MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Russ Legg, Chief Planner. Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present, and Chair Johnson presided. Also present were: Eric Fried, Brenda Gimeson, Rob Helmick, Eric Tracy, Sean Wheeler, and Michael Whitley, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Bill Ressue, County Attorney’s Office; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Johnson 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 Johnson explained that the first four items on the agenda are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience. In addition, he explained that staff recommended items #5, “Otte Appeal, file #10-G0195,” and #6, “Fossil Point Expansion of a Nonconforming Use, file #10-Z1803,” be placed on the consent agenda, unless a member of the Board or member of the audience wishes otherwise. No requests for discussion were made.
1. MAREZ SUBDIVISION EXTENSION OF PRELIMINLARY PLAT APPROVAL, FILE #05-S2532: This is a request for approval of a two-year extension of the preliminary plat approval, and a request to pay half the final plat submittal fee.
The Marez Subdivision includes three single-family residential lots on 18-acres. The development would be served by the Little Thompson Water District and on-site septic systems. The site is located on the east side of Glade Road (County Road #25E) and at the south end of Otero Avenue, approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection of County Road #25 and County Road #24H. On August 16, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the preliminary plat, and the Board of County Commissioners approved the application on September 10, 2007. The applicant submitted the final plat for review and approval on November 17, 2008.
Due to economic conditions, this project has not continued forward to approval of the final plat. In April 2010, Planning staff contacted the property owner by letter and telephone requesting an update as to the status of the project. The applicants indicated they were waiting for additional information from their engineer, who has since closed his office.
After some consideration of their options, the applicants contacted staff and requested to withdraw the final plat and request this extension of the preliminary plat approval. Extension of the preliminary plat approval would allow the applicants time to acquire funds for site improvements.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of a two-year extension of the Preliminary Plat, and a request to pay half of the final plat submittal fee for the Marez Subdivision, as described in file #05-S2532, subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions outlined in the Findings and Resolution approving the Marez Subdivision Preliminary Plat and appeal, signed on November 13, 2007, and recorded at reception #200700856004, shall continue to apply.
2. The final plat for the Marez Subdivision shall be submitted no later than July 31, 2012, or this preliminary plat time extension approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing
3. At the time of final plat submittal, the applicant shall pay an application fee of half the amount of the final plat fee in place at the time the application is made.
2. PARRISH RANCH ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, FILE #04-S2269: This is a request for approval of a two-year extension of the preliminary plat approval, and a request to pay half the final plat submittal fee.
The Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development consists of 47-single-family residential lots and 9-residual lots. The subject property is located off the south side of County Road #4, approximately seven miles southwest of Berthoud. It is directly north of the Alverson Rural Land Plan, near the Larimer/Boulder County line. The development is planned to be served by the Little Thompson Water District and on-site septic systems. On January 18, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the preliminary plat, the Board of County Commissioners approved the project on February 27, 2006, and the applicant submitted the final plat for review and approval on January 12, 2007.
Due to economic conditions, this project has not continued forward to final plat approval and now contains several updates to the application. In April 2010, Planning staff contacted the property owner by letter and telephone requesting an update as to the status of the project. The applicants subsequently contacted staff to request a withdraw of the final plat and an extension of the preliminary plat approval. This will allow them time to acquire the funds for site improvements.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of a two-year extension of the preliminary plat, and a request to pay half the final plat submittal fee for the Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development as described in file #05-S2269, subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions outlined in the Findings and Resolution approving the Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development Preliminary Plat, signed on May 23, 2006, and recorded at reception #20070006732, shall continue to apply.
2. The final plat for the Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development shall be submitted no later than July 31, 2012, or this preliminary plat time extension approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing.
3. At the time of final plat submittal, the applicant shall pay an application fee of half the amount of the final plat fee in place at the time the application is made.
3. GARDELS MINOR LAND DIVISION LOT 3 AMENDED PLAT AND OFF, LLC BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, FILE #10-S2965: This is a request to amend the Amended Plat of Lot 3 of the Gardels Minor Land Development and adjust the boundaries of an adjacent tract of land.
The applicants propose to adjust the boundaries of two parcels to allow use of the Big Thompson River as the boundary, rather than the current aliquot line which currently provides both owners with land that is “inaccessible” across the river. The two parcels are in excess of 100-acres, and one is a minor land development lot created several years ago, which has been modified twice since its original platting. One parcel fronts on public roads, and the minor residential development lot has a platted interior access by private easement.
The property which is not part of the Gardels Minor Land Development is currently owned by OFF, LLC and since the late 1970’s, the property has contained two residences. In 1994 one of the residences was replaced with a new home, which has caused the parcel to currently be considered non-conforming. This application does not change the number of residences, and the lot area remains essentially the same.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Second Amended Plat of Lot 3 of the Gardels Minor Land Division, file #10-S2965, subject to the following conditions (and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature):
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final plat recorded by December 28, 2010, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.
3. All previous and prior conditions of approval shall continue be carried forward with this approval.
4. LOVATA AMENDED PLAT, FILE #10-S2959: This is a request to remove the building envelope on Lot 2, Lovata Rural Land Use Plan 98-EX1178.
The subject property is located northwest of Fort Collins, about ¼ mile south of County Road 21 at County Road 60. The property is currently zoned O-Open, and will remain the same. The Lovata Rural Land Use Plan received final approval from the Board of County Commissioners in December 1998. At that time, the project contained 80-acres and was approved with two single-family residential lots and one residual lot with a single-family dwelling. Each new single-family dwelling included a building envelope, which limits the development area. All of the lots in this development have sold and built upon.
The current proposal is to remove the building envelope on Lot 2 in the Lovata Rural Land Use Plan. The applicants, Duane and Odile Bush, purchased the property in 2001, and the residence was built in 2002. In 2007, during the building permit application process for a new barn, it was discovered that a portion of the original residence was built outside of the platted building envelope. The applicants requested information about amending the plat to correct the problem but did not complete the process at that time. Instead, a notation was placed on the parcel to require the owner to amend the plat if additional building construction permits are requested. The applicants are now applying for a plat amendment to remove the building envelope. The Rural Land Use Center typically requests building envelopes be placed to protect natural features, neighbor views, sheds or to meet specific setbacks for a variety of natural or manmade features. After review of the original file, there appears to be no specific reason for the building envelope placement. If the envelope is removed with this request, standard setbacks will apply to the property and the existing buildings would comply with those setbacks.
The lot lines will remain the same, and the existing access point will remain unchanged. All covenants, deed restrictions, and other conditions which applied to the original Rural Land Use Plan will continue to apply.
There were no major concerns about this proposal from any of the technical referral agencies; therefore, the proposed amendment for Lot 2, Lovata Rural Land Use Plan meets all conditions of approval stated in Section 5.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code and staff recommends approval of the Amended Plat for Lot 2, Lovata Rural Land Use Plan 98-EX1178.
5. OTTE APPEAL, FILE #10-G0195: This is an appeal to Section 5.3.2.A of the Land Use Code to pursue a subdivision instead of a conservation development.
The applicant owns Tract “A” of the Estrada Minor Residential Development, which is 33.17-acres in size and would like to divide the property into two lots. Because the site is more than 30-acres in size, Section 5.3.2.A of the Land Use Code requires that any further residential development of the property be done as a conservation development; however, it is the applicant’s desire to pursue the subdivision process instead. The Land Use Code allows the Board of County Commissioners to grant an exception to the Conservation Development process based on the standards in Section 5.3.2.H, below:
1. The size and configuration of the site does not permit design consistent with the purpose of conservation developments.
2. Development of the site as a conservation development is not compatible with existing or allowed adjacent development.
3. The site does not have environmentally sensitive areas or agricultural uses and clustered design would not contribute to the open character of the rural area.
4. Development of the site as a conservation development may impact adjacent
environmentally sensitive areas or agricultural uses more so than other forms of land division allowed under this code.
5. The site is a replat of an existing subdivision or portion of an existing subdivision.
Please note, the applicant also intends to appeal Section 8.14.2.B. of the Land Use Code, which relates to restrictions on placing buildings in areas of steep slopes. The appeal to this section will be included with the Preliminary Plat review, to allow for Planning Commission consideration of the request.
The Development Services Team supports approval of Otte Appeal, file #10-G0195 and concludes that it will not subvert the purposes of the code, be detrimental to the public, or impact property values in the neighborhood. Staff also concludes that approval of the appeal is the minimum action necessary and will not result in any cost to the public.
6. FOSSIL POINT EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE, FILE #10-Z1803: This is request to approve the “change” of a nonconforming use, to allow for the relocation of non-conforming signs when a development plan is approved on the property.
The applicant proposes to have the county allow him the opportunity, when development occurs on the property, to relocate the three billboards which are currently on the site. The billboards are located at the north and south end and in the middle of the site immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for the frontage road. These billboards are non-conforming, and the possible relocation would constitute a change of the non-conformity. The relocation would only be within the property and would need to comply with other aspects of the code and possibly other state and or federal regulations with regard to spacing and locations. This issue has arisen due to a complex real estate negotiation including TDU’s for purchase of a part of the site by the City of Fort Collins. The proposal would allow for relocation of the signs while the property is within county jurisdiction. The property owner would need to renegotiate any possible relocation with the city, if the property is annexed before any sign relocation occurs.
The Larimer County Land Use Code addresses the possibility of a change in a non-conforming use in the following manner:
A nonconforming use or a building or structure that contains a nonconforming use cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without the approval of the county commissioners.
In determining whether there has been a change in character of a use, building or structure, the following factors may be considered:
1. Whether there has been a change in the nature, volume, intensity, frequency, quality or degree of the use, building or structure. (For example, has there been a significant increase in the number of employees or traffic volume; has there been a change in the days or hours of operation; or have the physical dimensions of the building or structure been increased);
2. Whether there has been a change in the activity, products or services. (For example, a dog grooming facility that has been converted to a retail store for pet supplies could be considered a change in the character of the use).
3. Whether the new use, building or structure reflects the nature and purpose of the prior use or structure. (For example, an air strip used for seasonal crop dusting operations that is subsequently used only for recreational parasailing could be considered a change in the character of the use);
4. Whether the new use is different in kind on its effect on the neighborhood. (For example, has there been a change in environmental influences on the neighborhood, such as light, noise or air quality).
This proposal does constitute a change, and the Board of County Commissioners is authorized by the Larimer County Land Use Code to make a determination regarding the change and its appropriateness.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Fossil Point Expansion of a Nonconforming Use, file #10-Z1803, subject to the following conditions:
1. Use of the site shall be as described in the application materials. Any change to any other use shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Planning Department prior to being established.
2. The billboards may only be relocated within this property and only if in conflict with a development plan presented to the county for approval on this site. Any relocation shall require a sign permit and permits for the construction.
3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable state and federal regulations regarding the sign locations and construction.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. TRUITT ZONING VIOLATION (6 WEEK): Mr. Fried explained that the property owners were in violation of Larimer County Land Use Code Section 4.1.10 A (R-Residential – Principal Uses) by virtue of running a business called “This Efficient House” out of a detached accessory building on the subject property.
This property is located in the Imperial Estates subdivision, approximately four-tenths of a mile south of Horsetooth Road between South Shields Street and South Taft Hill Rd., within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. The neighborhood is predominantly zoned R-Residential, with lot sizes ranging from about one-half to one acre. Many lots have large detached shop buildings behind the houses. An informal neighborhood survey shows what appear to be many home-based businesses.
The Code Compliance section received a complaint on February 23, 2010, from a neighbor that Mr. Truitt was running a home energy audit and retrofit company from the detached garage on his property. The neighbor had previously inquired about land use code regulations, but had not filed a formal complaint. The next day, while research to initiate the file was under way, Code Compliance Officer Eric Fried went to the site and observed numerous vehicles, outdoor storage and signage.
On March 2, 2010, Mr. Fried returned to the site and contacted Mr. Truitt, explaining that a business use was only allowed in the R-Residential zoning district if it met the criteria for a Home Occupation listed under Land Use Code Section 4.3.10 B. Mr. Fried explained what was allowable under Use-by-Right and Minor Special Review criteria, and the sign regulations. Mr. Truitt showed him the existing office as well as storage space inside a 720-square-foot garage built in 1974 (per the Assessor). Mr. Truitt removed his oversized banner during the conversation. Mr. Truitt stated that he was computerizing his system, so his employees could get assignments online and go straight to job sites without coming to his property. Mr. Fried explained that, if the business did not change the residential character of the neighborhood, had no more than one full-time equivalent employee not residing on site come to the property, no outdoor storage, no more than three square feet of signage, no more than one business vehicle stored outside, a maximum of five business-related car trips, and used less than 800 square feet in a detached accessory building built before 2006, Mr. Truitt would only need to register his home occupation with county Planning to come into compliance with existing regulations. Mr. Truitt indicated he would do so as soon as possible.
Mr. Truitt asked Mr. Fried to come back to the site the next day to verify he was in compliance. Mr. Fried observed progress, but not full compliance, at that time. Materials had been moved inside, a sign no greater than three square feet had replaced the large banner, and several vehicles had been removed from the property. This was the third of numerous visits to the property.
On March 8, 2010, Mr. Fried called the complainant to let him know that a written response to his complaint was being drafted, per his request. The complainant stated that there was no longer a need for a written response, as the Truitt property was substantially improved, and the large trailer that was particularly offensive was gone. The complainant said he would send a follow-up letter to this effect. Later that day he called back and said the large trailer had returned to the site, and he wanted a written response after all. That response was mailed the following day.
On April 6, 2010, Mr. Truitt registered his Home Occupation with the county, and certified he met the Use-by-Right criteria.
On April 16, 2010, Code Compliance received further correspondence from the same complainant, stating that nothing had changed and that the “property . . . is the same, if not worse.” Code Compliance Supervisor Candace Phippen drafted a response to the complainant on May 5, 2010, but after discussion among staff, it was decided that a zoning violation hearing would be schedule instead, to fully air the issues and have the Board of County Commissioners formally find that a violation does or does not exist on the property.
On June 10, 2010, after the hearing had been scheduled and notice mailed, Mr. Truitt called Mr. Fried to report he had rented a commercial storage site within the city limits of Fort Collins and was going to move the large trailer to that site. He reported the trailer would be moved back and forth from there to job sites and would not return to his property. That same day, Mr. Fried went to the Truitt property and to the commercial site that and verified that Mr. Truitt had moved insulation batts to a barn on the storage site and had paid for several months of space rental there. Mr. Fried concluded there were no remaining issues regarding Land Use Code compliance on Mr. Truitt’s property. Under normal circumstances, this hearing would have been canceled. However, the reason for scheduling it initially was to try and bring conclusion to this matter, it was decided that the hearing would indeed be held.
Notice of this hearing was sent via certified and regular mail to Mr. Truitt and Ms. Murphy, and via regular mail to property owners within 500 feet of the site as well.
There are no major issues or concerns at this time.
Staff finds that the property is zoned R-Residential. Home-based businesses are allowed as an accessory use in all zoning districts provided they meet the criteria laid out in Land Use Code Section 4.3.10 B. Mr. Truitt registered his Home Occupation on April 6, 2010, certifying that he met these criteria. Numerous site visits, the last one being June 10, 2010, verify that Mr. Truitt meets the Use-by-Right criteria for a Home Occupation accessory use.
Staff recommends that a violation does not exist and that the use of the property is in compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Chair Johnson asked about the specific violations that were rectified, and Mr. Fried reviewed them. Discussion continued regarding the specific allowances with respect to signage and vehicles.
Chair Johnson invited the property owner to address the Board regarding this matter.
Mr. Truitt approached the Board and stated that Mr. Fried’s explanation was very accurate. He further explained that his business grew much faster than he anticipated it would, he extended his apologies to the Martins and stated that they had legitimate reason for lodging their initial complaint. Mr. Truitt further outlined the steps he took to rectify the code violations and expressed his sincere desire to work within the requirements of the code. He commented on the nature of the neighborhood and other home-based businesses operating there and outlined, in general terms, how his business operates, specifically with respect to trips to and from his property.
Chair Johnson asked Mr. Truitt about any future visits the trailer might make to the property and whether the trailer would be left on his property overnight. Mr. Truitt replied that the trailer might make trips to the residence to pick up materials, etc. and that leaving it there overnight might occur from time to time; but he emphasized that such occasions would be the exception, rather than the rule. Mr. Truitt further commented that he fully intends to adhere to the spirit of the law in this regard. Mr. Truitt then provided two letters of support that he received from other residents in the neighborhood.
Chair Johnson invited Mrs. Martin, the neighbor who registered the initial complaint, to address the Board.
Ms. Martin approached the Board and commented that Mr. Truitt has worked hard to make the property fit in with the neighborhood, and she agreed that there are a lot of home-based businesses operating in the area. However, she stated that Mr. Truitt’s business operations had the front street totally blocked with vehicles. She further stated that she understands if the trailer returns to pick up equipment or supplies, but she hopes it will not be remaining there overnight. Ms. Martin concluded by confirming that she is satisfied that the code violations have been corrected and that this matter has been brought to conclusion.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners find a violation does not exist.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. CONSIDERATION OF A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM FOR (A) PREMITS, APPROVALS OR LICENSES RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS THAT CULTIVATES, PROCESSES OR DISPENSES MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND (B) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY BUSINESS, OCCUPATION OR OPERATION RELATING THERETO: Mr. Ressue explained that this is to address Colorado House Bill 10-1284, which will take effect July 1, 2010. Specifically, the law requires businesses that cultivate, process or dispense medical marijuana to be licensed. The law further requires local government to adopt local licensing regulations by July 1, 2011, to comply with state licensing regulations.
Mr. Ressue further explained the county’s options and the reasons for the moratorium option(s) being presented. Putting a moratorium in place for permits, approvals or licenses allows time for Larimer County to consider the implications of state and local codes and how they can co-exist within the county.
Mr. Ressue outlined the two moratorium options being presented to the Board at this time:
1. Suspend the processing of all new applications, except for those currently being processed and/or those applications submitted by a specified date. This option would affect new applications only and would allow those operating and following the land use code to continue pursuing their applications. It would prevent new businesses from joining in on an industry that is in flux. If there are new operators, they would eventually have to go back and apply for any licensing requirements that will be put in place.
2. Suspend the processing of all new and pending applications, which also means suspension of operation for those that are operating while approval is pending. This would mean that those operators who are operating and/or have “jumped through hoops” to comply with land use codes while their applications are pending would have to stop in the middle of the process and cease operations. All medical marijuana operations in Larimer County would be brought to a standstill.
Mr. Ressue advised the Board that, if they decided to approve a moratorium, they would also need to determine an effective date, and he suggested that 5 p.m. on July 1, 2010, would be consistent with state law.
Chair Johnson emphasized that HB 10-1284 does not affect caregivers or patients, rather it specifically pertains to retail operations only. He read particular portions of HB 10-1284 that apply to this discussion. Chair Johnson then stated that Larimer County really has no choice but to enact a moratorium, since the law requires that such operations comply with state and local licensing requirements, and such licensing requirements have not yet been developed. Mr. Ressue concurred, stating that adherence to the county’s land use codes does not equate to adherence to licensing requirements. Commissioner Donnelly commented that the state law essentially equates to a moratorium.
Mr. Ressue explained that the new law differentiates between facilities currently in operation and the acceptance of applications after July 1, 2010, under state law. If the applications are not currently pending, they cannot operate without state and local licenses being in place. He reiterated that application made under the Larimer County Land Use Code does not equate to adherence to licensing requirements outlined in state law. State law says these businesses cannot operate, but it does not say they cannot file an application.
Commissioner Donnelly commented that these discussions pertain only to unincorporated Larimer County, not to any operations within city jurisdiction. Mr. Ressue concurred, adding that state law applies to both cities and counties, but that these discussions only apply to unincorporated Larimer County, and each city must deal with the matter independently.
Chair Johnson stated that Larimer County can only do what the state allows, and he outlined actions taken in Larimer County thus far. He further reiterated that the state is now requiring licensing, but it is not clear what that will look like; and the state will be developing rules, which could impact the licensing scheme developed for Larimer County.
Mr. Whitley commented that Larimer County can impose a moratorium until the details of state rules and the local licensing scheme have been developed. He further explained that the Board can decide to allow those businesses currently in the “pipeline” to continue with the process they have invested in, or the Board can choose to stop all applications entirely. He explained that eight applications are in review, one has been denied; one application has been submitted; and one more application is anticipated by July 1, 2010. Mr. Whitley does not anticipate a rush of applications, if the moratorium allows applications until July 1, 2010, because the application process requires a neighborhood meeting, for which 14-days advance notice is required, and the time frame need to meet that requirement has passed.
Chair Johnson asked Mr. Whitley if he and the Planning staff concur that, according to state law, businesses filing applications after July 1, 2010, even if approved in Larimer County, could not go into operation. Mr. Whitley concurred.
Commissioner Gaiter asked council what would happen to the applications that have been made if a ban on medical marijuana were brought before Larimer County voters and passed. Mr. Ressue stated that there is some uncertainty in state law: 1) operations in existence might be treated as non-conforming businesses and be “grandfathered” in – allowing their continued operation only under the scope and size active at the time the ban goes into effect; or 2) depending on state rules, local jurisdictions may have the option of making the ban retroactive.
Chair Johnson asked if state law allows any exception to the July 1, 2010, deadline. Mr. Whitley stated that the state does not allow exception – there is no local leeway with respect to the deadline.
Chair Johnson opened the meeting to public comment.
The following individuals approached the Board with commentary regarding how a potential moratorium will negatively impact their businesses, consideration of their special circumstances, the efforts some have gone through to comply with legal requirements thus far, the density of operations compared with the population in need of these services, etc.:
Jerry Eschbaugh, Northern Colorado Medical Growers
Scott Stokely, Premier Wellness
Adam Titelbaum, operator of a center in Fort Collins
Hailey Bull, Bonnie and Clyde LLC
Tad Loader, Urban Acre
Timothy Gordon, Medicinal Gardens
Jim Thomas, from a cultivation operation in Larimer County
Donna Lawson, caregiver with growing facility in Fort Collins
Jeremiah Larsen, property owner in Larimer County
Lonnie Castillon, filer of application within the county
Becky Justice-Hemmann of the Berthoud Surveyor approached the Board and asked how many facilities were currently in operation in Larimer County. Mr. Whitley explained that two are currently operating illegally – one made application in early June and is going through the Special Review process; and the other will be closing in July, when their property lease expires. Chair Johnson commented that these are the operations Larimer County is aware of.
The following individuals approached the Board to express concern about the affect such operations have on area neighborhoods and businesses, hazardous waste produced by such operations and the lack of adequate regulations for quantity and product safety.
Carmen Maria Weston
Jathen Trevena, RollerLand Skating Center
Mel Burr, property owner in a local industrial area, addressed the Board and expressed approval of such facilities in industrial areas of the county.
Robin Jones approached the Board and asked if it is legal, in Larimer County, for a patient to grow up to five plants. Mr. Whitley stated that there are no zoning requirements in Larimer County for patients growing for themselves and/or one other person. He further explained that a state ban would not apply to primary caregivers, who can grow for up to five patients and must provide the product at cost.
Chair Johnson closed public comment.
Chair Johnson thanked all those who commented for their input, as the information provided is very helpful. He further stated that, while he is not generally a fan of moratoriums, he thinks one is appropriate in this case so that Larimer County can provide clear information to potential operators. He stated that a moratorium would eliminate confusing mixed messages that might leave potential operators thinking they simply need to comply with land use requirements, do so, and then find out that they’ve gone to the trouble to comply but still cannot operate because of state law and licensing requirements that have not yet been developed.
Commissioner Gaiter stated that there are a lot of business owners interested in this industry, and they should not be left in limbo and/or encouraged to invest in a process that cannot provide for, according state law, their ability to operate. He commented on how close the vote was on this topic in Larimer County (49.99% voted Yes and 50.01% voted No – in Larimer County the measure failed by only 23 votes), and the Board’s need for more information.
Mr. Whitley reiterated staff’s desire that the Board approve the moratorium option that allows existing applications and applications received by 5 p.m. on July 1, 2010, to continue through the process.
Commissioner Donnelly stated that he would support the moratorium option preferred by staff. Chair Johnson stated that he believes the Board really has no choice in this matter and should approve the moratorium in an effort to provide clarity. Commissioner Gaiter concurred.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt, and authorize the Board Chair to sign, a resolution imposing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance of applications for businesses that cultivate, process or dispense medical marijuana, after 5:00 p.m. on July 1, 2010; effective until June 30, 2011.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2010
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Bob Keister, Donna Hart, Diane Tokarz, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Rob Helmick, Planning Department; Carol Block, Reggie Thurn, and Lorrie Lopez, Finance Department; Alan Holmberg, and Melissa Craven, Anderson & Whitney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Scott Maxwell voiced concerns regarding the fact that his neighbor is researching the possibility of creating a dynamite storage facility on his property. Mr. Maxwell noted he opposed to this due to safety issues and decreased property values. Mr. Helmick explained that they have not received an application for special review for dynamite storage on this property, and that Mr. Maxwell would be informed and have the ability to voice his opposition, should his neighbor choose to proceed with this endeavor.
Darin Barrett requested clarification regarding the substantial amount of money that was given to Weld County for tornado relief. The Board explained that the Human Services Department was not able to use the state funds within the allotted time frame, and that the money would have been turned back to the state if they could not find another use for it. Weld County was able to utilize the funding for qualified TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) participants. Mr. Barrett thanked the Board for their time and explanation.
Greg Leverett, Rosemary Van Gorder, and Sharon Goodnight all expressed dissatisfaction with the Human Services Child Protection system. All cited negative past personal experiences with the system and disagreed with the Board taking a stance opposing more regulation at the county level.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEKS OF JUNE 14, AND JUNE 21, 2010:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the weeks of June 14, and June 21, 2010.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 5, 2010: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined below:
06292010R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF RANDY POPE
06292010R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COLORADO CHERRY COMPANY EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE
06292010R003 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HOLBROOK LUC APPEAL
06292010R004 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HOLBROOK LUC APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS: Department of Human Services Payments for May 2010; Relative Caregivers Eligibility and Payment Policy; Affordable, Appropriate Child Care Policy; Rape Prevention Policy; Other Assistance Program for Participants Policy; Individual Development Accounts Policy; Non-Custodial Parent Program Policy; Earned Income tax Credit Access Policy; Assessment Policy; Mental Health and Substance Abuse Referrals Policy; Amended Stipulation Worldmark Club; Application to the State Division of Housing for CDBG Funds; Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Wired Grant #09-KAA-0007 Closeout Package.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were approved and/or issued: Rocky Mountain Gateway #1 – Hotel & Restaurant – Estes Park; Rocky Mountain Gateway #2 – 3.2% - Estes Park; Rams’ Horn & CSU – Hotel & Restaurant – Fort Collins; CSU Concessions & Stadium – 3.2% - Fort Collins; Fort Fun – Tavern – Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. 2009 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE AUDITOR’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Ms. Block introduced Mr. Holmburg and Ms. Craven, auditors from Anderson & Whitney. Mr. Holmburg reviewed highlights from the 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Mr. Holmburg stated noted that they provided a supplemental letter that outlines corrective measures for minor issue with processes or procedures, but overall Larimer County does an excellent job in financial management.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Motion carried 3-0.
6. FUNDING FOR TWO ORACLE SELF-SERVUCE MODULES – iPROCUREMENT AND iEXPENSE: Ms. Block and Ms. Thurn requested Board approval for funding to purchase Oracle iProcurement and iExpense modules for a total one-time implementation cost of $190,000. Ms. Block noted that the modules will help the departments’ process purchases and streamline the expense processing via self-service modules. Ms. Thurn estimated that the cost savings to the county would be approximately $45,000 annually.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve one-time funding for Oracle iProcurement implementation of $65,000 and iExpense implementation of $125,000.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LOCAL ADMINISTERED HUMAN SERVICES: Chair Johnson presented a resolution that supports maintaining administration of Human Services at the local county level versus a statewide system. Chair Johnson stated his strong opinion that the flexibility and quality of Human Services is best served at the county level.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution Supporting Local Administered Human Services.
Motion carried 3-0.
06292010R005 RESOLUTION FOR THE SUPPORT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION OF COLORADO’S HUMAN SERVICES SYSTEM AND A COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE
8. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTMENTS: Ms. Tokarz presented the following appointments/reappointments to the following boards and commissions:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Paul Devenny, Carol Dowling, and Jeffrey Schneider, appointed to a three year term beginning July 1, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013.
BOARD OF HEALTH: Christopher McKinney, appointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD: Evelyn King, completing the unexpired term of T. Schneider, beginning July 1, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2011; Earlic Thomas, appointed to a three year term beginning July 1, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013; Ryan McShane, Kate Muldoon, and Jarrett Tishmack, reappointed to a three year term beginning July 1, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013.
EXTENSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Trena Anastasia, Valerie Clark, Dixie Jane Dick, Jessie Hendrickson, reappointed to a three year term beginning July 1, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013. Ronda Koski, appointed to a three year term beginning July 1, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013.
GID #2, PINEWOOD SPRINGS BOARD: George Lorman, completing the unexpired term of James Izat, beginning June 29, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2011.
JUVENILE COMMUNITY REVIEW BOARD: Dirk Kettlekamp, appointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013; Larry Abrahamson, Ruth Carrothers, Sarah Cure, and Marnie Richter, reappointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013.
LAND STEWARDSHIP ADVISORY BOARD: Charles Miller and Matthew Parker, reappointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013; Carmen Weston, appointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013.
OPEN LANDS ADVISORY BOARD: Don Griffith and Hugh McKean, reappointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013; Mary Banken and Suzan Fritchel, appointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013.
PARKS ADVISORY BOARD: Frank Cada, Mark DeGregorio, Russell Fruits, and Chad LaChance, reappointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013; Steve Schweitzer, appointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013.
PLANNING COMMISSION: Bill Wendt, appointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013; Nancy Wallace and Karen Weitkunat, reappointed to a three year term beginning July 01, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2013; Curtis Miller, completing the unexpired term of Andrew Boucher, beginning July 1, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2012.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments and reappointments to Boards and Commissions, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
9. COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Mr. Gluckman noted that the Estes Park Medical Center is applying for a $39,000 grant to pay for equipment for their orthopedic program, and they have requested a letter of support for the Board of County Commissioners. The Board agreed to sign the letter or support for this endeavor.
Mr. Gluckman also noted that he is soliciting departmental input regarding proposed legislative items for the 2011 session, and will present this to the Board at their worksession on Thursday.
10. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORT: The Board detailed their attendance at events during the last week.
11. LEGAL MATTERS: There were no legal matters to discuss today.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2010
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FORMATION HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 6:30 p.m. in Estes Park with Linda Sanders, Civil Engineer. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Matt Johnson, Engineering Department; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
1. KORAL HEIGHTS, PROPOSED PID #46 : Ms. Sanders explained that the proposed Koral Heights district is located north of Peakview Road and west of South St. Vrain Avenue, near Estes Park. The roads contained within the district are gravel roads and have previously been maintained through the homeowners’ association. Ms. Sanders noted that 37 lots are in the proposed district and 66.7% of eligible property owners signed a petition in favor of the improvement district. Lastly, Ms. Sanders noted that the proposed mill levy is 10.759, an average of $324 per lot, which would generate approximately $12,000 per year.
Chair Johnson opened the hearing to public comment and Bob Pittman addressed the Board. Mr. Pittman explained that the homeowners’ association currently collects $250 per month for road maintenance which is used primarily for snow removal and historically has not been enough to cover the cost of maintenance and repairs. Lastly, Mr. Pittman inquired about the mill levy assessment for undeveloped lots.
Chair Johnson explained that undeveloped lots are assessed taxes at a higher percentage of the property value. As a result of the higher tax assessment, the 10.759 mill levy will result in a higher fee for undeveloped lots, in comparison to developed lots.
Rex Poggenpohl and Pete Piper also addressed the Board in favor of the proposed district. Both cited the increasing difficulty faced by the homeowners’ association with collecting dues to maintain the roads. Mr. Piper inquired about the responsibility of private citizens to maintain public roads.
Ms. Sanders explained that the county does not maintain any unpaved roads within subdivisions.
Chair Johnson closed the hearing to public comment and commended the homeowners’ association for the large amount of work they have put into the proposed districted.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the petition to create the Larimer County Koral Heights Public Improvement District#46 and order an election.
Motion carried 3-0.
06302010R001 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF LARIMER COUNTY KORAL HEIGHTS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #46
2. PARK HILL, PROPOSED PID #47: Ms. Sanders readdressed the Board and explained that the proposed district is located on the east side of Mall Road near the Highway 36 intersection, just east of Lake Estes. The roads contained within the district are gravel roads and have previously been maintained through the homeowners’ association. Ms. Sanders noted that 13 lots are in the proposed district and 64.7% of eligible property owners signed a petition in favor of the improvement district. Lastly, Ms. Sanders noted that the proposed mill levy is 16.762, an average of $385 per lot, which would generate approximately $5,000 per year.
Chair Johnson opened the hearing to public comment. Beverly O’Connor and Pat Green addressed the Board in favor of the proposed district. Ms. O’Connor inquired about the land used for proposed road widening and drainage improvements.
Mr. Johnson stated that the land used for any improvements or additions would be within the right-of-way dedicated to the county during the initial subdivision process.
Chair Johnson closed the hearing to public comment and thanked the property owners within the subdivision for all of their hard work.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the petition for the organization of Larimer County Park Hill Public Improvement District #47.
Motion carried 3-0.
06302010R002 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF LARIMER COUNTY PARK HILL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #47
There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
STEVE JOHNSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy Clerk