Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 08/12/13  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, August 12, 2013

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner.  Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present.  Also present were:  Clint Jones, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Brenda Gimeson, Rob Helmick, Karin Madson, and Terry Gilbert, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney; and Tamara Slusher, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Johnson opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance, and explained that items 1 through 3 were on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or other members of the audience:    

 

1.         PARRISH RANCH ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT TIME EXTENSION, FILE #04-S2269:  This is a request for reinstatement of the preliminary plat and a two year extension of the preliminary plat approval. 

 

The preliminary plat for the Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development was approved with conditions by the Board of County Commissioners on February 27, 2006.  A final plat application was submitted in January of 2007.  In April 2010, staff contacted the applicant, at which time the final plat was withdrawn and the applicant requested a time extension to the preliminary plat approval.  That request was granted, giving the applicant until July 31, 2012, to submit a new final plat application. 

 

Currently the bank has foreclosed on the property.  Based on the circumstances surrounding the foreclosure process, First Citizens Bank is now requesting reinstatement of the previously approved preliminary plat and a two year time extension.  A new final plat application will need to be submitted within two years of this extension approval and will require full staff review. 

 

The applicant’s letter also mentions another two year extension upon request.  Staff notes that the applicant will need to make this additional request at a later date, and that request would also need to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.  A third extension request may not have staff support, as this development dates back to 2004 and may need to be reviewed for consistency with code requirements at the time of that request and may warrant additional review through the public hearing process.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development Preliminary Plat reinstatement and time extension included in File #04-S2269, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   All conditions outlined in the Findings and Resolution Approving the Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development Preliminary Plat, signed on May 23, 2006, and recorded at Reception No. 2007-0006732 shall continue to apply.  

 

2.   The final plat for the Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development shall be submitted no later that August 12, 2015, or this preliminary plat time extension approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing.

 

At the time of final plat submittal the applicant shall pay the final plat application fee in place at the time.

 

2.         BUDERUS MINOR RESIENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOTS 1 & 2 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #13-S3175:  This is a request to modify the lot lines between two lots in the Buderus M.R.D.  The Buderus Minor Residential Development was approved in 1987, and an amendment that adjusted the lot lines between a property to the south in the Grant Exemption and Lot 2 of the Buderus M.R.D. was approved in 1982.  This proposal is an additional amendment that will move the lot line of the northern lot of the Buderus M.R.D. further south to accommodate an existing pond feature and include the entire pond onto one lot.  This will make Lot 1 larger in size at 3.3076 acres instead of 2.2984 acres and Lot 2 will be 3.0000 acres instead of 4.7088 acres.  The minimum lot size in the FA-1 Zoning District is 2.3 acres, so both lots will remain conforming in regard to the lot size.  No new parcels or lots are being created with this amendment, only a lot size adjustment.

 

The following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:

 

  • Department of Health and Environment 
  • Development Review Section of the Engineering Department
  • Addressing Section

 

Comments received from the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identifies several required corrections to the plat. Comments received from the Code Compliance Section indicate there are outstanding building permit issues with the property included in this amendment.  Since those issues are do not affect the property boundaries or setbacks no conditions of approval will be made regarding those issues.  All other affected utility companies have agreed to the request.

 

The proposed amended plat to modify the lot lines between Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Buderus M.R.D. will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The amended plat will not result in any additional lots.  Staff finds that with the conditions as listed below, 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, Buderus M.R.D. and Lot 1, of the amended plat of the Lot 1 of the Buderus M.R.D. and Tract A of the Alexander B. Grant Exemption, File #13-S3175, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chair 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 February 12, 2014, 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 County staff and the County Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

3.   The reconfiguration of the lots lines shall be finalized at such time when the plat and findings and resolution of the County Commissioners are recorded.

 

3.         MAIL CREEK CROSSING PLANNED LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, FILE #12-S3133:  This request was the only item scheduled for review at the July 17, 2013, Larimer County Planning Commission meeting.  As a large project with some interest from the public it was placed on the discussion agenda.  At the meeting there was no one present except the applicant, his agent and city staff.  The Larimer County Planning Commission moved the item to consent and after brief discussion unanimously recommended approval, as presented, to the Board of County Commissioners.  The Team would note that through an oversight the setback requirements for the zoning were not included in the packet they are appended to the recommendations in this packet.

 

The Planning Commission and Development Services Team recommends the approval of the Mail Creek Crossing P.D./P.L.D., File #12-S3133, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

  1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Mail Creek PD/PLD File #12-S3133, 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 Mail Creek PD/PLD.

 

  1. 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 or Community Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

  1. Fire Requirements – fire hydrants shall be installed their location and design shall be consistent with the recommendations of the Poudre Fire Authority.

 

  1. All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation.  The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table.  Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.

 

  1. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures 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.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Mail Creek Zoning, File #12-S3133 to rezone the property from FA-1 Farming/GMA Overlay to PD Planned Development as detailed below, subject to the following conditions, including the appeals as reviewed:

 

  1. The Rezoning for each phase shall be effective upon the recordation of the Final Plat for that phase of the Mail Creek PLD. 

 

  1. The zoning designations for the Mail Creek PD and PLD shall be PD, which zoning classification shall subject to the development standards and requirements as detailed below:

 

LMN Mixed-use neighborhood area regulations. Development of property as Mail Creek PLD shall conform to the following regulations:

 

1.Uses. Development plans may be submitted only for the following uses in the mixed-use neighborhood area as shown on the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan:

 

a. Residential Uses:

(1) Single-family detached dwellings.

(2) Two-family dwellings.

(3) Single-family attached dwellings.

(4) Multifamily dwellings (limited to eight or less units per building).

(5) State licensed group homes for no more than eight developmentally disable persons, provided such home is not located within 750 feet of another such home.

(6) Owner occupied or non-profit group homes for the exclusive use of not more than eight persons 60 years of age or older, provided such home is not located within 750 feet of another such home.

(7) Mobile home parks.

(8) Boarding and rooming houses.

(9) Mixed-use dwelling units.

 

b. Institutional/civic/public uses:

(1) Places of worship or assembly.

(2) Public and private schools for college, university, vocational and technical education.

(3) Public facilities.

(4) Longterm care facilities.

(5) Parks, recreation and other open lands.

(6) Cemeteries.

(7) Community facilities.

(8) Neighborhood support/recreational facilities.

(9) Golf courses.

(10) Public and private schools for elementary, intermediate and high school education.

 

c. Commercial/retail uses:

(1) Bed and breakfast establishments with six or fewer beds.

(2) Child care centers.

(3) Retail stores with less than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, provided they are part of a neighborhood center and are combined with at least one other use listed in subparagraph 4.c.(3) below.

(4) Personal and business service shops, provided they are part of a neighborhood center and are combined with at least one other use listed in subparagraph 4.c.(3) below.

(5) Offices, financial services and clinics containing less than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, provided they are part of a neighborhood center and are combined with at least one other use listed in subparagraph 4.c.(3) below.

(6) Standard and fast food restaurants, provided they are part of a neighborhood center and are combined with at least one other use listed in subparagraph 4.c.(3) below.

(7) Artisan and photography studios and galleries provided they are part of a neighborhood center and are combined with at least one other use listed in subparagraph 4.c.(3) below.

(8) Offices, financial services, and clinics containing 5,000 or more square feet of gross floor area and/or which are not part of a neighborhood center.

(9) Convenience retail stores with fuel sales, provided they are part of a neighborhood center and are combined with at least one other use listed in subparagraph 4.c.(3) below, and it is [they are] at least three-quarters mile from another such use.

 

d. Accessory/miscellaneous uses:

(1) Accessory uses.

(2) Accessory buildings.

(3) Wireless telecommunication equipment.

(4) Home occupations.

 

3. Prohibited uses. All uses that are not expressly allowed in this section shall be prohibited, including special review uses which would otherwise have been allowed in the FA-1 zone district.

 

4. Land Use Standards.

a. Density.

(1) Residential developments in the mixed-use neighborhood area shown on the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Map as being located south of East County Road 36 and east of Timberline Road (County Road 11) shall have an overall minimum average density of three dwelling units per net acre of residential land. Residential developments in the mixed-use neighborhood area shown on the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Map as being located north of East County Road 36 or west of Timberline Road (County Road 11) shall have an overall minimum average density of five dwelling units per net acre of residential land.

(2) The maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole shall be eight dwelling units per gross acre of residential land.

(3) The maximum density of any phase in a multiple-phase development plan shall be 12 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land.

 

b. Mix of housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In order to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met:

(1) A minimum of two housing types shall be required on any project development plan containing 30 acres or more, including such plans that are part of a phased overall development; and a minimum of three housing types shall be required on any such development plan containing 45 acres or more.

(2) Lot sizes and dimensions shall be varied for different housing types to avoid monotonous streetscapes. For example, larger housing types on larger lots are encouraged on corners. Smaller lots are encouraged adjacent to common open spaces.

(3) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement:

(a) Standard lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing 6,000 square feet or more).

(b) Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less than 6,000 square feet).

(c) Two-family dwellings.

(d) Single-family attached dwellings.

(e) Mixed-use dwelling units.

(f) Multifamily dwellings (limited to six dwelling units per building);

(g) Mobile home parks.

(4) A single housing type shall not constitute more than 90 percent of the total number of dwelling units. If single-family detached dwellings are the only housing types included in the mix, then the difference between the average lot size for each type of single-family detached dwelling shall be at least 2,000 square feet.

 

Including the following:

 

Setback regulations.

 

1. Setback from arterial streets. The minimum setback of every residential building from any arterial street right-of-way shall be 30 feet.

 

2. Setback from nonarterial streets. The minimum setback of every residential building from any public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way shall be 15 feet.

 

3. Side and rear yard setbacks. The minimum side yard setback for all residential buildings shall be five feet from the property line. If a zero-lot line development plan is proposed, a single six-foot minimum side yard is required. Rear yard setbacks in residential areas shall be a minimum of 15 feet from the rear property line, except for garages and storage sheds not exceeding eight feet in height, where the minimum setback shall be zero feet, and for alley-accessed garages and dwellings, for which the minimum setback shall be six feet.

 

4. Features allowed within setbacks. The following structures and features may be located within required setbacks:

a. Trees, shrubbery or other features of natural growth;

b. Fences or walls, subject to permit approval, that do not exceed the standards established in section III.D., fences and walls;

c. Driveways and sidewalks;

d. Signs, if permitted by the sign regulations of the county;

e. Bay windows, architectural design embellishments, and cantilevered floor areas of dwellings that do not project more than two feet into the required setback, provided they do not encroach on public easements;

f. Eaves that do not project more than 2½ feet into the required setback;

g. Open outside stairways, entrance hoods, terraces, canopies and balconies that do not project more than five feet into a required front or rear setback, and/or not more than two feet into a required side setback, provided they do not encroach on public easements;

h. Chimneys, flues and residential ventilating ducts that do not project more than two feet into a required setback and when placed so as not to obstruct light and ventilation, provided they do not encroach on public easements;

i. Utility lines, wires and associated structures, such as power poles.

 

5. Contextual setbacks. Regardless of the minimum front setback requirement, applicants shall be allowed to use a contextual front setback. A contextual front setback may fall at any point between the required front setback and the front setback that exists on a lot that is adjacent and oriented to the same street as the subject lot. If the subject lot is a corner lot, the contextual setback may fall at any point between the required front setback and the front setback that exists on the lot that is abutting and oriented to the same street as the subject lot. If lots on either side of the subject lot are vacant, the setback that exists on such vacant lots shall be interpreted as the minimum required front setback that applies to the vacant lot. This provision shall not be construed as requiring a greater front setback than that imposed by the underlying requirement and it shall not be construed as allowing setbacks to be reduced to a level that results in right-of-way widths below established minimums.

 

6. Front setbacks on corner lots. In the case of corner lots, the side of the lot with the shortest street frontage shall be considered the front setback.

 

7. Setbacks reduced for public purpose. When an existing setback is reduced as a result of conveyance for a public use and the remaining setback is at least 75 percent of the required minimum setback for the district in which it is located, then that remaining setback shall be deemed to be in compliance with the minimum setback standards.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2013

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS MEETING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Linda Hoffmann, County Manager. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were:  Tim Palmer, Sheriff’s Office; Steve Balderson, Facilities and Information Technology Department; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; Bob Herrfeldt, the Ranch; Joni Friedman and Jacob Castillo, Workforce Center; Gerald Blehm and Doug Ryan, Health Department; Deni LaRue and Neil Gluckman, Commissioner’s Office; Jeannine Haag, Bill Ressue, David Ayraud, and Art Spicciati, County Attorney’s Office; and Tamara Slusher, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Johnson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

1.         APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 5, 2013

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved to approve the minutes for the week of August 5, 2013, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.         CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined below:

 

08132013A001           BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.

 

08132013A002           SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND RESIDUAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS FOR LONGVIEW RLUP BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CURE ESTATES, LLC.

 

08132013A003           LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO SERVICENOW IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CROSSFUZE, INC.

 

08132013A004           AMENDMENT TO FOOD SERVICE AGREEMENT – AGREEMENT FOR FOOD SERVICE FOR LARIMER COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC.

 

MISCELLANEOUS:   Letter of Support for a Great Outdoors Colorado Grant for Ducks Unlimited;  Recommended Mid-Term Appointment of Briauna Souders to the Office on Aging Advisory Council.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved and/or issued:  CL Fires – Special Event 6%  – Red Feather Lakes;  Green Projects, Inc. – Special Event 6% – Bellvue.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         EXTENSION OF GLOBAL SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE BUDWEISER EVENT CENTER:   Mr. Herrfeldt explained that after much consideration by the Board and the County Manager, staff was directed to pursue a renewal of the existing agreement with Global Spectrum for services provided at the Budweiser Event Center.  Staff received a proposal containing new business terms from Global Spectrum in April 2013, and presented and discussed this in Executive Session with the Board in mid-May 2013.

 

Mr. Herrfeldt explained that they are requesting that the Board approve the extension of this agreement noting that the key terms are as follows:

 

  1. Monthly Management Fee increases $2,600 per month and remains constant until January 1, 2015.
  2. Deferred Management Fee is eliminated: Savings of between $60,000-$82,000 per year.
  3. Incentive Fee Benchmarks are increased by $1.2 million. If this had been the case in the current agreement, Global Spectrum would have only hit its Incentive 4 of the past 9 years instead of each year. This would have saved The Ranch between $60,000-$74,000 in the years it was below its current mark.
  4. Additional contributions totaling $300,000 will be made by Global Spectrum to fund future improvement projects at the Ranch.

 

The Board and Mr. Herrfeldt thanked Global Spectrum for their ten years of service to the citizens of Larimer County and commended both Global Spectrum’s staff and the staff at the Budweiser Event Center for making this partnership such a success.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the extension of the Global Spectrum Management Agreement for the Budweiser Event Center.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

08132013A006           AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND GLOBAL SPECTRUM L.P.

 

4.         APPROVE THE FINAL PROJECT FUNDING OF THE JAIL REMODEL WITH AGREEMENT:   Mr. Balderson, and Captain Palmer detailed their request for the Board to approve the final project funding of the jail remodel and provided an update on the ongoing remodeling work at the jail aimed at extending the life of the facility for up to a decade and adding features such as staff efficiencies, video visitation, improved inmate intake and inmate management.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the added benefits of the remodel and source of funding for this project.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the final project funding of the jail remodel and the associated agreement.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

08132013A005           AMENDMENT II GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT REGARDING RFP #11-17 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND AP MOUNTAIN STATES, LLC DBA ADOLFSON & PETERSON CONSTRUCTION

 

5.         ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY FOR LARIMER COUNTY:   Ms. Friedman and Mr. Castillo explained that the Economic Development Incentive Policy for Larimer County provides a framework for future business incentives and details the Economic Development policy for the County and further requested that the Board make a motion to approve the policy as drafted.

 

The Board provided comments regarding verbiage addressing tax increment financing (T.I.F.) distribution and share-back terms, requesting that a more direct reference to the County’s T.I.F. policy be made. The Board noted that with these simple adjustments they would adopt this policy at the next administrative matters meeting.  The Board thanked Ms. Friedman and Mr. Castillo on their hard work on this policy covering a broad spectrum of topics in a concise and encouraging way.

 

6.         BRIEFING ON COLORADO OPEN RECORDS ACT (CORA) REQUIREMENTS:   Chair Johnson expressed the commitment of the Board to comply with the Colorado Open Records Act, not only because it is the law, but because it is a feature of good government. The Board requested that Mr. Ayraud provide brief explanation of this law and the County processes for meeting those requirements.

 

Mr. Ayraud detailed the existing law, the County policy regarding requests made under CORA, including the form required for requests, associated charges, timeline for producing documents, method of transmission, and potential extension of timelines.  Mr. Ayraud provided background information regarding a CORA request submitted by Eric Sutherland to the Department of Natural Resources, explaining the timeline and methods of communication for this request and expressed his belief that staff fully complied with the law.

 

Discussion ensued regarding researching CORA requests, the methodology of submitting requests to the County, and the frequency at which CORA requests are made.

 

7.         COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Ms. Hoffman asked Gerald Blehm, Director of Environmental Health, to address the Board regarding mosquito spraying activities set to begin in the County, their coordination with the municipalities, and the health risks associated with the mosquito population (such as West Nile virus). 

 

Mr. Blehm explained that the City of Fort Collins will begin adult mosquito control on Wednesday, August 14, 2013, to which the County will join in its mitigation efforts.  The Health Department Policy previously adopted by the Board allows the County to use the same contractor as the City of Fort Collins to perform mosquito control on County properties at the same time to increase efficiency and efficacy of the spray.  Mr. Blehm explained his support of the procedure stating that the benefits to spraying outweigh the risks associated with the chemicals.  Jessica Schurich addressed the Board on behalf of Colorado Mosquito Control, Inc. and provided detailed information on the effectiveness of spraying and the procedures currently being used in the City of Loveland.

 

Mr. Blehm explained that there is no option to opt-out of this spraying service, stating that the chemicals are deemed safe and that the County needs to take into consideration the ongoing West Nile virus emergency. Mr. Blehm stated that the spray is benign but instructed citizens to do what makes them comfortable – for example:  stay indoors, close windows, cover bee hives, and cover organic gardens. Mr. Blehm and Ms. Schurich noted that there is an abundance of information available to the public on both the County website and the website for Colorado Mosquito Control, Inc.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the confirmed cases of West Nile virus in the County, and how those numbers are expected to increase over the remainder of summer.

 

Ms. Hoffman provided update on the County Strategic Plan detailing the process on developing objectives surrounding the seven goals and the different phases of the process.

 

8.         COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board reviewed their activities for the previous week.

 

9.         LEGAL MATTERS:  Ms. Haag and Mr. Ayraud introduced the Board to Mr. Spicciati, a new County Attorney.

 

Ms. Haag requested that the Board go into executive session regarding Anheuser-Busch property tax appeal.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into executive session for conferences with an attorney 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.

 

There being no further business, the Board recessed at 11:40 a.m.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING

FOR BOARDWALK CROSSING, LP

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:45 p.m. with Lisa Thieme, Assessor’s Office.  Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present was Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

Ms. Thieme presented the Petition for Abatement from Boardwalk Crossing, LP, noting the petitioners are not present and are requesting administrative denials on two accounts; R1401513 & R1401521. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement on accounts R1401513 & R140152, for tax year 2010.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 2:50 p.m.

 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 2013

 

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) AND

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PID) HEARINGS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 6:00 p.m. with Linda Sanders, Engineering Department.  Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were:  Matt Johnson, Engineering Department; Ed Schemm, Health Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

1.         LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #2013-3 – FISH CREEK:   Mr. Schemm explained the need for the Fish Creek LID is to improve the potable water, improve the water pressure, and lessen the public health risk by mitigating conditions that enhance bacterial growth within the water lines.  Ms. Sanders noted that there are 17 lots in the proposed district, and that over 70% of the property affected property owners signed the petition in favor of creating the LID.  Ms. Sanders further noted that the current estimated assessment is $21,177 per lot, ($1295 estimated payment per year with 2% interest).

 

Chair Johnson opened up the hearing for public comment and Bob Trump, secretary of the Fish Creek Water Association, stated that their association is unanimously in favor of creating the district and he presented Ms. Sanders with two more written comments in favor of the proposed LID.

 

There was no further public comment.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution 08152013R002; a Resolution Creating the Larimer County Local Improvement District #2013-3, Fish Creek, and Ordering the Construction, Installation, Completion, and Acquisition Therein of Certain Local Improvement, Together with Any Necessary Incidentals; Providing for the Payment for Said Improvements: and Providing for other Details in Connection with the District.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

08152013R002           RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CREATION OF LARIMER COUNTY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #2013-3, FISH CREEK

 

2.          LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #2013-2 – CHARLES HEIGHTS:  Mr. Schemm explained the need for the Charles Heights LID is to improve the potable water, improve the water pressure, and lessen the public health risk by mitigating conditions that enhance bacterial growth within the water lines.  He also noted that the water lines in this area are so close to the surface that they require continual “bleeding” during the winter months to keep them from freezing.  Ms. Sanders noted that there are 58 lots in the proposed district, and that that the current assessment is $10,690 per lot, ($654 estimated payment per year with interest). 

 

Chair Johnson explained that they have received some advisement from the Bond Attorney and the County Attorney that since some of the proposed lots receive no benefit from the installation of the water pipes; therefore, the formation of the LID would be indefensible if those property owners took the matter to court. 

 

Chair Johnson opened up the hearing for public comment and the following individuals addressed the Board in opposition to the proposed LID:  Cindy Bartush, Paul Bartush, Cathy Goodale, Roger Steketee, Milly Steketee, Lori Oliver, and Ray Metzler.  Some reasons listed for their opposition included:  they will not receive benefit from the project; the process was rushed and poorly put together; the committee broke the by-laws when circulating the petition.

 

The following individuals were in favor of the proposed LID:  Michael Kellam, Jene Yeager, Robert Maes, Kent Bosch, Mary Steele, and Ron Duell.  Some reasons listed for their support included:  everyone will benefit from enhanced infrastructure and increased water pressure to the fire hydrants; everyone will benefit from increased property values; they will be able to insure their homes more easily; and they wish to take advantage while the Town of Estes Park is helping fund the project.

 

Finally, Jeff Harrison did not express whether he was for or against the proposed LID, but was very concerned with where the money would come from if this matter was taken to court.

 

Chair Johnson closed public comment and called for a five minute recess.

 

The meeting came back to order and the Board discussed how best to proceed with this matter.  They agreed to recess the meeting until Tuesday, August 20, 2013, in order to give staff time to prepare additional options for their consideration.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners recess this hearing, and reconvene on Tuesday, August 20, 2013, at the 9:00 a.m. Administrative Matters Meeting.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #55, STORM MOUNTAIN:   Mr. Johnson gave a brief description of PID’s and how they operate.  Ms. Sanders then explained that there are 618 lots in the proposed district and that 41% of the eligible property owners signed the petition in favor of the improvement district.  She further explained that a mill levy of 20.000 would generate approximately $161,842 per year, at an average of $261 per lot. 

 

Chair Johnson opened up the hearing for public comment and the following individuals spoke in favor of the PID:   Jim Ecklestone, Tom Rizzardo, Ed Lastranski, Trish Brock, Liz Merofko, Mary Vopp, Pat Maslowski, Alan Columbach, Peter Rowen, and Gary Kubinak.  All stated that they wished to keep the roads maintained in a safe manner and they felt it was an equitable way to assess and collect the money for improvements. 

 

The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed PID:  Bill Hughes, James Baranovick, and Brad Tallman.   They feared they would lose their rural area, and prefer the road in poor condition; there were questions about the math and numbers presented; there was concern of maintaining a federal road; and concern for those who could not afford the yearly monetary increase. 

 

David Stamps stated that he would be in favor of the PID, but the timing for him right now is not good and hoped it would be postponed.

 

Chair Johnson closed public comment.   The Board agreed to let the residents decide this matter at the ballot box in 2013.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioner approve Resolution 08152013R001, a Resolution Approving Petition for the Organization of Larimer County Storm Mountain Public Improvement District #55.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

08152013R001           RESOLUTION APPROVING PETITION FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF LARIMER COUNTY STORM MOUNTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 55

 

The hearing adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

                        STEVE JOHNSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

ANGELA MYERS

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

______________________________________

Tamara L. Slusher, Deputy Clerk

 

______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.