MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 6:30 p.m. with Bob Joseph and Alison Chilcott, Estes Valley Planning Department. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Russ Legg, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Johnson opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the Land Use Code and County Budget.
Sandi Osterman, on behalf of the Association for Responsible Development, thanked the Board for their support in protecting wildlife and for traveling to Estes Park for the meeting.
Rex Poggenpohl also thanked the Board for traveling to Estes Park.
TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE – SECTION 7.8 HABITAT AND WILDLIFE
item was tabled during the Board hearing held on November 9, 2009, at which
time, the Board suggested changes to the amendments proposed by the Town of
Estes Park. On February 9, 2010, the Town of Estes Park approved the amendments
suggested by the Board of County Commissioners, and therefore, this request is
to formally adopt the changes to the code as proposed below (items to be added
are underlined, example, and items to be removed are stricken through,
§ 7.8 WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION
and enhance the diversity of wildlife species and habitat
that occur in the Estes Valley, and to plan and design land uses to be
harmonious with wildlife habitat and the species that depend on this habitat
for the economic, recreational, and environmental benefit of the residents of
and visitors to the Estes Valley.
B. Applicability. This section shall apply to all applications for review of development plans, subdivision plats, planned unit developments, special review uses and rezoning. This section shall not apply to development on lots that were approved for single-family residential use prior to the effective date of this code.
C. Exemptions. The procedures and regulations contained in this section shall not apply to:
1. Agricultural activities such as soil preparation, irrigation, planting, harvesting, grazing, and farm ponds;
2. Maintenance and repair of existing public roads, utilities, and other public facilities within an existing right-of-way or easement;
3. Maintenance and repair of flood control structures and activities in response to a flood emergency;
4. Maintenance and repair of existing residential or nonresidential structures; or
habitat enhancement and restoration a Activities undertaken pursuant
to a wildlife conservation plan approved under this section.
D. Other Regulations. This section of the code does not repeal or supersede any existing federal, state, or local laws, easements, covenants or deed restrictions pertaining to wildlife. When this section imposes a higher or more restrictive standard, this section shall apply.
E. Wildlife Habitat Data Base. The following sources shall be used to identify important wildlife habitat areas for purposes of review under this section:
1. Wildlife Habitat map (dated December 1996), as set forth in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time.
2. Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat maps for Larimer County, as amended from time to time.
3. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Maps dated December 1996, or as amended from time to time.
4. Other information and maps as staff or the Estes Valley Planning Commission may, from time to time, identify in cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, such as wildlife maps produced specifically for the Estes Valley. Said maps shall be applicable only following adoption of an amendment to this code.
habitat information required by this section is intended for general planning
purposes. Obvious errors or omissions may be corrected by staff
consultation with the Division of Wildlife.
F. Review Procedures. The following procedures shall apply to all applications for development:
1. Application. The applicant shall submit a development plan, subdivision plat or sketch plan, as applicable, depicting the general location of the property, location of structures on the site, prominent natural areas such as streams and wetlands, and other features that staff may require for review pursuant to this section. A Wildlife Conservation Plan shall be submitted for sites containing:
a. An endangered or threatened species,
b. Big Horn Sheep or Big Horn Sheep habitat,
c. Riparian areas adjacent to rivers, streams, and wetlands identified on the maps set forth in Appendix A of this code; or
d. Raptor nest sites.
Preliminary Review. Staff shall refer the submitted plan or plat
to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for review.
Applicants are also advised
to meet with the Division of Wildlife and other agencies as determined
appropriate by Staff to ensure compliance with the requirements of this
Section. Applicants are advised to consult with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife and other agencies responsible for regulation of wildlife and habitat,
such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior–Rocky
Mountain National Park, US Forest Service, and Colorado Natural Heritage
Program. These agencies may maintain maps and databases that can aid in the
site-specific confirmation of the presence or absence of wildlife and habitat
on a specific site.
Review. For applications referred to it, the Division of Wildlife will
determine whether the proposal will result in significant adverse impact on
wildlife or wildlife habitat only if the development adversely impacts the
An endangered or threatened species,
calving, lambing or fawning area,
Big Horn sheep or Big Horn sheep habitat, or
Raptor nest site, or
Riparian areas and wetlands.
Determination. Based on recommendations from the Division of Wildlife, the Staff
will determine whether the Applicant must submit a wildlife conservation plan
prior to approval of any development application. The conservation plan should
be submitted to the Division of Wildlife for review and recommendation as to
whether the plan adequately addresses the adverse impacts identified by the
Division of Wildlife pursuant to subsection F.3 above. (See §7.8.H below.)
a. The Review and Decision-Making Bodies shall issue a finding as to whether the application, including the wildlife conservation plan, complies with the requirements of this section.
b. Wildlife studies and mitigation plans found to be adequate by the Decision-Making Body shall become binding upon the applicant.
c. Applications that do not comply with Section 7.8 of this code shall be denied.
4. Waivers. Staff may waive or approve minor modifications of any development standard or review criteria contained in this section upon a finding that such waiver or modification:
a. Is consistent with the stated purposes of this section;
b. Will have no significant adverse impacts on wildlife species or habitat;
c. Any potential adverse impacts will be mitigated or offset to the maximum extent
d. Practicable; and
e. Application of the standard or criteria is not warranted based on the location of the development, the absence of a particular species on the site or other relevant factors.
G. Review Standards. The following review standards shall apply to all development applications as specified, unless staff determines that a specific standard may be waived pursuant to subsection F.5., above. It is the intent of this section that these standards be applied in a flexible fashion to protect wildlife habitat and wildlife species in a cost-effective fashion.
1. Review Standards.
All development subject to a wildlife conservation plan shall provide a
setback from any identified important wildlife habitat area,
as specified by
the Division of Wildlife, to the maximum extent feasible in accordance
with any recommendations in the wildlife conservation plan.
b. Non-Native Vegetation. There shall be no introduction of plant species that are not on the approved landscaping list in Appendix C on any site containing any important wildlife habitat area. To the maximum extent feasible, existing herbaceous and woody cover on the site shall be maintained and removal of native vegetation shall be minimized.
No fencing on a site containing important wildlife habitat shall exceed forty
(40) inches in height, except to the extent that such fencing is approved by
staff to confine permitted domestic animals or to protect permitted ornamental
landscaping or gardens. (2) Fences higher than forty (40) inches may be allowed
if adequate openings are provided for the passage of deer, elk, or other
identified wildlife. These openings shall be at least six (6) feet wide and
spaced a maximum of fifty (50) feet apart along continuous fence lines
exceeding this length. (3) No fencing using barbed wire shall be allowed. (4)
The type of fencing (materials, opacity, etc.) shall be determined by staff or
the Decision-Making Body as appropriate for the wildlife species on the site
on advice from the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
d. Exterior Lighting. Use of exterior lighting shall be minimized in areas of important wildlife habitat and lighting shall be designed so that it does not spill over or onto such critical habitat. See also §7.9 below.
e. Refuse Disposal. Developments on sites containing important wildlife habitat, such as black bear, must use approved animal-proof refuse disposal containers. With Division of Wildlife approval, refuse disposal containers and enclosures may be electrified.
f. Domestic Animals. Development applications for property that includes important wildlife habitat must include a plan with specified enforcement measures for the control of domestic animals and household pets. The plan must include provisions to prevent the harassment, disturbance, and killing of wildlife and to prevent the destruction of important wildlife habitat.
H. Wildlife Conservation Plans.
1. Plan Preparation. A wildlife conservation plan required by this section shall be prepared for the applicant, at the applicant's expense, under the responsible direction of a qualified person who has demonstrated expertise in the field and is acceptable to the staff.
2. Plan Content. Any wildlife conservation plan required to be prepared pursuant to this section shall include the following information at a minimum. Specific requirements may be waived by staff due to the location of the development, the previous use of the site, the size and potential impact of the development, the absence of particular species on a site, the prohibition of a reasonable use of the site, and other relevant factors.
a. A description of the ownership, location, type, size, and other attributes of the wildlife habitat on the site.
b. A description of the populations of wildlife species that inhabit or use the site, including a qualitative description of their spatial distribution and abundance.
c. An analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat on or off site.
d. A list of proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the probability of success of such measures.
e. A plan for implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of mitigation measures.
f. A plan for any relevant enhancement or restoration measures.
g. A demonstration of fiscal, administrative, and technical competence of the applicant or other relevant entity to successfully execute the plan.
Chair Johnson thanked Ms. Chilcott for reviewing the above amendments and opened the hearing to public comment.
Fred Mares thanked the Board for traveling to Estes Park and being a part of the code amendment process. Mr. Mares requested the Board also require the Town of Estes Park conduct an open space study of the entire Estes Valley.
Rex Poggnepohl readdressed the Board and stated that while the revisions will help to mitigate disagreements within the community, the code still does not have a solid foundation on which to rest.
Johanna Darden voiced her displeasure with the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County for not erring on the side of wildlife protection. Ms. Darden noted that the increased development will result in a decrease of historic corridors utilized by animals including elk, and therefore, should be protected.
Chair Johnson closed the hearing to public comment.
Commissioner Donnelly asked Ms. Chilcott if the term “Conservation Plan” was defined within the code. Ms. Chilcott stated yes, it was defined in section H of the code.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to Section 7.8, “Wildlife Habitat Protection,” of the Estes Valley Development Code, as it appears above.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; George Haas, County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment today.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 1, 2010:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of March 1, 2010.
Motion carried 2-0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as it appears below:
03092010A001 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 2010-2011 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS
03092010A002 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-MODAL TRAIL (PLEASANT VALLEY TRAIL)
03092010A003 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR REPLACEMENT OF A CULVERT ON LARIMER COUNTY ROAD 38E
03092010A004 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR REALIGNMENT OF COUNTY ROAD 27
03092010A005 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF A GUARDRAIL ON LARIMER COUNTY ROAD 27 AND 74E
03092010R001 RESOLUTION TO REQUEST MAIL BALLOT ELECTION
03092010R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TIMMINS MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS
03092010R003 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE BINGHAM HILL FARMS SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL
03092010R004 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF THE W.O.L.F. SPEICAL REVIEW
03092010R005 LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 3 & 5 OF THE ORTON-SULLIVAN SUBDIVISION
03092010R006 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT IN GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 8TH FILING LOT 43
MISCELLANEOUS: Agreement and Release between Employee and Larimer County; Agreement and Release between Employee and Larimer County.
Motion carried 2-0.
4. GROWING YOUR FUTURE IN LARIMER COUNTY DAY : Val Manning and Curtis Bridges, informed the Commissioners that the Agricultural Advisory Board will be hosting an educational forum on Saturday, March 13, 2010; therefore, the Agricultural Advisory Board requested the Commissioners proclaim March 13, 2010, “Growing Your Future in Larimer County Day.” The forum is the first of its kind to be sponsored by the Agricultural Advisory Board and will feature sessions on a broad spectrum of agricultural related topics.
Both Chair Pro-Tem Donnelly and Commissioner Gaiter congratulated the Agricultural Advisory Board and wished them luck on the upcoming forum.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim March 13, 2010, “Growing Your Future in Larimer County Day.”
Motion carried 2-0.
5. BERTHOUD COMMUNITY LIBRARY DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPOINTMENT WITH LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Lancaster presented a letter from the Town of Berthoud Board of Trustees recommending the appointment of Jeanne Bolton to the Berthoud Community Library District Board of Directors. Mr. Lancaster noted that Library Board appointments must be agreed upon by both the Town of Berthoud and Larimer County.
Chair Pro-Tem Donnelly stated he personally knew Ms. Bolton and happily agreed to make the appointment.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointment of Jeanne Bolton to the Berthoud Community Library District Board of Directors, for a two year term effective January 1, 2010 and expiring December 31, 2011.
Motion carried 2-0.
Chair Johnson joined the meeting at this time.
6. PASSPORT DAY IN THE USA: Mr. Lancaster explained that this request from the Clerk & Recorder’s Office is to allow the County Courthouse Offices to be open to the public on Saturday, March 27, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for “Passport Day in the USA.” Mr. Lancaster noted that because the Board is statutorily required to establish the hours during which the County Courthouse is open, the Board must also agree to any alterations or deviations in hours.
The Board agreed to grant the request.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a request for the main doors of the 200 W. Oak Street Courthouse Building to remain unlocked on Saturday, March 27, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for Passport Day in the USA.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. SIX MONTH CREDIT CARD REPORT WITH LIST: Mr. Lancaster presented a list of all credit card charges, by department, for the last 6-months, as required by statute. Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that this will probably be the last time credit card reports are presented as most county offices are moving towards utilizing alternative means of payment.
The Board thanked Mr. Lancaster for presenting the 6-month credit card report.
8. COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster updated the Board on the Internal Services Restructuring that is planned to occur over the next couple of months. The purpose of the restructuring project is to increase efficiency and effectiveness within and among county offices.
Mr. Lancaster also presented his plan to assemble a team, made up of representatives from different county offices, to analyze and implement recommendations made by the Standards Board, the Business Analyst Team, and Department Heads in regards to opportunities to increase efficiency within the county.
The Board thanked Mr. Lancaster for all of his work towards making the county as efficient as possible.
9. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REOPORT: The Board outlined their attendance at events over the previous week.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Commissioner Gaiter requested the Board go into executive session to discuss a personnel matter, as described in 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S.
M O T I O N
Commissioners Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into executive session regarding a personnel matter, as described in 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further items, the Board adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
STEVE JOHNSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk