> Meetings & Minutes > 2004 Minutes > BCC Minutes for 10/11/04  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, October 18, 2004

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#120)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Bender were present.  Also present were: Doug Ryan, Health Department; Al Kadera, Matt Lafferty, and Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Dave Shirk, Town of Estes Park; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy County Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the Larimer County Land Use Code and the County Budget.  Nobody from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.

 

Chair Rennels noted that item #1 pertaining to the Shreiner Sawmill Special Review, file # 01-Z1406, will be tabled to November 1, 2004, at the applicant's request. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table item #1 pertaining to the Shreiner Sawmill Special Review, file # 01-Z1406, to November 1, 2004, at 3:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Chair Rennels stated that the following items are consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

2.         RAMBLING RIVER PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP:  This is a request to condominiumize a previously approved eleven unit development plan. The Estes Valley Planning Commission approved the Rambling River Development Plan (DP 04-03) on April 20, 2004.  That approval provided for eleven units.  The units are currently under construction, and the applicant is now proposing the condominium map to allow for individual sale.  The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan.  Staff recommends approval of the requested Rambling River Preliminary Condominium Map subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission:  1.  Compliance with Development Plan 04-03 “Rambling River”.  2.  A LOMA (Letter of Map Amendment) or LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill), whichever is applicable, shall be completed prior to final condominium map approval.  3.  Parcels shall be included in the Northern Colorado Conservancy District.  4.  Any new water service line or existing service line replacement shall require a Service Line Permit from the Building Department.

3.  WITHROW RIDGE SUBDIVISION LOT 8 EASEMENT VACATION; 04-S2342:  This is a request to vacate a 20-foot utility easement on the north side of Lot 8, of the Withrow Ridge Subdivision.  Vacation of the easement will allow the applicant sufficient room to construct a 30-foot by 48-foot outbuilding.   Staff findings are as follows:  1.  The proposed easement vacation complies with the Larimer County Land Use Code.  2.  The proposed easement vacation will not leave any adjoining properties without access to utility services.  3. All appropriate agencies have been notified of the easement vacation and support approval of the request.  The Development Services Team Recommendation recommends approval of the request to vacate a 20-foot utility easement along the north side of Lot 8 of the Withrow Ridge Subdivision, as shown on the plot plan found in File #04-S2342.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.  LEGACY HEIGHTS CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN; 04-S2323:  This is a request for a General Development Plan for a 55 lot single family Conservation Development on 278 acres, which development will include 50% residual land in 3 residual lots.  The applicant is also proposing to construct the project in 2 phases.  Mr. Lafferty explained that on September 15, 2004, the Development Services Team presented the Legacy Heights Conservation Development General Development Plan to the Planning Commission; he noted that issues raised and discussed during the hearing regarding the development proposal included the following:  storm water detention, buffers from County Road 10, raptors, prairie dog colonies and dust resulting from current activities on the property.   Mr. Lafferty explained these issues and how the applicant would resolve them by buffering and protecting areas surrounding the development, and also preserve the connectivity of an existing air strip for an adjoining neighbor.  Mr. Lafferty explained the access to the subdivision noting that the main entrance would be to the north off of County Road 10, and a secondary access would be utilized to the east off of County Road 21.  The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Legacy Heights General Development Plan as found in File # 04-S2323, subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission:  1.  The Preliminary Plat for the Legacy Heights Conservation Development shall be consistent with plans and representations of the General Development Plan for Legacy Heights (04-S2323).  2.  A Preliminary Plat for the Legacy Heights Conservation Development shall include a minimum of 50% residual land, excluding the pond area of the property.  3. The number of single family lots within the Legacy Heights Conservation Development shall not exceed the 55 lots illustrated on the Legacy Heights General Development Plan.  4.  A feasibility analysis for connection to the Berthoud sewer system shall be provided before the submission of the preliminary plat for this development. Should the feasibility analysis regarding connection to the Berthoud sewer system indicate that service is feasible then this recommendation shall be null and void.  5. A Preliminary Plat application for the Legacy Heights Conservations Development shall provide for the following:   a.) Compatibility with the existing and allowed uses in the area; b.) Compliance with all standards and other requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code and with all other federal, state and county laws and regulations; and c.) Compliance with Section 8 (Standards for all Development) of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Commissioner Gibson asked if the applicant would be participating in improving County Road 10 as it was being utilized as the main entrance.  Mr. Lafferty stated that County Road 10 has already been improved by the developer to the north; however, County Road 21 will be paved from north to south as part of this project.  Chair Rennels asked Mr. Lafferty to explain difference of a General Development Plan (GDP) versus a Preliminary Plat.  Mr. Lafferty noted that the GDP process must be used when a project is developed in phases, and the Preliminary Plat will presumably be approved based on the GDP.

At this time Bob Persichitte of Intermill Land Surveying, Inc., addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Persichitte noted that Mr. Lafferty had explained the project very well and reiterated that the project will include 55 lots with some residual land to be used for agricultural purposes.  Chair Rennels then asked the applicant, Jim Nordhougen, who would own the residual land.  Mr. Nordhougen stated that share cropping has taken place with the land for generations and that the land will be privately owned.  Commissioner Bender asked what type of farming would take place on the residual land. Mr. Nordhougen replied that grazing and mixed crops would be the primary uses.  At this time Chair Rennels opened the hearing to public comment.  Wood Eppelsheimer, adjoining neighbor, addressed the Board stating his concerns with reserving the air strip and questioned whether or not it could ever be used in the future as a public access point into and through the development.  Mr. Eppelsheimer stated that he would prefer it be limited to emergency vehicle access, and not a thoroughfare for public traffic.   No one else addressed the Board for public comment.  Mr. Persichitte stated that they would be in agreement with platting it as an emergency access if staff agreed to this condition as well.  Commissioner Gibson asked if County Road 21 would be paved asphalt, and Mr. Lafferty replied in the affirmative.  Chair Rennels questioned the connectivity issue and Ms. Downs stated that there are both current and future options for connectivity regarding the development and the properties surrounding it, and she felt confident that adequate connectivity is available.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Legacy Heights Conservation Development General Development Plan; file #04-S2323, as recommended by the Planning Commission and Development Services Team.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  ROBERTS ZONING VIOLATION; 03-ZV0132:  This is an alleged violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding Section 4.1.1, Outside storage is not a permitted use in the FA-Farming Zoning District; Section 4.1.1, a junkyard is not a permitted use in the FA-Farming Zoning District; and Section 4.1.1, the use of the parcel to store equipment for, and maintain the operations of a commercial street sweeping business is not a permitted use in the FA-Farming Zoning District.  The property in question is located at 749 West County Road 14, Loveland, Colorado.  Mr. Roberts purchased the property in early 2002. It is approximately 3.31 acres. Onsite structures include a single family residence, a steel commercial type detached garage and several smaller utility buildings.  Mr. Roberts owns and operates Longmont Street Sweeping.  The size/structure of his business is unknown, however, up to 5 street sweepers have been observed on the parcel at one time. Some of these were operational and some appeared to be broken. The broken ones are typically stored behind the detached garage, on the north side, along with other inoperable/unlicensed vehicles. This area is screened from the main road by Mr. Robert’s house; however, it is next to a single family dwelling on an adjacent parcel. There are several neighbors who call every few weeks to update staff on the status of the zoning violation. Typically, they call when Mr. Roberts has hauled in more vehicles, trailers or sweepers.

Staff has inspected this property on several occasions over the past two years. Sometimes only driving by and sometimes stopping in and talking with the owner. The property has been fully inspected, with Mr. Roberts escorting staff around, on two occasions.  Staff has also observed employees both doing mechanical work and spraying down the street sweepers with water, in the detached garage. This garage is in direct view of citizens traveling on east/west on County Road 14.  As previously mentioned, there are also several unlicensed/inoperable vehicles and trailers outside on the parcel. Mr. Roberts stated that some of the vehicles belong to family members (sister, nephew, and mother). Staff advised him that he could only store vehicles which were licensed/operable and registered to occupants of the single family dwelling. He informed staff that he did not realize this was a violation and said he would take care of it, as none off the vehicles in the back displayed current registration tags.

He indicated intentions of keeping a couple of the junk vehicles. Staff advised him that a compromise could potentially be reached, however, other vehicles and miscellaneous junk would need to be removed first.  Each time staff has contact with Mr. Roberts he assures staff that he is not running his business from this site. He states that his intentions are good and he wants to be in compliance. However, complaints continue to be filed which contradict what Mr. Roberts states is occurring. For this reason, a hearing was scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners.  Notice of the hearing was mailed via regular and certified mail. The certified letter was received and signed for.  Upon receipt of the hearing notice, Mr. Roberts contacted staff on September 18, 24 and October 1, 2004 regarding compliance. In the last conversation, he indicated that he had moved the street sweeping business to the City of Longmont and was going to have each of his drivers take a sweeper home with them at night, rather than store them at his residence.  He again stated intentions of contacting his family members to have their personal property removed from the site.

Staff findings include: 1. The property is zoned FA-Farming.  2.  Outside storage, for a commercial or industrial use, is not permitted in the FA Farming zoning district.  3.  No County approval has been granted to permit a street sweeping business to be conducted from this parcel.  4.  Outdoor storage of vehicles, not registered to the occupant of the onsite dwelling, is not a permitted use in the FA-Farming zoning district.  5.  Use of the parcel, in violation of the Land Use Code, will affect surrounding property values.  6.  Use of the parcel, in violation of the Land Use Code, has affected the neighbors' ability to enjoy their own property.  Staff recommendation is as follows:  1. The Board finds that a violation exists, 2. Require compliance within 30 days. Compliance requires that: a) all outdoor storage of unlicensed/inoperable vehicles/trailers/sweepers and junk be removed.  b) The parcel may not be used for the operation of Longmont Street Sweeping, or any other commercial/industrial use; and 3.  Authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

At this time the applicant was not present and Commissioner Bender asked if the applicant had been notified.  Mr. Kadera stated that yes; the applicant received a certified mailing regarding notice of the hearing.  Chair Rennels opened the hearing up to public comment and Jeanne Steffens, adjoining neighbor, addressed the Board stating that she has tried to work with Mr. Roberts and in her opinion he has been unresponsive; she explained that this has been going on for approximately two years and she would like it resolved.  At this time Mr. Roberts joined the meeting and stated that he has almost everything cleaned up and cleared off the property.  Chair Rennels asked if he has found a place to relocate the equipment, and Mr. Roberts replied in the affirmative.  Some discussion ensued regarding the clean up efforts and what type of equipment was still located on the property.  Commissioner Bender asked if the applicant was agreeable to the Board finding that a violation exists, and allowing him 30 days to comply, which may have already been accomplished; however, it will take a site visit by staff to make that determination.  Mr. Roberts was agreeable to this.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists with regard to the Roberts Zoning Violation, file # 03-ZV0132, and require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.  Compliance would require that all outdoor storage of unlicensed/inoperable vehicles/trailers/sweepers and junk be removed; and that the parcel may not be used for the operation of Longmont Street Sweeping, or any other commercial/industrial use.

Motion carried 3-0.

There being no further business, the meeting recessed at 3:40 p.m.

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#121, 122, 123)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Bender were present.  Also present were: Doug Ryan, Health Department; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center; Dave Karan, Planning Department; Roxann Hayes, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy County Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels opened the meeting and asked for public comment on the Larimer County Land Use Code and the County Budget.  Nobody from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics. 

 

1.  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 5.8 - RURAL LAND USE PROCESS; 04-CA0049:   This is a request for adoption of Rural Land Use Process Engineering Standards and Guidelines for Roads and Drainage.  Mr. Reidhead explained that the Rural Land Use Center has recently completed a proposal of engineering standards, guidelines, and procedures (Engineering Standards) for Rural Land Use Process projects’ roads, drainage improvements, and related engineering requirements.  He noted that the Engineering Standards once approved will be included in the new Section 5.8.6.D.3 of the Land Use Code.   Mr. Reidhead stated that one very important aspect of the new Engineering Standards is that the owner/applicant’s private licensed consulting engineer will certify and stamp that the project’s engineering improvements have been designed and constructed in substantial conformance to the new standards.  This is a departure from the current practice that requires the County Development Review Engineers to review RLUP design documents to insure compliance with Appendix G of the LCRM and provide quality insurance inspections to insure that a RLUP project's engineering designs are appropriate and installations are complete.  County Public Works Division and Engineering Department staff expressed support for these Engineering Standards at a joint work session with the Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commission, and Rural Land Use Advisory Board on July 14, 2004.  These Engineering Standards were developed with assistance from professional engineering consultants, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers, a citizen task force, the Rural Land Use Advisory Board, the County Attorney, and County staff.  The Engineering Standards have incorporated many of the elements of Appendix G: Design & Construction Standards for Private Local Access Roads adopted in August 1999.   Staff recommends the following proposed amendments to the Land Use Code:

 

5.8.6 PRINCIPLES

D.  Development Standards and Guidelines (proposed change underlined in this instance)

3.   Engineering Standards and Guidelines for Roads and Drainage—The following Standards and Guidelines are designed to promote affordable and timely completion of projects in keeping with the mission of the Rural Land Use Process, while at the same time taking into account the specific requirements of the site and providing for public health, safety, and welfare.  To that end, it will be the responsibility of the Owner’s Engineer, who must be a qualified professional engineer licensed in the state of Colorado, to design a project in keeping with the following Standards and Guidelines, to provide a signed and stamped certification that a project is designed according to the Standards, and to provide a signed and stamped certification that the project was built in substantial conformance with the design. For the purposes of this document, the words “shall” or “must” will designate Standards, which are requirements.  Guidelines, which are recommendations and suggestions, will be italicized and designated by the word “Guideline(s)”.

  

a)  All existing roads providing access to the project must be safe and in an acceptable all-weather driving condition.        

b)   Site Drainage—Drainage paths and basins for historic flows must be identified and preserved.  Effective drainage paths for new developed flow must be provided. At a minimum, a basic review of the topography of the project site must be performed to identify historic drainage patterns and flow paths. If there are historic drainage paths, there must be an analysis of the approximate limits of the contributing areas. The method used to predict the design peak discharge must take into account the size of the drainage basin(s).  A simple rational method calculation should be sufficient in most instances to yield historic peak discharge in the drainage path.

1)  All building envelopes must be sited so that they do not interfere with the existing drainage patterns. Drainage easements shall be used as needed.

2)  All proposed site grading must convey drainage into an existing drainage way. If cross drainage from one parcel to another is required, adequate drainage improvements must be designed and installed to prevent harming adjoining parcels.

3)  Drainage design must demonstrate how the developed flows will be conveyed through and from the residential cluster to an historic drainage path.

4)  If a residential cluster causes drainage flows to concentrate at a single point of discharge, the concentrated flow must be discharged without adversely impacting the adjacent property.

5)   Residential lots must be laid out to provide positive drainage away from all building sites, and the overlot grading must be designed and maintained consistent with the general storm drainage pattern for the area.

c)  Road and Driveway Drainage—Plans for adequate site and roadway drainage are required for all road and driveway construction. Road and driveway design must contain provisions for storm water drainage sufficient to achieve a standard of no ponding at all locations. Adequate design must insure the natural drainage system will be maintained and erosion is minimized.

1)   Driveways—Where driveways cross natural drainages, adequate cross culverts or structures must be provided to maintain natural drainage patterns and conduct storm water away from the driveway.  These culverts must, at a minimum, be sized to pass the flow generated by a 10-year storm. They must be at least 12 inches in diameter and have a minimum cross-sectional area of at least 0.78 square feet. Structures must appear on the driveway grading plan.

2)   Roads—Roads must provide cross culverts, as needed, to maintain natural drainage patterns and distribute storm water away from the roadway. Such structures must, at a minimum, be sized to pass the flow generated by a 10-year storm. Culverts must be at least 18 inches in diameter and have cross-sectional area of at least 1.77 square feet. The Owner’s Engineer will determine the need for flared end sections or headwalls for the culverts.

3)   Culvert specification—Culverts must be either double-wall corrugated plastic or single wall corrugated metal pipes. The culvert must be of sufficient strength and proper installation to assure a minimum of 10 tons bearing capacity. Guideline: Single-wall pipe may be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that it meets the minimum requirements of this section. A minimum of 12 inches of cover of material compacted to manufacturer’s specifications is recommended unless manufacturer’s specifications indicate a lesser amount is sufficient to achieve the required bearing capacity.

4)   Bridge specification—Bridges must be designed and constructed to comply with the specifications of Section 7.1 of the Larimer County Road Standards.

d)  Road and Driveway Design—All roads (either public or private) must be located within either a dedicated public right-of-way or a private access easement.  An additional utility easement may be required to accommodate needs of utility providers.  At a minimum, the publicly dedicated right-of-way or private access easement must be 50 feet in width, located twenty-five feet (25’) from either side of the road centerline.

1)   Planning and construction of roads and driveways must take into consideration encroachment upon critical wildlife habitat; wetlands conservation; protection of water quality in local streams, ponds and lakes; and esthetics.  The Owner’s Engineer may consider and prescribe site specific design alternatives to mitigate environmental concerns as long as roadway safety is maintained.

2)   Driveway Design:

a)   Width—Guideline: A minimum useable all weather driveway surface width of 12 feet is recommended to assure safe ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles. To minimize cut volumes, or if topography makes this width impractical, a narrower width for short distances may be prescribed by the Owner’s Engineer if the driveway design is demonstrated to be otherwise safe and maintainable. The minimum acceptable driveway width in these cases is 10 feet.

3)   Internal Road Design:

a)   Road Width—Roads must be designed for a minimum useable all weather road surface width of 20 feet for an adequate two-way road to assure safe ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles.  Guideline: The Owner’s Engineer may prescribe a narrower width for short distances to minimize cut volumes or address other environmental or agricultural concerns if adequate turnouts are incorporated into the design and the road design is demonstrated to be otherwise safe and maintainable.  The minimum acceptable width in these cases is 12 feet and must incorporate appropriate turnouts.

b)   Paved Road Width—Paving width must be a minimum of 20’ with a 4’ structural shoulder on each side of paved roadway. Pavement structural design must be performed by the Owner’s Engineer. Design shall be stamped and signed by the Owner’s Engineer in accordance with Certification Requirements contained in Section 5.8.6.D.3.f.

c)   Road Grade— Road designs exceeding 8% (10% in mountainous terrain) must ensure that other safety and site disturbance standards are not compromised.   Guideline: Where topography requires, the Owner’s Engineer may prescribe steeper grades.  However, the average grade for 200 feet must not exceed 12%.

d)   Clearance Height—Roads through forested areas must maintain proper clearance heights above the traveled way sufficient to allow passage of emergency vehicles. Tree branches must be trimmed to obtain a minimum overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches.

e)   Horizontal Road Curve—Radii of curvature on centerlines must be a minimum of 100 feet (60 feet in steep terrain), so long as adequate sight distance exists to allow a safe stopping distance.  Steep mountainous terrain may require other engineering solutions as prescribed by the Owner’s Engineer.

f)   Vertical Road Curve—For safety reasons, design of crest vertical curves (top of hill crests) must be based on the design speed of the road. The design speed must take into account sight distance limitations, which result from extreme crest vertical curves. Correspondingly, sag vertical curves (bottom of hill) must also be designed based on the design speed, such that headlight visibility will not be compromised in nighttime or dim light conditions.  Recommended design speed for most local access roads is 15 mph in steep, mountainous areas and 25 mph in rolling to flat areas.

g)   Road Intersections—Driveway and road intersections must be within ten degrees of perpendicular for at least 50 feet from intersection centerlines with adequate sight distance both directions.  Guideline: If topography allows, grades should flatten to 3% or less for at least 50 feet approaching intersections.

h)   Dead End Roads—Dead end roads exceeding 600 feet in length must be constructed with a vehicular turnaround area at the end or within the last 600 feet of roadway.  For roads narrower than 20 feet, turnouts must be provided at approximately every 600 feet of road between the beginning at the road intersection and its terminus. Greater distances are allowable if good sight distance is maintained between adjacent turnouts. Guideline: Though not a requirement in the design for 20 ft. wide roads, turnouts should be considered if the road is the single access and egress point to the parcels served.

i)   Cuts—Roadways must follow existing contours to the extent possible. Roadway cuts and embankments must be considered only to the extent they are necessary to maintain safe geometric conditions for the design speed. Construction of cuts and fills must be constructed to the following requirements to maximize the safety and integrity of such work.

1)   General—Unless otherwise prescribed in the soil engineering or engineering geology report prepared and stamped by the Owner’s Engineer, cuts must conform to the provisions of this section.

2)   Slope—The slope of cut surfaces must be no steeper than is safe for the intended use and must be no steeper than 1 unit vertical in 1.5 units horizontal (66.7% slope) in common soil. Cut slopes in competent rock may be vertical when less than 3 feet high. Various soil types may require flatter slopes (up to 4 to 1) based on the written determination of the Owner’s Engineer as to the stability and erosiveness of the soil type.  Cut slopes in competent rock greater than 3 feet high and less than 8 feet high must be no greater than 1 unit vertical to 1 unit horizontal. Where cut slopes are greater than 8 feet high, or where unstable or compromising geology occurs, the Owner’s Engineer shall prepare a written soils engineering report or an engineering geology report, or both, prescribing a design solution based on his/her investigation.  The report(s) must prescribe a slope configuration to stabilize the constructed cut and construction must conform to the findings of the report(s).  Cut slopes must be seeded and mulched to reestablish appropriate vegetative cover to maximize slope stability and minimize erosion.  Seeding and mulching is not required if, in the written determination of the Owner’s Engineer, the steepness of the slope or the slope material is not conducive to plant growth.  In these cases it may be necessary to use other physical or mechanical means to stabilize the slope material. Guideline:  Whenever possible, existing topsoil on the site should be saved and stockpiled for dressing the slope prior to seeding.

j)   Fills—Fill slopes must not be constructed on natural slopes steeper than 1 unit vertical in 2 units horizontal (50% slope). The ground surface must be prepared to receive fill by removing woody vegetation such as shrubs, topsoil and other unsuitable materials and scarifying to provide a bond with the new fill. Where slopes are steeper than 1 unit vertical in 5 units horizontal (20% slope) and the height is greater than 5 feet, stability must be achieved by benching at the toe into sound bedrock or other competent material.

1)  Fill Material.  Composition of fill material must follow these requirements:

a)  Detrimental amounts of organic material will not be permitted in fills.

b)  Rock sizes greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension must be placed 2 feet or more below grade, measured vertically.

c)  Rocks must be placed so as to assure filling of all voids with well-graded soil.

d)  The upper 2 feet of fill must be compacted for stability in preparation for placement of surfacing material.

2)  Slope—Fill slopes must be no steeper than 1 unit vertical in 2 units horizontal (50% slope) unless the fill is engineered and constructed in such a way as to establish stability at a steeper slope. Various soil types may require flatter slopes (up to 4 to 1) based on the written determination of the Owner’s Engineer as to the stability and erosiveness of the soil type.  Fill slopes must be seeded and mulched to reestablish appropriate vegetative cover to maximize slope stability and minimize erosion. Guideline: Whenever possible, existing topsoil on the site should be saved and stockpiled for dressing the slope prior to seeding and mulching.

k)  Cut and Fill Setbacks from Property Lines—Guidelines: These setback recommendations are included for general consideration to avoid conflicts and potential problems with other landowners. They should be followed when planning a road or other excavations.  

1)   General—Cut and fill slopes should be set back from site boundaries in accordance with this section. Setback dimensions are horizontal distances measured perpendicular to the site boundary.

2)   Top of Cut Slope—The top of cut slopes should not be made nearer to a site boundary line than one fifth of the vertical height of cut with a minimum of 2 feet and a maximum of 10 feet.

3)   Toe of Fill Slope—The toe of fill slope should not be made nearer to the site boundary line than one half the height of the slope with a minimum of 2 feet and a maximum of 20 feet. Where a fill slope is to be located near the site boundary and the adjacent off-site property is developed, special precautions should be incorporated in the work, as necessary, to protect the adjoining property from damage as a result of such grading. These precautions may include but are not limited to:

a)     Provision for retaining or slough walls.

b)     Mechanical or chemical treatment of the fill slope surface to minimize erosion.

c)     Provisions for the control of surface waters.

l)    Buffer Zones for Streams, Intermittent Streams, and Wetlands—Construction of roadways within perennial or intermittent stream corridors or drainage ways shall not be permitted except for purposes of crossings. Proper revegetation of cut and fill slopes or other means of erosion and storm water control must be affected to protect water quality of the stream.  Proper design to allow adequate flow of storm water, as indicated by the normal high-water line, must be incorporated in the plan.  A minimum of 50- foot buffer zone must be maintained for wetlands unless further encroachment has been approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Delineation of the wetland may be required by a qualified person to properly identify the extent of the wetland boundaries. Guidelines: For roads which follow perennial stream corridors, a minimum 50-foot buffer zone of undisturbed vegetation should be maintained between the roadways or from any fill material generated by the construction of the road and the normal high-water line of the stream.  For roads which follow intermittent stream corridors, a buffer of at least 20 feet of undisturbed ground and vegetative cover from the normal high-water line should be maintained for roadways paralleling these features. 

e)  Other Requirements—

1)  Disturbance of Land—All construction activities are required to obtain a State stormwater management permit if they disturb one or more acres of land. The Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division administers the permits. The main pollutant of concern for construction activities is sediment. The permits require holders to control or eliminate the sources of pollutants in stormwater through the implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan, developed as part of the application process. These Stormwater Management Plans must include best management practices (BMPs) that include treatment of stormwater discharges along with source reductions. Inclusions of the BMPs allow most permits to avoid numeric effluent limits. The permit application and guidance documents can be obtained by contacting the Water Quality Control Division.

2)  Fugitive Dust during Construction—Colorado’s air quality laws contain requirements for controlling fugitive dust during construction activities. The steps necessary to comply with those laws depend on the amount of land disturbed, and the duration of the disturbance. The requirements are outlined below.

a)  Development that involves clearing more than five acres of land must incorporate all available and practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize dust emissions.

b)  If land development creates more than a 25-acre contiguous disturbance or exceeds 6 months in duration, the responsible party is required to prepare a Fugitive Dust Control Plan, submit an Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APEN), and obtain an emissions permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The APEN and specialty permit application form for land development can be obtained by contacting the Air Pollution Control Division directly.

c)  Regardless of the size or duration of development, all land disturbances should be conducted so that nuisance conditions are not created. If dust emissions do create a nuisance, a Fugitive Dust Control Plan will be required.

3)  Erosion Control and Site Reclamation—Erosion control and site reclamation improvements are necessary as part of every road construction and excavation project. A plan to control storm water along the roadway to lessen the degree of concentration of storm waters must be incorporated in the erosion control plan. The plan must incorporate erosion control and site restoration measures to assure effective stabilization of soil materials so that displacement and transport of soil materials is minimized and to affect restoration of natural vegetative ground cover to disturbed areas. Guideline: In many cases the most effective means of controlling erosion is reestablishment of vegetation on disturbed areas. It is recommended that natural vegetation be left intact to the greatest extent possible.

f)   Certifications—A template for the following Certifications will be provided by the Rural Land Use Center and must be signed and stamped by the Owner’s Engineer.   The following certifications will be required:

1)   Stamped certification that roads and drainage for the Rural Land Plan were designed to the Standards listed in Section 5.8 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  

2)   Stamped certification that roads and drainage installations for the Rural Land Plan were built to the Standards listed in Section 5.8 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. A brief stamped written explanation by the Owner’s Engineer shall be submitted in situations where, due to site constraints, deviations from the original design have been made.    

 

At this time Chair Rennels opened the hearing up for public comment; there being no public comment, Chair Rennels moved into the discussion phase of the hearing.  Commissioner Bender asked for clarification on the guidelines pertaining to buffer zones for streams and wetlands, and why they were just guidelines versus requirements.  Mr. Reidhead stated that the buffer zones could change depending upon the terrain associated with the stream or wetland.  For instance, the guideline recommends a 50 foot buffer zone of undisturbed vegetation be maintained adjacent to a stream, but if the stream was bordering a 20 foot cliff, then the 20 foot cliff would be considered as the buffer zone.  

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 5.8.6.D and Section 5.8.6.D.3; Development Standards and Guidelines for Roads and Drainage, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.  WHITMAN DEVELOPMENT REZONING; 03-Z1469:   Mr. Karan stated that he would not present details of this application unless requested by the Board, as they were already outlined in a previous meeting.  Mr. Karan noted that there are still some differences between the applicant and staff on certain issues, and that it became clear the issues would need to come before the Board in order to reach a resolution on them.  Mr. Karan explained that staff has met twice with the applicant.  During the second meeting, the applicant submitted four alternative plans.  Staff believes that, as a result of this process, the applicant and the Development Services Team have agreed upon the following:  1.   Allow an expanded range of uses as follows:  a.) The existing single-family residence.  b.) Small engine repair.  c.) Indoor storage.  d.) Outdoor display and sales (as an accessory use only).  2. The existing 6000 square foot commercial building is sufficient to house the current and future needs of the small engine repair business.  3. In this specific location, additional residential development is not a desirable method for creating a transition.  4.  The existing chain-link and barbed wire fencing along Skyway Drive will be removed.  5.  The northern, eastern and southern boundaries will be fully screened to meet the standards in the Land Use Code (Sections 8.5 and 8.16).

 

Mr. Karan noted that the Development Services Team and the applicant’s team are far from agreement on the appropriate amount of additional commercial space.  Each party’s proposals are as follows:  According to Staff calculations, the applicant’s alternatives for maximum development of the site range from 14,700 square feet of commercial plus 6 single-family residences (9 buildings in total) to 29,400 square feet of additional commercial (9 additional buildings).  However, the Development Services Team recommends a 50% expansion of commercial space (6000 additional square feet.  9000 square feet including existing 6000 square feet).  Staff believes the applicant’s proposals which will involve extensive expansion go beyond the Board of County Commissioners direction.  Further, Staff recommends some conditions to the rezoning to minimize negative impacts on the nearby residences.  Mr. Karan noted that at one point the applicant had agreed to remove the barbed wire and chain link fence; however, now the applicant would like the fence to remain.  Finally, Mr. Karan displayed some photos of numerous parked vehicles which were being stored on the property.

 

Mr. Rick Zier, Attorney for the applicant, explained that the vehicles that were stored on site as a temporary situation in order to help out the Tynan's Nissan car dealership in an emergency situation.  Mr. Zier noted that the vehicles have already been removed and will not be returning to the site.   Mr. Zier then explained that they did meet with county staff and presented four different alternatives for possible site plans, but when he called to set a third meeting, staff told him they would not be meeting with them again.  Mr. Zier stated that he then sent a letter to the County, dated September 8, 2004, requesting an explanation as to why staff would not meet with them further; they have yet to receive a response to the letter.   As a result, Mr. Zier stated that they would present their proposal directly to the Board this evening.  At this time Marv Morganti, representative for the applicant, presented the Board with a handout which described the proposed project in great detail; he then read the handout aloud.  Commissioner Gibson asked for clarification regarding the home business going from one employee to a max of twelve employees, and the home becoming an "accessory use" to the property.  Mr. Morganti stated that yes, they would be hiring additional employees and the home would be used as for a "caretaker" to reside in to assist with the storage facilities on off hours and things of that nature.  Mr. Zier noted that they would be agreeable to removing the barbed wire from the chain link fence; however, their preference would be to retain the chain link fence, and grow some ivy on it to enhance the aesthetic appearance of it.  The applicant, Randy Whitman, then addressed the Board and stated that he has been working on this project for eight years and would like to use the four acres he purchased for his business.  Mr. Whitman also noted that he would like to retain the chain link fence, as it looks nice and requires less maintenance than a cedar fence would. 

At this time Chair Rennels took a five minute recess; after which she opened the hearing for public comment.  Tammy Kirsch addressed the Board noting her concerns regarding the wetlands that have been removed from the property in question; she stated that she would like to see the wetlands restored.  Ms. Kirsch also stated that she has witnessed changes in the property over the years, and seeing the vehicles being stored on site are what triggered her to come to the hearing this evening.   She noted that this was supposed to be a small home based business and family operation and she would like to see it remain as such. 

Gordon Wethly stated that he would like to see the Board support the request as Mr. Whitman is a good neighbor and friend with a good family business.  Mr. Wethly stated that he finds it disheartening when someone buys a piece of property and the city ends up controlling the situation by not being able to make a decision.

Brian Schum stated he believes the County's policy on zoning violations has caused much of the problems related to this situation; he stated that the Board should be focusing on the zoning violation and rectifying that issue, prior to considering the application to rezone the property.  Mr. Schum also noted that the applicant signed an affidavit stated that the 6000 square foot storage building was to be used for personal storage, and then turned right around and asked for a variance to use it as a commercial building.  Mr. Schum stated that in his opinion, the applicant is choosing to commit zoning violations and that the Board should not reward this behavior.  Mr. Schum requested the Board deny the application.

Mr. Thompson stated that the calling of an entrepreneur is valuable and that Mr. Whitman provides an admirable service.  Mr. Thompson also stated that property rights are sacred and that Government's role is to protect property rights, and that Mr. Whitman should be able to have his business on the property that he purchased.

Larry Bruns explained that he drives by the property and the barbed wire reminds him of a concentration camp; he further noted that if Mr. Whitman wanted to have a business then he should have purchased property in a district zoned for business. 

Rob Ball noted that he also finds the service valuable and that in his opinion, the chain link fence is not offensive; he further noted that Mr. Whitman's character should not be under attack as he is a fine citizen just trying to make a living.

Cheryl Carson stated that the property sits behind a commercial area and that the area is of mixed use and that it should be rezoned to allow Mr. Whitman to expand his business.  Ms. Carson stated that the Board of County Commissioners should be attentive to the needs of the citizens within the County and not focus so much on what the potential needs of the city might be.

Rick Bockman noted that Mr. Whitman and his family are doing a fine job with their business and the fence is acceptable; however, sidewalks should be added in this area if the business were to expand.

Jerrod Cromwell took exception attacks on Mr. Whitman's character; and stated that this is one of the few shops north of Denver that does small engine repair.  Mr. Cromwell stated that the zoning violations do not exist at this point and that it is a rezoning effort which is where the focus should be.

Wendy Studinsky presented the Board with a handout and photos portraying rows of stored vehicles on the property and stated that the Recreational Vehicle (RV) parking on the site is not acceptable and neither is the "prison-style" fence.  Ms. Studinsky read excerpts from the Larimer County Land Use Code, noting that in her opinion, Mr. Whitman was in violation of the Code and by operating a business in a residential area and she asked the Board to deny the application for rezoning this property.

Ms. Carson again addressed the Board stating that the housing to the south of the property is at least a quarter of a mile away.  Mr. Schum stated that it is a subdivision called Linn Acres and that the City of Fort Collins has purchase a good portion of the property and reserved some of it for open space.  Chair Rennels then closed public comment.

Mr. Whitman responded presented the Board with a letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers regarding the wetlands issue; her further noted that he is providing a community service and that the whole area in question is a mixed use area which would be compatible for a small engine repair business.  Mr. Zier stated that the focus here should be on the uses available for the property and the amount of square footage that will be allowed for the business.  Mr. Zier also agreed that this is a transitional area with a school located adjacent to the site and their proposal would fit in nicely with the area. 

The Board moved into the discussion phase of the hearing and considered the staff recommendation and conditions.  Much discussion ensued and the following findings and conditions were agreed upon: 

The property shall be rezoned as Planned Development (PD):

1.   Principal uses:

a.   Single-family dwelling.

b.   Enclosed (inside) storage (e.g., mini-storage units, boats, recreational vehicles but not warehousing).

c.   Trade use limited to: small engine repair and golf cart repair, computer repair, engine repair for boats and snowmobiles, frame shop, appliance repair, watch and clock repair, furniture repair, and similar small businesses.

2.   Accessory uses – Outdoor display & sales of used lawn mowers & golf carts limited to a maximum of 500 square feet.

3.   Lot, building and structure requirements:

a.   Minimum lot size 15,000 square feet (.34 acres).

b.   Minimum setbacks:

1)   Front (Skyway Drive) – 25 feet from property line. 

2)   West side – 10 feet.

3)   East side - 10 feet.

4)   Rear - 20 feet.

c.   Maximum non-residential building area:  13,900 square feet.

d.   Maximum structure height - 25 feet.

4.   All primary and accessory uses shall be located west of the sewer line easement (see Larimer County records, Book 1320, Page 16).

5.   The three principal and one accessory uses may occur simultaneously with the following limitations:

a.   One and only one single-family dwelling including the existing house (or any future replacement).

b.   No home occupation.

c.   No more than three principal buildings allowed on the site.

d.   No outdoor storage (except for accessory outdoor display and sales - see #2 above).  All golf carts, lawn mowers, items under repair and other materials accessory to the small engine business (excepting the accessory outdoor display and sales as specified in item # 2 above) shall be stored inside an approved commercial building at all times including operating hours.

 

Conditions of approval of rezoning to PD:

1.   Dedicate right-of-way as follows:

a.   3 feet of right-of-way along Skyway Drive in addition to the existing Skyway Drive right-of-way.

b.   A 30-foot right-of-way along the western property line for Aron Street.  (This right-of-way can include a 15 foot utility easement).

c.   All such dedications shall be executed prior to the issuance of any building permits.

2.   The following must take place prior to moving the small engine repair business to the existing 6000 square foot building:

a.   Chain link fencing must be removed (except along the western property. boundary) and replaced with screening which conforms to Section 8.5.4 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

b.   The eastern property line shall be screened by landscaping and fencing which conforms to Section 8.5.4 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

c.   A change in occupancy building permit and a new certificate of occupancy must be approved and issued.

3.   The applicant shall obtain an approved, full Site Plan Review prior to applying for a building permit for new buildings or additions. 

4.   All activities associated with the small engine repair business (including outdoor display and sales) will be limited to the following business operating hours:  8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to noon on Saturday.   

5.  Customers may be provided access to their enclosed storage up to 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

Additional discussion ensued regarding the footnotes that were included in the staff report; specifically one pertaining to annexation of the property to the City of Fort Collins.  Discussion related to whether or not this should be included as part of the conditions, and if so, when the actual annexation would occur.  Mr. Helmick noted that the City of Fort Collins has expressed interest in annexing this property once the rezoning application was approved.  However, the applicant would like to submit the site plan and construct the buildings utilizing the County's process.  The Board felt that final approval of this application should be delayed until they had the opportunity to speak with a representative from the City of Fort Collins; they agreed to table this item with the specific purpose of addressing the annexation issue.  When this proposal comes back before the Board on November 1, 2004, it will be solely for the purpose of addressing and determining the annexation issue.  All other recommendations and conditions as outlined above will remain as the final staff recommendation and will not be further discussed.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Whitman Rezoning to Planned Development, file #03-Z1469, to November 1, 2004 at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 3-0.

The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#124)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; Chair Rennels presided, and Commissioners Gibson was present.  Also present were Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health; Mike Carroll, Weed Control District; Ray Herrmann and Bill Zawacki, Environmental Advisory Board Members; Rob Helmick and Russ Legg, Planning Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy County Clerk.

 

1.    PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment.

 

2.    APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 11, 2004:

 

MOTION

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of October 11, 2004, as presented.

Motion carried 2 – 0

 

3.    REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 25, 2004:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.    CONSENT AGENDA: 

 

MOTION

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the consent agenda for October 19, 2004:

10192004D001           DEED OF DEDICATION AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY BY JOHN C. WILLOX

10192004D002           DEED OF DEDICATION AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY BY CHARLES R. WILLOX HOMESTEAD ONE, LLC.

10192004R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN ARAPAHOE PINES CONDOMINIUM SUPPLEMENT 1, LOT 1

101920044R002         FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT IN PTARMIGAN SUBDIVISION 2ND FILING LOT 20, BLOCK 7, AND TRACT B

10192004R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BEARD MINOR LAND DIVISION

MISCELLANEOUS:  Approval of Personnel Authorization for the Larimer County Workforce Center.

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses was both approved and issued:  Beaver Inn - Hotel & Restaurant- Red Feather Lakes. The following license was issued:  Mountain Vista Greens - Optional Premises - Fort Collins.

Motion carried 2 – 0.

 

5.    RECOMMENDATION ON TAMARISK CONTROL ISSUES BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD:  Mr. Carroll, Mr. Herrmann and Mr. Zawacki briefed the Board on the status of Tamarisk control issues noting that the invasive non-native shrub is not on the State's priority list of for eradication; however, early detection in Larimer County and swift action in controlling this noxious weed would make it possible to limit the spread and damage that could occur.  Mr. Carroll stated that it would require a public hearing on behalf of the Board, in order to add Tamarisk to the list of noxious weeds.  He also noted that it would mean adding another species to the list without any additional funding.  Commissioner Gibson asked about the process used to eradicate Tamarisk.  Mr. Zawacki stated that there were multiple methods used including pulling up the shrub, ripping it out using chains, and chemical and biological control measures.  Mr. Carroll stated that they would be bringing this issue back for the Board to take action on in December.

 

6.         COMMENTS FOR GLADE RESERVOIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING:  Mr. Helmick presented the Board with a letter to the US Army Corps of Engineers regarding scoping for Glade Reservoir and relocation of Highway 287; he asked if the Board was satisfied with the content and whether or not the letter should come from the Planning staff or directly from the Board.  Mr. Helmick also noted that the Laporte Area Advisory Committee (LAPEC) cannot forward comments as a committee on this issue, so the Board directed them to submit any relevant comments as individual citizens. 

MOTION

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve directing the Planning staff to send the letter as comments from the Board of County Commissioners to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with regards the scoping for Glade Reservoir and relocation of Highway 287.

 Motion carried 2 – 0.

 

7.         WORKSESSION:  Mr. Gluckman gave an update to the Board on two legislative bills pertaining to Bail Bonds and the Good Times Bill.  Mr. Gluckman also informed the Board that he will be setting a meeting with appropriate individuals regarding Tax Increment Financing (TIF) issues.

 

8.         COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.

 

9.    LEGAL MATTERS:  Mr. Legg presented the Board with a draft resolution establishing a Red Feather Lakes advisory committee, noting that the Board just concluded their interviews for this committee and will be appointing new members next Tuesday during Administrative Matters.  Mr. Legg wanted to give the Board time to review the resolution prior to formally adopting it.

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m.

 

 

                                                                                    ___________________________________

                                                                                    KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

                                                                                    BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

(S E A L)

 

ATTEST

 

____________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk