MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, DECEMBER 14, 2015

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner.  Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioner Johnson was present.  Also present were:  Jeannine Haag, County Attorney; Brenda Gimeson, Rob Helmick, Karin Madson, Savanah Benedick, and Rebecca Smith, Planning Department; Clinton Jones, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health and Environment Department; and Craig Dorn, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gaiter opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Mr. Lafferty noted that item 1 on the Moreng Appeal, File #15-G0299, needed clarification stating that it is a request for an appeal to 4.1.5.D.1.A of Larimer County Land Use Code to create an 8 acre lot, not a 2 acre lot.

 

Chair Gaiter 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:

 

1.         MORENG APPEAL, FILE #15-G0299:   This is a request for an appeal to the lot size requirements in the O-Open zoning district to create an 8 acre lot. This zoning district requires a 10 acre lot size when divided. This property is a 16.5 acre legal lot that was created by the Moreng MRD recorded in 1993. This property is divided by an existing ditch.  The property west of the ditch is currently farmed by the applicant.  There is an existing house on the east side of the ditch that is served by a water tap and septic system. The applicant wishes to split the acreage in front of the ditch (which includes the house) to become a legal lot of its own and then complete a boundary line adjustment with a 39.42 acre parcel directly west of this lot.  The applicant is not proposing to create another lot to build upon but simply to split the acreage to facilitate the continued farming of the property west of the ditch if he chooses to sell the home site in the future.  If in the future he wishes to subdivide the remaining property, he would need to make application for either a subdivision or conservation development.  This added acreage would not allow for or create an increase in density.

 

Section 22 of the Larimer County Land Use Code outlines circumstances in which appeals can be taken to the Board for consideration. One of those defined circumstances is where persons may appeal standards and requirements imposed by the Land Use Code. This request for an appeal meets section 22.2.1.A of the Larimer County Land Use Code where the applicant proposes to deviate from a standard or requirement imposed by this code, except standards or requirements which are subject to zoning variances from the Board of Adjustment in section 4.6.2.

 

When a parcel of land is divided into any size less than 35-acres an application and approval through an appropriate subdivision process is required through Larimer County. The review process options are outlined in Section 5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. Additionally, Section 4 of the Land Use Code determines the minimum lot sizes allowed in a zoning district.  In this case, the property is zoned O-Open which requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres.  Because of the size of this parcel there is no viable option for subdividing the lot unless an appeal to the lot size is granted.  However, if the parcel was larger and the applicants could use the Conservation Development process to subdivide the property there is no minimum lot size required except when the use of on-lot septic system or well is used. In those cases, the minimum lot size is two acres.  This separated parcel would be above the minimum standard for lots created by a conservation development process.

 

The following agencies have provided comments or verbally indicated they have no concerns with the proposal:

 

o  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment

o  The Larimer County Engineering Department

 

If an appeal to the lot size is granted, the applicant must still use the Boundary Line Adjustment process to combine the remaining acreage with the 39 acre parcel to the west and create a plat of record. Any further subdivision of the larger parcel will require a formal subdivision process. 

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Moreng Appeal File # 15-G0299 subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   A Boundary Line Adjustment Process must be completed to create a plat of record to document the division of the uses.

 

2.         BIG ELK MEADOWS TRACT 4, LOTS 25 & 26 LOT CONSOLIDATION FILE #15-S3352:  This request is to combine two adjacent lots, Lots 25 and 26, Tract 4, Big Elk Meadows Subdivision into one lot. Big Elk Meadows Subdivision was recorded in 1961 and consisted of 192 lots. Lot 25 contained a home site until such time as it was destroyed in the 2013 flood.  Currently there is no home site but a garage is still located on the property.  All lots access Aspen Drive and that access will remain. All lots are owned by the same individuals.

 

The following agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:

 

o  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment 

o   The Larimer County Engineering Department

o   The Larimer County Assessor’s Office

o   The Larimer County Addressing Coordinator

 

All other affected utility companies have agreed to the request. 

 

The proposed Lot Consolidation for Big Elk Meadows, Tract 4, Lots 25 and 26, will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency.  The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots and no other services will be affected.  The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Big Elk Meadows Lot Consolidation for Tract 4, Lots 25 and 26, File # 15-S3352 subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution recorded by June 14, 2016, or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions, or other conditions that apply to the original lots.

3.   The reconfiguration of the lots lines shall be finalized at such time when the Findings and Resolution of the County Commissioners is recorded.

 

3.         CRYSTAL LAKES SIXTH FILING LOTS 47 & 48A, LOT CONSOLIDATION, FILE #15-S3351:  This request is for a Lot Consolidation and Easement Vacation for Lots 47 and 48A of Crystal Lakes 6th Filing. Lot 47 is 0.5 acres and Lot 48A is 0.83 acres. The total acreage once the lots are combined would total 1.33 acres. There is one single family residence on Lot 48A and there are not any structures on Lot 47. There is currently a 30 foot utility easement located along the common boundary line between Lot 47 and Lot 48A. This request will vacate the 30 foot utility easement shared along the common lot line between Lot 47 and Lot 48A. There are currently no utilities currently located in an existing easement and no adjoining or nearby properties would be affected by the Lot Consolidation or Easement Vacation.

 

No neighbors have voiced any objections to the lot consolidation. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:

 

o  Department of Health and Environment

o  Engineering Department

o  Assessor

o  Addressing

o  Candace Phippen from the Code Compliance Office states that the Assessor’s Office shows two bedrooms but only one bedroom has been permitted under permit 741596. “If one or more rooms in the home have been converted into a bedroom, a building permit and inspection approvals are required.”

 

The request for a Lot Consolidation and 30 foot Easement Vacation of Lot 47 and Lot 48A of the Crystal Lakes 6th Filing will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency. The Lot Consolidation and Easement Vacation will not result in any additional lots. Staff finds that, with the conditions listed below, the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Crystal Lakes 6th Filing Lot 47 and Lot 48A Lot Consolidation and Easement Vacation of the 30 foot utility easement located on the common lot line subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution recorded by June 14th, 2016 or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions, or other conditions that apply to the original lots.

3.   The vacation of the utility easement and the reconfiguration of the lots lines shall be finalized at such time when the Findings and Resolution of the County Commissioners is recorded.

 

4.         RAMONA HEIGHTS LOTS 16C & 17B BLOCK 14 LOT CONSOLIDATION FILE #15-S3350:  This is a request to amend the plat of Lots 16C and 17B, Block14, Ramona Heights Amended Plat, to consolidate the lots into one. If approved, the recording instrument will be a Findings and Resolution. The two adjacent parcels are located in the Ramona Heights Amended Plat on Stellar Jay Circle. The original Ramona Heights Subdivision was recorded in 1924 and a full Amendment to the plat occurred later that same year. Lot 16C, Block 14 was consolidated in 2014 under file no. 14-S3226. The owners have purchased Lot 17B, Block 14, a vacant parcel, and would like to add this parcel to their property. Consolidating the lots will create one lot that is 0.68 acres.

 

The proposed Lot Consolidation of Lots 16C and 17B, Block 14, Ramona Heights Amended Plat will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The consolidation will not result in any additional lots. Staff finds that, with the conditions as listed below, the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation of  Lots 16C and 17B, Block 14,  Ramona Heights Amended Plat, File # 15-S3350, subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution recorded by June 14, 2016 or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions, or other conditions that apply to the original lots.

 

5.         CHILDREN’S HOUSE SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #15-Z1985:  This is a request for a Special Review for a private Montessori School for primary and elementary age children with a farm component.  The request includes an appeal to allow on-site septic in the Loveland Growth Management Area. This item was on the consent agenda for the November 18, 2015 Planning Commission public hearing at 6:30 pm. At the hearing Staff presented the Development Services Team report recommending approval of the proposed Special Review and approval for the proposed appeal from Section 8.1.1.B.1 to allow on-site septic to serve the development.  No members of the public spoke for or against the items. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requests to the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Be it resolved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Children’s House Special Review, File #15-Z1982.

 

1.   This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Children’s House Special Review, File #15-Z1982 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 Children’s House Special Review.

3.   Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners.

4.   This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement unless the applicant cannot demonstrate that all on-site and off-site improvements connected with the use will be completed prior to the issuance of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy.

5.   The proposed Appeal to allow an on-site septic system must be approved in order for this approval to be valid.

6.   In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to county, the county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

7.   County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

8.   The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review.

 

Be it resolved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval the Children’s House Special Review Appeal to Allow On-Site Septic, File #15-Z1982, subject to the following condition:

 

1.   The applicant shall apply for a permit to install the sewer system at the time of Building Permit application.

 

6.         PFEIFF MINOR LAND DIVISION FILE #15-S3349:   This is a request for a Minor Land Division to create two lots and an out lot from a parcel totaling 71 acres. The two lots will be 40 and 31 acres with the 31 acre lot containing the existing farm improvements. The 40-acre lot will remain undeveloped at this time. A 4.4-acre out lot is to be created for the Farmers Ditch.

 

The applicant is in the process of acquiring this farm and as a part of the purchase. They are proposing to divide off the existing farmhouse from the farmland northwest of the ditch. There is currently a single parcel and the proposal is to create two lots. One lot is for the farmhouse at 31+/- acres and the balance of the farm will be 40 acres. There is no proposal for use(s) on the farm balance at this time.  Although there is no proposal to further develop the farm at this time, Staff is concerned with further division and development. Restriction to limit further development of either lot to only an approved County development or annexation to Loveland is a normal restriction. In this case, the site is contiguous to the city limits so any development will trigger annexation.

 

This Minor Land Division has been proposed to divide existing improvements and uses from the existing farm and to create simple legal descriptions for the future.  The creation of these parcels meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code with the understanding that the new parcels will contain uses that are either pre-existing and that future development is restricted and may only occur on county approval or as a part of an annexation to the City of Loveland.  

 

The Team has evaluated this request and finds that with certain conditions recommended this request meet the approval criteria for a Minor Land Division. Staff finds that:

 

o  The proposal is neither in a subdivision plat nor in previously approved exemption.

o  The lots proposed do not increase the impact or use in the community.

o  The access and traffic impacts in the general area do not change with this proposal. 

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Pfieff Farms Minor Land Division File #15-S3349 subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by June 14, 2016, or this approval shall be null and void. 

2.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by the Larimer County Engineering Department.

3.   The access easement to Lot 2 shall be increased in size to 40 feet in width.

4.   Lot 2 shall be subject to a restriction to limit further development of the 40 acre lot to only an approved County development or as a part of an annexation to the City of Loveland.

 

7.         OLANDER FARMS MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #15-Z1994:  This is a request for a Minor Special Review for an indoor agricultural value added facility (barley malting). The applicant proposes to utilize 2950 square feet of a 12,350 square foot barn currently being constructed on his farm for value added agricultural processing. Specifically, the applicant proposes a malting operation to use barley grown on a part of the 1500 acres farmed by the Olander Farms LLC. The balance of the building will be used for equipment storage and product storage. The farming enterprise produces enough barley on 100 acres of the 1500 acres farmed for the proposed operation.

 

It is the conversion of the barley to malt which is considered the value added trigger. The applicant could have constructed the building on site and stored equipment and agricultural products in the barn without any additional review beyond the building permit.

 

On initial referral, there were concerns form neighbors about the potential for odors. The Staff's analysis determined a properly operated malting facility should not generate odors. There were also concerns from Engineering and CDOT about traffic. Upon further explanation from the applicant the traffic will be consistent with that generated by the current agricultural use of the property. The Health Department has identified the need for the applicant to work with the wholesale food regulations. This would be an operational and post county approval requirement.

 

Although there were initially some concerns voiced by adjacent neighbors, no additional comments were received by the Team with respect to concerns with the use. The use as proposed does meet the standards of review for the use and the review criteria for a Minor Special Review.

 

The Development Service Team recommends the Board of County Commissioners determine the use is consistent with the approval criteria as noted here:

 

o  The proposed value added processing facility will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood;

o  This application site is located outside a GMA district; the proposed use is consistent with the County Master Plan.

o  The applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this code;

o  The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject property; and

o  The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

o  The Applicant has demonstrated that this project can meet applicable additional criteria listed in Section 4.3 Use Descriptions.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Olander Minor Special Review File # 15-Z1994 subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Olander Minor Special Review, File # 15-Z1994, 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 Olander Minor Special Review.

2.   This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.  In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, the County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Minor Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.  County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review approval.

3.   The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Minor Special Review approval.

4.   The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for the proposed building or remodeling for the facility.  All applicable fees, including permit, shall apply to this use. 

5.   This Minor Special Review approval will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

6.   The applicant shall maintain and keep current all licenses required by the Larimer County, the State of Colorado and the Federal government for this use.

 

M O T I O N

 

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

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

8.         JOHNSON APPEAL, FILE #15-G0298:  This is a request for an appeal to section 3.2.1.I. (Storage Buildings and Garages on Vacant Lots) of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow the construction of a 3888 sq. ft. outbuilding prior to the construction of a residence, where an 800 sq. ft. maximum size is allowed on a vacant lot.

 

The applicant recently purchased the property with the intent of building a new house in 2016. They currently have their home for sale and would like to begin moving their belongings to the new property and store them within a new storage building.  They have indicated that they will not use the building for a business or rental.  If their house was built first this proposed outbuilding would only require a building permit.

 

The Development Services Team finds that the proposed appeal to allow the construction of a 3888 sq. ft. outbuilding prior to the construction of a residence, where an 800 sq. ft. maximum size is allowed on a vacant lot:

 

o  Has the potential to subvert the purpose of the standard or requirement.

o  Will not likely be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood.

o  May not be the minimum action necessary.

o  Will not likely result in increased costs to the general public.

o  May not be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Code.

 

The Development Services Team offers no specific recommendation for the Johnson Appeal, File #15-G0298.

 

The applicant, Jasper Johnson, addressed the Board. Mr. Johnson stated that he was unaware they could not erect the outbuilding prior to the main dwelling which is the reason for their appeal. Mr. Johnson explained that he and his wife are dealing with several medical issues and the preemptive construction of the outbuilding would alleviate much of the logistical stress associated with moving their belongings to the new structure.

 

Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to public comment.

 

William Svobda, a resident of Sunny Oak Acres, spoke in disfavor of the appeal request. Mr. Svobda stated that he has concerns of such a large building being converted to a commercial use after the storage is no longer necessary and asked that a definitive date for the construction of the home be added to the conditions.

 

Doug Owens, a resident on the north side of the applicant, spoke in disfavor of the appeal request. Mr. Owens commented that he is concerned about the residence never being built as well as the potential for commercial use within the outbuilding.

 

Jeanette Minnich, a resident two lots south of the applicant, spoke in disfavor of the appeal request. Ms. Minnich stated she has lived there for 13 years and is concerned about the size of the outbuilding. Ms. Minnich commented that most of the homes in the area are ranch style with barn like outbuildings and is concerned the large outbuilding in question will negatively affect her property value since it’s design conflicts with that of the neighborhood.

 

John Rider, a resident of the neighborhood since 1972, spoke in disfavor of the request for appeal and read a letter from his neighbor Jaclyn Clark who also spoke in disfavor.

 

Rodney Hill, who lives across the street from the applicant, has known the applicant’s family for more than forty years and spoke in favor of the request for appeal. Mr. Hill stated he has never had any issues with the applicant and has no doubt the applicant will do as he claims he will.

 

David Leighton, a property owner on the other side of the irrigation ditch from the applicant, spoke in disfavor of the request for appeal. Mr. Leighton stated he has seen similar appeals granted in the past only to be abused afterwards by the applicants.

 

Chair Gaiter closed public comment and asked Mr. Johnson to once again address the Board. Mr. Johnson commented that it would be impossible for him to use the structure for a commercial use since the zone is residential. Mr. Johnson reiterated the fact that he plans to use the structure for storage only. Chair Gaiter asked Mr. Lafferty to confirm that the outbuilding is within the zoning code regulations for size and variety with the exception of the primary home being built afterwards. Mr. Lafferty confirmed that yes it is compliant with code with the one exception.

 

Commissioner Johnson commented that he does not doubt the applicant’s intent and doesn’t believe the outbuilding will be converted into a commercial use. However, Commissioner Johnson stated he is concerned the outbuilding could remain on the property for several years which may negatively affect property values as well as the potential for zoning regulations to change over time. Commissioner Johnson concluded that the timing of the building is incompatible with the neighborhood and will decline the appeal.

 

Chair Gaiter stated he disagrees with Commissioner Johnson since the issue is with the function of timing and not the size or use since everything the applicant is proposing is compliant with the code with the exception of the phasing of construction. Chair Gaiter commented that he objects to telling the applicant he cannot do something because they might not follow through with their obligations in the future. Some conversation ensued about tabling the item for a later date when Commissioner Donnelly could review the information presented and make a decision.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Johnson Appeal to December 21, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. in the Hearing Room.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

9.         MATSUOKA APPEAL, FILE #15-G0289:  This is a request for an appeal to Section 4.1.5.B.a. O-Open minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres, to allow 2 lots on 8.25 acres, with each lot just over 4 acres.

 

It is staff’s opinion that approval of this request would not be consistent with the intent and purpose of the code because it is too great a deviation from the required minimum lot size.  In the past, Staff has supported lot size appeal requests that were close to the minimum size requirement.  However, the entire property does not currently meet the minimum lot size and is non-conforming with respect to that requirement. Approval of the appeal would increase the non-conformity and be out of character with the surrounding properties and the O-Open zoning.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Denial of the Matsuoka Lot Size Appeal, File #15-G0289.


Mr. Lafferty explained to the Board that the applicants were not present. Ms. Madson stated that the applicants have had this item moved three times, four with the inclusion of today’s hearing. Ms. Madson further noted that she explained to the applicant that Staff would not support another rescheduling and that they can either withdraw the application or proceed with the hearing. Commissioner Johnson asked the Staff if the applicant had given a reason for their absence today to which Ms. Madson answered that they are still sorting out the details with some issues concerning a ditch on the property which is unrelated to the current appeal. Commissioner Johnson then asked the Staff if this has been publicly noticed before. Mr. Lafferty explained that they have used their $200 notification fee on this already and have explained to the applicant that if they are going to continue to table this item until they resolve another land issue on their property that it would be prudent for them to withdraw it so that Staff would not have to keep re-noticing it to the public. Mr. Lafferty then stated that the Staff still hasn’t received a response in regards to that from the applicant.


Commissioner Johnson recommended that they listen to the individuals who did attend the Land Use Hearing for public comment. Chair Gaiter consulted Ms. Haag as to what legal repercussions there may be for proceeding with the hearing without the applicant. Ms. Haag reviewed their available options and the processes involved. Much discussion ensued.


M O T I O N


Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners proceed with the hearing and deny the applicant’s request to table the Matsuoka Appeal.


Motion carried 2-0.


Chair Gaiter asked if the applicant or anyone representing them was present for comment. Neither the applicant nor anyone available to speak on behalf of the applicant was present for comment.

Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to public comment.


Susan hill, a resident who shares a lease line with the Matsuoka lot, spoke in disfavor of the appeal. Ms. Hill stated she has the oldest property in neighborhood dating back to 1915 and is concerned about dividing the lot due to water issues associated with having multiple irrigation wells affecting her well use.


Shannon White, a resident who moved to the neighborhood 23 years ago, spoke in disfavor of the appeal. Ms. White stated that this appeal goes against the zoning laws and is concerned about how the additional lots will place a greater demand on the environment.


Robert McGlasson, a resident in the neighborhood, spoke in disfavor of the appeal. Mr. McGlasson commented that he feels the applicant did not review the code properly before purchasing their property and is now trying to alter it.


Frank Haug, a resident who lives directly to the south of the Matsuoka lot, spoke in disfavor of the appeal. Mr. Haug stated he agrees with the previous comments and is concerned about increasing the density of the neighborhood.


Chair Gaiter closed public comment and asked if the applicant or anyone representing them would like to address the Board. No one was present to comment.

 
Commissioner Johnson stated that the applicant is well within their right to ask for a lot appeal but agrees with the Staff’s analysis that a 4 acre lot is not compatible with the surrounding properties as well as the two domestic uses on a well.


Chair Gaiter stated that public comment did a good job of indicating how the lot as it is now is smaller than most others in the surrounding area, much less if it’s broken down into two 4 acre lots. Chair Gaiter further commented that this appeal would not be compatible with the neighborhood and they have given the applicant the opportunity to be here and explain their position which they, as the applicant, have declined to do so. Chair Gaiter concluded that he agrees with Staff’s recommendation.


M O T I O N


Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Matsuoka Lot Size Appeal.


Motion carried 2-0.

The hearing recessed at 4:30 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE 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:  Jeannine Haag, County Attorney; Rob Helmick and Rebecca Smith, Planning Department; Clinton Jones, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health and Environment Department; and Craig Dorn, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gaiter opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance and noted that this is a Public Hearing Review for the Pet Animal Facility and a request for an appeal to Section 8.3.6.c.1, Larimer County Land Use Code, Construction Standards Paving of parking and access drives.

The applicant proposes to relocate the existing Animal House pet animal facility. The current site located at Vine and Shields is being redeveloped and the Animal House facility needs to acquire a new location.  The proposal is to develop the subject site as a 30+ dog adoption and grooming facility. This application does not propose an expansion of the capacity but the application indicates there may be some increase in the number of animals kept at the site. The proposed site is a 5-acre lot containing a single-family residence and two outbuildings. This was previously a large and small animal veterinarian clinic established before the code required review.  Access to the site is currently from a paved drive to Taft Hill Road and from a private gravel access drive that serves two properties to the east of the site.


The applicant proposes to utilize the previous clinic building structure for shelter and adoption uses as well as an accessory grooming use. The other pole barn will be used for quarantine and major veterinary work, and the existing house may be used for an office, adoption, grooming, and/or a resident caretaker. 


The applicant estimates 10 employees and approximately 40-50 client visits per day to the site.  The proposal is to operate the business 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. and have public hours of 11 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 11am to 5pm, Saturday and Sunday, and grooming to be by appointment on Monday through Saturday, 8am to 4pm. All the animals are monitored and outside use only occurs during the day. There will be no outside nighttime use. There may be up to 10 dogs outdoors at a time based on compatibility and rotations.


The Health Department has commented the potential for noise issues and the need for a noise mitigation plan.  The County Noise Ordinance is our guidance on this issue. 


The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife has not responded which indicates there are no concerns with respect to the site.


The Laporte Area Planning Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal on October 20, 2015.  At that time they developed a recommendation for approval to the Larimer County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners on the use by a unanimous vote and on a split vote to recommend approval of the paving appeal.


The issues with this application are the potential for a noise disturbance as opposed to violation of the numeric noise standards.  The applicant has shown they can meet numeric standards and the noise disturbance is a subjective standard. The design and implementation of the noise mitigation plan is critical to the success of use in this location. Issues around operation may address some concerns but the physical improvements, which do not rely on human action, will be just as important.


The paving of the access drive and the parking lot are cost issues for the applicant.  The Team believes that this use will generate enough traffic to warrant the paving.  The minimum action would be to pave the access drive while ensuring that the emergency service providers find the access and parking areas are suitable for their response.

 
The Development Services Team finds:

 

o  The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood.

o  The proposed use is consistent with the county master plan and is consistent with the applicable supplementary regulations with the county master plan and the La Porte Area Plan.

o  The applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this code.

o  The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on property in the vicinity of the subject property.

o  The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

o  Approval of the appeal may subvert the purpose of the standard or requirement.

o  Approval of the appeal under certain conditions may not be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood.

o  Approval of the appeal is not the minimum action necessary.

o  Approval of the appeal will not result in increased costs to the general public.

o  Approval of the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the code.


The Development Services Team recommends the Larimer County Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners Approval of the Animal House Special  Review, file # 15-Z1977, subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the approval date.

2.   The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in Animal House Special Review, File # 15-Z1977, 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 Animal House Special Review, File # 15-Z1977.

3.   Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

4.   This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.

5.   In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to county, county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

6.   County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

7.   The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

8.   There shall be no more than 40 dogs and/or adoption candidates on site at any time. Client dogs and grooming clients on site as clients or visitors shall not count towards this maximum limitation. 

9.   Operations shall be described as in the project description dated September 8, 2015.

10.   Animal House shall implement noise mitigation measures prior to the use of the site.

 

Commissioner Donnelly questioned the Staff if the driveway in question for the appeal is on the proposed property for the applicant. Mr. Helmick explained that it is and has been a historic easement from about 1970 which is currently used by two additional residents and possibly for light vehicle use for Martin Marietta.

 

Commissioner Johnson questioned Staff about item 10 in regards to the noise mitigation. Mr Helmick responded that they have discussed the concept of utilizing massive walls to reduce sound as well as obstruct the line of sight from neighboring residents. Mr. Ryan spoke about the noise study that was conducted by the applicant as well as a preliminary noise mitigation plan explaining that the facility will operate indoors at night with heating and air conditioning so as to keep all windows closed. Mr. Ryan added that problem dogs will be transferred out of the facility and that the building designs incorporate heavy walls as well as interior insulation to further mitigate noise and that hours of operation will be during the daytime as dictated by the noise ordinance. Commissioner Johnson requested a transcript of the noise mitigation plan to which Mr. Ryan responded that it is in a phase of design work right now.

 

Chair Gaiter asked Staff if any noise complaints had been made at the current location. Mr. Ryan responded that yes there have been a few.

 

Chair Gatier asked Ali Ecclesten­-Wenzlaff, the applicant, to address the board. Ms. Ecclesten clarified that the new location will be 2200 North Taft Hill Road, not 200. Ms. Ecclesten then went on to describe the current location which has been in operation for nine years and through that duration they have rescued over 5000 dogs and groomed over 24,000. Ms. Ecclesten stated that they are looking for property the organization can actually own, develop, and invest in as opposed to rent. Ms. Ecclesten went on to describe the buildings and planned additions for construction at the new location, improvements made to the quarantine section, and the noise mitigation plan. Ms. Ecclesten stated that over the past 9 years there have been two complaints to which the organization had worked to resolve with the neighbors. Ms. Ecclesten explained that both those complaints were the result of noise emanating from the quarantine area which, as stated previously, they are looking to address and improve upon at the new location. Ms. Ecclesten commented that one of their main concerns is reducing stress on the animals which will greatly reduce noise and that their staff is well trained on how to recognize why a dog is barking and therefore be able to resolve the issue.

 

Frank Vaught, Principal in the firm of Vaught Frye Larson Architects, spoke about the design of the facility and the approval of residence from the surrounding area. Mr. Vaught went into detail about the replacement of pole lighting with building mounted lights with cutoffs to mitigate light pollution, the acoustic engineers they have worked with to mitigate noise, their traffic study, how there will be a minimal impact on the area, and how storm detention may not be viable but retention may be which is why they are asking for the appeal on the paving.

 

Commissioner Donnelly questioned the applicant about what type of material they would be using for the proposed barrier around the dog run area. Mr. Vaught stated that it would be concrete or concrete block. Some conversation ensued about where the wall would be erected and where the drainage for water would occur.


Chair Gaiter opened the hearing to public comment.


John Tillet, a resident who lives directly across from the current facility, spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Tillet stated that in the summer they do not use air conditioning so their windows are always open and not once have they been offended by the noise. Mr. Tillet further stated that he volunteers at the facility and is impressed by what the facility does to mitigate sound.

Tina Gable, a resident who lives immediately north of the current facility, spoke in favor of the proposal. Ms. Gable stated there really is no noise or odors and from 6:00 p.m. on you don’t hear anything.

Judy Calhoun spoke in favor of Animal House and its cause. Ms. Calhoun explained that there have been a lot of improvements made with stress reduction and enrichment within the animal facilities to reduce noise. Ms. Calhoun further stated that the current facility is an example of an older model of design as opposed to the new facility. Commissioner Donnelly asked how many dogs they would typically have at any given time. Ms. Calhoun responded the number is usually between 20 and 50 dogs. Commissioner Donnelly then asked what type of structures they will be using at the new facility for noise mitigation. Ms. Calhoun explained the exterior and interior walls are being designed with noise dampening features.


William Seaworth, a resident who lives west of the proposed location for the new facility, spoke in disfavor. Mr. Seaworth explained he is concerned that the sound of gunshots associated with hunting on his property will disturb the animals. Mr. Seaworth stated that he wants clarification on how many dogs there be allowed on the premises and how much funding the organization has allocated for noise mitigation. Mr. Seaworth also raised concern about the potential for complaints made against him for hunting if the facility is approved as well as escaped dogs running after his or his neighbor’s horses.

 

Craig Cisco, one of the owners of the KOA campground in the immediate area, spoke in disfavor of the proposal. Mr. Cisco stated he has concerns about barking being disruptive to his campers at night since the people utilizing his campsite generally have dogs accompanying them as well. Mr. Cisco also explained his concern over a sick dog escaping from quarantine, Animal House’s use of a septic system’s effect on his well water, and dust mitigation if the appeal for the driveway is approved. Commissioner Donnelly asked Mr. Cisco what type of structure he has surrounding the campground. Mr. Cisco explained it is a border of pine trees and a six foot tall rock pile. Commissioner Donnelly questioned Mr. Cisco if the dogs in his park create noise to which Mr. Cisco responded that the dogs are with their owners so they are kept under control. Mr. Cisco also commented that they have security on their premises to help regulate those types of issues.


Julie Mikulas commented that she is neither for nor against the proposal but because her name was referenced several times in the Staff Report she wanted to clarify a few points. Ms. Mikulas stated she owns the shared access along the proposed location for Animal House and wanted it on record that they blade it off once a year for the neighbors to which they are not obligated to do so through any of their permits. Ms. Mikulas further commented that once their mining operation is completed they will no longer be maintaining the road.


Mike Keegan, a resident who live three houses to the north of proposed new facility, spoke in disfavor. Mr. Keegan stated that he is worried about the impact on their property value as well as the effect it may have on wildlife passing through the area.


Sarah Swanty spoke in favor of the proposal. Ms. Swanty commented on the positive impact the facility will have on the community and the integrity of leadership inherent within the organization itself.


Chair Gaiter read a text message he received from Bill Seaworth. Mr. Seaworth who is out of town and unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Seaworth spoke about concerns regarding shooting in the area disturbing the dogs and how since he is obliged to have paving at his storage business in the area Animal house should be required to as well.


Cordelia Stone, who is a recent volunteer at animal house, spoke in favor of the proposal. Ms. Stone stated that the organization is utilizing noise mitigation now and makes the issue a priority. Ms. Stone explained that the noise mitigation benefits not only the neighbors but the dogs and facility as well.


Chair Gaiter closed public comment.


Ms. Ecklesten addressed the Board again and stated she does not believe the sound of gunshots will affect the animals and while they have been on the proposed site they have heard nothing. Ms. Ecklesten explained there will be no issues with loose dogs since the Department of Agriculture requires double fenced areas. Ms. Ecklesten stated that the quarantine area will only take dogs from other facilities not strays or surrenders, and the area is covered making it impossible for dogs to escape. In regards to the concern over well use in the area, Ms. Ecklesten commented that they will be working with the Health Department to determine if a septic system will be sufficient for the facility. Ms. Ecklesten concluded that the dogs will not be exposed to wildlife or be able to see it, that they are financially capable to deliver what they are proposing, and are very open to using recycled asphalt on the shared access road.


Commissioner Donnelly commented that even if they are within the bounds of the noise ordinance the barking may still be offensive to neighbors and asked the applicant if she believes further noise studies should be done. Ms. Ecklesten spoke about the measures they will be taking to mitigate noise and Mr. Laughton commented if the proposal is met tonight they will go into deeper details on the site plan. Some conversation ensued as to what the process would be after tonight if approved for future planning of noise mitigation.


Chair Gaiter asked for clarification on how many dogs can be present at the facility at any given time. Ms. Ecklesten stated usually 40 and 60 dogs at most for no more than 36 hours, which is generally used for intake of puppies that will be sent off to foster care the next day.

Commissioner Donnelly commented that he wants this organization to be successful but is concerned about he issues raised by the current home and business owners in the area. Commissioner Donnelly recommended that the Board table this for a month so that they can conduct a more complete noise study on the property for the neighbors. Chair Gaiter stated that the noise mitigation plan submitted during this meeting is the same level you would see from a noise study. Some conversation ensued as to what has been provided already and what level of detail is expected from a prospective noise study.


M O T I O N


Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Animal House Review to January 11, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. to receive a more well developed noise mitigation plan.


Motion failed 1-2; Chair Gaiter and Commissioner Johnson dissenting.


Commissioner Johnson explained that these are difficult situations to mitigate since it is almost impossible to ensure the neighbors will not hear some barking at some point in time. Commissioner Johnson commented that he has worked in several facilities like this and has had to walk in wearing ear plugs at times; however, those have been constructed and operated in the old design. Commissioner Johnson further stated that he has visited the Animal House facility once, though he has never done business with them, and wasn’t even aware there were other dogs being housed in the building. Commissioner Johnson concluded that these mitigation methods are effective, is impressed with the plans and techniques to address the noise, believes it will be compatible with the neighborhood, and therefore will support it.

 

Commissioner Donnelly stated he will support the proposal but would have preferred to have an additional noise study done. Commissioner Donnelly concluded he believes the facility will be compatible with the neighborhood and hopes they will work with the neighbors to create as harmonious a relationship as possible.

 

Chair Gaiter referenced the comment made by Ms. Gable in regards to never hearing the dogs at the current facility. Mr. Lafferty measured the distance between her and the facility and it was determined to be comparable to the new location and residencies there. Chair Gaiter commented that their current mitigation plan seems to work and they are taking measures to improve upon it further. Chair Gaiter further stated that due to the double fencing he has no concerns about loose dogs and that if hunting causes any disturbance to a dog they have a protocol in place to address that by transferring said animal. Chair Gaiter concluded that the noise mitigation construction needs to be completed first before any operation can occur and is in support of the proposal.

 

M O T I O N


Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Animal House Special Review with conditions 1 through 11 and alter condition 10 to state Animal House shall implement the noise mitigation plan for Animal House Rescue and Grooming Special Review submitted with the application.


Motion carried 3-0.


Commissioner Johnson stated he does not support the paving appeal due to the amount of customers coming into the facility. Commissioner Donnelly and Chair Gaiter both voiced their agreement.

M O T I O N


Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the proposed paving appeal.


Motion carried 3-0.


The hearing adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

 


TUESDAY DECEMBER 15, 2015

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS MEETING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Linda Hoffmann, County Manager.  Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present. Also present were: Jeannine Haag, County Attorney; Donna Hart, Lori Hodges, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Gary Buffington, David Bragg, Mark Caughlan, Meegan Flenniken, and Ken Brink, Department of Natural Resources; Jacob Castillo and Joan Friedman, Workforce Center; Charlie Johnson, Mark Peterson, and Tim Meyers, Engineering Department; Kevin Gertig, Fort Collins Utilities; Deputy Rutledge, Sheriff's Department; and Craig Dorn, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gaiter opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

1.    PUBLIC COMMENT:  No one was present for public comment.

 

2.    APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 7, 2015:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of December 7, 2015, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.    CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

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

 

12152015A001           GRANT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

 

12152015A002           MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND THE BIG ELK MEADOWS ASSOCIATION WITH REGARD TO THE CDBG-DR GRANT FOR DEBRIS REMOVAL WHERE LARIMER COUNTY HAS AGREED TO BE THE FISCAL AGENT FOR BIG ELK MEADOWS ASSOCIATION

 

12152015A003           ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND UMR, INC.

 

12152015A004           LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ENGINEERING DESIGN, SURVEYING, PLAN PREP AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.

 

12152015A005           LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ENGINEERING DESIGN, SURVEYING, PLAN PREP AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND AVI INC.

 

12152015A006           LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO ENGINEERING DESIGN, SURVEYING, PLAN PREP AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

 

12152015A007           LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO DISASTER RECOVERY AND HAZARD MITIGATION SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND CDR MAGUIRE, INC.

 

12152015A008           INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE NORTHERN COLORADO BOMB SQUAD BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, AND CITY OF LOVELAND

 

12152015A009           SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND FORT COLLINS LAKESIDE GC, LLC

 

12152015A010           SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND GUENTER AND THERESA KIPPSCHULL

 

12152015D001           DEED OF DEDICATION FROM JOHN M. DEVORE AND REBECCA L. DEVORE LIVING TRUST

 

12152015P001            ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURE 700.2B

 

12152015R001           RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE

 

12152015R002           RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE

 

12152015R003           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR THE HAYDEN SUBDIVISION L8, 31, AND 33

 

12152015R004           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR JOHNSON SUBDIVISION LOT 17 AND 18, LOT 1 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 13 AND 14, LOT 1 OF AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2  OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 15 AND 16, LOT 2B, AND LOTS 1 AND 2 OF AMENDED PLAT OF A PORTION OF 19

 

12152015R005           FINDING AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VERIZON AT COLLAND CENTER CMRS APPEAL

 

12152015R006           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 16 AND REPLAT OF PINEWOOD SPRINGS 12TH FILING

 

12152015R007           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT IN KERNS EXEMPTION, CUSHMAN’S LAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT AND THOMPSON’S LAKESIDE SUBDIVISION AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY

 

12152015R008           RESOLUTION REGARDING HEALTH CARE SERVICES PURSUANT TO STATUTE 39-3-111.5 C.R.S.

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Board of Assessment Appeals State of Colorado Stipulation as to Tax Year 2015 Value, Andrea J. Dunlap; Fleet Services Operations Policy 100.13E; Board of Assessment Appeals State of Colorado Stipulation as to Tax Year 2015 Value, Tracy L. Alexander; Department of Human Services Payments for September 2015; Department of Human Services Payments for October 2015; Board of Assessment Appeals State of Colorado Stipulation as to Tax Year 2015 Value, Advance Tank and Construction Company; Administrative Policy and Procedure 100.2M.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were approved and/or issued:  Hilltop General Store – Retail Liquor Store – Red Feather Lake.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.    COMMENTS FOR COMMISSIONERS' GUESTS:  Chair Gaiter introduced Lori Hodges, Director of Emergency Management for Larimer County. Ms. Hodges updated the Board on the Long Term Recovery Group’s current funding status as well as plans for 2016. Some discussion ensued as to how to address the surrounding municipalities that are being served by the Long Term Recovery Group to help contribute with the funding

 

M O T I O N


Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the signing of a letter to the other served local governments by the Long Term Recovery group requesting their participation in funding for the first quarter.


Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.    REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 21, 2015:   Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

6.         HIGH PARK FIRE SUPPORT APPRECIATION:  Kevin Gertig, Executive Director of Fort Collins Utilities, expressed appreciation to the Board and Linda Hoffman for their cooperation and assistance dealing with inter-governmental agencies. Mr. Gertig then presented a plaque in recognition of Larimer County for its contributions to emergency watershed protection response through GIS analysis, mulching operations, and critical repairs to roads and bridges for the 2013 High Park Fire Larimer County.

 

7.         CONSIDER EXECUTING THREE CONTRACTS WITH THE SPRING CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT CONSISTING OF  TWO WATER TAPS AND ONE SEWER TAP FOR THE HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR PROJECT:  Mr. Buffington, Mr. Caughlan, and Mr. Bragg addressed the Board to request an execution of three contracts with the Spring Canyon Water and Sanitation District consisting of two water taps and one sewer tap for the Horsetooth Reservoir project. Mr. Bragg stated that Natural Resources is moving forward with the Horsetooth Reservoir Administration Building and Maintenance Shop project. Mr. Buffington explained that the new Administration Building will require a new 1 ½” water tap and 4” sewer tap and that the Maintenance Shop will require upsizing the existing 5/8” water tap to a 1” water tap and will utilize the existing sewer service.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve executing all three Spring Canyon Water District agreements for two water taps and one sewer tap.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.         PARKS MASTER PLAN AND RANCH MASTER PLAN UPDATES:  Mr. Buffington, Ms. Flennicken, Mr. Brink, and Mr. Peterson, addressed the board regarding the upcoming scope and process envisioned for an update to the existing Parks Master Plan and The Ranch Master Plan. Ms. Flennicken explained capacity issues and of open areas, trail connectivity, long term financial sustainability, facility design, programming evaluation, priorities for additional recreational areas, and the cost associated with providing new and continued services. Mr. Peterson addressed the prospective for The Ranch and the development of a Technical Committee who would review what has been successful, what has not, and what direction to take The Ranch in the future. Mr. Peterson also reviewed objectives for The Ranch Master Plan as well as its scope which included the identification of new community facilities that could potentially be constructed on the approximate 145 acres of open space still available. Some conversation ensued about the financial gains generated by The Ranch throughout the year from various events.

 

9.         ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE:  Mr. Castillo and Ms. Friedman addressed the Board in regards to their monthly economic development update. Mr. Castillo reviewed the current strategic plan’s first objective regarding asset assessment and their engagement with a consultant to conduct the study and the timeline for completion of it. Mr. Castillo also went over the code of ethics developed by the Metro Denver EDC which they are looking for signature on. Some conversation ensued about the priorities of the economic alliance. Mr. Castillo then addressed regional data sharing and acquiring a data analyst to compile data for all counties in the area to help alleviate difficulties associated with interpreting information from different venues. Mr. Castillo concluded with an assessment of enterprise zone contribution projects and new workforce legislation that is currently underway. Ms. Friedman reviewed the Workforce Center prospective plan and continued work on best practices. Some conversation ensued about unused partnership funds and how they will be allocated in the following year.

 

10.       WORKSESSION:  Ms. Hoffmann updated the Board on various projects and activities.

 

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

 

12.       LEGAL MATTERS:  Ms. Haag, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Meyers addressed the Board regarding authorization to commence eminent domain action for acquisition of the right-of-way on County Road 43 between Drake and the switchbacks due to damage caused by September 2013 flooding. Ms. Haag went over the opposition Thea Bella has to the construction that is required on the road in question and the subsequent actions the county is looking to take. Commissioner Donnelly commented that Ms. Bella’s main opposition is with the improvement potentially causing motorists to drive faster and increase traffic on the right-of-way. Commissioner Johnson stated that the removal of these boulders is essential for the safety of people traveling to and from Rocky Mountain National Park and surrounding areas.


M O T I O N


Commissioner Johnson moved to authorize eminent domain action for acquisition of right of way on County Road 43 for this project.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

 

 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2015

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 2:45 p.m. with Lorenda Volker, Assistant County Manager. Chair Gaiter Presided and Commissioner Johnson was present. Also present were:  Gary Buffington and Kerri Rollins, Department of Natural Resources; Charlie Johnson, Tim Meyers, and Alexandrea Castino, Engineering Department; and Craig Dorn, Deputy Clerk.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson  moved that the Board of County Commissioners enter into executive session for determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators as pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(e).

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The executive session ended at 3:40 p.m. with no action taken.

 

 

 

                                                                                              _______________________________

 LEW GAITER III

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

ANGELA MYERS

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

__________________________________________

Craig Dorn, Deputy Clerk