Larimer County Offices, Courts, and District Attorney will be closed February 20, 2017 for the Presidents' Day Holiday. The Landfill will be open. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, MAY 22, 2006
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioner Wagner was present. Also present were Casey Stewart, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Christie Coleman, Engineering Department; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerks.
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 Rydell Zoning Violation, was being removed from the agenda. He then noted that Item 2, pertaining to the American Dog School Minor Special Review, was being tabled to June 12, 2006.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the American Dog School Minor Special Review, File #06-Z1587, to June 12, 2006, at 3:00 p.m.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. HANDY APPEAL - #06-G0111: This is a request for an appeal to Section 4.8.9.B.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to expand a nonconforming dwelling within the required setback from a river (Poudre River). The existing dwelling is 84 feet and the proposed addition would be 85 feet from the center of the river.
The Land Use Code that contains regulations for expanding nonconforming buildings requires that a proposed addition to a nonconforming building be outside the respective setback and that the expansion is not more than 25 % of the square footage of the original building that legally existed on January 1, 2000, and not more than 1000 square feet. The proposed addition is less than 25% and less than 1000 square feet but is within the 100 foot required setback from a river.
The applicant proposes to add on a 10’ x 12’ (120 square feet) dining room to their existing residence to increase the living area. Based on the existing circumstances, the proposed addition would require an appeal from the criteria in Section 4.8.9.B.2 that requires any expansion to be outside of the required setback distance. The existing building is only 520 square feet in size and is currently approximately 84 feet from the centerline of the Poudre River that runs to the rear (south) of the house. The closest point of the addition would be 85 feet from the river. The required setback from a river is 100 feet from the centerline. The residence was constructed about 1957, prior to the setback requirement. The owner wants to add on to the existing structure to the side (east), which is further from the river than the existing closest corner of the building.
Other review agency comments:
· Colorado Department of Transportation commented that they prefer no structures with 75’ of the highway center line. This addition complies with that distance.
· The County Engineering Department has no objections to the addition since it is outside of the 100-year floodplain.
· The Department of Health/Environment determined the addition will not interfere with the existing septic system and therefore has no objections.
· Code Compliance Department found no land use or building code violations of record.
This request seeks approval to add onto an existing single family dwelling that is nonconforming with respect to river setback requirements. The addition would be to the side of the house, further from the stream than the existing house. The resultant house size would be approximately 640 square feet, up from 520 square feet. 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 the appeal meets the review criteria of Section 22.2.3 as outlined in the Land Use Code, and recommends approval of the Handy Appeal.
Mr. Stewart presented an aerial photo of the property and explained the proposal as outlined above. The applicant, Fred Handy, concurred with Mr. Stewart's presentation and explained that he and his wife recently purchased the property and are looking forward to expanding the home.
There was no public comment on this item.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Handy Appeal, File # 06-G0111, as presented.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. GILMORE LAKE PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND USE PLAN (RLUP): The proposal for the Gilmore Lake Preliminary Rural Land Plan is to divide 72 +/- acres into four (4) lots in the following manner: Two new (2) single-family residential lots (each lot 3 acres in size), and two (2) Residual Lots (private open space) with two (2) existing home-sites. The existing home-sites and agricultural support buildings will be located within a building envelope on each Residual Lot, leaving about 53.3 acres (74% of the land) that will be protected from further development in perpetuity by either a conservation easement or a covenant, as required under the RLUP. The residual land parcels will remain as dry grazing land.
The property is located in Section 33, Township 9 North, Range 69 West. It is generally located about 5 miles north of the old Highway 287 (County Road 54G) on County Road 19 (Taft Hill Road), between County Road 60E and County Road 64. The property is an assembly of two 35-acre parcels. It is zoned FO-Forestry and RE-Rural Estate. Under the property’s current zoning (1 home site per 5 acres on 35-acres and 1 home site per 10 acres on the other 36.5 acres), up to 8 additional homes could be built if brought through the County's Conservation Development (CD) process if adequate public facilities are provided.
Two residences already exist and are located on the proposed Residual Lots A and B. The new residential lots have been sited in areas where the best soils appear to be adequate for on-site septic systems, to minimize infrastructure installation and to avoid the wet areas associated with Gilmore Lake. The project is part of the owners’ efforts to deal with estate and financial planning issues while preserving the majority of the land in its historic grazing use. Access to these new lots is proposed from County Road 19; the existing driveway access to Residual Lot B shall be retained. Per County Engineering Department request, the number of existing access points (two) onto County Road 19 will be maintained.
Each of the two new residential lots will be 3 acres in size. Domestic water for these lots will be provided by the Northern Colorado Water Association and each lot will have individual septic systems. The applicant is proposing appropriate architectural guidelines for this project to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed new residences and associated structures. The surrounding properties consist of parcels ranging in size from 1 acre to 35-acre parcels and larger. One-quarter mile to the south is the Gilmore Acres subdivision with a total of 15 houses on 89 acres; a short distance south is the Sunny Acres Subdivision with a total of 25 houses on 38 acres.
There is significant development pressure in this area for 35-acre parcels and smaller residential lots, if available. This pressure is caused by general growth along the Front Range, as well as by pressure specifically associated with growth in Fort Collins to the south and Wellington and Waverly to the east; and attractiveness of close-in acreages. The proposed density of the Gilmore Lake Rural Land Use project, one unit per 18 acres, appears to be compatible with the neighborhood.
The residual land, approximately 53.3 acres and comprising roughly 74% of the property, will be protected from further development in perpetuity with either a conservation easement or covenant. The RLUP requires that the residual land be protected for a minimum of 40 years with no further development. The current use of dry grazing land will be continued. The Residual Land parcels will have a management/use plan to foster its long-term health. The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land and for providing a periodic monitoring report(s) to the County.
A neighborhood meeting was held on January 10, 2006, at the Comfort Inn in Wellington. Approximately 15 area residents attended, and their concerns were mainly about access and architectural controls.
Referral agency comments were also solicited. Representatives from the County Engineering Department, Health Department, and Rural Land Use Advisory Board have visited the site and have consulted with the Rural Land Use Center during the conceptual design phase.
OTHER MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES:
1. Relocation of Lot 1: Although the Rural Land Use Advisory Board (RLUAB) unanimously (5-0 vote) recommended approval of the Gilmore Lake RLUP, in a separate action (3-2 vote) it also recommended that the applicant consider relocating Lot 1 to the east of the Residual Lot A building envelope—please see the attached minutes. The applicants have agreed to this change and the conceptual plan now shows Lot 1 in its new location between County Road 19 and the 5.5-acre building envelope for Residual Lot A. This change reflects the desire of the RLUAB to create a more compact cluster and to reduce the length of internal roads and other infrastructure to serve this lot. The neighbors immediately to the north also support this change because now a new house will not be conspicuously visible within the view of the mountains from their house.
2. Burrowing owl restriction no longer germane: Mr. Porter Ingrum, Environmental Planner for the County, noted the presence of prairie dogs in the vicinity of the original location of Lot 1 (west of the Residual Lot A building envelope). Western burrowing owls, a state-listed threatened species, often live in prairie dog burrows. The owls are susceptible to being buried and killed in their holes by construction activity during the nesting season. Mr. Ingrum also requested that if construction is to occur between March 1 and October 31, a survey for the presence of the owls should be completed if construction of the residence will impact the prairie dogs. This concern no longer applies since Lot 1 has been moved away from the vicinity of the prairie dog colony.
3. Expired building permits: County records indicate that there are 3 expired building permits outstanding on the Simper property, the northern 35-acre parcel in the Gilmore Lake RLUP. Therefore, the following condition of approval is recommended: Applicant shall meet with Building Code Enforcement Staff to resolve any outstanding building code issues associated with the property. A written notification of resolution of these issues shall be provided to the Rural Land Use Center Director by Building Code Enforcement Staff prior to final approval.
4. Unlicensed vehicles and other “Farmstead Collectibles” on the property: There are a number of unused vehicles and pieces of old farm equipment on the north property, as well as old construction materials. Both neighbors and the RLUAB hope to see the site cleaned up, with the materials either removed or screened from view of the road and the neighboring properties. In his comments, Mr. Doug Ryan, County Department of Health and Environment, writes concerning “Farmstead Collectables”: “The existing farmsteads contain a variety of vehicles and other materials that are stored outside. As cleanup proceeds in order to market the new lots, our office is available to consult if there are questions about disposal options”. The applicants are committed to removing and/or screening the vehicles, equipment, and materials. In addition, there was concern that appropriate restrictions regarding this type of material be included in the homeowners’ association covenants. Therefore, the following two conditions of approval are recommended: 1) Before final approval, the County Code Enforcement Staff shall investigate the property for any code violations. If code violations are found to exist, the property must be brought into compliance before final approval. Written notification of code compliance shall be provided by the Code Enforcement Staff. 2) RLUC Director shall review and approve homeowners’ association covenant provisions regarding outside storage of vehicles and other materials.
5. Engineering Department concerns about access: In her comments regarding the original conceptual plat, Ms. Christie Coleman expressed concerns about the number of potential accesses on County Road 19: “LCR 19 is classified at a minor collector and as such the Larimer County Access Policy requires a minimum access spacing of 600 feet between intersections.” Based on this, the following condition of approval is recommended: Only two points of access from the property onto County Road 19 shall be allowed. Only Residual Lot B shall have direct access to County Road 19. All other lots shall access the internal roads.
6. Dedication of 50’ half right-of-way (ROW) and fence removal agreement: In addition to requesting dedication of a 50’ half ROW, in her comments, Ms. Christie Coleman also “…requests that, if possible, all existing fences and structures be moved out of the existing and proposed dedicated right-of-way as part of this development proposal and that any new or replacement fences be moved out of the proposed right-of-way.” As a compromise, in order to accommodate the County’s future need for additional ROW with no structures or fencing, and to allow the continued beneficial use of the existing fences until such time as the additional ROW is needed by the County, the use of a binding fence removal agreement, which, at the request of the County, shall obligate the owners to remove, at their expense, the existing fences in the reserved ROW. No new fences or buildings shall be allowed in the half ROW; however repair and maintenance of existing fences shall be allowed. The fence removal agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This shall be made a condition of approval.
Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code:
Support for the Gilmore Lake Preliminary Rural Land Plan is based on the following:
· Applicant’s planning and design rationale for the project, which is consistent with the RLUP.
· Conservation values of the residual land, including preservation of grazing land, open space and wildlife habitat.
· The plan is generally compatible with the existing neighboring land uses.
Support for this proposed plan takes into consideration the various other land development and design options, particularly the 35-acre alternative, for which there is no County review. The greater number of residential units possible under the zoning and the general development pressure within the immediate area for use-by-right 35-acre division of land supports our belief that this is an appropriate project.
As proposed, this project will also provide commensurate long-term benefits to citizens of Larimer County. Those benefits are summarized below:
· Perpetual protection of residual land.
· Transportation capital expansion fees received from the project.
· School and park fees received from the project.
· Fewer residences than likely allowed through subdivision process.
· Ability to influence design of project, as compared to use-by-right division of property into 35-acre parcels.
The Rural Land Use Advisory Board Recommended approval of the Gilmore Lake RLUP as presented with a condition of approval subject to the major clean-up/screening of the debris located on Residual Lot A, to be consistent with the covenants: prohibiting outdoor storage of items unrelated to current use, and the reallocation of Lot 1 to the east side.
The Rural Land Use Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Gilmore Lake Preliminary Rural Land Plan. The following contingencies must be met prior to approval of final plat by the Board of County Commissioners:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Gilmore Lake Rural Land Plan (File # 05-S2520) 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 Gilmore Lake Rural Land Plan.
2. All roads constructed within the Rural Land Plan shall be in accordance with Section 5.8.6.D of the Rural Land Use Process. All designs must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that design standards in 5.8.6.D. were followed, before final approval. Internal roads may be contained in a private access and utility easement. The owners shall dedicate a 50’ half right-of-way along Larimer County Road 19. This dedication shall be shown on the final plat. Only two points of access from the property onto County Road 19 shall be allowed. Only Residual Lot B shall have direct access to County Road 19. All other lots shall access the internal roads. Road names and addressing shall meet standards in the “Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution”.
3. Applicants shall enter into a binding fence removal agreement with the County which, at the request of the County, shall obligate the owners to remove, at their expense, the existing fences in the dedicated half ROW. No new fences or buildings shall be allowed in the half ROW; however repair and maintenance of existing fences shall be allowed. The fence removal agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney.
4. Public water shall be provided for this project. A letter of commitment from the water provider must be provided prior to final plat approval. This letter of commitment must specifically state that the water distribution system is (or will be) designed to meet the normal and minimum pressure design standards contained in Section 8.1.2.A.1 of the Land Use Code or more stringent standards as required by the District. If the water system will be designed to provide fire protection, the letter of commitment also must address the pressure and delivery standards outlined in Section 8.1.4 of the Land Use Code.
5. Before final approval, the County Code Enforcement Staff shall investigate the property for any code violations (building and/or zoning). If code violations are found to exist, the property must be brought into compliance before final approval. Written notification of resolution of the issues shall be provided to the Rural Land Use Center Director by Code Enforcement Staff prior to final approval.
6. RLUC Director shall review and approve homeowners’ association covenant provisions regarding outside storage of vehicles and other materials.
7. Automatic fire protection sprinklers will be required for all new residential structures or written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district.
8. The residual land protective covenant and use plans must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval.
9. Restrictive covenants, including provisions for internal road maintenance, small acreage management, architectural guidelines, and other requirements must be reviewed and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director prior to final plat approval.
10. The final development agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval. This development agreement must include reference to the severed mineral rights owned by Anadarko Land Corp.
11. A Lot Sale Prohibition shall be placed on this property preventing the sale of any new lots until the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements. The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed. The Lot Sale Prohibition will be recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and will be a covenant running with the Lots. Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for the particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed.
12. The following must be listed as a note on the final plat and on a disclosure statement, approved by the County Attorney, available to lot buyers through the public records at the time of purchase:
a) LOT SALE PROHIBITION. Developers have executed a Lot Sale Prohibition Agreement which stipulates that Lots 1 and 2 and/or Residual Lot(s) A and B cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developers provide to County a written designation stating that all the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, electricity, and telephone facilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements. The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed. The Lot Sale Prohibition is recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and is a covenant running with the Lots. Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed.
b) The property is subject to the severed mineral interests that are owned by Anadarko Land Corp. The Land Plan within the Larimer County Rural Land Use Process and the subsequent development of the property in accordance with the plans do 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.
c) Only Residual Lot B shall have direct access to County Road 19. All other lots shall access the internal roads.
d) If fence removal agreement is entered into, please add the following note: There is an agreement between the County and the property owners regarding the removal of fences within the dedicated 50’ half ROW along County Road 19. This agreement is recorded in the Larimer County Records. Anyone purchasing a lot along County Road 19 will be bound by this agreement and should obtain and read a copy of the agreement.
e) The construction of any single-family residence in this development will require the installation of residential fire sprinklers if fire hydrants and/or a public water supply are not present to provide fire protection unless written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district is received.
f) Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of structures designed for habitable space 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.
g) Some or all lots in this development include building envelopes. All structures must be located within these Larimer County approved building envelopes, as shown on the approved Plan. If a structure within the building envelope is located 5’ or less from the boundary of the building envelope, the owner/applicant for a building permit will be required to demonstrate that the structure(s) is located within the building envelope prior to the approval of the footing and foundation inspection. This shall be accomplished by a written certification by a Colorado Licensed Surveyor.
h) All structures and septic systems must be located within the building envelopes on any Residual Lots.
i) Engineered footings and foundations may be required for new habitable construction. Please check with the Larimer County Building Department for requirements prior to submitting a building permit application.
j) Lot owners should be advised that there is a potential for nuisance conflicts from wildlife (such as skunks, mountain lions, bears, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, prairie dogs and snakes). The Colorado Division of Wildlife can provide information to property owners about how to handle these situations, but lot owners are responsible for addressing wildlife conflicts if they arise.
k) Many other species of wildlife live in the area; some can be dangerous to humans and pets. It must be remembered that landowners will be living with wildlife. Species that may be found in the area are coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, skunks, badgers, raccoons, deer, elk, hawks, owls and eagles.
l) Pets must be contained on property, either by leash or enclosure.
m) During certain times of the year mosquitoes may present a significant nuisance. Larimer County does not have a mosquito abatement program. Any mosquito abatement activity will be the responsibility of the homeowner; such activity must be according to applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations.
n) Prairie dog colonies exist in the general area; prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property. At times these animals are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets. It is important for residents to observe animal control requirements for dogs and cats.
o) Agricultural operations and farming practices on adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust. These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur. In addition, plowing, planting, cultivating, spraying, harvesting, and various livestock operations may be carried out at all times including nighttime.
p) If livestock will be kept on these lots, it will be important to carefully manage grazing in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture. Overgrazing will produce bare ground, weeds, erosion and polluted runoff. Management of these lots should be coordinated with drainage and erosion control issues, siting of sanitation systems, fencing and feeding.
q) Larimer County has adopted a Right to Farm Resolution.
r) The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Poudre R-1 school fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Park Fees (in lieu of dedication), and Rural Land Use Process fees. The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply.
s) Larimer County shall not maintain roads or streets in this development. Maintenance of the streets shall be the responsibility of the property owners. Failure to maintain streets may result in a lien being placed on these lots.
t) At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential lots and Residual Lot(s) A and B with the Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County.
u) The owners of the residual land parcels shall provide a monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center, upon the request of the Rural Land Use Center Director.
v) Lots in this Rural Land Plan are subject to the conditions and requirements of a Development Agreement. The Developer and Larimer County executed this agreement in consideration of the approval of this Development. This Agreement was recorded in the Larimer County Clerk’s and Recorder’s office immediately after this plat. All purchasers should obtain and read the Development Agreement.
Mr. Reidhead displayed a slide-show presentation regarding the proposal. Commissioner Wagner asked if the wetlands buffer was 100 feet from the property line or the building. Mr. Reidhead explained that the buffer required was 100 feet from the property line. Chair Gibson asked if fire sprinklers were being required. The applicant, Terry Reu, addressed the Board and explained that the property sits right on the dividing line between the Poudre Fire Authority and the Wellington Fire Protection District; she noted that automatic fire protection sprinklers are required by both entities for all residential structures. Ms. Reu explained that the Division of Wildlife requires a 100 foot buffer to the property line and they will adhere to this condition.
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 Gilmore Lake Preliminary Rural Land Plan subject to the conditions recommended by the Rural Land Use Center Director, and with the change to Condition "u", which states that a monitoring report must be provided upon the request of the Rural Land Use Center Director.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing recessed at 3:35 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
(#57 & 58)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present. Also present were: George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerks.
Chair Gibson reversed the order of the agenda, as staff is recommending that Item 2, regarding the Deep Water Metropolitan Districts 1 & 2, be tabled.
2. DEEP WATER METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 1 & 2 - #06-G0108: Mr. Helmick explained that there are some issues with this proposal that need to be resolved and he presented a handout which described the outstanding issues.
Dave Stewart, representing the applicant, displayed a slide-show presentation for the Board, and briefly explained the history of the project and some of the pre-design planning that has occurred. Brad Bartch, Attorney for the Town of Wellington, stated that the town would benefit dramatically utilizing the water coming from this project. The applicant, Richard Seaworth, explained that he has tried to develop this land for many years, but water availability has always been an issue.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table Item 2, concerning the Deep Water Metropolitan Districts 1 & 2, File #06-G0108, to August 21, 2006, at 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Helmick noted for the record that the applicant must be in agreement to table the item for more than 30 days. Mr. Seaworth concurred with staff's recommendation to table this item for 90 days in order to rectify the issues at hand.
Motion carried 3-0.
1. ESTES VALLEY RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - #06-G0106: This is a request for Board of County Commissioners approval of the formation of a new fire protection district.
This is a proposal to form a new fire protection district, intended to facilitate the provision of fire suppression and protection services to the areas outside of the Town of Estes Park by acting as the financing entity for services to be provided by the existing Town fire department. The boundaries of the district as currently proposed encompass an area outside the town limits and excluding Rocky Mountain National Park and the eastern limits adjoin lands in existing fire districts or departments. The creation of a taxing authority will provide the funding mechanism needed to provide and maintain services. The process for the establishment of a special district is mandated by state statute which includes very strict time frames for review, notice and hearings and includes criteria for review as discussed below.
The statutes require the Board of County Commissioners hold a public hearing with both published and mail notice to land owners. This notice was provided in the Coloradoan and in the Estes Trail Gazette as well as notice to the landowners. All of these notices also explain that any landowner requesting to be excluded must advise the Board of County Commissioners no later than 10 days prior to the hearing. At this time we have received no notice of any requested exclusions. At the hearing, prior to action on the proposal itself the Board of County Commissioners will have to determine the disposition of the requested exclusions.
The Larimer County Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 19, 2006, regarding this request so that they could forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The applicants and others in support of the request were present and after the staff presentation made brief remarks to the commission. In response to conditions recommended to the commission, Jim Austin, representing the applicants, advised that the service plan budget numbers had been revised to reflect the potential of the YMCA of the Rockies not being taxable property by removing the values and adjusting the capital reserve numbers so that no increase in the proposed mill levy is needed; and that they had no objection to reflecting the Glen Haven area as a possible service area expansion although the Glen Haven department was currently “happy” with the volunteer status due to the current arrangements which exist with the two large developments in their service area.
The Larimer County Planning Commission based upon the testimony of the applicant and information from the staff has forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Planning Commission and Development Services Team recommend approval of the Estes Valley Rural Fire Protection District, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall address the concerns of the Commission, staff (as identified in this report and that arise during additional review and analysis) and referral agencies prior to the final decision of the Board of County Commissioners.
2. The plan shall meet the minimum requirements of State statute regarding the formation of a new special district.
3. The service Plan must be revised to reflect the potential of the YMCA of the Rockies property to become nontaxable property. This shall include either a revised budget and or revised mill levies to maintain the funding levels proposed.
4. Prior to final approval the district proponents shall execute a satisfactory IGA with Larimer County. This IGA shall at a minimum include language allowing the County to assure the District is working to include properties in a cooperative manner and in a reasonable and cost effective manner. Further allowing the County review and input into the construction of facilities, including Site Plan review and building permit issuance when proposed in their jurisdiction.
5. Expand/define a potential inclusion area in the Service Plan to include the area currently served by the Glen Haven volunteer department.
Mr. Helmick explained that the Board would need to take action on both the exclusion requests and the application itself. He then displayed an aerial photo of those property owners that have requested to be excluded from the proposed district. Mr. Helmick noted that he has received five "late" requests for exclusion, in addition to the 29 properties depicted on the aerial photo. Chair Gibson recessed the meeting for 10 minutes in order to allow the applicant to review the five late requests for exclusion.
Jim Austin, representative for the Firewise Coalition of Estes Valley, displayed a lengthy slide show presentation, which indicated that they have met all of the statutory requirements; he requested the Board approve the proposal so they could petition District Court in order to place the issue on the November ballot.
Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment. Joann Thompson, area resident, stated that she did not receive the mailing in a timely manner. She stated that it did not seem right that out-of-state property owners could not vote on the issue, yet renters could. Ms. Thompson requested that her property be excluded from the district.
Ira Matthews, committee member and resident, stated that they have to look at the situation as it applies to all within the district, and that everyone must participate for the sake of fairness.
John Lynch, area resident, stated that he was very surprised when he applied for a burning permit and was told that he would need to obtain the permit from the Sheriff's Department because his property was not located within a fire protection district. Mr. Lynch was in favor of creating the district for the safety of his family and property.
Bob Lawrence, area resident, stated that nobody should be allowed to opt out of the district, and asked the Board to please consider protecting all residents within the district.
Jeannine Swatzki, area resident, stated that there is no water available where she lives and asked how they would be able to put out a fire in her area. Chair Gibson explained that they would utilize tankers full of water when responding to areas such as Ms. Swatzki's.
Bridgett Peterson explained that she is an out-of-state resident and that her mother lives in the property and is on a fixed income. Ms. Peterson stated that the YMCA's portion of the taxes would really help and they should be included if at all possible.
Bob Cheney, area resident, explained that he served on the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department for 20 years, and he believes that this proposal will make sure the outlying areas receive fire protection, and assist in paying for it.
Jim Mathay, area resident, stated that although he is on a fixed income, he will vote in favor of this issue.
John Baudek, Mayor of Estes Park, explained that he has an obligation to look into the future, and if this is passed then it will provide services for area residents for decades to come. He asked for the Board's approval on this proposal.
Chair Gibson closed public comment, and Jim Austin responded to some of the citizens concerns. The Board discussed the YMCA camp and their possible exemption from paying taxes and how this would affect the proposed fire district. Mr. Austin explained that they have prepared two budgets and are prepared if the YMCA camp is indeed exempted from paying taxes. Commissioner Rennels stated that excluding properties really is not effective because if someone's house is burning, the emergency services will come and put the fire out; therefore, she was opposed to excluding anyone from the district. Chair Gibson and Commissioner Wagner agreed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny all requests for exclusion from the proposed Estes Valley Rural Fire Protection District.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the service plan for the Estes Valley Rural Fire Protections District with the conditions 1, 2, & 4, as recommended by the Larimer County Planning Commission and Development Review Team.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2006
(#59 & 60)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Assistant County Manager Neil Gluckman. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present. Also present were: Frank Lancaster, Deni LaRue, and Donna Hart, Commissioners Office; Marc Engemoen; Public Works Department; Ray Esola, Greeley Stampede Committee Member; Gary Buffington, Parks and Open Lands; George Hass, Burt Burrows, and Joe Pugliese, Nationwide Retirement Services; Kathryn Rowe, Purchasing Department; Brianna Rowe, Scholarship Recipient; MaryAnn Schmidt, Purchasing Department; County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerks.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: James Hickey, a Larimer County resident, addressed the Board with concerns related to County Road 7. This is a frontage road, parallel to I-25, and is used as the only entrance into and out of his subdivision. His primary concern is the lack of a deceleration lane heading south for drivers turning into the subdivision. Mr. Hickey suggests that the speed limit be lowered to 35 miles per hour as opposed to realigning the road, a process that would be much more costly. Mr. Hickey realized that there is some confusion pertaining to who is in charge of maintaining this particular road and is not sure if it is the responsibility of the County, City, or CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation). Mr. Engemoen stated that he will assist Mr. Hickey and make sure he addresses this issue with the proper entity.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 15, 2006:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of May 15, 2006.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 29, 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 May 23, 2006:
05232006A001 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND JASON LABELLE
05232006A002 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND A-1 CHIP SEAL COMPANY
05232006A003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF HOUSING AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY
05232006A004 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE STATE OF COLORADO AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY
05232006A005 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE STATE OF COLORADO AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY
05232006D001 DEED OF DEDICATION BY ALFRED LEROY FLINT FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY
05232006D002 DEED OF DEDICATION BY GALE E. HANSEN FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY
05232006D003 DEED OF DEDICATION BY ERIC HOPKINS AND JAMIE HOPKINS FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY
05232006D004 DEED OF DEDICATION BY BENJAMIN O. MANCHEGO AND WANDA M. MANCHEGO FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY
05232006R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PARRISH RANCH ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT
05232006R002 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
MISCELLANEOUS: Reapplication for Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program Grant.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. SCHOLARSHIP PRESENTATION: Burt Burrows, of Nationwide Retirement Systems, and Joe Pugliese, a Nationwide Representative, presented a $2500 college scholarship check to Brianna Rowe, a local high school senior. This was a national contest, with two winners, who submitted the best answers for “The Top 10 Reasons to Save for Retirement.”
6. GREELEY INDEPENDENCE STAMPEDE PROCLAMATION: Ray Esola, concessions chairman, read the Proclamation aloud, and declared Sunday, June 25, 2006, Larimer County day at the Greeley Independence Stampede. The Board accepted the proclamation on behalf of Larimer County.
7. STATUS OF THE INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING FOR HORSETOOTH MOUNTAIN PARK AND TO CONSIDER DELAYING FURTHER WORK ON INVESTIGATION UNTIL 2007: Mr. Engemoen and Mr. Buffington explained the situation of alternative funding for Horsetooth Mountain Park. Mr. Engemoen suggested that this issue be put on hold to look at what the potential costs would be, and to assess other long term effects and expenses. He suggested a delay of up to one year. Commissioner Wagner was in favor of this decision, especially since there is no Parks Advisory Board in place at this time.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve delaying the investigation of alternative funding for Horsetooth Mountain Park for approximately one year unless the County Commissioners direct staff to do otherwise.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. WORKSESSION: There were no worksession items to discuss.
9. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: The Board discussed their attendance at events during the past week.
10. LEGAL MATTERS: Executive Session (affidavit provided).
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
At the conclusion of the first Executive Session, Frank Lancaster, County Manager, asked that the Board go into Executive Session again to discuss personnel matters. (Tape #60.)
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The Executive Session ended at 10:45 a.m., with no further action taken.
GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk