> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 11/06/06  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, November 6, 2006

 

LAND USE HEARING

(# 130)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Candace Phippen, Building Inspection; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Wendy Dionigi, Sean Wheeler, Samantha Mott, and Matt Lafferty, Planning Department; Ed Woodward, and Christie Coleman, Engineering Department.  George Hass, County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  Chair Gibson then explained that Items 1 through 6 were on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.  At this time, Mr. Helmick explained the conditions of approval for the Glade Quarry Special Review, File#05-Z1547, as they pertain to the recommendations made by the Planning Commission.  He noted that condition #2 should be removed from the final list of conditions of approval, and replaced with condition #16.

 

 

1.  ECKBERG MINOR LAND DIVISION - #04-S2560: This is a request for a Minor Land Division to divide a 30.53 parcel into one single-family residential lot and one vacant lot.  The parcel has been used by the owners as Jolly Ridge Stables for many years.  This Minor Land Division is a step in completing an approved Planned Land Division on the adjacent property.  At a public hearing on September 18, 2006, the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners approved a preliminary plat for the Meadows at Rolling Hills Planned Land Division (PLD) Preliminary Plat.  That proposal was to divide an approximately 54 acre parcel into 14 lots for single-family residential use and 3 open space tracts or outlots.   Providing primary access involves purchase of approximately 14.865 acres from John A. and Sarah B. Eckberg.  This Minor Land Division is to split off the needed additional property so that the Meadows at Rolling Hills Planned Land Division may proceed.  The remaining 15.664 acre parcel will retain the current ownership and its uses. This Minor Land Division will add to the adjacent property, and be used for the Teepee Trail road right-of-way and three single-family residential lots in the Meadows at Rolling Hills Planned Land Division (File #04-S2337).

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Eckberg Minor Land Division subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

  1. The Eckberg Minor Land Division will not be effective until and unless the final plat review of the Meadow at Rolling Hills Planned Land Division (File #06-S2560) is approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
  2. Corrections and additional materials identified in Dale Greer’s April 23, 2006, comment letter are approved by the County Engineering Department.
  3. No building permit for a single-family residence will be issued and no development of the vacant property shall occur unless approved through the appropriate subdivision, conservation development or planned development process.  Lot 2 shall be prominently labeled as “non-buildable” unless a full land division is approved by the Board of County Commissioners.  A note shall be added to the plat to that effect.
  4. The existing and any proposed dedicated right-of-way from U.S. 287/County Road 54G shown on the Meadow at Rolling Hills Planned Land Division (File #06-S2560) approved preliminary plat will be dedicated on, and by virtue of, the Eckberg MLD plat.  The right-of-way will be consistent with the Planned Land Division plat and a dedication statement will be added to the Eckberg Minor Land Division plat.

 

 

2.  GLADE QUARRY SPECIAL REVIEW - #05-Z1547:  This is a request for Special Review approval for a sandstone quarry on 46.2 acres with an estimated permit life of 8 to 10 years.  The request includes appeals to Section 8.2.8 (Wetland Development Standards) and 8.6.3.C. (Construction Standards) of the Land Use Code.

 

This item was discussed at length during the Planning Commission hearing in July.  The request is unusual in part because staff, the applicant, and the Planning Commissioners all generally agreed that if the Glade Reservoir project is constructed, the quarry request should be approved as well.  All other concerns that are usually considered as part of a Special Review, such as the protection of wildlife habitat, would not be an issue because the reservoir would place the entire site underwater.  Without the reservoir being constructed, a quarry to the extent proposed in this area directly conflicts with the County’s Master Plan requirements.  The requirements in question are those intended to protect designated scenic corridors, such as the stretch of US 287 adjacent to the site.

 

The question thus became one of how to know, with a reasonable level of certainty that the reservoir project will move forward to completion.  For the Planning Commission hearing, staff crafted language that if the reservoir is approved (ROD and 404 permit), funded, and scheduled for construction, this would be sufficient evidence that the reservoir will be built.  The applicant suggested that a record of decision in favor of the reservoir, combined with the issuance of a 404 permit, would constitute an approval.  To that end, the applicant expects a positive record of decision in early 2007, and the 404 permit should be issued by the middle of 2007 for the reservoir. 

 

It was decided that staff and the applicant would again meet before the Board of County Commissioners hearing to further discuss the finer details of what would trigger mining operations.  This meeting did occur on August 23, 2006.  At the meeting, the applicant stressed that 14 to 17 different governmental entities were (or could be) involved with the reservoir, at a cost of an estimated $354 million dollars.  Based on this information and the level of financial interest involved, it was agreed that a positive Record of Decision (ROD) and the issuance of a 404 permit could prove sufficient, if the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District also provided a letter to the County supporting the request.  The Water District owns both the land where the quarry will be located and the reservoir site as well.  The Water Conservancy District supports the request and indicates that the construction contract may not allow the operation of a quarry while a dam is being built.  The Water District also indicated that because of the amount of time and investment involved, once the permits are issued, the reservoir project should be considered viable and expected to move forward.  Based on the potential for limits to the quarry once the dam is under construction, and the representations in the letter from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Staff supports the request to accept the positive ROD and issuance of a 404 permit as sufficient indicators that the reservoir will be approved and built.  Once the ROD and 404 permit are in place, staff asked that the Water District provide a follow up letter to outline the status of the reservoir project and reinforce the information provided in the first letter.  This has been added as a condition of approval below.

 

The Development Services Team and Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Glade Quarry Special Review with the conditions of approval as follows: 

 

The Planning Commission recommends that the Glade Quarry Special Review, File #05-Z1547, appeal to Section 8.2.8 (Wetland Development Standards) to reduce the 100 foot buffer requirement for wetlands down to 25 feet, be approved.

 

The Planning Commission recommends that the Glade Quarry Special Review, File #05-Z1547, appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1. (Construction Standards, Pavement) to be able to use recycled asphalt as a parking lot surfacing material, be approved.

 

The Planning Commission recommends that the Glade Quarry Special Review, File #05-Z1547, be approved subject to the following conditions as modified:  Amend Condition #1 by deleting “within three years of the date of approval” and replacing with “within three years of the date of the conditions set forth in Condition #2”, amend Condition #2 to read, “The approval of the Special Review is specifically conditioned on the provision that the applicant provide to the County sufficient evidence that the Glade Reservoir project has been finally permitted, designed, and construction contracts are awarded.  No operation of the quarry shall begin until this information has been provided to Larimer County and accepted as adequate.”  Amend Conditions #4 to state, “three years of the date of conditions set forth in Condition #2”, and amend any reference to State Highway, County right-of-way, or County Road to “public road”.

 

  1. This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of the conditions set forth in Condition #2, or if the applicant does not provide evidence that the Glade Reservoir project has been approved and funded, and a schedule for the commencement of construction activities for the reservoir set in place.
  2. The applicant shall notify the County Planning Department upon issuance of a positive Record of Decision and a 404 permit for the Glade Reservoir project.  The applicant shall also state their intention and desire to proceed with quarry operations.  The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District shall also provide a letter to indicate their intent to proceed with the reservoir project.  The Development Agreement for the project shall not be recorded, and the quarry can not commence operations until these conditions are met.
  3. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Glade Quarry Special Review (File #05-Z1547) except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Glade Quarry Special Review.
  4. On compliance with Condition #2 above, the applicant shall execute a Development Agreement to be signed by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s Office, before the commencement of any excavation activities at the site and no more than 3 years after the date of the conditions set forth in Condition #2.
  5. Operation of the quarry is limited to daylight hours.
  6. The County may conduct periodic inspections of the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
  7. The applicant shall provide a plan to mitigate the short-term impacts to wetlands and wildlife, for review and approval by Planning Staff prior to incorporation as an exhibit to the Development Agreement.
  8. Reclamation for each phase of mining, identified as cells, will begin as soon as possible after the completion of mining activities in that cell and consistent with the State approved Reclamation Plan.
  9. The applicant shall comply with requirements contained in the March 2, 2006, memo from the County Department of Health and Environment including:

a.   State air emission and stormwater discharge permits shall be maintained during the mining and reclamation operations, and shall be complied with during each of these phases.

b.   The operations shall be conducted in compliance with the County Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County.

c.   Noise mitigation measures identified in the noise mitigation plan shall be implemented in conjunction with the operation of the mine.

  1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the County Engineering Department outlined in their comments dated May 2, 2006, and before commencement of any quarry excavation activities including:

a.   The parking area shall be surfaced with recycled asphalt to promote dust suppression.

b.   Parking spaces will be identified with landscape timbers or other identifiable devices.

c.   The entry drive to the site will be paved from the public road to the public right-of-way to keep mud and dirt from being tracked onto the public road, and provide an easily maintainable drive.

d.   The applicant shall make all technical corrections noted on the Preliminary Drainage Report, and submit a Final Drainage Report for review and approval by Staff.

e.   Within 120 days of signing the Development Agreement, the applicant shall provide for the payment of all required fees including the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee.  The applicant must also obtain all required permits including a Stormwater Construction Permit from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment and a Development Construction Permit from the County.  The applicant shall provide a copy of the State Stormwater permit to the Engineering Department.

  1. Operators shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department with a copy of their annual report to the State that details overall compliance with the stormwater management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the State MLRB.
  2. No parking, loading or unloading, of any vehicles is allowed in the public road.
  3. Trucks shall not back onto or use the public road for a turnaround.
  4. Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.
  5. The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the public road.

 

 

3.   KATSAMAKIS REZONING - #05-Z1546:  This is a request to rezone a property in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) from T (Tourist) to PD (Planned Development); allowing uses consistent with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan.

 

The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Katsamakis Rezoning (File #05-Z1546), as recommended by the Larimer County Planning Commission.

 

The Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Katsamakis Rezoning, File #05-Z1546, be approved subject to the following conditions:

1.   The existing residence on the property may continue to be utilized as a residential dwelling until a commercial use is located on the property. Upon the approval of a commercial use for the property, the residential dwelling may be occupied as a dwelling that is accessory to the commercial use, and must be occupied by the owner/operator of the commercial use.  If the existing residence is vacated for living purposes for a period of more than one year it shall not be reestablished as a dwelling.

2.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Katsamakis Planned Development shall be as follows:

a.   The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the property shall be as follows:

      PD (Planned Development)

      i.   Principal uses:

1.   Agricultural

a.   Garden supply center (R)

b.   Pet animal facility (R)

c.   Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

d.   Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

2.   Commercial

a.   Convenience store (R)

b.   Automobile service station (R)

c.   Carwash (R)

d.   Professional office (R)

e.   General retail (R/S)--See section 4.3

f.   General commercial (R)

g.   Personal service (R)

h.   Takeout restaurant (R)

i.   Sit-down restaurant (R)

j.   Nightclub (R)

k.   Instructional facility (R)

l.   Outdoor display/sales (R)

m.   Clinic (R)

3.   Institutional

a.   Health services (R)

b.   Hospital (R)

c.   School, public (L)

d.   School, nonpublic (R/S)--See section 4.3

e.   Rehabilitation facility (R)

f.   Church (R)

4.   Recreational

a.   Place of amusement or recreation (R/S)--See section 4.3

b.   Shooting range (R/S)--See section 4.3

c.   Membership club/clubhouse (R)

5.   Accommodation

a.   Hotel/motel (R)

6.   Industrial

a.   Enclosed storage (R)

b.   Trade use (R/S)--See section 4.3

c.   Light industrial (S)

7.   Utilities

a.   Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)--See section 16

b.   Radio and television transmitters (S)

b.   Lot, building and structure requirements: 15,000 square feet

      i.   Minimum setbacks:

1.   Front yard- The setback from an interior subdivision road or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property line.

2.   Side yards--10 feet.

3.   Rear yards--20 feet.

4.   Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

     ii.   Maximum structure height--40 feet.

      iii.   No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.

            Uses followed by an (R) are allowed by right.

            Uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the Minor Special Review process.

            Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the Special Review process described in Section 4.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

            Uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by right or require special review approval based on thresholds in Section 4.3 (use descriptions) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

            Uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in Section 13.0 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

 

 

4.  ESTES PARK ESTATES LOTS 2 AND 7 LOT CONSOLIDATION/EASEMENT VACATION - #06-S2622:  This is a request for a lot consolidation to combine two contiguous lots and vacate a 10-foot utility easement located on the common lot line of lots 2 and 7 of Estes Park Estates Subdivision.  If approved, the recording instrument will be a Findings and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.

 

There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the lot consolidation for Estes Park Estates Subdivision Lots 7 and 2 of the Amended Plat of Lots 5 and 6 and the vacation of the 10 foot utility easement located on the common lot line subject to the following conditions:

  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by May 6, 2007, or this approval shall be null and void.
  2. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.
  3. The vacation of the utility easement and the consolidation of the lots shall be finalized at such time when the findings and resolution of the County Commissioners is recorded.

 

 

5.  CRYSTAL LAKES 15TH LOTS 66 AND 67 LOT CONSOLIDATION - #06-S2623:  This is a request for a lot consolidation to combine two adjacent lots into one lot in the Crystal Lakes Subdivision 15th Filing Planned Unit Development (PUD).  If approved, the recording instrument will be a Findings and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.

 

There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team.

 

The proposed Lot Consolidation for lots 66 and 67 of Crystal Lakes Subdivision 15th Filing PUD will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots.  The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation for lots 66 and 67 of Crystal Lakes Subdivision 15th Filing PUD, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by May 6, 2007, or this approval shall be null and void.

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

 

 

6.  DAVIES MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (MRD) TRACT 1A AMENDED PLAT - #06-S2624:  This is a request for an Amended Plat of Tract 1-A of the Amended Plat of Tracts 1 and 2 of the Davies MRD No. 98-S-1323 and a portion of Tract B of the Amended Stringer Exemption to reconfigure an MRD parcel by adding a small portion of an adjacent exemption lot.  One of the subject parcels was created by an Amended Plat of an MRD lot in 2002 (Amended Plat of Tract 1-A of the Amended Plat of Tracts 1 and 2 of the Davies MRD No. 98-S-1323).  The other parcel was created as an exemption lot by the Amended Stringer Exemption (Tract B) in 1997.  Mr. Davies and his wife own the MRD lot and he alone owns the exemption lot.  They would like to reconfigure the lot lines by adding a portion of the exemption lot, to the MRD lot.  The reason for this request is to move a wetland area from the parcel containing a mobile home park to the parcel containing a single family residence for a possible future conservation easement.

 

There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team; The Larimer County Addressing Coordinator, Planning & Building Services Division; Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department; The City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Engineering Department has requested the dedication of an additional right-of-way along Douglas Road, however the County cannot require right-of-way dedication as part of an Amended Plat process, and therefore this comment cannot be addressed; The Water Supply and Storage Company has requested additional ditch easement for the Larimer County Canal.  This amended plat reflects the same ditch easement that was approved with the original Davies MRD No. 98-S-1323, and it is only approximately 300 feet of the total length of the canal and it only involves the south side; therefore, staff does not feel that the applicant should be required to dedicate additional easement width for the ditch.  In addition, this request is inconsistent with the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.8 regarding applicability.

 

The proposed plat amendment to reconfigure an MRD parcel by adding a small portion of an adjacent exemption lot will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots.  The staff finds that this request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Tract 1-A, of the Amended Plat of Tracts 1 and 2, Davies MRD No. 98-S-1323 and a portion of Tract B of the Amended Stringer Exemption subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by May 6, 2007, or this approval shall be null and void.
  2. Prior to recordation of the Amended Plat, the applicant must provide deeds transferring ownership.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1 through 6, with the replacement of condition #2 with condition #16 of the Glade Quarry Special Review.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

7.  GLEN ECHO RESORT VIOLATION - #06-CC0268 (TABLED FROM OCTOBER 2, 2006):  The Glen Echo Resort is currently considered a non-conforming resort use caused by increasing the number of RV sites, tent camping sites and structures on the mainland, converting a “duplex” storage building into dwelling units, allowing music concerts on the property, and constructing and/or expanding a bridge crossing the Poudre River to an island and allowing tent camping on the island, all without prior County approval.

 

A hearing on this matter was originally held on Monday, October 2, 2006.  The hearing was tabled to allow the property owners additional time to meet with Ed Woodward and Rex Burns of the Larimer County Engineering Department to evaluate the existing bridge, and to allow staff more time to review new information presented by the property owners at the October 2, 2006, hearing.

 

Tom Garton, Building Department, Ed Woodward, Engineering Department, and Chad Gray, Code Compliance Officer, visited the site on October 12, 2006, to evaluate the bridge.  A meeting was held with the property owners, the Customer Advocate, and representatives from the Health, Engineering and Code Compliance Departments on October 18, 2006, to share information and review documents produced by the owners and staff in order to establish a basis for non-conformities on the property.  An agreement was reached at the meeting.

 

Prior to summarizing the terms of the agreement, staff wanted to clarify the following facts for the record.  The US Army Corps of Engineers never approved the construction of the bridge.  For the record, the US Army Corps of Engineers approved only limited river bank stabilization.  It has been suggested that the bridge was inappropriately posted during the Glen Echo Resort’s busy season.  The bridge was posted with warnings due to life-safety concerns connected with overnight campers on the island along with information given by the former owners of Glen Echo, stating that there was never a bridge going to the island prior to 2001, when Mr. Rowe bought the property.  After his inspection of the bridge on October 12, 2006, Mr. Woodward confirmed:  “The difference in elevation between the top of the island and the flowline of the Poudre River is about four feet.  More than likely, the island would be subject to flooding, and not safe for campers.”

 

County staff and the owners agreed to base existing non-conformities on the property, in part, on a 2001 survey prepared for the owners when they purchased the property.  The survey shows all RV sites, dwelling units, the principal building, and accessory buildings on the property in 2001.  An on-site inspection is being scheduled prior to the November 6, 2006, hearing to confirm existing sites and structures shown on the survey to match what is currently on site.  The terms of the agreement will be summarized in a letter of determination regarding non-conformities on the property from the Larimer County Planning Director which will be available at the hearing scheduled for November 6, 2006. 

  1. Tent Camping on the Island:  Due to life-safety issues associated with camping on the island, the County and owners agree that no tent camping will be allowed on the island, however, the island may be used for day-time activities such as fishing and picnicking.
  2. RV and Tent Camping Sites on the Mainland:  As stated in staff’s October 2, 2006, report staff found discrepancies in the number of tent and RV sites advertised by Glen Echo from 2001 to 2006.  Staff found not only discrepancies in the number of sites identified in web advertising over the years, but also discrepancies in the number of sites and structures shown on plot plans submitted with building permits and contained in the Assessor’s records over the years. After the October 2nd hearing, Mr. and Mrs. Rowe explained they do not always advertise all existing sites because some sites are rented out on a full-time basis and are not available on a nightly or weekly basis.  Due to the discrepancy in records, staff recommends the survey prepared in 2001 when the Rowe’s purchased the property be used to establish the number of non-conforming RV sites and structures on the mainland.  Tent camping sites are not specifically shown on the survey.  Staff and the owners agree that the number of non-conforming tent camping sites on the mainland is limited to 18, with no more than four people in each tent. Tent camping may occur anywhere on the mainland.  As stated above, no tent camping is allowed on the island.
  3. The “Duplex” Building Just South of the Restaurant:  Although information contained in the Assessor’s records for this structure does not match the information supplied by the owners concerning the historical use of the building, the building was, at the very least, used as a bath house in the past and is identified on the 2001 survey as a cabin.  Therefore, staff recommends this structure be considered two legal, non-conforming cabins with a shop in between.  The owners need to obtain a building permit and all required inspection approvals for the structure.  Transportation Capital Expansion fees and other fees associated with a new dwelling should not be assessed against the permit as the structure is considering non-conforming.  The owners agree with staff’s recommendation.
  4. Music and Events:  A brochure contained in the Assessor’s Office advertising the Glen Echo Resort when Ken Matzner and Sam Shoultz owned the property does not contain any information about weddings, reunions, concerts and events.  Currently, Mr. Rowe advertises the property as available for “club, corporate, reunion, weddings, youth group and adult leader retreats and events.”  These uses, and music for these uses, do not require any special review through the County as long as the uses are accessory to the rental and use of the RV sites and cabins and do not exceed the capacity of the rentals.  In other words, reunions, weddings, other events and associated music for the events must be limited to the people who are renting spaces or cabins on the property.  Additional people outside those renting sites on the property are not allowed without special review approval due, in part, to impacts on roads and site facilities.  Noise associated with music played on site should be played at reasonable hours and at a level so as not to disturb adjacent property owners and properties located on the other side of the Poudre River.  The owners agree and provided staff with the following statement:  “I do not have concerts on the island, and the music we do have is only a four-piece band, which they play on the deck of the lounge, and the most that we have attending is maybe 10 to 20 people and most of them are people that go to the lounge or restaurant including employees after work.  The latest we have them play is 10:00 o’clock p.m., since we have quiet time which starts at 10:00 p.m.”  Within the last year, a stage platform was constructed for bands to play on located directly behind the restaurant on the east property line next to the Rustic Resort.  The stage platform did not meet minimum setback or building code requirements and was voluntarily removed by the owner.
  5. The Bridge:  The bridge was originally posted by Code Compliance staff based upon verbal confirmation from one of the former owners that the bridge and camping on the island did not exist prior to 2001 when Mr. Rowe purchased the property, together with research involving comparisons of aerial photographs, past brochures for the Resort, and further telephone conversations with the complainant and former owners of the Glen Echo and Rustic Resorts.  The information obtained by staff conflicts with information supplied by the owners, including letters from adjacent property owners, guests and employees of the Glen Echo Resort.  Staff finds there was a pedestrian bridge of some sort that spanned the Poudre River to the island in the past.  Due to conflicting evidence, staff cannot determine the extent that the existing bridge was repaired.  Staff; therefore, recommends that the bridge be considered non-conforming and be allowed to remain on the property on the condition that the bridge is approved as compliant, through the US Forest Service, with the Federal Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, no further evidence is received documenting the bridge is not non-conforming, no camping is allowed on the island and the owners obtain a building permit, structural engineer’s evaluation and all required inspection approvals for the bridge. 
  6. Structure Added to the Property Without County Approval:  Within the last year, a Forest Service building was moved onto the property and placed close to the Rustic property line to the east in RV Space 43 shown on the 2001 survey.  Mr. Rowe added an addition on the back of the structure, and added plumbing and wiring for a cabin without County approval.  Although this structure is not shown on the 2001 survey and would normally be considered an expansion of the existing resort use, Mr. Rowe’s replacement of a permanent RV site with a permanent structure does not expand the use on the property nor does the replacement create additional impact on roads and facilities.  Staff; therefore, recommends the structure be allowed to remain on the property on the condition that the owners obtain a building permit for the structure and all required inspection approvals.  If the structure is located too close to the property line, the owners understand they are subject to a setback variance or may have to move the structure to meet minimum setback requirements.  Transportation Capital Expansion fees and other fees associated with a new dwelling should not be assessed against the permit as the structure is not increasing impacts on roads and facilities.  The owners agree with staff’s recommendation.
  7. Acknowledgment By Owners:  Based on the agreements summarized above, staff finds that special review approval is not required at this time.  However, due to past projects completed by the owners without County approval, staff recommends the owners sign an Acknowledgment confirming their understanding of the agreement reached between the County and the owners, and further acknowledging such agreement does not authorize the owners to construct, convert or move any other structures or expand existing RV and tent sites on the property without County approval; no structures can be brought onto or constructed on the property without County approval; RV and tent sites cannot be increased without County approval; and, although routine maintenance on existing non-conforming structures is allowed, these structures cannot be replaced, and cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character (i.e., changed from a storage building to a cabin).

 

Based on the findings summarized above, staff recommends that special review approval is not required at this time.  Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the Planning Director’s determination of non-conformities which will be produced at the November 6, 2006, hearing, request that an acknowledgment be signed by the owners confirming their understanding of the terms of the agreement reached with the County, and authorize legal action if, in the future, the non-conforming resort use is expanded beyond the established limits contained in the Larimer County Planning Director’s letter of determination without County approval.

 

Ms. Phippen explained that an addendum to the staff report was added, which contains a determination by the Larimer County Planning Director that nonconformities exist on the property.  Also, it suggests that an Acknowledgment be signed by the property owners explaining in detail what can and cannot be done on the property.  Ms. Phippen proceeded to explain the issues related to the Glen Echo violation as outlined above.  She informed the Board that an Acknowledgment had been presented to the applicant for signature, but the applicant had reservations of signing the Acknowledgment in its current form.  In this case, an Acknowledgment does not prevent staff or the applicant from moving forward with the appeal.  Lloyd Rowe, applicant, addressed the Board and explained that he did not mind signing the Acknowledgment if some of the wording in the document was changed. 

 

Commissioner Rennels asked the applicant if he understood all the requirements and conditions mentioned by staff and outlined above.  Mr. Rowe stated that he understood all items presented today, and accepted the terms and conditions of approval as stated by staff. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Planning Director’s determination of non-conformities contained in the Director’s letter of determination, request that the owners sign an acknowledgment confirming their understanding of the terms of the agreement reached with the County, and authorize legal action if, in the future, the non-conforming resort use is expanded beyond the established limits contained in the Larimer County Planning Director’s letter of determination. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

8.  MARR/WAGNER ZONING VIOLATION - #04-ZV0066:  Storing a single-wide mobile home on the property is in violation of a condition of approval for the Wagner MLD (File #01-S1747).  The property is located just north of White Buffalo Lounge, about 700 feet south of the intersection of 57th and Garfield on Highway 287.  In 2001, the subject property went through a Minor Land Division (MLD) to create three lots on 14.99 acres.   A condition of approval for the MLD was that the two mobile homes located on proposed Lot 2 be removed.  This condition was supported by an Affidavit signed by the two owners at the time.  One mobile home was removed, and one mobile home, described as the “brown mobile home,” remains on the property.  The Affidavit was signed by Cindy McMahill and Sheri Marr, who owned the property in 2001.  Ms. McMahill and Ms. Marr sold the property to the current owner, Vicki Wagner, in 2004.  Jerry Shaffer is listed as the owner of record for one mobile home.  Staff is uncertain whether Mr. Schaffer is the owner of the brown mobile home or the mobile home removed from the property.  Jerry Shaffer, Vicki Wagner, Cindy McMahill and Sheri Marr were all served with a copy of the Notice of Hearing by regular and certified mail.  Despite several attempts by Code Compliance staff to resolve this violation, the brown mobile home remains on the property. 

 

Staff finds that a violation of the conditions contained in the Findings and Resolution, along with the supporting Affidavit, exists and order the Brown Mobile Home be removed from the property within 30 days from the date of this hearing.  If the Brown Mobile Home is not removed within 30 days, staff requests that legal action be taken to enforce County regulations.

 

Ms. Dionigi explained the background of the Wagner Land Use Code Violation as outlined above.  She stated that one of the applicants had met with her earlier in the day and informed her that the property had the potential to be annexed into the City of Loveland some time in the future.  This was the first time Ms. Dionigi had heard of the possible annexation, and she still recommended that the Board find the applicant in violation of the Land Use Code if the brown mobile home is not removed within 30 days from the date of the hearing. 

 

Vicki Wagner, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that the mobile home in question was used to house office supplies for a construction site.  She requested that the mobile home be permitted to stay until all construction is completed on the property.  Ms. Wagner explained that the first meeting with the City of Loveland regarding the possible annexation will be held on November 23, 2006.  Some discussion among the Commissioners ensued regarding the annexation.  

 

Mr. Helmick explained that the annexation process would probably be lengthy, and the County needed time to talk to the City of Loveland in order to provide a more accurate timeline of completion.  It was suggested that this item be tabled to December 18, 2006, to allow staff more time to review the issue of the potential annexation. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Marr/Wagner Zoning Violation - #04-ZV0066 to December 18, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

9.  PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY – RAWHIDE PLANT SIGN APPEAL - #06-G0116:  This is a request for an appeal to Section 10.14.B of the sign regulations that limit the number of freestanding signs to one per street frontage.  The proposal is for two signs at the facility entrance along County Road 82.

 

At a public hearing on September 20, 2006, the Larimer County Planning Commission considered the applicant’s appeal of Section 10.14.B.1 of the Land Use Code, which establishes the regulations for freestanding signs and limits the number of signs on a property to one per street frontage for the I-1 Industrial zoning district. 

 

The applicant is requesting an appeal of Section 10.14.B.1 of the Land Use Code, which limits the number of freestanding signs on a property to one per street frontage for the I-1 Industrial zoning district.  The property is the site of Platte River Power Authority’s (PRPA) Rawhide Plant and consists of approximately 4000 acres with the administration, plant, and accessory buildings.  The property had two freestanding signs in the past; the principal entrance sign located at the drive entrance and an archway sign further up the drive where the plant entrance gate is located.  In 2005, the applicant removed the principal sign at the drive entrance due to its deteriorated state.  The Planning Director determined that the two signs were both considered freestanding signs and thus subject to the limit of one per street frontage.  The applicant desires to erect a new sign in the same location as the old sign at the drive entrance.  This appeal seeks approval to erect the second sign.

 

The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the PRPA-Rawhide Plant Sign Appeal.  Mr. Stewart explained that staff had established two different sign options that wouldn’t require an appeal to the Land Use Code; therefore they are recommending denial of the sign appeal.  One option discussed would be to keep the archway that stretches across the main entrance, but remove the Rawhide sign hanging from it.  The second option mentioned would be to keep the Rawhide sign at the top of the archway but reduce its size to 32 square feet. 

 

Joe Wilson, assistant general council for PRPA, explained that it was necessary for a sign to be placed in the same location as the previous freestanding sign.  This is due to minimal lighting along County Road 82.  With 20-30 weekly deliveries, it is important that delivery personnel have adequate signs directing them to the PRPA Rawhide Plant.  Rae Todd, Communications & Media Relation Specialist for PRPA, stated that the Rawhide sign is two-dimensional, and would require a crane for its removal.  She explained that this would be costly to PRPA, and the sign could not be used at another location on the property once it is removed from the archway. 

 

Commissioner Wagner did not believe the appeal met the integrity of the Land Use Code, and did not think it was consistent with the review criteria.  She felt that since the Planning Commission’s approval had been based on a split vote, she could not support the appeal.  Commissioner Rennels and Chair Gibson felt that this was a unique situation, and it did in fact meet the intent of the Sign Code. 

 

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Platte River Power Authority – Rawhide Plant Sign Appeal, File #06-G0116.

Motion failed 1-2; Chair Gibson and Commissioner Rennels dissenting.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Platte River Power Authority – Rawhide Plant Sign Appeal, File #06-G0116.

Motion carried 2-1; Commissioner Wagner dissenting.

 

The meeting recessed at 4:15 p.m.

 

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(# 131)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Russ Legg, Chief Planner.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; Lesli Ellis, consultant for Clarion Associates; Timothy Wilder, Code Manager for the Fort Collins Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gibson asked for public comment on the County Budget and the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  Chair Gibson then explained that there was an addition to the agenda which consisted of a letter from the Board of County Commissioners to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.  Commissioner Rennels explained that the letter needs to be submitted to the Department of Public Health in order to apply for the Preventative Health and Health Services Block Grant. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the letter and authorize the chair to sign the same.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

1.  NORTHWEST SUBAREA PLAN - #06-CA0064:  This is a request for the adoption of the Northwest Subarea Plan as an element of the Larimer County Master Plan. The Proposed Northwest Subarea Plan is the result of an 18-month planning process, initiated in the spring of 2005.  The plan is a joint planning effort by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.  The proposed plan will receive recommendations for action by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board and the Larimer County Commissioners. Final adoption hearings will be held by the Larimer County Planning Commission and the Fort Collins City Council.  The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended adoption of the Northwest Subarea plan at their October 19, 2006, meeting. 

 

The components of the Plan to be considered for adoption include vision, goals, policies and strategies. Framework plan, open lands and trails plan, and transportation plan – represented by Plan maps; Guidelines for the urban/rural edge; The Action Plan, and the Appendix A, B, C and D. The Action Plan is a matrix of the strategies for implementation and identifies the lead responsibility. The Transportation plan map referenced above reflects the existing and proposed Larimer County Transportation therefore it does not need to be specifically adopted as an amendment to the County Transportation Plan.

 

The public process for the Northwest Subarea Plan was unique in that a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) was NOT established to provide project review.  Instead, an on-going public outreach and input process was initiated which provided a more inclusive (although much larger) citizen review of each stage of the plan development. In total, three large public meetings, three workshops and two drop-in open houses were held along with numerous one on one meetings with affected interests and stakeholders.  Supporting the meetings and workshops were a project website, project bulletins, direct mailings and notices to every property owner and several newspaper reports on citizen’s work with the project.

 

The residents of the area and participants in the planning process developed a citizen–based vision for the future of the Northwest Planning Area which is summarized in the plan in graphic form as an area of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area that should be predominately a low density residential area with stable neighborhoods. The City and County should respect the areas semi-rural heritage including historic structures, small farms, natural areas, foothills, vistas and open fields. As new development or change occurs, it should occur slowly and be of low intensity and fit in with the diversity and country feel of the area.  New development should safeguard natural features and protect wildlife habitats. Residents in the area value independence and self reliance, and the City and County should assist in finding community pathways for solutions reflective of the plan’s vision and strategies.

 

Staff finds that the proposed Northwest Subarea Plan is consistent with the principles and the planning framework of the Larimer County Master Plan.  Also, the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the plan to the Fort Collins City Council at a public hearing held on October 19, 2006.

 

Mr. Legg outlined specific aspects of the Subarea Plan, and explained that the plan is intended to be a guide for future developers and owners in the area.  He stated that it will affect potential use, and direct the County in future development as well.  The Subarea Plan is focused on 800 acres of potential development with 1500 new dwellings.  Mr. Legg also explained that the plan will maintain the integrity of the area, and will remain compatible with the expectations of its current residents.

 

Heather Barton, local resident, stated that she would like to see the language of the “optional” urban cluster changed to “recommended” urban cluster.  Ms. Barton felt strongly about keeping large open spaces intact to accommodate the native species that reside in those areas.  Doug Swarts, resident, affirmed that he was also in agreement with Ms. Barton, and wanted to see clustered housing to create a more connected open space.

 

Mary Lenahan, resident, explained that she would prefer that no growth occur in the area, but if the Subarea Plan were to be approved, she asked the Board and staff to move as slowly as possible with forward development.  Jeff Ioannone, local resident, voiced his concerns and skepticism regarding cluster housing.  He didn’t think that the final plan was going to be the way the local residents intended.  He also explained that it is much easier to move forward with planning as opposed to backward, and he hopes that the Board will spend the time exploring other options for development.  Lilian Bickle addressed the Board and explained that she would also like to see a low density plan without the addition of commercial businesses. 

 

The Board agreed that the Northwest Subarea Plan is an exceptional one, and they recognized the effort and public outreach around the community made by staff.  Commissioner Rennels assured the audience that a lot of time and scrutiny will take place to ensure that the best design possible in used in relation to the land and the desires of the residents.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners recommend to the Planning Commission the adoption of the Northwest Subarea Plan as an element of the Larimer County Master Plan. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

 

 

 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006

 

There was no Administrative Matters meeting held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

_______________________________________

Kristen L. Romary, Deputy Clerk