Loveland Bike Trail
 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1997

LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR CASTILLON'S LLC,

DBA CASTILLON'S LOUNGE:

(#263)

The Board of County Commissioners met in regular session at 2:00 p.m. with County Attorney George Hass, to consider the liquor license application made by Castillon's LLC, dba Castillon's Lounge. Chair Disney presided and Commissioner Clarke was present. Recording Clerk, Gael Cookman.

Mr. Hass reviewed the application and called the applicant, Mr. Eloy Castillon, to be sworn in by Chair Disney. Mr. Hass presented exhibits A and B, which included photos of posting the notice of application at the establishment and petitions indicating the neighborhoods desire to have this establishment in their vicinity; he also noted that there was no one in the audience in opposition to this license being granted. Mr. Hass asked Mr. Castillon if he was familiar with the Colorado Liquor Code; Mr. Castillon stated that he was familiar with the Code and that he and his employees had attended training provided by the State Liquor Enforcement with respect to selling alcoholic beverages. Commissioner Clarke questioned the type of establishment involved. Mr. Hass explained that it is currently a BrewPub; however, Mr. Castillon is applying for a Hotel Restaurant license and, if the Commissioners approve this application, the brewery portion of this establishment would have to cease operation. Mr. Hass further explained that the previous owner, Mr. Joseph Neckel, is currently operating the brewery and is aware that once Mr. Castillon receives the Hotel Restaurant license, he will have to stop brewing immediately. Mr. Hass also noted for the record that Mr. Neckel was invited to this hearing and he decided not to attend. Commissioner Clarke reiterated to Mr. Castillon that once the Hotel Restaurant license is issued, the brewing on this premises will have to stop, and if it continues, Mr. Castillon's Hotel Restaurant license could be revoked. Mr. Castillon assured the Commissioners that he would comply with this stipulation.

This matter coming on to be heard this 10th day of November, 1997 as an application from Castillon's LLC, dba Castillon's Lounge, for a Hotel Restaurant Liquor License, and the Board of County Commissioners having heard the testimony and evidence has considered the same, and being fully advised on the premises, find that the requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants indicate that the said license should be granted. Therefore, it is ordered that a Colorado Liquor License be granted to Castillon's LLC, dba Castillon's Lounge, located at 320 Link Lane, Fort Collins, Colorado.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the application of Castillon's LLC, dba Castillon's Lounge, for a Hotel Restaurant Liquor License, located at 320 Link Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80524, in the County of Larimer, and allow the license to be granted.

Motion carried 2-0.

Meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

LAND-USE PLANNING MEETING

(#263)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Disney presided and Commissioner Clarke was present. Also present were: Carol Evans, Richael Michels, and Dan Tasman, Planners II; John Pedas, Code Enforcement Officer; Lonnie Sheldon, Project Engineer; and Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner; and George Hass; County Attorney. Recording Clerk, Sherry Graves.

Chair Disney noted that the following are consent items and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners or members of the audience.

1. CROZIER MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION #1, LOTS 1 AND 2, AMENDED PLAT

(#97-SA1130FPO): 32-06-71 - EAST SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 43, 3 MILES

NORTH OF DRAKE; 1.7 ACRES; 1 LOT; O-OPEN ZONING

This is a request for an Amended Plat to combine two lots. Staff findings include: 1) The proposed Amended Plat is in compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution, and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution; 2) The Amended Plat is compatible with other development in the surrounding area; 3) Approval of the Amended Plat will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure; 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the Amended Plat.

The staff recommendation is for approval of the Crozier Mountain Subdivision #1, Lots 1 and 2 Amended Plat, with the following conditions: 1) The concerns of reviewing agencies and departments are addressed; 2) Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures 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 Planning 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.

2. GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 6TH FILING, LOTS 56 & 56, AMENDED

PLAT: E 1/2 15-09-72 - MANHEAD MOUNTAIN DRIVE - 5.06 ACRES;

1 LOT; E-ESTATE ZONING

This is a request for an Amended Plat to combine two lots and vacate a utility easement. Staff findings are: 1) The proposed Amended Plat is in compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution, and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution; 2) The Amended Plat is compatible with other development in the surrounding area; 3) Approval of the Amended Plat will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure; 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the Amended Plat.

The staff recommendation is for approval of Glacier View Meadows 6th Filing, Lots 56 and 57 Amended Plat, with the following conditions: 1) The concerns of reviewing agencies and departments are addressed; 2) Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of residential structures 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 Planning Department. As an alternative, a building 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.

3. FAIRWAY ESTATES SUBDIVISION 2ND FILING AMENDED PLAT OF

LOTS 18 AND 19; NW 1/4 - 01-06-69 - SOUTHEAST OF THE

INTERSECTION OF HARMONY ROAD AND COLLEGE AVENUE

(U. S. HIGHWAY 287); 5.08 ACRES; FA-1 FARMING ZONING

This is a request for an Amended Plat to adjust the common lot line between Lots 18 and 19. Staff findings include: 1) Fairway Estates Subdivision 2nd Filing was recorded in 1962; the proposed Amended Plat would adjust the common boundary between Lots 18 and 19; 2) All utility companies serving the site and the Larimer County Health and Engineering Departments have reviewed the request and stated no objection; 3) Approval of the proposed Amended Plat should not result in any significant negative impacts on surrounding properties, services, transportation or the natural environment. The staff recommendation is for approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 18 and 19, Fairway Estates Subdivision 2nd Filing.

4. WESTERN PCS/SPRINT PCS SPECIAL REVIEW CHANGE OF

CONDITIONS (#97-ZR1105): NW 1/4 10-5-68 - WEST SIDE OF I-25

NORTH OF U. S. HIGHWAY 34 AT THE CLOVERLEAF DOG TRACK;

AP-AIRPORT ZONING

This is a request for changes to a previously approved Special Review (#96-ZR0910) to allow alternate radio equipment than originally approved to be placed in a different location on the mechanical penthouse of the race track structure at Cloverleaf Dog Track. Staff findings are: 1) The proposed radio equipment will be located so as to cause the least amount of visual impacts; 2) Approval of this change of conditions will facilitate the use of personal communication systems in Larimer County; 3) Approval of this proposal, with certain conditions, will not interfere with airport or other communications facilities in the area; 4) The approval of this change of conditions will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of existing residents.

The staff recommendation is for approval of the Western PCS/Sprint PCS Special Review Change of Conditions, with the following conditions: 1) All previous conditions of approval of the Western PCS Special Review (#96-ZR0910) apply to this change of condition; 2) The fence to be constructed around the equipment area should be no taller than is necessary to screen the equipment and, if painted, the paint must be kept in good condition without peeling, chipping or other deterioration.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendations and approve the Crozier Mountain Subdivision #1, Lots 1 & 2, Amended Plat (#97-SA1130FPO); Glacier View Meadows 6th Filing, Lots 56 & 57, Amended Plat (#97-SA1131FPO); Fairway Estates 2nd Filing, Lots 18 & 19, Amended Plat (#97-SA1137); and Western PCS/Sprint PCS Special Review Change of Conditions (#97-ZR1105); each, with the conditions as outlined.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

5. VRANJES MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (#97-EC1027):

36-04-69 - 2400 BREHN ROAD, 1500' NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 9;

10 ACRES; 2 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING ZONING

This is a request for a Minor Residential Development to divide a 10-acre lot into two lots of 2.3 acres and 7.7 acres for single family residential use. Mr. Tasman noted that this item was heard by the Board on October 20, 1997 and at that time was tabled until today's date to allow time to resolve the access question; he noted that a letter was just received from the applicant's attorney listing the reasons why, in his opinion, the property is accessible to the public. Staff findings are: 1) The proposed Vranjes MRD is in compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution, and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution; 2) Brehm Road is a private non-exclusive easement held in common by the adjacent property owners; it is debatable whether this easement is considered a direct access to the County road system; 3) Approval of the Vranjes MRD will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure. However, additional subdivision of properties located on Brehm Road may result in the need for road improvements; 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the MRD.

The staff recommendation is for approval of the Vranjes MRD, with the following amended conditions: 1) The property owner must obtain the written opinion of an attorney, licensed in Colorado and experienced in land use law, which states that: a) The property is directly accessible from the public right-of-way, per Subdivision Resolution Section 3.2 C A 5; b) The easement (Brehm Road) providing access to the property is publicly accessible; c) The easement declaration and quit claim deed do not prevent adjacent property owners from subdividing their property; d) The owner of a lot created from the division of this property has the right to access the easement; e) There are no covenants or deed restrictions that prevent the property owner from subdividing their property in accordance with the Subdivision Resolution; 2) The following notes shall be placed on the Final Plat: a) Park fees and school fees will be collected at the time of building permit for new residential structures. The fees collected shall be the current fees at the time of building permit application; b) The Berthoud Fire Prevention Bureau request that a fire hydrant be located within 500' of any residential structure, 15' from the curb, with no obstructions within 3'. The fire hydrant shall be a 24015 Mueller Improved or an approved equal, and must meet the 1991 UFC requirement of 1000 gpm. If sufficient flow is unavailable, a residential sprinkler system shall be installed; c) This property is limited to single-family residential use and related accessory uses allowed in the zoning district; only one dwelling unit is allowed on a lot; d) Larimer County is not able to mitigate wildlife problems such as skunks, snakes, prairie dogs, and others. Neither Larimer County nor the State Division of Wildlife is responsible for damage or control of wildlife. Mosquitoes may be a nuisance on this property. Larimer County is not responsible for mosquito abatement; spraying or other control of mosquitoes will be the responsibility of the property owner. There are existing agricultural activities in this area that may produce dust, odors and noise; Larimer County will not take any action to stop or hinder legal agricultural uses of nearby properties; 3) Engineered footing and foundation plans shall be required for any new construction in the subdivision; 4) Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures 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 Planning 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; 5) The lot owners shall agree to pay their fair share of the financial burdens in the maintenance of the Brehm Road easement; 6) A minimum setback for all buildings and accessory structures of 50' shall apply to the north boundary line of Lots 1 and 2. Buildings and accessory structures on Lot 1 must be placed as close to the south property line as possible, outside the 5' minimum side yard setback.

Applicant Pete Vranjes stated he has no problem with the amended conditions. The following adjacent property owners addressed the Board with their concerns: Joe Bath, Joseph Piesco, Charlene Corey, and Kern Scott. Mr. Bath asked if an attorney can make a legal determination under Colorado State Statutes as to the legality of an easement and is an attorney's opinion strong enough to declare a road public? Mr. Hass responded that the letter from the applicant's attorney is very thorough and is sufficient evidence for the Board to determine that the condition is met that the property have access to a public road. Mr. Piesco stated that he is opposed to any further subdivisions along Brehm Road. Ms. Corey stated that approval of this request opens the door for more subdivisions, which they don't want. Mr. Scott stated he is confused because they looked into subdividing their place a few years ago and they were told that they had to have direct access to the public road and this request sounds like exceptions are being made to the rules. Mr. Vranjes stated that over the past few years, during which time they have been working on this proposal, they have gone through all the steps and procedures required by Larimer County to make sure they were within their legal right to split this property.

Commissioner Clarke stated that he appreciates the comments from the neighbors; however, he noted that this land is zoned FA-1 and what the applicant is requesting is allowed and if he decided to go through the full subdivision process, four lots could be created on this property. Chair Disney concurred.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendation and approve the Vranjes Minor Residential Development (#97-EC1027CRO), with the conditions as amended.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

6. WOOLDRIDGE ZONING VIOLATION (#97-ZV1040): 13-05-69 - 1050

EAST 7TH STREET IN LOVELAND

This alleged violation is for operating a storage lot for fence materials in a residential neighborhood, zoned R-Residential. Mr. Pedas provided the background information regarding the alleged violation, reviewed the major issues and concerns, and submitted photos and a map of the site, as well as copies of pages from the Loveland phone book advertising the business at this location. Mr. Pedas stated that in August 1991 their office received a complaint about the "fence company" activity on the property, which is an island of the County surrounded by the City of Loveland; subsequently, the property owner was notified that the zoning in the area is R-Residential and the activity ceased. In May 1997, a complaint was called in relative to a hog feeding operation on the site and fence company activity once again had commenced. Staff findings are: 1) The subject property is zoned R-Residential District; 2) The R-Residential zone does not permit commercial/industrial uses; 3) Use of the property to store fence materials is inconsistent with the residential character of the neighborhood; 4) Use of the property for outdoor storage impairs the public health and safety by creating undesirable traffic and noise; 5) Continued use of the property inconsistent with the zoning may affect property values in the neighborhood. The staff recommendation is to find that a violation exists, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

Property owner Jim Wooldridge addressed the Board and agreed that he has been running a fence business in that they store fence materials; he noted that when Mr. Pedas visited the site, he informed him that the materials in the yard were contracted to go on various jobs and that once the materials were sent out, they would no longer store any materials. Mr. Wooldridge stated that they have located another lot in Weld County and they are moving the business and possibly they might also have a retail store on the south end of Loveland after the first of the year; he noted that his full intention is to comply. Mr. Wooldridge stated that the hog feeding was a 4-H project for his kids and he assured the Board that the hogs won't be back. Edward Van Norman, adjacent property owner, stated that his major concern is safety; he noted that there was an 18-wheeler truck delivering supplies, as recent as last Tuesday, and compliance doesn't seem to be happening - it is a residential neighborhood and he wants to keep it that way. Mr. Wooldridge concurred that a truck was in there last Tuesday and the material that was delivered went right out; he agreed that he is also concerned about safety.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendation and find that a violation exists, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The hearing adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1997

LEGAL MATTERS

(#261 @ 500)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 8:30 a.m. in regular session with Assistant County Attorney, Jeannine Haag. Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Olson were present. Also present were: Keith Schuett, Planner II; John Jensen, Subject Property Owner; and Russ Sanford, Attorney for Mr. Jensen. Recording Clerk, Sherry Graves.

Ms. Haag stated that the purpose of today's meeting with the Board is for clarification of some of the conditions of approval for the Jensen Boat & Recreation Center, which was approved on November 13, 1995; she noted that the applicant is proceeding toward Final Plat approval and some of the conditions included having conservation easements and covenants on various parts of the property, and during the process of reviewing the related documents, Mr. Schuett and the applicant have some questions. Ms. Haag stated that the proposal was to subdivide 63.27 acres into two parcels of 25.39 and 37.88 acres and rezone one lot from FA-1 Farming to C-Commercial to allow a boat sales & service operation, with the adjoining lake being used for test driving, boating safety classes, fishing and scuba classes, and the other parcel to remain in agriculture with a home and various out buildings; she noted that the questions which have arisen are with regard to the types of commercial uses allowed. Mr. Sanford noted that this problem has arisen because the conditions listed in the Minutes from the hearing and those listed in the Findings and Resolution are different with regard to allowed sales and whether or not the home on the property can be remodeled and enlarged. The uses allowed under FA-1 Farming were reviewed; much discussion followed. Mr. Schuett stated that the F & R reflects what was presented and represented during the hearing. After the Board's recollection of the hearing, they said their intentions were that the Jensens may continue their farming operation, but not subdivide, they may improve and enlarge the existing home, and there are to be no large motorized RV sales, as stated in condition #20 in the Minutes and not as stated in the F & R under condition #21.

The meeting recessed at 9:15 a.m.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#261 - Side B & #263 @ 600)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 9:15 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster. Chair Disney presided and Commissioners Clarke and Olson were present. Also present were: Ginny Riley, Ann Keire, and Doreen Scott from Community Services; Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Janelle Henderson, Director Natural Resources; Russ Legg, Chief Planner; Steve Miller, Larimer County Assessor; Donna Hart, Staff Services Manager for Commissioner's Office; Deni LaRue, Community Information Manager; Bob Keister, Budget Manager; County Attorney George Hass; and Assistant County Attorney Jeannine Haag. Recording Clerk, Sherry Graves.

1. OPEN SESSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The following persons addressed the Board during the open session for public comment: Pamela Wubben and Robin Riley. Ms. Wubben came to talk to the Board about her children; she noted that in December of 1993 the District Court gave her ex-husband custody of her children with orders for visitation, mandatory schooling and counseling. In April 1995, there were permanent orders issued which included the above, as well as weekly counseling with Social Services as an agent for judicial supervision; she noted that her purpose in coming today is to request assistance from the Board in having Social Services follow the orders of the Court. Ms. Wubben stated that her children are not in class, have not been tested, and have had a total of 15 minutes each of counseling in four years. Ms. Wubben stated that the local homeowner's association is suing the children's father because the home is so filthy and she noted that for over three years, six church organizations and 35 individuals have provided continuous food, clothing and personal items for her children and a number of these individuals have contacted Social Services to ask if they would check on their well-being as the children appear to be in great need; however, Social Services claims it has never received a report or complaint about the children's well-being. Ms. Wubben stated that she asked to meet with the Social Services Director, Kathy Snell, and she agreed to meet with her; when she arrived, however, a Sheriff Investigator was there and Ms. Snell refused to meet with her because she claimed there was no need. Ms. Wubben stated she is here to resolve the pain and suffering which the malice and behavior of Social Services has inflicted on her children; she noted also that she has asked for copies of the Social Services records to provide them to outside agencies, but she has received nothing. Ms. Wubben submitted a letter from Ms. Snell stating that Detective McCosh investigated the situation and found no abuse or neglect in the home and that Social Services cannot allow themselves to be placed in a position where it is perceived they are harassing the children's father. Ms. Wubben suggested that a planning meeting between Social Services, the Judge, the Commissioners, and herself might be a way to resolve the issue and get the children out of danger.

Chair Disney stated he received an E-Mail from Child and Family Services Administrator William Baird informing him of the visit to the home by Pat McCosh and he stated that the condition of the home was acceptable and he talked to the children alone and they seemed fine and Mr. Wubben was cooperative. Ms. Wubben stated that Mr. McCosh is not telling the truth because he is covering for Social Services. Mr. Lancaster offered to contact Ms. Snell and follow up on this situation and find out about the records and about the children not being in school.

Mr. Riley wanted to discuss the Larimer County Taft Center with the Board; Chair Disney informed Mr. Riley that the Board cannot discuss this matter with him because if it should ever come before the Commissioners as a land-use item it would be considered ex parte communication and the matter would be thrown out.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 3, 1997:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for the week of November 4, 1997, as submitted.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

3. APPROVAL OF SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 17, 1997:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule for the week of November 17, 1997, as submitted and amended.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following appointments and documents as listed on the Consent Agenda on Document Review for November 12, 1997:

FAIR BOARD: The following appointment and reappointments were made to the Fair Board, each for a 3-year term beginning December 1, 1997 and expiring November 30, 2000: Gary Hausman was newly appointed and Michael DiTullio, Jerry Yoder, Rod Johnson, and Edward Aitken were reappointed.

ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION: (A new seven member joint Board between Larimer County and Estes Park, consisting of four County members and three Estes Park members): County appointments, each for a one-year term beginning December 31, 1997 and expiring December 31, 1998, were Dominick Taddonio, Joyce Kitchen, and William Baird. The Estes Park appointment for a three-year term beginning December 31, 1997 and expiring December 31, 2000 was Wendell Amos.

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT were approved for the following, as recommended by the County Assessor: John E. Cronin; Keith A. Sharf; Loveland Arts Center Limited Liability Co.; Cottonwood Square Partnership; Dwight & Dixie Hayden; Larry & Katherine Brott; Maryann Albert Collins; David A. Chance & Pamela Sheeser; Robert E. & Corinne Schellenberg; Loveland Habitat for Humanity, Inc.; Dale E. Griffith; Henry Ramos, Jr. and Christopher Caffes; Consumer Loan Center; Steve's Cars; Loveland Family Medicine; Sports Center of Fort Collins; ADP Credit Corp.; and Novatech Corp.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT: Amended Plat of Lots 18 and 19 in Fairway Estates. LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to the Sun Deck Restaurant - 6% - Estes Park, CO. and the Summit Restaurant - 6% - Loveland, CO. County approval was granted to: Red Feather Liquors - 6% - Red Feather, CO.; Young's Liquor - 6% - Fort Collins, CO.; Rock Inn Steakhouse - 6% - Estes Park, CO.; and Columbine Lodge - 3.2% - Bellvue, CO.

A97-149 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF

CONSULTANT SERVICES - PHASE III ESTES VALLEY

DEVELOPMENT CODE BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK

A97-150 FOOD DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLORADO

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (Provision for the

Emergency Food Assistance Program)

C97-54 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BELMIRE SPRINKLER AND

LANDSCAPING, INC. AND NAMAQUA HILLS GENERAL

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 8 (Snow Removal for

Namaqua Hills GID #8)

R97-160s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LUDWICK

FARM PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN

Motion carried 3 - 0.

5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHILD CARE CAPACITY BUILDING GRANT: Ms. Riley requested Board approval to access grant funds allocated in the amount of $100,000 from the State of Colorado Department of Human Services for Child Care Capacity Building, which will increase the number of child care slots available to low income families in Larimer County by 230. Ms. Riley stated that in response to a request for proposals received by the County Department of Community Services, a group of professionals from both the County and community agencies was convened to research and apply for the grant. The grant application was submitted and Larimer County was chosen to receive $100,000; however, in order for the State to implement contracts quickly, a waiver was received for a "Boiler Plate" contract which would allow the State to approve County contracts without having to send individual contracts through the entire State contract approval process. Ms. Riley stated that use of this "Boiler Plate" contract would only be possible without any changes by the County to the original contract; she noted that the contract was sent to the County Attorney's Office for approval and Ms. Haag made three changes to the contract, which are not "high risk" changes and are beneficial to both the County and the State. Since any changes to the original contract voids the waiver, Ms. Haag suggested that both contracts be brought before the Commissioners for a "business" decision regarding which contract to sign. Ms. Riley reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of both contracts and the changes suggested by Ms. Haag; much discussion followed.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the original Child Care Capacity Building Grant, as submitted by the State, and authorize the Chair to sign same.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

C97-55 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE LARIMER COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND THE STATE OF COLORADO,

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF CHILD CARE

6. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR TERRY COVE PUD: Mr. Helmick requested Board approval of the Final Plat and Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the Terry Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD); he explained that the way the plat is structured, two phases are built into a single plat and there will be a condition that obligates them to submit an Amended Plat to plat the patio homes within three years (which is where the mobile home park exists). Mr. Helmick informed the Board that if they do not do that within three years, they may be subject to changes in the regulations and have to go back through the process for development.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Final Plat and Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the Terry Cove Planned Unit Development, and authorize the Chair to sign both documents.

Motion carried 2 - 0; Commissioner Olson did not vote on this matter because she was not a Commissioner when the Terry Cove PUD was originally approved.

A97-151 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND TERRY COVE, INC.

7. PROCLAMATION OF AMERICA RECYCLES DAY: Ms. Henderson requested Board approval of a Proclamation for America Recycles Day on November 15, 1997; she noted that this has become a National event. Chair Disney read the Proclamation aloud.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim November 15, 1997 as America Recycles Day in Larimer County, and authorize the Chair to sign the Proclamation.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

8. PROPOSAL TO INCREASE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES: Mr. Legg requested Board approval to adopt new fees for applications and petitions for Development Review, effective January 1, 1998; he submitted a table reflecting the current fees and the proposed 1998 changes and he noted that there are two new fees: 1) $200 for waiver requests inside the Urban Growth Area (UGA) and 2) A supplemental surcharge on preliminary plats and final plats in the UGA. Mr. Legg noted that requests for minor residential developments will increase significantly from $500 to $1600 because they are a one-stop application and this amount is about one/third the cost of a full subdivision review. Mr. Legg stated that these changes represent an adjustment of the fees to respond to the increased labor costs, the inadequacy of some of the fees, and the increased staff time involved in some processes; he noted that the fees of other jurisdictions were surveyed in 1994 and re-evaluated in 1996 and 1997 and the proposed increases are consistent with both the 1994 survey and the 1996 and 1997 analysis.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed 1998 Development Review fees, with the notation that the $400 surcharge on UGA submittal shall be applied at public submittal stage for preliminary plats, rezoning & special reviews and at final plat stages for subdivision and PUD's; these fee changes to become effective January 1, 1998.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

9. DISCUSSION OF ASSESSOR'S 1997 BUDGET: Mr. Miller, accompanied by most of the Assessor's staff, addressed the Board regarding the Assessor's Office net budget shortfall of $103,000; he submitted a list of 1997 budget expenditure reductions the Assessor's Office has made for a total of $49,401, leaving a balance of approximately $53,000. Mr. Miller proposed that the Board either grant a $53,000 supplement for this year or reduce his 1998 budget request by that amount. Mr. Miller explained that this situation arose because 1997 was a reappraisal year and the operating budget of $211,000 wasn't enough. Mr. Miller submitted two charts showing the operating costs per single family residence and the actual Assessor operating expenses from 1989 through 1996 and the budgeted 1997 expenses; he noted that operating costs are always much larger in reappraisal years. Mr. Miller informed the Board that his staff spends a lot of time on the models before the values go out to make sure they are right, and during the protest period, he hires extra people to assist the property owners in looking up values, etc., and they extend their office hours during May to accommodate those property owners; he noted that in providing this customer service, much over-time is incurred. Mr. Miller continued that following the first protest period, they then proceed through the determination phase in which the protests are reviewed, and this continues on through the Board of Equalization hearings, Board of Assessment Appeals, etc. Mr. Miller stated that recently he realized that he doesn't have to provide all of this additional customer service, he can go with the best he has in April, deal with the protests the best he can, and not incur overtime, etc. Mr. Miller stated that in Larimer County the property owner is given many opportunities to make sure the value is right and the option of not doing a thorough job of making sure values are correct never ever occurred to him as a solution; he noted, however, that in reality this is a false solution because, if the property owner is not satisfied during the first protest period and continues on through the process, each stage gets more expensive.

Commissioner Olson stated that she realizes that the Assessor's Office staff is here today to show support for Mr. Miller, but she wanted them to hear that the Board told Mr. Miller and Ms. Dorris on October 3, 1997 that closing the office in December and balancing the Assessor's budget on the employees' back was not a choice, and the recent memo from them requesting a waiver of policy to do that really made her angry. A number of the employees stated that it was their decision to make that offer and they are here to help and support Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller stated that he submitted a budget amount of $270,000, but was given only $211,000. Mr. Keister explained that they had informed all the departments that they could not afford to bring County employees' salaries up to the 40th percentile in 1997 without asking every department to either reduce their budgets in some way, either operating or personnel, or to increase fees to give the County additional revenue; he noted that responses were received by all the departments except the Assessor's Office and so in order to put the budget together, they just calculated what his fair share would be and reduced every line item proportionately. Commissioner Clarke stated that the 5% cut was taken from operating because the Assessor did not respond to the Commissioners' request. Mr. Miller stated that he did not respond to their request and he informed them he could not go with less than his original request because it was a reappraisal year. Chair Disney stated that if Mr. Miller had come in at the outset of this shortfall and explained that it was a reappraisal year, his plea would not be falling on deaf ears. Much discussion followed.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners take the Assessor's request that the remaining $53,000 shortfall be taken from his '98 budget under advisement because there is not enough information available regarding his 1998 budget to make a decision at this time.

Under discussion of the motion, Commissioner Clarke suggested that the Board make this decision within one week and they asked the Assessor to resubmit his '98 budget with the adjustments in it as soon as possible; Mr. Miller stated he could have the revised budget in by the end of today.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

10. WORKSESSION:

-- Policy Worksession for Thursday, November 13, 1997: Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that the discussion items for tomorrow's Policy Worksession are: Discussion of Road and Bridge Policies, City Development Fee Charges, and Membership in CCI.

-- Thank-You Banner to Citizens for Response to Election: Mr. Lancaster asked the Board if they want to put up a "Thank You to the Citizens Banner "; the Board indicated their desire to erect a "Thank-you Banner. Ms. LaRue will contact the Citizens Committee for the Courthouse to ascertain if there is any money left for this banner.

-- Burning of Budget "B": Ms. LaRue asked the Board if they want to wait on the burning of Budget "B" until after the recount on November 24, 1997; the Board responded in the affirmative.

The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a. m.

_______________________________________

JIM DISNEY, CHAIR LARIMER COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

MYRNA J. RODENBERGER

LARIMER COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER

( S E A L )

ATTEST:

__________________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk

__________________________________________

Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk

JOINT HEARING OF THE LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

NOVEMBER 5th, 1997

MINUTES

Present were Commissioners Clarke, Disney, Olson, Dixon, Doten, Haimes, Korb, Rennels, Roark, Salg, and Wallace. Planning Commission Chairman Amos presided. Staff present were Larry Timm, Jill Bennett, Doug Ryan, and Jean O'Connor, recording secretary.

AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDAS: None

Chairman Amos introduced the Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners and staff in attendance. Commissioner Disney provided a brief background on the origin of PLUS and the citizen participation which brought the proposed Master Plan to this point. Chairman Amos read for the record, the names of individuals/ organizations/ districts whom had submitted comments in writing for the hearing. (see attachments)

ITEM #1 PROPOSED LARIMER COUNTY MASTER PLAN #97-RL1106

Mr. Timm gave a brief description of the proposal, highlights of the Plan, and key changes made to the proposal based on comments received on the draft Master Plan earlier in the year.

TESTIMONY:

Mr. Chuck Wanner, representative of Fort Collins City Council, stated the Council had the following concerns:

  • All new development in the GMA would be compatible with the municipalities adopted land use policy or plan. i.e current City Plan.
  • APF and services would be provided concurrently with development
  • All new residential rural development would be required clustering with 80% open space areas left for agricultural operations, natural areas or open lands
  • Future urban areas will only be allowed in community growth management areas in the designated urban areas identified in adopted area plans of cities in the county

Mr. Clark Mapes, 1117 Hillside Court, supports the Master Plan and the massive efforts put into the plan. Mr. Mapes had the following comment to make the plan even better:

  • The lack of mentioning "ex-urban" developments which occur in the farming zones. Current farming zones are around the municipalities of Fort Collins and Loveland with densities of 2.3 units per acre. The plan should mention the existence of these commuter subdivisions in order to legitimize them in the discussions of PLUS. Where rural land use is mentioned in the Master Plan, add "ex-urban" land use and provide the definition previously read.

Mr. Tom Bender, Larimer County Farm Bureau, Bellvue, stated the following concerns:

  • IGAs should be included with the mention of "fairness process" in the Master Plan
  • Section 6 - Resources and Environmental: the plan gives two different definitions for "wetland". The Army Corp. of Engineers definition is fairly scientific but the other is not.
  • Air Quality- need to hold the Federal Government accountable to the County. i.e large burns probably exceed county standards.
  • Water Quality and Quantity: what about science based watershed management?

Mr. Steve Furniss, 1321 Stonyhill Drive, appreciates all efforts to include citizen participation and hope the County continues this participation.

Mr. Brad Edwards, 2828 Cherry Lane, read his statement (see attached) and appriciates his questions being repeated and answered on November 12th. The folowing concerns were highlighted:

  • Why are guiding principles missing from the proposed Master Plan?
  • Were comments on the draft considered? When/how/ what was the answer?
  • CEFs discussed on pg. 2-4/5 but missing from the enabling principles in the back, why?
  • GM-2- where is the revenue going to come from?

Mr. Dan Nelson, staff stated Mr. Nelson had another appointment but would FAX his comments for the record. (None received to date)

Ms. Barbara Gonzales, League of Women Voters, read their statement and entered it for the record. Concerns were:

  • clustering would do nothing to protect air quality and little to preserve agriculture
  • how would open space in clusters be properly maintained
  • continued intense work on TDRs to offset the negative impact of urban sprawl and air quality, transportation and agriculture
  • please with the development of CEFs and hopeful the fees would shift the financial burden of growth caused capital improvements from the taxpayer to those who directly benefit from them.
  • Imperative to inform citizens of Larimer County of both sides (possibilities/limitations) of the issue on CEFs.
  • Home rule - to better achieve the benefit of impact fees, the League would like to participate in those discussions.
  • Please give great attention to completing the Code as soon as possible.
  • Commend annual monitoring and revision.

Mr. Alan Apt, 1406 Freedom Lane, thank the hundreds citizens of Larimer County for thousands of hours invested in the Master Plan. The document is impressive document in terms of verbiage and terminology and stated that actions speak louder than words and the Board of County Commissioners were on record stating the Master Plan was voluntary, however, "voluntary" won't manage growth. Concerns stated were:

  • The RLUP started giving small incremental units if people clustered as opposed to 35 acre subdivisions. This sounded logical, however, now it was understood that the units would be doubled. This increases the number of rural residents and no way to pay for the services needed.
  • Pg. 2.1- Growth Management: conflicts with the RLUP since the RLUP provides attractive incentives to convert agricultural land into more units.
  • Pg. 2.3- Intergovernmental Cooperation: while sitting on City Council for four years, the City was turned down on even minor revisions to the IGA repeatedly.
  • Pg.2.5- CEFs: "...will do..", "..shall consider..". inconsistent
  • Pg.5.6- no teeth in road improvement for new development.
  • Pg.6.13- Air quality: won't start for another three years, why?

These issues need to be addressed in the next 3-6 months.

Mr. Doug Kinsfaughter, 2706 Jager Court, favors the plan realizing it would be hard to adheare to from all viewpoints, but need to move forward.

Mr. Chris Lembcke, 8541 N CR 11, representing the Environmental Advisory Board, commend all involved in the master plan for the job done. The EAB, however, had these concerns:

  • Over reliance on clustering without a stated plan to consider things like agriculture lands, watersheds, wildlife habitats, migration corridors, etc.
  • PLUS would create a sprawl of clusters.

The EAB felt that only through planning the larger landscape scale that the full range of ecological processes could be protected.

The EAB would like to continue to work with the Steering Committee and suggest a task force be formed consisting of representatives from EAB, Ag groups, and others to accomplish the goal.

Mr. Kelly Ohlson, stated the Master Plan was mostly meaningless, and the Code would be what counts. The Plan has taken too long to date and the action plan has items that won't start for 3-4 years. Concerns stated were:

  • All talk no walk - language too vague
  • Almost anything decent or important from an environmental standpoint was deleted or rendered meaningless.
  • The Master Plan was a scam and fraud on the citizens of Larimer County-as written without serious changes the plan was close to meaningless, dishonest and fraudulent.
  • Remove his name from the credits- does not want to be associated with the document.

Mr. Greg Colton, little "C" of HAc, stated the plan was based on "fairness" and had these concerns:

  • Fairness for property owners was no down zoning and would "give up" nothing. The other side, existing citizens/taxpayers of the County, on the fairness side there was APFs, CEFs, and concurrency. But now, with the new court ruling, only a few limited fees authorized by the State. Without these promised fees, who was the plan fair to now? Not existing residents.
  • Impact fees- Steve Tool stated he would not support impact fees in the legislature, but Commissioner Clarke states "his friends" in the legislature say it would be a long hard road, but they would support them.
  • Why was the section 4.1.3, Courts and Law Enforcement, taken out? Schoold wasn't even included. At minimum the plan should stated that these impact fees should be perused aggressively.
  • Voluntary TDRs had not been proven to work.
  • Current State legislature makes the Plan worthless.

Ms. Donna Braginetz, 3817 N CR 25 E, was concerned the document did not specifically address ridge line development nor does the action plan. Why? What happened to the Front Range Mountain Backdrop project? She submitted a statement for the record (see attached).

Mr. John Smethurst, Loveland, stated that clusters in rural areas would be difficult to market and sell with the proposed 80/20 percentages and would like something else considered.

Mr. Greg Wild, 5600 W US Hwy. 34, strongly objected to the 80% open space requirement and its unfairness to property owners. He submitted a letter for the record (see attached). Mr. Wild read the definition of "down zoning" from the Real Estate Appraisal dictionary. Mr. Wild asked the Commissions to explain on November 12th the following scenario and how it would not be construed as "down zoning": 40 acres of land developed at 2.29 acres to accommodate septics, and receive the allowable number of units AND accommodate the 80% open space requirement? Mr. Wild further stated that after listening to the comments tonight, the Commissions had a thankless job, and as a citizen would like to thank all for what they've been doing.

Mr. Ramon Ajero, 3712 Sodeburg Drive, representing the Poudre Canyon Sierra Group, does not wish to dismissed the plan as a lost cause even though it was only marginally better than the current plan, and was willing to continue to participate in the process. He further stated that in part was here tonight to honor the tremendous amount of work, time and effort put forth by volunteers to get us to this point. Mr. Ajero submitted a letter for the record highlighting the following areas of concern:

  • CEFs- case law does not support the proposed broad range of fees- need to be more aggressive. Is the County pursuing legislation? Form a new task force to address - If not through CEFs, then how would this be accomplished?
  • TDRs- could be heavily relied on as a management tool, yet key aspects are not defined. I.e. sending area in Fossil Creek
  • Rural Conservation Development- clauses added to the definition regarding exceptions to the requirement for conservation easements (LU-5-s4) could defeat the intent of the RCD. It currently infers the open space would become future in fill. Is this the County's intent? Also, clarify the exceptions to the percentages of open space within an RCD. (LU-5-s3) What type of "community benefits" would qualify an development for such an exception?
  • RLUP- approaching the one year mark and is time to conduct an extensive performance review in order to determine if it is achieving its objectives. The review and changes must be made prior to any provision for the RLUP being incorporated into the Code. (LU-7-s1)
  • Environmental Protection System- concerns previously raised may or may not be addressed in the implementation action plan numbers 10a - 10d. EPS was not even mentioned in the text of chapter 6, guiding principles, or supporting strategies.
  • Stormwater runoff/ water quality- disappointed that the former implementation action item #18 regarding the adoption of water quality standards for stormwater management has been deleted.

Mr. Steve Phister, 531 Delclare, attended the symposium three years ago and doubted at that time that the plan would ever come to pass but it has. The Plan won't solve all problems for all persons, but does an excellent job of addressing common goals and it was summed up in the opening paragraph where it states the Plan is a "living document" and was something that would change and improve with time. He further stated that he appreciates the time everyone has put in to pull the document together.

Mr. Tom Jackson, 720 W Willox, stated that overall the Plan was a pretty good document, but the details would be in the implementation and writing of the Code. Mr. Jackson stated the following concerns:

  • 80/20 open space percentages too restrictive and should be decreased.
  • Save agriculture and don't forget that is a business, and there are parts of the County where it is not viable and this needs to be admitted.
  • Would like to see a study regarding growth paying its own way.

Ms. Kitty Wild, stated that if the Commissions would like 80% open space then get out your checkbooks.

With no further public testimony the hearing was closed to the public at this time.

Chairman Amos stated that the Steering Commission would meet on November 12th to discuss/address the concerns heard tonight.

With no further business, the hearing was adjourned until next week.

Footnote: Ms Janna Six presented comments for the record immediately following adjournment.

_______________________________ ______________________________

Jim Disney, Chairman Wendell Amos, Chairman

Board of Commissioners Planning Commission

JOINT HEARING OF THE LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

NOVEMBER 12th, 1997

MINUTES

Present were Commissioners Clarke, Disney, Olson, Dixon, Doten, Haimes, Korb, Rennels, Roark, Salg, and Wallace. Planning Commission Chairman Amos presided. Staff present were Larry Timm, Russell Legg, Jill Bennett, Doug Ryan, and Jean O'Connor, recording secretary.

Chairman Amos introduced the Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners and staff in attendance. He stated that tonight was a continuation of the November 5th, 1997 hearing and the purpose was to discuss comments received at that hearing.

Jill Bennett, Senior Planner, stated that an attempt was made to summarize all comments received at the November 5th hearing and that the Boards had three possible action options. They were to change direction, clarify the statement(s) made, or make no change at all to the proposed master plan. Ms. Bennett stated that many comments were directed at implementation and while the Boards may wish to discuss these comments they were not necessarily part of the master plan but an important part of the PLUS process.

Ms. Bennett stated that by far the majority of comments heard was that in general, the proposed master plan was pretty good, adopt what's been presented, and get on with implementation and real issues.

Ms. Bennett stated a big issue raised was regarding impact fees/ capital expansion fees. Citizens felt the County should work to change state law. After much discussion the Boards agreed to add to the action plan an item which states that the County will work with other interested groups/ persons, including regional groups, to change State law to enable Counties to collect impact fees beyond what is currently allowed. Also, in order to clarify the County's position regarding capital expansion fees and having growth pay its own way, on page 4-11, reword Principle PF-10 to read:

To the extent legally and practically possible, the County shall use capital expansion fees to help fund facilities which receive increased demand or need for expansion as a result of new growth and development.

Reword Strategy PF-10-s1 to read:

A public participation process will be instituted to determine the feasibility, legality and fairness of increasing existing fees where necessary, and enacting new fees where/when needed.

Commissioner Disney asked to add an action item which states: The County will participate in the regional economic analysis model on an ongoing basis in order to determine the cost and benefits of growth.

Ms. Bennett stated the next issue raised was City - County Cooperation and proposed changing the wording to action item #4 on page 7-4 to read, "Develop/revise/ amend Intergovernmental Agreements...and include, as mutually agreed, urban standards ...".

The third issue raised was regarding Environmental Protection. One area of discussion was the definition of "wetland". After much discussion, all agreed to use the definition currently stated and provided by Dr. Cooper which was more applicable to this region.

Commissioner Salg suggested that staff provide, or include in the Code, specific guidelines regarding "public benefit" and perhaps a chart stating/showing reduction in open space when density was voluntarily also reduced.

Air and Water Quality - Action Plan items 10a - 10d - the following changes were recommended:

Item 8, concerning creation of a voluntary agricultural district, under Partners replace Extension with the Agricultural Advisory Board.

Item 10a, reword to read "Develop Phase I of an Environment Protection System focusing on wetlands, wildlife, air quality and water quality, including development of performance standards and criteria to be included in the Land Use Code, and on-going monitoring and evaluation during and after development. This project will require assistance from outside experts."

Item 10b, reword to read "Develop Phase II of an Environmental protection System focusing on identifying and developing appropriate protection strategies for archaeological, cultural and aesthetic resources, including ridge lines."

Item 10c: delete, as it is now included in Item 10a.

Item 10d: change Start Year to 2000.

Ms. Bennett stated another area of issue was clustered development. Much discussion ensued and no changes were recommended, but clustered development should be included in a monitoring process.

Other areas of concern were transfer of development rights and what the criteria would be. Ms. Bennett stated that this was an ongoing program and criteria had not been determined at this time, but would be in the Code.

Ms. Bennett stated that the fire districts had commented and the statement on page 4-5 was not accurate. Staff recommended removing the statement that sprinkler systems are more effective in saving lives than structures.

Much discussion ensued regarding special districts and business districts and their involvement in action item #20.

Commission Doten stated that it was time for the Rural Land Use Process to be evaluated and asked when this would occur and if criteria had been established? Commissioner Disney stated that evaluating process was currently underway.

There being no further discussion, the hearing was adjourned.

___________________________________ ____________________________

Jim Disney, Chairman Wendell Amos, Chairman

Board of County Commissioners Planning Commission

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.