> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 01/08/07  

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, January 8, 2007

 

LAND USE HEARING

(# 2)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Rennels and Gibson were present.  Also present were:  Christie Coleman, Engineering Department; Samantha Mott, David Karan, and Porter Ingrum, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Candace Phippen, Building Inspection; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk. 

 

Chair Wagner 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 Wagner then explained that Items 1 through 3 were on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.

 

 

1.  COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES LOTS 50 AND 73 AMENDED PLAT - #06-S2657:  This is a request for an Amended Plat to reconfigure the existing lot line between Lot 50 of the Country Club Estates Subdivision and Lot 73 of the Country Club Estates Third Subdivision by moving the lot line to coincide with an existing fence line. 

 

There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies stated that they have no objections to this proposal:  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; the Larimer County Addressing Coordinator; the Larimer County Engineering Department; and Poudre Fire Authority.  Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identified several required corrections to the plat.  Code Compliance Section has noted that Permit # 95-F2696 for an addition to an existing garage has expired.

 

The proposed plat amendment of Lot 50 of the Country Club Estates Subdivision and Lot 73 of the Country Club Estates Subdivision 3rd Filing will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency.  The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots.  Staff finds that this request meets the requirements of Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 50 of the Plat of Resubdivision of Lots 25-28, 45-49, and a part of Lot 50 of Country Club Estates Subdivision and Lot 73 of Country Club Estates Third Subdivision, 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 July 8, 2007, or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   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 December 6, 2006.

3.   The Final Plat shall be revised to include a signature block for all property owners and any lien holders. (Provide the Planning Department with an Ownership and Encumbrance for Lot 50 to review.)

 

 

2.  CRYSTAL LAKES 15TH FILING LOTS 12 AND 13 LOT CONSOLIDATION AND EASEMENT VACATION - #06-S2654:  This is a request for a Lot Consolidation to combine two contiguous lots and vacate a 20-foot utility easement and portions of the guy wire easement located along the common lot line of Lots 12 and 13 of Crystal Lakes Subdivision 15th Filing 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 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.

 

The proposed Lot Consolidation for Lots 12 and 13 of Crystal Lakes Subdivision 15th Filing PUD and easement vacation will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency.  The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots.  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 Crystal Lakes Subdivision 15th Filing PUD Lots 12 and13 and the vacation of the 20-foot utility easement and portions of the guy wire easement located along the common lot line for Lots 12 and 13 subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by July 8, 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.

 

 

3.  HORSETOOTH LAKE ESTATES LOTS 53 AND 54 LOT CONSOLIDATION - #06-S2656:  This is a request for a Lot Consolidation to combine Lots 53 and 54 in Horsetooth Lake Estates into one lot.  If approved, the recording instrument for this application 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 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 53 and 54 in Horsetooth Lake Estates will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency.  The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots.  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 of Lots 53 and 54 in Horsetooth Lake Estates subject to the following conditions:

 

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

2.   All conditions shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by July 8, 2007, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1 through 3, as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

4.  DEMMEL LAKES ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT - #04-S2385 (TABLED FROM DECEMBER 11, 2006):  This is a request for a Preliminary Plat review of a Conservation Development to divide approximately 182 acres into 17 single family lots and residual lots. The site is located on the north and south sides of County Road 64, and on the west side of County Road 11 one mile west of the Wellington town limits.  The existing parcels are traversed by County Road 64.  For ease of discussion, the northern parcel will be called “Parcel 1” and the southern parcel “Parcel 2”.  Seventeen total single-family lots, 149 acres of residual land (80%), and four common area lots are proposed.  The area contains a network of irrigation canals and reservoirs; Demmel Lake is located just off the property to the west, North Poudre Reservoir #4 to the Northeast, North Poudre Reservoir #3 to the north and Bee Lake to the south.  Canals include the Poudre Valley and various legs of the North Poudre Canal system.  The Poudre Valley Canal forms the southern boundary of Parcel 2. 

 

Parts of Parcels 1 and 2 are currently farmed.  There is an irrigation well at the southeast corner of Parcel 1.  An existing residence on Parcel 2 serves as a farmstead. The existing residence uses a septic system, a well, and two driveways from County Road 11.  A portion of Parcel 1 along the northern boundary is intermittent ponds and associated wetlands.  Wetland vegetation follows the ponds southern rim.  This Conservation Development would use Northern Colorado Water Association water and on-site septic.  Proposed primary access for the new single-family residential lots is proposed from County Road 64 with emergency access to County Road 11. 

 

This application was originally presented to the Larimer County Planning Commission on their consent agenda for the October 18, 2006, meeting.  However, Mr. Kaul and Mrs. Brown, neighbors, took the time to ask questions and requested the application be discussed.  The applicant made no presentation due to the fact that the application had been on consent.  Mrs. Brown had questions related to the required moving of the irrigation well and how that might affect her property in the future.  Mr. Kaul had questions related to the proximity of the development to his home, explaining that he operates motorbikes on his property.  Potential failing sanitation systems, the appropriateness of the access to the property and its safety, and concerns with the potential for annexation to Wellington in the future, were also some of his concerns. 

 

Staff and the applicant addressed these issues for the Larimer County Planning Commission, noting that the required moving of the well was part of the development review process, and responded to Mr. Kaul’s concerns about access and annexation as well as the existence of the motorbike use on the site. 

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission had a concern about outdoor lighting but did not make them a condition of approval.  The staff has added a condition to respond to that concern.  The Larimer County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommended approval of the project.

 

The Planning Commission and the Development Services Team recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Demmel Lake Estates Conservation Development and appeal to Section 8.14.2.S (connectivity) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Demmel Lake Estates Conservation Development (File # 04-S2385) 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 Demmel Lake Estates Conservation Development (File # 04-S2385).
  2. All residential buildings will contain fire sprinklers, and the Wellington Fire Department must review the Final Plat before it is submitted for recording.
  3. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Poudre R1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and Cooper Slough/Boxelder drainage basin fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.  Development Construction Permit Fees shall be paid prior to the start of improvement construction.
  4. All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soil investigation.  The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table.  Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed and approved on a development wide basis.
  5. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.
  6. A statement will be prominently displayed in a plat note, building permit records, and disclosure notice that, “Standard septic systems are not feasible due to soil conditions.  With platted lot sizes, location of sewage disposal may take precedence over location of residences.  Sewage disposal system design must take place at the beginning of site design.  No building permits will be issued until site-specific plans for sewage disposal is approved by the County Health Department."
  7. One and only one direct access will be provided to the existing house which meets the minimum access spacing requirement of 300 feet.  One access must be eliminated within 90 days of issuance of the Development Construction Permit (DCP) or the DCP will be revoked.
  8. The existing irrigation well near the intersection of County Roads 64 and 11 shall be relocated outside of the existing and proposed right-of-way for those roads. The well must be relocated within 90 days of the issuance of the Development Construction Permit or the DCP will be revoked.
  9. The final covenants for this development will reflect the requirement that all exterior lights shall be sharp cut-off down directed fixtures that can be manually controlled.

 

Mr. Helmick explained the Demmel Lakes Estates Conservation Development in detail as outlined above.  Mark Oberschmidt, applicant, explained that Northern Engineering has been working with staff for over a year on this particular project, and thinks that all requirements to county regulations have been met. 

 

At this time Chair Wagner opened the hearing for public comment.  Chris Kaul, neighbor, inquired about the probability of the annexation of his property, the potential increase of traffic on neighboring roads, drainage leaks, and the reduction of wildlife habitat and animal migration.  Sue Foster, neighbor, said her concerns were related to excessive outside lighting, and was pleased to see that down-lighting was added as a condition of approval.  She hoped that future residents would consider landscaping their property keeping in mind that their homes are located in a very arid region. 

 

Ms. Coleman explained that a lot of review among staff and the applicant has taken place prior to this hearing, and all agreed that the preservation of agricultural land is extremely important.  She responded to the concern of traffic safety and volume, by stating that a road analysis was reviewed.  Mr. Ryan stated that site specific soil testing is a condition of approval, and current drainage practices are very reliable, and would most likely not cause the leaching of hazardous material. 

 

Mr. Oberschmidt concluded by stating that a site distance analysis was conducted, along with road and traffic analysis.  Also, soil assessment will be required on each individual lot.  Some discussion ensued among the Commissioners, and it was decided that staff, the applicant, and all were in agreement regarding the approval of the Demmel Lake Estates project. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Preliminary Plat for Demmel Lake Estates Conservation Development (File #04-S2385), subject to the conditions as recommended by the Development Review Team and the Larimer County Planning Commission, with the inclusion of condition 9, outlined above. 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

 

5.  LEE BUILDING VIOLATION:  Ms. Phippen explained that the property owner is in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code by virtue of storing modular homes on the property and using a structure on the property as a residence in addition to a commercial business.  Outdoor storage and residential uses are not allowed in the C-Commercial Zoning District.  This property is located west of I-25 on County Road 14, just south of Johnson’s Corner. 

 

Ms. Phippen stated that the property was subject to a court action that commenced in 2003 against the previous tenant of the property, David Frisco, and previous owner, No Respect, Inc.  The court action involved violations of the Larimer County Land Use and Building Codes for junk, debris, illegal dwellings and an illegal septic system.  Jerry Lee, one of the partners of the current owner of the property, J and T, LLC, cleaned up the property, removed all illegal dwellings and capped off the illegal septic system.  Mr. Lee then re-zoned the property in 2005 to amend the original zoning on the property to C-Commercial for the specific use of outdoor display and sale of vehicles, including RVs, boats, cars and similar vehicles.  The re-zoning did not allow for a residence to be on the property in addition to the business use, nor did the re-zoning allow for the outdoor storage of modular homes. 

 

Code Compliance staff has worked with the owner on several occasions since 2003 to remove or have the residential use on the property approved; however, the owner continues to be in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Mixing residential and commercial uses on one parcel is not allowed by the Land Use Code, nor is outdoor storage of modular homes allowed pursuant to the conditional re-zoning approved in 2005.

 

Staff finds that a violation exists on the property, and requires compliance within 30 days.  Compliance will require that all modular homes stored outside on the property be removed from the property no later than April 30, 2007, and that a complete application for a special exception to allow the residence in the C-Commercial Zoning District be submitted to the Larimer County Planning Department within 30 days, or the residence be vacated.   If the 30-day deadline is not met, authorization for legal action to enforce County regulations will be imposed.

 

Tim and Sheila Morey, property owners, said that the 30-day deadline recommended by staff was fair, and they would have the property in compliance by then.  Commissioner Gibson suggested that the deadline be extended to 60 days, since winter conditions continue to be an issue, and the applicants have already taken significant steps to reconcile the existing violations.  The applicants agreed with Commissioner Gibson, that 60 days would be helpful.  Chair Wagner, and Commissioner Rennels felt that an extension would be viable. 

 

Chair Wagner opened the hearing for public comment and no one addressed the Board at this time.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners find a violation exists, require compliance within 60 days, and authorize legal action if the 60 day deadline is not met.  Compliance will require that all modular homes stored outside on the property be removed from the property no later than April 30, 2007, and that a complete application for a special exception to allow the residence in the C-Commercial Zoning District be submitted to the Larimer County Planning Department within 60 days, or the residence be vacated. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting recessed at 3:55 p.m.

 

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(# 3 AND # 4)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Rennels and Gibson were present.  Also present were:  Karlin Goggin, Building Inspection; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk. 

 

1.  ARKINS PARK SUBDIVISION ADDRESSING APPEAL - #06-CAC0006:  Property owners of Arkins Park Subdivision request the Board to retain the road names and not change them in accordance with the addressing resolution and staff recommendations.  Ms. Goggin explained that the Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution established guidelines by which the Rural Address Improvement Project is carried out.  These basic premises have guided the decisions of staff with regards to recommending address changes in Larimer County.  There are five essential premises for the county requesting an address change.  They include, correcting non-sequential numbering, parity discrepancies (odds on one side; evens on the other), naming unnamed roads, road name hierarchy, and eliminating duplicated road names.  The appeal for Arkins Drive and Buckhorn Lane pertains to duplicate road names.  The appellant in this case are the residents in Arkins Park Subdivision.  The request by residents is to leave addresses as is with no changes to road names and numbers. 

 

The first appeal pertains to Arkins Drive, Arkins Court, and Arkins Place.   The roads are currently addressed by what is known as the Loveland area grid system for addressing numbers.  Basically, there are two addressing methods, one is distance/integral addressing and the other is grid system addressing.  Grid system addressing is most common in more urbanized areas and subdivisions.  Over the last several decades, duplicate names have been used throughout the county.  When creating the resolution governing addressing, duplicate road names were targeted as being problematic for 9-1-1.  It was the request of the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) to require road names in unincorporated portions of the county to eliminate duplicate road names.  With the latest amendments to the resolution, one of these amendments was regarding duplicate road names, Section 5.B.2(b), provides some flexibility in allowance of duplicate road names.  Staff worked with the Board to create more flexibility in the naming conventions of existing roads without compromising the intent of the resolution and addressing needs.   The section reads:

 

            b) Road names shall not be duplicated within established USPS zip code boundaries, except that in the following situations, duplicate road names may be allowed:

                        1.  When there are no more than two duplicate road names (e.g. Drive and Court) that are connected and the duplicate roads have a different grid or interval numbering sequence for addresses.

 

According to the Arkins Park Subdivision plat, the recorded names are Arkins Drive and Arkins Court.  Arkins Place is the road name actually used for the segment platted as Arkins Court.  Currently, three properties have an address off of Arkins Place.  One property is using the address of Arkins Court.  Arkins Place and Arkins Court are using the same numbering system as the road runs east/west.  Arkins Drive; however, is off a different addressing grid, making the numbers unique.  Staff determined that in accordance with the amended Resolution and the allowance made for a duplicate road name of this nature, Arkins Drive and Arkins Place should be allowed to retain the road name.  The road name that should change as determined by staff determined is Arkins Court.

 

The other road name in this appeal is Buckhorn Lane.  In the same vicinity, with an 80538 zip code, there is a Buckhorn Drive, Buckhorn Court, Buckhorn Lane, along with the road name alias for County Road 27, Buckhorn Road.  Buckhorn Road is part of a larger scale in road naming conventions and is used in association with County Road 27.  In staff’s review of this road, and the appeal request to retain the name with no changes, staff researched the order of progression to which roads where named in the county.

 

In accordance with the resolution, the provision states an allowance for the first to have recorded the road name.  Section 5.B.2(c) states:

 

c)   If two existing roads have duplicate names such that one road name must be changed, the first road to use the name shall retain that name unless the number of affected properties on the later-named road exceeds by ten (10) or more the number on the first road to use the name.  If it cannot be determined or verified which road used the name first, the road with fewer addressable structures or units shall be renamed. Refer to Section 5(B)(1).

 

With that stated, Cottonwood Terrace Subdivision was recorded in February 1962.  Buckhorn Drive was named first in this zip code and also has the most affected addressable structures.  Arkins Park Subdivision was recorded next in 1969, followed by Green Valley Estates Subdivision.  The residents of Green Valley Estates Subdivision have already selected a new road name to replace Buckhorn Court which is a duplicate road name.

 

The appellant request is solely to retain the name Buckhorn Lane.  Staff has determined based upon research of the establishment of subdivisions and the requirement of the resolution on duplicate road names, that Buckhorn Lane be changed to a non-duplicated, unique road name.   There are five managing principals that staff is working on to ensure compliance within the purpose of this project.  The five items are: correcting nonsequential numbering, correcting parity, naming unnamed roads, road name hierarchy, and eliminating duplicate road names.  The decision to recommend a road name change is consistent with the resolution. 

 

Ms. Goggin read a letter from Kim Culp, LETA Director, regarding LETA’s approval of a road name change for Arkins Place and Buckhorn Lane.  Chair Wagner opened the hearing for public comment at this time. 

 

Jesse Taylor, Marvin Spanbauer, Kathleen O’Loughlen, and Doug Rowley, Arkins Park Subdivision residents, felt that emergency services and delivery personnel were able to find their homes without difficulty.  They all hoped that the Board would approve their request to keep their road names the same.  Mr. Taylor was primarily concerned with the cost of changing business cards and pamphlets for his home occupation, and would like to see monetary compensation for the potential road name change.  Mr. Spanbauer did not see the need to change the road name based on a resolution enacted 30 years after the original road name was created.  He felt that changing the road name now would create problems for emergency and delivery services, and online driving direction websites would fail to pick up the new road names.  Ms. O’Loughlen wanted to retain the original road name for historical reasons.  Mr. Rowley believes that some maps of the area are inaccurate, and the current road name is consistent with the resolution. 

 

Commissioner Gibson stated that changes need to be made in order to eliminate the number of roads with the name Buckhorn.  With LETA requesting the road name change, Commissioner Gibson believes the county should follow their recommendation.  Commissioner Rennels explained that changes like this will probably affect future homeowners more significantly.  She said that other counties have had to go through this as well, and Buckhorn is a situation where changes need to be made since duplicate road names are all within the same Emergency Service Number (ESN). 

 

At this time there was a request to reopen public comment.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners reopen public comment.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Emmett Fennegan, resident, stated that he would be willing to change his address from Arkins Place to Arkins Court, to eliminate the need for his neighbor, Mr. Taylor, to change the address for his home occupation. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with the Road Naming and Site Addressing Resolution, allow two road names, Arkins Drive and Arkins Place, but change Arkins Place to Arkins Court.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to retain Buckhorn Lane and request that owners select a non-duplicate and unique road name compliant with the Resolution.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

2.  WATERDALE ADDRESS APPEAL - #06-CAC0007:  Residents of Waterdale Drive request that the Board retain the addresses as assigned, and not change them in accordance with the addressing resolution and staff recommendations to utilize the County Road designation.

 

Ms. Goggin explained that as part of the Road Naming and Site Addressing System, staff is proposing changes to existing addresses currently using Waterdale Drive, west of Loveland on N County Road 29.  Staff reviewed this road and addresses for compliance and found two names being used for the same continuous County Road.  The resolution provides in Section 5.B.1(q) the establishment of a road naming hierarchy for the county when multiple road name designations may exist. 

 

The appellant seeks to retain an alias road name designation in rural Larimer County rather than assume N County Road 29.  An alias road name is a road name used by local residents, but is not necessarily the official road name.  An alias road name is not an official road name unless approved and recorded by Findings and Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners.  The appellant states the designation of this road name is historic based upon a homestead and ranch in the area.   

 

By following the premise of the resolution, the County eliminates confusion by no longer segmenting continuous roads with various road names.   The use of an alias road name and County Road name designation sporadically for the same road is confusing and problematic for emergency services as well as the general public and delivery services.  It does not promote the intent of a consistent and logic address system to use two road names for the same continuous road.

 

The determination made by staff to deny the appeal is consistent with the intent of the resolution.  According to Section 5.B.1(q), the following is established for road naming conventions in Larimer County:

 

            The names of State and Federal Highways are assigned based on their State or Federal Highway number. If any given section of a road has multiple designations, e.g.: a State and a Federal Highway number or two Federal Highway numbers, the following hierarchy shall be used within the Larimer County addressing/road naming system:

 

         i) Interstate (lowest Interstate number takes precedence if more than 1)

        ii) Federal Highway number (lowest Federal Highway number takes precedence if more than 1)

        iii) Forest Service Roads

        iv) State Highway number (lowest State Highway number takes precedence if more than 1)

        v) County Highway number.

 

The hierarchy in road naming shall supersede and take precedence over historically significant and/or alias road names.

 

Staff’s determination is for compliance with the road naming hierarchy and consistency with what has been done elsewhere in the County.  For example, S County Road 29 is also known as Carter Lake Rd; Big Thompson Canyon is officially known as W Highway 34;  and N County Road 27 is known as Masonville Rd and the Buckhorn Road, to name a few. In each of these scenarios, the road naming hierarchy is in place and the property location address is known as the official road name designation.  In the research conducted by staff, including Engineering, there is no record of officially changing a section of N County Road 29 to Waterdale Drive nor can we find significant historical record of Waterdale Drive other than the use as an alias road name.

 

Chair Wagner opened the hearing for public comment, and Dick Rush, Waterdale resident, addressed the Board.  He outlined a letter, signed by 48 residents, requesting that the original road name of Waterdale Drive remain the same.  Eva Jean Carran, owner of the Waterdale Ranch, explained the historical significance of the ranch, and said that the ranch has been in existence for 130 years.  She explained that the name Waterdale creates a sense of community and place for the residents.  Stephanie Romm, and Ray Whalen do not want to see the road name change, and feel as though their sense of community would be lost if a name change were to occur. 

 

At this time, some discussion among the Commissioners ensued.  Ms. Goggin explained that maintaining the current road name would set a precedent for a “pocket” road name where one road suddenly changes names without changing direction.  Retaining these types of road names and going against the current resolution would ultimately cost the county more money as well.  There was then a request to reopen public comment.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners reopen public comment.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Rush suggested that maintaining the same road name would not cost the county more money, and it is the preference of residents to keep the current name of Waterdale Drive. 

 

Commissioner Rennels stated that she believes people create a community, not road names.  Chair Wagner said that she was sympathetic to the history of the name Waterdale, but using a road number instead does not alter where you live. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to retain the existing road name of Waterdale Drive and modify the addresses in accordance with the Rural Addressing System and Resolution, and name the road N County Road 29.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

 

 

 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2007

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(# 5)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels presided, and Commissioner Gibson was present.  Also present were: Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Department; Dave Spencer, and Dennis Stouffer, Facilities Department; Dale Miller, Road and Bridge Department; George Hass, County Attorney; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk. 

 

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment today.

 

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 1, 2007:

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of January 1, 2007.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 15, 2007The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the upcoming schedule with Ms. Hart. 

 

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for January 9, 2007:

 

01092007A001           FIFTH AMENDMENT TO CLAIMS SERVICING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

 

01092007R001           RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE

 

01092007R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 10 IN WEST HILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY

 

01092007R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CLEAR APPEAL

 

01092007R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY

 

01092007R005           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APEX ROOTER AND PLUMBING MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW

 

01092007R006           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MOORE MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW

 

01092007R007           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE IDLEWILDE BY THE RIVER PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP TIME EXTENSION AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP

 

01092007R008           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ROAD NAME CHANGE FROM COUNTY ROAD 10 TO WATER AVENUE

 

01092007R009           RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LARIMER COUNTY ROAD NAMING AND SITE ADDRESSING SYSTEM RESOLUTION (12-4-06)

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Department of Human Services Payments for November 2006; CDHS Certification of Compliance County Merit System Year 2007; Approval of .25 FTE Increase in staffing in the Risk Management Department.

 

LIQUOR LICENSING:  The following liquor licenses were approved and issued:  River Forks Inn Restaurant and Stage Stop – Hotel and Restaurant – Drake; Glen Echo Resort – Hotel and Restaurant – Bellvue.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

5.  RECOGNITION OF SNOW EMERGENCY EFFORTS:  Mr. Spencer, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Stouffer were recognized for the joint effort of the Facilities and Road and Bridge Departments for the efficient removal of snow in Larimer County, especially over the past few weeks.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels and Commissioner Gibson expressed their gratitude towards all county departments involved in snow removal, and explained that overall county efforts were exemplary.  Mr. Spencer attributed the success of the snow removal to the dedicated employees of Larimer County, and the joint effort between county and city entities.  Mr. Engemoen took the time to recognize fairground and landfill employees as well.

 

 

6.  BOARD ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2007:  The Board of County Commissioners approved the assignment of responsibilities for 2007 as they pertain to County Boards and Commissions. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Board assignments as presented.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

01092007P001            BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES

 

Mr. Gluckman explained that Gary Buffington should be added as the liaison to the Colorado Counties Inc. (CCI) Committee.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Gary Buffington as the CCI Committee liaison.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

7.  WORKSESSION:  Ms. Hart asked that the Board consider approving an increase in full time employee (FTE) hours for the Commissioners’ Office to fill a position that will soon be vacant.  This request is for an increase of .125 FTE.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the .125 FTE increase.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

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

 

 

9.  LEGAL MATTERS:  Executive Session (# 6)

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for determining 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 2-0.

 

Following the Executive Session, Mr. Hass explained the bonding of elected officials for 2007 as required by Colorado state statute.  At this time he read the bond amounts for each elected position.   

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the bonds as stated.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m.

 

__________________________________________

KAREN A. WAGNER, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 _________________________________

Kristen L. Romary, Deputy Clerk