MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, OCTOBER 15, 2007
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioner Eubanks was present. Also present were: Samantha Mott and Chad Bahr, Planning; Matt Johnson, Engineering; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health; William Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, 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. TURNER MINOR LAND DIVISION, FILE #07-S2722: The current application area consists of two properties totaling 86 acres in size that are located approximately 6.5 miles east of the eastern edge of Rocky Mountain National Park and approximately 12.5 miles west of the southern end of Horsetooth Reservoir in Larimer County. The eastern property runs mainly north and south, is currently owned by Robert and Pamela Heil, and consists of 36 acres. The western property is a “reverse” oriented L-shape that runs also north and south. It is owned by Thomas and Shelly Turner and consists of 50 acres.
Geographically speaking, both properties are entirely located above 8100 feet in elevation, sloped generally downwards to the north toward Crystal Mountain Road and are covered with a mixture of native lodge-pole pine, aspen, birch, spruce and fir trees. There are some grasslands found in the north section of each existing property. The North Fork of Fish Creek runs along the northern extremes of each property. Crystal Mountain is located approximately two miles directly northwest of the northwest corner of the Turner’s property.
The applicant, Jerry Robinson, and the land owners desire to plat said property as a two lot division in the form of a minor land division (MLD) as described in Section 5.4.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. As proposed, Lot 1 would be located in the northwest corner of the area and consist of approximately 10.1 acres; and Lot 2 would be the balance of property, consisting of approximately 73.1 acres. The Turner’s desire to sell approximately 36 acres of land to the Heil’s so that the Heil’s will have direct access to U.S. Forest Service Lands.
Vehicular access would be from Crystal Mountain Road located along the north property line of the western property and touching at the northwest corner of the proposed eastern property. There are trail roads located in the area as well.
The eastern property is not currently served by either an individual water well or a private sewer system. The western property currently has a permitted water well and a vaulted privy, which serve a small bunk house. If the MLD is approved, proposed Lot 1 would contain these existing physical improvements.
The Development Services Team finds that the proposed Turner MLD is consistent with the review criteria and standards of Section 5.4 (Minor Land Division) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, provided the applicant complies with all conditions of approval. The proposed Turner MLD is not part of previously recorded exemptions. Staff supports approval of an appeal to the review criteria to allow this property to be subdivided as a Minor Land Division. The proposed Turner MLD will meet the minimum lot size requirements for the O, Open Zoning District, where it is located. The lots created can meet the minimum access standards of the County Engineering Department. The proposed Turner MLD is not anticipated to result in any negative impacts to surrounding properties or uses. There is no net increase in vehicular traffic based upon the MLD proposal.
The Development Services Team Recommends approval of the Turner Minor Land Division, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:
1. Meet the survey requirements as specified in the letter dated August 29, 2007, from Larimer County Land Surveyor, Dale Greer.
2. Meet the applicable building permit requirements for the existing cabins on each of the subject properties as specified in the letter dated September 21, 2007, from Larimer County Code Compliance Supervisor, Candace Phippen.
3. All conditions (see above) of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by April 15, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. COLLEY MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL, FILE #07-Z1657: The applicant seeks approval for a Minor Special Review to allow an Accessory Living Area on a 2.3 acre property situated on the east side of Peep O’ Day Lane approximately 1/4 mile north of the intersection of Peep O’ Day Lane and Wild Lane. The property has an existing 3581-square-foot residence, as well as an approximately 5200-square-foot barn/ garage/studio.
The owner applied for a permit for the accessory building in December of 2006. At that time, the owner signed a Use Affidavit stating that the “use of the building shall be accessory to the primary dwelling on the property and shall be for private, personal use only. It shall not be used for accessory living area (as second living quarters), home occupation, commercial or industrial purposes unless and until proper county approval is granted for such uses.”
The owners now wish to use a portion of the building for an accessory dwelling unit. Because the new accessory dwelling unit is proposed to be 880 square feet, it exceeds the limit set by Section 4.3.10 of the Land Use Code for new accessory dwelling units. The Code limits the size of an accessory living area in detached buildings to 40 percent of the square footage in the single-family dwelling or 800 feet, whichever is less. In this case the 800 square feet is less. Thus, the application includes an appeal to this standard so the structure can be approved for 880 square feet.
The Land Use Code states that accessory uses are intended to allow property owners the full use of their property, while maintaining the integrity and character of the neighborhood. To meet these goals, accessory uses and buildings must be erected and used only for purposes that are clearly secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property. They must be located on the same lot with the principal use, and the accessory living area should not be used as a rental unit. It is the assessment of the Development Services Team that this request can meet the standards, provided the owner complies with the requirements for an Accessory Living Area and satisfies the recommended conditions of approval.
The Development Services Team finds that the request is compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and in harmony with the neighborhood. Approval of the detached accessory dwelling unit will not exceed air, water, odor or noise standards established by county, state or federal regulations. The proposed use will not adversely affect property values in the area affected. Provided the applicant complies with any conditions of approval and meets the standards found in Section 4.3.10 of the Land Use Code, the proposed use will comply with all requirements of the Land Use Code and all applicable county, state and federal regulations.
In addition to the above, the Development Services Team also finds, regarding the appeal to Section 4.3.10.F.2 standards on size, that approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose of the standard or requirement; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood; is the minimum action necessary; will not result in increased costs to the general public; and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the code.
The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve of the appeal to the Section 4.3.10.F standard that limits the detached accessory dwelling use to no more than 40 percent of the square footage in the single-family dwelling or 800 feet, whichever is less. The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Colley Minor Special Review, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Colley Minor Special Review (File #07-Z1657), 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 Colley Minor Special Review.
2. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the county, county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Minor Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review approval.
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.
4. The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for the new residence, the Accessory Living Area All applicable fees, including permit fees and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, shall apply to this use.
5. The habitable space of the current structure shall not be further expanded beyond the proposed 880 square feet.
6. At the time of the building permit application, the owner shall sign a Detached Accessory Living Area Agreement, which will indicate what the owner has agreed to as well as advise potential future lot buyers of the restrictions placed on the Accessory Living Area. In addition, the owners will need to sign an amendment to the Use Affidavit (signed by the owners when Building Permit 06-B1459 was originally issued) confirming a portion of the structure is authorized to be used as an accessory living area. This amendment will be recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
7. At the time that a building permit is requested, the Health Department will evaluate the capacity for the septic system. If the total number of bedrooms in the residence and accessory dwelling unit is more than four, the septic system would need to be enlarged. Enlarging the septic system requires a design that meets Health Department technical standards and a permit issued by the Department for the work.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined above.
Motion carried 2-0.
The meeting recessed at 3:03 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
(#128 & #129)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Geniphyr Ponce-Pore and Brenda Gimeson of Rural Land Use. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Gibson were present. Also present were: Christi Coleman, Engineering; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health; Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
1. MEADOWLARK RURAL LAND USE PLAN, FILE #07-S2680: Geniphyr Ponce-Pore addressed the Board, reviewed various maps of the site and provided an explanation and history of the matter. The property is located in Section 3, Township 8 North, Range 69 West and Section 34, Township 9 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; generally located west of the Town of Wellington and northwest of the City of Fort Collins, about one-half mile east of County Road 19 (Taft Hill Road) and the north side of County Road 60E, off of Rita Lane. The property is zoned RE-Rural Estate. Under the property’s current RE-Rural Estate (one home site per ten acres) zoning, up to 23 homes could potentially be built, if approved through the County's Conservation Development (CD) process. If left as 35-acre parcels, they could have up to six home sites. 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 property referred to is approximately 237 acres total and consists of six 35-acre parcels owned by six different individuals. It includes five existing single-family residences, irrigated hayfields, dry grazing land and some wetlands. There are also some irrigation ditches and irrigation facilities throughout the property that deliver water to the irrigated hayfields. The surrounding properties consist mainly of 35-acre and smaller parcels, with two Rural Land Plans just south of County Road 60E.
These six 35-acre parcels and those surrounding them were created in 1978 by Leon and Terry Reu. At that time, the County required that a 30-foot strip of land be deeded in order to assure that each 35-acre parcel would have direct access to County Road 60E. Later, Mr. and Mrs. Reu decided to alter this original plan by using an existing field road, thus creating Rita Lane. Mr. and Mrs. Reu placed a 30-foot easement in the deeds for the remaining parcels to assure each 35-acre parcel would have rights or ingress and egress via Rita Lane.
In order to protect their rights to further develop the property in the future, Mr. and Mrs. Reu placed a deed restriction on an unsold 35-acre parcel in the northwest corner. This 35-acre parcel allowed additional crossings over the 30-foot strip (currently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Host) to allow additional crossings to access other lots. This was in 1979; whether or not this deed restriction transferred with the new owners has been an area of contention with the neighbors.
In 1980, a land swap was made between Mr. and Mrs. Reu and the Klemetsons (the property now owned by the Watkins). A 30-foot strip from the east side of this 35-acre parcel was moved to the west side of the 35-acre parcel. This allowed the Klemetsons to access to County Road 60E, and enabled them to complete an exemption to divide their 35-acre parcel into two lots. This 1980 exemption created a 27-acre parcel and 10-acre parcel located on northwest side, adjacent but outside of this proposal. Although this was located outside of this proposal, this action created the existing 30-foot strip of land that in which lies the “Unnamed Road.” In 1981, an ingress/egress agreement was made between Klemetson and Mr. and Mrs. Reu on the unnamed road to allow for the trade of a 30-foot easement and access to another 35-acre parcel even further to the north. Mr. and Mrs. Reu sold all the 35-acre parcels by 1993.
A disagreement stands now between the Applicants (Terry Rue and James Gruver) and the neighbors, including Mr. and Mrs. Crego and Mr. and Mrs. Host. This application proposes that the access for several of the proposed lots be Rita Lane and the Unnamed Road. Ms. Rue has stated that when she began selling the 35-acre parcels, it was her intention to protect her rights to further subdivide in the future, and that she has the right to propose that legal access for the proposed lots be Rita Lane and the Unnamed Road.
The neighbors disagree, stating that the rights to use Rita Lane and the Unnamed Road were granted to the original landowners only, back when the lots were originally created, and those rights are not transferable with the sale of the property. They believe that agreements regarding access were between the landowners at the time, do not run with the land, and cannot be granted by Ms. Rue to potential owners of the proposed lots. Further, the neighbors believe that Ms. Reu does not have the legal right to grant the rights to create or allow additional crossings to access Rita Lane or the Unnamed Road. To date, this issue has not been decided. The applicants and neighboring property owners have been attempting to solve the legal access issue; but at this point, it is unresolved.
This proposal includes a request for a variance to Section 5.8.4.A.2 for RLUP projects involving two or more noncontiguous parcels where a transfer of development rights among parcels will occur.
In their proposal, the applicants/owners of this property want to request that four lots be transferred from the east property 167 acres to the west side of the property 70 acres, across the two parcels that create the non-contiguity. The Rural Land Use Process allows the transfer of development rights between contiguous properties, or between non-contiguous parcels under specific conditions. The regulations state: a) At least one of the parcels must be 70 acres in size and all other parcels must be a least 35 acres in size; and b) The receiving parcel(s) must be at least 70 acres in size. However, the receiving parcel is only 35-acres, not the required 70 acres. The Applicant is requesting a variance to allow the transfer of development rights between on-contiguous parcels where the receiving lot is less than 35 acres.
Staff supports the variance for four reasons: 1. The transfer allows for a better design that is consistent with the intent of the Rural Land Use process in that it allows for more clustering of the homes. 2. The transfer of development moves the development out of the area of the wetlands and better protects this important community feature and habitat. 3. If the variance were not granted, the project could continue forward as two pieces and with greater impacts to the wetlands area. 4. Staff is of the opinion that the non-contiguity regulation was set forth to assure that parcels that were not connected, and which might exist miles apart but under one ownership, would ultimately behave as two separate developments and ecosystems. That is not the case with this request. The non-contiguity here is a result of a county regulation that required the legal, but not physical, separation of these properties. The impacts of the development are as if this were one property – not two, separate, non-contiguous parcels.
If this variance request is approved, the proposed request is for preliminary approval to divide approximately 237 acres into sixteen 16 total lots, resulting in thirteen 13 home sites. Of the requested thirteen 13 home sites, six 6 already exist. The proposed design assures proximity to existing roads, adequate soils for septic systems, and the preservation of the irrigated hayfields and drainage/wetland areas by removing the ability to further subdivide the property at a later date.
The applicants are proposing seven new single-family residential lots. These seven new residential lots will range in size from three to six acres. The remaining nine lots will consist of eight Residual Lots (six of them containing a building envelope for the existing residences and agricultural buildings and two of them with no buildings), and one Outlot for a small cooperative irrigation system which will use the existing irrigation ditches and underground irrigation pipelines.
All residual lots and Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 will have building envelopes to assure all development is well-placed with respect adequate soils for on-site septic systems, neighboring landowner views, distance from riparian areas, and minimization of new road cuts.
The undeveloped portion of the Residual Lots, approximately 180 acres and comprising roughly 76% of the property, will be protected from further development for a minimum of 40 years, as required under the RLUP. The portion outside of the building envelopes on the residual land will remain as undeveloped irrigated hayfields and dry grazing land. The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land and for providing periodic monitoring report(s) to the County. A Management/Use Plan for the irrigated hayfields and dry grazing land will be required at the time of final approval. Water to each lot will be provided by Northern Colorado Water Association, and each lot will have individual septic systems. The proposed density of the Meadowlark Rural Land Use project, one unit per 18 acres, appears to be compatible with the neighborhood and the established land pattern.
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 14, 2007, at the Comfort Inn in Wellington. About twelve area residents attended. The concerns voiced were predominately about access and easement rights, the legal status of the roads, and new lot placement and the impacts to neighboring property owners.
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.
Staff finds that this proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code:
Support for the Meadowlark Preliminary Rural Land Plan is based on the fact that the applicant’s planning and design rationale for the project are consistent with the RLUP; conservation value of the residual land have been considered, including the preservation of irrigated hayfields and the preservation of wetland areas and open space; and 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 greater number of residential units possible under the zoning and the general development pressure within the immediate area small lots, which support staff’s assessment hat this is an appropriate project.
As proposed, this project will also provide commensurate long-term benefits to citizens of Larimer County. Those benefits include protection of existing agricultural operation and the irrigated hayfields; preservation of wetland and drainage area; transportation capital expansion fees received from the project; school and park fees received from the project; fewer residential building sites than would likely have been allowed through existing zoning; and the ability to influence design of project, as compared to use-by-right division of property into 35-acre parcels.
The Rural Land Use Center recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Meadowlark Rural Land Plan as originally proposed to staff with the access points being the Unnamed Road and Rita Lane, with the following contingencies that 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 Meadowlark Rural Land Plan (File # 07-S2680), 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 Meadowlark Rural Land Plan.
2. A professional delineation of the extent of the wetlands and flood-prone areas must be conducted in the areas of the Dry Creek drainage (Lot 5 and Envelope C) and an evaluation completed to determine if the lots are reasonably developable. The evaluation must include issues of floodplain, wetlands and soils; and each lot shall be evaluated in order to determine the potential buildable area on the lot. This evaluation must be reviewed and approved by the Larimer County Health Department prior to final plat approval. If the lots are not determined to be buildable and the sites not approved by the Health Department, a new plan will need submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for new preliminary approval.
3. Applicants must solve any boundary disputes with the neighboring property owners prior to final approval.
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. 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 certifying that the design standards in 5.8.6.D. were followed, prior to final approval. Internal roads may be contained in a private access and utility easement. The owners shall dedicate a 40-foot half right-of-way along Larimer County Road 60E. This dedication shall be shown on the final plat. Road names and addressing shall meet standards in the “Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution.”
6. A binding road maintenance agreement must be created for all access roads and must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval.
7. If any fences or structures are currently in the right-of-way, the 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.
8. Applicant must obtain an access permit from the Larimer County Access Coordinator prior to commencing any construction on the project. Before designing roads, applicant and applicant's engineer must contact the Larimer County Access Coordinator to discuss access design requirements. Applicant shall comply with all such design requirements. Applicant's plans must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that they meet the access design requirements.
9. If required, applicant must provide a Storm Water Management Report to the Rural Land Use Center prior to commencing any construction on the project. Before designing storm water drainage facilities, applicant and applicant's engineer must contact the Larimer County Engineering Environmental Specialist to discuss storm water management design requirements. Applicant shall comply with all such design requirements. Applicant's plans must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that they meet the storm water management design requirements.
10. A prairie dog management plan must be prepared and reviewed and approved by the Larimer County Health Department prior to final approval. This shall include the timing, extent and method of prairie dog control during construction and the ability to maintain control in the disturbed area.
11. All building envelopes shall be located outside the floodplain and drainage areas and shall meet minimum setback requirements listed in the Larimer County Land Use Code.
12. Building envelopes will be required for each Residual Lot and Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. These building envelopes must assure the new residence is situated as required to access adequate soils for on-site septic systems and to assure the buildable area is outside of any flood area.
13. Automatic fire protection sprinklers will be required for all new residential structures or written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district.
14. If construction earthwork is to occur between March 1 and October 31, the area should be checked for the presence of burrowing owls by a qualified environmental consultant prior to any earth-moving taking place. If burrowing owls are present, then a mitigation plan must be reviewed and approved by the Division of Wildlife.
15. If disturbance of the wetlands or wet meadows is necessary, a survey of the site must be done to determine if it is advisable to conduct a Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Survey. The applicant must contact the USFWS before starting construction to determine if a survey is needed. If so, the USFWS recommendations will need to be followed. A letter from USFWS regarding the requirements will need to be submitted to the Rural Land Use Center before final approval and additional requirements of the RLUP may be required at that time.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. The final development agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval.
19. 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 the 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, the county will provide the developers with a release of The Lot Sale Prohibition for the particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed.
20. The following items 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 1-7 cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until developers provide to the 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 the 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, the county will provide to the 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 E&P Company LP and Anadarko Land Corp. The Conceptual Plan and Final Rural Land Plan within the Larimer County Rural Land Use Plan 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) 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.
d) 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.
e) 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 five feet 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.
f) All structures and septic systems must be located within the building envelopes on any Residual Lots.
g) 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.
h) 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.
i) 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.
j) Pets must be contained on property, either by leash or enclosure.
k) 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.
l) 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.
m) 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.
n) 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, citing of sanitation systems, fencing and feeding.
o) Larimer County has adopted a Right to Farm Resolution.
p) 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), Drainage Fees and Rural Land Use Process fees. The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply.
q) 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.
r) At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential lots and Residual Lot(s) A though H with the Code of the West, a county document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County.
s) The owners of the residual land parcel shall be responsible for providing, at the request of the Director, a periodic monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center.
t) 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.
Applicant James Gruver approached the Board and expressed his appreciation for the effort made by county staff with respect to this matter, stating that they have taken great care to address infrastructure and irrigation issues, while also considering property owner desires. Mr. Gruver then discussed the history of the properties involved in this project. In closing, he stated that the information provided to the Board by the staff for this meeting is very thorough.
Applicant Terry Reu approached the Board and stated that she has purchased the development rights from some of the landowners. Chair Rennels asked for clarification. Ms. Rue stated that she did not purchase the property; rather, she purchased the rights to the Rural Land Use (RLU) and is working as an agent for the RLU. She further stated that, per agreements with the land owners, she will own Lots 1 and 2 after the RLU has been established.
Ms. Reu went on to explain that the RLU option was sought in this circumstance as a way to hold down density and preserve the current lifestyle in the area. She continued by reviewing the items that still are of contention for some of the property owners, such as concern for the water and wetlands located on the site and the future use of existing access roads. Ms. Reu referred to a 1981 agreement stating that she holds rights of ingress and egress for the property currently known as the “Unnamed Road.” She closed by stating that, while agreements have not yet been reached among all the property owners, she appreciates the efforts being made by all involved and engaged in the negotiations.
Discussion ensued regarding clarification of the boundary lines, specific lot locations and access roads on the map. Commissioner Gibson asked about domestic water for the lots. Ms. Reu indicated that she had contacted the Northern Colorado Water District and received a verbal confirmation that water would be available for this area. She stated that she had also researched the size of the water line that comes into this area, and it appears to be of adequate dimension. Commissioner Eubanks asked about what Ms. Reu knew of the Crego concerns. Ms. Reu explained that the Crego’s are concerned that the 60-foot right-of-way is encroaching on their property; further, they do not believe that the noted 1981 agreement is valid.
Discussion continued regarding Lot 5, whether the water in that area will allow enough space for a septic system for the structure on that property, and whether or not a drainage study of the area should be accomplished prior to or after preliminary approval by the Board.
Chair Rennels then opened the meeting to public comment. Larry Crego, resident of 1690 WCR 60E, approached the Board and explained the history of his ownership of the property, past experiences with the Applicants, and lack of inclusion when this project was first considered. He further stated his belief that this project does not fit the RLU model, citing the lack of clustered home sites. Mr. Crego also noted legal issues surrounding this matter, specifically the 1981 agreement, stating that the property owners granted rights by this agreement are no longer property owners in the subject area and, therefore, have no rights under the agreement. He further commented on the condition of the Unnamed Road and past and future upkeep of it, stating that he has all but taken sole responsibility for the upkeep of this road for the past 22 years (since owning his current property). Mr. Crego also spoke about fencing on his property and his belief that Rita Lane encroaches on his property in some areas. Mr. Crego closed by explaining that he does not wish to fight with his neighbors, but also does not want future homes to be located up against his fence.
Chair Rennels asked for clarification regarding the property trade that had taken place in the past. Mr. Crego explained that the property trade had taken place prior to his purchase of the property and involved a trade of a small portion of land on one side of his property for a small portion of land on the other side of his property. Mr. Crego stated that he his property includes both roads on both sides.
Diana Crego, property owner and wife of Larry Crego, approached the Board and expressed her belief that the proposed project does not fit the guidelines of the RLU (citing the intended locations for houses) and her concern about the lack of communication that, from her perspective, has plagued this project. She further stated that, per her legal council, the validity of the 1981 agreement is questionable; because none of those included in the agreement are currently property owners in the area of this project. She concluded by explaining that she has her husband raise high-dollar show live stock, and she is concerned about how this project will affect their livelihood.
Ralph Watkins, property owner in the subject area, approached the Board and explained that he is one of the six property owners who were involved in putting this RLU proposal together. He stated that pressure for development prompted this action, as the current zoning would allow for one home site for every 10 acres. Mr. Watkins stated that he sees this action as a way to avoid such density and requested that the Board approve this proposal.
At this time, seeing no further requests to speak, Chair Rennels closed public comment.
Discussion ensued among the Board and staff regarding drainage in the area and the Health Departments perspective; what happens if required studies indicate that the lot locations are not appropriate; and ingress and egress concerns.
Ms. Reu again approached the Board and took personal responsibility for the lack of communication with the Cregos. She explained why the lots were located as they were, citing the Host’s view and water drainage concerns. Commissioner Eubanks asked Ms. Reu if she believed all the property owners can come to agreement, if given time to do so. She stated that she did believe they could.
James Gruver again approached the Board and further reviewed the history of the access roads and the rights of ingress and egress. Discussion ensued regarding maintenance of the roads being discussed and sewer requirements for the noted lots.
Ms. Coleman addressed the Board regarding flood plain and runoff concerns and the effort made to keep the lots out of areas that could be affected by flooding, even if not officially in a flood plain. Discussion ensued regarding water service to the area and legal opinions provided regarding road use.
Chair Rennels commented that the RLUB for this project did not appear to be totally harmonious on this subject and was, perhaps, pushing the project to Board review as a fall back. She called Mr. Watkins’ attention to the fact that his property is zoned O-Open, and that he could achieve his expressed desired outcome by conservation or deed restriction by himself. Chair Rennels further commented that the number of conditions noted for this project is quite large, which gives her cause for concern. She stated that she would be amiable to tabling or postponing this matter, but that it could not be delayed indefinitely.
Commissioner Eubanks expressed his hope that the property owners could resolve this matter without having to resort to litigation and his desire that this be accomplished prior to the Board’s motion on this matter. He suggested tabling the matter for later review.
Commissioner Gibson stated that there are lots of loose ends with respect to this project. He commented that he was not particularly concerned about the lack of clustering, but is concerned about lots being located in areas significantly affected by existing water sources, rights of way and what happens if the subsequent testing does not make the project possible in its current form. Commissioner stated that, at this time, he cannot support the current plan.
Discussion ensued regarding the potential for the Unnamed Road to be dedicated to the county and the subsequent maintenance of the road if that were to be the case. Discussion continued regarding tabling of the topic and a potential date to revisit the matter. It was agreed that 90 days would be sufficient.
Staff requested specific items from the Board to be considered during the 90-day period. The Board stated that items of concern included the need for a letter from the water district stating that they will provide water to the desired lots; more conclusive information regarding the Health Department’s perspective on the ability to locate septic systems as would be needed for the desired lots; delineation of wetlands, including dry creek drainage; delineation of flood prone areas; and agreement between the parties, including maintenance agreement, for the right-of-way access.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Meadowlark Rural Land Use Plan (File #07-S2680) until January 14, 2008, at 6:30 p.m.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15.m.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Eubanks were present. Also present were: Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; Gary Buffington, and K-Lynn Cameron, Parks and Open Lands; Wynette Reed, Human Resources Department; George Hass and David Ayraud, County Attorney's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment today.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 8, 2007:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of October 8, 2007.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 22, 2007: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule 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 October 16, 2007:
10162007R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, 4, AND 6-29 IN THE FARM AT BLUE MOUNTAIN MEADOW SUBDIVISION
10162007R002 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL ON PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1424 EAST MULBERRY STREET
MISCELLANEOUS: Findings and Order - Denial of Tantra Lounge LLC Liquor License Application; Findings and Order - Approval of Cache Inn Liquor License Application; Annual Performance Evaluation Report of County Manager; Letter of Support for the Hosting of the 2008 Cross Country Championships in Fort Collins.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following liquor licenses were approved and issued: Beaver Inn - Hotel and Restaurant - Red Feather Lakes; Crossroads Lodging Company LLC dba Best Western - Tavern - Loveland. The following permit was approved: American Legion George Beach Post #44 - Special Event 6% - LaPorte.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. REVISED HOTEL GROUND LEASE FOR THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL AT THE RANCH: Mr. Engemoen explained that the ground lease for the Embassy Suites Hotel at The Ranch needs to be revised to reduce the number of rooms from 263 to 260, and it also revises the leasehold mortgage provisions, as Mr. Hammons will be acquiring a mortgage to finance the hotel. Discussion ensued regarding the county's liability regarding the hotel. Mr. Engemoen stated that the county has no liability, and that the lender would be responsible for the hotel in the unlikely event that Mr. Hammons would default on the project.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioner approve the revised Hotel Ground Lease for the Embassy Suites Hotel at The Ranch, as requested by John Q. Hammons, and authorize the Chair to sign the revised lease upon review and acceptance by all commissioners.
Motion Carried 3-0.
10162007A001 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED HOTEL GROUND LEASE FOR THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL AT THE RANCH
6. PRESENTATION OF THE STARBURST CONSERVATION AWARD: Mr. Buffington introduced Matt Robbins, Community Relations Representative serving on behalf of the Colorado Lottery. Mr. Robbins explained the history of the Starburst Award, noting that it celebrates the use and success of expenditure of lottery funds. Mr. Robbins stated that the award was being presented to Larimer County for the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project. He congratulated the Parks and Open Lands staff, the Board of County Commissioners, and the community as a whole, for their conservation efforts. The Board thanked Ms. Cameron and the entire Open Lands staff for their efforts as well.
7. PRESENTATION OF OCTOBER POLICY GOVERNANCE REPORT: Mr. Lancaster reviewed the Quarterly Policy Governance Report to the Commissioners. There was no action involved, as this was purely an update for the Board.
8. WORKSESSION: There were no worksession items to discuss.
9. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: The Board discussed their activities at events during the past week.
10. LEGAL MATTERS: (Affidavit provided.)
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson 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.
The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m., with no further action taken.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2007
(No audio available)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 12:30 p.m. with George Hass, County Attorney. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Gibson were present. Also present were: Frank Lancaster, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners' Office; David Ayraud, County Attorney's Office; Mark Engemoen, Public Works; Sally Alexander, Risk Management; Bob Herrfeldt, Fairgrounds and Events Center; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session in accordance with C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) for conference with attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions.
Motion carried 3-0.
The executive session ended at approximately 2:30 p.m., with no action taken.
KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk