MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Monday, July 12, 2004

LAND USE HEARING

(#82)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present. Also present were Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center; Karin Madson, Sean Wheeler, David Karan, Matt Lafferty, Al Kadera, and Claudia DeLude, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Roxann Hayes, Lisa Dunn, and Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

Chair Rennels stated the following items are consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.

1. PEARL CREEK ESTATES II PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN TIME EXTENSION: SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH, RANGE 74 WEST; GENERALLY LOCATED 5 MILES NORTHWEST OF RED FEATHER LAKES OFF OF COUNTY ROAD 73C ON HURON ROAD

This is a request to extend the Preliminary approval for the Pearl Creek II Preliminary Rural Land Plan for six months beyond the 90-day extension allowed by the Rural Land Use Process. Staff findings include: 1. The Pearl Creek II Preliminary Rural Land Plan was approved April 14, 2003, with conditions; 2. The applicant is requesting a six-month time extension to submit the Final Plat, Final Development Agreement and other required submittals; 3. The proposed project is important because it is compatible with other land conservation efforts in the area. Developing through the RLUP, rather than the other development alternatives, will provide significant benefits to Larimer County. Staff recommendation is for approval of the six-month extension of the Preliminary Plan until January 12, 2005. All conditions of approval as stated in the Findings and Resolution dated April 14, 2003, continue to apply.

2. MAZZA MINOR LAND DIVISION: A PORTION OF THE E 1/2 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST; MORE SPECIFICALLY THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE COUNTY ROAD 21, BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 10 AND HIGHWAY 56

This is a request for a Minor Land Division to create 3 parcels from a 50.54 acre property. Lot 1 of the MLD will encompass the existing residence and outbuildings on the site, while Lots 2 and 3 will remain vacant until an application has been approved for development of these lots. Staff findings include: 1. The property for the proposed Mazza Minor Land Division is not part of any approved or recorded Exemptions, Minor Residential Developments, Minor Land Divisions or Subdivisions and is therefore eligible for this Minor Land Division; 2. Access to the property complies with current standards as set forth by the County Engineering Department; 3. Lots within the Mazza Minor Land Division exceed the minimum bulk requirements of the FA-1 Zoning District, and will not adversely affect properties in the neighboring area. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the following conditions and authorize the Chair to sign the plat when presented: 1. Comment received from Dale Greer of the Larimer County Engineering Department in the referral letter dated June 3, 2004 shall be addressed prior to the recordation of the Mazza Minor Land Division Plat; 2. The Final Plat shall be recorded by January 12, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.

3. AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 30A, 30B, 30C 30D & A PORTION OF 31 BLOCK 19A, HIAWATHA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION: NE 1/4 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH PM, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO

This is a request to amend the plat of Lots 30A-D, and Lot 31 Block 19A, Hiawatha Heights Subdivision, combining a total of 5 lots, into one lot. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when presented: 1. The Final Plat shall be recorded by January 12, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void; 2. Technical corrections requested by Larimer County Engineering shall be made prior to recordation of the plat.

4. EASEMENT VACATION FOR MEADOWDALE HILLS 2ND FILING LOT 64: SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 72 IN THE MEADOWDALE HILLS SUBDIVISION 2ND FILING LOT 64 SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF POLE HILL ROAD AND ALPINE DRIVE

This is a request to vacate the easement located along the front property line of Meadowdale Hills 2nd Filing Lot 64 to resolve a previous variance violation. Staff recommendation is for approval to vacate the utility easement located on the front boundary of and entirely within Lot 64 as outlined in the documentation of record in file #04-S2311.

  1. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 4 AND PART OF LOT 3 BLOCK 4, TOWN OF BELLVUE: SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH PM, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO

This is a request to amend the plat of Lot 4 and part of Lot 3, Block 4 Town of Bellvue, to reconfigure and combine two contiguous lots into one lot. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the following conditions and authorize the Chair to sign the plat when presented: 1. All conditions shall be met and the Final Plat be recorded by January 12, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void; 2. Technical corrections requested by Larimer County Engineering shall be made prior to recordation of the plat.

6. TWO LAKES SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT: N1/2 OF 25-08-68; LOCATED NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 52 AND WEST OF WELD COUNTY ROAD 13 BETWEEN HINKLEY LAKE AND COBB LAKE

This is a request for a Preliminary Plat for subdivision of a 35-acre parcel into two lots of approximately 23 acres and 12 acres. Each lot will have a 3-acre or less building envelope as required in the approved Conservation Development appeal/exception. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat of the Two Lakes Subdivision shall be completed in strict compliance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat and other information submitted by the applicant and contained in the file, #02-S1932, unless modified by the conditions of this approval; 2. The applicant shall execute a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat. This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project. The notice shall include, but is not limited to; the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for an access permits and culverts, the recommendations of the State Geological Survey (addressing foundations, groundwater, septic systems and basements), wildlife concerns and requirements, building envelopes, Kaneb Pipeline conditions for development, the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code; 3. The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings: Poudre R-1 school fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation, and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication. The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply. Prior to construction, the applicant must contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit; 4. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures in this development. Radon detection tests are required in all new residential structures on this site. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the Planning Department once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for a radon tester that specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted; 5. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations and conditions of approval outlined in the memo from Traci Downs, Larimer County Engineering Department, dated April 8, 2004; 6. The applicant provided a letter of commitment for two taps to serve the project, from the Northern Weld County Water District. The final plat submittal shall include an updated letter of commitment that must be valid at the time of final plat recordation; 7. The final plat shall show a driveway setback for Lot 2 to meet the requirements of the Colorado Geological Survey dated Jan. 6, 2004. This setback shall be tied to the property survey, clearly indicate where a driveway may be placed and that extend the entire length of the area of concern (along the deeply incised ditch inlet) from the beginning of the driveway at County Road 54 to the west property boundary. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 the applicant shall fence the area surrounding the drop inlet structure and install warning signage advising of the potential danger as outlined in the letter from Mayo Sommermeyer, The Dow Law Firm, LLC, dated March 28, 2002; 8. All wetland areas and their associated buffer areas shall be shown on the plat and tied to the property survey. In addition, the final plat submittal shall include a plan for management and use of the wetland/wildlife areas and associated buffer area. This plan must address the concerns and requirements outlined in Section 8.2.8 and 8.4.5 of the Land Use Code including a method of protecting these areas from damage due to livestock, restricting these areas from non-native plants and/or animals, requirements related to raptor nesting during construction and the maintenance of existing vegetation. All disturbed areas shall be promptly revegetated to prevent erosion and invasion of weeds; 9. The Development Agreement shall specify that if actively nesting raptors are found during the nesting season (February through July) while the property is under construction, the developer shall contact the Division of Wildlife to determine an appropriate non-disturbance zone until young are fledged; 10. The final plat submittal shall include the revised or replacement access easement agreement for the relocated access easement serving the interests of the North Poudre Irrigation Company for Hinkley Lake and the Slagle property. This agreement shall be approved by the owners of the Slagle property and the North Poudre Irrigation Company or the building envelope for Lot 1 shall be revised to exclude the existing access easement; 11. All easements shall be shown on the plat with the dimensions for each clearly defined. This shall include all easements for the ditches crossing the property by either historic easement or with an easement that meets the requirements of Section 8.8 of the Land Use Code.

7. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE RANCHO COLORADO PLANNED LAND DIVISION (PLD) PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) AND APPEALS TO SECTION 8.1.1.B TO ALLOW THE USE OF ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS, SECTION 8.1.3 OF THE LAND USE CODE (LUC) TO NOT REQUIRE A FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN AND REPORT, AND SECTION 8.1.4.B.1 TO ALLOW THE USE OF RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS RATHER THAN FIRE HYDRANTS: SE 1/4 OF 34-08-69; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH SHIELDS STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 54G

This is a request for 1. Preliminary Plat for a Planned Land Division to divide a 39.7 acre parcel into 2 lots of 18.3 acres each; 2. Rezoning from FA-Farming to PD (Planned Development) for a single-family development; 3. Appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.4., to use on site septic systems rather than public sewer; 4. Appeal to Section 8.1.3., to not require a Final Drainage Plan and Report; 5. Appeal to Section 8.1.4.B.1 to allow the use of residential sprinkler systems rather than fire hydrants. Staff recommendation is for approval of the Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat and Rezoning to Planned Development #03-S2226, and Appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.4, and Appeal to Section 8.1.3., and Appeal to Section 8.1.4.B.1 for the property described in the official file #03-S2226 subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat of the Rancho Colorado Planned Land Division shall be completed in strict compliance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat and other information submitted by the applicant and contained in the file, #03-S2226, unless modified by the conditions of this approval; 2. The applicant shall execute a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat. This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project. The notice shall include, but is not limited to; wetlands, high groundwater, that basements are not likely to be feasible, the need for engineered septic systems and foundations, use and maintenance of the platted (unbuilt) right-of-way, the requirement for an access permits and culverts, fire department requirements, rural area issues (even thought the area is within the GMA), the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code; 3. The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings: Poudre R-1 school fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation, and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication. The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply. Prior to construction, the applicant must contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit; 4. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures in this development. Radon detection tests are required in all new residential structures on this site. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the Planning Department once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for a radon tester that specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted; 5. All residential structures shall be equipped with residential fire sprinkler systems; 6. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations and comments outlined in the memo from Traci Downs, Larimer County Engineering Department, dated April 8, 2004; 7. An access permit from the Larimer County Access and Utility Coordinator shall be obtained for the shared access off of Shields Street; 8. The Final Plat submittal shall include an executed Annexation Agreement to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado; 9. Approval of the Rancho Colorado Planned Development (rezoning) application, file #03-S2226, from FA (Farming) to PD (Planned Development) subject to the following conditions (a) Development of the Rancho Colorado PLD and PD shall be consistent with the Preliminary Plat as found in file #03-S2226; (b) The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Rancho Colorado PLD and PD shall be as follows:

PD (Planned Development)

  1. Principal Uses

Agricultural.

1. Farm (R)

2. Sod farm, nursery (R)

3. Tree farm (R)

4. Greenhouse (R)

5. Garden supply center (S)

6. Commercial poultry farm (S)

7. Feedyard (S)

8. Boarding stable (S)

9. Kennel (S)

10. Fur farm (S)

11. Agricultural labor housing (S)

12. Packing facility (R)

13. Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital

(MS/S)

14. Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital

(MS/S)

Residential

15. Single-family dwelling (R)

16. Group home for developmentally disabled (R)

17. Group home for the elderly (R)

18. Group home (R)

Institutional

19. Cemetery (S)

20. Hospital (S)

21. School, public (L)

22. School, nonpublic (R/S)-See section

4.3 (use descriptions and conditions)

23. Church (R/S)-See section 4.3

24. Child/elderly care center (S)

25. Child/elderly care home (R)

26. Community hall (R/S)

27. Sheriff/fire station (L)

28. State-licensed group home (S)

Recreational

29. Golf course (S)

30. Country club (S)

31. Riding academy (S)

32. Public park, playground (L)

33. Trail/trail head (L)

Accommodation

34. Seasonal camp (S)

Industrial

35. Mining (S)

36. Oil and gas drilling and production

(R)

Utilities

37. Utility substation (L)

38. Water storage facility (L)

39. Treatment plant (L)

40. Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)-See section 16

41. Radio and television transmitters (S)

B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

1. Minimum lot size:

a. 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

b. 21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) if both public water and sewer are used.

2. Minimum setbacks:

a. Front yard-Refer to section 8.17 (supplementary regulations for setbacks from highways and county roads). The setback from an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement.

b. Side yards-five feet.

c. Rear yards-ten feet.

d. Streams, creeks and rivers-100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

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.

NOTE:

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

Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the Special Review Process described in Section 4.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code as amended.

Uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by right or require

Special Review approval based on thresholds in Section 4.3 (Use Descriptions) of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Uses followed by an (L) require review through the Location and Extent Review Process described in Section 13.0 of the Larimer County Land Use Code as amended.

10. The rezoning of this site shall not be effective unless and until the final plat of Rancho Colorado PLD and supporting documents have been approved and recorded.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as presented and outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

8. BENNETT CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT: N1/2 04-08-69: BETWEEN CR#21 & CR#19, NORTH OF THE GILMORE ACRES SUBDIVISION, AND NORTHWEST OF FT COLLINS

This is a request for a Preliminary Plat for a Conservation Development to divide a 35-acre parcel into 2 single-family residential lots plus a residual lot with a building envelope. Staff recommendation is for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Bennett Conservation Development (File #03-S2143) 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 Bennett Conservation Development; 2. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Poudre R-1 School Fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion and the Larimer County Regional Park Fee (in lieu of dedication). The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply; 3. The applicant shall provide a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat. This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project. The notice shall include, but is not limited to; the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for an access permits and culverts, the need for engineered footings and foundations, the need for engineered septic systems, the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code; 4. Engineered footings and foundations are required for new habitable construction; 5. 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; 6. The Final Plat shall include all technical corrections identified in this report or at the public hearings.

Mr. Wheeler stated that normally this would be a consent item; however, there is an issue with regards to a public right-of-way that has formally been dedicated but never built, and in the scope of this project the right-of-way will need to be improved. At the current time there are some items that have been placed within the right-of-way, such as sheds on sleds, and these items will need to be removed by the property owner that put them there. The applicant has advised the property owner that those items will need to be removed from the public right-of-way. Ms. Downs stated that there are no permanent structures within the right-of-way and they really just wanted to make this issue of public record. The applicant was not present and there was no public comment addressing this issue.

M O T I ON

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Bennett Conservation Development Preliminary Plat as recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission.

Motion carried 3-0.

9. BURDICK SANDSTONE QUARRY AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW: 31-04-70: ON SPRING GULCH ROAD NORTH OF U.S. 36 APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES NORTH OF LYONS

Mr. Karan noted that this item was previously approved, but is coming back before the Board in order to determine appropriate hauling hours for the quarry. Mr. Karan presented the Board with a letter from Barry and Lisa Burwick, neighbors of the quarry operation, which stated that they did not want quarry trucks running before 7:00 a.m. and no later than 6:00 p.m. during the weekdays and not at all on Saturday or Sunday. Chair Rennels asked what the current hours are and Mr. Karan noted that there are no limits set for hours at this point. The applicant, JC Burdick, addressed the Board stating that he would prefer the hauling hours be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Commissioner Gibson asked if there were any other businesses in the area that operated that early, and Mr. Burdick replied in the affirmative. At this time Chair Rennels opened the hearing for public comment and Mr. Little, neighbor to quarry operation, addressed the Board. Mr. Little stated that he does not notice the trucks at all and that he is very pleased that the road is now paved and the dust is controlled. Mr. Little stated that he supports the expansion and feels that it is perfectly appropriate. Eileen Yelverton addressed the Board and also said that she was not opposed to the expansion and proposed operating hours. Chair Rennels closed public comment. The Board noted that the limitation would apply only to hauling hours, and that employees could use the roads earlier or later than the hours restricted to hauling.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners amend the May 24, 2004 approval of the Burdick Amended Special Review (File # 04-Z1507) to limit hauling hours to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

Motion carried 3-0.

  1. AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE

This is a request to make a number of changes to the adopted Land Use Code. Staff findings are: 1. The proposed amendments to the Land Use Code are necessary to correct errors and to ensure consistency between various sections of the Code; 2. The proposed amendments satisfy the review criteria for changes to the text of the Land Use Code. The following are the proposed changes with the staff recommendation following each:

1. PLANNED LAND DIVISIONS AND REZONINGS TO PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

Planned Land Division (PLD) and rezoning to Planned Development (PD) are closely related concepts in the Land Use Code. The terms appear in several sections which have led to some confusion as certain sections were amended. The intent in Growth Management Areas (GMA'S) was to require a rezoning to the PD-Planned Development Zoning District any time the zoning changed or if a land division was proposed. In the Laporte Planning Area the intent was to allow land divisions that are consistent with the existing zoning and not require rezoning to PD-Planned Development. The following proposed Code amendments will alleviate any confusion about the appropriate process.

In the text below, the underlined text is new, and the crossed-out text is to be deleted.

Section 4.2.1.D.8

All divisions of land to create new lots in GMA districts shall be submitted and processed as planned land divisions (subsection 5.2), minor land divisions (subsection 5.4) or rural land plans (5.8). No division of land to create new lots in GMA Districts through the planned land division process shall be approved unless the county commissioners have approved a rezoning of the land to PD-Planned Development pursuant to subsection 4.2.1.D.6 of this code.

Section 5.2.2 Applicability

Any land division in a GMA district must be divided as a Planned Land Division, except those parcels that meet the review criteria for a Minor Land Division or are in conformance with Sec. 5.8 Rural Land Use process. A land division in the LaPorte Plan Area must be divided as a Planned Land Division if a rezoning to PD-Planned Development occurs.

All divisions of land to create new lots in the GMA district shall be submitted and processed as planned land divisions (subsection 5.2), minor land divisions (subsection 5.4) or rural land plans (subsection 5.8). Any land in the LaPorte Plan Area that has been rezoned to PD-Planned Development may only be divided through the Planned Land

Division process.

Section 5.2.3

To approve a planned land division application, county commissioners must find the following conditions exist:

    1. The planned land division complies with the applicable supplementary regulations of the GMA district or the Laporte Area Plan, as applicable.
    2. The planned land division is compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the surrounding area;
    3. The planned land division complies with all standards and technical requirements of this code and with all other federal, state and county laws and regulations; and
    4. The county commissioners have approved a rezoning of the land to PD-Planned Development.

Section 5.2.5

All planned land divisions must include a development agreement (see section 12.6 (post-approval requirements)) that specifies land uses, lot coverages, densities, improvements and other details of the development. The county commissioners will determine allowed land uses and densities based on review criteria noted above. Upon recording of the county commissioners' findings and resolution approving the planned land division, the property will be zoned PD-Planned Development, and the development agreement will be the controlling document for purposes of land use, density, improvements and other details of development. Upon recording of the final plat and development agreement for the planned land division, the rezoning to PD-Planned Development will be effective and the development agreement will be the controlling document for purposes of land use, density, improvements and other details of development.

2. DEFINITION OF SPECIAL PLACES

Several months ago we had a project under review and the neighbors brought up the issue of "Special Places". Staff noted that the definition of Special Places in the Code does not really fit with the information contained in the Parks and Open Lands Master Plan. Included below are the definition from the Land Use Code and Appendix I from the Parks Master Plan. Staff recommends a new definition for the Land Use Code that is more consistent with the Special Places Program described in the Parks Master Plan.

During work sessions with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners the only comment Staff received was that cultural sites should be included in Special Places. Staff believes that cultural sites may be suggested for designation because the Larimer County Master Plan and the Special Places Program both mention cultural sites as being eligible for designation as Special Places. Current Land Use Code Definition-Special Places. Sites and structures listed on the state and National Register of Historic Places or identified in the Larimer County Parks Comprehensive Master Plan.

Staff Recommendation:

Amend the definition of "Special Places" in the Land Use code to read, "Sites and structures listed on the state and National Register of Historic Places, identified in the Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan or designated by the Board of County Commissioners through the process specified in the Appendix I of the Open Lands Master Plan."

3. SECTION 4.7.2 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS-APPLICABILITY

Some time ago we amended the Land Use Code to eliminate Special Exceptions in the Growth Management Areas. Special Exceptions are uses that can be approved by the Board of Adjustment (such as a commercial use in one of the Agricultural zoning districts). The Planning Commission and County Commissioners decided that it was not appropriate for the Board of Adjustment to grant what amounts to a rezoning in those areas where we have an adopted land use plan. Within GMA's the guiding document for land use is the Supplementary Regulations which include guidance from the municipalities' adopted land use plan. In Laporte, land use guidance is provided by the Laporte Area Plan. Decisions regarding land use should be left to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, who are much more familiar with the land use plan than the Board of Adjustment and are more vested in seeing to it that those adopted plans are implemented. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners can make zoning decisions via the PD-Planned Development Zoning District in both GMA's and in the Laporte Plan Area.

Now that the Laporte Plan has been updated and adopted the same concept should apply to this area, as in the GMA's. Any change in use should be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners through the rezoning process rather than allowing the Board of Adjustment to grant changes in use through Special Exceptions.

Staff Recommendation is to amend Section 4.7.2 to read, "Only those uses that are not otherwise allowed in a particular zoning district may be granted through this process, except that the board of adjustment is not authorized to grant use changes (special exceptions) in a GMA district, PD-district or in the Laporte Planning Area. The board of adjustment evaluates each proposed special exception use for compliance with the review criteria in this section and the development standards that apply to all development."

The proposed amendments to the Land Use Code are necessary to correct errors and to ensure consistency between various sections of the Code. The proposed amendments satisfy the review criteria for changes to the text of the Land Use Code.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code as presented above.

Motion carried 3-0.

11. CAMPBELL ZONING VIOLATION - 03-ZV0185 - 4126 SW 14TH STREET: Ms. Delude noted that in July of 2003 a complaint was received from a neighbor with regards to, "junk cars" being stored onsite as a result of an illegal auto business. The complainant was concerned about the visual impact, the accumulation of junk and that zoning did not permit such a business use. Resulting property values due to the violations were also of concern. The neighbor is certain that there is a business operating from the parcel as she has received their mail before.

The property was inspected and found to be in violation. A 15 day letter was mailed to the owner in July of 2003. The property owner contacted staff and stated that he would address the matter. Staff explained that all vehicles onsite had to be licensed, operable and registered to that address by the occupants. In addition, the use of the parcel for an auto repair business was not permitted. Complaints continued to be received from the neighbor and the property was re-inspected on several occasions. Numerous vehicles remained onsite. A 30 day letter was mailed in August. No further contact was had with the owner.

Follow up inspections were done on several occasions and there were always numerous vehicles onsite. Because the owner had stated intentions of abating the violation another 30 day letter was mailed to the owner in November of 2003. Still no contact was made and the property remained in violation. Time passed and complaints were again received in January and March of 2004. In March of 2004 a 30 day letter was again mailed. Again no contact was made and there were numerous vehicles onsite. It seemed that there was an average of 10 vehicles on the property when inspected. In June of 2004 a BCC hearing notice was mailed to the owner regular and certified mail. The certified receipt was signed for on June 12, 2004. Staff does not have concrete evidence that there is an illegal auto business being conducted from the property. The neighbor, however, insists that there is. For this reason, the neighbor was advised to appear at today's hearing to share any known information with the Board.

Staff recommendation: 1. Find a violation exists. 2. Require compliance within 30 days. Compliance requires: a. All outdoor storage of derelict vehicles be removed from the parcel and that the property be required to remain in compliance with the Land Use Code. b. Permit 90-L5446 was issued on 3/15/90 for a 14x37 addition. The permit expired and must be renewed. Building corrections are required and final inspections must be conducted and approved by the Larimer County Building Dept. and State Electrical Board. 3. Authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

Chair Rennels asked if any of the vehicles had license plates, and Ms. Delude replied that none of the vehicles had license plates attached. Ms. Delude stated that she has spoken with the property owner and he was very adamant that there is no business being conducted at the property and that all the vehicles belong to him or his family members. The property owner was not present so the hearing was opened to public comment and Ms. Willa Arnold, neighbor to the property in question, addressed the Board stating that she believes there is a business being operated on the premises. Ms. Arnold stated that she has received their mail in error which was addressed to the business, and she has had individuals drive up here driveway looking for the business and then stating that it is next door. Ms. Arnold noted that she has witnessed 20 to 30 cars on the property at any give time. Chair Rennels asked if there have been any "For Sale" signs on the vehicles. Ms. Arnold stated that yes she has observed vehicles for sale on the property. There being no further public comment Chair Rennels turned the meeting over for discussion. Ms. Delude displayed additional photos, one of which specifically showed a vehicle for sale on the property.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists, and require compliance within 30 days. Compliance requires that all outdoor storage of derelict vehicles be removed from the parcel and that the property be required to remain in compliance with the Land Use Code. Permit 90-L5446 which was issued on 3/15/90 for a 14x37 addition must be renewed; building corrections are required and final inspections must be conducted and approved by the Larimer County Building Department and State Electrical Board. Legal action is authorized if the deadline is not met.

Motion carried 3-0.

12. WILLSON ZONING VIOLATION - 03-ZV0252 - 3009 SWING STATION WAY: Ms. Delude noted that in October of 2003 a complaint was received via the County web page with regards to, "junk cars, miscellaneous pieces of scrap steel and other trash laying in the front and back yard". The complainant was concerned with the neighbor's property being an eyesore and the resulting value of his property due to the violations.

The property was inspected and found to be in violation. Research showed a previous zoning violation for junk and trash from 1996 as well as building code violations from 1994 (expired permit). A 15 day letter was mailed to the owner. No contact was made by the owner to staff. A 30 day letter was then mailed. The owner did call staff at that time and stated she was handicapped and unable to clean up the property. She was brief and not willing to discuss the matter. Complaints continued to be received from the neighbor, via email. Staff responded and mentioned the fact that the owner had stated she was handicapped. This was done with the hope that the neighbors might step in and assist the property owner in cleaning up the parcel. The neighbor e-mailed staff and stated that the owner was not handicapped. Staff has been unable to confirm the truth, as the property owner is seldom home. The neighbor believes this parcel is vacant and the owner resides elsewhere.

The owner did proceed to clean up the parcel in early 2004. She moved some loose miscellaneous items behind the chain link fence in the backyard. Although an effort was made, the items remained visible to the general public from the street. It appeared the owner was attempting to hide the items behind trash cans. Various inspections were done through May of 2004. At that time, most of the items visible to the general public had been removed or relocated although it was hard to determine if the storage was new items or old items as there was snow during the previous winter inspections. However, the owner still had one derelict vehicle in the front yard which was an eyesore for the neighbors.

A hearing notice was mailed to the owner via regular and certified mail on May 10, 2004. The property owner did sign the certified receipt on May, 14, 2004. Currently, the vehicle is located in the backyard; however, it is still visible from the public right of way. 2002 aerials also show more than one car in the back yard. Staff recommendation: 1. Find a violation exists. 2. Require compliance within 30 days. Compliance requires that all outdoor storage of trash/junk and all derelict vehicles be removed from the parcel and that the property be required to remain in compliance. 3. Compliance also requires that the property owner renew building permit 94-F7709 for a 30 x 24 detached garage. Plumbing, electrical, framing, and final building inspections must also be conducted and approved. 4. Authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

Chair Rennels asked for public comment. No one addressed the Board for public comment.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and require compliance within 30 days. Compliance requires that all outdoor storage of trash/junk and all derelict vehicles be removed from the parcel and that the property be required to remain in compliance. Compliance also requires that the property owner renew building permit 94-F7709 for a 30 x 24 detached garage. Plumbing, electrical, framing, and final building inspections must also be conducted and approved. Legal action is authorized if the deadline is not met.

Motion carried 3-0.

The hearing recessed at 3:45 p.m.

WEST NILE SPRAYING HEARING AND

LAND USE HEARING

(#83)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:00 p.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Bender were present. Also present were: Dr. Adrienne LeBailly and Jerry Blehm, Health Department; Deni La Rue, Commissioners Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

Chair Rennels noted that this hearing was in response to the West Nile Virus (WNV) incidents that have already occurred in Larimer County this year. Dr. LeBailly presented an update for the Board, explaining that there are concerning indicators of a bad West Nile Virus year for Larimer County again in 2004; she noted that as of Thursday, July 8, five human cases of WNV had been identified in Larimer County. Dr. LeBailly stated that although Culex mosquitoes trapped so far in 2004 have been relatively low in number, those numbers are likely to mount quickly as adult mosquitoes emerge much more rapidly in the recent hot weather.

Dr. LeBailly stated that on June 22, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners gave the Health Department the guidance to focus on urban density, unincorporated areas of Larimer County for developing plans for adult mosquito spraying should the Board of Health trigger threshold be reached. She further noted that at this time the department has attempted to estimate the maximum cost of truck-based spraying for such areas, primarily adjacent to cities where mosquito spraying may occur, to maximize the benefit and minimize the cost of such control efforts. Dr. LeBailly stated that if rounds of truck-based spraying were to begin the week of July 12 and continue with a 2-spray round every two weeks through the first week of September, the estimated cost would be $200,000. This spraying schedule is presented to allow for cost estimates regarding spraying; ideally the actual spraying needed and cost would be less than that amount. However, expanding the proposed control areas or using aerial instead of truck based spraying could increase costs.

Dr. LeBailly requested the Board approve funding of up to $200,000 for truck-based mosquito control for unincorporated areas of the county for 2004. She stated this would help protect Larimer County residents and achieve both better economies of scale and better control by coordinating spraying with the adjacent cities. Dr. LeBailly explained that spraying at this time of the year is likely to be much more effective than the late spraying done last year and that most Larimer County residents support mosquito spraying when recommended by public health authorities to control disease. Dr. LeBailly further explained that some people who are not in the recommended spray areas will be upset that their residences will not be sprayed, and others oppose mosquito spraying under any circumstances.

At this time Chair Rennels opened the hearing for public comment and Yvonne Longacre, Willow Clemmens, Ramone Ajero, and Carol from Fort Collins addressed the Board with concerns regarding the potentially dangerous health safety and environmental issues that can surface when using pesticides or insecticides to control mosquitoes. All felt that spraying would cause more harm than good, and believed that citizens should have a right to "opt out" of being sprayed. Ms. Longacre strongly encouraged the Board to look at Dr. Leonard Horwitz's website as she believes that it would shed light on the harmful effects to humans of spraying chemicals to control West Nile Virus.

Under discussion of the item Chair Rennels noted that Larimer County should take precautionary measures on behalf of the citizens to control mosquitoes carrying the West Nile Virus. Commissioner Gibson noted that he had been personally affected by the effects of West Nile Virus when a family member became infected in 2003 and he would support spraying as an effort to lessen this disease in humans. Commissioner Bender concurred.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Health Department's request for funding of up to $200,000 for truck-based mosquito control for unincorporated areas of Larimer County for 2004.

Motion carried 3-0.

At this time Rob Helmick, Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Planning Department; Christie Coleman, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney, joined the meeting for the Land Use Hearing.

1. MCDONALD SUBDIVISION APPEAL - 04-G0061: Ms. Ponce-Pore explained that this is an appeal to Section 8.8.4.F of the Larimer County Land Use Code which states that "The applicant is responsible for any and all reasonable costs for engineering, surveying, and legal services incurred on behalf of a ditch owner as a result of the development proposal". Ms. Ponce-Pore described the background of this appeal, noting that Mr. McDonald has submitted an application for subdivision of his property; his neighbor, Mr. Geiger, has a ditch easement which traverses Mr. McDonald's property from north to south along the western boundary of Mr. McDonald's property. Mr. McDonald's subdivision application reflects proposed changes to the easement as well as changes to the ditch structures. Mr. Geiger has retained legal counsel to review these documents and asserts that this was done to assure that his rights are protected as per the ditch easement agreement. Additionally, there are issues regarding an existing fence which may or may not be owned by Mr. McDonald, but has been assumed until recently to belong to Mr. McDonald. Mr. Geiger has stated that this fence appears to affect the function of his ditch, causing it to leak water. The fence and its affect on the ditch's functionality has been an issue since before the subdivision application. However, with the application, the potential to resolve this issue has been explored; the part of this issue that has been researched and reviewed by Mr. Geiger's attorney has added to the total cost of the legal bills. Mr. Geiger has retained legal counsel to review this matter of the fence as a part of the larger concern over this ditch easement. He has submitted copies of the total legal fees he has incurred and has requested that Mr. McDonald pay all the submitted bills in accordance with Section 8.8.4.F of the Land Use Code.

Ms. Ponce-Pore noted that Mr. McDonald asserts that the existing ditch agreement does not preclude anything he has proposed in his subdivision application, and legal counsel was not needed by Mr. Geiger. In his appeal request, Mr. McDonald states, "...Mr. Geiger's legal rights are addressed and protected by County Regulation and the current easement agreement of 1984. No changes to the easement are proposed or required, except the expansion of the width of the easement as required by the county, which Mr. Geiger has the right to refuse. Therefore, no legal services on behalf of Mr. Geiger are required as a result of the development, and the applicant should not be required to pay for legal services that Mr. Geiger deems necessary."

Staff had requested that the submitted legal bills be itemized in order to determine what portion of the bills are a result of the subdivision request, and what portion should be allocated to issues that would exist absent the development request. Mr.Geiger believes that all the legal bills apply; Mr. McDonald states that the Land Use Code and the Easement agreement adequately protect Mr. Geiger, and legal counsel was not required. The applicant has voiced a further concern that, as required, he has no recourse or control over the total amount of legal bills that he may have to pay, or for what service those legal bills were submitted.

Staff is of the opinion that the Code provides little guidance for resolving this issue; there is no definition of "reasonable costs" and the legal bills submitted are not adequately detailed enough to provide information regarding how the time billed was spent. Further, in order to review that level of detail, it may compromise the client/attorney privilege. At this time, Staff is unable to determine reasonable costs or to move forward to hearing with the subdivision application until this issue is resolved. After many months of trying Planning Staff is not able to mediate or resolve this issue to the satisfaction of both parties.

The applicant Brian McDonald addressed the Board noting that he has made a good faith effort to work this issue out with his neighbor but to no avail. Mr. McDonald stated that he hired an attorney, and had his engineer draw up an agreement regarding the ditch, and presented different options with regard to maintaining the ditch. Mr. McDonald stated that he feels that he has no protection against "frivolous" claims and does not believe that he should pay for Mr. Geiger's legal fees as the provision in the Land Use Code was intended for ditch companies, more so than land owners that already have easement agreements in place. Some discussion ensued regarding the fence line that runs next to the ditch, whether or not it belonged to Mr. McDonald and whether or not it should be moved.

Gerald Geiger, neighbor to Mr. McDonald, addressed the Board noting that there is past history with Mr. McDonald regarding a previous lawsuit in which Mr. McDonald wanted to make a private road in their area public. Mr. Geiger stated that because of this past history, he wanted everything in writing that had to do with Mr. McDonald's subdivision proposal, and with the ditch maintenance and ownership and possible realignment of the fence. Mr. Geiger stated that once Mr. McDonald presented him with the engineering agreement, he had every right to hire an attorney for legal advice.

At this time Chair Rennels opened the meeting for public comment and Mike Urban, also neighbor to Mr. McDonald, addressed the Board stating that all the adjoining properties in the area are irrigated, and that their rights to farm and ranch need to be protected. Mr. Urban noted that Mr. McDonald has no interest in the agricultural aspect of their area and he is letting his property fall apart. Mr. Urban displayed pictures for the Board of Mr. McDonald's property which revealed noxious weeds that are not being controlled and are damaging their area. Roger Seat addressed the Board noting that the section of the Land Use Code which allows reimbursement for legal fees is not just for ditch companies or for those individuals that do not have easement agreements. Mr. Seat agreed that once Mr. McDonald presented a contract to Mr. Geiger, Mr. Geiger had the right to hire an attorney. At this point Chair Rennels closed public comment.

During the applicant rebuttal Mr. McDonald explained that the fence is 2 inches outside his property line and there is now some issue as to ownership of the fence. Stanley Dunn, Engineer for the applicant, noted that they did conduct a brief study to determine how realignment of the fence could work, and he reiterated that they made a good faith effort to work with Mr. Geiger. At this point a member of the audience wished to address the Board.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners re-open public comment.

Motion carried 3-0.

Mr. Urban asked for clarification of the fence and whether or not it belongs to the road owners. Mr. McDonald stated that he is still claiming ownership of the fence at this time. Mr. Seat explained that the fence is not the issue and stated again that Mr. McDonald should pay the legal fees for Mr. Geiger as per Section 8.8.4.F of the Land Use Code. Chair Rennels again closed public comment.

Commissioner Bender stated that Mr. McDonald should pay the legal fees as he agrees that Mr. Geiger had the right to hire an attorney and stated that he would deny the appeal. Commissioner Gibson stated that water and the viability of the ditch is so very important and noted that he would also support denial of the appeal. Chair Rennels stated that the section of the Land Use Code in question was not written specifically for ditch owners and that it does pertain in this situation and she would also support denial of the appeal.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the appeal of Mr. McDonald requesting that he not be required to pay Mr. Geiger's attorney fees be denied.

Motion carried 3-0.

The hearing adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2004

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#84)

The Board of County Commissioners met in regular session at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioner Gibson was present. Also present were: Donna Hart, Deni La Rue, and Melinda Keen, Commissioners Office; Candace Phippen, Building Inspections; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

1. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 5, 2004:

Chair Rennels requested that approval of the Minutes be tabled until Commissioner Bender returns, and noted that she also needs to speak to the County Clerk prior to approval of the Minutes.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table approval of the Minutes for the week of July 5, 2004.

Motion carried 2-0.

3. CONSENT AGENDA:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as listed on the consent agenda for July 13, 2004:

07132004A001 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR OVERLAND PONDS SPECIAL REVIEW BY AND AMONG THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; LAFARGE WEST INC.; ALVIN G. & FLORENCE TREIBER; MARK A. LINDER; JAMES S. WARSON; KENNETH C. HILT; AND JOSEPH S. & DANIEL A. GLASS

07132004A002 LANDFILL ENGAGEMENT MEMO OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND GRANT THORNTON LLP.

07132004A003 WARRANTY MEMORANDUM FOR COLONY RIDGE ESTATES SECOND SUBDIVISION 97-SU0993 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND GALLERY HOMES INC., AND COLONY RIDGE ESTATES SECOND SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

07132004A004 AGREEMENT FOR STARS PROGRAM AND SERVICES BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND MARSH USA INC.

07132004R001 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REFEREES TO CONDUCT HEARINGS ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

07132004R002 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PARTIAL RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR COLONY RIDGE ESTATES SECOND SUBDIVISION

MISCELLANEOUS: Appointment of District Attorney Richard Hosley; Appointment of District Attorney Timothy Roy; Juvenile Community Review Board Bylaws.

LIQUOR LICENSES: Approval and issuance was granted to the following establishments: City Limit Liquor, Fort Collins, Retail Liquor Store.

Motion carried 2-0.

4. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 19, 2004: Ms. Hart reviewed the schedule with the Board.

5. APPOINTMENTS TO THE JUVENILE COMMUNITY REVIEW BOARD: Ms. Keen noted that interviews for have been conducted and recommended the following individuals be appointed to the Juvenile Community Review Board: Kelly Amen, appointment for a two-year term expiring June 30, 2006; Ruth Carrothers, reappointment for a three-year term expiring June 30, 2007; Larry Abrahamson, Bernadette Felix, Jim Gault and Mark Mettler, reappointments (with waivers of term limits), for a three-year term expiring June 30, 2007.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments to the Juvenile Community Review Board as recommended above.

Motion carried 2-0.

6. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster explained that since The Ranch began operation there has been an issue with water rights in making sure that there were enough shares of the right type so that water would be available when necessary. He informed the Board that there is a need for the county to trade five shares of Louden Ditch water rights, for five shares of Louden Extension water rights, so that The Ranch would have the ability to water late into the season. Mr. Lancaster requested authorization from the Board to sign the documents relevant to this issue once they are prepared.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Manager to sign the documents pertaining to the trade of five shares of Louden Ditch water rights for five shares of Louden Extension water rights once they are prepared and ready for signature.

Motion carried 2-0.

Mr. Lancaster explained there is a new law recently enacted which allows retail liquor stores to host "tastings" of alcoholic beverages on their licensed premises. Mr. Lancaster noted that the local licensing authority would need to pass an ordinance to allow these tastings to occur. Some discussion ensued regarding this issue with Chair Rennels stating that she believes it would be a good idea to tie the tastings to the special event application process, as this would allow for betting monitoring, and would address such issues as adequate parking and checking for proper identification of patrons. The Board directed Mr. Lancaster to work with the County Attorney on this issue and link it to the Special Events process.

7. LEGAL MATTERS: Ms. Haag and Ms. Phippen presented the Board with a Notice of Satisfaction pertaining to the building permit for Lynn Demaranville. Ms. Phippen stated that the issues surrounding the electrical requirements have been resolved and they are ready to issue a certificate of occupancy.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chair to sign the Notice of Satisfaction for Lynn Demaranville.

Motion carried 2-0.

8. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: The Board noted their attendance at events during the previous week.

The meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m., with no further action taken.

___________________________________

KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

(S E A L)

A T T E S T

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk