Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, August 16, 2010

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were:  Linda Hoffman, Sean Wheeler, Toby Stauffer, Karin Madson, and Michael Whitley,  Planning Department; Brenda Gimeson, Rural Land Use Center; Dave Shirk, Estes Park Planning Department; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

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

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that Ms. Gimeson had a small clarification to item 5, the Little Rural Land Plan; however, the item should remain on the consent agenda.  Mr. Lafferty also recommended moving item 9, regarding Land Use Code amendments, to the consent agenda, as it consists of only minor housekeeping changes. 

 

Ms. Gimeson explained that the property owner for the Little Rural Land Plan had previously agreed to form an architectural review committee; however, his attorney has since advised him against this, but he will still adopt the architectural standards similar to the Sunship Homeowners Association.   Ms. Gimeson stated that the language has been revised to reflect this change.

 

Chair Johnson then asked if anyone was present to discuss item 9, regarding the Land Use Code amendments.  Nobody was present to discuss this item; therefore, the Board added it to the consent agenda.

 

Chair Johnson then noted that the following items were on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

1.   GATEHOUSE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND REZONING:    This is a request to adjust the configuration of three existing lots and rezone from the “RE” Rural Estate district to the “E-1” Estate zoning district (from 2.5-acre minimum lot size to one acre).

Plat .  The purpose of the amended plat is to reconfigure the internal lot line between the “road” parcel and the “gatehouse” parcel; the third lot is included to change the legal description from a long metes-and-bounds description to “Parcel 1 of the Gatehouse Boundary Line Adjustment.”

 

The current lot configuration is such that the trash compactor is on the “gatehouse” lot, and is the primary reason for this request:  to have all of the Windcliff accessories on a lot owned by the Windcliff Property Owners Association.

 

Proposed Parcel 1 is undeveloped, and was determined to be a legal lot through a Separate Lot Determination process in June 2009.   Proposed Parcel 2 is the “gatehouse” property, where the Windcliff office is located.   Proposed Outlot A is occupied mostly by Windcliff Drive, with accessory uses such as the trash compactor building, entry sign, mailboxes and newspaper boxes. 

 

Rezoning .  The rezoning request, suggested by Staff, is to provide an appropriate zoning in terms of minimum lot size; the change in zoning would not affect allowed uses.  None of the lots meet the current minimum lot size of 2.5-acres. 

 

The rezoning will also reduce the required property line setbacks from 50-feet to 25-feet.  Fifty-foot setbacks would render the existing Gatehouse nonconforming as to setbacks, and require Parcel 1 to obtain a variance to build any dwelling.

 

Lot Size Minor Modification .  The proposed one-acre zoning most closely fits the proposed lot sizes, and would prohibit future subdivision of the lots. 

 

Two of the proposed lots would still not meet the minimum lot size.  Therefore, the Planning Commission granted a Minor Modification to the minimum lot size.

 

Staff recommends approval of the proposed “Gatehouse Boundary Line Adjustment” and rezoning as recommended by the Planning Commission.   O n Tuesday, July 20, 2010 the Estes Valley Planning Commission found:

 

1.   Except for the Minor Modification for lot size, this proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, including Section 3.9.E “Standards for Review” and 10.3 “Review Procedures.”

2.   The Minor Modification to lot size complies with review standards set forth in Section 3.7.  Approval of this Minor Subdivision will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this Code.

3.   The requested rezoning will alleviate existing nonconforming lot size for the three parcels (with minor modification), continue to prohibit future re-subdivision, and prevent non-conforming setbacks for the existing structure on proposed Parcel 2.

4.   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.

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

6.   This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Board of County Commissioners;

 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed “Gatehouse Boundary Line Adjustment” and rezoning from RE Rural Estate to E-1 Estate.

 

2.   PARK EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING, FILE # 10-Z1810:   This request is to appeal Section 4.8.10.B.1 of the Land Use Code that contains regulations for expanding nonconforming buildings.  This section of the Code requires that a proposed addition to a nonconforming building should be outside the respective setback and that the expansion is not more than 25 % of the square footage of the original building and not more than 1000 square feet.  The proposed 361 sq. ft. addition of living space is greater than 25% of the existing 720 sq. ft. home but it does meet the rest of the requirements in Section 4.8.10. The applicant proposes to add on a 361 sq. ft. living room to the east of the structure. 

 

The Larimer County Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and has no major concerns or issues with this project.  The Department of Health/Environment has reviewed the proposal and indicated that the proposed addition should not interfere with the sewer system and that the system would not need to be enlarged for this project.  The Building Department noted that the applicants will need an engineered foundation system for the proposed addition and a building permit for the expansion.  The Poudre Fire Authority has reviewed the proposal and has no comments or concerns.

 

The Development Services Team (DST) finds the appeal meets the review criteria of Section 22.2.3 as outlined in the Land Use Code.   The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Park Expansion of a Nonconforming Building, File # 10-Z1810 subject to the following conditions:

 

      1.  Upon approval of the request the owner shall apply for necessary building permits. 

 

3.  HIAWATHA HEIGHTS LOTS 4-10 BLOCK 32 AND LOTS 3 & 5 BLOCK 33 LOT CONSOLIDATION, FILE #10-S2975:   The applicant seeks approval to consolidate Lots 4 through 10 in Block 32, and Lots 3 and 5 in Block 33 of the Hiawatha Heights Subdivision into a single, legal lot.  The new lot will be a combined size of .52 acres.  There is an existing cabin and outhouse on the subject property and the cabin is served by a well.  The site is in the O-Open zone district, which has a minimum lot size of 10 acres.  However, all nine lots are in an approved and platted subdivision, and consolidation of theses into a single lot will decrease the non-conforming status of the existing lots.  If the request is approved, the recording instrument will be the Findings and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners and a survey plat will not be required.

 

Development Services Team:  Staff from the Planning and Engineering Departments, and the Department of Health and Environment reviewed the request.  None of these offices expressed objections to approval of the request.  The comments provided by the Engineering and Health Departments are attached to this report for consideration.

 

Other Reviewing Offices:  As part of the referral process, Planning Staff provided information about the request to other referral agencies such as the Fire Department, Utilities, etc.  None of these reviewing agencies objected to approval of the Amended Plat.

 

Consolidation of the nine lots into a single lot will allow the applicant to construct a new cabin without crossing a property line between the lots he currently owns.  It will also decrease the non-conforming status of the site by eliminating eight of the nine lots.  In addition, none of the reviewing offices or agencies objected to approval of the request.  With regard to the review criteria, the following are noted:

 

A.  Approval of the lot consolidation will not create any additional lots.  Consolidation of the lots will also decrease, not increase, the non-conforming lot size of the subject property.

 

B.  The lot consolidation will not create a nonconforming setback for any buildings, nor will it adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area.

 

C.   Any covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots will continue to apply to the resultant lot.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the request to consolidate Lots 4 through 10 in Block 32, and Lots 3 and 5 in Block 33 of the Hiawatha Heights Subdivision, as described in File #10-S2975.  If the request is approved, the recording instrument will be the Findings and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.

 

 

4.   LOVELAND TALL PINES REZONING, FILE #10-Z1801:    This is a request rezone a 6.0 Acre property from C-Commercial and M – Multiple-family to PD- Planned Development to accommodate existing commercial and residential uses consistent with the Loveland Comprehensive Plan

 

This item was on the consent agenda for the Planning Commission Public Hearing on July 21, 2010.  Staff provided a brief presentation to the Planning Commission regarding the rezoning and the motion for approval.  Planning Commission had no questions for staff or the applicants.

 

After the Planning Commission hearing Planning, Code Compliance and Building Department staff met with the applicants to discuss building and change of occupancy permit requirements.  Condition 4 in the Planning Commission staff report states, “The property owners shall obtain building permits, change of occupancy permits, and inspection approvals within 90 days of approval of the rezoning.”

 

The applicants are willing to obtain the required permits within 90 days but had concerns about their ability to obtaining inspection approvals within 90 days.  According to the Building Department regulations, a property owner is given 18 months to obtain inspection approvals after a permit is issued.

 

The Development Services Team proposes to amend condition 4 to read:  The property owners shall obtain required building permits and change of occupancy permits within 90 days of approval of the rezoning and shall obtain inspection approvals for those permits within 18 months from the date of issuance of the permits.

 

No other changes to the conditions of approval are proposed.

 

The Development Services Team recommends the Larimer County Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Loveland Tall Pines Rezoning, File # 10-Z1801, a request to rezone the property from C – Commercial and M – Multiple-family  to PD - Planned Development subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the Loveland Tall Pines Findings & Resolution.

2.   Building permits shall be obtained for all structures over 120 square feet that were constructed since 1972 when building permits were first required by Larimer County. 

3.   A change of occupancy building permit shall be obtained for the prior conversion of Building A (as identified on the attached plot plan) from a residential use to a commercial use. 

4.   The property owners shall obtain required building permits and change of occupancy permits within 90 days of approval of the rezoning and shall obtain inspection approvals for those permits within 18 months from the date of issuance of the permits.

 

5.   The property owners shall sign an Annexation Agreement to the City of Loveland within 90 days of approval of the rezoning. 

6.   No building permit or permits shall be issued that cumulatively resulting in a building expansion of more than 25% of any individual building existing on the property as of May 14, 2010 as shown on the plot plan in File #10-Z1801.

7.   No building permit shall be issued resulting in a new principal building on the subject property.

8.   Change of occupancy permits shall be required as applicable.

9.   Site Plan Review will be required for any change of use and/or expansion on the property which intensifies the impacts created by the uses on the property.  At the time of any future Site Plan Review, Staff will review the proposal for compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8 standards and other site design requirements including, but no limited to: site access, traffic impacts, paved parking and adequate parking spaces, drainage impacts, stormwater quality, erosion control, floodplain regulations and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees.

10.   Buildings D & E do not have water or sewer service.  At the time of rezoning, Buildings D & E were used for storage and single-person operated trade uses with no additional employees and no customer traffic.  Redevelopment or changes in use that require a Site Plan review will trigger the need to connect those structures to a public sewer system.

11.   The Planned Development (PD) zoning shall be applied to the entire property. The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for the Loveland Tall Pines Planned Development shall be as follows:

Loveland Tall Pines PD

A.   Principal uses:

Agricultural

1.   Farm (R)

2.   Garden Supply Center (R)

3.   Pet animal facility (R)**

4.   Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R)**

5.   Apiary (R)

 

Residential

3. Single-family dwelling (R)*

       Group home a for the developmentally disabled (R)*

4. Group home for the aged (R)*

5. Group home (R)*

6. Group home for the mentally ill (R)*

Commercial

7. Professional office (R)

8. General retail (R)**

9. General commercial (R)

10. Personal service (R)

11. Flea market (R)**

12. Instructional facility (R)

13. Outdoor display/sales (R)

14.   Clinic (R)

Institutional

14. Health services (R)

15. Rehabilitation facility (R)

Recreational

16.  Place of Amusement or recreation (R)**

16. Membership club/clubhouse (R)

Industrial

17. Enclosed Storage (R)

18.  Trade Use (R)

19. Outdoor Storage (R)**

Utilities

20. Commercial mobile radio service (R)**

Transportation

20. Parking lot (R)

 

* Only Buildings A & B may be used for residential uses.  Buildings A & B may also be occupied by non-residential uses if the applicable change of use permits, building permits and Site Plan Review approvals are obtained as applicable.

                       

** Pet animal facilities, pet animal veterinary clinic/hospitals, general retail, flea markets, places of amusement or recreation, outdoor storage, and commercial mobile radio services are allowed only at the “by right” intensities as described in Section 4.3 of the Land Use Code. 

B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

1.   Minimum lot size:

a.   100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

b.   15,000 square feet (0.34 acre) if public water and sewer are used.

2.   Minimum required setbacks: (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)

a.   Street and road setback (Refer to section 4.9.1 setbacks from highways, county roads, and all other streets and roads.) The setback from a street or road must be 25 feet from the lot line, nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

b.   Side yards--Ten feet.

c.   Rear yards--Twenty feet.

d.   Refer to section 4.9.2 for additional setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers).

3.   Maximum structure height--40 feet.

4.   The parcel may include the principal buildings that are existing at the time of rezoning as documented on the plot plan in the Loveland Tall Pines Rezoning File #10-Z1801.

 

5.   LITTLE RURAL LAND PLAN, FILE $10-S2948:   This is a request to divide 70 +/- acres into a total of 3 buildable lots in the following manner:  Two single-family residential lots, each about 3-4 acres in size, and one 64-acre Residual Lot that will contain the existing home and existing accessory dwelling in a 10-acre building envelope, with the remaining 54 acres on this Residual Lot protected from further development for a minimum of 40 years, as required under the RLUP.

 

The property is located in Sections 20, 29, and 30, Township 4 North, Range 70, West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; generally located 6 miles northeast of Lyons, Colorado on County Road 37E.  The property is zoned O-Open.  Under the property’s current O-Open zoning (1 home site per 10 acres), up to 7 homes could potentially be built if approved through the County’s Conservation Development (CD) process.  As a 35-acre development, the property could be developed with up to 2 homesites. 

The surrounding properties consist of an existing Rural Land Plan, a Planned Unit Development and some 35-acre parcels.  This is a highly developed area of mostly 35-acre parcels.  The proposed density of the Little Rural Land Use project, one unit per 24 acres, appears to be compatible with the neighborhood.  The Rural Land Plan located in this area is at a density of one unit per 25.14 acres.  The Planned Unit Development directly connecting to this property is at a density of one unit per 11.78 acres.

This property is about 72 +/- acres total and is comprised of three parcels, all owned by the James and Jani Little.   The property consists of an open mountainous area that is used for grazing and an existing residence and accessory dwelling. The proposal for the Little Preliminary Rural Land Plan is to divide the 72 +/- acres into a total of 3 buildable lots.  These lots will consist of 2 new single-family residential lots, each about 3-4 acres in size, and one 64-acre Residual Lot that will contain the existing home and existing accessory dwelling in a 10-acre building envelope.  The 54 acres outside of the building envelope will be protected from further development for a minimum of 40 years, as required under the RLUP. 

The uses for the existing residences will continue as they are now.  The two new lots will each be allowed one new residence.  The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land and for providing a periodic monitoring report(s) to the County.  The main access to all the lots in the Little RLUP will be from driveways located off of County Road 37E and possibly Vision Way for Lot 1.  All roads/driveways within the development will be constructed to Rural Land Use standards per Section 5.8.6 of the Larimer County Land Use Code and be contained in private access and utility easements.  Right-of-way will not be dedicated with this plat as all roads leading to and surrounding the proposed development are private access easements.  Water to all the homesites will be by on-lot wells and each lot will have its own septic system. 

Referral agency comments were solicited from five agencies. Comments were received from four of those agencies and are attached.  Representatives from the County Engineering Department, County Health and Environment Department, and Rural Land Use Advisory Board have visited the site and have consulted with the Rural Land Use Center during the conceptual design phase.  The neighboring property owners were notified of the project by mail and have been given an opportunity for comment either by written correspondence or this public hearing.    Since the project proposes a low density of development, it qualifies for administrative review under Section 5.8.5.D of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Therefore, a formal neighborhood meeting was not organized by staff.  When neighbors received notice of the proposal, one neighbor responded with questions and concerns.  The original hearing date was postponed to allow time for the applicant to meet with neighboring property owners on an informal basis.  Most of the concerns raised have been addressed.

 

During the application review process, no major technical issues were raised by the reviewing agency representatives that couldn’t be solved by the design.  One of those issues was the constraint of Lot 2 by shallow drainage gulches that cross the property.  Staff at the Health Department recommended that if the building envelopes were kept relatively large, there would be reasonable development options for the parcels.  The applicant is willing to accommodate that request and those will be determined at final plat.

The mineral interests are owned by the US Ag Bank.  Their letter indicates they have no objection to the plan of development as long as it does not impede their ability to develop the mineral estate.  The mineral estate has been noted and language will become part of the development agreement and notes on the plat to notice new owners of the severed minerals. 

The main concerns are from the neighboring property owners and their concerns are addressed below.

Shared Road Maintenance:  The applicant has expressed some concerns about the existing Sunship Homeowners’ Association documents lacking detail on road maintenance, but the applicant is in the process of working with the Sunship HOA to come to agreement on the shared maintenance.  A Condition of approval has been established that will require a good faith effort in reaching agreement.  (See Condition # 3)

 

The original staff report reflected the applicant would include a member of Sunship HOA on the Little RLUP Architectural Control Committee (ACC). After researching commitment and on the advice of his attorney, the applicant has determined it will be impractical to form the HOA or ACC with only 3 lots.  In lieu of forming ACC, applicant proposes covenants similar to Sunship PUD, include directly affected neighbors in design of covenants, and contemplate enforcement by neighboring properties.

 

This proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.8—Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code:

Support for the Little Preliminary Rural Land Plan is based on the following:

·  This proposal supports conservation values, including the preservation of at least 54 acres of residual lands with protection from further development for at least 40 years. 

  • The plan is generally compatible with the existing neighboring land uses.
  • The proposal supports the continued use of the ranching in the area and preserves the agricultural resource.

 

Support for this proposed plan considers other development options, particularly the greater number of residential units possible under the zoning. The desirability of mountain property that creates development pressure within the area supports the finding that this is an appropriate project.

As proposed, this project will also provide long-term benefits to citizens of Larimer County:

·   Protection of existing rural open lands.

·   Transportation capital expansion fees received from the project.

·   School and park fees received from the project.

·   Fewer residences than likely allowed through existing zoning.

·  Ability to influence design of project, as compared to use-by-right division of property into 35-acre parcels.

 

This project was reviewed by the Rural Land Use Advisory Board on Monday, May 3, 2010.  The Board recommended approval of the project. 

 

The Rural Land Use Center Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Little Rural Land Plan.  The following contingencies must be met prior to approval of final plat by the Board of County Commissioners:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Little Rural Land Plan (File # 10-S2948) 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 Little Rural Land Plan.

2.   All roads constructed within the Rural Land Plan shall be in accordance with Section 5.8.6.D of the Rural Land Use Process.  Before final approval, all designs must be prepared, stamped and certified by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado that design standards in 5.8.6.D. were followed.  Internal roads may be contained in a private access and utility easement.  Road names and addressing shall meet standards in the “Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution”. 

3.   Applicant must make a good faith effort to reach an agreement on road maintenance with the neighboring Sunship PUD and Homeowners’ Association for the shared roads. 

4.   Applicant must provide a storm water management report, if applicable, to the Rural Land Use Center prior to commencing any construction on the project.  Before designing stormwater drainage facilities, applicant and applicant's engineer must contact the Larimer County Engineering Environmental Specialist to discuss stormwater management design requirements.  Applicant shall comply with all such design requirements.  Applicant's plans must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that they meet the stormwater management design requirements.

5.   The residual land management plan must be reviewed and approved by the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval. 

6.   The residual land protective covenant and final development agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval.

7.   Restrictive covenants, including provisions for internal road maintenance, small acreage management, architectural guidelines, and other requirements must be reviewed and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director prior to final plat approval.  OR A Road Maintenance Agreement must be submitted and reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and RLUC Director prior to final plat approval. 

8.   A Lot Sale Prohibition shall be placed on this property preventing the sale of any new lots until the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements.  The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed.  The Lot Sale Prohibition will be recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and will be a covenant running with the Lots.  Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for the particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed. 

9.   The following must be listed as a note on the final plat and on a disclosure statement, approved by the County Attorney, available to lot buyers through the public records at the time of purchase: 

a)   LOT SALE PROHIBITION.  Developers have executed a Lot Sale Prohibition Agreement which stipulates that Lots 1 and 2 cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developers provide to County a written designation stating that all the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements.  The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed.  The Lot Sale Prohibition is recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and is a covenant running with the Lots.  Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed. 

b)   If new residential structures are constructed with basements, it is recommended that a geo-technical report be completed to see if the groundwater is 5 feet below floor elevation to avoid flooding issues.

c)   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of structures designed for habitable space on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

d)   The Property is subject to severed mineral interests that are owned by US Ag Bank.  The conceptual plan within the Larimer County Rural Land Use Plan and the subsequent development of the property in accordance with the plan does not impact the mineral rights owned by the US Ag Bank, or the ability of the Ag Bank or their lessees, successors or assigns, to develop the minerals.

e)   Some or all lots in this development include building envelopes.  All structures must be located within these Larimer County approved building envelopes, as shown on the approved Plan.  If a structure within the building envelope is located 5’ or less from the boundary of the building envelope, the owner/applicant for a building permit will be required to demonstrate that the structure(s) is located within the building envelope prior to the approval of the footing and foundation inspection.  This shall be accomplished by a written certification by a Colorado Licensed Surveyor.

f)   Engineered footings and foundations may be required for new habitable construction. Please check with the Larimer County Building Department for requirements prior to submitting a building permit application.

g)   Lot owners should be advised that there is a potential for nuisance conflicts from wildlife (such as skunks, mountain lions, bears, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, prairie dogs and snakes).  The Colorado Division of Wildlife can provide information to property owners about how to handle these situations, but lot owners are responsible for addressing wildlife conflicts if they arise.

h)   No feeding of any wildlife.  Any food placed for wildlife will eventually attract the Black Bears traveling through the area.  Once a bear finds food around homes and trailers, they become habituated to humans, often causing damage to property in their search for food.  The State of Colorado is not liable for damages to non-agricultural property.  Homeowners insurance is strongly advised.

i)   Keep trash and garbage removed from site.  Bear proof containers are commercially available and they work.  Garbage and trash can be as attractive to bears as placing out food for wildlife.

j)   It is strongly recommended that trailers and motor homes not be left on site unattended.  These items may be destroyed by bears if left unattended.  This is particularly important during the months of July to September, when the bears are most active in their search for food.

k)   Many other species of wildlife live in the area; some can be dangerous to humans and pets.  It must be remembered that landowners will be living with wildlife.  Species that may be found in the area are coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, skunks, badgers, raccoons, deer, elk, hawks, owls and eagles.

l)   Pets must be contained on property, either by leash or enclosure.

m)   During certain times of the year mosquitoes may present a significant nuisance.  Larimer County does not have a mosquito abatement program.  Any mosquito abatement activity will be the responsibility of the homeowner; such activity must be according to applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations.

n)   Prairie dog colonies exist in the general area; prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property.  At times these animals are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets.  It is important for residents to observe animal control requirements for dogs and cats.

o)   Agricultural operations and farming practices on adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust.  These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur.  In addition, plowing, planting, cultivating, spraying, harvesting, and various livestock operations may be carried out at all times including nighttime.

p)   If livestock will be kept on these lots, it will be important to carefully manage grazing in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture.  Overgrazing will produce bare ground, weeds, erosion and polluted runoff.  Management of these lots should be coordinated with drainage and erosion control issues, siting of sanitation systems, fencing and feeding.

q)   Larimer County has adopted a Right to Farm Resolution.

r)   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Saint Vrain Valley school fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Park Fees (in lieu of dedication), Drainage Fees and Rural Land Use Process fees.  The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply.

s)   Larimer County shall not maintain roads or streets in this development.  Maintenance of the streets shall be the responsibility of the property owners.  Failure to maintain streets may result in a lien being placed on these lots.

t)   At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential and residual lots with the Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County.

u)   The owners of the residual land parcel shall be responsible for providing, at the request of the Director, a periodic monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center.

v)   Lots in this Rural Land Plan are subject to the conditions and requirements of a Development Agreement.  The Developer and Larimer County executed this agreement in consideration of the approval of this Development.  This Agreement was recorded in the Larimer County Clerk’s and Recorder’s office immediately after this plat.  All purchasers should obtain and read the Development Agreement.

 

 

9.  LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS, FILE $10-CA0109:  This is a request to make housekeeping changes to Sections 0.1 definitions, 5.2.5 Land Use and Density (PD), 5.7.3 Amended Plat review criteria, 7.4 Special Events and 18.3.3 (signs for recreational vehicle parks).   The proposed code housekeeping code amendments were heard by the Planning Commission on July 19, 2010.  There was no discussion and no concerns were raised. 

 

1.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 0.1, as follows:

 

0.1 Definitions:

Townhouse. A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from the foundation to roof and with open space on at least two sides. attached to at least one other such dwelling by a common vertical wall, and each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside and no unit is located over another unit. 

Primary heat source.  A heating system capable of maintaining room temperatures at 70 68 degrees Fahrenheit at a point three feet above the floor and two feet from exterior walls in all habitable rooms during cold, inclement weather at all times, even when the structure is not occupied. 

 

Structure. Anything constructed or erected and that requires a permanent location on or in the ground or attachment to something having a permanent location on or in the ground, but not including fences, six feet or less in height and retaining walls four feet or less in height, irrigation facilities, poles, lines, cables or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities. Landscape and associated nonliving ornamental landscape features or materials, such as rocks and edging, are excluded from this definition. 

 

2.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.2.5, by deleting the following:

 

Section  5.2.5.  Land use and density.

All planned land divisions must include a development agreement (see section 12.6 (post-approval requirements)) that specifies land uses, lot coverages, densities, improvements and other details of the development. Upon recording of the final plat and development agreement for the planned land division, the rezoning to PD-planned development will be effective and the development agreement will be the controlling document for purposes of land use, density, improvements and other details of development.

 

3.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.7, by adding the following language:

 

Section 5.7 - Amended Plat

5.7.3. - Review criteria.

F.  Any covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the final plat, except those changes to a condition or note on a plat that are approved with this application.  The county commissioners shall consider the original reason or circumstance for a condition or note on a plat when approving a change.

 

4.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 7.0, as follows:

 

Section 7.0. - SPECIAL EVENTS

7.4. - PROCESS

A.   Application: At least 45 60 days prior to the requested start date of the proposed special event requiring a permit, a special event permit application shall be submitted to the county manager as designee of the Larimer County Planning Director. The application shall include the following information:

 

5.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 18.3.3, by deleting the following:

 

18.3.3.  Density, roads, setback requirements, signs and outdoor recreation areas.

I.  One sign, not to exceed 40 square feet, may be located within the recreational vehicle park to identify its location. The sign must comply with section 8.7 of this Code.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approved the consent agenda, as outlined and amended above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE;  EXPIRATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS:   This is a request to amend the Estes Valley Development Code to provide for expiration and extension of development plans.

 

This proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code would “expire” development plan approvals three years from the date of plan approval, if no construction activity has occurred. If construction occurs, the life of the development plan would be extended. If construction is interrupted, the property owner could apply for an extension on a yearly basis.

E. Effect of Approval and Lapse .         

 

1.   If an Applicant fails to apply for a building permit and commence construction or operation with regard to a development plan approval within three (3) years from the date of such approval, unless a development plan has been approved with a vested rights period greater than three years, the development plan shall automatically lapse and become null and void at the end of the applicable vesting period.

 

2.  An approved building permit and commencement of construction or operation for any development plan shall extend the approval of the development plan for a period of eighteen months from the date of the issuance of a building permit.

 

3.  Prior to expiration of a development plan, the property owner may file for a one year extension. Such extension may be granted by the Community Development Director upon determination that there have been no changes to the Estes Valley Development Code that would affect the approved development or conditions of approval.

 

4.  These provisions shall apply to all development plans approved subsequent to effective date of this Code.

 

On Tuesday April 20, 2010 the Estes Valley Planning Commission unanimously voted (6-0, one absent) to recommend approval.  On Tuesday July 27, 2010 the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park unanimously voted (6-0) to approve.

Mr. Shirk explained that they currently do not have a system in place to “expire” plans that have not moved forward in a timely manner, and recommended approval of the proposed amendment to Section 3.8 of the Estes Valley Development Code as delineated above

There was no public comment on this item.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment to Section 3.8 of the Estes Valley Development Code as outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE;  A-1 ACCOMODATIONS ZONING DISTRICT:    This is a proposal to amend the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to clarify how density is calculated in the A-1 Accommodations zoning district. This amendment would:

(1)   Provide clarification to density calculation in the “A-1” zone district; specifically to differentiate between a Bed and Breakfast and a “cabin-style” operation or a small hotel; and,

 

(2)   Remove an unnecessary reference Section 5.1.P for low-intensity resort lodges/cabins in the “A-1” zoning district.

 

Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts of the Estes Valley Development Code, as delineated in “Exhibit A: A-1 District Standards”

On Tuesday May 18, 2010 the Estes Valley Planning Commission unanimously voted (7-0) to recommend approval. 

On Monday July 27, 2010 the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park unanimously voted (6-0) to approve.

Mr. Shirk briefly explained the changes as outlined above. 

There was no public comment on this item.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment to Section 4.4 Nonresidential Zoning Districts of the Estes Valley Development Code, as delineated in “Exhibit A: A-1 District Standards”

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE; TOWNHOMES:    This proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code would allow townhome subdivisions in the A and A-1 Accommodations zoning districts. Currently, townhome subdivisions are allowed only in the RM Multi-Family Residential district.

 

Townhome subdivisions allow construction of townhome units in rows of at least three and no more than eight units. Each unit is located on its own platted lot of at least 2,000 square feet in size. The owner of a townhome unit also owns the lot on which the townhome is situated.

 

Currently, the townhome style of development (i.e. rows of three or more units) is permitted in the A and A-1 districts in a c ondominium ownership form. In condominiums, the land under each unit is owned in common with all unit owners.

 

This proposed code amendment was initiated in response to a request from members of the development community to revise the code to make townhome subdivision regulations more flexible.

 

Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the Estes Valley Development Code, as delineated in Exhibit “A: Townhomes.”

 

On Tuesday April 20, 2010 the Estes Valley Planning Commission unanimously voted (6-0, one absent) to recommend approval.  On Tuesday July 27, 2010 the Town Board of the Town of Estes Park unanimously voted (6-0) to approve.

 

Mr. Shirk again briefly described the changes, as outline above, and requested Board approval on the same.

There was no public comment on this item.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment to Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the Estes Valley Development Code, as delineated in Exhibit “A: Townhomes.”

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing recessed at 3:20 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 6:30 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner.  Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present.  Also present were:  Linda Hoffman, and Russell Legg, Planning Department; Bill Ressue, County Attorney’s Office; and Tamara Slusher, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Johnson opened the hearing and asked for public comment on the Land Use Code and County Budget.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.

 

1.         HUGHES APPEAL, FILE #10-G0197:   This is an appeal of the Planning and Building Services Division Director’s determination that outdoor storage at 12320 North County Road 17, in Fort Collins, Colorado, is in compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code and Rubbish Ordinance.

 

The appellants, Andrew and Debi Hughes, allege that Fattorie Accaparrano, LLC, doing business as Grant Family Farms, is using property located directly behind the appellant’s property for outdoor storage of junk and debris in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code and Larimer County Ordinance No. 042120080-001 Concerning Accumulation and Removal of Rubbish (“Rubbish Ordinance”).  The Planning and Building Services Division Director had previously determined that all items stored outside are equipment, materials, and supplies used in the operations of Grant Family Farms.  The appellants are appealing this determination.

 

The appellant’s property is located approximately one half mile north of the intersection of County Road 17 and County Road 70 in Fort Collins, Colorado.  The property the appellants are disputing is located directly north of the appellant’s property.

 

The subject property was originally zoned O-Open in 1963 when County zoning was initially established.  The property has, to the best of my knowledge, always been used for farming purposes. Portions of the property have been used for storage of equipment, supplies and material incidental to farming activities. 

 

In July 1995, building permits were issued for seven single-wide mobile homes to be used to house farm workers who were employed by the farm.  In September 1995, adjacent property owners filed an appeal questioning whether or not seven mobile homes could be placed where proposed (File 95-VA0743).  As part of that appeal, the surrounding property owners alleged part of the property was used for the storage of large quantities of wood pallets, various junk items, old machinery and an open dump site at the corner of County Road 17 and County Road 72, which was adversely affecting surrounding land and property values.   This area is one half mile north of the area subject to the Hughes complaint. At that time, owner Lewis Grant provided the following response:

 

·  The items in the general area of the placement site that they refer to as “junk” are our farming equipment, materials, and supplies.  This equipment, materials, and supplies have a value of well over $500,000.

 

·  We have taken extraordinary efforts at land conservation and screening . . . for all of our farm.  This has included extensive tree planting around the pond . . . and multiple rows of trees along County Road 17.  Some of these trees are now over 30 feet in height.  In 1994 we planted 112 additional trees between our equipment yard and County Road 17.  These trees are conifers ranging from 4 feet to 8 feet in height and, even at wholesale prices have a value of around $6,600.

 

·  We plan to plant many more trees and landscape the area between the placement site and County Road 17.

 

·  The equipment and storage area about which the petitioners are concerned has been in place for over 20 years and well before the petitioners purchased their properties.

 

Pursuant to recent conversations with Mr. Grant, the farming operation’s practice of storing farm-related equipment and materials outdoors has not significantly changed since 1995.  

 

Junkyards, as defined in the Larimer County Land Use Code, do not include the storage of vehicles or equipment used for agricultural purposes on a farm or ranch. 

 

The Rubbish Ordinance adopted by Larimer County specifically exempts agricultural property as follows:  “. . . . this Ordinance shall not apply to . . . agricultural land currently in agricultural use, as defined in this Ordinance.”

 

Planning interpretations are based, in part, on guidance contained in County policies, including the Right to Farm Policy ( www.larimer.org/policies/right_to_farm.htm ) and the Code of the West ( www.larimer.org/planning/planning/code_of_the_west) .  These documents speak to the role of agriculture in our community and recognize the inherent characteristics of farming activities can be perceived as a conflict with more urban uses and lifestyles. The following are excerpts from those documents:

 

·   From the Larimer County Right to Farm Policy : Colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S 35-3.5-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds, and smells of Larimer County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy agricultural sector. Those with an urban sensitivity may perceive such activities, sights, sounds, and smells only as inconvenience, eyesore, noise, and odor. However, State law and County policy provide that ranching, farming, or other agricultural activities and operations within Larimer County shall not be considered to be nuisances so long as operated in conformance with the law and in a non-negligent manner.

·  From Section 5.6 of the Larimer County Code of the West : Agriculture is an important business in Larimer County. If you choose to live among the farms and ranches of our rural countryside, do not expect county government to intervene in the normal day-to-day operations of your agri-business neighbors. In fact, Colorado has "Right to Farm" legislation that protects farmers and ranchers from nuisance and liability lawsuits. It enables them to continue producing food and fiber.

After careful review of County records, the petition and photos submitted by neighboring properties, and together with site visits to the property, all items found stored outside on the property are equipment, materials, and supplies used in the farming operation.  The Planning and Building Services Director found that there is no violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code or Larimer County Rubbish Ordinance.

 

Staff discussed the written information supporting this appeal submitted by surrounding landowners who were unable to be present during the hearing.  Discussion ensued regarding the types of items stored on the site, the Code of the West, and the Right To Farm policy as it applies to the site.

 

The appellant, Andrew Hughes, addressed the Board and expressed his concerns for the type of material being disposed of on the property, the increase in “junk” material being stored at the site, the fire dangers created by hazardous materials being disposed, the increase in rodents and mosquitoes at the site, declination of the area’s property values, and the difficulties in selling his home created by the “junk yard” next door.  Mr. Hughes briefly discussed the screening installed and how it is insufficient to properly hide the debris on the property.  Mr. Hughes requested that the Board consider asking the owners to relocate this equipment storage to another location on the property where it would not be such a negative impact to the surrounding neighbors.

 

Chair Johnson opened the hearing to public comment and Jeffrie Sue Carver, Jan Carter, Clinton Brooks, Darrell Boggs, Brandon Bledsoe, Helen Boggs, Dustin Bledsoe, and Debi Hughes spoke in support of the appeal citing the increase in rubbish, the lack of equipment truly related to farming, fire dangers, reduction in property values, damages to the environment caused by the type of materials stored, and the difficulty in working with the property owners to resolve these issues.  These individuals also asked that the Board consider asking Grant Family Farms to relocate their equipment storage to another location, further away from the neighboring properties.

 

Paul Reynolds, George Reed, Gail Meisner, Delbert Black, Cathy Reynolds, Max Henry, and Lew Grant spoke in opposition to the appeal and explained that Grant Family Farms has always been good stewards of their land and resources and have always made great efforts to cooperate with their neighbors when issues arise.  Max Henry, the operations manager at Grant Family Farms, spoke to the cleanup efforts currently ongoing at the site that will reduce the items currently stored.

 

Chair Johnson close public comment and discussion ensued between the Board and staff regarding the site visits that were performed, as well as the financial hardships endured by Mr. and Mrs. Hughes. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners affirm the determination made by the Planning and Building Services Division Director that no violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code or Rubbish Ordinance exists at 12320 North County Road 17.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

2.         DEEP WATER METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN (REVISED MARCH 2010):   The proposal for the Deep Water Metropolitan District(s) has been in the process since April of 2006.  The Larimer County Planning Commission reviewed the original proposal on April 19, 2006 and made a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners tabled consideration of the original proposal thirteen times. The Board of County Commissioners last tabled consideration of the proposal until July 12, 2010. The original application has been removed from Board of County Commissioners consideration and replaced by the current application.

 

The service plan had been revised by Brad March, the attorney for the Town of Wellington and resubmitted to members of the Larimer County special district review committee March 2010.   The changes in the resubmitted application are significant enough that staff recommended review of the revised service plan by the Larimer County Planning Commission prior to hearing by the Board of County Commissioners. Members of the Special District Review Team and Planning staff are in a position to recommend approval of this revised service plan.  The Planning Commission discussed the revised proposal at their July 21, 2010, hearing.  The Planning Commission recommended approval 7-1. 

 

The revised service proposal is for one Metropolitan service district, rather than the two originally proposed, and the services to be provided are limited to water and sewer.  The plan now calls for creation of a water and/or sewer authority as a separate governmental authority to be formed by intergovernmental agreement between the proposed district and the Town of Wellington. The proposed district and/or authority will own and maintain any system built to serve the proposed service area.  The plan does not allow for the assessment of ad valorem taxes without submittal of a modification to the County or Town as appropriate to the jurisdiction at that time. The modification plan provides that any significant change or material modification as determined by the County shall be submitted to the County. There is not a financial plan with this plan, rather the plan states that it is anticipated that the Town through the water authority will provide the development funds.

 

Brad March, attorney for the Town of Wellington, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and discussed the history of this project, and the town’s desire to establish this district for the purposes of transparency, open meetings, and open records.  Mr. March detailed the seats that the Town would hold on the board of the district as well as the reasons this was pursued as opposed to dealing with a private water company.

 

Discussion ensued amongst the Board and staff regarding condemnation powers that would be held by the proposed district, as well as the reasons for staff supporting the creation of a Metropolitan District. 

 

Chair Johnson opened the hearing to public comment and Gail Meisner, Joanne Blehm, and Neal Haley expressed concerns regarding the amount of water the proposed district would control, condemnation powers, mistrust, transparency of records, and the expansion of local government.

 

Mr. Seaworth addressed the Board and explained that the reason the Metropolitan District was pursued was at the recommendation of staff and the Town of Wellington. Chair Johnson closed public comment and the Board discussed the criteria for creation of a Metropolitan District.  Staff explained the requirements to the Board as well as the service plan submitted for the proposed district. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the revised Deep Water Metropolitan District, File #06-G0108.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business the hearing adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2010

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present.  Also present were:  Neil Gluckman, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office;  Justin Smith, Robert Coleman, and Andy Josey, Sheriff’s Department;  Marc Engemoen, Public Works Division; Stephen Gillette, Solid Waste Department; John Gamlin, Human Resources Department; David Ayraud, and Bill Ressue, County Attorney’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.     PUBLIC COMMENT:  Shelby Majors, Raye Sullivan, Sandy Walker, Joan Welch-Schmid, and Ken Ecton all addressed the Board with concerns regarding a wedding that took place at the Pope property the past weekend.  All complained about excessive cars being parked on the property and road, and noise from the helicopter that the bride and groom contracted to pick them up after the ceremony was done.  Mr. Lancaster informed the Board and citizens present that the county is preempted by Federal law to regulate aircraft noise.   Some discussion ensued. 

 

2.   APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEKS OF AUGUST 2, 2010, AND AUGUST 9, 2010: 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the weeks of August 2, 2010, and August 9, 2010, as presented.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.   REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 23, 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 consent agenda, as listed below: 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the County Assessor the following Petitions for Abatement are denied:  Loren Brodhead; Jan Spruill; Earl and Pamela Weston; and Satt Investments, LLC.   As recommended by the County Assessor the following Petitions for Abatement are approved:  Richard and Patricia Spadaro; Brian and Karen Croft; Shoco, LLC; Bernth, LLC; and Dinedan, LLC.

 

08172010A001           FIRST ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SWIERS-BELOIN CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT 06-S2588, BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND JASON J. SWIERS AND ALLEN BELOIN

 

08172010A002           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUNRISE RANCH SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #05-Z1577, BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE EMISSARIES OF DIVINE LIGHT

 

08172010R001           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 103, 104, AND 106 OF HORSETOOTH LAKE ESTATES

 

08172010R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING XZUBERANCE SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL

 

08172010R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HACIENDA REAL APPREAL

 

MISCELLANEOUS:   County Diversion Policy for Human Services.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:   T he following licenses were either approved and/or issued:  Sol’s Long Branch – Tavern – LaPorte; Loveland Sertoma Club – Special Event Permit 6% - Fort Collins; High Country News – Special Event Permit 6% - Bellvue; Colorado Feed & Grain Cookhouse – Hotel and Restaurant – Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.   RESOLUTION EXPRESSING AN INTENT TO SHARE IN THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE HOST FACILITY FOR THE NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL LAB GROUP:  Major Smith and Major Coleman requested the ability to cost share equally in the payment of a host facility in order to participate in a regional modern crime lab.  Major Smith explained that the benefits to the county would include:  improved identification, collection, timeliness, quality, accuracy, consistency, court delivery, and cost effectiveness of forensic services to Larimer County and the Northern region of Colorado. 

Some discussion ensued, and the Board asked if the resolution could be reworded to state that the annual costs are estimated to be fifty five thousand dollars, instead of “at least” fifty five thousand dollars.   Major Smith stated that he would correct this in the resolution.  .

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution expressing Larimer County’s intent to share equally in the payment of the Host Facility’s Annual Costs, estimated to be fifty five thousand dollars.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

08172010R004           RESOLUTION EXPRESSING AN INTENT TO SHARE EQUALLY IN THE PAYMENT OF ANNUAL COSTS FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE HOST FACILITY FOR THE NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL LAB GROUP

 

6.   PAY OUT OF VACATION HOURS OVER 1 ½ TIMES ANNUAL ACCRUAL RATE:   Mr. Gillette explained that one of his employees recently retired and forfeited approximately 54.93 hours of vacation pay, due to county policy that only allows up to a certain amount of “banked” hours to be paid at the time of separation.  

Mr. Gillette stated that he was unaware of the policy and would prefer to pay the employee for the unused hours of vacation.  He stated that the amount would be approximately $1,560.56 and the money is available in his budget. 

Mr. Gamlin stated that the policy has been in effect for some time, and that there have been others who have forfeited vacation hours upon termination.  The Board agreed to allow Mr. Gillette to pay the employee for his unused vacation hours, and encouraged more communication regarding this topic during employee exit interviews.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve paying a solid waste staff member for the unpaid vacation he lost at the time of separation from the county.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.   SCHEDULE “A” AGREEMENT WITH THE US FOREST SERVICE FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE:   Mr. Miller requested Board approved on the agreement to maintain 125 miles of forest service roads, noting that the agreement has been in place since the early 1970’s and is reestablished every five years.

Commissioner Gaiter asked if it would be more prudent to allow the Forest Service to put this out to bid for private contractors.  Mr. Miller explained that they tried this before and ended up with less than desirable results.  Mr. Miller also noted that for the small amount of roadway to be maintained, it makes the most sense for the county to do the work, as the Road and Bridge crews are already doing work in the area. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule “A” Agreement with the US Forest Service for road maintenance services.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

08172010A003           COOPERATIVE FOREST ROAD AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE ARAPAHO AND ROOSELVELT NATIONAL FORESTS AND PAWNEE NATIONAL GRASSLAND

 

8.   FIRST READING TO AMEND THE SECURITY ALARM ORDINANCE:  Mr. Ayraud presented the amendments to the Security Alarm Ordinance, noting that it will be published in the newspaper and then brought back to the Commissioners for consideration and public comment at the second reading.  

No action was taken on this item.

 

9.   TEMPORARY HIRING FREEZE POLICY:   Mr. Lancaster presented the formal policy regarding the temporary hiring freeze.  

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt policy 140.1A, Temporary Hiring Freeze.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

08182010P001            ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURE 140.1A: TEMPORARY HIRING FREEZE. 

 

10.  CONVENE AS THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION: 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners convene as the Board of Equalization.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Board of Equalization referee recommendations for July 22nd, 26th, 29th,  30th,  and August 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, 2010.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

11.   COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster stated that after the Voluntary Separation Plan (VSP) was rolled out to the county, he received feedback voicing concern regarding the time frame to apply for the VSP.  Mr. Lancaster noted that there are three measures on the November ballot that, if passed, will cause departments to reduce their budgets even further.  Mr. Lancaster requested the ability to modify the VSP and re-open it to applicants, based upon the outcome of the election.   Consensus of the Board was to support this request.

 

12.  COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:   The Board reviewed their activities at events during the past week.

 

13.   LEGAL MATTERS:   Mr. Ayraud and Mr. Ressue requested that the Board go into Executive Session for legal advice on Medical Marijuana. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for conferences with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402-(4)(b) C.R.S.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

 

__________________________________________

   STEVE JOHNSON, 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.