Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 06/13/05  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, JUNE 13, 2005

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#56)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Wagner and Gibson were present.  Also present were:  Larry Timm, Al Kadera, Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Porter Ingrum, Matt Lafferty, Karin Madson, and Claudia Delude, Planning Department;  Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Christy 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 County Budget and Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.   Ms. Ponce-Pore explained a change to Item #3 on the Consent Agenda under the second condition, which should read "Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy" rather than "Prior to acceptance of a building permit".  Chair Rennels asked if the applicant was present and agreed with the change.  The applicant, Connie Fredman, addressed the Board and stated that she was in agreement with this change.  Chair Rennels then explained that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

1.  JENKS EXEMPTION PARCEL "A" AMENDED PLAT; #05-S2426:  This is a request for an Amended Plat of Parcel A of the Jenks Exemption (file # 165-79) to reconfigure an exemption parcel by adding a small portion of an adjacent metes & bounds parcel.  The subject parcel was created by exemption in 1979 (Jenks Exemption, file #165-79).  The current owner of the property purchased a small 0.33 acre portion of an adjacent parcel from a neighbor.  This Amended Plat request is to add that small 0.33 acre piece to the existing exemption lot.  The adjacent metes & bounds parcel will be reconfigured by Boundary Line Adjustment in conjunction with this request (refer to Southwick Boundary Line Adjustment, file # 05-S2425).  The following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Larimer County Engineering Department.  However, Brian J. Barnes, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identified several required corrections to the plat.  The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Jenks Exemption Parcel A Amended Plat, File # 05-S2426, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by December 13, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.  2.  Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Brian J. Barnes, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department, in his letter dated April 25, 2005.  3.  Prior to recordation the plat shall be revised to include the utility easement requested by Poudre Valley REA.  4.  Prior to recordation the plat shall be revised to include: the new lot must be labeled “Lot 1” and all references to “2nd Amended Plat” shall be removed.

 

2.  SYKES MINOR LAND DIVISION; #05-S2404:   This is a request for approval of a Minor Land Division to divide an existing residence and an existing business from the balance of the property.  The results of the requested application would be 3 lots.  Lot 1 and 2 are occupied by existing improvements on the property, and the remaining 15.6 acre lot will be restricted to remain undeveloped in accordance with Section 5.4.2.B of the Larimer County Land Use Code until a development application is approved for the property.  The Sykes Minor Land Division proposes to create 3 lots from a 19.79 acre property situated along the southern side of Highway 402, approximately 1.5 miles east of Highway 287.  Currently the property contains a residential use and a commercial use, each of which will be situated on a separate lot if this application is approved.  Of the three lots proposed, Lot 1 will contain the existing residence on the property, Lot 2 will contain the existing commercial business on the property and Lot 3 will remain vacant in accordance with Section 5.4.2.B of the Larimer County land Use Code until an appropriate development application is approved for the property.  Because the proposed property is split zoned (FA – Farming and B – Business) the proposed lot lines to be created by the MLD will occur along the existing zoning boundary.  Furthermore, a variance was applied for and approved to allow Lot 1 to be less than 2.3 acres in area in order to accommodate adequate access to Lot 3, which is situated behind Lots 1 and 2.  The Development Services Team as part of our review believes that the 60 foot wide space between the proposed Lots 1 and 2, should be identified as a dedicated public right-of-way before the MLD Plat is recorded.  Additionally, the technical comments received from Dale Greer of the Larimer County Engineering Department dated March 30, 2005 will need to be addressed before the recordation of the MLD Plat.  The applicant has submitted a signed Utility Checklist, as required, which indicated that the utility providers in this area have no objections to this application.  The Sykes Minor Land Division complies with the Review Criteria of Section 5.4, and all other applicable standards of the Larimer County Code, and should not present any compatibility issues with the surrounding properties and uses.

The Development Services Team findings are as follows:  1.  The property for the proposed Sykes Minor Land Division is not part of any approved or recorded Exemptions, Minor Residential Developments, Minor land Divisions or Subdivisions and is therefore eligible for this Minor Land Division.  2.  The newly-created parcels will meet the minimum lot size required by the applicable zoning districts, and the approved Sykes lot size variance.  3.  Access to the property will not change and complies with current standards as set forth by the County Engineering Department.   4.  The Sykes Minor Land Division will not result in impacts greater than those of existing uses surrounding the property.

The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Sykes Minor Land Division file # 05-S2404 subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chair 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 recorded by December 13, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.  2.  The applicant shall dedicate the 60 foot wide area between Lots 1 and 2 as public right-of-way.  3.  The referral comments from Dale Greer of the Larimer County Engineering Department, dated March 30, 2005, shall be addressed before the MLD Plat is recorded.

 

3.   FREDMAN MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW; #04-Z1531:  This is a request for a Minor Special Review request for a Pet Animal Facility, specifically, a canine health resort and Appeals to Section 8.1.1.B.4, requiring development in the Growth Management Area (GMA) to hook to public sewer and Section 8.6.3.C.1, requiring paved parking in the GMA.  The applicant is requesting the approval of a Minor Special Review in order to construct an animal rehabilitation facility on approximately 38 acres zoned FA-Farming.  The parcel is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Willox Lane and Lawton Lane.  The facility is to be a 40’ X 80’ structure, and will be used for the rehabilitation and physical therapy for dogs.  The proposed structure will include a reception area, three treatment rooms, an aquatic treadmill room, laundry room, bathroom, an animal holding area, an office and a large open area for an indoor therapy pool. Approximately 800 square feet will be for storage and/or future expansion.  Solid animal waste will be disposed of through regular trash service.  All animals will be housed inside the building, and there will be no overnight accommodation for animals.   The area is characterized by similar acreages, with a mix of agricultural and residential uses.   The proposed structure which will house the proposed use is approximately 600 feet west of Shields St., and would have low visibility from the road.  The following sections of the Larimer County Land Use Code are relevant to this application: Section 4.3.12 addresses Pet Animal Regulations; Section 4.5 addresses Minor Special Reviews; Section 8 addresses Standards for All Development.  As a pet animal facility, this proposal must also meet the Review Criteria for Minor Special Reviews, and demonstrate that it can meet the standards set forth in Section 8 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  A neighborhood meeting took place on November 3, 2004 at 7:00 pm at 1721 North Shields Street, Fort Collins, at the Applicant’s home.  One neighbor attended, a Ms. Brigette Schmidt of 932 Inverness Road, Fort Collins. She voiced no objections and stated that it was a needed facility in Fort Collins.   On December 28, 2004, Staff received a letter from Mr. James Gallenstein, a neighbor of Ms. Fredman. Mr. Gallenstein has requested that Staff proposed Conditions of Approval that state the following:

            1.  No animals shall be kept outside of the building;

            2.  If grazing takes place on the property, the areas should be “checked every other day for dead animals.”

            3.  No additional buildings should be erected a part of this facility;

            4.  This is be the only business to take place on the property and is should only be conducted within a well-defined area facing Shields;

            5.  Weed control be practiced on the property;

            6.  Signage must comply with county regulations.

 

Many of the requested items have been addressed as a part of the review of this application while others cannot be addressed through the process of a public hearing for a Minor Special Review.   Item 1: The request is for therapy for dogs indoors; dogs will not be kept outdoors.  However, other animals may be kept on the property as per the underlying zoning.  Item 2: Issues of deceased animals can be addressed at the time that it may be needed with the Larimer County Department of Health.  Item 3:  No additional buildings are proposed.  Item 4:  The uses requested in the project description are what will take place on the site.  Additional businesses that exceed the thresholds of home occupations would require a Minor Special Review of Special Review process.  Item 5:  Weed control is managed by the Larimer County weed district.  Item 6:  All signage will comply with Code requirements.

In consideration of the proposed Pet Animal Facility, Staff finds that: 1.  There will be no outdoor storage of materials, parts, equipment, finished product or any items associated with the approved Pet Animal facility; 2.  The use will be located on the same lot with the single family dwelling occupied by the owner/operator of the use;  3. The proposed use will not change the character of the lot or the neighborhood;  4.  The proposed use will be located greater than the minimum requirement of 50 feet from all property lines;  5.   There will be no on-site retail sales.  It is the opinion of the Development Services 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 Services Review Team recommends approval of the Fredman Minor Special Review, File #04-Z1538 and approval of Appeals to Section 8.6.3.C.1, requiring paved parking in the GMA, and Section 8.1.1.B.4, requiring development in the GMA to hook to public sewer, with the following conditions:  1.  The use shall be operated at all times consistent with the application materials found in File #05-Z1538.  2.  Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by Larimer County Building for the new structure, the applicant shall obtain a license from the State of Colorado Animal Industry Division and provide it for review to the Larimer County Health Department.  3.  Prior to acceptance of a building permit application by Larimer County Building Department, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by Larimer County, both a Site Plan and a Development Agreement County.  4.  The facilities shall at all times be properly licensed by the Colorado Department of Agriculture, Animal Industry Division.  5.  The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for the project: Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation and Drainage Basin Fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.  Prior to construction, the applicant must contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit. 6.  At the time of recordation of the Development Agreement, the applicant shall execute a Deed of Dedication for the additional right-of-way required for this proposal.  7. The applicant shall obtain a permit to install the on-site sewer system that complies with floodplain protection standards, prior to final approval of the site plan.  8.  At the time of site plan review, the plans shall indicate that the access will meet the standards of Poudre Fire Authority for width, turning radius and surface; an easement will be dedicated for an Emergency Access; the structure shall be sprinkled; and approved numerals shall be proposed.

 

4.  CRYSTAL LAKES 11TH FILING LOTS 61 & 62 LOT CONSOLIDATION; #05-S2430:  This is a request for a Lot Consolidation to combine lots 61 and 62 into one.  If approved, the recording instrument for this application will be a finding and resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.  The Larimer County Land Use Code (Section 5.7.3) allows for the approval of a Lot Consolidation if the application meets the review criteria.  In this instance all review criteria have been met.  There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team.   The proposed Lot Consolidation for Lots 61-62 in the 11th filing of Crystal Lakes Subdivision will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Lot Consolidation 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 Services Team recommendation is for approval of the Lot Consolidation of Lots 61-62 11th filing in the Crystal Lakes Subdivision (#05-S2430) to be known as Lot 62A of the Lot Consolidation of Lots 61-62 11th filing in the Crystal Lakes Subdivision subject to the following conditions:   1.  The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.  2.  All conditions shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by December 22, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.

 

5.  INDIAN PRAYER PARK SUBDIVISION LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 3 AND LOTS 5, 6, AND 7, BLOCK 2, AMENDED PLAT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION; 05-S2431:  This is a request to amend the plat of Indian Prayer Park Subdivision to combine seven lots into one and vacate a portion of a ROW.    The Larimer County Land Use Code (Section 5.7.3) allows for the approval of an amended plat if the application meets the review criteria.  There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team. The proposed plat amendment to combine seven lots into one lot and vacate a portion of a ROW 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 Services Team recommendation is for approval of File #05-S2431 the Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 3 and Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, Indian Prayer Park Subdivision, and ROW vacation request subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:  1.  The Final Plat shall be recorded by December 22, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.  2.  Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Consent Agenda as amended and outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  ROBIN JONES SPECIAL EVENTS APPEAL; #05-G0077:   This an appeal of the Planning Director’s interpretation that the applicant’s proposal to park cars at Columbine Lodge and shuttle patrons to Mishawaka does not qualify as a Special Event as defined in Section 7.3 of the Land Use Code.  The County Planning Director is authorized to make interpretations of the text of the Land Use Code per Sec. 3.5, which can be appealed to the County Commissioners.   The Planning Director has made the interpretation that Mr. Jones’ use of the Columbine Lodge site for off-site parking in conjunction with the operation of Mishawaka does not qualify for approval under the Special Events portion of the Land Use Code.  Off site parking for the Mishawaka at Columbine Lodge is not a Special Event.  The Planning Director’s logic for this interpretation is as follows:  The Special Event regulation does not apply to established and normal uses allowed by zoning (see Sec. 7.3.B below, bolding added).  The off-site parking that is being requested is not in conjunction with a special event, but rather with the ongoing operation of the allowed use of Mishawaka.

Sec. 7.3.B states:

            7.3. SPECIAL EVENT DEFINED/RESTRICTIONS.

            A.   A special event shall mean the use of privately owned land, buildings or structures for a gathering where it is reasonably anticipated that attendance will exceed 300 people at any single        time, at any location, for any purpose. Special events include, but are not limited to:

            1.   Carnivals

            2.   Circuses

            3.   Concerts

            4.   Revivals

            5.   Flea markets

            6.   Craft fairs or markets

            7.   Parades

            8.   Fund-raisers

9.   Farmers markets or stands for sale of seasonal products when sold other than on the site where the product is grown.

            B.   Special events do not include gatherings at any regularly established, permanent place of  worship, stadium, athletic field, arena, auditorium, fairgrounds, coliseum, picnic or camping area, sale or auction of agricultural lands or personal property, polling places for special or general elections, or other similar permanently established place of assembly provided that such place is being used for its established and normal use allowed by zoning, attendance does not exceed the maximum seating capacity of the structure or place where the gathering is held, and the gathering complies with all other county ordinances, resolutions and regulations. Special events do not include temporary uses as identified in section  4.3.9 of this code.

C.   A special event shall not exceed 30 days duration, either consecutively or cumulatively in any calendar year.

            D.   Events that will have attendance of 300 people, or less, are permitted in all zoning districts and do not require a permit. The property owner or organizer of the event may apply for a permit, but, in all cases, they should consult with the department of health and environment and the emergency service providers (sheriff, fire department, ambulance service) in that area.  (Res. No. 10052004R002, Exhibit. A, 10-5-2004)

            2.  “Car Parking” is the use that Mr. Jones is requesting at the Columbine Lodge site.  “Car Parking” is not in the list of what is a special event as defined in Sec. 7.3.A, below:

            7.3. SPECIAL EVENT DEFINED/RESTRICTIONS.

            A.   A special event shall mean the use of privately owned land, buildings or structures for a gathering where it is reasonably anticipated that attendance will exceed 300 people at any single        time, at any location, for any purpose. Special events include, but are not limited to:

            1.   Carnivals

            2.   Circuses

            3.   Concerts

            4.   Revivals

            5.   Flea markets

            6.   Craft fairs or markets

            7.   Parades

            8.   Fund-raisers

9.   Farmers markets or stands for sale of seasonal products when sold other than on the site where the product is grown.

3.  The proposed use of a parking lot at Columbine Lodge would merely be an illegal expansion or a change in character of the existing, non-conforming commercial use at Columbine Lodge.  In terms of allowing parking for Mishawaka at the Columbine Lodge site, the appropriate process to follow would be to apply for a Special Exception.  The Special Exception review process would provide the appropriate review for such a request and would also provide the appropriate public notice and public hearing venue before the County Planning Commission and County Commissioners prior to a decision.  Mr. Jones has been advised that the Special Exception process, applied for by the owner of the Columbine Lodge, would be the proper route for his proposal, but to date no such application has been submitted.

If the Board were to approve Mr. Jones’ appeal of this interpretation, the implications of that approved appeal would be that anyone else could also then use the Special Events process to gain off-site parking for their commercial business rather than the Special Exception or other applicable process per the Land Use Code.  This means that such off-site parking facilities could be located in areas without the benefit of Planning Commission review or of public notice and public hearing for nearby property owners that may be affected by such off site parking.  Columbine Lodge is also a non-conforming use.  There is a general store, cabins and some camping spaces located on the property.  These uses were in place before Larimer County adopted the current zoning of this property in 1973. Parking for an off-site commercial use does not fall within the non-conforming uses previously established for the Columbine Lodge.   Mishawaka is a non-conforming concert venue and restaurant located in the Poudre Canyon above Poudre Park.  For many years patrons of Mishawaka parked along the edge of Highway 14 which created a potentially hazardous situation for pedestrians and drivers.  The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) recently posted signs which limit parking in the right of way.  Robin Jones, the owner of Mishawaka, has been seeking alternative means of parking for concert patrons. The need for Mr. Jones to either solve his parking problems or reduce the level of operations at Mishawaka to be commensurate with the availability of safe parking is clearly evident.  However, doing so through the Special Event regulation is not the appropriate route.  Special event permits are granted without benefit of public notice and public hearing for affected property owners or the general public.  The process is not intended to facilitate permanent commercial operations (in this case parking), either on-site or for the benefit of an off-site business.  The Land Use Code requires that business and commercial uses provide sufficient parking to accommodate their patrons on the same site with the business or commercial use.  Mishawaka was established long before the County had zoning or parking requirements, but the inability to park in the state highway right of way should be addressed by providing parking that is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code.

Staff recommends that the County Commissioners uphold the interpretation of the Planning Director that the proposed parking of cars at the Columbine Lodge for patrons of Mishawaka is not a Special Event as defined in Section 7.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Mr. Timm outlined his reasons for determining that Mr. Jones' request does not fall within the Special Event Permit Application guidelines as stated above; he then explained that the purpose of this hearing today was for the Commissioners to decide if his interpretation of the Code was correct.  Mr. Timm noted that if the Commissioners agreed with his interpretation of the Code, then Mr. Jones could utilize the Special Exception process for this application.   The applicant, Robin Jones, addressed the Board and explained that he can legally park 170 vehicles, and is requesting the use of the Columbine Lodge to park an additional 70 vehicles.   Commissioner Wagner questioned if camping would also be involved at the Columbine Lodge.  Mr. Jones explained that camping would not be allowed and was not part of the request. 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing up for public comment and Christy Lahnert presented the Board with a number of photos of the camping and trespassing that occurs in the area whenever there is a concert held at the Mishawaka.  Mrs. Lahnert stated that in her opinion, the parking would expand into camping as this is what has typically occurred during previous events and unless someone was there to enforce it, she believes the camping would continue.  Dawn Niesent, area neighbor, agreed that the camping and loitering are an issue especially given the fact that there are no facilities for the patrons to use.  Ms. Niesent suggested that Mr. Jones provide a shuttle service from Fort Collins for his patrons and if need be, roll the cost of this service into his ticket prices.   Tim Lahnert noted that Mr. Jones has 100 acres worth of property and recommended he develop it to accommodate his business.  Todd Hitch, speaking on behalf of Virginia Hitch, stated that the Columbine Lodge was built to accommodate fishing, and has no facilities, or emergency access.  Mr. Hitch stated that if a fire were to occur it would be impossible to evacuate people safely.  Gary Kimsey encouraged the Board to accept Mr. Timm's decision as there is no reason to award a special events permit for parking and there will be adverse impacts if the permit is granted.  Bill Olsen questioned the number of events that Mr. Jones has applied for and stated that if the application is approved, the Columbine Lodge parking lot will become known as a commercial parking lot.  Mr. Olsen requested the Board uphold the Planning Director's decision.  Beth Morgan stated that there are not enough facilities for the patrons, and she has found hypodermic needles in her backyard; she stated that approving a parking lot in this instance would just make the loitering and trespassing worse.

Chair Rennels closed public comment and asked Mr. Timm how this parking lot could be made a legal parking lot.  Mr. Timm stated Max Arment, the owner of the Columbine Lodge, would have to apply for rezoning of the site since a commercial parking lot is not an allowed use in the O-Open zoning district or, he could apply for a Special Exception, and then property owners within a certain radius would be notified and public hearings would be conducted as part of the process.  The Board agreed that the Special Events Permit process was geared towards events that happen on a one-time basis and that this application does not fall within the guidelines set for a Special Event.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners uphold the interpretation of the Planning Director that the parking of cars at Columbine Lodge for patrons of Mishawaka is not a Special Event as defined in Section 7.3 of the Land Use Code

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.   DUNLAP ZONING VIOLATION; 04-ZV0200:   In April of 2004 a complaint was received about an accumulation of junk/outdoor storage on a vacant parcel. The parcel backs up to Douglas Lake Ranch subdivision, specifically Lot 6.    Initially, staff was unable to locate the parcel. Discussions with the complainant helped resolve this. An inspection of the Dunlap’s property showed that there were two areas where junk/outdoor storage had been dumped. One is of a higher elevation (east side) and is in clear view of Lot 6, of Douglas Lake Ranch subdivision; Lot 6 has a new dwelling on it.   The second pile is located west of that one and is approximately 200 feet lower in elevation. Although this pile is visible to other adjacent properties (not lot 6), no additional complaints have been received.  The property owners were mailed a 15 day letter in October of 2004.  In early November the owner called and stated that the materials dumped did not belong to her or her husband.  She stated that a man named John Stevens had asked if he could store some materials on their land. They granted him permission. Because the owners do not live on this parcel of land, they were unaware of the magnitude of the dumping/outdoor storage.  They inquired as to the legal aspects related to them removing his material from the site.  They were advised to contact an attorney for legal advice.  They were also concerned about him dumping further, and wanted to post a “no trespassing” sign.  However, this would also prevent Mr. Stevens from removing items.  Further discussions ensued and the owners attempted to contact Mr. Stevens regarding the matter. They mailed him a letter via certified mail, which was returned.   Although the occupant is responsible for creating the zoning violation, the property owners are ultimately responsible for abatement of the zoning violation. In trying to get a response from the occupant, staff also mailed a letter to Mr. Stevens, via regular mail. No contact was made.   The property owners feel that adequate notice/attempts have been made to contact the owner of the junk and have now started to address cleaning it up. They have submitted a written plan; however, no time frames are indicated.  Because both owners work full time, have a residential property, and also farm this land, it may take awhile to sort through all of the stuff and resell or dispose of it. Due to the proximity of the land fill and the isolated location of the junk, staff feels that 2-4 months for compliance (per pile) would be appropriate. Staff also feels the eastern pile needs to be addressed first to alleviate further complaints from the neighbors of Douglas Lake Ranch.   The property owners have also talked with Rich Grossman, Larimer County Health Department, regarding burying certain items onsite. Mr. Grossman has permitted them to bury certain materials. Staff will ensure that the property owners work with Mr. Grossman and remain in compliance with the State of Colorado’s Solid Waste Disposal Act.

The Development Services Team findings are as follows:  1.  The property is zoned RE-Rural Estate.  2.  The property is 44 acres in size and is vacant agricultural land.  3.  The property owners did not dump the items onsite themselves.  4.  The property owners did authorize a second party to store, not dump, materials on this parcel.  5.  No contact has been made with this second party.  6.  Property owners are not ready to address the situation; however, they feel it will take some time to clean up.  7.  The use of the property, in violation of the Land Use Code, has affected the neighbor's ability to enjoy their own property.  8.  The use of the property, in violation of the Land Use Code, may affect property values in the area.  The Development Services Team recommends the following:  1. Find that a violation exists.  2.  Require compliance.  Compliance requires that all outdoor storage be removed from the eastern pile by August 30, 2005, and all outdoor storage be removed from the western pile by November 30, 2005.  3.  Authorize legal action if these deadlines are not met. 

Ms. Delude displayed aerial photos of the site and explained that the property backs up to Douglas Lake Ranch Subdivision and the neighbors, especially the owners of Lot 6, have a clear view of the junk and debris.  Ms. Delude then presented the Board with a written proposal from Mr. and Mrs. Dunlap which outlined the methods of disposal they plan to use in order to bring their property into compliance.  Chair Rennels noted for the record that the Dunlap's were not present at the hearing, and there was no public present to comment on this item.  Some discussion ensued regarding whether or not the property owners had the right to move the debris since it belonged to a second party.  Ms. Haag stated that the debris could be perceived as abandoned property, and the Dunlap's could work through their attorney if this ever became an issue.  Commissioner Wagner questioned which items would be buried on site, and would this need to be disclosed to future buyers should the Dunlap's ever decide to sell their property.  Ms. Delude stated that the wood products have been approved to be buried since they are biodegradable.  Mr. Helmick noted that the Environmental Health Department has approved the burying of these items on site, and they would know if this would need to be disclosed to any future owners of the property. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and require compliance.  Compliance requires that all outdoor storage be removed from the eastern pile by August 30, 2005, and all outdoor storage be removed from the western pile by November 30, 2005.  Additionally, all buried items must be approved by the Health Department. Legal action is authorized if these deadlines are not met.

Motion carried 3-0.

Their being no further business, the meeting recessed at 3:45 p.m.

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#48)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.   Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Wagner and Gibson were present.  Also present were:  Mark Peterson, and Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Karin Madson, Planning Department; Dale Miller, Road & Bridge Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

1.  CONSIDERATION OF A NEW SEGMENT OF COUNTY ROAD 23E:   This is a request by property owners and staff to consider adding a new segment of CR 23E between CR 6 and CR 8E, that would include Right-of-Way (ROW) acquisition and construction.  The Staff and Board of County Commissioners held a work session on May 2, 2005 to discuss the options which might be available regarding a possible alignment of CR 23E.  It appeared at that time that there was potential to acquire a public ROW in cooperation with the Little Thompson Water District and at least one developer, in order to construct a new segment of CR 23E.  At the work session the staff received instructions to refine the possible cost(s) to the County for possible participation in the construction and further refine/define interest in this “project”.  This alignment has some appeal and has historically been used by cut through traffic going to Carter Lake as well as by others. The property owners along the alignment have in part indicated some interest in having the road continue through this area as a public road.  However, the property owners at the south has made it very clear that they are not interested in and would oppose any extension/construction of the road.   The Engineering Department has developed a preliminary cost estimate based upon the representations of possible participants and assumptions on design and participation.  This estimate, detailed in the attached memo from Mark Peterson, County Engineer does not include additional ROW and other possible costs.  Funds for County participation would need to come from General Fund Dollars and not CTEF’s collected in this area of the County, because this link of CR 23E is not on the Transportation Master Plan.  It could be assumed that up to $750,000.00 would need to be spent on this possible alignment.  While it originally appeared that there is an opportunity here to make a new road connection that has some local and regional interest, there are not enough of the necessary elements in place to make this a feasible project.  Options may exist to obtain ROW now and not build a road and finalize ROW in the future.  However, the County must be very clear about the use of and disposition of this ROW.  It would exist as an incomplete ROW that could be a problem of administration and enforcement.   In conclusion, while it seemed for a time as though the necessary factors were in alignment for a new road connection in the southern part of the County, there are enough issues and gaps in the possible packaging of this “project” to make it infeasible.

Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners not pursue the dedication ROW along the alignment of CR 23E and not pursue construction of, or participation in the construction of a road along this alignment. 

Mr. Helmick stated that when all the parties first began discussing the possibility of extending this road, it looked feasible as there was interest by the property owners, the water districts, and the developer of Centennial Farms; however, at least two property owners are opposed to constructing this road, and although constructing the road is a good idea it may not be economically possible at this point.   Mr. Peterson explained the estimated costs and noted that since construction of this road is not on the Transportation Master Plan, some other project would have to be delayed in order to fund the construction of this road.  Mr. Helmick noted that the Board should consider preserving the opportunity to eventually build the road, and this could be accomplished by securing the ROW from the property owners that are willing to dedicate them at this point.   Chair Rennels questioned how much it would cost to maintain the road and Mr. Miller estimated that it would cost the County approximately $12,000 to $15,000 per year to maintain the road. 

At this time Chair Rennels opened up the hearing for public comment and Keith Jacobson asked if there was any chance that CR 23E would be publicly dedicated and publicly maintained.  Mr. Peterson stated that the County has no desire to take on responsibility of a dead end gravel road.  Mr. Jacobson then questioned if Centennial Farms would be required to build their own road.  Ms. Downs replied in the affirmative.  Mr. Jacobson questioned how this affects the properties to the south that are proposing development of their acreage.  Ms. Madson noted that the southern property owners are waiting to submit their final plats based on the outcome of this discussion.  Finally, Mr. Jacobson stated that he is not interested in giving Centennial Farms access to their road as there are now 3 homes that access the road, and Centennial Farms is proposing 54 homes.  Laura Reynolds stated that at one point the Little Thompson Water District intended to put a road through from CR 8E to CR 10, and questioned if this matter could come before the County again if it is not approved at this point.  Mr. Helmick explained that the water districts committed to try and create a public road between CR 6 and CR 8E, which is why there has been so many entities working on this proposal.  Ms. Reynolds stated that if the road ends up not being publicly dedicated then she suggests renaming the road altogether.   James Byrd stated that he is definitely against any improvements to the road; however, he has worked out a temporary easement for the water district to use as a road for their construction purposes.  Mr. Byrd stated that signs are posted that it is not a through road, and the easement as it stands now is only 20 feet, not 90 feet. 

At this time Chair Rennels closed public comment and questioned whether or not all of the property owners that originally were in favor of dedicating ROW are still in favor of doing so.   Mr. Helmick stated that as far as he knows they have not changed their minds.  Commissioner Gibson questioned whether or not all of the property owners along this road have access easements.  Mr. Helmick stated that there is an understanding that they all have access across each others properties.  Commissioner Wagner questioned if there were other property owners, aside from Centennial Farms, that want access to the road.  Mr. Helmick stated that there is the potential for this as there is a lot of development occurring in this area.  Commissioner Gibson stated that he believes it is an ideal road to connect through and believes that it would be money well spent.   At this time a member of the audience requested the ability to readdress 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. Byrd sated that the properties to the north have all been purchased and he believes that not everyone would agree to dedicating the easements.  Todd Stern explained that he owns the property to the south and he states that there are no easements in place; he noted that there is an agreement for access but it is in the form of a handshake and most of those that made the agreement are all long gone.   Chair Rennels closed public comment.

Commissioner Gibson stated that the road will remain due to the agreements in place, (even if they are gentleman's agreements), and the best thing to do would pave the road and provide connectivity.  Chair Rennels questioned what the acquisition costs might be.  Mr. Peterson stated that he could not provide a figure at this time.  Chair Rennels stated that the price tag on this could escalate dramatically due to attorney fees related to an acquisition lawsuit, since there are home owners that are not in favor of constructing the road.  Commissioner Gibson stated that the development in the area is going to cause the road to be constructed at some point.  Chair Rennels pointed out that future development could pay the costs of paving the road.  Commissioner Wagner stated that she would like to hear from the water district to see what their plans are for this area; she further stated that she did not know if the County could commit $700,000 to $800,000 to satisfy a handful of people when there are other projects that have been listed as a higher priority.  Randolph Starr, Attorney for the Little Thompson Water District, stated that they are still in favor of assisting the County if the road will be publicly dedicated; however, they would want the County to take control of the project, and they would help construct the road.   Much discussion ensued.  The Board agreed that they would need more information before they could make a final determination on this issue.  Therefore, they asked Mr. Helmick and Mr. Peterson to research the following items:  1. What exactly is the Little Thompson Water District willing to provide in terms of financial interest, acquisition of disputed land, and construction of the road.  2.  What would be the potential costs associated with an acquisition dispute.  3.  What are the County's prioritized list of road projects, and what potentially would be bumped from the list if the Board agreed to fund extending CR 23E.  4.  What would the maintenance costs be if the road becomes publicly dedicated.  5.  Is there an option to start out with a gravel road?

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table consideration of a new segment of County Road 23E to June 27, 2005, at 6:30 p.m.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005   

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#57)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster, Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Wagner and Gibson were present.  Also present were:  Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Gary Buffington, Parks & Open Lands Department; Rob Helmick, Planning Department; George Hass, and Jeannine Haag, County Attorney's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:   Al Denigris requested clarification on a comment made by Marc Engemoen (Public Works Director) at a recent Open Lands Meeting; he asked that Mr. Engemoen clarify this statement at the next scheduled meeting.  Mr. Denigris also stated that he circulated a petition approximately a year ago for removal of Gary Buffington as the Parks and Open Lands Director.  Mr. Denigris stated that he will be resubmitting this request with additional signatures.

 

Deloris Valdez Jarvis and Harrison Jarvis addressed the Board and encouraged the County to post the registered sex offender list on-line.   Ms. Jarvis stated that this information should be easily accessible to the public in order to protect children in the community. 

 

Rosemary Van Gorder thanked Chair Rennels for explaining that the County was looking at the quality assurance process at it relates to conflict resolution for the Citizen Review Panel of the Child Protection Services.  Ms. Van Gorder offered to share information that she has collected from parents utilizing this system, and also suggested that the County look at appointing a trained Family Advocate to work with the families utilizing this system.

 

2.   APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 30th AND JUNE 6th 2005:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of May 30, 2005, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of June 6, 2005, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 20, 2005:  The Board reviewed the upcoming schedule.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for June 14, 2005:

 

06142005A001           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR EHRLICH PLANNED LAND DIVISION BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND PAUL EHRLICH

 

06142005A002           PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN

 

06142005A003           WARRANTY MEMORANDUM FOR NATURE ESTATES SUBDIVISION 00-S1717 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND JAKE KAUFFMAN & SON INC.

 

06142005A004           SECOND ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, PLS DEVELOPMENT INC., AND POUDRE OVERLOOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

 

06142005A005           AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS, DIVISION OF HOUSING, AND THE LARIMER COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION

 

06142005D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY WELLINGTON OPERATING COMPANY OF SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

06142005R001           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY CHARGE AND A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ACCESS CHARGE FOR THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2006

 

06142005R002           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS EFFECTIVE JUNE 9, 2005

 

06142005R003           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 46A AND 57 OF THE CRYSTAL LAKES SUBDIVISION 14TH FILING

 

06142005R004           LOT CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 1 - 3 IN BLOCK 25 OF SOUTH NOKOMIS LAKE SUBDIVISION

 

06142005R005           RESOLUTION ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PETITIONS FOR A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS:  Ehrlich Planned Land Division Final Plat.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved and issued:   Rocky Mountain Gateway #1 - Hotel & Restaurant - Estes Park; Sandy's Convenience Store - 3.2% - Loveland; City Limit Liquor - Retail Liquor Store - Fort Collins.  The following license was approved:  Colorado State University - 3.2% Special Events Permit - Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 5.   LICENSE TERMINATION FOR THE LIGHTHOUSE RESTAURANT AT HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR:  Mr. Buffington introduced Janna Cordova, owner of Cordova's Horsetooth Lighthouse Restaurant, and explained that Ms. Cordova has requested the County to terminate her food and beverage license.  Mr. Buffington noted that the past few years have been very difficult on Ms. Cordova's business due to reservoir being drained in order to restore the dams; he noted that her business has suffered and her customer base has collapsed.  Mr. Buffington further explained the restaurant building will be removed at the end of Ms. Cordova's contract as this space is needed for boat trailer parking.  Mr. Buffington requested the Board waive the 2004 license fees which amount to approximately $8000 and allow Ms. Cordova 90 days to store items such as freezers, refrigerators, etc., until she can sell them or dispose of them.  Finally, Mr. Buffington explained that the restaurant building is owned by the County and if Ms. Cordova had made improvements to the building that she can provide receipts for, then he would like to reimburse her for those expenses as well.  Chair Rennels suggested the possibility of refunded the County liquor license fees since the fees are an annual expense and were just paid in March for the upcoming year. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve accepting the termination of the Lighthouse Restaurant Food and Beverage license for the remainder of the contract term, waive the 2004 license fees, allow the license holder 90 days to remove her property from the County owned building and surrounding lease property, and reimburse the cost of the County liquor license in the amount of $125.00.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.   PROCESS DETERMINATION FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTORS DECISION:  Mr. Helmick explained that Hearts & Horses, a riding stable which caters to disabled children, has submitted an appeal to overturn the Planning Director's decision with respect to the process required for a proposed structure on their property.  Mr. Helmick stated that the Planning Director considers this request an expansion of the use, which requires an application for Special Review.  Mr. Helmick stated that the issue before the Board is whether the Board should request a recommendation from the Planning Commission; he noted that staff believes that a referral to the Planning Commission is unnecessary, since the issue is one of process - not substance.  The Board agreed.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny referring the appeal of Heart and Horses to the Larimer County Planning Commission for a recommendation, finding that the appeal submitted is one of process and not substance.

 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

7.  APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:  Chair Rennels outlined the appointments to the Boards and Commissions as follows:  Agricultural Advisory Board - Mike Carroll appointed for a two-year term beginning June 14, 2005 and expiring November 30, 2006.  Board of Appeals - Mark Belford and Ron Daggett both reappointed for three-year terms beginning July 1, 2005 and expiring June 30, 2008.  Board of Health - Teri Olson reappointed for a five-year term beginning July 1, 2005 and expiring June 30, 2010.  Estes Valley Board of Adjustment - Clifford Dill reappointed for a three-year term beginning July 1, 2005 and expiring June 30, 2008.   Estes Valley Planning Commission - Wendell Amos reappointed (with a waiver of term limit) for a four-year term beginning July 1, 2005 and expiring June 30, 2009.  Fair Board - Melora Luth appointed for a six-month term beginning June 1, 2005 and expiring November 30, 2005. Barbara Branstad appointed for a one-year term beginning June 1, 2005 and expiring November 30, 2006.  Lea Carroll appointed for a two-year term beginning June 1, 2005 and expiring November 30, 2007.  Flood Review Board - Chris Carlson reappointed for a three-year term beginning July 1, 2005 and expiring June 30, 2008.  Gregory Koch and Mark Peterson both reappointed (with a waiver of term limit) for a three-year term beginning July 1, 2005 and expiring June 30, 2008.  Open Lands Advisory Board - Peter Kast reappointed for a three-year term beginning July 1, 2005 and expiring June 30, 2008. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments to the Boards and Commissions as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  LEGAL MATTERS:   Mr. Hass explained that the County has purchased several pieces of property in the vicinity of the Detention Center and they have discovered surveying errors which created gaps in between the land that the County owns.  Mr. Hass explained that he has a Title Commitment outlining who owns the gaps and it includes several people in town.  He suggested filing a Quiet Title suit and name all those that have an established interest in the property and anybody that may claim an interest, publish a summons, ask for disclaimers, and obtain a court order that would ultimately title the property in Larimer County's name.  Commissioner Wagner asked how large the pieces of land are.  Mr. Hass described a couple of examples of the land as being 8 feet by 288 feet, and 3 feet by 600 feet. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Attorney to file a Quiet Title action for the property located in the vicinity of the jail in order to clear up title and surveying errors in favor of Larimer County.

 

Motion carried 3-0

 

Ms. Haag explained that another employee is utilizing the grievance process to contest his termination and requested the Board's approval to appoint a hearing officer.  Ms. Haag suggested either Magistrate Judge Abrams or a member of the Legal Resolution Center.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners appoint Magistrate Judge Abrams or another member of the Legal Resolution Center to serve as the hearing officer in an upcoming employee grievance action.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION - (Affidavit provided.)

 

M O T I O N

 

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

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

 

    __________________________________________

                                    KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

                        BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk  

 

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