag stated the reason for this work session was for the Board to gain additional information from CDOT and the Town of Windsor regarding transportation issues for the Kyger/Lafarge Pit Special Review and that the work session will be part of the record of the hearing April 17, 2000. Ms. Haag further stated that the discussion shall focus on the Kyger/Lafarge application to the greatest extent possible

Commissioner Disney asked that the following be addressed during the discussion:

  1. Is the length of the acceleration lane adequate?
  2. Would installing a signal light at the intersection be better?
  3. Truck traffic going west using the deceleration lane at County Road 3 as a passing lane- how can this be stopped?
  4. Is the level of service at the interchange of 392 and Weld County Road (WCR) 13 adequate? Can truck hauls be restricted during peak hours?

Ms. Hice-Idler stated that the acceleration lane could be lengthened by approximately 220-feet and that CDOT hesitated to extend it any farther. Ms. Jones presented a potential solution, which would also, help the trucks keep speed and enter into existing traffic. Ms. Jones suggested that an extra wide right turn land be installed so the trucks do not need to come to a complete stop to enter on to Colorado Highway 392; this would also create the need for a right turn decel lane to be installed off CO Hwy 392 on to WCR 13. Ms. Jones also stated that islands, either painted or raised, would need to be installed at the intersection to indicate the turn lanes and that CDOT preferred the raised islands for safety reasons.

Chair Olson asked if the islands could work in conjunction with a signal. Mr. Gabel stated that a complete study of the intersection would be needed to determine the answer; however, preliminary studies showed the intersection to have only one peak hour per day, therefore the installation of a signal would be a low priority for CDOT. Commissioner Disney inquired as to cost of the improvements so as to require the applicant to pay a fair share and asked the Town of Windsor to do the same. Ms. Jones stated that the impacts to the intersection, which would be caused by Kyger/Lafarge would be minor compared to the current situation.

Mr. Plummer stated that staff is willing to ask the Town Board for a contribution and if the Board is willing to ask future developers to contribute to road improvements.

Much discussion ensued regarding current and future buildout and annexations for the Town of Windsor. Ms. Jones stated that Windsor is growing at a rate of 300%, and is the largest growth area in the region.

Commissioner Disney asked the staff from CDOT to provide an estimate for the cost of all improvements, including potential islands at County Road (CR) 3 and signage, so the Board could determine a fair share for the Kyger/Lafarge applicant.

Commissioner Disney asked about the level of service at the I-25/ CO Hwy 392 interchange and the impact the applicant would have on the interchange. Mr. Helmick stated that the applicant had committed to reducing the number of truck trips in peak hours, and indicated that the proposed site would supply south Fort Collins, so traffic would be continuing west on CO Hwy 392 or turning north on I-25. Mr. Gabel stated that CDOT would be concerned if the truck traffic were to turn left to go south on I-25 and that there should not be an impact if trucks proceed either west or north.

Commissioner Disney asked if truck trips were to be restricted in peak hours, how would that condition be enforced. Mr. Helmick suggested the applicant provide load tickets, which would indicate the probable direction of each truck. Mr. Helmick also clarified that the direction of the Board was for staff to prepare potential conditions for the June 5, 2000 hearing and the Board concurred. Chair Olson asked that staff also be prepared to discuss air quality, with respect to the batch plants.

Commissioner Disney thanked the staff of Windsor and CDOT for attending and stated that the problem can not be solved unless the Town of Windsor is willing to participate.

The session concluded at 11:45 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAND USE PLANNING MEETING

(# 606 & 607)

The Board of County Commissioners met in regular session at 3:00 p.m. with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Olson presided and Commissioner Disney was present. Also present were Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Sarah Flick, Environmental Planner; Carol Evans, Planner II; Claudia DeLude, Code Enforcement Officer; Doug Ryan, Environmental Planner; Traci Downs, Civil Engineer; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk: Jean O'Connor.

Chair Olson stated that the following items are consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board or members of the audience.

1. PRAIRIE TRAILS PUD AMENDMENT TO PLAT REGARDING WETLAND AREAS: 29-05-69; PRAIRIE TRAILS PUD.

This is a request to remove the wetland designation on lot 15 block 4 and to revise notes #9 & #11. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the plat of the Prairie Trails PUD file # 00-S1573. Specifically: 1. Removing plat note #9 as it affects Lot 15 Block 4; and 2. Revising plat note #11 to include the following language at the end of the first sentence. "Unless wetland delineation approved by the Army Corps of Engineers indicates that wetlands are not present"

  1. HIGH PLAINS SUBDIVISION RELEASE OF COLLATERAL: SW 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST.

This is a request for release of collateral for improvements to water supply equipment, water line trenches, and road improvements. Staff recommends approval of the request for release of collateral for the High Plains Subdivision, in the amount of $22,598.00.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Prairie Trails PUD lot 15, block 4 Amended Plat #00-S1573 and High Plains Subdivision Release of Collateral as presented on the consent agenda.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

3. ADAMS MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: NE 11-5-70; NORTH SIDE OF US HIGHWAY 34 ABOUT 1/3 MILE WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 27; NORTHWEST OF THE BOHEMIAN COTTAGE RESTAURANT.

This is a request for approval of a one lot Minor Residential Development to recognize an illegally divided parcel as a building site. Staff findings include: 1. The subject property was created in 1973 to facilitate a boundary line adjustment. It was not created for residential use and is not considered to be a legal lot for the purposes of issuing building permits. A lawsuit by the applicant against the people who sold him the property was settled out of court in 1998; 2. The site is affected by multiple development constraints, including poor access/sight distance conditions, rock fall hazards, shallow bedrock, severe erosion and drainage concerns, and steep slopes. No drainage or erosion information was provided. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed building envelope can accommodate all residential structures, access roads and turnarounds, water line extensions, other utilities, on-site sewer systems, and any necessary drainage and erosion control features. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the subject property can feasibly and safely be developed as a residential building site; 3. The proposed access to US Highway 34 has poor sight distance conditions. The existing access easement does not meet the requirements of the Larimer County Engineering Department regarding width. The grade of the access road exceeds the maximum grade limits of the Loveland Fire District. It is not evident that the site can accommodate the required access road standards or provide an emergency turnaround as proposed by the applicant; 4. To approve the proposed Adams Minor Residential Development without adequate information and verification that public health and safety issues are satisfactorily addressed, without evaluation of the drainage and erosion conditions, and without verification of access that meets the requirements of the County Engineering Department and the Loveland Fire District would not promote harmonious development of the area, would not promote the convenience, prosperity or general health, safety and welfare of the public and would not be in the best interests of the people of Larimer County. Staff recommendation is for Denial of the proposed Adams Minor Residential Development #96-EX0898.

Mr. Rob Persichitte, representative for the applicant, stated that there appears to be some question regarding the access, which the applicant currently uses to get to his property, and whether or not it is a legal access. Mr. Persichitte felt that it is a legal access that was not transferred when the parcel was deeded. Mr. Persichitte also requested that the erosion and drainage reports be deferred to the final plat stage due to costs associated with those reports. He informed the Board that the applicant had a verbal commitment from the City of Loveland for water and that an access permit from the State had been granted. Mr. Persichitte also noted that the Colorado Department of Transportation is proposing changes for the bridge over the Big Thompson, which will correct current sight impairments.

Commissioner Disney asked if the City of Loveland had mentioned anything about water pressure or the 16% grade on the access. Mr. Persichitte said no, but the water line is 24-inches, so pressure should be adequate; the Loveland Fire Department was concerned with the grade and asked that it be decreased if possible and that the structure be sprinklered.

At this time the hearing was opened for public comment.

Ms. Carolyn Duncan, adjacent property owner with the access in question, stated that the applicant had been using that portion of her property as a driveway and that an easement does not exist. Ms. Duncan stated that she has had problems with the water that flows off the applicants' property and floods her property, as well as rocks falling. Ms. Duncan stated that the water pressure is approximately 25 pounds; and was concerned that the site held frequent parties with attendees shooting guns at the rocks.

Ms. Sandy Fletcher, adjacent property owner, stated that the area was hazardous due to the rockslides.

At this time the hearing was closed to the public and Mr. Persichitte rebutted stating that drainage will be restored and maintained to historic levels.

A member of the audience asked to address the Board.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners re-open the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

Mr. Harvey Duncan, adjacent property owner, informed the Board that a utility easement did exist on his property, which contains two large water lines, a gas line, and telephone lines, and that no other easements were on his property.

At this time the hearing was closed to the public and Mr. Persichitte rebutted stating that he was aware of the utility easement granted to the City of Loveland.

Much discussion ensued regarding how long this application has existed and the number of outstanding issues.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Adams Minor Residential Development as presented by staff.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

4. LOERA ZONING VIOLATION: 8424 PEAKVIEW DRIVE, LOT 55, BLOCK 2, MOUNTAIN RANGE SHADOWS.

Staff finds that the property is in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code: Section 4.3.10 (E) Outside storage of vehicles. "Only those vehicles that do not qualify as junk vehicles...may be stored outside on the same lot with the dwelling."Definition of: Junk Vehicle: "A vehicle that is inoperable (unable to move under it's own power), or is partially or totally dismantled...or is not registered with the State of Colorado". Staff findings are: 1. The property is zoned A-Airport, under the Larimer County Land Use Code; 2. The use of the property as a junkyard is in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code; 3. The continued use of the property, in violation of zoning regulations, will affect property values in the area. Staff recommends that the Board find a violation does exist, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met. Also, that no further violations occur for one year or we may proceed with legal action.

Ms. DeLude stated that staff is concerned with the site because it is a school bus stop, is located on a curve and visibility is obstructed by all the parked vehicles. Ms. DeLude also asked the Engineering Department to place "No Parking" signs on the street to improve the site distance for the safety of the children loading and unloading from the bus.

At this time the hearing was opened to the public for comment.

Mr. Hal Barheight, speak on behalf of the homeowners association (HOA), stated that the HOA has tried to resolve the issue with the property owner for four years to no avail and that the covenants do not address this issue. Mr. Barheight stated that at times, there are 15 vehicles on the property and in the street. He further stated that the primary concern is safety and secondly property values.

Commissioner Disney asked if the owner was running an auto repair business and Mr. Barheight replied that a business is suspected but can not be confirmed. Chair Olson asked if the vehicles were licensed and Ms. DeLude stated that the vehicles are neither licensed nor operable.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners finds that a violation does exist on the Loera property located at 8424 Peakview Drive and authorize legal action in 60 days if the property is not in compliance.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

5. KRUPA ZONING VIOLATION; TR IN NE OF NW 18-7-71 AS DESC IN BK 1577 PG 937, BUCKHORN ROAD, NOT ADDRESSED, NO STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY

Staff finds the property is in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code: Section 4.1.5 A campground is not a permitted use in an O-open zoning district, unless approved through Special Review; Section 4.1.5 Zoning does not permit outside storage, as it is not accessory to a permitted use; Section 4.3.10 Outside storage of vehicles (recreational vehicles); Definitions: The use of a recreational vehicle for a dwelling, in excess of 30 days, as defined under recreational vehicle and temporary. Staff findings are that 1. The property is zoned O-Open, under the Larimer County Land Use Code; 2. The use of the travel trailer as a dwelling is in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code; 3. The use of the property as a junkyard is in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code; 4. The zoning of the property does not permit outside storage when it is not accessory to a permitted use; 5. The continued use of the property, in violation of zoning regulations, will affect property values in the area. Staff recommendation is to find a violation does exist, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

Ms. DeLude stated that the property does not have an address since there are no structures on the property and the owner, Mr. Krupa, is currently living in a RV.

Mr. Bruno Krupa, property owner, stated that his ex-wife had taken the titles to the vehicles and trailers located on the property and that he has hired a lawyer to try to get them back so he can sell them.

At this time the hearing was opened to the public.

Mr. Kenneth Jessen, adjacent property owner, stated that his main concern was safety, the type and amount of junk and debris on the property and its proximity to the road.

Ms. Tammy Eagan, adjacent property owner, stated that she is concerned with the inoperable RVs being parked on the road and that many of the vehicles and junk are salvage materials only.

Ms. Sally Fit, area resident, is appalled at the junkyard and the visual impact it is having on the area.

Ms. Betty Wright, adjacent property owner, is concerned with the fire hazard, the potential for mischievous teenagers having a "field day" pushing the junk down the hill and landing in the road.

At this time the hearing was closed to the public and Mr. Krupa rebutted asking why he is being singled out since other property owners also have vehicles in similar situations. Ms. DeLude responded stating that code enforcement is done on a complaint basis only.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists on site and that any materials, which are not secured and could be blown around by wind, be removed within 10 days; and all other debris be moved, and all parties with an interest in said debris be notified as to the whereabouts, within 30 days and authorize legal action if the property is not in compliance.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

There being no further business, the hearing recessed at 5:00 p.m.

CONTINUATION OF LAND USE HEARING

(#608)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Olson presided and Commissioner Disney was present. Commissioner Rennels participated via telephone. Also present were Al Kadera, Planner II and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk: Jean O'Connor.

1. AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER OCUNTY LAND USE CODE #00-CA0007.

This is a request to make a number of changes to the adopted Land Use Code. Staff findings include: 1. The proposed amendments to the Land Use Code are necessary to correct errors and to ensure consistency between various sections of the Code; 2. The proposed amendments satisfy the review criteria for changes to the text of the Land Use Code. The proposed changes are:

    1. We omitted a few terms from the Index. Add "Vested Rights" on Page 12-15, "Preliminary Plat" on Page 5-44 and "Final Plat" on Page 5-47.
    2. Subsection 4.3.1.F, Page 4-65. When we replaced all of the animal regulations we did not correctly transfer the definition of "Feed Yard". The Code indicates that importing 10% of the roughage feed is an indicator of a feed yard. This should say 50% to be consistent with the previous Zoning Resolution. This change also needs to occur in the Definitions Section of the Code.
    3. Changes are needed in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Transferable Density Units Overlay Zone to allow some limited development of sending parcels.

      Page 4-62, Subsection 4.2.3.J.4.a, delete the sentence, "Development under the Rural Land Use Process may be allowed but no bonus units are permitted."

      Add 4.2.3.J.4.f to read:

      "Where a Sending Parcel owner retains the right to develop part of his/her property by subdivision into lots pursuant to a use covenant signed before the sale of any TDU's, the division may be made in one of the following ways.

      (1) Where the total number of lots is equal or less than the total acreage of the property divided by 35 (rounded down to the nearest whole number) plus one, or six, whichever is less, the owner may use the following process. This process will be considered a subdivision exemption process under 30-28-101(10)(d)C. R. S. 1973 and will be referred to as the TDU Exemption Process or TDU Exemption Plat.

      a. Application Materials and Requirements. Owner shall comply with Section 12.1 of this Code concerning applications materials and requirements.

      b. Process. All applications for TDU Exemption Plats require a Pre-application Conference, Concept or Sketch Plan Review and public hearing before the County Commissioners. Each of these processes is described in Subsection 12.2 (Development Review Procedures).

      c. Review Criteria. To approve a TDU Exemption Plat the County Commissioners must find the following conditions exist:
      1) The proposed TDU Exemption Plat is compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area;
      2) The newly created parcels meet the minimum lot size required by the applicable zoning district;
      3) The newly created parcels will meet minimum access standards required by the County Engineer or the Colorado Department of Transportation, as applicable;
      4) The proposed TDU Exemption Plat will comply with Section 8.1 of this Code concerning Adequate Public Facilities with regard to roads, water, sewer, fire protection and drainage;
      5) The proposed TDU Exemption Plat will not adversely affect Special Places in Larimer County; and
      6) Applicable Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, park fees in lieu of dedication, school fees and drainage fees will be paid at building permit issuance.

      d. Development Agreement. The proposed TDU Exemption Plat must include a Development Agreement which specifies the details of the project and assures completion and maintenance of improvements required to serve the project. A property owners' association and protective covenants may be required if determined to be necessary by the Planning Director.

      (2) Where the total number of lots exceeds the number allowed for the TDU Exemption Process, the land division process appropriate to the location, size and proposed density will apply. If the Rural Land Use Process is used, no bonus units will be allowed.

      Subsection 4.2.3.J.5, Page 4-63 should also be amended to read as follows:
      "A Sending Parcel owner may withdraw from the TDU program and proceed to develop his/her property so long as he/she has not sold any TDU's. Except as provided in Subsection 4.2.3.J.4.f, any change in use or application for a public hearing for Special Review, Special Exception or land division for a Sending Parcel will be considered a voluntary withdrawal from the TDU Program and all Sending Parcel designations will immediately become void.

      A Sending Parcel owner may elect to sign a use covenant for his/her property prior to the sale of any TDU's. The owner assumes the risk of nonsale of the TDU's that are awarded to the owner in consideration of the use covenant.

      To accommodate the TDU Exemption Process we need to add this process to the public notice table on Page 12-8. TDU Exemption Plats will require 14 days published notice, no sign or APO notice will be required.

      A related amendment occurs in Section 12.7, Vested Rights on Page 12-15. Subsection 12.7.B will be amended to include "TDU Exemption Plat" in the definition of Site Specific Development Plan. The same change will occur in Definitions-19 to include TDU Exemption Plat in the definition of Site Specific Development Plan.
    4. Subsection 4.3.10.D, Page 4-78 Storage Buildings, Barns and Garages. During the Code discussions it was decided that some limit should be placed on the amount of lot coverage. We tried to make a distinction between the smaller (less than 5 acres) residential lots and the larger (5 acres or more) agricultural properties. This resulted in one of the unintended consequences that we anticipated. The distinction between lot sizes penalizes the lot owner when the lot is just a little over five acres.

      We have had several discussions with the staff concerning an upper limit on the lot coverage by accessory buildings. Every time we discuss a limit or change in the coverage rate for different lot sizes a new problem arises. It appears that a limit of 10% for all lot sizes will be the appropriate lot coverage limit.
    5. Subsection 4.3.10.D should read "Each lot may include detached storage buildings, barns and garages for the sole use of the occupants of the principal building or principal use on that lot. The total ground floor area of all storage buildings, barns and garages on a lot can not exceed 10% of the lot's gross area. A storage building, barn or garage..."

    6. Subsection 4.3.10.A, Page 4-77 indicates that an accessory dwelling in a Farmstead must meet all the requirements of Section 8. Subsection 8.0.C, Page 8-1 says that single family dwellings are required to meet only certain parts of Section 8. During the Code hearings, the discussion seemed to indicate that these accessory dwellings should be required to meet all Section 8 standards because it is possible that these dwellings may be divided from the rest of the property at some point in the future and we are allowing these dwellings to be placed in a small portion of the site, in the manner of a cluster.

    7. Subsection 8.0.C should be amended to read, "Building permits for single family and duplex dwellings, which are the principal building on a lot or parcel, must comply with Subsections 8.9.4, 8.9.5 and 8.9.9. Subsection 8.9.6 may be applied to these permits at the discretion of the Planning Director. Building permits for accessory dwellings that are part of a Farmstead must comply with all applicable standards in Section 8, except Subsection 8.5, Landscaping."

      Since the adoption of the Land Use Code we have devised a "Simplified Site Plan Process" for Farmsteads that follows the process for Extended Family Dwellings. In Subsection 4.3.10.A.1 add "f. A simplified site plan will be required as part of the process."

    8. Subsection 4.6, Page 4-87 and Subsection 4.7, Page 4-89 deal with the Board of Adjustment's authority to grant Variances and Special Exceptions. This authority should not extend to Planned Development Zone Districts created pursuant to Subsection 4.1.22. The purpose of the Planned Development Zoning is to encourage development consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreements and city master plans. The uses and development standards will be carefully crafted for each Planned Development Zone and any changes to the uses or standards should be accomplished by amending the Planned Development Zone.

      Add Subsection 4.6.2.D "The Board of Adjustment is not authorized to grant variances from any standards approved as conditions of a Planned Development Zoning District.

      Amend Subsection 4.7.2 to read, "Only those uses that are not otherwise allowed in a particular zoning district may be granted through this process, except that use changes in a Planned Development Zoning District must be approved by the County Commissioners. The Board of Adjustment..."

      Add Subsection "4.1.22.D Changes to uses or standards in a Planned Development Zoning District require an amendment to the conditions of approval for the applicable Planned Development Zone."
    9. Subsection 5.13.4.C.3, Page 5-44 indicates that if a referral agency needs additional time to review an application, the County, the applicant and the agency can agree to a 30-day extension. The applicable state stature (30-28-133.5) indicates that the County may extend the time period for review if requested by a referral agency listed in 30-28-136 C.R.S. without the concurrence of the applicant.

      Amend Subsection 5.13.4.C.3 to read, "If a school district; county or municipality within two miles of the proposed preliminary plat; utility; local improvement or service district; ditch company; the Colorado State Forest Service; planning commission; local soil conservation district board; county, district, regional or state health department; state engineer or the Colorado geological survey needs more time to complete the review, the County may extend the time limit for referral agency review. Such extension may not exceed thirty days unless the referral agency indicates that additional time is needed to complete its recommendation. Such an extension automatically extends the development review schedule established pursuant to Subsection 12.2, Development Review Procedures. If another referral agency requests additional time for review the County, the applicant and the referral agency may agree on an extension of the time limit for review. Such an extension automatically extends the review schedule as stated above. A reviewing agency's failure..."
    10. Subsection 5.4.2, Page 5-14 Minor Land Division. The applicability of this Land Division process has been subject to a number of interpretations, particularly the provision that might allow the creation of vacant building sites of less than 35 acres. By deleting Subsection 5.4.2.B we can ensure that the appropriate Land Division process is used to create lots that will have an impact on the surrounding area. Boundary line adjustments can be processed through Subsection 5.5. Also a further clarification of Subsection 5.4.2.C is needed to make it clear that building permits for new principal buildings will not be issued on the remaining parcel when the improvements are split from the original parcel. Amend Subsection 5.4.2 to read:

      "The Minor Land Division Process may be used for the following land divisions:

      A. Division of existing legal uses that have separate utilities. This process can not be used to divide accessory uses from principal uses or create an opportunity for additional principal uses.

      B. Division of an existing legal use from the remaining vacant property, with the condition that development of the vacant property, including the issuance of a building permit for a building other than a barn or storage building, must be approved through the appropriate Land Division Process, as determined by the Planning Director.

      C. Division of quarter sections into 4 parcels of equal size where the original quarter section contains fewer than 140 acres.
    11. D. Division of land for public utilities, open space, public schools or other public uses that require County review through the Location and Extent Review Process."

      Subsection 5.4.3.E should be amended by deleting the text after the semicolon. Public uses do not require Special Review and the Location and Extent Review process does not assess impacts. The Commissioners can make a finding in the approval of the Minor Land Division that increased traffic impacts are offset by the public benefit derived from the proposed use.

    12. Subsection 5.3.6.A, Page 5-7 the numbering of the paragraphs is incorrect. Number 6 was skipped and the sections after number 5 need to be renumbered 6 through 9.
    13. Subsection 5.13.4.C, Page 5-45 Add "y. County TDU Administrator" as a referral agency for preliminary plats. The TDU Administrator should be in the development review process to ensure that any properties in the TDU program are reviewed properly in the event of a development application. We could simply send a copy of each application to the TDU Administrator but amending this section of the Code puts everyone on notice that this review is going to happen.
    14. Subsection 5.13.6, Page 5-49 The County Engineer has recommended some changes to the requirements for issuing building permits in new developments. Street signs are needed for emergency response purposes and the roads need to be passable for emergency vehicles during inclement weather. Building permit applications should not be accepted for processing while an application is pending because the conditions of approval may result in significant changes to the building plans. Amend Subsection 5.13.6.A and B to read,

      "A. A building permit application will not be accepted for processing on property that has a valid application pending for review of a Variance, Special Exception, Special Review, Site Plan, Rezoning, Subdivision, Conservation Development, Planned Development, Minor Land Division, Amended Plat or Rural Land Use Plan."

      "B. The Building Department may accept applications for building permits after the Final Plat is recorded, a Site Plan is approved or final approval is granted for a Variance, Special Exception, Rezoning or Special Review. The Building Department may issue building permits as follows:

      1. Footing and foundation permits for new construction will be issued only after the following have occurred:
      a. Over lot grading is complete and the County Engineer has inspected and approved the grading;
      b. Final grading of drainage easements and the installation of the storm water drainage system is complete and the County Engineer has inspected and approved the grading and installation:
      c. Construction of the roadway sub-grade and installation of the aggregate base course, or other all- weather surface, for the roadway serving the project is completed and inspected and approved by the County Engineer and acceptable density tests for the sub-grade and utility trenches have been submitted and approved by the County Engineer;
      d. Street signs are properly installed at all intersections and have been inspected and approved by the County Engineer."

2. Full building permits for new construction will be issued only after the following have occurred:
a. Roadway surfacing at least through aggregate base course or plant mix bituminous base application is complete, the County Engineer has inspected and approved the surfacing and density tests for the applied material have been submitted to and approved by the County Engineer;
b. Public water and sewer systems are completely constructed and evidence of acceptance by the appropriate water, sewer and fire protection providers has been submitted to the County Engineer; and
c. Driveway culverts have been installed and the County Engineer has inspected and approved the culverts.

12. Subsection 8.2.4, Page 8-15 Add reference to new wetlands mapping by Woods and Cooper.

Subsection 8.2.4 and the Technical Supplement reference the wetland mapping prepared by Dr. Cooper and David Merritt in 1996. This mapping contained many "unclassified" potential wetlands that were identified from aerial photography but not field checked. Late in 1999, Dr.Cooper and Scott Woods completed field checking the area, resulting in updated mapping with substantially fewer wetlands shown and with all wetlands classified (see attached memo from Dr. Cooper). The new mapping is really a revised and updated version of the referenced mapping. We recommend changing the reference to the following in both Section 8 and in the technical supplement:

"Larimer County Partnership Land Use System (PLUS) Wetland Classification and Protection Program prepared by David J. Cooper, PhD and David M. Merritt, M. S., dated March 29, 1996 and revised by David J. Cooper and Scott Woods, November 4, 1999."

13. Page 8-29 The box refers to avoiding adverse effects on wildlife to the "Maximum Extent Possible". It should read, "to the Maximum Extent Practicable." See Subsection 8.4.5.A. Maximum extent possible is not defined in the Land Use Code.

    1. Subsection 8.5.3.B.2, Page 8-36 The landscaping section refers to an improvement agreement. All other references in the Code are to the "development agreement". This term should be changed to be consistent with the rest of the Land Use Code.
    2. Page 8-65 The box refers to "local" County roads but we need to differentiate between actual numbered local County roads and interior subdivision roads that are maintained by the County. By changing the reference to "local, numbered County roads" this distinction will be clear.
    3. Section 8.9.4.B should be amended to read, "Setbacks from Larimer County roads, as identified and classified on the Larimer County Functional Road Classification Map, will be measured from the right of way centerline as follows:"

      If we are to refer to the Functional Classification Map in the amendment recommended above then a related addition to the Technical Supplement is needed: "Larimer County Functional Road Classification Map, current version adopted by the County Commissioners. Available from the Larimer County Planning Department."

    4. The County Attorney has recommended several housekeeping changes to Section 9, Land Dedications, Fees-in-lieu of Dedications, Facility Fees and Capital Expansion Fees.

      Page 9-30 Subsection 9.5.5 the definition of Traffic Generating Development, Commencement of should be amended to include the approval of a Special Review. "Traffic-Generating Development, Commencement of occurs upon the approval of a Final Plat for a land division, a Special Review approval or the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this regulation."

      Page 9-30 Subsection 9.5.6 Imposition of County Fee should also be amended to include a Special Review approval. Subsection 9.5.6.A.1 should read, "After the effective date of this regulation, any person or governmental body (unless exempted by Intergovernmental Agreement) who causes the Commencement of Traffic Generating Development will be obligated to pay a County transportation capital expansion fee consistent with the terms of this regulation. The fee will be determined and paid to the Fee Administrator at the time of issuance of a building permit and not later than issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the development. For traffic generating developments that occur as a result of a Special Review approval, the fee will be determined and paid to the Fee Administrator at the time agreed upon by the County Commissioners and the applicant as a condition of the Special Review approval. If any credits..."

      Page 9-49, Subsection 9.6.6 The definition of Commencement of Traffic Generating Development needs to be changed to include special review approvals. "Traffic Generating Development, Commencement of occurs upon the approval of a Final Plat for a land division, a final plan for Planned Unit Development, a Special Review approval or the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this regulation.
    5. Another related amendment occurs in Subsection 9.6.7.A.1 in the second paragraph which should be amended to read, "The fee will be determined and paid to the Fee Administrator at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development and not later than the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the development. For Traffic Generating Developments that occur as a result of a Special Review approval, the fee will be determined and paid to the Fee Administrator at the time agreed upon by the County Commissioners and the applicant as a condition of the Special Review approval."

    6. The County Attorney recommended some changes to the Common Procedures for the Board of County Commissioners in Subsection 12.2.8 on Page 12-6. This subsection will read as follows:

      A. County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing and make the final decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny amendments to the Official Zoning Map; the text of this Code; Special Reviews; amendments to the boundaries of wetlands as shown on the adopted wetland maps; General Development Plans; Preliminary Plats for Subdivisions, Planned Developments, Conservation Developments and Rural Land Plans; Minor Land Divisions; TDU Exemption Plats; and appeals of Planning Director decisions specified in this Code.

      B. Public Hearings will be conducted in accordance with Subsections 12.4.1, 12.4.2 and 12.4.3 of this Code. At the public hearing the County Commissioners will consider all information presented by the applicant and the County staff, any verbal or written testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, Growth Management Area Review Board or Rural Land Use Advisory Board. The County Commissioners will review the application with respect to the review criteria of this Code and all information and testimony to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. The County commissioners' decision will be in the form of a written resolution that states how the proposal meets or fails to meet the applicable Review Criteria of this Code.

      C. The County Commissioners will administratively approve or deny Final Plats for Subdivisions, Planned Developments, Conservation Developments and Rural Land Plans at an open meeting. The meeting will be open to the public and the date, time and location will be posted in the Larimer County Courthouse at least two days prior to the meeting. Notice of the meeting will also be given in the County Commissioners' weekly schedule of meetings.
    7. Page 12-8 we omitted appeals, street name changes and right of way vacations from the table. Add "Appeals", "Street Name Changes" and "Right of Way Vacations" to the table to indicate a published notice and an APO notice of 14 days. Signs are not posted for these processes.
    8. Subsection 12.7, Page 12-15 Vested Rights. The date of final approval was subject to interpretation which could be confusing if one is trying to determine when a vested right is established for a project. This subsection should read, "A Vested Right is automatically created upon the approval or conditional approval of a Site-Specific Development Plan. Vesting occurs on the date of the hearing when approval or conditional approval is granted..."

20. Page 16-2 the "greater than" and "less than" symbols in the table did not translate properly from the original Word document to the Pagemaker document. We need to recreate this chart with the appropriate symbols. See chart below.

Zoning district

Attached and concealed (stealth) antennas

Antenna towers - temporary

Antenna towers - microcells

Antenna towers- other

E and E-1 Estate

R, R-1 and R-2 Residential

M and M-1 Multiple Family

RE and RE-1 Rural Estate

FO-1 Forestry

P

-

(P - £ 30' high - a, b)

SR - £ 30' high

-

FA and FA-1 Farming

FO Forestry

P

P - £ 40' high

(P - £ 30' high - a, b)

SR - £ 30' high

(P - £ 40' high - b)

(SR - £ 60' high - e)

(SR - £ 80' high - c, e)

A Accommodations

T Tourist

P

P - £ 40' high

(P - £ 30' high - a, b)

SR - £ 30' high

(P - £ 40' high - b)

B Business

P

P - £ 40' high

P - £ 40' high

P - £ 40' high

SR - > 40'-80' high

C Commercial

I and I-1 Industrial

P

P - £ 40' high

P - £ 40' high

P - £ 60' high

(P - £ 80' high - c)

(P - £ 100' high - d)

SR - > 60'-120' high

O Open

P

P - £ 40' high

(P - £ 30' high - a, b)

SR - £ 40' high

(P - £ 40' high - b)

(SR - £ 160' high - e)

AP Airport

P

P - £ 30' high

P - £ 30' high

(P - £ 30' high - b)

P - permitted by administrative review (27.11 E 1) SR - permitted by special review (27.11 E 2) - - not permitted

Special conditions

A - Permitted only when placed 200' or less from the right-of-way line of I-25 (east side of road), US 34, US 36, US 287 (east side of road), Colorado 7 and Colorado 14, and on lots with public and private schools for elementary and high school education, hospitals, and police and fire stations.

B - Permitted only at public utility substations and in high tension power line easements.

C - Permitted if two competing CMRS providers co-develop one tower where both will co-locate.

D - Permitted if three competing CMRS providers co-develop one tower where all will all co-locate.

E - Neighborhood meeting required. Notice must be sent to all property owners within 500' of the site, or a larger area if the Planning Director determines that the visual impact of the facility warrants a greater notification area.

    1. Subsection 18.2.1, Page 18-1 When we made all the changes to this section we managed to eliminate the use of double wide manufactured homes throughout the County. Of course we did not mean to eliminate them. The goal was to remove the minimum dimensional requirements for them.

      Add a new Subsection A "Any manufactured home that is transportable over state highways in two or more pieces and is assembled at the building site may be placed on any legal lot that is zoned for single family use." This will move all the other subsections down one letter.
    2. Definitions, Page 11 Junk Vehicle definition has two incorrect references to state statute. Section 42-102 should read "...is not registered with the State of Colorado as required by Section 42-3-103 or by Section 42-3-138, C. R. S. or is not registered with the State of Colorado and stored in accordance with Section 42-12-102 and 42-12-103, C. R. S. and/or the number plate assigned to it is not permanently..."
    3. Definitions, Page 11 In the definition of Junk Yard the word "vehicles" should be preceded by the word "junk".

The definition of Junk Yard should read, "A facility for the display, storage, collection, processing, purchase, sale, salvage or disposal of used or scrap materials, equipment, junk vehicles, appliances or other personal property whether of value or valueless. Junk yard does not include..."

24. Definitions, Page 19 Special Places should be defined as those listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places or identified in the Larimer County Parks Comprehensive Master Plan. The original definition required Special Places to meet both requirements.

Mr. Kadera stated that the County Attorney asked that "Section 42-3-138, C.R.S" be added to recommended change #22. Staff recommendation is approval of the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Chair Olson noted for the record that no public is present for this hearing.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code as presented and amended.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2000

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#608)

The Board of County Commissioners met in regular session at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Olson presided and Commissioner Rennels was present. Also present were Larry Timm, Director of Planning; Mark Peterson, County Engineer; Tom Garton, Chief Building Official; John Pedas, Code Enforcement Officer; Rusty McDaniel, Project Engineer; Deputy David Cox, Sheriff's Office; Lt. Deb Russell, Sheriff's Office; Janelle Henderson, Director of Natural Resources; Marc Engemoen, Director of Public Works; Roberta Tolan, Agricultural Advisory Board member; Deni LaRue, Community Information Manager; Donna Hart, Commissioner's Administrative Manager; George Hass, County Attorney; Nate Donavan, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk: Jean O'Connor.

1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Kathleen Kilkelly and Ms. Margaret Phillips, both County residents, addressed the Board with a concern regarding traffic impacts to County Road 13 (CR13) as a result of a decision made by the City of Fort Collins. Ms. Kilkelly stated that the City has asked the developer of Hearthfire Subdivision (a City development) to move an access to Douglas Road for connectivity and that 80% of the traffic currently is "cut through" traffic not residential. Ms. Kilkelly informed the Board that the City staff that were employed at the time agreements were reached with the developer, the City of Fort Collins and the County, no longer work for the City; and asked that the County support the residents and the developer in objecting to the through connection. Mr. Peterson and Mr. McDaniel will contact the City and then contact Ms. Kilkelly and Ms. Phillips with the outcome.

Mr. Ron Pfizenmaier, county resident, explained that he is trying to install a pole barn on his property and that he had spoken with Mr. Kadera from the Planning Department, regarding setbacks from Prospect Road. However, after the site was prepared and the pole barn ordered, Mr. Pfizenmaier stated that he was informed that his setback was insufficient due to an error in the road classification on the staff map.

After much discussion regarding the options available to Mr. Pfizenmaier and staff, Mr. Lancaster suggested the Board waive the fees for a variance application, and Mr. Timm suggested Mr. Pedas contact the members of the Board of Adjustment to see if they will hold a special hearing to address the variance so Mr. Pfizenmaier would not have to wait another seven weeks to install the barn legally. Mr. Pedas will notify Mr. Lancaster and Mr. Pfizenmaier of the decision regarding the special hearing.

  1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 8, 2000:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board approve the Minutes for the Week of May 8, 2000 as amended.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

3. APPROVAL OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 22, 2000:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule for the Week of May 22, 2000 as presented and amended.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

  • Invitations: Ms. Hart reviewed pending invitations with the Board.

4. CONSENT AGENDA:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following documents as listed on the consent agenda for document review on May 16, 2000:

ACTION ITEMS:

The appointment of Bruce Cooper and Mary Harnett to the Environmental Advisory Board for a three year term effective July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003; reappointment of John Heaton, Merrill Kaufmann, and Tom Keith to the Open Lands Advisory Board for a three year term effective July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003.

A00-70 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BILL CHARNEY AND ASSOCIATES FOR CONSULTING WORK IN ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING POLICY GOVERANCE

C00-23 CHANGE ORDER LETTER TO AMEND THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY AND FINANCING FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE LARIMER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

R00-97s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FEIT 2 MINOR LAND DIVISION

R00-98s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FEIT 1 MINOR LAND DIVISION

R00-99z SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF KOMER FOR A TIME EXTENSION

R00-100g RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR HIGH PLAINS SUBDIVISION

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: Colland MRD Amended Plat

LIQUOR LICENSES: A license was approved for Olympus Motor Lodge- 6%- Estes Park, CO. Licenses were issued to Lincoln Street Grille- 6%- Fort Collins, CO; Sandy's Convenience Store- 3.2%- Loveland, CO; Bob's Liquor- 6%- Fort Collins, CO; Riverbend Resort- 3.2%- Loveland, CO; and Citizens for Preservation of Property Rights- 6% Special Events Permit- Loveland, CO.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

5. PROCLAMATION FOR LARMIER COUNTY DETENTION OFFICERS: Mr. Lancaster thanked Lt. Russell and the Detention Center employees for their patience during the long remodeling of the center and the services they provide for the public. Commissioner Rennels read the proclamation for the record.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim the week of May 7 - 13, 2000 as Larimer County Detention Officers Week.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

6. COMMENDATION FROM LEGISLATORS FOR LARIMER COUNTY RECYCLING CENTER: Ms. LaRue showed a portion of a meeting that she and Mr. Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager, attended with the local legislators where the legislatures recognized the county for their recycling efforts. The Board presented the commendation to Ms. Henderson in recognition of the Natural Resources Department.

7. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR CONSERVATION INITIATIVE: Mr. Lancaster provided an email to Ms. Tolan regarding the letter. Ms. Tolan asked for Board support of a letter signed by the three co-chairs of the Agriculture (Ag) Advisory Board to Senators Nighthorse Campbell and Allard and Congressman Schaffer asking for their support of agriculture legislation proposed by President Clinton. Chair Olson reminded Ms. Tolan that the Ag Board is an "advisory" board and it is not within their "advisory capacity" to sign such a letter. Commissioner Rennels had several questions regarding the source of funding for the proposed legislation and stated that there are too many unanswered questions for the Board to support the letter at this time. Chair Olson concurred. Ms. Tolan will try to have the Ag Board address the outstanding issues and then come before the Board at a later date.

 

 

8. DISCUSSION OF JUSTICE CENTER CORNERSTONE CEREMONY: Ms. LaRue asked for Board support of the following statement on the cornerstone for the new Justice Center, "Justice is not to be Denied nor Delayed"; and asked for suggestions regarding wording for an interior sign, time capsule notification (when the capsule should be opened in the future) and how to determine what items would be in the capsule. Commissioner Rennels suggest the following wording for an interior sign, "Built by the People of Larimer County"; the Board did not support dating the capsule for opening, and suggested a panel be formed to decide what should be in the capsule. Chair Olson suggested that she, as the Fort Collins Commissioner be on the panel and Commissioner Rennels concurred.

9. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster stated that it was time for the Board to establish compensation for the appointed position for Mr. John Kammerzell, Chief Deputy.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the salary for Mr. Kammerzell.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

R00-101g RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK KAMMERZELL EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2000

Mr. Lancaster stated that he had received a letter from the Director of Local Government Affairs asking for a recommendation for continuing support for the CSU Extension office. Mr. Lancaster noted that the recommendation is routine and requires the Board's approval.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners support the continuance of the CSU Extension Office.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

Mr. Lancaster stated that Congress had budgeted $50,000 for the Cashe La Poudre Corridor Commission and asked the Boards support and signature in releasing the allocated funds to the Acting Commission.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved for the Chair to sign a letter in support of releasing the allocated funds to the Acting Cashe La Poudre Corridor Commission.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

Mr. Lancaster stated that the Clerk and Recorder's Office has been inundated with calls regarding the mail in ballot for June and that it is not the responsibility of the Elections Office to be answering questions from the public regarding the reasons for the ballot. After much discussion it was determined that the calls should be transferred to Ms. LaRue, and a list of frequently asked questions will be prepared and made available on the web site. The press offered to publish the questions in the paper as well.

  1. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: There were no reports this week.

11. LEGAL MATTERS: Mr. Hass suggested the Board draft and sign a resolution in support of the mail in ballot issue.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners draft and sign a resolution in support of the June ballot.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

R00-102g RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING COURTHOUSE

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 10:45 a.m. to obtain legal advice and discuss pending litigation.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

Executive Session ended at 11:15 a.m., no action was taken.

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000

EXECUTIVE SESSION

The Board of County Commissioners met in special session at 9:50 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present were Andy Paratore, Director of IMS; Brian True, Assistant County Attorney; and Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager.

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 9:50 a.m. to obtain legal advice.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

Executive Session ended at 11:10 a.m., no action was taken.

 

____________________________________

CHERYL OLSON, CHAIR LARIMER

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

MYRNA RODENBERGER

(S E A L)

 

 

A T T E S T

 

 

_____________________________________

Jean M. O'Connor, Deputy County Clerk

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.