> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 10/17/05  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, OCTOBER 17, 2005

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#112)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Wagner and Gibson were present.  Also present were:  Al Kadera, Matt Lafferty, Sean Wheeler, and Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Planning Department; Dave Shirk, Estes Park Planner; Christie Coleman, Ed Woodward, and Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, 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 explained that Items 1 - 10 are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:  

 

1.  COYOTE RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT TIME EXTENSION:   This is a request for a one-year time extension for a previously approved Preliminary Plat.  On November 17, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners approved a preliminary plat for the Coyote Ridge subdivision.  This preliminary plat is set to expire on November 15, 2005.  That preliminary plat provided for the subdivision of 76.24 acres into a five (5) lot “open space” subdivision, including 42 acres of permanently deeded restricted open space. The purpose of the time extension is to allow for additional discussion with Honda of America, owner of the Eagle Rock School.  These discussions, which include the Town of Estes Park, are to explore alternatives regarding the delivery of water to the property.   Staff recommends approval of the request, conditional to: 

 

1.   Full compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat.

2.  Compliance with applicable revisions of the Estes Valley Development Code, should any occur.

 

2.  RAMBLING RIVER SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUMS MAP #2:   This is a request to finalize one unit of a previously approved eleven unit preliminary condominium map (two units to follow).   The Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary condominium map on October 18, 2004, the final condominium map on December 20, 2004, and a supplemental map on August 15, 2005.  Approval provided for eleven units, which are currently under construction, and the applicant is now proposing the condominium map to allow for individual sale of one of these units. Additional “supplemental maps” will follow upon completion of the remaining two units.

Staff recommends approval of the requested Supplemental Condominium Map #2 of Rambling River Condominiums conditional to: 

1.   Compliance with Development Plan 04-03 “Rambling River."  

2.   A LOMA (Letter of Map Amendment) or LO MR-F (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill), whichever is applicable, shall be completed prior to final condominium map approval. 

3.   Parcels shall be included in the Northern Colorado Conservancy District. 

4.  Any new water service line or existing service line replacement shall require a Service Line Permit from the Building Department.

 

3.  THUNDER MOUNTAIN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOTS 32 AND 33 AMENDED PLAT:  This is a request to adjust the internal lot line between two platted lots.   The boundary adjustment would place the existing driveway serving Lot 32 on its own lot rather than in an easement.  Lot sizes will remain the same size, and required setbacks will be met.  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. 

Staff findings are as follows: 

1.   This proposal complies with the Estes Valley Development Code. 

2. 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. 

3.  Within thirty (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 thirty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void.  

Staff recommends approval of the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 32 and 33, Thunder Mountain Planned Unit Development conditional to:  1. The Dedication Statement shall refer to the access easement (public or private) which is being maintained across Lot 33.  2.  Lots shall be labeled as 32A and 33A.  3.  A drainage easement shall be dedicated to encompass the existing drainage.

 

4.  HERMAN MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (MRD) LOTS 2 AND 3 AMENDED PLAT:   This is a request to adjust a common lot line between two single-family lots.  The purpose of the adjustment is to allow the property owner to locate a dwelling in their desired location without requesting a variance.  Staff recommends approval of the requested Amended Plat of Lots 2 and 3, Herman MRD, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.  On Tuesday, September 20, 2005, the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:

1.   Approval of this boundary adjustment will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the Estes Valley Development Code.

2.   Approval includes Planning Commission granting a Minor Modification to minimum lot size for Lot 2.  Provided a utility easement is granted, the modification would advance the goals and purposes of this Code to further public health and safety concerns through the provision of services such as water and sanitary sewer.

3.   This proposal complies with all other applicable provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code.

4.   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.

5.   Within thirty (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 thirty-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 2 and 3, Herman MRD, conditional to:

1.   A Private Access Easement shall be submitted for recording with the plat mylars.

2.   The notes from the original plat shall be included on this Amended Plat.

3.   The following note:  “Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon.  Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes.  The area added to each lot shown hereon by such adjustment is to be considered an addition to, shall become a part of, and shall be conveyed together with, each lot as shown.”

 

5.  HIAWATHA HEIGHTS BLOCK 20, LOTS 14 AND 15 AMENDED PLAT - #05-S2486:  This is a request to amend the plat of Lots 14 & 15, Block 20 Hiawatha Heights Subdivision to consolidate two lots and a portion of an adjacent parcel in the northeast quarter of Section 29 into one lot.  There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department, and the Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team.

The Code Enforcement Section of the Larimer County Building Department has noted that this site may contain two residences and that this Amended Plat may also create two residences on one lot.  The Larimer County Land Use Code allows one residence per lot. Staff has drafted a condition that will address this issue.  The applicant is in the final stages of acquiring the portion of the adjacent parcel that they plan to add to Lots 14 and 15. The applicant will provide the deeds for this acquisition and additional information concerning the parcel where this acquisition originated prior to the recordation of the Final Plat.  

The proposed plat amendment to create one lot will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots. Staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The Development Services Team recommends approval of File #05-S2486, the Amended Plat of Lots 14 and 15 in Block 20 of the Hiawatha Heights Subdivision, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be recorded by April 17, 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 requested by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

3.   Only one residence will be allowed on this lot. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant must provide evidence to the Larimer County Building Department that this lot contains only one residence. This will be demonstrated by either a written letter or on-site inspection by a Larimer County Building Department Inspector.

 

6.  WALTERS MINOR LAND DIVISION (MLD) - #05-S2482:   This is a request for approval of a Minor Land Division of approximately 35.5 acres into two lots being approximately 13.5 and 22 acres in size.  Mr. Walters shall retain ownership of the smaller lot with the improvements, and the larger parcel shall remain undeveloped and be combined with adjacent land already owned by Loveland Ready Mix.  The larger lot shall remain undeveloped until the owner submits an application for subdivision or some other legal use is allowed on the land.  Until one of the above options is exercised, the resultant vacant parcel will not be considered a buildable lot and the County can not accept any building permit applications.  The property is located off the north side of east County Road 18, just west of the Weld County Line.  As a final note, both lots will exceed the minimum size required by the FA-Farming zoning.

 

The Development Services Team findings are as follows:

 

1.   The Walters MLD is consistent with the review criteria and standards of Section 5.4 (Minor Land Division) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, provided the applicant complies with all conditions of approval. 

2.   The Walters MLD is not part of a previously recorded exemption or subdivision. 

3.   The Walters MLD will exceed the minimum lot size requirements for the FA-1 Farming Zoning District where it is located. 

4.   The parcels created by approval of the Walters MLD meet or exceed the minimum access standards of the County Engineering Department, provided the applicant complies with all conditions of approval. 

5.   The Walters MLD will not result in any negative impacts to surrounding properties or uses.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Walters Minor Land Division, Planning File #05-S2482, subject to the following conditions, and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.   The Plat for the Walters Minor Land Division shall be consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in File #05-S2482, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.

2.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by April 17, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

3.   Lot 2 of the Walters Minor Land Division shall remain undeveloped, and no building permits will be accepted until such a time when a development review application is approved and/or recorded for a new principal use.  This note shall be added to the Final Plat for the Walters Minor Land Division.

4.   The applicant shall comply with the requirements outlined in the report provided by the County Engineering Department, dated September 10, 2005, and dedicate the required right-of-way in the amount of 60-feet along County Road 18.

 

7.  PARADISE VALLEY LOT 1 AMENDED PLAT - #05-S2492:   This is a request for an amended plat for Lot 1, Paradise Valley Estates, in order to create an unbuildable outlot for right-of-way purposes to meet County Engineering Standards.  When Paradise Valley Estates was created, the northern boundary of the development extended to the limits of the property, and met open pasture, which was a part of a 98-acre parcel. With the proposed development of Soaring Peaks on that 98-acre parcel, the boundary where these two developments meet now must be adjusted in order to allow the construction of a road.  The road is intended to serve the development to the north and provide adequate space to develop a four-way road intersection that meets County requirements.  Paradise Valley Estates was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1999 under the previous Code.

No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal.  The following County agencies voiced no objections to the amended plat:   The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment and the Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review staff.  The proposed Amended Plat of Paradise Valley Estates, Lot 1, will not adversely affect any neighboring properties.  This Amended Plat will not result in any additional residential lots.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of File #05-S2492, the Amended Plat of Paradise Valley Estates, Lot 1, 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. The Final Plat shall be recorded by April 17, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

8.  GRAYBILL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS CONDOMINIUMS BUILDING D, LOT 3 - #05-S2489:  This is a request for approval of the condominiums to create a total of 16 condominium units within Building D on Lot 3 of the Graybill Planned Unit Development (PUD).  Building D on the subject property has been under construction for the last six months and will be occupied by tenants upon the conclusion of this application.  The purpose of the subject request is to allow for separate ownership and use of the units within the existing building.

A condominium application requires the applicant to submit a condominium plat illustrating all the common elements, such as parking and open areas, as well as the Condominium Declarations disclosing the maintenance responsibility and use of property around and common to the condominium units.  These required items have been submitted to the Planning Department for review and processing.  The review of the submitted material reveals appropriate documentation of the common elements and adequately described and assigns maintenance responsibility of the property.

Parking areas, landscape areas and the buildings for this development site are in place and are properly noted in the Condominium Declarations as common elements that are to be maintained by the property owners association.              All utilities serving this site are in place and functional.  As of this writing, the building permit for Building D has not been completed, and the Building Department has requested that the Condominium Plat not be recorded until the permit is complete.  The reason for this request is that once the plat is recorded the property owner can sell the units, which may result in prolonging the completion of the permit due to lack of interest by the original owner.  Therefore, the Development Services Team is proposing a condition that the Condominium Plat not be recorded until the building permit for Building D is complete.

Staff findings are as follows: 

1.   The proposed Graybill Condominium Map for Building D and declarations are in compliance with the Larimer County Master Plan and Land Use Code.

2.   The proposed Graybill Condominium Map for Building D is compatible with the other development in the surrounding area.

3.   Approval of the Graybill Condominium for Building D will not result in any significant impacts to the neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure.

4.   Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the approval of the Graybill Condominiums for Building D.

5.   Maintenance of the buildings, parking lots, landscaping and other common areas will be the responsibility of the property owners association, pursuant to the Condominium Declaration and By-laws of the Graybill Condominium Association.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Graybill Condominium Map for Building D (File #05-S2489), with authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the following conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:  1. Prior to the Recordation of the Condominium Plat the applicant shall receive a Certificate of Completion for the building permit for Building D.

 

9.  DONALDSON AMENDED EXEMPTION - #05-S2487:   This is a request to amend by Findings and Resolution the Donaldson Exemption to remove a plat note that requires co-development of Tracts A and B of the Exemption, even if under separate ownership.  In June of 1979, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Donaldson Exemption.  The approved exemption allowed for the division of a 79 acre parcel into two lots, which are now known as Tract A (75.48 acres) and Tract B (3.55 acres) of the Donaldson Exemption.  As part of the Commissioners approval of this exemption, a note was placed on the plat that reads as follows:

 

"This Exemption is granted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Larimer upon the express condition that any purchaser(s) of Tract B participate in any future subdivision of Tract A, and agree to participate in maintenance of access roads affecting Tract B and be bound by proportionate assessments levied by any Homeowner’s Association of which the Owner(s) of Tract B shall be a member created in such subdivision for road maintenance and assessment obligation to constitute a continuing lien of Tract B.  Seller(s) of Tract B agree to place said condition as a contingency to all sale(s) of Tract B."

From the above language it appears that in 1979 there were concerns regarding the equitable distribution of improvements and road maintenance associated with the development of properties.  Therefore, to not place the burden of improvements on one tract within the exemption the language above was placed upon the plat of record.

Since the approval of the Donaldson Exemption, little physical change has occurred to either of the tracts, and only minor improvements to roads and similar infrastructure have occurred in the area.  What has changed is the larger tract within the Exemption (Tract A) has been divided again into two parcels greater than 35 acres in size.  Furthermore, development applications for each of the parcels that constituted the original Tract A have been independently submitted, each of which stands on its own merits, and neither has included any portion of Tract B from the original Exemption.

Recently, Tract B has been identified as a potential site for the development of a commercial operation that will perform tire repair and changes to semi tractor trailers and other similar large vehicles.  While conducting due diligence for the property, this plat note was discovered.  Understanding that the note on the Donaldson Exemption was prepared in 1979, and that independent development applications are already in process on both parcels constituting the original Tract A, the applicant has chosen to amend the Donaldson Exemption to remove this note.  Part of the applicant’s justification for the removal of this note is that current standards and process dictate that new development must stand on its own merits and, based upon the impacts that are generated by development of a particular site, construct the necessary improvement to serve the property.  The Development Services Team concurs with the applicant regarding this matter and believes that independent applications and improvements under the current regulations will equitably disperse improvement responsibilities.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Donaldson Amended Exemption (#05-S2487) to remove the following plat note (see below) from the original Exemption Plat (Reception Number 310233) by Findings and Resolution with authorization for the Chair to sign the Findings and Resolutions plat when it is presented for signature:

"This Exemption is granted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Larimer upon the express condition that any purchaser(s) of Tract B participate in any future subdivision of Tract A, and agree to participate in maintenance of access roads affecting Tract B and be bound by proportionate assessments levied by any Homeowner’s Association of which the Owner(s) of Tract B shall be a member created in such subdivision for road maintenance and assessment obligation to constitute a continuing lien of Tract B.  Seller(s) of Tract B agree to place said condition as a contingency to all sale(s) of Tract B."

 

10.  CEDAR COVE 2ND SUBDIVISION LOTS 3, 4, AND 5 LOT CONSOLIDATION:  This is a request to combine Lots 3, 4 and 5 in the Cedar Cove 2nd Subdivision into one lot.  If approved, the recording instrument for this application will be a Finding and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.  No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, and the Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team.

 

The Building Department noted that any additions to the existing home that occurred between 1972 and present require a building permit.  The home appears to have been added onto since 1972, by review of aerial photographs.  The owner will need to obtain the proper permits for past and proposed additions.

The proposed Lot Consolidation of Lots 3, 4 and 5 in the Cedar Cove 2nd Subdivision will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots. Staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation of Lots 3, 4 and 5 in the Cedar Cove 2nd Subdivision (#05-S2474) to be known as Lot 3A of the Lot Consolidation of Lots 3, 4 and 5 in the Cedar Cove 2nd Subdivision subject to the following conditions:

 

1. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.

2.  All conditions shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by April 17, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1-10 as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

11.  LORENZ APPEAL:   This request is to appeal Section 4.8.9.B of the Land Use Code that contains regulations for expanding nonconforming buildings.  This section of the Code limits addition size to not more than 25% of the square footage of the original building that legally existed on January 1, 2000, and not more than 1000 square feet total.

 

The owners propose to construct two additions to their existing residence, which is currently approximately 49 feet from the centerline of Cedar Creek.  The required setback from a creek is 100 feet from the centerline.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required creek setback.  The residence was constructed about 1924, prior to the setback requirement.  The owner wants to add onto the existing structure to the front (west) and to the rear (east).  The additions combined are greater than 25% (existing = 1670 square feet, additions = 700 square feet) of the floor area of the existing building.  The proposed front addition, which is the one closest to the creek, would be 62 feet from the creek and 33 feet from the front property line.  The rear addition would be 90 feet from the creek.

The County Engineering Department stated that the existing dwelling is located within the 100-year floodway limits of Cedar Creek, and any additions would require review and approval by the Floodplain Review Board prior to construction.

The Environmental Health Department could not find a permit for the existing septic system; therefore, the adequacy of the existing septic system will need to be assessed during the building permit application process.  If it does not meet standards for a septic system, the owners must obtain a permit for the modifications to do so.

The Building Department noted that any additions to the existing home that occurred between 1972 and the present will require a building permit.  The home appears to have been added onto since 1972, by review of aerial photographs.  The owner will need to obtain the proper inspections and permits for past and proposed additions.

The Development Services Team finds the appeal does not meet the review criteria of Section 22.2.3 as outlined in the Land Use Code.  This finding is largely based on the lack of any evidence or Floodplain Review Board (FRB) approval that the additions will not adversely affect the 100-year floodplain of Cedar Creek.  The application could be tabled until the applicant can demonstrate to the Commissioners that the project has been approved by the FRB.  Approving the appeal beforehand could put undue pressure on the FRB to approve it.  Obtaining FRB approval first would better demonstrate that the appeal satisfies the review criteria.

The Larimer County Development Services Team recommends denial of the Lorenz Appeal, File #05-G0086.

Mr. Kadera explained the appeal as outlined above, noting that staff is recommending denial due to the lack of evidence from the FRB that the additions will not adversely affect the 100-year floodplain of Cedar Creek.  Mr. Kadera stated that, as an alternative, the Board could table this item until the project has been approved by the FRB. 

 

The applicant, Roger Kenny, explained that approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is required, in addition to receiving approval from the FRB.  Mr. Kenny requested that the Board make this a condition of approval, versus tabling the item to a future date.  Commissioner Wagner expressed concern with this approach, as the FRB may feel obligated to approve this project if the Board of County Commissioners have already approved it.  Mr. Kenny explained that the appeal before the Board concerns the expansion of a nonconforming dwelling by more than 25%, and that the floodplain issues surfaced as a result of the appeal, and will most certainly need to be addressed.

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing up for public comment.  No one addressed the Board with comments on this item.

 

Commissioner Gibson stated that it appears the addition will have no impact on the flow of the river, and noted that he would support the appeal with the condition that the FRB approves it as well.  Chair Rennels asked Mr. Woodward if he felt the FRB would be influenced by the Board's decision.  Mr. Woodward stated the FRB will look at the floodplain issues independent of the Board's decision and would not be influenced by it.  Mr. Woodward further explained that FEMA may end up changing the mapping of the floodplain due to some inconsistencies in this area, and it is possible that the applicant may not have to go before the FRB, if it is determined that the structure is not within the floodway.  Chair Rennels stated that she would support the appeal based upon FEMA's approval.  Commissioner Wagner questioned the septic system requirements.  Mr. Ryan noted that the normal building permit process would address and outline the septic system requirements. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Lorenz Appeal, File #05-G0086, conditioned on the decision from FEMA as to whether or not the structure on the property is located in the floodway, which will then dictate whether a variance from the FRB will be required. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12.  WAVERLY RIDGE CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT ACCESS SPACING APPEAL, CHANGE OF CONDITIONS, AMENDED PLAT AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - #05-S2488:    This is a request for:  1) An appeal to the Larimer County Access Policy to allow an existing driveway to be spaced 170 feet from Prima Drive (local road) where 300 feet is required; and 2) A request to amend the conditions of approval, Final Plat, and Development Agreement for the Waverly Ridge Conservation Development, to remove the requirement to eliminate all access for Lot 3 from County Road 66 and provide new access from Prima Drive.

 

In February of 2001 the Waverly Ridge Conservation Development (CD) application was submitted for review and approval.  The Development was approved and the Final Plat was recorded on February 27, 2002.  During the review and approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Waverly Ridge CD, it was determined that existing driveway accesses to the farmstead on Lot 3 of the proposed development would need to be eliminated.  The reason for eliminating the driveway access was because insufficient space between the existing driveways and the proposed road (Prima Drive) for the development could not conform to the Larimer County Access Control Policy.  Therefore, the Waverly Ridge CD was approved with the condition that the driveways along County Road 68, which serve Lot 3, would be eliminated.

Since the recordation of the Waverly Ridge CD, the applicant has constructed nearly all of the necessary improvements for the development.  One of the remaining improvements to be completed is the elimination of the driveways along County Road 68 that historically provided access to residential use on Lot 3.  In order to accommodate vehicular access to Lot 3 once the others are eliminated, a new driveway access to Lot 3 has been constructed from Prima Drive.  However, since the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant for the Waverly Ridge CD has sold Lot 3, which Lot contains the existing farmstead; and the new owner desires to maintain one of the two existing driveways from County Road 68 (easternmost).  In order to attain his goal, the applicant, Mike Harte, has submitted the necessary application to change the original conditions of approval, amend the final plat and amend the development agreement to eliminate the requirement that no access to Lot 3 of the Waverly Ridge CD from County Road 68 be allowed.

Upon submittal of the subject application, the application materials were sent to the Engineering Department for their review and consideration of the request.  The results of the review from the Engineering Department was that according to the Access Control Policy the required spacing between accesses along a local county road (which County Road 68 is) is 300 feet and that 170 feet between the existing driveway and Prima Drive was inadequate.  Additionally, in an effort to maintain consistency in the application of standards throughout the County and to improve future operation, safety and maintenance of the road, the Engineering Staff would not support the appeal.  While the intensions of the Engineering Staff are not to deny the request they do wish to maintain a consistent application of the standards; thus they, along with the Planning Staff, acknowledge the following factors regarding the appeal:

1.   The driveway the applicant wishes to remain has historically provided access to the existing residence on Lot 3 of the Waverly Ridge CD.

2.   The orientation of the existing residence and garage are directly in line with the existing driveway and towards County Road 68.

3.   Reconstructing the driveway from Prima Drive to the entrance of the existing garage is circuitous and will affect the normal use of the property.

4.   Traffic along County Road 68 is minimal.

5.   Sight distances along County Road 68 from the existing driveway are adequate.

 

Based upon the factors listed above the Development Services Team, while reluctant from the standpoint of establishing precedence, believes that the appeal to maintain the easternmost driveway to Lot 3 from County Road 68 is supportable.  It should be noted here that according to Section 38 of the Development Agreement for the Waverly Ridge CD, amendments to the Development Agreement will not only require approval by the Board of County Commissioners, but also approval by signature on the amended development agreement of 75% of the property owners within the Waverly Ridge CD.  The purpose for this is that upon the purchase of a property the purchaser becomes a successor to the all conditions and requirements of the Development Agreement; therefore, all property owners are affected by a change to the Development Agreement.

1.   The Development Services Team recommends approval of the appeal (File #05-S2488) to the Larimer County Access Policy to allow an existing driveway to be spaced 170 feet from Prima Drive (local road) where 300 feet is required.

2.   The Development Services Team recommends approval of the request to amend the conditions of approval, Final Plat and Development Agreement for the Waverly Ridge Conservation Development (File #05-S2488) to remove the requirement to eliminate all access for Lot 3 from County Road 66 and provide new access from Prima Drive.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained the appeal as outlined above, noting that the owner of the property, Mr. Harte, wishes to maintain the easterly driveway access off of County Road 66.  Mr. Lafferty noted that the westerly driveway has been vacated, as per the original development agreement.  Mr. Lafferty stated that staff supports this appeal, as both the house and the garage face County Road 66, the driveway has been in place long before development occurred, and the traffic on County Road 66 is currently minimal.  Discussion ensued regarding site visibility from the driveway to Prima Road, and Mr. Lafferty stated that there is ample right-of-way and visibility, as long as landscaping is kept out of the right-of-way. 

 

The applicant, Mike Harte, thanked Mr. Lafferty for his assistance in this matter, and also thanked Chair Rennels for visiting the site.  Mr. Harte stated that his request to preserve the easterly driveway, and noted that his proposal will not require any additional new construction.  Commissioner Wagner asked if anything has been done in particular to indicate that the westerly driveway has been vacated.  Mr. Harte stated that the asphalt has been removed through the right-of-way and up to the road, and he intends to place a gate and sod the area where the driveway was.  There was no public comment on this item, and the Board agreed to support the appeal

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal (File #05-S2488) to the Larimer County Access Policy  to allow an existing driveway to be spaced 170 feet from Prima Drive (local road) where 300 feet is required; and to amend the conditions of approval for the Final Plat and Development Agreement for the Waverly Ridge Conservation Development to remove the requirement to eliminate all access for Lot 3 from County Road 66 and provide new access from Prima Drive.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

 

Tuesday, OCTOber 18, 2005

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#113)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster.  Chair Rennels presided, and Commissioners Gibson and Wagner were present.  Also present were:  Deni LaRue and Donna Hart, Commissioners’ Office; Rob Helmick, Planning; George Hass, County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.    PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment.

 

2.    APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 10, 2005:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of October 10, 2005, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.    REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 24, 2005:  Donna Hart reviewed and discussed the schedule with the Commissioners.

 

4.    CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for October 18, 2005:

 

ABATEMENTS:  GK Commercial Association, Parcel #87311-84-001; Sunrise Center Partnership, Parcel #97363-00-016.

 

10182005A001           AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR YOUNG CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND DANIEL L. YOUNG AND CAROLYN YOUNG

 

10182005A002           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CALABRESE CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #04-S2267 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY; RICARDO AND SUE EBAT; AND CALABRESE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

 

10182005D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY KEITH GRESSMAN FOR SAID PROPERTY AS PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

10182005R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SCHWARZ MINOR LAND DIVISION

 

10182005R002           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR CALABRESE CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT (#04-S2267)

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS:  Calabrese Conservation Development Final Plat; Public Trustee Second Quarter Report

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved and issued:  Red Feather High Country Restaurant & Lounge, Red Feather Lake – Transfer of Ownership.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.         DETERMINATION REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE SCHNIDER APPEAL:  Rob Helmick explained that the Code changes require that all appeals go to the Board within 14 days to determine if they will be referred to the Planning Commission.  He stated that the issues involved in this appeal do not warrant Planning Commission involvement.  Mr. Helmick indicated that, if the Board agrees that this appeal need not be referred to the Planning Commission, he would schedule this appeal for consideration by the Board within the required 60-day timeframe.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve referring the Schnider appeal to the Board of County Commissioners for review and recommendation.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.         WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster noted that there were no items for discussion at this time.  Brief discussion ensued on the mechanics of the Board of County Commissioners' writing a letter on the subject of Referenda C & D.  The Commissioners agreed that Deni LaRue would interview each of them separately and utilize their perspectives to draft such a letter.

 

7.         COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.  Discussion ensued regarding how and when the Commissioners would receive information regarding pending worksessions.

 

8.         LEGAL MATTERS:  Mr. Lancaster indicated that there was one item to discuss and requested that the Board go into Executive Session with George Hass in order to do so (affidavit provided).

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving confidential legal advice on a specific legal question as outlined in 24-6-402-(4)(b) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005

 

ABATEMENT HEARING

(No Audio Available)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 2:00 p.m. to consider a Petition for Abatement of Property Taxes.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioner Wagner was present.  Also present were:  Diane Norman and Alexis Smith, Assessor's Office; property owners John and Joyann Strachan; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Ms. Norman described the property which is located in the Spring Gulch Ranch Estates.  She explained that the petitioners agree with the valuation of the property, but believe that it should be classified as residential land instead of vacant land, which is taxed at a higher rate.  Ms. Smith stated that she has visited the property and explained that there are no structures on the adjacent parcel, which means that it does not qualify as an accessory use.  Ms. Smith stated that the adjacent parcel would be sold separately if the house were ever to be sold.  Ms. Smith explained that the property owners could utilize the Lot Consolidation process and combine the lots to avoid be assessed at the vacant lot rate.  

 

Mr. Strachan asked if every land owner in the surrounding area was paying for adjacent lots as vacant land.  Ms. Smith replied in the affirmative, noting that some are classified as agricultural land, which is valued at a different rate.  Commissioner Wagner asked Mr. Strachan if he purchased the lots separately.   Mr. Strachan replied in the affirmative, stating that they purchased the parcels some 30 years ago.   Mr. Strachan presented the Board with some photos of his property and quoted various state statutes regarding property assessments.  Mr. Strachan explained that the law allows for two or more adjoining parcels that are owned by the same person to be assessed either separately or jointly.   Mr. Strachan stated that they have always used the two adjoining parcels as one unit.  Chair Rennels asked why the Strachan's haven't taken the steps to combine the two parcels into one lot.   Mr. Strachan stated that, if they combined the property, it could reduce the number of potential buyers if they ever decided to sell the properties. Mr. Strachan also stated that, if they did combine the parcels, their Homeowner's Association covenants would not allow them to "un-do" this action in the future if they ever needed to do so.  Mr. Strachan stressed that selling the property is certainly not their intent, and stated they could have sold the adjacent property years ago if making a profit was all they had in mind.

 

Chair Rennels asked how many other property owners in the surrounding area have used the Lot Consolidation process to combine their properties.  Ms. Smith stated that the home owners in this area have rarely combined their lots.  Ms. Smith stated that there are few lots in this area and their value has increased, as the properties are highly desirable.  Mr. Strachan asked if the rules regarding property assessments apply across the state.  Ms. Smith stated that all Assessors utilize case law and the Colorado Revised Statutes to conduct property assessments, but further noted that individual cases could have different decisions.  Commissioner Rennels stated that if the Board were to rule in favor of the Strachans on this issue, it would set a precedent and the rest of the property owners in the surrounding area would file petitions next year hoping for the same outcome.  Commissioner Wagner agreed, noting that it would have a ripple effect across the entire county. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement of Taxes for 2004 for John T. and Joyann Strachan, Parcel Number 14352-05-017.

 

Motion carried 2-0

 

The hearing adjourned at 2:45 p.m.

 

    __________________________________________

                                    KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

            BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk