Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 03/19/07  

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, March 19, 2007

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#33 & #34)

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Planning Department.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioner Rennels was present.  Also present were: Russ Legg, and Samantha Mott, Planning Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk. 

 

Chair Wagner opened the hearing 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.  Chair Wagner then explained that the Waverly Place Lots 2 & 15 Amended Plat - #07-S2667 was scheduled to be tabled to a later date.  Ms. Mott stated that the applicant is requesting the item be tabled in order to provide more time to review the plat.  There was no public comment regarding this item.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Waverly Place Lots 2 & 15 Amended Plat – #07-S2667 to April 16, 2007, at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

Chair Wagner then noted that Items 1 through 2 are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or a member of the audience:

 

 

1.  GREEN MOUNTAIN MEADOWS 2ND FILING LOTS 2 & 4 AMENDED PLAT/EASEMENT VACATION - #07-S2664:  This is a request for an Amended Plat to reconfigure the existing lot lines of two adjacent lots, Lots 2 and 4, in the Green Mountain Meadows 2nd Filing by adding approximately 1 acre of Lot 2 to Lot 4.  A portion of a utility easement and a portion of a private road access easement will also be vacated along with this plat.

 

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 Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team; the Larimer County Addressing Coordinator; Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department; and Code Compliance Section has noted that there is currently one Code Compliance issue connected with Parcel Number 29131-06-002, File #06-CC0286. This amended plat in no way resolves the code compliance issue regarding the location and use of the dwelling on Parcel 29131-06-002.

 

The proposed plat amendment to reconfigure the lot lines between Lots 2 and 4 of Green Mountain Meadows 2nd Filing and vacate the utility easement along the old lot line will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency.  The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots.  Staff finds that this request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat Lots 2 and 4, Green Mountain Meadows, 2nd Filing and Easement Vacation, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by September 19, 2007, or this approval shall be null and void.
  2. Prior to recordation, the Final Plat shall be revised to include a signature block for all lien holders.

 

 

2.  POWELL BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT:  This is a request to adjust the configuration of two existing lots in the High Drive neighborhood.  One lot is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, with fronts directly on Laurel Lane.  The other lot is currently undeveloped, but is a legal buildable lot.  The property owner desires to realign the property line so the undeveloped lot has direct frontage on Laurel Lane, thus eliminating the need for an access easement across their property.  This proposal does not create any additional impact on the neighborhood.

 

Staff has received numerous comments from neighbors regarding this proposal, the majority of which are against the Boundary Line Adjustment.  Typical concerns include impact on the road system, the Hondius water system, and overall development.  However, there are two existing legal lots, and as mentioned, this proposal will not allow any additional development than is allowed under the current lot configuration.  This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.

 

Staff recommends approval of the requested Powell Boundary Line Adjustment subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and outlined below:

 

  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 the sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void.

 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Powell Boundary Line Adjustment conditional to compliance with a memo from Town Attorney White dated January 24, 2007.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1 through 2, as presented on the consent agenda and outlined above.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

3.  JONES SPECIAL EXCEPTION – #06-Z1593:  This is a request for a Special Exception to allow a mobile home on a C (Commercial) zoned property to be used as a caretaker’s residence for the existing business on the property.  On October 18, 2006, the Development Services Team presented the Jones Special Exception to the Planning Commission as a discussion item.  After the Development Services Team presentation, the applicant gave a brief overview of the project, which was followed by public comments from the applicant’s family. After hearing the testimony, the Planning Commission made a recommendation of denial, stating that no special circumstances were evident for support of the request. The Planning Commission made a unanimous vote to deny the request.

 

On November 20, 2006, the Development Services Team presented the Jones Special Exception to the Board of County Commissioners.  After receiving the testimony of the applicant and Development Services Team, the Board moved to table the hearing so that the applicant could approach the Town of Berthoud regarding possible use of the property or annexation so that the property could be developed consistent with the town’s land use objectives.  Since the hearing date, the Development Services Team has not received any contact from the applicant regarding the subject request or the results of conversations with the Town of Berthoud.

 

The Development Services Team recommendation still remains that the application should be denied and residential uses on commercial properties should not be allowed except in situations where public access to a secure area is likely to occur at all times throughout the day. 

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that the applicant would like to use the mobile home on the property for a caretaker’s residence.  Mr. Lafferty also stated that the property is commercially zoned, which means that a private residence is not allowed.  Paul Jones, applicant, said that he has looked in to the possibility of annexing his property in to the Town of Berthoud, but it is not a path he wants to take at this time.  Mr. Jones believes that he has a contract from the county which states that he can keep a mobile home on the property.  Mr. Lafferty clarified that the applicant was allowed to keep the mobile home on the premises only for a limited time while he was cleaning up the debris on the property. 

 

Chair Wagner and Commissioner Rennels agree that they are not in favor of a special exception because it would set precedence for situations like this in the future.  Commissioner Rennels explained that since the county already approved a division of the lots to allow for one residential lot on the property, she does not feel as though the mobile home is necessary.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Jones Special Exception, File #06-Z1593, as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Development Services Team. 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

4.  YMCA OF THE ROCKIES MASTER PLAN:  This Master Plan is being presented by the YMCA to the Estes Valley Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners to outline a 20-year plan. The YMCA is a 900-acre conference center established in 1907, providing services to approximately 250,000 visitors a year.  Services include conference facilities, lodging, horseback riding, hiking, arts/crafts, and day camps.

 

This is a request for approval of a Master Plan for the YMCA of the Rockies Estes Park Center.  The Master Plan is intended to provide guidance for development over the next twenty years.  The Estes Valley Development Code does not include specific review criteria for “Master Plans.”  Staff has conducted code analysis for applicable code sections such as density, setback, stormwater, and utilities.  This review is intended to provide a “template” for review of future development plans, and approve waivers to specific code sections such as road paving, curb/gutter, and sidewalks.

 

The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan set forth a goal to adopt a Master Plan for the YMCA center.  Because of this guideline, staff has been encouraging the YMCA to proceed with a Master Plan for a number of years.  The YMCA master planning process began in 2005, and has been through a thorough process.  It is staff’s opinion that the overall quality and vision of the Master Plan is excellent.  The plan envisions higher levels of development in a core area.  Redevelopment of this core area would include relocation of existing parking lots and drives, new and replacement lodge buildings, and an open space and pedestrian system.  Development outside the core area includes additional cabins, staff housing, and “reunion cabins.”

 

Staff suggests that several code requirements can be waived with the understanding that some additional development standards be imposed.  Suggested waivers to the Estes Valley Development Code include:  Road and sidewalk paving; development plan review for certain buildings; and sidewalks along Tunnel Road.  Suggested additional requirements to the Estes Valley Development Code include:  Additional parking lot landscaping; and stricter exterior lighting standards.

 

Planning Commission Hearing:  Several neighbors and concerned citizens were present at the Planning Commission hearing (five people spoke).  The overwhelming concern expressed was potential development off Tunnel Road, where the YMCA would like to retain the option to locate up to three “family reunion cabins” (which each include 6-8 bedrooms).  Staff received letters from thirteen concerned citizens, along with a petition with 130 signatures on it.  The petition was dated September 2006, and was in opposition to proposed staff lodging on Tunnel Road (the plan has since been changed to allow for reunion cabins, which are not in use on a daily basis).

 

Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan:  The Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan was the primary justification neighbors cited to prohibit development in this area.  The Spur Plan was adopted as a set of guidelines (not regulations) by the Board of County Commissioners in 1996.  Staff reviewed this document as part of the overall Master Plan review, and found no restrictions on locating development in this particular area.  Instead, there is a variety of site specific design guidelines related to scale of buildings, architectural elements, landscaping, and parking.  As none of these specifics were presented with the Master Plan, it is staff’s opinion that the Spur 66 Plan does not apply at this time. 

 

Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan:  In addition to the Spur 66 Plan, the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan was reviewed.  Chapter six of the Estes Valley Plan includes a “Spur 66” sub-area.  The Spur 66 planning sub-area includes the following development guideline:  “The YMCA frontage should be protected as open space.  The YMCA should release a Master Plan illustrating future development.”  Staff considers the proposed Master Plan to be a step towards implementation of the Estes Valley Plan. 

 

The Spur 66 sub-area also includes the following special consideration: “The YMCA Camp is a significant attraction in the area, and impacts of future development must be considered on the surrounding area.  The highway frontage of the YMCA property is an important buffer, visual, and environmental element.” 

 

The proposed reunion cabins located along Tunnel Road may not comply with the guideline to maintain that area as open space; more information is required to make this determination.  Because of this, the Planning Commission adopted this Finding:  “Because not enough information has been provided at this time, approval of this Master Plan does not include approval or disapproval to locate any development along the Tunnel Road frontage.  Any future development in that area shall be subject to review and approval of the Estes Valley Planning Commission.”

 

The Planning Commission finds and recommends to the Board of County Commissioners the following:

 

  1. This is a request for a master plan outlining future development of the YMCA of The Rockies Estes Park Center, and includes waivers to several code standards such as curb/gutter and paving standards, and also includes additional restrictions to code standards such as outdoor lighting.  Future development will be subject to standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code.
  2. With the exception of specific waivers subject to approval of the Board of County Commissioners, the development plan complies with all applicable standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code.
  3. The Master Plan is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Estes Valley Plan.
  4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.
  5. This is a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (who need to approve various waivers).
  6. Approval of this plan provides a three year vesting period pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S.  The YMCA may request subsequent vesting period extensions with review by the Estes Valley Planning Commission and approval of the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.
  7. Because not enough information has been provided at this time, approval of this master plan does not include approval or disapproval to locate any development along the Tunnel Road frontage.  Any future development in that area shall be subject to review and approval of the Estes Valley Planning Commission.

 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed YMCA of the Rockies Master Plan subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. Future development shall comply with the approved Master Plan.  Future plan amendments shall be presented to the Estes Valley Planning Commission for review.  Staff shall be authorized to review minor plan revisions pursuant to Section 3.7 of the Estes Valley Development Code.
  2. With the exception of waivers outlined below, development shall comply with the provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code and other applicable codes.
  3. The YMCA of the Rockies shall present a report to the Estes Valley planning staff on a yearly basis. YMCA shall be responsible for scheduling this meeting in January or February.  This report shall include a summary of the previous year’s development activity, as well as intentions for the coming year.  The purpose of this report is to ensure a high level of communication and allow the Estes Valley staff to inform the YMCA of development requirements such as changes to the Estes Valley Development Code and review timeframes to minimize delays in processing building permits and/or development plans.
  4. Development plans shall not be required for the following development, as delineated in the Master Plan:  Entry features, replacement cabins, maintenance facilities, guest/family cabins, outdoor chapels, picnic/cookout shelters, restrooms/shower facilities, human resources complex, gathering spaces, or other small projects that do not individually exceed 2,000 square feet. Building and/or grading permits shall be required, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Estes Valley planning staff and applicable Larimer County staff (such as engineering, building, and health).  Staff recommends the YMCA meet with planning staff prior to beginning design to discuss requirements. Staff reserves the right to require a development plan for individual projects should it be determined a building permit application does not contain adequate information to review for compliance with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
  5. At such time that Mountainside Drive is re-aligned, it shall be designed and paved to county road standards up to the point of the proposed new alignment.  From that point on up the hill, Mountainside Drive shall be built to rural standards set forth in the Larimer County Road Manual (adequate width, crown, ditch sections, and road base with no paving or curb/gutter).  The proposed alignment of Mountainside Drive shall be subject to review and approval of staff to ensure proper stream setbacks are maintained and engineering standards – including BMP standards for drainage, are met.
  6. Curb and gutter shall not be required for roads, unless necessitated by stormwater management requirements or sidewalks.  Roadside drainage swales shall meet Larimer County standards, or other as approved by the Larimer County Engineering Department.
  7. Photometric studies shall be included with all parking lot proposals.  No parking lot lighting shall exceed fifteen feet in height.
  8. Bollard style lighting shall be used for any proposed lighting of pedestrian areas.
  9. Staff recommends all existing outdoor lighting not necessary for security or safety purposes be turned off during non-operating hours.
  10. Future cabin development and redevelopment shall be coordinated with the Trails Master Plan.
  11. Paved sidewalks shall not be required along Spur 66 and interior streets and roads, except as delineated on the Land Use Master Plan.  Staff shall be authorized to approve alternative sidewalk materials such as pavers or finely crushed rock.  Any alternative materials shall provide for ADA accessibility.
  12. Parking lot interiors shall exceed the minimum planting requirements for parking lot interiors by twenty percent. For example, where the EVDC requires ten trees in a parking lot, twelve shall be required.
  13. Additional development shall require verification of adequate water rights.
  14. All new development shall require regulatory signage such as stop signs, meet MUTCD standards.  Street signs shall be mounted at a standard height and have reflective lettering to be visible at night from Tunnel Road all the way to the proposed development.
  15. All new development shall be addressed in accordance with the Larimer County addressing policies.
  16. No increase in occupancy shall occur until evacuation and wildfire mitigation plans have been approved by the Larimer County Emergency Coordinator.  The Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department Chief shall be consulted with on the preparation of these plans.
  17. An exclusive southbound right turn lane shall be constructed or guaranteed at the Tunnel Road-Kallenberg Drive intersection with the first traffic generating phase of development, such as a new cabin.
  18. The following roads that serve new lodges shall be paved to applicable standards concurrent with development (including parking lots):  Friendship Lane, Kallenberg Drive, and Mountainside Drive.  All other roads shall be exempt from paving requirements set forth in Section 7.12 of the Estes Valley Development Code.
  19. Any additional right-of-way necessary to satisfy the 40-foot half right-of-way required for the portions of Tunnel Road that are adjacent to this development shall be properly dedicated no later than December 31, 2007.
  20. A public pedestrian access easement shall be recorded for the existing trail along Tunnel Road no later than December 31, 2007.
  21. The overall lighting plan mentioned on page 35 should be developed within the first year of approval.  Entry lighting should be addressed first.
  22. The YMCA shall discuss partnering with the Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park to take part in the bus shuttle system.
  23. The existing building inventory should be updated to include the two new reunion cabins.
  24. The site area calculations should be finalized.
  25. References to Estes Park Sanitary Sewer District should be corrected to Upper Thompson Sanitation District.
  26. The slope analysis map should include an average slope calculation.
  27. The Trails Master Plan should be amended such that the “open space” and proposed reunion cabins do not conflict.
  28. A map of the sanitary sewer easement shall be included in the master plan. 

 

Dave Shirk, Estes Park Community Development Department, outlined the proposed YMCA Master Plan as stated above.  He explained that 13 letters were received along with petitions from homeowners in opposition of the Master Plan.  Mark Holdt, Vice President of planning and development for the YMCA of the Rockies, explained that the Master Plan is intended to improve the experience of its members.  He also emphasized that the Master Plan is not about growth and the development plan will have to occur over time, in phases.  Mr. Holt explained that trails and picnic areas will be installed first, followed by the completion of larger projects.  He also outlined the planning principles associated with the Master Plan including care and concern for the environment. 

 

Scott Cast, Denver resident, explained that he owns property adjacent to the YMCA.  He is worried that with the new Master Plan, trash and maintenance facilities will be located directly behind his house.  David Tiemeyer and Sarah Holdt, residents, had several questions for staff regarding the Master Plan, and Mr. Tiemeyer said that he was opposed to any development in “green space” where plant and animal habitat would be compromised.  Bryan Michener, resident, supports most of the development plan, but also has concerns for the environment.  He wants the areas known as “green space” to be more specific, so potential development of those areas is controlled. 

 

Chair Wagner voiced some concerns related to the location of the reunion cabins, and requested that the three cabins not be developed along Spur 66.  She said that she does not support the reunion cabins if built in their current proposed location.  Commissioner Rennels stated that she is in support of the Master Plan and believes it works well with the criteria set forth by the Estes Valley Planning Commission.

 

The Board proposed that an additional condition of approval be added which states approval or disapproval of reunion cabins is not included in the approval of the overall Master Plan.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed YMCA of the Rockies Master Plan subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commissioner with the addition of the following condition: Approval of this Master Plan does not include approval or disapproval of the site or construction of any reunion cabin.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 5:05 p.m.

 

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#35)

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioner Rennels was present.  Also present were: Karlin Goggin, Building Inspection; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Wagner opened the hearing 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.  MEINING ROAD ADDRESS/ROAD NAME APPEAL - #07-CAC0002:  Ms. Goggin explained that this is an appeal to the county’s decision to rename one of the three Meining Roads in Berthoud.  The Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution established standards and guidelines by which the Rural Address Improvement Project is carried out.  These basic premises have guided the decisions of staff with regards to recommending address changes in Larimer County.  There are five essential premises for the county requesting an address change.  They include, correcting non-sequential numbering, parity discrepancies (odds on one side; evens on the other), naming unnamed roads, road name hierarchy, and eliminating duplicated road names.  This appeal specifically pertains to non-contiguous roads that have created duplicate road names.

 

In November 2006, county staff recommended two sections of Meining Road be changed to comply with the adopted resolution regarding duplicate road names.  The reason for this change is none of the roads connect and come off varying directions of County Road 21 and County Road 23E.  This prompted an appeal letter from Mr. Keith Junker, of 2600 Meining Road, dated December 4, 2006.  On December 12, 2006, an appeal regarding the renaming of these roads was received from John Medvetz.   The appeal request was received by the Addressing Coordinator and denied on the basis of duplicated road names.  There are three different branches of the same road name.  Although the appellant states there are no problems, county staff research has found there has been confusion created by having the same name on three different non-connecting segments of roads.

 

Meining Road in Meeker View Subdivision, was the first to record the use of the road name in 1971.  This was followed by Meining Road in Kent Estates subdivision in 1972; then Berthoud Estates 1997; and finally platted in Summit View in 2003.  Pheasant Run subdivision platted Meining Road as a separate branch in 1973; however, no addressable structures are present and this road should be a unique road name at the time of development.  Two segments of Meining Road access from County Road 21 at different points.  They are not continuous and have no ability to connect. 

 

In accordance with the enabling Resolution, county staff determined two of the three segments need to be renamed.  Staff finds Meining Road 1 affects eleven (11) properties.  This is the fewest number of changes along any of the three segments.  Meining Road 2 shows the road splitting into two road names; however, this drives and flows as a continuous road.  County staff has determined this road could be named Pheasant Run and readdressed accordingly which would retain six (6) addresses if the road were renamed to Pheasant Run.  The change on Meining Road 2 affects thirteen (13) properties.

 

Larimer County has recommended the road segment in Kent Estates and Berthoud Estates be retained.  This road is continuous and affects forty-seven (47) properties.  According to the adopted Resolution, “the first road to use the name shall retain the name unless the number of affected properties on the later-named road exceeds by ten (10) or more the number on the first road to use the name.”  In this case, the road in Kent Estates and Berthoud Estates affects many more properties with a change of address.

 

According to staff research, Meeker View Subdivision and Kent Estates plat show the two roads originally platted as being connected.  However, these plats were recorded in 1971 and 1972 respectively and in over 30 years they have not been constructed as a continuous road. Historically, it has been shown that when roads are not constructed as originally platted, the property owners in the area do not want the road connection to be made.  This particularly is the case when the county does not provide road maintenance.

 

There are several basic scenarios regarding this road connection issue:

 

1.   The property owners in the area could work together (via a general improvement district) to get the road connection built at their expense; or

2.   The road ROW remain as is, but the road connection remains unconstructed; or

3.   The road connection ROW is vacated; or

4.   The road connection is improved as a part of, perhaps even a condition of, a future land division in the vicinity.

 

If the property owners did want to improve the road at their expense, the best method is via a General Improvement District.  County engineering staff would assist the property owners in setting up the General Improvement District.  The soonest this could occur, according to county engineering staff, is for the property owners to meet with county engineering staff no later than the fall of 2007, with an election regarding the formation of the district on the November, 2008 election ballot.  County staff experience in the area is that at least most property owners in the area do not want the road connection to be made.

 

Given the numerous scenarios currently available regarding this road connection, it is pre-mature to know whether the road connection will be made in the near future or not.  It appears pre-mature to consider vacation of the unimproved portion.  That being said, it would be unfortunate to re-name one of these road segments now, only to find that the road connection is made in the foreseeable future.  So in this unique case, it may be best to continue the duplication for this segment of Meining Road, at least for the time being. 

 

As stated previously the intent of the rural addressing improvement project is to identify and correct inconsistencies.  This appeal clearly shows three different segments of Meining Road, none of which connect.   This project has eliminated or is going to eliminate these exact types of duplications.  Roads already changed including Leslie Drive in Loveland; Juniper Lane in Estes Park; Colard Place in Lyons; and Buckhorn Court and Buckhorn Lane in Loveland, to name a few.  There are many other duplicate road names currently recommended and in the process of change due to duplication. 

 

The following agencies have provided comments regarding the potential name change of Meining Road:

 

  1. Supporting documentation from Berthoud Fire recommends that two of the three segments change.  From a first responder standpoint, this eliminates potential for mistakes and confusion.
  2. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) in response to this appeal fundamentally requests the Resolution be upheld.  In this case, LETA finds the road to be noncompliant with one of the five guiding premises for changing addresses within the scope of this project.  Duplicate road names can create confusion for 9-1-1.
  3. 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.
  4. Upholding this appeal will result in out of scope work and additional costs to this project, currently not funded, as the addressing is inconsistent with the Resolution.
  5. By allowing this appeal and exempting this area or creating any area as an exception to the Rural Addressing System would be negating the efforts of consistency already established within this project.  Many duplicate road names have been changed already and many more are targeted for change.  Creation of such “pockets” will only hinder the project.  It will most certainly increase similar appeal pursuits, and disrupt the guiding principals and intent for improvement as requested by funding providers. 
  6. Since the date of this case, the County Commissioners have amended the Resolution to disallow appeals regarding some duplicate road name, except in a few cases; however, this case does not meet the exception as allowed by the amended Resolution either.
  7. The purpose of the Site Addressing and Road Naming System is to provide property owners, the general public, and Larimer County with an accurate and systematic means of identifying and locating property.  This includes the modification of address numbers on existing addresses and change road names as part of administering the Resolution and addressing standards when found to be inconsistent.  The county is to establish a system of unique and consistent road names and address points while providing efficient public services and response.
  8. Various factors may result in the connection of the two most westerly Meining Road segments at some time in the foreseeable future.  That being the case, which is unique, these two segments should remain named Meining Road for the time being.  This issue should be re-visited periodically over time to determine whether such a connection is likely or not.  If not, one segment should be re-named at that time.

 

Keith Junker, applicant, stated that he is not in opposition of renaming Meining Road.  He explained that he currently lives on Berger Drive, but has the intention of changing the direction of his driveway; shifting his access to Meining Road.  When the driveway is complete he wants to change his address only once, to either Meining Road or Pheasant Run, not twice. 

 

At this time Chair Wagner opened the hearing for public comment.  No one addressed the Board at this time.  Ms. Goggin stated that Mr. Medvetz also submitted a letter of appeal stating that a road name change would be costly and time consuming.  However, he was not present at the hearing.  Some discussion among the Commissioners ensued.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to retain all Meining Roads as currently named and change the Meining Road off County Road 21 going east to Pheasant Run and renumber accordingly, which will retain 6 addresses, and retain the road name in Kent Estates and Berthoud Estates until further development services review can be completed.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

The meeting ended at 7:05 p.m.

 

 

 

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#36 & #37)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioner Rennels was present.  Also present were: Deni LaRue, and Donna Hart, Commissioners’ Office; Andy Paratore, Information Technology Division; Chuck Gill, Food Bank of Larimer County; Margaret Long, and Lynette McGowen, Office on Aging; Sally Alexander, Risk Management; Lt. Steven Bebell, Major Bill Nelson, and Joe Griffeth, Sheriff’s Office; Candace Phippen; and Wendy Dionigi, Planning Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk. 

 

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Ben Myers, Bill Gilbert, Michael Sledge, and Bob Lagow addressed the Board regarding the potential radio tower to be placed on Middle Bald Mountain.  Mr. Myers stated that there has been a significant delay in receiving information, and he questioned the county’s compliance with the Colorado Open Records Act.  Mr. Gilbert feels as though the county has been dishonest regarding the tower on Glacier View, and he has continually been met by a brick wall when it comes to obtaining information.  Mr. Sledge questioned the reliability of the proposed system, and does not think that the county has justified spending approximately 8 million dollars for a system that may or may not work. 

 

Mr. Paratore stated that although radio communication may not improve in Red Feather Lakes, it is an intricate system that will greatly influence the entire county.  Mr. Paratore was able to answer some questions for those in attendance, and said that he would be happy to meet with others in the future.  He also explained that the improvements to be made through a new radio system have been in review for the last 10 years, and are not something the county takes lightly. 

 

Commissioner Rennels explained that some of the documents not currently available to the public are considered work products and may be subject to negotiations.  Therefore, she is not willing to release these documents until there is more discussion on the topic.  Mr. Gluckman said that it is imperative that the county residents and staff look for a common interest with this project before any decisions are made. 

 

 

Barbara Koelzer, Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), explained that she would like to address the Board every Tuesday morning and provide an update regarding RTA.  She outlined the sub-committees associated with RTA and explained some of their current challenges. 

 

 

2.  FOOD DRIVE TROPHY PRESENTATION:  Mr. Gill presented the food drive trophy to Larimer County for their overall contribution to the Food Bank of Larimer County during the holiday food drive in December 2006.  Larimer County collected more food and monetary donations compared to the City of Fort Collins to obtain the trophy for 2007.    Larimer County collected $1300 and 1800 pounds of food during the food drive. 

 

 

3.  SERVICES TO FAMILY CAREGIVERS IN LARIMER COUNTYMs. McGowen stated that the Office on Aging is working to increase and enhance services to family caregivers in Larimer County by obtaining grant funding from The Colorado Trust.  The Office on Aging requests that the Larimer County Commissioners approve the submission of the grant and become the formal entity applying for the grant on their behalf.  The grant award being sought is $75,000 a year for four years commencing in May of 2007.

 

Chair Wagner and Commissioner Rennels are in support of the grant, and hope that the Office on Aging will be able to sustain their programs through funding such as this.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the submission of the grant and become the formal entity applying for the grant on behalf of the partnership.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

4.  APPROVAL OF POLICY 360.15.1 – DOT TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS:  Ms. Alexander explained that Community Corrections is mandated by federal grant to operate a rural transportation program and the program must be in compliance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations.  In accordance with FTA regulations, a written policy must be in place before operations can commence on April 1, 2007.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Policy 360.15.1 – DOT to comply with Federal Transit Administration Regulations.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

5.  BRIEFING ON MOBILE DATA TERMINALS FROM THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT:  Major Nelson explained that Larimer County is 30 years behind in acquiring the technology that allows police officers the ability to use in-car computers.  He stated that of the 10 largest counties in Colorado, Larimer County is the only county not currently using Mobile Data Computers (MDC).  Major Nelson said that MDCs would decrease an officer’s paper-load, decrease data entry time, and increase efficiency overall. 

 

Mr. Griffeth said that MDCs would have the ability to link two or more crimes together quickly, create aerial photos of an area to set police perimeters, search suspect photo banks, and track the location of all on-duty officers.  These MDC capabilities would greatly increase productivity, explained Mr. Griffeth.

 

Major Nelson stated that the presentation today was for informational purposes only, and he thanked the Board for their time.  Some discussion among the Commissioners and Major Nelson ensued.    

 

 

6.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 12, 2007

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of March 12, 2007, with the exclusion of Wednesday, March 14, 2007.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

7.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 26, 2007The Board reviewed and discussed the upcoming schedule with Ms. Hart.

 

 

8.  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 March 20, 2007:

 

ABATEMENTS:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are approved: Rocky Mnt Energy Co.; Dennis E. & Deborah J. Poirier; TJR Marketing Inc. (2 parcels); Lipps Lipps & Upton; Arena Sports LLC; and Brown Enterprises.

 

03202007A001           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR AUBURN ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT (FILE #03-S2143) BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY; COUNTY ROAD 3, LLC; AND AUBURN ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

 

03202007D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY AMERICAN RETIREMENT PROPERTIES, LLC FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

03202007D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY AMERICAN RETIREMENT PROPERTIES, LLC FOR SAID PROOPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

03202007R001           RESOLUTION ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PETITIONS FOR A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

 

03202007R002           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR AUBURN ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #03-S2143

 

03202007R003           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR CHIEF DEPUTY ASSESSOR

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Find and Order for Sundance Trail Guest Ranch; Monitoring and Permit Deviation Report; Amended Plat of Stanley Heights Subdivision Lots 4 and 5; Auburn Estates Conservation Development Final Plat.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following liquor licenses were approved and issued: Diamond Shamrock Corner Store #4133 – 3.2% - Loveland; Red Feather High Country Restaurant – Transfer of Ownership with Temporary Permit; Fox Acre Country Club – Hotel and Restaurant with Optional Premise – Red Feather Lakes.  The following liquor license was approved: Sundance Trail Guest Ranch – Retail Liquor Store – Red Feather Lakes.  The following liquor licenses were issued:  JJ’s Liquor – Retail Liquor Store – Fort Collins; Crazy Jack’s Saloon – Tavern – Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

9.  ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Ms. LaRue explained that the Poudre Landmarks Foundation seeks financial assistance to complete a wall stabilization and historical archaeology project within the Pump Room, of the Water Works building near LaPorte, Colorado.  At this time, the foundation is asking for authorization from the Board to sign a letter in support of the Water Works preservation project.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the letter and authorize the Chair to sign in support of the Poudre Landmarks Foundation and Water Works building.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

10.  LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:  Mr. Gluckman commented on active legislation, and discussion ensued regarding the same.

 

 

11.  LEGAL MATTERS:  (Affidavit provided).

 

M O T I O N

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

Motion carried 2-0.

 

The Executive Session ended at 11:55 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

KAREN A. WAGNER, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 _________________________________

Kristen L. Romary, Deputy Clerk

 

 

 

 

 

 

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