Source: https://apps.larimer.org/bcc/2004/BC041206.htm
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 09:13:10
Document Index: 11237615

Matched Legal Cases: ['§29', '§30', '§30', '§29', '§30', 'arts\n1']

BCC Minutes for 12/06/04
> Meetings & Minutes > 2004 Minutes > BCC Minutes for 12/06/04
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner; Chair Rennels presided, and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present. Also present were: Deni LaRue and Donna Hart, Commissioner's Office; Tom Garton, Building Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Matt Lafferty, Porter Ingrum, and Al Kadera, Planning Department; Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
The Board presented the 2004 Environmental Stewardship Awards to the following individuals: Gary Householter and his dog Timber. Timber has been taught to retrieve litter and trash, and the pair has faithfully worked together on daily walks over the past 5 years; Vicky Jordan for environmental education activities at Wellington Jr. High School; Jon and Susanne Stephens, for land stewardship activities on their Rocky Mountain Lazy J Bar S Ranch by providing a conservation easement for the Ranch in 2002 which will permanently preserve 327 acres; and Lafarge Northern Division, for commitment to citizen outreach in conjunction with their Kyger sand and gravel operation.
The Board then presented the 2004 Larimer County Building Department Professionalism Awards to the following individuals: Hillery Parrack of Parrack Hillery Builders Inc, of Estes Park, and Mike Davis of Mike Davis LLC, of Fort Collins. The annual awards honor contractors, architects, and engineers who provide a quality product to citizens in the unincorporated area of Larimer County. The recipients demonstrate quality and professionalism by their knowledge of the Larimer County Building Code; clarity during the permit application process; consistent compliance with plan specifications; on-site work quality; and, timely inspection requests and corrections.
Once the awards ceremony concluded, Chair Rennels asked the audience to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance; she then asked for public comment on the Larimer County Land Use Code and the County Budget. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics. Chair Rennels noted that the first item on the agenda, concerning the Red Feather Vet Clinic Appeal, is being removed per the applicant's request; he then stated that the remaining items are consent items and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience:
2. GLENN RIDGE ESTATES 2ND FILING SUBDIVISION; #04-S2328: This is a request for modification to the approved Preliminary Plat of Glenn Ridge Estates Subdivision to increase the number of lots within the development from 10 to 11 by reducing the amount of Open Space within the development from 6.5 to 5.15 acres. On May 22, 2000 The Board of County Commissioners approved the Glenn Ridge Estates Subdivision, which subdivision consisted of 10 single family residential lots and 6.43 acres of open space on a 38.9 acre parcel. Since the approval of the Preliminary Plat the original ownership of the development has changed. A Final Plat application for the property has been submitted and is nearly completed. During the preparation of the Final Plat the applicant made the observation that more open space was allotted within the development than necessary for the detention of storm water, which in a standard subdivision application only. Undeveloped open space for storm drainage or buffers is required leaving the remaining portion of the property available for lots. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that one lot (#7) be added to the approved subdivision. The original Preliminary Plat for Glenn Ridge Estates Subdivision was approved subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Code that pre-date the current Larimer County land Use Regulations. Nevertheless, the addition of the new lot to the Glenn Ridge Subdivision has been reviewed in conjunction with the current requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code. On May 21, 2003 the Planning Commission made a recommendation for approval for the modification to the Glenn Ridge Estates Subdivision. The application was presented to the Planning Commission as part of the Consent agenda, where it remained and received a unanimous recommendation. Since the May Planning Commission meeting nothing has changed with the proposed amended application. Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Glenn Ridge Estates Subdivision (#03-S2093) to incorporate one additional lot (#7) to the development subject to the approved conditions for the original Glenn Ridge Estates Subdivision found at Reception #2000042211 and in the Planning Department files 99-S1502, as recommended by the Larimer County Planning Commission.
3. HORSETOOTH HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION LOT 14 AMENDED PLAT; #04-S2365:
This is a request for an Amended Plat in the Horsetooth Heights Subdivision Lot 14 to reconfigure and combine three lots into two in order to create an additional buildable residential lot and clarify lot boundaries. A 15-foot ingress/egress easement will also be dedicated on the plat as part of this application. No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team. The Larimer County Engineering Department has commented that the easterly 1/3 of proposed lot 2 contains a FEMA designated Zone A 100-year flood plain. The Engineering Department has requested that a final drainage/floodplain report be submitted for review prior to the issuance of a building permit and that the non-buildable flood plain easement be shown on the final plat. Staff has created a condition that will require a plat note be placed on the final plat to address the Engineering Department’s concerns. In addition, a disclosure notice will be created to ensure that future owners of lot 2 will be aware of this condition concerning the floodplain on this lot. The proposed plat amendment of Lot 14 in Horsetooth Heights Subdivision, to reconfigure and combine three contiguous lots into two lots and dedicate a 15-foot ingress/egress easement will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
The Development Service Team Recommendation is for approval of File #04-S2365, the Amended Plat of Lot 14 in Horsetooth Heights Subdivision and dedication of a 15-foot ingress/egress easement subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature: 1. All conditions shall be met and the Final Plat be recorded by June 6, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void. 2. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the application shall make technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department. 3. The reconfiguration of the lot lines shall be finalized at such time when the plat and findings and resolution of the County Commissioners are recorded. 4. The following note shall be placed on the final plat: "The easterly approximate 1/3 of the proposed lot 2 has a FEMA designated Zone A 100 year flood plain on it. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, a final drainage/ floodplain report shall be submitted for review and approval to the Larimer County Engineering Department. This drainage/floodplain report will need to establish a 100 year base flood elevation, and may show that part of Lot 2 is non-buildable. Allowing a basement will depend on groundwater conditions."
4. HOPKINS MINOR LAND DIVISION; #04-S2356: This request is for approval of a Minor Land Division to create a 4.4 acre buildable lot within a 59 acre parcel. The 59.8 acre property is located along the north side of County Road 14 approximately ½ mile east of County Road 21 and ¼ mile north of Lonetree Reservoir. The property currently contains a saw mill and accessory buildings. The Applicants requests a Minor Land Division to divide the property to create a 4.4 acre buildable lot on a portion of the property that is vacant. A conservation easement, administered by the City of Loveland Parks and Recreation Department is also proposed for the entirety of this property. This conservation easement would allow a maximum of two residences on this property. The proposed Minor Land Division is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Minor Land Division process as contained in Section 5.4.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. The purpose is to create two lots. Lot 1 will eventually contain a new single family residence and Lot 2 will contain the existing saw mill and associated accessory structures. Staff findings are that the proposed Hopkins Minor Land Division complies with the Review Criteria for Minor Land Divisions as contained in Section 5.4.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the Hopkins Minor Land Division (File #04-S2356) subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature: 1. Prior to the recordation of the MLD Plat the applicant shall address the Engineering Comments from Dale Greer in the referral letter dated October 25, 2004. 2. Prior to the recordation of the MLD Plat the applicant shall address the Engineering Comments from Tracie Downs in the referral letter dated October 25, 2004. A site distance assessment shall also be completed for proposed Lot 1. 3. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion. 4. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by June 6, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 2, 3, and 4 as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.
5. NIMBLE CORPORATION ZONING VIOLATION; #04-ZV0024: The Planning Department began receiving complaints about this property in February, 2004. A large amount of junk and debris was being stored in the front and back yards and two storage sheds were erected in violation of the setback requirements. Two small sheds were attached, resulting in a building of more than 120 square feet, which requires a building permit. The owner failed to obtain a building permit for the structure. Letters were sent via first class and certified mail to the property owner and to the address of the property. We are not absolutely certain of the identity of the occupant of the property but they did sign for the certified letter delivered to the property address. We also received a signed receipt from the property owner. Neither the owner nor the occupant has contacted the Planning and Building Services Division to make arrangements to correct the violations. Complaints continue to be received by adjacent property owners regarding the visual appearance of this parcel and property values. The Health Department visited the site and did not find any heath code violations at that time. Development Services Team Findings are as follows: 1. The property is zoned R-2 Residential. 2. Outdoor storage of junk is not a permitted use in the R-2 Residential zoning district. 3. A junkyard is not a permitted use in the R-2 Residential zoning district. 4. A storage structure was erected on the site without first obtaining a building permit. 5. The property owner has made no contact to staff. 6. The property is being used for outside storage of miscellaneous junk. 7. The continued use of the property, in violation of the Land Use Code, will affect property values in the area. 8. The continued use of the property, in violation of the Land Use Code, has affected the neighbor’s ability to enjoy their own property. The Development Services Team Recommendation is as follows: 1. Find that a violation exists. 2. Require compliance within 30 days. Compliance would require: building permits be obtained for all structures onsite or the structures are removed; structures be relocated to meet required minimum setbacks or a variance is obtained from the Board of Adjustment; all outdoor storage of miscellaneous junk must be removed. 3. Authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.
Mr. Kadera displayed some photos of the property and noted that within the last week he has received additional e-mails and complaints and requests from adjoining neighbors to clean up this property. Chair Rennels opened up the hearing for public comment and Bob Berry, Frank Flores, and Paul Shipman addressed the Board all stating their concerns that the property is an eyesore that keeps getting worse; they requested the County's assistance in rectifying this issue. Chair Rennels then closed public comment and that Board agreed that there was indeed a zoning violation on this property.
Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and require compliance within 30 days. Compliance would require that building permits be obtained for all structures onsite or the structures must be removed, and that all outdoor storage of junk be removed. In addition, legal action is authorized if the deadline is not met.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Larry Timm, Director of Planning; Chair Rennels presided, and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present. Also present were: Tom Garton, Chief Building Official; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Christi Coleman, Engineering; Tony Simmons, Wildfire Safety; Jeff Rulli, GIS Department; Karlin Mueller, Building Department; Scott Shugart and Tess Heffernan, Project Consultants; Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels noted that the following item was on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience:
1. LINDA WILD MINOR LAND DIVISION; 04-S2358: This is a proposal for a Minor Land Division assembles four properties owned by the Wild Family and reconfigures the boundaries to rectify parcel problems created at the time of estate distribution and to facilitate the creation of a vacant 35 acre lot which is to be used in a non-contiguous Rural Land Plan Wild Valley RLUP. There are currently two single family residences locate on these parcels. One the 35 acre parcel is the residence of Linda Wild and on the other parcel the residence of Kathleen (Kitty) Wild. There are two “illegal parcels” which are owned by siblings of Ms. Wild. The proposal is to create legal lots around the two residences, a vacant 35 acre parcel and one lot which will be restricted from any future development until subdivided in the future. It is the intention of the family members with this MLD to resolve the legal parcel questions, retain a lot around the existing Linda Wild residence and provide for possible future development of the lower lots. This eliminates the potential of more development at the base of the Devils Backbone while transferring some development to the Wild Valley RLUP. The staff views the creation of this 35 acre parcel for use in the RLUP as a benefit to the public to insure that more development does not occur at the base of the Backbone. The configuration of the parcels may appear somewhat contrived; however, the new lines respect existing roads, easements and uses on the property. This proposal was referred to the Larimer County Department of Health and the Environment and to the Engineering Department. Their comments are attached as a part of this packet. The Health Department had no comments based upon the premise that no additional development was proposed. The Engineering Department comments, dated 10/25/04 indicate the need for ROW dedications, addressing and street naming, and road maintenance agreement. Surveying comments indicate a number of corrections that are necessary to the plat.
Staff findings are that the proposed Linda Wild MLD, with certain conditions, meets the requirements of The Larimer County Land Use Code and can be approved. The reconfiguration of the parcels does not result in additional development and the creation of the 35 acre parcel to be used in the Wild Valley RLUP furthers a public interest in reducing the visible development along and below the Devils. The Development Services Team Recommendation of for approval of the Linda Wild Minor Land Division (File #04-S2358) subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman 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 May 6, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void. 2. Lots 2 and 4 of the Linda Wild Minor Land Division shall remain undeveloped and no building permits will be accepted until such a time when a development review application is approved and/or recorded for a new principle use. This note shall be added to the final plat for the Linda Wild Minor Land Division. 3. The parcel shown as “conservation easement” shall be renamed/number to Lot 4. 4. The corrections to be plat requested by Dale Greer, Larimer County Engineering, in a letter dated October 26, 2004, must be made prior to presenting the plat for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 5. The Plat must reflect a ROW dedication as outlined in the letter date 10/25/04 from Christie Coleman, Larimer County Engineering. Further the proposed street must be named and a road maintenance agreement must be reviewed and approved by Larimer County and recorded with the final MLD plat.
Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Linda Wild Minor Land Division (File #04-S2358) as outlined above.
2. RURAL ROAD NAMING AND SITE ADDRESSING SYSTEM RESOLUTION: The Rural Addressing Improvement Project is a multi-year effort to improve road naming and site addressing in the rural areas of the county. In 2002, through the testimony of numerous representatives of delivery, service and emergency personnel, it was made apparent that the County’s current addressing system is not functional in rural areas. There are many roads without road names, some road names duplicate or sound much like other existing names, and many site address numbers are incorrect due to poor location information provided to those who assign addresses. Correcting and/or adding road names and site addresses in the rural area of the County will deal with concerns raised about the inability or additional time it takes for delivery, service and emergency personnel to actually locate a given property.
County staff resources and expertise are insufficient to develop an improved rural addressing system and to make the needed changes or corrections. Therefore, a consultant was hired to develop the improved rural site addressing system and to then actually make the needed changes or corrections both on the ground and within the County’s addressing data base. In 2003 the County, with funding assistance from the LETA (Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority) Board, hired a consultant to identify the various rural address-related issues and to propose a general approach or solution to deal with those issues. In 2004, the County, again with funding assistance from the LETA Board, directed the consultant to develop a final, adopted Rural Site Addressing Resolution, to develop the Internal Operating Procedures necessary to have an effective rural addressing system, to test the Resolution and operating procedures in two “study areas”, and to estimate the cost of correcting/adding road names and site addresses in the remainder of the rural area. Previous drafts of the resolution have been modified to consider input from various County staff, the County Commissioners, and the general public. The general public has been informed of the rural addressing project and had the opportunity to give comments on the draft resolution via access to the County’s website information on this project, several news releases, and through two informational meetings for all county residents in September and two informational meetings for test-area residents (Davis Ranch Road area and Bonner Peak/Picnic Rock area) in October.
Mr. Timm stated that the resolution drafted for the Rural Road Naming and Site Addressing System is proposed for adoption; he introduced the consultants, Tess Heffernan, and Scott Shugart, who were hired to manage this project. Mr. Shugart briefed the Board on the history of the project and outlined some features of the resolution as follows:
• Every addressable structure must have a site address that corresponds to the location of the structure.
• All new site addresses will be assigned by Larimer County and must be postal compliant
• Not every address will require a change.
• Candidates for change are addresses that are inconsistent or that have been identified as causing issues for a service, delivery, or emergency response agency.
• If your address requires a change, you will be notified by mail with your new address number.
• Numbers must be displayed on the structure (with some exceptions).
• If numbers cannot be seen or aren’t legible from where the driveway meets the road, they must be displayed on the mailbox or a posted sign at the driveway entrance.
• All public or private roads that serve more than one parcel must be named and have road name signs.
• Residents along an existing road that requires a name will be notified and have the opportunity to select a road name.
• Road names must not be duplicated in the same area and must follow the standards.
• Road names that are duplicated in the same area or that have been identified as causing issues for service, delivery, or emergency response agencies will be candidates for change. In these cases, residents will be notified and have the opportunity to select a new road name.
• A majority of residents along the existing road must agree upon a new name.
• Larimer County will pay for:
– Installation and maintenance of signs on existing public roads.
– Installation of new standard signs required on existing private roads as a result of this resolution.
• Existing and new decorative signs on private roads can remain; standard signs installed by the County will be in addition to the decorative signs.
• Road signs are to be designed primarily to assist emergency service responders and delivery services in getting to a location quickly.
• The word "Private" will be included on road name signs for private roads.
Mr. Timm noted that following publication of the November 9, 2004 version of the Resolution, two errors have been identified:
1. A typing error in Sec. 8.B.4, where “See” should be changed to “Seek”. This correction has been made in the text of the Proposed Resolution.
2. In Sec.5.C.2.d Road Name Signs, the following subsection is also an error: d. “In addition to the name of the road, the words “Private Road” shall be added to Larimer County standard road name signs on privately maintained roads.” Actually, the private road designation should be added only when the road is a private road, NOT when the road is public and privately maintained. To correct this error and add to clarity, Sec. 5.C has been re-written into three subsections:
a. Road Name Signs for Roads that are Dedicated to the Public and Maintained by Larimer County.
b. Road Name Signs for Roads that are Dedicated to the Public and Privately Maintained.
c. Road Name Signs for Private Roads.
The proposed amendments to make this change are in the staff report immediately following the 11/9/24 version of the Proposed Resolution. The proposed resolution should be amended to replace the original Sec. 5.C Road Name Signs with the new Sec. 5.C Road Name Signs contained in this staff report.
Finally, Mr. Timm recommended that the resolution not be effective until April 4, 2005, in order to give the opportunity for work in the two “test areas” to be completed.
At this time Chair Rennels opened up the hearing for public comment and Lee Tucker addressed the Board and questioned why the project is needed and how many duplicate addresses there are in the County. Chair Rennels stated that there are numerous duplicate addresses across the county and that it is critical for responders to know which house to go in case of an emergency. Mr. Tucker stated that he believes the money could have been better spent and that there are county employees that know the roads so he stated that the work should have been done without hiring consultants. Greg Wild addressed the Board and thanked them for their work on this project as it was long overdue and most definitely necessary for the residents of Larimer County. Sherri Casson stated that she too fully supports the new addressing system and asked if the road signs will be designated with both the county road number and the name, if the road has both. Mr. Shugart stated that yes, the signs will designate both the county road number and as well as the name of the road (e.g. County Road 54 is also know as Douglas Road).
The resolution in its entirety follows:
LARIMER COUNTY ROAD NAMING AND SITE ADDRESSING SYSTEM
Adopted December 6, 2004, Effective April 4, 2005
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado pursuant
to §29-20-104(1)(h) C.R.S. is authorized to plan for and regulate the use of land so as to
provide planned and orderly use of land; and
to §30-28-111(1) and 112 and 30-28-115(1) C.R.S. is authorized to regulate the location
and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public
activities, or other purposes, for the purpose promoting the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity or welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the state;
to §30-11-107(1)(h) C.R.S. is authorized to lay out, alter, or discontinue any road running
into or through Larimer County and to perform such other duties respecting roads as may
be required by law; and
to §29-11-102(1)(a) C.R.S. is authorized to implement an emergency telephone system
and to do such other acts as may be expedient for the protection and preservation of the
public health and as may be necessary for the operation of an emergency telephone
to Colorado statute §30-11-106(1)(e) C.R.S.1973, is authorized to manage the business
and concerns of Larimer County where no other provisions are made by law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado is
authorized to assign and change road names and addresses as part of administering roads
within Larimer County, protecting the public health, safety and welfare, and providing an
adequate and accurate emergency telephone system; and
WHEREAS, Larimer County has determined that current road naming and addressing
and road re-naming and re-addressing procedures are outdated and cumbersome and
impair the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Larimer County; and
WHEREAS, an official file of road names and address ranges is vital to the successful
implementation of public safety and government records management; and
WHEREAS, Larimer County has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens
of Larimer County to establish and implement address regulations in order to ensure that
road names and addresses are unique and consistent and that signage for road names and
addresses are uniform and visible;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Larimer County, Colorado, as follows:
This Resolution shall be known and may be cited as the Road Naming and Site
Addressing System Resolution for Larimer County, Colorado.
This Resolution is enacted for the purpose of establishing and maintaining policies and
procedures in order to:
a. Provide property owners, the general public and Larimer County with an accurate
and systematic means of identifying and locating property.
b. Assist in the proper delivery of mail, packages, utilities, and other services.
c. Provide a means for expedient emergency response by medical, law enforcement,
fire, rescue, and any other emergency services.
d. Assign address numbers to new addressable structures or units, assign address
numbers to existing addressable structures or units that currently do not have a
site address, assign address numbers to newly created lots, assign address
numbers to vacant land, modify address numbers on existing addressable
structures or units when necessary, name new roads, name existing roads without
a name, rename existing roads when necessary in order to provide for efficient
public services as identified in (a), (b), and (c) above, and acquire sufficient
mapping to manage the Road Naming and Site Addressing System.
e. Govern the display of property address numbers and provide for accurate road
name signage, installation, and maintenance thereof.
This Resolution establishes a Road Naming and Site Addressing System for Larimer
This Resolution shall apply to each lot, parcel, and tract of land, within unincorporated
Larimer County, excluding all Federally owned lands, State owned lands, lands within
Growth Management Areas, and the Estes Valley.
Address Management System (AMS): Address Management System (AMS) offices of
the United States Postal Service (USPS) each serve several regional post offices. Their
primary purpose is to maintain official records of valid mailing addresses for their
region. In addition to maintaining current records of valid mailing addresses, AMS
offices also review and approve address changes for adherence to USPS standards
Address Number: The numeric designation for an addressable structure or unit. e.g.: If
101 Main St is the site address, 101 is the Address Number.
Address Sign: An individual address plate identifying the address number of a structure.
Addressable Structures or Units: Generally, the habitable or occupied structures(s) on
a lot, parcel or tract, but may also include other structures as determined necessary by the
Addressing Coordinator. More than 1 structure can be considered addressable per lot,
Building Permit: A permit issued by the Larimer County Planning and Building
Services Division – Building Department before any building construction activity can
County Addressing Coordinator: person(s) designated by the County Manager to
administer the Larimer County Road Naming and Site Addressing System.
Decorative Road Name Sign: Any road name sign that is not a standard Larimer
County Road name sign.
Directional: a maximum of 2 letters within an address that consists of any combination
of the cardinal directions of North, South, East, West.
Driveway: a means of vehicular access, beginning at the property line of a lot abutting a
public road, private road, access easement or private right of way, that provides access to
a building or structure on that lot. A driveway does not serve any other lot or parcel.
Growth Management Area: For the purpose of this Resolution, those areas of the
County that are designated by the County as a Growth Management Area.
Homonym: road names that have identical or phonetically similar names.
Internal Operating Procedures: Larimer County administrative policies and
procedures that outline the process, duties, and responsibilities involved with addressing,
road naming, and road name signage efforts within unincorporated Larimer County.
Lot: A lot, parcel or tract of land created by legal conveyance of said lot, parcel or tract
prior to May 5, 1972; a lot, parcel or tract shown on a subdivision plat which was
approved and recorded prior to May 5, 1972 according to the subdivision regulations in
effect at the time of approval; a lot, parcel or tract created by approval of the County
Commissioners in conformance with subdivision regulations in effect at the time of
approval; or any parcel of 35 acres or more, which when created, did not cause a parcel
of less than 35 acres to remain.
Mailing Address: the address to which mail from the U.S. Postal Service is sent.
Private Road: Any road not included in a right of way dedicated to the public.
Inconsistent Site Address or Road Name: A site address or road name that causes
confusion to or hinders the efficient operation of the post office or delivery service, fire
response agency, emergency medical service or law enforcement agency serving Larimer
County (e.g. duplicate road names, address numbers or ranges that are out of sequence).
Public Road: Any road included in a right of way dedicated to the public.
Site Address: a property identification comprised of an address number, a directional, a
road name, a road type, and a unit number if applicable.
Street/Road: A general term denoting a public or private way used for access to two or
more lots, parcels, or tracts of land, including the entire area within the right of way
and/or access easement.
Subdivision: all types of land divisions subject to the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Section 5: Road Naming and Site Addressing System Requirements
1) Addressable Structures or Units
a) All new addressable structures or units shall be assigned a site address.
b) Existing addressable structures or units that do not have a site address shall be
assigned a site address.
c) The site address of existing addressable structures or units that have an
inconsistent site address shall be changed when necessary.
d) Larimer County shall not issue a building permit to any lot subject to this
Resolution until after the County Addressing Coordinator has assigned a site address.
a) New roads shall be assigned a road name.
b) Existing roads without a name shall be assigned a road name.
c) Existing roads with inconsistent road names shall be renamed when necessary.
3) Display of Address Numbers and Road Name Signs
a) Address numbers shall be displayed on every addressable structure.
b) Larimer County standard road name signs shall be required at all road
intersections on private and public roads.
4) Assignment or Modification of Address Numbers or Road Names
a) The County Addressing Coordinator shall be responsible to assign or
modify address numbers or road names.
b) The County Addressing Coordinator shall communicate all changes
pertaining to address numbers or road names to LETA and the United States Post
5) Ownership of Road Name Signs
a) All road name signs required by this Resolution shall be the property of Larimer
County. No one shall willfully destroy or remove any such road name signs.
B: ROAD NAMING
1) New Road Names
a) All public or private roads, including private access easements, that serve more
than one parcel shall be named, have road name signs, and have address ranges
b) Driveways shall not be assigned road names. The site address will include the
name of the public or private access road with which the driveway intersects.
c) The County’s assignment of a road name shall not constitute or imply acceptance
of the road into the County Road Maintenance Program.
d) The road name shall not be a proper name or family surname (unless historically
e) The road name shall be easy to spell and pronounce. All road names must use
common spelling. Only letters of the alphabet, numbers 0-9 and blank spaces
may be used in road names. Road names shall not contain punctuation, symbols,
f) Road names shall not use corporate trade names unless coincidental.
g) Upon adoption of this Resolution, road names shall not be duplicated within
h) Road names should not be inconsistent, therefore hindering the operations of any
of the following agencies: any post office or delivery service, fire response
agency, emergency medical service or law enforcement agency serving Larimer
i) Adjectives may be duplicated in a road name as long as they are not duplicated in
the same subdivision (e.g. Red Stone Road and Red Fox Road).
j) Homonyms/phonetic duplications of road names are prohibited (e.g. Maple Trace
Road and Maple Chase Lane).
k) Road names shall not include obscene, racial, and/or derogatory terms.
l) Because North, South, East and West are directional features of the addressing
system and lead to confusing addresses if included as part of the name, cardinal
directions shall not be part of any road name (e.g. Westover Road or Southwick
Dr are not acceptable). Acceptable abbreviations for cardinal directions are N, S,
E, and W or some combination thereof to represent direction.
m) Numbers shall not be used in road names except for those used in County, State,
or Federal road systems.
n) Continuous roads must retain the same road name and cannot change at
intersections, except for circle roads or roads crossing at Growth Management
Area or Estes Valley boundaries.
o) Roads on the County Road System (“County Roads”) shall be numbered. North-
South County Roads are odd numbers incrementally increasing from East to West
on section lines. The Easternmost County line road starts with “1”. East-West
County Roads are even numbers incrementally increasing from South to North on
section lines. The Southernmost County line road starts with “2”. County Road
numbers followed by a letter indicate that a County Road is not on a section line.
For each one-tenth of a mile west or north of a section line, the letter designation
advances (e.g. County Road 38E indicates a County Road that is five-tenths of a
mile north of County Road 38). Inside County approved Growth Management
Areas and the Estes Valley, County Roads may be named using the applicable
municipality’s street names. Numbered County Roads outside Growth
Management Areas and the Estes Valley shall not be named according to the
municipality’s street naming methodology.
p) 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
v) County Highway number.
q) Abbreviations used for road name prefixes and suffixes must be United States
Postal Service compliant (e.g. N, S, E, W, RD, ST, LN). This list of abbreviations
is found in Appendix A to this Resolution.
r) The main title of a road name shall not be abbreviated (e.g. Mount Shasta Dr
NOT Mt. Shasta Drive).
2) Renaming Existing Road Names
The standards listed in Section 5 (B)(1) apply when existing roads are renamed
a) Historically significant road names shall be retained where feasible. The desire to
maintain these road names to commemorate local history will be balanced with
the ultimate goal of making road names easy to use by citizens, visitors, and
b) Road names shall not be duplicated within any of the following boundaries except
for the continuation of existing roads: Zip Codes, Fire, Law, and Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) response areas.
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. 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).
d) The County Addressing Coordinator may initiate a change to an existing
road name if necessary pursuant to Section 6.
C: ROAD NAME SIGNS
1) Road Name Signs for Roads that are Dedicated to the Public and Maintained by Larimer County:
a) Larimer County standard road name signs are required on all public roads that are
maintained by the County. These signs shall be displayed at all road intersections in
Larimer County, excluding Federally owned lands, State owned lands, and lands
within Growth Management Areas and the Estes Valley.
b) The composition, size and height of road name signs on public, County maintained
roads must comply with the Larimer County Road Standards.
c) Road name signs shall be placed in the right-of-way. The location of road name
signs must not obscure any potential traffic hazard. At any location where the
typical placement of a sign interferes with a safe sight distance, an alternate
location must be found.
d) Only those road name signs assigned or approved by the County Addressing
Coordinator are allowed at roadway intersections. The County may remove any
road name signs displaying unapproved road names or road name signs that do
not comply with the Larimer County Road Standards.
e) The funding, manufacture, and installation of Larimer County standard road name
signs on public, County maintained roads shall be the responsibility of Larimer
County except as in (g) below.
f) The ongoing maintenance of Larimer County standard road name signs on public,
County maintained roads shall be the responsibility of Larimer County.
g) Larimer County standard road name signs for new and existing public roads in all
subdivisions approved by Larimer County, including Rural Land Plans, shall be
installed and paid for by the developer, including all road name signs that must be
changed or added between the location of the subdivision and the County road or
State/Federal highway providing access to the subdivision.
2) Road Name Signs for Roads that are Dedicated to the Public and Privately Maintained:
privately maintained. These signs shall be displayed at all road intersections in
Larimer County, excluding Federally owned lands, State owned lands, lands within
b) Decorative road name signs that are in addition to Larimer County standard road
name signs are allowed, and are exempted from (c) and (e) below.
c) The composition, size and height of road name signs on public, privately maintained
d) Road name signs shall be placed in the right-of-way. The location of road name signs
must not obscure any potential traffic hazard. At any location where the typical
placement of a sign interferes with a safe sight distance, an alternate location must be
e) Only those road name signs assigned or approved by the County Addressing
Coordinator are allowed at roadway intersections. The County may remove any road
name signs that do not comply with the Larimer County Road Standards.
f) The County may remove any road name signs displaying unapproved road names.
g) The funding, manufacture, and installation of all new Larimer County standard
road name signs required as a result of this Resolution on public, privately
maintained roads will be the responsibility of Larimer County except as in (k) below.
h) The costs associated with ongoing maintenance for Larimer County standard road
name signs on public, privately maintained roads will be the responsibility of Larimer
i) The funding, manufacture and installation for the replacement of existing
decorative road name signs required as a result of this Resolution on public, privately
maintained roads will be the responsibility of Larimer County.
j) The County will not be responsible for ongoing maintenance of decorative road
k) Larimer County standard road name signs for new and existing public, privately
maintained roads in all subdivisions approved by Larimer County, including Rural
Land Plans, shall be installed and paid for by the developer, including all road name
signs that must be changed or added between the location of the subdivision and the
County road or State/Federal highway providing access to the subdivision.
3) Road Name Signs for Private Roads:
a) Larimer County standard road name signs are required on all private roads.
These signs shall be displayed at all road intersections in Larimer County, excluding
Federally owned lands, State owned lands, lands within Growth Management
Areas, and the Estes Valley.
c) The composition, size, height and location of road name signs on private
d) The location of road name signs must not obscure any potential traffic hazard. At
any location where the typical placement of a sign interferes with a safe sight
distance, an alternate location must be found.
g) In addition to the name of the road, the word “Private” shall be added to
Larimer County standard road name signs on private roads.
h) The funding, manufacture, and installation of all new Larimer County standard
road name signs required as a result of this Resolution on private roads will be the
responsibility of Larimer County except as in (l) below.
i) The costs associated with ongoing maintenance for Larimer County standard road
name signs on private roads will be the responsibility of Larimer
j) The funding, manufacture and installation for the replacement of existing
decorative road name signs on private roads required as a result of this Resolution
will be the responsibility of Larimer County.
k) The County will not be responsible for ongoing maintenance of decorative road
l) Larimer County standard road name signs for new and existing private roads in all
D: ADDRESS NUMBERS
1) Assignment of an Address Number to new addressable structures or units on
a) All new addressable structures or units on all existing platted lots, unplatted tracts
and parcels, and tracts and parcels developed by metes and bounds shall be
assigned site addresses, and only after the property owner/developer has made a
final determination of the driveway/access point and applied for a building permit.
b) Before a building permit is issued, a site address will be assigned.
c) The address numbers shall be displayed visibly at the site prior to the
commencement of the construction and on the new structure prior to the first use
or occupancy pursuant to Section 5(D)(4).
2) Assignment of an Address Number to Newly Created Lots
The final plat for all new lots, including rural land plans, shall not be recorded until
the Addressing Coordinator has assigned a name to all roads and an address number
3) Assignment of an Address Number to Vacant Land
An address number may be assigned to a vacant platted lot, unplatted tract or parcel,
or tract or parcel developed by metes and bounds if requested by the property owner
and if the final determination of the driveway access point has been made.
4) Display of Address Numbers
All owners of addressable structures or units shall establish and display their assigned
address number in conformity with the following standards:
a) The address numbers shall be displayed on the structure.
b) Address numbers shall be a minimum of three inches tall and shall be of a
contrasting color to their background.
c) If the numbers on the structure cannot be seen or are not legible from the road,
then the address numbers shall also be displayed at the driveway entrance on a
mailbox or a posted sign so they are visible from the road.
d) If the mailbox for an addressable structure is not located at the driveway entrance,
the owner must post an additional address sign at the driveway entrance with the
address number clearly visible.
e) Any address number associated with an incorrect site address shall be removed
and replaced with the correct number by the property owner within 30 days of
notification of the correct address by the County Addressing Coordinator. The
property owner shall be responsible to purchase, install, and maintain the correct
structure address numbers.
Section 6: Site Address and/or Road Name Assignment and Modification:
A: PROPERTY OWNER INITIATED:
Any property owner may initiate a change to an existing road name for a public or
private road that provides vehicular access to his/her property through the
1) Property owners (petitioners) must contact the County Addressing
Coordinator to request procedures and application materials for a road name
2) Petitioners must complete the appropriate form and indicate the reason for the
requested road name change. The petitioners shall list three or more desired
names ranked in their order of preference on the form. At least fifty-one
percent (51%) of property owners with land taking vehicular access from the
road must agree to the road name change by signing the form and indicating
their property parcel identifier(s).
3) Petitioners shall submit the completed form to the County Addressing
Coordinator. The County Addressing Coordinator will verify the information
supplied on the form. The County Addressing Coordinator will approve one
of the suggested road names provided it is in accordance with the road naming
requirements, the change will not impair the intent and purpose of this
Resolution, and the new site address has been approved by the Address
4) If the form is not completed properly or if the proposed road name does not
meet these requirements, the County Addressing Coordinator will notify the
petitioners that their request has been denied, list reason(s) for denial, and
provide information describing additional action required.
5) If the location of the subject road is not yet field verified and digitized, the
County will map the road prior to acting on the petition.
6) The recorded original plat will not reflect changes to road names. The
owner’s deed need not be corrected at the time of the road name change.
When the property is sold, the property owner should reflect the new road
name on the deed. The change may be reflected on the deed as follows:
Street Address: 2000 XYZ Street, Formerly Known as 2001 ABC Street.
7) Owners of property taking vehicular access along the road with the changed
name are responsible for the cost of as many road name sign(s) as are required
by the Larimer County Road Standards and the cost of installation thereof.
When the petition is submitted, full name and billing information (mailing
address, physical address, and contact phone number) for one petitioner must
be left with the County for the purpose of billing for the costs of signs and
8) A bill covering the costs for the road name signs and installation will be sent
to the individual listed within the billing information on the petition along
with the County Addressing Coordinator’s preliminary approval of the road
9) Final approval for the road name change is contingent on full payment of the
bill covering the costs for the road name signs and installation.
10) The County will commence installation of the road name signs once the bill
for the signage costs has been paid in full and final approval of the road name
change has been given by the County Addressing Coordinator.
11) The County Addressing Coordinator will mail a Site Address Notification
letter to all property owners whose road name will be affected.
12) Larimer County will be responsible for the manufacture, installation, and
maintenance of road name sign(s) pursuant to Section 5(C).
B: COUNTY INITIATED
Larimer County shall balance the need to modify existing address numbers and/or
road names for compliance with this Resolution and postal standards with the desire
to retain existing address numbers and/or road names where possible.
Larimer County may initiate one or more of the following: the naming of an unnamed
road, the modification of an existing road name, the assignment of an address number
to an unaddressed structure or unit, or the modification of an existing address number
1) Where the Addressing Coordinator is proposing to name or rename a road:
The County Addressing Coordinator shall complete the appropriate form describing
the proposed road name assignment or change and listing three pre-approved road
names on the form.
The County Addressing Coordinator will mail the form to the affected property
owners. Affected property owners include those persons whose land has vehicular
access to the road proposed to be named or renamed.
a) The form will encourage affected property owners to hold a neighborhood
meeting to try to reach consensus on one of the pre-approved road names
listed on the form or on a different road name that complies with this Resolution.
b) No later than 45 days from the date on the form, each property owner may
state his/her preferred road name by completing, signing and returning the
form to the County Addressing Coordinator.
c) The County Addressing Coordinator will determine the new road name based on
the name selected by the majority of property owners on the forms completed and
returned by the property owners. In the event of a tie vote or in the event no
property owners return the form, the County Addressing Coordinator shall select the road name at his/her sole discretion.
d) Changes to site addresses, which include changes to road names where
addressable structures or units exist, are subject to approval by the United
States Postal Service Address Management System (AMS). If a site address
is not approved, then the above steps will need to be repeated until the
Address Management System approval is attained.
e) After site addresses have been approved by the Address Management System,
the County Addressing Coordinator will send a Site Address Notification
Letter to affected property owners. At this time, the County Addressing
Coordinator will notify property owners of any site address changes or road
f) Larimer County will be responsible for the manufacture, installation, and
2) Where the Address Coordinator is proposing to assign or change an address
a) The assignment of the address number is not subject to the property owners’
b) The United States Postal Service Address Management System must approve
all new or changed site addresses, which includes changes to address
c) After new site addresses have been approved by the Address Management
System, the County Addressing Coordinator will send a Site Address
Notification Letter to affected property owners. At this time, the County
Addressing Coordinator will notify property owners of any changes to address
Decisions of the County Addressing Coordinator may be appealed to the Chief Building
Official. The Chief Building Official’s decision may be appealed to the Board of County
Commissioners. The County Addressing Coordinator’s decision shall be upheld by the
Chief Building Official and the Board of County Commissioners unless it is shown by a
preponderance of evidence that the decision is inconsistent with or does not promote the
intent and purpose of this Resolution.
Section 8: Compliance and Enforcement
A) Any person, firm, corporation or entity violating any provision of this
Resolution is subject to the penalties provided for in Title 30, Article 28, Parts
1 and 2, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, and any other legal action
B) All provisions of this Resolution may be enforced by any legal or equitable
means recognized by the Colorado Revised Statues and Colorado Court Rules,
as amended. In addition to any other remedies that may be recognized in law
or equity, for any unlawful use or development, Larimer County may:
1) Deny and withhold all permits, certificates or other forms of authorization
to use or develop any land, structure or improvements thereon. This
provision applies whether or not the current owner is responsible for the
2) Revoke any development permit or other authorization if it is determined
there is a departure from the approved plans, specifications or conditions
of approval or the development permit was obtained by false
representation or issued in error. Written notice of revocation must be
served upon the owner, the owner’s agent or the owner’s contractor to
whom the permit was issued or the notice may be posted in a prominent
location at the place of the violation.
3) Initiate injunction or abatement proceedings or other appropriate legal
action in district court or other court having jurisdiction against any
person, firm, corporation or entity who fails to comply with any provision
of this Resolution or any requirements or condition imposed under this
4) Seek a court order in the nature of mandamus, abatement, injunction or
other action to abate or remove a violation.
5) Withhold all public road improvements and public maintenance from all
rights-of-way that have not been accepted for those purposed by the
C) All penalties or remedies provided for violations of this Resolution are
D) The Planning Director, Chief Building Official, County Engineer or other
authorized representative (“the enforcing official”) is authorized to enter or
inspect any building, structure, premises or real property to ensure compliance
with this Resolution. These inspections will be carried out during normal
business hours except in emergency situations described in paragraph E
below. Entry onto private property for inspection will be made only after
contact with the owner or occupant of the premises. If the owner or occupant
cannot be located or permission to enter cannot be obtained, the enforcing
official may seek an administrative search warrant or court order allowing
entry by submitting a sworn affidavit to the county or district court detailing
facts to support a reasonable belief that a violation is likely to exist and that
further investigation of the premises is warranted. Any subsequent entry and
inspection must be conducted in accordance with the administrative search
warrant or order issued by the court. Signing an application for any
development approval constitutes permission to enter and inspect a property.
Inspections may be conducted from public property or right-of-way, or from
adjacent private property with the permission of the owner of the adjacent
E) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph D above, permission to enter or a
court order is not required in emergency situations in which the enforcing
official has reason to believe public health or safety is in imminent danger and
could be jeopardized by any delay in obtaining permission to enter or a court
Section 9: Effective Date: This Resolution shall be effective on April 4, 2005.
ADOPTED this ___________day of __________, 2004
OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
The following tables list the standard street prefix, type, suffix, and secondary unit
abbreviations for the US Postal Service that are used by Larimer County.
Prefix Directionals Abbrev.
Street Types Abbrev.
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Rural Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution as amended to replace the original Section 5.C with the revised Section 5.C as outlined above, with the Resolution to be effective on April 4, 2005.
12062004R001 LARIMER COUNTY ROAD NAMING AND SITE ADDRESSING SYSTEM RESOLUTION
3. WILD RURAL LAND PLAN; 03-S2203: The proposal for the Wild Preliminary Rural Land Plan is to divide approximately 177 +/- acres into nine (9) single-family residential lots and three (3) Residual Lots, configured as follows: Development Parcel—nine (9) single-family residential lots on 40 acres (ranging in size from 3 ½ - 5 acres per lot), one (1) 40-acre Residual Lot with a single-family dwelling in a 5-acre building envelope, and one (1) non-buildable Residual Lot of 62 acres. Non-Development Parcel—one (1) non-buildable Residual Lot of 35-acres. Using the ability to move lots from one parcel to another allowed by the Rural Land Use Process, two (2) home sites will be transferred from the Non-Development parcel to the Development Parcel. Residential development potential will be removed from the Non-Development Parcel. These parcels of land were originally part of a larger RLUP project submitted in January 2003 under the name of Wild Valley RLUP. That application was withdrawn in late summer, 2003. The property is located in Sections 5, 6 and 7, Township 5 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; generally located west of the City of Loveland, ¾ of a mile north of Highway 34, immediately north of Hidden Valley Estates I and Hidden Valley Estates II RLUP projects. The property consists of dry grazing land.
The residential lots and residual lot building envelope will be located east of the west-most 35-acre portion of the property. The lots will also be carefully situated to avoid the series of drainages that run through the property. The applicant is proposing appropriate architectural guidelines for this project to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed new residences and associated structures. Access will be gained from Hogback Drive/Hidden Valley Drive. Access to Lots 5-9 and the Residual Lot B building envelope will cross a significant drainage way that runs down the valley. This crossing must meet all applicable engineering standards. There is significant development pressure in this area for 35-acre parcels and smaller residential lots, if available. This pressure is caused by general growth along the Front Range, as well by pressure specifically associated with growth in Loveland and Fort Collins and attractiveness of “close-in” foothills property. The proposed density of the Wild Rural Land Use project, one unit per 17.5 acres, appears to be compatible with the neighborhood.
The surrounding properties consist of the Hidden Valley Estates I (technically, this project is known as Hidden Valley Estates Rural Land Plan; it is often referred to as Hidden Valley Estates I because it is the first of three projects with this name and common ownership), II, and III Rural Land Plans (to the south and east), the preliminarily-approved Wild Valley North RLUP to the north, the Devil’s Backbone Open Lands area to the west, and grazing land and the Sprenger Valley, Limerick Ridge, and Ponderosa Ridge developments to the north and east. The land could be divided into five (5) 35-acre parcels without County input and could potentially allow about 75 units based on underlying zoning (FA-1) through the Conservation Development process if adequate public facilities are provided. The actual number of homes would in all likelihood be less because of constraints such as slopes, wildlife habitat, etc., but 35-40 residential lots are probably feasible if brought through the Conservation Development process.
The non-developable residual land lots, approximately 132 acres and comprising roughly 75% of the property, will be contained in up to three (3) residual land lots. The residual land will be protected from further development in perpetuity and it will have a management plan to foster its long-term health. The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land. Homeowners’ association covenants will also be prepared and address the following issues: Maintenance of internal private access roads, architectural control and design guidelines, home size requirements, use restrictions on all residential sites, utilities, restrictions on outdoor lighting, outdoor storage of vehicles, and management of large animals.
A neighborhood meeting was held on October 12, 2004, at the Pulliam Community Building in Loveland. Three area residents and interested citizens attended. The main concerns were regarding:
· Horses/large animals allowed on the lots.
· Proposed private access to the Devil’s Backbone Trail.
· Animal restrictions and wildlife concerns, including prairie dogs.
(Please see the attached list of questions and answers from the neighborhood meeting.)
This project is based on Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code and will comply with the newly adopted Development Standards in the Rural Land Use Process for roads and drainage. The development will comply with Section 5.11—Street and Road Naming, Section 8.8—Irrigation facilities and Section 8.10—Management/Use Plans. The referral agencies have responded and applicable fees will be collected to meet the requirements in Section 9.0—Land Dedications, Fees-in-Lieu of Dedications, Facility Fees and Capital Expansion Fees. The fees that will be collected on this project are park fees, school fees, drainage fees, and Transportation Capital Expansion fees. Other fees that will be collected are Rural Land Use Process fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Staff findings are that this proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code. Support for the Wild Preliminary Rural Land Plan is based on the following:
· Conservation values of the residual land, including preservation of open space and wildlife habitat.
Support for this proposed plan takes into consideration the various other land development and design options, particularly the 35-acre alternative, for which there is no County review. The greater number of residential units possible under the zoning and the general development pressure within the immediate area for use-by-right 35-acre division of land supports our belief that this is an appropriate project. As proposed, this project will also provide commensurate long-term benefits to citizens of Larimer County. Those benefits are summarized below:
· Perpetual protection of the residual land.
· Contribution of US 34 intersection improvement funding
Staff recommendation is for approval the Wild Preliminary Rural Land Plan. The following contingencies must be met prior to approval of final plat by the Board of County Commissioners:
1. All roads constructed within the Rural Land Plan shall be in accordance with Section 5.8.6.D of the Rural Land Use Process. All designs must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that design standards in 5.8.6.D. were followed, before final approval. Internal roads may be contained in a private access and utility easement. Road names and addressing shall meet standards in Section 5.11 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
2. Any road crossing must be designed and sized adequately to convey the drainage flow from a 100-year storm event.
3. Secondary emergency access shall be provided to this project.
4. Amendment of the access agreement to allow two additional residential lots to gain access via Hogback Drive/Hidden Valley Drive between the City of Loveland, Backbone Investments, LLC, Gregory Wild, and these applicants must be provided to the Rural Land Use Center prior to final approval.
5. Drainage paths and basins for historic flows must be identified and preserved. Effective drainage paths for new development must be provided. All building envelopes must be sited so that they do not interfere with existing drainage patterns.
6. Soil tests must be conducted prior to final approval with a preliminary site plan showing potential development being prepared to illustrate a representative house pad, driveway, water line and primary/backup septic systems shown and this must be approved by the Larimer County Health Department before final approval.
7. An additional fee not to exceed $5000 shall be assessed against each approved residential lot, to be used solely for a professional traffic study and possible improvements at the US 34—Hidden Valley Drive intersection per CDOT requirements.
8. Public water shall be provided for this project. A letter of commitment from the City of Loveland must be provided prior to final plat approval, including a commitment to allocate two additional taps. This letter of commitment must specifically state that the water distribution system is (or will be) designed to meet the normal and minimum pressure design standards contained in Section 8.1.2.A.1 of the Land Use Code or more stringent standards as required by the District. If the water system will be designed to provide fire protection, the letter of commitment also must address the pressure and delivery standards outlined in Section 8.1.4 of the Land Use Code.
9. If a trail access is provided for the Devil’s Backbone Open Space, it must meet the criteria of the Open Land Neighborhood Requested Access Policy.
10. Building envelopes shall be placed on each lot. All building envelopes shall be located outside the floodplain and drainage areas and shall meet minimum setback requirements listed in the Larimer County Land Use Code.
11. Livestock, including large animals such as cattle, sheep and horses, will not be allowed on Lots 1-4.
12. Automatic fire protection sprinklers will be required for all new residential structures or written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district.
13. The Corps of Engineers should be consulted to determine if streams on the property constitute Waters of the US and the appropriate permit should be acquired if one is required.
14. If construction is to take place between March 1st and October 31st, a survey for the presence of western burrowing owls should be completed by a qualified environmental consultant.
15. Prior to the start of construction, information detailing the removal methods for the prairie dogs should be submitted to the Planning Department—Environmental Planner for review for compliance with state law.
16. The residual land protective covenant and range management/use plan must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval. This plan must be created by a range specialist and must address wildfire dangers and include objectives, current conditions, future desired conditions and options to reduce the wildfire hazards. The wildfire mitigation component shall be reviewed and approved by the Wildfire Safety Specialist, prior to final approval. The use plan must include small acreage management recommendations.
17. Restrictive covenants, including provisions for internal road maintenance, small acreage management, architectural guidelines, and other requirements must be reviewed and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director prior to final plat approval.
18. The final development agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval.
19. A Lot Sale Prohibition shall be placed on this property preventing the sale of any new lots until the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements. The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed. The Lot Sale Prohibition will be recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and will be a covenant running with the Lots. Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for the particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed.
20. Residual Lot C shall have a building envelope attached to it.
21. The following must be listed as a note on the final plat and on a disclosure statement, approved by the County Attorney, available to lot buyers through the public records at the time of purchase:
a) LOT SALE PROHIBITION. Developers have executed a Lot Sale Prohibition Agreement which stipulates that Lots 1 through 9 and/or Residual Lot(s) A through C cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developers provide to County a written designation stating that all the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements. The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed. The Lot Sale Prohibition has been recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and is a covenant running with the Lots. Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed.
b) Implementation of the range management/use plan must be completed within the building envelopes and internal access road easements prior to the issuance of any building permits.
d) Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of structures designed or habitable space 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.
e) It is suggested that all new homes constructed utilize heavy timber construction with Class A roofing material to provide additional protection from a wildfire.
f) Some or all lots in this development include building envelopes. All structures must be located within these Larimer County approved building envelopes, as shown on the approved subdivision plat. If a structure is within 5’ of the building envelope, the owner/applicant for a building permit will be required to demonstrate that the structure(s) is located within the building envelope prior to the approval of the footing and foundation inspection. This shall be accomplished by a written certification by a Colorado Licensed Surveyor.
h) Livestock, including large animals such as cattle, sheep and horses, are not to be allowed on Lots 1-4.
i) Lot owners should be advised that there is a potential for nuisance conflicts from wildlife (such as skunks, mountain lions, bears, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, prairie dogs and snakes). The Colorado Division of Wildlife can provide information to property owners about how to handle these situations, but lot owners are responsible for addressing wildlife conflicts if they arise.
k) No feeding of any wildlife. Any food placed for wildlife will eventually attract the Black Bears traveling through the area. Once a bear finds food around homes and trailers, they become habituated to humans, often causing damage to property in their search for food. The State of Colorado is not liable for damages to non-agricultural property. Homeowners insurance is strongly advised.
l) Keep trash and garbage removed from site. Bear proof containers are commercially available and they work. Garbage and trash can be as attractive to bears as placing out food for wildlife.
s) The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional and Community Park Fees (in lieu of dedication), Drainage Fees and Rural Land Use Process fees. The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply.
u) At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential lots and residual lands with the Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County.
v) The owners of the residual land parcel shall be responsible for providing a periodic monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center.
Mr. Reidhead gave the background on this application, presented a slide show of photos, diagrams, and points of interest, and then introduced Linda, Kitty, and Laurie Wild as the applicants. Chair Rennels asked for clarification as to which areas of the Devil's Backbone will remain undeveloped. Mr. Reidhead stated that the 35 acre parcel on west side of the Devil's Backbone (Residual Lot A) will remain undeveloped. Mr. Reidhead stated that there are a couple of areas that need to be ironed out concerning fencing and horseback riding; he further noted that the applicants wish to have a private trail access to the Devil's Backbone, and will most likely submit an appeal to the Parks and Open Lands Department regarding their desire for a private trail access, rather than a public trail access. Mr. Reidhead noted that there will be the need to install a right-hand turn lane into the development and Commissioner Gibson asked about whether a left-hand turn lane would also be required. Ms. Coleman noted that the developers will be required to perform a traffic study and that may determine the need for a left-hand turn lane; however, at this point they are only anticipating the need for a right-hand turn lane. Commissioner Bender asked for clarification on public versus private trail access to the Devil's Backbone, and Charlie Gindler, with the Parks and Open Lands Department, explained that all requests for appeals will be reviewed; however, higher consideration is given to those requests that also allow the public to utilize the trail access. Chair Rennels asked if the Parks Department would patrol the area if it were open to the public. Mr. Gindler stated that they would not patrol on private land. Some discussion ensued. The applicant, Ms. Kitty Wild, addressed the Board and explained that they would like to keep the trail access private; however, they would allow it to be used for emergency access if a hiker was injured for example. Ms. Wild stated that the homeowners did not want to incur liability for the general public to use the trail access on their private land.
At this time Chair Rennels opened the hearing to public comment and Renee Zahourek addressed the Board and stated that she believes the development will be beautiful and noted that she is pro-property rights; however she is concerned with the number of homes that are proposed and the affect it could have on the wildlife and surrounding land. Ms. Zahourek also noted that she is not in favor of transferring the two homes from Lot A to the east side of the Devil's Backbone. Kathy Hartman also voiced her concerns regarding the number of homes and the configuration of those homes as in her opinion, they were not being "clustered" appropriately. She also noted that the neighborhood meetings were not adequately publicized, and that the RLUP "abbreviated public process" is not always the best way to approach development. Sherri Casson stated that she believes this is a good project and that the owners have given consideration to the needs of the neighbors; she noted that this is private land, not open space, and that the owners have the right to develop it. Ms. Casson asked if the secondary access would be for emergencies only. Mr. Reidhead replied in the affirmative, and explained that it would be a gated access available for use only in emergences. John Barnett addressed the Board noting his support for the project; he stated that given the drainage issues in the area, the applicant has done a good job in clustering the homes. Mr. Barnett also gave some additional history and background of development in this area. Finally, Scott Carpentier noted his support for the project and stated that there is a demand for high end homes in the area, and this development helps fulfill that need. At this time Chair Rennels closed public comment.
Ms. Wild stated that her family had been in this area for generations and that they are settlers, not developers. She further noted that they are giving up 15 lots in order to send the two parcels back over to the east side of the Devil's Backbone. Commissioner Gibson questioned the ownership and responsibility of Residual Lot C, as it was not tied to a building envelope. Some discussion ensued regarding this and the applicant agreed to make this a condition of approval; therefore, item 20, Residual Lot C shall have a building envelope attached to it, has been added to the Staff recommendation listed above. Commissioner Gibson submitted a number of letters for the record from children attending the Mary Blair Elementary school, all expressing concern with homes being built in the Devil's Backbone area.
Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Wild Preliminary Rural Land Plan subject to the conditions as outlined and amended above to include item x, which requires that Residual Lot C have a building envelope attached to it.
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Pro-Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Bender was present. Also present were Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioner’s Office; Mark Peterson and Rex Burns, Engineering Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 22, 2004:
Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of November 22, 2004, as presented.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 13, 2004: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for December 7, 2004:
12072004A001 WARRANTY MEMORANDUM FOR FOOTHILLS ESTATES II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 97-MS1072 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND DELBERT L. MARTIN AND CHARLES P. WILSON AND FOOTHILLS II HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
12072004A002 WARRANTY MEMORANDUM FOR PRAIRIE CROSSING SUBDIVISION 02-S1966 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND KDR CUSTOM HOMES, INC., AND THE PRAIRIE CROSSING SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
12072004A003 LARIMER COUNTY RECYCLING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND RECYCLE AMERICA ALLIANCE, LLC.
12072004A004 WARRANTY MEMORANDUM FOR HARVEST HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION 99-21453 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CHURCH OF OUTREACH MINISTRIES AND HARVEST HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
12072004A005 AGREEMENT FOR FACILITY PLANNING SERVICES BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND JEAN BATCHELDER, DBA ACCESS BY DESIGN, LLC.
12072004D001 DEED OF DEDICATION OF SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY BY BRIAN KILLION AND JAMIE HOWELL KILLION
12072004D002 POUDRE VALLEY RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC., RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT BY LARIMER COUNTY
12072004R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MAZZA MINOR LAND DIVISION
12072004R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF WHITMAN DEVELOPMENT REZONING
12072004R003 RESOLUTION REGARDING RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
12072004R004 MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF BRESKA MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS TO SECTION 4.2.10.B.4.2 AND 4.3.10.B.4.5 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE
12072004R005 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS
12072004R006 REZONING FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF CRYSTAL LAKES 13TH FILING LOT 133
12072004R007 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GERALD MINOR LAND DIVISION AND APPEAL TO SECTION 5.4.3.B OF THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE
MISCELLANEOUS: Department of Human Services Payments for October 2004; National Emergency Reserve Funding to Provide Additional Workforce Investment Act Funding; Snowy View Subdivision Lot 15 Amended Plat; Mazza Minor Land Division Plat.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were both approved and issued: Cloverleaf Kennel Club - Racetrack - Loveland; Sundance Steakhouse and Saloon - Hotel and Restaurant - Fort Collins. The following license was issued: Women's Development Council - Special Event 6% - Loveland.
5. REQUEST TO ALLOW THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'S GENERAL FUND TO BE APPLIED TO REPAY A PORTION OF THE DRY CREEK LOAN BALANCE: Mr. Peterson requested approval to allow some Engineering Department general fund revenue to be used to partially repay a loan that was made from the Fossil Creek Capital Drainage Fund to the Dry Creek Capital Drainage Fund. Mr. Peterson explained the history being that in 2001 Larimer County was in the process of performing the baseline studies and public process to pursue formation of a stormwater utility in a portion of the Dry Creek Basin. The Board authorized a loan of $50,000 to be made from the Fossil Creek basin fund to the Dry Creek basin fund to cover some of the engineering support and public involvement efforts being undertaken at the time. It was intended that once the stormwater utility was formed, a portion of the revenues from the utility would be used to repay the loan balance; however, the stormwater utility was suspended due to lack of funding to complete the legal and accounting reviews. Although loan payments totaling approximately $7,900 were made in 2002, there is a remaining balance of approximately $45,000 on the loan due to be repaid to the Fossil Creek Drainage Basin Capital Fund. Some discussion ensued as to how this will affect the Engineering budget and how the money will be reallocated, and the status of the drainage work that has taken place in the Fossil Creek area.
Commissioner Bender moved to approve allowing $15,000 of Engineering Department funding for 2004 to be applied towards partial repayment of an outstanding $44,000 loan that was made from the Fossil Creek basin drainage fees to the Dry Creek basin fund.
6. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster explained that the Town of Timnath is proposing an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to be funded through Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and the meeting regarding this has been postponed to December 15, 2004. Mr. Lancaster stated that the Town intends to place the city and the Growth Management Area (GMA) within the URA, and all taxes collected from that point on will accrue to the Urban Authority for the next 25 years. Mr. Lancaster stated the estimated growth for the Town of Timnath would increase from approximately 2000 to 10,000 community citizens. Chair Pro-Tem Gibson stated that that County would still be expected to provide Sheriff Services and Health and Human services to the area, at an increased level, even though the Town would no longer be paying for these services. Mr. Lancaster stated that Commissioner Rennels suggested sending a representative to the meeting and both Commissioner's Gibson and Bender stated that they would attend. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to have Mr. Lancaster prepare a letter for the Chair to sign expressing the Board's opposition to the Town of Timnath utilizing the TIF process as a means to develop their community.
8. LEGAL MATTERS: (Executive Session Tape #142.) Mr. Lancaster requested the Board go into Executive Session to discuss negotiations.
Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to discuss negotiations as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S.
The Executive Session ended at 10:35 with no further action taken.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED NEW METHODS OF
ASSESSING FEES AT THE LANDFILL AND TRANSFER STATIONS
The Board reconvened at 2:00 p.m. with Stephen Gillette, Solid Waste Director. Chair Pro-Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Bender was present. Also present were: Ann Lujan, Rhonda Louden, Robert Nielsen, and Steve Harem, Solid Waste Department; Dave Lentz, County Forester; Susie Gordon, City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Gibson noted that the Board must approve the Minutes of November 29, 2004, which notifies the public that the Board did not have any meetings during this timeframe due to their attendance at the Colorado Counties Inc. Winter Conference.
Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes of November 29, 2004 as presented.
Mr. Gillette stated that there were two items on the agenda today, the first being discussion of the Landfill and Transfer Station fees, and the second being reappointment of the County Forester as the Pest Inspector. Mr. Gillette presented a handout outlining the proposed 2005 Landfill and Transfer Station fees and explained that currently cars and trucks are charged fees based on the vehicle type rather than the volume of trash they are bringing to the landfill; he noted that this is not always fair depending upon the type of vehicle, and that commercial haulers are charged by volume, so this would make the way fees are charged consistent. Mr. Gillette stated that they had surveyed their customers and 62% preferred to be charged by volume rather than by vehicle type. Mr. Gillette stated that they would like to implement this change at the landfill and at all Transfer Stations. Commissioner Gibson questioned the volume of tree branches versus chipped trees. Mr. Gillette stated that if tree branches are separated from the trash, then the customer would receive a small discount (one dollar per cubic yard) because this allows operators to chip the branches rather than place them in the landfill. Commissioner Bender asked if charging everyone by volume would cause longer lines at the gate. Mr. Gillette stated that the landfill gate attendants are skilled in measuring for volume; however, they do physically measure loads that are out of the ordinary and that could cause delays at the gate. Commissioner Gibson asked how much of the landfill operations are subsidized. Mr. Gillette stated that the landfill is not subsidized at all; it operates solely by the tipping fees collected. Finally, Mr. Gillette stated that although the Red Feather Transfer Station is not currently in operation, he would like to include it in the adopted fee schedule as they hope to have it up and running again soon.
At this time Chair Pro-Tem Gibson opened the meeting for public comment. No one addressed the Board for public comment.
Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2005 fee schedule for the Landfill and the Wellington, Berthoud, Estes Park, and Red Feather Transfer Stations.
Mr. Lentz then briefed the Board on a number of insects that are being watched and monitored in the state for their presence and destruction to the trees and forests; some discussion ensued and Commissioner Bender asked if most of the requests for assistance came from the cities or from unincorporated areas in the county. Mr. Lentz stated that he responds to calls mostly from those in the unincorporated areas as the City of Fort Collins takes care of their own; he noted that he does help out the City of Loveland from time to time, but they too now have their own Forester and are able to respond to their citizens.
Mr. Lentz then stated that Colorado law requires the Board to appoint a County Pest Inspector for a two-year term, whose duties include controlling or enforcing the control of infestations of infections of pests within the County. Mr. Lentz stated that this allows him to enter onto private property, send letters on behalf of the County to property owners that have infestations, and if the problem is not resolved by the property owner, it also gives him the right to go in and do the work (or hire contractors) and then charge the cost back to the property owner. Commissioner Bender asked if Mr. Lentz performs any pesticide applications himself. Mr. Lentz stated that he can and does on occasion, but usually either complete removal of the damaged trees or debarking of affected areas are the methods most often used.
Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners reappoint Dave Lentz as the County Pest Inspector for a two-year term expiring December 31, 2006.
The hearing adjourned at 2:25 p.m.