MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, November 24, 2008
(No audio available)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 10:00 a.m. to go into Executive Session. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Rennels and Eubanks were present. Also present were: Deni LaRue, Commissioner’s Office; David Ayraud and George Hass, County Attorney’s Office; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; Jeff Green, Risk Management; Bob Herrfeldt, Fairgrounds/Event Center; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402 (4)(b) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The session ended at 11:20 a.m., with no action taken.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Rennels and Eubanks were present. Also present were: Toby Stauffer, Planning Department; Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Karlin Goggin, Building Inspections Department; and Tamara Slusher, 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 addressed the audience and explained that item on today’s consent agenda would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or member of the audience.
1. GRAFF MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW FILE #08-Z1719: This is a request to approve a Minor Special Review to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit on a 7.13 acre property situated north of Douglas Road on County Road 13 in the O-Open zone district.
The property has an existing residence and barn. A fire recently damaged a portion of the barn, the portion that included an un-permitted dwelling unit. The dwelling unit on the property was for barn and stable help for agricultural operations. The applicant seeks to rebuild the dwelling unit in the same space and hopes to use the space for agricultural help or as a space for guests.
No neighbors have voiced objections to this proposal. Additionally, the following Larimer County and referral agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:
· Larimer County Building Department
· Engineering Department Development Review Team
· East Larimer County Water District
· Addressing Review Section
· Department of Health and Environment
· Code Compliance Section
The Land Use Code states that accessory uses are intended to allow property owners the full use of their property, while maintaining the integrity and character of the neighborhood. To meet these goals, accessory uses and buildings must be erected and used only for purposes that are clearly secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property. They must be located on the same lot with the principal use and the accessory living area should not be used as a rental unit. It is the assessment of the Development Services Team that this request can meet the standards, provided the owner complies with the requirements for an Accessory Living Area, and satisfies the recommended conditions of approval below.
The Development Services Team recommends approval the Graff Minor Special Review (File #08-Z1719) subject to the following conditions:
1. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Graff Minor Special Review (File # 08-1719) except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Graff Minor Special Review.
2. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Minor Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review approval.
3. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property. Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Minor Special Review approval.
4. The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for the Accessory Living Area. All applicable fees, including permit fees and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, and Dry Creek Drainage Basin and drainage fees shall apply to this use. Within 90 days from the date of approval, the owner shall obtain all outstanding building permits and inspections for all previous work in the existing building.
5. Per Section 4.3.10.F.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, the habitable space of the current structure shall not exceed to 40 percent of the square footage in the single-family dwelling or 800 square feet whichever is less.
6. The single-family character of the property must be maintained. The entrance(s) to the accessory living area must not be visible from any road.
7. The accessory living area is to be used solely for guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling or those providing a service on site in exchange for their residency.
8. The accessory living area must not be rented or leased separately from the single-family dwelling.
9. This minor special review approval will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Consent Agenda as published for November 24, 2008.
Motion carried 3-0.
2. STEVE SARNO ADDRESS APPEAL: Mr. Sarno seeks to appeal his address change from 417 Indian Ridge Rd. to 417 East County Road 66.
As part of the Road Naming and Site Addressing System, the county code provides in Section 10-175.(a)(4)a: the County Addressing Coordinator shall be responsible for assigning and modifying address numbers or road names. Section 10-175 (b)(1)q of the county code establishes a road naming hierarchy. From the appeal application and discussion with the owner, Mr. Sarno seeks to retain the address of 417 Indian Ridge Rd. However, the property involved in this appeal takes direct access from E County Road 66. County Road 66 is a publicly dedicated road and is maintained by the county. The property does not have direct access from the unmaintained portion currently named Indian Ridge Rd. Thus, in accordance with the county code, the address should change to reflect the proper road name designation of E County Road 66.
The subject property had an address of 417 Indian Ridge Rd prior to the Rural Addressing Improvement Project. As part of the addressing project, the subject property was found to take access from a county maintained road, E County Road 66. With that said Section 10-175 (b)(1)q provides the following:
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:
1. Interstate (lowest interstate number takes precedence if more than one).
2. Federal highway number (lowest federal highway number takes precedence if more than one).
3. Forest service roads.
4. State highway number (lowest state highway number takes precedence if more than one)
5. County highway number.
6. The hierarchy in road naming shall supersede and take precedence over historically significant and/or alias road names.
The address in turn was changed to reflect the road naming hierarchy and is now addressed 417 E County Road 66.
Mr. Sarno is not adversely opposed to an address change; however, he considers the change to be more confusing rather than an improvement. Mr. Sarno brought to staff’s attention that his new address of 417 E County Road 66 is too closely related to an address of 417 E County Road 66E which is located approximately ½ mile north of his residence. It is important to note that 417 E County Road 66E was not impacted by the Rural Addressing Project and we are not suggesting changing this site location address. Mr. Sarno indicated that mail was being misrouted and received at the other location bringing to his attention concern regarding the new address as a whole.
In discussions with Mr. Sarno, staff recommended changing the number for his address. Since there is a 417 E County Road 66 and 417 E County Road 66E staff felt that changing the address numbers would eliminate the confusion with postal delivery. At that stage, Mr. Sarno expressed apprehension that changing the number would likely not eliminate the confusion as he stated “systems” for Qwest and others default his to County Road 66E. Staff confirmed with Kimberly Culp, LETA Executive Director, that Qwest Communications would not default to a road name. If a road name does not appear in the MSAG (Master Street Address Guide), the error is received at LETA to either enter a new road or confirm the road name. It has been confirmed that both E County Road 66 and E County Road 66E are valid road names in the Larimer County MSAG and Qwest Communications has the new address in 911.
Mr. Sarno requested that the county research the possibility of routing his mail delivery through the Wellington Post Office rather than Fort Collins, since his residence is closer to Wellington. A proxy to USPS was completed and a response was provided (attached). Proximity to post offices is not how routes are determined by USPS. They are designed to facilitate efficient and orderly delivery of mail and may not necessarily correspond to municipal boundaries. Since Larimer County is not a municipality, a postal compliant city, state, and zip as provided by USPS is used. Larimer County has no authority over the zip code delivery boundary and in order to consider such a request would require moving a minimum of 25 other addresses to the Wellington zip code and a petition by residents to USPS.
Mr. Sarno also suggested leaving the address of 417 Indian Ridge Rd. Unfortunately, based upon the road hierarchy and the fact that access is from County Road 66 (which is a maintained county road), the address needs to reflect this official road name designation. It is potentially feasible for the address to remain 417 Indian Ridge Rd., however, in order to be consistent with previous appeals of this nature, the county road maintenance would need to be vacated.
As staff representative, I can comprehend the confusion with respect to mail delivery. The difference between the addresses is minimal and can create human error. With respect to locating the property, the addresses are ½ mile apart and distinguishable from a dispatch and emergency service aspect.
One final suggestion from Mr. Sarno was to renumber county roads and eliminate the designation of “E” after county road numbers. The use of “E” in the county road numbering system denotes the tenth of a mile from the section line. With citizens the use of “E” has long been confused with being on County Road 66 East. It is an unfortunate situation yet the magnitude to change the county road numbering system would be enormous. Although in addressing, mail delivery, and citizen awareness of road names, this schematic would alleviate some confusion, however, this suggestion crosses extensive department lines, beyond the scope of this project and staff feels this is not a viable solution at this time. Staff feels that the following options are viable:
a) Change the address number from 417 E County Road 66 to another number in accordance with the Fort Collins grid system (423, 425, 431, etc) Staff is favorable to working with the property owner to determine a new number in accordance with the Fort Collins grid.
b) Request to vacate maintenance of the county road. If the maintenance is eliminated the county road designation can be eliminated. This would still be a public right of way, but not county maintained. By eliminating maintenance, the county road designation ceases and the address of 417 Indian Ridge Rd can be retained. This would impact all owners east of County Road 15. If the Board wishes to give this option further consideration, this matter should be tabled until proxy to all owners is completed. Also, address changes would be intact until the completion of the road maintenance has been officially terminated if this is the course of action selected.
c) Allow the platted road name of Indian Ridge Rd from N County Road 15 east on what is E County Road 66 to be the official road name as exception to the county code. If the Board desires to give this option further consideration, this matter should be tabled and re-heard following notice to the other property owners taking access from this portion of the road.
Mr. Sarno addressed the Board and stated that he is not adversely opposed to an address change; however, he considers the change to be more confusing rather than an improvement. Mr. Sarno brought to staff’s attention that his new address of 417 East County Road 66 is too closely related to an address of 417 East County Road 66E which is located approximately a ½ mile north of his residence. Mr. Sarno indicated that mail was being misrouted and received at the other location bringing to his attention concern regarding the new address as a whole.
Commissioner Rennels asked Mr. Sarno which option would be the most practical in his opinion. Mr. Sarno stated that he would not be opposed to changing his street number as long as the new street number was not duplicated with any residence located on County Road 66.
The Board and staff agreed that this item would be tabled until December 22, 2008, to allow staff to research a new street number that is guaranteed not to be duplicated. It was also agreed that this item could be re-presented on the consent agenda if Mr. Sarno and staff are in agreement on the solution.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners table this agenda item until December 22, 2008.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2008
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present. Also present were: Deirdre Sullivan, Darlene Huang, and Janna West-Kowalski, Health Department; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Division; George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: John Hatfield addressed the Board regarding the increase traffic, particularly truck traffic, that is occurring on County Road 7 since the road was paved from Harmony Road to Kechter Road. Mr. Hatfield stated that the signs which stated that the roads could be used for local deliveries only have been removed, and the Sheriff will not enforce limiting truck traffic on this roadway unless the signs are reinstalled. He also stated that the 40 mile-per-hour speed limit is excessive and would like to see it reduced to 30 miles-per-hour through the residential portion of this area. And finally, Mr. Hatfield stated that the snow plows cause damage to their mailboxes, and requested that the snow plows move slower and further away from the edge of the road, in order to alleviate damage to their mailboxes.
Judy Boyle, from Highland Farms Homeowners’ Association, addressed the Board and stated that Larimer County has been getting water illegally from their ditch. She stated many concerns regarding this, such as increased liability, maintenance, and concerns with others “piggy-backing” on the county use of the ditch water. Ms. Boyle explained that they have been working with the County Attorney on this issue, but that it has been taking far too long to resolve the issues. She also requested that the county reimburse their attorney fees, and asked for the Board’s assistance in expediting this issue.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 17, 2008:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minute for the week of November 17, 2008.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEKS OF DECEMBER 1, 2008, AND DECEMBER 8, 2008: The Board reviewed their upcoming schedules.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items, as listed on the Consent Agenda for November 25, 2008:
PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT: As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petition for Abatement is approved: Donald J. Sherwood, Jr. and Theresa Lynn Hazel.
11252008A001 MEDICAL SERVICES FOR INMATES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT
11252008A002 AMENDMENT TO LARIMER COUNTY RECYCLING AGREEMENT OF DECEMBER 7, 2004, BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND WM RECYCLE AMERICA, LLC, f/k/a RECYCLE AMERICA ALLIANCE, LLC
11252008R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE PARK PLACE COURT ROAD NAME APPEAL
11252008R002 RESOLUTION APPROVING LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT OPERATING PLAN
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following license was issued: Diane Weixelman, dba Beaver Inn – Hotel and Restaurant – Red Feather Lakes.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING LARIMER COUNTY’S COMMITMENT TO REGIONAL LAND USE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS: Mr. Lancaster presented resolution which re-affirms how the Board relates to the entities that they have entered into Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) with. Some discussion ensued and the Board agreed that the resolution accurately describes their position in upholding their IGA’s.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution affirming Larimer County’s commitment to Regional Land Use Intergovernmental Agreements.
Motion carried 3-0.
11252008R002 RESOLUTION AFFIRMING LARIMER COUNTY’S COMMITMENT TO REGIONAL LAND USE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
6. DISCUSSION ON TOBACCO FREE/GIVEAWAY POLICY ON COUNTY PROPERTY: Commissioner Eubanks, Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Huang, and Ms. West-Kowalski, proposed the idea of adopting a county policy, which would prohibit free or nominal cost distribution of tobacco-related giveaways on property that is owned, leased, or rented by Larimer County. Ms. Sullivan reviewed the statistics regarding teenage use of tobacco products, and explained the serious health problems that arise from long-term use of these products. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not it was appropriate to put restrictions in place for facilities like The Ranch, because of the promotions that occur in conjunction with some of their events. Commissioner Eubanks suggested putting the policy out for comment, and then bring it back to the Board for further discussion on December 16, 2008.
7. WORKSESSION: There were no worksession items to discuss.
8. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: The Board reviewed their participation at events during the past week.
9. LEGAL MATTERS: Mr. Hass and Mr. Engemoen responded to the public comment feedback from Ms. Boyle, regarding the use of the water from the ditch that runs through Highland Farms. Mr. Hass stated that they have been in negotiations for some time and the case is now in Water Court. Mr. Hass explained that they are willing to pay fair market value for the easement to the ditch, and will also provide fair share of the required maintenance. Mr. Hass stated that he will send a letter and provide updates to Ms. Boyle regarding this matter.
Discussion then ensued regarding whether or not the County Attorney’s Office and Mr. Hass would be integrated as county employees starting with the 2009 budget, instead of being a contracted entity, as they have been for many years. Mr. Lancaster explained that there would be some one-time costs associated with the integration, but otherwise, the operating expenses would be the same. Mr. Lancaster also explained that Mr. Hass would serve “at the will” of the Commissioners and would report directly to the Commissioners. Chair Gibson was not convinced that this would be a good move for the county as a whole and expressed concerns with the possibility of losing “institutional knowledge” should the change occur. Mr. Lancaster stated that he felt it would actually protect the county from loss of institutional knowledge, because if the County Attorney ever chose not to “renew” their contract, then all experience and knowledge would be lost.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners proceed with integrating the Mr. Hass and his firm into the county employee system, effective January 1, 2009.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m., with no further action taken.
GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Tamara L. Slusher, Deputy Clerk
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk