> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 11/20/06  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2006

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#136)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Rennels and Wagner were present.  Also present were:  Matt Lafferty, Planning; Traci Downs and Ed Woodward, Engineering; Doug Ryan, Environmental; Dave Shirk, Town of Estes Park; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics. 

 

Chair Gibson explained that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience. 

 

1.   STANLEY HEIGHTS LOTS 4 AND 5 AMENDED PLAT:  This is a request to reconfigure two existing lots from a north-south orientation to an east-west orientation.   The applicant owns both lots, and desires to reconfigure the lots to build a second house in the western portion of the site.  To do this, the common lot line needs to be realigned.  There are two existing lots, and one existing cabin (the second lot is currently undeveloped).

 

This reconfiguration will result in one fewer driveways on West Lane, and will push the building site to the west where it will not interfere with a small drainage swale that crosses the current undeveloped lot.

 

Staff has had inquiries from the property owners to the north (Jeff and Kris Rogers), though they express no concerns after an explanation of the proposal was given.

 

Staff recommends approval of the requested Amended Plat of Lots 4 and 5 Stanley Heights, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.

 

On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:

 

  1. Pursuant to C.R.S.30-28-110, Subsection 4(a), “no plat for subdivided land shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners unless at the time of the approval of platting the subdivider provides the certification of the county treasurer’s office that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid.”
  2. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
  3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.  No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
  4. Within sixty (60) days of the Board’s approval of the amended plat, the developer shall submit the final plat for recording.  If the amended plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void.
  5. This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Amended Plat of Lots 4 and 5, Stanley Heights Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. Erosion issues at the intersection of the existing driveway and West Lane shall be addressed with the issuance of a building permit for the new house.  Specific methods shall be proposed at that time.  Possibilities include either a driveway drainage swale or a culvert, shaping of a roadside ditch, and revegetation.
  2. Compliance with memo from Light and Power dated 9-19-06.
  3. Compliance with memo from Greg White dated September 20, 2006.
  4. Compliance with memo from EPSD dated October 11, 2006.
  5. A driveway maintenance agreement shall be submitted with the plat mylars.  This agreement shall be subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney.
  6. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements).

 

2.   BIG ELK MEADOWS LOTS 38 AND 40 AMENDED PLAT – 06-S2630:  The request is for an amended plat to reconfigure the existing lot lines of Lot 38 and the South ½ of Lot 40, Tract 5, of the Big Elk Meadows Subdivision by combining the two existing lots into one lot.  Lot 40 was never legally split; therefore this lot consolidation must go through the Amended Plat process and not the Lot Consolidation process.

 

Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 38 and the South ½ of Lot 40, Tract 5, of the Big Elk Meadows Subdivision, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

a.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by May 20, 2007 or this approval shall be null and void.

b.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department, in his letter dated October 24, 2006.

c.   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall address the following comment from the Larimer County Engineering Department, in Christie Coleman’s letter dated October 16, 2006:  Comment #3 – Any access drive that accesses other parcels through this parcel should be placed in a 40-foot access easement.

d.   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat the plat shall be revised to include a note that the lots are subject to all conditions, notes, covenants and restrictions as set forth by the Big Elk Meadows Subdivision.

 

3.  RAMONA HEIGHTS LOTS 4A, 4B AND 17 AMENDED PLAT – 06-S2632:  This request is for an amended plat to reconfigure the existing lot lines of 4A and 4B, Block 19, and Lot 17, Block 18, in the Ramona Heights Subdivision by combining the three existing lots into two lots.

 

Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 4A and 4B, Block 19, of the Amended Plat of Record Ramona Heights and Lot 17, Block 18, of the Amended Plat of Lot 17, and an Unplatted Tract, All in Block 18 Ramona Heights, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

a.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by May 20, 2007 or this approval shall be null and void.

b.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department, in his letter dated October 23, 2006.

 

4.  LOVELAND READY MIX FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW:  Loveland Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. owns a parcel of land on the Big Thompson River that they want to make suitable for gravel extraction.  The Land Use Code requires a recommendation from the Flood Review Board with a final approval from the Board of County Commissioners through a Floodplain Special Review. 

 

Staff finds that all review criteria in Section 4.2.2.G.2 of the Land Use Code have been met.  Staff recommends approval of the FPSR for the proposed gravel pits for gravel mining purposes.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Consent Agenda items as outlined above.

 

Motion Carried 3-0.

 

5.  AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE:  Dave Shirk explained that this request is to amend the Estes Valley Development code to add flexibility to home day care center locations and to provide more specific operating guidelines to minimize impact on neighborhoods.

 

He went further to explain that the proposed code changes include family home day care and day care centers, including:

 

a.   Two definitions of family home care.  One is simply called Family Home Day Care, which has a maximum number of eight (8) children or adults.  More than eight (8) children/adults is classified as Family Home Day Care Center, Large.  Both of these classifications are allowed in residential zone districts, though the large centers require Special Review (Planning Commission review, Board approval).

b.   Standards regarding location, configuration and operational aspects of the center or home to ensure that the use is compatible with surrounding uses.  This includes, but is not limited to, hours of operation, noise, lighting, and parking.

c.   Change to allow Day Care Centers as accessory to religious use (allow centers in churches).

d.   Changes to Home Occupation standards to allow for one assistant and outdoor play areas, whereas other Home Occupations cannot have any employees to work on site and cannot have any outdoor uses.

 

The Estes Valley Planning Commission reviewed these changes on July 18, 2006.  At that time, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.  The Town Board of the Town of Estes Park voted to approve these changes on September 26, 2006.

 

These changes are now before the Board of County Commissioners for review, with a unanimous recommendation of approval from Staff, the Estes Valley Planning Commissioner and previous approval from the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park

 

Chair Gibson welcomed the applicant to address the Board regarding this request.  Janice Newman, President of the Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Services approached the Board and explained the current day care opportunities in Estes Park and the hope that approval of these code changes will result in greater safety for children in day care and greater accountability for day care operations in Estes Park.

 

Chair Gibson opened the floor to public comment on this topic.  Seeing none, public comment was then closed.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the number of children involved in day care in Estes Park at this time, local school programs and the local need for additional day care options.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that Board of County Commissioners approve the Estes Valley Code amendment as stated.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.   JONES SPECIAL EXCEPTION – 06-Z1593:

 

Mr. Lafferty explained the history of zoning violations and remedies on the Jones property, leading up to this present day request.  This is a request for Special Exception to allow a mobile home on a C (Commercial) zoned property to be used as a caretaker’s residence for the existing business on the property.

 

He further explained that on October 18, 2006, the Development Services Team presented the Jones Special Exception to the Planning Commission as a discussion item.  After the Development Services Team presentation, the applicant gave a brief overview of the project, which was followed by public comments from the applicant’s family.  After hearing the testimony, the Planning commission made a recommendation of denial, stating that no special circumstances were evident for support of the request.  The Planning Commission made a unanimous vote to deny. 

 

Commissioner Gibson invited the applicant to address the Board.  Paul Jones approached the Board and explained the history of the property, the cleanup that has been done on the site and the current condition of the property and his residence there.  He went on to explain his concern for the safety of the parts and equipment stored on the property, his concern that it is an appealing place for vandalism to take place because of the lack of main road visibility, and his concern for the safety of those trespassing on the property.  Mr. Jones shared that the property is in good enough condition that he has put a small golf course there for private use and that he would like to, at some point in time, make a portion of the property useful as a park.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the potential for this property to be annexed by the Town of Berthoud and what affect such annexation may have on the current zoning violation being considered.  Discussion continued regarding Mr. Jones’ long-term plans for the property, the location of the property and current Larimer County zoning regulations.  The Board continued with discussion of the president-setting nature of such a request, whether or not there were any Health Department concerns regarding this residential unit, home/business verses commercial property with a home located on it, and previous subdivision of the property.

 

Commissioner Gibson opened the floor to public comment on this subject.  Ms. Patricia Rice, the applicant’s sister, approached the Board and explained the history of the property with respect to it being subdivided.  She explained that she lives on the other parcel that has since been subdivided from the parcel being discussed.  She shared her concern for safety on the property if the trailer residence is not allowed to remain.  She expressed her appreciation to the Board for their consideration of the request.

 

Seeing no additional requests for public comment, Chair Gibson closed public comment.

 

The Board discussed the option of tabling their decision on this matter for three to four months, allowing the applicant an opportunity to communicate with the Town of Berthoud regarding annexation.  It was agreed that some kind of written perspective from the Town of Berthoud would be desired when this request is revisited.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Jones Special Exception until March 19, 2007, to allow Mr. Jones time to get communicate with the Town of Berthoud regarding potential annexation. 

 

Motion Carried 3-0.

 

The meeting recessed at 4:05 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#137)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Assistant County Manager, Neil Gluckman.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Marc Engemoen, Mark Peterson, Rusty McDaniel, and Martina Wilkinson, Engineering Department; Elliot Sulsky of Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, and Chris Duerksen of Clarion Associates, Project Consultants; Al Kadera, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.   UPDATE TO FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION MAP, RURAL ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, RURAL AREA ROAD STANDARDS, AND THE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEES - #06-CA0062:   Changes are being proposed to six separate but very interrelated Transportation topics which include:

§  Larimer County Transportation Plan (including short and long term roadway improvements)

§  Functional Road Classification Definitions and Assignments in Unincorporated Areas

§  Rural Roadway Right-of-Way Widths

§  Setback Requirements

§  Rural Area Road Standards (formally the Larimer County Rural Road Manual)

§  Transportation Capital Expansion (Impact) Fees

 

Following is a brief description of the above listed items and the proposed changes:

 

LARIMER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The Larimer County Transportation Plan details the transportation system, identifies existing and future capacity needs and is the basis for the Roadway Capital Expansion Fee program.  It includes bicycle, transit, rail and roadway components.  The bike, transit, and rail components remain the same as when the plan was originally adopted.  The roadway component has been updated to reflect changes in traffic volumes, functional classifications, capacities, types of improvements and costs.   

 

Major Changes: 

§  Utilizes updated traffic counts and revises roadway capacities, functional classifications, types of improvements, and construction costs;

§  Identifies $73.2 million dollars in existing transportation capacity improvement needs and projects an additional $254.4 million dollars in transportation capacity improvements will be needed over the long term (through 2030).  

 

On Monday, September 18, 2006, the proposed update to the Transportation Plan was presented to the Board of County Commissioners.  The BCC voted unanimously to recommend to the Planning Commission that they adopt the proposed changes to the Transportation Plan.  The minutes regarding this item from the September 18th Land Use Hearing are attached.

 

FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATIONS

The purpose of functional classifications is to provide an efficient transportation system that balances mobility, access, and safety.  The intent is to anticipate “build-out” conditions and allow for future road expansion with minimal impact to adjacent property owners (structures, trees, landscaping, etc.). Definitions of the classifications were updated, and then each Larimer County roadway classification assignment was reviewed and updated if appropriate.     

 

Major Changes: 

§  Most existing “local road” designations are being changed to minor collectors along mainline county-maintained roads.

§  There will be a more even distribution of arterials, collectors and local roads, and future road expansion can be accomplished with minimal impact to adjacent property owners. 

§  Overall, 62% of county road miles will remain the same classification, 37% of road miles are proposed for a higher classification, and 1% of road miles are being recommended for a lower classification. 

 

RURAL ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) WIDTHS AND BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 

Setbacks are the minimum distance that a structure can be placed in relation to the County Road right-of-way (ROW).  They are used to prevent adverse impacts by existing traffic or future road expansion. Public ROW is a strip of land designated for the use by the general public.  Typical uses are transportation facilities (roads), drainage, and utilities. 

 

Major Changes: 

§  Reduce setbacks (some by as much as 50%) to be more in line with typical industry standards and to lessen impact of functional road classification changes. 

§  Modify the ROW requirements for two of the four road classifications based upon engineering design requirements. (The right of way width for the “local” classification is increasing slightly while the width for a “minor collector” is decreasing.) 

 

The combined implementation of the roadway functional classification, right-of-way and setback changes will result in 83 % of road miles seeing no change or a decrease in setback location and only 3% of road miles seeing an increase in setback location of >10 ft. 

 

RURAL ROAD STANDARDS 

The Rural Area Road Standards was formerly called the Larimer County Road Manual. The current standards have not been updated since 2000.  The current standards are not comprehensive; do not recognize the existence of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS); and reference outdated city, county, state and national standards.  

 

Major Changes: 

Most changes are technical in nature, and are not proposed to be county policy changes. 

 

TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEES (CEFS)

CEFs were established in 1999 and have not been updated since that time.  The intent of the fees is that each new residential or commercial development pay its pro-rata share of the cost of new off-site transportation infrastructure required to serve that development.  CEFs are applied to the Major County Road System (collectors and arterials) and the Regional Roads. 

 

Major Changes: 

§  Capital expansion fees will increase by approximately 50 percent.  (This represents about a 6% per year increase over the past 7 years);

§  Under the updated CEF program, more capacity-related improvements on numbered county roads will be eligible for inclusion.

§  A yearly review of the fees will be completed to determine whether construction cost changes warrant an adjustment of the fee.  The adjustment factor will be based on an accepted regional cost data study.

 

Proposed Implementation of Fee Increases:

 

We are proposing that the increase in the fees be implemented in two phases.  The proposed phasing is as follows:

§  The first phase would go into effect on April 1, 2007 and would include the entire increase to the Regional Road fee and fifty percent (50%) of the Non-Regional Road fee.

§  The second phase would go into effect on April 1, 2008 and would include the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the Non-Regional Road fee.

 

During the month of January, 2009 and during the month of January each year thereafter a yearly cost adjustment will be implemented by the fee administrator without further action by the Board of County Commissioners.  The amount of the adjustment will be based on an accepted regional cost data study.

Applications made for building permits prior to either April 1, 2007 or April 1, 2008 or the date of future escalation factor implementation, shall be charged the fee in place at the date of permit application, not the date of permit issuance.

           

 PUBLIC PROCESS

Although many of the changes are technical in nature, some have impact to citizens and/or groups or are of interest to neighboring communities.  The Engineering Staff undertook a public outreach effort during the summer of 2006 to provide information on the changes and garner feedback and input. 

 

The public outreach effort included:

·  Notification of 110 property owners by letter that changes we are proposing to the functional classification of the road adjacent to their property would possibly change the status of certain structures on their property from currently conforming to the setbacks to becoming non-conforming.  Provided opportunities for these owners to discuss these changes with staff via phone or meet individually on site. 

·  Sent summary packets to the governmental entities in Larimer County explaining the proposed changes.

·  Held two open houses; one in Loveland and one in Fort Collins.  Approximately 10 people visited the Loveland open house and 20 people came to the Fort Collins open house.

·  Met with the Home Builder’s Association to discuss the proposed increases to the Capital Expansion Fees.

·  Met with a group of residents from the Waverly area.   Overall, the proposed changes were well received.  We received minimal negative feedback with only a few people expressing specific concerns with any of the proposals.  These specific comments were:

·  Any existing structure that is currently conforming to the setbacks but will become non-conforming to the setbacks with the proposed changes should be exempted, or “grandfathered”, from any variance requirements in the future.

·  We need to make more of an effort to limit up-classifying roads in the northern area of the County, more specifically, County Road 70 and other county roads in the Waverly area.

 

PROCESS TO DATE

At the September 18, 2006 Board of County Commissioner’s hearing, the Board of County Commissioners made a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the updated Larimer County Transportation Plan.

 

NEXT STEPS

If the Planning Commission votes to recommend adoption tonight for the changes to the Functional Road Classification designations, Rural Roadway Right-of-Way widths, Setback requirements, Rural Area Road Standards, and the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, then staff will proceed to a Board of County Commissioner hearing on November 20th to request final adoption of these items. 

If the adoption of the various transportation related items is successful, we propose to implement all of the changes at the beginning of 2007, except for the Capital Expansion Fees, which will be implemented in phases starting in April 2007 (as described earlier in this staff report).

 

PUBLIC WORKS FINDINGS:

 

The updates to the Transportation Plan is necessary due to significant changes in traffic volumes, changes to functional classifications, roadway capacities, long range improvement needs, and costs across the County.  The updated Transportation Plan, along with the other changes, will address the following transportation related topics:

·  Updates to the functional road classification

·  Modification to the setback requirements

·  Updates to The Rural Area Road Standards

·  Modifications to the Rural Roadway Right-of-Way Widths

·  Updates to Capital expansion fees

 

PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the proposed changes to the Larimer County Transportation Plan, Functional Road Classification designations, Rural Roadway Right-of-Way widths, Setback requirements, Rural Area Road Standards, and the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees be approved.

Mr. Engemoen, and members of his staff, displayed a slide-show presentation which summarized the proposed changes as outlined above, along with more detail and explanation of the functional classifications, the transportation plan, the current and long-range capacity needs, and the proposed changes to the Capital Expansion Fees.  

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Michelle Jacobson, representing the Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado, addressed the Board.  Ms. Jacobson agreed that the upgrading of certain roads would be beneficial to the residents of Larimer County; however, she expressed concern that it is becoming increasingly difficult to support substantial fee increases.  Ms. Jacobson stated that imposing the fees might cause the building within the community to actually decrease, and may end up generating less revenue overall as a result.  Ms. Jacobson noted that the association is grateful that the phased system for implementing the fee is being recommended, but they could not support the large fee increase being proposed by staff.

There was no further public comment.

Commissioner Rennels questioned how the annual automatic adjustments occur and what percentage level increases could or should trigger whether or not the Commissioners need to approve and authorize fee increases.  Mr. Duerksen explained that automatic annual adjustments are being proposed, and that every two years the fee administrator will recommend fee changes to the county commissioners.  Much discussion ensued.  Ultimately, the Board agreed that increases could be implemented up to 5% annually without further action by the county commissioners, and proposed increases above 5% would be scheduled for a public hearing with the commissioners. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed changes to the Functional Road Classification designation, Rural Roadway Right-of-Way widths, and Setback requirements effective immediately, adopt the proposed changes to the Rural Area Road Standards effective January 1, 2007, and adopt the proposed changes to the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees with the change that the automatic annual adjustments are not to exceed 5%, with the first phase of the proposed implementation becoming effective April 1, 2007 as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE:  Mr. Kadera explained that most of the amendments are related to the adoption of the revised Transportation Plan and Rural Area Road Standards.

The adoption of the Revised Transportation Plan and the Rural Area Road Standards will make it necessary to consider several amendments to the Land Use Code.  The following proposed amendments are presented as strike through for deletions and underline for additions.

There will also be some amendments to the Capital Expansion Fees in Section 9.  The Engineering Department will present these amendments along with the reports that include the methodology for changing the calculations for the fees in their staff report

Section 4.6.7 is the new Administrative Variance Procedure we adopted for the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts.  This proposal is to add a procedure to allow additions to buildings that are non-conforming with respect to county road setbacks without having to apply to the Board of Adjustment.  Making the process administrative will save time and money for the applicant.  There is always the appeal to the Board of Adjustment if someone is displeased with the Planning Director’s decision.

 

The Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that the following proposed Land Use Code amendments be adopted.  The Development Services Team concurs in that recommendation.

 

Item 1.  Section 4.6.7 Administrative Variance

 

A.  The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts which meet the following criteria:

1.  The required side and rear setbacks on the lot are 25 feet;

2.  An addition to an existing building is proposed and the addition will be at least five feet from the side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line; or

3.  A new building is proposed and the building will match the setback of an existing building along the same lot line which building is at least five feet from the side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line;

4.  A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners adjacent to the subject property and no objections were stated; and

5.  The review criteria in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable.

B.   The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from the county road setback requirements listed in Section 4.9.1  for additions to existing buildings which are nonconforming with respect to county road setbacks, subject to the following criteria:

 

1.   The proposed addition must meet the following minimum setbacks:

a.   Arterial roads-90 feet from ROW centerline;

b.   Major Collector roads-80 feet from ROW centerline;

c.   Minor Collector roads-60 feet from ROW centerline;

d.   Local roads-55 feet from ROW centerline.

 

2,   A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners within 250 feet on each side and across the road from the subject property and no objections were stated;

 

3.   The review criteria in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable.

The decision of the planning director can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.  See Section 22, Appeals.

Some of the setback requirements ended up in Section 8 of the Code and probably for a very good reason.  Since all the other setback information is contained in Section 4 we thought this was a good time to move everything.  The setback requirements for county roads are also being changed as a result of the Revised Transportation Plan.  The old setbacks of 160 feet for arterials, 125 feet for major collectors, and 100 feet for minor collectors have been significantly reduced.  Setback for local roads will remain at 60 feet from centerline.

Move Sections 8.17, 8.18 and 8.19 to Section 4 and renumber the remainder of Section 8.

4.9  Setbacks

4.9.1 Setbacks from highways and county roads.

 

A. Setbacks from state and federal highways are 100 feet from the right-of-way centerline or 50 feet from the right-of-way line, whichever is greater, except those highways noted below where the minimum setback is 130 feet from centerline of the right-of-way or 80 feet from the right-of-way line, whichever is greater:

1. U.S. Highway 287 from Fort Collins city limits south to the Boulder County line.

2. Colorado Highway 68 (Harmony Road) from Interstate 25 west to Highway 287.

3. Colorado Highway 14 (Mulberry Street) from Fort Collins city limits east to the Weld County line.

4. Colorado Highway 392 from Interstate Highway 25 east to the Weld County line.

5. U.S. Highway 34 from Mourning Drive east to the Weld County line.

6. Fort Collins Expressway and those portions of U.S. Highway 287 and Colorado Highway 14 north of Fort Collins city limits that are four lanes.

7. Colorado Highway 402 from Loveland city limits east to the Weld County line.

 

B.   Setbacks from Larimer County roads, as identified and classified on the Larimer County Functional Road Classification Map, shall be measured from the original right-of-way centerline, before any additional right of way was dedicated, as follows:

 

Arterial   

160 110 feet *  

Major collector   

125  100 feet *  

Minor collector   

100  70 feet *  

Local, numbered county roads   

60 feet *  

*Setbacks for additions to existing buildings, which are nonconforming with respect to county road setbacks, are eligible for an administrative variance procedure.  See Section 4.6.7.

4.9.2 Additional setback requirements.

A. Setbacks from streets and roads.  Setbacks from interior subdivision streets and from public and private roads are stated in each zoning district. Setbacks are measured from the nearest edge of the right-of-way or access easement. 

B. Streams, creeks and rivers.  The minimum required setback from any stream, creek or river identified on a U.S.G.S. quadrangle map is 100 feet from the centerline of the water course unless a greater setback is required by section 8.2 (wetlands); subsection 8.4 (wildlife); or section 4.2.1 (floodplains). 

C. Architectural features.  Architectural features such as cornices, canopies, eaves, awnings, bay windows, window wells, cantilevered walls, chimneys and mechanical equipment may extend two feet into a required setback. In all cases a minimum setback of three feet for any structural component or architectural feature must be maintained from all property lines. No part of any structure, including the architectural features mentioned above may extend outside a designated building envelope. No part of any structure, including the architectural features mentioned above may extend into or above any easement. 

D. Porches and decks.  Open, unenclosed, uncovered porches or decks, 30 inches or less above the average finished grade, may extend six feet into a required side or rear setback. However a minimum setback of three feet must be maintained from all property lines. No porch or deck may extend into or above an easement or outside a designated building envelope. 

E. Reversed corner lots.  The side setback along the street side of a reversed corner lot must equal or exceed the required front setback for that street. 

F. Setbacks for landscaping requirements.  Setbacks may need to be greater than those specified above as necessary to accommodate landscaping requirements of section 8.5 (landscaping). 

 

4.9.3. Minor setback variances.

 

The planning director may grant minor variances from setback requirements up to ten percent of the required setback after finding the proposed setback is consistent with the intent and purpose of this code. The planning director's decision must be in writing and may be appealed to the board of adjustment.  See Section 22, Appeals.  Also see Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variances.

 

4.9.4. Setback certification.

 

A. At the time of the footing and foundation inspection by the building department, the property owner is required to clearly identify the boundary corners of the lot and/or building envelope.

B. On lots without building envelopes the owner will be required to obtain a licensed surveyor's certification of the building location whenever the proposed setback is less than five feet beyond the required setback.

C. On lots with building envelopes the owner will be required to obtain a licensed surveyor's certification whenever the proposed building location is less than five feet from the boundary of the building envelope.

D. The certification, when required, must be provided by a surveyor licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. The certification may be in the form of a letter, which must be signed and sealed by the licensed surveyor. The letter must include the number of the building permit issued for the site in question.

 

Item 2.  Changes to Rural Land Use section

This section in the Rural Land Use Process section of the Code needs to be amended because the Road Manual will be repealed and replaced by the Rural Area Road standards.

5.8.6.C.1

C. Intersections

1. Street name sign

General. All road name signs must conform to the standards in Chapter 4 and standard drawings 8, 9, and 10 of the Rural Area Road Standards.

Item 3.  Code amendments necessitated by adoption of Rural Area Road Standards

 

The following sections of the Code will be amended because the Road Manual will be repealed and replaced by the Rural Area Road Standards.

 

8.1.5. Road capacity and level of service standard.

C. Safe and adequate access.  All development must have safe and adequate access on the county roads or state highways within the traffic impact area of the development. Safe and adequate access exists when traffic volumes do not exceed the capacity of the road; when operating conditions on the road and at intersections do not fall below a specified level of service (LOS); and when pavement sections and structures can accommodate projected traffic. 

The capacity of an unpaved road is defined as the maximum traffic volume that can be accommodated without creating unsafe operating conditions for vehicles and without negatively impacting air quality by creating excessive amounts of dust. The capacity of a paved road is defined as the maximum traffic volume that can be accommodated at a specified level of service and depends on road characteristics, such as number of lanes, lane widths, intersection geometry and signalization.

The adequacy of pavement sections and structures depends on the physical conditions of the improvements, such as type, depth and condition of pavements and the load-bearing capacity of bridges.

Standards for capacity of a road vary between rural and urban areas of the county. Urban areas consist of GMA districts and other areas designated by the county master plan as urban areas. Rural areas consist of all properties outside these urban areas.

1. Capacity and level of service for unpaved roads.  To prevent adverse impacts on vehicles and air quality and to allow for effective road maintenance, roads must have an all-weather gravel surface. The county engineer may waive the requirement for gravel and allow a road to be surfaced with native material in limited cases when, in the opinion of the county engineer, traffic volumes, materials and location allow such a surface. However, in no case will a native material surface be allowed when the average daily traffic volume (ADT) exceeds 50 vehicles per day at the time of full build-out of the development. 

The capacity of an untreated gravel road is defined as an ADT of 200 vehicles per day at the time of full build-out of the development. The capacity of a treated gravel road (treated with chemicals to control dust) is defined as an ADT of 400 vehicles per day.

Paving is required when cumulative traffic volumes exceed these capacities and must consist of asphaltic concrete or Portland cement concrete, base course material and subbase material (if required) placed on compacted subgrade.

 

D. Traffic impact area.  The limits of the traffic impact area for a proposed development are determined by the county engineer in consultation with the applicant as described in Appendix F of the Rural Area Road Standards.

 

E. Documentation outside of a GMA district. 

1. Every development must meet the requirements outlined in Appendix F of the Rural Area Road Standards.

 

F. Documentation within a GMA district. 

1. Every development must meet the requirements of Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.

2. Developments within the GMA district must submit a traffic impact study as required in Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, in the technical supplement to this code.

 

8.6.3. Multiple-family residential and nonresidential development.

 

B. Development standards. 

1. Access. 

c. When entrances and exits must be located off higher classification roads, they shall be sited to minimize safety and operational problems and to preserve the traffic-carrying capacity of the road. Speed change lanes or auxiliary lanes must be provided as outlined in Appendix F of the Rural Area Road Standards or if required by the county engineer. Whenever possible, access points on higher classification roads shall be separated by the distances described in Chapter 10 or the Rural Area Road Standards.

d. Entrances and exits to the parking lot must also be sited to minimize conflicts within the parking lot and encourage efficient circulation patterns.

e. In cases where there are adjacent and compatible land uses, parking areas must be designed with circulation between the uses in mind, providing internal connections between the parking areas for the adjacent uses.

f. All accesses must meet the requirements of Chapter 10 of the Rural Area Road Standards.

 

8.9.1. Supplementary engineering regulations.

A. Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards adopted --------------.

B. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002.

C. Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards.  adopted June 2005D. 

 

There are numerous references in the Land Use Code to the Larimer County Access Policy and the Larimer County Road Manual.  Both of these documents will be repealed and replaced by the Rural Area Road Standards so we need to change all the references in the following sections:

Access Policy references in Sections 8.6 and 8.9.

Road Manual references in Sections 8.9, 5.8, 9.7 and 10.2.

 

There was no public comment on the proposed changes.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code as noted above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2006

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#138 & #140)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster.  Chair Gibson presided, Commissioners Rennels and Wagner were present.  Also present were: Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ office; Michelle Mikulski, Foster and Adoptive Families of Larimer County; Bob Briggs, Rocky Mountain Rail Authority; Todd Neiberger, Larimer County Fair Board; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 13, 2006:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of November 13, 2006.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEKS OF NOVEMBER 27, AND DECEMBER 4, 2006:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for November 21, 2006:

 

ABATEMENTS:  Barger, Russell C Trust (Parcel #R0252468); Foothills Gateway Foundation (Parcel #R0609285).

 

11212006D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY HERBERT M. HUMPHREY FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

11212006D002           DEED OF DEDICATION BY OVERLAND TRAIL COLORADO PROPERTIES, LLC FOR SAID PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS:  Department of Human Services Payments for September 2006; Public Trustee Second Quarter Report for 2006.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved and issued:  Archer’s Poudre River Resort, Bellvue – 3.2% Beer Retail; Mexican Inn, Loveland – Hotel and Restaurant; Mountain Vista Greens, Fort Collins – Optional Premises.  The following licenses were approved:  Pot Belly Deli & Bar, Red Feather Lake – Tavern.

 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

5.   NATIONAL ADOPTION MONTH PROCLAMATION:   Michelle Mikulski of Foster and Adoptive Families of Larimer County approached the Board and described some of the special circumstances that foster and adoptive families deal with.  She further requested Board approval of the proclamation.

 

Commissioner Rennels read the proclamation aloud.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim the month of November as National Adoption Month and November 18, 2006, as National Adoption Day.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.   EXPANSION OF THE FAIR BOARD:  Todd Neiberger approached the Board and explained the Fair Board’s desire to increase the number of members on their board by as many as three.  He further explained the current status of the Larimer County Fair Queen program, how it compares with other county fairs statewide, and the need for increased attention to be paid to this facet of the Larimer County Fair in order to make it more viable.

 

Much discussion ensued regarding the Larimer County Fair Queen program, the scholarship involved, and the best way to improve this program.  Discussion continued regarding committee versus Fair Board representation in this regard and the Board’s desire for the Fair Board to make the ultimate decisions regarding which Fair Board positions focus on which areas of the fair.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve adding of two members to the Larimer County Fair Board. 

 

Discussion ensued regarding whether two or three positions are actually needed. 

 

Commissioner Wagner indicated that she wished to amend her original motion to allow the addition of up to three members to the Larimer County Fair Board.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.   DISCUSSION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN RAIL AUTHORITY:  Bob Briggs approached the Board and explained, in depth, the evolution of the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority (RMRA) and his involvement in it, as well as the current study being proposed to consider heavy rail passenger service from Casper Wyoming to Belen New Mexico.  He went further to explain the RMRA’s desire for community involvement in the study, and specifically Larimer County’s involvement.  Larimer County’s involvement would require a $10,000 investment and would provide Larimer County a voice in the process.

 

Discussion ensued regarding potential impact of the study, utilization of previous studies, and what the process of moving forward would be once the study is completed.

 

Chair Gibson thanked Mr. Briggs for attending the meeting and initiating discussion on the subject.  Since no decisions were intended at this time, it was agreed that the topic would be revisited by the Board in the December 4, 2006, Administrative Matters meeting.

 

8.  EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS (#139):

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters as outlined in 24-6-402 (4)(f).

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

9.   LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS:  Frank Lancaster explained the recommendations made by the various entities for positions on the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) Board, as listed below:

 

Mary Moore, representing the City of Fort Collins, first term, Appointed January 1, 2007, expires December 31, 2008.

 

Todd Seek, representing the health districts, first term, Appointed January 1, 2007, expires December 31, 2008.

 

Mayor John Baudeck, representing the communities of Berthoud, Estes Park, Johnstown, Timnath, Wellington and Windsor, Appointed January 1, 2007, expires December 31, 2008.

 

Justin Smith, representing Larimer County, first term, Appointed January 1, 2007, expires December 31, 2008.

 

Chair Gibson indicated his interest in being the Larimer County representative, explaining that he believed his presence on the LETA Board would provide a more balance perspective, since the majority of LETA Board members suggested are directly involved in providing emergency services.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments to the LETA Board for a 1st term effective January 1, 2007, and expiring December 31, 2008, for Mary Moore, representing the City of Fort Collins; Todd Seek, Representing the Health District; Major John Baudek representing Berthoud, Estes Park, Johnstown, Timnath, Wellington and Windsor; and Glenn Gibson, representing Larimer County.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10.  EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR LAND NEGOTIATIONS (#141)

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for determining positions related to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators as outlined in 24-6-402 (4) (3).

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

13.  WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster asked the Board if they would support a request for a local legislator to carry a building contractor bill in the coming legislative session.  The Board indicated they would support such a request.

 

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

 

15.  LEGAL MATTERS.  There were no legal matters to discuss.

 

There being no further business, the meeting recessed at 12:03 p.m.

 

 

                                                                                               

 

BUDGET HEARING

(No Audio Available)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:00 p.m. with County Manager, Frank Lancaster.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Bob Keister, Angela Erker, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners' Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

Mr. Lancaster explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss any changes to the proposed budget in order to prepare the final resolutions for the budget adoption hearing.  Discussion ensued regarding the Dial-a-Ride program, the Detention Center, the Engineering Department's overlay projects, and the request for the limited-term senior planner position for the Planning Department.   Mr. Keister stated that the Board could possibly fund additional requests with either 2006 carryover funds, or by utilizing the Commissioners' Special Projects Fund. 

Chair Gibson was not in favor of reinstating the limited-term senior planner position, as he felt this request should be placed back in the mix with the other requests, such as the Engineering Department's overlay project.  Commissioner Rennels stated that she had previously requested the limited-term senior planner position be included into the budget, and felt that the position is critical to accomplishing the long-term planning goals of the county; therefore, she supported funding the position at this time.  Commissioner Wagner concurred.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners reinstate the limited-term senior planner position funding of $41,245, into the proposed 2007 Budget.

Motion carried 2-1; Chair Gibson dissenting.

 

The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

 

 

            ________________________________________

GLENN GIBSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

___________________________________

Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk

 

 

_______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk