> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 03/26/07  

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, March 26, 2007

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#38 & #39)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Gibson and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Karin Madson, and Samantha Mott, Planning Department; Traci Downs, and Rusty McDaniel, Engineering Department; Karlin Goggin, Building Inspection; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Wagner opened the hearing 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 Wagner then explained that Item 1, Deep Water Metro District 1 and 2 Appeal - #06-G0108, was listed on the schedule to be tabled to a later date.  Brad March, attorney for the Town of Wellington, explained that the reason for another request to table this item was due to unresolved issues and processes related to water court. 

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Deep Water Metropolitan Districts 1 & 2 Service Plan until May 21, 2007, at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

2.  MERRELL APPEAL - #07-G0131:  This is a request for an appeal to build a 3950 square foot storage building/garage on a vacant lot less than two acres in size.  Section 4.3.2.I of the Larimer County Land Use Code specifies that the size of storage buildings and garages on lots less than two acres may not exceed 800 square feet.

 

The applicant is requesting an appeal of Section 4.3.2.I of the Larimer County Land Use Code which establishes size requirements for storage buildings and garages on vacant lots.  This section of the code limits the size of storage buildings and garages based on the lot size.  In this case, the lot size is 1.34 acres.  The restriction on lots less than two acres states that these buildings may not exceed 800 square feet as stand alone uses or if they exist without a single family residence on the property.

 

The applicant proposes to construct a 3950 square foot building on the vacant lot.  The owner has no immediate plans to build a single family dwelling on the property, but has intentions of doing so in the future.  The applicant wishes to build a structure of this size because he would like to store numerous vehicles including a boat, fifth wheel camper, gooseneck trailer, cargo trailer, truck, flatbed trailer, dump truck, backhoe, tractor, and other miscellaneous items that do not fit at his current residence.  The reasoning behind this request is so the applicant can protect the vehicles from weather damage, theft, and arson.

 

Review agency comments show that the Department of Health and Environment has no objections to the appeal; the County Engineering Department has no objections to this appeal, but explained that issuance of an access permit and payment of drainage and transportation fees will be required with this proposal; and the City of Loveland recommends denial of this appeal.

 

The Larimer County Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Merrell Appeal.  Ms. Mott explained that staff does not think the appeal meets the intent of the Land Use Code since the potential building under review is five times larger than the current code allows.  Ms. Mott also stated that if a single family residence were already on the property, a 3950 square foot building would be allowed.

 

Josh Merrell, applicant, explained that a storage building on his property would look more appealing than having all of his vehicles parked outside.  He said that the design of the building is intended to blend in with the surrounding area, and he does not plan to block neighboring views of the mountains. 

 

Chair Wagner opened the hearing for public comment.  John Lee, neighbor to the applicant, voiced some concerns related to the proposed building.  He said that the building was not consistent with the size of other similar buildings in the area.  Mr. Lee was also concerned with the height of the building, potential commercial use of the property, public safety specifically related to school children, and environmental risks associated with possible leakage of hazardous waste from the vehicles.  Dave Campbell, neighbor, expressed similar concerns, and thinks that the addition of buildings like the one proposed will change the “open” feel of the neighborhood. 

 

Commissioner Rennels thought that the use of a storage facility would be more appealing to the neighborhood.  She also explained that potential hazardous material leaking into the ground would be eliminated with a concrete foundation.  Commissioner Gibson said that he is in support of the appeal based on good faith that a residence will be built on the property in the future.  Chair Wagner does not support the appeal, and feels that it subverts the intent of the current Land Use Code. 

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Merrell Appeal - #07-G0131.

Motion carried 2-1; Chair Wagner dissenting. 

 

 

3.  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE - #07-CA0068:  Ms. Madson explained that this is a request to add an Accessory Agricultural Uses section to the Land Use Code, including provisions for Value Added Agricultural Processing and Agritourism Enterprise.  The amendments also include adding Bed & Breakfast use to several zoning districts. On February 21, 2007, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of these amendments.  There were no comments from the public and the items generated little discussion.

 

The Planning Commission and the Development Services Team recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, as described below, be approved:

 

Item 1. Accessory Agricultural Uses

 

Repeal and recreate LUC Section 4.3.10.A. as follows:

 

Section 4.3.10.

 

A.  Accessory Agricultural Uses.  

 

1. Farmstead.  That portion or portions of a farm, ranch, dairy, feed yard or poultry farm designated for uses which are necessary to the operation, including equipment storage areas. 

a.   Farmstead accessory dwellings:

1. Number.  A farmstead is limited to one dwelling for the owner/operator of the property plus one dwelling for each 40 acres of contiguous ownership. For example, a farmstead on a 40-acre farm could include two dwellings, one for the owner/operator and one for farm help. A farmstead on an 80-acre farm could include three dwellings, one for the owner/operator and two for farm help. 

2. Occupancy.  Farmstead dwellings may be occupied by the owner/operator, their immediate family and residents needed to support the agriculture operation. 

3. Siting.  Each farmstead must be designed to allow a logical pattern of lots that all meet minimum lot size and setback requirements of the applicable zoning district and provide for adequate access, drainage and utilities for each lot. Should the agricultural operation cease, the property owner must pursue one of the following options: 

a. The rural land use process;

b. Subdivision;

c. Conservation development to place each accessory farm dwelling on a separate lot;

d. Identify a separate 35-acre or larger tract for each accessory dwelling; or

e. Present a proposal to be approved by the planning director.

4.   Fees and standards.  Capital expansion fees must be paid for each dwelling when the building permit is issued. Each dwelling must comply with the standards for all development required by section 8 of this code. 

5.   Agreement.  Each plan approved for a farmstead must include an agreement which includes the terms described in subsections c and d above. The agreement must be signed by the property owner, notarized and recorded with the county clerk and recorder. The agreement must state that it runs with the land and is binding on all successors, assigns, heirs and subsequent owners of the property. 

6.   A simplified site plan will be required as part of the process.

 

b.   A farmstead may include agricultural labor housing subject to special review approval by the county commissioners.

 

2.   Farm stand.  A farm may include a stand for the sale of agricultural products produced on the same farm premises. A permanent facility for the sale of agricultural products produced on the same farm premises must comply with all zoning requirements.

 

3.   Value Added Agricultural Processing:  The processing and/or packaging of agricultural products, excluding the processing of fish, meat or game.  Examples include but are not limited to:  the making of alfalfa pellets, herbal products, food products, wreaths, woolen products, cheese, and candles.  Value added processing may include the sales of value added agricultural products produced on the site.

 

a.   A farm, sod farm, nursery, tree farm (not including a sawmill) or greenhouse may include Value Added Agricultural Processing as an accessory agricultural use.

b.   Value Added Agricultural Processing and sales of value added agricultural products produced on the site must meet the following criteria:

1.   The agricultural processing or sales facility must be clearly incidental to and supportive of the dominant agricultural use of the site.

2.   The agricultural processing and sales facility must be operated by the owner or lessee of the agricultural use.

3.   Any processing operation will be located at least 100 feet from property lines unless a greater setback is required by another section of this code.

4.   The processing and/or sales facility, any outdoor storage in connection with the facility, and on-site parking will be effectively screened from existing dwellings within 500 feet.

5.   The hours of operation are limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm.

6.   Noise, fumes, dust, odors, vibration or light generated as a result of the agricultural processing or sales will, at the property line, be below the volume, frequency, or intensity such that they do not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life, quiet, comfort or outdoor recreation of an individual of ordinary sensitivity and habits.

7.   The facility or operation will serve to preserve or enhance the rural character of the neighborhood or vicinity.

8.   The agricultural processing or sales facility will not significantly change the character of the neighborhood. 

9.   The processing facility will not be classified as a hazardous waste generator under state or federal regulations.

10.   Sales of products in addition to those grown or processed on the site will be limited to those clearly incidental, secondary and ancillary to those farm products or as declared and approved as a part of the Minor Special Review or Special Review process.

 

c.   Value Added Agricultural Processing is allowed by right if:

1.   100% (by volume) of raw materials to be processed are raised or grown on the site; and

2.   The total processing and/or sales facility is 1200 sq. ft. or less in gross floor area; and

3.   Traffic generation from the value added processing and/or sale of value added processing products is less than 20 vehicle trips/day, including customers, employees and deliveries.

 

d.   Value Added Agricultural Processing is allowed by minor special review if:

1.   The parcel on which the agricultural use is proposed is 35 acres in area or greater; and

a.   More than 50% (by volume) of raw materials to be processed are raised or grown on the site; and/or

b.   The total processing and/or sales facility is between 1201 to 4000 sq. ft. in gross floor area; and

c.   Traffic generation from the value added processing and/or sale of value added processing products is less than 20 vehicle trips/day, including customers, employees and deliveries.

2.   The parcel on which the agricultural use is located is proposed is less than 35 acres; and

a.   More than 50% (by volume) of raw materials to be processed are raised or grown on the site; and/or

b.   The total processing and/or sales facility is 1200 sq. ft. or less in gross floor area; and

c.   Traffic generation from the value added processing and/or sale of value added processing products is less than 20 vehicle trips/day, including customers, employees and deliveries.

 

e.   Value Added Agricultural Processing is allowed by special review if:

1.   The parcel on which the agricultural use is proposed is 35 acres in area or greater; and

a.   Less than 50% (by volume) of raw materials to be processed are raised or grown on the site; and/or

b.   The total processing and/or sales facility is more than 4000 sq. ft. in gross floor area; and/or

c.   Traffic generation from the value added processing and/or sale of value added processing products is 20 or more vehicle trips/day, including customers, employees and deliveries

2.   The parcel on which the agricultural use is located is proposed is less than 35 acres; and

a.   Less than 50% (by volume) of raw materials to be processed are raised or grown on the site; and/or

b.   total processing and/or sales facility is between 1200 to 4000 sq. ft. in gross floor area; and/or

c.   traffic generation from the value added processing and/or sale of value added processing products is 20 or more vehicle trips/day, including customers, employees and deliveries

 

f.   Site Plan review and approval is required prior to operation for all value added processing and sales facilities unless waived by the Planning Director. 

 

4.   Agritourism Enterprise:  Activities conducted on a working farm or ranch and offered to the public for the purpose of recreation, education, or active tourism related involvement in the farm or ranch operation.  These activities must be incidental to the primary agricultural operation on the site or related to natural resources present on the property.  This term includes farm tours, hayrides, corn mazes, classes related to agricultural products or skills, picnic and party facilities offered in conjunction with the above.  An Agritourism Enterprise does not include accommodations uses or retail sales.

 

a.   A farm, sod farm or nursery, tree farm (not including a sawmill) or greenhouse may include an Agritourism Enterprise as an accessory agricultural use as follows:

1.   The Agritourism Enterprises must meet the following criteria:

a.   The agritourism enterprise will be clearly incidental to and supportive of the dominant agricultural use of the site.

b.   The agritourism enterprise will be operated by the agricultural facility owner or lessee.

c.   Any outdoor activity will be located at least 100 feet from property lines.

d.   The hours of operation are limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm.

e.   Noise, fumes, dust, odors, vibration or light generated as a result of the agritourism enterprise will, at the property line, be below the volume, frequency, or intensity such that they do not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life, quiet, comfort or outdoor recreation of an individual of ordinary sensitivity and habits.

f.   The agritourism enterprise and operation will serve to preserve or enhance the rural character of the neighborhood or vicinity.

g.   The agritourism enterprise and facilities will not significantly change the character of the neighborhood.

h.   The scale and intensity of the agritourism enterprise and facilities must be consistent with the character of the area.

 

b.   A temporary Agritourism Enterprise may be approved by the Planning Director if the following conditions exist: 

1.   The parcel on which the agricultural use is located is proposed is greater than 35 acres; and

2.   Safe and adequate access and parking have been approved by the county engineer; and

3.   Adequate sanitation facilities have been approved by the county health department; and

4.   A specific time frame is established for the use. The maximum length of time for a temporary Agritourism Enterprise use is four months;

5.   The temporary recreational use is located on the site of an existing agricultural use; and

6.   The applicant submits and obtains approval of a site plan that adequately addresses all the requirements noted above.

 

c.   An Agritourism Enterprise facility is allowed by minor special review if:

1.   The Agritourism Enterprise is operated for more than 4 months in a calendar year; and

2.   Traffic generation is less than 20 vehicle trips/day, including customers, employees and deliveries.

 

d.   An Agritourism Enterprise facility is allowed by special review if:

1.   The Agritourism Enterprise is operated for more than 4 months in a calendar year; and

2.   Traffic generation is 20 or more vehicle trips/day, including customers, employees and deliveries: and/or

 

e.   Site Plan review and approval is required for all Agritourism Enterprise facilities unless waived by Planning Director

 

Delete LUC Sections 4.3.1.A.1 and 4.3.1.A.2 (These have been included in the above section.)

 

Delete LUC Section 4.3.9.E (This has been included in the above section.)

 

Add a definition for: Value Added Agricultural Processing - The processing and/or packaging of agricultural products, excluding the processing of fish, meat or game.  Examples include but are not limited to:  the making of alfalfa pellets, herbal products, food products, wreaths, woolen products, cheese, and candles.  Value added processing may include the sales of agricultural products grown on the site or value added agricultural products produced on the site.

 

Add a definition for Agritourism enterprise - Activities conducted on a working farm or ranch and offered to the public for the purpose of recreation, education, or active tourism related involvement in the farm or ranch operation.  These activities must be incidental to the primary agricultural operation on the site or related to natural resources present on the property.  This term includes farm tours, hayrides, corn mazes, classes related to agricultural products or skills, picnic and party facilities offered in conjunction with the above.  An Agritourism Enterprise does not include accommodations uses or retail sales.

 

Item 2.  Bed and Breakfast.

 

Amend the LUC to include Bed and Breakfast as an allowed use in the FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, FO-Forestry, FO-1 Forestry, and AP-Airport zone districts as follows:

 

Amend Section 4.3.6.B.Bed and breakfast to read as follows (additions are underlined):

Bed and Breakfast.  An owner or operator occupied, single-family dwelling where short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided to guests for a fee. 

 

1. A bed and breakfast accommodating more than six guests at any time requires approval through the special review process in the A-Accommodations, T-Tourist and B-Business zoning districts.

2. A bed and breakfast in the O-Open, FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, FO-Forestry, FO-1 Forestry and AP-Airport zoning district accommodating six or fewer guests requires approval through the minor special review process. A bed and breakfast in the O-Open FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, FO-Forestry, FO-1 Forestry and AP-Airport zoning district accommodating more than six guests requires approval through the special review process.

 

Add “Bed and Breakfast (MS/S)” to Sections 4.1.1.A, 4.1.2.A., 4.1.3.A, 4.1.4.A.and 4.1.21.A under the heading of Accommodations Uses and renumber the rest of Sections 4.1.1.A, 4.1.2.A., 4.1.3.A, 4.1.4.A.and 4.1.21.A.

 

Place the “MS/S” designation for “Bed and Breakfast” use in the accommodation category of the zoning table at the end of Section 4.1 under the FA, FA-1, FO, FO-1 and AP columns.

 

Modify the definition of “Bed and Breakfast” to read - An owner or operator occupied, single-family dwelling where short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided to guests for a fee.

 

Ms. Madson explained that the proposed amendments will make agricultural uses more viable, with added value to agricultural processing.  Some discussion among the Commissioners and staff ensued.  At this time, Chair Wagner opened the hearing for public comment.

 

Bill Pruett, winery owner, stated that he is in favor of the amendments to the Land Use Code.  He recommends that the minimum square footage for a processing and/or sale facility be increased to 3000 square feet, reducing the number of applications for a Minor Special Review.  At this time, Ms. Madson and Mr. Helmick explained the Minor Special Review process.  Mr. Helmick said that if 3000 square feet were approved today, the decision would ultimately have to go back to the Planning Commission, because the square footage is much larger than originally approved. Discussion among the Commissioners ensued. 

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Land Use Code amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

4.  SAUK ROAD ADDRESSING APPEAL - #07-CAC0001:  Ms. Goggin explained that the Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution establish standards and guidelines by which the Rural Address Improvement Project is carried out.  These basic premises have guided the decisions of staff with regards to recommending address changes in Larimer County.  There are five essential premises for the county requesting an address change.  They include correcting non-sequential numbering, parity discrepancies (odds on one side; evens on the other), naming unnamed roads, road name hierarchy, and eliminating duplicated road names.  This appeal specifically pertains to duplicate road names.

 

In May 2006, county staff recommended the section of Sauk Road in Grand Mesa Estates be changed to comply with the adopted resolution regarding duplicate road names.  This prompted an appeal letter from Mr. and Mrs. Starman, of 1906 Sauk Road.  The letter of appeal was sent to Mr. Tom Garton who received and reviewed this appeal request.  The letter by the appellants stated the two Sauk Roads do not connect and is consistent with many other roads of similar nature in Larimer County.  Mr. Garton made a determination to allow the two Sauk Roads to remain in August 2006.

 

After review by Spatial Data Research (SDR), the County addressing consultant, SDR felt the granting of the appeal was inconsistent with the Resolution and such determinations must be decided upon by the Board of County Commissioners.  Hence, SDR has requested that the appeal request be taken to the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Sauk Road has two separate branches, one off Highway 402 and the other off County Road 9.  These two roads, according to a plat of Grand Mesa Estates, were originally platted to connect and be a continuous road; however, the road was not built as platted and there are now two different accesses to these two different roads.  It is not feasible for these two roads to be connected because there are structures in this area.  The Sauk Road off Highway 402 has been established longer than Grand Mesa Estates which was recorded in March 1979.  The first address of record is 1402 Sauk Road which was established in 1974.

 

As stated previously by the original appeal to Mr. Garton, Sauk Road, with two different branches, is consistent with many other roads in Larimer County prior to this project.  This project has eliminated, or is going to eliminate, these exact types of duplications.  Roads already changed including Leslie Drive in Loveland; Juniper Lane in Estes Park; Colard Place in Lyons; and Buckhorn Court and Buckhorn Lane in Loveland to name a few.  There are many other duplicate road names currently recommended and in the process of change due to duplication.  Sauk Road is no exception to the duplication of road names.

 

The Sauk Road appeal was tabled from February 26, 2007, to March 26, 2007, to research dedicated right of way between Sauk Road in Baum Exemption and Sauk Road in Grand Mesa Estates.  Per research by Charlie Johnson, Land Agent with Engineering, in 1973, the Baum Exemption was approved with a north/south 60' row which established Sauk Road from Highway 402 to what eventually would be Grand Mesa Estates.  Also establish at that time was an east/west 30' public row at the common boundary of the Baum Exemption and what would be Grand Mesa.  This 30' east/west row was vacated by resolution dated May 2, 1988, (Rec. No. 88019532).  A utility easement was left in place for phone services.  In November 1991, the Baum MRD was approved by the Board. This MRD subdivided a five acre portion of the old Baum Exemption, creating two 2.5 acre lots.  This 1991 plat dedicated a 30' wide strip of public row down to the common boundary with Grand Mesa Estates creating connectivity to the south but with only a 30' width. 

 

In 1978, the Grand Mesa Estates Subdivision was established with a 60' row for Sauk Road from County Road 9 up to the Baum Exemption.  Additionally, as in the Baum Exemption, the Grand Mesa plat established an east/west 30' row which was parallel to the east/west 30' row in Baum Exemption.  By a resolution dated July 29, 1981, (Book 2129 Page 0215) this east/west 30' row was partially vacated.  The north 30' of Lot 1 and the north 30' of Lot 2 were described as the portion to be vacated.  The problem is that the lots did not go to the centerline of Sauk Road which resulted in a 60' x 30' chunk of row remained allowing for connectivity to the Baum MRD to the north.

 

The net result is there is a 30 foot strip of Right Of Way established by the 1991 Baum MRD connected to a 60 foot right of way in the Grand Mesa Estates.  However, the road was not constructed as platted and has not been for over 30 years. 

 

Staff finds there are several options to resolve the road naming situation.  The following are four options, and staff recognizes pros and cons of each:

 

  1. Vacate the Right of Way (county initiated)

Pros:    No cost to citizens to complete the vacation

The road construction is left as is which eliminates the ability for continuous traffic from each subdivision

Corrects the plat and depicts the reality of the road construction

            Cons:   Lacks dual access potential for all services (dual access can only be achieved by complete connectivity)

                        Sets a precedence for similar road situations in the county to be vacated

  1. Keep the Right of Way and build the road connection as platted (property owners to pay for construction)

      Pros:    Meets connectivity standpoint and corrects the plat construction issues

Keeps the road name the same for Baum Exemption/MRD and Grand Mesa Estates

            Cons:   Costly to Owners (requires voluntary improvement district to be set up)

            Increase traffic impacts in potentially both directions

            Fees to use either side by HOA’s

            Cost of maintenance to owners

            Property owners not likely to favor this option

3.  Leave the road “as is” and rename Southern portion

Pros:    Complies with the addressing Resolution requirements

            No road construction impact and cost

            Depicts reality of road naming and addressing for Sauk Road

            Cons:   Southern portion requires a road name change

4.  Leave the road “as is” and allow the duplicate road name

Pros:    None

            Cons:   Defies the intent of the addressing Resolution and project as a whole

            Sets a precedence to allow further duplication of road names with no connectivity

            Does not eliminate confusion of addressing and access

 

Although the opportunity to connect is present by the Right of Way (ROW) findings, the reality is the road is not constructed as continuous.  In order to be one road, the road must be constructed (not simply reserved for emergency access) and it must be accessible to anyone using the road systems in Larimer County.  With that stated, staff finds that Option #2 is most preferred; however, the county can not force property owners to form improvement districts and pay for this road construction (approximately $50,000+ to construct).  Given these limitations, the next preferred option is #1 which would correct the plat and lack of road construction issues.  This vacates the ROW and renames the southern portion to a unique, non-duplicated road name.

 

Rick Lamp, Sauk Road resident, stated that he prefers Option #4, which includes retaining the current road names.  He believes that there is the potential to connect the two Sauk Roads in the future, creating a continuous road with two different road names.  Jim and Cheryl Baum would like to see the roads renamed as North and South Sauk Road.  They are concerned with connectivity of the road because of differing subdivision covenants and homeowner association procedures.  Discussion among the Commissioners ensued, and Commissioner Gibson said that he would be in favor of the county vacating the entire Right Of Way. 

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to retain the Sauk Road name in Grand Mesa Estates and change the road name in accordance with the Resolution, also, authorizing staff to initiate the vacation of Right of Way between Baum Exemption MRD and Grand Mesa Estates as outlined in Option #1.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing ended at 5:05 p.m.

 

 

 

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2007

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#40)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Gibson and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Ginny Riley, and Angela Mead, Human Services Department; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment today.

 

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 14, 2007, AND THE WEEK OF MARCH 19, 2007:

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for March 14, 2007.

Motion carried 2-0; Chair Wagner abstained.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of March 19, 2007.

Motion carried 2-0; Commissioner Gibson abstained.

 

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 2, 2007The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the upcoming schedule with Ms. Hart.

 

 

4.  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 March 27, 2007:

 

ABATEMENTS:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are approved: A Storing Place Fort Collins LLC; Laird M. Walker; RHT Limited Liability Co.; Ruby I. Dodd.

 

03272007A001           DEVELOOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CRIST/GALLIVAN SUBDIVISION (FILE #05-S2460)

 

03272007R001           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR CRIST/GALLIVAN (FILE #05-S2460)

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Crist/Gallivan Subdivision Final Plat; DOLA Energy and Mineral Impact Fund Grant Application; Public Trustee 3rd Quarter Report for 2006; Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Proposal to the Colorado Division of Housing.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following liquor license was approved and issued: Zippy’s Liquor – Retail Liquor Store – Fort Collins.  The following liquor license was approved: Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary Club – Special Event 6% - Estes Park.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

5.  NATIONAL CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH PROCLAMATION:  Ms. Mead stated that April 2007 is recognized nationally as Child Abuse Prevention Month and Larimer County will honor this month through a variety of scheduled activities hosted by the Department of Human Services.  Ms. Mead submitted the proclamation to the Board and asked for their endorsement of the same.  At this time Commissioner Rennels read the proclamation aloud.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

6.  APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:  Chair Wagner explained that interviews have been completed and applicants have been chosen for three vacancies on the Public Improvement District (PID) #27, Crown Point Advisory Board, and three vacancies on the General Improvement District (GID) #18, Venner Ranch Advisory Board.  The following individuals were selected to serve on the Advisory Board for PID #27, Crown Point:  Lowell Kilzer and Peter Woldberg, appointed to a 4-year term beginning March 27, 2007, and ending November 30, 2011; and Roberta Cox, appointed to a 3-year term beginning March 27, 2007, and ending November 30, 2010.  The following individuals were selected to serve on the Advisory Board for GID #18, Venner Ranch:  Karla Alpers and James Carpenter, appointed to a 4-year term beginning March 27, 2007, and ending November 30, 2011; and Howard Lipke, appointed to a 3-year term beginning March 27, 2007, and ending November 30, 2010.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments to Public Improvement District Crown Point #27 and General Improvement District Venner Ranch #18 Advisory Boards as listed.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

7.  COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster outlined a Senate Bill sponsored by Congressman Mark Udall known as The Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act.  Currently, Larimer County is not involved in this study, and Mr. Lancaster asked the Board if they would be interested in sending a letter to Congressman Udall asking for inclusion.  Commissioner Rennels suggested a letter be sent to all legislators regarding the Senate Bill.  Commissioner Gibson said he would like to know more about the Bill before making a decision today.

 

Mr. Lancaster explained that the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce is hosting a leadership workshop, and Larimer County has been a sponsor for this even in the past.  Once again, the city is asking for support from the Board in the form of a monetary donation. 

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners support the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Keynote Speaker Series for $3750 to be taken from the Special Projects Fund. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

8.  COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board discussed their attendance at events during the past week. 

 

 

9.  LEGAL MATTERS:  There were no legal matters to discuss.

 

 

The meeting ended at 10:45 a.m.

 

 

 

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING

(#41)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 1:00 p.m. for an Abatement hearing.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioner Gibson was present.  Also present were:  Ann Piccone, Jennifer Jacobsen, and Darren Dahlgren, Assessor's Office; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR ROBERT KULIKOWSKI; PARCEL NUMBER 97132-10-012:  Ms. Jacobsen described the location of the subject property and then reviewed the comparables used to assess its value.  She stated that the subject property, valued at $203,200, was still lower based on other homes in the surrounding area.  Mr. Kulikowski said that all three comparables used by the Assessor’s Office include a garage, while his property does not.  He feels that this is one reason why the assessed value is higher than it should be.  Mr. Kulikowski presented three new comparables that he thinks are more representative of the age and style of his home. 

 

Some discussion ensued.  Commissioner Gibson agreed that the Assessor’s value of the home was a little high, but the applicant’s request of a value set at $165,416 was too low.  He recommended adjusting the value to $180,000.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition for Abatement and Refund of Taxes for Robert Kulikowski, Parcel Number 97132-10-012, for tax year 2006 and adjust the value to $180,000.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR ROBERT KULIKOWSKI; PARCEL NUMBER 97111-21-010:  Mr. Dahlgren explained that the Assessor came up with a value of $129,000 based on the median market value of comparables submitted by the petitioner and approved Mr. Kulikowski’s petition, in part.  Some discussion ensued.  Mr. Kulikowski is in agreement with the current assessed value of $129,000.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the value of $129,000 for Robert Kulikowski, Parcel Number 97111-21-010, for tax year 2005.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR ROBERT KULIKOWSKI; PARCEL NUMBER 97114-18-014:  Mr. Dahlgren stated that the Assessor’s Office approved the Petition for Abatement in part, changing the actual value from $212,900 to an adjusted value of $169,400.  Mr. Kulikowski stated that the home was in very poor quality when it was purchased, and would like to see the adjusted value set at $163,900.  Mr. Kulikowski presented his own comparables and explained that their median value supports his request.  Some discussion ensued, and it was discovered that the Assessor’s Office records show a garage exists on the property, when this is not actually the case.  Commissioner Gibson stated that he would support the requested value be set at $163,900.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition for Abatement and Refund of Taxes for Robert Kulikowski, Parcel Number 97114-18-014, for tax year 2004 and adjust the value to $163,900.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR ROBERT KULIKOWSKI; PARCEL NUMBER 97113-01-044:  Mr. Dahlgren explained that based on the comparables evaluated by the Assessor’s Office, the assessed value of $214,800 is accurate.  Mr. Kulikowski presented three different comparables that he feels are more in line with the subject property.  He explained that the comparables used by the Assessor’s Office to determine the value of his property were located in an area that has a whole different feel compared to the location of his home.  Mr. Kulikowski also explained that the value assigned by the Assessor includes a garage, when no garage is present on the property.  He thinks the assessed value should be set at $165,416.  Some discussion ensued.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition for Abatement and Refund of Taxes for Robert Kulikowski, Parcel Number 97113-01-044, for tax year 2004 and adjust the value to $175,000.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR ROBERT KULIKOWSKI; PARCEL NUMBER 97152-01-020:  Mr. Dahlgren explained that based on the comparables evaluated by the Assessor’s Office, the assessed value of $172,400 is accurate.  Mr. Kulikowski presented three additional comparables that he feels are more similar in location and style to the subject property.  Commissioner Gibson stated that he agrees with the Assessor’s valuation since the subject property is located in a very desirable part of town with Colorado State University, City Park, and schools within walking distance.  Discussion ensued regarding the condition of the basement.  Mr. Kulikowski explained that the ceiling is too low to be considered an additional room, and would be uninhabitable.  Chair Wagner said she would be willing to lower the assessed value of the home based on the basement being more of a crawl space type area.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition for Abatement and Refund of Taxes for Robert Kulikowski, Parcel Number 97152-01-020, for tax year 2004 and adjust the value to $164,400.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

The meeting ended at 2:40 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

KAREN A. WAGNER, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 _________________________________

Kristen L. Romary, Deputy Clerk