> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 09/20/10  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, September 20, 2010

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Gaiter and Donnelly were present. Also present were:  Russ Legg, Planning Department; Brenda Gimeson, Rural Land Use Center; Ed Woodward, and Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, 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.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  

 

Chair Johnson explained that items 1 – 3 are on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

 

1.   BOXELDER SANITATION DISTRICT FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW:    This is a request to approve the Floodplain Special Review based on the Flood Review recommendation of approval.

 

The Boxelder Sanitation District needs to make upgrades to their existing wastewater treatment plant to stay in compliance with State Regulations.  The site is located in the Poudre River GMA 500 Year Floodplain Zoning District.  Reconstruction is allowed on existing facilities through a Floodplain Special Review.  The Land Use Code requires a recommendation from the Flood Review Board with a final approval from the Board of County Commissioners through a Floodplain Special Review 

 

There are no outstanding concerns regarding this application.

 

The Flood Review Board met on Thursday, August 26, 2010 and reviewed the Floodplain Special Review Report dated July 26, 2010 and found the report to be acceptable.  A motion was approved for a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for approval of the Floodplain Special Review with one condition, that a final set of plans be submitted to staff for review and approval before construction begins.

Staff finds that all review criteria in Section 4.2.2.I.2 of the Land Use Code have been met.

 

2.  ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS:  The purpose of this item is to provide final approval of an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code.  The amendment is to clarify how density is calculated in the A-1 Accommodations zoning district. This amendment would:

 

(1)   Provide clarification to density calculation in the “A-1” zone district; specifically to differentiate between a Bed and Breakfast and a “cabin-style” operation or a small hotel; and,

 

(2)   Remove an unnecessary reference Section 5.1.P for low-intensity resort lodges/cabins in the “A-1” zoning district.

 

This item was inadvertently advertised for the September 20 Board of County Commission hearing.   The Board considered this item at their August 16, 2010 3:00PM Land Use Hearing.  This hearing is to provide the final hearing date which was mistakenly advertised.

Staff recommends this amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code be approved.

 

Exhibit A:  “A-1” Accommodations Density

FORMAT :

 

1)   Existing text

2)   Proposed text.

3)   Text to be removed.

 

§ 4.4    NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS

B.    Table 4-4:  Permitted Uses:  Nonresidential Zoning Districts.

 

Table 4-4
Permitted Uses:  Nonresidential Zoning Districts

Use Classification

Specific use

Nonresidential Zoning Districts

Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated)

“P” = Permitted by Right

“S” = Permitted by Special Review

“–” = Prohibited

A

A-1

CD

CO

O

CH

I-1

ACCOMMODATION USES

Low-Intensity Accommodations

Bed and breakfast inns

P

P

P

§5.1.B.  In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue

Hotel, Small

P

P

In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue

Vacation Homes

P

P

§5.1.B

 

In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue.

Resort lodge/cabins, low-intensity

P

§5.1.P

 

 

C.    Density and Dimensional Standards.

4.    Table 4-5:  Density and Dimensional Standards for the Nonresidential Zoning Districts.

Table 4-5
Density and Dimensional Standards
Nonresidential Zoning Districts

Zoning District

Minimum Land Area per Accommodation or
Residential Unit
(sq. ft. per unit)

Minimum Lot Size [7]

Minimum Building/
Structure Setbacks [4] [8]

Max.
Bldg
Height
(ft.) [9]

Max.
FAR

Max.
Lot
Cover-
age (%)

Area
(sq ft)

Width
(ft.)

Front
(ft.)

Side
(ft.)

Rear
(ft.)

A-1

10,890 [10]

15,000 [2]

50 [3]

Arterial = 25 [5];
All other streets = 15

15

10

30

.20

30

 

 

NOTES TO TABLE 4-5:

 

 

[10]      Bed and Breakfast Inns shall be calculated as one residential dwelling unit for density purposes provided the lot does not contain detached units. In all other cases, each individual guest room in a B&B shall be calculated as one guest room/unit.

 

3.  BUCKHORN RANCH AMENDED RURAL LAND USE PLAN AND AMENDED PLAT, FILE # 10-S29743:  This property is located northwest of Masonville on County Road 27 and is located in the Buckhorn Ranch R.L.U.P.   The property is currently zoned O-Open and that will remain the same.  The Buckhorn Ranch R.L.U.P. received final approval in July 2002.  The project contained 1509 acres and was approved with 78 single-family residential lots, 2 Residual Lots, each allowing a single-family dwelling and agricultural support buildings, one Residual Lot for agricultural support buildings only and several common area lots for the homeowners association use.  Each of the Residual Lots that allowed a single-family dwelling contained a building envelope that limits the development area.  Each of the Residual Lots also had a restriction placed on the property that prevents future development of those lots and restricts the use of that property to open space and agricultural purposes.  The paragraph from the Development Agreement that lists the exact language is attached for information.  Only a few of the lots in this development have sold and have been built out.     

 

In May 2010, the landowners approached the County and asked about amending the Rural Land Plan to create a separate lot for their existing residence(s) currently located on Residual Lot A and reconfiguring the remaining acreage in the Residual Lots into a more logical arrangement.  The landowners are hoping to facilitate refinancing of the parcels so the residual lots may be refinanced as agricultural land and the new lot 79 as a residential parcel.  

 

The existing Residual Lots have been used for the purposes outlined in the Development Agreement over the last few years.  In the summer of 2009, Staff received complaints from neighboring property owners about a motor cross track that had been located on Residual Lot A.  Because a motor cross track is in violation of the restrictive covenant, Staff and the landowners have been working towards a resolution to the violation over the last two years.  As part of this application, Staff is requesting to clear up the language regarding the uses allowed on the Residual Lots.    

 

This proposal is a request to amend the Buckhorn Ranch R.L.U.P. and the plat for Residual Lots A and B.  The existing and proposed configurations are as follows:

Existing Lot Configuration

 

Lot Name

Acres

Buildable area

Residual Lot A

492.86

10.45 acre building envelope for existing residences and ag support buildings

Residual Lot B

38.77

2.34 acre building envelope for one homesite and ag support buildings

Total

531.63

12.79 acres

 

Proposed Lot Configuration

 

Lot Name

Acres

Buildable area

Lot 79

10.45

Entire 10.45 area buildable for existing residences and ag support buildings

Residual Lot A

99.83

None, entire acreage will be non-buildable

Residual Lot B

421.35

2.34 acre building envelope for one homesite and ag support buildings

Total

531.63

12.79 acres

 

One new lot line will be created for Lot 79 but an additional home site will not be created because it is configured around the existing buildings and envelope on Residual Lot A.  Access to the property will not be modified.  There will be no changes in existing access, drainage, or rights-of-way.  There will be a new easement created across Residual Lot A for utilities and access to serve the new Lot 79, but this easement will maintain the current use.  Any existing covenants, deed restrictions and other conditions of approval which applied to the original lots will continue to apply to the new lots. 

 

Additionally, because the restrictive language on the Residual Lots is unclear regarding the use of off-road motorized vehicles and given the existing violation of a motor cross track on Residual Lot A, the landowners have agreed to clarify and further restrict the allowed uses on the Residual Lots.  This additional restriction will add language that will remove the ability for off-road use of all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles for recreational purposes and only allow motorized vehicles for emergency access purposes and for the maintenance of the Residual Lots which is clearly necessary and incidental to the agricultural use of the property.  Staff feels this additional language will help create clearer expectations of the uses for these Residual parcels for the existing and future owners of these lots as well as neighboring property owners.

           

There were six responses from the technical referral agencies.  There were no major concerns for this proposal.  All of the responses are attached to this Staff Report.

 

This project was reviewed by the Rural Land Use Advisory Board on Monday, August 16, 2010.  The Board recommended approval of the project. 

 

The proposed amendment for Buckhorn Ranch Amended R.L.U.P. and plat for Residual Lots A and B meet all conditions of approval stated in Section 5.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code for amended plats and follows the policies in Section 5.8 for the Rural Land Use Process.

Staff recommends approval of the Buckhorn Ranch Amended R.L.U.P. and plat for Residual Lots A and B (File # 10-S2974) subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat and related legal documents when the conditions are met and documents are presented for signature:

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by March 20, 2011, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

2.    Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant must submit an acceptable legal document for recordation that prohibits off-road use of all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles for recreational purposes on Residual Lots A and B and only allows motorized vehicles for emergency access purposes and for the maintenance of the Residual Lots which is clearly necessary and incidental to the agricultural use of the property.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.  ASPEN BROOK REZONING:  This is a request to rezone the Aspen Brook PUD development from “RM” Multi-family residential to “A” Accommodations.   The applicant, Phil Moenning, asserts the property was incorrectly zoned “RM” with the comprehensive valley-wide rezoning in 2000, and that the property should have retained the “A” designation. 

 

Mr. Moenning further asserts the zoning designation should revert to “A”, and has submitted this request to the Estes Valley Planning Commission and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to alleviate this perceived mistake.

 

Section 3.3.B3 provides that “within one (1) year from the effective date of this Code, any property owner may apply for rezoning on the basis that an error in the original zoning was made.”

 

Under the “RM” zoning designation, short-term rentals are allowed as Vacation Homes, which place a limitation of 8 guests.  The “A” zoning designation does not include this limit.  The “A” district also allows accessory uses such as restaurants and wedding facilities.

Zoning History .  Philip and Tara Moenning were granted a rezoning of the property from “E” Estate to “A” Accommodations by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners in April 1988. 

Phase I of the PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in March 1989.   Phase II of the PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in April 1993.  The zoning resolution specifies “the uses of these lots shall be limited to single-family dwellings and accessory uses.”  This condition was implemented through the placement of a note on the plat.

 

Legislative Rezoning .  In the year 2000, the Estes Valley was rezoned to implement the Future Lane Use Plan contained in the 1996 Estes Valley Plan.  The Future Land Use Plan was intended to zone for the actual use of the property where possible, and for planned future land use. 

The “Existing Land Use” map contained in the Estes Valley Plan indicates the use of the Aspen Brook property was multi-family residential. 

Neighborhood Correspondence .  Staff has had phone conversations with two notified property owners.  One property owner lives across the Big Thompson River from Aspen Brook.  This adjoining property owner phoned to protest the change.  Concerns include additional traffic and guests, and loss of privacy. 

 

The other phone conversation was with a resident of Aspen Brook, who expressed opposition to the proposed change in zoning.  This resident noted that when he purchased his Phase I unit in 2004, he “understood the units closer to the road would be summer rental, but those in Phase II would not be.”  This resident noted that there were only four people present at the HOA meeting, and most votes were cast by proxy.

 

Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners accept the Estes Valley Planning Commission findings and recommendation to disapprove the requested change in zoning for the Aspen Brook PUD Phases I and II from “RM” Multi-Family to “A” Accommodations.

 

On Tuesday, August 17, 2010 the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:

 

1.   The Aspen Brook PUD Phases I and II was correctly assigned the “RM” zoning designation with the year 2000 legislative rezoning that implemented the Future Land Use Plan set forth in the 1996 Estes Valley Plan.

2.   The proposed rezoning does not comply with review standards set forth in Section 3.3.D of the development code.

3.   The amendment is not necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;

4.   The proposed rezoning is not compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley;

5.   The development does not comply with General Development Standards set forth in Chapter Seven of the Estes Valley Development Code.

 

Based on these findings, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial of the requested change in zoning for the Aspen Brook PUD Phases I and II from “RM” Multi-Family to “A” Accommodations.

 

Mr. Shirk reviewed a lengthy power point presentation with the Board, outlining the history of the property, as described above.

Jim Martell, attorney representing the applicant, explained that Mr. and Mrs. Moenning entered into an agreement in 1988, specifically so they could offer tourism in this area.  Mr. Martell stated that the Master Plan presented at this time clearly intended a commercial use, and that the Moenning’s should not be bound to a rezoning that was not properly noticed to the public.  Mr. Martell presented a large amount of files noting the history of the property, and entered them as part of the record for these proceedings.

 

Chair Johnson opened up the hearing for public comment and Gary Trunell, Kent Sutherland, Erin Connor, Don Verhaeghe, and Rob Petikin, all stated their desire and opinion that the zoning designation should be reverted back to A-Accommodations, stating that the properties are already built and to accommodate the 8 – 12 persons that have been renting the units.

 

Ken Wells and Doug Fox requested that the Board leave the RM – Multi-family zoning in place, as there are sometimes upwards of 20 people renting the units, parking and noise then become a problem, and it is disrupting to the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Martell readdressed the Board and stated that there are 220 parking spaces within the development that can accommodate the number renters allowed historically.

 

Discussion ensued amongst the Board regarding whether or not the RM-Multi Family zoning could be amended to include the number of renters allowed as it existing in 1988.  Ms. Haag suggested that the Board table the hearing, and allow staff time to craft language for the Board to consider regarding this.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Aspen Brook Rezoning to October 4, 2010, at 3 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

 

 

 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Johnson presided, and Commissioners Gaiter and Donnelly were present. Also present were:  Neil Gluckman, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Division; Mark Peterson, Engineering Department; Lauren Kubin, Extension Office;  Mary Atchison, United Way Representative; Kyle Christensen, Financial Literacy Coordinator; Michael Kirk, and Stacey Baumgarn, Facilities Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

1.   PUBLIC COMMENT:   Dr. Dallas Horton addressed the Board with his ideas of outsourcing certain county jobs in the effort to reduce the county budget, and stimulate private industry.  The Board thanked Dr. Horton for his information and stated that they would provide it to the “Lean Team” for consideration.

 

Vick Day stated that he had hand carried a letter to the County Commissioners on August 30, 2010, and he has yet to hear a response to his problem regarding his neighbor building a 16-foot barricade on adjacent land, which has the potential to cause large snow drifts on his property.  Mr. Day was upset at the lack of follow up from county staff.  Mr. Lancaster apologized for the lack of response, but explained that there is no violation and that it is a civil matter between neighbors.  

 

Jim Fry, Larry Newman, and Lee Tucker addressed the Board regarding the new boundaries set for the Boxelder Sanitation District, which includes 550 more properties.  They also noted concerns with potential for overflow and flooding if the FEMA model is used to manage the reservoirs, tributaries and detention ponds.  Discussion ensued, and Mr. Peterson stated that the boundaries were readdressed due to requests from citizens stating that the boundaries were inconsistent and unfair.   

 

2.    APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2010: 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of September 13, 2010, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.    REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2010:   Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.     CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as listed below:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are approved:  John Puma; John Benz; Calix, LLC; Steven and Sheila Pfister; Gregory and Valerie Hecker.

 

09212010A001           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ADAMS RETAIL SUBDIVISION FILE #08-S2840, BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ADAMS BANK AND TRUST, AND ADAMS RETAIL ASSOCIATION

 

09212010A002           CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT No. 5020 – CARTER LAKE EAGLE CAMPGROUND CAMPER SERVICES BUILDING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND DS CONSTRUCTION, LLC

 

09212010R001           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR ADAMS RETAIL SUBDIVISION, FILE #08-S2840

 

09212010R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GATEHOUSE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND REZONING

 

09212010R003           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOT 30 OF THE 2ND AMENDED PLAT OF LOST 28, 29, AND 30 IN LITTLE VALLEY 2ND FILING, AND A METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL AND LITTLE VALLEY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION

 

09212010R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE HUGHES APPEAL

 

09212010R005           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LITTLE PRELLIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN

 

09212010R006           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2 IN THE LOVATA R.L.U.P.

 

09212010R007           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 138 AND 139 OF COTNER SUBDIVISION

 

09212010R008           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 2 AND 4 OF CRYSTAL LAKES SUBDIVISION 12TH FILING AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION

 

09212010R009           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SPRING GREEN PLD/PD PRELIMINARY PLAT TIME EXTENSION

 

09212010R010           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF AN ACCESS EASEMENT AND FEE APPEAL IN THE WARREN EXEMPTION, TRACTS B & C

 

09212010R011           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMDENDED PLAT OF LOTS 18, 19, AND 20 IN CUSHMAN’S LAKEVIEW 2ND FILING

 

09212010R012           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HESSDORFER-PHILLIPS SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT TIME EXTENSION

 

09212010R013           RESOLUTION PROHIBING THE OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS, OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATIONS, AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA INFUSED PODUCT MANUFACTURE IN UNINCORPORATED LARIMER COUNTY

 

MISCELLANEOUS:   Adams Retail Subdivision Final Plat.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved and/or issued:  Charco Broiler – Hotel and Restaurant – Fort Collins; Columbine Lodge – 3.2% - Bellvue; Ramada Inn – Hotel and Restaurant – Fort Collins; Alternative to Violence - Special Event 6% - Loveland.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.    “FAMILY DAY – A DAY TO EAT DINNER WITH YOUR CHILDREN” PROCLAMATION:  Mr. Lancaster presented the proclamation and explained the goal of this effort was to lower the rates of teen smoking, drinking, illegal drug use and prescription drug abuse, as studies have shown that these activities are reduced when families regularly dine together.   Commissioner Gaiter read the proclamation aloud.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim September 27, 2010, as “Family Day – A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children.”

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.   INTRODUCTION OF MR. KYLE CHRISTENSEN, THE FINANCIAL LITERACY COORDINATOR FOR LARIMER COUNTY:  Ms. Kubin introduced Mr. Christensen to the Board and explained that their hopes in hiring Mr. Christensen are to increase financial literacy and assist folks in moving out of poverty and into financial security.  Some discussion ensued, during which Chair Johnson requested a quarterly update regarding the progress of Pathways Past Poverty issues.  Ms. Atchison stated that she would be happy to oblige his request.

 

7.  APPROVE ENERGY POLICY:  Mr. Kirk and Mr. Baumgarn presented an energy policy for the Board’s review, noting the purpose of this policy would be to provide structured guidance to employees and officials to reduce Larimer County government’s energy consumption wherever possible.  The Board reviewed the document and Commissioner Gaiter noted that an appendix referred to in the policy was not attached.  Mr. Baumgarn stated that the appendix will be written and outlined specifically for individual departments to adhere to.   The Board gave direction to Mr. Kirk and Mr. Baumgarn to proceed with the policy and draft the appendix, and then bring both back for discussion and approval.

 

8.  COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Mr. Gluckman explained that county policy dictates an advisory board cannot take a position on issues without authorization from the Board of County Commissioners.  Mr. Gluckman stated that he has received requests from certain advisory boards that wish to oppose Proposition 101.   Consensus of the Board was to support this request.

 

9.   COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:   The Board discussed their activities at events during the past week.

 

10.  LEGAL MATTERS:   There were no legal matters to discuss.

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m.

 

 

 

__________________________________________

   STEVE JOHNSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk