> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 06/25/07  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2007

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#81)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Gibson and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Matt Lafferty, Samantha Mott, and Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Wagner 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  Chair Wagner explained that the following item has been withdrawn from the agenda:

 

1.  JOHNSON MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW & APPEAL - #07-Z1648:  This item was withdrawn from the agenda, as the applicant will need to work directly with state agencies in order to accomplish his goals.

 

Chair Wagner then explained that the following item is on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience:

 

2.  GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS SUBDIVISION 7th FILING PUD LOTS 41 & 43 LOT CONSOLIDATION - #07-S2695:  This is a request for lot consolidation to combine two contiguous lots into one lot in the Glacier View Meadows Subdivision 7th Filing PUD; if approved, the recording instrument will be a Finding and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.       

 

There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:

 

·   The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment 

·   The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team

·   The Larimer County Addressing Coordinator

·   The Glacier View Meadows Association

The proposed Glacier View Meadows Subdivision 7th Filing PUD Lots 41 and 43 Lot Consolidation 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. 

Typically staff does not support creating a lot split by a road.  However, the Lot Consolidation review criterion does not address this issue.  This lot consolidation meets the review criteria as set forth in the Larimer County Land Use Code and, for this reason, staff supports this request.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Glacier View Meadows Subdivision 7th Filing PUD Lots 41 and 43 Lot Consolidation, subject to the following conditions:

1.    All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by December 25, 2007, 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 existing access road, Shavano Court, shall not be blocked or otherwise encumbered by preventing the adjacent property owners or their guests from getting access to their properties.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Item 2, as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  PEARL CREEK ONE APPEAL - #07-G0137:  This is a request for an appeal to be allowed to process a Subdivision instead of a Conservation Development at a mountain site larger than 30-acres in size.

 

The applicant seeks approval to process a subdivision request in lieu of a Conservation Development.  Please note, the project materials describe a 6 lot subdivision request.  At the Sketch Plan meeting the applicant verbally indicated he would like to reduce this to just 2 lots, shown as Lots 1 and 2 on the applicant’s site map.

The subject property is approximately 207 acres in size, but its exact legal size or status of the parcel(s) is unknown.  This is because the applicant has unresolved differences with the Assessor’s Office over land record issues related to a Rural Land Use Plan (Pearl Creek Estates).  These differences remain unresolved at the writing of this report, based on the information in the Assessor’s records and that verbally provided by the applicant at the Sketch Plan meeting.

For background, the applicant submitted a concurrent Sketch Plan request for development of this site.  At Sketch Plan Staff advised the applicant that the lot configuration issues needed resolution before the County could process either a Subdivision or Conservation Development request.  This is based on the requirements in Section 8.14 (Development Design) subsection C. which states that Applicants who do not develop an entire parcel must include the entire area of each parcel in the development, and they must indicate the intended plans for the remainder of the parcel in their project materials.  This Section also requires that any remaining undeveloped parcel must be at least 35 acres in size if it is not included in the proposed development.  For any process to happen, the parcel (or parcels) under consideration for development must be defined and considered legal lots.  For the record, the Assessor’s Office currently shows one configuration for the area and the applicant describes another.  There are two parcels containing the proposed lots, which have a total acreage of 207 + acres.  The legal status of Parcel #40103-00-025 is unclear as it is only 28-acres in size and the applicant did not provide any clarifying information as to how it was created, except to state it should have been reconfigured following the Rural Land Use process.  Again to be clear, the original request outlined in the project description for this request describes 6 lots in the subdivision.  After the Sketch Plan meeting the applicant verbally indicated he wanted to reduce the number to 2 lots.  The applicant has indicated that by creating only the 2 lots, he believed he would eliminate the requirement to make road improvements because of the Standards in the Engineering Department comments.  The applicant has withdrawn Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 from consideration at this time, for this appeal.  He did not indicate that whether or not he would seek approval for these other lots in the future.

 

County Planning Division:  Most of the items of concern for the Planning Department at this stage are addressed in the sections above, with the following exceptions. 

