County Offices, Courts and Landfill will be closed on Monday, July 4 for the Independence Day Holiday. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1996
MEETING WITH ROB HELMICK AND AL KADERA OF THE
The Board of County Commissioners met at 2:00 p.m. in regular session with Rob Helmick and Al Kadera of the Planning Department. Chair Clarke presided and Commissioner Disney was present. Also present were: Planning Director Larry Timm, K-Lynn Cameron, Open Lands Manager; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
1. Request for Additional Funds for 2nd Phase of Front Range Mountain Backdrop Study: Mr. Helmick informed the Board that the first phase of the Front Range Mountain Backdrop, which identifies the "Candidate Critical Preservation Lands" in Larimer County, is finished. Mr. Helmick stated that the 5-County Task Force, with a consultant, has determined that it makes sense to go forward with a second planning grant; this planning grant would require $5,000 in cash from each of the 5 counties and $10,000 for in-kind services for a total of $75,000, and they are requesting a $75,000 matching grant from GOCO. Mr. Helmick stated that Jefferson, Boulder, and El Paso Counties have signed on for the second phase and he asked the Board if Larimer County should participate in the second phase; he noted that Douglas County is waiting until next year to see if they wish to participate. Mr. Helmick stated that the Task Force members believe that continuing the efforts of the study in a more site specific analysis, working with land owners in the "Critical Preservation Lands", further education and public information, and developing a centralized GIS repository for the data base is an effort which is needed. Mr. Helmick outlined several recommendations, such as transferring the staffing coordination and administration of the project to the Open Lands Manager, if the Board decides to participate in the second phase of the Study. Discussion followed; the Board indicated they want to continue with the second phase of the Front Range Mountain Backdrop Study, with the monies ($5,000) to be derived from the 1997 Commissioner's Special Projects Fund.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the participation of Larimer County in the second phase of the Front Range Mountain Backdrop Study, with the monies for Larimer County's share ($5,000) to be derived from the 1997 Commissioner's Special Projects Fund, and request Mr. Helmick to prepare a letter for the Board to sign to send to the GOCO Board of Directors indicating their support.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
2. Request for Direction from the Board: Mr. Kadera stated he is looking for direction from the Board concerning a situation in the Miller-Boyd Subdivision, next to the sugar factory in Loveland, in which half of the property is in the County and half in Loveland; he noted that this is an older subdivision and has been zoned B-Business since 1963. Mr. Kadera stated that one property owner in the subdivision owns four lots and wants to do an Amended Plat and create two lots; he noted that normally this would not be a problem, but because the property is zoned B-Business, Mr. Kadera cannot issue a building permit for a house. Mr. Kadera outlined several options for the Board to consider: 1) Encourage the City of Loveland to annex the property; 2) Initiate County rezoning of the site; 3) Go to the Board of Adjustment to seek special exception to allow a single family use; or 4) Ask the property owner to initiate a rezoning of the site. Ms. Haag stated that the problem is that everyone anticipated that the City of Loveland would annex this site; however, Loveland can't do an involuntary annexation because this subdivision is part of an enclave. Much discussion followed; the Board decided that the other property owners in the subdivision need to be notified and asked if they prefer to change the zoning to R-Residential or remain B-Business and, in the meantime, the City of Loveland will be encouraged to annex this property.
The meeting recessed at 2:30 p.m.
(#115 @ 1500)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:45 p.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Clarke presided and Commissioner Disney was present. Also present were: Rex Smith, Director of Public Works, and Donna Hart, Community Information Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION TO HIRE COUNTY ENGINEER: Mr. Lancaster requested Board approval of a resolution to appoint Marc T. Engemoen as County Engineer for Larimer County.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution to appoint Marc T. Engemoen to the position of County Engineer for Larimer County, effective January 2, 1997, at an annual salary of $63,000, and authorize the Chair to sign same.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
R96-166g RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARC T. ENGEMOEN AS
COUNTY ENGINEER FOR LARIMER COUNTY
2. REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF MOTION MADE LAST WEEK REGARDING THE TREASURER'S CHIEF DEPUTY'S SALARY: Mr. Lancaster requested clarification in the motion the Board made last week concerning the annual salary for the Treasurer's Chief Deputy that the motion be amended to state that the increased salary will be retro-active to September 1, 1996.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Treasurer's Chief Deputy's salary increase to $54,000, as approved last week, retro-active to September 1, 1996.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RESPONSE LETTER TO 35-ACRE TASK FORCE: Mr. Lancaster submitted a revised copy of the response letter to the 35-Acre Task Force and requested Board approval of the revision. The Board concurred with the revision, which was to advise the Task Force that the decision on the Rural Land Use Center may or may not be tabled at the hearing on December 16, 1996 and they should be prepared to make their comments at that time. Mr. Lancaster will prepare the letter for the Chair's signature.
4. DOCUMENT REVIEW:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for the weeks of November 11 and November 18, 1996, as submitted.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule for the week of December 1, 1996, as submitted and amended.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following documents, as listed on the Consent Agenda for Document Review on November 25, 1996:
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT: Amended Plat for Fox Acres - Envelope "D". LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to: Fort Collins Country Club - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS - Fort Collins, CO.; Red Feather Liquors - 6% - Red Feather, CO.; Rock Inn Steak House - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS - Estes Park, CO.; Young's Liquor - 6% - Fort Collins, CO.; and Mexican Inn - 6% - Loveland, CO. County approval was granted to the Masonville Store - 3.2% - Masonville, CO.
A96-150 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR REGIONAL
COOPERATION ON PLANNING FOR MANAGING URBAN
DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITIES OF FORT COLLINS,
GREELEY, LOVELAND, AND EVANS, AND THE TOWNS OF
BERTHOUD, MILLIKEN, JOHNSTOWN, WELLINGTON, AND
A96-151 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT (Funding for Transportation)
R96-167g RESOLUTION REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ENTER INTO
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT, FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN NON-URBANIZED AREAS
R96-168g RESOLUTION FOR BUDGET CONTINGENCY
Motion carried 2 - 0.
The meeting recessed at 2:55 p.m.
LAND-USE PLANNING MEETING
(#115 @ 2000 & #116)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Planning Director. Chair Clarke presided; Commissioners Disney and Duvall were present. Also present were: Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Richard Grossmann, Environmental Health; Carol Evans, Planner II; Rex Burns and Lonnie Sheldon, Project Engineers; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner; Jerry White, Right-of-Way Agent; Scott Cornell, Environment Site & Access Specialist; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
Chair Clarke noted that the Miller-Boyd Subdivision, Lots 13-16, Block 2, Amended Plat (#96-SA0944) has been removed from today's agenda.
Chair Clarke stated that the following are consent items and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners or members of the audience; Commissioner Duvall requested that the Saddle Ridge Acres PUD and Rezoning be removed from the Consent Agenda because of the number of conditions and complexities of the issue.
1. BROADVIEW SUBDIVISION AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3 AMENDED
PLAT (#96-SA0961): 35-05-73, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 36, WEST OF
MARY'S LAKE ROAD, WEST OF ESTES PARK; 5 ACRES; E-ESTATE
This is a request to reconfigure a subdivision lot, a metes and bounds parcel, and two exemption lots, resulting in three building sites. Staff findings include: 1) A previous Amended Plat on this site resulted in several conditions of approval which may be appropriately applied to this request; 2) The County Engineer has made recommendations concerning road and drainage improvements needed to serve the lots proposed in this Amended Plat; 3) The County Health Department, and all utilities serving this area, reviewed the proposed Amended Plat and stated no objections. The staff recommendation is for approval of the Amended Plat of the Amended Plat of Lot 3, Broadview Subdivision, with the condition that all recommendations of the County Engineer shall be met before the plat is recorded or a Subdivision Improvements Agreement is executed and collateral provided to guarantee the improvements will be completed.
2. RED FEATHER LAKES BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT EASEMENT
VACATION (#96-SA0968): 35-10-73 - SOUTHEAST OF RED FEATHER
LAKES; .1 ACRE; O-OPEN ZONING
This is a request to vacate an access and utility easement that has been replaced by another easement. Staff findings are: 1) A Boundary Line Adjustment was approved for ten parcels near Red Feather Lakes; the map included an access and utility easement; 2) The Boundary Line Adjustment has been amended and the access/utility easement should be moved to coincide with the new lot lines. The amended map shows the new easement, but the old easement must be vacated by resolution of the Board; 3) The County Health and Engineering Departments, and all utilities serving this area, reviewed the proposed easement vacation and stated no objections. The staff recommendation is for approval of the vacation of the access/utility easement shown on the Red Feather Lakes Boundary Line Adjustment and more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached to the Resolution.
3. SMITHFIELD SUBDIVISION, LOTS 21A AND 23, AMENDED PLAT
(#96-SA0970): 16-07-68 - SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 14, WEST OF I-25;
3.52 ACRES; C-COMMERCIAL ZONING
This is a request to combine two existing lots and vacate the utility easement along the common lot line. Staff findings include: 1) Smithfield Subdivision was platted in 1974; 2) Most of the lots are occupied by commercial uses; this request is to accommodate an addition to an existing commercial building; 3) The utility easement along the common lot line will be vacated by this action to avoid an encroachment; 4) The County Health and Engineering Departments, and all utilities serving this area, reviewed the Amended Plat and easement vacation and stated no objections. The staff recommendation is for approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 21A and 23, Smithfield Subdivision, and the vacation of the utility easement along the common lot line.
4. SOUTH NOKOMIS LAKE, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 4, AMENDED PLAT
(#96-SA0969): 21-10-73 - RED FEATHER LAKES; .33 ACRES;
This is a request to combine three existing lots resulting in one building site and vacate an existing access easement. Staff findings are: 1) South Nokomis Lake Subdivision was platted in 1924; 2) Many lots are non-conforming with respect to minimum lot size and the Planning staff often encourages lot owners to combine lots to create more reasonable building and septic sites; 3) This request will combine three contiguous lots into a single building site and vacate an adjacent access easement that is not used for road purposes; vacating the access easement will not lease any lots without access; 4) The County Health and Engineering Departments, and all utilities serving this area, reviewed the Amended Plat and easement vacation and stated no objections. The staff recommendation is for approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 1-3, Block 4, South Nokomis Lake Subdivision, and the vacation of the adjacent access easement.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendations and approve the Saddle Ridge Acres Planned Unit Development and Rezoning (#96-MS0907); Broadview Subdivision Amended Plat of Lot 3 Amended Plat (#96-SA0961); Red Feather Lakes Boundary Line Adjustment Easement Vacation (#96-SA0968); Smithfield Subdivision Lots 21 A and 23 Amended Plat (#96-SA0970); and the South Nokomis Lake Lots 1-3, Block 4, Amended Plat (#96-SA0969).
Motion carried 3 - 0.
5. SADDLE RIDGE ACRES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
REZONING (#96-MS0907): SW 1/4 36-05-69 - NORTHWEST CORNER
OF U.S. HIGHWAY 287 AND COUNTY ROAD 14, NEAR THE
UNINCORPORATED TOWN OF CAMPION, SOUTH OF ROSS ESTATES;
16.6 ACRES; B-BUSINESS AND R1 RESIDENTIAL EXISTING ZONING
This is a request for a Planned Unit Development Rezoning to C-Commercial for an office and retail/wholesale business park with 6 structures totaling 183,000 square feet. Mr. Helmick noted a change made to condition #15 regarding the six-foot high fence as a result of several calls from neighbors. Mr. Helmick described the location and reviewed the major concerns and issues. Staff findings include: 1) The requested rezoning and PUD are generally consistent with the Master Plan; the existing zoning at the intersection of 287 and CR 14 is recognized. The applicants proposal for the increased area and category are limited by the restrictions proposed. The use for Business and limited Commercial, limits the potential impacts to the surrounding area. As a possible neighborhood center, as described in the Land Use Plan and the UGA, the proposal is consistent with the definition although pedestrian access to the retail areas is limited by the adjacent roads and highways; 2) There has not been a material change in the area; however, the increased traffic on Highway 287 would suggest that further residential use at the R1 density is probably not appropriate on this site. Setbacks from the highway on recently approved residential developments are in excess of 250 feet. This site is 460 to 600 feet deep, which would not allow a reasonable development of the site; 3) The residential zoning existing on the site could be used, but a reasonable plan would be difficult to develop. The Business zoning of 5 acres could be used at the site and of the uses proposed by the applicant, only the limited set of Commercial uses are not allowed in the Business zone. With the restrictions proposed on the uses, the change to Business and limited Commercial zoning, is a reasonable use of the site; 4) The neighborhood is currently a mix of uses. Large lot residential, older subdivisions and newer subdivisions are inter mixed with newly approved commercial uses, industrial uses, educational, and agricultural uses. The applicants have proposed setbacks to and landscaping buffer the adjoining uses. Additional buffering or landscaping may be appropriate to insure the existing residential uses are not impacted. Limiting truck traffic, or the hours available for delivery, will further reduce the impact to the adjoining properties; 5) No review agency identified concerns or issues which indicate the proposal should be significantly modified; 6) The applicant has prepared a traffic study which indicates the proposal can be accommodated at this site. Certain improvements are necessary at each stage of development to assure that traffic safety is assured. Adjacent roadway improvements will be required to assure that facilities are available for each phase of the project. The applicant will be responsible for the improvements prior to commencing each phase of the project; 7) With reasonable conditions to assure compliance with the standards, this project will not impair or detrimentally affect the health, safety, or welfare of future inhabitants of Larimer County.
The Planning Commission/staff recommendation is for approval of the rezoning of the site from B-Business and R1-Residential to B-Business and C-Commercial and the Saddle Ridge Acres PUD Master Plan, with the following conditions: 1) The rezoning of the site to B-Business and C-Commercial is limited to the uses described in the application materials, dated October 16, 1996, and to the revised site plan of the PUD, submitted by the applicants on the same date; 2) Payment of park fees at the time of building permits; 3) Payment of drainage fees at the time of building permits; 4) Engineered footings and foundations are required on all structures. All construction shall comply with the recommendations of the applicants engineers and of the Colorado Geologic Survey; 5) Final drainage plan must be submitted at Final Plat; 6) Final landscape and site development plan, consistent with the City of Loveland Site Performance Standards and Guidelines, must be submitted at Final Plat; 7) All access and roadway improvements are required to be constructed by the applicant, pursuant to the recommendations of the traffic study, Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Engineering Department; 8) An annexation agreement must be submitted at Final Plat; 9) The uses of the site are limited to those described in the application and must be designated on the Final Plat; 10) The applicant must provide detail on all proposed signs prior to Final Plat. The signs must comply with the zone district requirements; 11) The requirements of the Engineering Department must be complied with for Final Plat and construction; 12) The requirements of the Loveland Fire Protection Bureau must be complied with; 13) Improvements to and increases in utilities capacities (water and sewer) are the obligation of the applicant; 14) All truck traffic and delivery traffic, may not occur before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m.; no idling trucks are to be permitted on site; 15) Inclusion of a six-foot high fence along the entire northern and western boundaries of the PUD, height and materials to be determined at Final Plat with the neighbors; 16) Increase the density of landscape screening along the western and northern property lines; 17) A final lighting plan shall be prepared for review at Final Plat; the plan shall insure that light does not glare or spill off the site onto adjoining properties.
Questions from the Board and discussion followed; Commissioner Disney asked whether or not the railroad crossing was considered in the traffic analysis. Mr. Sheldon advised Commissioner Disney that next year warning signals will be installed and replanking of the crossing. Steve Steinbecker, architect and planner working with the applicants, noted there was a request to look at the railroad crossing and it was included in the traffic study and he will submit a breakdown of same for the Board's review; he noted that he has worked with the applicants for over a year to make sure everything regarding this proposal was done correctly.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and Planning Commission/Staff recommendation and approve the Saddle Ridge Acres Planned Unit Development and Rezoning (#96-MS0907), with the conditions as outlined and condition #15 amended.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
6. YARTER DUMP VIOLATION - A PORTION OF THE SW OF NW & W
1/2 OF SW 34-12-70 - RED MOUNTAIN ROAD (CRD 37)
This alleged violation is for conditions at the site are in violation of Colorado Revised Statues 25-1-613 and the Colorado Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, Title 30, Article 20, Part I, C.R.S. 1983, as amended. Mr. Grossmann described the location, provided the background information for the Board, reviewed the major concerns and issues, and submitted photos of the site. Mr. Grossmann stated that the Health Department has two main concerns: 1) It is unknown when leachate contaminants from the break down of the waste material or the residual from the household hazardous waste will impact the soil and ground water in the area and families living in the area have their own individual potable drinking water wells which could be impacted by the material in the dump and pose a public health threat; 2) The piles of household waste and debris are an attractive source of food and shelter for disease-carrying rodents and flies. Staff findings include: 1) The garbage and debris pose a threat to public health and the environment; 2) The existing conditions on the property are in violation of the Colorado Revised Statutes 25-1-613 and Colorado Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Title 30, Article 20, Part I, C.R.S.. 1083, as amended. The staff recommendation is to find that the violation exists, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.
Phil Yarter, property owner, informed the Board that he has not been to the property for the past two or three months because he has been out of town on business; after reviewing the photos, he concurred that a lot has been added since he last visited the site. Mr. Yarter made several comments regarding the alleged violation: 1) This is not public property; 2) All containers have been emptied before being discarded; 3) No garbage type waste has been placed at this site for approximately ten years by them - all their household waste has been taken to town for disposal. He asked the Board if binder twine, fence post wire, etc. are permitted for dumping and if a dug trench or pit would be acceptable if it was far from a drainage area; he noted that this dump has been in existence since the early 1930's. Commissioner Duvall asked Mr. Yarter if he thinks other people are using this dump; he responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Disney cautioned Mr. Yarter he might want to consider closing the dump completely because he could be held liable if there is a problem. Mr. Grossmann concurred that Mr. Yarter should eliminate the dump because he will be held responsible for illegal dumping and he informed Mr. Yarter that if he dug a trench, he still would be in violation. Mr. Yarter requested the Board give him enough time to eliminate this dump and stated that 30 days would impose a great hardship; he agreed to remove the liquid in the next few weeks, but would like until spring to finish the job. Jim Elliston, adjacent property owner, stated he is planning to build a home in April across from the subject property and he has no problem with the Commissioners giving Mr. Yarter the additional time he requested to clean the site, but he expressed concern that further dumping not be allowed.
At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for discussion among the Board: Commissioner Duvall asked if the area could be posted; Mr. Grossmann responded "Yes", but it probably would be ignored. Commissioner Duvall stated it makes sense to give more time to the non-degradable materials, but there needs to be an immediate response to remove the anti-freeze and other dangerous substances.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists, require compliance within 30 days for household waste, household hazardous materials, and the 5-gallon containers that appear to hold substances that could be dangerous and pose a risk to the groundwater, and allow until June 1, 1997 to clean up materials that are not posing an immediate hazard, and authorize legal action if those deadlines are not met.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
7. LYONS STONE QUARRY ZONING VIOLATION - PARCEL 30502100048;
NW 1/4 NE 1/4 02-05-70, WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 27, 1/4 MILES NORTH
OF COUNTY ROAD 24H
The FA-1 Farming Zoning District requires Special Review approval by Larimer County for any quarry that began operation or expanded since April 26, 1973. The operators of the Lyons Stone Quarry had a Special Review approval granted in 1986 and amended in 1988 for quarrying sandstone on the subject property. Quarrying of sandstone has since taken place on portions of this property where Special Review approval has not been granted and such activity is in violation of the Special Review approvals previously granted and of Sections 10.2 and 27.6 of the Larimer County Zoning Resolution. Ms. Evans provided the background information, described the alleged violation, and reviewed the major issues and concerns; she noted that in August of 1996, the Planning Department received a written complaint from adjacent property owners regarding the recent expansion at the quarry. Ms. Evans submitted aerial photos of the site taken in 1987 and 1994, and photos taken in October 1996 showing mining activity on the southern end where no special review approval has been granted; she noted that since the Notice of Zoning Violation was received by the operator, according to the operator, mining has stopped in those areas. Ms. Evans stated that the State Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD) was contacted regarding the concerns and a site inspection was conducted, but no official results of that inspection have been received. Ms. Evans stated that another issue is the air pollution permit consideration - in 1986 the operator filed an air pollution/emission notice with the Colorado Department of Health and, at that time, they determined that a permit was not required and they granted an exemption, with conditions; however, with the expansion that has taken place, this permit issue needs to be re-evaluated and this will occur through a special review application.
Staff findings include: 1) The subject property is zoned FA-1 Farming; the FA-1 Farming District requires Special Review approval by Larimer County for any new quarry or expanded quarry operation since April 26, 1973; 2) A Special Review approval for a sandstone quarry was granted for the subject property in 1986; the approval was amended in 1988; 3) Mining of sandstone has taken place on portions of the subject property without Special Review approval and is in violation of Sections 10.2 and 27.6 of the Larimer County Comprehensive Zoning Resolution; 4) Continued mining of the property without required review and approval could significantly affect residents and properties in the area and may result in negative impacts on the environment, access and traffic, and health and safety.
The staff recommendation was revised, as follows, to find that a violation exists and require immediate and continued compliance; authorize legal action if mining activities continue in areas of the property that have not received Special Review approval; require submittal of a complete Amended Special Review application for this property on the December 17, 1996 submittal deadline. If operator chooses not to submit a Special Review application, then a Reclamation Plan and timetable for restoration of the disturbed areas that are outside of the Special Review approval must be submitted to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (with a copy submitted to the Larimer County Planning Department) by December 17, 1996; and authorize immediate legal action if such application or reclamation plan/timetable is not received.
Doug Bachli, one of the quarry owners, addressed the Board and discussed the operation of the quarry; he noted that the quarry was opened in 1887 and they purchased it in 1985 and presently have 26 employees. Mr. Bachli addressed the formation of the quarry stating that it is like a giant puzzle which lays in an unpredictable way which they follow during quarrying; he noted the quarry provides a very valuable natural resource not found anywhere else in the world. Mr. Bachli submitted pictures of the quarry and a packet of information about the quarry, which he reviewed with the Board; he noted that they mine conscientiously and do not waste anything and they have been responsible to their employees, to the residents in the area, to the resource, and to the various government agencies. Mr. Bachli stated he plans to submit an application for special review for an amendment to the quarry site on December 17, 1996; he stated, however, that he does not believe he is in violation at this time because in 1990, when they needed to modify their permit, he submitted information about an expansion to the County, but he never heard back from them, and so he assumed everything was fine. At this time, Mr. White stated he doesn't recall that situation, but he recalls other conversations with Mr. Bachli and he was informed that any expansion beyond what was approved by the County in 1988, would have to go through the special review procedures. Mr. Bachli stated he has heard back from the MLRD and they have not shut him down; therefore, he assumed he was in compliance. The Board will review what the State allows and attempt to have similar rules and regulations; the Board concurred that the problem here is definition.
The following adjacent property owners addressed the Board with their comments and concerns: Warren Wolaver, Sam Solt, J. D. Wyatt, and John Gillespie. Mr. Solt stated that when he purchased his property in 1976, there was no evidence of disturbance on the hillside and today there is; his only concern is that we all play by the rules and he is certainly willing to work with Mr. Bachli. Mr. Solt stated that there has not been any reclamation that he can see so far, and there should be; he asked for definition and resolution to the problem which can be agreed upon and managed accordingly. Mr. Wyatt stated that Mr. Bachli has done a good job and has tried to be legal; he noted that the mountain was torn up 100 years ago. Mr. Gillespie stated that there is an increasingly large scar on the south side of the hogback and the mountain looks like a war zone. Mr. Gillespie stated he doesn't want anyone to lose their job but he recommends Mr. Bachli follow the law and come into compliance; if not, it will begin to affect property values in the area. Mr. Gillespie requested the Board require the owners to come into compliance, but to deal with them fairly. Mr. Cornell stated that the question for the Board to decide is if mining activity is going on outside the permitted area; he noted that the maps are very confusing and it would be very beneficial if the operator would be required to produce a map with metes and bounds which are understandable to all.
Ms. Evans stated that application requirements for special review have become more specific since the 1980's, when the original special reviews were submitted, and now maps must be drawn to scale and she agreed that having a survey map of this site would be extremely helpful.
Mr. Bachli responded to the comment about the quarry operations affecting property values is the area; he noted that property values in this area have appreciated 15% faster than the rest of the county and the quarry is not a negative in the area.
At this time, the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's comments. Chair Clarke stated it is difficult to determine what is going on this area because of the confusion of the maps; however, it is obvious that some mining did occur outside the permitted areas and no reclamation was done when the new area opened. Chair Clarke stated there are too many unanswered questions and he would like to see a comparison of the rules of the State and the County, which need to be in sync; he noted that mining is a valuable resource and an important part of our economy in Colorado, but the land needs to be reclaimed. Commissioner Disney stated that there are also other quarry operations in the area and he is concerned about setting a precedent and does not want to convey to them that it is easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. Commissioner Duvall stated she wants to review the comments regarding this quarry from the State MLRD; Ms. Evans assured her that the State will require a reclamation plan and a copy should be submitted with the Special Review application. At this time, co-owner of the Lyons Stone Quarry, Wayne Phipps requested the floor.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board of County Commissioners reopen the public comment portion of the hearing to allow Mr. Phillips the opportunity to speak.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
Mr. Phipps clarified the Board's reclamation concerns by informing them that with the 110 permit, they have a $5,000 bond to guarantee the reclamation, and when they apply for the 112 permit, they will be required to provide a bond for reclamation on a "per acre" basis, as determined by the State; he further noted that this bond would be more than is required under their current permit.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and require immediate and continued compliance, authorize legal action if mining activities continue in areas of the property that have not received Special Review approval, and require submittal of a complete Amended Special Review application for this property by the December 17, 1996 submittal deadline; if operator chooses not to submit a Special Review application, then a reclamation plan and timetable for restoration of the disturbed areas that are outside of the Special Review approval must be submitted to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, with a copy submitted to the Larimer County Planning Department, by December 17, 1996; and authorize immediate legal action if such application or reclamation plan/timetable is not received.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The hearing adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
JOHN CLARKE, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
( S E A L )
Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk