MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, APRIL 18, 2005
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Wagner and Gibson were present. Also present were: Claudia Delude, Zoning Enforcement; Al Kadera, Porter Ingrum, Matt Lafferty, and David Karan, Planning Department; Roxann Hayes, Engineering Department; David Ayraud, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics. Mr. Helmick requested removal of items #1 and #2, concerning the Pleasant Acres 2nd Filing block 5, Lots 3-5 Amended Plat, and the South Moffett Park 1st Filing Lots 22 and 23 Amended Plat; he explained that these items will be coming back before the Board at a future date. Chair Rennels noted that staff is recommending that item #3 be tabled in order to resolve some engineering issues.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table item #3, Mary's Lake Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat, to May 16, 2005, at 3:00 p.m.
Motion carried 3-0.
Chair Rennels then explained that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
4. CALABRESE CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT; 04-S2267: This request is for a Preliminary Plat for a 3 lot Conservation Development on 35 acres, which development will include 80% residual land in 2 residual lots. On March 16, 2005, the Development Services Team presented the Preliminary Plat for the Calabrese Conservation Development to the Planning Commission as a consent agenda item. No public testimony regarding the Calabrese Conservation Development was offered; therefore, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to approve this three lot Conservation Development as recommended by the Development Services Team. The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Preliminary Plat for the Calabrese Conservation Development (04-S2267), as recommended by the Larimer County Planning Commission: 1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Calabrese Conservation Development (File #04-S2267) 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 Calabrese Conservation Development. 2. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Regional Park fees (in lieu of dedication). The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 3. Calabrese Lane shall be designed and constructed to extend to the northern property line of the development site. 4. 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. 5. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall define the uses allowed within each of the residual lots and identify building envelopes necessary for any support buildings. 6. Residential dwellings for Lots 2 and 3 shall be required unless an acceptable alternative to fire protection is approved by the Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau. 7. Engineered footings and foundations may be required for new habitable construction. Engineering for any new residential and/or septic system construction shall be done in consideration of the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey as outlined in the letter from Celia Greenman dated January 10, 2005. 8. The applicant shall execute a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat. This notice shall 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 not be limited to, the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the recommendations of the State Geological Survey (addressing foundations), 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. 9. During the Final Plat process the applicant shall address and resolve all the technical issues found in the following referral letters: Larimer County Engineering Department by Roxann Hayes dated January 5, 2005.
5. SOUTH NOKOMIS LAKE SUBDIVISION BLOCK 25, LOTS 1-3 LOT CONSOLIDATION; 05-S2408: This request is to amend S. Nokomis Lake Subdivision in order to combine Lots 1-3 into one building lot. No objections to this proposal have been received from any of the surrounding neighbors. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team. The proposed Lot Consolidation of S. Nokomis Lake Block 25 Lots 1-3 will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code. The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation for S. Nokomis Lake Subdivision Block 25 Lots 1-3 (#05-S2408) subject to the following conditions: 1. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots. 2. All conditions shall be met and the final executed deed and resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by October 18, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.
6. PERRY EASEMENT VACATION; 05-S2403: This is a request for an easement vacation of six feet in order to vacate a portion of the rear utility easement to resolve an illegal encroachment from the garage. This application was forwarded to the appropriate departments and agencies for comment. The responses from the majority of these groups reveal that there are no other issues of concern. The Building Department has indicated that the applicant will need to cut back a portion of the carport to meet minimum setback requirements. Two metal sheds will also be required to be removed from the backyard. The Building Department has requested a condition of approval that the applicant must apply for a building permit within 90 days of the approval of this application. The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Perry Easement Vacation File #05-S2403, a request to vacate six feet of the rear utility easement to resolve an illegal encroachment from an existing garage as outlined in the attached documentation and subject to the following condition: 1. Within 90 days of the approval for this easement vacation, the applicant must apply for a building permit.
7. SHYANNE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNED LAND DIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT; 03-S2108: This is a proposal to divide the 14.45-acre Lot 2 of the Hirsch Family Trust Minor Residential Division (MRD) into four single-family residential lots through the Planned Land Division (PLD) process. The property is located between Horseshoe and Boyd Lakes on the west side of County Road 11C. It is located within the Loveland GMA. This PLD would create two lots fronting on Horseshoe Lake with a shared lake access. A 100’ buffer would otherwise protect the lake shore. Two lots would have no lake access. This proposal was heard by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2005 as a Consent item. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Specific parameters for rezoning are included in Development Services Team recommendations. There are three components to this proposal: 1. An Appeal of Section 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County Land Use Code which requires connectivity to adjacent parcels. The parcel to the north is less than 4 acres in size and therefore has minimal development potential. If desirable, connectivity to the south should have been platted with the Minor Residential Development. For these reasons, Engineering and Planning Staff support the appeal of the connectivity standards. 2. The Planned Land Division (PLD). The proposed four-lot land division is consistent with zoning and with Larimer County’s and Loveland’s Master Plans. It meets all of the relevant Larimer County Land Use Code Review Criteria and standards. 3. Rezoning to Planned Development (PD) is required when a Planned Development takes place outside the LaPorte Planning Area (according to Section 5.2.5 of the LCLUC). The specific proposed rezoning is consistent with the underlying zoning and with the zoning shown in Loveland’s Master Plan for the area. Rezoning to PD also meets all of the other criteria for approval. The Planning Commission and Development Services Teams recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the Appeal to LCLUC Section 8.14.2.S.
The Planning Commission and Development Services Teams recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Shyanne Planned Land Division with the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Shyanne PLD/PD (File #03-S2108). The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Shyanne PLD/PD. 2. Engineered foundations are required for new habitable construction on this site as recommended by the Colorado Geologic Survey. A letter from a Professional Engineer/professional land surveyor will be required to verify that the finished floor elevation or minimum opening for a lot is 4980’ or higher before a Certificate of Occupancy for that lot will be issued. 3. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures on these lots. The results of a radon detection test 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 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. 4. The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings. Thompson R-2 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion (TCEFs), Larimer County Regional Park Fee (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fee. The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. Both the Development Agreements and the Disclosure Affidavits will reference this requirement. The County Engineer’s office also requires a Developmental Construction Permit, prior to commencing development construction. 5. The applicant shall execute a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat. This notice shall 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 not be limited to, restrictions on uses allowed in the lake shore buffer, the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for any access permits and culverts, the recommendations of the State Geological Survey (addressing foundations), building envelopes, 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. 6. A final drainage plan shall be submitted with the Final Plat application. 7. All residential structures shall be sprinklered. 8. A mitigation plan for disturbance of vegetation along the Horseshoe Lake shoreline due to construction and use of boat access from Lots 3 and 4 shall be approved by the Planning Department as part of the Final Plat Review process.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Shyanne Rezoning to PD below with the condition that such rezoning shall not be in effect until recording of the Development Agreement, Final Plat and Disclosure notice for the Shyanne PLD.
PD - Planned Development
A. Principal Uses: Residential
1. Principle uses:
a. Single-family dwelling (R)
b. Group home for the developmentally disabled (R)
c. Group home for the elderly (R)
d. Group home (R)
B. Lot, Building and Structure Requirements:
1. Minimum Lot Size:
a. 2.0 acres
b. All buildings must be located within the platted building envelopes except as specified in 4.a. below.
c. Septic systems may be located anywhere on the lot except:
1) Septic systems must be set back at least 25’ from the centerline of the piped irrigation ditch.
2) Septic systems must also be located outside the “non-building buffer area” and the “wetland buffer area”.
2. Minimum Setbacks: As indicated by building envelopes shown on the Preliminary Plat.
a. Front Yard:
1) Lots 2 & 3 = 25’
2) Lots 1 & 4 = 125’ from the centerline of the platted right-of-way for North County Road 11C.
b. Side Yard and Rear: according to the platted building envelopes.
3. Maximum Structure Height: 40’ from the top of foundation, measured at the front of the house.
4. Accessory Buildings
a. One accessory building will be allowed within the “building envelope for accessory use” for the purpose of boat storage and other purposes clearly incidental to that purpose. Any such building shall be limited to the use of the owners of Lots 2 & 3 and only if any applicable surface rights are owned or obtained.
b. No lot can be used for more than one principal building; except as specified in 4.a. above. Additional buildings on a lot are allowed within the platted building envelopes if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. SHULTZ ZONING VIOLATION; 04-ZV0405: This is an alleged violation of Section 6.0 of the Larimer County Land Use Code for failure to complete site plan review prior to a change in use in the C-Commercial zoning district (church converted into car lot). In September 2004, a complaint was received from the Larimer County Engineering Department concerning this property. The complaint indicated that State right of way had been paved over as a result of a potential change of use. The original use of the parcel was for a church. An inspection showed that the new owner/occupant had intentions of operating a car sales lot. Shortly thereafter, C-DOT called to inquire as to the use and requested information about any approvals the owner/occupant may have had. A 15-day letter was mailed on October 6, 2004 advising him of the potential violation. No contact was made to staff. A 30 day letter was then mailed on November 3, 2004. The owner did then call staff and was referred to Matt Lafferty, Planner II to discuss the Site Plan Review process. The owner did state intentions of following through with an application, however, to date, none has been submitted. A hearing was scheduled for 1-24-05. The owner did appear, traveling from New Mexico, and requested additional time for compliance. He stated his son lived locally and would be handling the Site Plan Review process. The matter was then tabled to 4-18-05. Prior to the last hearing, the owner had erected a sign, made improvements to the property/structure and had brought cars onsite (to be sold). There was no sign/price tag on the vehicles. An inspection conducted 4-1-05 showed there were cars onsite for sale, labeled with large pricing numbers in the windows. In addition, the structure was being re-painted. Staff was very clear with the owner that no auto sales could occur prior to an application being submitted. C-DOT is also concerned about the owner complying with their regulations. They have issues with the apron/parking area he made along the frontage road. To date he has not complied with their requests either. Staff recommendation is as follows: 1. Find that a violation exists. 2. Require compliance within 30 days. 3. Compliance requires that: A complete application is submitted for Site Plan Review; The commercial use of the parcel cease until the car lot use is approved. 4. Authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.
Ms. Delude noted that the property owner is present and has hired an engineering firm to perform the site plan review. Ms. Delude presented some photos of the property and stated that the owners have indicated their intention to bring the property into compliance. Eric Shultz, son of the property owner James Shultz, addressed the Board and noted that they have hired an engineering firm to take care of this issue; however, he has since discovered that things were not progressing very quickly. Chair Rennels asked if Mr. Shultz would be able to meet the 30 day requirement for submitting an application for site plan review. Mr. Shultz stated that he believed they could meet that requirement. Commissioner Wagner asked about the right-of-way requirements as they relate to the CDOT concerns. Mr. Shultz explained that the engineering firm was hired to address this, and if it is determined that it is not allowed to pave in the right-of-way, then he will take corrective action and adhere to CDOT's requirements. Chair Rennels stated that she would like to ensure that this project is carried out to completion in a reasonable time period and asked that this be included in the compliance conditions.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists with regards to the Shultz Zoning Violation, file #04-ZV0405, and require compliance within 30 days. Compliance requires that a complete application is submitted for Site Plan Review; that the project is completed within a reasonable period of time; and that the commercial use of the parcel cease until the car lot use is approved. In addition, legal action is authorized if the deadline is not met.
Motion carried 3-0.
9. LANDERS ZONING VIOLATION; 01-ZV0132, 03-ZV0095: Alleged violations of the Larimer County Land Use Code include: 1. A junkyard, by definition, is not a permitted use in the o-open zoning district; and 2. Outside storage of junk and debris, is not a permitted use in the o-open zoning district. In July of 2001, a complaint was received regarding a salvage/junkyard located on Hwy. 402, in Loveland. The property was inspected from an adjacent parcel and was found to be in violation. The property is 29.75 acres in size and is used for residential purposes. Observed on the property were many various piles of, junk, trash, building materials, wood, farm implements and other miscellaneous items. The owner was mailed a 5 day letter. Holly Landers responded and stated that her husband had a construction company and some of the materials were for that, and therefore not junk. The code was explained to her and she stated intentions of trying to clean up the property. A follow up inspection was conducted and little progress had been made. Staff did grant more time for compliance as there was a lot of junk to clean up. As time passed, things appeared to move around, but not necessarily get removed from the parcel. On July 4, 2003, a fire destroyed the greenhouse type structure. At the time of the fire, it was actually used for storage rather than as a greenhouse. Since the fire, the property has remained in violation. It is an eyesore to the general public as it is on Hwy. 402 in Loveland, the entrance to the south side of Loveland. Letters continued to be mailed to the owner in 2003 and 2004. Because little correspondence was had with the owners and more than ample time has been given for compliance, the matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners as a zoning violation. Research shows that this property was also in violation in 1995. Staff findings are as follows: 1) The subject property is zoned FA-Farming; 2) The FA-Farming Zoning District does not permit junk yards; 3) The condition and unsightliness of the property may affect property values in the immediate neighborhood; 4) Only a small amount of improvement of the property has occurred in the last year in terms of cleaning up the place. Staff recommendation is to find that a violation exists, require compliance within 60 days, and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.
Ms. Delude stated that this issue has been going on for quite some time and that she has visited the site, but cannot tell if the items are being removed from the site or if they are just being moved around the property. Property owner Doug Landers addressed the Board and explained that they have hauled off approximately 35 roll-off dumpsters of trash and debris from their property; however, this is very costly and the financial burden is definitely been a factor in their efforts to clean up the property. Commissioner Gibson questioned the mobile homes that are located on the premises and whether or not building permits need to be issued for them. Mr. Landers stated that one has been removed, and the others are not being used at this point. Much discussion ensued regarding how long the clean up efforts could take, whether or not the Landers could utilize salvage companies as a possibility for hauling some of the items away, and which uses are allowed on the property. The Board requested Ms. Delude to work with the property owners and develop a plan of action and a timeline for cleaning up the property, and to address the zoning and building compliance issues.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Landers Zoning Violation, file #01-ZV0132, 03-ZV0095, to May 23, 2005, at 3:00 p.m., in order to give staff time to work with the property owners to develop a plan of action for compliance in the above stated issues.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting recessed at 3:40 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Wagner were present. Also present were: Karin Madson, Planning Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; David Ayraud, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
1. CENTENNIAL FARM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT; 03-S2207: This is a request for approval of a Conservation Development Land Division to create 56 lots including 3 residential residual land parcels on 328 acres. At a public hearing on March 16, 2005 the Larimer County Planning Commission considered the Centennial Farms Conservation Development preliminary plat to allow the creation of 53 two-acre minimum lots, three residential residual lots of 35-70 acres (with residential building envelopes of at least 2 acres), and several common area residual parcels and outlots. The total development area consists of 161 acres; approximately 167 acres will be used as Residual Land and/or outlots. The item was initially on the consent agenda, but was moved to the discussion agenda at the request of neighboring property owners and the Planning Commission. The minutes of this meeting are attached. Items for discussion included wetland/wildlife concerns, drainage questions, trail and lighting concerns and concerns related to potential access to the Road 23E alignment (not a County Road) as follows: 1. Wetland/Wildlife concerns. A neighboring property owner expressed concern regarding the protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat on the site. Staff responded that applicant had provided a number of environmental studies to address these concerns. In addition, the applicant has responded to the concerns of the Development Services Review Team (DSRT) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and modified their development plans accordingly. The Army Copy of Engineers accepted the applicant’s wetland delineation and the applicant has provided wetland buffers consistent with County Land Use Code requirements. 2. Drainage questions. A planning commission member had questions regarding drainage along the southern portion of the property. A neighboring property owner had questions regarding the water entering the property through an existing small culvert. The applicant’s representative responded to both questions and explained some drainage information for the property. 3. Trail concerns. A planning commission member expressed concern with the Development Services Review Team condition requiring signage to close a portion of the trail to address nesting raptor concerns. The Planning Commissioner asked whether the trail could be moved further from the raptor nest. The applicant replied that they would examine relocation of the trail. 4. Lighting concerns. A planning commission member questioned whether the applicant would be using covenants regarding minimum outdoor lighting. The applicant responded that covenants would address this issue. 5. Access issues. Neighboring property owners and planning commission members expressed concern over connectivity along the Road 23E alignment and access to two areas of the conservation development along this western boundary of the property. The main concerns relate to access to what is known as the County Road 23E alignment. The status of this “road” is that it is not publicly dedicated or maintained as a County Road. It is purported to be a series of private access easements serving the 35 acre parcels west of the alignment. There were questions regarding the two access points along this alignment, including access to the 35 acre Residual Lot A in the southwest corner of the property and a full or emergency access (Prairie Way) on the western portion of the developed area that could extend to the Road 23E alignment should it ever be accepted as County right-of-way or an emergency access adjacent to this private road easement to serve only the development.
In response to the questions and concerns raised, staff and the applicant explained a number of alternatives that were generated to comply with County Land Use Code standards.
a. Residual Lot A Access. Access to the 35 acre Residual Lot A could either be from the Road 23E alignment should the road issues be resolved and the alignment become a publicly dedicated right-of-way or via a driveway from the previously platted right-of-way through West Hill Estates. Neighboring property owners had questions regarding the West Hill Estates access since it is not currently constructed. If this alternative is used for access the applicant will be responsible for constructing the driveway from the finished roadway section in West Hill Estates to Residual Lot A. The owner of Residual Lot A would also be responsible for their share of the road maintenance costs for the roads within West Hill Estates. A neighboring property owner from this subdivision sent an email outlining their concerns (refer to the email from Brenda Bissell-Morey, dated March 23, 2005)
b. Prairie Way Access. The applicant provided a number of alternatives to address a second access to the developed area along the western portion of the property from Prairie Way as shown on the preliminary plat. Access could be either to the Road 23E alignment should it be constructed and accepted as a full County right-of-way (this could be a full second access) or via an emergency access within the right-of-way to be dedicated with this project (adjacent to the existing private road easement). The emergency access would be entirely on the applicant’s property, running approximately parallel to the private road easement. The emergency access would be gated to prevent unauthorized traffic. The applicant provided additional “back-up plans” which include shifting the “Prairie Way” and emergency access to the north or the provision of a full second point of access directly onto County Road 8E. While Staff supported shifting the location of Prairie Way at the Planning Commission hearing, the DSRT would now recommend that they be not included in the current DSRT recommendation because they provide a less desirable potential connectivity pattern.
During Staff’s initial review of this project, Staff requested that the applicant address connectivity along this alignment and, if possible, provide a full access to the development from this alignment. For a planning standpoint, Staff considered this an opportunity to provide a second point of access, coordinate planning efforts associated with the construction of the Dry Creek reservoir and address outstanding issues associated with this private road easement. However, there were a number of unresolved concerns over the responsibility for construction and maintenance of the road (only a portion borders this property), as well as other off site improvements that may also be necessary (for example the intersection at County Road 23 and the Road 6 alignment (another road that is not a dedicated and maintained County Road). Ultimately, Engineering and Road and Bridge Departments were not supportive of the County’s acceptance of this road due to the unresolved construction and maintenance issues. After the Planning Commission hearing a number of adjacent property owners (refer to their letter dated March 25, 2005) submitted a letter suggesting that the County should accept this road alignment as public right-of-way, that it be constructed and maintained in conjunction with the Little Thompson Dry Creek reservoir project and that it ultimately be maintained by the County. Each of the property owners has agreed to dedicate right-of-way for this proposal in conjunction with this development and the reservoir project to facilitate this solution. At the time of writing this Staff report the Engineering Department was in the process of scheduling a meeting to discuss the neighbor’s proposal regarding the Road 23E alignment. The issue will continue to be addressed separately from this project. This project as proposed includes the dedication of 30 feet of right-of way along the entire western property boundary and provides for the possibility of a connection to this road alignment. It is the opinion of the DSRT that the applicant has meet/has the ability to meet the requirements of the Land Use Code with the proposed improvement scenarios. The Development Services Team recommends that the following Planning Commission recommendation be approved with one modification to condition number 10 as outlined below.
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Centennial Farms Conservation Development (File #03-S2207) 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 Centennial Farms Conservation Development.
2. The applicant shall execute a Disclosure Notice 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: rural and agricultural issues, fees, building envelopes, fire department requirements, requirements for engineered footings and foundations, requirements and costs associated with 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.
3. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Regional Park Fee (in lieu of dedication). The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.
4. Fire Requirements – The final construction plans shall be designed to be capable of providing a water supply that meets the requirements of the Berthoud Fire Protection district. Specifically, fire hydrants shall be capable of flowing at 1000 GPM with a 20 Psi residual pressure. Hydrants shall be spaced at no less than 600 feet apart unless a greater distance is approved by the fire district. The applicant/developer shall provide evidence of satisfactory fire flows prior to the issuance of any permits.
5. Engineered footings and foundations are required for new habitable construction. Engineering for habitable construction within the development shall be done in consideration of the recommendations made by the Colorado State Geological Survey memo, prepared by Andy Gleason, dated August 5, 2004, including complete geotechnical investigation and engineered foundation, foundation drains and avoidance of building on lots with areas of slopes greater than 20%.
6. The building envelopes for lots 32-36 and 40-45 shall be revised to avoid slopes 20% or greater. The building envelope for residual lot 56 shall be revised so that it is entirely out of the proposed right-of-way dedication.
7. 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.
8. Water service shall be provided consistent with the requirements of the Little Thompson Water District as detailed in their letter dated August 3, 2004 and their commitment letter dated December 11, 2003. The applicant shall provide an updated commitment letter prior to recordation of the final plat.
9. As long as the stick raptor nest (as shown on the site inventory) exists on the property and is inhabited by raptors the following restriction shall apply: Between February 15th and July 15th the portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 35-38 shall be closed during the nesting season to protect the nesting raptors. Signs shall be posted on the trail by representatives of the HOA indicating that the trail is temporary closed to protect nesting raptors. The applicant shall be responsible for creating the signs and distributing them to the HOA. Should the nest and raptors no longer exist, then this condition is no longer applicable.
10. During the final plat process the applicant shall fulfill the requirements of the proposed conditions as outlined in the memo from Traci Downs, Larimer County Engineering Department, dated February 24, 2005. Proposed condition number 2 in the above memo shall be modified to exclude any access that does not use the alignment of Prairie Way as shown on the preliminary plat submittal.
Ms. Madson presented the Board with letters from two of the surrounding neighbors and stated that their main concern relates to accessing the development. Ms. Madson stated that regardless of how County Road 23 is aligned, there will be access to the site. She stated that this item is on tonight's agenda so the neighbors can voice their concerns. At this time Ross Brazil, Planning Consultant for the applicant, addressed the Board and introduced Carey Solomonson as the applicant, David Bowles, civil engineer for the project, and Eric Berg, a wildlife specialist. Mr. Brazil stated that they are here to answer questions for the Board and the public in attendance. Commissioner Wagner questioned the raptor nest that is presently situated on a portion of the site, and whether or not pedestrian traffic could be re-routed permanently, rather than posting signs during specific times of the year. Mr. Brazil stated that they could indeed look at re-routing the pedestrian trail.
Chair Rennels opened the hearing up for public comment and Keith Jacobson addressed the Board requesting clarification as to how the access would be situated. Mr. Jacobson stated that he is interested in having the County adopt the road and would like to see it built to standards. Todd Stern, representative of the Westfield Homeowners Association, addressed the Board and stated that there is no need to cut through the field to create a new road as there is already a road in place approximately fifty to eighty feet away. Mr. Stern stated that there is a deadlocked piece of land that was created and there was some discussion of ownership of this land and whether it belonged to Mr. Cushman or his neighbor. There being no further public comment, Chair Rennels closed this section of the hearing.
Mr. Helmick stated that at this time they are unsure of ownership of the deadlocked piece of land, and there is currently tax liens filed on this piece of property. Chair Rennels stated that this is a preliminary plat and there will be the opportunity to make changes and settle the access issues as the project moves forward. Some discussion ensued regarding drainage in the area and a citizen requested permission 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.
Charles Peabody stated that drainage is an issue in this area and clarified that the reservoir will provide drainage for Westhill Estates. Mr. Peabody requested that a suitable drainage plan be developed for this project. Chair Rennels closed public comment.
Some additional discussion ensued regarding the raptor nests and whether that portion of the trail could be realigned to prevent disruption of their habitat. Chair Rennels stated that the conditions should reflect that the raptors are to be protected as long as they exist in the area; however, if they vacate the site then the condition shall no longer apply.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Centennial Farms Conservation Development Preliminary Plat as recommended by the Planning Commission and with the modified condition #9 and #10 as recommend by the Development Services Review Team and outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2005
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster, Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Wagner and Gibson were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; David Ayraud, County Attorney’s Office; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 11, 2005:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of April 11, 2005, as presented.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 25, 2005: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for April 19, 2005:
PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT: As recommended by the County Assessor, the following petitions for abatement are approved: Stoffer Partnership.
04192005A001 CHAPLAIN SERVICE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND FREEDOM FELLOWSHIP
04192005A002 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND THE COUNTY OF LARIMER
04192005R001 SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF SHREINER
04192005R002 FINDINGS AND ORDER REVOKING THE TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE OF CLUB OSIRUS, INC.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Country Meadows Public Improvement District Advisory Road Board Bylaws; Larimer County Trotwood Ranches Public Improvement District Advisory Road Board Bylaws.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were both issued and approved: Riverbend Resort – 3.2% - Loveland and JJ’s Lounge – Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AGRICULTURE’S ROLE IN ENSURING U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: Mr. Lancaster explained that the Colorado Farm Bureau requested support from the Board of County Commissioners, in the form of this resolution, for agriculture’s role in energy independence and the use of agricultural energy as a source for a portion of the energy use consumed by the United States. Chair Rennels mentioned that this resolution also has bipartisan support from Lois Bradley and Mike Udall and that it is a major support for communities located in the southern part of the state who are trying very hard to use their agricultural lands for something besides traditional crops. Chair Rennels voiced her support. Commissioner Gibson also voiced his support, and went on to say that the resolution mentions 25 percent of the total energy consumed by the United States be from agriculture sources. While that does not seem like a large amount, he pointed out that currently the usage is 0.4 percent. Commissioner Wagner stated her support of the resolution and mentioned that, in addition to the Colorado Farm Bureau and the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, there are other partners involved in this effort, namely Colorado Working Landscapes and Environment Colorado.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution Supporting Agriculture’s Role in Ensuring U.S. Energy Independence.
Motion carried 3-0
04192005R003 RESOLUTION REGARDING AGRICULTURE’S ROLE IN ENSURING U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
6. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Mr. Gluckman stated that Governor Owens vetoed two bills that were being supported by CCI; namely Senate Bill 69, regarding publication of titles and salary information, without inclusion of specific employee names; and Senate Bill 174, allowing counties to separate open lands sales tax from other county taxes. Mr. Gluckman indicated that he believes both of these bills will be reintroduced in the future, in one form or another.
Commissioner Wagner asked if the CCI Health and Human Services meeting is still scheduled for April 29, 2005, regarding the bill addressing the ability to hold beds at the state hospital for mental patients. Chair Rennels explained the circumstances of the bill and her discussions with Sheriff Alderden regarding his position on the topic. She said that Sheriff Alderden indicated he would probably be in favor of such a bill. Mr. Gluckman indicated that he would check to see if the meeting on April 29th is indeed still scheduled.
7. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster explained that he has made some proposed changes to the fire ban ordinance and will be approaching the Commissioners to readopt the ordinance with the changes. Mr. Lancaster indicated that the changes are strictly grammatical and are needed to correct awkward wording that defines where smoking is and isn’t allowed under the ordinance. He went on to say that the Sheriff has reviewed the wording and is okay with it and that the County Attorney has also reviewed and approved the modifications.
8. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.
9. LEGAL MATTERS: Mr. Ayraud addressed the Board to follow-up on their requests for information regarding the concerns brought up at the April 12, 2005, Administrative Matters meeting by Harvey Mabis of Eddies Towing Company. Mr. Ayraud indicated that he tried to talk with Mr. Mabis after the meeting, but was largely unsuccessful. Mr. Mabis briefly responded to Mr. Ayraud’s questions by stating that he had sent letters to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice regarding the matter and had received responses from both. Mr. Ayraud requested to see the responses, but Mr. Mabis declined to share them. Mr. Ayraud assured the Board that such letters would not initiate a lawsuit of any sort, and indicated that he is not aware of any ongoing or pending litigation by Mr. Mabis against the County at this time.
Mr. Ayraud indicated that he has been in contact with the Sheriff’s Department regarding their rotation practices and found that they are using the CSP’s rotation list. Mr. Ayraud explained that he then contacted the Public Utility Commission to determine if they had any issue with the Sheriff’s Department using the CSP rotation list. The Public Utility Commission informed Mr. Ayraud that they are aware of CSP’s rotation list and don’t have any issue with the Sheriff’s Department using it. Mr. Ayraud indicated that he went further to ask the Public Utility Commission if there is any ruling or determination that the CSP cannot put together that sort of list; and they informed him that the Public Utility Commission is still operating under the case in which it was ruled that the CSP or other regulatory agencies can independently regulate towing companies, but they cannot pass a regulation or rule that conflicts with the Public Utilities Commission. Aside from that, the Public Utilities Commission has no restriction on CSP putting together their own rotation or rules. This means that what the Sheriff’s Department is doing appears to fit with what the Public Utilities Commission is saying.
Mr. Lancaster stated that he did not believe the Board needed to take any further action at this time, and the Board unanimously agreed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk