County Offices, Courts, and the Landfill will all be closed on Monday, May 30, 2016 for the Memorial Day Holiday. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, FEBRUary 11, 2008
LAND USE HEARING
(No Audio Available)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Russ Legg, Chief Planner. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present. Also present were: Traci Downs, Engineering; Jill Bennett, Samantha Mott, Doug Ryan and Toby Stauffer, Planning; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planning; Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, 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.
1. EAGLE LAKE 2ND FILING LOT 27 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #08-S2775: Chair Gibson stated that, as noted, this item is being removed from the agenda and, therefore, would not be discussed.
Chair Gibson explained that it has been requested that the following two items be tabled, as noted:
2. DEEP WATER METRO DISTRICT 1 AND 2, FILE #06-G0108: It has been requested that this item be tabled until April 21, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.
3. CARNES SPECIAL EXCEPTION, FILE #05-Z1566: It has been requested that this item be tabled until March 17, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table Item #2 Deep Water Metro District 1 and 2, File #06-G0108, until April 21, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.; and table Item #3 Carnes Special Exception, File #05-Z1566, until March 17, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.
Motion carried 3-0.
Chair Gibson explained that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience.
4. CEDAR PARK 2ND FILING LOT 2 AMENDED PLAT AND EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #08-S2772: This request is to amend the plat of Cedar Park Subdivision, Second Filing, to add a portion of adjacent land to Lot 2. A 10-foot utility easement that runs along the common lot line of the two properties will be vacated. The adjacent land ownership is uncertain. Land will be obtained by the applicant in quiet title action or quit claim deed.
No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated no objections to this proposal: Addressing Review Section, Department of Health and Environment, Engineering Department Development Review Team. Comments received from the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identify several required corrections to the plat.
The proposed plat amendment to add a portion of the adjacent land to Lot 2 of Cedar Park Subdivision and vacate a 10-foot utility easement along the common lot line will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency. The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 2 of Cedar Park Subdivision, Second Filing and 10-foot Utility Easement Vacation, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature: 1) The Final Plat shall be recorded by August 11, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void. 2) Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.
5. FOX ACRES 2nd LOT 37 AND COMMON PROPERTY #3 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #07-S2767: The purpose of the amended plat is to revise the shape of Lot 37 and redefine the Common Properties of Fox Acres. Lot 37 will contain the same acreage and will only be reconfigured; the common properties will remain with the same acreage and will only be designated as separate pieces after this plat.
For background, the Fox Acres Country Club was first approved in 1979 as a Master Planned community. There are four filings, along with a variety of lot sizes and configurations. The project was first approved with 225 lots on 459 acres, along with the golf course and support facilities. Fox Acres also has its own water and sewer associations on-site to provide these services to the individual lots. Fox Acres is located on the northeast side of the Red Feather Lakes Subdivision, off Prairie Divide Road.
The common areas of Fox Acres are large and hard to define. Fox Acres common areas are described in several fillings and amending those areas has proven to be cumbersome in previous efforts. This plat can be a tool to better define the common properties and ease the amendment and development processes for Fox Acres in the future.
No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated no objections to this proposal: Engineering Department Development Review Team, Addressing Review Section, Code Compliance Section, Department of Health and Environment. Comments from the Assessor’s office and the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identify several required corrections to the plat.
The proposed plat amendment to reconfigure Lot 37 and redefine the Common Properties of Fox Acres Country Club Second Filing will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency. The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 37 and the Common Properties of Fox Acres Country Club, Second Filing, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature: 1) The Final Plat shall be recorded by August 11, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void. 2) Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department and the Larimer County Assessor’s office.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Consent Agenda, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS, FILE #07-CA0080: Jill Bennett addressed the Board and explained that this is a request for approval of Land Use Code amendments that would result in a number of changes to the adopted Sign Code and regulations governing Sign Appeals. She explained that the requested changes are, for the most part, an effort to clear up any inconsistencies in the code and to make county codes more compatible with related state and municipality codes.
At their January 16, 2008, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of these amendments. There were no comments from the public. The items generated little discussion. Ms. Bennett further explained that staff held an open house for those in the signage industry. She stated that it was relatively well attended, and there was little to no opposition or concern expressed by those present. The Planning Commission and the Development Services Team recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Land Use Code amendments.
Chair Gibson asked about the acceptability of various types of signage. Ms. Bennett stated that each of his examples would have to be considered individually. She stated that, generally, the code does not consider artwork as signage, even though, in some instances, it may enhance visibility for a business.
Chair Gibson opened the meeting to public comment. Seeing none, public comment was closed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that Section 10.0 Signs, of the Land Use Code be repealed and replaced with the amended text contained in Exhibit A; and that the following be added to Section 22.2.5 Appeals, from Section 10 (Signs) of the Land Use Code: D. Approval of an appeal to Sec. 10.6.J. Home Occupation Signs has considered the surrounding neighborhood context including other commercial signage in the immediate vicinity and does not result in a sign larger than a maximum of 20 square feet per sign face and six feet in height and is limited to one such identification sign per property.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting recessed at 3:20 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
(#169 & #170)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened 6:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present. Also present were: Brenda Gimeson and Rob Helmick, Planning; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planning; Christie Coleman, Engineering; Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
1. BIG VALLEY HOMESTEADS III PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN AND BIG VALLEY HOMESTEADS II AMENDED RURAL LAND PLAN, FILE #07-S2741: Brenda Gimeson addressed the Board and began by showing a map and photos of the subject property, while also explaining that the property is located in Sections 12, 13, and 14, Township 5 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; generally located 1½ miles south of Highway 34, on the east side of County Road 29. The property is zoned FA1-Farming and A-Accommodations.
She further explained that this application is part of a larger development/conservation plan for the family’s holdings. It consists of two parts that make up this one application: 1) A request for the division of 217.5 acres into 12 new single-family residential lots on about 53 acres with the remaining 164 acres protected from further development in perpetuity. The residual land will contain a two-acre building envelope for a hay barn. 2) A request to amend the Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP to reconfigure Lots 8 through 14 and Residual Lot A to remove the existing lots from the area of the planned center pivot to place out of the irrigated meadow. Additional residual land acreage from the Big Valley Homesteads III RLUP will be used to assure no residual land acreage is lost in this amendment. All lots in the adjacent Big Valley Homesteads RLUP and Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP have been sold and all but about three have an existing single-family residence.
This proposal includes several contiguous parcels of land that have been in the Jessup family for generations. Under the property’s current FA1-Farming zoning (one home site per ten acres), up to 21 single-family residential homes could potentially be built, if approved through the County’s Conservation Development (CD) process. As a 35-acre development, the property could be developed with up to six home sites. The surrounding properties consist of two Rural Land Plans immediately adjacent to this property: 1) Big Valley Homesteads RLUP—436 acres total with 12 single-family residential lots on 36 acres and an off-site 400-acre parcel protected from further development; and 2) Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP—248 acres, with 14 single-family residential lots on 39 acres and 209 acres protected from further development. There are 35-acre parcels to the west, along with some smaller subdivisions on two- to five-acre lots to the north and south. The proposed density of the Big Valley Homesteads III Rural Land Use project, one unit per 18.1 acres, appears to be compatible with the neighborhood. There is significant development pressure in this area for 35-acre parcels and smaller residential lots, if available. This pressure is caused by the general growth in Loveland and attractiveness of close-in acreages.
The property is mostly irrigated agricultural land or pasture and is currently farmed by the applicant. There is an existing center pivot on the property, with an additional (second) pivot planned for the land south of the existing pivot. In order to accommodate the second pivot, the previously platted home sites of the Big Valley Homesteads II R.L.U.P. will be relocated to the southeast of their current location on a portion of the existing Residual Lot A, and 11 acres of additional acreage that will be added to the Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP. The residential lots proposed with this plan have been designed to accommodate the additional pivot and the continued irrigation and cultivation of this farmland. There is also a 35-acre parcel at the northern end of this proposal that is not part of this project. The applicant’s plan for this parcel includes future use by Sylvan Dale Ranch and/or a community stable/recreation area for the new owners of lots in this development.
Physical features include the meadow in the center of the plan and a rock outcropping, which forms a ridgeline on the eastern border of the property. This area on the eastern border generally slopes upward from the meadow to the spine of the ridge with areas of flatter ground and a significant bowl area.
The uses on the existing Residual Lot A, Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP will continue as spelled out in the recorded Development Agreement for Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP, with one modification to allow for a paved road (see major concerns and issues section of this staff report for further information). The undeveloped portion of the residual lot for the proposed Big Valley Homesteads III RLUP will mimic the restrictions for Big Valley Homesteads II. This new residual lot will contain about 152 acres (about 70% of the agricultural land) that will be protected from further development in perpetuity. This project’s proposed home sites are designed around the irrigation pivots, supporting the continued use of irrigated farmland. The residual land parcels will be maintained under management/use plans to foster their long-term health. The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land and for providing a periodic monitoring report(s) to the county.
Domestic water for these lots will be provided by the Little Thompson Water District. Each lot will have individual septic systems. The proposed design assures adequate soils for septic systems, the preservation of the irrigated agricultural lands, and removes the ability to further subdivide the property. The applicant is proposing appropriate architectural guidelines for this project to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed new residences and associated structures.
A neighborhood meeting was held on November 8, 2007, at the Pulliam Community Center in Loveland. Approximately twenty-five area residents attended. The main concerns voiced were regarding further development in the area, the location of the home sites, and whether the roads would be paved and private. Referral agency comments were also solicited. Representatives from the County Engineering Department, Health Department, and Rural Land Use Advisory Board have visited the site and have consulted with the Rural Land Use Center during the conceptual design phase.
Ms. Gimeson continued by outlining the major concerns and issues that have been voiced up to this point, and which were included in the information provided to the Board in preparation for this meeting.
Mr. Paul Morano, owner of Lot 8, Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP, voiced a concern from the about the reconfiguration of the Residual Lot A. As platted, residual land surrounds his property; the original proposed reconfiguration placed a home site adjacent to his property. Staff and Mr. Jessup worked with Mr. Morano to redesign Lot 1 and deeded additional property to Lot 8 to create a buffer and protect the area around Mr. Morano’s lot from any development. Mr. Morano has found this satisfactory. Please see the signed agreement between Mr. Morano and the applicant.
The applicant has proposed a shared driveway for lots where independent driveways would be possible, but not desirable. Thus staff is requesting a variance to Section 5.8.6.D.3, Engineering Standards and Guidelines for Roads and Drainage. Under county policy (as written in the Addressing Resolution), a road is defined as “A general term denoting a public or private way used for access to two or more lots, parcels or tracts of land, including the entire area within the right-of-way and/or access easement”. Under that same policy a driveway is defined as: “A means of vehicular access, entirely located on a single lot/parcel that does not provide access to any other lot/parcel, beginning at the property line of a lot abutting a public road, private road, access easement or private right-of-way that provides access to a building or structure on that lot. A driveway does not serve any other lot or parcel”.
In addition, RLUP standards for roads and drainage require a road to be 20-feet wide and allow for narrower width for short distances, if turnouts are incorporated into the design. The standards also require certain grades, curves and cuts for a road. However, a driveway is only required to be 12-feet wide, with a minimum of 10-feet for short distances if necessary. (Please see Section 5.8.6.D.3 for design standards). Based on policy, any driveway that serves more than one home is classified as a road. Therefore, the shared driveways are required to be designed under road standards for width, etc. This design standard will result in additional road cutting. This additional engineering may also compromise septic system placement in the area where it would make the most sense.
In order to reduce the amount of road and the slope of the driveway needed for these lots, staff is requesting a variance from Section 5.8.6.D.3, to allow the proposed shared driveways to be designed as driveways instead of roads. Rural Land Use Center Staff, the Rural Land Use Advisory Board, and Development Review Team Staff all support this request. Engineering Staff cautioned that shared driveways should not be encouraged as a means of avoiding RLUP access road construction or promoting lots that do not have a viable access off of the RLUP access road independently, but that is not the reason for this particular request. The proposal for shared driveways supports the principles the Rural Land Use Process for site-specific designs; specific design for shared driveways will be at the time of final design for the project and additional slope analysis. A condition of approval (# 2) has incorporated this variance request.
The Health Department has stated there is a challenge in locating the septic systems with the proposed design—the best soils for septic systems are in the valley area where the irrigated agricultural land is located. The proposed design has provided for building envelopes low on the slopes to help accommodate the better soils for septic system placement. However, the Health Department still has some feasibility concerns about Lot 2 and Lots 15 and 16. To address these concerns, the Health Department recommendation is for the applicant to provide some representative soil tests for the south and north ends of the property and to prepare a conceptual site plan for Lot 2. Design suggestions for Lot 1 and 2 are to avoid switchbacks that could potentially get in way of best soil for septic system. A condition of approval has been made to require some representative soil tests for the south and north ends of the property and to prepare a conceptual site plan for development of problematic lots. See Condition of Approval #6.
The existing Development Agreement recorded for the Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP has a restriction that states: “The Developer expressly reserves the right to construct a non-paved access road and underground utility lines across Residual Lot A for the purpose of providing access and utilities to a future lot or lots that may be developed on adjacent land owned by the Developer.” Because the neighbors have requested the road be a paved road, if allowed, the Developer would need to amend the Development Agreement and Residual Land Use Restrictions for Big Valley Homesteads II R.L.U.P. to allow for it. See Condition of Approval #3.
The Larimer County Engineering Department has a concern regarding adequate sight distance on County Road 29 for the proposed access point into the new lots. Ms. Coleman of Larimer County Engineering, has requested the applicant confirm that adequate sight distance exists for the proposed access point to meet the minimum requirements in the Larimer County Road Manual. The applicant has manually confirmed the sight distance to be 1342 feet to the north and 572 feet to the south. The applicant has agreed to provide documentation from a private licensed engineer demonstrating such before final approval. See Condition of Approval #4.
During the Development Review Team meeting, a concern was brought forward about whether the new proposed lots were located in a rock fall hazard area. County hazard maps indicate this is a distinct possibility. County maps are not accurate to the degree and level needed to clearly state where the rock fall areas are and what areas are clearly not problematic or dangerous. The applicant was asked to hire private geologist to provide a general statement of opinion on this matter. The geologist report states that the proposal has some significant areas of concern; however, further study will need to be done to make that determination. With the recommendation from the geologist, the applicants have redesigned the proposal for several lots and labeled as Plan B. A final detailed design can only be determined with additional geological study in order to demonstrate all lots in the proposed final plat are out of rock-fall danger areas and homes will be built on stable slopes. County staff is able to support the proposed design with the information provided at this stage as demonstrating that the application is feasible in concept; and it appears that the number of lots and the acreage, the proposed acreage, and the proposed pivots are feasible. Further, more detailed design and review are required at the time of final plat in order to address slope stability and rock fall.
Rural Land Plans are typically conceptual in design and detailed studies, such as geologic or engineering reports are performed at the time of final plat and not at preliminary approval. The applicant is requesting to move forward, with the understanding that further studies may require significant redesign of the project. The applicant is requesting preliminary approval with condition of approval that a further geologic study be done to prove feasibility of the lots as proposed in concept. Staff and the Rural Land Use Advisory Board support this, and a condition of approval (#5) has been added that will require the additional study and evaluation prior to final plat approval. Standard in Rural Land Plans, if this additional study proves the proposal or “Plan B” is not feasible without major changes, a new plan would be required along with a new hearing before the Board of Commissioners.
The Division of Wildlife and a Rural Land Use Advisory Board member both had concerns over wildlife migration with additional development. To address these concerns, the applicant has agreed to add a restriction in the covenants that would minimize fencing and not allow barbed wire fencing on the new lots. However, the applicant does want to prevent wildlife from accessing his hayfields so will not restrict fencing for the residual lots but from the new single-family dwelling lots. His plan is to restrict fencing to the building envelope with the remaining lot area to be fence-free. The applicant has also agreed to place restrictions in covenants to prohibit animals from wandering off their property or run free. See Condition of Approval #15. Additionally, notes on the plat will notify applicants of other negative impacts to wildlife and how they can be prevented.
Twelve referral responses were received from the technical referral agencies. The Larimer County Engineering Department noted several areas of concern, all of which have been addressed in the Conditions of Approval. Please see the official referral letter attached to the staff report. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) had no requirements of this project.
Concerns expressed by the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment expressed have been addressed in Condition of Approval #6. Please see official referral letter attached to the staff report. Concerns raised by the Larimer County Building Addressing Coordinator were handled in Condition of Approval #4. Please see official referral letter attached to the staff report. Concerns raised by the Larimer County Planning Department were either addressed through changes made by the applicant or by Conditions of Approval. Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Department submitted no comments, as there is no impact on Parks & Open Lands properties or trails.
Little Thompson Water District confirmed that facilities are available, and the district has provided a letter of commitment. Concerns raised by the District have been addressed in Condition of Approval #11. Department of the Army—Corps of Engineers expressed no major concerns. Please see official referral letter attached to the staff report. Concerns expressed by the Division of Wildlife have been addressed in the Conditions of Approval. Please see official referral letter attached to the staff report. Concerns expressed by the Southside Ditch Company have been addressed in Condition of Approval #18. Please see official referral letter attached to the staff report. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration expressed no objections within their parameters for easements and buildings within easement areas. Please see official referral letter attached to the staff report.
Two of the concerns expressed by the Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau have been addressed in the Conditions of Approval. However, the Fire District has different standards for development than Rural land Plans and generally asks for 24-foot wide roads and fire hydrants. These are subdivision standards. Rural Land Plans have different standards than subdivisions, and the standards will not meet their request for road width or fire hydrants. This plan will not meet the standards requested by the Fire Department.
Staff finds that this proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code. As proposed, this project will also provide long-term benefits to citizens of Larimer County by way of protection of existing agricultural operation and the irrigated farmland; transportation capital expansion, school and park fees received from the project; fewer residences than likely allowed through existing zoning; ability to influence design of project, as compared to use-by-right division of property into 35-acre parcels.
Rural Land Use Advisory Board recommends approval, as submitted, of the Big Valley Homesteads III RLUP and the Amended Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP, with recommendation to allow the shared driveways if feasible and that conditions be included that would require soil testing be done and design approved by the Health Department before final approval, the existing development agreement be changed to allow for a paved road with the road being allowed to be private, sight distances approved by the Engineering Department for the new road, and the applicant addressing the wildlife corridor issues with restrictions that will restrict fencing and pets not being allowed to roam free.
Rural Land Use Center Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Big Valley Homesteads III Rural Land Plan and the Amended Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP. 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 Big Valley Homesteads III Rural Land Plan and the Big Valley Homesteads II Amended Rural Land Plan (File # 07-S2741), 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 Big Valley Homesteads III Rural Land Plan and the Big Valley Homesteads II Amended Rural Land Plan 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, except for the shared driveways as shown on the proposed map. Those driveways can be designed as driveways and not roads for this project and still be considered to meet the standards in 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 50-foot half right-of-way along Larimer County Road 29. This dedication shall be shown on the final plat.
3. If a paved road is provided to the new residences on Big Valley Homesteads III, through Residual Lot A, Big Valley Homesteads II RLUP, the development agreement for Big Valley Homesteads II must be amended to allow for the paving of this road and approved by the RLUC Director and County Attorney prior to final approval of the Big Valley Homesteads III RLUP.
4. Only one point of access from the property onto County Road 29 shall be allowed and will be required to meet the minimum sight distance requirements specified in Section 220.127.116.11 of Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards. Road names and addressing shall meet standards in the “Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution.”
5. A detailed geologic study must be completed to prove feasibility of all proposed lots within potential hazard areas for the proposed design. Should the study prove the feasibility is not possible or highly unlikely, either a new plan must be submitted for approval by the Board of County Commissioners, or any and all mitigation recommended by the geologist must be completed before the final plat can be recorded.
6. Representative soil tests to prove septic system feasibility and conceptual sites plans (for problematic lots or lots with problematic slopes or hazards) showing the potential location of septic system, home site, and driveway location must be provided and approved by the Larimer County Health Department prior to final approval. The soil tests must be done for the south and north ends of the property.
7. The limits of the 100-year floodplain of the Big Thompson River at the north end of the property need to be drawn on the final plat and labeled as “This area subject to floodplain regulations.”
8. 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 right-of-way. No new fences or buildings shall be allowed in the half right-of-way; however repair and maintenance of existing fences shall be allowed. The fence removal agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney.
9. 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.
10. Applicant must provide a storm water management report to the Rural Land Use Center prior to commencing any construction on the project. Before designing storm water drainage facilities, applicant and applicant's engineer must contact the Larimer County Engineering Environmental Specialist to discuss storm water 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 storm water management design requirements.
11. Public water shall be provided for this project. A letter of commitment from the water provider must be provided prior to final plat approval. This letter of commitment must specifically state that the water distribution system is (or will be) designed to meet the normal and minimum pressure design standards contained in Section 8.1.2.A.1 of the Land Use Code or more stringent standards as required by the District. If the water system will be designed to provide fire protection, the letter of commitment also must address the pressure and delivery standards outlined in Section 8.1.4 of the Land Use Code.
12. Building envelopes shall be placed on each lot. All building envelopes shall be located outside the floodplain and drainage areas and shall meet minimum setback requirements listed in the Larimer County Land Use Code.
13. Automatic fire protection sprinklers will be required for all new residential structures, or written permission from the fire district for variance from this requirement must be provided.
14. The residual land protective covenant and use plans must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the Rural Land Use Center Director prior to final plat approval.
15. Restrictive covenants, including provisions for internal road maintenance, small acreage management, architectural guidelines, and other requirements must be reviewed and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director prior to final plat approval. These covenants must include restrictions to minimize fencing and prohibit barbed wire fencing on the new lots; restrict fencing to the building envelope, with the remaining lot area fence free; and a restriction that will not allow animals to roam free in the development.
16. The final development agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval.
17. A Lot Sale Prohibition shall be placed on this property preventing the sale of any new lots until the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements. The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until the 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, the county will provide to the developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for the particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed.
18. Permanent easements shall be granted to the ditch company in accordance with Section 8.8—Irrigation facilities of the Land Use Code.
19. The following must be listed as a note on the final plat and on a disclosure statement, approved by the County Attorney, available to lot buyers through the public records at the time of purchase:
a) LOT SALE PROHIBITION. Developers have executed a Lot Sale Prohibition Agreement which stipulates that Lots 1-12 and/or Residual Lot(s) 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, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements. The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed. The Lot Sale Prohibition is recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and is a covenant running with the Lots. Upon receipt of such written designation, the county will provide to the developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed.
b) 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.
c) 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.
d) 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.
e) 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.
f) 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.
g) Pets must be contained on property, either by leash or enclosure.
h) 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.
i) 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.
j) 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.
k) If livestock will be kept on these lots, it will be important to carefully manage grazing in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture. Overgrazing will produce bare ground, weeds, erosion and polluted runoff. Management of these lots should be coordinated with drainage and erosion control issues, siting of sanitation systems, fencing and feeding.
l) Larimer County has adopted a Right to Farm Resolution.
m) The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Park Fees (in lieu of dedication), Drainage Fees and Rural Land Use Process fees. The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply.
n) 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.
o) At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential lots and Residual Lot(s) A with the Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County.
p) 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.
q) 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.
David Jessup, Applicant and owner of Sylvan Dale Ranch, approached the Board and showed a video and provided a history of his family’s ownership and usage of the land this site. He explained that, in deciding to pursue this request, it was his family’s desire to preserve the 35 acres as much as possible, continue the grazing program, consider the wildlife habitat in the area, create an energy-efficient facility, and preserve the unique family experience available at this site. He explained that of the 3200 total acres, 60% has already been conserved, and the family intends to continue in this direction until 90% has been preserved as open space.
Mr. Jessup shared the history of dude ranches in Colorado and explained that their numbers are swiftly dwindling. His family is making every effort to keep the dude ranch experience alive at the Sylvan Dale property; however, in order to do so, they must also make it financially sustainable. He explained that this request is part of the family’s effort to do so and is intended to create a ranch preservation community in which each lot owner will have membership (which includes annual dues, etc.) and, thus, an investment.
Chair Gibson opened the meeting to public comment. Dottie Bethel approached the Board and expressed her concern that Loveland is already over built, which is having an adverse affect on the ability to sell properties that she already owns that have been on the market for six months. She stated that property values in Loveland are declining because of the foreclosure crisis and all the new building.
Luke Roberts approached the Board and explained that he is a landowner in the area who would be directly affected by this request. He commented that he hates to see the valley developed, but that his major concern is the impact this project will have on his view, since the road will be adjacent to his property and visible. In this regard, he would like to see some kind of tree barrier to block the road and mitigate the noise factor. He stated that he is glad there is interest in paving that road and commented that he would like to see a gate on the road to limit access. Commissioner Eubanks asked if he had discussed these thoughts with the applicant, and Mr. Roberts stated that he did so at the preliminary meeting.
Frank Disney approached the Board and stated that he is new to this process and does not necessarily have an objection; rather he simply doesn’t understand to what degree the infrastructure is being considered as this request is being considered. He is concerned about, fire hydrant requirements and whether a light is being considered at the Highway 34 intersection. Ms. Gimeson stated that there would be no requirement for a hydrant, but any new structures would be required to have sprinklers installed. Further she stated that there would not be a requirement for a light at the Highway 34 intersection, but that sight distance is being carefully considered at this location.
Commissioner Eubanks asked for explanation regarding the number of lots being requested as part of this application, versus the number of lots that the applicant is currently entitled to develop. Ms. Gimeson explained that under the current FA-1 zoning, the applicant would be allowed one lot for every 2.29 acres, which equates to as many as 94 units or structures. By contrast, this request allows the applicant one lot for every 17.5 acres, for a maximum of 12 units or structures.
Chair Gibson closed public comment at this time.
Commissioner Eubanks stated that he is a fan of the Rural Land Use process and likes the idea of placing 164 acres under protection from further development for perpetuity. He further stated that he is pleased that this proposal results in total development of 12 sites, as opposed to 94 sites, and indicated that he would be in favor of approval.
Commissioner Rennels asked Mr. Jessup what he is considering for the road, including dust mitigation. Mr. Jessup stated that he wants to keep the paved option open for the road, but that paving would require further study and critical mass in order to make it financially feasible; however, the application does allow for this option to be considered at a later time. He commented on the options for dust mitigation and indicated that they have, in the past, tried to utilize the most ecologically-friendly options available. Mr. Jessup further stated that he is willing to work with Mr. Roberts to address his concerns regarding view of the road and a potential plan for trees to obstruct the view and noise. He stated that Mr. Roberts’ house is 600 feet away from the corner, where the road becomes visible from his property. Brief discussion ensued regarding the status of the road from the county’s perspective, width requirements if paving were considered, etc.
Commissioner Rennels stated that the applicant has clearly had a long-term plan for the property and that this is the kind of proposal she likes to see grow; as, in her view, 12 development sites, instead of 94, is favorable. She further stated that the type of market and lifestyle created by this additional development is demographically different that the market for houses within the more densely developed areas of Loveland.
Chair Gibson stated that he is in favor of the 12 versus 94 sites that are the result of this proposal and would be inclined to vote in favor of approval.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Big Valley Homesteads III Preliminary Rural Land Plan and the Amended Big Valley Homesteads I RLUP, subject to the conditions recommended by the Rural Land Use Center Staff.
Motion carried 3-0.
2. RESTHAVEN MEMORIAL GARDENS AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #07-Z1655: Rob Helmick addressed the Board and explained that this request is to Amend the existing Special Review approval to allow the installation and use of cremation facilities.
The Development Services Team presented this request to the Larimer County Planning Commission at a public hearing held on November 21, 2007. There were approximately 95 members of the public present at the meeting. At that hearing, the team presented a recommendation of conditional approval, specifically related to addressing the issue of compatibility and the issue of mercury as a result of the cremations. At that time the applicants were opposed to the proposed conditions, and indicated so as a part of the public hearing and their presentation. The Larimer County Planning Commission took action to recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners on a unanimous vote.
The team, in evaluating the record and the applicant’s position, has determined that they will concur with the recommendation of the Larimer County Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners. The team is aware of an alternate strategy to address mercury being discussed by the applicants with the State and Larimer County Departments of Health. That discussion has not been completed nor concluded; therefore, the recommendation of the Team will be to continue to concur with the Larimer County Planning Commission.
The applicant, Allnutt Funeral Services recently acquired the Resthaven Memorial Gardens property from SCI Colorado Funeral Service, Inc. This site has been occupied by a cemetery since at least the late 1960’s and more recently has added a funeral home on site. In 1997 and again in 1998 SCI proposed to place a funeral home, offices and other facilities on the site. The 1997 application anticipated locating a crematory on site but was not specific. That first application in 1997 was denied by the Board of County Commissioners after recommendations of approval from both the Staff and the Larimer County Planning Commission (resolution attached). A subsequent application was submitted and finally approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1998. In the case of both applications the concerns with the request dealt with compatibility and traffic. The action of the Board of County Commissioners reflected in the 1997 resolution indicates that the cremation facilities were specifically not allowed because of concerns about compatibility and environmental issues. The Board of County Commissioners in their action in 1998, approving the funeral home use, clearly noted that the approval did not include any facility for cremations.
The specific proposal with this application is to relocate the two cremation retorts from the former Allnutt facility on Riverside Dr. in Fort Collins to this site. The proposal is to utilize the existing storage/machine shed building located to the rear of the site for the two retorts. The applicant proposes minimal site improvements for the use.
As a use which proposes to use an existing structure, and is accessory to an approved established use, the use can be found to be compatible. If the applicant operates the facility as recommended by the Health Department, the use can be compatible from the standpoint of the issues of insuring air quality and protecting public health and safety.
The Development Services Team found that the proposed use with the proposed conditions will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood; outside a GMA district, the proposed use is consistent with the county master plan; with appropriate conditions of approval this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this code; the proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on property in the vicinity of the subject property; and the recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Resthaven Memorial Gardens Amended Special Review (File #07-Z1655), 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 Resthaven Memorial Gardens Amended Special Review (File #07-Z1655), except as modified by these 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 Resthaven Memorial Gardens Amended Special Review.
3) The operation of the cremation facilities at this site shall be conducted consistent with the recommendation of the Health Department as contained in their memo of October 23, 2007.
4) This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement;
5) 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.
6) 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.
7) 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.
8) The applicant shall dedicate, prior to the issuance of any building permits for this use, the Right-of-Way for County Road 30, as specified by the Engineering Department in their memo of July 18, 2007.
9) The applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) for the use at building permit issuance. The fee paid shall be the current fee at the time of issuance.
10) The original conditions of approval for the use shall remain in force and effect except as modified by this approval.
Mr. Ryan addressed the Board and explained the public health concerns with respect to this request; namely smoke, odor and mercury issues. Recommendations for dealing with these matters were developed and were included as conditions of approval. Specifically, two options for mercury mitigation were recommended: installation of a scrubber on the crematorium stack; or the pollution-prevention option of pulling teeth that contain mercury before performing the cremation. Mr. Ryan went on to explain that the applicant indicated that neither of these options would be acceptable. Mr. Ryan explained, in some detail, the efforts made by staff to determine the single-source and long-term toxicity levels produced by typical crematorium operations and USEPA standards for risk of exposure. He stated that models indicated that, without the recommendations (scrubber or pulling of teeth), toxicity levels cannot be brought to levels suggested as optimum by USEPA standards. Mr. Ryan then explained some of the health hazard(s) associated with mercury (especially in children), some of the other sources of mercury within the environment, the effect that mercury has had on local lakes (Carter, Boyd, Horsetooth), the fact that mercury bio-accumulates and remains in the environment for a long period of time, the amount of mercury present in tooth fillings, and the fact that state standards regarding mercury may not be sufficiently protective.
Mr. Ryan explained that, after further review of the emission models and consideration of USEPA standards; it is staff’s position that, if the applicant cannot commit to one of the two recommendations, denial of the request is warranted. Subsequent to the Planning Commission Meeting, the applicant submitted a letter suggesting another alternative; commitment from the applicant that people who have more than 10 silver fillings would not be handled at this facility but would, instead, be sent to another facility for cremation. Mr. Ryan explained, in some detail, the impact that this commitment would have on mercury emissions from the crematorium. He further stated that, after careful consideration of the impact of such a commitment and the specific location of this site in close proximity to a residential area and schools (rather than in an industrial area), although emissions would be reduced, they could not be reduced to a sufficient level to warrant approval of the Amended Special Review. Further, without applying one of the original recommendations (scrubber or removal of teeth); staff feels strongly that denial of the Amended Special Review is warranted.
Rick Allnut, Applicant and Owner of Allnut Funeral Service, approached the Board and shared a history of the business, which has been in his family for generations and in business in Fort Collins for 122 years. He requested that the Board listen to the proceedings with an open mind and expressed his sincere desire for the facts, rather than emotion and false perception, to prevail in this matter. He briefly outlined the process followed thus far in this effort and his perception of support from county staff early on in the process. He stated that neither of the recommendations provided him (scrubber or removal of teeth) were viable options in his mind; as installation of a scrubber could cost in excess of $500,000 and other crematoriums would be chosen over his if removal of teeth were a requirement. Mr. Allnut spoke of the 15 years he has operated the crematorium in Fort Collins, his perception that relocating it to the airport area would garner none of the concerns being raised here, and his belief that mercury is not a major health issue.
Michael Ehler, of Realtec Commercial Real Estate Services, approached the Board and explained that he was present simply to provide information on the impact of property values in the vicinity of crematoriums. He explained that he was not an appraiser, although he has been in the past, but was present to provide his educated opinion and because he has specifically sold properties located in close proximity to crematoriums in both Weld and Larimer Counties. He stated that his experience has not indicated that there is any adverse impact on property values for properties, residential or commercial, located near crematoriums in these areas.
Mark Griffith, Chief Financial Officer for Allnut Funeral Services, approached the Board and shared his experience with the cremation process; specifically the fact that, because of the high temperatures at which crematoriums operate, they create fewer particulates that are produced by wood fires. He spoke of the densely populated area and the current location of schools in proximity to the current Allnut crematorium in Fort Collins, and stated that none of the six crematoriums located in the northern Colorado area were in areas zoned industrial or special-use commercial. He stated that there is very little noise or odor produced by the crematorium, and shared information regarding California pollution standards as they compare to the emissions created by the Allnut crematorium. Mr. Griffith stated that denial of this request does create a hardship for the applicant, in that the building where the current crematorium is located is an 8000-square-foot building, of which only 1500 square feet are used for the crematorium. The applicant desires to sell the existing building (which they are not fully utilizing) but denial of this request means they cannot relocate the current crematorium and, thus, prohibits their sale of the building. In conclusion Mr. Griffith requested approval of the request without the requirement of stacks or tooth pulling.
Commissioner Rennels asked Mr. Ehler when the Windsor crematorium was put in, and Mr. Ehler responded that it was approximately three years ago.
Chair Gibson opened the meeting for public comment. Dennis Lynch approached the Board and explained that he is a professor of four sciences at Colorado State University. He shared that a petition opposing this request been circulated and now includes 800 signatures, and that the Big Thompson School District, as well, is not in favor of this proposal. He stated that he is speaking on behalf of many when asserting opposition to this proposal for several reasons, including (but not limited to): existing historical precedence of denial of previous requests, planning and zoning issues, health and safety issues, and the potential negative impact on property values. He stated that this request should be denied and should receive no future consideration. Mr. Lynch also commented that it is impossible for the applicant to know exactly how many applicable fillings are located in the persons mouth, thus there is no way to ensure that individuals with more than 10 applicable fillings are sent elsewhere. He commented on the fact that there are heavy metals emitted during the cremation process, and that these particulates are disbursed in various ways, depending upon weather, wind and other factors; thus making the model used to determine exposure extremely inaccurate. Mr. Lynch also explained that it takes only ½ gram of mercury to pollute a 10-acre lake, and that amount of mercury would be about the size of a quarter thickness of a dime; and the full impact of mercury exposure on humans is, as yet, unknown.
The following individuals addressed the Board in opposition of the Resthaven Memorial Gardens Amended Special Review: Larry Marcinkewicz, Rob Bruns, Linda Kaiser, Bridget Morse, Mikki Roth; Dave Sweetser; Arthur Kompolt; Kirlene Gomez; Ashton Delahoussaye; Dottie Bethel; Luke Roberts; Sharolyn Eitenbichler; Katherine Pratte; Karyssa Richman (speaking for the youth in the area); Linda Zuroski; and Sally Edwards.
Their reasons for opposing this request included: the fact that the 1998 Special Review for a activities at this same location resulted in a specific notation required on the cemetery site plans that indicated no crematorium would be located on this site – this outcome was accepted by all those located in the neighborhood, and they believed the issue of a crematorium at this site was not going to be an option in the future, even for a new owner of the property; this request is inconsistent with the direction indicated by the Board in 1998; belief that the proposal is not in compatible or in harmony with the neighborhood, because the crematorium would not be an accessory use and those living in the neighborhood are not in harmony with the proposal; belief that the proposal is not in harmony with the county’s master plan, because it handles and generates hazardous materials and would result in moving such operations from an industrial area into a residential, “flagship” area along the Loveland/Fort Collins corridor; belief that there would be substantial adverse impact on property values in the area; information from those located in the area where the crematorium is currently located indicates that there are, at times, smoke and unpleasant odors coming from the facility; this is uncharted territory and the full effect of mercury on humans is not yet known; California is a top producer of mercury into the atmosphere from crematorium operations; mercury exposure is much more harmful to children, and there are schools and a church in the direct vicinity, not to mention the residents located very nearby; crematoriums have a place, but not near schools or in residential neighborhoods; all crematoriums should be required to follow strict emissions guidelines, which likely means scrubbers on the stacks; the decision made in this instance has the potential to affect many lives over the long term; mercury does not break down in the environment and remains a constant, compounding impact over time; the homes located in the immediate vicinity are, in many circumstances, the residents’ biggest assets – property values are influenced by various concerns, real or perceived – and the current foreclosure problems would be exacerbated; Fort Collins needn’t be a follower of precedent, but can be a standard setter when it comes to considering the effects of crematoriums on humans and the environment; scrubbers on crematorium stacks are likely to be required in the future on a national scale, as more is known about the effects of mercury on human health and the environment; concern regarding the Raptor park located in the vicinity; and first-hand knowledge of those affected by mercury toxicity and the terrible effects it can potentially have on human life.
Kristi Obermyer approached the Board and explained that she is a mortuary student and works in the funeral-home industry. She stated that there is no hard evidence that mercury exposure is dangerous for humans. She further stated that she would not personally have wanted the teeth of her mother (who recently passed) to have been extracted prior to her cremation. The implored the Board vote for approval of the applicant’s request.
Steve Koehler, a local dentist practicing since 1976, approached the Board and confirmed that there is no way for the trained or untrained eye to determine the amount of fillings in a person’s mouth, without removing all caps.
Mr. Allnut again approached the Board and stated that, when this process was begun, they agreed they would carry it through to the end. He stated that he is not used to this type of controversy. He further stated that scrubbers are required on crematoriums in Europe, but that they are funded by government dollars there.
Chair Gibson closed public comment at this time.
Commissioner Eubanks stated that he is concerned about the fact that mercury is cumulative in the environment. He further commented that, in much the same way DDT was first thought by those in the industry to be harmless, knowledge about the effects of mercury on the environment and humans is just starting to surface. Commissioner Eubanks stated that he is not the commissioner of Greeley or Windsor; and that, on behalf of Larimer County, he wishes to err on the side of caution with respect to health and environmental concerns. He stated that he is concerned about compatibility issues and that this type of activity is more suited to an industrial, rather than residential, area; and he cannot, therefore, vote in favor of this request.
Commissioner Rennels stated that when past requests have been made for a crematorium at this site, mercury was not even an issue; because not enough was known, at that time, about the effects of mercury on humans and the environment. Instead those efforts were denied for other reasons, such as transportation, landscaping and credibility concerns. She further stated that she believes Allnut Funeral Services has done an exceptional job serving the community other the years, and would have none of the credibility concerns experienced by previous applicants. That having been said, Commissioner Rennels stated that she cannot vote in favor of the proposal, because not enough is known about the negative effects of mercury exposure.
Chair Gibson stated that people built homes around the cemetery at this location when there was no crematorium present. He further stated that a crematorium at this site would create more hazard for those in the vicinity than was originally present; and crematoriums have not, historically, been measuring what emissions contain. Chair Gibson stated a crematorium at this site does not fit, and he would not vote in favor of the request.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the requested amendment Resthaven Memorial Gardens Amended Special Review.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2008
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, and Donna Hart, Commissioners’ Office; Cynthia Coleman, Clerk & Recorder's Office; Candice Phippen, Building Department; Jeannine Haag, and Bill Ressue, County Attorney's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment today.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 4, 2008:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of February 4, 2008.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 18, 2008: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for February 12, 2008:
02122008A001 AGREEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER FACILITY FINANCING BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING THROUGH AND ON BEHALF OF LARIMER COUNTY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT No. 2007-1 AND THE GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS WATER AND SEWER ASSOCIATION
02122008A002 RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND LARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS; STATE BID No. RAADCJ08MENTAL HEALTH
02122008A004 LETTER OF INTENT AND PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CARTER LAKE MARINA BUILDING BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AND THE THISSEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
02122008R001 RESOLUTION FOR CONVEYANCE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND QUIT CLAIM DEED (Bridge project on CR 38E)
02122008R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE KECHTER CROSSING PLANNED LAND DIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
02122008R003 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICATION OF THE 1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 2000 URBAN-WILDLIFE INTERFACE CODE AND AMENDMENTS BY THE LYONS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WITHIN UNINCORPORATED LARIMER COUNTY
02122008R004 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SWANSON MINOR LAND DIVISION
02122008R005 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MCCONNELL DRIVE CONDOMINIUMS
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following license was both approved and issued: Inlet Bay Marina - 3.2% - Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. WORKSESSION: Mr. Gluckman and Ms. Coleman presented an update for the Board regarding pending legislation. Ms. Coleman stated that HB 1329, pertaining to adequate treatment for inactive voters, would be extremely costly to implement, and there are already several options for notifying inactive voters within the current state statutes, and recommended that the Board oppose this bill.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners oppose House Bill 1329.
Motion carried 3-0.
Discussion then ensued regarding how the commissioners would keep abreast of legislation as it progresses. Mr. Lancaster will work to set up a spreadsheet on the Intranet, so the commissioners could see at a glance which bills were up for review, whether or not Colorado Counties Inc. supports the bill, etc.
6. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: The Board reviewed their activities at events during the past week.
7. LEGAL MATTERS: (Affidavit Provided)
Ms. Haag explained that property owners can apply for a Special Review, or Special Exception as a means to cure zoning violations. She noted that current practice has the property owner applying to remedy the zoning violation, and if that application is denied, and then they must come back for a second hearing to address the zoning violation itself. Ms. Hagg and Ms. Phippen presented a change that would address the zoning violation at the same time of the hearing for a special exception or special review, so if the application was denied, then the property owner would be found in violation at that time, given an appropriate amount of time to conform, and not have to come back for a second hearing. The Board agreed to this change in procedure; however, Commissioner Rennels stressed that property owners must be made aware of this change prior to them attending their hearing. Ms. Phippen stated that this would be made clear, and she would forward the verbiage used on the notices sent to property owners to the commissioners for review.
Ms. Haag the presented a Memorandum of Understanding between the South Fort Collins Sanitation District and Larimer County to resolve the dispute over an invoice amount due to the sanitation district, and requested approval on the same.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the South Fort Collins Sanitation District and Larimer County.
Motion carried 3-0.
02122008A003 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT
Ms. Haag then requested to go into Executive Session to discuss an item necessitating legal advice.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402-(4)(b) C. R. S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The Board came out of Executive Session with no action taken. District Attorney Larry Abrahamson joined the meeting and requested to go into Executive Session to discuss another item necessitating legal advice.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402-(4)(b) C. R. S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m., and the action was taken:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution to pay defense costs for Jolene Blair and Terry Gilmore arising out of the Timothy Masters case, and related to performance of their prosecutorial duties.
Motion carried 3-0.
02122008R006 RESOLUTION TO PAY AND INDEMNIFY JUDGE BLAIR AND JUDGE GILMORE OF ANY EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF THE TIMOTHY MASTERS PROSECUTION
The meeting ended at 11:55 a.m.
GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk