Larimer County Offices, Courts & District Attorney are closed Friday, July 3 for Independence Day
Landfill, Hazardous Waste and Recycle Center are open Friday, July 3 but closed Saturday, July 4
Landfill Business Office are closed July 3 & 4 Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, May 17, 1999
LAND-USE PLANNING HEARING
(# 476 & 477)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Olson presided and Commissioner Disney was present. Also present were: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Director; Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Matt Lafferty, Planner II; Brenda Gimeson, RLUC Technician; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, Gael Cookman.
Chair Olson noted that the following are consent items and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners, Staff, or members of the audience.
1. CHRISMAN SUBDIVISON (98-S1338) NW 24-5-70; AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROADS 20 AND 29, O-OPEN ZONING.
This is a request to subdivide the 26.7-acre parcel into two lots of 12.8 and 13.9 acres for single family residential use. An existing dwelling and outbuilding are located on proposed Lot 1, a horse barn is located on proposed Lot 2. A shared access to County Road 20 is proposed at the common lot line. Little Thompson Water District is proposed as domestic water provider; on-lot septics are proposed for sanitation. Staff findings include: 1. The proposed Preliminary Plat for the Chrisman Subdivision is consistent with the intent of the Larimer County Master Plan, the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, and the Subdivision Resolution and is consistent and compatible with existing development in the immediate area. 2. Approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Chrisman Subdivision, with certain conditions, shall not result in significant negative impacts on area properties, provision of services or transportation, or the natural environment.
The Planning Commission/Staff recommendation is for approval of the Preliminary Plat of the Chrisman Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall be completed in strict conformance with the conditionally approved Preliminary Plat, including all notes, natural hazard and wetlands delineation, building envelope, and easements. Easements and rights-of-way of record and as required by the utility providers and the County Engineering Department shall be provided on the Final Plat. 2. The following notes shall be included on the Final Plat: a) The common access serving this development shall not be maintained by Larimer County. Maintenance of the streets shall be the responsibility of the property owners. Failure to maintain these facilities may result in a lien being placed on these lots. b) 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. c) Engineered footing and foundation plans shall be required for all construction on these lots. Foundation drains must be included for any subgrade construction. A site-specific geotechnical investigation at the building site is required prior to construction. d) Residential fire sprinkler systems shall be required for new dwellings constructed on these lots. Plans must be approved by the Loveland Fire Department. e) High soil swell potential and potential trench caving are hazards requiring attention prior to and during construction. Utility trenches may require shoring or bracing in order to create safe working conditions during construction. f) The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fees and Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion and Larimer County Park Fee (in lieu of dedication). The fee current at time of building permit application shall apply. g) Underground utilities shall be required. h) Rural area issues- I) Lot owners should be advised that there is a potential for nuisance conflicts from wildlife (such as skunks, 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. II) During certain times of the year mosquitoes may present a significant nuisance. Larimer County does not have a mosquito abatement program. Any mosquito abatement activity will be the responsibility of the homeowner; such activity must be according to applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations. III) Prairie dog colonies exist in the general area; prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property. At times these animals are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets. It is important for residents to observe animal control requirements for dogs and cats. IV) Farming practices on properties in this area can produce odors, noise and dust at any time of the day or night, seven days a week. These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur. Larimer County will not take action to hinder or stop legal agricultural uses in this area. V) If livestock will be kept on these lots, it will be important to carefully manage grazing in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture. Overgrazing will produce bare ground, weeds, erosion and polluted runoff. Management of these lots must be coordinated with drainage and erosion control issues, siting of sanitation systems, fencing and feeding. 3) Final construction plans for the common access and drainage/erosion control plans and reports shall be required with the Final Plat application. A revised site plan that accurately shows the natural hazard and wetlands delineation shall be included. The reports shall address groundwater issues noted by the County Engineering Department and the Colorado Geological Survey. Access plans shall be approved by the County Engineering Department and the Loveland Fire Department prior to recording the Final Plat. The Final Plat application shall include a Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) which shall be secured by appropriate collateral; the common access and any drainage facilities shall be included in this agreement.
2. ALL WEATHER WOOD PRODUCTS AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW (98-Z1286): SE1/4 03-8-69; ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CR 63E, APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE WEST OF CR 15; RE-SPECIAL REVIEW.
This is a request to amend the previous Special Review approval to allow for "wood preservation" in the approval language. They are also requesting approval for the construction of a 100' by 50' building containing a concrete drip pad. Staff findings include: 1. The proposed Amended Special Review is consistent with the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal is harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The proposal is supported by various review agencies including those noted above. 4. Concerns raised by neighboring property owners are addressed by code requirements. Planning/Staff recommendation is for approval of the all Weather Wood Products Amended Special Review with the following conditions: 1. Operation of the All Weather Wood Products Amended Special Review shall be as specified in the file, #97-ZR1123, and as modified by conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a written plan for fire protection approved by the Poudre Fire Authority which includes support for a variance request for the Fire Code. The applicant must receive a variance approval prior to construction of the new building. 3. Any changes in the operations from those in the file or in conditions of approval will require review and approval by Larimer County.
This is a request to condominiumize 8 units within a single building located at 216 Racquette Drive in the Fort Collins area. Industrial condominiums are treated differently from residential developments under current County regulations. When there is an existing commercial building being divided into individual units, Larimer County requires that a final plat be submitted for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. Since the building, parking and access all exist the only change produced by the condominium is to allow individual ownership of the units in the building. The condominium declaration deals with responsibility for maintenance of the building and parking area.
Staff findings include: 1. The proposed condominiumization of the building is in compliance with the Larimer County Master Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution. 2. The condominiumization is compatible with other development in the surrounding area. It is in an existing building, so that each unit can be sold. 3. Approval of the condominiumization will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, the provision of services and infrastructure, or alter the use of the site. Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by this condominiumization. 4. Maintenance of the building, parking lot and landscaping will be the responsibility of the owners association, pursuant to the declaration of covenants. Staff recommendation is for approval of approval of #99-S1409, Racquette Drive Condominiumization for the existing 8 units based upon the following conditions: 1. Each unit shall provide a portable fire extinguisher with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, which shall be hung 4 to 5 feet above the finished floor, with a current inspection tag attached. The Poudre Fire Authority shall have final approval authority for extinguisher locations. 2. Each unit shall provide legal addressing visible from the parking lot, including the building and unit numbers, on or near each entry door. 3. Condominiumization of any additional units will require approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
4. LONE TREE KENNELS SPECIAL REVIEW (#98-Z1283): A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST. THE PROJECT SITE IS MORE SPECIFICALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 14, APPROXIMATELY 1 1/2 MILES WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 17; FA - FARMING ZONING.
This is a request for Special Review to allow both a single-family residence and a dog training facility (kennel) at the site. The primary function of the dog kennel is to house dogs being trained, on site, for field trials and hunting. The occupancy of the proposed kennel is 65 dogs. The owners of the operation will occupy the single-family residence. Two accesses are proposed from County Road 14. The eastern most access will be paved up to western the limits of the parking area for the kennel facility. The western driveway will serve as access to the residence for the site and will be surface with gravel.
Staff findings include: 1. The proposed Lone Tree Kennel Special Review is in compliance with the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution and the Land Use Plan. The application satisfactorily addresses the criteria for evaluation of Special Review uses. 2. The proposed project is harmonious with the surrounding area and should not have any adverse affect on surrounding properties and their values. 3. If operated as stated in the applications materials and in compliance with County regulations and conditions of approval, the proposed use should not result in negative impacts on area properties, provision of services, access and traffic, or the natural environment. Planning Commission/Staff recommendation is for approval of the Lone Tree Kennel Special Review #98-Z1283 with the following conditions: 1. Operation of the Lone Tree Kennel Special Review shall be as specified in Exhibit A of the Lone Tree Kennel Special Review File 98-Z1283 and as modified by conditions of approval. Exhibit A is a copy of the application and subsequent information submitted by the applicant. Any changes to the operations as specified in Exhibit A or in conditions of approval would require review and approval by Larimer County. 2. Prior to beginning any construction or operation of Lone Tree Kennels or other improvements at the site, the following items must be submitted and approved: a) Final Site Plan showing all existing and proposed improvements, road layout, parking areas, light locations, sign location, and fences. Final erosion control, grading and drainage plans to address the requirements of the County Engineering Department shall be included. b) Road construction plans and specifications. An access permit shall be required prior to any construction. c) Details of lighting plan describing the type of lights, height of poles and plans for shielding the lights. Indicate which lights will be operated from dusk until dawn. 3. The applicant shall comply with the requirements and provide the additional information identified in the letter from Sylvester Mabry of the Larimer County Engineering Department dated January 4, 1999. 4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements and provide the additional information identified in the letter from Doug Ryan of the Larimer County Health Department dated December 1, 1998. 5. The applicant shall comply with the requirements and provide the additional information identified in the letter from Dave Lentz, Forester of the Larimer County Department of Natural Resources dated November 23, 1998. 6. Prior to construction of any building or identification sign, building permits shall be required. 7. Prior to beginning operation of the Kennel facility, all required improvements (access and road construction, erosion control, grading and drainage features, parking/trailer storage area, screening) shall be completed, inspected and approved by County Engineering. 8. The existing storage building located at the site may be used as a temporary kennel building for seven dogs subject to the following conditions: a) The temporary kennel building shall be utilized as such for no more than one year from the date of the special review approval. b) If building permits are not applied for and construction begun on the permanent kennel building within six months the temporary kennel building will be vacated for such use, and shall be modified to be consistent with Exhibit A of the Special Review approval. c) If construction of the permanent kennel facility is not complete within one year the applicant shall vacate the temporary use of the existing structure and convert it to conform with Exhibit A of the Special Review. d) The applicant shall complete the Building Permit process for the existing structure before using it as a temporary kennel. e) Should the Larimer County Sheriff's Department or County Health Department receive complaints and verify that a violation of the Larimer County Noise Ordinance in association with the use of the existing storage structure as a temporary kennel exists, the applicant will be notified and such use shall cease. 9. The residential use proposed for this site shall be subject to the Larimer County Park, Transportation, Drainage and School Fees in effect at the time of application for building permit for the residential use. 10. The applicant shall comply with the requirements and provide the additional information identified in the letter from Marty L. Ballinger, Lt. Fire Inspector of the City of Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau dated December 7, 1998.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve of the Consent Items as listed above.
Motion carried 2-0.
5. GIBBS EASEMENT VACATION (#97-SA1132); PART OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST: 773 NORTH LANE, NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO NORTH LANE, SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO DEVIL'S GULCH ROAD; E - ESTATE ZONING.
The Board of County Commissioners originally heard this request at a public hearing on November 9, 1998. At that time the Board of County Commissioners, with two members of the Board present, approved the request to vacate the easement granted to the public in 1959. The staff recommendation was to vacate the easement for vehicular purposes retaining the utility and non-motorized functions of the easement. The Board of County Commissioners action was to vacate the easement for all but utility purposes. After the approval the owners had 60 days to complete the dedication and present the revised easement to the County for review and approval prior to recording. A requirement of the vacation was the granting of an easement to the adjoining owner, Mrs. Lober. As a result of discussions the news of the vacation was circulated in the community and the staff began receiving calls about the vacation. On January 11, 1999 the applicants requested and received a 60 day extension of the approval. Subsequent to that the applicants requested a further extension to complete the discussions with Mrs. Lober. On April 5, 1999 the Board of County Commissioners deferred the requested extension and requested the staff notice the hearing, indicating that they would reconsider their action. Staff then published a notice and sent postcards to property owners and noticed parties who have expressed a direct interest in the request.
The following information, including a staff recommendation, was presented at the November 11, 1998 hearing: In 1959 Dorothy Scott Deeded an easement of 40 feet in width along the west and north sides of her property. This easement was for a public road. This easement has never been used as a public road for motorized vehicles over its entirety. A portion of the easement has been used by the property owner to the west for access to their property. The majority of the use has been for equestrian, bicycle, and foot traffic. Additionally the public easement has been used for the placement of utilities. The daughter of Dorothy Scott, Dorothy S. Gibbs now owns the property and would like to vacate the easement and grant an easement to the property owner to the west for road access to their residence and a separate easement to the Silver Lane Stables for equestrian use with some provisions for maintenance.
Staff findings include: 1) The easement was conveyed to the public for a public road in October 1959. 2) The roads within Stanley Heights Subdivision are private and the Property Owners Association has stated that they would not grant any additional public access to the subdivision. 3) Public use of the easement is for multi- purpose, non-motorized use and public utilities serving the area continues. 4) Private use of the easement for motorized access by Mrs. William Lober continues. Staff recommendation is for approval of the easement vacation with the following conditions: 1. The Gibbs shall grant a replacement easement for public use; specifically for utilities serving the region and for a multi- purpose, non-motorized trail use. 2. That Mrs. William Lober, property owner to the west who uses the existing easement for a private access drive be granted a non-exclusive easement for private access. The easement granted to Mrs. William Lober for continued use of the road for a private access, would need to run in perpetuity with the land. This would allow for continued use of the easement. 3. The easements and agreements shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 60 days of Board of County Commissioners action. These documents shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney prior to recording.
Mr. Helmick briefly explained the application and then Jim Martell, representative for George and Dorothy Gibbs, approached the Board to deliver the applicant's presentation. Mr. Martell noted that the Gibbs have requested another extension in order to resolve matters with Mrs. Lober; he explained that one of the main reasons the Board agreed to vacate the easement is because it does not "go anywhere" as the roads within Stanley Heights are private. Mr. Martell also noted that the only court decision on whether the roads within Stanley Heights are public or private was decided in what is known as the Black Canyon case in 1977 which was a local district court case in which Judge Sullivan determined that the roads create only a private right and usage, not a public right or dedication. The decision was appealed and affirmed. Mr. Gibbs presented the Board with a supplemental packet of pictures of the trail from their home and reviewed the photos with the Board; he noted that his reasons for wishing to vacate the trail are as follows: 1)They own the land but they have no control over it. 2) There is presently very little usage anyone on this easement, but anyone has the right to use it, and he questions the reason that people would want to go down a trail that leads nowhere. 3) Concern for the health of the trees and the condition and maintenance of the trail. 4) Concern about the litter and possibility of fire from a carelessly dropped match or cigarette butt. 5) Concern about liability if someone happens to get injured along the easement. 6) And concern about the elk and deer population. Mr. Gibbs requested the easement be returned to his family.
The Chair then opened the hearing for public comment and Robert Lober addressed the Board noting that their interest in this manner is twofold: 1) They purchased the property relying on access to their home utilizing their driveway which is located within the easement and they cannot support any action limiting this use, and 2) They are concerned with public access and are sympathetic with those who wish to walk, run, or ride horseback through this area.
Betty Whiteside addressed the Board next noting that she was representing her father, Otis Whiteside, and their business Sliverland Stables; she confirmed that a deal had been made between her father and Ms. Scott, dedicating a right-of-way so Mr. Whiteside could use the easement for his equestrian business. Ms. Whiteside also noted that there seems to be some discrepancy pertaining to who actually owns the roads; she explained that in a court case between her father and the Stanley Heights Property Owners Association it was determined that the roads were originally deeded to the property owners, and later deeded to the property owners association. Since the roads cannot be deeded twice, the roads do belong to the 57 property owners within Stanley Heights. Ms. Whiteside also noted that Mr. Aspinall (President of the Stanley Heights Property Owners Association) wrote a letter which stated that rights to the easement for Mr. Whiteside are not transferable and will terminate upon his death. Finally, Ms. Whiteside explained that the trail has been in existence at least since 1924 and she believes that there is a question as to whether or not the roads truly are private.
Louise Lindsay, representing the Estes Valley Trail Committee, noted that if a trail is 20 years old it is then considered a historical trail; she also noted that this trail is also known as Oties Trail and it is a good connective trail to the Rocky Mountain National Park. Ms. Lindsay presented the Estes Valley trail plan which was constructed in the mid 1980's, and noted that the Oties Trail is designated on the trail plan; she also presented the Related Lands Evaluation which was created by the Rocky Mountain National Park which also identified the Oties Trail as one of the connecting trails to Rocky Mountain National Park. Ms. Lindsay requested that the Board leave the trail in place and not vacate the easement.
Allen Aspinall, noted that part of the problem occurred over 50 years ago when a bank, acting as a trustee, did a terrible job drawing up subdivision papers. Mr. Aspinall believes that the roads are conveyed to the 54 property owners within Stanley Heights and that Judge Sullivan's ruling in the Black Canyon case is correct. He feels that this easement goes nowhere, but he agrees that the Whitesides do have rights to the easement by adverse possession. However, he noted that Association views the Whitesides as trespassers, and since the matter has already been decided in the court cases, he supports the Gibb's application for vacation of the easement. Commissioner Disney asked when the Property Owners Association was established. Mr. Aspinall replied that the Association was established in the 1940's.
Dan Brown explained that this is not really an issue of public roads, but an issue of the easement that Dorothy Scott clearly dedicated in 1959; he noted that there are 54 lot owners and many of them use the trail. Mr. Brown feels the Association had ample time to take a vote of the homeowners on this issue; however, that was not offered or performed. Mr. Brown noted that Ms. Scott dedicated a 40 feet easement as clearly as she could at the time, and he does not believe that the easement should be vacated.
At this time Chair Olson closed the public portion of the meeting and invited Mr. Gibbs to address the concerns that were raised. Mr. Gibbs noted that he has never been opposed to the Whitesides using the trail for their business, and that his major concern is that the road goes nowhere and if the roads are all private, then they would like the easement vacated. Dorothy Scott Gibbs addressed the board noting that there is no problem with the Whiteside's using Oties trail, except for the concerns about maintenance.
Under discussion, Commissioner Disney noted that he believes there is ample evidence that there has been public use and that there is public benefit to leaving this trial in place; he explained that he does feel that contribution should be made by the public in order to maintain the trail and made a strong suggestion to that fact. Commissioner Disney recommended that the Board should rescind the prior decision and allow this trail and easement to remain in place. Chair Olson concurred.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners rescind the prior decision of the Board with regard to the Gibbs right-of-way easement vacation application and maintain the easement as a public right-of-way.
Motion carried 2-0.
6. SWIFT PONDS PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN (#98-RLP0028): 10-06-68; LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1 1/2 MILES NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 392 ON COUNTY ROAD 5 AND/OR APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 38 ON COUNTY ROAD 5; FA1 - FARMING ZONING.
This proposal calls for 12 new home sites; eleven sites are clustered and located on eastern border of the irrigated cropland and approximately 2.3-3 acres in size encompassing approximately 33 acres. Each of these sites will be allowed one single-family dwelling. The remaining land will consist of 207 acres, 27 acres of irrigated cropland, 177 acres of wetlands and ponds, and one building envelope of approximately 3 acres for a caretaker home site. The total of 204 acres (irrigated cropland, wetlands, and ponds) residual land will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement. The residual land will surround the lots.
Staff findings include: This proposal is consistent with the policies of the Rural Land Use Process: 1) RLUC Staff supports the Swift Ponds Preliminary Rural Land Plan based on: a) the protection of land in perpetuity. b) The likelihood of future commercial development because of the land's proximity to I-25. c) Retaining water with the land. d) Continuing handicap outreach. e) Fisheries studies. f) Maintaining a mile stretch of undeveloped land visible from I-25; sense of place. g) The support of the community. 2) The 26 single-family residential units possible under the current FA1-Farming zoning (taking into consideration only the 60 acres of irrigated cropland) of the property and the high level of development pressure within the immediate area, support our belief that this is an appropriate project, within both the spirit and letter of the Rural Land Use Process. 3) The site-based incentives (6 density bonus unit, or 100%) provide the landowners with benefits roughly equivalent to what they would obtain through dividing their property into individual 35-acre tracts, as well as pre-empting the potential for many more residential units allowed by current zoning. As proposed, this project will also provide commensurate benefits to Larimer County. 4) The plan is compatible with the existing neighboring land uses: agricultural lands, 35s, and subdivisions. 5) A RLUP final fee, currently $600.00, will be collected for each new dwelling unit constructed at the time of building permit issuance. A note to this effect to be placed on the plat.
Staff recommendation is for approval of the Swift Ponds Preliminary Rural Land Plan as requested by the applicant with the following conditions: 1) Issuance of a Larimer County Road Access Permit before the access to CR 36 is constructed. The access must be in accordance with the Larimer County Access Policy. 2) Approval of final engineering designs, including design of utilities, roads, ROW dedication, stormwater plan, and erosion control plan before final plat approval. 3) Demonstration of adequate water service provided by Fort Collins/Loveland Water District. 4) Preliminary soil testing to demonstrate soil suitability for on-site sewage systems. 5) Residual Land perpetual conservation easement and management plan review and approval by County Attorney prior to final plat approval. 6) Homeowners' covenants, including architectural controls, review and approval by County Attorney prior to final plat approval. 7) Review and approval of final development agreement by County Attorney. 8) Engineered footing and foundations shall be required on all structures. 9) 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 for 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. 10) Transportation Capital Expansion Fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed on each lot. 11) Park fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed on each lot. 12) RLUP fees in effect at time of building permit issuance shall be assessed on each lot. 13) School fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance. 14) The applicants agree to provide sales and other information to the Rural Land Use Center Director as necessary to insure that monitoring of the incentives can be conducted. 15) At time of real estate closing, owner or real estate professional shall provide purchasers of residential lots and residual lands with Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County. 16) The owners of the residual land parcels shall be responsible for providing a baseline environmental study and an annual monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center. 17) The following notes shall also be included on the final plat: a) Mosquitoes: During certain times of the year mosquitoes may present a significant nuisance. The County does not have a mosquito control program. Any spraying or other control will be the responsibility of the property owners. b) Wildlife: Wildlife such as skunks, snakes, and prairie dogs occur more frequently than in more built-up areas. Lot owners should be aware of these occurrences and be prepared to address them as residents if they arise. The County is not able to mitigate nuisances if they develop, although information on managing these issues is available. c) Prairie dog colonies do exist in the general area surrounding this proposal. Prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property. The County does not perform prairie dog control, but can advise owners on how to obtain the services of licensed firms that do. At times prairie dogs are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets. The County does monitor prairie dog colonies for evidence of plague. Animal control requirements for both dogs and cats should be observed. d) Adjacent agricultural uses: Farming practices on this and adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust. These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur. e) Horse pasture management: If livestock is to be kept on the smaller parcels, the owners must be aware that lots of this size must be managed very carefully in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture. 18) Review and approval by County Attorney and Rural Land Use Center Director of plans of plans to create adequate endowment providing for financial support for Colorado State University's monitoring, management, and maintenance of residual land. 19) Verification provided by qualified professional that mineral (gravel) deposits do not exist in quantities and/or locations suitable fo r commercial extraction on property, particularly where houses will be located.
Mr. Reidhead briefly explained that application noting that there is currently a gravel pit and asphalt operation at the center of the eastern border of the property; however, that operation will cease to exist in a couple of months and that land will be reclaimed. Mr. Reidhead explained that he would like to include an additional condition, that being the review and approval by County Attorney and Rural Land Use Center Director of plans to create adequate endowment providing for financial support for Colorado State University's monitoring, management, and maintenance of residual land. Mr. Reidhead then introduced the applicant, Louis Swift. Mr. Swift noted that all of the minerals on the property has been mined and he is in agreement with the permanent endowment to the CSU foundation; however, if in the future CSU decides that they no longer have a need for this property, Mr. Swift would like part of the proceeds of the sale of the land will stay with the property. Don Kehn of Kehn Construction, addressed the Board and explained that he operates the asphalt plant located on the site, and he verified that the plant will be moved off of this site by mid-summer; he also noted that the reclamation of this site will be minimal. Steve Flickinger, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology at CSU, noted that they are very interested in obtaining this site to conduct their fishery; he noted that they are concerned with operating funds and they will be working very hard with Mr. Swift to raise the endowment. After a brief discussion the Board decided to add another condition to have Mr. Swift provide documentation that there are no minerals left to be extracted. Mr. Swift agreed to do so.
At this time Chair Olson opened the meeting for public comment Mr. Weatherspoon, adjoining neighbor to the Swift property stated that he has heard rumors that there could be up to 240 houses on the property and which greatly concerned him. Mr. Reidhead noted that only 12 homes would be allowed; however, he also mentioned that courts can overturn conservation easements in perpetuity, but generally the intention is that there will be no development on the balance of the residual land
Under discussion Commissioner Disney stated that he agreed with staff recommendation for approval of this application; he noted that he felt this development is very much in the spirit of good stewardship of the I-25 corridor and supports it whole-heartedly. Chair Olson concurred.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Swift Ponds Preliminary Rural Land Plan, with the amended conditions as outlined above.
Motion carried 2-0.
7. HAWUTHA HILLS PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN (#99-RLP0027): 8 & 17-04-69 AND 26 & 27-04-70; THE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL AND PART OF THE RESIDUAL LAND IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 3 1/2 MILES EAST OF CARTER LAKE RESERVOIR, AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH COUNTY ROAD 23 AND WEST COUNTY ROAD 10. THE SECOND PART OF THE RESIDUAL LAND (WHICH WILL HAVE NO DEVELOPMENT) IS GENERALLY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 27E AND 1/2 MILE NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 4; FA1 - FARMING ZONING.
This proposal involves the joint planning of four parcels of land. One parcel is a non-contiguous parcel. The first 3 parcels of contiguous land, referred to as Parcel 1, consist of approximately 108 acres. Parcel 1 is located in Sections 8 and 17, Township 4, Range 69, off of County Roads 23 and 10, approximately 3 1/2 miles east of Carter Lake Reservoir. The non-contiguous parcel of land, referred to as Parcel 2, consists of 35 acres. Parcel 2 is located in Sections 26 and 27, Township 4, Range 70, immediately west of County Road 27E and County Road 4.
This proposal calls for 7 new home sites on Parcel 1. Each new lot would be approximately 3-5 acres in size and allowed one single-family dwelling. The total development area for this parcel will be approximately 25 acres. The remaining land on Parcel 1 (residual land) will be approximately 84 acres of dryland wheat or permanent dryland grass, which will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement held by the Larimer Land Trust. The residual land equals 70.3% of Parcel 1.
Parcel 2, 35 acres in size, will have no residential development (the one residential unit resulting from the use-by-right to divide land into 35-acre residential parcels will be transferred to Parcel 1) and will be solely residual land. This land has been severely overgrazed. It will be restored and also protected by a perpetual conservation easement held by the Larimer Land Trust. In addition, because of Parcel 2's irregular shape, at the recommendation of the Larimer Land Trust it will be divided into three pieces based on existing natural and man-made boundaries. These three pieces will then be sold to the adjacent landowners; each sale will be subject to the perpetual conservation easement and management plans.
This proposal is consistent with the policies of the Rural Land Use Process; Staff findings include: 1) RLUC Staff supports the Hawutha Hills Preliminary Rural Land Plan based on: a) The transfer of only one residential site from Parcel 2, and b) The residual land will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement held by the Larimer Land Trust or other qualified land trust. The proposed plan considers the various land development and design options, particularly the subdivision process. 2) The intent of this particular RLUP project is to restore Parcel 2 as viable pasture and wildlife habitat and to maintain the residual land on Parcel 1 as viable permanent dryland pasture and/or dryland wheat. Some think that Parcel 2 is a worthless piece of ag land beyond restoration; however, the owner, as well as Mr. Steve Ryder, Larimer County TDU administrator (please see his enclosed memorandum) and the Larimer Land Trust, believe that this land contains sufficient habitat and agricultural potential to merit protection and it can be used as a demonstration project for the rehabilitation of property. 3) The 50 single-family residential units possible under the current FA1-Farming and O-Open zoning of the properties and the high level of development pressure within the immediate area, support our belief that this is an appropriate project, within both the spirit and letter of the Rural Land Use Process. 4) The site-based incentives (3 density bonus unit, or 57%) provide the landowners with benefits roughly equivalent to what they would obtain through dividing their property into individual 35-acre parcels, as well as pre-empting the potential for many more residential units allowed by current zoning. As proposed, this project will also provide commensurate benefits to Larimer County. 5) The plan is compatible with the existing neighboring land uses: agricultural lands, 35s, and subdivisions. It is a compromise, but a reasonable one, in light of the many opposing financial, economic, and land-use forces which are at play in applicants' neighborhood. 6) A RLUP final fee of $600.00 will be collected for each new dwelling unit constructed at the time of building permit issuance. A note to this effect to be placed on the plat.
Staff recommendation is for approval of the Hawutha Hills Preliminary Rural Land Plan with the following conditions: 1) Issuance of a Larimer County Road Access Permit and evidence of adequate site distance before the access to CR 23 is constructed. The access must be in accordance with the Larimer County Access Policy. 2) Approval of final engineering designs, including design of utilities, roads, ROW dedication, stormwater plan, and erosion control plan before final plat approval. 3) Demonstration of adequate water service provided by Little Thompson Water District. 4) Preliminary soil testing to demonstrate soil suitability for on-site sewage systems. 5) Residual Land conservation easement and management plan review and approval by County Attorney prior to final plat approval. 6) Homeowners' covenants, including architectural controls, review and approval by County Attorney prior to final plat approval. 7) Demonstration of adequate financial resources to implement restoration of Parcel 2 in accordance with Larimer Land Trust recommendations. 8) Review and approval of final development agreement by County Attorney. 9) Engineered footing and foundations shall be required on all structures. 10) 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 for 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. 11) Transportation Capital Expansion Fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed on each lot. 12) Park fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed on each lot. 13) RLUP fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed on each lot. 14) School fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance. 15) The applicants agree to provide sales and other information to the Rural Land Use Center Director as necessary to insure that monitoring of the incentives can be conducted. 16) At time of real estate closing, owner or real estate professional shall provide purchasers of residential lots and residual lands with Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County. 17) The owners of the residual land parcels shall be responsible for providing a baseline environmental study and an annual monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center. 18) The following notes shall also be included on the final plat: a) Mosquitoes: During certain times of the year mosquitoes may present a significant nuisance. The County does not have a mosquito control program. Any spraying or other control will be the responsibility of the property owners. b) Wildlife: Wildlife such as skunks, snakes, and prairie dogs occur more frequently than in more built-up areas. Lot owners should be aware of these occurrences and be prepared to address them as residents if they arise. The County is not able to mitigate nuisances if they develop, although information on managing these issues is available. c) Prairie dog colonies do exist in the general area surrounding this proposal. Prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property. The County does not perform prairie dog control, but can advise owners on how to obtain the services of licensed firms that do. At times prairie dogs are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets. The County does monitor prairie dog colonies for evidence of plague. Animal control requirements for both dogs and cats should be observed. d) Adjacent agricultural uses: Farming practices on this and adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust. These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur. e) Horse pasture management: If livestock is to be kept on the smaller parcels, the owners must be aware that lots of this size must be managed very carefully in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture. 19) Inclusion of one-half acre (+/-) at northeast portion of Parcel 1, the site of grain bins and old boxcar used for storage, as "outlot" in residual land, protected by conservation easement held by Larimer Land Trust. Non-residential structures may be constructed on this outlot with approval of Larimer Land Trust and Rural Land Use Center Director.
Mr. Reidhead briefly explained the application which calls for seven new homes sites on 25 acres of parcel 1 and the remaining land will include approximately 84 acres of dryland wheat or grass; he noted that a perpetual conservation easement will be placed on the property and held by the Larimer Land Trust. Mr. Reidhead noted that the Rural Land Use Board had a split decision regarding this application, as two board members felt that it would be difficult to manage the sending and receiving areas, they questioned the conservation value of the sending area, and they were concerned about the proposed division of land into three pieces again. Mr. Reidhead noted that staff recommends approval based on the transfer of only one residential site from parcel 2, the applicant originally requested two residential sites be transferred and that the residual land be protected in perpetuity in a conservation easement held by the Larimer Land Trust. The applicant, Jim Nordhougen, stated that he felt this is a good program and that this will provide the best use of the land; he explained that he will be working with the Land Trust and the Soil Conservation Service in order to complete ground cover on the residual land. Mr. Reidhead also noted that there is a half acre piece of the land that the owner wishes to separate out and retain to use for storage, with the possibility of constructing a barn in the future; he noted that there will be no dwelling allowed on this parcel.
At this time Chair Olson opened the meeting for public comment. Woody Eppelsheimer noted that he is building a home on 50 acres to the south and he is not opposed to the application; however, he did want to reinforce the manure management and control of the horses is very important on small acreage's. Mr. Eppelsheimer also noted that he has been working on establishing ground cover on his property, which has been expensive and difficult. Chair Olson explained that the Board has recently formed an Animal Task Force to address all of the animal issues in Larimer County and that his concerns about the horses will be taken into consideration.
Under discussion, Commissioner Disney noted that since the Larimer Land Trust is interested in the sending parcel that is a good indication that the land does have value; he noted that he does support the application. Chair Olson stated that she would rather see seven houses as opposed to fifty, and noted that she also supported the application.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved for approval of the Hawutha Hills Preliminary Rural Land Plan with the amended conditions as outlined above.
Motion carried 2-0.
Meeting recessed at 5:10 p.m.
LAND-USE PLANNING HEARING
(# 476 @ 300 & 478)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Olson presided and Commissioner Disney was present. Also present were: Matt Lafferty, Planner II; Rex Burns, Project Engineer; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner; Marc Engemoen, Director of Public Works; Rusty McDaniel, Project Engineer; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, Gael Cookman.
1. POUDRE OVERLOOK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING (#98-S1305): NW 1/4 OF 04-07-69; EAST SIDE OF OVERLAND TRAIL ABOUT 1/2 MILE NORTH OF VINE; FA - FARMING ZONING.
This is a proposal is to develop 87 lots for single family residential uses on 40 acres located within the Ft. Collins Urban Growth Area. The property is surrounded on three sides by pre-existing development. The applicants requested that they not be required to develop the project as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as required by the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Fort Collins. An appeal to the Board of County Commissioners to have this requirement waived was heard on January 25, 1999. The Commissioners denied the request, requiring the developer to utilize the PUD process.
Staff findings include: 1) The proposal is in compliance with the Larimer County Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, the Larimer County Master Plan, the Intergovernmental Agreement with Ft. Collins, and the Planned Unit Development Resolution. 2) The proposal will create less density than in existing, surrounding areas. 3) There are adequate public facilities to serve this proposal which will not have a negative impact on roads or the provision of other public services. 4) County Engineering, County Health, and other agencies have reviewed this proposal and have stated no objections to it if certain conditions are met. 5) This proposal will not have a negative effect on the public health, safety, or welfare.
The Planning Department recommendation slightly varies from the Urban Growth Area Review Board recommendation. The variations are briefly outlined below:
The first difference of the two recommendations lies with the number of lots proposed. The Planning Staff had recommended support of, and continues to support, 87 lots within the development, which is consistent with the PUD Resolution for R (Residential) zoning so long as there is at least 30% open space. The applicant has committed to Staff's recommendation that 30 % open space will be reflected on the final plat for this development. Therefore, having the understanding that 30% open space will be provided, staff finds that there is no reason to reduce the number of units within the project. However, the Urban Growth Area Review Board has recommended that the development be reduced to 80 lots in order to accommodate the 30% open space requirement.
The second difference lies in Condition 25, in which the Urban Growth Area Review Board recommended that there be a 40 foot buffer along the southern and eastern boundary of the site. Staff analysis of the proposal before the Urban Growth Area Review Board meeting revealed that the 20 foot proposed was more than adequate for the landscaping and pedestrian pathway proposed. Therefore, staff finds that increasing the buffer area to 40 feet will provide no more benefit to the project or adjacent development than the 20 feet proposed. Never the less the applicant has modified the proposal to reflect the 40 foot buffer area.
Planning Staff and the Urban Growth Area Review Board agreed on the rest of the recommendation as follows: Denial of the petition to rezone the property R-1, Residential. Approval of a rezoning of the entire parcel identified currently by the Assessor's office as parcel number 9704200008 from FA, Farming to R, Residential with the following condition: The property must be developed in strict conformance with the plans found in file #98-S1305 unless otherwise modified by the conditions of approval for the Planned Unit Development associated with this project. If a final plat is not recorded within 2 years of the date of Board of County Commissioners approval, the County may take action to rezone the property to another appropriate zoning district. Approval of the waiver from the Street Capacity requirement of the IGA with Ft. Collins.
1) All-weather connections to the neighboring developments that can be used by emergency vehicles as well as non-motorized traffic with roads configured in such a way and dedicate 54 feet of right-of-way so that that full access connections could be made in the future if solutions to the traffic safety and maintenance problems could be developed. The applicant shall post a "No Outlet" sign. 2) The final design shall be based on the County's urban street design standards which include curb and gutter for all streets. Road width and all other construction details for the internal roads shall meet County Standards and be approved by Engineering. 3) Improvements, as required by County Engineering shall be made at the intersection of Overland Trail and Vine Drive. These improvements shall include making geometric modifications consisting of northbound and southbound left turn lanes and a northbound right turn lane at said intersection. Additionally, the applicant shall cause improvements in the form of a north bound right hand turn lane to the intersection of Overland Trail and Northern Court (the projects main entrance). 4) Transportation Capital Expansion fees in effect at the time of building permit shall be paid. 5) A report shall be submitted with the final plat which identifies the environmental issues related to chemical storage on the property, proposes mitigation for these issues and is approved by the Health Department prior to final plat approval. Further, the mitigation measures shall be carried out prior to construction on the site. 6) The developer shall submit, as part of the final plat application, a written, informal plan for controlling dust emissions during construction which shall be approved by the County Health Department. A formal fugitive dust control plan, as may be required by the State, shall be submitted to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment if the development will create more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance or exceed six months in duration. 7) A Stormwater Management Permit may be required from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. Application shall be made by the developer directly to this state agency with a copy included with the final plat application materials or a letter from the State indicating that the Permit is not required. 8) Water and sewer service commitments from the providers shall be included with the final plat. 9) Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet with required flows of 1000 gallons per minute and residual pressure of 20 p.s.i. No dwelling may be located more than 800 feet from a fire hydrant. 10) Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property through the use of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. This requirement shall be specified in the covenants for the project and enforced by the Home Owners' Association. 11) All fire lanes shall be short, straight, flat, and hard surfaced. "Grasscrete" is not permitted for the hard surface. Signage shall be provided on either end of each access way to provide visibility for emergency vehicles. A maintenance agreement which is legally binding and enforceable shall be provided for these accesses. Poudre Fire Authority and Larimer County Engineering shall approve the plans for these emergency accesses as well as the maintenance agreement. PFA shall approve the location, size, and wording for the signage. 12) Utility plans shall be submitted to the City Water Utilities for review and approval. These plans shall be prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado and constructed in the conformance with the City of Fort Collins specifications. 13) 10' utility easements shall be platted adjacent to all internal streets and a 20' utility easement shall be platted adjacent to Overland Trail. 14) Fees in Lieu of Park Land Dedication fees will be required for each new dwelling at the time it is built. Since this property is within the Growth Management Area, the UGA park fee will be charged. The fee in effect at the time a building permit is applied for will charged. 15) Each house shall be required to install a perimeter drain. 16) An underdrain system shall be installed across the site with connections to individual drains from each lot. 17) Basements may not be possible in the southwest part of the site and cannot be permitted at all where the individual lot's geologic investigation indicates groundwater at four feet or less. 18) Individual lot owners shall be advised to remove surface clay and replace it with structural fill where such surface clay becomes problematic. 19) The developer shall enter into an agreement with the New Mercer Ditch Company if there is to be outflow from the detention pond into the New Mercer Canal. 20) All concerns of the County Engineering Department regarding drainage shall be addressed with the Final Drainage Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Grading Plan. A system to collect and dispose of this groundwater shall be developed for the site and included with the final drainage plan. 21) The applicant shall agree, in writing, to participate financially with Larimer County in having a Drainage Basin study and plan completed and further agrees to make necessary drainage improvements and that the appropriate drainage basin fee will be paid each time a residential building permit is issued in this development. 22) Individually calculated Drainage Basin fees will be collected for each lot at the time a building permit it issued. 23) The final plat shall show over 30% open space and the setbacks for the lots. 24) Developer shall sign a binding Annexation Agreement guaranteeing future annexation of the property into Fort Collins before the final plat is recorded. 25) A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the final plat showing the landscaping for the entry area and all open area. Special attention shall be given to providing some buffering along the southern open space as well as plantings along the Lin Mar edge that discourage pedestrian access to Lin Mar corrals and backyards. The buffer on the east side of the project shall be increased to 40 feet in width. 26) Information shall be included in a Disclosure Statement for future buyers which informs the property owner of these concerns and requirements. This Statement shall be recorded with the Final Plat and shall be presented at the real estate closings for each lot in the Poudre Overlook. Not all of the above conditions shall be included. Larimer County Planning shall indicate which of the above statements are required. 27) Standard plat notes will be required on the final plat. Larimer County Planning will provide the language for these notes.
Mr. Lafferty briefly described the application noting that the major concerns are drainage, density, and open space issues; he explained that the neighboring subdivisions are concerned with the connectivity of residential roadways and that the major point of access will be off of Overland Trail. Mr. Lafferty stated that the City of Fort Collins originally requested the applicant improve Overland Trail from the entrance of the subdivision south to Vine Drive and potentially back a little to the nearest improved arterial street; however, the County Engineering Department felt this was cost prohibitive. Mr. Lafferty noted that the transportation fees for the project will be collected and will be applied to improving Overland Trail when the time warrants such improvements; he also noted that both the applicant and the surrounding neighbors have mentioned the possibility of forming a recreation district for use of the open space; staff has recommended that the open space remain as private open space until such a time that such a district is formed. Mr. Lafferty explained that the New Mercer Ditch Company has recommended there be no outflows off of this site into their ditch and would like to construct an agreement that would be required to final Plat approval. As for drainage, the applicant has agreed to participate in a storm drainage basin study for the area as part of the development in order to ensure adequate drainage for the site and the surrounding area.
Dave Shupe, project engineer for the applicant, noted that they have received a letter from the New Mercer Ditch Company and the Larimer number 2 ditches indicating that they can accept the two year historic undeveloped rate of runoff into the ditch; he also noted that they will increase the open space to at least 30% (maybe more). Mr. Shupe explained that there is one additional emergency access they have planned to construct to the north; however, they do not wish to encourage through traffic into the surrounding neighborhoods. This access will be serviceable for bicycles, pedestrians, and an occasional fire truck. Mr. Shupe noted that there were some issues pertaining to the subsurface groundwater but since then a soils report has been completed which indicates that the groundwater there the groundwater will be as much of a problem as originally thought.
Chair Olson then opened the hearing for public comment and the following individuals addressed the Board with their concerns pertaining to this application: Marjorie Klitch; Scott Glick; Lori Rassmusun; Wayne Dukard; Jane Albretin; Milt Brown; Elizabeth Miller; Brenda Karnes; Sandy Hoffman; Mick Garrett; Charles Lawrence; Roger Gents; Linda Jaffee; Lynn Malisani; and Doug Thrall. The following concerns and suggestions were posed by the above listed individuals: 1) Request for an additional buffer on the northside as the applicant has provided on the other two sides of the property. 2) Construct a privacy fence all around the fence for privacy, safety, and aesthetic purposes. 3) Support for creating a recreation district. 4) Some question of the density allowed with regard to the IGA with the City of Fort Collins. 5) Preference for 80 units on the property, rather than the 87 units that Planning Staff supports. 6) Concerns with the emergency access, and the need to insure that through traffic is not encouraged or allowed use of the emergency access unless it is indeed an emergency. 7) Need for dust control during construction. 8) Possible reduction in property values due to excessive traffic. 9) Need to transition lot and homes sizes with the existing subdivisions. 10) Encouragement for the one-way in/one-way out access, as it has worked for the surrounding neighborhoods. 11) Support for the plan as the applicant has worked diligently with the surrounding neighborhoods to construct a good plan. 12) Concern for the safety of children with additional traffic. 13) Questions pertaining to the need for two detention ponds. 14) Preservation of wildlife and native vegetation. 15) Access to the city bike trail from Overland Trail and connection to Solar Ridge is desirable and would like to see it 40 feet wide. 16) Concern about possible light pollution from the additional street lights that will be erected in the subdivision.
Mr. Engemoen noted that one of the main reasons to maintain the emergency access as road widths, in order to plan for the future; he explained that although there is not the desire to connect the neighborhoods today, there may be a desire to do so in the future. Mr. Engemoen also explained that the traffic counts on Overland Trail do trigger the need for a right turn lane into the subdivision and felt that this should be included in the Staff recommendation.
Under applicant rebuttal Mr. Shupe addressed the Board with the following comments: 1) Dust control is mandated; it will be controlled and will be monitored by the Health Department. 2) With regard to transitioning, the lots on the east side were larger, but in order to accommodate the requests for a larger buffer zone, they had to take some of the land earmarked for these lots and use it for the buffer zone. 3) Their ability to mix the lots sizes were restricted by zoning. 4) They DO NOT intend to have through traffic from the emergency accesses. 5) In response to the density, the IGA first stated that the developer must have a density of at least 2 units per acre and in actuality, the PUD process will allow a 15% bonus that he could take advantage of. Mr. Shupe noted that the original plan was proposed with 92 units, and they have agreed to settle with 87 units. 6) They would like to preserve the option of constructing bike and pedestrian paths between the area subdivisions. 7) The two detention ponds are in place to minimize the effects of drainage to the New Mercer canal and the Larimer Number 2 canal. 8) They have no particular desire to put tall street lights in the subdivision, lower lights can be used and they are investigating that option.
Mr. Lafferty explained that staff takes no position on enlarging the buffer zone to the north as they have determined that 20 feet is sufficient on this side of the property; he noted that the privacy fence is also not something that staff would support. Mr. Ryan and Mr. Burns noted that the dust control and the drainage will be taken care of with the submittal of plans on controlling dust, and participation in a basin mater plan study.
Commissioner Disney asked whether or not it would be the County's responsibility to erect "No Outlet" signs; Mr. Engemoen determined that it would be up to the applicant to erect this type of sign. The applicant had no objection to this.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Preliminary Plat of the Poudre Overlook Planned Unit Development, #98-S1305, with the conditions as amended above.
Motion carried 2-0.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1999
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Olson presided and Commissioner Rennels and Disney were present. Also present were: Irene Josey, Deputy Treasurer; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center Director; Deni LaRue Community Information Manager; and Donna Hart, Commissioner's Office Administrative Manager. Recording Clerk, Gael Cookman.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Shirley Eubanks addressed the Board during open session for public comment stating her concerns with a house she bought that was not built according to Code; she explained that she and her husband purchased their home in 1987 from Buck Graybill and that Mr. Graybill was not only the homeowner, but also the contractor/builder of the home. Ms. Eubanks noted that she first became aware of problems in the home during the flood of 1997; she described the problems that she has uncovered since that time as follows: 1) No electrical inspection was ever recorded. 2) No permit for the wood stove ever recorded. 3) Hot water heater not to Code and not vented properly. 4) Roof was not constructed properly - the valleys were installed backwards. 5) No Certificate of Occupancy (CO). 6) Basement finished without permit. 7) Stairs are not be code. 8) Furnace and duct system are undersized and not accurate, the combustion air downstairs is not by Code. 9) Bathroom vents were not vented properly. At the time of the sale, Ms. Eubanks did have an inspection and the seller did initial the disclosure statement that all permits had been pulled and that everything was by Code. She noted that originally a CO was issued by the County to Mr. Graybill; however, this has since been revoked. Ms. Eubanks explained that she has been working for almost two years with County staff and the Graybills in order to correct these problems without having to go to court, unfortunately, she cannot seem to get any help for the Graybills and the Statute of Limitations will run out in July. Ms. Eubanks stated that they have already spent over $10,000 obtaining permits and reworking electrical, etc., and they cannot resell the home in its current condition; she asked for the Board's assistance in order to expedite this matter. The Board was sympathetic to Ms. Eubanks situation, but could not comment on how much assistance the County could lend until they determined what responsibility the County has in this matter, and what would constitute a civil matter between the Eubanks and the Graybills. The Board explained that they will meet with the County Attorney on this matter and they would respond to Ms. Eubanks after they received guidance from the County Attorney.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEEK OF MAY 10, 1999:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for the week of May 10, 1999.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. APPROVAL OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 24, 1999:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the schedule of the week of May 24, 1999.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved for approval of the following documents as listed on the consent agenda on document review for May 18, 1999:
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Amended Plat for Summers Subdivision Lots 1 & 2; Fossil Lake PUD Plat 1st Filing (North); Fossil Lake PUD Plat 1st Filing (South); Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Application.
LIQUOR LICENSES: License approval was granted to: Indian Meadows Resort - 6% - Bellvue, CO - Change of Corporate Structure. Licenses were issued to: Sandy's Convenience Store - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO; Lincoln Street Grille - 6% - Fort Collins, CO; Al Fresco Great Italian Foods - 6% - Fort Collins, CO.
A99-93 SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (AND ADDENDUM A) BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND EVERLINE, LLC. (Fossil Lake PUD North & South, First Filing)
A99-94 SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND GENEVA DEVELOPMENT (Relating to Developer's obligation in the River Way Rural Land Use Plan)
C99-19 FUNDING LETTER/FUNDING CHANGE LETTER INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (Increased funding for the Governor's Summer Job Hunt Program)
C99-20 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (Promote economic development activities in the Larimer County Enterprise Zone)
C99-21 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND EDAW, INC. (Services related to Fossil Creek Reservoir Resource Management Plan)
D99-06 DEED OF DEDICATION OF PROPERTY AS RIGHT-OF-WAY (Project #162 "Snyder" County Road 74E)
D99-07 DEED OF DEDICATION OF PROPERTY AS RIGHT-OF-WAY (Project #162 "Watkins" County Road 74E)
D99-08 DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR FOSSIL LAKE PUD FIRST FILING - NORTH PROPERTY & SOUTH PROPERTY
R99-45s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SHILO FALLS SUBDIVISION
R99-46s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE POUDRE OVERLOOK INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT APPEAL
R99-47s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MASTER PLAN/PRELIMINARY PHASE PLAN OF VISTA AT COTTONWOOD SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
R99-48s RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF WYNDHAM HILL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Motion carried 3-0.
5. PROCLAMATION OF FYBROMYLAGIA AWARENESS DAY: Ms. Josey thanked the Board for acknowledging and promoting awareness of this illness with a formal proclamation; she noted that currently Fybromylagia affects 2% of the population and that the Arthritis Foundation has taken it under their umbrella, also in the effort to raise awareness and help persons with this debilitating illness. Ms. Josey explained that Fibromyalgia Awareness Day is actually May 12th, however, she was out of town last week and was unable to present the proclamation until now. Chair Olson read the proclamation aloud.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim May 12, 1999 as Fibromyalgia Awareness Day.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. RIVER WAY RURAL LAND PLAN FINAL PLAT: Mr. Reidhead noted that the one outstanding condition pertaining to this application (a drainage variance) has been taken care of and they are ready for final approval for the River Way Rural Land Plan.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the River Way Rural Land Plan Final Plat.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS REAPPOINTMENTS: Mr. Lancaster presented the Board with the reappointments to the following Boards and Commissions: 1) Appointment of John Fraser Jr. and Joe Jezek to the Board of Appeals, both for a three year term expiring 6/30/02. 2) Appointment of Blair Trautwein to the Board of Health for a five year term, expiring 6/30/04. 3) Appointment of Jim Nichols and Chester Watson to the Flood Review Board, both for a two year term, expiring 6/30/01. 4) Appointment of John Stegner to the LaPorte Planning Advisory Committee, for a three year term, expiring 6/30/02. 5) Appointment of Larry Kendall to the Open Lands Advisory Board, for a three year term, expiring 6/30/02. 6) Appointment of Ray Dixon, Len Roark, and Pete Salg to the Planning Commission for a three year term, expiring 6/30/02.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the reappointments of the above listed individuals to their respective Boards and Commissions.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster noted that the federal government now requires Board signature on routine documents such as modification letters or grant applications, and in order to allow Mr. Lancaster to sign on behalf of the Board, they must authorize him to do so in a letter. Mr. Lancaster suggested the may wish to form a resolution authorizing the chair to sign these documents, (applications and items routine in nature), without coming before all of the Board members, because once the document is ready for signature, then it will presented to the Board for final approval. Mr. Lancaster explained that the resolution could be used to give himself signature authority as well.
Mr. Lancaster explained that the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) has issued their support in the county policy of treating gravel road surfaces for dust control. Commissioner Disney noted that lignin sultanate is a better product to use for this as it is not as slippery as magnesium chloride and that he will work with the Director of Public Works, Mr. Engemoen, in order to ensure everyone is aware of this.
9. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: Commissioner Rennels explained that she attended the CCI meeting yesterday with Joann Hill from the State Auditors office, personnel from the Department of Revenue, and the Finance Directors from around the state in order to tackle the problem that has taken place with the State collecting sales tax on behalf of the Counties. Commissioner Rennels noted that the State has uncovered conflicts with old and new technology meshing and they are working towards correcting this; she also explained that the audit report will be available and released in July.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to discuss potential litigation and personnel matters.
Motion carried 3-0.
Executive Session ended and meeting recessed at 11:50; further action taken.
EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:00 p.m. for an Executive Session with Sheriff Alderden. Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 1:00 p.m. to discuss a personnel issue.
Motion carried 3-0.
The Executive Session ended at 2:20 p.m.; no action taken.
CHERYL OLSON, CHAIR LARIMER COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MYRNA J. RODENBERGER
LARIMER COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
( S E A L )
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk