> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 03/20/06  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, MARCH 20, 2006

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#33)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Porter Ingrum, Karin Madson, Casey Stewart, Samantha Mott, and Al Kadera, Planning Department; Dave Shirk, Estes Park Community Development Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  

 

Chair Gibson explained that Item 1, regarding the Meadowlark Ridge Conservation Development Appeal, has been removed from the agenda.  He further explained that Item 2, regarding the Sauer Zoning Violation, is being tabled to April 3, 2006, at 3:00 p.m. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Sauer Zoning Violation, File #05-ZV0078, to April 3, 2006, at 3:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Chair Gibson then noted that Items 3 through 8 are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

3.  PTARMIGAN PUD 2ND FILING LOT 23 AMENDED PLAT - #06-S2539:  This is a request for an Amended Plat of Lot 23 Ptarmigan PUD 2nd Filing to allow a 2-foot encroachment of a deck into a side yard setback.  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; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team.

The proposed plat amendment to allow a deck into a side yard setback will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Amended Plat 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 Amended Plat of Ptarmigan PUD 2nd Filing Lot 23 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 required inspection approvals under Permit 03-B0497 shall be obtained within 30 days of the approval of this application. 

3.   All conditions shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by September 20, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

4.  HIGHLAND HILLS 2ND FILING LOTS 1 & 2 AMENDED PLAT - #06-S2540:  The applicant requests an amendment of the Highland Hills 2nd Filing, Lots 1 and 2.  The purpose of this Amended Plat is to adjust a boundary line so the driveway for Lot 2 will be completely within the boundaries of Lot 2. 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Highland Hills 2nd Filing, Lots 1 and 2 Plat, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by June 1, 2006, or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the application shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department in his February 10, 2006, memorandum.

3.   The new lots created by this action are subject to the same restrictions, covenants, and regulations as set forth on the recorded plat of the Highland Hills 2nd Filing, Lots 1 and 2 (see file # 94-MS0502).

 

5.  PEARL VISTA CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT - #05-S2427:  This is a request for:   1) Preliminary Plat approval for a Conservation Development to divide a 35 acre parcel into 3 residential lots of 5-7 acres and one residual parcel of 17.5 acres; and 2) Rezoning of a portion of the 35 acre parcel from E-1 Estate to E-Estate to resolve the split zoning of the parcel.

At a public hearing on February 15, 2006 the Larimer County Planning Commission considered the Pearl Vista Conservation Development preliminary plat and rezoning application for division of a 35 acre parcel into 3 residential lots ranging in size from 2 acres to 7 acres, and one non-residential residual lot of approximately 17.5 acres.  Access to the site is proposed from Pearl Creek Road, a private road which runs along the north western portion of the site.   The roads serving the property are private roads.   Proposed Lots 2 & 3 will take access from Pearl Creek Road using a shared access, the existing dwelling will use the existing driveway.  Water will be provided by on-site wells, subject to the Crystal Lakes augmentation plan and on-site septic systems are proposed for sewage disposal.  This item remained on the consent agenda. 

Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, a mineral interest owner, Anadarco Land Corporation, submitted a letter regarding the severed mineral interests within the portion of the property in Section 9.  They requested that the Final Plat include a note with regard to the mineral interests be included on the plat, within the Development Agreement and in a notice recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.  Staff has proposed an additional condition to address this request.   Additionally, Staff has reworded condition #5 to more clearly reflect the Crystal Lakes Water and Sewer Association requirements for on-site wells.  This language replaces the original condition in Staff’s report to the Planning Commission and the language in the Planning Commission resolution.

The Planning Commission and the Development Services Team recommend approval of the Pearl Vista Conservation Development, file #05-S2427, subject to the following conditions:

1)   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Pearl Vista Conservation Development (File #05-S2427) 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 Pearl Vista Conservation Development.

2)   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and 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)   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.

4)   Prior to the submittal of the final plat application, the applicant shall satisfy the requirements of the State Engineer as outlined in their letter from Jeff Deathrage to Dick Wolfe, dated December 22, 2005. 

5)   Water will be supplied by on-site wells.  The applicant is required by the Crystal Lakes Water and Sewer Association to comply with the requirements noted in their letter from Jodean G. Sandquist, dated September 23, 2005, and their Subdivision Development Policy.

6)   Fire sprinklers are required for new habitable construction.

7)   The final plat application shall include a Forest Management Plan that includes an implementation strategy and Wildfire Mitigation Plan.   The Forest Management Plan shall be implemented on the entire property prior to the issuance of any building permits.

8)   A water storage tank with a minimum of 3000 gallons per lot must be installed and operational prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion for any building permit.

9)   During the Final Plat review process for this development and prior to approval, the applicant shall resolve the technical issues found in the referral letter from the Larimer County Engineering Department by Christie Coleman, dated January 3, 2006.

10)   The Final Plat, Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for the Pearl Vista Conservation Development shall include the following note:

The portion of the Pearl Vista Conservation Development property within Section 9 is subject to the severed mineral interests that are owned by Anadarko E&P Company LP and Anadarko Land Corp.  The Pearl Vista Conservation Development and the subsequent development of the property in accordance with the plat does not impact the mineral rights owned by the Anadarko entities, or the ability of the Anadarko entities or their lessees, successors or assigns, to develop the minerals.

 

6.  MAGIC SKY RANCH AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - #02-Z1434:  This is a request to modify condition #7 of the Findings and Resolution, and Items #10 and # 25a of the Development Agreement with respect to State Site approval for the sewer system.

The Special Review for the Girl Scouts Magic Sky Ranch Special Review was approved by the Board of County Commissioners as recorded in the Findings & Resolution on August 24, 2004, recorded at reception number 2004-010865 on November 10, 2004.  A condition of approval for the on-site sewer system was as follows: “7. No building permit shall be issued for new structures until State and County have issued final site approval and construction permits for the sewer system.”  This condition was reflected in the Development Agreement as item #10 - Sewage and in item #25.a. - Issuance of Building Permits. 

The applicant has requested a modification of this condition and those items in the Development Agreement to read “No Certificates of Occupancy or Letters of Completion shall be issued for new structures until State and County have issued final site approval and construction permits for the sewer system.”  This would allow issuance of building permits on an “at-risk” basis while the Girl Scout Council is awaiting final approval of the sewer system.  The request was reviewed by Staff and the Department of Health and Environment.  In an effort to work cooperatively on the project, Doug Ryan of the Department of Health and Environment offered a compromise to the above request to allow the department to sign off on a footing and foundation or full building permit once adequate progress is made on the Site Approval for the sewage treatment works.  The Department of Health and Environment noted that this modification does not change requirements associated with licensure as a Residential Camp and approval for the non-community water system.   The applicant has indicated that they are in agreement with staff’s recommendation and the proposed modification to their request. 

Staff finds that the request as modified by the Department of Health and Environment is consistent with the original approval while allowing the applicant the flexibility they require to stay on schedule for their planned 2007 camp opening.   Staff supports modification of the condition of approval and modification of the Development Agreement.

Staff recommends approval of the request to modify condition #7 of the Findings and Resolution and Items #10 and # 25a of the Development Agreement for Magic Sky Ranch as follows:

In the event conditions beyond the control of the applicant delay issuance of the Site Approval and/or approval of the Plans and Specifications for the sewage treatment works, the Larimer County Department of Public Health and Environment is authorized to modify this requirement and sign off on a building permit application for a Footing & Foundation or full building permit if the Department is satisfied that adequate progress to obtain those approvals have been achieved and that the Girl Scouts Council fully understands the potential risk involved if those State level approvals are not ultimately obtained.  Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy remains contingent upon completion of the sewage treatment works and acceptance of those works for operation and discharge.

 

7.  RIVERS EDGE PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP:  This is a request to condominiumize a previously approved twelve-unit development plan.  The Planning Commission approved the River’s Edge Development Plan (DP 04-04) on April 20, 2004.  That approval provided for twelve units, which are currently under construction.  The applicant is now proposing the condominium map to allow for individual sale.  The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. 

Staff recommends approval of the requested Preliminary Condominium Map of River’s Edge Condominiums subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.  On Tuesday, February 21, 2006, the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:

1.   Pursuant to C.R.S.30-28-110, sub-section 4(a), “no plat for subdivided land shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners unless at the time of the approval of platting the subdivider provides the certification of the county treasurer’s office that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid.”

2.   This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as well as the approved development plan.

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 Preliminary Condominium Map of River’s Edge Condominiums conditional to: 

1.   Compliance with Development Plan 04-04 “River’s Edge.”

2.   The large “blanket” easement located south of the units shall be amended to include only those areas where specific utilities are planned.

 

8.  RIVERS EDGE FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP:  This is to finalize two condominium units.  The Planning Commission approved the River’s Edge Development Plan (DP 04-04) on April 20, 2004.  That approval provided for twelve units.  These are currently under construction, and the applicant is now proposing the condominium map to allow for individual sale.  The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan.  This condominium map finalizes two of the twelve approved units.  Additional “supplemental” condominium maps will follow as units are finalized.

Staff recommends approval of the requested Preliminary Condominium Map of River’s Edge Condominiums conditional to:   

 

1.   Compliance with the approved Preliminary Condominium Map.

2.  Section 22 of the declarations shall be amended to clarify the 22 year period for completion does not extend the 3 year vesting period established by the EVDC.  This change shall be subject to review and approval of the Town Attorney.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 3 through 8, as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

9.  STASZAK APPEAL - #06-G0101:  This is an Appeal to Section 4.8.9.A.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to expand a nonconforming dwelling by more than 25 percent. The proposed addition is 656 square feet; existing floor area is 744 square feet.

 

The applicant proposes to construct an addition to his existing residence, which is currently approximately 65 feet from the center of County Road 13.  This section of County Road 13 is classified as a minor collector, which requires a building setback of 100 feet from right-of-way center.  The residence is non-conforming with respect to the required 100-foot setback from the road.  According to the applicant, the residence was constructed about 1917, prior to the road setback requirement.  The owner wants to add on to the existing structure to the east (rear).  The addition, including expanded living area and bedrooms, is greater than 25% (Existing = 744 square feet; addition = 656 square feet) of the floor area of the existing building.  The proposed addition is located almost 99 feet from the center of the road.

Section 4.8.9.A. Extension, Expansion or Change in Character, states that a structure that is non-conforming with respect to a required setback from a …federal highway may be expanded if the following conditions exist:

(1)   The proposed addition is not more than 25% of the square footage of the original building that legally existed on January 1, 2000, and is not more than 1000 square feet;

(2)   No portion of the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of Transportation,; and

(3)   The proposed addition is no closer to the right of way that the building as it legally existed on January 1, 2000; and

(4)   The proposed addition has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer.

 

The applicant’s proposal does not satisfy condition #1 therefore the Board’s approval would be required to proceed.   The County Engineering Department has no objections to this appeal.  The Department of Health and Environment has no objections to the variance request but comments that existing septic system’s size and adequacy must be determined as part of the building permit process for the addition.  The Code Compliance Department found no land use or building code violations of record.

This request involves an addition to an existing single family dwelling that is nonconforming with respect to county road setback requirements.  The addition will be to the rear of the house, which is almost 100 feet from the center of the county road.  No objections have been received from any surrounding property owners or interested county, state, or federal agencies.  The addition would not subvert the purpose of the Code and will have little if no impact on the surrounding area.

 

The Development Services Team finds that the appeal meets the review criteria of Section 22.2.3 as outlined in the Land Use Code, and recommends approval of the Staszak Appeal.

Mr. Stewart displayed aerial photos of the property, and briefly explained the appeal as outlined above.  The applicant, Daniel Staszak, explained that he agrees with staff, and requested approval to add on to his home in order to extend it 12 feet. 

There was no public comment on this item.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Staszak Appeal.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10.  JACKSON ZONING VIOLATION - #04-ZV0240:  This is an alleged violation of operating a special events venue for weddings, art and craft shows and other public events in the O-Open Zoning District.

This complaint was received in September 2004 through the County Commissioners’ Office.  The complaint centered around the lack of adequate parking for the patrons of the special events facility on this site.  While it may be legal to park in the public right of way there is not much room on the shoulders of this road to accommodate parking and pedestrian movements.

When the first notice was sent to the property owners they admitted to having the special events but they claim non-conforming status under the Land Use Code.  Staff has not been able to substantiate a legal use on this site that was commenced prior to November 29, 1973, and never abandoned for more than 12 months.  It appears that there may have been some activities on the site over the years but not the level of activity that exists today.  Increased traffic on County Road 52E also makes the situation less safe than it may have been 25 years ago.

Ms. Jackson submitted some materials to support her claim of a non-conforming use.  Mr. Timm, the Planning Director, reviewed the materials and rendered an opinion that the current use is not a non-conforming use, therefore the use needs to be approved or discontinued. 

Staff believes the use should be reviewed through the Special Exception and Site Plan Review processes to address access, parking and other neighborhood impacts created by the activities on this site or the use should be discontinued.

STAFF FINDINGS:

1.   The property in question is zoned O-Open.

2.   There is a single family dwelling on the site that was built in about 1880.

3.   The owner alleges that the home has been used for special events over the years but Staff has no evidence that a non-conforming use was legally established and maintained on the site.

4.   The O-Open Zoning District does not permit business or commercial uses, except in the context of a home occupation.  Approval has not been sought by the owners to operate an events venue on this site.

5.   Continued operation of a business on this site will be detrimental to the neighborhood and will adversely affect other property.

6.   Allowing the use to continue will give an unfair competitive advantage to this business over similar businesses which have located on approved sites.

 

Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and require that the special events cease on this site within 30 days or the property owner commences a process under the Land Use Code to get approval for the business.  If the use is not discontinued or the approval process is not commenced by the deadline, authorize legal action to enforce the Land Use Code.

Mr. Kadera explained that the Board considered this item on February 13, 2006, and at that time chose to table this item in order to allow the Ms. Jackson's attorney to confer with Ms. Haag. Ms. Haag explained that she has been in contact with Ms. Jackson's attorney, Mr. Herrera, and although they agree on certain items, such as a gathering of 300 or more individuals would require a special events permit, Mr. Herrera states that if Ms. Jackson rents her property, and the individuals have a gathering of less than 300, then it would be perfectly fine.  Ms. Haag stated that if this practice occurs on a regular basis, then it does become more of a banquet/party venue, versus being used as a single family dwelling.

Some discussion ensued regarding whether or not the property has been used continuously for the weddings and banquets since 1973.  Mr. Kadera stated that the zoning has always been O-Open and if a property has established a non-conforming use that ceases to exist for more than one year, the property owner must then go through the Special Exception Process to obtain the right to re-establish and continue the use.  Discussion ensued regarding the availability of parking and Ms. Jackson stated that individuals can legally park along the road side, and there is a parking area two blocks down the road that individuals can utilize. 

 

Ms. Jackson noted that she does not want to have to apply for the Special Exception; however, if the Board chooses to require this, then she requested a waiver of the application fees for this process.

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment.   Neil Spencer, area resident, stated that he supports Ms. Jackson and her efforts to share her home with the community.  Mr. Spencer stated that in his opinion, Ms. Jackson's business is not harming anyone and he does not feel that she is in violation.  Mr. Spencer asked that the Board allow Ms. Jackson to continue operating her business.

Amy Sasick, neighbor living directly across the street from Ms. Jackson, stated that she loves it when there are weddings and events at Ms. Jackson's home.  Ms. Sasick explained that it brings life to their community, and she would hate to lose that.

There was no further public comment.

Discussion ensued regarding the business.  Ms. Jackson stated that she provided a timeline for the Planning Department that depicts how the property has been utilized over time; however, she was not informed by the Planning Department that the timeline had to show continuous use.  Ms. Jackson stated that the Bellvue community supports her business and the sharing of her historical property with the community, and questioned how many complaints were actually received.  Mr. Kadera stated that he has received three complaints from area residents.

Commissioner Rennels stated that in her opinion continuous business use of the property has been established over a long period of time; therefore, she does not feel that it is in violation.  Commissioner Rennels suggested that at some point Ms. Jackson might want to pursue the Special Exception, but noted that the current use has been substantiated and she would support it. 

Commissioner Wagner stated that although Ms. Jackson's business is supported within the community, the lack of parking is of concern.  Commissioner Wagner explained that there is also an issue of fairness, as someone else within the community may wish to start up a business, which would require a Special Exception or review of some sort.  Commissioner Wagner stated that in her opinion, it is inappropriate for the use to continue without going through the Special Exception process; however, she would support waiving the application fees for Ms. Jackson.

Chair Gibson stated that he believes the use has been established, it has been consistent, and he does not see it as a violation.  Some discussion ensued as to whether or not the Board could add a condition to waive the application fees for Ms. Jackson should she ever decide to utilize the Special Exception process.  Ms. Haag stated that the Board could not add this as a condition because this hearing is only to consider whether or not the property owner is in violation.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners find a violation exists on this site and order that the special events use cease within 30 days from today or the property owner commences a process under the Land Use Code to seek approval for the use.  If the use continues without approval, the County Attorney is authorized to commence legal action to enforce the Land Use Code.

Motion failed 1-2; Chair Gibson and Commissioner Rennels dissenting.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that there is no violation, as the use of this property has been established prior to 1963.

Motion carried 2-1; Commissioner Wagner dissenting.

 

Commissioner Rennels then commented that should Ms. Jackson decide at some point to go through the Special Exception process, then she would support a waiver of the application fees.

 

The hearing adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2006

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(# 33 & 34)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Neil Gluckman, Donna Hart,  and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Larry Timm, Rob Helmick, and Casey Stewart, Planning Department; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Department; Cliff Davidson, Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization; George Hass, County Attorney's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:   There was no public comment.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 13, 2006

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of March 13, 2006, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 27, 2006:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA: 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for March 21, 2006:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are approved:  Buck 2nd LLLP; David L. Haase; James Shultz; Randy Whitman.

 

03212006A001           STERICYCLE AGREEMENT FOR SHARPS PROGRAM BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND STERICYCLE, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE LARIMER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT

 

03212006A002           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR AUTUMN CREEK CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PHASE I, BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ERNEST GUERRERO, JR. AND PEGGY W. GUERRERO

 

03212006A003           LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE TOWN OF WELLINGTON, BY AND THROUGH THE LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF

 

03212006A004           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR RANCHO COLORADO PLANNED LAND DIVISION BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND JOHN HANNA AND ROMAN EMRYS

 

03212006A005           CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT - PARCEL MANAGEMENT PROJECT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND MINER AND MINER

 

03212006D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY THE MCPHERSON LIVING TRUST FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

03212006R001           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR AUTUMN CREEK CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT, FILE #00-S1635

 

03212006R002           RESOLUTION FOR STATUTORY VESTED RIGHTS FOR RANCHO COLORADO PLANNED LAND DIVISION

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Amendment No. 5 Larimer County Contributory Retirement Plan; Final Plat for Rancho Colorado Planned Land Division; Final Plat for Autumn Creek Conservation Development.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were both approved and issued:  Trail's End - Hotel and Restaurant - Fort Collins; Red Feather Supermarket - 3.2% - Red Feather Lakes.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.   REPAYMENT OF LOAN MADE TO THE NORTH FRONT RANGE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION:  Mr. Engemoen introduced Cliff Davidson of the Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).  Mr. Davidson presented the Board with a large "ceremonial check" representing the repayment of the $150,000 that was loaned to the   MPO by Larimer County in 2003.  Mr. Davidson explained that this loan, in addition to the loans from Weld County and the Colorado Department of Transportation, allowed the MPO to develop their own accounting and financial management system.   Mr. Davidson stated that rather than just pay back the loan silently, he wanted to publicly thank the Board and Larimer County.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners acknowledge repayment of the loan from the Metropolitan Planning Organization in accordance with the September 2003 Intergovernmental Agreement and authorize the return of the $150,000 to the Road and Bridge Fund.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  SETTING A HEARING DATE FOR THE DEEP WATER METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS #1 & #2:  Mr. Helmick explained that petitioners have submitted a request for Larimer County to review the proposed Deep Water Metropolitan Districts.  Mr. Helmick noted that state statute requires a hearing be set for both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, and he recommended April 19, 2006, for the Planning Commission hearing. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve setting a hearing date for the Deepwater Metropolitan Districts #1 and #2, to be held on April 19, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., before the Planning Commission.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Helmick also explained that he had received a petition the previous afternoon to consider the formation of the Estes Valley Rural Fire District, and although it is not listed on today's agenda, he recommended that this application also be heard by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2006.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve setting a hearing date for the Estes Valley Rural Fire Protection District, to be held on April 19, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., before the Planning Commission.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE DELIVERY IMPLEMENTATION AND TRANSITION PLAN:  Mr. Lancaster asked that this item be postponed until next week, as the Director of the Information Technology Division is out of town.

 

8.  ADOPTION OF COMMISSIONERS' WORKPLAN FOR 2006:  Mr. Lancaster presented the draft copy of the Commissioners' Workplan for 2006.  The Board then reviewed and discussed the workplan item by item.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of the Commissioners' Workplan for 2006, as amended.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

9.  APPOINTMENT OF THE VETERAN'S SERVICE OFFICER:  Mr. Lancaster explained that Colorado statute requires the Board to appoint a County Veterans Service Officer for the county every two years.  He recommended reappointing Diana Stevens for another two year term, commencing April 1, 2006.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the reappointment of Diana Stevens for another two year term as the Larimer County Veterans Service Officer, commencing April 1, 2006.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10.  REAPPOINTMENT TO THE RETIREMENT BOARD:  Ms. Hart explained that a member's term has expired and the Retirement Board has recommended the reappointment of Susan Hine for an additional term.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the reappointment of Susan Hine for a third term to the Retirement Board, effective March 21, 2006 through December 31, 2009.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

11.  REFERRAL OF SPIEGEL APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION:  Mr. Stewart explained that the property owner of this appeal wants add on a greenhouse to the residence.  The existing residence is about 13 feet from the front lot line, which requires a setback distance of 25 feet.  Mr. Stewart stated that that proposed greenhouse would be placed near the front of the house but would extend no closer than the existing house.  Mr. Stewart recommended not referring this appeal to the Planning Commission for review and comments, primarily because the project does not involve County Master Plan issues, it does not present any significant policy issues, and it is a minor project. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners not refer the Spiegel Appeal to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12.  REFERRAL OF WYATT APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION:  Mr. Stewart explained that the property owner of this appeal wants to add on to his residence and increase the living space by more than 25%.  The owner has submitted an appeal to exceed the 25% limit.  Mr. Stewart recommended not referring this appeal to the Planning Commission for review and comments, primarily because the project does not involve County Master Plan issues, it does not present any significant policy issues, and it is a minor project. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners not refer the Wyatt Appeal to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

13.  LEGISLATIVE ITEMS:  There were no legislative issues to discuss.  

 

14. WORKSESSION:   Mr. Lancaster provided an update for the Board regarding clean up of Methamphetamine Labs.  He explained that area law enforcement and fire departments, including the Sheriff's Department, Poudre Fire Authority, Berthoud Police and Fire, Estes Park Police and Fire, the Drug Task Force, and the Health Department, are working together to streamline processes, and to create a joint website to post notice of buildings that have been identified and designated as Methamphetamine Labs. 

 

Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that discussion of the Fort Collins/Loveland Airpark Plan will be on the agenda for the upcoming Joint Meeting with the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland.  He asked if there were any additional agenda items the Board wished to discuss.  Chair Gibson recommended placing the Rural Transportation Authority item on the agenda for discussion. 

 

Finally, Mr. Lancaster presented ideas on how the Board might regulate public comment during the upcoming Land Use Hearing scheduled for Monday, March 27, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., as the topics are somewhat controversial and may be well attended by the public.

 

15.  COMMISSIONER REPORTS:  The Board discussed their attendance at events during the past week.   Commissioner Rennels asked that the Board draft a letter of support for the Bee family in their efforts to create a museum on their property.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a letter of supporting the Bee family's efforts to create a museum on their property, and authorize the Chair to sign the same.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

16.  LEGAL MATTERS:  Mr. Lancaster explained that a special interest group has asked permission to circulate petitions and collect signatures within the Courthouse building.  Mr. Lancaster stated that the Board does not have a formal policy regarding this practice, and asked Mr. Hass to give an opinion on this request.  Mr. Hass stated that the Board could choose to honor the request and allow this type of practice to take place within the building; however, it could not be limited to a particular topic.  In other words, he continued, if the Board were to allow it for one group then they would have to allow it for all groups.  Discussion ensued and the Board agreed to limit this practice to being conducted outside of the building, and directed Mr. Lancaster and Mr. Hass to draft a policy on this issue.

 

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

 

 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2006

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARINGS

(#35)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 2:00 p.m. to consider multiple Petitions for Abatement.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Patty Ring, Jody Masters, Alexis Smith, and Ann Piccone, Assessor's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.   ABATEMENT HEARING FOR BOARDWALK CROSSING, LP:  Ms. Ring presented her appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board.  She explained that the property is a commercial building built in 1997, and being utilized as a bank.  Ms. Ring explained that three other area banks were used as comparables to determine the assessed valuation of $1,401,682 and asked the Board to uphold the assessed value.

Chair Gibson noted for the record that the petitioner was not in attendance at the hearing.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement for Boardwalk Crossing, LP.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

2.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR SANDRA K. PEIF:   Ms. Masters stated presented her appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board.  She explained that the property is vacant land located in the Carter Lake Heights subdivision.  Ms. Masters stated that six vacant land sales were found in the petitioner's subdivision for the 2005 valuation period.  Two of the sales were from the 18-month time frame (January 2003 through June 2004) and the remaining four were from the 6 month period prior to the 18-month time frame.  Ms. Masters explained that she utilized only the two sales within the 18-month period, as this method yielded a slightly lower market value, which resulted in the property value being assessed at $56,500.

Gary Peif, husband of Sandra Peif, explained that they purchased the property in 2005 for $32,400.  Mr. Peif presented numerous documents he obtained from two different realtors, which outlined sales and pending sales within the subdivision and surrounding area.  Mr. Peif stated that the market values in this area are declining, quite possibly due to the Health Department recently requiring that sealed vaults to be utilized for septic systems.

Ms. Masters explained that the property values in this area do appear to be declining; however, by law she is required to consider sales within the 18-month time frame.  Ms. Masters stated that during the next reappraisal cycle, the Peif's will more than likely see a lower assessed value.  Commissioner Wagner asked what Ms. Masters knew about the Health Department's requirement of sealed vaults.  Ms. Masters stated that apparently there was raw sewage running across the lower lots within the subdivision, and she understood that some lots may be required to install sealed vaults, whereas others could still utilize leach fields.  Ms. Masters reviewed the documents presented by Mr. Peif and stated that he did present one of the sales that she used to reach the assessed value; however, most of the documents related to pending sales which could not be considered.

The Board considered the issue of the sealed vaults and agreed that this could negatively affect the value of the property; therefore, they supported a reduced value of $50,000. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve reducing the value on the property owned by Sandra K. Peif, Schedule Number 1623217, to $50,000.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR MOLANDER FAMILY TRUST:  This item was removed from the agenda at the petitioner's request.

 

4.  ABATEMENT HEARING FOR PHILIP N. AND DOROTHY E. HOOD:  Ms. Smith presented her appraisal packet and reviewed its contents with the Board.  She explained that the property is located in Estes Park and a portion of it has been dedicated as a Conservation Easement.  Ms. Smith stated that the property can have up to four home sites but it is being classified as one building site at this time.   She then presented the comparables used in reaching the assessed value of $277,500. 

Philip Hood addressed the Board and asked how the property could have increased 183% since last year.  He stated that he was shocked by the increase, as his taxes have increased from approximately $2,000 to $5,000.  Ms. Smith explained that the property had not been reevaluated since 2000; however, it has been increasing in value during this period.   Chair Gibson explained that property taxes are based upon the value of the land.  Some discussion ensued regarding the value of the property, as having a Conservation Easement tied to the property often lessens the value.  Mr. Hood admitted that he currently has his property listed at $500,000 and that this price has been reduced to accommodate the Conservation Easement.  Mr. Hood stated that he did not receive notice informing him of the re-evaluation, and requested some consideration for the lack of notification and the shock of such an increase.  The Board agreed to reduce Mr. Hood's taxes to $4,500. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve reducing the taxes on the property owned by Philip and Dorothy Hood, Schedule Number 1601690 to $4,500.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

 

    __________________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

            BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk