> Meetings & Minutes > 2004 Minutes > BCC Minutes for 11/01/04  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, NOVEMBER 1, 2004

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#128 & 129)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present.  Also present were: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Larry Timm, Sean Wheeler, David Karan, Porter Ingram, Matt Lafferty, and Genipher Ponce-Pore, Planning Department; Roxanne Hayes, and Christie Coleman, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the Larimer County Land Use Code and the County Budget.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.

 

Chair Rennels stated that the first three items are consent items and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience.  Ms. Haag stated that she has no issues with the concept or proposed amendment concerning item number three, the Teal Creek Amended Development Agreement except that she may have some small changes and she will work directly with the applicant's attorney on these changes.

 

1.         SNOWY VIEW SUBDIVISION LOT 15 AMENDED PLAT; #04-S2341:  This is a request for an Amended Plat for Snowy View Subdivision Lot 15 to add frontage to the existing lot. The proposed plat amendment of Lot 15, plat of the amended Snowy View Subdivision and a portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 2-5-71, to add frontage to the existing lot will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The Development Service Team Recommendation is for approval of File #04-S2341, the Amended Plat of Lot 15, plat of the amended Snowy View Subdivision and a portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 02-5-71 subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:  1.  All conditions shall be met and the Final Plat be recorded by May 1, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.  2.  Technical corrections requested by Larimer County Engineering shall be made prior to recordation of the plat.

 

2.  BRESKA MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW; #04-Z1521:   This is a request for a Minor Special Review for a drafting business/home occupation to take place in a detached structure and appeals to Sections 4.3.10.B.4.2 and 4.3.10.B.4.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. The applicants are requesting the approval of a Minor Special Review in order to convert an existing single-family home into a drafting office, and construct a new structure for a single-family home.  Existing structures include an 1144 square foot single-family home; one 291 square foot frame shed; one 674 square foot metal shed on a foundation; one 123.22 square foot frame shed; one 760 square foot metal barn; and one 513 square foot frame shed with a foundation. The proposed office space is to be located in what is currently the existing single-family home.  The existing home will be converted to an office, and a new single-family home will be built. The new single-family home will be located in the eastern part of the lot, approximately 200 feet east of the western boundary of the lot.   The lot is zoned FA-1, and is located approximately approximately 600 feet east of Interstate Highway 25..  The area is characterized by similar acreages, with a mix of agricultural and residential uses.   The area has low visibility due to the established trees and shrubs throughout this lot and the surrounding lots.  There are no wetlands, designated wildlife areas, or hazard areas on this lot.

 

Staff findings include:  1. There will be no outdoor storage of materials, parts, equipment, finished product or any items associated with the approved home; 2. The drafting business proposed will be located on the same lot with the single family dwelling occupied by the owner/operator of the use; 3. The proposed home occupation will not change the character of the lot or the neighborhood;  4.  There will be no on-site retail sales;  5.  The home occupation will employ no more than one full time equivalent employee who does not reside on the premises as a member of the family;  6. The home occupation will not include client visits, but will consist of occasional deliveries and the business owner utilizing the structure in order to draft and store materials;  7.  Staff further finds that the request appeals to allow the for the home occupation to take place in an existing structure that is greater than 800 square feet and is located less than 50 feet from a property line is a reasonable request and to require the applicant to adhere to these requirements with the existing structure is not feasible, and the requested appeals are not inconsistent with the intent of the Minor Special Review process or the Code.

 

It is the opinion of the Development Review Team that the proposal is compatible when viewed in the context of the development pattern in the area, the surrounding existing and allowed uses, the size of the parcel and the intensity of the use.  Further, the application meets the intent of Section 8. of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The Development Review Team recommends approval of the appeal to Section 4.3.10.B.4.2, limiting home occupations to 800 square feet;  The Development Review Team recommends approval of the appeal to Section 4.3.10.B.4.5, stating that the home occupation must be located at least 50 feet from the property line.  The Development Review Team recommends approval of the Breska Minor Special Review, File #04-Z1521. The Development Review Team recommends approval of the appeal to Section 4.3.10.B.4.2, limiting home occupations to 800 square feet; AND, The Development Review Team recommends approval of the appeal to Section 4.3.10.B.4.5, stating that the home occupation must be located at least 50 feet from the property line; AND, The Development Review Team recommends approval of the Breska Minor Special Review, File 04-Z1521, with the following conditions: 1. An intended use agreement that details the uses approved and character of the operation will be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 2.  At the time of building permit issuance for the new home, the applicant will meet the requirements of the Larimer County Building Code, Fire Code and Health Regulations for both structures.

 

3.  TEAL CREEK AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; #99-S1415:  This is a request for an extension of and modification to the existing development agreement, to allow for a one year extension of the time necessary to post collateral and to extend the vesting for one year.  The Teal Creek PUD Preliminary Plat was approved in June of 2000, one of the last major pre code (applied before January of 2000) projects approved by the Board of County Commissioners.  The Final Plat was approved by the Board of County Commissioners November 26, 2002.  The approval of the Final Plat included an agreement to restrict the sales of lots until collateral was posted for the first phase.  The agreement approved in 2002 anticipated that the collateral would be posted within two years, by November of 2004.  The Developers believe that the market conditions have not improved significantly enough to warrant proceeding with construction at this time.  This is a continuation of the applicant’s original argument for the unique agreement under which the Final Plat for the property was originally approved.  The Development Services Team finds the requested amendments to the development agreement and the extension of the vesting are consistent with prior actions and do not pose a detriment to the County or public, and are consistent with the intent of the Code.  The Development Services Team recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the modification to the Development Agreement for the Teal Creek PUD final plat allowing one additional year to submit collateral to November 22, 2005, and extending the vesting to November 22, 2008.

 

M O T I O N

 

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

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.         WHITMAN DEVELOPMENT REZONING; #03-Z1469:  Chair Rennels noted that this item was back on today's agenda merely to discuss the annexation issues surrounding the application and that because public comment was closed at the October 18, 2004 hearing, there would be no further public comment or applicant presentation.  Mr. Timm stated that the Planning staff has met with the City of Fort Collins as directed by the Board at the October 18 hearing. The City has indicated its desire to annex the property into the city limits once the rezoning takes place; however, the City is not in favor of expanding the operation on this site.  Chair Rennels stated that the rezoning of this property would alleviate the violation, and would allow Mr. Whitman to move into the 6000 square foot building and operate his business legally.  Chair Rennels stated that further expansion of the site would need to be addressed with the City of Fort Collins after annexation.  Mr. Karan presented an updated handout with the revised recommendations and conditions for approval based on comments made by the Board at the October 18 hearing.  The Board then discussed additional revisions that should be made based on the City’s position concerning annexation as expressed to Mr. Timm.

 

A.        Property rezoned as Planned Development (PD):

 

1.   Principal uses:

a.   Single-family dwelling.

b.   Trade use limited to:  Repair of lawn mowers, golf carts, recreational vehicle generators and other small engines (collectively “Small Engine Repair Business”).

2.   Accessory uses – Outdoor display and sales limited to used lawn mowers and golf carts during business hours and limited to a maximum of 500 square feet.

3.   Lot, building and structure requirements.

a.   Minimum lot size 15,000 square feet (.34 acres).

b.   Minimum setbacks:

1)   Front (Skyway Drive) - 25 feet from property line.

2)   West side - 10 feet.

3)   East side - 10 feet.

4)   Rear - 20 feet.

c.   Maximum non-residential building area:  6000 square feet.

d.   Maximum Structure height - 25 feet.

e.   The required change in occupancy will not require Site Plan Review. 

4.   All activities and materials associated with the Small Engine Repair Business (except for outdoor display and sales as specified in #A.2 above) shall be kept inside an approved commercial building at all times.

 

B.         Conditions of approval of rezoning to Planned Development (PD):

 

1.   Dedicate right-of-way as follows:

a.   3 feet of right-of-way along Skyway Drive in addition to the existing Skyway Drive right-of-way.

b.   A 30-foot right-of-way along the western property line for Aron Street.  (This right-of-way can include a 15 foot utility easement.)

c.   All such dedications shall be executed prior to the issuance of any building permits.

2.   The following must take place prior to moving the Small Engine Repair Business to the existing 6000 square foot building:

a.   Chain link fencing must be removed (except along the western property boundary) and replaced with screening which conforms to Section 8.5.4 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

b.   The eastern property line must be screened by landscaping and fencing which conforms to Section 8.5.4 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

c.   A change in occupancy building permit and a new certificate of occupancy must be approved and issued.

3.   All activities associated with the Small Engine Repair Business will be limited to the following business operating hours:  8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday.

4.   This rezoning is effective only upon the signing of a Findings and Resolution and upon the receipt of a signed annexation agreement acceptable to Larimer County as required by Section 4.2.1.D.9 of the Land Use Code. The signed annexation agreement must be submitted within five (5) working days of the signing of the Findings and Resolution.  A change of occupancy permit application will be accepted by the County upon receipt of the signed annexation agreement.  However, the change in occupancy permit and certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the rezoning is effective.

5.   The applicant shall remove all outdoor storage by November 24, 2004 or issuance of a building permit, whichever comes first, except for the lawnmowers and golf carts accessory to the Small Engine Repair Business which may be displayed outdoors as provided in Paragraph A.2 above.

6.   Should the conditions # B.4-5 not be met, then Code enforcement shall commence immediately and the County Attorney's office is authorized to pursue legal action against the applicant.

 

The Board supported the PD zoning for this property.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Whitman Development Rezoning; file# 03-Z1469, with the amended conditions as outlined above. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  SHREINER SAWMILL SPECIAL REVIEW; #01-Z1406:   This is a request for a Special Review approval for an illegal wood processing & sawmill facility within the LaPorte Plan Area.  The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 16, 2004 regarding this issue and the discussion focused on a variety of issues.  These included the LaPorte Plan’s list of recommended uses for the site (agricultural and rural residential) and Staff’s contention that this use does one qualify.  Some of the discussion also centered on the sawmill’s compatibility with surrounding uses.  The question here being does the sawmill qualify as a pre-existing, non-conforming use, and is thus allowed under the LaPorte Plan?  Staff’s research does not support the sawmill as being a pre-existing and non-conforming use.  The attached staff report to the Planning Commission provides more information regarding this conclusion, which is upheld by Court action as well.  Related to this question, a neighboring property owner also spoke to the issue of compatibility.  There was also some discussion on how similar uses in the area received approval under previous regulations and how the applicant was allowed to pursue the special review option, after the County had received a favorable judgment from the Courts directing the applicant’s to cease work at the site.  Development Services Team Findings are as follows:  1. The use does not adversely affect wildlife or wetlands. 2. The use does not have a negative impact on natural hazards. 3. The use is not compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and it is not in harmony with the neighborhood. 4. The use is not consistent with the Master Plan, the Land Use Code or the LaPorte Area Plan. 5.  The use will not exceed air, water, odor or noise standards established by county, state or federal regulations. 6. The use does have an adverse affect on property values in the area.  As the applicant did not provide information requested that addresses this question, and adverse impact must be assumed to protect the rights of neighboring property owners. 7. The use does not comply with all requirements of this Code and all applicable county, state and federal regulations.  Both Planning Commission and staff recommendation is for denial of the Shreiner Sawmill Special Review, File #01-Z1406.

 

Mr. Wheeler noted that the business has been in operation on the 35 acre site for approximately 11 years, and that it produces firewood from raw lumber.  Mr. Wheeler stated that the LaPorte Area Advisory Committee (LAPAC) supports approval of the Special Review with the following conditions:  1. The Shreiners satisfy their neighbors' request for visual and sound screening (e.g. a 10 - 12 foot berm).  2.  No significant future expansion in production levels over existing conditions.  Mr. Wheeler stated that there are neighbors concerned with the operation having a negative impact of their homelife and property values. 

 

Mr. Steve Shreiner addressed the Board noting that when he purchased the property there was a limited lumber business in place; he stated that he now employs seven people and they perform logging and assist with fire mitigation and he feels that his business is a positive contribution to the community.  Mr. Shreiner noted that he is willing to construct berms and fences in order to give a more visual appeal.  He presented the Board with real estate sales in the area noting that the property values have not been negatively affected by this business.  Mr. Shreiner stated that he is willing to take over complete responsibility for the road maintenance and snow removal.  Finally, Mr. Shreiner stated that he just wants to be a good neighbor and continue to run his business.  Chair Rennels asked if Mr. Shreiner was planning to expand his business.  Mr. Shreiner stated that his original intention was not to expand his business, but now that the application was in progress, he would like to move some of his operation indoors in order to get his wood bundles out of the elements, and he might like to add a septic system in order to provide his employees restroom facilities.  Tim O'Hare, Chairman of LAPAC, addressed the Board noting their support and approval of this Special Review application; Mr. O'Hare stated that they received no opposition to this application during their public meetings, and he further noted that moving some of the operation indoors would be a good idea.  Commissioner Bender asked what the current zoning in the area was and Mr. O'Hare replied that is was O-Open zoning.  Stuart Olive, representative for the applicant, then addressed the Board stating that the crux of the matter was the compatibility issue, and with four properties in a row that process wood, they believe the operation is compatible with the surrounding area.  Commissioner Bender had questions regarding storage of vehicles and campers on the property and how waste material from the business is being disposed of.  Mr. Shreiner stated that he is trying to sell one of the vehicles and the other two campers belong to his children.  As for removal of the waste material, Mr. Shreiner noted that there is a large pile which needs to be removed, and if his application is approved, he plans to mix in with the soil and use it to build the berms. 

 

At this time Chair Rennels opened the meeting for public comment.  Mr. and Mrs. Devore, neighbors to Mr. Shreiner, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Shreiner's property is an eye sore and they asked for the County's assistance in ensuring it gets cleaned up.  Mr. Devore explained that when Mr. Shreiner purchased the property he was to build a fence, which was never constructed, and he was supposed to clean up the property, and that was also never taken care of, and in their opinion it has just grown into a bigger eyesore as the years progress.  Mr. Devore stated that Mr. Shreiner has attempted to get rid of the waste by burning it, which caused them to suffer through days of smoke filled air, and then he tried to bury it in the ditch, which caused a different set of problems altogether.  Finally, Mr. Devore stated that the hours of operation are unacceptable with chain saws and equipment starting anywhere from 5:00 to 6:00 a.m. in the morning.

 

Much discussion ensued regarding compatibility, non-conforming use, road maintenance, berm, fencing, and possible landscaping requirements, a management plan for removal of waste material, expansion of the operation into a building, hours of operation, and traffic control.  As a result, the Board directed staff to create some conditions regarding this Special Review and bring it back to the Board for further discussion.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Shreiner Sawmill Special Review, File #01-Z1406, to December 13, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  VERN'S PLANNED LAND DIVISION APPEAL; #04-G0067:   This is a request for appeals to the following Sections of the Larimer County Land Use Code:  1. Section 8.6.3.C.1 of the Land Use Code – To not be required to pave the parking lot for a proposed storage use; 2.  Section 8.6.3.B.5.a of the Land Use Code, to be allowed to have parking within the public right-of-way of County Road 54G; 3. Section 9.7 (ROW Dedication), 8.1.5 (Road Improvements) and 8.1.3 Drainage Standards of the Land Use Code,  to not be required to dedicate additional right-of-way for County Road 54G as required by the LaPorte Area Plan and Larimer County Road Manual.  The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow use of recycled asphalt in the parking and circulation areas associated with the proposed mini storage use.  The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Appeal to Section 8.6.3.B.5.a  of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow the existing parking area for Vern’s Restaurant subject to the following conditions; 1.  The applicant shall be required to provide visual aids to differentiate the parking area from the roadway.  Such visual aids may include landscaping, fencing, signage, barricades or a composition of them all and shall be reviewed and Engineering Departments. 2.  In the event that roadway improvements to County Road 54G are necessary for the public interest and safety, the applicant at their own expense will remove the parking lot from the right-of-way and relocate the required parking lot to be outside of the right-of-way.  3. The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Appeal to Section 9.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Mr. Lafferty noted that staff supports the appeal of Section 8.6.3.C.1, as this application is attempting to deal with some of the specific site planning features due to constraining factors such as drainage, access, visibility and the like.  Review of the development application revealed that the applicant’s desire was to not pave, but rather use recycled asphalt for the surface of the internal parking and circulation areas associated with the proposed mini-storage.  This alternate surfacing material will provide dust suppression and allows surface drainage, albeit a small amount, to soak into the ground rather than to completely run-off.  Therefore, staff is supporting this appeal based solely on specific site conditions associated with this property.

 

Mr. Lafferty further noted that staff supports the appeal of Section 8.6.3.B.5.a, which states that parking lots are required to be setback at least 15 feet from arterial road right-of-ways.  The purpose for this standard is to protect people and vehicles from traffic situations that could occur along busier roadway.  Additionally, the standard provides space for landscaping, basins for detention, access and sight visibility as they relate to the relationship of the parking area and the adjacent road.  With regards to the proposed request, not only does the parking lot for the Vern’s Restaurant not meet this standard, but it also is situated within the public right-of-way, which the location presents safety issues for the passing public as well as the visitors to the restaurant. This issue is further compounded by potential roadway improvements associated with the eastern reaches of the proposed development, which will likely require acceleration and deceleration lanes that align with the existing parking spaces.  This situation is further compounded by the fact that relocation of the existing parking lot to other areas of the property would require significant site modification due to the existing terrain of the site.  As a result of the conflict with the existing situation and the proposed application, the applicant is seeking an appeal to allow the existing parking lot to remain.  The Development Services Team evaluation of this request reveals that the most desirable resolution would be to move the parking from the right-of-way; however, recognizing the situation at hand the Development Services Team believes that through the use of visual aids, landscaping, signage and barricades, leaving the parking lot in the current location while protecting the public can be achieved, and thus would support the appeal under such circumstances.  The Development Services Support of this appeal is based solely upon current conditions, and if future improvements to County Road 54G are ever realized the relocation of the parking lot will need to be re-evaluated.

 

Finally, Mr. Lafftery stated that staff does not support the appeal of Section 9.7 regarding right-of-way dedications.  A requirement for all development applications is the dedication of right-of-way necessary for the ultimate improvement for the adjacent roadways.  In many instances the dedication of the additional right-of-way occurs even though no new improvements are required or anticipated.  The purposed for requiring these dedications is to ensure that sufficient right-of-way exists for public future public improvements, and to reduce the public expenditure for the acquisition of the right-of-way.  With the proposed request the applicant is appealing to not be required to dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary for the planned road section for the segment of County Road 54 G adjacent to the property, which road section has been adopted by the County in the LaPorte Area Plan and the Road Manual.  The road section that has been adopted envisions a specific traveled area as well as areas for roadside drainage swales and a pedestrian walkway.  Additionally, these ultimate road improvements will not be constructed by this development as they are not necessary for the use.  Furthermore according to the applicant the additional right-of-way will burden the development of this property without cause for such space, stating that all aspects of the current development proposal, including road improvements and drainage, can be designed within the current right-of-way.   While the Development Services Team acknowledges the applicant’s position that the improvements necessary for this project can occur within the current right-of-way, other aspects of the development proposal such as the parking lots, building placement and on-site drainage facilities will be situated within the ultimate right-of-way, which will result in a significant public expenditure if future improvements require the acquisition of the additional right-of-way as well as the relocation of the proposed development within the right-of-way.  Therefore, the Development Services Team does not support the applicant appeal to Section 9.7 to not be required to dedicate the right-of-way for County Road 54G adjacent to the property because it will adversely affect the public interest and welfare.  Mr. Laffterty noted that the Development Services Team is willing to continue working with the applicant towards an acceptable design, and if necessary would consider other appeals if circumstances are warranted.

 

Chair Rennels clarified that the applicant will be able to park within the right-of-way, yet the applicant will be required to dedicate more right-of-way that they are already being allowed to park in.  Mr. Lafferty stated that yes; the dedication is there just in case they would ever need to use it.   Commissioner Gibson asked what would determine when the road would be improved.  Ms. Coleman stated that the primarily improvements to the road would be based on future growth in the area, increased traffic counts, and the necessity of pedestrian sidewalks and medians; she further noted that a dedicated right-of-way provides the ability to facilitate future development.  Commissioner Bender asked if the right-of-way could be expanded to the open field across the street.  Mr. Helmick replied that the dedication strategy is to place an equitable burden on all property owners.  Some discussion ensued regarding the drainage problems pertaining to the site and how that might relate to the actual amount of dedicated right-of-way that would be needed.  Mr. Helmick stated that it would be difficult to know exactly how much of the right-of-way will be necessary until an actual design plan is surveyed and created.     Rick Hattman, representative for the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that by their estimates, a full four lane highway in this area will not be needed for at least the next 20 years.  Mr. Hattman noted that opening up the roads will encourage speeding in the area and will detract from the urban setting and the small home-town feel of LaPorte.    Mr. Hattman also explained that just down the street there is the requirement for only a 100 foot right-of-way dedication and that it does not make sense to maintain 120 foot easement, especially if it is not necessary.  Mr. Hattman stated that they have been working on a proposal which would require less than a 120 foot easement, and he requested the Board to vary the 120 foot easement requirement, and allow them the opportunity to work with staff in reaching an engineering solution.  Ms. Haag was not comfortable with granting an appeal to the requirement until the without knowing exactly how much right-of-way will be needed. Ms. Coleman reiterated that this has much to do with the drainage problems in the area and until the actual drainage plan is defined, it is impossible to know exactly how much of the easement will be needed.  Some discussion ensued and the applicant agreed to table this appeal to an open ended date and tie the appeal directly to the review of the actual application. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow use of recycled asphalt in the parking and circulation areas associated with the proposed mini storage use as recommended by the development Services Team; and also approve the Appeal to Section 8.6.3.B.5.a of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow the existing parking area for Vern’s Restaurant as recommended by the Development Services Team.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the appeal to Section 9.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to an open ended date, and that the appeal will be tied to the review of the application.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the meeting recessed at 6:25 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#130)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Jim Reidhead, Director of the Rural Land Use Center; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present.  Also present were: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Christie Coleman, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels asked for public comment on the Larimer County Land Use Code and the County Budget.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.

 

1.  DRAKE PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN; 02-S2028:  This is a request for preliminary approval to divide 124 +/- acres into seven (7) single-family residential lots located on about 38 +/- acres and up to three (3) Residual Lots (private open space) on about 86 +/- acres.  The Residual Lots will be protected from further development in perpetuity by a covenant or conservation easement, as required under the RLUP.   The property is located in Section 11, Township 9 North, Range 72 West.  It is generally located thirteen miles south-southwest of Livermore and north of County Road 74E (Red Feather Lakes Road) on Green Mountain Drive.  The land consists of mostly range grass with some rock outcropping and is currently used for agricultural grazing.  The land could be divided into three (3) 35-acre parcels without County input.  The property is zoned O-Open.  Under the property’s current O-Open (1 home site per 10 acres) zoning, up to 12 homes could potentially be built if brought through the County's Conservation Development (CD) process if adequate public facilities are provided.  This parcel of land was originally part of a larger RLUP project submitted in October of 2002 under the same name.  That application was put on hold in the spring of 2003 and this revised plan has been re-submitted.

 

The residential sites will be generally located in the north-central portion of the property.  They have been placed there to provide a degree of seclusion from one another, respect existing wildlife corridors, riparian areas, and other important natural features, minimize infrastructure requirements, have soils suitable for on-site septic systems, respect neighbors view sheds, and minimize wildfire hazards.  Access to these new lots is proposed by a private road that will take access from Green Mountain Drive.  Green Mountain Drive is an all-weather gravel surface and currently serves this property and the Green Mountain Meadows Subdivision to the east of this property.  The residential lot sizes will average about 5 acres in size.  Water to these lots will be provided by on-lot wells and they will require engineered septic systems.  The applicant is proposing appropriate architectural guidelines for this project to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed new residences and associated structures.  The surrounding properties consist of the Green Mountain Meadows subdivision consisting of 35 lots on 670 acres with an average lot size of 19.1 acres, and the Glacier View Meadows Subdivision consisting of 1,046 lots on 3,513 acres with an average lot size of 3 acres.  There is significant development pressure in this area for 35-acre parcels and smaller residential lots, if available.  This pressure is caused by general growth along the Front Range and general attractiveness of property in the Cherokee Park/Red Feather Lakes area.  The proposed density of Drake Rural Land project, one unit per 17.5 acres, is significantly less than Glacier View Meadows to the south and appears to be compatible with the neighborhood. The residual land, approximately 86 acres and comprising roughly 69% of the property, will be protected from further development in perpetuity.  It will have a management/use plan to foster its long-term health.  The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land and for providing a monitoring report(s) at the County's request. 

 

Homeowners’ association covenants will also be prepared and address the following issues: Maintenance of internal access roads, maintenance of 1400-1600 feet of Green Mountain Road, architectural control and design guidelines, home size requirements, use restrictions on all residential sites, on-going mitigation of wildfire hazards (including residential lot thinning and creation of defensible space), utilities, outdoor storage of vehicles, and management of large animals. This property was originally part of a larger RLUP project submitted in October of 2002 under the same name.  A community meeting was held on November 20, 2002, for this original project which included 204 acres with 11 units.  At that meeting, the community was concerned that there were too many houses and they disputed the right of this project to access Green Mountain Drive. After this first community meeting, the applicant put his plans on hold.  He then decided to address concerns about the number of houses by removing two (2) 35-acre parcels from the RLUP project and putting them up for sale as free-standing 35-acre residential lots.  This also served to deal with immediate funding needs associated with the resolution of his parents’ estate. 

 

In the summer of 2004, the applicant submitted a new design involving 124 acres with 7 proposed residential units, four fewer than the original proposal.  In the new plan the lots were moved back from Green Mountain Road, made smaller, and put in a more compact cluster.  A second neighborhood meeting to discuss the new plan was held on August 4, 2004, at the Livermore Community Club.    About 20 area residents attended.  Some of the neighbors were concerned about the number of proposed residential lots, proposed access from Green Mountain Drive, and the fact that two 35-acre parcels were no longer part of the proposal.  This last concern was based on the fact that the 35-acre parcels because they were no longer included in the project, would retain all of their development rights based on underlying zoning and not be subject to the deed restriction required under the RLUP. Based on the additional information from the second neighborhood meeting and subsequent discussions with neighbors, further modifications were made to the plan.  These changes resulted in all but 2 home-sites being out of conspicuous view from the neighbors to the east; improvements dealing with drainage and septic issues were also made.  This is the plan being presented.  Referral agency comments were also solicited.  Representatives from the County Engineering Department, Health Department, Wildfire Safety, and Rural Land Use Advisory Board have visited the site and have consulted with the Rural Land Use Center during the conceptual design phase.

 

Staff findings are: That the proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code:   Support for the Drake Preliminary Rural Land Plan is based on the following: 1.  Applicant’s planning and design rationale for the project, which is consistent with the RLUP.  2.  Conservation values of the residual land, including preservation of grazing land, open space and wildlife habitat.  3.  The plan is generally compatible with the existing neighboring land uses.  4.  Applicant has taken considerable efforts to address neighbors’ concerns.

 

Support for this proposed plan takes into consideration the various other land development and design options, particularly the 35-acre alternative, for which there is no County review.  The greater number of residential units possible under the zoning and the general development pressure within the immediate area for use-by-right 35-acre division of land supports our belief that this is an appropriate project.

 

As proposed, this project will also provide commensurate long-term benefits to citizens of Larimer County.  Those benefits are as follows:  1. Perpetual protection of residual land.  2. Transportation capital expansion fees received from the project.  3. School and park fees received from the project.  4. Fewer residences than likely allowed through subdivision process. 5. Ability to influence design of project, as compared to use-by-right division of property into 35-acre parcels.

 

The Rural Land Use Director recommends approval of the Drake Rural Land Plan.  The following contingencies must be met prior to approval of final plat by the Board of County Commissioners:

 

1.   All roads constructed within the Rural Land Plan shall be in accordance with duly adopted Rural Land Use Process road standards in effect at the time construction is commenced.  Design shall be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.  Internal roads may be contained in a private access and utility easement.  All intersections should be placed on a one-half mile interval plus or minus approximately 200 feet or access should be taken from the existing local road system.  For this project please take access to the proposed lots from the existing Green Mountain Drive.  The main access road between lots 4 and 5 will traverse a drainage way.  In the final drainage design, care should be taken to insure that this road remains passable in the 100 year rainfall event.  Right-of-way requirements in the Larimer County Transportation Plan must be dedicated on the final plat for County Roads.  Road names and addressing shall meet standards in Section 5.11 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

2.   If a new crossing of Gordon Creek is required, the Fish and Wildlife Service must be consulted regarding the crossing for construction of the new bridge or culvert installation because this may require significant modification of Preble’s habitat downstream.

3.   The central part of the swale separating Lot 5 from Lots 3 and 4 shall be delineated and a 100’ septic setback shall be shown on the plat.  All residential lots shall be at least 5 acres in size.

4.   Septic systems must be designed by an engineer.

5.   A written ruling from the State Engineers Office stating if this property will be allowed wells under C.R.S. 30-28-401-404 and/or if they will be affected by an existing water augmentation plan for the area and what the requirements are for new wells will be required prior to final plat approval.  If the well permits will be tied to the existing plan of augmentation for Glacier View Meadows, it would be important for the lots to be part of the Water and Sewer Association that administers the plan.

6.   Well permits must be obtained from the Colorado Division of Water Resources prior to obtaining building permits.

7.   The Glacier View Meadows Fire Department must approve the final water storage supply system before final approval.

8.   The lots shall be placed in such a configuration that the drainages on the property are not included in any proposed building envelopes.  The building envelope for lot 5 will have to have swales that divert the sub basin drainage away from the house.

9.   A forest/range management plan for the entire proposed development must created by a professional forester/range management specialist and be reviewed and approved by the RLUC Director and Tony Simons, the Wildfire Safety Specialist prior to final project approval.  This plan must include objectives, current conditions, future desired conditions and options to reduce the wildfire hazards.  Additionally this plan must prioritize treatment areas and establish time frames for implementation of the plan and identify funding sources to assure implementation.  The implementation of the forest/range management plan must be completed and/or implemented within the building envelopes of the proposed lots prior to the sale of the lots. 

10.   Class A roofing material must be used on all new construction. 

11.   A fire protection plan must be submitted and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director and the Larimer County Emergency Management office before final approval OR The construction of any single-family residence in this development will require the installation of residential fire sprinklers if fire hydrants and/or a public water supply are not present to provide fire protection unless written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district is received.  It is recommended that a storage tank be created that would have a minimum of 3000 gallons per lot.  Additionally, this tank should also be constructed with fittings compatible with Glacier View Fire Department. Any new homes constructed will be required to have a Class B roofing material and be required to meet Chapter 36 of the Amended Uniform Building Code—Wildfire Hazard Requirements for New Construction.  

12.   The residual land protective covenant and use plans must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval. 

13.   Restrictive covenants, including provisions for internal road maintenance, small acreage management, architectural guidelines, and other requirements must be reviewed and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director prior to final plat approval.

14.   The final Development Agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval.

15.   A Lot Sale Prohibition shall be placed on this property preventing the sale of any new lots until the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements.  The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed.  The Lot Sale Prohibition will be recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and will be a covenant running with the Lots.  Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for the particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed. 

16.   The following must be listed as a note on the final plat and on a disclosure statement, approved by the County Attorney, available to lot buyers through the public records at the time of purchase:

a)   A note about the fire protection plan needs to be added, when it is determined or the following note shall be used:  The construction of any single-family residence in this development will require the installation of residential fire sprinklers if fire hydrants and/or a public water supply are not present to provide fire protection unless written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district is received.

b)   Class A roofing material must be used on all new construction. 

c)   LOT SALE PROHIBITION.  Developers will execute a Lot Sale Prohibition Agreement which stipulates that Lots 1 through 7 and/or Residual Lot(s) A cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developers provide to County a written designation stating that all the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements.  The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed.  The Lot Sale Prohibition will be recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and will be a covenant running with the Lots.  Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed.

d)   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of structures designed or habitable space on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

e)   Some or all lots in this development include building envelopes.  All structures must be located within these Larimer County approved building envelopes, as shown on the approved subdivision plat.  If a structure is within 5’ of the building envelope, the owner/applicant for a building permit will be required to demonstrate that the structure(s) is located within the building envelope prior to the approval of the footing and foundation inspection.  This shall be accomplished by a written certification by a Colorado Licensed Surveyor.

f)   Engineered footings and foundations may be required for new habitable construction. Please check with the Larimer County Building Department for requirements prior to submitting a building permit application.

g)   Lot owners should be advised that there is a potential for nuisance conflicts from wildlife (such as skunks, mountain lions, bears, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, prairie dogs and snakes).  The Colorado Division of Wildlife can provide information to property owners about how to handle these situations, but lot owners are responsible for addressing wildlife conflicts if they arise.

h)   Many species of wildlife live in the area; some can be dangerous to humans and pets.  It must be remembered that landowners will be living with wildlife.  Species that may be found in the area are coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, skunks, badgers, raccoons, deer, elk, hawks, owls and eagles.

i)   Pets must be contained on property, either by leash or enclosure.

j)   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.

k)   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.

l)   Agricultural operations and farming practices on adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust.  These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur.  In addition, plowing, planting, cultivating, spraying, harvesting, and various livestock operations may be carried out at all times including nighttime.

m)   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 should be coordinated with drainage and erosion control issues, siting of sanitation systems, fencing and feeding.

n)   Larimer County has adopted a Right to Farm Resolution.

o)   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Poudre R-1 school fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Park Fees (in lieu of dedication), and Rural Land Use Process fees.  The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply.

p)   Larimer County shall not maintain roads or streets in this development.  Maintenance of the streets shall be the responsibility of the property owners.  Failure to maintain streets may result in a lien being placed on these lots.

q)   At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential lots and residual lands with the Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County.

r)   The owners of the residual land parcel shall be responsible for providing monitoring reports for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center, at the request of the County.

s)   Lots in this Rural Land Plan are subject to the conditions and requirements of a Development Agreement.  The Developer and Larimer County executed this agreement in consideration of the approval of this Development.  This Agreement was recorded in the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office immediately after this plat.  All purchasers should obtain and read the Development Agreement.

17. Mailboxes for the Drake RLUP shall be located at the west most intersection of County Road 74E and Green Mountain Drive.

 

Mr. Reidhead introduced the applicant Paul Drake.  Mr. Drake thanked Mr. Reidhead and his staff for all of their hard work on this project.  Mr. Drake stated that his family has owned this land for many years and they want to be good stewards of the land.  Mr. Drake stated that they intend to maintain the roads and they are devoted to good neighbors and he plans to address any issues that the Board or adjoining neighbors might have. 

 

At this time the Chair Rennels opened up the hearing for public comment and James Foster, adjoining neighbor, addressed the Board.  Mr. Foster stated that he has lived in the area for 17 years and that he is very much in favor of the Drake Estate Rural Land Use Plan.  Mr. Foster stated that he has seen 35 acre parcels sold off with no covenants or restrictions in place and the results were terrible.  Mr. Foster believes that Mr. Drake has worked hard to ensure appropriate placement of the lots, proper management of the land, and the creation of sound covenants for the property. 

 

Frank Leibrock, adjoining neighbor, addressed the Board with a number of concerns pertaining to road access, adequate water supply, possible subdivision of two additional 35 acre parcels, home occupation, and the duration of the development being up to seven years.  Mr. Leibrock requested the Board ensure the road access issues be resolved prior to finalization; he requested that the Board resolve the fire protection requirements as he has been informed that it will take a 30,000 gallon storage facility to provide adequate protection; he requested the Board preclude re-subdivision of the two 35 acre parcels as he believes they are part of the RLUP process; he requested that the Board include another condition to address the increased traffic that could result from home occupations; and he requested that Board include a condition to minimize the impacts of dust, debris, noise, and the potential construction runoff that could reach Gordon Creek for the development duration.  Mr. Leibrock also questioned the inclusion of swimming pools in the covenants, and asked the Board or applicant to address this.  There being no further comment, Chair Rennels closed this section of the hearing.

 

 Mr. Drake explained that they used a number of different sample covenants to create their document, many of which included guidelines for construction of swimming pools.  Mr. Drake stated that although the likelihood of an owner installing a pool on their property is very slim, he decided to include it in the covenants.  Mr. Drake explained that he was trying to see well into the future, and maybe in a hundred years or so, there might be water in the area.  This is why reference to swimming pools was mentioned in the covenants.   Commissioner Bender asked about the water availability for fire suppression and the actual amount that would be needed for storage.  Mr. Drake stated that storage tanks, ponds, and dry hydrants were typically used in this area, and he agreed that it would be a condition of approval that adequate water would be available for fire suppression.   At this point there was a request from the audience to address the Board.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners re-open public comment.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Foster stated that he has been a member of the Glacier View Volunteer Fire Department for a number of years; he explained that they use a 3000 gallon storage facility at their fire house and that a 30,000 gallon storage facility would, in his opinion, be excessive.  Mr. Foster stated that they definitely depend upon the use of dry hydrants in this area, more so than storage facilities.

 

Mr. Leibrock stated that he and his neighbors had previously sent a letter to the applicant requesting the ability to discuss the option of installing a dry hydrant, but they have yet to receive a response from him.  Mr. Leibrock stated that they are willing to work with the applicant to assist in providing the water storage necessary.

 

Chair Rennels closed public comment and moved into the discussion phase of the hearing.  Commissioner Gibson asked about the requirement for radon mitigation up in the mountains where the clay soils are not as prevalent.  Mr. Reidhead stated that it was his understanding that radon was also present in gramitic soils and that was why it is included in the conditions.  Chair Rennels clarified that the road access issue will be resolved once it comes back for final approval and Mr. Reidhead replied in the affirmative.  Chair Rennels explained that the two adjacent 35 acres parcels are not included in this RLUP and those property owners will maintain their development rights.  Chair Rennels asked Mr. Reidhead to look at ways to mitigate the dust and discomfort to the neighbors during the seven year build out period.   Finally, Chair Rennels stated that home occupations are allowed and they fall under the county regulations.  Commissioner Gibson asked who would own the residual land.  Mr. Reidhead stated the first choice would be to have the Homeowners Association take control of the land; otherwise it could go to private ownership.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Drake Preliminary Rural Land Plan; file # 02-S2028, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#131)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present.  Also present were Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioner’s Office; Edie McSherry, Cooperative Extension Office; Ginny Riley and Laura Sartor, Human Services; Rob Helmick, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Brian Schum addressed the Board and thanked them for all of their hard work and effort on the Whitman Rezoning Land Use item.  Randy Whitman asked the Board for clarification as to why they made the decision they did regarding his rezoning petition.  The Board explained their position and noted that the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Fort Collins and the annexation of the property into the City played a large part in their final determination.  

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 25, 2004:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of October 25, 2004, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3 – 0.

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 8, 2004:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA: 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for November 2, 2004:

 

11022004A001           AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND RESIDUAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS FOR COTTONWOOD FARMS R.L.U.P. (99-RLP0029) BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND COLORADO BEEF, INC., AND PHILIP C. AND MARTHA L. MOORE

 

11022004R001           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS

 

11022004R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MCDONALD SUBDIVISION AND THE APPEALS TO SECTION 8.14.2.M (now renumbered as 8.14.2.N), SECTION 8.14.2.F (now renumbered as 8.14.2.G) AND SECTION 4.3.L

 

11022004R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT FOR LOTS 1-4 AND RESIDUAL LOT B AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT IN COTTONWOOD FARMS RLUP

 

11022004R004           RESOLUTION REGARDING RELEASE OF WARRANTY COLLATERAL FOR PARADISE VALLEY ESTATES SUBDIVISION

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Annual Performance Evaluation Report of County Manager; Larimer County Westridge Public Improvement District Advisory Road Board  Bylaws;  Amended Plat of Lots 1-4 of Cottonwood Farms R.L.U.P. #99-RLP0029 and Residual Lot B of the Amended Plat of Residual Lot B of Cottonwood Farms R.L.U.P. #99-RLP0029 and Vacation of Right-of-Way for Braun Lane

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were both approved and issued:  Red Feather Liquors - Retail Liquor Store - Red Feather Lakes; South Bay Store - 3.2% - Fort Collins. The following licenses were issued:  American Legion Post #4 - Special Event 6% - Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 3 – 0.

 

5.  PROCLAMATION FOR AMERICA ON THE MOVE DAY:  Ms. McSherry stated that the goal of this proclamation was to promote healthy lifestyles within Larimer County by stressing the importance of good eating and exercise habits.  Ms. McSherry noted that most Americans are not getting the proper amount of physical activity in their day to day lives - children included.  Chair Rennels noted that childhood diabetes is on the rise nationally, and that emphasizing this issue is indeed important.  Commissioner Bender read the proclamation aloud. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim November 5, 2004 as America on the Move Day.

 

Motion carried 3 – 0.

 

6.  CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM:  Ms. Riley requested approval on modifying county policy in order to require all low-income child care assistance recipients be referred to and cooperate with the Child Support Enforcement Unit, effective January 1, 2005 for all new recipients and at the next six-month redetermination for existing recipients unless exemption is granted in accordance with state regulations.  Ms. Riley noted that the passage of recent legislation allows for this action and it would benefit low-income child care recipients.  Ms. Sartor explained some history pertaining to this program; then noted the main difference would be the mandatory referral of recipients to the Child Support Enforcement Unit.  Chair Rennels asked Ms. Sartor to clarify exactly what the Child Support Enforcement Unit is, as some might confuse this agency with child support related to divorce cases.  Ms. Sartor noted that the Child Support Enforcement Unit has nothing to do with divorce cases, it supplements the earned income of the household, and if paternity is established, then the parent living separately is required to assist monetarily for care of the child regardless if there was a divorce or not.  Commissioner Gibson asked for clarification on if it pertained to children 18 and younger.  Ms. Riley stated that yes, Federal law mandates it be for children 18 years of age and younger.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the policy requiring that all low-income child care assistance recipients be referred to and cooperate with the Child Support Enforcement Unit effective January 1, 2005 for all new recipients and at the next six-month redetermination for existing recipients unless exemption is granted in accordance with state regulations.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  APPOINTMENTS TO THE FAIR BOARD AND THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION:   Interviews for these two boards have been conducted and the appointment recommendations are as follows:   Betty Hull is being recommended for appointment to the Estes Valley Planning Commission for a 3 year term commencing November 2, 2004, and expiring June 30, 2007.  Rodger Clark, Shannon Fancher, and Byron McGough, are being recommended for appointment to the Fair Board for a 3 year term commencing December 1, 2004, and expiring November 30, 2007.  John Harding and Jim Wooldridge are being recommended for reappointment to the Fair Board for a 3 year term commencing December 1, 2004, and expiring November 30, 2007.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments to the Fair Board and the Estes Valley Planning Commission as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster explained that the County Attorney requested an amendment to the Minutes from September 13, 2004 regarding the McDonald Subdivision in order to clarify that Section 8.14.2.M, is now known as Section 8.14.2.N, and that Section 8.14.2.F, is now known as Section 8.14.2.G.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve of amending the Minutes from September 13, 2004 regarding the McDonald Subdivision, in that wherever Section 8.14.2.M is mentioned, it will also be known as Section 8.14.2.N, and that wherever Section 8.14.2.F is mentioned, it will also be known as Section 8.14.2.G.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Lancaster explained that the Environmental Advisory Board has requested the County look at increasing the recycling effort in the courthouse and also look the possibility of utilizing more recycled materials.  Mr. Lancaster suggested forming a group of county employees that might be interested in addressing this issue and have the group come up with recommendations for the Board to consider.  The Board agreed that this would be a good idea.

 

Mr. Lancaster noted that the Community Corrections Department submitted a request with their proposed budget to hire 6.25 employees for the Pre-trial Program in 2005.  Although the budget has not been formally adopted, they have further requested the ability to hire the supervisor for the Pre-trail Program in November of 2004.  Mr. Lancaster stated that they have adequate salary savings from vacancy positions to pay for the position for the remainder of this year, and if they hire the supervisor in 2004, then they will be able to immediately begin hiring the remaining employees in January of 2005. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Supervisory Full Time Employee (FTE) for the Community Corrections Pre-trial Program, to be hired in November 2004.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finally, Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that when the Police and Courts building was constructed in Loveland, Larimer County had paid extra for their share of the project.  As a result, the City of Loveland promised to dedicate 4 acres of adjoining property to Larimer County for future growth.  Mr. Lancaster explained that there is no formal agreement in place regarding this, but it has been noted in previous minutes that the City would deed this land over to Larimer County.  Now the City of Loveland council members want the Board of County Commissioners to agree that they will never use the land for a satellite jail or a detoxification center.  Some discussion ensued.  Chair Rennels noted that although chances are slim that they would ever use the site to build a jail, she did not like the idea of tying the hands of future Commissioners.  Commissioner Gibson was not fond of the idea that the City of Loveland was putting conditions on something that was already agreed upon.  Mr. Lancaster reiterated that technically there is no formal agreement in place and the City of Loveland is not obligated to give the property to Larimer County.  He further noted that the property would likely be used for expansion of county offices.  The Board directed Mr. Lancaster to send a letter to the Loveland City Council that they will agree to the conditions.

 

9.  COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.

 

10.  LEGAL MATTERS:  (Affidavit provided.)

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for legal advice on specific legal questions as outlined in 24-6-402-(4)(b) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The Executive Session ended at 10:25 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING

MATTHEWS FARM, LLC

(#132)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 4:00 p.m. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present.  Also present were Jodi Masters and Diane Norman, Assessor's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Ms. Masters noted that the petitioner, Mr. Ken Weibel, was hopeful for leniency regarding the property taxes for the unsold lots in the Village at Matthew's Farm, due to the slow economy.  Ms. Masters noted that as of January 1, 2004, the subdivision was actively developing, the streets are in, and houses are being built; she stated that she has a market value of $82,500 and Mr. Weibel is selling lots for approximately $84,900 and Ms. Masters noted she has discounted for present worth at an appraised value of $60,200.  Commissioner Gibson asked why the remaining lots were being discounted.  Ms. Masters stated that the law requires that they discount the lots until the petitioner reaches the 80% threshold of lots sold, then the remaining lots will all increase to the market value.   Chair Rennels stated that the comparables looked good, and the lots are selling in a subdivision without economic hardships, so she agrees with the Assessor's valuation.  Chair Rennels noted that the petition was not present; however, if he is still not satisfied with the Board's decision then he had the right to further petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Matthew's Farm, LLC petition for abatement.

 

Motion carried 3 – 0.

 

The hearing ended at 4:10 p.m., and the meeting was adjourned.

 

 

___________________________________

KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

 

(S E A L)

 

 

A T T E S T

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk