> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 01/17/06  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, JANUARY 16, 2006

 

The Courthouse Offices were closed in observance of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2006

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#5)

 

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:  Bob Keister, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Laurel Kubin, Cooperative Extension Office; Casey Stewart, Planning Department; Linda Coxen, District Attorney's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.   PUBLIC COMMENT:    There was no public comment.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 9, 2006

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of January 9, 2006, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 23, 2006:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

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 January 17, 2006:

 

01172006A001           COMMUNICATIONS PRODUCTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND MOTOROLA, INC.

 

01172006A002           CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND LARIMER COUNTY

 

01172006D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY LISA A. SABICHI FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

01172006D002           DEED OF DEDICATION BY MICHAEL D. AND MARYELLEN C. NOBE FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

01172006D003           DEED OF DEDICATION BY RICHARD J. RULE FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

01172006D004           DEED OF DEDICATION BY ANDREA A. TAPLEY FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

01172006D005           DEED OF DEDICATION BY GOLDEN MARMOT INVESTMENTS, LLC FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

01172006R001           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 5A, 5B, 6 AND 19 OF BLOCK 19 AND LOT 26 OF BLOCK 19A IN THE HIAWATHA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION

 

01172006R002           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 85, 86, AND 87 OF THE POUDRE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION 1ST FILING AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS

 

01172006R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE KELLER RANCH PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN

 

01172006R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 2 AND 3 IN FORT COLLINS INDUSTRIAL PARK 1ST FILING

 

01172006R005           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT FOR LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 20 IN HIAWATHA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION

 

01172006R006           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR SOARING PEAKS RANCH CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT

 

01172006R007           RESOLUTION CANCELING 2003 TAXES DETERMINED TO BE UNCOLLECTIBLE

 

01172006R008           RESOLUTION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE CORY L. ALLEN PROPERTY

 

01172006R009           RESOLUTION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE ESTHER L. BICKEL PROPERTY

 

01172006R010           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS

 

01172006R011           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COLORADO BOAT CENTER SIGN APPEAL

 

MISCELLANEOUS:   The Larimer County Sheriff's Office Enhanced Deferred Compensation Program Plan Document; Personnel Authorization Request for Management Analyst for Community Corrections; Personnel Authorization Request for Employment Specialist for Workforce Center; Department of Human Services Payment for November 2005; Personnel Authorization Request for Landscape Manager for the Fairgrounds; Personnel Authorization Request for Campus-Wide Event Manager for the Fairgrounds.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were both approved and issued:  Coach House Lounge - Tavern - Loveland; Masonville Store - 3.2% - Masonville.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.   REQUEST PERMISSION TO ALLOCATE EXTENSION FUND FOR TWO POSITIONS:  Ms. Kubin explained that the Larimer County Extension Office has been working in conjunction with the Health Department for the past year to provide training for food service workers.  Ms. Kubin requested Board approval to hire a .75 employee to continue in this effort, and further explained that her budget could accommodate the funding of this position. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve allocating the Extension funds for the position of a Food Safety & Health Extension Agent.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Ms. Kubin then requested Board approval to create a .25 position to support the 4-H Horse program in Larimer County.  Ms. Kubin stated that this would be a county position, hired through the county personnel process, and again stated that her budget could accommodate the funding of this position.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve allocating Extension funds for the position of a Program Assistant for the 4-H Horse Program.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.   RED FEATHER MOUNTAIN LIBRARY DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEE APPOINTMENTS:  Mr. Lancaster explained that the Red Feather Library Board has submitted their recommendations for appointments to the library board, and that under Colorado Statute; the Board of County Commissioners actually must approve these recommendations. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments of Paul Jocas, Bette Sailors, and Sue Wiese to the Board of Trustees for the Red Feather Mountain Library District. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.   CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION DONATION REQUEST:  Mr. Lancaster explained that the Fort Collins Cinco de Mayo Celebration committee has again requested Larimer County to provide a donation of $1,000 to help support the 2006 celebration.  Mr. Lancaster stated that this is the same amount the Board has provided for the last several years.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve allocating $1,000 from the Commissioners' Special Projects Fund to support the Fort Collins Cinco de Mayo Celebration.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  PRESENTATION OF QUARTERLY POLICY GOVERNANCE PERFORMANCE REPORT:  Mr. Lancaster reported 100% compliance for this report.

 

9.  WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster stated that they have not received enough applicants to fill the positions on the Human Services Citizen Review Panel (CRP).  He asked if the Board wished to continue seeking applicants, or consider reducing the number of positions on the CRP.  Some discussion ensued.  The Board agreed to assign a range of 9 - 15 positions to serve on the CRP, as this would provide flexibility and still meet the requirements of this panel.  Mr. Lancaster stated that he would have the County Attorney's office draft a new resolution to reflect this change.

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

 

11.   REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF ZONING VARIANCE FEES:  Mr. Stewart explained that Mr. and Mrs. Lofink, property owners of 90 Letitia Circle in Red Feather Lakes, constructed an addition to their residence and built two detached garages without first obtaining the proper permits.  Mr. Stewart stated that the garages are closer than allowed by building setback requirements, and a Setback Variance Application will have to be submitted by the Lofink's in order to correct this issue.  Mr. Stewart explained that the Lofink's are elderly and on a fixed income; therefore, they are requesting a waiver of the $880 Setback Variance Application fee.  Commissioner Rennels stated that there will probably be more of these requests coming from the Red Feather Lakes area residents, as the property lines and roads in this community are all in need of being resurveyed.  The Board agreed to support this request.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the zoning variance fees of $880.00 for Mr. and Mrs. Lofink, at 90 Letitia Circle in Red Feather Lakes.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12.   APPROVE CONVERTING TEMPORARY DOLLARS IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ONE FTE:  Ms. Coxen explained that there is a great need in the District Attorney’s Office for a Records Management Technician.  She noted that their caseload is creating an overwhelming amount of paperwork, which has increased the need for clerical support within the office.  Ms. Coxen noted that they have the dollars budgeted in their temporary staff line item, and wish to convert those dollars in order to hire a full time employee.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve converting budgeted temporary dollars into a full time Records Management Technician position in the District Attorney’s Office.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

13.  LEGAL MATTERS:    There were no legal matters to discuss.

 

The meeting recessed at 10:15 a.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#5 & 6)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Rennels and Wagner were present.  Also present were:  Russ Legg, and Karin Madson, Planning Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Tom Garton, and Karlin Sedlacek, Building Department; Susanne Durkin-Schindler, Public Involvement Coordinator for the Rural Addressing Project; George Hass, 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 Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  Chair Gibson explained that Items 1 through 4 are consent items and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

1.    CARRIAGE HILLS 4TH FILING:  AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 51 AND 52, BLOCK 10:  This is a request to consolidate the remaining portions of Lots 51 and 52, Carriage Hills 4th filing.  This new lot will be labeled Lot 53A, and will incorporate a vacated portion of the original 1911 Fish Creek Road right-of-way.  Finally, this plat will dedicate right-of-way to account for the actual location of Fish Creek Road, which is not where the original right-of-way is located.

This amended plat will help clarify property lines, legal lot questions, and legal descriptions in an area Staff has wanted to see clarification for a number of years.   This plat will address the remnants of several plats dating back twenty years.  There have been two previous amended plats that resolved similar issues just north of this area (Lots 49 through 53). 

After researching these previous plats, as well as metes and bounds property transfers, Staff has concluded the remnant portion of Lot 52 is currently a legal lot, as the other portions of it were absorbed into surrounding lots.  Therefore, this plat is essentially a “boundary line adjustment.”   The resultant lot is to be known as Lot 53A because one of the previous amended plats mistakenly labeled what was Lot 53, and absorbed a portion of Lot 52, as Lot 52A. 

Staff recommends approval of the requested Amended Plat of Lots 51 and 52 Carriage Hills 4th Filing and vacation of a portion of Fish Creek Road right-of-way subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

  1. The Larimer County Engineering Department has reviewed and agreed to the proposed right-of-way vacation and dedication.

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

  1. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.  No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
  2. Within sixty (60) 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 51 and 52 Carriage Hills 4th Filing and vacation of a portion of Fish Creek Road right-of-way subject conditional to:

  1. The dedication statement shall comply with the format set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code.

2.   Utility easements (10-foot) shall be dedicated around the perimeter of the lot.

3.   The plat shall indicate existing easements to be vacated.

4.   The vicinity map shall be corrected.

 

2.  CENTENNIAL HILLS AMENDED PLAT:  This is a request to adjust the common interior lot line between two existing lots.  The utility easement centered over the existing lot line will be retained, and this boundary adjustment will not affect building setback or minimum lot size requirements. Staff recommends approval of the requested Amended Plat of Amended Plat of Lot 9 Centennial Hills Subdivision; and Lot 2A of the Amended Plat of Lots 2 and 3 of the Replat of the Amended Plat of Lots 6, 7, and 8 Centennial Hills Subdivision subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

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

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

3. 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.

4.  Within sixty (60) 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 Lot 9 Centennial Hills Subdivision; and Lot 2A of the Amended Plat of Lots 2 and 3 of the Replat of the Amended Plat of Lots 6, 7, and 8 Centennial Hills Subdivision conditional to: 

1.  Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements).

2.  Per Section 3.9.D1a, the standard Boundary Line Adjustment shall be included on the plat.

3.  The north arrow on the vicinity map shall be corrected.

4. The lots shall be clearly labeled as “Lot 9A, 2.759 acres,” with the former lot designation and size delineated with small font, and placed within parenthesis.

5.  The title and dedication statement shall be changed to accurately delineate the former title (change “Lots 2 and 3” to “Lot 2A”).

6.  The dedication statement shall comply with the dedication statement set forth in Appendix B, Attachment A of the Estes Valley Development Code.

 

3.  COYOTE RIDGE PHASE I: PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT:  This is a request for Preliminary and Final Plat to create five lots where four exist now.  This proposal includes two existing six-acre lots created with a Boundary Line Adjustment in 2003, and will convert the 22-acre and 42-acre lots that were created with the 2003 BLA into two seven-acre lots, a six-acre open space lot (7+7+6=20 acres required for two lots), and a 44-acre lot. 

The 44-acre lot mirrors the land area necessary for the potential five lot open space subdivision approved by the Board of County Commissioners in November 2003, should that be implemented (set to expire in November 2006). 

Staff recommends approval of the requested Coyote Ridge Phase I Preliminary and Final Plats subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, and authorization for the Chair to sign the plats when the conditions are met and the plats are presented for signature:

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

2.  Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed subdivision.

3. 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.

4.  This subdivision is subject to compliance with applicable sections of the EVDC, including Chapter 10 “Subdivision Standards.”

5.  The owners of Lots 3 and 4 should consider petitioning Larimer County to be excluded from the recently formed Eagle Rock Ranches Property Improvement District.  Larimer County Engineering has expressed support for the removal of Lots 3 and 4, but would not support the removal of Lot 5 from the PID.  This is a separate but related matter, and will be the responsibility of the property owner to pursue this action after recording of the plat.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Coyote Ridge Phase I Preliminary and Final Plats conditional to: 

1.  Compliance with Town Attorney White’s memo dated October 17, 2005.

2.  Compliance with Larimer County Department of Health and Environment’s memo dated October 24, 2005.

3.   The plat shall be titled “Coyote Ridge Phase I.”

4.  The required Disclosure Notice shall include a statement regarding the installation of the water main.  This statement shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department.

5.  The trail shall be limited to non-motorized vehicles, horses and pedestrians, no public improvements other than the trail and associated drainage structures shall be constructed.  The trail shall not be constructed until such time as it connects to adjacent trail sections at the boundaries of this subdivision.

 

4.  DECKER-VAN HORN EXEMPTION AMENDED PLAT:  This is a request to adjust the common interior lot line between two existing lots.  This boundary adjustment will not affect building setback or minimum lot size requirements.  The property owner wishes to move the property line to accommodate a future driveway on Tract B1 without the need to encumber Tract C1 with an access easement.

Staff recommends approval of the requested Amended Plat of Tracts B and C, Decker-Van Horn Exemption Plat subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat once the conditions have been met and the plat is presented for signature: 

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

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

3. 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.

4.  Within sixty (60) 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 Tracts B and C, Decker-Van Horn Exemption Plat conditional to:

1.   Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements).

2.   Change title to “Amended Plat” instead of “Boundary Line Adjustment.”

3.   Change tracts “A and B” in the title block to tracts “B and C.”

4.   The Dedication Statement shall comply with the Certification of Ownership and Dedication set forth in Appendix B of the Estes Valley Development Code.

5.   The dedication statement needs to reflect a single perimeter legal description, not the two individual parcels.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1 through 4, as listed on the consent agenda and outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  RICO TIERRA CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION/APPEAL - #05-G0094:  This is a request to appeal for an Exception pursuant to Section 5.3.2.H of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow division of a 57 acre parcel into 2 lots through the Subdivision process rather than the required Conservation Development process.  The applicant owns a 57-acre parcel off of Cherokee Park Road in the Cherokee Meadows area.  This area is zoned O-Open and characterized by 35+ acre tracts.  The applicant is requesting the Board of County Commissioners grant an exception/appeal to the requirement that a parcel in the rural area of the County over 30 acres must use the Conservation Development process for any land division. The applicant provided information to support this request.  The applicant would like to create two lots of 42 and 15 acres in size. 

 

The Land Use Code states that Conservation Development is intended to ensure that residential development on parcels of 30 acres or more (outside GMA Districts) is designed with creativity to maintain the open character of rural areas and protect and maintain agricultural uses and environmentally-sensitive areas while permitting development to the zoning density. This is accomplished by clustering development on lots smaller than would otherwise be permitted and keeping the remainder of the site in residual land to maintain the open character of rural areas, protect and encourage continuation of existing agricultural uses, protect and maintain environmentally-sensitive areas or features such as steep slopes, flood plains, hazard areas, unique geologic features, ridgelines, unique vegetation and critical plant communities, stream corridors, wetlands or riparian areas, wildlife habitat and migration corridors, areas containing threatened or endangered species and special places of Larimer County and to promote compatibility with existing and permitted adjacent land uses.

Exceptions to the requirement for a Conservation Development may be granted by the County Commissioners.  An application for development of the site must be submitted within three years from the date an Exception is approved or the Exception will automatically expire. Criteria for consideration of an Exception request include, but are not limited to:

 

1.   The size and configuration of the site does not permit design consistent with the purpose of Conservation Developments.

The property could be divided by either process.  It would likely be possible to develop the property consistent with the purpose of the Conservation Development process.  In this case the proposed layout for a single additional lot would not preclude further development of the proposed 42 acre lot as a Conservation Development.  Staff recommends that any further division of the property be required to be processed and meet the requirements of a Conservation Development.

2.   Development of the site as a Conservation Development is not compatible with existing or allowed adjacent development.

Development of the site as a Conservation Development could be compatible with adjacent development.  Surrounding properties include 35 acre parcels and State owned land.  It is Staff’s opinion that either method of land division could be used. 

3.   The site does not have environmentally sensitive areas or agricultural uses and clustered design would not contribute to the open character of the rural area.

The site does contain a natural drainage, intermittent stream and riparian area.  Development of the site as a Conservation Development would require that proposed lots be clustered and residual land provided.  The current request for an additional single lot could be designed to avoid these areas through the use of building envelopes. 

4.   Development of the site as a Conservation Development may impact adjacent environmentally sensitive areas or agricultural uses more so than other forms of land division allowed under this Code.

Development of the property as a Conservation Development would not impact either feature more than a conventional subdivision. 

5.   The site is a replat of an existing Subdivision or portion of an existing Subdivision.

The property is not a replat of any existing subdivision.

The Development Services Team finds that in this case, and with the subdivision layout proposed, that either land division process could be used the achieve the purpose of the Conservation Development.  Comments from Porter Ingrum indicate that Staff has no objections to this appeal to allow a land division to be processed as a 2-lot subdivision.  The Department of Health and Environment commented that due to the geologic conditions present in this type of mountainous fracture system, larger lots provide for separation of wells and septic systems.  The Engineering Department commented that as long as the proposed subdivision meets Section 8 Standards for All Development the department offers no specific recommendation regarding the appeal. The proposed subdivision would not preclude further development of the property as a Conservation Development.  

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Rico Tierra Conservation Development Exception/Appeal subject to the following conditions:

1.   The Plat for the proposed subdivision shall be generally consistent with this Rico Tierra Conservation Development Exception/Appeal request.

2.   The applicant will place a deed restriction on the remainder of the proposed 42-acre lot to prohibit any further development.

3.   The proposed Subdivision shall include building envelopes to provide adequate separation and buffer from the natural drainage, intermittent stream and riparian area.

Ms. Madson briefly explained the application as outlined above.  Ms Madson noted that the purpose of today’s meeting was to determine which process would be used proceed with the application, and that specifics surrounding the actual land division would be discussed after the process is determined.   The applicant, John Hanna, explained that he wants to divide the land so that he can build one additional home.  Commissioner Rennels asked if Mr. Hanna would be willing to place a deed restriction on the land to prevent further development.  Mr. Hanna stated that he would be willing to agree to this.  At this time Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment.

Rick Zier, Dave Herder, Heather Knight, Scott and Rita Shovea, Kathy Orloski, Jerry and Jennifer Lang, Ron Patrious, Dean Mcintire, Dick Vessel, Jim Herrington, Georgia Maynard, Sumner Sargent, Curt Radke, Charles Baker, Vern Dabien, Sister Maria Merle, all addressed the Board in opposition to the application.  They were opposed for the following reasons:  1. The applicant should not be allowed to use the Subdivision process versus the Conservation Development process.  2.  If approved, this application will have a negative impact on their community, and on their water availability.  3.  Many in the area have made a huge commitment to maintain open space, and if approved, this application could jeopardize that effort.  4.  The application should go to the Planning Commission for review and comment.  5.  The development “flies in the face” of what the community is trying to accomplish.  6. The development would not be consistent with the 35-acre properties in the area.  7.  If approved, it would set a precedent of creating smaller parcels and will change the nature of their community.  8.  Residents were attracted to the area and built their homes there because they were larger parcels with less density.  

Mr. Hanna stated that he is willing to meet with the neighbors in the community to discuss his proposal.  Commissioner Wagner asked if Mr. Hanna would be willing to make both parcels similar in size in order to maintain consistency with the properties in the area.  Mr. Hanna stated that there is a logical break in the terrain, and this is where he is planning on building the home.  He stated that even if the property lines were adjusted, it would not make a visual difference, as the homes would be placed in the same manner. 

Mr. Helmick stated that the only decision before the Board today was to choose the process that will be used to proceed with the application.  He explained that both processes will go before the Planning Commission, and that Mr. Hanna will have to hold neighborhood meetings and public forums to solicit feedback from the community.  Mr. Helmick stated that the evaluation criterion for both processes is basically the same, and that the major differences between the two are the clustering of homesites and the lot sizes.  Mr. Helmick also clarified that the residual land dedicated in Conservation Developments is restricted from development; however, it is not open space and could be fenced, etc.  Commissioner Wagner asked if there was a cost difference by using one method versus the other.  Mr. Helmick stated that the cost difference is nominal.

Commissioner Rennels noted that Mr. Hanna is willing to place a deed restriction to limit further development on the remaining land, which in essence, means that the density would be restricted to two homesites.  She explained that if the Conservation Development process is utilized, then there could potentially be up to five homesites, and when the homesites are clustered it could end up looking like something that does not conform to the neighborhood.  Commissioner Wagner stated that the word subdivision has a real urban connotation; however, in this instance, the subdivision would only result in two lots, which would be more compatible with the surrounding community.  She agreed that it would be better to accept Mr. Hanna’s generous offer at this time.  Chair Gibson was also in favor of the appeal for these reasons.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Rico Tierra Conservation Development Exception/Appeal as recommended by staff, with the modification to Condition #2, which places a deed restriction on the remainder of the proposed 42-acre lot to prohibit any further development.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  BIGHORN CROSSING ADDRESSING CHANGE APPEAL - #05-S2516: This is a request from the Westridge Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) to retain addresses assigned prior to the implementation of the Rural Addressing Project. 

Due to a vacant lot application for a single-family residence off Bighorn Crossing, the Rural Addressing Project entered this area sooner than the anticipated scheduled time frame.  With this application and assignment of a new address, it became apparent there were several discrepancies with respect to addressing along Bighorn Crossing. Staff recognized inconsistencies with the odd/even number schemes and sequential numbering along the road.  During the analysis to determine a new address to issue the building permit, the stretch of road known as Bighorn Crossing needed to be re-addressed to comply with the Rural Addressing System and effectively assist in finding properties for emergency and non-emergency situations.

In review of this area, the project team found 12 properties immediately taking access off Bighorn Crossing that would require an address change.  Additional properties using Bighorn Crossing as an address would require a new road name and number.  Based upon the findings, staff moved to change the addresses along Bighorn Crossing. 

Property owners, in accordance with the Rural Addressing Resolution, will be affected in one of two ways: 1) by project area – when their area is slated for phased implementation, or 2) when triggered by a building permit application in an area where corrections need to be made to address numbers and/or the road name.  Those in the second category are not given advance information about the Rural Addressing Improvement Project since it is not known when/where a building permit application will be submitted that will “trigger” such changes in the vicinity.  In association with the guidelines established by the resolution governing this process, when vacant property needs an address this often triggers the requirement for the Rural Addressing Project to enter the area earlier than anticipated.  Due to time and resource constraints, county staff did not complete a public outreach to the potentially affected homeowners along Bighorn Crossing that typically would have been conducted in the normal phased Rural Addressing Project process.  

County staff and the Rural Addressing Project Public Involvement Coordinator met with a HOA representative and a property owner on November 9, 2005.  During this meeting, staff highlighted the following problems with the existing addressing along Bighorn Crossing:

1.  Previously assigned numbers are not accurate and systematic.  Odd and even number schemes were not adhered to; numbering along the road is not sequential and consistently increasing.

2.  Inconsistent addressing schemes lead to identification problems.  The existing numbering scheme provides much confusion to service providers and was even recognized by the HOA as creating confusion but people eventually figure it out.  The “eventually figure it out” clearly demonstrates this is a problem with the current numbering and it reveals the dilemma in a much larger magnitude with property owner changes and emergency service staffing changes over time.

3.  The once used Fort Collins grid system does not work in mountain areas and winding roads. The grid system is based upon linear streets typically horizontal and parallel inside subdivisions.   After completing the review of addressing on the road, which was originally done in theory by the grid system, it was found to create problems.  The road is curvilinear and based upon the grid system starts low and curves to end low creating a range of numbers on the back side of the mountain that are not systematic. 

4.  An appeal was made to the Chief Building Official regarding the proposed address changes.  After discussion with Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) and other agencies, this appeal to retain the addresses “as is” was denied on the basis of the above factors and noncompliance with the established criteria for Rural Addressing. 

The Development Services Team recommendation is to deny the request from Westridge Ranch Homeowners Association and affected property owners 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.  LETA in response to this appeal fundamentally requests that addressing be sequential, with odd/even numbering on opposite sides, and the Rural Addressing Resolution be followed by obtaining consistent and logical numbering schemes along Bighorn Crossing.

3.  Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) Administration has also expressed concern with the existing addressing on Bighorn Crossing and requests that this road be in compliance with the intent of the Rural Addressing System.  PFA requests the numbering schemes be amended in accordance with the resolution intent.

4.  The existing numbering causes problems with emergency and non-emergency services.  With numbers getting larger and then decreasing and with odds and evens on both sides, this negates the intent of the addressing resolution.

5.  By exempting this area or creating this area as an exception to the Rural Addressing System, it would be negating the efforts to create logical, systematic, and consistent addressing schemes with the County.  Creation of such “pockets” will only hinder this project, increase the potential for similar appeal pursuits, and disrupt the intent as requested by funding providers such as LETA.

Staff recommends that owners with direct access from Bighorn Crossing be addressed as presented and those with indirect access obtain a new non-duplicated county approved road name with new address numbers accordingly.

Mr. Garton explained the appeal as outlined above.  He explained that four of the eleven property owners will be able to retain their addresses; however, they are appealing this action because they wish to keep all of their addresses the same.  Ms. Sedlacek reviewed maps of the area, which outlined the current addresses, and then presented maps of the proposed addresses.

Hugh Mahon and Paul Martin, representatives of the Westridge Ranch Homeowners Association, stated that the residents to be affected are not happy about having to change their addresses, particularly since three of them recently went through an address change.  Mr. Martin noted that they have not experienced any problems with people finding their homes, or with mail or parcels being delivered to their homes.  He stated that he has been in touch with the Fire Authorities and discovered that PFA uses digital maps to get to the homes when necessary.  Mr. Martin also stated that the area residents are willing to make road signs more visible and place address markers on their houses and at the end of their driveways.  There was no public comment on this item.

Commissioner Rennels stated that the biggest concern was getting emergency personnel to the homes at those critical times when they are needed.  She explained that leaving certain “pockets” in various places of the County would not make sense, and would eventually cause a hardship to emergency personnel and others trying to locate the homes.  Commissioner Wagner asked if there has been any consideration as to how the County could help these citizens through this process.  Mr. Garton stated that there are agencies that can assist and make the transition as smooth as possible.  Chair Gibson stated that he is committed to keeping this process consistent, and is in favor of accepting staff’s recommendation and adopting the proposed address changes. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to retain existing addresses and that addresses be assigned consistent with the Rural Addressing System and Resolution.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

 

 

    __________________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

            BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk