MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, APRIL 21, 2008
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:15 a.m. with Jennifer Jacobsen, Assessor Appraiser. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioner Rennels was present. Also present were: property owners Robert and Eileen Scarzello; Cindy Clay, Clerk & Recorder's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Ms. Jacobsen described the subject property and outlined the comparables. She explained that the subject property is a parcel of vacant land, and the comparables used are from the same subdivision. She said that the comparables support an indicated value of $23,300 for the 2006 tax year and $25,800 for the 2007 tax year.
Mr. Scarzello explained that it would be very difficult to build on this parcel, as the majority of the property is swamp and marsh land. He noted that this should be taken into consideration if comparing it to other buildable lots in the area. Mr. Scarzello encouraged someone from the Assessor's Office to come and physically inspect the property.
Commissioner Rennels stated that Mr. Scarzello's property is in a desirable area, and that someone could fill in the marshland with dirt, or build a home on stilts. However, she was inclined to reduce the 2007 value to match the 2006 value of $23,300. Chair Gibson was in agreement with this recommendation.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners partially approve the Petition for Abatement and Refund of Taxes for Robert L./ Isaiah Lee/ Gregory Louis/ and Eileen Scarzello, Parcel Number 40011-09-036, and adjust the value to $23,300 for the 2007 tax year.
Motion carried 2-0.
The hearing recessed at 9:45 a.m.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioner Rennels was present. Also present were: Larry Timm, Sean Wheeler, Rob Helmick, Russ Legg, Chad Gray, Naomi O'Connor, and Toby Stauffer, Planning Department; Dave Shirk, Estes Park Planning Department; Traci Downs, and Christie Coleman, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Meegan Flenniken, Natural Resources Department; Cindy Clay, Clerk & Recorder's Office; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
Chair Gibson explained the items on consent and there were requests to pull items 3 and 4 for discussion. The following items remained on consent and were not discussed:
1. HORSE CREEK RANCH SUBDIVISION LOT 3 AMENDED PLAT: This is a request to amend the limits of disturbance as platted with the original plat of Horse Creek Ranch Subdivision. Specifically, this request is to move the building location for Lot 3 to an area further north on the lot, and to “pull in” the anticipated horse facilities area. This would result in an elongated Limits of Disturbance (LOD), with an overall 3% reduction in LOD area.
Staff recommends approval of the requested Amended Plat of Lot 3 Horse Creek Ranch Subdivision. On Tuesday, March 18, 2008 the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:
1. Pursuant to C.R.S.30-28-110, sub-section 4(a), “no plat for subdivided land shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners unless at the time of the approval of platting the subdivider provides the certification of the county treasurer’s office that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid.”
2. The request to modify the platted Limits of Disturbance does not fall within staff level review parameters set forth in Section 3.7 of the Estes Valley Development Code, and is therefore subject to Planning Commission review.
3. The proposed changes to Limits of Disturbance comply with standards set forth in Section 7.2.D “Limits of Disturbance” of the Estes Valley Development Code.
4. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
5. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
6. Within sixty (60) days of the Board’s approval of the amended plat, the developer shall submit the final plat for recording. If the amended plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Amended Plat of Lot 3 Horse Creek Ranch Subdivision.
2. ROCKY POINT CONDOMINIUMS SUPPLEMENTAL MAP #2: Staff approved the Rocky Point Development Plan (DP 03-05) in June 2003, and revised in November 2004. Approval provided for four units; two have been finalized. This map will allow for the sale of one additional unit. One more supplemental map will follow (state law prohibits the approval and recordation of individual condominium units prior to installation of drywall; therefore we see condominium maps in phases).
Staff recommends approval of the requested Rocky Point Supplemental Condominium Map #2 conditional to:
1. Compliance with the approved Preliminary Condominium Map.
2. Erosion control measures shall be implemented in the field prior to recordation of the map.
3. All landscaping requirements shall be installed prior to recordation of the map.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as outlined above.
Motion carried 2-0.
3. CARNES SPECIAL EXCEPTION - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, FILE #05-Z1566: At the public hearing on March 17, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners approved the applicants request for a business that provides emergency responder and traffic sign support for roadside construction activities. The Board directed Staff to compose a list of recommended Conditions of Approval for the use. Mr. Wheeler presented a couple of modifications to the conditions, which are included below.
Chair Gibson asked the applicant if she was in agreement with the changes. Connie Carnes, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that she was in agreement with the proposed changes. There was no public comment on this item.
1. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Carnes Special Exception (File #05-Z1566) 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 Carnes Special Exception.
2. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Exception the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Exception approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Exception. All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.
In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
3. All applicable fees, including permit fees and the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee to be calculated by the County Engineering Department and which shall be paid no later than July 25, 2008.
4. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
5. Operation of the Special Exception Use shall comply with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance.
6. Screening of the outdoor storage shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Storage regulations in Section 4.3 of the Land Use Code.
7. Special Exception Use is approved for the current property owners, their heirs and/or successors and shall not run with the land.
8. No expansion of the Special Exception Use shall occur beyond this approval without approval for an amended Special Exception application by the Board of County Commissioners.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the conditions listed above for the Carnes Special Exception, File# 05-Z1566
Motion carried 2-0.
4. HERMIT PARK OPEN SPACE SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #07-Z1671: This application was presented to the Larimer County Planning Commission at their regular March 19, 2008, meeting. A notice of public hearing was opened and the item was advertised on the consent agenda. The application remained on the consent agenda and the Larimer County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners, as recommended by the Development Services Team.
The Development Services Team Concurs with the recommendations of the Larimer County Planning Commission and that the Hermit Park Open Space Special Review, file #07-Z1671, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
2. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Hermit Park Special Review (File #07-Z1671), 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 Hermit Park Special Review.
3. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.
4. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.
5. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
6. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property. Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.
7. Specific plans for the reuse or redevelopment of cabins or campsites may be required to obtain Site Plan Review approval prior to commencement of use or obtaining a building permit. Details of and compliance with specific standards for those applications will be addressed at the time of the application.
8. The applicant must develop and have approved by the Engineering Department and the Health Department a detailed road maintenance and dust suppression plan no later than July 31, 2008.
9. The applicant is required to pay the then current Transportation Capital Expansion Fees at the time of permit issuance or use commencement for any new cabin or campsites.
10. The applicant shall provide a copy of the properly executed and recorded emergency access easement no later than July 31, 2008.
11. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation for the turn lanes required on Hwy 36 and complete and have accepted those improvements no later than October 1, 2008 or before any “new” camp site or cabin is added.
12. The applicant shall resolve the trespass issues with the neighbor, at the soonest opportunity. This includes relocation of or reclamation of the trial in question.
Mr. Helmick stated that staff and the applicant are in agreement and asked to address comments from anyone that wished to discuss this item.
Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Marilee Long Saxe addressed the Board. Ms. Saxe had questions pertaining to the equestrian campground and trails. Both Mr. Helmick and Ms. Flenniken answered those questions, explaining that the fees generated will pay for the implementation of the equestrian campground and trails. Ms. Flenniken stated that this project is scheduled for implementation in 2012.
There was no further public comment.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Hermit Park Special Review, File #07-Z1671, subject to the conditions as outlined above.
Motion carried 2-0.
5. KISTLER SUBDIVISION LOT 30A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 24 AND LOT 30, AMENDED PLAT/EASEMENT VACATION/RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, FILE #08-S2788: The request is to amend the plat of Lot 30A, Kistler Subdivision, to add a portion of Ranch Road ROW to the property to allow an existing house and septic field to remain in place. A corner of the house and a corner of the septic field extend into the Ranch Road ROW. This amendment will add a small amount of ROW property to Lot 30A while maintaining the rest of the road ROW for public travel.
The amendment will also vacate an unused 20’ utility easement from the same area, allowing the house to remain where it is. These actions will correct a historic situation that existed on the lot prior to this owner’s purchase- the house and septic field have been in their present locations since the early 70’s.
There have been no objections to this proposal voiced by surrounding neighbors. Additionally, the following Larimer County and referral agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Addressing Review Section; the Department of Health and Environment; and the City of Loveland, Fire Prevention Bureau.
Comments received from Engineering Department Development Review Team indicate that they cannot support a vacation of the 10’ strip of ROW across the entire property. Staff would be able to support vacating two portions of Ranch Road ROW, the minimum action necessary, to remove the portions of the house and septic field that are currently in the ROW.
Comments received from the Code Compliance Section indicate that there is a current code compliance file for this property, initiated as a result of a carport enclosure and rear addition. Upon approval of this application, as well as the variance application, a building permit can be applied for to complete the work on the house and close the code compliance file. Any other work will also need a building permit.
Comments received from the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identified several required corrections to the plat; those corrections have been made.
The proposed plat amendment to vacate a 10’ strip of Ranch Road right-of-way cannot be supported by the Development Review Team as proposed. The Team has suggested an alternative to the proposal; the applicant could vacate only portions of the Ranch Road ROW and the Development Review Team could support that action.
The proposed plat amendment to remove a 20’ utility easement will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Team finds that the utility easement vacation request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
The Development Services Team Recommends Denial of the Ranch Road ROW Vacation in Kistler Subdivision adjacent to Lot 30A; File # 08-2788, to vacate a 10’ strip of Ranch Road ROW along the property boundary of Lot 30A.
Ms. Stauffer explained the application and presented a drawing of the easement to be vacated. She explained a few options pertaining to how the easement might be vacated, and noted that staff recommends vacating two separate strips of land, in order to leave as much of the easement in tact as possible.
Jim Bunkers, with Intermill Land Surveying and representing the applicant, stated their preference would be to vacate the entire 10 foot easement, and if that was not possible, then they wish to vacate the area in between the two strips of land, in order to keep a straight line and contiguous easement.
Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Darryl Kobel, area neighbor, addressed the Board. Mr. Kobel explained that the roads within the subdivision are narrow and coincide with their rural way of life. He stated his opinion to vacate all of the easement instead of just "little pieces" of it.
There was no further public comment.
Ms. Downs explained that they recommend keeping as much of the easement in tact due to possible future needs of installing utilities, or road side swales, etc.
Commissioner Rennels stated that it seems as though it would be difficult and didn't seem to make much sense to start and easement, then stop it, and then re-start it again. She was in favor of vacating the entire 10 foot easement. Chair Gibson agreed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Ranch Road ROW Vacation in Kistler Subdivision adjacent to Lot 30A, File# 08-2788, and vacate a 10- foot strip of Ranch Road ROW along the property boundary of Lot 30A, all utility easements as shown on the plat, and a portion of ROW indicated on the plat in the south east corner of the property subject to the following condition with authorization for the Chair sign the plat when the condition has been met and the plat is presented for signature: 1. The final plat shall be recorded by October 21, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void.
Motion carried 2-0.
6. RUBBISH ORDINANCE 2ND READING: The Rubbish Ordinance is being considered again because the Coloradoan newspaper failed to publish the proposed ordinance in full as required following first reading on Feb. 25, 2008. The first reading for this second effort was held on April 7.
Code Compliance staff spend a considerable amount of time on junk, debris, illegal outdoor storage and illegal vehicle cases. In 2006 and 2007, 135 cases involving these types of issues were initiated out of 946 cases, which is 14 to 15% of the total case load. If property owners do not voluntarily clean up the property after a Code Compliance Officer first calls or visits the site, staff then follow-up with several telephone calls, letters and site visits in an effort to resolve violations short of taking cases to a hearing before the County Commissioners and commencing legal actions.
Often, people filing junk and debris complaints are the most vocal and take up a majority of staff time to repeatedly explain processes and the progress on cases. Staff estimate more than 30% of staff time is spent resolving junk, debris, illegal outdoor storage and illegal vehicle cases.
The savings in staff time by adopting a rubbish ordinance, as well as County Commissioner and County Attorney time and expenses, would enable Code Compliance staff to resolve more violation cases in a timely and cost-efficient manner (over the years, approximately $75,000 in attorney fees have been incurred taking these types of cases to court).
A rubbish ordinance would assist adjacent property owners who are trying to maintain their property values and sell properties. Many zoning violation files for junk and debris are opened because a neighbor, who is trying to sell their home, files a complaint. If it takes up to four years to resolve, the complainant more than likely has lost valuable time and money.
Due, in part, to an increasing population and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing code enforcement efforts within Larimer County, the Board of County Commissioners hired Clarion Associates in 2005 to research and compare services and staffing state-wide as well as evaluate the effectiveness of the County’s code enforcement programs.
Clarion Associates’ recommendations included a streamlined enforcement process for complaints associated with rubbish, derelict/unlicensed vehicles, illegal outdoor storage and other junk that currently take up significant staff time and resources. Clarion pointed out that a rubbish ordinance would provide the County with the ability to quickly take action in cases where there is an acknowledged or undisputed violation, while still allowing for flexibility to resolve issues.
While voluntary compliance will continue to be the primary objective sought by Code Compliance staff, a rubbish ordinance will result in less staff time spent on these types of cases, few hearings, if any, before the County Commissioners and fewer cases going to court.
Mr. Timm explained the process taken to approve County Ordinances. He also requested the ability to establish a rubbish removal account if the Board approved the Ordinance, as outlined below:
Upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners of the Rubbish Ordinance staff requests the Board approve the establishment of an account to be designated as the “rubbish removal account”. Clean-up costs will be made out of said account at the direction of County staff pursuant to court orders obtained through the Rubbish Ordinance, and payments from property owners and property tax sales will be deposited into the account, including reimbursement of funds expended by the County and other fees as set out above.
Staff also requests the Board of County Commissioners approve initial start-up funds for the rubbish removal account in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). Such sum will enable staff to order necessary forms and supplies and commence property clean-ups pursuant to the provisions of the Rubbish Ordinance. If staff anticipates clean-up of a certain property will exceed the amount in the rubbish removal account, staff will gain approval of the Commissioners prior to commencing the clean-up project.
Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Ron Kline addressed the Board. Mr. Kline stated that he is a member of the Citizens for Preservation of Property Rights and in his opinion, the Rubbish Ordinance, as written, infringes on personal property rights. He stated that there are lots of farming equipment and tools, etc., that might look like trash or rubbish to some, but are necessary for operations. Mr. Kline noted that there is no due process outlined, and that if someone decides that an individual is "in violation" then they are assumed guilty.
Darryl Kobel addressed the Board and noted his concerns that the Ordinance doesn't seem very well defined. He stated that he has six acres and two road graders, one that he uses for parts. Mr. Kobel also explained that he keeps a brush pile for the rabbits to hide in, and that it's not too "pretty" but it is functional.
There was no further public comment.
Mr. Ressue explained the due process, noting that the language in the Ordinance was taken from State Statute, which does authorize this procedure. Mr. Ressue stated that ultimately a judge makes the decision as to whether or not there is a violation in place.
Mr. Timm explained that the intent is to use the Ordinance for situations where they have spent a lot of tax dollars in trying to work with the property owner to clean up their site.
The Board supported the Ordinance, noting that excessive accumulation of rubbish and trash can become a potential community health and safety hazard.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the rubbish ordinance as proposed, and authorize the establishment of the “rubbish removal account” and the transfer of $10,000 from General Fund Reserves to this account.
Motion carried 2-0.
The hearing recessed at 4:00 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Karlin Goggin, County Addressing Coordinator. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioner Rennels was present. Also present were: Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Suzanne Durkin-Schindler, Public Involvement Coordinator for the Rural Addressing Improvement Project; William Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Gibson opened the meeting by asking for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
1. NORTH OVERLAND TRAIL (COUNTY ROAD 21C) ROAD NAME APPEAL, FILE #08-CAC0008: Karlin Goggin addressed the Board and explained that the residents of North Overland Trail are requesting that the Board allow a historically significant road name by officially naming North County Road 21C “North Overland Trail,” rather than utilizing the County Road designation as required by the current road hierarchy standard.
As part of the Road Naming and Site Addressing System, the Resolution provides in Section 10-175.(b)(1)q. of the county code the establishment of a road naming hierarchy for the county when multiple road name designations may exist. The road in reference under this appeal is North County Road 21C and a portion of West County Road 50, according to the road name hierarchy. Residents and locals have long known this road to be North Overland Trial. With that said, the Resolution Section 10-175(b)(1)e also has a provision allowing the county to retain historically significant road names.
By approving this request, the county would be retaining one of earliest historically significant stagecoach routes in Larimer County. The supporting documentation and staff findings demonstrate the history and tradition Overland Trail has in the area.
Staff finds that the Resolution provides, in Section 10-175(b)(1)q, a road naming hierarchy for situations such as this and other similar situations in the county when dual road names are used, except when the provision of historical significance can be proven as provided in Section 10-175(b)(1)e. Staff finds there is significant supporting documentation in history regarding the Overland Trail and Overland Stagecoach Route. LETA and the county have funded monies toward the road naming project to ensure a systematic addressing system is achieved. Naming this entire road N Overland Trail is found to be in compliance with the enabling Resolution. The purposes of the Site Addressing and Road Naming Resolution is to provide property owners, the general public, and Larimer County with an accurate and systematic means of identifying and locating properties. This includes the modification of address numbers on existing addresses and changing road names, as part of administering the resolution and addressing standards when found to be inconsistent. The county is working to establish a system of unique and consistent road names and address points, while providing efficient public services and response. Unlike similar requests to use alias road names, this request is for the entire duration of N County Road 21C and a portion of W County Road 50 (see map) which will tie into the Fort Collins GMA use of N Overland Trail. This request would keep in tact the consistency of one single road name while retaining historical significance to the area.
Staff recommends approval to officially name the road N Overland Trail for the entire duration of the road segment from the Fort Collins GMA boundary north to W County Road 50; east to N County Road 21C; and the entire segment of N County Road 21C ending at W County Road 56. In addition, to (in accordance with the Resolution) modify existing addresses to reflect this official road name and obtain proper sequential numbering and parity where needed.
Chair Gibson asked why this situation is different than the Wagon Wheel or Berthoud road naming situations. Ms. Goggin explained that the other roads were segmented, where the road in this instance is not. She also stated that use of the name Overland Trail dates back to the 1800s.
Chair Gibson then opened the meeting to public comment.
Catherine Thompson, owner of the Overland Trail shops at the corner of 54G and Overland Trail, explained the history of the road as a pioneer road through Colorado in the 1800s and stated that none of the surrounding towns have roads of similar significance.
Bobbie Randolph, owner of the Tapestry House located on Overland Trail, also spoke to the history of the road and her belief that this history is LaPorte’s only real “claim to fame” and should not be “taken away” from the town. From their business perspective, she stated that “Overland Trail” is a much more appealing name for the location of a wedding event than “County Road 21C.”
Margaret Hyde, owner of three properties located on Overland Trail, approached the Board and shared additional history on the road and various bridges that have come and gone from the road. She stated that she would like to see the road name preserved.
Mark Randolph, owner of the Tapestry House, commented on the frequency of visitors arriving to discuss the historic nature of the road and his property on the road. He further stated that Overland Trail is a well-known route that is recognizable to those seeking directions, and expressed his desire that the road name remain Overland Trail within both the county and the city limits.
Laura Pritchett approached the Board and stated that she grew up on property located on Overland Trail and would hate to see the road name be changed. She asked about naming of the road from Drake to the cement plant. Ms. Goggin confirmed that this request was for the road name to remain Overland Trail in the county, and that she knew of no plans to rename the road within the city limits.
James Coldiron, owner of property on Overland Trail, explained that he has lived at this address for 40 years and would like for the road name to remain as is, stating that he has appreciated the location because of its history and the role it played in creating Fort Collins and the surrounding community.
Harold Mills, owner of property on Overland Trail, reviewed some history of the road and explained that his property on Overland Trail has been in his family for three generations, and he would like to see the name remain as is.
Chair Gibson closed public comment.
Commissioner Rennels stated that she was happy to see the staff in favor of this request, and indicated that she fully supports it. Chair Gibson also indicated his support for this request and stated that he sees value in the historical nature of this road.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners grant approval to officially name the road N Overland Trail for the entire duration of the road segment from the Fort Collins GMA boundary north to W County Road 50; east to N County Road 21C; and the entire segment of N County Road 21C ending at W County Road 56. In addition to in accordance with the Resolution modify existing addresses to reflect this official road name and obtain proper sequential numbering and parity where needed.
Motion carried 2-0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2008
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Rennels was present. Also present were Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Becky Dakin, McKee Medical Center Foundation; Mike Powers, Steering Committee Member for the Creation of Science and Cultural District; Ginny Riley, Ed Rutherford and Chick Cavallero, Human Services Department; requested approval to hand Gael Cookman and Cindy Clay, Deputy Clerks.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Citizen Barry Feldman addressed Regulation 1041 and requested that all projects not yet started be grandfathered in. Primarily, his interest and concern was the current power line project in the north end of Larimer County, being carried out by Tri State Generation, and the cost and aesthetic effect it may have on the land and to the property owners in this 7 mile stretch. The debate is whether the power lines will be placed overhead or buried underground and how it will be paid for.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 31, 2008 AND APRIL 14, 2008: Commissioner Gibson tabled the minutes for the week of March 31, 2008 until Commissioner Eubanks could be present. He also tabled approval of the minutes for the week of March 14, 2008, as they were yet prepared.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 28, 2008: 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 Consent Agenda as published for April 22, 2008:
MISCELLANEOUS: Personnel Agreement between Larimer County and Employee.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were both approved and issued: Sandy's Convenience Store - 3.2% - Fort Collins; Glen Haven Inn - Hotel & Restaurant - Glen Haven; Overland Foods - 3.2% - LaPorte; The Baldpate Inn - Hotel & Restaurant - Estes Park. The following permits were approved: Sombrero Concert Series - Special Events Permit 6% - Estes Park; Wolverine Farm Publishing - Special Events Permit 6% - Fort Collins.
Motion carried 2-0.
5. REQUEST WAIVER OF 45 DAY PERIOD TO APPLY FOR A SPECIAL EVENT:
Becky Dakin, McKee Medical Center Foundation, appeared representing the 21st annual Community Classic Bike Tour, taking place on May 18, 2008. They have missed the 45 day window for applying for a Larimer County Special Event Permit and requested a waiver to apply for this permit. As this is a repeat event which has been going on for many years without any problems, Mr. Lancaster agreed to allow them to submit the application.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved to approve waiving the 45 day prior to the event requirement for the Community Classic Bike Tour.
Motion carried 2-0.
6. BRIEFING ON PROPOSED SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL DISTRICT: Mike Powers, Larimer County Citizen and member of the Steering Committee for the Creation of a Science and Cultural District (SCFD), presented information about the proposed district. The two main purposes of such a District are 1) to make something better than what we have now for the citizens of Northern Colorado and 2) to create a big economic force in northern Colorado over time. The district, governed by an existing state law, would consist of a sales tax collected within a specific boundary (not yet clearly defined), distributed to specifically defined eligible groups and use sustainable funding. Sustainable funding includes operations and programs, enhanced outreach in serving what they consider an underserved population – mostly programs for children. Capital projects and educational organizations may not be funded and the District cannot support libraries or the media. The committee is proposing no tax on the sale of food and 1/10 of 1% sales tax, modeling after the Scientific and Cultural District in Denver (in operation since 1989 with phenomenal success). To the average taxpayer in Larimer County, this would mean an approximate $20 per year contributed to this project, with an estimated collection within said boundaries of about $3 ¼ million per year. Under state law, the Larimer County Commissioners shall be responsible for appointing the SCFD District Board. The committee is recommending the appointment of three members from residents within Loveland’s Growth Management Boundary, three members from residents within the Poudre School District boundary, and three additional members from residents within the SCFD boundary. In order for this District proposal to appear on the ballot, approximately 6,000 citizen signatures must be obtained by petition from those within the boundaries and money must be raised (privately). The committee is pursuing avenues to enable placing this on the ballot.
7. REQUEST TO HIRE ONE IMAGING FULL TIME EQUIVALENT TO HANDLE INCREASED WORKLOAD FOR HUMAN SERVICES: Ginny Riley, Ed Rutherford and Chick Cavallero, requested approval to hire one full time employee in Human Services to accommodate the ever-increasing output of the Imaging Department. Statistics were presented showing a 37% increase in 2007 over 2006. They are currently utilizing the services of a temporary employee who has been working in the department since August of 2006 and fully trained. She requested authorization to waive public announcement procedures and offer the temporary employee full-time employment with Larimer County. As Human Services has been paying the temporary employee, the only increase will be in providing benefits. Ms. Riley commented that they will be receiving additional County Administrative funding which will allow low impact to budget.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of Commissioners approve the filling the FTE position with a temporary FTE that has been employed since August 2006.
Motion carried 2 – 0.
8. COUNTY MANAGER WORK SESSION: Mr. Lancaster questioned whether attendance by himself or Neil Gluckman was necessary at Public Comment during Monday night meetings. Decision was made that unless it was known a specific issue was to be addressed requiring their action or comment, their attendance would not be necessary.
9. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.
10. LEGAL MATTERS: There were no legal matters on this day.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
WEDNESDAy, APRIL 23, 2008
PUBLIC EXCLUSION HEARING
PRAIRIE TRAILS PID #33
The Board of County Commissioners convened at 6:50 p.m. with Rex Burns, Senior Civil Engineer. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Rennels was present. Also present were Matt Johnson and Linda Sanders, Engineering Department; William Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Burns explained that on March 19, 2008, the Engineering Department received a verified exclusion petition from the legal owners of two properties in Prairie Trails PID #33. The owners are requesting that they be excluded from the PID boundaries. The owners are Jim and Abby Hargrave and Brad and Jaya H. Lewis. Mr. Burns then provided legal descriptions of the subject lots.
Mr. Burns went on to explain that, as prescribed in the statute, a legal notice was advertised in the Loveland Reporter Herald newspaper on April 3, 2008. A letter was mailed to all Prairie Trails PID property owners on March 31, 2008, with a copy of the notice. Eight emails have been received by the Engineering Department, objecting to the exclusion. A copy of each was provided to the Board for review.
Prairie Trails PID #33 was created in 2007 for maintenance of the streets in Prairie Trails Subdivision. District voters approved creation of the district with a mill levy of 15.364. The District will receive approximately $28,000 yearly with the current assessed evaluation. There are 54 lots, paying an average of $500 per lot.
The assessed value of both properties was set at $34,800 on the last tax statement (lots were unimproved for this assessment period, but have since had homes built on the empty lots). Both properties paid $531.81 to the PID with the current tax statement. The assessment value will change with the construction of homes on the properties.
The Prairie Trails Subdivision has two access streets off of County Road 18. Both of the properties requesting exclusion must use one of the two streets for access.
Commissioner Rennels asked about the status of the lots when the PID was formed. Mr. Burns confirmed that the subject lots were empty lots at that time.
Jim Hargrave, Petitioner, approached the Board and provided a packet of information, including a letter dated June 26, 2003, to the Larimer County Planning Department from Gregory A. White, Attorney at Law. Mr. Hargrave read excerpts from the letter as follows: “Mr. Ehrlich is currently in the process of subdividing his property located southwest of Loveland. Mr. Ehrlich, along with Mr. and Mrs. Don Morgan and Mike Berthoud, entered into certain agreements with Boedecker Prairie Trails, LLC, the developer of Prairie Trails PUD, with regard to the required access to Prairie Trails including, but not limited to, the agreement by Boedecker Prairie Trails, LLC granting the property owners the right to access Prairie Trail Drive and Bozeman Drive for ingress and egress to their properties. This Agreement provided that the property owners were not responsible for any maintenance of the Prairie Trails’ PUD roads. This agreement was entered into on October 15, 1996. A copy of that Agreement accompanies this letter.”
Mr. Hargrave went on to explain that he realizes this was a private agreement, but contends that it exempts him from any requirement to pay for road maintenance in the subdivision, as he is the current owner of the property referred to in the letter. Mr. Hargrave explained that the exemption from road maintenance costs was in exchange for a portion of the property being given to the subdivision for road right-of-way, and that he subsequently purchased this property, which would have otherwise included this portion of land.
Mr. Hargrave further explained that, at the time the PID was formed, he requested to opt out, but was told he needed to take such action separately, after the PID was formed, which is why he requested this exemption hearing. He stated that he feels like he is being required to pay again for something he has already paid for.
Brad Lewis, Petitioner, approached the Board and explained that he was not notified of the PID in any way, including by the prior owners of the property, which he purchased in April 2007. He further stated that the house he is building on his property is in good taste and style and will benefit the subdivision in general. He requested that the Board honor the previous paperwork and letter that Mr. Hargrave submitted, and noted that he believes his exemption from road maintenance costs is also expressed in the letter.
Chair Gibson opened the meeting to public comment.
Joseph Findlay, Representative for the subdivision Home Owners Association (HOA), approached the Board and explained the history of the PID development and stated that there are 49 properties in the HOA, all of which are included in the PID. He further stated that there are 7 other properties that are not included in the HOA, but that are included in the PID. He then commented on the letter Mr. Hargrave shared with the Board, stating that it does not apply to future property owners (does not indicate that it applies to “heirs and/or assigns”), would not preempt Colorado statute, and would have no bearing on future tax assessments. He stated that the PID ensures that all benefiting property owners would share in the expense of the road maintenance and be taxed accordingly. Mr. Findlay also stated that the letter was never recorded; and therefore, there was no way for other property owners to know of it and honor it. He concluded by requesting that Board deny the petitioners’ exemption request.
Dan Clark, HOA Board Member; Bob Hufsmith, Part Time HOA Member and PID Board Member; Brad Vitale, Secretary of the HOA; Al Kogler, Proponent of the PID since 2006; and Bill Guddeck, Hal Anderson, Mike Ruffel, Wayne Chalus, and Elizabeth McKennal, Property Owners in the subdivision; individually approached the Board to request denial of the exemption
request. Included in their comments were explanations as to why the PID was formed and why it is needed; benefits of the PID for all residents in the subdivision; and mailbox locations and history of road use in the area by trash companies. There were also several expressions of appreciation for the petitioners as new neighbors and for the types of homes they were building in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Rennels asked whether there were any other access points into or out of the subdivision and received confirmation that there were not.
Chair Gibson closed public comment.
Chair Gibson asked Mr. Hargrave to clarify his perception that he would be paying for road maintenance that he has already paid for, and brief discussion ensued on this topic.
Commissioner Rennels commented on the fact that the 2003 letter refers to a PUD, and does not specifically refer to the PID currently in place. She stated that she could find no support for exemption, as there are no other access points or other such circumstances that might justify doing so. Brief discussion ensued regarding inclusion in PIDs, as it applies to membership or non-membership in HOAs, and the benefits realized by all property owners located in this subdivision.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the exclusion petition on Prairie Trails PID #33.
Motion carried 2-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Cynthia A. Clay, Deputy Clerk
Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk