Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 03/17/08  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, MARCH 17, 2008

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#182 & 183)

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Eubanks was present.  Also present were:  Sean Wheeler, Toby Stauffer, and Candice Phippen, Planning Department; Dave Shirk, Estes Park Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Christy Coleman, Engineering Department; Jeanine 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 Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics. 

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that the applicant for Item 1, Saddle Ridge Acres Amended Planned Unit Development - File #08-S2770, has asked that this item be tabled to March 24, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., due to a planned vacation.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table Item 1, Saddle Ridge Acres Amended Planned Unit Development - File #08-S2770, to March 24, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

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

 

2.  CARRIAGE HILLS 5TH FILING AMENDED PLAT:  This is a request to combine two existing lots of record into a single lot of record.  One of the lots is currently undeveloped, where the other lot has a single-family dwelling.  Combining these lots will reduce the overall density in the neighborhood by one dwelling unit. 

 

This proposal complies with applicable regulations set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code.  Staff recommends approval of the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 4 and 14, Block 13, Carriage Hills 5th Filing.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONOn Tuesday, February 19, 2008 the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:

1.   This is an application for an amended plat to combine two existing lots into a single lot of record. 

2.   This proposal complies with all applicable regulations set forth in 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 service.

4.   This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 4 and 14, Block 13, Carriage Hills 5th Filing.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 4 and 14, Block 13, Carriage Hills 5th Filing and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

At this time Mr. Lafferty requested that the Board consider Item 5, as it would be a much shorter discussion then the rest of the agenda items.  The Board agreed to this change in the agenda.

 

5.  ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE BLOCK 10 AMENDMENTS:  The Code revisions address the following:

1)   Section 4.3, Table 4-2, Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts

2)   Section 7.11.F.6, Off-Street Parking and Loading, Location, Guest Parking

3)   Section 7.11.O.5, Parking and Loading Area Design Standards, Basins and Drainage Facilities

4)   Section 10.4.A.2, Lot Dimensions and Configuration

5)   Section 10.5.H.3, Condominiums, Townhouses, and Other Forms of Airspace Ownership, Exemptions

6)   Appendix D.I.A, Street Design and Construction Standards, Standards of Construction

7)   Appendix D.III.B, General Site Access, Driveway Access—General Standards

 

ORGANIZATION:

1.   Text to be replaced delineated with strikethrough (abc de fghi jk lmn op qrstuv w xyz).

2.   New text delineated with underline (abc de fghi jk lmn op qrstuv w xyz).

3.   Revisions have been organized sequentially by chapter and section.

 

ITEM 1:

 

§ 4.3.C.5, TABLE 4-2

Table 4-2
Base Density and Dimensional Standards Residential Zoning Districts

Zoning District

Max. Net Density (units/acre)

Minimum Lot Standards [1] [5]

Minimum Building/Structure

Property Line Setbacks

[2] [4] [9]

Max. Building Height (ft.) [10]

Min. Building Width (ft.)

Max. Lot Coverage (%)

Area (sq ft)

Width (ft.)

Front (ft.)

Side (ft.)

Rear (ft.)

RE-1

1/10 Ac.

10 Ac.

200

50

50

50

30

20

n/a

RE

1/2.5 Ac.

2.5 Ac.

200

50

50

50

30

20

n/a

E-1

1

1 Ac. [3]

100

25

25

25

30

20

n/a

E

2

½ Ac. [3]

75

25-arterials; 15-other streets

10

15

30

20

n/a

R

4

¼ Ac.

60

25-arterials; 15-other streets

10

15

30

20

n/a

R-1

8

5,000

50

15

10

15

30

20

n/a

R-2

4

Single-family = 18,000;

Duplex= 27,000

60

25-arterials; 15-other streets

10

10

30

20

Duplex = 50%

RM
Ord. 18-01 #14)

Residential Uses: 
Max = 8 and Min = 3

Senior Institutional Living Uses:  Max = 24

40,000, 5,400 sq. ft./unit
[4] [5] [8]

Senior Institutional Living Uses: ½ Ac.

60;

Lots Greater than 100,000 sq. ft.: 200

25-arterials; 15-other streets

10 [6]

10

30

20 [7]

Multi-family= 50%

 

Notes to Table 4-2:

[1]

(a) See Chapter 4, §4.3.D, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for single-family residential subdivisions that are required to set aside private open areas per Chapter 4, §4.3.D.1.

(b) See Chapter 11, §11.3, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for clustered lots in open space developments.

(c)  See Chapter 11, §11.4, which allows a reduction in minimum lot size (area) for attainable housing.

(d) See Chapter 7, §7.1, which requires an increase in minimum lot size (area) for development on steep slopes. (Ord. 2-02 §1)

[2]

See Chapter 7, §7.6 for required setbacks from stream/river corridors and wetlands. (Ord. 2-02 #5; Ord. 11-02 §1)

[3]

If private wells or septic systems are used, the minimum lot area shall be 2 acres. See also the regulations set forth in §7. 12, “Adequate Public Facilities.”

[4]

Townhome developments shall be developed on parcels no smaller than 40,000 square feet; however, each individual townhome unit may be constructed on a minimum 2,000-square-foot lot at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre.

[5]

Multi-family developments All development, except development of one single-family dwelling on a single lot, shall also be subject to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 and a maximum lot coverage of 50%.

[6]

Zero side-yard setbacks (known as “zero lot line development”) are allowed for townhome developments.

[7]

Minimum building width requirements shall not apply to mobile homes located in a mobile home park.

[8]

Single-family and duplex developments shall have minimum lot areas of 18,000 s.f. and 27,000 s.f., respectively. (Ord 18-01 #14)

[9]

All structures shall be set back from public or private roads that serve more than four adjacent or off-site dwellings or lots. The setback shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, or the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement, or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. The setback shall be the same as the applicable minimum building/structure setback. This setback is not applicable in the “MF” district. (Ord. 11-02 §1)

[10]

See Chapter 1, §1.9.E, which allows an increase in the maximum height of buildings on slopes. (Ord. 18-02 #3)

 

ITEM 2:

 

§ 7.11 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING

F.    Location.

1.    Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Section, required off-street parking spaces shall be located on the same lot or parcel as the principal use. (See Off-Street Parking Alternatives, §7.11.G below.)

2.    In all nonresidential zoning districts except the CH district, off-street parking shall not be located within the required front yard setback area. In the CD district, off-street parking shall also not be located between the lot line and the building line parallel to an arterial or collector street. See also §4.4.D.3, “Vehicular Access and Circulation Requirements.”

3.    All off-street parking areas shall be separated from arterial street property lines by a landscaped buffer area at least twenty-five (25) feet wide, and from other street property lines by a landscaped buffer area at least fifteen (15) feet wide. See §7.5.F, “Buffering and Screening,” and Figure 7-9 above.

4.    See §7.6.F for required parking areas setbacks from delineated river/stream corridors and wetlands.

5.    Parking for single-family and two-family dwellings may be located in residential driveways (excluding RV’s and boats).

6.    Guest Parking. Shared driveways may not be counted toward the guest parking requirements unless it is demonstrated the design will not interfere with adjoining traffic movements. Guest parking shall be located to provide convenient access to all units and shall be dispersed throughout the site.

 

ITEM 3:

§7.11.0 PARKING AND LOADING AREA DESIGN STANDARDS

 

5.   Basins and Drainage Facilities. All basin and drainage facilities shall comply with the Larimer County Stormwater Control Manual, as amended, and the standard drawings and specifications contained or referenced therein.

 

ITEM 4:

§ 10.4.A LOT DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION

 

2.   Lot width shall comply with standards set forth in Tables 4-2 and 4-5. Flagpole lots shall comply with Section 10.4AC, and shall be no less than thirty (30) feet at the front lot line or seventy-five (75) feet at the building line, or such greater width as may be required by this Code.

 

ITEM 5:

§ 10.5.H CONDOMINIUMS, TOWNHOUSES AND OTHER FORMS OF AIRSPACE OWNERSHIP

3.   Exemptions. This subsection shall not apply to condominium projects of two (2) units or less. The number of units shall include any units reserved for future development.

 

ITEM 6:

 

Appendix D.I STREET DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, GENERAL           

A.  Standards of Construction. Standards of construction not otherwise specified hereunder shall be according to the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction of the Colorado Department of Highways (latest edition, with amendments in effect at that time), Town of Estes Park Right-of-Way Permit Construction Guidelines, Larimer County Access Policy, Larimer County Urban Street Standards and Larimer County Road Standards, as amended. Quality control testing shall meet the minimums as described in "Other Standards."

ITEM 7:

 

Appendix D.III GENERAL SITE ACCESS

B.    Driveway Access — General Standards.

1.    Safe Access Required. Safe, convenient and adequate access to individual buildings by driveways shall be provided. Driveway access to collector and arterial streets shall be discouraged. No driveway shall be so located as to create a hazard to pedestrians or motorists, or to invite or compel illegal or unsafe traffic movements, or block or alter access to adjoining properties or uses. To the maximum extent feasible, new driveways shall align directly across from existing driveways. (Ord. 8-05 #1)

 

9.    Driveway Design Requirements. (Ord. 8-05 #1)

a.    All driveways serving eight (8) or more parking spaces shall be paved and constructed with a minimum edge radius of five (5) feet on both sides, and shall be surfaced with at least two (2) inches of bituminous paving material or four (4) inches of concrete. (Ord. 8-05 #1)

b.    All driveways serving twenty (20) or more parking spaces shall be paved and designed and constructed meeting the standards applicable to a public street. (Ord. 8-05 #1)

c.    Where garages are used to satisfy parking requirements, the driveway apron shall be at least twenty feet in length unless it is demonstrated the design will not interfere with adjoining traffic movements.

 

 

Mr. Shirk explained that this is the fourth public meeting to consider the proposed code changes; and requested that the Estes Valley Development Code Block 10 Amendments be approved.

 

There was no public comment on this item

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approved the proposed Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Block 10.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  CARNES SPECIAL EXCEPTION, FILE #05-Z1566:  The applicants seek approval for an existing business that provides emergency responder and traffic sign support for roadside construction activities.  The business delivers customized signs to job sites where specific activities (such as road construction or hazardous material spillage) require temporary signs to redirect traffic.  For background, the County first notified the applicants that the use is a zoning violation in 2003.  In 2005 the Board of County Commissioners found that a zoning violation existed and required compliance within 120 days.  Compliance was defined as removing all outdoor storage from the site and ceasing business uses on both parcels, or, making application for Special Exception review and approval.  The Board also authorized legal action if the deadline was not met.  Sixty days after the deadline passed the applicants submitted the Sketch Plan materials.  They did not provide a follow-up public hearing application until October of 2007, approximately 2 ½ years after the Commissioner’s hearing on the zoning violation.

In the Land Use Code this type of business is in the Light Industrial category, being defined as…“A facility that houses the secondary manufacture, assembly or packaging of products from previously-prepared materials…”  Light Industrial uses are only allowed by right in the Industrial & I-1 Industrial Zone Districts.  They require Special Review approval in the Commercial and AP Zone Districts, and Special Exception approval at all other locations in the County. 

The information provided by the applicants is not clear as to how much on-site assembly had previously taken place at the site, or how much assembly takes place on site at this time.  However, approval of the request could allow for all of the applicant’s assembly operations to return to this site.

 

There are several areas of concern with regard to this request: 

 

1.   As defined by the Land Use Code, the use falls into the light industrial category.  It is not allowed by right or Special Review approval in the rural residential areas.  It could be allowed by Special Exception, but can not satisfy the Review Criteria for Special Exception.

2.   If this request is approved, it opens a path for other urban uses operating in the rural areas to seek approval.  This would potentially compound the issues related to road maintenance and negative impacts on rural residential uses. 

3.   Approval of the request directly conflicts with both the Master Plan and the Review Criteria for Special Exceptions.  The direction provided by the Master Plan for Special Exceptions is clear.  It states that it is not a goal of the County to become an urban service provider for such uses as Light Industrial and Accessory Outdoor Storage.  The applicants provided no compelling reasons why this use should be allowed to locate at this site.  They also did not describe any public benefit to be derived by locating their business in the rural area.

4.   The applicants provided screening, but it does not meet the County’s standards in Section 8.5 because they did so without consulting Staff and before being approved.  The fence may not be a significant concern in an isolated case however; approval would send a message that urban uses are acceptable as long as they are fenced.

5.   Their competitors, who have followed the zoning laws and are appropriately in the urban areas, have also incurred the costs of doing so.  They do not have the advantage of access to a 250 by 200 square foot site for outdoor storage, equipment parking, etc. without the expense of purchasing such industrially or commercially zoned lots that would likely be at a higher cost than rural lands.

 

6.   Approval of the request will also not be temporary in nature, but permanent.  It will allow for all of the applicant’s outdoor storage to return to this site.  The applicants indicated they already have storage sites available in the urban areas, but not explained why they do not use these sites permanently.

7.   The potential truck and employee traffic generated by the business will have a negative daily impact on unpaved rural County Roads.   The costs for maintenance will be provided for out of the general fund. 

8.   Finally, the timeline for this project shows the applicants have not met Board of County Commissioners deadlines or those set by Staff.  They have not been expedient in providing materials or responding to requests for information needed to review the case.  Staff’s attempts to address this use and bring the applicant to public hearing began in 2003.  In 2005 the BCC determined that the use is a zoning violation, and directed the applicants comply with County regulations within 120 days, which the applicant did not meet.  Three years later, the Special Exception request is moving through the public hearing process.  For all of these reasons, Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners deny the request.

 

The Planning Commission and the Development Services Team recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Carnes Special Exception, File #05-Z1566, be denied.

Mr. Wheeler reviewed the timeline and explained the application, as outlined above.  He stated that staff and the applicant are not in agreement; therefore, this item is being brought before the Commissioners for review and decision.  Mr. Wheeler presented some options for the commissioners to consider when making a motion to determine the outcome of this meeting.

The applicants, Connie and Bob Carnes, addressed the Board.  Mrs. Carnes gave a lengthy presentation regarding their family’s farming heritage and the need to supplement the farm with a side business.  She reviewed the Planning Department’s packet in great detail, and addressed the screening, road impacts, and the fact that no retail sales are conducted out of their home.  She explained their efforts to work with the Planning Department to get the Special Exception approved.  Mrs. Carnes stated that the neighbors and community are in support their business.

At this time Gladys Russell, resident of the Wellington community, read a letter of support for the Carne’s Traffic Sign Leasing business, and asked that the Board approve the Special Exception.  Mrs. Carnes displayed photos of surrounding businesses in Wellington, and showed examples of the development in the immediate area.  Mrs. Carnes stated that they have years and years invested in this business, and they have always been good neighbors.  She explained that they are simply trying to find a way to survive in today’s market and she asked the Board to help her find a way to keep her land open for farming. 

Mr. Carnes addressed the landscaping and screening.  He indicated that they were encouraged to screen the property; however, staff now is not sure that the fencing is conducive to a rural setting.   Mr. Carnes feels that they have tried to accommodate all requests, and believes that some of the data in the packet is misrepresented.  Chuck Robinson, engineer for the project, confirmed that he has indeed re-drawn the maps and site plans four times, in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Department.  Mr. Carnes stated that the business provides jobs for over 100 employees, and creates a positive economic impact for the community

At this time Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment, and Laquitta Blehm addressed the Board.  Ms. Blehm indicated her support of the applicants.  She stated that it is a unique family operation and business that supports the community; they just happen to be in an area where the zoning is not compatible.  She urged the Board to approve the Special Exception. 

Henry Obermeyer also supported the Carnes’ application for a Special Exception.  Mr. Obermeyer stated that this is a thriving business, integrated in the community and that this area is being left out of the Master Plan.  Ms. Obermeyer stated that any business that can bring prosperity to this area of the county should be supported. 

There was no further public comment.

Under discussion, Commissioner Rennels agreed that there is a need to re-address the Master Plan.  She also noted the importance of supporting agricultural operations in the county.  Commissioner Rennels asked Ms. Carnes if she had opened her office after the zoning violation was realized.  Ms. Carnes replied in the affirmative.  Commissioner Rennels stated that they can place conditions on this application to control the growth of the business so that it remains consistent with the rural nature of the area; therefore, she would support the motion that allows for more time to draft conditions of approval for this application.

Commissioner Eubanks agreed that there were several mitigating factors regarding this application, and also noted the importance of retaining and allowing agricultural businesses to thrive in the area.  Chair Gibson was also in support of tabling the item, and reiterated that the barn (or shop) would need to be approved for commercial use.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Carnes Special Exception, File # 05-Z1566, to Monday, April 21, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. to allow for consideration of recommended Conditions of Approval for the Special Exception.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.  BINDER MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #07-S2765:  This is a request to vacate a 30 foot utility and roadway easement on the north and east boundaries of 3 properties in the Binder MRD. The easement was originally recorded in 1971 and is shown on the final plat of the Binder MRD. The applicant indicates that the easement has never been used as a roadway.

This application was tabled by the Commissioners at the January 28, 2008 hearing pending new information about which properties and owners have access to the easement, and the status of the easement for roadway purposes. The applicant has researched the easement and is able to present some new information at the hearing.

This application was forwarded to the appropriate departments and agencies for comment.  The responses from these groups indicate that there are no other issues of concern.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Binder MRD, Lots 1, 2, & 3 Utility and Roadway Easement Vacation, File # 07-S2765, a request to vacate a 30 foot utility and roadway easement along the north and east property boundaries of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the Binder MRD.

Ms. Stauffer explained that this item was tabled in order to research the easements granted to surrounding properties, and how this request to vacate the utility easement might affect the surrounding properties. 

Rob Persichitte, surveyor for the applicant, displayed an aerial photo of the properties.  He then explained that he has researched the deeds of the surrounding properties noting that some were still in place, and some had been vacated.  He explained that this request to vacate the utility easement does not affect any surrounding neighbors.  Furthermore, the road easement was never publicly dedicated, so it is Mr. Persichitte’s opinion that County could act on vacating the utility easement, but has no authority to act on the vacation of the road easement.

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment, and Al Kniese, adjoining neighbor, addressed the Board.  Mr. Kniese stated that when he purchased his property he was told that there was a dedicated road and utility easement.  He stated that vacating the easement would in effect “land lock” his property.  Mr. Kniese stated that this in turn would negatively affect the value of his property and he sees no reason to vacate the easement. 

Lee Whittaker, neighbor, stated that he has a ditch that runs along the south end of his property and he expressed concern with future development and the possibility of homes cropping up along the property lines.  He stated this was his only concern, and would prefer the buffer that the utility easement provides.

Jerry Stolz, applicant, stated that he wants to vacate the easement on the south side; however, the easement to the north can remain in effect.  He also noted that the ditches already have the right-of-way.

Chris Kniese, son of Al Kniese, asked what the purpose was, and why there was a need to vacate the easement.  He questioned the intention and plans for the property. 

Mr. Stolz explained that he simply wants to vacate the south side 30 foot easement, and that access can still be obtained from Wild Bird Lane.  He noted that you can cross over ditches and that it would not limit access for anyone. 

There was no further public comment.

Mr. Persichitte stated that, at this point, there is no intention to subdivide the land.  And if future development were to occur, then it makes more sense to create the access from the established county roads on the south. 

Under discussion, Ms. Haag stated that according to Mr. Persichitte, there is no record of the road easement being publicly dedicated, so the issue at hand was simply to vacate the utility easement.  The Board agreed with the applicant’s request.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Binder MRD, Lots 1, 2, & 3 Utility and Roadway Easement Vacation, (File # 07-S2765), a request to vacate a 30 foot utility and roadway easement along the north and east property boundaries of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the Binder MRD.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

The meeting recessed at 5:20 p.m.

 

RUBBISH ORDINANCE 2ND READING

(#183)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Larry Timm, Planning Director.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Neil Gluckman, Commissioners' Office; Candice Phippen, and Chad Gray, Planning Department; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Mr. Timm explained that this was the 2nd Reading of the proposed Rubbish Ordinance.  He noted that if the ordinance is approved tonight, then it will be published in the newspaper and will become effective 30 days after publishing.  Mr. Timm stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to streamline the process for correcting violations, which, in turn, will decrease the amount of staff time needed for addressing this type of violation.

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Earl Barhite addressed the Board.  Mr. Barhite indicated his support for the Rubbish Ordinance and asked if the ordinance would conflict with Homeowners Association (HOA) covenants.  Mr. Timm stated that if HOA covenants were stricter that the ordinance; the county would only enforce what is outlined in the Rubbish Ordinance.

There was no further public comment.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Rubbish Ordinance, as presented.  

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 6:40 p.m.

 

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2008

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#184)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Assistant County Manager Neil Gluckman.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Eubanks and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Russ Legg, Chad Gray and Candice Phippen, Planning Department; Laurel Kubin, and Wendy Woerner, Extension Office; Nancy Griffith-Conklin, Community Corrections; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.   PUBLIC COMMENT:   Scott Doyle, Ron Lonneman, and Merle Davies addressed the Board regarding a zoning violation that is occurring in their neighborhood.  Mr. Doyle explained that his adjoining neighbor is running an equestrian business (horse boarding and riding) on her property.  Mr. Doyle presented photos and explained that the main driveway to three properties is on his land and he has granted easements for use of the driveway so that neighbors can get to their homes.  He explained that it is a driveway for residential use; it was never intended for commercial use, and there are safety and liability issues involved.  Ms. Davies stated that there are odor, noise, and dust issues, associated with this illegal business, and there is a potential wetlands issue on the properties as well.  Mr. Lonneman echoed the concerns of Mr. Doyle and Ms. Davies, and requested that the business be forced to cease operation immediately.  Some discussion ensued with Mr. Gray and Ms. Phippen regarding zoning violations in the County.  The Board explained that they are certainly aware of this problem, and that it is one throughout the county.  This topic is scheduled for further discussion next week.

 

Patti Rosenfelder addressed the Board with concerns regarding a noise issue related to gun fire.  Ms. Rosenfelder stated that a neighbor has moved into their community in Rist Canyon and continually disrupts the peace and safety of the neighborhood with shooting episodes that persist for hours.  She feels the neighborhood is being terrorized by this one resident and efforts to request assistance from the Sheriff’s Department have repeatedly failed.  The Board stated that they would follow up with the Sheriff’s Department regarding this issue.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 10, 2008:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of March 10, 2008, as presented.

 

Motion carried 2-0.  (Commissioner Rennels abstained.)

 

3.  REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK MARCH 24, 2008:  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 March 18, 2008:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are approved:  Farid and Golnar Babazadeh; GBP Partnership; Point South Apartments LLC; George and Sheila Lee; Soukup Investments LTD Liability Company; Stanley and Gail Friesen; Clarence and Caren Carlson.

 

03182008A001           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND RESIDUAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS FOR HITCHING POST RIDGE R.L.U.P. BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, EUNICE ELIZABETH WENNINGER -TRUSTEE, AND HITCHING POST RIDGE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION

 

03182008A002           CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THISSEN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

 

03182008A003           FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LARIMER COUNTY FIRE AGENCY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO

 

03182008A004           CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ANNE NOEL PERRY, REGISTERED ARCHITECT

 

03182008A005           CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND MOOG ARCHITECTS LLC

 

03182008A006           CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND DELEHOY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

 

03182008A007           REPLACES RESCINDED AGREEMENT #03112008A006; LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND GB VENTURES LLP

 

03182008R001           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS

 

03182008R002           SUPPLEMENTAL TO FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WENNINGER PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN

 

03182008R003           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR HITCHING POST RIDGE RURAL LAND PLAN

 

03182008R004           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL MARTIN MINOR LAND DIVISION

 

03182008R005           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FORT COLLINS INDUSTRIAL PARK 4TH FILING LOTS 95A AND 96A AMENDED PLAT

 

03182008R006           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF LOT CONSOLIDATION OF THE GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 4TH FILING LOT 19 AND GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 8TH FILING LOT 90

 

03182008R007           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDED PLAT OF THE LETITIA LAKE SUBDIVISION LOTS 10-15 AND A PORTION OF LOT 9, BLOCK 3, AND LOT 12, BLOCK 4 (FILE #07-S2707)

 

03182008R008           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION CORRECTION IN THE RED FEATHER LAKES BUSINESS REZONING

 

03182008R009           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LINDQUIST SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT

 

03182008R010           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICATION OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND AMENDMENTS BY THE LOVELAND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WITHIN UNINCORPORATED LARIMER COUNTY

 

03182008R011           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS

 

MISCELLANEOUS: Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Operating Permit Monitoring and Permit Deviation Report; Final Plat for Hitching Post Ridge R.L.U.P.; Livermore Fire Protection District Letter of Support for FEMA.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were issued:  Crystal Marie LLC dba Daisy Duke's Loveland - Tavern - Loveland; Maria & Jose Gasca dba Mexican Inn - Hotel and Restaurant - Loveland.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.   NATIONAL CHAMPION 4-H MEAT JUDGING TEAM RECOGNITION:  Commissioner Rennels introduced the following members of the 4-H Meat Judging Team: JoJo Ogg, Charles Ogg, Derrick Brown, and Rachel Cramer, along with their judging team coach, Wendy Woerner.  She noted that that winning this championship was a huge accomplishment.  Ms. Woerner explained that the team set a goal to be the first Colorado team ever to win this championship.  She stated that they competed against 14 other teams from around the nation, and they finished first overall in the meat judging contest.  The team members then shared the highlights of this experience with the commissioners.  The Board congratulated the team presented a plaque, and awarded the individual belt buckles.  

 

6.  NEW POSITION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS:  Ms. Griffith-Conklin requested a new position to assist with the ever increasing numbers of juvenile transports, Department of Corrections transports, Community Corrections transfers to the jail, back-up for the Larimer Lift, and home visit checks.  She presented a spreadsheet of the funding sources that would be used to pay for the new position, and reviewed this with the commissioners noting that they will fully fund this position.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a new Full Time Equivalent for the Transportation Division of Community Corrections.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  WORKSESSION:  Mr. Gluckman presented a letter from the El Centro Student Services at Colorado State University, requesting a $1000 donation for their annual recognition ceremony. The ceremony recognizes committed and talented Latino students who will be graduating from Colorado State University.    The Board agreed to donate $500 in support of this event.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the expenditure of $500 from the Commissioners' Special Project Fund, to support the Annual El Centro Recognition Ceremony.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  COMMISSIONER REPORTS:  The Board reviewed their activities during the previous week.

 

9.  LEGAL MATTERS:  Mr. Legg stated that the City of Fort Collins is looking to expand the Growth Management Area (GMA) to the Fossil Creek vicinity.  Discussion ensued, and the Board requested to see the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that was recently signed between Windsor and the City of Fort Collins, prior to taking any action that would revise the IGA between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chair to sign the revised Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Fort Collins, after review of the commissioners, and review of the IGA with the Town of Windsor.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.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.