MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Land use Meeting
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Community Development. Chair Donnelly presided and Commissioner Kefalas was present. Commissioner Johnson was excused. Also present were: Leslie Ellis, and Michael Whitley, Community Development; Frank Haug, County Attorney’s Office; Claire Kreycik, Town of Estes Park; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney; and Elizabeth Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Donnelly opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Donnelly noted that the following items were on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested to do so by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.
1. TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROHIBIT GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES IN MULTIPLE-LOT SUBDIVISIONS AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS
A member of the audience requested that item number one be pulled for a full hearing and presentation.
2. GREENWALD AMENDED PLAT: The subject property is located in unincorporated Estes Valley and is zoned E-1 Estate. This application is a request to amend a plat to dissolve the building envelope that was originally platted in 2003. The property is currently vacant with the owner preparing to build a single-family home. All standards and criteria set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code, and all other applicable provisions of this Code have been met with this Amended Plat application. In accordance with the notice requirements in the Estes Valley Development Code notifications beyond the agenda are not required. As of August 2, 2019, no public comments have been received regarding this Amended Plat. Written comments received after August 2, 2019 will be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications .
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT-MARY’S LAKE ESTATES, LOT 1 SUBDIVISION: The project area is located west of Mary’s Lake Road, just south of Mary’s Lake in Larimer County. The total land area is approximately 7.58-acres and is currently developed with one single-family dwelling, which also operates as a Bed & Breakfast, on the east side of Lakewood Court. The lot was created in 1996 through the subdivision of Mary’s Lake Estate.
The applicants are proposing that Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) consider the lot as two separate lots, known as Lot 1A and 1B. Each parcel would still be large enough to meet the minimum zoning acreage requirement for RE (approximately 3.90-acres and 3.68-acres respectively). Town and other public utilities should be able to serve a new house on Lot 1A’s Lake Estates in Larimer County. When the subdivision was created, Lot 1 was improperly designated, being that Lakewood Court, a private right-of-way, splits the lot into two.
Section, 3.9.E. of the EVDC states all subdivision applications shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 10, “Subdivision Standards,” and all other applicable provisions of the Code. For minor subdivisions, the EVPC shall also find that approval will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code.
Below is a review from various agencies:
1. Water. Existing water service is provided to Lot 1B. Lot 1A has a water main located near the northeast corner of the proposed lot on the opposite side (east) of Lakewood Court.
2. Sanitary Sewer. Existing sewer service is provided to Lot 1B. There is a sewer main along the right of way on the west side of Lakewood Court that can be tapped for Lot 1A.
3. Access. Access to Lot 1A and 1B will use the existing Lakewood Court right-of- way. Both proposed lots have adequate right-of-way frontage.
4. Sidewalk/Trails. N/A.
5. Mapped Hazard Areas. The subject property is not within flood or geologic hazard areas. Any new construction for single-family residences will be required to comply with Larimer County’s wildfire mitigation requirements at the time of building permit.
6. Comprehensive Plan. The property is located within the Carriage Hills/Mary’s Lake Planning Sub-Area. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes existing land uses as being mixed between agricultural, single-family, accommodations, and open space uses. The Comprehensive Plan’s policy priority is to maintain the open, relatively undeveloped, meadow lands, to preserve visual resources. Due to limited water resources, the Comprehensive Plan does not promote high density affordable housing or accommodations development. Being that Lot 1A would be designated RE, one single-family house could be developed, and this lot is rather treed the proposed subdivision fits within the Comprehensive Plan guidelines for this Board of Larimer County Commissioners, August 19th, 2019 sub-area. The proposed subdivision to create an additional single-family lot supports the following policies within 5.0 Housing: encourage a variety of housing types and pricing and encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods.
Written notices were mailed to adjacent property owners in accordance with EDVC General Notice Provisions. A legal notice was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette and the application is posted on the Town’s “Current Applications” webpage. The applicant has also posted a “Development Proposal under Review” sign on the property. As of August 2, 2019, two written public comments have been received for this application package. Both letters were in support of the minor subdivision. All written comments are posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications .
The Estes Valley Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of Larimer County Commissioners approve the Mary’s Lake Estates Minor Subdivision Plat on July 16, 2019.
4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING “SELF-SERVICE MINI STORAGE” IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: This measure is a review the adoption of the proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §4.4 (Special Review Uses): amendment to the Special Review Use regulations regarding the Permitted Uses. Specifically, the proposed amendment would simply add the self-service mini-storage use to be allowed in the CO (Outlying Commercial) zoning district following the S1 review process. The amendment restricts allowing self-service mini-storage facilities on major arterial streets or highway, consistent with the limited warehouse and storage use.
It appears that when the EVDC was adopted in November 1999, self-service mini-storage uses were prohibited in the CO zoning District. The S1 special review was added to the CO zoning district in June 2017 for limited warehouse and storage uses but was not added for the self-service mini-storage use. Estes Park currently has thirteen self-service mini-storage facilities in the Estes Valley.
Seven of these facilities are zoned CO-Outlying Commercial. These facilities currently are legally non-conforming. With this status, they are unable to expand their businesses. However, limited warehouse and storage use is allowed with S1 review. Not including self-service mini-storage in the amendment, to be allowed with an S1 review, was an oversight in 2000 that needs to be corrected. This will bring the seven facilities in the CO zoning district into compliance with the code and they would no longer be considered non-conforming. If adopted the measure would have several impacts: bring existing self-service mini-storage facilities that are currently non-conforming into compliance with zoning regulations; allows discretion of location to remain in the same review process (S1); allows existing non-conforming facilities to expand their business with the S1 review and using the S1 process; and allows conditions to be set on the projects to minimize impact to neighboring businesses or owners.
The proposed amendment will not require any additional resources or have any financial impact on the Town. To date, public interest in the proposed amendment has been low.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve items 2, 3 and 4 of the Consent Agenda as outlined.
Motion carried 2-0.
1. TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROHIBIT GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES IN MULTIPLE-LOT SUBDIVISIONS AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS: Claire Kreycik, Town of Estes Park. Ms. Kreycik reported to the Board that the measure involves proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Specifically, the amendment deals with Chapter 7, Adequate Public Facilities and Appendix D, Street Design and Construction Standards to ensure that residential developments do not install security gates and other barriers to safe vehicular access.
Ms. Kreycik noted that the Town has a policy priority of ensuring that all development within Estes Valley have “safe and adequate access” to paved roads, both for transportation connectivity as well as for emergency services access. She stated that the Code Amendment would expand and clarify this policy objective, and specifically prevent the development of “gated communities” within Estes Valley to mitigate public safety and security risks.
Ms. Kreycik reported that specifically, the language prohibits the use of gate-controlled access to residential single-family subdivisions, apartment complexes, or condominium developments. Additionally, the Amendment would forbid the installation of any security barrier that blocks public right-of-way or public access easements. Lastly, the Amendment would restrict private entrances to multi-family apartment complexes or similar concentrations of dwellings along private driveways.
Under the proposed change, commercial and industrial facilities would continue to have gated private driveway capability in the Code. Individual single-family dwellings could continue to have gates across driveways as long as the gate-controlled access serves only one house. The Amendment would also provide for certain legitimate exceptions, such as public-safety-authorized gates on public streets for inclement weather, temporary street closures for special events, or for maintenance work.
Ms. Kreycik noted that the proposed Code Amendment has support from Estes Park Police Department, Estes Park Health (EMS), Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and the Larimer County Engineering Department. She also outlined the primary goals of the amendment which are to:
· make the community more visible to law enforcement and patrol.
· facilitate response to natural disasters, like fire or flood.
· shorten emergency response times, ensuring safety especially for individuals who may need immediate attention while in a vulnerable state, such as children and the elderly.
There was a discussion between the Board and staff as to the presence of gated communities currently located in Estes Park. Staff noted there are no known single-family residential subdivisions with gated access within town limits; however, four exist within the Estes Valley Planning Area and one more has been proposed. Cliff Road and Terrance Lane off Highway 66 have a gate on both access points that allows multiple locks. Additionally, Clara Drive near the Gem Lake Trailhead has a gate on the single driveway and they too have multiple locks on the chains. Off Dry Gulch Road, the Eagle Rock School, which is partially residential, has an unmanned gate to restrict free access to their private facility and Lory Lane has an unmanned gate that allows admittance through a livestock fence which surrounds the neighborhood. Additionally, the Hillcrest Estates subdivision has indicated at a pre-application meeting that they would be interested in installing secured gated access, but to date have not pursued an amended plat or building permit as such.
Staff reported that current secured gate accessways would be able to continue as legally non-conforming or “grandfathered” facilities, but as with other non-conformities, removal or major repairs or replacement may not allow them to remain in place. As noted, there are no restrictions on gates controlling access to private driveways accessing single family dwellings in the development code or the municipal code. Gates on private driveways are controlled by neighborhood covenants.
There was additional discussion between the Board and staff regarding interest from the public on the issue. Ms. Kreycik reported that the Town had received comment from one member of the community and that those concerns had been addressed.
Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to public comment. Jerry Bennet addressed the Board. Mr. Bennet noted that he believes manned security gates should be exempt as there would always be someone present to address any concerns. Additionally, Mr. Bennet noted that these communities/gates are on private property and he believes residents should have the ability to protect their property.
The Board invited Ms. Kreycik to come back to the podium. There was a discussion regarding manned gates. Ms. Kreycik noted that while many communities start off by having manned security gates that often they convert over to unmanned gates. Additionally, there was a discussion between the Board and staff regarding the Land Use Code. Staff noted that the Larimer County Land Use Code dictates that gated public roads are prohibited and gated private roads are prohibited unless appealed to and approved by the Board of County Commissioners, after meeting a series of criteria lined out in §8.14.1. These criteria include:
1. The subject road is a private road and all owners of property having a legally established right to access via the private road have approved gating the road;
2. The standards for private roads in Subsection 8.14.2.M are met;
3. The appeal request has been referred to the applicable fire protection entity and the sheriff's department, emergency services for their review and comment, and such c comments have been duly considered; and
4. The design provides for adequate vehicle stacking distance and turn around.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioner approve the amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in text amendment Exhibit A as recommended by staff.
Motion carried 2-0
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2019
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS MEETING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Lorenda Volker, Assistant County Manager. Chair Donnelly presided and Commissioner Kefalas was present. Commissioner Johnson was excused. Also present were: Brenda Gimeson, Commissioners’ Office; and Elizabeth Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Donnelly opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following members of the public addressed the Board: Sonia Koetting, Marda Turman, Tom Rhodes, Cory Carroll, Doug Henderson, Bryce Schoetzel, Deb Bjork, Ed Behan and Elizabeth Hudetz.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 12, 2019:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of August 12, 2019.
Motion carried 2-0.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 26, 2019: Ms. Gimeson reviewed the schedule for the upcoming week with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
ABATEMENTS: Recommended Denial Calvin & Janet A. Warneck- R0488054/94194-05-014 (2017/2018)
08202019A001 DRAINAGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND GENESIS PROJECT OF FORT COLLINS
08202019A002 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND ROCK-SOLID SOLUTIONS CORPORATION
08202019D001 CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENT
08202019R001 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ARBITRATORS TO HEAR APPEALS OF LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION DECISIONS
MISCELLANEOUS: Funding for Ongoing Clean-up Cost At 860 4th Street SE, Loveland; Request for Approval to Enter Upon Lands; Recommended Appointment to Red Feather Lakes Planning Advisory Committee: Sean Dougherty.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as published
Motion carried 2-0
5. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS’ GUESTS: The Commissioner’s did not have any guests.
6 . ALTERATION OF BUILDING PERMIT FEE TABLE 1-A TO INCLUDE SHORT-TERM RENTALS: Eric Fried, Chief Building Official. Mr. Fried reported to the Board that the existing building permit fee table adopted by the Board of Commissioners does not include a set fee for short-term rentals, only for Vacation Homes within Estes Valley. As discussed with the Board at a work session, a set fee of $300 will simplify applications for customers and staff while allowing cost recovery for building permit processing, plan review, travel and inspections.
Mr. Fried noted that this measure amends the fee table to include a fee for short-term rental conversion building permits outside of Estes Valley. This proposed fee is a higher than within Estes Valley, due to increased experience with how much time is required for these kinds of units, and increased travel costs countywide. This will allow County Building to recover its costs for providing this service and will also allow for a simple, consistent, reasonable fee for applicants.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the addition of Line 11 to Building Fee-Table 1-A to include a $300.00 fee for Short-term Rental Conversion permits.
Motion passed 2-0
The Board took a brief recess.
7. COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Ms. Volker updated the Board on upcoming projects and activities.
8. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board detailed their attendance at events during the previous week.
With there no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:45 am.
TURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 2019
COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENT
The Board of County Commissioners met at 4:15 p.m., with Linda Hoffman, County Manager. Chair Donnelly presided and Commissioner Kefalas was present. Commissioner Johnson joined the meeting by phone. Also present were: Bob Overbeck, County Assessor and Lisa Thieme, Deputy Assessor; Stephanie Grosskopf and Nancy Testory, Clerk and Recorder’s Department; and Elizabeth Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Donnelly noted the meeting was to examine and certify that all of the valuations changes ordered by the County Board of Equalization have been incorporated and the abstract of completion signed by the assessor.
There was a discussion between the Board, the Assessor and staff that today’s action by the Board was a certification of the work completed during the weeks of hearings by the Board of Equalization referees.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve, in recognition of the statutory requirements for the tax roll, that the Chair, examine and certify that all valuation changes ordered by the County Board of Equalization have been incorporated, and sign the Abstract of Assessment upon its completion by the Assessor.
Motion carried 3-0.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Elizabeth Carter, Deputy Clerk