Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 02/06/06  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#11 & 12)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Porter Ingrum, Matt Lafferty, Karin Madson, Samantha Mott, and Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Tom Garton, and Karlin Sedlacek, Building Inspection Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

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

 

1.  EAGLE RIDGE ESTATES REZONING UPDATE - #05-Z1570:  This is a Rezoning request to revert the FA-1 (Farming) conditional zoning tied to an expired development plan back to the original zoning. There are three parcels that are affected by the conditional zoning.  The original zoning of the parcels was FA-Farming and O-Open.

 

This item was discussed by the Board of County Commissioners on December 19, 2005.  The item was tabled until February 6, 2006, to allow the property owners time to submit a sketch plan under the current conditional FA-1 zoning, consistent with the previously approved Eagle Ridge Estates expired development plan.  A sketch plan application was received on December 27, 2005.  Unfortunately this application was not sufficient because it included two non-contiguous development areas, which is not allowed through the current Conservation Development process.  The applicant was given the opportunity to submit revised application materials.  The applicant’s representative indicated that they would submit revised materials consistent with Conservation Development requirements.   However, at the time of preparation of this update that information has not been received and the sketch plan has not yet been determined to be sufficient for review. 

Staff would like to outline three potential options for action on this request:

1.   Leave the current questionable conditional zoning as it currently exists and allow the property owners to proceed with a development application under the assumption of FA-1 zoning.  Staff suggests that if this option is chosen, the property owner is required to obtain preliminary plat approval within one year and the development application must also include a request for rezoning to resolve the zoning question.

2.   Rezone all three parcels from the current zoning of conditional FA-1 to FA-1.

3.   Revert the zoning on the parcels back to their original FA-Farming and O-Open zonings as proposed by Staff.

 

Ms. Madson briefly explained the history of this item, and the proposed potential actions, as outlined above.   Jim Martell, representative for the property owners, stated that they did submit a sketch plan; however, they are still putting together the required accompanying documents.  Mr. Martell explained that their plan is based upon the original approval, and stated that they would agree to either the first on second proposed potential actions as listed above. 

 

Chair Gibson opened the hearing up for public comment.  No one addressed the Board regarding this item.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners leave the conditional zoning as it currently exists and allow the property owners to proceed with a development application under the assumption of FA-1 zoning.  The property owner will be required to obtain preliminary plat approval within one year and the development application must also include a request for rezoning to resolve the zoning question.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Chair Gibson then noted that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

2.  AMENDED PLAT AND ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION FOR LOTS 6, 7, AND 8 BLOCK 5 AND A PORTION OF LOT 15, BLOCK 4 OF SOUTH NOKOMIS LAKE SUBDIVISION - #05-S527:     This is a request for an Amended Plat of Lots 6, 7 and 8 Block 5 and a portion of Lot 15, Block 4 of South Nokomis Lake Subdivision to consolidate three lots and a portion of a fourth lot into one lot and vacate a 20-foot access and utility easement.  The access and utility easement is located in the northern portion of Lot 15 in Block 4.  The request is to amend the plat of the South Nokomis Lake Subdivision to combine three lots and a portion of a fourth into one lot and vacate a 20-foot access and utility easement.   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; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team.

The proposed plat amendment to combine three lots and a portion of a fourth into one lot and vacate a 20-foot access and utility easement will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 6, 7 and 8 Block 5 and a portion of Lot 15, Block 4 of South Nokomis Lake Subdivision, and a 20-foot access and utility easement vacation request 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 August 6, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

3.  AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 96 OF CLYDESDALE PARK PUD 2ND FILING - #04-S2279:  This is a request to reduce the 20 foot rear yard setback required by the Clydesdale Park PUD 2nd Filing to 14 feet to allow for the construction of a deck 30 inches above grade. 

 

The Larimer County Land Use Code requires that decks constructed 30 inches, or greater, above finished grade may extend 6 feet into the required setback, while decks less than 30 inches above finished grade are not restricted by setbacks.  Based upon the location of the existing dwelling unit (22 feet from the rear property line) and the required 20 foot rear yard setback, the applicant could construct a deck extending 8 feet away from the back of the existing house (14 feet from rear property line), however, his objective is to have a deck that extends 12 feet from the house, which deck would be 10+ feet from the rear property line.

If the applicants request is approved as submitted the finished deck should be situated approximately 10+ feet from the rear property line, which is outside of the existing 10 foot utility easement situated along the rear property line.  Furthermore, only about half of the deck would be 30 inches above the finished grade, which is the minimum height for the application of this standard.  As a note, the applicant could construct the proposed deck to be slightly below the 30 inch grade separation limit and not be subject to these regulations. 

The Development Services Team has reviewed the application materials and believes that the request can be supported base upon the minimal deviations from the Code requirements.  However, it should be noted that support of this request should not be construed as precedence for similar requests in the neighborhood, for they must stand on their own merits.  Finally, support by the Development Services Team does not include any encroachments into the existing 10 foot utility easement along the rear property line.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the request to amend the rear yard setback requirement for Lot 96 of the Clydesdale Park PUD 2nd Filing from 20 feet to 14 feet, but in no case shall the any portion of a structure extend closer than 10 feet from the rear property line.

 

4.  E.W. STEWART EXEMPTION TRACT B AMENDED PLAT - #05-S2530:  This is a request for an Amended Plat of Tract B of the E.W. Stewart Exemption and a metes and bounds parcel to increase the size of the proposed Lot 1 to 2.3 acres in order to conform with Larimer County’s lot size requirements.  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; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team.

The proposed plat amendment will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Amended Plat will increase the size of the proposed Lot 1 to 2.3 acres in order to conform to Larimer County’s minimum lot size requirements will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Tract B of the E.W. Stewart Exemption and a metes and bounds parcel subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.  All conditions shall be met and the Final Plat be recorded by August 6, 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.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 2 - 4 as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  PINE ACRES APPEAL - #05-G0090:  This is a request to Appeal Section 5.1 (Subdivision) of the Land Use Code to be allowed to use the Minor Land Division Process to create a plat of record for three lots.

The applicant seeks approval to be allowed to submit a Minor Land Division (MLD) request for three parcels in the Pine Acres area of Rist Canyon.  The MLD would allow for the creation of a plat of record for three parcels.  Two of the parcels are approximately 9.7 acres in size, and the third parcel is approximately 20 acres.  All three are located in the O-Open zone district, which has a minimum lot size of 10 acres.  However, on May 28, 2005, the County Board of Adjustment approved an appeal to the minimum lot size requirement for the 2 smaller parcels.  Staff research on the status of the three parcels determined they were not created by approval of the Board of County Commissioners and thus not considered legal lots.  Staff also determined that the surrounding parcels were, in fact, legal lots.  In addition, the applicant provided information that the subject parcels were created by transfer of deed, prior to May 5, 1972, when the State enacted regulations governing the subdivision of land.  Based on these two factors, the applicant now seeks approval through the MLD process.

Under the provisions of Section 5.4.2 (Applicability) the Board of County Commissioners can use the MLD process to divide existing legal uses.  Staff supports the request, based on the assumption that the surrounding parcels are considered legal lots; these 3 parcels should be recognized as well.  Given the approval by the Board of Adjustment for the lot size variance, approval of this request would create a plat that resolves any outstanding question of legality.  Finally, the creation of three single-family residential lots on nearly 40 acres is consistent with the existing and allowed uses in the area.

The Planning Division supports the request.  The area in question includes a mix of legal lots and other properties with histories that are less clear as to their creation.  Of the three parcels in question, one is double the minimum lot size for the zoning while the other two are very close and have approval to be slightly smaller in size from the Board of Adjustment.  These are the last parcels in the Pine Acres area with an undetermined nature, and the use of the MLD process here serves to permanently clarify their status.

In addition, the State can grant well permits based on the MLD plat.  Potential buyers will have the ability to search for an on-site water sources, as long as the use of the MLD plat includes the exemption designation.  With this designation on the plat, the State can grant either a shared well permit or individual well permits for each lot.

The County Engineering and Health Departments did not object to this request, provided the Board of County Commissioners did not have concerns regarding the use of the MLD process to create legal lots that are further designated as exemption lots.

Based on the information provided by the applicant, and Staff’s research of the area which found that the surrounding lots were legal, the Development Services Team supports approval of the appeal.  The use of the MLD process will allow for legal recognition of the remaining parcels in question in the Pine Acres area.

Mr. Wheeler briefly described the history of this item, as outlined above.  The applicant, Gary Weixelman, addressed the Board.  Mr. Weixelman explained that selling property under a "Contract for Deed" was common practice in the 1980's, and that sometimes the contract would be recorded, and sometimes it was not, but it was definitely used as a conveyance of property.  Mr. Weixelman presented a resolution, signed by the Board of County Commissioners in 1968, that exempted Pine Acres from the regulations currently in existence.  Mr. Weixelman asked that the three lots in question be recognized as legal lots.

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and John Kochenburger addressed the Board.  Mr. Kochenburger stated that he was the attorney that originally represented Mr. Weixelman many years ago.  Mr. Kochenburger reiterated that properties used to be sold under the Contract for Deed process, and that Title Companies did not exist, as they do today.  Mr. Kochenburger stated that the properties were sold legally and requested that they be recognized at legal lots. 

Andrew Voss stated that he recently purchased one of the "illegal lots" and requested the Board grant legal status to the lots so that he can submit a building permit and construct a home on his land. 

There was no further public comment.

Mr. Helmick explained that a Minor Land Division would create a plat of record to make these lots legal so the property owners could apply for well permits.  Commissioner Wager asked if exempting this application from Section 8 of the Land Use Code obligates Larimer County in any manner.  Mr. Ryan stated that exempting these lots from the Land Use Code requirements simply puts them in the same category as the surrounding properties, and will not cause any obligation to the County.  Ms. Haag stated that the resolution does look as though the properties were meant to be exempted; however, the legal descriptions are in metes and bounds and therefore, difficult to tell if the three lots are within the boundaries. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Pine Acres appeal, File #05-G0090, to allow the creation of three exemption lots by the use of the Minor Land Division process.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  985 DEER MEADOW WAY ADDRESS APPEAL:  This is an owner request to retain the address of 985 Deer Meadow Way which has been re-addressed according to the Rural Addressing System. 

The area known as Hewlett Gulch was re-addressed in accordance with the resolution as one of the test areas for Larimer County.  In this process, addressing parity and sequential numbering along Deer Meadow Way was found to be inconsistent.  This poses a significant dilemma with respect to locating the property efficiently and effectively.  The Rural Addressing System is devised to create an intuitive addressing system across the county.

 

In review of the Deer Meadow Way area, staff found a number of issues requiring change.  The issues of parity along this road needed to be corrected.  As a basic addressing principal, odd/even numbering shall have parity, odds on one side evens on the other, and consistency with increasing numbers for the duration of the road.  This was not the case along Deer Meadow Way. 

 

The most notable reason for changing the Garringer address was non-sequential numbering.  The addressing prior to the Rural Addressing System showed addresses of 920, 985, 980, and 981.  A fundamental addressing component is to have sequential numbering. The address of 985 prior to 980 and 981 demonstrates inconsistency and incompatible addressing.

 

If this request were approved, then in order to achieve the needed sequential numbering, staff would have to require address changes to several more property owners along this road.  All addresses, potentially nine property owners, would have an address change.  In light of these findings, to limit the impact to property owners, the address which creates the discrepancy (985 Deer Meadow Way) was changed by staff and several other property owners were spared a change of address.

 

Staff's recommendation is to deny the request by Mr. & Mrs. Garringer to retain their existing address based upon the following:

 

1.  LETA and the County have funded monies toward this project to ensure a systematic addressing system is achieved and without re-addressing this road the intent of the Resolution is not met.

 

2.  The Rural Addressing System resolution is intended to ensure an accurate and systematic means of identifying the property location is achieved.  Inconsistent addressing schemes lead to identification problems.  The existing numbering scheme is non-sequential and poses problems to service providers.

 

3.  Approving this appeal will adversely affect up to nine (9) additional property owners with a change of address in order to achieve sequential numbering along Deer Meadow Way.  Currently few property owners on Deer Meadow Way were impacted by the Rural Addressing System.  Allowing the Garringer’s to retain 985 Deer Meadow Way will result in addresses after this point to be reassigned new numbers and subsequently affecting a number of new address changes and inconveniencing even more Larimer County citizens.  The current address changes affect the fewest properties possible.

 

Mr. Garton explained the owner's request as outlined above.  Mr. Garton stated that they are recommending changing the address to 961 to keep the addresses sequential and further noted that this proposal affects the least amount of property owners.

Property owner Gale Garringer addressed the Board, stating that he would like to retain the 985 address, and place an "aka" or "also know as" sign with the number 961 Deer Meadow Way right above or below the 985 address.  Mr. Garringer stated that due to his business, he would like to retain the use of the 985 number.  Mr. Garringer also stated that there is another structure on the property that currently uses the address of 985-A, and noted that this number will have to be considered as well.  Ms. Sedlacek explained that the "aka" designation will not be acceptable to the United States Post Office, and that the mailing address must match the physical address, unless using a post office box.  Ms. Sedlacek stated that the postal service will honor and forward delivery of mail for up to one year. 

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Debbie Garringer addressed the Board.  Mrs. Garringer further questioned what would become of the address of 985-A, as there is another structure on the property, in which those occupying the structure receive their mail.  Ms. Sedlacek stated that she would need to conduct further research on the particulars of this additional structure, but stated that it would be possible to assign another address, say 959 or 963, if it met the criteria for assigning addresses. 

There was no further public comment.

Chair Gibson stated that when they first agreed to pursue the readdressing of certain areas of the county to make addressing consistent and sequential, the goal was to inconvenience the least amount of individuals as possible, and in this case it comes down to changing one address versus seven. 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to retain the existing address of 985 Deer Meadow Way and change it to 961 Deer Meadow Way in accordance with the assigned address by the Rural Addressing System.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

At this time, Mr. Wheeler requested the Board's approval to discuss Items 7 and 8 simultaneously, as the projects are located side by side and are very similar in nature.  The Board agreed to this request. 

 

7.  BOSNER PIT SPECIAL REVIEW - #01-Z1424:  This a Special Review request for approval to mine sand and gravel for commercial purposes and to operate an asphalt batch plant.

This request was scheduled as a discussion item before the County Planning Commission on December 21, 2005, along with the Flying “W” Pit Special Review.   The balance of this report is the same as that provided for the Flying “W” review except the recommended conditions of approval. 

Two neighbors on properties immediately next to the site raised concerns about several aspects of the request.  First, the neighbors objected to the proposed hours of operation as being incompatible with residential uses.  As noted by Staff in the report to the Planning Commission, residents are generally home in the evenings and on the weekends, and the hours of operation should be limited to respect this situation.  Neighbors also raised concerns about the increase in truck traffic, noise, and the operation of the batch plant.  Finally, the neighbors expressed concerns about screening and buffering between the gravel pits and the residential areas.  All of these concerns were further impacted by the fact that collectively both mines could operate for up to 30 years.  For the neighbors, this means 30 years worth of impacts, especially on weekends, and they did not support allowing any operations during weekend hours.  However, as indicated below the Planning Commission supported allowing the applicant some ability to operate the batch plant during part of the day on Saturdays.

Given the site’s location, the Staff Environmental Planner and the State Division of Wildlife expressed concerns about the proposal.  The site is adjacent to a State Wildlife area, used by hunters and people fishing, mostly on the weekends.  Weekend hours of operation for the gravel pit could impact this group as well.  In addition, the Environmental Planner raised concerns about the design of the water storage reservoirs not being environmentally compatible with the adjacent, existing reservoirs.  In this situation, the discussion was able to resolve the design question to the satisfaction of all in attendance, and the recommended conditions of approval reflect this.

The Development Services Team and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request subject to the conditions, which include amendments to Condition D and I, as listed below:

A.  This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

B.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Bonser Pit Special Review (File #01-Z1424) except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Bonser Pit Special Review.

C.  The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement to be signed by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded with the Larimer County Clerk's Office, before the commencement of any off-site hauling activities and no longer then 3 years after the date of approval.

D.  No operation of the quarry shall occur at any time on County recognized holidays.  Monday through Friday hours of operation are limited to the time between 7 am and 5 pm, to include the time required for equipment warm-up and staging.  Saturday hours of operation will be permitted to only the batch plant operation and will be conducted between the hours of 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. with an exception to emergency operations or operations that were imperative based on extraordinary circumstances.

E.   County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

F.   The applicant must identify all wetland areas on site and provide a Wetlands Mitigation Plan for all disturbed wetland areas for review and approval by Planning Staff prior to commencement of any activity within wetland areas.

G.  The applicant must provide a landscape plan for review and approval by Planning Staff, prior to commencement of off-site hauling operations.

H.  The applicant must provide a Weed Control Plan to be reviewed and approved by the County Weed Control District, prior to commencement of off-site hauling operations.

I.    The 65-acre pond shall be designed with both water storage and wildlife values as goals, so the bank slopes are consistent with the model provided at the December 21, 2005 Planning Commission hearing, following the Thornton model, supporting plant and wildlife habitat and water storage can occur.  Specific plans for the pit shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Staff prior to any activity on the site.

J.    Reclamation for each pond shall begin as soon as possible after the completion of mining activities in each 10-acre sections and no later then the start of the next growing season.

K.  The applicant shall comply with requirements contained in the October 14, 2005, memo from the County Department of Health and Environment including:

-     The internal haul road between the processing area on the Bonser Pit site and CR 20E shall be paved in order to limit particulate emissions.

-     Electric grid power shall be used for the dewatering pumps in order to limit noise from diesel generators.

-     The operations shall be conducted in compliance with the County Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County.

-     Noise mitigation measures identified in the Noise Mitigation Plan shall be implemented in conjunction with the operation of the mine.

-     State air emission and stormwater discharge permits shall be maintained during the mining and reclamation operations, and shall be complied with during each of these phases.

L.   The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the County Engineering Department outlined in their comments dated October 13, 2005, including:

-     The provision of Final Construction Plans for review and approval by Staff prior to the commencement of mining operations.

-     The dedication of rights-of-way by deed for County Road 20E.

-     The applicant shall provide for the payment of all required fees including the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee.  The applicant must also obtain all required permits including a Stormwater Construction Permit from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment and a Development Construction Permit from the County.  The applicant shall provide a copy of the State Stormwater Permit to the Engineering Department.

M.  The operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the State that details overall compliance with the stormwater management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the State MLRD.

N.  No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the County right-of-way.

O.  Trucks shall not back onto or use the County Road for a turnaround.

P.   Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.

Q.  The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the County roadway.

R.   The applicant shall provide copies of their final mining and reclamation plans to the Western Area Power Administration for review and comment prior to the commencement of off-site hauling operations.

 

8.  FLYING "W" PIT SPECIAL REVIEW - #03-Z1475:  This is a request for approval to mine sand and gravel for commercial purposes on 96.2 acres, and to use an asphalt batch plant and other processing facilities on an adjacent site.

 

This request was scheduled as a discussion item before the County Planning Commission on December 21, 2005, along with the Bonser Pit Special Review.   The balance of this report, except the recommended conditions of approval, is the same as that for the Bonser Pit Special Review comments as the discussion at the hearing focused on both items at the same time. 

Two neighbors on properties immediately next to the site appeared to raise concerns about several aspects of the request.  First, the neighbors objected to the proposed hours of operation as being incompatible with residential uses.  As noted by Staff in the report to the Planning Commission, residents are generally home in the evenings and on the weekends, and the hours of operation should be limited to respect this situation.  Neighbors also raised concerns about the increase in truck traffic on the County Road, noise and the operation of the batch plant.  Finally, the neighbors expressed concerns about screening and buffering between the gravel pits and the residential areas.  All of these concerns were further impacted by the fact that collectively both mines could operate for up to 30 years.  For the neighbors, this means 30 years worth of impacts, especially on weekends, and they did not support allowing any operations during weekend hours.  However, as indicated below the Planning Commission supported allowing the applicant some ability to operate the batch plant during part of the day on Saturdays.

Given the site’s location, the Staff Environmental Planner and the State Division of Wildlife expressed concerns about the proposal.  The site is adjacent to a State Wildlife area, used by hunters and people fishing, mostly on the weekends.  Weekend hours of operation for the gravel pit could impact this group as well.  In addition, the Environmental Planner raised concerns about the design of the water storage reservoirs as not being environmentally compatible with the adjacent, existing reservoirs.  In this situation, the discussion was able to resolve the design question to the satisfaction of all in attendance, and the recommended conditions of approval reflect this.

The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions of approval drafted by Staff.  The Planning Commission did modify conditions D and I as noted below.

The Development Services Team and Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Flying W Pit Special Review be approved subject to the following conditions with an amendment to Condition D to state that the hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, to include the time required for equipment warm-up and staging, with an exception to emergency operations or operations that were imperative based on extraordinary circumstances, and an amendment to Condition I to state, “The 47-acre pond shall be designed with both water storage and wildlife values as goals so the bank slopes are consistent with the model provided at the December 21, 2005, Planning Commission hearing, following the Thornton model, supporting plant and wildlife habitat and water storage can occur.  Specific plans for the pit shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Staff prior to any activity on the site.”

A.  This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

B.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Flying “W” Pit Special Review (File #03-Z1475) except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Flying “W” Pit Special Review.

C.  The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement to be signed by the Board of County Commissioners and record with the Larimer County Clerk's Office, before the commencement of any off-site hauling activities and no longer then 3 years of the date of approval.

D.  No operation of the quarry shall occur at any time on weekends, or County recognized weekday holidays.  Monday through Friday hours of operation are limited to the time between 7 am and 5 pm, to include the time for equipment warm-up and staging, and an exception for emergency operations or operations that were imperative based on extraordinary circumstances.

E.   County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

F.   The applicant must identify all wetland areas on site and provide a Wetlands Mitigation Plan for all disturbed wetland areas for review and approval by Planning Staff prior to commencement of any activity in the wetland areas.  The final site plan shall also identify wildlife habitat areas on or immediately adjacent to the site, and include a 200-foot setback line from these areas.

G.  The applicant must provide a landscape plan for review and approval by Planning Staff, prior to commencement any off-site hauling operations.

H.  The applicant must provide a Weed Control Plan to be reviewed and approved by the County Weed Control District, prior to commencement of off-site hauling operations.

I.    The 47-acre pond shall be designed with both water storage and wildlife values as goals so the bank slopes are consistent with the model provided at the December 21, 2005 Planning Commission hearing, following the Thornton model, supporting plant and wildlife habitat and water storage can occur.  Specific plans for the pit shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Staff prior to any activity on the site.

J.    Reclamation for each pond begin as soon as possible after the completion of mining activities in each 10-acre section and no later then the start of the next growing season.

K.  The applicant shall comply with requirements contained in the October 14, 2005, memo from the County Department of Health and Environment including:

-     The internal haul road between the processing area on the Bonser Pit site and CR 20E shall be paved in order to limit particulate emissions.

-     Electric grid power shall be used for the dewatering pumps in order to limit noise from diesel generators.

-     The operations shall be conducted in compliance with the County Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County.

-     Noise mitigation measures identified in the Noise Mitigation Plan shall be implemented in conjunction with the operation of the mine.

-     State air emission and stormwater discharge permits shall be maintained during the mining and reclamation operations, and shall be complied with during each of these phases.

L.   The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the County Engineering Department outlined in their comments dated October 24, 2005, including:

-     The applicant shall provide a signed and stamped drainage report for review and approval by Staff prior to the commencement of mining operations.

-     The applicant shall monitor the Big Thompson Ponds during dewatering operations.  Any decrease in water levels from the historic values, will be mitigated by pumping from post settling basin waters from the gravel pit, until the historic values are re-established.

-     The applicant shall provide for the payment of all required fees including the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee.  The applicant must also obtain all required permits including a   Stormwater Construction Permit from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment          and a Development Construction Permit from the County.  The applicant shall provide a copy of the State Stormwater permit to the Engineering Department.

M.  The operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the State that details overall compliance with the stormwater management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the State MLRD.

N.  No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the County right-of-way.

O.  Trucks shall not back onto or use the County Road for a turnaround.

P.   Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.

Q.  The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the County roadway.

R.   The applicant shall revise the site plan to change the alignment of the haul road so that it does not run immediately next to the property line between the Flying “W” site and the State Wildlife Area to the east of the West Pit.

Mr. Wheeler explained that projects as outlined above.  He stated that the Flying "W" site is not requesting Saturday operations, and the Planning Commissioner recommended restricting Saturday operations on the Bosner site from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.  Commissioner Wagner asked if there was any consideration given to complete the mining on the Flying "W" pit, prior to commencing mining on the Bonser pit.  Mr. Wheeler stated that the applicant does intend complete mining the Flying "W" pit prior to mining the Bonser pit. 

The applicant, Peter Wayland and his assistant, Chad Weaver, displayed a slide show presentation for the Board, which explained their proposal and site operations.  He stated that the Saturday operations are critical to their mining business, and asked that the Board support the Planning Commission's recommendation of 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. operations on Saturdays.  Some discussion ensued regarding berming and landscape screening of the property, reclamation efforts of the mines once closed, and how many neighbors would be affected and where they are located in relation to the site.

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment. 

Fred Hale, Sue Radford, Charles Miller, and Kelly Bonser addressed the Board in opposition to the projects.  Their concerns were as follows:  1. Lack of notification to the surrounding neighborhoods regarding the proposals.  2.   Noise, dust, and odor that will be generated from the sites.  3.  Lack of detail in the documentation provided with the applications.  4.  Increased truck traffic that will result in their neighborhoods if the projects are approved.  5.  Saturday operations will negatively affect their quality of life.  6.  The length of time the mines will be in operation, which is estimated at 30 + years.  7.  Property values will decrease as a result of the mining operations.  In addition, Ms. Bonser presented two petitions to the Board from neighbors opposing the Saturday operations and the proposed asphalt plant, and asked that the projects be tabled in order to have their questions answered, prior to approval.

 

Mr. Wayland stated that they have mining operations in several counties and that Larimer County is very detailed in the paperwork required for this process.  He explained the phasing that will be used to mine both sites, and discussed the water storage pits.  Mr. Wayland stated that notification of the surrounding neighborhoods was performed in accordance with what the Planning Department dictated.  He further stated that the sites are not "tranquil" in nature, but are located adjacent to I-25 and are already very noisy.  Mr. Wayland explained that they will buffer the sites to control noise and to block the line of sight from the adjacent homeowners.  Brian McMayhill, owner of the Flying "W" property, indicated his support for the project, and stated that he was initially concerned with the Kaufman Pit being located so close to his property, but has been pleased with the way that pit is being mined.

 

At this time there was a request from the audience to address the Board.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners re-open public comment.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Kelly Bonser stated that no where in the plan is it mentioned that recycling will take place on-site, and that other vendors will be utilizing the site.  Ms. Bonser explained that 70% of the truck traffic will pass directly by her home, and she stated that no where in the proposal does the applicant address how this mining pit will affect the value of her home.

 

Chair Gibson closed public comment.

 

Mr. Wayland stated that the recycling piece is an integral part of the business, and they will only be recycling product from Coulson Excavating Company.  With regards to the how property values might be affected, Mr. Wayland stated that he had not consulted with a real estate firm, but stated that the end land use effect with the water features and landscaping will enhance the property. 

 

Much discussion ensued regarding the water crossing, the obligation of the applicant to consider how surrounding property values might be affected, how the road improvements might be accomplished within the setbacks of the existing homes, and whether or not to allow Saturday operations on the Bonser site.  Ultimately, the Board’s biggest concern surrounded the issue of whether or not to allow Saturday operations; therefore, the Board agreed to table these items with direction to the applicant to come up with alternative solutions regarding the Saturday operations.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Bonser Pit Special Review, File # 01-Z1424, to March 13, 2006, at 3:00 p.m., with direction to the applicant to prepare alternative solutions regarding Saturday operations.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Flying “W” Pit Special Review, File # 03-Z1475, to March 13, 2006, at 3:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing recessed at 6:35 p.m.

 

 LAND USE HEARING

(#13 & 14)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center Director.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Tom Garton, and Karlin Sedlacek, Building Inspection Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Christy Coleman, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

1.  SHADOW RIDGE ADDRESS APPEAL:  This is an owner request to retain existing addresses on Shadow Ridge Road with the exception of 1001 Shadow Ridge Road.   

 

Shadow Ridge Road, in the area known as Bonner Springs, was part of the Rural Addressing Project test areas.  Addresses along Shadow Ridge Road began with numbering schemes that collectively were sequential to Bonner Springs Ranch Road, rather than starting from the beginning of Shadow Ridge Road as required by the Addressing Resolution.  This was identified as problematic with respect to accuracy and consistency for the area.

 

There are five properties along Shadow Ridge Road.  In review of this area during the project, staff found sequential numbering to be at issue.  In association with the review, addressing along Juniper Ridge Road was considered.  Juniper Ridge Road addresses have lower numbers at the start of the road.

 

It is the intent where possible to limit the impact to owners.  However in this case, staff viewed the numbering sequence for Shadow Ridge Road to be confusing.  Originally the numbers off Bonner Springs showed the access for Shadow Ridge Road after 970 Bonner Springs Ranch Road thus creating the addressing scheme of 980 and higher for an address range.  The numbers along Bonner Springs Ranch Road have subsequently changed in this project. 

 

Staff also found that sequential numbering along Shadow Ridge Road was inconsistent.  1001 Shadow Ridge Road comes after 1080 Shadow Ridge Road.  With that finding, and in order to achieve consistency with a parallel road (Juniper Ridge Road), staff determined the addresses for this road should be corrected accordingly.

 

Staffs findings showed the need for consistency and intuitive addresses along Shadow Ridge Road.  Per the Rural Addressing System, the start point of a road is considered zero and numbers increase as the road continues.  In this case, Shadow Ridge Road is a little over 0.5 miles long and addresses were re-assigned from 30 to 569. 

 

Staff's recommendation is to deny the request to change only the address of 1001 Shadow Ridge Road and retain all other existing addresses based upon the following:

1.  LETA, a funding partner in the Rural Addressing Project, recommends the addresses on Shadow Ridge Road be readdressed.  LETA advises that addressing on parallel streets be consistent, therefore, if one street starts addressing with “1”, then parallel streets should as well.  This allows emergency responders to logically evaluate location in a quicker manner.

2.  Readdressing Shadow Ridge Road will provide for a logical, consistent, and intuitive numbering system.  The new addresses create uniqueness and sequential numbering schemes.

3.  Changing only the one address, 1001 Shadow Ridge Road, does not eliminate the address sequencing problem since Bonner Springs Ranch Road has been readdressed as well. 

4.  Readdressing Shadow Ridge Road will provide for more consistency and systematic means of property location identification.  It will more closely coincide with the addressing scheme on the parallel road, Juniper Ridge Road.

 

Ms. Sedlacek explained the appeal as outlined above, and displayed a diagram depicting a map with both the existing addresses and the proposed addresses.  Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment.

Russell Jackson handed out excerpts from the resolution governing the Rural Addressing System and a copy of the appeal letter that was signed by all the residents of Shadow Ridge Road.  Mr. Jackson explained that there is actually only one address out of sync, and that would be the 1001 Shadow Ridge Road belonging to Judith Kempe who happens to have her house for sale.  Mr. Jackson stated that if Ms. Kempe’s address was reassigned somewhere between 1080 – 1100, then their road would meet the sequencing requirement and the requirement of placing all odd numbered addresses on one side of the road and all the even numbered on the other.  Mr. Jackson further explained that they were told it was important that parallel streets have consistent numbering, starting with low numbers.  Mr. Jackson pointed out inconsistencies regarding this requirement within the same map that was displayed by Ms. Sedlacek.  Mr. Jackson stated that changing only one address on Shadow Ridge Road would place the homes in sequential order and, per the resolution; the residents on Shadow Ridge Road deserve the same flexibility and consideration that was given to the surrounding roads that take access from Bonner Springs Ranch Road.

Amy Sharkey addressed the Board and explained the financial burden that it takes to change addresses; she stressed that the least impact would be to change just one address, and requested the Board to approve their appeal.

Ken Sharkey stated that if the Board accepted Staff’s proposal, then it appears that they would be changing it from being consistent, to becoming inconsistent with the surrounding roads when considering the numbers on the adjacent roads.

There was no further public comment.

Commissioner Rennels stated that the homeowners presented a good case, and agreed that changing the addresses on Shadow Ridge Road to lower numbers would result in inconsistencies within the surrounding roads.  Both Commissioner Wagner and Chair Gibson agreed.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to retain all addresses with the exception of 1001 Shadow Ridge Road and have addresses assigned consistent with the Rural Addressing Resolution. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.   PITTINGTON PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND USE PLAN (RLUP):  This is a request for preliminary approval to divide 230 +/- acres into fifteen (15) lots in the following manner: Thirteen (13) single family residential lots, each lot approximately 5 acres in size, and two (2) Residual Lots (private open space) located on about 165 acres. Neither Residual Lot will contain a residence and both will be protected from further development in perpetuity by either a covenant or conservation easement, as required under the RLUP.

The new residential lots have been located to minimize the length of the private access road, avoid the riparian areas to the north and south, and to utilize the most appropriate soils for on-site septic systems.  The residual land’s historic use of dry land grazing will be maintained. The management/use plan will address implementation of appropriate grazing procedures and control of noxious and invasive weeds.    Access to these new lots is proposed from Old Bald Mountain Road.      

The residential lots will be about 5 acres in size.  It is anticipated that domestic water to these lots will be provided by on-lot wells; however, the applicant is also investigating the possibility of acquiring domestic water from the North Carter Lake Water District.  Each lot will have an individual septic system.  The applicant is proposing appropriate architectural guidelines for this project to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed new residences and associated structures. 

The surrounding properties consist of 35-acres parcels and larger.   There are also a number of older subdivisions in the area.  The Newell’s Lake Subdivision 1st, 2nd and 3rd filings, located 2 miles west-southwest of the Pittington property and immediately east of Pinewood Reservoir, contain roughly 45 residential lots on 97 acres.  There are more than 100 small residential lots (most lots less than 2 acres in size) that are located immediately north of Carter Lake, roughly 2 ½ miles southeast of the Pittington property.

There is significant development pressure in this area for 35-acre parcels and smaller residential lots, if available.  This pressure is caused by general growth along the Front Range, as well as by pressure specifically associated with growth in Loveland and Berthoud  (to the northeast and southeast respectively); and attractiveness of “close-in” foothills property.  The proposed density of the Pittington Rural Land Use project, one unit per 17.7 acres, appears to be compatible with the neighborhood.

The residual land, approximately 165 acres and comprising roughly 71.7% of the property, will be protected from further development in perpetuity.  The RLUP requires that residual land be protected for a minimum of 40 years.  The residual land will have a management/use plan to foster its long-term health.  The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land and for providing a periodic monitoring report(s) to the County.  Residual Lot A, approximately 70 acres in size, will be owned by Ms. Pittington as part of the existing ranch operation.  Residual Lot B, roughly 95 acres, will be owned as a common element of the homeowners’ association.

A neighborhood meeting was held on November 16, 2005, at the Loveland Pulliam Community Building.  About 15 area residents attended.  The concerns were mainly about roads, well water, and fire issues.  Referral agency comments were also solicited.  Representatives from the County Engineering Department, Health Department, and Rural Land Use Advisory Board have visited the site and have consulted with the Rural Land Use Center during the conceptual design phase.

The Rural Land Use Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Pittington Preliminary Rural Land Plan.  The following contingencies must be met prior to approval of Final Plat by the Board of County Commissioners:

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Pittington Rural Land Plan (File # 05-S2447) except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Pittington Rural Land Plan.

2.   All roads constructed within the Rural Land Plan shall be in accordance with Section 5.8.6.D of the Rural Land Use Process.  All designs must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that design standards in Section 5.8.6.D. were followed, before final approval.  Internal roads may be contained in a private access and utility easement.  Road names and addressing shall meet standards in the “Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution”.

3.   On-lot wells will be provided for this project or public water shall be provided for this project.  If public water is provided, a letter of commitment from the water provider must be provided prior to Final Plat approval.  This letter of commitment must specifically state that the water distribution system is (or will be) designed to meet the normal and minimum pressure design standards contained in Section 8.1.2.A.1 of the Land Use Code or more stringent standards as required by the District.  If the water system will be designed to provide fire protection, the letter of commitment also must address the pressure and delivery standards outlined in Section 8.1.4 of the Land Use Code.

4.   If on-lot wells are used for this project, a hydrologic study to evaluate domestic water quality and quantity must be prepared by a licensed geologist or hydrologist.  This study must be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Health and Environment prior to final approval.

5.   Building envelopes shall be placed on each lot.  All building envelopes shall be located outside the floodplain and drainage areas and shall meet minimum setback requirements listed in the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

6.   The lots must be setback 200 feet from the top of the steep drainages located north and south of the residential cluster. 

7.   Automatic fire protection sprinklers will be required for all new residential structures or written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district.

8.   The Residual Land Protective Covenant and Use Plan must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the RLUC Director prior to Final Plat approval. 

9.   Restrictive covenants, including provisions for internal road maintenance, small acreage management, architectural guidelines, and other requirements must be reviewed and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director prior to Final Plat approval.

10.   The Final Development Agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to Final Plat approval.

11.   A Lot Sale Prohibition shall be placed on this property preventing the sale of any new lots until the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements.  The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed.  The Lot Sale Prohibition will be recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and will be a covenant running with the Lots.  Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developer a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for the particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed. 

12.   A good faith effort to reach an equitable agreement for road maintenance cost sharing with the neighboring property owners who maintain Old Bald Mountain Road will be required before final approval.

13.   The following must be listed as a note on the Final Plat and on a disclosure statement, approved by the County Attorney, available to lot buyers through the public records at the time of purchase:

a)   LOT SALE PROHIBITION.  Developer has executed a Lot Sale Prohibition Agreement which stipulates that Lots 1-13 and/or Residual Lot(s) A & B cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides to County a written designation stating that all the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements.  The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed.  The Lot Sale Prohibition is recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and is a covenant running with the Lots.  Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developer a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed. 

b)   The construction of any single-family residence in this development will require the installation of residential fire sprinklers if fire hydrants and/or a public water supply are not present to provide fire protection unless written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district is received.

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

d)   Some or all lots in this development include building envelopes.  All structures must be located within these Larimer County approved building envelopes, as shown on the approved Plan.  If a structure within the building envelope is located 5’ or less from the boundary of the building envelope, the owner/applicant for a building permit will be required to demonstrate that the structure(s) is located within the building envelope prior to the approval of the footing and foundation inspection.  This shall be accomplished by a written certification by a Colorado Licensed Surveyor.

e)   All structures and septic systems must be located within the building envelopes on any Residual Lots.

f)   Engineered footings and foundations may be required for new habitable construction. It will be necessary to check with the Larimer County Building Department for requirements prior to submitting a building permit application.

g)   Lot owners should be advised that there is a potential for nuisance conflicts from wildlife (such as skunks, mountain lions, bears, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, prairie dogs and snakes).  The Colorado Division of Wildlife can provide information to property owners about how to handle these situations, but lot owners are responsible for addressing wildlife conflicts if they arise.

h)   No feeding of any wildlife.  Any food placed for wildlife will eventually attract the black bears traveling through the area.  Once a bear finds food around homes and trailers, they become habituated to humans, often causing damage to property in their search for food.  The State of Colorado is not liable for damages to non-agricultural property.  Homeowners insurance is strongly advised.

i)   Keep trash and garbage removed from site.  Bear proof containers are commercially available and they work.  Garbage and trash can be as attractive to bears as placing out food for wildlife.

j)   It is strongly recommended that trailers and motor homes not be left on site unattended.  These items may be destroyed by bears if left unattended.  This is particularly important during the months of July to September, when the bears are most active in their search for food.

k)   Many other species of wildlife live in the area; some can be dangerous to humans and pets.  It must be remembered that landowners will be living with wildlife.  Species that may be found in the area are coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, skunks, badgers, raccoons, deer, elk, hawks, owls and eagles.

l)   Pets must be contained on property, either by leash or enclosure.

m)   During certain times of the year mosquitoes may present a significant nuisance.  Larimer County does not have a mosquito abatement program.  Any mosquito abatement activity will be the responsibility of the homeowner; such activity must be according to applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations.

n)   Prairie dog colonies exist in the general area; prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property.  At times these animals are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets.  It is important for residents to observe animal control requirements for dogs and cats.

o)   Agricultural operations and farming practices on adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust.  These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur.  In addition, plowing, planting, cultivating, spraying, harvesting, and various livestock operations may be carried out at all times including nighttime.

p)   If livestock will be kept on these lots, it will be important to carefully manage grazing in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture.  Overgrazing will produce bare ground, weeds, erosion and polluted runoff.  Management of these lots should be coordinated with drainage and erosion control issues, siting of sanitation systems, fencing and feeding.

q)   Larimer County has adopted a Right to Farm Resolution.

r)   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Park fees (in lieu of dedication), and Rural Land Use Process fees.  The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply.

s)   Larimer County shall not maintain roads or streets in this development.  Maintenance of the streets shall be the responsibility of the property owners.  Failure to maintain streets may result in a lien being placed on these lots.

t)   At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential lots and Residual Lot(s) A and B with the Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County.

u)   The owners of the residual land parcel shall be responsible for providing a periodic monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center.

v)   Lots in this Rural Land Plan are subject to the conditions and requirements of a Development Agreement.  The Developer and Larimer County executed this agreement in consideration of the approval of this Development.  This Agreement was recorded in the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office immediately after this plat.  All purchasers should obtain and read the Development Agreement.

 

Mr. Reidhead presented a slide show presentation depicting the property and briefly described the proposal as outlined above.  He explained that during the neighbors were concerned with road maintenance, the availability of wells and the impact on their water supply, and fire safety and emergency access.  Mr. Reidhead presented an additional condition of approval regarding cost sharing of road maintenance.  He then introduced the applicants John Mathey, David James, and Boyd James.  The applicants had nothing further to add to the discussion at this point, but asked to readdress the Board after public comment.  Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment.

Rick Roncka, adjacent neighbor and president of the Road Association, expressed concern with the size of the proposed lots as they are not compatible with the surrounding parcels that are all at least 35 acres in size.  Mr. Roncka explained that this project may negatively affect their property values, and also noted concern with increased traffic, scarcity of water, emergency access, and road maintenance.  Mr. Roncka stated that he has no issues with the property owner, JaReen Pittington, but would like to see her utilize her property in a different manner.

Marshall Warren, adjacent neighbor, stated that he was concerned with the additional dust, the increase in traffic, and the impact both will have in their neighborhood.

Ann Warren, adjacent neighbor, expressed concern with the proposed entrance to the project and suggested that the road needs to be re-engineered to accommodate the bend in the road.  She stated that they already have a problem with people speeding in the area and feels the proposal may create a safety issue.

Lela Vitasek stated that the area is very rich in wildlife and expressed concern with how the addition of 13 homes might negatively affect the wildlife in the area.  Ms. Vitasek stressed the need for emergency access, not only for firefighters to gain access to the properties, but also for the homeowners to get out in an emergency.

There was no further public comment.

Mr. Mathey explained that they have every intention to participate in the Road Association for road maintenance on a pro-rata share, as they will only be using the first mile of the road to access the lots.   Mr. Mathey noted that they will be required to perform a traffic study and a hydrology study as part of the application. He discussed the topography of the land, and how emergency access could be achieved via Ms. Pittington’s property.  Mr. Mathey stated that he does not necessarily agree that property values will decrease as a result of this project. 

The Board agreed emergency access to the properties is critical and strongly urged the applicants to ensure there is adequate emergency access.  Some discussion ensued regarding the water and how the expected yields would be determined. Mr. Ryan stated that if the results of their studies indicated that the water supply would not support 13 lots, then they would recommend an adjustment to fewer and possibly larger lots.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Pittington Preliminary Rural Land Use Plan subject to the conditions as recommended by the Rural Land Use Center Director, with the addition of Condition number 12 pertaining to cost sharing of road maintenance, which is included in the conditions outlined above. 

Motion carried 3-0.

The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

 

 

 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2006

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(# 14, 15, & 16)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Neil Gluckman, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Dale Lockwood, Environmental Advisory Board Chair; Carol Block, Lorrie Lopez, Kurt Hayhurst, Maurice Lodwick, and Marianne Teklits, Finance Department; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center; Don Weixelman, Rural Land Use Plan Property Owner; Russ Legg, Samantha Mott, Carol Evans, and Casey Stewart, Planning Department; Joni Friedman, Workforce Center; Wynette Cerciello, Human Resources Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 30, 2006

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of January 30, 2006, as amended.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 13, 2006:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.   CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for February 7, 2006:

 

02072006A001           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND RESIDUAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS FOR DRAKE RANCH RURAL LAND USE PLAN, FILE #02-S2028, BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE HUGH H. DRAKE AND FLORENCE J. DRAKE TRUST, AND DRAKE RANCH OWNERS' ASSOCIATION

 

02072006A002           CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE LARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH

 

02072006D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY ROBERT J. KLEINHANS AND CYNTHIA A. KLEINHANS FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

02072006D002           DEED OF DEDICATION BY EAST RABBIT CREEK RANCH, LLLP FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

020702006R001         FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRAY EXEMPTION PARCEL 2 AMENDED PLAT

 

02072006R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RICO TIERRA CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPEAL

 

02072006R003           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR DRAKE RANCH RURAL LAND PLAN

 

02072006R004           RESOLUTION APPROVING LOAN FROM SOLID WASTE ENTERPRISE FUND TO FAIR SPECIAL REVENUE FUND

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Larimer County Treasurer's Six Month Report; Final Plat for Drake Ranch Rural Land Use Plan; Annual Certification of Road Mileage to the Colorado Department of Transportation.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following license was both approved and issued:  Club Lynx - Tavern/Transfer of Ownership - Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.   ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD (EAB) ANNUAL REPORT:   Mr. Ryan and Mr. Lockwood presented the 2005 Environmental Advisory Board Report and reviewed its contents with the Commissioners.  Mr. Lockwood explained that they wish to be more proactive in 2006 by bringing information to the Commissioners, and developing lists of pros and cons regarding potential environmental issues that might be addressed.  Commissioner Rennels requested that the EAB present their ideas and information to the Commissioners prior to conducting in depth research, so the Board of County Commissioners can provide direction to the EAB.   Commissioner Wagner suggested that a worksession be scheduled with the EAB to discuss the use of alternative fuels.

 

6.   GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AWARD:   Ms. Block introduced her accounting staff, and noted that they have been awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting.  Ms. Block explained that this award is presented annually by the Government Finance Officers Association, in recognition of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), for governmental accounting practices that demonstrate full financial disclosure of how county dollars are spent and accounted for.  Ms. Block stated that this is the 23rd year in a row that Larimer County has received this award.  The Board congratulated Ms. Block and her accounting staff.

 

7.  ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE WOLF SPECIAL REVIEW FACILITY:   Ms. Evans presented an update for the Board on the WOLF Special Review Facility; she noted that there have been no complaints regarding this facility during the past year.  Ms. Evans explained that there are 29 animals on-site, and that the facility is now limited to 30 animals at any given time, and that they must continue to update the Planning Department with their animal census.  Ms. Evans stated that Planning Staff will conduct an unannounced on-site visit at least once per year.

 

8.  ELK RIDGE RANCHES RURAL LAND USE PLAN:  Mr. Reidhead presented documents and the Final Plat concerning the Elk Ridge Ranches Rural Land Use Plan, and requested approval on the same.  Mr. Reidhead explained that Mr. Weixelman held an auction to sell lots within the Elk Ridge Ranches Rural Land Use Plan, subject to the project's final approval.  Mr. Reidhead also requested a waiver of the Lot Sale Prohibition, as the roads for the Elk Ridge Ranches Rural Land Use Plan are part of the existing Crystal Lakes Road and Recreation Association system.  Commissioner Wagner stated that she was not present for the original hearing when the Elk Ridge Ranches Rural Land Use Plan was awarded preliminary approval.  She noted that it is a very unusual Rural Land Use Plan given the fact that there are 16 residual lots that have building envelopes.  Commissioner Wagner also explained that she has a problem with the lots being sold in the manner that they were prior to final approval; therefore, she could not support the project but would also not vote against it.  Mr. Reidhead agreed that the project is an unusual one, but noted that the land is situated in the high county, and presented a need for stringent forestry mitigation.  Mr. Reidhead stated that, as a result, the project has a very rigorous forestry mitigation plan associated with it.  Discussion ensued regarding the Rural Land Use Plan process, and where it might not be applicable to certain areas of the county. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the development agreement and residual land use restrictions for Elk Ridge Ranches Rural Land Use Plan.

Motion carried 2-0; Commissioner Wagner abstained.

 

02072006A003           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND RESIDUAL LAND USE RESTRICTION FOR ELK RIDGE RANCHES RURAL LAND USE PLAN, FILE #03-S2199, BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CRYSTAL LAKE, INC., AND ELK RIDGE RANCHES ASSOCIATION

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution for statutory vested rights for Elk Ridge Ranches Rural Land Use Plan.

Motion carried 2-0; Commissioner Wagner abstained.

 

02072006R006           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR ELK RIDGE RANCHES RURAL LAND USE PLAN

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution waiving condition of approval for Lot Sale Prohibition for Elk Ridge Ranches Rural Land Use Plan.

Motion carried 2-0; Commissioner Wagner abstained.

 

02072006R005           RESOLUTION WAIVING CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR LOT SALE PROHIBITION FOR ELK RIDGE RANCHES RURAL LAND USE PLAN

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Final Plat for Elk Ridge Ranches Rural Land Use Plan.

Motion carried 2-0; Commissioner Wagner abstained.

 

9.   REFERRAL OF STASZAK APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION:  Mr. Stewart explained that an appeal has been submitted by Daniel and Kristine Staszak to expand their residence that was originally constructed in 1917.  Mr. Stewart noted that since their proposal is to increase the living space by more than 25% of the existing floor area, approval of the appeal is required before a permit can be issued.  Mr. Stewart stated that the appeal does not involve County Master Plan issues, does not present any significant policy issues, and is a relatively minor project; therefore, he recommended this item be referred directly to the Board of County Commissioners without first being presented to the Planning Commission.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny referring the Staszak Appeal to the Planning Commission for review and comment.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10.  DISCUSSION OF BROADCASTING ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ON FORT COLLINS CABLE TV CHANNEL 14:  Ms. LaRue noted that she has explored the possibility of airing the Commissioners' Administrative Matters meeting on Cable Television Channel 14.  She stated that there the hours of time needed to air the meetings would not exceed the hours allotted within the current Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA); therefore, there would be no additional cost.  Ms. LaRue further explained that the cost would be $21.00 per hour, if the meetings were lengthy and did happen to exceed the time allowed within the IGA.  Some discussion ensued and Commissioner Wagner requested that any re-broadcasting of the Administrative Matters meetings be done in the evenings to afford the public better opportunity to view the meetings.  Commissioner Rennels asked that an assessment be done after a one-year period of time to determine the number of viewers actually watching the meetings.   The Board directed Ms. LaRue to pursue this matter.

 

11.  LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:  Mr. Gluckman reviewed pending legislation with the Board.

 

 

12.  EXECUTIVE SESSION (TAPE #15):  Ms. Freidman and Ms. Cerciello requested the Board go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters, as outlined in 24-6-402-(4)(f) C.R.S.

Motion carried 3-0.

The Executive Session ended and the following action was taken:

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize a waiver of the County's Sick Leave Policy to allow an employee of the Workforce Center to receive donated sick leave.

Under discussion of the motion, the Board asked Ms. Cerciello to revisit the County's Sick Leave Policy and consider the possibility of implementing a short-term disability program.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

13.  WORKSESSION:   There were no worksession items to discuss.  

 

14.  COMMISSIONER REPORTS:  The Board discussed their attendance at events during the past week.

 

15.  LEGAL MATTERS:   There were no Legal Matters to discuss.

 

The meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m. with no further action taken.

 

 

LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING FOR

POUDRE SPIRITS AND WINE

(#16)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Patty Drieth, Clerk & Recorder Department; Lela Brister, Court Reporter; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

Mr. Ressue explained the purpose of this hearing is to consider the application for a Retail Liquor Store License for Archer & Archer LLC., dba Poudre Spirits and Wine, located at 33021 Poudre Canyon Highway, Bellvue, Colorado

The applicant, Ms. Connie Archer, stated that she is the part-owner of the establishment and submitted the following exhibits:  Exhibit 1 - photos of notice posted on the premises informing the public of the pending application for a liquor license; and Exhibit 2 - the petitions of the surrounding neighborhood, which revealed only one person in opposition to the proposed liquor store. Mr. Ressue asked if Ms. Archer has familiarized herself with the liquor license laws of Colorado and how she intends to handle intoxicated patrons. Ms. Archer stated that she is very familiar with the liquor license laws, as she currently holds a 3.2% liquor license.  Ms. Archer stated that she and two of her employees are Training for Intervention (TIPS) trained.   

For the record, Mr. Ressue noted that there was no one present in opposition of this license. 

MOTION

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the application and authorize issuance of a Retail Liquor Store License for Archer & Archer, LLC., dba Poudre Spirits and Wine, located at 33021 Poudre Canyon Highway, Bellvue, Colorado. 

Motion carried 3-0.

The hearing recessed at 1:40 p.m.

 

LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING FOR

THE ROCK INN

(#16)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:00 p.m. with Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Denise Ruybal, Clerk & Recorder Department; Lela Brister, Court Reporter; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

Mr. Ressue explained the purpose of this hearing is to consider the application for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License The Rock Inn, Limited, dba The Rock Inn, located at 1675 Highway 66, Estes Park, Colorado. 

The applicant, Mr. Bruce Darby, stated that he is president of The Rock Inn, Limited, and submitted the following exhibits:  Exhibit 1 - photos of notice posted on the premises informing the public of the pending application for a liquor license; and Exhibit 2 - the petitions of the surrounding neighborhood, which revealed there was no opposition to the proposed liquor license, and Exhibit 3 - a letter from co-owners Michael and Rebecca Guyet, stating that they were unable to attend today's hearing.

Mr. Ressue asked if Mr. Darby has familiarized himself with the liquor license laws of Colorado and how he intends to handle intoxicated patrons. Mr. Darby explained that they have not yet familiarized himself or his staff, but intends to do so upon approval of the license.   Commissioner Rennels explained to Mr. Darby that the Board is very serious about liquor licensing and that licenses can be revoked quickly if the liquor laws are not strictly adhered to by establishment owners.   Commissioner Wagner asked if the establishment was going to be more of a restaurant that serves liquor, or a tavern that serves food.   Mr. Darby explained that he intends to have a family restaurant, and that it would definitely be more of a restaurant atmosphere.  Chair Gibson stated concern that there has been no training on behalf of the owners and employees; the Board elected to make this a condition of approval. 

For the record, Mr. Ressue noted that there was no one present in opposition of this license. 

MOTION

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the application and authorize issuance of a Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License for The Rock Inn, Limited, dba The Rock Inn, located at 1675 Highway 66, Estes Park, Colorado, once the owners and employees have received the appropriate TIPS training. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 2:10 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

    __________________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

            BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk     

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.