Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 10/19/09  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, October 19, 2009

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Pro-Tem Johnson presided and Commissioner Donnelly was present. Also present were: Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Samantha Mott, Toby Stauffer, and Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Johnson opened the hearing 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 Pro-Tem Johnson explained that the following items were on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

1.         GARONE MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL, FILE #09-Z1756:   This is a request for approval to construct an Accessory Living Area (ALA) in a detached, 2-story barn.  The site is a 1.33-acre residential lot located northeast of Carter Lake on Rock Hill Road. Under the current regulations, the size of an ALA is limited to either 800-square-feet or no more than 40% of the primary residence, which ever is less. The primary residence for this site is 1,155-square-feet, and thus the ALA cannot exceed approximately 462-square-feet. For this reason the request includes an appeal to Section 4.3.10.F.2.c, the applicants would like to be allowed 800-square-feet for the ALA. The surrounding area is made up of other single-family residential lots of various sizes. This site and the surrounding area are zoned E1-Estate. 

 

The applicant held the required neighborhood meeting on September 2, 2009. Questions focused around the use of the barn, rental issues and architectural elements such as colors. The regulations do not allow the ALA to be rented, however architectural issues such as roof or building color are not regulated. Finally, none of the neighboring property owners and none of the reviewing agencies have raised objections. 

 

Staff has found that Accessory Living Areas are intended to allow property owners the full use of their land while maintaining the integrity and character of the neighborhood. The proposed ALA will be located within a barn and therefore will not appear to be another second single-family residence. The use will have no impact on adjacent properties and will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the rural area. The applicant is advised that approval will require obtaining water services from the pertinent water district, which will be subject to their tap fees and other requirements if applicable. The requirements of the building permit process also apply; however, the Development Services Team does not anticipate any difficulties in these areas, and concludes this request meets the requirements and intent of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Garone Accessory Living Area Minor Special Review, file #09-Z1756, and the appeal to Section 4.3.10.F.2.c, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and information contained in the Garone Accessory Living Area Minor Special Review, file #09-Z1756, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the county and the applicant. The application is subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Garone Accessory Living Area Minor Special Review, file #09-Z1756.

 

2.         This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the county, the county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to the applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Minor Special Review approval, the applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. The county may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review approval.

 

3.         The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the property.  Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for the Garone Accessory Living Area. All applicable fees, including permit fees, Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, and water service shall apply to this use within 90-days from the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

5.         The square footage in the Accessory Living Area shall not exceed 800-square-feet.

 

6          The single-family character of the property must be maintained. The entrance to the Accessory Living Area must not be visible from any road.

 

7.         The Accessory Living Area is to be used solely for guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling or those providing a service on site in exchange for their residency.

 

8          The Accessory Living Area must not be rented or leased separately from the single-family dwelling.

 

9.         This Minor Special Review and Appeal approvals will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

 

2.         ZIMPRICH MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #09-Z1757:   This is a request for approval of a Minor Special Review to allow a second personal wind generator on a 31-acre property. The second generator will be similar to the first, with the hub height of approximately 34-feet. At the nearest point, the proposed turbine will be located 70-feet from the adjacent property.

 

The Land Use Code requires generators to be a distance of at least two-times the hub height from any property line. The code also states that accessory uses are intended to allow property owners the full use of their property, while maintaining the integrity and character of the neighborhood. To meet these goals, accessory uses must be erected and used only for purposes that are clearly secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property. They must be located on the same lot with the principal use and must meet the criteria as indicated above. It is the assessment of the staff that this request can meet the standards, provided the owner complies with the requirements for a Small Wind Energy Facility and satisfies the recommended conditions of approval below.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Zimprich Wind Facility Minor Special Review, file #09-Z1757, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Zimprich Wind Facility Minor Special Review, file #09-Z1757, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the county and the applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Zimprich Wind Facility Minor Special Review.

 

2.         This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the county, the county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to the applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Minor Special Review approval, the applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. The county may conduct periodic inspections of the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review, as appropriate, to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review approval.

 

3.         The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the property.  Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Minor Special Review approval.

 

4.         The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for the Small Wind Energy Facility. All applicable fees, including permit fees shall apply to this use. 

 

5.         This minor special review approval will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

 

3.         CUSHMAN’S LAKEVIEW 3RD FILING LOTS 68 AND 77 LOT CONSOLIDATION AND EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #09-S2905:   This is a request to combine two contiguous lots and vacate the 20-foot utility easement located along the common lot line of lots 68 and 77 and the portion of the 10-foot utility easement along the south lot line of Lot 77 that extends east of Lot 68 of Cushman’s Lakeview 3rd Filing. If approved, the recording instrument will be a Findings and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Staff has found that the requested consolidation will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency, nor will it result in any additional lots. 

 

Staff recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation for Cushman’s Lakeview 3rd Filing Lots 68 and 77, file #09-S2905, and the vacation of the 20-foot utility easement located along the common lot line of lots 68 and 77, and the portion of the 10-foot utility easement along the south lot line of Lot 77 that extends east of Lot 68, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by April 19, 2010, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

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

 

3.         The vacation of the utility easement and the reconfiguration of lot lines shall be finalized at such time when the plat and Findings and Resolution of the County Commissioners are recorded. 

 

4.         Prior to recordation of the Findings and Resolution a 10-foot utility easement will need to be provided and dedicated from the southeast corner of Lot 77 to Highview Court.

 

M O T I O N

Commission Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as published.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

4.         GLEN ECHO SIGN APPEAL, FILE #09-G0178:   This is a request for several appeals to Section 10 (the sign code) of the Land Use Code. The request includes an appeal to allow four freestanding signs, totaling 344-square-feet, signs taller than 6-feet, and an off-premise sign in the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way along Highway 14. The property has four existing signs, three have been there for several years, one was added recently, the addition of the fourth sign is the reason this project began. The current use on the property is a non-residential, non-conforming use.

 

Section 10.10 allows a property to have one freestanding sign per principal legal non-residential use, the sign can be 32-square-feet per face and there can be no more than two sign faces per property. The code also allows freestanding signs to be 6-feet in height. The sign code defines a rural district as the O-Open district outside a Growth Management Area. The concept of these regulations is to allow rural properties to advertise a legal business while still considering the impacts to rural and residential properties and the nature and character of the rural areas that surround the use and the sign.

 

The subject property has four freestanding signs:

 

“Gas” sign

4’ X 6’

24-square-feet per face

Double faced

48-square-feet  per face

“Front” sign

12’ X 8’

96-square-feet per face

Double faced

192-square-feet per face

“Meadow” sign

4’ X 8’

32-square-feet per face

Single faced

32-square-feet per face

“New” sign (music)

3’ X 8’

24-square-feet per face

Double faced

48-square-feet per face

72-square-feet total

“New” sign (Echo Lounge)

3’ X 8’/2

12-square-feet per face

Double faced

24-square-feet per face

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE

344-square-feet

 

Currently the signs are non-conforming with respect to the code. This appeal would remove the non-conforming status of the signs and allow all signs to remain. Each sign would then be subject to current regulations and each sign would need to be permitted. Currently there are no sign permits for this property. This appeal would also allow an off-premises sign in the Highway 14 right-of-way. The Land Use Code indicates that no off premises signs are allowed in the county and signs are not allowed to be in a right-of-way.

 

Staff recommends denial of this request; however, should the Board wish to approve the Glen Echo Sign Appeal, file #09-G0178, staff recommends the following conditions:

 

1.         All signs on the property shall be permitted according to the current standards and building code.

 

2.         Permits shall be submitted by April 19, 2010.

 

3.         Three freestanding signs shall be removed by October 19, 2010.

 

4.         If the off premises sign is to remain, the owner shall obtain approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation for the sign by April 19, 2010, or the sign will be removed by that date.

 

5.         The applicant shall submit an exhibit by November 19, 2009, confirming that site distance from any remaining sign is not impacted. Should the exhibit show that a sign does impact sight distance, the sign will need to be moved by October 19, 2010.

 

6.         No additional signs are allowed on the property without approval from the Board of County Commissioners.

 

7.         This approval only addresses signs existing on the property at the time of this approval. This action does not address the use or other aspects of the property.

 

 

Chair Pro-Tem Johnson opened the hearing to the applicants and Lloyd and Gayle Rowe addressed the Board. Mr. Rowe presented pictures from 1946 that illustrated the presence of the sign in the CDOT right-of-way and the gas sign. Mr. Rowe also presented pictures from subsequent years that proved versions of the signs have been in place since 1946.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Johnson opened the hearing to public comment and LeAnne Sattler Davis addressed the Board on behalf of her brother Sydney Sattler, adjacent land owner. Ms. Davis voiced her support for the signs stating that because of the location of the resort, the best way to advertise is by posting sinage.

 

Betty Blendy addressed the Board, also in support of the signs. Ms. Blendy stated that Glen Echo, and its signs, has become a landmark and a point of reference for visitors and emergency personnel.

 

After some discussion, the Board decided to approve the appeal with conditions.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Glen Echo Sign Appeal, file #09-G0178, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The new sign on the property shall be permitted according to the current building standards and code.

 

2.         No additional signs are allowed on the property.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the Board recessed at 3:45 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Russ Legg, Chief Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were:  Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Candace Phippen, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

1a.       WARD RECYCLED PRODUCTS REZONING, FILE #06-Z1623:   This is a request to rezone a site from FA-Farming to I-Industrial and to operate a facility to recycle asphalt and concrete, for use by the City of Loveland on road maintenance projects.

 

This request was on the discussion agenda for the Board of County Commissioners public hearing on June 1, 2009. At the direction of the Board, consideration of this item was tabled until October 19, 2009, in an attempt to allow the City of Loveland adequate time to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plan. In its current form, the City of Loveland’s Comprehensive Plan does not support this type of use at this location.

 

On August 14, 2009, the Loveland Director of Development Services sent comments to the County’s Chief Planner in an email regarding this issue. The email stated the city would not require Mr. Ward to submit an annexation petition to the city. The email also states the city does not intend to consider amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in the foreseeable future; however, the email did indicate that the city would not object to the county accepting a rezoning application, or to the county rezoning the site to allow for uses at this location that are not necessarily consistent with the City of Loveland’s Comprehensive Plan. This reflects a change from the comments provided by the Loveland in April 2009, which did not support approval of the use. Please note, the Intergovernmental Agreement signed by Larimer County and Loveland requires that the county not allow uses at sites within the growth management area, if the proposed use is not consistent with those recommended by the city’s comprehensive plan.

 

Prior to the Board of County Commissioners public hearing in June 2009, the Larimer County Planning Commission considered the item at their April 15, 2009, public hearing. Questions focused on the nature of the use and the impacts to surrounding property owners. Planning Commissioners asked about the history of this project, and why the site had not been annexed into the City of Loveland for processing under the municipal regulations. The City of Loveland’s Public Works Director also provided a letter regarding this request for the previous hearings. It contained information regarding the relationship between the applicant and the public works department. Previously, the Director of Development Services in Loveland sent another email stating that the City of Loveland may consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plan, which might allow for this use in the future. That email did not change the recommendations from city staff at that time, which was for denial of the request.

 

As the direction to staff was to table the request to allow the City of Loveland time to consider amending its comprehensive plan, and representatives from the city have advised they do not plan to consider amendments at this time, the recommendation from staff remains unchanged and consistent with that from the Planning Commission.

 

Staff recommends denial of the Ward Recycled Products Rezoning, file #06-Z1623.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Johnson opened the hearing to the applicant and Richard Ward addressed the Board.  Mr. Ward asked that the Board consider the harsh economy and its effects on his business when making their decision. He also stated that the site in question is directly across from a water treatment plant and is therefore not conducive to residential uses.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Johnson opened the hearing to public comment and Bob Paulson, Planning Director from the City of Loveland, addressed the Board.  Mr. Paulson stated that the city did not have any interest in annexing the property nor did the city have any objection to the current operation.

 

Edward Seely, Donn Conn, Robert Sandberg, Michael Walker, Lori Goebel, James Goebel, Grace Clements, Don Miller, Dawn Pyy, William Bolden, Ruthie Miller, Mark Betts, Ellen Pyy, Gabriel Vigil, and Daniel Rempe addressed the Board, either in person or via letter. Citing noise, air, and water pollution; declining property values; compatibility; and safety concerns, the above mentioned residents were strongly opposed to rezoning.

 

Mr. Ward readdressed the Board and stated that he has been trying to bring his business into compliance for years but the process has been difficult and drawn-out because of city and county politics.

 

Commissioner Donnelly stated that because he resides in Loveland, he knows the Ward family and admires the work they have done and the employment opportunities they have created; however, he does not support rezoning the property because of the proximity to schools and senior housing nor does he support the finality rezoning would imply.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Johnson agreed with Commissioner Donnelly that the use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. He also encouraged city and county staff to help Mr. Ward find a more compatible location for his business.       

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Ward Recycled Products Rezoning, file #06-Z1623.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

2b.       WARD CODE COMPLIANCE:  The property owner is in violation of Section 4.1.1, FA Zoning District, of the Larimer County Land Use Code by virtue of operating an existing commercial facility to recycle asphalt and concrete in an FA-Farming Zoning District which is not an allowed use.

 

On June 1, 2009, a public hearing was held before the Board of County Commissioners for approval of an application submitted on behalf of Richard Ward to continue operation of an existing facility to recycle asphalt and concrete for road maintenance projects.  The matter was tabled to October 19, 2009, to provide the City of Loveland with time to consider whether the city wanted to amend its Comprehensive Plan. 

 

In the meantime, a public hearing was held before the Commissioners on July 13, 2009, at which time the owner requested permission to screen materials on site in order to remove materials. The Board granted the owner’s request with conditions and the materials were screened and removed without incident.

 

As the public hearing scheduled on, file #06-Z1623, may affect the Commissioners’ decision on this violation, the property/business owner was notified in writing that this violation issue would be reviewed by the Commissioners immediately following the agenda item for file #06-Z1623. 

 

After much discussion between the Board, Mr. Ward, and staff, it was determined that Mr. Ward would be allowed six months to remove materials from his property. Ms. Shambo also requested the motion also require the site be returned to its original condition, as was stated in the original approval of mining activity at the site.

 

Commissioner Donnelly raised concern regarding the need for recycled road materials during this time of year. Chair Pro-Tem Johnson suggested that if six months was not enough time to remove the materials, Mr. Ward could appear before the Board and request an extension.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners find a violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code exists for operating a commercial facility to recycle asphalt and concrete in an FA-Farming Zoning District on the subject property pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners’ denial on this date, of file #06-Z1623.

 

Commissioner Donnelly also moved that legal action be authorized if the commercial facility to recycle asphalt and concrete does not cease all business operations on the subject property, including removal of all material from the property used in the business operation, within 180-days of the date of this hearing. The removal of materials is subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Five truck loads of material may leave the site per day.

 

2.         No new materials may be taken to the site.

 

3.         No rock crushing or processing is allowed on site.

 

4.         Current access and haul routes must be used—no new access may be constructed.

 

5.         The site must be reclaimed to historic conditions to be approved by the Larimer County Engineer.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2009

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Pro-Tem Johnson presided and Commissioner Donnelly was present. Also present were:  Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Lorrie Lopez, Accounting Department; Chad Gray, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, and William Ressue, County Attorney’s Office; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.         PUBLIC COMMENT:  Fred Walker, General Manager for the Boxelder Sanitation District, informed the Board that representatives from local water and sewer treatment facilities will address the Board in regards to the proposed 1041 Procedures. Mr. Walker stated that personnel at these facilities would like the chance to offer input on future 1041 Applications.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Johnson requested a representative from the Planning Department be present for that discussion and thanked Mr. Walker for his willingness to offer advisement.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 12, 2009:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of October 12, 2009.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

3.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 26, 2009:   Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.         CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as published below:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are approved:  Progressive Old Town Square LLC and Eric Ryplewski & Alyssa J. Ryplewski.

 

10202009A001           EXTENSION #1 TO ELECTION MATERIALS PRINTING CONTRACT (PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED JULY 15, 2008) BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND INTEGRATED VOTING SOLUTIONS, INC.

 

10202009R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING HOFFMAN ACRES PLANNED LAND DIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT, REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND APPEALS

 

10202009R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CROFT MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL REGARDING SIZE LIMIT AND DENYING APPEAL REGARDING FEES

 

10202009R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE YMCA OF THE ROCKIES SIGNAGE MASTER PLAN

 

10202009R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOCKLEAR MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW

 

10202009R005           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SIPPEL BURKE APPEAL REGARDING USING OF A MANUFACTURED HOME FOR A WORKSHOP

 

10202009R006           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CHANGE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE TIMERLINE RESOURCES SPECIAL REVIEW

 

10202009R007           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS

 

MISCELLANEOUS:   Amended Stipulation for Colorado Land Holdings 2008 Tax Values Docket #51253 (Schedule #R1636806+145).

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved/issued:  Beaver Inn – Hotel & Restaurant – Red Feather Lake; Best Western Crossroads – Tavern – Loveland; La Chamba – Hotel & Restaurant – Fort Collins; Wolverine Farm Publishing – Special Event 6% – Fort Collins; Northern Colorado Potters Guild – Special Event 6% – Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

5.         UPDATE ON GREELEY WATER LINE: Dan Moore, Natalie Stephens, and Jon Monson from the Greeley Water and Sewer District addressed the Board in regards to a portion of pipeline proposed in the LaPorte area. Mr. Moore presented a brief overview of their progress to the present time, including recently completed historic and biologic studies. He then presented a projected route for the pipeline which would avoid historic structures on all three proposed properties.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Johnson thanked Mr. Moore for the update and requested that he continue to keep the Board informed on their progress.

 

6.         1ST READING OF THE ORDINANCE REPEALING THE ORDINANCE FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE GREEN ACRES SUBDIVISION:   Ms. Lopez explained that the Green Acres Subdivision has fulfilled its debt and the county must now release all liens, which would be accomplished via the proposed ordinance.

 

As this was the first reading of the ordinance, all discussion and motions will take place during the second reading.

 

10202009O002           FIRST READING – ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN GREEN ACRES SUBDIVISION; ORDINANCE #11032009O002

 

7.         1ST READING ON THE TRAFFIC ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION, AND CERTIFICATE:   Mr. Lancaster explained that this ordinance was adopted in 1999 to mirror the traffic fees collected by the state; however, the ordinance was never amended, so the county has been collecting fees based on an outdated fee schedule. The proposed ordinance will allow the county’s fee schedule to adjust when the state fees change.

 

As this was the first reading of the ordinance, all discussion and motions will take place during the second reading.

 

10202009O001           FIRST READING – ORDINANCE FOR THE REGULATION OF TRAFFIC BY THE COUNTY OF LARIMER, COLORADO; UPDATING SURCHARGE AND FINE SCHEDULE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; ORDINANCE #11032009O001

 

8.         EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PERSONNEL ITEMS:  Mr. Lancaster requested this item be tabled until next week so that it could be heard by all three Commissioners.

 

9.         COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster presented his Internal Monitoring Report for Executive Limitations and stated he was out of compliance with section 3.6, which states the County Manager shall name both an emergency replacement and a back-up to the emergency replacement. He stated that Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager, is his emergency replacement; however, because Larry Timm recently retired, Mr. Lancaster must name a new back-up to the emergency replacement.

 

Mr. Lancaster stated he would name a new County Manager emergency back-up very soon.

 

10.       COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board detailed their attendance at various events during the previous week.

 

11.       LEGAL MATTERS:  Ms. Haag, Mr. Ressue, and Mr. Gray addressed the Board regarding enforcement of the Rubbish Ordinance. Mr. Gray stated that he is aware of roughly five properties currently in severe violation of the ordinance. He stated that repeated attempts by the county to bring the properties into compliance have solicited no response from the property owners. The next step, according to the ordinance, would be for the county to hire contractors to clear the property and recoup expenses by placing a tax lien against the property. Mr. Gray stated that the estimated cost to clean up these properties is $40,000 to $50,000.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Johnson stated that while cleaning up the properties is a large expenditure of funds, the county must follow through to resolve the problems and appease neighboring property owners. Furthermore, because it may take nearly a year for the county to recoup expenses, he suggested that the county tackle one such property per year.

 

Commissioner Donnelly agreed and stated that because the county has already put so much work into these projects, they must continue until the problem is resolved.

 

Mr. Gray noted the Board’s advisement and will begin the next phase of the Rubbish Ordinance for one of the five non-compliant properties.

 

There being no further business, the meeting recessed at 11:00 a.m.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 1:30 p.m. for an abatement hearing. Chair Pro-Tem Johnson presided and Commissioner Donnelly was present. Also present were:  Jason Marks, Assessor’s Office; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR S2CR LAND & DEVELOPMENT, LLC – PARCELS #98193-06-014; 98193-11-001; 98193-11-009; 98193-11-011; 98193-11-012; 98193-11-013; 98193-11-003; 98194-11-005; & 98194-11-006:   Mr. Marks explained that this abatement was tabled from October 13, 2009, due to confusion about which parcels should be included in the assessment of taxes. After further research, it was discovered that parcels #98193-06-014, 98193-11-001, 98193-11-009, 98193-11-011, 98193-11-012, and 98193-11-013 would be assessed at $88,700 per lot, which Mr. Marks has determined to be fair market value.

 

Parcels #98193-11-003, 98194-11-005, and 98194-11-006 were held from sale by the engineering department for a total of 45-days during 2008; therefore, Mr. Marks has assessed these lots at $66,500 per lot, which is 75% of fair market value.

 

Ms. Barnes, representative for S2CR Land & Development, stated the assessed values were still not fair because the lots were used for agricultural purposes during 2008. Chair Pro-Tem Johnson informed Ms. Barnes that the lots were currently classified for residential use and she would have to complete the necessary forms if she wishes to have that classification changed. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the petition for abatement of taxes for S2CR Land & Development, parcels #98193-06-014, 98193-11-001, 98193-11-009, 98193-11-011, 98193-11-012, and 98193-11-013; and deny the petition of abatement of taxes for S2CR Land & Development, parcels #98193-11-003, 98194-11-005, and 98194-11-006.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

 

 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

(No Audio Available)

 

The Board met at 2:00 p.m. to go into executive session to discuss specialized details of an investigation. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present was Jim Alderden, Sheriff.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board go into executive session to discuss specialized details of an investigation as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(d) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the Board recessed at 3:00 p.m.

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ROADS IN RED FEATHER LAKES

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 6:30 p.m. in Red Feather Lakes with Jill Bennett, Principal Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were:  Mark Peterson and Jerry White, Engineering Department; George Haas and Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.         PUBLIC ROADS IN RED FEATHER LAKES:   The Red Feather Lakes Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) has been working on the question of community roads for several years. The PAC conducted an open house and public meeting in July 2009, to explain issues and options and to hear community concerns. After considering the public input, the PAC voted to request that Larimer County recognize certain traveled ways in the community as public roads.  The Motion outlining the request is attached.

 

Nine roads are included in the request:  Hiawatha Highway, Firehouse Lane, Nokomis Road, Letitia Drive, Monoma Road, Eagle Tree Circle and Ramona Drive a portion of Main Street, and a portion of Grand Avenue. It should be noted that Hiawatha Highway was previously acknowledged as a public road at the time of the formation of the Road District for the area. The roads subcommittee of the PAC intends to follow the public road hearing with a GPS centerline survey and monumentation to permanently fix their location. Hiawatha Highway is included in the request so that it can be surveyed along with the other roads being considered.

 

Staff members from the Planning Department, Engineering Department, and the County Attorney’s Office have been working with the PAC as they explore options for roads in the community. The Boar of County Commissioners does not have the authority to “declare” or “designate” roads to be public; that authority rests with the courts. What is being requested is that Larimer County recognize or acknowledge these roads as public as a matter of policy. 

 

 If the Commissioners take this action, the roads would be treated in the same manner as other public local subdivision roads (such as Hiawatha Highway) and the county could post and enforce speed limits and other traffic regulations. If necessary, the county could pursue legal remedies to keep the roads open for public use. Larimer County does not maintain this category of public road, but recognition as public is a necessary step should property owners wish to form a road district to maintain any or all of these roads. Recognition as a public road does not mean that the county assumes ownership of the road or that the county would have any increased ability to acquire additional right-of-way from adjacent landowners.

 

The majority of the roads under consideration are contained between or within subdivisions that were platted in the 1920s. These plats do not contain the right-of-way dedication statements that more modern plats are required to have, but in most cases either the plat notes or legend appear to indicate that they were intended for public use. 

 

The Quaintance family owns most of the private property crossed by the roads outside the subdivided areas. The family has indicated a willingness to dedicate these traveled ways to the county, and family attorneys are working with the county to complete the necessary documentation.

 

According to the County Attorney, the primary applicable criteria for consideration of a road as a public road is as follows:

 

C.R.S. 43-2-201. Public highways. (1) The following are declared to be public highways: (c) All roads over private lands that have been used adversely without interruption or objection on the part of the owners of such lands for twenty consecutive years.

 

Ms. Bennett then suggested that because many of the residents were concerned about exactly which roads would be made public and where those roads would be marked, it would probably be best if the Board approved the resolution and allowed the survey to be completed. Then, the county, in conjunction with the PAC, could present the survey to residents and allow comments or suggestions to be made before formally accepting the designation.

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing to the members of the Red Feather Lakes Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and Ted Carter addressed the Board.  Mr. Carter clarified that the meeting was not initiated by the County Commissioners; the meeting was requested by the PAC, with hopes that the Board would approve a resolution to declare the streets public.

 

Mr. Carter further explained that the resolution would establish the actual location of the roads in Red Feather Lakes and allow consistent access to them. The resolution would also minimize encroachment onto private property, provide legal support to the Board to resolve disputes, facilitate improvements, solutions, stability, and increase the viability of the town. Finally, the resolution, if approved, would require the county pay for the survey and monumentation of the existing roads.

 

Bill Gilbert, member of PAC and Chair of the Road Subcommittee, presented the Board with 24 affidavits and letters, from the citizens of Red Feather Lakes, attesting to the historic use of the roads being considered at this hearing.

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing to public comment. Deryl Elmore questioned whether 4-wheelers and other all terrain vehicles (ATV) would still be allowed to traverse the roads if made public.  Mr. Elmore also questioned where the county would find the money to cover the costs of conducting a survey of the roads. Finally, Mr. Elmore asked whether designating the roads as public would increase the amount of taxes he would have to pay.

 

Lorrie Muneta asked the Board about the future of her well, which is very close to where the current road is located, if the roads are dedicated as public.

 

Dell and Janet McNally asked the Board about the written comments from citizens submitted at the PAC meeting in July and why the Board was not present at that meeting.  Ms. McNally asked if there was a way to mark the current roads before making them official.

 

Lucille Schmitt, PAC member, addressed the Board in favor of the public designation and explained that the Quaintance family has graciously offered to convey their private roads for public use. The proposed designation will not widen any roads; it will only allow residents to know where the roads are located.

 

Gordon (Bud) Thomas, PAC member, addressed the Board in support of the public designation but also voiced concerns about his ability to continue to maintain the roads if they become public.

 

Michael Sledge presented many advantages to the proposed public designation, including better rates for surveying work and the protection it will add to the community.  Mr. Sledge stated that the designation and survey would allow residents to recognize reality and finally state where roads are currently located.

 

Doug Ritter addressed the Board and cautioned the negative effects of a bad survey.  Mr. Ritter stated that he operates a survey company located in Red Feather Lakes and would like the Board to guarantee a proper survey be conducted and monument pins be placed in high frequency. He explained that proper monumentation, which should include pins that are easy to find for many years to come, would allow him and other surveyors to perform reliable work.

 

Chair Rennels closed public comment.

 

Mr. Peterson then addressed the Board in an attempt to answer the questions raised during public comment.  Mr. Peterson stated that if the roads are designated public:

 

1.         The Sheriff’s Deputy assigned to the area would be able to enforce traffic laws, such as speed limits and the use of ATVs, at his/her discretion.

 

2.         Existing setbacks, including the location of septic tanks and water wells, will not be affected by the designation. New septic tanks and water wells will be subject to current regulations with measurements from the existing roads.

 

3.         The results of the comment cards collected at the PAC meeting in July were not quantifiable because of the way in which questions were asked. Many of the comment cards asked questions and voiced concerns about the designation. All comment cards are available for review by contacting the PAC.

 

4.         Taxes will not be affected by the dedication of roads.

 

5.         The survey to be conducted, as mentioned by Ms. Bennett, will illustrate the location of the roads’ current location and are subject to review by residents. The designation and survey will not change any roads.

 

6.         Roads can be marked during the survey process by using paint.

 

7.         As long as citizens are not destroying the roads, county staff welcomes any and all maintenance help from citizens.

 

Chair Rennels closed the hearing to public comment.

 

Commissioner Donnelly stated that, like Mr. Ritter, he was concerned about the quality and extent of the survey to be conducted. He stated that the county and the PAC should not find a surveyor to fit a price amount; they should find a surveyor that will conduct the work they need and then negotiate the cost. He also stated that if the county is going to be paying for the survey work, then staff will need to be involved in the negotiation of the contract.

 

Chair Rennels agreed with Commissioner Donnelly and added that as Commissioners, they must be good stewards of tax money.

 

Commissioner Johnson stated that he is appreciative of the Red Feather Lakes PAC and the connection they have formed with the community. He also thanked the citizens who have been involved with the process. Finally, he voiced his support for the project.

 

Chair Rennels explained that Red Feather Lakes must have roads to survive as a community and the approval of public designation is the first step to ensure the survival of the roads.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved to recognize as public the nine roads and road segments as detailed in the Red Feather Lakes Planning Advisory Committee request and to authorize the staff in consultation with the Planning Advisory Committee to create a scope of work, to include appropriate monumentation, for establishment of a global positioning system centerline survey of the roads and road segments subject to this resolution and to submit the scope to the Board for further consideration.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

 

 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

(No Audio Available)

 

The Board met at 9:45 a.m. to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present was Frank Lancaster, County Manager.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board go into executive session to discuss personnel matters as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

                        KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

­­­______________________________________

Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy Clerk

 

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