Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 07/20/09  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, July 20, 2009

 

LAND USE

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Larry Timm, Planning & Building Services Division Director.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present.  Also present were:  Matt Lafferty, Sean Wheeler, Rob Helmick, Michael Whitley, Russell Legg, and Toby Stauffer, Planning Department; Eric Tracy, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, and Bill Ressue, County Attorney’s Office; and Tamara Slusher, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels 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.

 

Mr. Lafferty addressed the Board and requested that Item 5 be added to the consent agenda.  He explained that the item was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and there were no objections.  No members of the Board, staff, or the audience were opposed to moving Item 5 to the consent agenda.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that Item 5, the Centro Business Park Planned Development, be added to the Consent Agenda.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Chair Rennels explained that the following Items 1 through 3, and 5 are on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.

 

1.         POUDRE VALLEY RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, MINOR LAND DIVISION:  This is a request for approval of a Minor Land Division (MLD) on a 23.83 acres site.  The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of County Road 5 and Highway 392, east of Interstate 25.  The Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, Inc. offices (REA) and related structures currently exist on the site.  The subject property is a single legal lot, however, it is divided by REA Parkway and Hathaway Lane.  The Town of Windsor has already annexed the portion of the site south of Hathaway Lane.  With approval of the MLD, the Town will also annex the portion of the site east of REA Parkway.  The part of the lot with the existing use will remain within the boundaries of Larimer County.  The utilities are in place for the developed portion of the site, and no additional traffic impacts will result from approval of the use.  The site is zoned for commercial use along Highway 392 as described.  Surrounding uses are residential with some properties being currently undeveloped..

 

Staff’s assessment is that this project satisfies the requirements for a Minor Land Division.  The existing REA facility is a legal use and has existing public services on the site.  The site is already divided by existing roads.  Approval of the request will allow for the portion of the site already annexed by the Town of Windsor to be designated as a separate legal lot under the Town’s regulations.  Lot 2 will also be annexed as a separate legal lot if the request is approved.  All other previous conditions of approval related to the site remain in place, as approval only allows for subdivision of the land.  Finally, no adjoining property owners or other individuals or agencies contacted staff to object to the MLD.  Based on this assessment, Staff supports approval of the Poudre Valley REA Minor Land Division.

 

The Development Services Team finds the following to be true:

 

A.    The property is not part of an approved or recorded Subdivision, Exemption, Minor Residential Development or Minor Land Division Plat.

 

B.   The newly created parcels exceed the minimum lot size required by the Commercial zone district.  The newly created parcels meet minimum access standards required by the County Engineer.  Further development of the portion of the site to remain in Larimer County will be subject to the regulations in place at the time of development.

 

C.   Approval of the Minor Land Division will not result in impacts greater than those of existing uses.  Future impacts created by development of the portion of the site annexed into the Town of Windsor, will be subject to the municipal regulations in place at the time of development.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association Minor Land Division, File 09-S2890, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chairperson to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.    All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by 1-20-2010 or this approval shall be null and void.

 

2.         Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the application shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

2.         CRYSTAL LAKES 9TH FILING, LOT 18 EASEMENT VACATION:  This is a request for the vacation of a 20 foot utility easement along the front portion of Lot 18 in Crystal Lakes 9th Filing.  The easement is currently vacant and encompassed entirely within Lot 18.

 

This application was forwarded to the appropriate departments and agencies for comment.  There were no issues of concern or objections.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Crystal Lakes 9th Filing Lot 18 Utility Easement Vacation, File # 09-S2891.

 

3.         BLUE SPRUCE VILLAGE/GREELEY-BOULDER COLONY AMENDED PLAT:  This is a request to two adjoining lots; there is an existing single-family dwelling on the northeastern lot while the southwestern lot is currently vacant with no immediate plans to build.  This configuration would result in Lot 1A being larger and Lot 10A being smaller.

 

Staff recommends approval of the requested proposed Amended Plat of Lot 1 Blue Spruce Village Subdivision and Lot 10 and a portion of Lot 9 Greeley-Boulder Colony Subdivision subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, as follows:

 

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.    This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.

 

3.    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.

 

4.    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.

 

5.    This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners;

 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Amended Plat of Lot 1 Blue Spruce Village Subdivision and Lot 10 and a portion of Lot 9 Greeley-Boulder Colony Subdivision.

 

5.         CENTRO BUSINESS PARK PLANNED DEVELOPEMENT:   This is a request to rezone a 17.29 acre parcel from a combination of C–Commercial and O-Open to PD-Planned Development.

 

The subject property is a 17.29 acre parcel identified as Tract AAA of the Amended Plat of Tract AA, Centro Business Park.  The southern 12.17 acres of the property (the original Tract A of Centro Business Park) is zoned C-Commercial.  The northern 5.12 acres of the property, combined with Tract A by the Amended Plat, is zoned O-Open.

 

A building approximately 120,033 square feet in size was constructed on the property in 1992 and a 130,555 square foot addition was constructed in 1996.  There are 40 paved parking spaces on the southern end of the parcel.  There is a railroad spur that runs north of the building connecting to a main rail line just north of the property.  The Cooper Slough crosses the northern end of the property.

 

Approximately 242,620 square feet of the building is on the portion of the lot currently zoned C-Commercial.  It appears that approximately the northernmost 40 feet of the 1996 addition, encompassing approximately 7,968 square feet, was constructed on the portion of the lot currently zoned O-Open.  The use of the building for enclosed storage is a use by right in the Commercial Zoning District.  Enclosed storage is not allowed in the O-Open Zoning District.  A provision in the 1993 Zoning Ordinance allowed the building to encroach into the O-Open Zoning District.  Because the current Land Use Code does not contain that same provision, the portion of the building in the O-Open Zoning District is considered to be non-conforming.

 

The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) which is the area that is anticipated to be annexed by the City of Fort Collins in the long term.  Because the property is not contiguous to the current Fort Collins municipal limits, it is not eligible for annexation at this time as a single-parcel annexation.

 

The project is located within the East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) area.   The EMCP Framework Plan calls for that portion of the property with the building to be utilized for industrial uses.  The portion of the lot north of the building is identified as a “natural buffer” on the Framework Plan because of its proximity to the Cooper Slough and the associated flood way, flood plain, wetland areas, and potential wildlife habitat.

 

The building is for sale and the non-conforming status of a portion of the building is a concern for both the current property owner and potential buyers.  The proposed rezoning to Planned Development would allow industrial uses (blending the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins industrial uses).  If the property is successfully rezoned to Planned Development, the entire building and site would be considered conforming as would the use of the building for enclosed storage.

 

The entire building is within the Cooper Slough flood way and flood plain.  Section 4.2.2 of the Land Use Code contains the Flood Plain Overlay Zone District regulations which are applicable to this property.  The proposed rezoning would not change how the Flood Plain Overlay District regulations are administered.  Any future building additions or reconstruction of the building, if it were damaged or destroyed by flood, would require Flood Review Board approval. 

 

The portion of the property north of the existing building is generally not suitable for additional development.  If any construction north of the existing building is proposed in the future, the applicant would have to address setbacks from the Cooper Slough and potential flood way, flood plain, wetland, and wildlife impacts.

 

The Centro Business Park Planned Development as proposed and in conjunction with the recommended conditions of the Development Services Team will comply with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team findings are as follows:

 

1.    The proposed change is consistent with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan

 

2.    The proposed change is compatible with existing and allowed uses on properties in the neighborhood and is the appropriate zoning for the property.

 

3.    Conditions in the neighborhood have changed to the extent that the proposed change is necessary.

 

4.    The proposed change will not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.

 

5.    The proposed change addresses a community need.

 

6.    The proposed change results in a logical and orderly development pattern.

 

7.    The subject parcel is within a Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District.

 

The Development Services Team recommends that the Board approve the rezoning request subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the Findings & Resolution for the Centro Business Park Planned Development.

 

2.    The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for the Centro Business Park Planned Development shall be as follows:

a.    Uses followed by an (R) are allowed by right.

 

b.    Uses followed by an (MS) require an approval through the Minor Special Review process.

 

c.    Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the Special Review process as described in Section 4.5.

 

d.    Uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by right or require Special Review approval based on thresholds in Section 4.3.

 

e.    Uses followed by an (L) require review through the Location and Extent Review process described in Section 13.0.

 

PD (Planned Development)

 

A.        Principal Uses:

                        Agricultural

                                    Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

                                    Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

                                    Pet animal facility (R)

                        Commercial

Adult use (S)

Outdoor display/sales (R)

Convenience store (R/S)

 Automobile service station (R/S)

Professional office (R/S)

General retail (R/S)

General commercial (R/S)

Restaurant/take-out (R/S)

Restaurant/sit-down (R/S)

Nightclub (R/S)

Instructional facility (R/S)

Clinic (R/S)

Recreational

Shooting range (R/S)

Membership club/clubhouse (R)

Industrial

Enclosed storage (R)

Outdoor storage (R/MS)

Trade use (R)

Light industrial (R)

General industrial, excluding slaughter houses (S)

Mining (S)

Oil and gas drilling and production (R)

Recycling (S)

Hazardous materials storage and handling (S)

Junkyard (S)

Small wind energy facility (MS)

Utilities

Utility substation (L)

Treatment plant (L)

Radio and television transmitters (S)

Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)—See Section 16

Water storage facility (L)

Transportation

Transportation depot (R)

Bus terminal (R)

Truck stop (R)

Transportation service (R)

Parking lot/garage (R)

Park and ride (R)

Heliport (S)

Train station (R)

Institutional

Sheriff/fire station (L)

Church (R)

B.        Lot, building and structure requirements:

1.    Minimum lot size:  15,000 square feet (0.34 acres)

 

2.    Minimum setbacks:

a.    25 feet from all property lines adjacent to a street or road

b.    10 feet from side and rear lot lines

c.    100 feet from the centerline of the watercourse of the Cooper Slough

 

3.    Maximum structure height:  40 feet

 

4.    No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10 of the Land Use Code.

 

5.    If any construction north of the existing building is proposed in the future, the applicant would have to address setbacks from the Cooper Slough and potential flood way, flood plain, wetland, and wildlife impacts.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda for July 15, 2009.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.         SECOND READING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 6 OF THE CODE OF LARIMER COUNTY, ANIMALS (ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE):   This item was originally heard by the Board on June 1, 2009, and due to incorrect publishing, required a second reading.  The main purpose of animal ordinances is to keep people and animals cohabitating safely.  It is also to promote the humane treatment of animals. Some of the older ordinances need to be changed to reflect the growth of population of people, as well as animals in Larimer County.  They also need to be changed to promote safer keeping of animals.

 

The following are the proposed changes:

 

·   The definition of “pet animal” is made consistent with the definition of “pet animal” in the Larimer County Land Use Code and state statute.

 

·   The” animal disturbance” ordinances do not currently incorporate the PACFA (Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act) standards and Larimer County Noise ordinances.

 

·   References to the County comprehensive zoning resolution and terms have been updated to reflect the County land use code.

 

·   Certain aspects of “chaining and tethering” of animals has been added to the section dealing with potential situations of improper care or treatment.

 

The City of Fort Collins has an ordinance regarding proper fence required to contain animals. Larimer County does not currently have an ordinance; therefore Animal Protection cannot enforce certain cases where animals have escaped due to lack of proper fence.

 

The proposed amendments to the ordinance are as follows:

 

Sec. 6-1, Definitions

Sec. 6-77, Disturbance of the peace and quiet prohibited

Sec. 6-80, Improper care or treatment prohibited

Sec. 6-84, Neighborhood request for stricter controls

Sec. 6-85, Use of public property to sell animals

 

Note:  Text to be deleted is crossed out, text to be added is underlined.

 

 

ARTICLE I.  IN GENERAL


Sec. 6-1.  Definitions.

 

Pet animal means any animal owned or kept by a person for companionship or protection or for sale to others for such purposes.  Means dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, mice, ferrets, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates or any other species of wild or domestic or hybrid animal, except livestock, sold, transferred or retained for the purposes of being kept as a household pet.  Pet animal includes dogs and cats kept for working purposes on a farm or ranch.

 

 

ARTICLE IV.  CONTROL OF ANIMALS

Sec. 6-77.  Disturbance of the peace and quiet prohibited.

 

Each owner or keeper of a pet animal in the county shall not permit such pet animal to disturb the peace and quiet of any person by barking, whining, howling, yowling or making any other noise in an excessive, on-going or untimely fashion. If any pet animal does so disturb the peace and quiet, its owner or keeper shall be deemed guilty of a violation of this section, may be prosecuted as provided in the Larimer County noise ordinance provided that such owner or keeper shall not be so charged with a violation of this section unless they or a member of their household over the age of 18 years has received a written warning from an animal control officer of a previous complaint at least once within the preceding 12 months. This section shall not apply to dogs located in a kennel, pet animal facility, as defined in the Larimer County Comprehensive Zoning Resolution Land Use Code, which if required to be licensed, has been validly licensed pursuant to the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act, C.R.S. § 35-80-101, et seq. or other applicable law and which facility is allowed as a use by right or has been approved for use as a kennel by special review or minor special review by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners so long as the pet animal facility is operated in accordance with the conditions of the special review or minor special review approval.

 

(Res. No. 111220020001, § IV(B), 10-10-2002)

 

Sec. 6-80.  Improper care or treatment prohibited:

 

(a) No owner or keeper of a pet animal shall fail to provide that pet animal with sufficient good and wholesome food and water, proper shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary care, when necessary, and such other care as is customary and necessary for the pet animal's health and well-being, considering the species, breed and type of animal.

 

(b) No person shall beat, cruelly ill-treat, torment, overload, overwork, otherwise abuse or needlessly kill a pet animal or cause, instigate or permit any dogfight, cockfight, bullfight or other combat between pet animals or between pet animals and humans, nor shall any person transport or confine a pet animal in or upon any vehicle in such a manner as to endanger the animal's health or life.

 

(c) No owner or keeper of a pet animal shall abandon such pet animal.

 

(d) A person may not restrain a dog by a fixed point chain or tether for a period of time or under conditions that an animal control officer or animal cruelty investigator deems harmful or potentially harmful to the animal.

 

Examples of improper chaining or tethering include, but are not limited to, the following:

 

(1)  Using a chain or tether made of rope, twine, cord or similar material.

 

(2)  Using a chain or tether that is less than 10 feet in length and/or does not have swivels on both ends.  All chains or tethers must be attached to the animal by means of a properly fitting harness or collar of not less than one inch in width.  A person may not wrap a chain or tether around a dog’s neck.

 

(3)  Using a chain or tether that is too heavy or too big for the size and weight of the animal so that the animal is prohibited from moving about freely.

 

(4)  Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the owner’s property or such that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the animal from moving about freely, lying down comfortably or having access to adequate food, water and shelter.

 

(5)  Using a chain as a primary collar.  All collars used for the purpose of chaining or tethering an animal must be made of nylon, cotton, leather or similar material.

 

 

(Res. No. 111220020001, § IV(E), 10-10-2002)


Sec. 6-84.  Neighborhood request for stricter controls.

 

(a) Upon receipt of a written request setting forth the legal description of a proposed "stricter animal control area" signed by a majority of persons who certify that they own real property or reside within the boundaries of the proposed "stricter animal control area", which proposed "stricter animal control area" has an average population density of not less than 100 persons per square mile, the board of county commissioners may designate, in its discretion, a stricter animal control area in which:

 

(1) The definition of "at large" will be modified to provide that a dog must be physically controlled by a human being by means of a leash or lead held by a human being or must be confined by means of a fence or other enclosure which restrains the animal to the owner's or keeper's real property or other real property that the owner or keeper has permission to use; and/or

 

(2) Such other restrictions as may be requested.

 

(3) Fences which are intended as enclosures for any animal shall be securely constructed, adequate for the purpose and kept in good repair.

 

(b) A "stricter animal control area" may be designated by the board of county commissioners by amendment to this chapter following the procedures for adoption set forth in Part 4 of Article 15 of Title 30, Colorado Revised Statutes.

 

(Res. No. 111220020001, § IV(I), 10-10-2002)

Secs. 6-85--6-100.  Reserved.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance as proposed.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.         NELSON LABRADOR MINOR LAND DIVISION:   This is a request to approve a Minor Land Division of a 125 acre parcel to create 10 acre and 115 acre lots.  Request includes an appeal for consideration to allow the larger lot to be further divided into 35 acre lots in the future.

 

The applicant and land owner in this proposal operate and agricultural enterprise on the parcel.  The property is irrigated by means of a pivot and the land area to be divided is located outside of the pivot irrigation area.  The site was part of a previous RLUP application, Wellington 17 RLP, due to a variety of market issues the owner has chosen to not pursue that approval and only propose the division of a 10 acre site off the parcel.  The 10 acre parcel will contain an existing residence and the balance of the site the additional (new lot) parcel will remain under irrigation under the pivot. 

 

With this application the applicant wishes to have the potential to further divide without process the larger remainder lot into three 35 acre parcels.  This is contrary to both the Larimer County Land Use Code and the general policy that is applied to MLD’s.  Once platted the larger lot would be subject to further review, typically as a subdivision or Conservation Development.  The applicant wishes to retain the land as agricultural but be allowed to if needed further divided the 35’s off with out the full land division process.  In this case the possible number of total “lots” could be more but the applicant proposes to limit the potential to the same as if the land had been divided into 35 acre tracts.

 

The applicant here has presented an application which preliminarily meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  As noted in this report the request meets the standards of review and the referral comments have noted only corrections to the plat or the need to notice or for dedications.  However, the element which is of issue here is the premise the applicant wishes to pursue.  To allow for further division of the larger parcel with out utilizing the “full” land division process.  This is contrary to the requirements of the regulations.  Although the net result can be interpreted as essentially the same as creating 35 acre tracts, the premise of the regulations is that if you derive the benefit from the regulations then one should be subject to them.

 

The Development Service Team the requested action meets the standards and review criteria of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The applicant does however request Board of County Commissioners action on an appeal to the requirements of section 5.4.2.B allowing further division of the larger lot of the MLD through an exempted process as opposed to the full land division process. In this case, if a condition is imposed, the net result would not be an increase in the number of parcels as would be allowed thru the division of the property into 35+ acre parcels.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Nelson Labrador Minor Land Division, file # 09-S2885, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature, and the appeal to Section 5.4.2.B of the Larimer County Land Use Code, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by (put a date in here 6 months from the hearing date) January 20, 2010, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

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

 

3.    Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the application shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

4.    Include the Right of Way Dedications as noted in the comments from the Engineering Department in their June 22, 2009 memo. 

 

5.    The larger lot, Lot 2, shall be allowed to pursue an amended MLD plat to allow division into no more than 2 parcels in the future with without requirement for the “full land division process.”

 

The applicant, Adam Nelson, addressed the Board and detailed the history of this project. He explained that they are trying to sell the home while maintaining the viability of the land itself. Mr. Nelson stated that he supports the staff’s conditions and raised no objections.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Nelson Labrador Minor Land Division, file #09-S2885, subject to the conditions as outlined above and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.         DK CATTLE MINOR LAND DIVISION:  This is a request to approve a Minor Land Division of a 148 acre parcel to create 10 acre and 138 acre lots.  This request includes an appeal for consideration to allow the larger lot to be further divided into 35 acre lots in the future.

 

The applicant and land owner in this proposal operate and agricultural enterprise on the parcel.  The property is irrigated by means of a pivot and the land area to be divided is located outside of the pivot irrigation area.  The site was part of a previous RLUP application, Wellington 17 RLP, due to a variety of market issues the owner has chosen to not pursue that approval and only propose the division of a 10 acre site off the parcel.  The 10 acre parcel will contain the existing residence and the balance of the site, which will be the new lot, is the area irrigated under the pivot. 

 

With this application the applicant wishes to have the potential to further divide without the full land division process the larger remainder lot into three 35 acre parcels.  This is contrary to both the Larimer County Land Use Code and the general policy that is applied to MLD’s.  Once platted the larger lot would be subject to further review, typically as a subdivision or Conservation Development.  The applicant wishes to retain the land as agricultural but be allowed in the future, “as necessary” further divide 35 acres parcels off with out the full land division process.  In this case the possible number of total “lots” is the same as if the land were divided into 35 acre tracts.

 

The applicant here has presented an application which preliminarily meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  As noted in this report the request meets the standards of review and the referral comments have noted only corrections to the plat or the need to notice or for dedications.  However, the element which is of issue here is the premise the applicant wishes to pursue, to allow for further division of the larger parcel with out utilizing the “full” land division process.  This is contrary to the requirements of the regulations.  Although the net result can be interpreted as essentially the same as creating 35 acre tracts, the premise of the regulations is that if you derive the benefit from the regulations then one should be subject to them.  

 

As noted in this memo by the Development Service Team the requested action meets the standards and review criteria of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The applicant does however request Board of County Commissioners action on an appeal to the requirements of section 5.4.2.B allowing further division of the larger lot of the MLD through an exempted process as opposed to the full land division process.  In this case the net result is the same number of parcels as would be allowed thru the division of the property into 35+ acre parcels.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the DK Cattle Minor Land Division, file #09-S2886, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature, and the appeal to Section 5.4.2.B of the Larimer County Land Use Code, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by (put a date in here 6 months from the hearing date) January 20, 2010, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

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

 

3.    Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the application shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

4.    Include the Right of Way Dedications as noted in the comments from the Engineering Department in their June 22, 2009, memo.

 

5.    Allow the further division of the larger lot through an amended MLD plat process, only if 35+ acre parcels are proposed.

 

The applicant, Adam Nelson, addressed the Board and detailed the history of this project. He explained that they are trying to sell the home while maintaining the viability of the land itself.  Mr. Nelson stated that he supports the staff’s conditions and raised no objections.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the DK Cattle Minor Land Division, File #09-S2886, subject to the conditions as outlined above and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.         DRIPPING SPRINGS SPECIAL REVIEW:   This is a request to approve a Special Review for a resort including a bed and breakfast.  After an over 4 year hiatus this application is from a Team perspective ready for Board of County Commissioners review and action.  There has been some history with this request, as is illuminated from the record in the file some of which is attached for your review.  This history has it roots in issues with building without permits and concerns with expansions of the use.  This has been complicated in that the use is seasonal and the owner applicant is only a part time resident.  Additionally, the needed agreements were not produced by the applicant or his team in a timely fashion and for a period of time the application languished in the Planning Department offices due to staff changes and no follow up by the applicant.  Also it should be noted that the use has continued to exist and operate through the entire process.

 

In the fall of last year and this spring the Code Compliance staff took up the issue of the needed agreements and worked with the County Attorneys Office to complete them.  They were finalized and sent to the applicant’s attorney.  Since no response was received the staff felt that it was necessary to complete action on this request and have scheduled it for hearing.  To the best of our knowledge the applicant is in agreement with the proposed conditions of approval and the agreements.

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission reviewed this request in 2005 initially tabling over a Team recommendation of denial and then approving with conditions.  Those conditions contributed to the delay by requiring the agreement be completed prior to Board of County Commissioners hearings.

 

The following is taken from the file and information presented to the Larimer County Planning Commission in 2005.

 

This is a Special Review of a 4.01-acre property zoned O (Open). The property has been used for some years as a resort property.  This property lies in a bend of the Big Thompson River approximately one mile downstream of Estes Park. The minimum lot size in the Open District is 10 acres though most properties in the canyon do not conform to this minimum.

 

Resort Lodge Cabins require Special Review approval in the Open (O) Zoning District. While preparing and prior to this application, the applicant has met with the Planning Department in an effort to begin resolving a variety of problems including:

 

·   Replacement of a building destroyed by fire in October, 2000

·   Legitimization of the existing use(s).

·   Consolidation of lots.

·   Upgrading and permitting of sewage disposal system(s).

·   Use and building non-conformities.

·   Zoning and Building Code violations.

 

As a result of those meetings, Development Services Team recommended a process: 1) compliance with Building Code, 2) a Special Review and Site Plan Review, and 3) a Boundary Line Adjustment/Amended Plat to address these issues.

 

Abbreviated history:

·   First notification from Building Code Compliance.

·   7/25/02 -Concept Review was completed.

·   6/14/04 -First public hearing submittal received.

·   12/16/03 -Variances from required setbacks for river and streams as well as from U.S. 34 were granted by the Board of Adjustment

·   11/22/04-Zoning Violation hearing

·   2/16/05 -Planning Commission hearing.

 

The applicant represents this property as having been, and continuing to be, used as a resort but was not able to validate this claim. The Development Review Team has determined that the documentation concerning historic use was not adequate.  One of the initial points with respect to this application was that even if the use was legal and non-conforming, "a use, building or structure that is nonconforming with respect to . . .zoning . . . cannot be extended, expanded or changed in character." (LCLUC, Section 4.8.9.A).  The owners had expanded by adding units and extended the use by extensive renovations. "Repairs or alterations that go beyond normal repairs and maintenance' and which would extend the life of the non-conformity are no allowed".

 

The following problems have been resolved:

·   The reconstruction of the burned building/dwelling.

·   All Building Code violations.

·   Requirements for upgrading sewage and water systems.

 

The remaining issues revolve around the owners' desire and insistence on retaining three legal lots with each being approved as its own, individual resort. The owners want the option of selling the property as three independent resort properties. During Concept Review, the Development Services Team concluded that the resort currently functions, and must continue to function, as a single business. Staff strongly recommended the lots be consolidated.  The Estes Park Community Development concurs. Reasons include:

 

1.    Under the state's drinking water standards, the three-lot arrangement needs to be legally considered as one Transient Non-Community Public Water Supply. The required water treatment system must be approved by the County Health Department and the state's Water Quality Control Division.

 

2.    Need for consistent, reliable maintenance of the series of separate wells to maintain safe drinking water for resort customers.

 

3.    Need for professional maintenance of sewage disposal systems to avoid impact on quality of a major drinking water source (the river) and to prevent contamination of wells in the area.

 

4.    Even as one combined lot the parcel would not meet the required minimum lot size (LCLUC, Section 4.1.5.B.1.a).

 

5.    The intensity of use. (Note: In the accommodations industry, a head count or "# of pillows" is used to describe a property.) The proposed pillow count is 32 people including the resort managers.

 

6.    The location of the resort in a bend of the river. The site is relatively small especially when the floodplain and 100 foot buffer areas are eliminated from consideration and protected from sewage and other pollutants.

 

The Development Services Team's view of the framework proposed by the applicant’s consultants in response to issues can be summarized as follows:

 

1.    Three lots may remain.

 

2.    The Amended Plat process will be used to clarify the existing lot lines.

 

3.    No expansion of the number of dwelling units shall occur.  Any need for expanded sewer facilities on the property would trigger a state-mandated water quality review and advanced sewage treatment.

 

4.    All required improvements shall be constructed prior to continued operation of the resort. A reasonable grace period will be allowed.

 

5.    The owners may sell each lot individually. (Note, The Development Services Team has agreed to this compromise so all parties can solve existing problems).

 

6.    There will be a legally binding agreement that the owners will be required to operate as one resort business.

 

7.    Should different people own the individual lots, they would have the choice, at any time, of opting out of the terms of the Special Review approval. That lot would then be subject to the Land 'Use Code existing at that time and not be able to revert to the resort status.

 

8.    For opt-out-lots, ' all habitable structures except one single-family residence shall be converted to non-habitable space or removed from the lot.

 

Special Review is primarily an assessment of the compatibility of a proposed use that may have negative impacts on "existing and allowed land uses in the same neighborhood." (LCLUC, Section 4.5.1 .B) "within a given zoning district depending on the specific location and characteristics of the proposed use . . . " (Section 4.5.1 .A). Because this proposal deals not only with a use is a non-residential, a Site Plan Review will also be required.

 

The Development Services Team and the Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners is as follows:

 

A.    Approval of an appeal to the parking pavement standards (Section 8.6.3.C.1). Such an appeal does not include improvements included in Condition 5 below.

 

B.   Approval of the Dripping Springs Special Review, file #04-Z1515, with the following conditions:

 

1.    Implementation of the provisions of this special review shall be consistent with the information contained in the Dripping Springs Special Review, file #04-Z1515. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Dripping Springs Special Review.

 

2.    A legally binding instrument to form a Limited Liability Company or comparable instrument, to ensure the three lots covered by the Special Review approval are operated as one and only one resort is approved by the Development Services Team and the County Attorney. This instrument must be signed and notarized by all parties owning one or more lots at the time of recording. Any owner opting out of the Special Review approval will be required to physically or functionally eliminate all habitable units except one single-family residence per lot unless the Larimer County Land Use Code has been altered to allow more than one principal dwelling on one legal lot.

 

3.    A set of covenants which defines the roles of the LLC in operating and maintaining water supply and sewage disposal systems is approved by the County Department of Health and Environment. These covenants shall be properly recorded.

 

4.    An amended plat must be submitted, processed, and approved to adjust property lines in accordance with the plan approved as part of this special review.

 

5.    The applicant will be responsible for constructing paved aprons at both access points to US Highway 34. These paved aprons will extend to the property boundary. The applicant will be required to apply for, and receive, a CDOT access permit, and for complying with all associated conditions and specifications of that permit. The paved aprons will need to be installed, and approved by CDOT, on or before October 1, 2009.

 

6.    A Site Plan process shall be completed and approved by the County Planning Department.

 

7.         All required state-level permits for water supply treatment and for sewage disposal shall be obtained.

 

The applicant, Oliver Robertson, addressed the Board and stated that he appreciated staff’s work and believes that the proposed conditions will work out to his advantage as well as to the County.  Mr. Robertson also detailed the amount of work that has already been completed at the site to accommodate staff’s conditions.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Dripping Springs Special Review, file #04-Z1515, subject to the conditions, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

9.         LOVELAND HEIGHTS LOTS 11 AND 12 AMENDED PLAT:   This is a request to approve an amended plat to reconfigure lots in the Loveland Heights Subdivision to allow lots to contain the improvements relative to lots consistent with the approval of the Dripping Springs Bed & Breakfast.

 

This amended plat will realign property lines of the platted lots and other property which is part for the Dripping Springs project.  The result will be to align the property in such a way so that the agreements and covenants can be implemented.  These properties have operated as a single unit for some time but have always been and were acquired as different sites.  It is the intention of the applicant to be able to dispose of them as single operable units.  The implementation of the operational issues is a part of the Special Review for the resort and this plats purpose is to create the property lines and easements that are a part of the approval and agreements. 

 

After being on a hiatus for over 4 years the Team has resolved the outstanding issues to our satisfaction and are now proceeding to finalize the approvals necessary to bring the properties into conformance with zoning and land division requirements.  The amend plat is the land division part of that process.

 

This amended plat does meet all the requirements of the code and no individual or agency has noted a conflict with the request.  The recording of the plat should be however, ties to the approval and completion of the required conditions of approval associated with the companion special review for the Dripping Springs Resort.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Loveland Heights Lots 11 and 12 Amended Plat, File # 05-S2503, 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.    All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by January 20, 2010 or this approval shall be null and void.

 

2.    Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department

 

3.    Additional correction or notation as noted by other referral agencies must be made to the plat as well. Larimer County Engineering and the Larimer County Assessor have noted changes to the plat that are necessary.

 

4.    Approval of the Dripping Springs Special Review must have occurred and been finalized prior to the recording of the plat, subject to the limits noted in condition #1, above.

 

The applicant, Oliver Robertson, addressed the Board and did not have any conflict with staff’s recommendations or the conditions of approval.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Loveland Heights Lots 11 and 12 Amended Plat, file #05-S2503, subject to the conditions outlined above and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10.       DEEP WATER METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 & 2:  This is a request for approval of the formation of two interlocked metropolitan districts.  The proposal for the Deep Water Metropolitan District(s) has been in the process since April of 2006.  The Larimer County Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and made a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners has tabled consideration of the proposal several times to respond to concerns from the applicant regarding the Larimer County Planning Commission recommendation and to try to bring to closure the some of the issues which have been a part of the proposal. 

 

The Board of County Commissioners considered this request on July 2, 2007 and at that time continued the discussion based on the advice of the County Attorney. In 2008 the Board has tabled consideration on Febuary 11th, April 21st, and July 21st.  The attached letter to Mr. Seaworth provides the staffs analysis of the Board of County Commissioners action.  The applicant understands that the conditions under discussion were appropriate and that it was necessary to provide updated and more complete financial information before the Board of County Commissioners could consider taking action to conditionally approve the service plan.

 

Staff has not received revised information since the hearing to supplement the record with respect to the issues discussed by the Board; however, we have met with the applicant and the attorney for the Town of Wellington.  Progress has been noted with respect to the water count approval. Wellington has also been working on establishing a Growth boundary for future urbanization.  The applicant has not requested tabling as of the date of this agenda.

 

The Special District Review Team recommends the Board of County Commissioners either denies the proposed Deep Water Metropolitan District Service Plan, based upon the review and conclusions of that the service plan does not meet the necessary standards identified in the statues, and that the applicant has failed to supply the requested financial information.  In the alternative the Board of County Commissioners may choose to table this request once again to allow the applicant to update and supplement the financial information in the record.

 

Discussion ensued between staff and the Applicant regarding a letter received just prior to the hearing by the legal representation for the Town of Wellington.  This letter discussed several issues that could potentially affected staff’s opinion for denial of this request.

 

The applicant, Richard Seaworth, gave a brief history of the project.  Mr. Seaworth stated that he has taken on considerable financial burden during the duration of this project.  He also discussed staff’s original recommendation regarding the formation of a private water company versus forming a metropolitan district.  Mr. Seaworth explained that he has no intention of withdrawing his application but that he would be favorable to tabling this issue based on the Town of Wellington’s need to examine the proposed service plan.

 

Brad March, legal representation for the Town of Wellington and for the applicant, addressed the Board and detailed the potential changes to the proposed service plan including financial information and the services provided by the districts. 

 

Commissioner Rennels requested that Mr. Legg explain the amount of time required for further examination.  Mr. Legg stated that staff would recommend tabling this item for six months.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table this item until the 3 p.m. Land Use Hearing on Monday, January 25, 2010.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business the hearing adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2009

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were:  Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Gael Cookman, Clerk and Recorder’s Office; Bridget Paris and Lorenda Volkner, Department of Human Resources; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

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

 

2.         APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 13, 2009:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of July 13, 2009.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 27, 2009 :  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.         CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioner approve the Consent Agenda as published for July 21, 2009.

 

ABATEMENTS:   As proposed by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement were presented for approval:  Mountain Mechanical Engineering, Inc.

 

07212009A001           EXPENDITURE AUTHORIZATION FOR WIRED BIOSCIENCE CAREER ACADEMY; ATTACHMENT TO THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS GRANT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

 

07212009A002           COMPENSATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ARTHUR J GALLAGER RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

 

07212009A003           AMENDMENT #1 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 2008-2009, AGREEMENT L8CSBG27, BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS

 

07212009A004           AMENDMENT #1 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 2009-2010 AGREEMENT L9CSBG27 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS

 

07212009D001           DEED OF DEDICATION – THE WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE COMPANY

 

07212009R001           RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING THE RED FEATHER LAKES BUSINESS DISTRICT AND TRADE USES

 

07212009R002           RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE

 

07212009R003           RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING APIARIES

 

07212009R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 6 & 7 IN THE CARVER SUBDIVISION AND LOT SIZE APPEAL

 

MISCELLANEOUS:            Release Agreement Between the Board of County Commissioners and Employee; Treasurer’s Six Month Report January 1, 2009 – June 30, 2009; Release Agreement Between the Board of County Commissioners and Employee

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following Licenses were approved and issued:  Fort Fun – Tavern – Fort Collins; North Shore RV & Store – 3.2% – Loveland; and Bohemian Cottage Restaurant – Hotel and Restaurant – Loveland.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.         BOARD OF EQUALIZATION REFEREE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL: 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners convene as the Board of Equalization.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Ms. Cookman addressed the Board to request their approval of the recommendations submitted by the referees of the Board of Equalization. Ms. Cookman also explained the processes and procedures delegated by the Board of County Commission to the Board of Equalization and invited the Commissioners to sit-in on a few of the hearings over the next couple weeks.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the recommendations of the Board of Equalization Referees for July 15, 16, 17, and 20, 2009.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners adjourn meeting as the Board of Equalization and reconvene as Board of County Commissioners.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.         WAIVER OF CURRENT POLICY – MARKET BASED ADJUSTMENTS FOR CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES:   Ms. Paris addressed the Board and explained that until the Department of Human Resources can approve and implement its new policy, the Board must officially waive the execution of market based adjustments for regular and limited term employees.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Waiver of Policies 331.5F.II.B.2f, 331.5F.II.F, and 331.5F.II.G, Market Based Adjustments for Classified Employees and Identification of NO merit for 2010.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.         EXECUTIVE SESSION:  Mr. Lancaster requested the Board go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing securities measures.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing securities measures as outlined in CRS 24-6-402(4)(d).

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Manager to approve purchases connected with Homeland Security Infrastructure Protection Grants.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.         COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster requested the Board sign a letter to the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Business and Community Programs in regards to the grant application submitted by the Supporters of the Performing Arts for the construction of a performing arts center in Estes Park.

 

The Board agreed to support the project and approved the letter.  

 

Ms. LaRue presented the Board with a copy of the new Mountain Pine Beetle  Brochure created in conjunction with the US Forest Service, the National Parks Service, Colorado State University Forest Service and Extension Office, Boulder County, Creek County, Gilpin County, Jefferson County, and Larimer County. The informative brochure will be available to the public in the coming weeks. 

 

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

 

10.       LEGAL MATTERS:  There were no legal matters today.

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

 

 

 

 

________________________________

                                    KATHAY C. RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

______________________________________

Tamara L. Slusher, Deputy Clerk

 

 

­­­______________________________________

Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy Clerk

 

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