Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 11/07/05  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, NOVEMBER 7, 2005

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#118)

 

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:  Matt Lafferty, Sean Wheeler, Porter Ingrum, David Karin, and Al Kadera, Planning Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, 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 the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics. Chair Pro-Tem Gibson noted that Item 1, regarding the Pine Acres Appeal, is being removed at staff's request.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson then explained that Items 2 - 9 are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

2.  GOLTZ ASPHALT COMPANY REZONE/SPECIAL REVIEW - #04-Z1532 AND #05-Z1537:  This is a request for Rezoning & Special Review to amend the list of allowed uses from a previous rezoning and to permit outdoor storage as an accessory use.  This item was scheduled for a public hearing with the Larimer County Planning Commission on September 21, 2005, and remained on the consent agenda.

 

The Development Services Team and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Goltz Asphalt Company Rezoning, File #04-Z1532, and the Goltz Asphalt Company Special Review, File #05-Z1537, subject to the following conditions:

1.  This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

2.  The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Goltz Asphalt Company Special Review (File #05-Z1537) and Rezoning (File #04-Z1532) except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and the applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Goltz Asphalt Company Special Review and Amended Zoning.

3.  This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.

4.  In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

5.  The County may conduct periodic inspections of the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

6.  The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assignees or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

7.  Allowed uses are restricted to those which are allowed under the “Light Industrial” and “Trade Use” definitions of the Land Use Code with the following exception:  Any use that generates non-domestic septic waste products will not be permitted at this site.  In addition, all permitted uses must be conducted internally to the principal structure, except for the normal delivery or pick up of goods.

8. All permitted uses are also subject to the Site Plan approval process to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval and zoning, prior to the issuance of any building permits.

 

3.  SMITHFIELD SUBDIVISION LOT 21A AND 23 LOT CONSOLIDATION - #05-S2495:  This is a request for a Lot Consolidation to combine Lot 23 of the Smithfield Subdivision and Lot 21A of the Amended Plat of Lots 21 and 22 of the Smithfield Subdivision.  The request will also include vacating and relocating an existing 20-foot utility easement to accommodate the expansion of an existing building.  If approved, the recording instrument for this application will be a Findings and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.

Platte Valley Lumber Company, which has been located on East Vine Drive for many years, has purchased the existing building and properties situated on the northwest corner of Smithfield Drive and Canal Drive, and are relocating their business to this new location. As part of the relocation of the Platte Valley Lumber Company to this site, the owner has chosen to expand the existing building to better accommodate their operations.  While the proposed building expansion will occur on the property owned by Platte Valley Lumber, the property actually consists of two lots and the addition will encroach upon the existing lot line.  Therefore, the applicant has requested the consolidation of the two lots so that the addition can be realized.  Additionally, the addition will occur over an existing utility easement, which the applicant is proposing to vacate and relocate.

Access to the property will remain unaffected as the result of this lot consolidation.  Drainage for the property will change only as the result of a building addition, which changes have been reviewed and approved through the Larimer County Site Plan Review process. As part of the application and building addition, an existing 20-foot utility easement will need to be relocated. The utility companies have been notified of the easement relocation and have no objections.  Additional right-of-way for the adjacent roadways is being dedicated to the County by separate documents provided with this application.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation for Lot 23 of the Smithfield Subdivision and Lot 21A of the Amended Plat of Lots 21 and 22 of the Smithfield Subdivision, File #05-S2495, and the vacation and relocation of the 20-foot utility easement along the common property line of said lots, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by May 7, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.

3.   The vacation and relocation of the utility easement and the consolidation of the lots shall be finalized at such time when the Findings and Resolution of the County Commissioners is recorded. 

 

4.  CHAPMAN-DUFFIELD MINOR LAND DIVISION (MLD) - #05-S2451:  This is a request for an MLD to change the status of an illegal lot.  On March 28, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners granted an appeal to change the status of a property not legally created by using the Minor Land Division process to create a plat of record.  Included in the Commissioners approval was a condition that would require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with Section 8.0 (Standards for all Development) of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Since the approval of the applicants appeal, an MLD application has been submitted illustrating a single building site on the seven acre property. 

 

The property for the Chapman-Duffield appeal is situated within the City of Loveland Growth Management Area boundary and is surrounded by existing single family residential development.  Directly adjacent to the western boundary of the site is Duffield Avenue, which will provide access to the site.  Along the eastern boundary is the Colorado and Southern Railroad line, which is an active railroad.   Crossing the site from north to south is a small stream that is formed by local drainage in the area, which stream is surrounded by wetland vegetation.  The applicant has worked with the Development Service Team to protect and mitigate the wetlands on the property.  Public water and sewer service for a future residence on the property will be provided by the City of Loveland.  Fire protection will be provided by the City of Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau.

 

Approval of the applicant's appeal to be allowed to utilize the MLD process, rather than the Planned Land Division process, was granted by the Board of County Commissioners with the condition that the applicant demonstrate compliance with Section 8.0 of the Land Use Code.  In light of this condition the Development Services Team offers the following analysis of the Chapman–Duffield MLD and the Section 8.0 Standards:

Section 8.1 – Adequate Public Facilities

·  Section 8.1.1 - Sewage Disposal Level of Service Standards:  The City of Loveland has an existing sewer service main adjacent to the western boundary of the project site.  According to the comments received from the City of Loveland upon payment of appropriate fees, the City indicates that sewer service will be provided to the site.

·  Section 8.1.2 - Domestic Water Level of Services Standards: Upon the payment of certain fees, the City of Loveland, which has water lines adjacent to the property, will provide domestic water service to the subject property.

·  Section 8.1.3 – Drainage Level of Service Standards:  According to the comments from the Engineering Department, allowing a single residence on the property does not pose any concerns regarding storm water drainage.

·  Section 8.1.4 – Fire Protection Level of Service Standards:  Comments from the City of Loveland Fire Protection District indicate that they will provide fire service to the proposed development site, and there are adequate facilities for such service.

·  Section 8.1.5 – Road Capacity and Level of Service Standards:  Access to the proposed development site will be from Duffield Drive, which is a Collector Road within the City of Loveland.  No additional improvements are necessary as Duffield Road is adequately sized for one additional residential use.

 

Section 8.2 – Wetlands: A majority of the subject property consists of existing wetlands, which has been a primary concern for the Development Services Team.  The reason for the concern was that after applying the required 100-foot buffer from the wetlands there was little site remaining for the placement of a residence.  Therefore, after much consideration and observation of the existing wetlands, the Development Services Team was able to support a reduction of the wetland buffer to 25 feet, but only with the caveat that the applicant perform mitigation to the existing wetlands by eliminating noxious and invasive vegetation from the wetlands and provide enhancements by planting new trees and shrubs.  The applicant has agreed to provide appropriate mitigation plans and perform the necessary wetland enhancements to reduce the buffer area.

The Development Services Team finds that the remaining standards of Section 8.0 of the Land Use Code are not applicable to this application, and therefore are not discussed.  If the Chapman-Duffield MLD application is approved subject to the conditions recommended by the Development Service Team there should be no adverse impacts to the environment or surrounding community.  Therefore, the Development Service Team supports this MLD, as it complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Code.

The Development Services Team findings are as follows:

1.   The property for the proposed Chapman-Duffield MLD 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 parcel will meet the minimum lot size required by the FA (Farming) zoning district.

3.   Access to the property will not change and complies with current standards as set forth by the County Engineering Department.

4.   The Chapman-Duffield MLD will not result in impacts greater than those of existing uses surrounding the property.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Chapman-Duffield Minor Land Division, File #05-S2451, subject to the following conditions and authorizes 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 May 7, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Thompson R2-J school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Community Park Fee (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fee.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

3.   A no buildings or structures buffer of 25 feet shall be required from the existing wetlands on the property.

4.   Prior to the recording of the Chapman-Duffield Minor Land Division the applicant shall remove all Russian Olive trees from the property.

5.   To ensure adequate disclosure of future owner responsibilities regarding the maintenance of the wetlands on this property, the applicant shall provide a disclosure notice regarding the existence, mitigation and maintenance of the existing wetlands.

6.   Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide for approval by the Planning Department, a wetland mitigation plan in accordance with Section 8.2.11 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Said mitigation plan shall provide the location of trees and shrubs to be planted, planting details and notes, and the name of the contractor that will complete the mitigation.

7.   Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this property, the applicant shall be required to perform wetland mitigation, which will include no less than 15 trees not less than 1 inch caliper in size, and 15 shrubs in 1 – 5 gallon containers.  All plant materials will be selected from the Larimer County Plant List.

 

5.  CRYSTAL LAKES 12TH FILING LOTS 82 AND 83 LOT CONSOLIDATION EASEMENT VACATION - #05-S2499:  This is a request to combine lots 82 and 83 in the 12th Filing of the Crystal Lakes Subdivision into one lot and vacate a 20-foot utility easement located along the common lot lines.   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 for Lots 82 and 83 in the 12th 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. Staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Therefore, the Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation of Lots 82 and 83 12th Filing in the Crystal Lakes Subdivision (#05-S2499), and vacation of the 20-foot utility easement located along the common lot lines, 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 May 07, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

6.  CRYSTAL LAKES 11TH FILING LOTS 125 AND 126 EASEMENT VACATION - #05-S2491:   This is a request to vacate a 20-foot utility easement to create additional room for house construction.  This application was forwarded to the appropriate departments and agencies for comment.  The responses from these groups reveal that there are no major issues of concern.  The Larimer County Health Department commented that the garage foundation should be located so that heavy machinery does not drive over the absorption field.  Deep soil backfill from the garage should also not extend over the field.  It appears from the site plan that the construction of the garage will not impact the existing absorption field.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Crystal Lakes 11th Filing Lots 125 and 126 Easement Vacation, File #05-S2491, request to vacate a 20-foot utility easement that originates at the east boundary of Lot 125 and extends across the entirety of Lot 126.

 

7.  CRYSTAL LAKES 4TH FILING LOT 58 EASEMENT VACATION - #05-S2493:  This is a request to vacate 40 feet of a 100-foot fishing easement to create additional room for house construction.  This application was forwarded to the appropriate departments and agencies for comment.  The responses from these groups reveal that there are no major issues of concern.  The Larimer County Health Department noted that this lot has a condition that sewer systems are limited to sealed vault type holding tanks.  A permit to install the vault must be obtained at the time a building permit is requested.  

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Crystal Lakes 4th Filing Lot 58 Easement Vacation, File #05-2493, request to vacate 40-feet of a 100-foot fishing easement.

 

8.  SOUTH NOKOMIS LAKE BLOCK 11 LOTS 8, 9, 16 AND 17 LOT CONSOLIDATION - #05-S2494:  This is a request to combine Lots 8, 9, 16 and 17 of Block 11 in South Nokomis Lake Subdivision into two building lots.  Lots 8 and 17 will become Lot 1 and Lots 9 and 16 will become Lot 2.  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 S. Nokomis Lake Lots 8, 9, 16 and 17 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.  Therefore, the Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation for South Nokomis Lake Subdivision Lots 8, 9, 16 and 17 of Block 11, File #05-S2494, 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 May 7, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

9.  POUDRE PARK 2ND ANNEX LOT CONSOLIDATION AND EASEMENT VACATION - #05-S2498:  This request is to combine four contiguous lots into one lot in the 2nd Annex of Poudre Park.  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 Larimer County Engineering Department has commented that a lowest opening elevation in relationship to the flow line or bed of Fall’s Creek will be required at time of building permit application for a residence.

The proposed Lot Consolidation of Lots 40, 41, and 42 and Lot 1 of the amended plat of Lots 43, 44, and 45 Poudre Park 2nd Annex will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots.  Staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Therefore, the Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation for File (#05-S2498), Lots 40, 41, and 42 and Lot 1 of the amended plat of Lots 43, 44, and 45 Poudre Park 2nd Annex to be known as Lot 1A of the Lot Consolidation Resolution of Lots 40, 41, & 42 2nd Annex to Poudre Park and Lot 1, AMD Plat Lots 43, 44, & 45 of the 2nd Annex to Poudre Park. This application is 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 May 7, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of  County Commissioners approve Items 2 through 9 as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

10.  REDMON LOT SIZE APPEAL - #05-G0088:  The applicant, Travis Redmon and Lou Kinzli, requested this item be tabled to a future date when all three commissioners are present.  Some discussion ensued regarding this practice and Mr. Helmick noted that staff does support this type of request.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Redmon Lot Size Appeal, File #05-G0088, to December 5, 2005, at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

11.  REALE ZONING VIOLATION - #04-ZV0132:  This is a violation in which the property owner placed a storage building on the site without first obtaining a building permit and placed the shed closer than five feet from the side lot line.  A business use is being operated in the building in the FA-Farming Zoning District without the approval of the County Commissioners.           

A complaint was filed in 2004 concerning a storage building that was constructed without a building permit and placed less than five feet from a side lot line.  The building is also allegedly being used to store merchandise and equipment used in a business.  The business use apparently involves interior decorating and wedding receptions.  The use could be considered a home occupation which would require approval through the Minor Special Review process because the use is being conducted in a detached storage building.

The Building Department has been trying to work with the property owner to issue a building permit but this has proved to be a problem because the shed was built by a shop class and there are no plans available.  The following comments were made by the Building Code Enforcement staff:

There is a 10x16 (160 square feet) shed brought on the subject property without a building permit.  Building permits are required for all structures exceeding 120 square feet in floor area.  The owners submitted Building Permit Application #05-B0430 to the Building Department on April 20, 2005, for the shed; however, the building plans cannot be fully reviewed and approved until receipt of an engineer’s evaluation for the gambrel roof.  The owner has been advised of this requirement but has not provided the required information to date.  Other property owners in the area claim the shed does not meet setback requirements.  The plot plan submitted with the permit application for the shed shows the shed sitting 10 feet from the property line.  If the required information is not provided by the owners, the permit application will be voided and the shed must be removed from the property.

Staff findings are as follows: 

1.   The property is zoned FA-Farming.  This zoning district requires a minimum side setback of five feet from property line for all buildings.  This zoning district does not allow business or commercial uses unless they meet the definition of “Home Occupation”.

2.   The property is in a residential subdivision where a building placed too near a side lot line can adversely affect the adjacent lot.

3.   A building permit is required for any building containing 120 square feet or more.  A building permit was not acquired prior to placing the shed on this site.

4.   The building is being used to store merchandise and equipment that is used for business purposes.  Business uses, which meet the definition of “Home Occupation”, and which use a detached building, require approval through the Minor Special Review process.

 

Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and require compliance within 30 days.  If compliance is not achieved by the deadline, legal action is authorized to enforce the regulations.  Compliance would require:

1.   Moving the building so it complies with all setback requirements of the FA-Farming Zoning District.

2.   Providing necessary information to the Building Department for evaluation of the building permit application or removal of the building from the site.

3.   Either discontinue using the building to store items related to any business or commercial use or submit a complete and sufficient application for Minor Special Review to use a detached building for a home occupation.

 

Mr. Kadera gave a brief explanation of the violation as outlined above.  Mr. Kadera noted that he spoke with Mrs. Reale this afternoon who explained that she has been trying to obtain the building permit; however, the structure was built by an Industrial Arts class and she has been unsuccessful thus far, it retrieving the building plans from the class.

The property owner was not present; therefore, Chair Pro Tem Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment.  Charles Miller, adjoining neighbor, addressed the Board and explained that he is the Secretary for the Architectural Control Committee for the Paradise Acres Homeowners Association.  Mr. Miller stated that in addition to the storage building, Mrs. Reale also has a side building and a garage full of items used for her home business.  Mr. Miller estimated that there is over 800 square feet of area being used for the home business, and he requested that the Board deny the building permit for the storage building.  Commissioner Wagner asked if their covenants prohibit home businesses.  Mr. Miller stated that their covenants allow for home businesses; however, he is concerned about the size of the business and the amount of traffic it creates in their cul-de-sac.  Commissioner Wagner asked if Mr. Miller would be satisfied if the storage building was moved to the back yard.  Mr. Miller replied in the affirmative.  Diane Miller, adjoining neighbor, addressed Board with concerns that if the storage building and business are approved, it will set a bad precedent for the entire neighborhood.

Chair Pro Tem Gibson closed public comment.

Mr. Kadera stated that the building meets the front setback requirements, and further stated that discussing the possibility of moving it to the back yard should take place during the Minor Special Review process. 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and require compliance within 30 days from today.  If compliance is not achieved by the deadline, then the County Attorney is authorized to commence legal proceedings to enforce the regulations.  Compliance would require:

1.   The building is moved to a location that meets all the required minimum setbacks if a building permit is issued by the Building Department;

2.   Providing all the necessary information for review of the building permit application or removal of the building from the lot;  and

3.   If a building permit is issued for the building the property owner either ceases use of the building to store items related to any business or commercial use or submits a complete and sufficient application for Minor Special Review asking for approval of a home occupation which utilizes a detached storage building.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

The hearing recessed at 3:30 p.m.

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#118)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center Director.  Chair Pro Tem Gibson presided, and Commissioner Wagner was present.  Also present were:  Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Pro Tem Gibson reversed the order of the agenda items, as the applicant for Item 2, regarding the Warberg Farm Conservation Development, File #04-S2296, has asked that this item be tabled. 

 

2.  WARBERG FARM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT - #04-S2296:  Mr. Wheeler stated that the application for this Conservation Development is still in process; therefore, the applicant has requested that it be rescheduled to a later date.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Warberg Farm Conservation Development, File #04-S2296, to November 21, 2005, at 6:30 p.m.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

1.  RURAL LAND USE CENTER FEE CHANGES:   The Rural Land Use Center has been administering the Rural Land Use Process (RLUP) for the past 8.5 years.  RLUP fees have remained unchanged since they were first put in place seven years ago.  It is important to have RLUP fees reflect the value and service provided to an applicant.  It is equally important to weigh the need for increased revenue against the other benefits, both tangible and intangible, that successful completions of RLUP projects provide for the citizens of Larimer County. 

 

RLUC staff and the Rural Land Use Advisory Board believe this fee proposal is an appropriate compromise.  The proposed fee increase will enable the Rural Land Use Center staff to continue the same high level of service that rural citizens of Larimer County have come to expect and it should not prove a deterrent to landowners planning to bring their property through the Rural Land Use Process.  Following is a proposal for new fees to be effective January 1, 2006.  The current and the proposed fees are listed in the table below:

Fee Type

Current Fee

Proposed Fee

Application Fee

$250

$500*

Hearing Fee

$50 per home site

$50 per home site

Final Plat Fee

$0

$500

Final Fees (paid by the building permit applicant)

$600/$850 per home site (depending if residual land protected by conservation easement or covenant)

$1250 per home site (regardless of residual land protection method)

Amended Plat Fee

$285

$600

  *Additional fees such as the Wildfire Review Fee may also apply and would be in addition to this fee.

This fee schedule was based on the following assumptions:

·  To make it relatively inexpensive and simple for the landowner/applicant to both start and complete the RLUP.

·  To allow the County to recover out-of-pocket expenses through the Preliminary Approval hearing.

·  To have the end user—the person buying the lot and building a new house— pay the majority of the fees.  If less up-front money is invested in the project, the farmer/rancher applicant would tend to “sit” on the lots longer before developing them in order to re-coup his/her investment. 

 

However, there are trade-offs. This situation is good for the County because it tends to postpone development.  It is bad for the County because it often defers fee collection and hurts cash-flow. What originally swayed the thought process regarding the timing of fee collection is the fact that the County achieves its goals at the time of recording the final plat—at least 2/3 of the land protected for a minimum of 40 years with no development.  In most instances, it doesn’t matter if the houses are not built right away, especially if the farmer or rancher continues the agricultural operation and/or is simply using the RLUP for long-term estate planning purposes.   This rationale still holds true.  The new fee structure will provide additional revenue commensurate with the services provided by the RLUP.  It is a balanced fee structure that will increase revenue and not discourage applicants from using the RLUP.

This fee proposal was reviewed by the Rural Land Use Advisory Board (RLUAB) on September 19, 2005.  The RLUAB unanimously recommended approval of the fee increase.  Vice-Chair Spencer made a motion to accept the fee increase proposal to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners specifying the final fee line to read $1250.00 per home-site, and the motion passed.  Staff recommends approval of the Rural Land Use Center fee increases to be effective for all projects, existing and new, beginning on January 1, 2006. 

 

Mr. Reidhead explained the proposed fee incases, as outlined above, and noted that he is ambivalent about the proposal as the success of the Rural Land Use Center has been based upon providing good service for a reasonable amount of money.  However, Mr. Reidhead noted that the cost of doing business has increased and he is looking at hiring additional staff to assist with the workload.  Mr. Reidhead presented a letter that he received from Bill Somervell, a Rural Land Use Plan participant, who could not attend the hearing but wanted to express his concerns regarding the fee increase, and requested that there be a waiver for some of the fees if a RLUP has already been initiated.  Finally, Mr. Reidhead explained that the Plat Fee is a new fee that is necessary, as it has proven to be difficult to pass the projects through to completion and takes a lot of staff time to assist in this effort. 

Commissioner Wagner asked if the main objective of the fee increase was to be able to hire more staff.  Mr. Reidhead replied in the affirmative, noting that there are more complex projects and the Rural Land Use Center wishes to carry its own weight, financially, within the County.  Commissioner Wagner asked how many applications are in progress that the fee increases would affect.  Mr. Reidhead stated that there are approximately 145 approved home sites waiting to be built.  Mr. Reidhead also noted that these applicants have all been notified of the potential fee increases.

Chair Pro Tem Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment.  Dennis Marsh, Rural Land Use participant, addressed the Board stating that he was one of the very first to utilize the program back in 1996.  Mr. Marsh explained that he was led to believe by the previous Rural Land Use Director, that the fees in place during the time of his application would be honored for the life of his project.  Mr. Marsh recognized the need to increase fees as time progresses; however, he requested to be exempt from the new fee schedule.   Terry Reu, Rural Land Use participant, stated that she still has some projects in the planning stages, but stated that although she does not like to see fee increases, she understands the necessity for them. 

Chair Pro Tem Gibson closed public comment.  Mr. Reidhead acknowledged that the RLUP development agreements have vastly improved over the years as they have learned things during the process.  He recommended the possibility of having a "cutoff" date where those who first utilized the RLUP, without the benefit of the improved development agreements, would be subject to the original fees.  Commissioner Wagner asked how many homes this might apply to.  Mr. Reidhead estimated that approximately 25 homes would fall into this category. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners allow those Rural Land Use Projects that achieved final approval prior to January 1, 2001, to utilize the current fees as outlined above, and any applications whose final approval was after January 1, 2001, will be subject to the new fees as outlined above, with said fee increases to be effective January 1, 2006.   

Motion carried 2-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

 

Tuesday, NOVEMBER 8, 2005

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#118 & 119)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster.  Chair Pro Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Wagner was present.  Also present were:  Deni LaRue, Donna Hart, and Cheri Pineda, Commissioners’ Office; Sergeant Mike Brooks, Sheriff's Department; Gary Buffington, K-Lynn Cameron, and Ernst Strenge, Parks and Open Lands Department; Charlie Johnson, and Jerry White, Engineering Department; Rob Helmick, and Russ Legg, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Candice Phippen, Building Department; Ginny Riley, Human Services Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Daniel Milchunas first thanked the Sheriff's Department for their efforts in addressing a problem where individuals were using a pasture as a motorcycle racing rink.  Mr. Milchunas then asked for assistance regarding motorcycle noise pollution in the LaPorte area.  Discussion ensued and Sergeant Brooks agreed that the Sheriff's Department would increase patrols in the area to deal with this issue.  

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 31, 2005:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of October 31, 2005, as presented.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

3.     REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 14, 2005:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

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 November 8, 2005:

 

11082005A001           MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE  STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (Child Care Assistance)

 

11082005A002           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SHYANNE PLANNED LAND DIVISION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

 

11082005D001           DEED OF DEDICATION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY (RICHARD W. AND SHARON L. NEALEIGH)

 

11082005D002           DEED OF DEDICATION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY (RICHARD B. AND ALICE J. KENAGY)

 

11082005D003           DEED OF DEDICATION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY (DLD REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS)

 

11082005R001           RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE AND LARIMER COUNTY ROAD MANUAL

 

11082005R002           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR SHYANNE PLANNED LAND DIVISION

 

11082005R003           AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK SEVEN

 

11082005R004           RESOLUTION REGARDING A PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD 16 (Rescinds Resolution #09062005R007)

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS:  Shyanne Planned Land Division Final Plat; Conveyance of Permanent Easement from Larimer County to the City of Fort Collins.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved and issued:  Red Feather Liquors - Retail Liquor Store - Red Feather Lakes; Young's Liquor - Retail Liquor Store - Fort Collins; Fort Namaqua Liquors - Tastings Permit - Loveland; 287 Discount Liquors - Tastings Permit - Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

5.  RESULTS OF THE REGIONAL TRAIL PRIORITIZATION:  Mr. Strenge explained that the Open Lands Program conducted a trail prioritization exercise with the Open Lands Advisory Board and the Board of County Commissioners to rank 18 of the proposed regional trail corridors.  Mr. Strenge noted that the study resulted in seven trails being designated as high priority, and presented a diagram outlining the proposed trails.  Mr. Strenge requested Board approval on the trail rankings and explained that they will be used to conduct a more detailed study to determine their feasibility for construction.  Ms. Cameron stated that there may be some difficulty obtaining easements from willing land owners, and this could cause some adjustments to the rankings as they progress.   

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the results of the regional trail prioritization exercise, which will serve as a guide in regional trail planning in the near-term.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

6.  ACKERMAN II CONSERVATION EASEMENT PARTNERSHIP:  Ms. Cameron explained that the Ackerman Family has already worked with the Open Lands Program to protect two irrigated agricultural parcels via conservation easement on their property as part of the Mountains to Plains Project in the Laramie Foothills.  She noted that this is the third conservation easement partnership with the Ackermans and includes a 320-acre parcel that the Ackermans would be donating 50% of the value to protect.  Ms. Cameron stated that they had earmarked $100,000 for this acquisition; however, the property appraisal came in lower than expected, and requested approval from the Board to expend $67,000 in order to enter into this partnership.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the expenditure of $67,000 from the Help Preserve Open Space Sales Tax Revenues towards a 50-50 partnership to protect 320-acres of the Ackerman Ranch via a conservation easement.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

7.   APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF HEALTH:  Ms. Pineda requested approval to appoint Judy Robinson to the Board of Health, and explained that this action is due to the death of a Board of Health member.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners appoint Judy Robinson to the Board of Health for a two-year appointment, expiring June 30, 2007.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

8.  APPOINTMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION:  Ms. Pineda explained that there is a vacancy on the Estes Valley Planning Commission due to a member's resignation, and requested Board approval to appoint Douglas Klink to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners appoint Douglas Klink to the Estes Valley Planning Commission; term to expire June 30, 2006.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

9.  APPOINTMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:  Ms. Pineda explained that there is a vacancy on the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment due to a member's resignation, and requested Board approval to appoint John Lynch to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners appoint John Lynch to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment; term to expire June 30, 2006.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

10.  REVIEW PROCESS FOR NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT (NISP) AND OTHER WATER PROJECTS:   Mr. Helmick explained there are three major water projects likely to have Draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) completed in the next several months.  He noted that the County is a cooperating agency in the review of these projects and stated the necessity to create a process in order to review these projects.  Mr. Helmick explained that the formal review process for the County, at this time, is the Location and Extent process (L&E).  Mr. Helmick proposed the following two approaches for the Board to consider:  1. Have the Planning Commission review the L & E, commencing after the Draft EIS is released, incorporate the Commissioners comments and all other advisory boards the Commissioners choose to include in the review process.  This would establish the L & E process as the formal comment process providing all comments of the County on the Draft EIS; or, 2. Establish a parallel review process which has the Planning Commission reviews the L & E as one of several boards that might review and comment on the Draft EIS.  After all the designated boards and commissions have commented, then the Board of County Commissioners would integrate those comments into a "final" County response and comment on the Draft EIS; this could/would include at least one public hearing to generate public comments.  Discussion ensued regarding the two options and the Board chose to adopt the second option.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the general outline of the second process option as the preferred option for the County to review and comment on the water projects, as the Draft EIS's are issued for comments. 

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

11. WORKSESSION:  Ms. Riley informed the Board of possible federal budget cuts to child welfare programs.  Ms. Riley stated that if the budget cuts were enacted then it would have an adverse affect on foster care programs, child abuse prevention programs, etc.   Mr. Lancaster explained the urgency of this item is that it appears as though the measure will be going before a vote within the next week, and asked if the Board wished to draft a letter to the delegation in Washington to address this issue. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to draft a letter concerning the House Budget Reconciliation Bill and its adverse affects on children, and authorize the Chair or Chair Pro Tem to sign the same.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

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

 

13.  LEGAL MATTERS:  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 on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.


Motion carried 2-0.

 

The Executive Session ended and the following action was taken:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Attorney to initiate legal action against the property owners of 729 N Madison Avenue in Loveland, Colorado, regarding a building not in compliance with the Building Code, and to initiate an injunction to prohibit that occupancy; and to obtain a Court Order to allow Building Department inspectors the right of entry to conduct inspections at 710 Fox Creek Road, Glen Haven, Colorado, to check for Building Code and health and safety compliance.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

Mr. Hass explained that there was a tragic accident where a deputy sheriff collided with another vehicle and he requested the Board authorize the use of binding arbitration to resolve this case with the occupants of the other vehicle, which is agreeable to all parties. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the use of binding arbitration to settle this matter and authorize the County Manager to sign any arbitration agreements that would be forthcoming.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

 

    __________________________________________

                                    GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR PRO TEM

            BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.