Larimer County Offices, Courts & District Attorney are closed Friday, July 3 for Independence Day
Landfill, Hazardous Waste and Recycle Center are open Friday, July 3 but closed Saturday, July 4
Landfill Business Office are closed July 3 & 4 Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, AUGUST 15, 2005
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Wagner and Gibson were present. Also present were: Porter Ingrum, Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, and Al Kadera, Planning Department; Dave Shirk, Estes Park Planner; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, 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. Chair Rennels explained that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
1 . SWEET AMENDED PLAT/BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT: This is a request to amend two parcels and formalize another. The two lots located east of Little Valley Road will be equalized in size, and the lot on the west side of Little Valley Road will be given a simplified legal description. An outlot will also be created. On May 16, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners found that the southern portion of proposed Lot 3A was a separate legal lot, provided it be combined with the northern portion of proposed Lot 3A and a one-acre outlot be created. The size of the one-acre outlot is the difference between the 1.5-acre Lot 3A and the 2.5-acre minimum lot size in the “RE” Rural Estate district. This outlot ensures no net increase in density will occur. Staff recommends approval of the requested Sweet Amended Plat/Boundary Line Adjustment, subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission:
On Tuesday, July 18, 2005 the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:
1. This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
2. Approval of this minor subdivision will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this code.
3. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed “Amended Plat of Lots 2 and 3 of the Sweet Minor Subdivision and a Portion of land located in the W ½ of S6, T4N, R72W, County of Larimer, State of Colorado” conditional to:
1. The “horse” trail easement shall be clarified as to its use, with the recommendation that the applicant consider dedicating a multi-purpose (including horse use), non-motorized, public trail easement.
2. At the start of the building permit process, if the properties are to be served by the Town of Estes Park water system, the properties must show proof of inclusion in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District prior to application for Town of Estes Park water, and an “Application for a Water Tap Outside Town Limits” must be approved for each property at the start of the building permit process.
3. The following note shall be included on the plat: “Boundary lines indicated on this map are adjustments of former boundary lines of the property depicted hereon. Such adjustments do not create additional lots or building sites for any purposes. The area added to each lot shown hereon by such adjustment is to be considered an addition to, shall become a part of, and shall be conveyed together with, each lot as shown.”
4. The outlot shall be labeled “Non-Buildable.”
5. The access easement shall include a specified width and shall reference Lot 4A instead of Lot 3A.
6. The dedication statement shall include the dedication of the private access/utility easement and the reservation of perpetual easement for the installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities.
7. The former lot line shall be more clearly delineated.
8. One of the “County ROW” labels shall be removed.
2. RAMBLING RIVER SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP: This is a request to finalize four units of a previously approved eleven-unit preliminary condominium map (three units to follow). The Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary condominium map on October 18, 2004, and the final condominium map on December 20, 2004. Approval provided for eleven units. These are currently under construction, and the applicant is now proposing the condominium map to allow for individual sale of four of these units. Additional “supplemental maps” will follow upon completion of the remaining three units. Staff recommends approval of the requested Supplemental Condominium Map of Rambling River Condominiums per the conditions of the Preliminary Condominium Map, as set forth below:
1. Compliance with Development Plan 04-03 “Rambling River”.
2. A LOMA (Letter of Map Amendment) or LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill), whichever is applicable, shall be completed prior to final condominium map approval.
3. Parcels shall be included in the Northern Colorado Conservancy District.
4. Any new water service line or existing service line replacement shall require a Service Line Permit from the Building Department.
3. POUDRE PARK 2ND ANNEXATION LOT CONSOLIDATION FOR LOTS 7 AND 8 AND A PORTION OF LOT 9 - #05-S2461: This is a request to combine two contiguous lots and a portion of a contiguous third lot into one lot in the 2nd Annex of Poudre Park. The Larimer County Land Use Code (Section 5.7.3) allows for the approval of a Lot Consolidation if the appropriate review criteria are met. There have been no objections to this proposal by 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; and the Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team. The Code Enforcement Section of the Larimer County Building Department has commented that there is no record of a building permit being issued for the original cabin on this site. A building permit is required for this cabin. In addition, the applicant will need to obtain pre-approval for setbacks for the structure from property lines and waterways before a building permit is issued.
The proposed Lot Consolidation of Poudre Park 2nd Annex for Lots 7 and 8 and a portion of Lot 9 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 recommendation is for approval of the Lot Consolidation for File #05-S2461, to be known as Lot 7A of the Lot Consolidation of Lots 7 and 8 and that portion of lot 9, Poudre Park 2nd Annex more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the south east corner of Lot 7, thence south 10 feet along the east line of Lot 9; thence west parallel to the line between Lots 7 and 9 to the south line of Lot 8; thence in a northeasterly direction to the south line of Lot 7; thence east 25 feet to the point of beginning; being a part of the east ½ of the southeast ¼ of Section 2, Township 8 North, Range 71 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado. This application is also 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 resolution of the Board of County Commissioners recorded by February 15, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.
3. Based on the new lot configuration, setback approvals must be obtained from the Planning Department before a building permit is submitted.
4. A building permit application for the existing cabin must be submitted to the Building Department prior to final recording of the Findings and Resolution. All inspection approvals for the cabin must be obtained within 60 days from the date of the permit application.
4. DUKART STUDIO MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW - #05-Z1548: The applicant is requesting the approval of a Minor Special Review in order to have an art studio, which produces wholesale architectural ceramics, on his 41 acres zoned O-Open located northwest of Masonville, approximately 1.7 miles west of County Road 27. The studio is a total of 844 square feet, with 644 feet used for the studio; 200 feet is used for personal storage. The structure is a 2-story pole building with a footprint of 22 feet by 20.5 feet. The main floor of the structure includes an area for the slab roller, clay storage, and packaging and production tables. The upstairs includes drying racks and more table space. The studio produces architectural ceramics for wholesale market; no retail sales, open studio events or workshops will take place on the site. The public will not visit the site or enter the structure. Mr. Dukart produces stoneware ceramic products, specifically, bells, chimes, planters, and custom architectural tiles for doorway surrounds, fireplaces, accent tiles and plaques. Orders are mailed to him or taken over the phone. For custom work, Mr. Dukart visits the client at their place of business or their home. The ceramics are not glazed or painted, production includes rolling, and forming each piece, racking it for drying, firing it and packaging it. Products are driven by Mr. Dukart into Loveland for distribution or shipping, approximately 1-3 times each month. Clay waste is bagged and taken to the landfill as needed (monthly). Hours of operation are 365 days a year, approximately 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Hours in the studio may be extended temporarily to fill an exceptionally large order or busy season. The kiln is located outside adjacent to and north and outside of the studio structure and has been placed on a 6’ x 8’ concrete pad. The kiln has been installed in accordance with applicable codes, has safety shut-off valves, and is located in an area dug out of the ground and sheltered from the wind; combustible fuels have been located a safe distance from the kiln. A fire extinguisher has also been permanently mounted near the kilns.
A neighborhood meeting took place on Thursday, June 9, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Dukart studio and residence, 1622 Moondance Way in Bellvue. The Philips Group facilitated the meeting; Linda Masterson prepared the report. The conclusion of the report states, “It is my professional opinion that Mr. Dukart’s neighbors and other property owners genuinely have no concerns about his home-based ceramic studio. Most of the attendees directly expressed that they had come or emailed me because they wanted to make sure the County knew they supported Mr. Dukart.” Staff received the following letters regarding this application: The Horner's, dated June 9, 2005; Ben Taslitz, dated June 9, 2005; Rex Ewing, dated June 8, 2005. All letters indicate full support of the proposal and voiced no concerns.
In consideration of the proposed Dukart Studio, Minor Special Review, Staff finds that:
1. There will be no outdoor storage of materials, parts, equipment, finished product or any items associated with the approved ceramic arts studio;
2. The use will be located on the same lot with the single family dwelling occupied by the owner/operator of the use;
3. The proposed use will not change the character of the lot or the neighborhood;
4. The proposed use will be located greater than the minimum requirement of 50 feet from all property lines;
5. There will be no on-site retail sales.
It is the opinion of the Development Services Review Team that the proposal is compatible when viewed in the context of the development pattern in the area, the surrounding existing and allowed uses, the size of the parcel and the intensity of the use. Further, the application meets the intent of Section 8 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. The Development Services Review Team recommends approval of the Dukart Studio Minor Special Review, File #05-Z1548, with the following conditions:
1. The plans submitted by the applicant constitute a Site Specific Development Plan. Operation of the Dukart Minor Special Review shall be as specified in the representations of the applicant and consistent with the information contained in File #05-Z1548.
2. No Development Agreement shall be required following the Board of County Commissioners approval of this request.
3. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property. Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.
MO 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.
5. KINTZLEY ZONING VIOLATION - #02-ZV0040: This is an alleged violation of two manufactured homes placed on this lot without first obtaining building permits. There is a third residence on this lot. When the property owner applied for a building permit for a new dwelling on this site, staff discovered that there are three dwellings on this lot. Two of the dwellings are manufactured homes that were moved to the site without first obtaining building permits. The Land Use Code permits just one principal building on each lot; therefore, the two manufactured homes were placed on the lot illegally, and permits could not be issued for them. To facilitate the issuance of a building permit for a new dwelling, the Planning Director signed an agreement with the property owner that provided for issuance of the building permit and removal of the two manufactured homes prior to occupying the new dwelling or within 18 months, whichever occurred first. The agreement was signed by the property owner on May 1, 2003; therefore, the 18-month time limit has expired and the two manufactured homes remain on site. The agreement provided that the County could commence legal action to enforce the terms of the agreement.
Assessor’s records identify a ranch residence built in 1921, two mobile homes and outbuildings on the property. Pursuant to mobile home records, one mobile home was moved on the property in the year 2000 to replace an existing mobile home which was demolished. As well, mobile home records show a second replacement mobile home was moved onto the property on February 2, 2001. No building permits could be located for the original mobile homes or replacement mobile homes. There are permits of record for additions or remodels to the single-family residence (Permits 82-4001, 85-3450, 89-F4348, 90-F5604 and 96-F7351). When Building Permit 82-4001 was issued on July 30, 1982, for a remodel to the existing residence, there were no outbuildings shown in existence at this time. There are permits of record for two outbuildings: 1) Permit 89-F4039 for a 13x20 storage building (barn); and 2) Permit 89-F4040 for a 36x32 garage. There were no other permits of record located.
Staff findings are as follows: 1. The subject property is occupied by three single family dwellings. Two of them are manufactured homes that were moved to the site without building permits. 2. The Land Use Code permits one principal building on each lot. Permits cannot be issued for the two manufactured homes. 3. The property owner signed an agreement with the County whereby the manufactured homes were to be removed from the site upon completion and occupancy of a new dwelling or after 18 months, whichever occurred first. The agreement was signed on May 1, 2003; therefore, the 18-month time limit has passed. 4. The agreement acknowledged that the County could commence legal action to enforce the agreement if the terms of the agreement are not met.
The Planning Department recommends the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action to enforce the agreement if the deadline for compliance is not met. Compliance would require that the two manufactured homes be removed from the site. The only outstanding permit of record is Permit 01-B1860 for a new single-family residence. Fees in the amount of $6,912 were paid and the permit was issued, however, work on the home never commenced. The permit has expired. A new permit is required. Because there is no active permit for a new residence, all mobile homes must now be removed pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Building permits are required for all outbuildings exceeding 120 square feet in floor area (except for the 13x20 storage building and 36x32 garage which were properly permitted and noted above).
Mr. Kadera reviewed the staff report as outlined above and explained that the manufactured homes are still located on the property; however, they are unoccupied. Mr. Kadera recommended that the Board find that a violation exists on the property and require compliance within 30 days. Ron Wray, maintenance employee speaking on behalf of Mr. Kintzley, addressed the Board. Mr. Wray explained that they have been trying to give the mobile homes away and think they now might have someone who is truly interested in them; however, when they went to hook up the mobile homes they discovered that there were no axels under the front trailer. Mr. Wray acknowledged that the trailers should have been moved by now, but asked for an additional 90 days, which would give them more time to rectify this situation. Commissioner Wagner asked if there was any indication that the gentleman who was interested in the trailers would indeed come and retrieve them. Mr. Wray stated that he hoped the individual would retrieve the trailers but could not say for sure. Chair Rennels noted that, given the fact the owners were still unsure as to how long it might take to remove the trailers, the 30-day compliance requirement might be a good incentive to have the individual decide once and for all whether or not he wanted the trailers. Some discussion ensued regarding the time frame that would be appropriate to facilitate removal of the trailers from the property, and the Board agreed to allow Mr. Kintzley 45 days to remove the trailers from the property.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists on the Kintzley property and require compliance within 45 days. Compliance would include removing the two manufactured homes from the site and obtaining proper building permits as required by the Building Department. Legal action is authorized if the compliance deadline is not met.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. WAVERLY RIDGE CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEFAULT: This is a staff request for enforcement of the default provisions of the Development Agreement pertaining to the Waverly Ridge Conservation Development. Staff has spent a significant amount of time over the past two years with this development insuring the improvements required for the approval are completed and to standards. Staff regrets the need to pursue this issue; but as the information here indicates, there are no alternatives.
A Development Agreement was recorded February 27, 2002, with a completion date of August 31, 2002. Work was never completed, and it was not until December 23, 2003, that staff was able to obtain an extension agreement signed by Mr. Kinzli to extend the completion date until September 20, 2004. Staff spent numerous hours in late summer/early fall of 2003 working with Mr. Kinzli to get this extension and a new letter of credit. Discussions occurred with the County Attorney, Mr. Kinzli's Attorney, and the Attorney for the paving company in the fall of 2004. A letter of credit was extended again with an expiration date of August 31, 2005. On November 4, 2004, Ms. Downs wrote another letter to Mr. Kinzli listing all the deficiencies. Mr. Kinzli promised they would fix everything once the paving was complete. Ms. Downs letter listed several items that need to be addressed prior to paving.
In a letter dated October 22, 2004, Mr. Kinzli attorney states: "Kinzli & Co. has also arranged for contractors to complete the remaining punch list items remaining in the Waverly Ridge subdivision, aside from Prima Drive. Kinzli's sole proposal here is 100% compliance with exactly what the County has required. Kinzli and Company will fully complete the punch list items once the necessary repairs to Prima Drive have been completed but no later than the deadline set." Ms. Downs conducted field visits in January and twice in March 2005, but nothing had been done. The internal road has now been paved/repaved, but not correctly, and Ms. Downs still has a list of things that need to be completed.
An inspection was conducted the week of July 20, 2005, and nothing had been done to address the additional outstanding items. Mr. Kinzli promises it will be done by August 15, 2005. If this is the case, then staff will revise its recommendation. From a technical standpoint the staff believes that the County is safe, from a financial standpoint the development letter of credit will extend for another 60 days after August 31, 2005, because the issuing institution did not provide the staff with the required 60 day written notice of expiration.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find the developer in default of their Development Agreement and direct staff, including the County Attorney to take the appropriate measures to insure the required improvements are installed and completed.
Mr. Lafferty explained that Ms. Downs visited the site this morning and found that progress has been made, and staff now believes that the necessary work can be completed within 30 days. Ms. Downs displayed photos of the property and described the outstanding issues and work that still needs to be accomplished as follows:
Mr. Kinzli, property owner of this project, stated that he has had numerous problems with contractors in constructing the road and has had to take them to court to force them to correct substandard work. Mr. Kinzli stated that he now has another asphalt company hired to finish paving the last six feet of the road. The bigger problem, Mr. Kinzli continued, is that fact that the owner of Lot 3 now claims that he will not abandon the driveways onto his property, and that he will be asking the County for a variance to allow them to remain in place. Chair Rennels asked if the driveway connections were in the County Right-of-Way. Ms. Downs replied in the affirmative. Mr. Lafferty stated that the Development Agreement for this property states that Lot 3 and Lot 5 must take access from Prima Drive. Chair Rennels asked Mr. Kinzli how long it would take him to complete the work that still needed to be accomplished. Mr. Kinzli stated that he could accomplish everything within the next two weeks, except the issue with the owner of Lot 3. Some discussion ensued.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners table this item until September 19, 2005, at 3:00 p.m., to allow the property owner time to complete the six necessary improvements as outlined in Ms. Downs report and listed above, and direct staff and the County Attorney to send a letter to the property owner of Lot 3 informing him that the driveways must be vacated, and he must take access from Prima Drive.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting recessed at 4:05 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
BINGHAM HILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION
(#86 & 87)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Wagner were present. Also present were: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. Lisa Ashbach addressed the Board regarding the Land Use Code, stating that there is a plan for the Laporte area which outlines citizen desires regarding development of the Laporte area. Ms. Ashbach stated that the property in question this evening is included in the Laporte Area Plan. She further noted that there is County zoning in place for this property, and it appears that this property is a good example of County zoning and a citizen plan being in conflict with one another. Ms. Ashbach stated that it might behoove the County to look at possible zoning changes when the citizens of an area have created a plan for their area.
1. BINGHAM HILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION - #05-S2398: This is a Preliminary Plat request to create two single family residential lots on the existing 17.22 acre Lot 1 of the Dirks MRD (File #S-12-91). One lot will be 12.22 acres in area and will contain the existing residence, while the second lot will be 5.0 acres in area and will be used for a new residential dwelling. Bingham Hill Estates was scheduled before the Planning Commission of June 15, 2005, as a Consent Agenda item. However, at the hearing members of the public requested that the item be removed from the Consent Agenda for a full discussion.
Discussion regarding the proposed Bingham Hill Subdivision centered around visual issues as the result of an additional dwelling unit on Bingham Hill overlooking the valley leading to Bellvue. After taking public testimony, the Planning Commission discussed the comments raised by the public and made a recommendation for approval subject to the conditions of the Development Services Team, with the added condition that neither of the lots within the proposed subdivision would be further developed. Aside from the above no further discussion ensued and the application was recommended for approval.
The Development Services Team supports a recommendation of approval for the Preliminary Plat of the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision (#05-S2398), subject to the recommendation of the Planning Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS RECOMMENDATION:
Commissioner Boulter moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution with the inclusion of Condition 8 and amended Condition 6:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision, File #05-S2398, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat of the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision shall be consistent with the plans, documents and representations contained in the File #05-S2398, unless modified by the conditions of approval.
2. The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement and provide a Disclosure Notice for Final Plat approval by the County as part of the Final Plat. These documents shall be recorded with the Final Plat, and shall provide notice to all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and issues, costs and fees associated with the approval of this project, as well as the potential nuisance impacts of wildlife to residential uses.
3. The following fees shall be collected at building issuance for new single family dwellings: Poudre R-1 School Fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Park Fees (in lieu of land dedication). The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit shall apply.
4. Passive Radon Mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of residential dwellings on the approved lots. The results of a radon test once the structure is enclosed but prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be submitted to the Planning Department. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for a radon tester, which specifies that a test will be conducted within 30 days. A permanent Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.
5. During the Final Plat process the applicant shall demonstrate that fire protection consistent with Section 8.1.5 of the Land Use Code can be met or applicant shall agree to install fire sprinklers as part of the building construction.
6. The Final Plat for the Bingham Hills Estates Subdivision shall include a building envelope on Lot 2 that reflects a 100-foot setback from the centerline of the County Road 50E Right-of-Way, as well as the 50-foot setback from an existing rock cliff outcrop at the south side of the property.
7. Construction of a residence on Lot 2 of the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision shall include engineered footing and foundations founded in unexposed and un-weathered sandstone, as recommended in the March 2, 2005, referral comments from Andy Gleason of the Colorado Geological Survey Department.
8. The applicant agrees to include on the final plat and in supporting documents, such as a Development Agreement of Disclosure Notice, that the lots within the Bingham Hill Subdivision shall not be further subdivided (as added by the Planning Commission).
9. The applicant agrees to prohibit internal fencing, farm animals, and recreational vehicle parking on the property.
Mr. Lafferty gave a brief presentation of the application as outlined above, noting that the proposal is well within the zoning parameters for the location. Mr. Lafferty explained the site drainage and noted that a traffic report would not be required as part of this application. Applicant Dale Dirks stated that they began this process in the summer of 2000, and it has been delayed due to the fact that the City of Fort Collins has been installing a pipeline through his property. Mr. Dirks stated that they simply wish to build their retirement home, and further stated that they are willing to place restrictions on the plat map. Mr. Dirks agreed to prohibit internal fencing, RV parking, open grazing and farm animals. Mr. Dirks also stated that they would agree to no further development of the property. Mr. Dirks requested Board approval on this application.
Chair Rennels opened public comment: Alice Clark, Larry Lechner, Donna Brasinetz, Lisa Ashbach, John Calderazzo, Ken and Linda Fisher, Dave Garner, and Peter Seekell, all requested the Board to respect the historical significance of the area and expressed opposition to the applicant's proposal for the following reasons: Development on this piece of property will take away from the beauty of the Bingham Hill and the valley; the adjacent park in this area will be compromised; further development will make the property incompatible with the surrounding area; the driveway is improperly placed and will cause a traffic hazard; there was not ample notification for the surrounding community; the development subverts current planning efforts in the area; water restrictions are more stringent in Bellvue than in surrounding communities and sufficient water could be an issue; Bellvue is a "Special Place" and should be recognized as such; and approving this subdivision will send a message to others who may also decide to develop as a result. Mark Linder expressed his support for the application. Mr. Linder stated that he believed the Dirks would build a beautiful home with low pitched roof tops and something that will blend in well with the surroundings. Chair Rennels closed public comment.
Debbie Dirks, co-applicant, addressed the neighbors' comments. Mrs. Dirks stated that they purchased the property in 1988, and it was two parcels with two water taps and a well permit. Mrs. Dirks explained that they have subdivided to three lots; and if this application is approved, there will be a total of four lots. Mrs. Dirks stated that the Laporte Area Planning Advisory Committee approved their application in May 2005, and that the sign informing the public of their proposal was posted at least one month before Overland Trail was closed for construction. Some discussion ensued regarding placement of the driveway. Mr. Lafferty stated that preferably the Planning and Engineering Departments like to see driveways directly opposite from each other, but in this case they will be offset approximately 120 feet. Mrs. Dirks stated that they have tried to situate the house in an area that is compatible with the hillside, and not right on top of the ridgeline. Commissioner Wagner questioned whether or not the proposed outbuilding was imperative for the property owners and what it would be used for. Mrs. Dirks stated that the outbuilding will be placed a little lower than the house, for aesthetic purposes, and would house firewood and a small trailer that they use to haul the firewood. Some discussion ensued regarding the traffic issues and whether or not the Right-of-Way was sufficient for the proposal. Mr. Lafferty stated that the Right-of-Way met the needs of the County and was sufficient for this proposal. At this time there was a request from the audience 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
Mrs. Fisher explained that a guardrail has recently been installed along the road and ends right at the entrance of the proposed driveway. Mrs. Fisher stated that she believes this presents an unsafe situation for those traveling on this road. Ms. Ashbach stated that she does not agree with the County granting a variance for the driveway, also due to safety issues. Mr. Fisher stated that the surrounding neighbors did not know about the meeting with the Laporte Area Planning Advisory Committee and, had they known of it, there would have been more opposition voiced at the meeting. Mr. Seekell explained that the road is treacherous in the snow and that he uses four wheel drive vehicles with big studded tires. He further stated that using anything less would be far too dangerous. Chair Rennels again closed public comment.
Mr. Dirks pointed out that it is a smaller home they intend to build, and the out-building is situated lower so it does not appear that there are two homes located right next to each other. Commissioner Gibson stated that it seems as though this development has been piecemealed over the years, but would agree to support it based upon the Laporte Area Planning Advisory Committee's recommendation, and the fact that the applicant is willing to specify that no further development will occur. Commissioner Wagner stated that there is no disputing the beauty of the valley, but that Mr. Dirks has the ability to develop his land based upon the Land Use Code. Commissioner Wagner also noted that she is reassured by the fact that only one additional home is proposed, and was pleased that it would not actually be placed on the ridgeline. Finally, Commissioner Wagner encouraged the citizens of Bellvue to create a Bellvue Area Plan to address their concerns and plans for their area. Chair Rennels agreed and also encouraged the citizens of Bellvue to look at forming partnerships with the Open Lands Department and utilize Conservation Easements in order to preserve the open environment and feel of their community.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Preliminary Plat of the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision (#05-S2398), subject to the recommendations and conditions of the Planning Commission and Development Services Team as outlined above, with the addition of Condition #9 that states there will be no internal fencing, no recreational vehicle parking, and no farm animals allowed on the property.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2005
(#87 & 88)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Wagner were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Larry Johnson, and Amy Wagner, Assessor's Office; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; Mark Peterson, Engineering Department; Gary Buffington, K-Lynn Cameron, and Meegan Fleeniken, Parks & Open Lands Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Antoinette Lueck expressed concern with the Dial-a-Ride program, noting that although the demand for this service has not decreased, the availability has. Ms. Lueck stated that this is a vital service that allows people to remain in their homes; however, it is not very convenient to use, as it requires advance planning on behalf of the citizen to secure a ride. The Board explained that the Office on Aging has a transportation committee that is dedicated to continuing this service and recommended Ms. Lueck contact their office.
Tom Bender addressed the Board on behalf of all Veterans and asked that the Board continue to support the Veterans Services Office. He further requested that the Board create an additional permanent part-time employee for the Veterans Services Office. Mr. Bender stated that he will be presenting a formal letter concerning this request sometime in the near future. Mr. Bender then displayed the plaque he received regarding his efforts in working with the Wolf Foundation, and noted that he will present an extended briefing on this subject at a later date.
Gerry Horak, Dr. Hochheimer, Cleo Shoultz, Joseph Bleicher, Doris Lamberson, Zongjian Zhu, Merritt Carlson, Red Doering, and John Ragan addressed the Board regarding their concerns with the manner in which property assessments are conducted in the Assessor's Office. Mr. Horak proposed the idea of forming a task force to address the many issues that were discussed at their recent citizen meeting regarding Fair Assessment Reform (FAR). Mr. Johnson stated that he welcomed citizen input and would support the creation of a task force, and requested a partnership with the Commissioners, as he believes having Commissioner input on the task force would lend more credibility to the effort.
Lee Roberts explained that a property owner in his neighborhood has erected a set of four light columns in the Right-of-Way and noted that this creates safety issues for children and school buses that access the neighborhood. Mr. Roberts noted that they are private roads; however, his homeowners' association has not addressed the issue and he requested the County send a letter to the homeowners' association to assist in rectifying this issue. Mr. Peterson explained that they are private roads, and the County does not get involved in issues between private property owners.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 8, 2005:
Discussion ensued regarding the Grove Metropolitan District topic and whether or not some of the wording in the minutes accurately reflected the status of the servicing entity. The Board directed Ms. Cookman to confer with Mr. Helmick to clarify the wording and tabled approval of the minutes until this is accomplished.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners table approval of the minutes for the week of August 8, 2005, until August 30, 2005, since there will not be an Administrative Matters meeting on August 27, 2005.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 22 & 29, 2005: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedules with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for August 16, 2005:
08162005A001 INMATE PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND DIAMOND PHARMACY SERVICES
08162005A002 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PRAIRIE VIEW ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT (FILE #00-S1694) BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THREE T INVESTMENTS LLP, FRONT RANGE FEEDLOTS LLC, AND PRAIRIE VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
08162005R001 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF MARY'S LAKE RIDGE SUBDIVISION
08162005R002 RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR PRAIRIE VIEW ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT (FILE #00-S1694)
08162005R003 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SPRING GREEN PLANNED LAND DIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Prairie View Estates Conservation Development Final Plat; Signature Authority on Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Expense Reports and Cash Draw Forms; Larimer County Layoff Waiver and Release Agreement Between Larimer County and Employee; Program Year 2005 Expenditure Authorizations; Department of Human Services Payments for June 2005; Application for Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF) Project 2006; Larimer County Public Improvement District #29 Board Bylaws; Submittal of the Program Year 2004 Workforce Center Investment Act Closeout Packet.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were both approved and issued: Branding Iron Liquor - Retail Liquor Store - Laporte; Dunraven Inn - Hotel and Restaurant - Estes Park; Hatrixx - Tavern - Fort Collins. The following license was issued: Sodexho Management Inc dba CSU Concessions & Stadium - 3.2% - Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
Mr. Lancaster explained that the Loveland Elks Lodge has applied for a 6% Special Events Permit and, due to the timing of the event, and the fact that there is no Administrative Matters meeting next Tuesday, he requested the Board approve the document today.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Loveland Elks Lodge 6% Special Events Permit application.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. CHIMNEY HOLLOW OPEN SPACE STEWARDSHIP PLAN INFORMATION: Ms. Flenniken presented a slide show which outlined the purpose and objectives of the Chimney Hollow Open Space Stewardship Plan. Ms. Flenniken explained that the Chimney Hollow Open Space is located in the Blue Mountain Conservation area and was purchased with a Great Outdoors Colorado Grant in 2004. Chair Rennels asked when the area will be open to the public. Ms. Flenniken explained that the area will not be open to the public until construction of the reservoir is completed, and the estimated completion date is 2010.
6. FUNDING REQUESTS FOR SUPPORT OF NATIONAL HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH AND NCEDC ANNUAL MEETING: Mr. Lancaster explained that the Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation (NCEDC) has requested that Larimer County be the facility sponsor for their annual meeting to be held at The Ranch on November 1, 2005. Mr. Lancaster explained that the keynote speaker for the event will be Dr. Richard Florida, author of the book Rise of the Creative Class. Mr. Lancaster noted that the funding request is in the amount of $2000 and the County was the facility sponsor for last year's event. Mr. Lancaster also explained that the El Centro Student Services at Colorado State University has requested $1000 in support of celebration activities associated with National Hispanic Heritage Month. Mr. Lancaster stated there are monies available in the Special Projects Fund to accommodate both of these requests, should the Board choose to do so.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the expenditure of $2000 from the Commissioners' Special Project Fund in support of NCEDC's request for Larimer County to be the facility sponsor for their annual meeting.
Motion carried 3-0.
Some discussion ensued and the Board agreed that since Larimer County already supports the community Cinco De Mayo celebration, they would be comfortable funding $500 in support of the National Hispanic Heritage Month celebration.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the expenditure of $500 from the Commissioners' Special Project Fund to support the National Hispanic Heritage Month celebration.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster pointed out a change to the Administrative Matters Agenda, noting that from now on upcoming items for future Administrative Matters meetings will be posted at the bottom of each agenda.
8. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.
9. LEGAL MATTERS: There were no legal matters to discuss.
The meeting recessed at 11:15 a.m., with no further action taken.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PID) HEARING
FOR LOVELAND FOOTHILLS SHADOW
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rex Burns, Project Engineer. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Wagner were present. Also present were: Linda Sanders, Engineering Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Burns displayed an aerial photo of the Foothills Shadow subdivision noting that it was platted in 1980, and the streets are approximately 60-feet wide and consist of gravel and dirt roads which have suffered from a period of neglect. Mr. Burns stated that the proposal tonight is for the Board to consider passing the resolution that will put this issue on the November ballot so the electors in this subdivision can vote on whether or not to create the PID. Ms. Sanders explained that 61% of the residents signed the petition, and if the PID is created the mill levy imposed will generate $79,874 for the first three years, which will equal a payment of $3,630 per household for those first three years. Ms. Sanders explained that after the first three years the mill levy will be adjusted downward, as they will only need to collect enough money to maintain the streets. Ms. Sanders noted that she received two letters of opposition from homeowners that live adjacent to the streets earmarked for improvement. Ms. Sanders explained that these two homeowners do not need to take access from the streets, which is the basis of their opposition. Commissioner Wagner questioned why the homeowners were being included in the PID, if they do not need to take access from the streets being improved. Ms. Sanders stated that since they have the capability to connect directly to the streets, they are included in the PID boundaries. Ms. Sanders explained that quite often the current homeowners may not choose to take access from the paved road, but once they sell or subdivide the property, the new owners will be able to connect to the streets without having to help pay for the initial construction or on-going maintenance.
At this time Chair Rennels opened the hearing up for public comment: Brian Wood sated that he is very much in favor of paving the streets. Mr. Wood stated that paved streets will increase the value of their homes and will help mitigate dust in the area. Cindy Spritzer noted concern with where the road will be placed, as she does not want to lose a portion of her property or her landscaping. Ms. Spritzer also expressed concern with the width of the road, as she is not sure there is enough room for a 20-foot street, with 2-foot buffers, and 14-foot drainage ditches. Carol Johnston stated that there are still many unanswered questions, such as whether or not the streets will tolerate heavy loads; whether or not drainage will be on one side of the street or both sides; whether culverts be replaced, and if so, what size culverts will be used. Finally Ms. Johnston stated that speeding is already a problem on the unpaved streets, and she is concerned for her children's safety, as a paved street will certainly encourage more speeding. Dan Bowland commended both Rex Burns and Linda Sanders for their efforts on this project. Mr. Bowland stated that the streets have deteriorated, they desperately need drainage work, and he is strongly in favor of paving the streets. Diane Peters and Jim Cooper also stated that they are in favor of paving the streets. Chair Rennels closed public comment.
Mr. Burns explained that the streets will be reconstructed where they are located now, with the exception of two areas where they will have to be moved approximately two to three feet to accommodate proper drainage. Mr. Burns stated that they will replace culverts that are in need of replacement and that the standard culvert size is 15 inches. Mr. Burns stated that there will be few changes, if any, to the existing drainage patterns, and that the streets will be constructed to accommodate some heavy vehicle loads. Commissioner Wagner asked Ms. Sanders what percentage of the time individuals that did not wish to take part in the PID are required to do so, such as the two homeowners in this instance that do not need to take access from the paved streets. Ms. Sanders stated that they are required to participate 100% of the time. At this time there was a request from the audience 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.
Janet Bowlin explained that at least one of the homeowners who does not wish to participate in the PID does access their barn from one of the streets earmarked to be paved, even though there main driveway is not connected to a street that will be paved. Chair Rennels closed public comment.
The Board agreed to support the resolution regarding the organization of Foothills Shadow PID so the issue can be placed on the November ballot, allowing those in the district to vote on whether or not to create the PID.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners support the Resolution approving the Petition for the Organization of Larimer County Foothills Shadow Public Improvement District Number 31.
Motion carried 3-0.
08162005R004 RESOLUTION APPROVING PETITION FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF LARIMER COUNTY FOOTHILLS SHADOW PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 31.
There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 2005
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Pro Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Wagner was present. Commissioner Rennels participated via teleconference.
Mr. Lancaster explained that the Sheriff's Department and the U.S. Forest Service have requested that the Commissioners lift the fire ban, as more moisture in the region has lessened the threat of fire danger. Mr. Lancaster noted that this is a coordinated effort between the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and Larimer County.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners rescind the fire restrictions that were put in place on July 21, 2005, for Larimer County.
Motion carried 3-0.
KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk