County Offices, Courts and Landfill will be closed on Monday, July 4 for the Independence Day Holiday. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, AUGUST 8, 2005
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner. Chair Pro Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Wagner was present. Also present were: Porter Ingrum, Matt Lafferty, Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, and Casey Stewart, Planning Department; Christy Coleman, and Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center; George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Pro Tem Gibson 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. Chair Pro Tem Gibson explained that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience. A member of the audience requested that Item #4, the Poudre Overlook Amended Plat/Right of Way Vacation, File #05-S2456, be removed from the consent agenda.
1 . MEADOWDALE HILLS SUBDIVISION 2ND FILING LOTS 108 AND 109 LOT CONSOLIDATION - #05-S2457: This is a request to combine Lots 108 and 109 in Meadowdale Hills Subdivision 2nd filing into one building lot. The Larimer County Land Use Code (Section 5.7.3) allows for the approval of a Lot Consolidation if the necessary review criteria are 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; and the Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team. The proposed Lot Consolidation of Lots 108 and 109 in Meadowdale Hills Subdivision 2nd filing 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 for Lots 108 and 109 in Meadowdale Hills Subdivision 2nd filing (#05-S2457) to be known as Lot 108B of the Lot Consolidation resolution of lot 109 and lot 108A of the amended lots 104, 106, 107 & 108 Meadowdale Hills 2nd filing 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 executed deed and resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by February 8, 2006 or this approval shall be null and void.
2. KYLE AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT VACATION AND LYN ACRES LOTS 4 AND 7, BLOCK 7, AND A PORTION OF KYLE AVENUE AMENDED PLAT - #05-S2445: This is a request for Right-of-Way (ROW) and easement vacation to vacate the portion of Kyle Avenue adjacent to the Larimer Humane Society and an Amended Plat of Lots 4 & 7, Block 5 and a portion of Kyle Avenue to add the vacated portion of Kyle Avenue adjacent to the Larimer Humane Society to the consolidated Lots 4 & 7. The Larimer Humane Society is requesting the vacation of the dead end portion of Kyle Avenue to be added to their current lots that comprise the current location of the Larimer Humane Society. The lots and vacated right-of-way would be consolidated into one parcel. The Humane Society has indicated that they are prepared to purchase additional property adjacent to their current facility to expand their operations. The expansion of the facility would be reviewed by the City of Fort Collins after annexation into the city limits. As part of this ROW vacation request the applicant has worked with the City of Fort Collins to ensure that access to the Prairie Dog Meadows open space to the north is not adversely affected. The following agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; the Larimer County Engineering Department; and the Poudre Fire Authority. Mr. Dale V. Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department, identified several required corrections to the plat. The Development Services Team recommendation is for approval of the portion of Kyle Avenue right-of-way and easement vacation, subject to the following condition: 1. Concurrent with the recordation of the Findings & Resolution approving the Kyle Avenue ROW and easement vacation the applicant shall dedicate a 20’ access easement along the eastern boundary of the existing ROW for use by the City of Fort Collins. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for providing a 12 foot graded access in the center of the access easement.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lynn Acres Lots 4 & 7, Block 5 and a portion of Kyle Avenue Amended Plat, File # 05-S2445, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman 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 February 8, 2006 or this approval shall be null and void. 2. The Amended Plat shall be revised to include a 20 foot access easement along the eastern boundary of the existing Kyle Avenue ROW as requested by the City of Fort Collins. 3. Prior to recordation of the Amended Plat the applicant shall provide an updated Ownership & Encumbrance report to verify any current lien holders for the property. The plat shall be revised to include signature blocks for all lien holders or the lien holder signature block must be removed from the plat if there are none. 4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale V. Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department in his letter dated June 10, 2005.
3. GLEN HAVEN SUBDIVISION LOTS 1 AND 14, BLOCK 9 LOT CONSOLIDATION - #05-S2458: This is a request to consolidate Lots 1 and 14 within the Glen Haven Subdivision. The original platting of Glen Haven in 1913 created a subdivision that was generally a grid pattern, and created lots that, in many cases, that do not fit in well with the existing topography and are non-conforming. A replat, which took place in 1939, created Lot 1 and Lot 14, which are adjacent to each other and have access to County Road 43, via a private driveway. The private drive will remain and serve the consolidated lot. At this time, the landowner wishes to combine Lots 1 and 14 in order to create one larger lot with more land area for the construction of a single-family home.
The following agencies voiced no concerns, but added plat note requests regarding this application: the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment had no objections. Staff recommendation is for approval of File # 05-S2458, the Lot Consolidation of Lots 1 and 14, Glen Haven Subdivision, 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 of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by February 8, 2006 or this approval shall be null and void.
MO T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1-3 as presented on the consent agenda and outlined above.
Motion carried 2-0.
4. POUDRE OVERLOOK AMENDED PLAT/RIGHT OF WAY VACATION - #05-S2456: This is a request to vacate a portion of Bubbling Brook Court and add, by Amended Plat, the vacated Right-of-Way (ROW) to Outlot C of the Poudre Overlook Planned Unit Development. The applicant proposes to vacate the northerly portion of Bubbling Brook Drive in the Poudre Overlook Planned Unit Development and add the vacated ROW to Outlot A. As originally approved Bubbling Brook Drive was going to extend to the northerly line of the Poudre Overlook Development, which would have created an emergency access connection with the Doubletree Drive in the adjacent Stagecoach Subdivision. However, during the final plat process it was determined that due to significant grade separation between the existing Doubletree Road and the proposed Bubbling Brook Drive that the connection between the two streets would be difficult to construct. Therefore, the applicant desires to vacate that portion of Bubbling Brook Court that is no longer necessary to the development, and make it part of the open space within the development. Additionally, the Amended Plat illustrates utility easements and non-motorized access easements in the area of the vacated ROW to accommodate pedestrian movement between the developments as well as existing underground utilities. This application was forwarded to the appropriate departments and agencies for comment. The responses from the group that the referral was sent too reveals that other than technical issues with the survey plat, there are no other issues of concern. The Development Services Team recommendation is for approval of the Amended Plat for Poudre Overlook PUD Outlot A (File # 05-S2456) vacation of a portion of the Bubbling Brook Court ROW, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman 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 Feb 8, 2006 or this approval shall be null and void. 2. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the application shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department. 3. The vacation of the ROW vacation shall be finalized at such time when the plat and findings and resolution of the County Commissioners are recorded. 4. Prior to the recordation of the Amended Plat the applicant shall note on the Amended Plat that all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots shall continue to apply to the lots as amended.
Mr. Lafferty gave a brief description of the project as outlined above. Chair Pro Tem Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Sue Radford, adjoining neighbor, addressed the Board and questioned why she did not receive notification of this request to vacate the ROW. Ms. Radford also was concerned with the County's legal liability pertaining to the structure that exists on the property. Chair Pro Tem Gibson explained that the Board could only discuss issues surrounding the vacation, and any discussion of structures would have to take place outside of the hearing. Mary Lenahan stated that she is part of a group of neighbors that are working together to keep the bike path and pedestrian path accessible to the neighbors. There was no further public comment.
Mr. Lafferty explained that public process requires notification be sent to those property owners who have access to the ROW. Mr. Lafferty stated that the bike, pedestrian, and equestrian access will remain, and the discussion of the structure will be address by the proper staff member at the appropriate time. The Board was satisfied that all issues have been addressed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Poudre Overlook Amended Plat/Right of Way Vacation, File #05-S2456, as outlined above.
Motion carried 2-0.
5. VANDERVEEN APPEAL - #05-G0082: This request is to appeal Section 4.8.9.A.1 of the Land Use Code that contains regulations for expanding nonconforming buildings. This section of the Code limits addition size to not more than 25 % of the square footage of the original building that legally existed on January 1, 2000 and not more than 1000 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to his existing residence, which is currently approximately 40 feet from the center of U.S. Highway 34. This highway requires a building setback of 100 feet from Right-of-Way (ROW) center. The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 100-foot setback from the highway. According to the applicant, the residence was constructed about 1930, prior to the road setback requirement. The owner wants to add on to the existing structure to the north (rear). The addition, including expanded living area via two stories, is greater than 25% (Existing = 2400 sq. ft.; addition = 1400 sq. ft.) of the floor area of the existing building, and more than 1000 sq. ft. The proposed addition is located 100 feet from the center of the highway.
Section 4.8.9.A. Extension, Expansion or Change in Character, states that a structure that is non-conforming with respect to a required setback from a …federal highway may be expanded if the following conditions exist:
(1) The proposed addition is not more than 25% of the square footage of the original building that legally existed on January 1, 2000 and is not more than 1000 square feet;
(2) No portion of the proposed addition is within the future ROW identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of Transportation; and
(3) The proposed addition is no closer to the ROW that the building as it legally existed on January 1, 2000; and
(4) The proposed addition has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer.
The applicant’s proposal does not satisfy condition #1 therefore the Board’s approval would be required to proceed.
The Colorado Department of Transportation supports the request as long as the addition is more than 75 feet from the center of the ROW, which it is.
The Environmental Health Department commented on the requirement to demonstrate that an adequate sewer either exists, or can be installed. This is reviewed via the building permit application process. No building permit would be issued without meeting this requirement. This request involves an addition to an existing single family dwelling that is nonconforming with respect to highway setback requirements. The addition will be to the rear of the house, which is at least 100 feet, which is the required setback, from the center of the highway. No objections have been received from any surrounding property owners or interested county, state, or federal agencies. The addition would not subvert the purpose of the Code and will have little if no impact on the surrounding area.
The Development Services Team finds the appeal meets the review criteria of Section 22.2.3 as outlined in the Land Use Code. The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Vanderveen Appeal, file #05-G0082 subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall obtain all required permits and inspections for the addition in accordance with the allowed time frame for a building permit.
Mr. Stewart gave some background of the project and the appeal, and reviewed the criteria for appeals with the Board. Mr. Stewart also explained a correction to the file, stating that the Building Department had mistakenly designated this property as being "red-tagged", which would mean that there is a pending Building Code violation. Mr. Stewart stated that no construction has taken place on the property whatsoever. Commissioner Wagner questioned the septic system and whether or not the addition would place increased demands on an old septic system. Mr. Stewart stated that the addition would consist of a large living room and a storage room, and that no bedrooms or bathrooms would be added. Chair Pro Tem Gibson presented nine letters of support for the project and two letters of opposition.
The applicant, Don Vanderveen, stated that there were some questions regarding an easement with adjoining property owners, Jean Sherman and Janet Flemming. Mr. Vanderveen stated that he has maintained this easement at no cost to the property owners and does not believe it should be in dispute. The Board noted this issue. Mr. Vanderveen requested the Board's approval of this appeal.
At this time Chair Pro Tem Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Kent Waltermeyer, Janet West, Joann Thompson, and Harold Tregent, adjoining neighbors, all noted their utmost support for Mr. Vanderveen's appeal. Chair Pro Tem Gibson closed public comment.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Vanderveen Appeal (File 05-G0082) subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall obtain all required permits and inspections for the addition in accordance with the allowed time frame for a building permit.
Motion carried 2-0.
6. SADDLE CREEK RANCHES RURAL LAND PLAN - #05-S2416: The proposal for the Saddle Creek Ranches Preliminary Rural Land Plan is to divide 128 +/- acres into nine (9) lots in the following manner: Five (5) single-family residential lots and four (4) Residual Lots (private open space), two (2) with a residence and two (2) without a residence. The Residential Lots will range in size from 3.1 acres to 9.2 acres. Residual Lot A will be 36.4 acres in size with a 7-acre residential building envelope for a residence and support buildings; Residual Lot B will be 39.2 acres in size with a 4-acre building envelope for a residence and support buildings; Residual Lot C will be 19.6 acres in size with a .4-acre building envelope for a barn and paddock only (no residence); and Residual Lot D will be 3.8 acres, non-buildable, and the site of a future pond. The total amount of residual land with no development will be 87.6 acres. The Residual Lots will be protected for 40 years by either a covenant or deed restriction, as required under the RLUP. The property is located in Section 19, Township 9 North, Range 71 West and Section 24, Township 9 North, and Range 72 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; generally located 11 ½ miles southwest of Livermore, south of County Road 74E (Red Feather Lakes Road). The property consists of dry grazing land with two small streams and a wetland area. Roughly 20% of the property is forested, mostly ponderosa pine on the eastern slopes. The land could be divided into three (3) 35-acre parcels without County input. The property is zoned FA-Farming (45 +/- acres; up to 1 unit/2.29 acres) and RE-Rural Estate (83+/- acres; up to 1 unit/10 acres). Under the property’s current zoning, up to 27 homes could potentially be built if brought through the County's Conservation Development (CD) process if adequate public facilities are provided.
The new residential lots have been located to have convenient access, a suitable area for construction of residences and accessory structures, adequate soils for on-site septic systems, and to avoid drainages and ridgelines. A majority of the land will remain in its historic grazing use. Access to these new lots is proposed from the existing Mt. Moriah and Eiger Roads. The residential lots will range in size from 3.1 acres to 9.2 acres. Domestic water to these lots will be provided by on-lot wells. The land is in the Glacier View Water and Sewer Association which administers a water augmentation plan. The applicant must reconcile the existing water augmentation plan on this property with C.R.S. 30-28-401-404, the state regulations regarding on-lot wells for Rural Land Use Projects. The applicant is proposing appropriate architectural guidelines for this project to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed new residences and associated structures. 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, as well as attractiveness of “close-in” foothills property. The proposed density of the Saddle Creek Rural Land Use project, one unit per 18.28 acres, appears to be compatible with the neighborhood.
The non-buildable portion of the residual land, approximately 87.6 acres and comprising roughly 68.3 % of the property, will be protected from further development for a minimum of 40 years, as required by the RLUP. It will have a management/use plan to foster its long-term health, including a maintenance schedule to keep the grasses to a minimum height, thus reducing the potential wildfire threat. This may be accomplished through grazing or mowing. Timber on Residual Lot B should be managed to reduce the wildfire potential—this will be included in the management/use plan. The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land and for providing a periodic monitoring report(s) to the County. Access will be gained from Mt. Moriah Road and Eiger Road, which are maintained by the Glacier View Meadows Road and Recreation Association. Eiger Road is dedicated for public access. It has historically provided access to nearby public lands. Mt. Moriah Road is a private road. It is planned that the Saddle Creek Ranches RLUP will join the road and recreation association and pay appropriate annual assessments.
A neighborhood meeting was held on May 10, 2005, at the Livermore Community Hall in Livermore. Eight area residents attended. The concerns were mainly about details of domestic wells that are allowed by the Rural Land Use Process, participation in road maintenance as members of the Glacier View Meadows Road and Recreation Association, architectural control, and construction of proposed pond on Residual Lot D.
This project is based on Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code. The development will comply with the Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution, Section 8.8—Irrigation facilities and Section 8.10—Management/Use Plans. The referral agencies have responded and applicable fees will be collected to meet the requirements in Section 9.0—Land Dedications, Fees-in-Lieu of Dedications, Facility Fees and Capital Expansion Fees. The fees that will be collected on this project are park fees, school fees, and Transportation Capital Expansion fees. Other fees that will be collected are Rural Land Use Process fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The applicant has requested a variance to the Larimer County Engineering policy prohibiting against additional residential driveway access from County Road 74E: County Road 74E is classified as an “arterial” road. The access separations are intended to be ½ mile apart with this classification and the accesses are intended to be for “collector roads”, not driveways for individual lots. The applicant wishes to provide driveway access for Lot 3 from County Road 74E roughly at the center of its northeast boundary. A driveway length of up to 500 feet would be required, depending on the location of the new house. A driveway from Mt. Moriah Road to the west would be roughly 800 feet long and require crossing the Gordon Creek drainage; access from Eiger Road to the east along an existing dedicated access easement would require the construction of roughly 2200 feet of road running parallel with County Road 74E.
As a matter of policy and practice, infrastructure costs and installations with RLUP projects are minimized, especially redundancy with other existing roads. This often includes careful placement of access points from county roads, including driveways. However, in this instance where the requested access would be off of a county road with an arterial designation and where there are other viable access options, the Rural Land Use Director does not support this variance request. As a condition of approval, the Rural Land Use Center Director recommends that there be no additional access from County Road 74E for this project.
The applicant had originally hoped to have the current Lot 5 be the designated residential building envelope for Residual Lot C. However, it is usually not a good idea to have a single platted lot bisected by a well-traveled thoroughfare such at Mt. Moriah Road. The current configuration (Lot 5 and Residual Lot C—buildable, support buildings only) reflects the applicant’s willingness to accommodate this Planning Department concern.
There were seven responses from the technical referral agencies. The main concerns are addressed below. All of the responses are included in the Staff Report.
Staff finds that this proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code and support the Saddle Creek Ranches Preliminary Rural Land Plan based on the following:
· Applicant’s planning and design rationale for the project, which is consistent with the RLUP.
· Conservation values of the residual land, including preservation of grazing land, open space and wildlife habitat, including significant riparian areas.
· The plan is generally compatible with the existing neighboring land uses.
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 summarized below:
· Protection of residual land for at least 40 years.
· Transportation Capital Expansion Fees received from the project.
· School and park fees received from the project.
· Fewer residences than likely allowed through subdivision process.
· Ability to influence design of project, as compared to use-by-right division of property into 35-acre parcels.
This project was reviewed by the Rural Land Use Advisory Board on June 20, 2005. The RLUAB unanimously recommended approval of the project.
The Rural Land Use Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Saddle Creek Ranches Rural Land Plan. The following contingencies must be met prior to approval of final plat by the Board of County Commissioners:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Saddle Creek Ranches Rural Land Plan (File # 05-S2416) except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Saddle Creek Ranches Rural Land Plan.
2. All roads constructed within the Rural Land Plan shall be in accordance with Section 5.8.6.D of the Rural Land Use Process. No additional access from County Road 74E will be allowed for this project. All designs must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that design standards in 5.8.6.D. were followed, before final approval. Internal roads may be contained in a private access and utility easement. Road names and addressing shall meet standards in the “Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution”.
3. Domestic water for this project will be provided by on-lot wells. The applicant must reconcile the existing water augmentation plan on this property with C.R.S. 30-28-401-404 (state regulations regarding on-lot wells for Rural Land Use Projects). This can be accomplished by written opinion by a qualified water attorney. This opinion shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney.
4. Automatic fire protection sprinklers will be required for all new residential structures or written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district.
5. The wetlands on this site shall be surveyed and mapped. The existing streams and wetlands shall be shown on the final plat. Appropriate stream and wetland buffers shall be shown on the final plat and incorporated into building envelope setbacks for Lots 1, 2, 3, and the building envelope on Residual Lot C. Building envelopes on any lot shall be at least 100-feet from Gordon Creek. All building envelopes shall be located outside the floodplain and drainage areas and shall meet minimum setback requirements listed in the Larimer County Land Use Code.
6. Prior to final plat approval, applicant shall submit a scaled site plan prepared by a professional engineer which shows domestic well locations, leach field locations, proposed pond location on Residual Lot D, and location and design of adjacent Glacier View Meadows community leach field. Site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Larimer County Health Department.
7. The residual land protective covenant and management/use plan must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval.
8. 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.
9. The final development agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval.
10. 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.
11. 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) LOT SALE PROHIBITION. Developers have executed a Lot Sale Prohibition Agreement which stipulates that Lots 1 through 5 and/or Residual Lot(s) A through D 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 is recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and is 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.
b) Implementation of the forest management/use plan must be completed within the building envelopes and internal access road easements prior to the issuance of any building permits.
c) 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.
d) Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of structures designed for 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 Plan. If a structure within the building envelope is located 5’ or less from the boundary 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) All structures and septic systems must be located within the building envelopes on any Residual Lots.
g) 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.
h) 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.
i) No feeding of any wildlife. Any food placed for wildlife will eventually attract the black bears traveling through the area. Once a bear finds food around homes and trailers, they become habituated to humans, often causing damage to property in their search for food. The State of Colorado is not liable for damages to non-agricultural property. Homeowners insurance is strongly advised.
j) Keep trash and garbage removed from site. Bear proof containers are commercially available and they work. Garbage and trash can be as attractive to bears as placing out food for wildlife.
k) It is strongly recommended that trailers and motor homes not be left on site unattended. These items may be destroyed by bears if left unattended. This is particularly important during the months of July to September, when the bears are most active in their search for food.
l) Many other 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.
m) Pets must be contained on property, either by leash or enclosure.
n) 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.
o) 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.
p) 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.
q) 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.
r) Larimer County has adopted a Right to Farm Resolution.
s) 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.
t) 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.
u) Applicants should be advised that water quantity and water quantity is uncertain in this area.
Mr. Reidhead presented a slide show of the application; highlighting many of the items listed above and explained that the applicant wishes to have driveway access for Lot 3 off of County Road 74E. Mr. Reidhead stated that the distance and topography will not allow for access off of County Road 74E. Commissioner Wagner stated her concern that the quantity and quality of water in this area may be uncertain and suggested adding a condition which informs potential buyers of this fact. Commissioner Wagner questioned if the infrastructure is established on a lot by lot basis. Mr. Reidhead replied in the affirmative noting that many Rural Land Use projects are implemented slowly over time. Mr. Reidhead presented an e-mail from Robert and Lynne Pichi and noted their objection to this project.
The applicant, Don Weixelman, requested the ability to be able to locate the driveway to Lot 3 with direct access from County Road 74E. Mr. Weixelman requested the staff visit the site as he believes there is enough sight distance to construct the driveway off of County Road 74E, and he also believes that placing a much longer driveway right alongside the road will be environmentally unsound as that would disturb the soils. Further discussion ensued regarding placement of the driveway. Commissioner Gibson questioned whether or not Lot D would be owned by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Weixelman stated that it has not yet been determined as to who would maintain Lot D; however, he plans to offer responsibility of Lot D to the Glacier View Meadows Association. Commissioner Wagner expressed concern with Building Envelope B being situated right in the middle of the site plan, rather than clustered closer to the other building envelopes. Mr. Reidhead explained that building envelopes are clustered whenever possible; however, due to the soils and topography there are times when the sites end up somewhat spread out across the property. Chair Pro Tem Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment. No one addressed the Board with public comment.
Commissioner Wagner stated that she would not support the appeal to allow driveway access from County Road 74E, and requested Mr. Reidhead and the applicant to re-evaluate the location of Building Envelope B, and remove it from the middle of the project if at all possible. Chair Pro Tem Gibson agreed with restricting access from County Road 74E; however, he expressed no concerns with Building Envelope B.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Saddle Creek Ranches Preliminary Rural Land Plan subject to the conditions recommended by the Rural Land Use Center Director, with the addition of item u, which states "Applicants should be advised that water quantity and water quantity is uncertain in this area", and with a request that serious consideration be give to relocating Building Envelope B from the middle of the project.
Motion carried 2-0.
The hearing recessed at 4:45 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
GROVES METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
(#80 & 81)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Wagner were present. Also present were: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. GROVE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT - #05-G0081: This is a proposal to form a series of new metropolitan districts, intended to facilitate the provision of sewer service and to act as the service provision and financing entity for the Grove development in Laporte. The boundaries of the district as currently proposed encompass a single parcel in the Laporte Planning area. Based upon the Laporte Plan this area of the County is intended to be served by public sewer. As a result of the study and decision of the City of Fort Collins that sewer service outside the historic Laporte Sanitation District Boundaries would be served by a new district. The creation of a taxing authority will provide the funding mechanism needed to provide and maintain services. The process for the establishment of a special district is mandated by state statute which includes very strict timeframes for review, notice and hearings and includes criteria for review as discussed below.
Staff would note that there are actually several options for the district proponents. The applicant's proposals include the most comprehensive solution to a series of issues. The principal issue to solve is the connection to City of Fort Collins for sewer. For this purpose a single purpose district for sewer could/would suffice. For the provision of a wider range of services to the Laporte Community the metro district proposal serves that need, to include the provision of and maintenance of roads, drainage and parks. The applicant's plan (“developer district”) serves principally the developers needs to create a financing vehicle for the specific development, while setting the stage to do this again to extend sewer lines and service to other properties in the area.
The applicant’s proposal which includes the two “developer districts", districts established to finance the development, is raising some questions. Staff has not dealt with many of these types of districts and has some concerns about viability; and what are the consequences to the public and the County if the district fails. The applicant should address these issues as a part of their presentation and before the Board of County Commissioners acts on the request. A part of the Service Plan is to include a single property as the District, but to identify a larger area, as an Inclusion Area. As proposed, this is an area where service could be provided/extended without a significant process or review, probably administratively by the County. As proposed this area is only the land east of this site, which is identified in the Laporte Plan as being higher density and needing public sewer service. Staff believes that inclusion of lands to the west of a similar character should not be precluded.
MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES:
1. This report includes a copy of the proposed Service Plan for the Groves Metropolitan Districts 1, 2 & 3. The plan was referred to all taxing authorities within three miles of the proposed district boundary. The schedule for reviewing these service plans is mandated by State statute and allows very little time for the referral agencies to respond. Because of timing constraints the proposal was received and referred to various entities immediately prior to the date on which this staff report was due. At this time we have few referral responses and have not been able to fully evaluate the proposal. Additional information and referral responses will be provided at the Planning Commission hearing.
2. State statute requires the service plan to be disapproved unless satisfactory evidence of the following is presented:
a. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district.
It is clear that with the densities anticipated in the Laporte Plan and the position of the City of Fort Collins with respect to the provision of sewer service, there is a need for the district to be established to facilitate service. Furthermore as a metropolitan district the additional services proposed will/can further the goals of the Laporte Plan.
In examining the Service Plan, staff believes that it may be appropriate to add to the inclusion area the entire area of higher density development, the same area identified in the City of Fort Collins resolution as the “Approved Wastewater Service Area.” This could further the goals of the Laporte Plan. There is the potential complication of having two waste water service providers in the area, but believe that it may be possible for the two districts to reach an understanding with respect to overlapping services or even orderly dissolution of the existing district.
b. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs.
There is currently no provider for some of the services identified in the Service Plan or it is necessary for the district to be formed to facilitate the provision of or maintenance of the facilities.
c. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries.
Staff is unable to address that at this time, but believe that a response to this criteria can be presented at the Larimer County Planning Commission hearing.
d. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Staff will provide comments on this criterion at the hearing.
In addition, the Service Plan may be disapproved if satisfactory evidence of any of the following is not presented:
a. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis.
There is no evidence to suggest that any alternative service delivery method exists. No other waste water service provider can provide service or an agreement with a service provider in a timely or economical method. The additional services to be provided are not currently available from the County or any other entity in a reasonable or comparable basis.
b. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under section 32-1-204 (1).
The applicants have committed to meet the standards (design and construction) of service and construction for each service to be provided, as defined by the entities having jurisdiction over the service.
c. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to section 30-28-106, C.R.S.
The Larimer County Master Plan and its elements, the Laporte Plan, and the Storm Water Drainage Plan suggest that the district is appropriate to allow development to occur at the densities and intensities anticipated, to serve and to maintain the infrastructure necessary for development. The Service Plan submitted provides for a range of services in addition to the key element of waste water service, which will implement and facilitate the development anticipated in the planning documents.
d. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water quality management plan for the area.
Staff will provide comments on this criterion at the hearing.
e. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served.
Staff will provide comments on this criterion at the hearing.
This district proposal will need to include Inter Governmental Agreements with at least Larimer County, if not some sort of service agreement with the City of Fort Collins. The applicants have provided a draft of an IGA for use with the County and will need to develop an agreement with the City for use when they connect to the City system. The draft covers most issues; however, the issue of maintenance of roads and storm water facilities remains unresolved. The agreement will need to reflect the fact that the County will not accept for maintenance any new subdivision road or storm drainage facility. There also appears to be the need for some clarity with respect to the role the district plays in the collection vs. treatment system.
While the Service Plan anticipates a method for the inclusion of, or provision of, service to properties that may need service, the staff believes that the agreement and possibly the service plan should reflect some acknowledgement regarding “unreasonably withholding” connection or annexation into the district. See the comments from the Health Department.
As noted in our introductory comments staff believes that the “inclusion area” must include the entirety of the area identified by the City. An agreement or orderly succession agreement may facilitate this because the Laporte Sanitation District provides the service at this time.
While there is no regulatory or policy prohibition with respect to “developer districts” staff remains concerned about the role of the County in “picking up the pieces”, if for some reason the district should fail to complete its plan or perform on its obligations and leaves landowners in a precarious financial position, attempting to retire a debt by themselves.
The proposal presented for review by the County has at least in large part, a motivation resulting from a development proposal. The Service Plan and accompanying information make clear that the approval of the Service Plan in no way prejudges the specific development plan. The staff believes that it is appropriate to make this a specific condition of approval.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM FINDINGS:
1. A proposed Service Plan for the District was filed with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder pursuant to State statute.
2. Notice of the proposed Service Plan was mailed to all taxing authorities within three miles of the proposed district pursuant to State statute.
3. A copy of the proposed service plan was sent to all referral agencies in the area to be served by the proposed district.
4. At this time an analysis of the proposed Service Plan is not complete, referral comments have not yet been received and Staff has not yet determined whether the plan meets the minimum requirements of State statute regarding the formation of a new special district.
The Development Services Teams recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Groves Metropolitan District 1, 2, & 3 Service Plan, file #05-G0081, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall address the concerns of the Commission, Staff (as identified in this report and that arise during additional review and analysis), and referral agencies prior to the final decision of the Board of County Commissioners.
2. The plan shall meet the minimum requirements of State statute regarding the formation of a new special district.
3. The district proponents shall modify the Service Plan to reflect the requirement to execute a satisfactory IGA with Larimer County. This IGA shall, at a minimum, include the language of the proposed draft further allowing the County to assure the District is working to include properties in a cooperative manner and in a reasonable and cost effective manner.
4. Expand the potential inclusion area in the Service Plan to include the entire “area approved to be served” by the City of Fort Collins.
5. Clarify what a substantial modification of Service Plan is regarding withholding approval of service or petition/annexation, and maintenance of facilities.
6. Approval of this Service Plan is conditioned upon final approval of the
Development Plan for the subject property; which Development Plan is filed under Planning Department File #05-S2398.
Criteria for inclusion of properties to the District shall include:
1. The property proposed for inclusion is within the District’s approved Service Plan Inclusion Area.
2. The property proposed for inclusion is proposed for development which is consistent with the Laporte Area Plan.
3. The property proposed for inclusion can either be served by existing facilities or extensions of services/facilities which are approved by the provider.
4. If services are to be extended to the property through intervening properties, they must be in the Inclusion Area and the District.
5. If services are to be extended to the property through intervening properties, easements and other permissions must be in place and approved by the providers and/or the District.
6. The owners of property within the future inclusion area or any other inclusion area will be required to execute a petition for inclusion into the Grove Metropolitan District where the property is proposed to be included.
7. A Petition for Inclusion, addressed to the Board of Directors of the District, will include the signatures of 100% of the real property proposed to be included in the District.
8. The Petition must request that such property be included within the applicable District, as provided by law, and state:
a. That such property is capable of being served with facilities of the District.
b. In the case where additional facilities, infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities is required to provide the services sought by the including petitioner's property, a general plan of infrastructure and finance for the infrastructure and facilities must be provided.
c. That the inclusion of such property in the District shall be subject to any and all terms and conditions established by the Board and accepted by the Petitioner, and to all duly promulgated rules, regulations and rates of the District.
d. Any additional infrastructure or debt being proposed through, or as a result of, the inclusion of Petitioner's property into the District must be approved by and agree to be subject to any requirements of Larimer County, and/or any other public entity providing utilities and/or services to the inclusion area.
9. The Petition for inclusion must include a legal description and general description of the property owned by Petitioner(s) sought to be included in the District.
10. A meeting and public hearing of the Board of Directors of the District, must provide the requisite notice as provided by statute, for the inclusion of real property within the District.
11. The Board of Directors must enter an Order for the inclusion of such real property within the District, which Order is then attached to the requisite pleadings for approval by the District Court within the County the District is located.
12. A Resolution of Approval of the proposed inclusion must also be provided by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners and filed with the Court where the legal description of the boundaries of the District rests.
13. The requirements of Section 32-1-401, C.R.S. regarding inclusions must be met.
Instructions for inclusion of Real Property into the Grove Metropolitan District Numbers 1, 2, 3:
1. A Petition for Inclusion for each District is executed before a notary public by 100% of the owners of the real property to be included into such District, along with a legal description of the real property to be included.
2. Upon receipt of the Petitions for Inclusion, the Board of Directors sets a public hearing at which the Board will consider the Petitions.
3. A Notice of Open Meeting is published for each District one time prior to the public hearing.
4. At such public hearing, upon approval of the Petitions, the Board executes an Order of Inclusion for each District, which will be filed with the Larimer County District Court with a request that the District Court Judge issue final Orders of Inclusion.
5. Upon issuance of the Orders of Inclusion by the Larimer County District Court Judge, the Orders are recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, and the inclusions will be effected.
6. Copies of the recorded Orders are sent to the Larimer County Assessor and Division of Local Government.
Mr. Helmick gave a brief presentation of the application as outlined above. Mr. Helmick noted that this item was heard by the Planning Commission, who recommended denial of the application based upon the following concerns: 1. The service plan did not satisfy two aspects listed in the State statute 32-1-203 (2c): The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries, and (2d): The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. 2. Lack of information that brought forth a sense of viability or longevity of the project in the fact that the financial figures did not match and was not financially feasible. 3. The service plan does not provide substantial and/or sufficient information for expansion of potential inclusion areas and/or withholding or approving additional service annexations or maintenance facilities. Mr. Helmick noted that staff was inclined to agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation; however, the applicant has since addressed those concerns and he presented a packet from the applicant that included spreadsheets of the financial aspects of the districts spelled out, a market analysis, and the criteria for inclusion of real property into the metropolitan districts. After reviewing these documents, Mr. Helmick noted that staff is more comfortable with the proposal.
At this time Dave O'Leary, attorney for the applicants, reviewed the application, and briefly explained the boundaries of the project. Mr. O'Leary stated that they have attempted to resolve all of the Planning Commission's concerns. Peggy Dowswell and Chad Walker, of Pinnacle Consulting, reviewed the financial aspects of the project with the Board. Some discussion ensued regarding the finances, and Mr. O'Leary explained that the finances will change as inclusion takes place. Commissioner Wagner questioned whether or not residents in the older sections of LaPorte, with failing septic systems, could join in the metropolitan districts. Mr. O'Leary replied in the affirmative, noting that paying through the mill levy each year to be connected to sewer would be financially easier for most, rather than paying for replacement of a septic system all at once. Jeff Couch, Team Engineering, gave a brief presentation to the Board regarding the engineering aspects of the proposal. Mr. Couch noted that they submitted a formal sketch plan, interviewed LaPorte area agencies, such as the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee (LAPAC), and based their recommendations for drainage on the Master Plan for the area. Commissioner Gibson questioned how the Electronic Magnetic Fields (EMF) were accounted for, recognizing the need for citizen safety. Mr. Couch explained that they measured the magnetic flux off of the power lines, and then placed the home sites at a distance of 140 feet, which is the distance that took the magnetic fields to zero. Commissioner Wagner stated there are some citizens concerned that the County will have no say over the Metropolitan Districts. Mr. O'Leary stated that primarily the Board members will oversee the districts. Finally, Mr. O'Leary stated that he believes they have met all of the statutory requirements regarding this application and requested Board approval so they can proceed to District Court and place this issue on the November 2005 ballot.
At this time Chair Rennels opened up the hearing for public comment. Alden Hill, representing the West Fort Collins Water District (WFCWD), explained his history and background with the formation and operation of special districts. Mr. Hill stated that the water service can be provided but currently there is only one active tap for this area and 19 standby taps. Mr. Hill outlined the scenarios as to how approval of the Metropolitan Districts could affect the water availability in the area, and stated that the WFCWD would be hard pressed to provide the level of service necessary. John Stegner addressed the Board, stating that he was in favor of the district, and that their formation would help aging septic systems and would create new infrastructure. Mr. Stegner stated that the City of Fort Collins is focusing on improvements to the north College Avenue/Highway 287 areas and it will only be a matter of time before these improvements move along towards LaPorte. Mr. Stegner requested the Board approve this application. Applicant Charlie Meserlian addressed the Board and explained that they are trying to establish a template to possibly assist the town of LaPorte in rectifying the sewer issues within the town. Co-applicant Chris Kaul noted that the WFCWD stated that if the applicants could secure the sewer then they could provide the water. Mr. Kaul noted that they have created this plan around the suggestions from LAPAC and County staff. Mr. Hill again addressed the Board, noting that the financial spreadsheets had not been forwarded to the WFCWD. At this time Chair Rennels closed public comment.
Mr. O'Leary explained that they have obtained a letter from the WFCWD and have been in contact with officials from the water district and they are willing to provide the service. Mr. O'Leary acknowledged that there are issues with sewer and septic systems in the surrounding area, but he does not represent those properties. Mr. Couch stated that they understand the WFCWD is going to have to figure out how to expand their operations to meet the growing needs of the community, and explained that they wish to partner with the water district in order to resolve issues that arise. At this time there was a request from the audience to re-open public comment.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners re-open public comment.
Motion carried 3-0.
Mr. Hill referenced the letter sent to Mr. O'Leary from the WFCWD and sated that they do indeed need to plan for future distribution and storage facilities. Commissioner Wagner questioned if servicing the Groves District would negatively impact existing customers. Mr. Hill stated that this is a concern and that there could be impacts to existing customers. Chair Rennels closed public comment.
Discussion ensued regarding the service area, the cost of the project, and the developer's responsibility. Mr. Helmick went through the staff recommendations, and the Board agreed that the Planning Commission concerns have been addressed and supported approval of the application.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Groves Metropolitan District application, File #05-G0081, as outlined above, which includes revision of condition number 6, and contains the criteria and instructions for inclusion of real property into the Districts.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2005
(#82 & 83)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Wagner were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Dave Spencer, and Alyssa Lemos, Facilities Department; Ed Haynes, and Paul Marrick, Concerned Citizens; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; K-Lynn Cameron, Parks & Open Lands Department; Jerry White, Engineering Department; George Hass, County Attorney's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Troy Peterson, Gary Hauseman, Randy Cruse, (representing the Downtown Loveland Association), and Lori White (resident of 10th Street), addressed the Board with concerns of the Loveland County Offices being re-located to the Police and Courts Building on 10th Street. They stressed the importance of retaining these offices in the downtown Loveland area in order to keep downtown merchants viable, and proposed seven possible sites to re-locate the County Offices. Ms. White explained that there is too much traffic and speeding occurring on 10th Street, and adding extra County staff to the location will make the situation even more dangerous for the neighboring residents and children. Much discussion ensued regarding how the 10th Street location was chosen and the potential loss of revenue to the downtown area. The Board agreed that it was important to aggressively partner with the merchants the Downtown Loveland Association, to revitalize the downtown Loveland area, but as it stands now, the County Offices will be re-located to the Police and Courts Building on 10th Street.
2. CONVENE AS THE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners convene as the County Board of Equalization.
Motion carried 3-0.
Ms. Cookman presented the Board of Equalization referee recommendations for August 2, 3, 4, and 5, 2005, and requested approval on the same.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Board of Equalization referee recommendations as presented.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 1, 2005:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of August 1, 2005, as amended.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 15, 2005: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for August 9, 2005:
08092005R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRAILS END PLANNED LAND DIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
08092005R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTENNIAL FARM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT
08092005R003 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2ND AMENDED TAMLIN MINOR LAND DIVISION
08092005R004 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS (Todd Field, Leah Bishop, Susan Emrani and Tom Lynch)
08092005R005 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MCCLELLAND'S CREEK PLANNED LAND DIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
08092005R006 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE, EXPANDING THE FORT COLLINS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA AND REPEALING THE FORT COLLINS COOPERATIVE PLANNED AREA OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Public Trustee First Quarter Report.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING UNIT CONVERSION FOR WORK RELEASE EXPANSION: This item was removed from the agenda and will be discussed at a future Administrative Matters meeting.
7. JUROR PARKING COST WITH THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND DISTRICT COURT: Ms. Lemos explained that in March of 2004, Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins agreed to share 50% of the cost of juror parking fees. She noted that the County and City each agreed to pay up to an annual of $1,500 for 2004 and 2005. As of June 30, 2005, the County has already paid $1,385 and is very close to exceeding the maximum amount budgeted for this purpose. Ms. Lemos requested Board approval to authorize an additional $2,600 for the remainder of 2005, to cover the costs of juror parking fees. Chair Rennels noted that there was no letter from the City of Fort Collins indicating that they too would continue subsidizing the juror parking fees. Mr. Spencer explained that they have had discussions with the City of Fort Collins and the City does intend to continue subsidizing the parking as well. Commissioner Gibson noted that the County and City are both already paying for the parking spaces, and since the parking garage is not at capacity, it makes sense to continue subsidizing juror parking. Mr. Lancaster stated that payment of juror parking is really the State's responsibility; however, the State does not have the budget to pay for it. Mr. Spencer stated that he will set a worksession with the Board to discuss this issue and determine if the County should continue to subsidize juror parking. Chair Rennels stated that she would like to have a letter from the City of Fort Collins confirming their commitment to continuation of this practice. The Board agreed to provide an additional $3000, in order to insure there were sufficient funds available for this purpose throughout the remainder of 2005.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve continuing to fund 50% of the juror parking costs through the end of 2005, up to a maximum of $4,500, which includes the money that has already been budgeted and spent.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. CHANGING ELECTED OFFICIALS TERM LIMITS FROM TWO TERMS TO THREE TERMS: Mr. Haynes briefly explained the history of Term Limits in Colorado, and noted that he personally does not agree with term limiting local elected officials. Mr. Haynes explained that if an elected official is doing a great job, then it should be up to the voters to decide whether or not to re-elect that individual. Mr. Haynes stated that many counties have either overturned term limits completely, or they have extended the number of terms allowed to serve from two to three terms. Mr. Marrick stated that although the electors did choose to create term limits, it would be a good idea to give voters a chance to reconsider this issue, especially given the fact that they are not proposing to eliminate term limits, just to extend the terms allowed. Commissioner Gibson stated that he too disagrees with term limiting local elected officials; however, he is concerned with placing this issue on the ballot and having it pertain to current elected officials, as that might appear self-serving. Mr. Haynes stated that the ballot language should allow current elected officials to be included in the extended term limits, because voters will make their decision based upon their current elected officials, rather than some unknown individual. Commissioner Wagner disagreed with placing the issue on the ballot, stating that the voters have indicated their desire for term limits. Commissioner Wagner stated that she believed Mr. Haynes had ample time to circulate petitions, and gather enough signatures to have the issue placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Chair Rennels stated that she too disagrees with term limits being placed on local elected officials. She explained that it takes time to become proficient in the job, and the community ends up losing qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable elected officials prematurely. She referred to former District Attorney Stu VanMeveran as a perfect example of term limits ousting an outstanding public official. Chair Rennels stated that she does not know if she would run for office again if the voters choose to allow elected officials to serve three terms; however, she noted her support of allowing current elected officials to be part of the ballot language that would permit them to serve an additional term. Mr. Lancaster noted for the record, that the District Attorney is not part of the proposed ballot language due to the fact that the position serves a "district" and both entities (in this case Larimer County and Jackson County) would need to put the issue on the ballot.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve of placing language on the November ballot that will allow the electors of Larimer County to decide if their local elected official's terms shall be increased from two to three terms. This shall apply to those elected officials currently in office.
Motion carried 2-1, Commissioner Wagner dissenting.
9. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster noted that the City of Loveland and the City of Fort Collins has requested that the agenda for the upcoming joint meeting be concentrated on discussion of the Fort Collins/Loveland airport. Chair Rennels requested a status update of where the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) stands and much discussion ensued. Commissioner Wagner explained that the MPO will be including this as a standing agenda item for their meetings. Mr. Engemoen agreed and noted that this should help move the RTA project along. The Board supported limiting the upcoming joint meeting with the Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins to discussion of the airport.
Mr. Gluckman noted that some Boards and Commissions have the authority to act as advocates for their clients and programs, and that they often wish to write letters of support for various measures that affect their particular areas of interest. Mr. Gluckman stated that in the past, if the Board of County Commissioners has taken a position on an issue, and the corresponding Board or Commission wished to express their support or opposition, then Mr. Gluckman would give the approval to do so. Mr. Gluckman requested the Board's direction on this, and asked if this practice was acceptable. Some discussion ensued. The Board agreed that the Boards and Commissions could act as advocates by writing letters of support or opposition if they clear it through Mr. Gluckman and if the Board of County Commissioners has taken a position on the subject. Those Boards and Commissions that do not have the authority to act as advocates, and are strictly advisory in nature, will be required to present their intentions to the Board of County Commissioners directly.
10. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.
11. LEGAL MATTERS: Mr. Hass presented the final Settlement Agreement in the Whitman Zoning Violation and requested Board approval on the same.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Settlement Agreement concerning the Whitman Zoning Violation.
Motion carried 3-0.
08092005A001 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REVOCATION OF WHITMAN DEVELOPMENT REZONE BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND RANDY WHITMAN, RHINNIE WHITMAN, AND RUTH WHITMAN
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (Tape #84)
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for purchase, acquisition, lease transfer, or sale of any real or personal property interest as outlined in 24-6-402-(4) (a) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The Executive Session ended at 12:00 p.m., with no further action taken.
KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk