MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, MARCH 28, 2005
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Wagner and Gibson were present. Also present were: Claudia Delude, Zoning Enforcement; Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Matt Lafferty, and Al Kadera, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the Larimer County Land Use Code and the County Budget. No one addressed the Board regarding these topics. Ms. DeLude requested the Board remove Item #1 from the agenda, concerning the Glass Zoning Violation, File# 03-ZV0287, as the property owners have made progress on rectifying the violation and are now working with the Health Department to finish cleaning up the property. Chair Rennels then noted that the following item is on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
2. ROYAL VIEW ESTATES LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 AMENDED PLAT; 05-S2401: This is a request to amend the plat of Lots 1-3 in Royal View Estates to combine three lots into two lots and dedicate new utility easements along the interior and northern property lines. No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team. The Engineering Department noted in their comments that Lot 1 will be subject to Transportation Capital Expansion Fees at time of building permit issuance. In addition, drainage fees will also be collected for Lot 1 at time of building permit issuance. The proposed plat amendment to reconfigure three contiguous lots into two lots and add additional utility easements along the interior and northern common lot lines will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code. The Development Services Team recommendation is for approval of File #05-S2401, the Amended Plat of the re-plat of Royal View Estates Lots 1-3 subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature: 1. The Final Plat shall be recorded by August 28, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void. 2. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Consent Agenda as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. CARNES ZONING VIOLATION; 03-ZV0130: This is an alleged violation of Section 4.1.5, the use of the parcel(s) for a commercial traffic control business is not a permitted use in the O-Open zoning district, and Section 4.1.5, Outdoor storage is not a permitted use in the O-Open zoning district. In June of 2003, traffic control signs and company vehicles were observed around the Larimer County courthouse while there was construction occurring. On these traffic signs and vehicles were the name and address of the business which owned them, Carnes Service. The address listed was 13510 NCR 7, which is located north of Wellington. At that time staff noted that this use would not be permitted from that location without County approval. Because no complaint had been formally filed by a citizen, the matter was not immediately followed up on. However, staff was in the neighborhood in October of 2003 and drove by the property to see what was actually occurring. In addition to a single family residence and several outbuildings, staff noted company vehicles, employees and an excess number of traffic signs being stored on the parcel, in various areas. A 15 day letter was mailed to the property owner on October 6, 2003. No response was received. The property was then re-inspected and remained in violation. A 30 day letter was then mailed on January 9, 2004. The owner did call staff and he stated that he had contacted the Planning Department in the past about rezoning the property. No notes were entered onto the county computer system (common practice) to indicate such a discussion occurred, nor does any staff member recall having such a conversation. Due to the location of the property and surrounding uses (residential), rezoning is not something which would have been encouraged by staff. The most appropriate County approval, at that time, would have been a Special Exception. Information on this process was mailed to the owner March 18, 2004. In May, the owner contacted staff and stated intentions of moving the signs into storage. He said he would be using a commercial storage facility located on E. Mulberry. Staff explained that the business could not run from a storage facility either. Mr. Carnes stated that was not his intention and that the signs would merely be stored there. The Special Exception process was again discussed and the owner said he would review his options. In June of 2004, he returned and had a formal pre-application conference with Casey Stewart, Planner, for the Special Exception. While all this was going on, the owner was also building a single family residence on the parcel next door, to the south (13414 NCR 7). When the construction was completed, the owner proceeded to then move the business office to this second parcel, and also continued storing the signs and vehicles on the first parcel. For the same reasons mentioned above, this is not a permitted use on the second parcel either. Staff has been in contact with Mr. Carnes’ attorney, who has stated intentions of applying for County approval. However, to date, no formal application has been submitted for either parcel, and the properties remain in violation.
Staff findings are as follows: 1. The property is zoned O-Open; 2. The O-Open zoning district does not permit outdoor storage; 3. Any business conducted beyond that which is permitted as a home occupation is not permitted in this zoning district; 4. The owner has an unfair economic advantage over other business owners who have obtained County approval; 5. The continued use of the property, in violation of the zoning regulations, will affect property values in the area; 6. The continued use of the property, in violation of the zoning regulations, may affect the neighbor’s ability to enjoy their own property. Staff recommendation is as follows: 1. Find that a violation exists; 2. Require compliance within 120 days. Compliance would require: That all outdoor storage be removed and the business uses cease on both parcels - OR - that an application for a Special Exception be submitted; 3. Authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.
Ms. Delude stated that the property owner has been working towards compliance and a partial application has been submitted. Ms. Delude noted that she originally proposed requiring compliance within 30 days, but is now suggesting that the Board require compliance within 120 days. Mr. David Osborne, Attorney for the property owners, acknowledged that there is a zoning violation on the property, and explained that the owners had planned to relocate the storage items; however, much of their business is north of town and calls for them to have to immediate access to the storage items. Commissioner Wagner asked what changes would occur if the Special Exception is granted. Ms. Connie Carnes, property owner, stated that she has constructed a large steel building and they plan to move the outdoor storage into this building. Mr. Osborne stated that they have a neighborhood meeting scheduled for April 7, 2005, and anticipate satisfying the compliance requirements within the next 30 - 45 days. At this time, Chair Rennels opened the meeting up for public comment. No one addressed the Board with public comment.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and require compliance within 120 days. Compliance would require that all outdoor storage be removed and the business uses cease on both parcels, or, that an application for a Special Exception be submitted. In addition, legal action is authorized if the deadline is not met.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. CHAPMAN-DUFFIELD APPEAL; 05-G0071: This request is to appeal for an exemption from Section 5.2 (Planned Land Division) of the Larimer County Land Use Code to change the status of a lot that is considered non-legal based upon the requirements of Senate Bill 35, by allowing use of the Minor Land Division Process to create a plat of record. Research of the County Clerk and Recorders records indicates that during the period of 1975 to 1985 the City of Loveland annexed and approved several developments in the area surrounding the site for the subject application. The records further indicate that the subject property was part of a significantly larger parcel that was annexed, only in part, into the City of Loveland, and subsequently approved for residential development. As a result of the partial annexation of the parent parcel, the subject site, which remained in the County as a remnant parcel less than 35 acres in area, was illegally created based upon the requirements of Senate Bill 35. According to Senate Bill 35, the division of land into parcels less than thirty-five acres without approval by the appropriate governing body is precluded, thus the actions taken by the City of Loveland, while not intentional, should have either included all of the parent parcel, or should have included an approval by the Board of County Commissioners for the creation of the remnant parcel. According to Sub-Section 4.2.1.D.1.a of Section 4.2.1 (GMA Overlay Zone District) the County shall not accept any application for a Planned Land Division for a property that is situated within a GMA and is contiguous to the City limits, but rather the applicant is required to seek annexation into the Municipality. In accordance with the requirements of Section 4.2.1 of the Land Use Code the applicant has met with the City of Loveland regarding annexation, and due to circumstances surrounding the property the City Manager has agreed to not pursue annexation at this time, but rather allow the applicant to seek approvals through Larimer County. Given the fact that the City Manager for the City of Loveland has agreed to allow the applicant to seek approvals by the County, the applicant has consulted with the Planning Department regarding the development review process in an effort to change the non-legal status of the property to legal for one single family residence. Based upon the fact that the subject property was not legally created the property owner is unable to obtain a building permit for a single family residential dwelling on the property without first obtaining approval of a Planned Land Division application (Section 5.2 of the Land Use Code). Because of the extensive review and time considerations involved in the Planned Land Division process, even for a single lot, the applicant has chosen to request an exemption from the Planned Land Division process. Therefore, the current request is an appeal to consider allowing a change to the non-legal status of the property to legal, so that a dwelling can be constructed on the premises without processing a Planned Land Division application. While the Development Services Team believes that the Planned Land Division process may be overly cumbersome in this instance, we also believe that the Minor Land Division process should be required in order to achieve a plat of record for the change of status, as well as to ensure that minimum requirements for adequate public facilities and similar regulations are taken into consideration when development applications are proposed. Therefore, the Development Services Team support the applicant request, but only if a Minor Land Division application and approval are required in lieu of the Planned Land Division application. Based upon the City of Loveland’s position to not requiring annexation and applicant's request to only create a single building site, the Development Service Team supports the applicant's request for an appeal to not be required to perform a Planned Land Division so long as a Minor land Division process and approval is required. The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Chapman-Duffield Appeal for the 7.73 acre parcel (File #05-G0071) subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant must submit for review and approval a Minor Land Division application to ensure compliance with the standards and requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code, including the Section 8 standards.
Mr. Lafferty displayed an aerial photo of the property, noting that the property is an enclave as it is surrounded by the City of Loveland on all sides, yet it remains in the County. Mr. Lafferty explained that at this time, the City of Loveland has not expressed a desire to annex this property into the city limits; however, if this appeal is approved as part of the Minor Land Division process, the applicant would be required to sign an annexation agreement which the City of Loveland could choose to activate at any time. Commissioner Gibson questioned the number of homes that could be allotted to this piece of property. Mr. Helmick stated that utilizing the Minor Land Division process, the property owner would be allowed to construct one home on the land. Mr. Helmick stated that the land is constrained due to wetlands and setback requirements from the railroad, so in his opinion, the applicant will be hard pressed to place even one home on the property. Mr. Lafferty stated that the there is an issue with the City of Loveland requiring the property owner to pay a large fee to connect to the adjoining road and area utilities Commissioner Wagner questioned if there was a willingness on the City of Loveland's part to make the fee more reasonable for a single family lot. Mr. Lafferty stated that Mr. David Osborne is also the attorney for the builder and defer to him to answer that question.
At this time the applicant, Mr. David Chapman, and his attorney, Bill Robinson addressed the Board stating their main objective is to make this a legal lot and place a home on it. Mr. Chapman stated that he is more than willing to pay his fare share of the cost to utilize the road and connect to the utilities; however, the amount he is being quoted is three times the cost of the lot itself.
Mr. Osborne stated that they tried to work with Mr. Chapman to get the initial easement, and that in his opinion, Mr. Chapman was uncooperative and they finally ended up paying him twice the value of the easement. Mr. Osborn also stated that he believes it is bad policy to create these enclaves. Chair Rennels questioned how the restrictions were put on the lot and how the amount was determined. Mr. Osborne stated that the restrictions were put in place by the city and the builder and this was the only lot left that could absorb the costs. Chair Rennels asked for public comment. No one addressed the Board with comments on this application. During rebuttal, Mr. Robinson stated that Mr. Chapman is willing to pay a pro-rata share to connect to the road and utilities, and is also in agreement with the rest of the conditions of the MLD. He again stated their goal as being able to make this a legal lot and to place a home on it. Mr. Chapman explained the history of the initial easement and also explained that he has attempted to work with Mr. Osborne and has heard nothing back from him on this issue of reimbursement for connectivity.
The Board agreed to approve the appeal and let the applicant proceed with submitting the application for a Minor Land Division.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Chapman-Duffield Appeal for the 7.73 acre parcel (File #05-G0071) subject to the conditions as recommended by the Development Services Team and outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS; 05-CA0052: This is a request to make a number of changes to the adopted Larimer County Land Use Code. During the Code adoption hearings we often discussed the concept of a living Land Use Code that would be amended as needed to make it function properly. Some changes are minor wording changes because of typographical errors or inconsistencies between parts of the Code. A few of the changes are needed because there are unintended consequences resulting from the current wording. The Planning Commission and Development Services Team recommendation is as follows: With the adoption of the Larimer County Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution last year, the Land Use Code requirements for street naming and addressing no longer apply to much of the County. Section 5.11 of the Code will continue to apply in the GMA Zoning Districts, in the Estes Valley and in the Loveland and Berthoud Growth Management Areas. This amendment will make the applicability clear and provides a few minor changes to be consistent with the System that applies to the rest of the County.
Note: Underlined text is new
or added text and
strike through text is being deleted from the Code.
5.11 STREET AND ROAD NAMING*
The purpose of this section is to establish a consistent process for naming street and roads; to establish a process for changing existing street and road names and to provide standards so street and road names are not duplicated. The terms "street" and "road" include any access drive or easement that provides access to two or more building sites or lots. This section is intended to provide street and road naming standards where the Larimer County Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution does not apply.
Note: The Larimer County Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution can be viewed at: www.larimer.org/addressing/resolution.pdf
This section applies to
the naming of all roads and streets in unincorporated Larimer County in the GMA District,
the Estes Valley, and the Growth
Management Areas for Loveland and Berthoud as designated in current inter-governmental
in unincorporated Larimer County except Estes Valley.
and road names must be included in the
preliminary final plat
application for any subdivision, planned land division, conservation
development, or minor land division or final plat application
for a rural land use plan. The plat will be referred to the
Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) for a recommendation as to whether
the proposed names are consistent with the standards in this section.
the chief building official determines the proposed street and road names are
not consistent with the standards, the plat will not be
scheduled for a
hearing before the county commissioners recorded until the applicant
submits acceptable names. Proposed street and roads names become official on approval
by the county commissioners recording of the final plat. The county
building department will assign an address number for each lot within
21 days of county commissioner approval, consistent with the standards
of the applicable city or town.
A. Proposed name changes and road names for existing unnamed roads and streets require approval by the chief building official with review by the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) and notice to all affected property owners.
B. All applications for proposed name changes and names for existing unnamed roads and streets require a pre-application conference with building department staff and approval by the chief building official. The decision of the chief building official may be appealed to the county commissioners pursuant to section 22 (appeals).
C. Proposed names must be consistent with this section.
D. The chief building official's decision on the application will be in the form of an affidavit which will be recorded with the county Clerk and Recorder. On appeal, the County Commissioners' decision will be in the form of a written findings and resolution, which will be recorded with the county Clerk and Recorder.
A. Purpose. Standards for naming roads and streets are intended to standardize terminology and avoid duplications to improve emergency service response to all parts of the county.
B. Directions. Directions can not be part of any street or road name. (For example, Westover Road or Fossil Creek Drive North are not acceptable) North, South, East and West are intended to be directional features of the addressing system and lead to confusing addresses if included as part of the name. Directions must be placed ahead of the name. (For example, East Smith Street).
C. Names that are numbers. Names that are numbers must be expressed numerically (for example, 2nd Street, not Second Street).
D. General naming standards. Road names must be unique and not repeated in the county. Alternate spelling, homonyms (deer and dear) and corporate trade names are not acceptable. All road names must use common spelling as found in a standard dictionary. Road names must not contain any punctuation or symbols. Only letters of the alphabet, numbers from 0 to 9 and blank spaces may be included in road names. Any roads or streets making a directional change of about 90 degrees must have a unique name after each directional change. Any road that serves two or more parcels must be named.
E. County roads are numbered. North-South county roads are odd numbers starting at the east county line. East-West county roads are even numbers starting with "2" at the south county line. County road numbers followed by a letter indicate a county road is not on a section line. For each tenth of a mile west or north of a section line the letter designation increases. (For example, County Road 38E indicates a county road that is five-tenths of a mile north of County Road 38). Numbered county roads outside designated growth management areas must not be named. Inside growth management areas county roads may be named using the applicable city's street names.
F. State and federal highways numbered. State and federal highways are numbered. These highways are not named.
G. Road name suffixes. The following road name suffixes must be used in the naming of new roads and streets in the county:
1. Avenue (AVE). A roadway or thoroughfare that is continuous and not limited to a single subdivision.
2. Boulevard (BLVD). A street with a landscaped median dividing the roadway.
3. Court (CT). A permanently dead-end street or a street terminating in a cul-de-sac not longer than 660 feet in length.
4. Drive (DR). A curvilinear street.
5. Lane (LN). A minor street within a subdivision
6. Parkway (PKWY). A thoroughfare designated as a collector or arterial with a median reflecting the parkway character implied in the name.
7. Place (PL). A permanently dead-end street terminating in a cul-de-sac, or a short through street, not longer than 660 feet in length.
8. Road (RD). A designated thoroughfare.
9. Street (ST). The common or default suffix.
10. Way (WY). A curvilinear street.
H. Abbreviations. Abbreviations of the main title of the street or road name can not be used. (For example, Mount Shasta Drive, not Mt. Shasta Drive) Street or road designations such as drive or lane may be abbreviated according to a list of standard abbreviations available from the county building department.
I. Continuations of existing streets or roads names. Street and road names can not change at intersections. Continuations of existing streets or roads must use the existing name.
J. Addresses. All addresses will be assigned by the county building department. Lots in new developments will be assigned addresses when the final plat is approved. Addresses for unplatted lots or parcels will be assigned when a building permit is issued on that lot or parcel.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the Street Name Addressing portion of the Larimer County Land Use Code as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
Mr. Kadera noted the second portion of changes pertain to curing existing violations. He explained that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners have been discussing how to deal with applications that are submitted to correct an existing violation of the Land Use Code. The Board of Adjustment also sees these types of applications as proposals for Special Exceptions. Mr. Kadera stated that many times the applicant will argue that the application should be approved because of the investment that has been made in the illegal use. Review criteria for the various types of applications are specified in the Land Use Code. None of the review criteria include the property owner’s past investment in an illegal use as a reason to grant approval. Rather than having a policy concerning this issue, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners directed staff to propose an amendment to the Land Use Code to address the issue. Staff proposes amending several sections of the Code to make sure it is clear that such investments in illegal uses will not be considered when reviewing an application that would correct the existing violation.
Section 3.2 General Rules
Add a new Subsection H. to be worded as follows:
In the event a matter is brought before the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission or County Commissioners, all or in part to “cure” a violation or alleged violation of this Code, the review criteria applied shall be those as stated in the Code for the applicable type of approval without regard to past investment in an illegal use.
Section 12.2.6 Planning Commission
Amend Subsection C to be worded as follows:
C. At the public hearing, the commission will consider all information presented by the applicant and the planning department and any verbal or written testimony. Except in the event a matter is brought before the commission, all or in part to “cure” a violation or alleged violation of this Code, the review criteria applied shall be those as stated in the Code for the applicable type of approval without regard to past investment in an illegal use. The commission will review the application with respect to the master plan, this Code and all information and testimony and make a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions or denial. The recommendation must include findings stating how the proposal meets or fails to meet the review criteria of this Code.
Section 12.2.7 Board of County Commissioners
Amend Subsection B to be worded as follows:
B. Public hearings will be conducted in accordance with subsections 12.4.1, 12.4.2 and 12.4.3 of this Code. At the public hearing, the county commissioners will consider all information presented by the applicant and the county staff, any written or verbal testimony and the recommendations of the planning commission or the rural land use advisory board. The county commissioners will review the application with respect to the review criteria of this Code and all information and testimony to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Except in the event a matter is brought before the county commissioners, all or in part to “cure” a violation or alleged violation of this Code, the review criteria applied shall be those stated in the Code for the applicable type of approval without regard to past investment in an illegal use. The county commissioners’ decision will be in the form of a written resolution that states how the proposal meets or fails to meet the applicable review criteria of this Code.
Section 12.2.8 Board of Adjustment
Amend this section to be worded as follows:
This Board has final authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny any application for a variance, special exception, requests for interpretations of the zoning provisions of this Code or an appeal of an administrative decision made in the enforcement of zoning and related sections (3.0, 4.0 except 4.2.2, 8.7, 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.18.2, 8.19, 16.0 and the definitions section [0.1]) of this Code. All applications submitted for a variance or special exception require a pre-application conference and a public hearing. An application for special exception or variance may be subject to a neighborhood meeting at the discretion of the planning director. A request for an interpretation or appeal of an administrative decision must follow the process in subsection 22.2.2. In the event a matter is brought before the board of adjustment, all or in part to “cure” a violation or alleged violation of this Code, the review criteria applied shall be those as stated in the Code for the applicable type of approval without regard to past investment in an illegal use.
Section 21.1 Violations
Amend this section by adding Subsection G to be worded as follows:
G. In the event a matter is brought before the planning commission, board of county commissioners or board of adjustment, all or in part to “cure” a violation or alleged violation of this Code, the review criteria applied shall be those as stated in the Code for the applicable type of approval without regard to past investment in an illegal use.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the portions of the Larimer County Land Use Code that pertain to curing zoning violations, as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2005
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Wagner and Gibson were present. Also present were: Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioner’s Office; Jay Hardy, Fairgrounds and Events Center; Lt. Tim Palmer, Sheriff's Department; Adrienne LeBailly, Gerry Blehm, and Rich Grossman; Health Department; Gary Buffington, and K-Lynn Cameron, Parks and Open Lands; Jerry White, Engineering Department; David Ayraud, County Attorney's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: No one addressed the Board with public comment.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 21, 2005:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of March 21, 2005, as amended.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 4, 2005: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for March 29, 2005:
03292005A001 SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS FOR 2005 EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANTS BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR, CROSSROADS SAFEHOUSE, INC., ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE, AND CATHOLIC CHARITIES
03292005D001 DEED OF DEDICATION BY MARGARET R. REID OF SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY
03292005R001 LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 21-23 IN THE CRYSTAL LAKES SUBDIVISION 15TH FILING AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT
03292005R002 RESOLUTION REGARDING RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR RESTHAVEN FUNERAL CHAPEL SPECIAL REVIEW
03292005R003 RESOLUTION REGARDING PARTIAL RELEASE OF COLLATERAL OF AMENDED PLAT FOR BIG HORN RIDGE SUBDIVISION LOTS 1 AND 2
03292005R004 RESOLUTION ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PETITIONS FOR A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Letter to the Board of Adjustment Regarding Code Amendments; Federal Funds Bridge Replacement Grant Application; Community Development Block Grant/Emergency Shelter Grants Program Assurances and Certifications; Certification of Local Approval for Nonprofit Organizations.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were both issued and approved: Sylvan Dale Ranch - Hotel & Restaurant with Optional Premises - Loveland; Glen Haven General Store - 3.2% - Glen Haven; Diamond Shamrock Corner Store #4133 - 3.2% - Loveland; Rustic Resort - Tavern - Bellvue; Red Feather Supermarket - 3.2% - Red Feather Lakes; Aspen Lodge - Hotel & Restaurant with Optional Premises - Estes Park; J.J.'s County Store - 3.2% - Fort Collins. The following license was issued: Coach House Lounge - Tavern - Loveland.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. TARTAN DAY PROCLAMATION: Ms. LaRue presented the Board with a request from the Colorado Tartan Day Council to proclaim April 6, 2005 as Tartan Day in order to honor and promote family, heritage, and history of any type, but especially those of Scottish origin. Commissioner Gibson read the proclamation aloud.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim April 6, 2005 as Colorado Tartan Day.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. RANCH ALCOHOL AWARENESS PRESENTATION: Mr. Hardy introduced Rick Hontz, General Manager of the Budweiser Event Center, Lt. Tim Palmer, Amy Shahan and Anita Clarke as partners in the effort to promote alcohol awareness. Mr. Hardy presented a pamphlet which outlined the formalized programs currently in use to ensure a responsible and safe environment for the patrons of The Ranch. Mr. Hardy explained that the "Good Sport" program focuses on three areas: communication, training, and the safe-ride alternatives. Mr. Hardy displayed three commercials aired during events, which communicate responsible drinking for patrons; he explained that all concession workers are educated in the Training for Intervention (TIPS) program in order to recognize signs of intoxicated customers and respond in a non-confrontational manner, and in order to combat drunk driving, Mr. Hardy noted that the Safe-Ride program encourages designated drivers and patron use of taxi cabs if necessary. Chair Rennels asked Ms. Clarke to explain the TIPS program in further detail. Ms. Clarke stated that there are two forms of TIPS training, one being for the concessionaires, the other is for the bartenders on site; she noted that the training lasts five hours and focuses on how to spot intoxicated individuals, how to check identification, and instructions for the use wrist bands as a tool to assist them serving to patrons. Commissioner Wagner suggested that Mr. Hardy check with John Dagget, who serves on the MPO, to see if they could possibly use the Van Go vehicles as part of their Safe-Ride program, since obtaining taxi cabs can often be a difficult task in Fort Collins.
At this time Chair Rennels excused herself from the meeting.
7. INFORMATION REGARDING 2005 WEST NILE VIRUS PLAN: Ms. LeBailly provided an update for the Board regarding the West Nile Virus; she explained that the Health Department will be hiring a part-time seasonal Health Educator to continue community outreach and education; they will continue animal surveillance, and bird testing, and working with local veterinarians for large animal cases; and they will also continue mosquito surveillance with trapping of adult mosquitoes. Ms. LeBailly stated that she hoped it will not be necessary to perform adult mosquito control, but they are prepared to do so, especially in areas where the cities might be spraying, in order to piggy back on their efforts. Commissioner Wagner asked Ms. LeBailly to describe what is happening on the east coast with regards to the West Nile Virus. Ms. LeBailly stated that it is almost impossible to predict, but feels that it could be a year that was no worse than last year; she noted that the ecology of this virus, the animals that are involved in the transmission and weather is also a factor in the spread of this virus nationwide.
8. SYLVAN DALE GREEN RIDGE ADDITION CONSERVATION EASEMENT: Mr. White presented the Board with a diagram outlining all of the conservation easements located on the Sylvan Dale property. Mr. White explained that the City of Loveland expanded the Green Ridge Glade Reservoir and as part of the project, the Sylvan Dale Ranch granted an 11.2 acre conservation easement to the City. Mr. White stated that this easement is a natural extension of the existing conservation easements which the county has received from the Sylvan Dale Ranch, and staff is recommending that the County assume this easement from the City of Loveland, it fits in well and is easy to monitor alongside all of the other easements. Mr. White stated that it will call for minimal staff time to establish baseline documentation and a management plan for this parcel. Mr. White requested the Board approve the acceptance of the assignment of the Sylvan Dale Green Ridge Addition Conservation Easement from the City of Loveland. Commissioner Gibson asked what would happen if the property owner ever wanted to terminate the easement, and retain possession of the property. Mr. White stated that they would have to take the matter to court, and it would be up to the courts to either vacate or uphold the easement; and he is not aware of any case where this has ever happened.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners Assignment of Deed of Conservation Easement for Sylvan Dale Green Ridge Addition.
Motion carried 2-0.
03292005D002 ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOVELAND AND LARIMER
9. PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF BEE AND WEBER CONSERVATION EASEMENT: Mr. White stated that in 2003 the Parks and Open Lands program purchased a conservation easement in cooperation with Colorado State University on the Bee and Weber properties as part of the agricultural preservation project. Mr. White presented a diagram of these easements and explained that the City of Fort Collins also has a separator community buffer program, and they have agreed to partner with the County on these easements and they are willing to reimburse the County for half of the purchase price, which amounts to $182,651 for the Bee Conservation Easement, and $99,069 for the Weber Conservation Easement. In turn, Mr. White continued, the County will assign 50% interest of each easement to the City of Fort Collins. Commissioner Gibson questioned what the advantage is for the City of Fort Collins to participate in these easements. Ms. Cameron noted that the City has designated this area as a high priority to be used as a separator between Fort Collins and Wellington, and they indicated a couple of years ago that they wanted to be a partner in projects considered for this area.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Partial Assignment of Bee and Weber Conservation Easement Documents.
Motion carried 2-0.
03292005D003 PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS (Bee Farm Conservation Easement)
03292005D004 PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS (Weber Farm Conservation Easement)
10. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.
11. LEGAL MATTERS: At this time Assistant County Attorney David Ayraud joined the meeting and requested the Board to go into Executive Session for specific legal advice. (Affidavit provided.)
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for legal advice as outlined in 24-6-402 (4)(b) C.R.S.
Motion carried 2-0.
The Executive Session ended and Ms. Cameron, Mr. Buffington, and Mr. White requested the Board go into Executive Session to discuss purchase acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real or personal property. (Tape # 24.)
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to discuss purchase acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real or personal property as outlined in 24-6-402 (4)(a) C.R.S.
Motion carried 2-0.
There being no further business, the meeting recessed at 10:55 a.m.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING FOR
(#25 & 26)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with Assistant County Attorney Linda Connors. Chair Pro-Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Wagner was present. Also present were: Don Johnson, Special Prosecutor for Larimer County; and Gael Cookman, Deputy County Clerk.
Ms. Connors stated that the Clerk's office is in receipt of a transfer application for Club Osirus; she then outlined the options for the Board as follows: 1. Proceed with the Show Cause hearing. 2. Allow the receipt of the transfer application and issue a temporary license for the applicant wishing to purchase Club Osirus, and then schedule a Transfer Hearing. Mr. Buonamici, owner of Club Osirus, addressed the Board and requested that he be allowed to transfer ownership of the liquor license to his current bar manager, James Holtzclaw, and in return, he would agree to never hold a liquor license in the State of Colorado again. Commissioner Wagner stated that given the history of this establishment, she was uncomfortable granting a temporary permit with the same staff in place. Commissioner Gibson agreed and the Board indicated their desire to proceed with the Show Cause hearing.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners proceed with the Show Cause hearing for Club Osirus.
Motion carried 2-0.
Mr. Johnson presented Exhibits 1 through 11, referencing incident reports, various letters, news articles, and action plans for Club Osirus; he then called Deputy Matthew Cherry to testify. Mr. Johnson questioned Deputy Cherry at length regarding an incident that occurred December 31, 2004, and January 1, 2005, which involved two young under-aged women who admitted to consuming alcohol inside Club Osirus. Deputy Cherry stated that Mr. Buonamici was cited for serving alcohol to minors, and further noted that the court case is pending and that one of the witnesses has been threatened by Mr. Buonamici, and the witness has provided a written statement regarding this. Mr. Buonamici cross examined Deputy Cherry, and questioned the diagram of the premises that the under-aged women provided. Mr. Buonamici stated that the women did not draw the inside Club Osirus accurately, which indicates that they were not in the club as Mr. Buonamici maintains. Mr. Buonamici stated that he has never threatened anyone and that he had called the witness and was told by Deputy Cherry to stop calling as this could be construed as tampering with a witness. At this time Mr. Johnson questioned Mr. Buonamici regarding the history of Club Osirus, noting that the liquor license had been suspended for 6 months in 2004, and that former co-owner Jeff Holder, or another registered manager had to be on the premises at all times, so that Mr. Buonamici would not be making decisions regarding operation of the club. Mr. Buonamici agreed that this had taken place, but that his club had been operating well since the suspension and the Sheriff's Deputies had told him they were doing a good job. Mr. Johnson asked how it was that Mr. Buonamici allows the 18 year olds in the club. Mr. Buonamici explained that they have "private parties" and that he allows those in to the club that he "trusts" by way of personal knowledge. Mr. Buonamici called Crystal Gallimore, Club Osirus employee, as his first witness. Mr. Buonamici asked Ms. Gallimore what type of feedback she has heard from the Sheriff's Deputies that visit Club Osirus. Ms. Gallimore stated that she hears positive feedback from the Sheriff's Deputies. Mr. Buonamici then called James Holtzclaw, registered manager for Club Osirus, questioned him about the operation of the club in his capacity. Commissioner Wagner asked Mr. Holtzclaw how he assures that the 18 year olds are not served alcohol, given the fact that Mr. Buonamici lets in those that he "trusts". Mr. Holtzclaw stated that they often do random ID checks inside the bar as an additional safety precaution. Ms. Connors asked Mr. Holtzclaw if he were to take ownership of Club Osirus, what would be Mr. Buonamici's involvement. Mr. Holtzclaw stated that Mr. Buonamici would have zero percent interest in Club Osirus, and his only involvement would be that Mr. Holtzclaw would be making payments to Mr. Buonamici for the purchase of the business. During closing statements, Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Buonamici has shown a pattern of making bad judgment calls, in allowing under-aged individuals, and intoxicated individuals into his establishment, and then not controlling the situations that arise. Mr. Buonamici stated that the women in question were never in his bar, and that he refused to let them in and now they are retaliating by lying about the incident. Mr. Buonamici stated that he no longer wishes to be in the liquor business, and he again requested that the Board allow him to transfer ownership of the liquor license.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wagner stated that although she had not been present for the suspension and previous events, she has read the minutes and realized that the understanding of all parties was that if Club Osirus experienced a significant violation of the liquor laws then the license was sure to be revoked. Commissioner Wagner stated that she would like to see a clean break and new ownership, rather than transferring the license to staff that have been involved with the current climate and operations of this establishment. Commissioner Gibson agreed and stated that in his opinion the license should be revoked.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners revoke the liquor license for Club Osirus, license #41-52100-0000.
Motion carried 2-0.
THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2005
LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING FOR
GLEN ECHO RESORT
The Board of County Commissioners met at 1:30 p.m. with Assistant County Attorney Linda Connors. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioner Wagner was present. Also present was Gael Cookman, Deputy County Clerk.
Ms. Connors noted that that this hearing is to consider the application for a Hotel & Restaurant liquor license located at 31503 Poudre Canyon Highway, Bellvue, Colorado. Ms. Connors noted that there was public present for this hearing and asked if anyone present intended to speak in opposition of this license. One member of the audience noted their intention to speak in opposition of the license. At this time Loyd Rowe, the applicant, approached the Board and submitted a petition containing signatures in support of the license, exhibit A, and photos of the posted notice, marked exhibit B.
Ms. Connors asked how the applicant has prepared for the responsibilities of holding a license and Mr. Rowe stated that he has read the Liquor License Code and is familiar with the liquor laws; however, he has had no formal training. Chair Rennels informed Mr. Rowe of the TIPS training program and directed Ms. Cookman to provide Mr. Rowe information regarding this type of training. Commissioner Wagner questioned how Mr. Rowe would handle patrons that did end up intoxicated. Mr. Rowe stated that they could provide a room for them, or call a friend for them, or even escort them down the canyon. At this time Ms. Connors asked for public comment on the application.
Dean Noffsinger addressed the Board and presented a petition, marked exhibit C, with numerous signatures of surrounding residents that are opposed to the liquor license being issued. Mr. Noffisnger stated that their main concern revolved around the fact that they do not want another Mishawaka type of establishment in the area, one that would attract a large number of customers for outdoor events, such as concerts, and would cause traffic and parking problems. Mr. Noffsinger explained that there was a local coffee gathering this past Tuesday, and Mr. Rowe attended and answered questions to alleviate the resident's fears. As a result, Mr. Noffsinger stated that he is no longer opposed to the issuance of this license; however, he could not speak for the rest that have signed the petition. Gail Rowe, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that there is adequate parking, and that it is a restaurant with a family environment and they will be checking ID's; however, if someone were to need a ride or a room, they would accommodate them.
Vick Mclachlan stated that he is a business owner in the area and does support the application, as it would be nice to have a year round gathering place and some additional choices in the area. Sally Carney, adjacent resort owner, stated that she has no objections to the application or issuance of a liquor license for Glen Echo Resort. Bill Leigh, owner of the Rustic Resort, stated that both Gail and Loyd Rowe are great people, but he noted that the outside patio is just about a foot away from his property line and that is of concern to him.
There being no further public comment, Ms. Connors closed the public portion of the hearing.
The Board agreed and was in support of issuing the license, but also stressed the importance of Mr. Rowe and his staff receiving bartending or TIPS training.
M O T I O N
Move to approve the application for a Hotel/Restaurant Liquor License for Glen Echo Resort, located at 31503 Poudre Canyon Highway, Bellvue, Colorado.
Motion carried 2-0.
The hearing recessed at 2:00 p.m.
LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING FOR
SEVY'S CANYON GRILLE
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:30 p.m. with Assistant County Attorney Linda Connors. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Wagner and Gibson were present. Also present was Gael Cookman, Deputy County Clerk.
Ms. Connors noted that that this hearing is to consider the application for a Hotel & Restaurant liquor license located at 3208 West Eisenhower Blvd., Loveland, Colorado. Ms. Connors noted that there was no public present for this hearing. At this time Michael Severance, the applicant, approached the Board and submitted photos of the posted notice, which were marked exhibit A, and the petition containing signatures in support of the license, exhibit B. Mr. Severance stated that he circulated the petitions himself and that out of 170 signatures, 168 were in favor of the license being issued.
Ms. Connors asked how the applicant has prepared for the responsibilities of holding a license and Mr. Severance stated that he has currently has an interest in another Hotel & Restaurant liquor license, the Cactus Grille, and he and he staff have all received formal training, and will continue to do so. Mr. Severance stated that he is very familiar with the liquor laws and is a hands-on working owner. Chair Rennels noted that as part of his application, Mr. Severance indicated that he has been suspended for a liquor violation in the past, and she asked him to explain that. Mr. Severance stated that it was at a tavern know as the Out of Bounds and that he was cited for over-serving a patron that was of age. Mr. Severance stated that there were additional circumstances involved, but that he is serving a 7 day suspension that is being held in abeyance for one year. Commissioner Wagner questioned what changes Mr. Severance has placed in effect since his suspension. Mr. Severance stated that the nature of the Out of Bounds is much different that that of his restaurant, due to the fact that most individuals go to a restaurant mainly for the food, and go to a tavern mainly for the alcohol. He stated that he has cut back the time frame in which they offer "happy hours" and that they have changed internal policies in the effort to make sure that they do not over-serve their patrons.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the application for a Hotel/Restaurant Liquor License for Sevy's Canyon Grille, located at 3208 W. Eisenhower Blvd, Colorado.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The hearing ended at 2:45 p.m.
KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk