MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, JANUARY 9, 2006
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Rennels was present. Also present were: Porter Ingrum, Planning Department; Matt Johnson, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, 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 noted that the following item is on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
1. HILL CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT LOT 17 AMENDED - #05-S2514: This is a request for an Amended Plat of Lot 17 of the Hill Conservation Development to expand a building envelope for the addition of a garage. There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors. Additionally, the following county agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department; and The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team.
The proposed plat amendment to expand a building envelope for the addition of a garage will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots. Staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code; therefore, the Development Services Team recommends approval of the Hill Conservation Development Lot 17 Amended Plat 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 Final Plat shall be recorded by July 9, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Hill Conservation Development Lot 17 Amended Plat, File #05-S2514, as listed on the consent agenda and outlined above.
Motion carried 2-0.
The hearing recessed at 3:05 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Russell Legg, Chief Planner. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present. Also present were: Karin Madson, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE - #05-CA0057: This is a request to
make a number of changes to the adopted Land Use Code. Proposed amendments to
Section 16: Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Facilities were discussed at
the Planning Commission hearing on October 19, 2005. The majority of the
discussion centered on the proposed amendment that would allow a limited set of
CMRS facilities on residentially used properties. This proposed amendment is
Item #4: Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.2.
on residential properties, described in the recommendation below. Concern
was raised regarding interference issues potentially associated with facilities
in residential neighborhoods. Interference or RF issues are under the
authority of the FCC, even though they are not regulated by the FCC at the
present time. It is Staff’s opinion that interference or RF issues are not a
County land use issue.
The Development Services Team and the Planning Commission recommend that the amendments to Section 16: Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Facilities of the Larimer County Land Use Code, be approved as follows:
Item #1: Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 16.1.1.A and deleting Section 16.1.1.E:
A. Enhancing the ability to provide wireless services to county residents, businesses and visitors, while using performance standards and incentives to promote location of CMRS facilities on concealed structures and existing buildings and towers;
E. Using performance
standards and incentives to promote location of CMRS facilities on concealed
structures and existing buildings and towers.
Item #2: Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.2.B.1, as follows:
Collocation Co-location on
existing CMRS or broadcast antenna towers.
Item #3: Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 16.1.2.:
C. Location: To the maximum extent feasible personal wireless service facilities shall be located on existing structures, including but not limited to buildings, water towers, existing telecommunications facilities, utility poles and towers, and related facilities, provided that such installation preserves the character and integrity of those structures. In particular, applicants are urged to consider use of existing telephone and electric utility structures as sites for one or more personal wireless service facilities. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that there are no feasible existing structures upon which to locate. If the applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to locate on an existing structure, personal wireless service facilities shall be designed so as to be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible, including but not limited to: use of compatible design, building materials and colors, screening, landscaping and placement within trees.
Item #4: Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.2, as follows:
on residential properties. CMRS facilities may not be placed on properties
or buildings used primarily for residential purposes, with the exception of
attached or concealed (Stealth) microcell antennas that do not alter the
character of the residential or accessory structures. This does not
apply to CMRS facilities may be placed on buildings containing eight
or more dwelling units or farms and ranches containing dwelling units.
ANTENNA LOCATION REGULATIONS
Comments: the less than or
equal to symbol was not available in the previous word processing
system. For clarity of this amendment the old symbol (shown by
Comments: The previous less than symbol was incorrect and did not make sense since towers less that 40 feet can’t be both admin review and special review.
P--Permitted by administrative review
SR--Permitted by special review special conditions
a--Permitted only when placed 200 feet or less from the right-of-way line of I-25 (east side of road); US 34; US 36; US 287 (east side of road); Colorado 7; Colorado 14; and on lots with public and private schools for elementary and high school education, hospitals, police and fire stations.
b--Permitted only at public utility substations and in high-tension power line easements.
c--Permitted if two competing CMRS providers co-develop one tower where both will collocate.
d--Permitted if three competing CMRS providers co-develop one tower where all will collocate.
e--Neighborhood meeting required. Notice must be sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the site or a larger area if the Planning Director determines the facility's visual impact warrants a greater notification area.
Facilities at County Special Places, state or
federally designated historic sites.
and visually-sensitive areas. CMRS facilities may only
be located on a designated County Special Place, state or federally
historic site or structure with the County Commissioners' permission. CMRS facilities must not
unreasonably interfere with the view from any designated special place,
historic site or structure, or public park. natural scenic vista, historic
building, major view corridor or residential area. CMRS facilities
shall not be permitted within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the Interstate
25 right-of-way, unless such facility is combined with and is consistent with
the architectural style of an existing structure, or is located on an existing
CMRS facility and/or within the East Mulberry Corridor Plan area except for
locations at least ¼ mile north of the State Highway 14/ East Mulberry Street
centerline where planning and design for facilities in this area includes an
assessment that indicates that there are no feasible existing structures upon
which to locate.
Radial spacing. Antenna towers over 40 feet high must be
located at least 1,000 feet from other antenna towers over 40 feet high that
are capable of supporting CMRS facilities. Closer spacing between towers may be
granted through the special review process.
This radial spacing requirement
does not apply to facilities located at designated antenna farms.
Item #5: Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.13.D, as follows:
Collocation Co-location on antenna towers.
CMRS providers must not exclude other providers from co-locating on
the same tower when
collocation co-location is structurally,
technically or otherwise possible.
addition to equipment proposed for the applicant's use, proposed antenna towers
(excepting concealed antennas) and sites must be designed to accommodate
co-location of one additional CMRS provider for every 40-foot segment of
tower height over 40 feet.
3. The County Commissioners may reduce the required shared capacity if an antenna tower necessary to provide for such sharing dominates and adversely alters the area's visual character.
The County Commissioners may revoke a tower building permit or
other administrative approvals if conditions for approval of an antenna tower
collocation co-location but:
a. The tower owner is not willing to provide space for other carriers at a fair market rate when it would not impair the structural integrity of the tower or cause interference; or
The tower owner modifies the structure in a way to make
co-location impractical or impossible. If approval is revoked, the
facility must be removed at the owners' expense.
Addition of equipment for
collocation co-location of
additional CMRS providers or for existing CMRS providers on existing
antenna towers and sites does not require the special review process if the
tower height remains unchanged. Appropriate permits are required for the addition of any equipment. Addition of equipment for collocation co-location
of additional CMRS providers or for existing CMRS providers on existing
legal, nonconforming antenna towers is not considered a nonconforming use
expansion and is exempt from subsection 4.8 (nonconformities), if the tower
height remains unchanged.
Item #6: Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.3.E.2, as follows:
Dismantle the facility. If the facility is not removed within 90
days of abandonment, the county may pursue enforcement subject to the
provisions of Section 21 Enforcement.
remove the facility at the
facility and/or property owner's expense. If the facility is removed,
county approval of the facility expires is null and void.
Item #7: Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.4.A.9, as follows:
A letter of intent to allow
on the antenna tower as provided in subsection 16.1.3.D ( collocation co-location),
if the antenna tower is over 40 feet.
Item #8: Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.4.B, as follows:
B. Facility inventory. The first application in a calendar year (January through December) for a proposed CMRS facility by a provider must include a detailed inventory of all the provider's existing and approved facilities within Larimer County, all incorporated areas within the county, and one mile beyond the county border, including Wyoming.
Item #9: Amend the Land Use Code, Sections 16.1.5.A and 16.1.5.B, as follows:
16.1.5. Application review.
Administrative review. Applications for proposed CMRS
facilities requiring administrative review must comply with subsection 16.1.2
(where permitted) and subsection 16.1.3 (requirements and performance
standards). The Planning Director will make a decision to approve or deny
within 45 days of submittal and inform the applicant of said decision. If a
third-party technical study (subsection 16.1.5.C, technical issues and expert
review) is required, a decision to approve or deny an application may be
postponed until 10 days after the study is complete. Any decision to
deny a request to place, construct or modify facilities must be in writing and
include specific reasons for the action. The Planning Director's decision can
be appealed by the applicant within 30 days to the
board of adjustment Board
of County Commissioners. The fee for administrative review of a proposed
CMRS facility will be collected when the application is submitted. All
applications for administrative review require a pre-application conference as
described in subsection 12.2.2, development review procedures.
B. Special review. Applications for proposed CMRS facilities requiring special review must comply with subsection 16.1.2 (where allowed); subsection 16.1.3 (requirements and performance standards); subsection 16.1.4 (application contents) and special review factors in subsection 4.5 (procedure for permitting uses by special review). The fee for special review of a proposed CMRS facility must be collected when the application is submitted.
Item #10: Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.6.B, by deleting the word collocation and replacing it with co-location.
Item #11: Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.7, by deleting the word Collocation and replacing it with Co-location.
Ms. Madson explained the proposed changes item by item as outlined above. Commissioner Wagner questioned the need for spacing the 40-foot antennas 1000 feet apart. Mr. Legg explained that this requirement was written into the code to make sure the antennas presented an aesthetic visual effect along the roadsides and the I-25 corridor. Commissioner Rennels requested that clarification be added to Item #5, to inform individuals that they will be required to apply for the appropriate permits should the wish to add equipment to the site. Regarding Item #9, Commissioner Wagner asked that individuals be contacted by the Planning Director and given a decision within 45 days of submitting their application, rather than just assuming it is approved if they have not been contacted within the 45 days.
Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment. John Bass, representative from Colorado Wireless Exchange Cooperative (CWX), addressed the Board. Mr. Bass stated that he does not believe this use should be allowed in residential areas. He also expressed concern with the 1000 foot spacing requirement, as he believes it is too stringent, except along the I-25 corridor. He recommended that the spacing standards be different for the mountainous areas as opposed to the roadside areas. There was no further public comment.
Commissioner Rennels asked if CMRS providers will be able to appeal the 1000 foot spacing requirement to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Legg replied in the affirmative. The Board agreed that the Land Use Code is a living document that will be changed as technology progresses, and agreed to staff's proposal, with the changes to Item #5 and Item #9.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to Section 16: Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Facilities of the Larimer County Land Use Code, with the changes to Item #5, which states that individuals will be required to apply for the appropriate permits if adding equipment to an already approved site; and with the changes to Item #9, which states that the Planning Director will notify individuals of a decision within 45 days of their submitting an application.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2006
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present. Also present were: Bob Keister, Donna Hart, Cheri Pineda, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; JJ Johnston, Executive Director for the Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Department; Gary Buffington, K-Lynn Cameron, and Mark Caughlan, Parks and Open Lands Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 3, 2006:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of January, 3, 2006, as presented.
Motion carried 2-0; Commissioner Wagner abstained.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 16, 2006: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for January 10, 2006:
01102006A001 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION AND THE LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH
01102006A002 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION AND ISLAND GROVE REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTER, INC.
01102006A003 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SOARING PEAKS RANCH CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT - FILE #04-S2364 - BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SOARING PEAKS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC, AND SOARING PEAKS RANCH HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION INC.
01102006R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE WENNINGER RLUP PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL
01102006R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RATIFICATION OF COUNTRY ROAD CONDOMINIUM MAP
01102006R003 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 OF OLYMPUS HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
01102006R004 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COOKIES PARCELS SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT
01102006R005 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE ROSELLE-SHIELDS MINOR LAND DIVISION
01102006R006 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GANTER/SUITS/TOOLEY PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN
01102006R007 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GAFFNEY/SHERWOOD PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN
01102006R008 RESOLUTION REGARDING DEPOSIT OF 2006 FUNDS BY COUNTY TREASURER
MISCELLANEOUS: Soaring Peaks Ranch Conservation Development Final Plat; Public Trustee Third Quarter Report.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were both approved and issued: Boyd Lake Marina/Burger Bay - 3.2% - Loveland; Boyd Lake Marina - 3.2% - Loveland; Inlet Bay Marina - 3.2% - Fort Collins. The following license was issued: L&M Imports & Garden Center - 6% Special Events Permit - Berthoud.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FROM LARIMER COUNTY FOR INTEL EXPANSION: Mr. Johnston introduced his staff from the Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation, and members of the Intel Corporation Development Team. He then explained the purpose of this visit was to request Board approval to grant the Intel Corporation a 50% Business Personal Property Tax exemption on a $20,000,000 equipment investment, and a 50% Business Person Property Tax exemption on their existing assessed equipment value of $810,002 for a 10-year period. Mr. Johnston presented the Board with a handout which showed that Larimer County's exemption to the Intel Corporation in years one through five would be approximately $83,672; however, the benefit to the county would be realized in the jobs created and economic stimulation within the community by a solid, high-quality employer. Mr. Keister explained that the end result will be a loss of property tax dollars, but in theory additional revenues would be generated by jobs being created and money being spent locally to purchase homes, etc. Commissioner Rennels noted that there are very few tools that the County has to promote economic development within the community, and this is one way to assist in that effort. That Board agreed to support the request.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to work with Intel Corporation to provide a 50% Personal Property Tax Exemption for a 10-year period.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. FUNDING ALTERNATIVE FOR HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK: Mr. Engemoen explained that they have been exploring the possibility of using Open Space sales tax revenue to manage Horsetooth Mountain Park. He noted that the County Attorney has stated that the Commissioners do have the authority to use l5 percent of open space sales tax revenue to maintain and manage parks such as Horsetooth Mountain Park. Mr. Engemoen stated that they are assessing whether users should pay entrance fees at Horsetooth Mountain Park, or whether all residents should be allowed entrance based upon sales tax fees. He requested direction from the Board as to whether or not the Parks and Open Lands Staff should continue exploring this possibility. Some discussion ensued regarding whether this might create an issue of overuse in the parks, and how it will affect the long-term financial viability for parks management, as the sales tax will eventually expire. The Board agreed that this was a possibility they would like to see staff continue to explore.
7. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTMENT: Ms. Pineda requested Board approval to appoint Pat Young to fill the unexpired term of a Fair Board member who recently resigned.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointment of Pat Young to the Fair Board to fill an unexpired term effective January 10, 2006, and expiring November 30, 2006.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster explained that Governor Owens has placed a statewide fire ban that applies to all state owned land below 8000 feet. Mr. Lancaster stated that this ban does not affect private property owners, and the Sheriff has not imposed a fire ban in Larimer County, but is watching the conditions closely.
9. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: The Board discussed their attendance at events during the past week.
10. LEGAL MATTERS - TAPE #3: Mr. Lancaster requested the Board go into Executive Session to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators, as outlined in 24-6-402(4) (e) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting recessed at 11:05 a.m. with no further action taken.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with Ann Piccone, Assessment Specialist. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present. Also present were: Darren Dahlgren, Assessor's Office; Joe Kreikeimer, PR Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Steven Miller, Tax Agent; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PETITION FOR ABATEMENT - PR PHARMACEUTICALS INC: Ms. Piccone explained that PR Pharmaceuticals is requesting their 2004 Personal Property Taxes be abated based on the fact that assets were also reported by GE Capital Corporation; therefore, assessed and taxed twice. Ms. Piccone stated that PR Pharmaceuticals Inc. provided an itemized listing of these assets, which they are leasing from GE Capital Corporation; however, GE Capital Corporation only provided a lump sum figure for the assets they claimed and she cannot identify the specific assets claimed to be duplicated. She noted that she has repeatedly contacted the GE Capital Corporation to request an itemized list of assets they lease to PR Pharmaceuticals Inc; however, they have not responded to this request. Ms. Piccone then reviewed the inventory that was provided to the Assessor's Office.
Mr. Kreikeimer explained their leasing situation with GE Capital Corporation and stated that he discovered that both entities were paying property tax on the equipment when GE Capital Corporation asked for reimbursement for the taxes they paid. Mr. Kreikeimer stated that since they have paid the taxes to the Assessor, they need the abatement so they can refund the taxes that GE Capital Corporation also paid to the Assessor. Commissioner Rennels stated that if the Assessor's Office allows a company to file their assets in a lump sum, then it becomes difficult to deny the abatement if the reasoning is due to the fact that the assets were not itemized. Mr. Kreikeimer stated that they are in consultation in order to determine which entity will be responsible for filing and paying the taxes in the future. Commissioner Wagner stated that in the future it would behoove the County to get itemized lists of personal property assets being claimed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the PR Pharmaceuticals Petition for Abatement in the amount of $7,591.64.
Motion carried 3-0.
2. PETITION FOR ABATEMENT - ANDERSON/WADDELL RIDGE WEST PUD: Mr. Dahlgren requested the Board's approval to present the petitions for abatement simultaneously as both are located in the same neighborhood, he will be using the same comparables for both properties, and both are being represented by Mr. Miller as the tax agent. The Board agreed to this request. Mr. Dahlgren presented the comparables used and the adjustments given to reach the assessed values on the properties. Mr. Dahlgren stated that the assessed value on the Anderson property is $537,100 and the assessed value on the Waddell property is $450,800. Mr. Dhalgren also noted that some of the classifications within this neighborhood had to be reviewed and adjusted as they were previously improperly classified.
Mr. Miller handed out a packet to the Board, and explained that he used a longer time frame to determine the time adjusted sales price, which is allowed by law. Mr. Miller further stated that the actual value of the comparables, not the adjusted sales prices, represent the Assessor's definition of market value for property tax purposes. He noted that the percentages of the Assessor's property tax valuation regarding each comparable and time-adjusted sale price must also be considered. Mr. Miller explained sales ratios, the Coefficient of Dispersion (COD), Quality Classifications, and his Valuation Summary in which he determined that the Anderson property should be lowered to $468,000 and the Waddell property should be lowered to $362,000.
Commissioner Rennels asked about the quality classifications and how this may have affected the values. Mr. Dahlgren stated that the changes to quality were made in 2005 and should not have affected the values presented here. Some discussion ensued regarding the percentages presented by Mr. Miller and Chair Gibson questioned why the Anderson property had the largest percentage difference. Mr. Dahlgren stated that it may to due to the fact that the Anderson property is one of the largest in the subdivision. Commissioner Wagner stated that she agrees with the Assessor's valuation, and is not inclined to abate the taxes, as the homes in question are larger homes that support the values being presented. Commissioner Rennels stated that she also supports the Assessor's valuation of the Waddell property; however, she is inclined accept the alternative time adjusted sales price of $489,900 on the Anderson property, as this value is closer to the comparables within the neighborhood. Chair Gibson and Commissioner Wagner concurred.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners reduce the assessed value for the property located at 1797 Ridge West Drive, belonging to Floyd and Elizabeth Anderson, to $489,900 and approve and abatement of taxes for 2003 and 2004.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement of taxes for the property located at 1351 Ridge West Drive, belonging to Barry and Teresa Waddell for the 2003 and 2004 tax years.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk