Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 06/16/08  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, JUNE 16, 2008

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#218 & 219)

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner.  Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Rob Helmick, Michael Whitley, Toby Stauffer, and Chad Gray, Planning Department; Dave Shirk, Estes Park Planning Department; Eric Tracy, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department;  Tom Garton, and Karlin Goggin, Building Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

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

 

Chair Gibson then explained that the following item was on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience: 

 

1.  CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS TOWER SPECIAL REVIEW:    Mr. Shirk explained that the applicant is in negotiations to possibly use an existing tower and may not need to proceed with the Special Review; therefore, they are again requesting that the item be tabled.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Cricket Communications Tower Special Review until August 18, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.  THEISS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT:  This is a request to adjust the interior lot line between two parcels created under the “35-acre exemption,” a provision in the Colorado State Statutes that allows large parcels to be divided, provided the resultant parcels are at least 35-acres. 

The eastern lot straddles the boundary between the Estes Valley Development Code area and the Larimer County Land Use Code area.  Because the parcels are located near Estes Park, town and county planning staff agreed the Estes Valley Planning Commission should hear this request as the final decision rests with the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.

Proposed Tract 2A lies entirely within the Estes Valley Development Code area, and is therefore subject to requirements therein.  Proposed Tract A straddles the boundary between the two land use codes.  After discussion with the county planning department, Staff suggests the location of future building determine which land use code applies.  For example, if the structure were located within the Estes Valley Development Code area, the EVDC would apply.

 

Staff recommends approval of the requested Theiss Boundary Line Adjustment subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, as listed below:

 

Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation:  On Tuesday, May 20, 2008 the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:

 

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

2.   The site straddles the boundary of the Estes Valley Development Code area; the western portion of the site lies within the EVDC, and the eastern portion lies within the jurisdiction of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

3.   Tract “B” is under the jurisdiction of the Estes Valley Development Code, tract “A” lies in both jurisdictions.  Future building locations will determine the proper land use jurisdiction.

4.   This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code and Larimer County Land Use Code.  Specifically, Sections 3.9.E “Standards for Review” of the Estes Valley Development Code and Section 5.5.3 “Review Criteria” of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

5.   This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.  No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.

6.   Within sixty (60) days of the Board’s approval of the amended plat, the developer shall submit the final plat for recording.  If the amended plat is not submitted for recording within this sixty-day time period, the approval shall automatically lapse and be null and void.

 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Theiss Boundary Line Adjustment conditional to the Division of Water Resources shall approve the adjusted boundary lines.  Verification of this approval shall be submitted with the final plat mylars.

 

3.  CEDAR SPRINGS 3RD FILING LOT 6, BLOCK 5 REZONING, FILE #08-Z1686:  This is a request to rezone  Cedar Springs 3rd filing Lot 6, Block 5 from conditional T-Tourist zoning to O-Open zoning to allow a residential use. If approved, the recording instrument will be a Finding and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.

On May 21, 2008, the Cedar Springs 3rd Filing Lot 6 Block 5 Rezoning request was presented to the Larimer County Planning Commission as a consent agenda item.  The proposed request remained on the consent agenda and reviewed a unanimous recommendation for approval.

 

Since the Planning Commission Meeting there have been no modifications to the Cedar Springs 3rd Filing Lot 6 Block 5 Rezoning application.

 

4.  JIF STORAGE UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #08-S2799:  This is a request to vacate the 20 foot utility easement located along the north property line of Tracts A and B of the Dare Co. Exemption, which properties are situated on the north side of Harmony Road (County Road 38E), approximately 1/8 mile west of Taft hill Road (County Road 19).  The easement is not currently occupied by any utilities, and the utility check sheet provided by the applicant indicates that the utility providers for the area will not be utilizing this easement. 

Comments received from referral agencies indicate no issues of concern with this easement vacation.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the JIF Storage Utility Easement Vacation, File #08-S2799, a request to vacate a 20 foot utility easement along the north property boundaries of Tracts A and B of the Dare Co. Exemption.

 

5.  CRYSTAL LAKES 5TH FILING LOTS 64 AND 65 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #08-S2800:  This is a request to amend the plat of Crystal Lakes 5th Filing, lots 64 & 65, to adjust lot lines for future expansion and distance for setback area.

There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: Code Compliance Section, Department of Health and Environment, and the Engineering Department Development Review Team

Comments received from the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identify several required corrections to the plat.

The proposed plat amendment to adjust lot lines between Lots 64 and 65 of Crystal Lakes 5th filing will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 64 & 65 of Crystal Lakes 5th Filing, File # 08-S2800, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

1.   The Final Plat shall be recorded by December 16, 2008 or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

3.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall provide current ownership information and a revised ownership and encumbrance report for any lot that has been sold during this process.

 

6.  RIEDLINGER MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #08-Z1689:  This is a request for approval of a Minor Special Review for an equine veterinary faculty generating less than 50 trips per day in the O-Open zoning district

 

The applicant a mobile equine and large animal veterinarian operates out of her home and barns and wishes to expand the on site clinic use on the property.  The original use was established under the old code and with the current regulations any large animal veterinary in the O-Open zoning district must obtain approval through the minor special review process.  This facility will include clinic and rehabilitation facilities for a limited number of horses.  All the activities associated with the clinic and rehabilitation will be indoors and under roof.  The proposal includes a new barn with lab, treatment, storage and an exercise area.  These will be added to the property which has a home and several outbuildings and has operated as a large animal veterinary faculty (principally mobile) for some time.

 

The site is located at the eastern edge of the Waverly planning area and is characterized by large lot residential and equestrian and agricultural properties.  The applicant did conduct a neighborhood meeting and not issues were identified at that time by any of the attendees.  No issues have been identified in the referral process as well.

 

The applicant has provided a complete application which upon review by the Team and by referrals indicates no conflict or concern.  The use is one which is consistent with the character of the surrounding area and other uses.   The Development Services Team finds that the proposal:

 

·  Is consistent with and compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

·  Is a use which is located consistent with the Master Plan strategies that suggest that service uses be located based on the demand.

·  Can be developed consistent with the requirements and standards of the code. 

·  Will have no averse impact on the surrounding area, and;

·  Can be constructed and operated consistent with the recommendations of the referral agencies that commented. 

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Riedlinger Minor Special Review, File # 08-Z1689, subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Riedlinger Minor Special Review File # 08-Z1689 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 Riedlinger Minor Special Review File # 08-Z1689.

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 fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to 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 new construction of barns and examination areas and or any conversion of structures.  All applicable fees, including permit fees and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, shall apply to this use. 

5.   This minor special review approval will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval

6.   The applicant must provide for handicapped parking on site.

7.   Wash water and other liquid wastes must be disposed of in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the Health Department.

 

7.  KEITH MEYER FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW:   This is a request to approve the Floodplain Special Review based on the Flood Review Board’s recommendation of approved

Keith Meyer is the project engineer and is installing a sanitary sewer line from County Road 32E, north along the right-of-way of County Road 5, to the new Wal-Mart site in the Town of Timnath.  The majority of the project is in the 100 year floodplain of the Poudre River.  The sewer line will be owned by South Ft. Collins Sanitation District who will maintain the line. The Land Use Code requires a recommendation from the Flood Review Board with a final approval from the Board of County Commissioners through a Floodplain Special Review.

The Flood Review Board met on Thursday, May 22, 2008 and reviewed the hydraulic modeling report dated April 2, 2008, and found the hydraulic analysis to be acceptable.  A motion was approved for a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for approval of the Floodplain Special Review.    

Staff recommends approval of the FPSR for the sanitary sewer line project that is located in the 100 year floodplain of the Poudre River.

 

8.  ESTES VALLEY PLAN STATISTICAL UPDATE:  This recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners is adopt the statistical updates as a revision to the applicable chapters of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.

 

A statistical Update to Chapter Three and Appendix 1 of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan has been completed, which includes:

  1. Chapter Three  “Economic Overview”
  2. Chapter Four “Land Use”
  3. Appendix One “Economic Profile”

 

Pursuant to State law regarding comprehensive plans, the Board of County Commissioners is a recommending body and the Estes Valley Planning Commission is the adopting body.

The purpose of these “statistical updates” is to provide additional data points for certain information for trend analysis.  This update does not include any policy changes or directives.

Chapter Three “Economic Overview” – This chapter now reflects updated information, such as population, age demographics, property valuation, employment numbers, income, sales, construction activities, utility services, bank deposits, park visitation, and conference center usage.

Chapter Four “Land Use” – This chapter includes an updated growth projection.  The growth projection is now in terms of units, and is a “build-out analysis” instead of a population projection.  This analysis now includes units that are within the “A” Accommodation zone district, which allows both residential and accommodations use.  Because of this potential flow between short-term and long-term occupancy, and the fact that many homeowners do not claim Estes Park as their full-time residence, Staff determined it would be more accurate to measure units instead of population.  This analysis determined approximately 12,000 units would be built at full build-out based on current zoning allowances (approximately 8,500 units exist within the Valley now).

Appendix One “Economic Profile” – This chapter includes 26 tables referenced in Chapter Three.  This update adds year 2000 census data to these tables.

Staff recommends approval of the proposed updates to the Estes Valley Plan

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Consent Agenda, as presented and outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

9.         AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE, FILE #08-CA0083:  This is a request to make changes to the adopted Land Use Code.

The Larimer County Land Use Code section of Special Events currently excludes the Estes Valley Plan Area.  These proposed code amendments serve to include the unincorporated area of that plan area to the Special Events requirements in the code. 

 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE:

 

1.  The general applicability section of the Land Use Code should be changed to include Section 7 Special Event Permits as follows (underlined section is the addition):

 

2.4. APPLICABILITY

A. This code applies to the development and use of land in unincorporated Larimer County, except land in the Estes Valley shown on the map in the technical supplement. However, sections 4.2.2, 5.8, 5.11, 7.0 and 9.0 do apply to land in the Estes Valley.

 

2.  Section 7 currently excludes the Estes Valley.  The following deletion (strikethrough) serves to include the Estes Valley as an area subject to the requirements of Section 7 as follows:

 

7.0. SPECIAL EVENTS.

Special events are allowed in unincorporated Larimer County, excluding the Estes Valley, upon issuance of a special event permit as provided in this section 7.

 

Staff findings are as follows: 

1.   The proposed changes are consistent with the Master Plan and the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code.

2.   The proposed changes are necessary to correct an omission or error in the Land Use Code.

3.   The proposed amendments satisfy the above review criteria for changes to the text of the Land Use Code.

 

 

The Planning Staff recommends that the Larimer County Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Mr. Lafferty explained that with the proposed changes, the Special Events Permit requirements will apply to the unincorporated Estes Valley. 

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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code pertaining to Special Events Permits in the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley, File #08-CA0083.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10.  BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE INCREASE:  This is a request for adoption of a new Building Permit Fee Schedule reflecting a 10% fee increase with automatic annual inflationary adjustments.

The Building Department has reached a cross roads.  Due to economic conditions and the Department’s current fee schedule, building permit revenues have been declining for several years.  The department is funded via a Special Revenue Fund rather than the General Fund, which means that the department must operate totally on the revenues it receives, without General Fund support.  Accordingly, staff reductions have already occurred.  The department staff level is at the point where any additional staff reductions will result in very significant adverse impacts on customer service. 

A key decision must be made as to whether the County Commissioners are willing to allow the Building Department to drop its level of service below the current “base” level of service.  If the decision is made that the department must fit its level of service to whatever revenues it generates regardless of impact on customer service, then, without raising fees, one or more additional staff cuts may be necessary.  If the decision is that the Building Department should maintain its base level of services, an increase in building permit fees is necessary.

The Board’s “Fund Balance Guidance” document states that the Building Inspection Special Revenue Fund is exempt from the 25% maximum reserve (working capital) requirement.  Based on this guidance, the target maximum reserve for the Building Inspection Special Revenue Fund has been set at 50% for several years.  However, this current period of economic downturn has highlighted the need for the Building Inspection Special Revenue Fund to take even greater measures during times of economic expansion to prepare for and “soften the blow” of future economic downturns.   For this reason, it is requested that the Board amend this document to be more explicit by saying that the Building Inspection Special Revenue Fund may have a maximum reserve (working capital ratio) of up to 100% of its annual expenditures.

 

Proposed Options for a Building Permit Fee Schedule increase:

 

Option A

The Board of County Commissioners approves the Building Permit Fee Schedule Tables shown in Exhibit “A”.  Also, the Chief Building Official may without further approval from the County Commissioners adjust Building Permit Fee Schedule Tables 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C  each year to the annual U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley, Colorado Area. These new tables and changes will be effective on September 16, 2008. 

 

Option B

The Board of County Commissioners approves the Building Permit Fee Schedule Tables shown in Exhibit “A”.  Also, the Chief Building Official may without further approval from the County Commissioners adjust these Building Permit Fee Schedule Tables 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C to a 3.3% increase each year for the next three years.  These new tables and changes will be effective on September 16, 2008. 

 

Exhibit “A “

Building Permit Fee Schedule

June 16, 2008

A building permit fee for a building permit shall be paid to the building official as required in Section R108.2 IRC/IBC and set forth in Table 1-A, except Group Utility Occupancies (private garages, carports, sheds, and agricultural buildings) shall use Table 1-B.

A plan review fee shall be paid equal to 50% on (one- and two-family dwellings) and 65% on (commercial and multi-family units greater than a duplex) of  the building permit fee as required in Section R108.2 IRC/IBC and set forth in Tables 1-A and 1-B.  (Miscellaneous and wildfire fee tables are exempt from plan review fee.)  The plan review fee specified in this section is separate and in addition to the building permit fee.  When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review or when the project involves deferred submittal items, an additional plan review fee shall be charged at the rate shown in Tables 1-A or 1-B as “Other Inspections and Fees.”

Plan re-submittal, re-inspection, investigation, and TCO issuance fees as allowed in sections R108.6-R108.9 IRC/IBC and set forth in “Other Inspections and Fees” in Table 1-A/1-B.

Plumbing and heating permit fees for each permit as required in Sections R108.2 IRC, 106.5 IMC, & 106.6 IPC and set forth in fee Table 1-C.

Wildfire Site Assessment Fee shall be charged as allowed in section R324.11 and set forth in Table 1-D to structures in the wildfire hazard area.

Wildfire Inspection Fee shall be charged as allowed in section R324.11 and set forth in Table 1-D when they are in the wildfire hazard area, when there is no natural defensible space and a wildfire defensible space has to be created and inspected.

Document Imaging Fees shall be charged as allowed in Table 1-E to comply with state archive laws.

                                                                  Table 1-A

 Building Permit Fees except for Utility Occupancies

Total Valuation

Fee

$1.00 to $500.00

$20.00

$501.00 to $2,000.00

$20.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.64 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00.

$2,001.00 to $25,000.00

$59.60 for the first $2,000.00 plus $11.88 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00.

$25,001.00 to $50,000.00

$332.84 for the first $25,000.00 plus $8.58 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00.

$50,001.00 to $100,000.00

$547.34 for the first $50,000.00 plus $5.94 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00.

$100,001.00 to $500,000.00

$844.34 for the first $100,000.00 plus $4.62 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00.

$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00

$2,692.34 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3.96 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00.

$1,000,001.00 and up

$4672.34 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $2.64 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof.

Other Inspections and Fees:

1.   Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge – two hours)  $40.00/ hour

2.   Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of Sections 108.7 IRC & IBC… $40.00

3.   Inspections when no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge -one hour) $40.00/hour  

4.   Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans…. $40.00/ hour

5.   Issuance of each Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) and extensions…$40.00

6.   Use of outside consultants for plan checking, inspections, or both …………..   Actual Cost

7.   Docket fee for Board of Appeals………………………………………………..$55.00

 

 

Exhibit “A”

 

               Table 1-B

Building Permit Fees for Utility Occupancies

Total Valuation

Fee

$1.00 to $500.00

$16.50

$501.00 to $2,000.00

$16.50 for the first $500.00 plus $2.20 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00.

$2,001.00 to $25,000.00

$49.50 for the first $2,000.00 plus $9.90 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00.

$25,001.00 to $50,000.00

$277.2 for the first $25,000.00 plus $7.15 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00.

$50,001.00 to $100,000.00

$455.95 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.95 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00.

$100,001.00 to $500,000.00

$703.45 for the first $100,000.00 plus $3.85 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00.

$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00

$2,243.45 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3.30 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00.

$1,000,001.00 and up

$3,893.45 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $2.20 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof.

Other Inspections and Fees:

  1. Inspection outside of normal business hours (minimum charge-two hours)   $33.00/hour
  2. Re-inspection fees assessed per provisions of Section 108.8 and extensions  $33.00/hour
  3. Inspection when no fee is specifically indicated(minimum charge-one hour) $33.00/hour
  4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plan    $33.00/hour
  5. Docket fee for Board of Appeals……………………………………………………………………….$55.00

 

                                                               

 

Exhibit “A”

 

      Table 1-C

Plumbing and Mechanical Permit Fee

Total Valuation

Fee

Up to $2000.00

$40.00 & for each permit on combination permits

$2000.01 to $50,000.00

$30.80 for the first 2000.00 plus $15.40 for each additional $1000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00

$50,000.01 to $500,000.00

$770.00 for the first $50,000 plus $12.10 for each additional $1000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00

$500,000.01 and up

$6,215.00 for the first $500,000 plus $9.90 for each additional $1000.00 or fraction thereof.

 

Table 1-D

                               Wildfire Site Assessment and Inspections Fees

 

         Type             Site Assessment Required     Wildfire Inspections   Total Fee

 

New Residence                                      $50.00              $100.00                  $150.00

New Utility Bldg.                                  $50.00              $  35.00                  $  85.00

New Commercial                                   $50.00              $100.00                 $150.00

Residence Add.                                      $50.00              $100.00                 $150.00

Utility Bldg. Add.                                  $50.00              $ 35.00                  $  85.00

Commercial Add.                                  $50.00              $100.00                  $150.00

 

Fees for other inspections or services not covered above…………..$36.00 per

hour (Minimum charge = one hour.)

Docket fee for Board of

Appeals……………………………………………………………..$55.00

 

 

 

 

                                                              Table 1-E

                                                        Document Imaging Fees

 

Residential Plans

   No Fees required, plans are not imaged

 

Commercial plans submitted on digital disc.

             No Fees required

 

Commercial plans 10 pages and under

                       $18

 

Commercial plans 11 pages to 30 pages

                       $36

 

Commercial plans 30 to 50 pages

                      $100

 

Commercial plans greater than 50 pages

   $100 plus $2 for each additional page

 

 

Exhibit “B”

 

Building Permit Fee Comparison with adjacent jurisdictions*

Residential

Building

Valuation

Loveland &

Estes Park Building Permit

Fee

Weld County

Building

Permit Fee

Fort

Collins Building Permit

Fee

Larimer County Building Permit

  Fee Now

Boulder

County

Building Permit

Fee

 

Larimer     Larimer

County      County

Building     Building

Permit       Permit

Fee+10%  Fee +20%

$200,000

$1,553.75

$1,395.00

    $770.50

$1,187.00

$1,838.45

 

$1,306.34  $1,424.88

 

$300,000

$2,113.75

$1,895.00

$1,108.00

$1,607.00

$2,498.45

$1,768.34  $1,929.88

$400,000

$2,673.75

$2,395.00

$1,445.00

$2,027.00

$3,158.45

$2,230.34  $2432.88

$500,000

$3,233.75

$2,895.00

$1,783.00

$2,447.00

$3,818.45

$2,692.34  $2936.88

 

*Plan review fee and impact fees are not included in this fee comparison.

                                                                  

 

BUILDING DEPARTMENT SERVICES

 STAFF REDUCTION OPTIONS AND OUTCOMES

 

Current Staff Level: 1 chief building official

                                                2 permit technicians

                                                2 plans examiners

                                                4 building inspectors

 

1.   Cut a building inspector’s position and have only three (3) inspectors instead of four (4).

Outcome:  Estes Park will only have inspection in their area three (3) times a week instead of the present five (5) times a week.  The Red Feather Lakes area would have inspections only two (2) times a week instead of the present five (5) days a week.  Getting an inspection within 1 working day is important to builders to avoid construction delays.

2.   Cut a permit technician position and have only one (1) permit technician instead of two (2).

Outcome:  There would be only one permit technician to handle intake and issuance of building permits. This will increase customer service complaints on how long it takes to apply and pick up building permits.  At times there will be numerous customers waiting to meet with the lone permit technician.  During times of permit technician vacation and sick leave, a plans examiner will (following training) have to “fill in”, thereby slowing up the plan examination process.

3.   Cut a plans examiner position and have only one (1) plans examiner instead of two (2).

Outcome:  There will be only one (1) plans examiner to check plans instead of two (2).  This will increase customer service complaints that they cannot get their building code questions readily answered.  Also, it will now takes 4 to 6 weeks to get plans checked when it currently takes 2 to 3 weeks.  Builders anticipate being able to pick up a permit within 2 to 3 weeks and will be extremely upset with delays in getting started.

 

Exhibit “B”

 

ICC Administrative and Management of the Building Function

Effective Measures for General Building and Safety Services1

Objectives

Quality Characteristics

Performance Measures

Service Levels

Lay Off

Effects

To provide accurate and timely plan checking.

Turn-around time.

Measure of time elapsed between when plan submitted and returned to customer after checking.

High: Less than 1 week for single-family residential unit. (SFR)

Medium: 1 to 3 weeks for SFR.

Low: More than 3 weeks for SFR.

Lay Off

of a Plans Examiner will lower our service level to low.

To provide rapid and accurate issuance of permits.

Employee Availability.

Time spent waiting for employee.

High: Customer is greeted immediately.

Medium: Customer is greeted within 2 minutes.

Low: Customer must wait 5 minutes or longer to be greeted.

Lay Off

of  a Building Permit Technician II will lower our service level to low.

To provide timely response to requests for inspections.

Notification time.

Lead time required for customer requested inspection.

High: Same or next day inspection.

Medium: Within 24 hours.

Low: More than 24 hours after request is made.

Lay Off

of a Building Inspector II will lower our service level to low.

To provide customer satisfaction.

Builder satisfaction with inspection process.

Percentage of builders who rate the service as satisfactory.

High: 95 percent or higher satisfaction rating.

Medium: 80 to 94 percent satisfaction rating.

Low: Below 80 percent satisfaction rating.

Lay Off

of a Code Compliance Supervisor may lower our rating.

 

 

To provide efficient service.

 

Cost of effective services.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carry out necessary inspections with least number of visits.

 

Average number of inspections per inspector per day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of visits per building.

 

High: 12 framing or foundation per day on SFR units.

Medium: 12 to 20 inspections per day.

Low: Less than 12 or more than 20 inspections per day.

 

High: 10 visits per SFR unit.

Medium: 10 to 15 visits per SFR unit.

Low: Less than 10 or more than 15 visits per SFR unit.

 

Lay Off

of a Building Inspector II may lower our service level to low.

 

1International Code Council Colorado Chapter Educational Institute

 

 

Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Option A for a building permit fee increase, and approve the adjustment of the Building Inspection Special Revenue Fund’s maximum working capital ratio to 100%.

Mr. Garton presented a letter from the Home Builders Association, noting that they are opposed to a fee increase and had presented a third option of placing certain restrictions on the maximum amount the fees could be increased, and the option for the Building Department to “dip” into their reserve to cover operating expenses.  Mr. Garton stated that their goal would be to not increase the fees more than 3% in any given year; however, they do not want their “hands ties” in a declining economy.

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Jeff Schneider, representing the Home Builders Association, addressed the Board.   Mr. Schneider addressed their concerns and stated their position on the fee increases.  Mr. Schneider explained that it was important for them to know that the fees would not increase more than 3%, so that they can plan for that in their budgeting process. 

There was no further public comment.

Discussion ensued, and Commissioner Eubanks recommended adopting Option A, with the goal being to cap the increase at 3% whenever possible.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Building Permit Fee Schedule Table shown in Exhibit “A.”  These new tables and changes will be effective on September 16, 2008.  Also, the Chief Building Official may, without further approval from the County Commissioners, adjust Building Permit Fee Schedule Tables 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C each year to the annual U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley, Colorado Area.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners amend the “Fund Balance Guidance” document to state that the Building Inspection Special Revenue Fund may have a maximum working capital ratio of 100%.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

11.  OTTER ROAD ADDRESS APPEAL, FILE #08-CAC0010:  The property owners along Otter Rd request the Board to retain the addresses as originally assigned and not change them in accordance with the addressing resolution and staff recommendations.

 

As part of the Rural Addressing System, staff is proposing changes to existing addresses on Otter Rd in an area northwest of Loveland.  During the analysis of this area, Otter Rd was found to have sequential numbering inconsistencies and therefore not in accordance with the adopted addressing resolution.  Otter Rd intersects with County Road 27 and the point of origin for the road is a north/south running road in the established Loveland grid system.  The numbers as you begin on the road are ranged correctly according to the established grid and sequentially get larger heading north on the road.  At a locked gate on the same continuous road, the numbers start to sequentially decrease going north.   This fluctuation in the address range is the reason for the Rural Addressing System to propose changes.  Numbers must be sequential for the duration of a continuous road.  In this case the numbers are not sequential as the road continues and does not adhere to the established grid system for the area.  Having non-sequential numbering for addresses only adds confusion and delays to those trying to locate a specific address, such as emergency personnel, delivery agencies, and the general public.

 

Otter Rd is currently addressed by what is known as the Loveland area grid system for addressing numbers.  Basically there are two addressing methods, one is distance/integral addressing and the other is grid system addressing.  Grid system addressing is most common in more urbanized areas and subdivisions.  With using the grid system, address ranges are established running east/west and north/south and parity is followed with odds on the north and west; evens on the south and east.  Per the north/south Loveland grid system, numbers sequentially get larger as you travel north on a road.

 

The point of origin for Otter Rd is at County Road 27.  This point of origin creates a north/south running road.  There is no directional turn or cause for a change in grid systems.  The current alignment and current use of one road name as a continuous road requires the numbers to sequentially increase for the duration of the road segment.  The point of origin has addresses starting in the 9200 range and increasing up to the 9500 range.   This is accurate addressing per grid for the area.  Then at a locked gate over 2.5 miles north, the numbers start in the 4500 range and end in the 3100 range.  The numbering gets smaller after the locked gate and is not sequential with this being a continuous road and does not meet the intent of accepted addressing principals.

 

Staff determined that according to the resolution, the addresses need to change at the locked gate to coincide with the established grid and addresses on the lower portion of the road.  It was the determination of staff that addresses should parallel those on N County Road 27 since the two roads travel north/south in the Loveland response district.  Diane Webber, Emergency Communications Manager, determined with the Thompson Valley Ambulance as the provider to this area, the address should be as staff recommends and sequentially get larger for the duration of the road.  Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA), a funding contributor on this project, agrees with this direction and supports the re-addressing on Otter Rd.

 

The appealant seeks to retain addresses on the basis of cost for new private road signs; the road is not county maintained but rather private, and emergency service databases will all have to change.  The  appealant is seeking that no action be taken to remedy the addresses along Otter Rd after the locked gate and that addresses should remain as currently assigned.  One of the purposes of the rural addressing improvement project is to correct databases and ensure a logical and intuitive means to identify the property location. 

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

 

Staff’s recommendation is to deny the request from the Otter Rd resident(s) based upon the following:

                       

·  Surrounding roads follow the established north/south sequential numbering grid for Loveland and get sequentially larger traveling north.

·  Although fewer residents are on the southern portion of road, evoking a change to these properties does not eliminate the inconsistency of addressing for the road.  These properties are currently addressed according to grid and to suggest a change to these residents is contradictory addressing per the area.

·  LETA and the County have funded monies toward this project to ensure a systematic addressing system is achieved and without re-addressing this road the intent of the Resolution is not met.

·  The purposes of the Site Addressing and Road Naming System is to provide property owners, the general public, emergency service personnel, and Larimer County with an accurate and systematic means of identifying and locating property.  This includes the modification of address numbers on existing addresses and change road names as part of administering the resolution and addressing standards when found to be inconsistent.  The intent of the rural addressing improvement project is to establish a system of unique and consistent road names and address points while providing efficient public services and response.

·  LETA and the Larimer County Emergency Communications Manager requests that addressing be sequential for the duration of the road segment and coincide with the Loveland grid system as well as the parallel roads for the area. 

·  By allowing this appeal and exempting this area or creating any area as an exception to the Rural Addressing System, it would be negating the efforts to create a logical, systematic, and consistent addressing schemes in Larimer County.  Creation of such “pockets” will only hinder this project, increase the potential for similar appeal pursuits, and disrupt the guiding principals and intent for addressing improvement.

 

Ms. Goggin explained the appeal as outlined above.  She displayed drawings of the as they currently exist and explained that the numbers are sequential; however, they should increase from the point of origin, and this is not the case.  She recommended the Board of County Commissioners deny the appeal in order to maintain consistency with the Loveland addressing grid system.   Commissioner Eubanks asked if this subdivision has a fire district.  Ms. Goggin stated that they do not have a fire district, only wildfire protection.

 

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Bill Simms addressed the Board.  Mr. Simms explained that there would be 59 homes that are affected by this proposed change, not 22, and the cost of changing 59 home addresses versus the four at the point of origin does not seem reasonable.  Mr. Simms also expressed concern with how this would affect the GPS databases, as right now everyone can find their homes.  Mr. Simms then presented some photos of the address signs in their neighborhood, some of which were very costly and would need to be replaced if this proposal is approved.

 

Paul Hessen agreed that it seemed unreasonable to change 59 addresses, and questioned the address of 1010 Otter road, since it was way off the address sequencing.  Mr. Hessen stated that this is a private gated community and asked that the Commissioners just leave it as is.

 

Jo Hessen explained that several years ago they were asked to mark their home with address signs, so emergency vehicles could find them, which they did.  She stated that it would be costly to do this again and does not see the purpose for it.  Mrs. Hessen stated that she is not in favor of this at all.

 

Ms. Goggin explained that the home at 1010 Otter road has been given a “temporary” address so they could start construction, but that a new address would be assigned that conforms to the addressing grid system.  Ms. Goggin also explained that there are only 22 homes that are affected by this proposal.  She agreed that the home owners along the other roads in the community (that total 59) would probably appeal this action as well, but that they could not be considered at this hearing.   Finally, Ms. Goggin noted that all of the county maps and GIS system would be updated with the new data; however, GPS systems are controlled by 3rd party vendors and she could not guarantee how and when their data is updated. 

 

Mr. and Mrs. Simms, and Mr. Hessen asked a few more questions pertaining to changing driver’s licenses and car registrations, and again expressed concerns with the possible disconnect with the GPS systems. 

 

Chair Gibson closed public comment. 

 

Much discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners.  Chair Gibson stated that he believes the odd/even and sequential numbering has been satisfied and was reluctant to change 59 home addresses versus four.  Commissioner Eubanks stated that the administrative reason for doing so was obvious, and expressed concern for any possible delay in response time for emergency vehicles if the addressing grid system was “backwards.”  Commissioner Rennels explained the history of this re-addressing project and stated that it was critically important to provide consistency and that this proposal meets the goals of the addressing resolution that was previously adopted by the Board.  She stated that it was a bad idea to create “pockets of enclaves” and unless the resolution was to be re-written, she would support this proposal as submitted.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to retain existing addresses after the locked gate on Otter Rd and address the continuous road as per the established Loveland grid system to be consistent with the Rural Addressing System and Resolution.

 

Motion carried 2-1; Chair Gibson dissenting.

 

 

12.  MONROE ZONING VIOLATION, FILE #07-CC0156:  The property owner is in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code by continuing to operate the Bixby Quarry without County approval. The owner is also in violation of Section 10, Sign Code, of the Larimer County Land Use Code for placing a sign on the property without obtaining a sign permit.  This property is located at the intersection of Deer Meadow Way and County Road 74E which is at the top of McNey Hill. 

 

The Bixby Quarry was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 9, 1989. The pit was approved to operate until December 31, 1993. The original mining plan stated “No facilities other than a portable crusher will be located on the permit area. The crusher will be on site for approximately 30 days per year”. On July 7, 1997 the Board of County Commissioners approved to extend the Special Review for 2 years for the Larimer County Road and Bridge Department’s McNey Hill/CR74E Road Project. The Road Project realigned County Road 74E from going around the pit to straight through it.  The Staff Report for the July 7, 1997 BCC hearing stated “The mining and road project will be completed within two years or a new application for review will need to be submitted, reviewed, and acted upon”. That approval expired on December 31, 1999. The Bixby Quarry has continued to operate since then. In the late summer 2007, a sign was placed on the side of the job trailer for Monroe Excavating.

 

Notice of this hearing was mailed certified and regular mail to the owners.  Staff has talked with the owner of the property to advise what steps need to be taken to reach compliance with County regulations.  The owner has taken no steps to resolve the outstanding violations to date. See the Code Compliance events attached.

 

The Bixby Quarry has continued to operate for 8 plus years past the expiration. The quarry is un-reclaimed and the property is cluttered with unlicensed/inoperable vehicles and equipment which lowers the property values of surrounding properties. This sends the message to neighboring property owners that the county cannot enforce conditions of approval or deadlines for projects.  Also, the Larimer County Sign Code was enacted, in part, to avoid clutter and protect and maintain the visual appearance and property values in the County.

Staff findings are as follows: 

                   1.  The property is zoned O-Open.

2.   The Special Review for the Bixby Quarry expired December 31, 1999.

3.    Commercial Signs require a sign permit.

 

Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation does exist and require compliance with Larimer County Land Use Code within 30 days and authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.  The following items must be completed in order to reach compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code:  Remove all outside storage of unlicensed/inoperable vehicles and all equipment associated with the mining operation within 30 days. Once the property is cleared, start reclamation of the site.

Mr. Gray briefly explained the background options pertaining to this zoning violation.  Property owner Marion Monroe explained that his business benefits the community, and he has been able to remain current with all permits, except for the Larimer County permit.  He wants to conform and intends to comply, but is in the process of opening another pit and his resources are strained.  Mr. Monroe asked for an extension to bring this zoning violation into compliance.

 

There was no public comment on this item.

 

Chair Gibson asked how long of an extension Mr. Monroe would need to bring the property into compliance.  Mr. Monroe stated that he believed he could accomplish this in one year.  Discussion ensued regarding reclamation of the property and whether or not one year is an appropriate time frame.  Mr. Helmick stated that Mr. Monroe is in compliance with the State, and he has not been ignoring the County; therefore, his request for a one year extension is not unreasonable.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and authorize legal action to require the owner to come into compliance with the Land Use Code by:  Removing all outside storage of remaining unlicensed/inoperable vehicles and all equipment not associated with the mining operation within 90 days; and submit an application for special review (with simplified submittal requirements and at a reduced fee) within 180 days and obtain approval within 365 days; and obtain a sign permit within 30 days.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

The hearing adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2008

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#219)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present.  Also present were Bob Keister, Donna Hart, Diane Tokarz, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Major Justin Smith, Sheriff’s Department; Ed Rutherford, Human Services Department; Kathy Snell, Health and Human Services Department; Wynette Reed, and John Gamlin, Human Resources Department; Ed Schemm, Environmental Health Department; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Department; Dale Miller, Road and Bridge Department; Linda Sanders, Mark Peterson, Martina Wilkinson, and Kyle Arend, Engineering Department; Russ Legg, Matt Lafferty, and Toby Stauffer, Planning Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment today.

 

2.   APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEKS OF JUNE 2, 2008 AND JUNE 9, 2008:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the weeks of June 2, 2008, and June 9, 2008, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.    REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 23, 2008:   Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.   CONSENT AGENDA:  Chair Gibson noted that document 06172008A003, regarding the Law Enforcement Agreement with the Town of Wellington would be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items, as presented on the Consent Agenda for June 17, 2008 (with the removal of Agreement 06172008A003):

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatements are presented for approval:  Earl and Pamela Weston; Dennis and Carla Craig Living Trust; Randy and Shelley Nelson; Frank and Arlene Henthorn; Palmer South College LLC.

 

06172008A001           ADDENDUM TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF WELD COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 13/54A OVER THE BIG THOMPSON RIVER BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COUNTY OF WELD

 

06172008A002           MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO (Implement the Works and Child Care Programs)

 

06172008A004           WATER LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND EAST LARIMER COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (ELCO)

 

06172008A005           HOTEL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STANLEY HOTEL

 

06172008A006           AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

 

0612008A007             PROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY CONTRACT AMENDMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH THE LARIMER COUNTY WORKFORCE CENTER AND PROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY

 

06172008A009           CARNIVAL CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BILL HAMES SHOWS

 

06172008R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT, VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS AND LOT SIZE APPEAL IN CRYSTAL LAKES 13TH FILING LOTS 124, 125, 126, AND 129

 

06172008R002           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF THE BATH MINOR LAND DIVISION, FILE #07-S2690

 

06172008R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NORTH OVERLAND TRAIL ROAD NAME APPEAL

 

06172008R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3 IN HORSE CREEK RANCH SUBDIVION

 

06172008R005           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WOLCOTT PLANNED LAND DIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

 

06172008R006           SPECIAL FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HERMIT PARK SPECIAL REVIEW

 

06172008R007           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CABIN CREEK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT

 

06172008R008           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CARNES SPECIAL EXCEPTION

 

06172008R009           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RIVERWALK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT

 

06172008R010           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR LARKINS MINOR LAND DIVISION

 

06172008R011           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BATH MINOR LAND DIVISION

 

06172008R012           RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF LARIMER COUNTY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1997-2 (LONGVIEW DRIVE)

 

06172008R013           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR THE MCCONNELL DRIVE CONDOMINIUMS, FILE #07-S2750

 

06172008R014           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Department of Human Services Payments for February 2008.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were both approved and issued:  Pool Tyme Billiards – Tavern – Loveland; Sandy’s Convenience Store – 3.2% - Loveland; Rocky Mountain Gateway #1 – Hotel and Restaurant – Estes Park; Rocky Mountain Gateway #2 – 3.2% - Estes Park.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Discussion ensued with Major Smith regarding the agreement for law enforcement for the Town of Wellington.  The Board needed more time to review this agreement prior to approval, so it will be brought back to a future Administrative Matters meeting.

 

5.    CHANGE IN ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PLAN PARTICIPATION IN THE RETIREMENT PLAN:   Mr. Rutherford and Major Smith presented results of surveys the conducted regarding proposed changes regarding eligibility in the retirement plan.  The options presented included immediate eligibility in the program or eligibility after 6 months of employment.  (Currently employees are not eligible until they have been employed with the county for one-year.)  Discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons, the assumptions, and the costs involved.  The Board supported the option of immediate eligibility.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve allowing eligibility in the Larimer County Retirement Plan on the first day of employment with the County, beginning January 1, 2009, also including the employees hired in 2008, and appropriating required funds as necessary to support this action.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

6.    ROLL OUT OF PRESCRIPTION LARIMER COUNTY DRUG DISCOUNT CARD:   Ms. Reed, Ms. Snell and Ms. LaRue explained the marketing and distribution points of the new Larimer County Drug Discount Card.  Ms. LaRue noted that there is a website for individuals to learn more about it and to link to other resources available.  The Board thanked all those involved for their successful efforts in this project.

 

 

7.    RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOAN AGREEMENT WITH COLORADO WATER RESOURCES, POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS LID #2007.1:  Ms. Sanders presented the resolution pertaining to the loan agreement for the Glacier View Meadows Local Improvement District, and requested approval of the same.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution relating to loan agreement with Colorado Water Resources, Power Development Authority and Glacier View Meadows LID #2007.1.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

06172008R015     RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOAN FROM COLORADO WATER RESOURCES AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AUTHORIZING THE FORM AND EXECUTION OF THE LOAN                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                 

8.    MCBLAIR RANCH SPECIAL REVIEW – SHOOTING RANGE FEE APPEAL:  Mr. Lafferty and Ms. Stauffer explained that the Clausen family and the McBlair Ranch are currently involved in a Special Review process to allow a shooting range on their property with the primary users being the 4H program.   Mr. Lafferty stated that the 4H participants use the shooting range at no cost, and the applicants have requested a waiver of the fees associated with the Special Review.  If the Board was inclined to grant the request, then Mr. Lafferty requested that the fees be paid for out of the Commissioner’s Special Projects Fund. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioners Rennels moved that the Board of Commissioners approve the waiver of the Planning Department application fee of $1500, and the TCEF fees of $505, for the property owner and pay for these costs from the Commissioners Special Projects Fund

 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

 

9.    COST RECOVERY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:  Mr. Legg stated that a fee policy was set in place in 1999, which directed staff to charge a fee to applicants that would create revenue equal to 50% of the total indirect and direct costs of the Planning Department and other departments that were involved in the review of a given application.  Mr. Legg stated that in 2006 the Board approved a new basis for establishing application fees; however, this “cost recovery” policy was never officially removed and he asked that this action be taken today.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve removal of the “cost recovery” requirement for the Planning Department, which was the subject of pervious motions made by the Board of County Commissioners on October 3, 1994, and April 26, 1999.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

   

10.   INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) REGARDING FOSSIL CREEK AREA OF FORT COLLINS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREAMr. Legg presented changes to the IGA regarding the Fossil Creek Area of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.  The Board requested additional time to preview the IGA, prior to adopting it.  This agreement will be presented again at a future Administrative Matters meeting.

 

 

 

11.   OWL CANYON CORRIDOR PROJECT:  Mr. Engemoen, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Miller, Ms. Wilkinson, and Mr. Arend presented the proposed project schedule and adoption process for the Owl Canyon Corridor Project.  Discussion ensued and Mr. Engemoen thanked Mr. Arend and Ms. Wilkinson for their hard work and efforts on this project thus far.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed project schedule and adoption process for the Owl Canyon Corridor Project. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12.   APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:  Ms. Tokarz presented the following appointments and reappointments to Boards and Commissions:

 

Board of Adjustment:  Eric Berglund reappointed for a 3-year term, beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.

 

Board of Appeals:  Mark Belford, and Ron Daggett reappointed for a 3-year term, beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.

 

Board of Health:  Leonella Thielen reappointed for a 5-year term, beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2013.

 

Community Corrections Advisory Board:  Richard Barnhart appointed for a 3-year term, beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.  Paul Cooper, Tanya Perry, and Clifford Riedel reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011. 

 

Environmental Advisory Board:  Melissa Chalona, and Michael Jones appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.  Devin Odell, and Thomas Sneider reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011. 

 

Office on Aging Advisory Council:  Caryll Cram appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.  Nancy Arthur, Earl Stevens, and Sharon Zamora reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011. 

 

Parks Advisory Board:  Mark De Gregorio appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.  Ivan Andrade, Linda Knowlton, and Tom Miller reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011

 

Planning Commission:  Scott Glick, and Jana Hess appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.

 

Weld/Larimer Revolving Loan Fund:  Kathe Mehlbach, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments and reappointments to Boards and Commissions, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

13.    COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  There were no worksession items to discuss. 

 

14:  COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board reviewed their activities from the previous week, during which Commissioner Rennels asked for approval to expend $100 from the Commissioners Special Projects Fund to support those involved at the State Fair.  She noted that the money is typically used to purchase animals from the 4H kids who have made it to the State Fair level.    

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the expenditure of $100 from the Commissioners Special Projects Fund to support the State Fair. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

15:  LEGAL MATTERS:  There were no legal matters to discuss.

 

The meeting ended at 11:15 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

 

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2008

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING

(# 220)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at  11:00 a.m. for Abatement Hearings.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Rennels and Eubanks were present.  Also present were:  Ann Piccione, and Davin Stephens, Assessor’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerks.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR GLORIA JEAN RODER - PARCEL NUMBER 98180-00-048:  Mr. Stephens described the subject property and location.  He then reviewed the comparables used to arrive at the indicated value of $302,673.  Mr. Stephens stated that the subject property has a very large detached garage, and he used comparable that were similar in nature. 

 

Ms. Roder explained that she has lived in her home for 30 years, and that it is a “kit” home that her husband built.  Ms. Roder presented the comparables that she researched, one of which was also a similar “kit” built home.  Discussion ensued regarding all of the comparables presented.

 

Chair Gibson questioned how the value was set at $302,000, and Mr. Stephens explained that the addition of the very large garage was picked up in 2006 and greatly increased the value of the property. 

 

The Commissioners agreed that this item should be tabled in order to give the appraiser time to work with the property owner in determining which comparables apply and what the value should be. 

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Petition for Abatement for Gloria Jean Roder, Parcel Number 98180-00-048, and reschedule the hearing within one month.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR DORIS E. LOCKMAN - PARCEL NUMBER 89334-14-017:   Mr. Stephens described the subject property and location, noting that a portion of the garage has been converted to living space and the appraisal submitted by the property owner did not include this.  He then reviewed the comparables used to arrive at the adjusted value of $149,517.

 

Beth Hickson, Doris Lockman’s niece, spoke on behalf  of Ms. Lockman.  Ms. Hickson stated that the interior of the home is drywall, not plaster, and that it has space heaters to heat the home.  She stated that the appraiser left the garage as garage space, since it could easily be converted back to garage space.  Ms. Hickson presented her comparables and requested that the value be set at $135,540, which was the average of her comparables.

 

Mr. Stephens stated that the comparables submitted by Ms. Hickson were all smaller in square footage, and that the garage has to be included as living space, since that is currently what it is being used for.  

 

The Board agreed that the value set by the Assessor’s Office was fair and equitable.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement and Refund of Taxes for Doris E. Lockman, Parcel Number 89334-14-017, for tax year 2007 and support the Assessor’s value of $149,517.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

The hearing recessed at 11:50 a.m.

 

 

ABATEMENT HEARING

(# 194)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. for an Abatement Hearing.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Rennels and Eubanks were present.  Also present were:  Ann Piccione, Jason Marks, and Jody Masters, Assessor’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerks.

 

ABATEMENT HEARING FOR JASON A. MARTINDALE - PARCEL NUMBER 87171-12-048:   Mr. Marks described the subject property and location, and reviewed the comparables used to arrive at the assessed value.  Mr. Marks stated that the sales trends in this area did not support a lesser value, and asked that the Commissioners uphold the indicated value of $172,500 for this property.  Mr. Marks also noted that Mr. Martindale purchased the property in 2003 for $160,000.

 

Mr. Martindale questioned some of the comparables used by Mr. Marks, and then presented some of his own.  Mr. Martindale took an average of the comparables he found and requested that the value of his property be lowered to $153,000.

 

The Board agreed that the value set by the Assessor’s Office was fair and equitable.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petition for Abatement and Refund of Taxes for Jason A. Martindale, Parcel Number 87171-12-048, for tax year 2007 and support the Assessor’s value of $172,300.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

 

 

 

 

________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

­­­______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk

 

 

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.