1.   Subdivision vs. Conservation Development:  The applicant indicated he wants to pursue creating two lots (instead of six) to avoid the costs associated with road improvements that are required for three or more lots.  He also indicated he would likely seek approval to develop the larger parcels in some form in the future.  While the discussion of this request has focused on the appropriateness of allowing the applicant to submit a subdivision instead of a Conservation Development, it would not be complete without raising some other points of concern for Staff. 

First, the applicant should understand that Staff and the Planning Commission can still recommend a variety of conditions of approval to the Board of County Commissioners to mitigate the impacts from development, even for just 2 lots.  The County Commissioners have the option to accept those and add other conditions they find are reasonable and necessary to address impacts from the subdivision and development of land.

The applicant should also note that development to the maximum density, based on zoning, is not a guarantee in the Land Use Code.  Natural or other conditions at a site can limit the number of lots that may be approved for any development.  However, the residual land in a Conservation Development is designed to allow protection of these areas, while still providing for more development in areas where there are no environmental or other impacts.

2.   Incremental Development:  Another concern for the Development Services Team is the effect of incremental development in the area of this site, in the form of successive two-lot subdivision plans.  The Engineering Department has indicated that the roads in the area of this site are in need of improvements.  Earlier development by the applicant and others contributed to this situation significantly.  As the applicant indicated he intends to continue seek approval for development in this area, Staff’s assessment is that no additional lots should be approved without some consideration given to resolving road impact concerns.  For the public hearings on the Subdivision, the Development Services Team will look at consider recommendations to fairly address the road impact concerns, along with other issues as thought necessary to protect the health and welfare of the greater community around the site.

3.   Other Development Requests:  For the record, another property owner has contacted Planning Staff and indicated he is working with the applicant on developing another part of this same site.  That other owner has expressed an interest in buying 35 acres from the applicant, but because the legal description of the parcels is unclear based on discrepancies between the Assessor’s records and the applicant’s representations.  The Preliminary Plat application must include a formal survey, and proof that the parcels under development are legal, and that they are consistent with information on file in the County Assessor’s records.  The applicant is strongly urged to contact the Assessor and resolve these issues, before submittal of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat.

The Engineering Department has no objections to the appeal to process a Subdivision versus a Conservation Development.  Their comments note that their recommendations would be the same for a Subdivision or CD at the public hearing.  Reducing the number of proposed lots will mitigate some of the concerns expressed by the Engineering Department in discussions with other Staff and the applicant.  However, the Engineering Staff as part of the Development Services Team remains concerned about the incremental impacts of numerous small subdivision requests.

Like those of the Engineering Department the Health Department’s comments are attached.  Because the applicant has reduced the number of proposed lots, and removed lots from consideration that created concerns, the Health Department has no objections to allowing the applicant to pursue a Subdivision instead of a Conservation Development.

 

Several residents in the Crystal Lakes area have expressed concerns to staff about increased development in the area, especially the impacts on roads, water, etc.  These concerns will be discussed in greater detail during the public hearing and prior to that at the neighborhood meeting.  They are mentioned in this report to give the applicant notice that other property owners concerns at this time.

 

Staff supports the creation of two lots at this site as a subdivision instead of a Conservation Development.  This is based on the verbal representations from the applicant at the Sketch Plan meeting with Staff that the subdivision request will be for 2 lots and not 6, and that the proposed 2 lots exist as being divided off the larger parent parcels by roads through the site. 

A larger concern is that the parcel information provided to Staff for review is unclear.  The County Assessor’s records indicate different parcel configurations from those represented by the applicant in his discussions with Staff.  However, Section 8.14 subsection C. is very clear.  It states that Applicants who do not develop an entire parcel must include the entire area of each parcel in the development, and they must indicate the intended plans for the remainder of the parcel in their project materials.  This Section also requires that any remaining undeveloped parcel must be at least 35 acres in size if it is not included in the proposed development  To meet this standard the Preliminary Plat application must include a site inventory map that shows the correct, legal parcels under consideration for development.  The 2 proposed lots would be shown as to their location on the site inventory map.  The remaining portions of each parcel must be larger than 35 acres.  The Preliminary Plat application will also need to include individual Plats for each of the two proposed lots.  All of the parcel information must also be consistent with that on file with the County Assessor’s Office.  Staff encourages the applicant to meet with the County Assessor and resolve the outstanding land record issues for the parcels under review.

Staff remains concerned about the impacts from incremental development in the form of a series of two lot subdivisions; however, this is a discussion more appropriate for the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat, and being raised here only as a point of concern. 

Staff recommends approval of the appeal to the requirements in Sections 5.3 of the Land Use Code that parcels larger then 30 acres be divided as a Conservation Development, and to allow the property identified in this report to be processed as a Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:

1.   The Preliminary Plat shall include no more than two single-family residential lots, located as shown on the information provided by the applicant for this appeal and as represented to Staff.

2.   The Preliminary Plat application will satisfy the requirements of all applicable Land Use Code standards, including Section 8.14. Subsection C.  The applicant will provide Plats for each proposed lot single family lot.  The Site Inventory Map will accurately depict the size of the remaining parcels as being 35 acres or larger in size, and that information shall be consistent with information on file in the County Assessor’s records.  The applicant must also provide proof that all parcels under review are legal lots.  The application will include information that describes the use, possible future uses and dispositions of the larger remaining parcels.

Mr. Wheeler briefly explained the application as outlined above, and Mr. Helmick noted that the Board will only be considering the appeal and not the content of the application. 

Don Weixelman, applicant, noted for the record that the property owner is Diane Weixelman, not North Fork LLC, as published.  Mr. Weixelman stated that they wish to divide the property amongst family members and create separate residential properties.

There was no public comment regarding this item.

Discussion ensued regarding how the parcels were a result of pieces of land that were adjacent to a Rural Land Use project; however, they were not including in the project.  Mr. Wheeler stated that the property legal descriptions would need to be reconciled with the Assessor's Office.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Pearl Creek One Appeal to allow development of a site larger than 30 acres as a Subdivision and not a Conservation Development.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

4.  LEE SPECIAL EXCEPTION - #07-Z1644:  This is a request for a Special Exception to allow an existing residence on the commercially zoned property to be used as a caretaker’s residence for the automobile sales business on the property.

 

On May 16, 2007, the Development Services Team presented the Lee Special Exception application to the Planning Commission.  At this hearing the Planning Commission heard testimony from both the Development Services Team and the applicant regarding the proposal, no members of the public showed up in support or opposition to the request. 

Discussion by the Planning Commission, after hearing the testimony, revolved around the desire to not establish precedence, as well as similar actions taken in the recent past.  At one point the Commission discussed possibly allowing the use for one year as they thought the property was in transition from residential to commercial, which was in part diffused by further discussion about the history of the property.  

Upon conclusion of the Planning Commission discussion a motion was made and passed to deny the request.  Since this recommendation was made no changes have been made to the application.

The Planning Commissioner and the Development Services Team recommend that the Lee Special Exception, file #07-Z1644, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be denied.

Mr. Lafferty explained the application as outlined above, noting that the applicant was not present and had indicated that he was considering withdrawing the application entirely; however, since he had not formally done so, a decision from the Board is necessary.

There was no public comment on this item.

Some discussion ensued regarding the need to include some provision in the Land Use Code to accommodate security monitoring utilizing some sort of on-site "facility" or "residence."

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Lee Special Exception, File #07-Z1644, as recommended by the Planning Commission and Development Services Team.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

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

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#81 & 82)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Planning Department.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Gibson and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Neil Gluckman, Commissioners’ Office; Christy Coleman, Engineering; Brenda Gimeson, Rural Land Use Center; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  MILLER/VAN VELSON RURAL LAND USE PLAN – FILE #07-S2684:  This is a request for preliminary approval to divide 141 +/- acres into five (5) lots in the following manner:  Two (2) Residual Lots with a building envelope for a single-family dwelling and three (3) single-family residential lots, ranging in size from 4 to 12 acres. The Residual Lots will be protected in perpetuity.

 

The proposal for the Miller/Van Velson Preliminary Rural Land Plan is to combine an 82-acre piece of property with a 59-acre piece of property for a total of 141 acres.  The 141 acres will be divided into 5 lots.  This application is for a total of three (3) single-family residential lots ranging in size from 4 to 12 acres and two (2) Residual Lots, with building envelopes of 4-5 acres for one single-family dwelling on each Residual Lot.  There are already three (3) existing residences located on the property.  The undeveloped portion of the Residual Lots (about 78.1% of the property) will be protected in perpetuity by either a covenant or conservation easement, as required under the RLUP.  The residual land parcels will remain as undeveloped dry forested grazing land.

The property is located in Sections 19 and 30, Township 8 North, and Range 70 West and Section 24, Township 8 North, Range 71 West.  It is generally located 6 miles west of Bellvue and is immediately southwest of the Rist Canyon Fire Department.  The property consists of dry forested grazing land.  The land could be divided into four (4) 35-acre parcels without County approval.  The property is zoned O-Open.  Under the property’s current O-Open (1 home site per 10 acres) zoning, up to 14 homes could potentially be built if approved through the County's Conservation Development (CD) process.

Three single-family residences already exist.  Two of the homes are owned by Tom Van Velson and one by Carol Miller.  This proposal creates 2 additional building sites for a total of 5.  The proposed design assures proximity to existing roads, adequate soils for septic systems, and the preservation of heavily forested areas.

Building envelopes will be required for Lot 1 (to assure the new residence is situated to access adequate soils for on-site septic system) and for Lot 3 (to assure preservation of the meadow that comprises the majority of this lot).    Forestry management plans are already in effect and will continue to address prescriptions and implementation strategies for reducing wildfire hazards on Residual Lots A and B. Water to these lots will be provided by on-lot wells, and each lot will have individual septic systems.  The surrounding properties consist mainly of 35-acre and larger parcels.  There are a few smaller residential lots (less than 35 acres) that have been created through the Minor Land Division process or before 1972.

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 by pressure specifically associated with growth in Fort Collins; and attractiveness of “close-in” foothills property.  The proposed density of the Miller/Van Velson Rural Land Use project, one unit per 28.2 acres, appears to be compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with established development patterns in the area.

The undeveloped portion of the residual land, approximately 111 acres and comprising roughly 78.1% of the property, will be protected from further development in perpetuity, either with a deed restriction or conservation easement.  The RLUP requires that residual land be protected for a minimum of 40 years with no further development.  The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land and for providing periodic monitoring report(s) to the County.   A road maintenance agreement will include provisions for access road maintenance. 

Comments were solicited from the following agencies:  Larimer County Engineering Department, Health Department, Larimer County Planning, Rural Land Use Advisory Board, and Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department.  Because of the way the Administrative Process works, the Rural Land Use Advisory Board will not make an official recommendation regarding this project.  The neighboring property owners were notified of the project by mail and have been given an opportunity for comment either by written correspondence or this public hearing.   

 

This project was processed consistent with Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Section 5.8.5.D (Administrative Process) was used to determine the maximum number of building lots, referrals sent, and hearings held.  The development will comply “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 at building permit issuance 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.

Neighboring landowner Concerns/Issues:  The Rural Land Use Center has received letters stating the following concerns about the Rural Land Plan not following Section 8 of the Land Use Code regarding the proposed Lot 3. 

 

·    Concern about the 30% slope on Lot 3 and positive drainage

·    The depth-to-width issue on the lot

·    The possibility of the creek next to the lot being disturbed

·    The misuse of the natural terrain

·    The concern about the distance between the well and septic. 

 

The Rural Land Use Process is exempt from Section 8 of the Land Use Code.  Those standards are designed for higher density projects.  The section of the Code that applies to Rural Land Use projects is Section 5.8.

Staff is aware there is a 30% slope or greater on this proposed lot and the constraints of that slope is recognized.  The design of the project provides for direct access to County Road 52E, which prevents additional road cuts, and allows for the preservation of a larger tract of forested land.  Also, the Health Department has visited the site and Mr. Doug Ryan from the Health Department writes: Lot 3 is the most constrained. The most feasible building site is adjacent to the steep north-facing slope set back as far from the County Road and drainage as feasible. The mapped soils in this area are limited due to steep slopes and shallow bedrock.  I believe there is a reasonable building site, and that the challenge will be to fit in the driveway, well, house and septic system.  Our recommendation in this case is that prior to final plat approval, the applicant submit a scaled site plan to show how these features can be accommodated.  This will be made a condition of approval. (# 8).

Other issues brought up by the neighboring property owners, Ms. Kathy Lake and Mr. Alton Askeland and Ms. Ione Askeland, were that the number of lots/home sites was confusing in the letter that was sent to them and that allowing more wells would cause the already dropping water level to drop more.  The neighbors were under the impression that there would be eight (8) buildable lots, which is simply not true.  There are only 5 planned home sites, in which three (3) already exist.  The new homes are proposed for the 4-acre building envelope on Residual Lot A and Lot 3.  The overall density of the project is one single-family residential unit per 28.2 acres.  The density of some of the lots in the area is greater than what is proposed here.  The well permits are governed, permitted, and approved by the Colorado State Engineers Office and authorized by Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-401-404.

One last issue is that the neighbors felt the Rural Land Use Center did not provide adequate notification of property owners.  Section 5.8.5.1 requires that property owners abutting the property proposed for development and others within an area to be defined by the landowner and RLUC Director be notified.  Staff notified property owners within ½ mile.  Section 12.3.1 of the Land Use Code requires published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed project that must include the date, time and place of the public hearing, a general description of the proposed project; a general description of its location; the legal description of the property; and the place where the application can be reviewed.   That notice was run in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on May 4, 2007.  Section 12.3.1 also requires that a sign be posted along each street frontage of the property.  Signs were posted on the property on May 4, 2007.  This project was also tabled from a 3:00 p.m. hearing on May 21st to a 6:30 p.m. hearing on June 25, 2007, to accommodate the neighbors request for more time to review the project, and for a more appropriate time when more of the affected property owners could attend.

The Rural Land Use Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Miller/Van Velson 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 Miller/Van Velson Rural Land Plan (File # 07-S2684) 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 Miller/Van Velson 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.  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.  The owners shall dedicate a 40-foot half right-of-way along Larimer County Road 52E.  This dedication shall be shown on the final plat.  Road names and addressing shall meet standards in the “Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution”. 

3.   Applicants shall enter into a binding fence removal agreement with the County which, at the request of the County, shall obligate the owners to remove, at their expense, the existing fences in the dedicated half ROW.  No new fences or buildings shall be allowed in the half ROW; however repair and maintenance of existing fences shall be allowed.  The fence removal agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. 

4.   Applicant must obtain an access permit from the Larimer County Access Coordinator prior to commencing any construction on the project.  Before designing roads, applicant and applicant's engineer must contact the Larimer County Access Coordinator to discuss access design requirements.  Applicant shall comply with all such design requirements. Applicant's plans must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that they meet the access design requirements.

5.   Applicant must provide a storm water management report to the Rural Land Use Center prior to commencing any construction on the project.  Before designing stormwater drainage facilities, applicant and applicant's engineer must contact the Larimer County Engineering Environmental Specialist to discuss stormwater management design requirements.  Applicant shall comply with all such design requirements.  Applicant's plans must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that they meet the stormwater management design requirements.

6.   On-lot wells will be provided for this project. 

7.   Building envelopes shall be placed on Residual Lots A and B and Lots 1 and 3.  Lot 1 must contain a no-build area to protect the meadow.  All building envelopes shall meet minimum setback requirements listed in the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

8.   Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a scaled site plan to show how the driveway, domestic well, house and septic system can be accommodated for Lot 3.  This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Health Department before final approval. 

9.   Automatic fire protection sprinklers will be required for all new residential structures or written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district.

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

11.   Restrictive covenants, including provisions for internal road maintenance, must be reviewed and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director prior to final plat approval.

12.   The final development agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval.

13.   Forest management plans for Residual Lots A and B, including an implementation strategy and funding mechanism, shall be reviewed and approved by the County Forester or Colorado State Forest Service prior to final project approval.

14.   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 and electricity) 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. 

15.   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 Lot 3 and Residual Lot A cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developers provide to County a written designation stating that all the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, and electricity) 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)   There is an agreement between the County and the property owners regarding the removal of fences within the dedicated 40’ half ROW along County Road 52E.  This agreement is recorded in the Larimer County Records.  Anyone purchasing a lot along County Road 52E will be bound by this agreement and should obtain and read a copy of the agreement.

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, sitting 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)   At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential lots and Residual Lot(s) A and B with the Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County.

v)   The owners of the residual land parcel shall be responsible for providing, at the request of the Director, a periodic monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center.

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

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore gave a brief presentation of the application and presented some aerial photos of the property and proposed lot configurations.  Ms. Ponce-Pore noted that there are three existing homes, and the applicants are proposing two additional home sites.

The applicants Tom Van Velson, and C.W. Miller, addressed the Board and explained that they would like the opportunity to build their dream home, to add value to their property, and to capitalize on tax credits available with the Rural Land Use Process.  The applicants noted that the will enact a permanent deed restriction to prevent further development, and they will enter into a land trust agreement for management of the property. 

Some discussion ensued regarding the “buildability” of lot 3, as the terrain is rather steep and might impede construction efforts and the siting of a septic system.   Mr. Ryan explained that if the Board approved the preliminary plan this evening, then the applicants would need to provide a scaled site plan to reveal just how lot 3 could support a driveway, septic system, a well, and the home site itself.  Mr. Ryan stated that this was outlined in Condition 8 above. 

At this time Chair Wagner opened up the hearing for public comment, and the following individuals stated that they were in opposition of the proposal, or they had questions that were unanswered:  Cheryl Pyatt, Lloyd Hartzell, Bob Hartzell, Kathy Lake, Lynda Knab, Chuck Lloyd; Hank Shaber, and Mary Ann Martin.   

Their comments were as follows:  Lot 3 is adjacent to a pond and the area and terrain are unstable; any construction in this area will impede with drainage already in place; the leach field will contaminate the pond; the market does not warrant another subdivision in the canyon; 4-acre lots should not be supported, as it will set a precedent in the area; the applicants have already built a substandard road in the area; neighbors should not be allowed to combine land in order to create smaller lots; there is no evidence that they applicants have been accepted by the Legacy Land Trust; Who monitors the property in perpetuity?; Does every lot get a drilled well?; Are the applicants trying to sell off other 35-acre properties?; How much tax credits will the applicants receive?;  there is already a shortage of water in the canyon; and over-development of certain areas simply should not be allowed. 

The following individuals were in favor of the proposal:  Joh Stephens, and Wes Rutt.  They noted that the Legacy Land Trust was would be able to implement strict guidelines for management of the property, the proposal only adds two additionally home sites, and the applicants are honorable and good stewards of their land. 

Chair Wagner closed public comment.   Mr. Van Velson explained that they have not committed to any particular entity for land management, as they must obtain the Rural Land Use approval before the Legacy Land Trust will consider their proposal. Mr. Miller explained that they do not have any other 35-acre parcels for sale.  He also noted that the road they built was constructed to meet county standards; however, they do need to make further improvements and intend to do so.  Carol Miller explained that they will actually have to pay to preserve the land via the Legacy Land Trust, but they feel that this is the best way to preserve and maintain the integrity of the land. 

At this time a request was made to address the Board.

Mr. Hartzell asked clarifying questions regarding how many home sites could be built in this area.  The Board explained the difference between the 35-acre rule as it relates to the underlying zoning for the area which allows for 1 home site per every 10-acres.  Technically, with their combined properties, the applicants could propose an 14 additional home sites; yet they are each only asked for one.  Ms. Pyatt asked if the residual land would be public or private.  Commissioner Rennels explained that it would remain private land. 

Chair Wagner closed public comment.

Discussion ensued amongst the Board and staff.  The commissioners felt this was a good proposal; one that met the intent and spirit of the Rural Land Use Process.  They took time to explain the trade-off and the benefits, in that although there will be two additional homes, that will be the extent of further development of these two properties.  The bonus is that the rest of the land will be protected in perpetuity.  Chair Wagner thanked everyone for coming to provide input and voice their opinions.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Miller/Van Velson Preliminary Rural Land Plan subject to the conditions recommended by the Rural Land Use Center Director.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

 

 

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(# 83 & 84)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Assistant County Manager Neil Gluckman.  Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Gibson and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Larry Timm, Planning Department; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; Cliff Davidson, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization; Rusty McDaniel, Linda Sanders, Rex Burns, Charlie Johnson, and Dale Greer, Engineering Department; Ed Schemm, Environmental Health Department; Ginny Riley, Jim Drendel,  Cheryl Smith, Marsha Ellis, Jane Rust, and Ella Gifford, Human Services Department; Gary Buffington, K-Lynn Cameron, Meegan Flenniken, Kerry Rollins, Parks and Open Lands Department; Dwayne Pond, Sharon Green, Tom Kristen, Friends of Parks and Open Lands; Peggy Reeves, Great Outdoors Colorado; Stephanie Brothers, Town of Berthoud; Brian Hayes, City of Loveland; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Tim Johnson, former member of the steering committee for the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA), presented ideas for sustainability of the RTA regarding funding, revenue sources, issues of road maintenance, and road safety and efficiency.   He suggested various methods of generating revenue via impact fees, creation of Improvement Districts, etc.  Mr. Johnson recommended placing the burden of road expansion of growth and development, instead of on the tax payers.  Some discussion ensued, and Mr. Johnson stated that he would provide a copy of this proposal to the Board via e-mail.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 19, 2007.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of June 19, 2007, as presented.

 

Motion carried 2-0; Chair Wagner abstained.

 

3.  REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 2, 2007:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for June 26, 2007:

 

06262007A001           AGREEMENT CONCERNING RIDES, SHOWS AND CONCESSIONS FOR LARIMER COUNTY FAIR BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND BILL HAMES SHOWS, INC.

 

06262007A002           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SHIELDS MINE SPECIAL REVIEW BETWEEN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY; LAFARGE WEST INC., AND SHIELDS LIVING TRUST

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Replat of Lot 101, Lake Shore Gardens Planned Land Division Final Plat; Amended Plat of Lot 59 Third Filing of Fairway Estates; Silo Estates Subdivision Plat.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following liquor license was issued:  Red Feather High Country Restaurant, Red Feather Lake - Tavern.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  NORTH FRONT RANGE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) UPDATE:   Mr. Davidson, Director of the North Front Range MPO, reviewed the MPO Activity Report via a slide-show presentation.  The report included a description of the specific activities that the MPO is engaged in, and exhibits from various work tasks the MPO is currently performing.  The Board thanked Mr. Davidson for the update.  

 

 

6.   HOTEL AT THE RANCH:  Mr. Engemoen explained that John Q. Hammons has requested an extension to delay construction on the hotel at The Ranch until April 2008, so construction can begin in the spring in order to avoid another possibly harsh winter.  Mr. Engemoen stated that Mr. Hammons is willing to put forth another $50,000 in earnest money, bringing the total investment of earnest money to $350,000.  Mr. Engemoen explained that if, for some reason, Mr. Hammons ends up not building the hotel at The Ranch then he will forfeit all the earnest money to Larimer County.  Mr. Engemoen further noted that Mr. Hammons has spent a considerable amount of money on plans that are tied specifically to The Ranch, which means that if Mr. Hammons was to “pull-out” of the deal now, he stands to lose somewhere between $700,000 to $1,000,000 dollars.  A brief discussion ensued and the Board gave Mr. Engemoen direction to work with Mr. Hammons on extending the commencement of construction until April 2008.  Chair Wagner also invited public comment on this "proposed" delay, prior to Mr. Engemoen bringing the extension agreement back to the Board for signature.

 

Mr. Engemoen then provided an update for the Board regarding construction of the round-about on Taft Hill Road and Vine Drive.  He explained that Xcel Energy has now declared that they have no intention of relocating a power pole, which is in the center of the newly constructed road. Mr. McDaniel handout out photos of the power pole and some discussion ensued.  Mr. Engemoen stated that he will be meeting with the County Attorney to discuss the matter and how to proceed.

 

 

7.  MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR COMPLETION OF CHILD WELFARE PROJECT FEDERAL GRANT:  Ms. Riley and Mr. Drendel explained that Larimer County and Weld County are partnering to apply for a federal grant in the amount of $2.575 million over a three year period.  Mr. Drendel stated that the grant is specifically tied to child welfare and the money will be used to assist parents who are losing their children (mainly) to methamphetamine abuse.  Mr. Drendel requested Board approval for the Memorandum of Understanding related to this effort.    

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Memorandum of Understanding for the Child Welfare Project Federal Grant.

 

Motion Carried 3-0.

 

06262007A003           MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR COMPLETION OF CHILD WELFARE PROJECT UNDER FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND WELD COUNTY SERVICES.

 

8.  REQUEST FOR NEW FTE FOR A LONG TERM CARE MANAGER POSITOIN:  Ms. Riley and Ms. Smith explained that the Options for Long Term Care (OLTC) program has existed in Larimer County since 1993, and is a program that has grown from 250 clients has now grown to over 850, who are receiving care in their own homes or alternative care facilities instead of nursing homes.  As a result, there is a need for an additional Long Term Care Manager, which would allow the OTLC unit to be split into two units, each with a dedicated supervisor.  Ms. Riley explained that the position would be funded through the state and requested Board approval to add a Long Term Care Manager FTE.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve one new FTE for a Long Term Care Manager Position.

 

Motion Carried 3-0.

 

9.  UPDATE ON THE COLORADO WORKS POLICY:  Ms. Riley, Ms. Ellis, Ms. Rust, and Ms. Gifford presented updates to the Colorado Works policies that are required to be included in the Larimer County plan.  Ms. Riley explained that the polices have been reviewed by the state and do meet state requirements.  Some discussion ensued.  The Board noted that in the future, significant policy changes should be scheduled as agenda items for discussion; all others could be submitted via the consent agenda. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Colorado Works Policy revisions; the State Diversion, Works County Option Activities, Works Failure to Cooperate, Grandparent Guardianship Payment Standards, Individual Development Accounts, Earned Income Credit Access, and County Diversion policies with an effective date of July 1, 2007; and the Demonstrable Evidence/Sanction policy with an effective date of August 1, 2007.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

10.  RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CREATE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) #2007-1 FOR GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS FOR LOCAL SANITATION IMPROVEMENTS:  Mr. Burns explained that Glacier View Meadows 4th, 7th, and upper 8th filings utilize community leaching fields that are failing and must be replaced with a mechanical sewage treatment that will meet Colorado water quality discharge standards.  Mr. Burns presented a breakdown of the costs involved, noting that ultimately it will cost $265 per lot owner, per year, for a period of 20 years, to fund the project.  He requested that the Board approve a resolution that outlines the term and sets the stage for the LID formation.  Mr. Burns noted that the resolution takes place of the citizen petition; however, they will still hold a public hearing, and the issue will be placed on the November ballot for the homeowners to vote on.   Commissioner Gibson asked why the petitioning process did not occur.  Ms. Sanders explained that the law does not require a petition for Local Improvement Districts and they feared that the petitioning process might delay it for another year; she stated that since it is a health and safety issue, it is critical that it be included in the November 2007 election.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution for Declaring the intention to create Local Improvement District #2007-1 for Glacier View Meadows 4th, 7th and Upper 8th filings, adopting the details and specifications pertaining therefore, and ordering publication and mailing of the notice of hearing to the owners of the property to be assessed for improvements in said district.

 

Motion Carried 3-0.

 

06262007R001           RESOLUTION TO CREATE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2007-1 (GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS)

 

11.   UPDATE ON HERMIT PARK OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN/NOTES:  Ms. Flenniken presented an update of the management plan for Hermit Park and explained what types of camping, vehicles, and animals would be allowed, how the trails would be improved, access to the site from Hwy 36, accessibility for disabled persons within the site, and proposed hunting on site.  Ms. Cameron explained the fund raising efforts that had taken place to date, noting that they have raised the entire $1.2 million to satisfy the required internal loan for the purchase of this property.  She introduced many of the people that helped with the fundraising efforts:  Dwayne Pond, Sharon Green, Tom Kristen, Peggy Reeves, Stephanie Brothers, and Brian Hayes.   Ms. Cameron stated that the following entities were contributors to the fundraising efforts:  Great Outdoors Colorado, City of Loveland, Town of Berthoud, McWhinney Foundation, Erion Foundation, Mark Tabb & Julie Vida, Microsoft Corporation, Northern Colorado Community Foundation, Verigy, Hewlett-Packard, Whole Foods, and the Hermit Park auction benefit.  Mr. Pond then presented the Board with a check for $80,000.  The Board thanked everyone for their hard work and enthusiasm for the project.

 

12.  WORKSESSION: There were no worksession items to discuss.

 

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

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

                        KAREN WAGNER, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

­­­______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk