> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 06/15/15  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, June 15, 2015

 

land use hearing

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were: Terry Gilbert, Chad Gray, Karin Madson, Rebecca Smith, and Savanah Benedick, Planning Department; Clint Jones, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Dana Polley, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gaiter opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance. He then asked if anyone in the audience wanted to remove one of the items listed on the consent agenda. Seeing no one, he explained that the hearing will proceed in the order of the agenda starting with the tabled item from April 27, 2015.

 

1.         NORTH POUDRE IRRIGATION ZONING VIOLATION, FILE #14-CC0193, 14-CC0194, AND 14-CC0195 :  The property owner is in alleged violation of Section 4.1.5.A.39 of the O-Open zoning district by operating a recreation vehicle park and campground without Special Review approval. Also, they are in violation of Section R105 of the International Residential Code for allowing buildings over 120-square feet to be built on the property each year without building permits.

 

After the tabled public meeting held on April 27, 2015, the Community Development Director finds that the recreational vehicle/campground and the boating club are legal nonconforming uses. The nonconforming determination can be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners within 30 days if anyone disagrees with the Director’s determination.

 

Chair Gaiter briefly reviewed the notes from the previous meeting and explained that there would be no additional public comment for this item.

 

Mr. Gilbert then explained that his determination finds no violation exists and that copies of the determination are available for the public to review.

 

Chair Gaiter further explained that the public may appeal this determination within 30 days giving them the opportunity for a hearing and additional public comment.

 

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

 

2.         CRYSTAL LAKES 6TH LOT 66 EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #15-S3307:  This is a request to vacate the 15-foot utility easement along the north side lot line and the 30-foot utility easement along the east rear lot line, to build a garage on the .51 acre property.  Vacation of these utility easements would allow the property owner to build the desired garage.  The existing cabin on the property currently encroaches into the 30-foot rear utility easement.  This issue will be resolved with the vacation of that easement.

 

Based on the review criteria, the Development Services Team finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code and would, therefore, recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve vacation of the 15-foot utility easement along the north side lot line and the 30-foot utility easement along the east rear lot line of Lot 66, Crystal Lakes Subdivision 6th Filing, file #15-S3307.

 

3.         LONDON MINOR LAND DIVISION, FILE #15-S3308:   This is a request for a Minor Land Division Exemption, per file #14-G0271, for an appeal to allow an exemption from the land division requirements to allow 2 separate lots containing separate building sites.  The original appeal also approved a Lot Size Appeal for both lots included in this Minor Land Division.

 

In August of 2014, the Board of County Commissioners approved an appeal from Land Division requirements of the Land Use Code for these two lots, along with a lot size appeal that allows for both lots to be less than 10 acres in size.  The approval was based on the following findings: the proposed appeals would not subvert the intent of the Land Use Code as long as the applicant pursues a Minor Land Division through the Planning Department to create a plat of record, and to show that the lot can be served by the proper utilities and access.  Although these lots are not considered to be legal by virtue of the fact that no plat was approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the lots were recognized through conditional approval by the Larimer County Board of Adjustment in February 1986. 

 

The first subject property, Parcel 2 on the proposed plat, is a 5.17-acre vacant parcel and is located just north of the Town of Wellington.  In 2013, the owner requested a legal lot determination, and on April 2, 2013, a letter was completed by the Larimer County Planning Department stating that Parcel 2 is not a legal lot.  The letter states that Parcel 2 “has not been through a land division process approved by the County Commissioners.  It appears that the earliest deed matching the legal description of the subject parcel was recorded on April 4, 1986, which split the parcel from the 29-acre parcel directly to the north.”

 

The legal lot letter described above also states the following: “It also appears that there was a variance granted for the subject parcel on February 25, 1986 to allow for a third dwelling on the property to the east (Tract A) with the condition that the subject parcel and the east parcel be combined through an Add-on Agreement process.  It appears, however, that the Add-on Agreement was never processed and a third house was not built.”

 

The letter provides two options for the owner to bring the lot into compliance:  1) Pursue an Add-on Agreement to combine the subject parcel and the east parcel, or 2) Combine the subject parcel with the parcel directly to the north and pursue a land transfer.  Following the date of the letter, planning staff has found that an Add-on Agreement is not feasible for Tract A and Tract B due to the fact that these parcels are separated by a railroad right-of-way.  A letter was sent to the property owner to the north on February 18, 2014, stating that this lot and the subject property are not considered to be legal lots.  The property owner to the north was given the option to contact the planning staff to discuss options for remediation; however, this owner has not yet contacted staff or the owner.

 

The owner of the subject lot also owns the lot directly to the east, addressed as 9933 N. County Road 7, and referred to as Parcel 1.  This property has not been through a land division process and was first described on August 2, 1973.  The lot contains several dwellings, one of which has been issued a building permit, and another that was built before building permits were required.  The property has been cited for containing a junkyard, of which was cleaned up in 2012.  The property has also been cited for having more than the allowable number of dwellings on the property.  A Zoning Certification was written on July 11, 2014, identifying whether the use of two dwellings on the property is a legal nonconforming use.  The letter cites the variance granted by the Board of Adjustment in 1986 allowing two dwellings on Parcel 1 and one dwelling on Parcel 2.  Due to this approval, staff has verified that two single-family homes are allowed on Parcel 1.  If this appeal is granted, one single-family dwelling would be permitted to be built on Parcel 2.  Any dwellings currently located on Parcel 1, beyond the two that are considered legally nonconforming, must be removed.

 

Based on the above information, the appeal from the Land Division requirements was approved with the condition that a Minor Land Division process be pursued to create a plat of record and to ensure that adequate services are available for both lots.

 

The following Larimer County agencies have the following comments:

 

1.   The County Surveyor has commented and is requiring a number of technical revisions to the submitted plat that must be completed prior to recording of the final plat.

 

2.   The Division of Water Resources was contacted after the allotted referral period and has not yet commented on the proposed Minor Land Division.  Any comments regarding the proposed well will be provided by date of the hearing.

 

3.   The Health Department commented on the application stating that the department can support the request as long as adequate water and sewer are provided for the new site.  Soil test information and a permit to install a sewer system are required at the building permit stage.

 

4.   The Engineering Department has commented that the department can support the request as long as: applicable utility authorities are notified if any easements are vacated or moved, 40’ of half right-of-way is designated to County Road 7 along the 30’ of frontage for Parcel 1, Transportation Capital Expansion Fees are paid at the time of building permit issuance, and impacts to the site do not effect drainage for the surrounding area.

 

5.   Addressing has commented stating that no addresses will be effected with this Minor Land Division.

 

The Development Services Team finds that the proposed Minor Land Division exemption is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code for the following reasons: 

 

1.   Per the appeal approved in August of 2015, these lots were intended to operate with 3 building sites when the Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing 3 building sites on these lots with the condition that they be combined.  Due to the fact that a railroad right-of-way separates these two lots, this consolidation is not feasible.

 

2.   Pending comments from the Division of Water Resources, it appears that adequate water can be obtained for the new building site.  On-site sewer and access are also feasible for the site.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the London Minor Land Division, #15-S3308, per file #14-G0271, for an appeal to allow an exemption from the land division requirements to allow 2 separate lots containing separate building sites, with the following conditions:

 

1.   Prior to the recordation of the final plat the applicant shall make any technical corrections required by Brian Helminiak, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

2.   The plat shall illustrate 40’ of half right-of-way along the frontage of County Road 7 prior to recording of the final plat.

 

3.   The applicant shall obtain water service, which may include a well permit from the Division of Water Resources, before a building permit can be issued for the site.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing recessed at 3:15 p.m.

 

CODE CHANGE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner.  Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present.  Also present were:  Eric Tracy and Marc Peterson, Engineering Department; Rebecca Smith, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Health and Environment Department;  Terry Gilbert, Community Development; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Denise Ruybal, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gaiter opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance and noted that there was only one item on the agenda.  He then asked members of the audience to sign in with Mr. Lafferty if they would be speaking on the topic this evening.

 

1.    SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE REPAIR/REBUILDING FLOOD CODE CHANGES:  This is a request for approval of a proposed code change to Section 4.2.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow substantially damaged structures in the floodway to be rebuilt if damaged by something other than a flood.

 

Mr. Tracy reviewed with the Board that in January of 2015, a group of concerned citizens approached Commissioner Johnson regarding a regulation in Section 4.2.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code (LCLUC) which does not allow substantially damaged structures in the regulatory floodway to be rebuilt. A structure is considered substantially-damaged when the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure just prior to when the damage occurred.

 

Since 1975, Larimer County has had floodplain regulations governing substantially damaged structures within the County. Larimer County floodplain regulations currently prohibit rebuilding or repairing a substantially-damaged structure in a designated floodway. The floodway is defined as the channel of a river or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100-year base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated amount. The damage to a structure can be from any cause – flood, fire, earthquake, wind, rain, or other natural or human-induced hazard. This standard is higher than that of FEMA, the State, and some other local jurisdictions.

 

Some citizens, particularly those owning non-conforming developed property in the floodway, have concerns about the higher standard. In response to their concerns, the County initiated a thorough examination of the current floodplain regulations regarding substantially damaged structures in the floodway. Over the course of several months, the County has researched the history of floodplain regulations in Larimer County, examined potential alternatives, and discussed the likely impacts of those alternatives with County personnel, property owners, the general public, and other interested stakeholders. As a result of this process, an amendment to Section 4.2.2 of the LCLUC is being proposed to address some citizen concerns while still generally maintaining the purpose of the floodplain regulations which are intended to protect the health and safety of the public and to minimize future flood damages. The following summarizes how the proposed changes were developed.

 

BCC Work session – January 12, 2015

On January 12, 2015, during a Board of County Commissioners (BCC) work session, a discussion was initiated concerning the County’s floodplain regulations with regards to substantially damaged structures in the floodway. The Larimer County Engineering Department presented the BCC with a summary of the current floodplain code and a history of how the code has evolved since its creation in 1975. The presentation was followed by a general discussion on how to proceed. It was noted that more information was needed before any decisions could be made. The BCC requested that Engineering Staff do more research on the code and potential alternatives and scheduled a work session that would be open for public comment.

 

BCC Work session – January 26, 2015

On January 26, 2015, the BBC held a work session to gather more information on the impact of the floodplain code. The meeting was open to public comment. During the meeting, the Engineering Department gave a short presentation explaining the current floodplain regulations, the history of floodplain regulations in Larimer County, and how other local entities address substantially damaged structures in the floodway. Mr. Greg Koch, Chair of the Flood Review Board (FRB), spoke on behalf of the FRB and shared their concerns about lowering the standards. Then the floor was opened for public comment. Property owners shared their concerns and experiences with how the code was impacting them. After hearing comments from the public, Board members developed a plan on how to proceed.

 

Joint BCC/PC/FRB Work session – February 11, 2015

A joint work session was held between the BCC, the Planning Commission (PC), and the FRB. During the work session, the Engineering Department gave a short presentation explaining general floodplain terminology, describing the current regulations and outlining five potential alternatives. These alternatives included:

 

1)   No Change to Section 4.2.2 of the LCLUC

2)   Amend the Variance Process to be more appropriate for this situation.

3)   Amend the code to allow Substantially Damaged Structures to be rebuilt if damaged by anything other than a flood.

4)   Amend the code to allow Substantially Damaged Structures to be rebuilt if damaged by any cause if it can meet State and Federal minimum requirements for elevation, show no-rise in the floodway and show no adverse impact to adjacent properties.

5)   Look at High Hazard classifications other than the floodway definition (ex. depth & velocity hazard areas)

 

After a lengthy discussion of the alternatives, the Board members requested that Engineering Department Staff provide more information on Alternatives 1, 3, and 5. The result of their research was scheduled to be presented at the upcoming joint work session.

 

Joint BCC/PC/FRB/EAB Work session – March 11, 2015

On March 11, 2015, a joint work session was held between the BCC, the PC, the FRB, and the Environmental Science Advisory Board (ESAB). Engineering Department Staff gave a brief presentation reviewing the previous discussions and then focusing on the two most viable alternatives proposed during the earlier meetings. Changes to Section 4.2.2 of the LCLUC were proposed and parameters for a potential pilot study identifying high hazards zones were outlined. After the presentation, Engineering Department Staff requested a mutual consensus on the general code language that would be presented during the upcoming open houses and that the Boards will ultimately be acting on. Consensus on the code language was granted.

Larimer County held three public open houses to share the proposed changes with the public and to their solicit feedback. The open houses were held in March at three different locations throughout the county. Multiple locations were selected in order to best accommodate County citizens.

 

Big Thompson Canyon Open House –March 17, 2015

The first open house was held in the Big Thompson Canyon from 6:00 – 8:00 pm on March 17, 2015, at the Big Thompson Canyon Association Building in Drake. Approximately 45 people were in attendance. Commissioner Donnelly introduced County staff and gave a short introduction to the topic at hand. Engineering Staff, Mark Peterson and Eric Tracy, gave a presentation explaining general floodplain terminology, describing Larimer County’s substantial damage regulations, and outlining the proposed amendments to the code language. The presentation was followed by a general question and answer session. After the general question and answer session, staff members were available to answer specific questions from property owners.

 

Laporte Open House –March 24, 2015

The second open house was held in Laporte from 6:30 – 8:30 pm on March 24, 2015, at the Cache La Poudre Middle School in Laporte. Approximately 55 people were in attendance. Commissioner Johnson introduced County staff and gave a short introduction to the topic at hand. Eric Tracy, Engineering Staff, gave a presentation explaining general floodplain terminology, describing Larimer County’s substantial damage regulations, and outlining the proposed amendments to the code language. Mark Peterson, County Engineer, gave a presentation describing a proposed pilot study identifying the high hazard flood zone for several river reaches in the County. The presentation was followed by a general question and answer session. After the general question and answer session, Staff members were available to answer specific questions from property owners.

 

Berthoud Open House –March 31, 2015

The third open house was held in Berthoud from 6:00 – 8:00 pm on March 31, 2015 at the Berthoud Community Hall in Berthoud. Approximately 10 people were in attendance. Commissioner Donnelly introduced County Staff and gave a short introduction to the topic at hand. Eric Tracy, Engineering Staff, gave a presentation explaining general floodplain terminology, describing Larimer County’s substantial damage regulations, and outlining the proposed amendments to the code language. Mark Peterson, County Engineer, gave a presentation describing a proposed pilot study identifying the high hazard flood zone for several river reaches in the County. The presentation was followed by a general question and answer session. After the general question and answer session, Staff members were available to answer specific questions from property owners.

 

ESAB Meeting April 14, 2015

On April 14, 2015, at the monthly ESAB meeting, Eric Tracy, Engineering Staff, presented the proposed amendments to Section 4.2.2 of the LCLUC which would allow substantially damaged structures in the floodway to be repaired or rebuilt if the damage was caused by something other than a flood event. Following the presentation, the ESAB discussed the proposed amendments and drafted a letter outlining their recommendations.

 

FRB Meeting April 23, 2015

On April 23, 2015, at the monthly FRB meeting, Mark Peterson, County Engineer, presented the proposed amendments to Section 4.2.2 of the LCLUC which would allow substantially damaged structures in the floodway to be repaired or rebuilt if the damage was caused by something other than a flood event. Following the presentation, the FRB began discussing the proposed amendments and then opened the floor for public comment. Eight property owners expressed their concerns with the current regulations and thoughts on the proposed amendments. After hearing from the public, the FRB continued their discussion and recommended some modifications to the language regarding Zone A floodplains. The FRB recommended approval to the BCC of the recommended changes to the code with the inclusion of their language modifications.

 

Planning Commission Hearing May 20, 2015

On May 20, 2015, at the Planning Commission Hearing, Eric Tracy, Engineering Staff, presented the proposed amendments to Section 4.2.2 of the LCLUC which would allow substantially damaged structures in the floodway to be repaired or rebuilt if the damage was caused by something other than a flood event. After the presentation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the proposed code amendments.

 

The Larimer County Engineering Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments to Section 4.2.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code as outlined below. The proposed code amendment would allow for the rebuilding or repairing of a substantially-damaged structure in a designated floodway if the structure is damaged by any means other than a flood event. Even if a substantially damaged structure is allowed to be rebuilt or repaired, it would still be required to meet all other applicable floodplain regulations such as elevating the structure at least 18 inches above the 100 year flood elevation or flood proofing the structure. The prohibition on repairing or rebuilding substantially damaged structures in a floodway would remain in effect if substantially damaged by a flood event.

 

PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR SECTION 4.2.2.F OF THE LARMIER COUNTY LAND USE CODE:

 

F.         Floodplain overlay zone districts.

      1.   FW—Floodway district (comprised of FEMA floodway and local zone AE    

            floodway).

a.    Allowed uses can be found in the zoning table in section 4.1

b.    Requirements for uses in the FW—Floodway district:

1.    All uses must comply with subsection 4.2.2.D.

2.    Larimer County regulates the 0.50-foot rise floodway except in mountainous areas where mountain floodway criteria is sometimes applicable.

3.    Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer and in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would result in less than a 0.00 foot increase (requires a no-rise certification) in base flood elevations within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.

4.    In the event fill is allowed, it must be protected against erosion by the use of rip rap, bulk heading or vegetative cover appropriately designed and certified by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer.

5.    Structures must not be intended or used for human habitation.

6.    Structures must be constructed so the longer axis of the structure is parallel to the direction of the flood flow.

7.    Whenever possible, the placement of the structure must be on the same flood-flow lines as those of adjoining structures.

8.    No new or expanded on-site wastewater treatment systems shall be installed in a floodway.

9.    Substantially damaged structures within a floodway where the damage was by any cause other than a flood event can be repaired or replaced in the floodway as long as the lowest floor is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation and the repair and reconstruction meets all other applicable sections of 4.2.2.

10.  Substantially damaged structures within a floodway where the damage was caused by a flood event can not be repaired or replaced in the floodway.

2.                      FF—Flood fringe district (comprised of FEMA flood fringe and local zone AE flood fringe).

a.    Allowed uses can be found in the zoning table in section 4.1

b.    Requirements for uses in the FF—Flood fringe district:

1.   All uses must comply with subsection 4.2.2.D.

2.   Substantially damaged structures within a floodfringe where the damage was by any cause can be repaired or replaced in the floodfringe as long as the lowest floor is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation and the repair and reconstruction meets all other applicable sections of 4.2.2.

3.                        FH—Flood hazard district (comprised of FEMA zone A flood hazard).

a.    Allowed uses can be found in the zoning table in section 4.1

b.    Requirements for uses in the FH—Flood hazard district are outlined in subsection 4.2.2.D.

c.    Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the FH—Flood hazard district unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer and in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment is not within the area that is defined as the 0.50-foot floodway in the analysis performed by the engineer.

d.    Substantially damaged structures where the damage was by any cause can be repaired or replaced as long as the lowest floor is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation and the repair and reconstruction meets all other applicable sections of 4.2.2.

4.                        SF—Shallow flooding district (comprised of FEMA shallow flooding and local zone AO shallow flooding, and local zone AH shallow flooding).

a.    Allowed uses can be found in the zoning table in section 4.1

b.    Requirements for uses in the SF—Shallow flooding district are outlined in subsection 4.2.2.D.

c.      Residential construction - All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures must have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least 1.5 feet above the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM (at least 3.0 feet if no depth number is specified). Upon completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, shall be certified by a registered Colorado Professional Land Surveyor. Such certification shall be submitted to the floodplain administrator.

 

d.    Nonresidential construction - With the exception of critical facilities, outlined in subsection 4.2.2.E, all new construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures, must have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least 1.5 feet above the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM (at least 3.0 feet if no depth number is specified), or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that the structure is watertight to at least 1.5 feet above the base flood level with wall substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy. A registered Colorado Professional Engineer shall submit a certification to the floodplain administrator that the standards of section 4.2.2 are satisfied.

 

PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR SECTION 4.2.2.G.7 OF THE LARMIER COUNTY LAND USE CODE:

 

7.                        Expansion of nonconforming structures and uses:

a.    The flood review board shall hear and render judgment on requests for expansion of nonconforming structures and uses from the requirements of section 4.2.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

b.    No such structure or use may be expanded, improved or enlarged unless the improvement expansion or enlargement itself complies with the provisions of section 4.2.2 and does not cumulatively (over a rolling ten year period) exceed 50% of the market value of the original structure excluding minor work and regular maintenance of existing buildings and facilities.

c.    When a building or other structure, including but not limited to a manufactured home, has been damaged so that the market value of repair or replacement does not exceed 50% of the market value before the damage occurred, the structure may be restored to its size immediately before the damage occurred. Such reconstruction shall be constructed as required by section 4.2.2, and shall not be deemed to be a substantial improvement or enlargement. Any restoration or replacement of a structure, including, but not limited to, a manufactured home, damaged to an extent exceeding 50% of its market value before the damage occurred shall be deemed to be a substantial improvement or enlargement , and the entire structure shall be protected from flooding as required by section 4.2.2. Any restoration or replacement of a substantially damaged structure shall only occur if the use is allowed within the applicable overlay zone. All applicable general standards from section 4.2.2.D apply. Substantial damage is not cumulatively tracked. If a permit is applied for and the damage repair and improvement exceeds 50%, it shall be deemed a substantial improvement.

d.    Whenever an existing manufactured home, which is nonconforming or is located in a nonconforming manufactured home park or subdivision in the floodplain overlay zone districts, is replaced by a new manufactured home, regardless of the reason for the replacement, the new manufactured home shall comply with the requirements of section 4.2.2

e.    If any person makes substantial improvement to any nonconforming building or structure or changes the use thereof, such person shall permanently change the building or structure or use to conform to the requirements of section 4.2.2

 

Commissioner Johnson clarified that the Planning Commission voted 6-1 in favor of the proposed code change.

 

Commissioner Donnelly asked how many times in the past 40 years this situation has occurred. Mr. Tracy stated that there was one time in 1975.

 

Chair Gaiter asked for clarification on item #10. He questioned the need for #10, as did Commissioner Johnson.

 

Ms. Haag provided some clarification in that she was unable to find anything that specifically stated that absolute prohibition existed.  She went as far as to contact a lender that was very familiar with the lending process, and that lender verified that absolute prohibition does not exist.  The inability to obtain the required insurance will prohibit loan approval, and not the zoning of the property.

 

Chair Gaiter then opened up the hearing for public comment.  Scott Tally was the only person to address the Board of Commissioners.  Mr. Tally knows of 3 recent situations where the deals have fallen through because of the risk involved.  Mr. Tally pointed out that a lender is lending money on the entire property, land and buildings included.  He thinks option #5 makes sense.  He commended the engineers on the Flood Review Board in taking a common sense approach to the situation.

 

Chair Gaiter closed the public comment part of the hearing.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Sections 4.2.2.F and 4.2.2.G.7, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Hearing adjourned at 7:15p.m.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Linda Hoffmann, County Manager. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were: Suzette Mallette, and Mark Peterson, Engineering Department; Lori Hodges, and Michelle Bird, Commissioners’ Office; Eric Fried, Code Compliance and Building Department; Terry Gilbert, Planning Department; Joni Friedman, and Jacob Castillo, Workforce Center; and Dana Polley, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gaiter opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

1.         PUBLIC COMMENT: Eric Sutherland addressed the Board regarding issues pertaining to the County.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 9, 2015:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of June 9, 2015.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 22, 2015:   Chair Gaiter reviewed the upcoming schedule.

 

4.         CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined below:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT: As recommended by the County Assessor the following petitions for abatement have been approved: 1627 E. 18th Street and 1808 N. Boise Avenue LLC C/O Stancorp Mortgage Investors LLC, parcel #R1653680.

 

06162015A001           MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO

 

06162015A002           PROJECT NUMBER 9320 – CULVERT 23-0. 15-50E (MILL CREEK) – CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

 

06162015A003           GRANT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS AND LARIMER COUNTY PROJECT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS SITE

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved and/or issued: Fort Collins Breakfast Rotary Charitable Foundation – Special Event 6% - Fort Collins; The Red Feather Trading Post – Retail Liquor Store – Red Feather Lakes.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.         COMMENTS FROM COMMIISSIONERS’ GUESTS: There was no one present for comment.

 

6.         CDOT UPDATE ON U.S. HIGHWAY 34 PERMANENT REPAIRS :  Ms. Mallette and Mr. Peterson introduced Scott Ellis, James Usher, and Heather Paddock with CDOT. They gave a presentation regarding repairs to U.S. Highway 34 Big Thompson Canyon. They discussed the goals of the project, flood repair costs, project scope and project schedule. Some discussion continued regarding the project.

 

7.         ENACT THE DISASTER REBUILD PROGRAM OF THE LARIMER LAND USE CODE FOR BERTHOUD TORNADO AREA:  Ms. Hodges, Mr. Gilbert, and Mr. Fried explained that the Berthoud area sustained damages to structures due to flooding and a tornado. They requested that the Board accept a resolution to enact the Disaster Re-build Program through the Larimer County Land Use Code to provide assistance to those affected by the recent events.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following resolution, and then he read it aloud.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

06162015R001           RESOLUTION ENACTING DISASTER REBUILD PROGRAM FOR BERTHOUD TORNADO

 

8.         UPDATE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND BUSINESS SERVICES:   Ms. Friedman and Mr. Castillo provided the Board with an update regarding economic development in Larimer County. They presented the draft of the Economic Development Partnership Funding Process and Application.

 

9.         CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO LARIMER COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:   Ms. Bird presented the following recommendations for appointments to Boards and Commissions, and requested approval on the same:

 

Board of Adjustment: Alan Cram and Tom Peterson reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Board of Appeals: Chris Allison reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Board of Health: Teri Olson reappointed for a 5-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2020.

 

Citizen Review Panel: Dale Lake appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Community Corrections Advisory Board: Richard Barnhardt, Jade Bozmans, Paul Cooper, Kurt Ester, Jeff French, Chris Gastelle, Roger Gunlikson, Luke Hecker, Kristine Miller, Cliff Riedel, and Laura Walker reappointed for a 2-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2017. Beth Ayasse Churchman and David Koons appointed for a 2-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2017.

 

Environmental & Science Advisory Board: Jane Abels and Jim Gerek appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018. Joseph Wilson reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018. Cassie Archuleta and Derek Esposito extended term for 1-month beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring July 31, 2015.

 

Estes Valley Board of Adjustment: John Lynch reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Estes Valley Planning Commission: Betty Hull reappointed for a 4-year term beginning July 1, 2015 and expiring June 30, 2019. Michael Moon appointed for a 4-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2019.

 

Extension Advisory Board: LaVon Blaesi, Pam Harrold, and Irene Romsa reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Juvenile Community Review Board: Andy Josey, Michelle Leschinsky, Michael Ruttenberg and Arlene Schiffman reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018. Christian Matthews and Lisa Robels appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Land Stewardship Advocacy Board: Ken Mathias reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee: John Donaldson and Jennifer Woodmansee appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018. Allan Leibow and Ed Ott reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Larimer County Interagency Oversight Group: Jim Drendel, Laura Garrett, Eric Moskalski, Alex Murphy, Carolyn Pannell, John Rattle, Michael Ruttenberg, and Darcie Votipka reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Office on Aging Advisory Council: Crystal Bloemen, Robin Depperschmidt-Williams, and Roy Lilly appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018. Audrey Ketchum, Kenneth Lamport, Ellen Pihlstrom, Briauna Souders, and Katie Stieber reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Open Lands Advisory Board: Jason Brothers, Peter Kelly, Dave Marvin appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018. Gerry Horak reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Parks Advisory Board: Steve Ambrose and Frank Gillespie reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018. Nick Clark appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Planning Commission: Jean Christman, Mina Cox, and Curtis Miller reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

Red Feather Lakes Planning Advisory Committee: Joan Rosecrans appointed for a 3-year term beginning June 16, 2015, and expiring December 31, 2017.

 

Workforce Investment Board: Alan Cohen, SeonAh Kendall, Heather Lelchook, Tracy Mead, Richard Martinez, Jim Neubecker, and Kathi Wright reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and expiring June 30, 2018.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the recommended appointments to Larimer County Boards and Commissions, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10.       COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Ms. Hoffmann explained that they are interviewing for three medical provider contracts. She also mentioned that she was delighted to attend the Workforce Center’s event acknowledging youth who have completed their GED’s.

 

11.       COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board reviewed their activities during the previous week.

 

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

 

The meeting ended at 10:40 a.m.

 

 

 

_______________________________

 LEW GAITER III

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

ANGELA MYERS

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

__________________________________________

Dana S. Polley, Deputy Clerk

 

 

__________________________________________

Denise M. Ruybal, Deputy Clerk