> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 09/15/08  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, September 15, 2008

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#14)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Russell Legg, Chief Planner.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Eubanks was present.  Also present were Dave Shirk, Estes Valley Planning Department;  Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department;  Christie Coleman, Engineering Department;  Gael Cookman, Clerk and Recorder’s Office;  Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney;  and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget, Land Use Code or Rubbish Ordinance.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding any of these topics.

 

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

 

1.         TREIBER EXEPTION TRACTS A & B AMENDED PLAT, FILE #08-S2821:  This is a request is to amend the plat of the Treiber Exemption in order to add a piece of Tract A to Tract B. The proposed amendment provides access to Tracts A and B. 

 

Comments received from the Engineering Department identify several required corrections to the plat.  The plat will need to be revised to reflect the correct title, “Amended Plat of Treiber Exemption (File # S-69-83) Tracts A & B.”  The plat will also need to show an access easement along the western edge of Tract B, allowing access to both Tract A and Tract B of the Treiber exemption.

 

The proposed plat amendment to the Treiber Exemption will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency.  The amended plat will not result in any additional lots.  Therefore, staff finds that this request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Tracts A & B of the Treiber Exemption, File # 08-S2821, and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    The final plat shall be recorded by March 15, 2009, 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 the Land Surveyor of the Engineering Department.

 

3.    Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall change the title of the plat to reference the correct file, the Treiber Exemption, and the correct parcel names, Tract A and B of the Treiber Exemption.

 

4.    Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall show an access easement across Tract B providing access to Tract A.

 

2.         FOSSIL CREEK MEADOWS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW:  The Fossil Creek Homeowners Association has requested to replace a pedestrian bridge on their open space area, known as “Tract E,” in the floodway of Fossil Creek.  The Land Use Code requires a recommendation from the Flood Review Board with a final approval from the Board of County Commissioners through a Floodplain Special Review.

 

The Flood Review Board met on Thursday, July 24, 2008, and reviewed the hydraulic modeling report dated May 2008, at which time, the hydraulic analysis was found to be acceptable.  A motion was approved for a favorable recommendation to the Board for approval of the Floodplain Special Review with two conditions to be met before Board approval.  The two conditions were that a second analysis in a sub-critical mode be run to verify a no rise condition and a plan for tethering the bridge be submitted for staff review and approval.  Those two conditions were met with an additional report which was reviewed and approved by staff.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Fossil Creek Meadows Pedestrian Bridge Special Review for the bridge replacement project.

 

3.         S & H REZONING, FILE #08-S1699:  The S & H Rezoning request proposes a change the O-Open and C-Commercial zoning designations for the existing properties to Planned Development (PD) allowing for commercial and industrial uses.

 

The site consists of seven parcels divided prior to 1973, which have been used for commercial and industrial type uses since that time.  Because a rezoning did not occur with the 1973 division of the property, the past and current uses have not been legally established.  To correct this situation, the applicant has requested a rezoning of the property to allow current uses to continue into the future.  To further clarify the situation, the applicant has submitted a Boundary Line Adjustment Plat concurrently with this application.

 

The subject parcels are located on the north side of the (Mulberry) Highway 14 Frontage Road, along the east side of Summit View Drive, and adjacent to Roselawn Cemetery. The properties surrounding the parcels are zoned for commercial and industrial uses.

 

There are no issues or concerns with this project. The proposal meets the review criteria and is compatible with the surrounding uses. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the S & H Rezoning, File # 08-Z1699, request to rezone the property from O (Open) and C (Commercial) to PD (Planned Development subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.    The subject properties shall submit an agreement to annex to the City of Fort Collins within 60 days of approval of this request.

 

2.    The property owners shall resolve any outstanding building code issues within 60 days of approval of this request.

 

3.    In the event that the Boundary Line Adjustment changes the lot lines in such a way as to cause a water meter pit to fall onto an adjacent lot, the pit shall be relocated by the property owner at the owner’s expense onto the appropriate lot or an easement shall be established.

 

4.    The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the properties shall be split into two districts.

 

The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for S & H Planned Development 1 and 2 shall be as follows:

 

S & H Planned Development #1:

A. Principal uses 

Agricultural

1.       Garden supply center (R)

2.       Livestock auction (S)

3.       Pet animal facility (R)

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

5.       Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

 

Commercial

6.       Convenience store (R)

7.       Automobile service station (R)

8.       Carwash (R)

9.       Professional office (R)

10.     General retail (R/S) See section 4.3

11.      General commercial (R)

12.     Personal service (R)

13.     Takeout restaurant (R)

14.     Sit-down restaurant (R)

15.      Nightclub (R)

16.      Flea market (R/S) – See section 4.3

17.     Instructional facility (R)

18.     Outdoor display/sales (R)

19.     Clinic (R)

 

Institutional

20.     Health services (R)

21.     Hospital (R)

22.     School, public (L)

23.     School, nonpublic (R/S) – See section 4.3

24.     Rehabilitation facility (R)

25.     Sheriff/fire station (L)

26.      Church (R)

 

Recreational

27.     Place of amusement or recreation (R/S) – See section 4.3

28.     Membership club/clubhouse (R)

 

Accommodation

29.     Hotel/motel (R)

 

Industrial

30.     Enclosed storage (R)

31.     Trade use (R/S) – See section 4.3

32.     Light industrial (S)

33.     Outdoor storage (R/MS)

 

Utilities

34.     Utility substation (L)

35.     Treatment plant (L)

36.     Commercial mobile radio service (R/S) – See section 16

37.     Radio and television transmitters (S)

38.     Water storage facility (L)

 

Transportation

39.     Transportation depot (R)

40.     Bus terminal (R)

41.      Truck stop (R)

42.     Transportation service (R)

43.     Parking lot/garage (R)

44.     Park and ride (R)

 

B.       Lot, building and structure requirements:

1.       Minimum lot size:

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

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

2.       Minimum setbacks:

a.       Front yard – Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways and county roads.

b.       Side yards – ten (10) feet.

c.        Rear yards – ten (10) feet.

d.       Streams, creeks and rivers – 100 feet from the centerline of the

       established watercourse.

3.        Maximum structure height – forty (40) feet.

4.        No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional

       buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in

       subsection 4.3.10.

 

S & H Planned Development #2:

A.      Principal uses

Agricultural

1.       Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

2.       Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

3.       Pet animal facility (R)

 

Commercial

4.       Permanent fireworks sales (S)

5.       Adult use (S)

6.       Outdoor display/sales (R)

7.       Convenience store (R/S)

8.       Automobile service station (R/S)

9.       Car wash (R/S)

10.      Professional office (R/S)

11.     General retail (R/S)

12.     General commercial (R/S)

13.     Personal service (R/S)

14.     Restaurant/take-out (R/S)

15.      Restaurant/sit-down (R/S)

16.     Nightclub (R/S)

17.     Flea market (R/S)

18.     Instructional facility (R/S)

19.     Outdoor display/sales (R)

20.     Clinic (R/S)

 

Recreational

21.     Place of amusement or recreation (R/S) – See section 4.3

22.     Membership club/clubhouse (R)

 

Industrial

23.     Enclosed storage (R)

24.     Outdoor storage (R/MS)

25.     Trade use (R)

26.     Light industrial (R)

27.     General industrial (S)

28.     Recycling (S)

29.     Junkyard (S)

 

Utilities

30.     Utility substation (L)

31.     Treatment plant (L)

32.     Radio and television transmitters (S)

33.     Commercial mobile radio service (R/S) – See section 16

34.     Water storage facility (L)

 

Transportation

35.     Transportation depot (R)

36.     Bus terminal (R)

37.     Truck stop (R)

38.     Transportation service (R)

39.     Parking lot/garage (R)

40.     Park and ride (R)

41.     Heliport (S)

42.     Train station (R)

 

Institutional

43.     Sheriff/fire station (L)

44.     Church (R)

 

B.       Lot, building and structure requirements:

1.       Minimum lot size:

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

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

2.       Minimum setbacks:

a.                   Front yard – Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways and           county roads.

b.       Side yards – ten (10) feet.

c.                   Rear yards – ten (10) feet.

d.       Streams, creeks and rivers – One Hundred (100) feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

3.       Maximum structure height – forty (40) feet.

4.        No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional

       buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in          subsection 4.3.10.

 

Whereas: uses followed by an (R) are allowed by right;  uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the Minor Special Review process;   uses followed by an (S) require approval through the Special Review process described in Section 4.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended;  uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by right or require special review approval based on thresholds in Section 4.3 (use descriptions) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended;  and uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in Section 13.0 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

 

4.         BROWNSTONE QUARRY AMENDED SPECIAL EVIEW, FILE #08-Z1679:  The applicant has proposed an area expansion of a decorative and building stone rock quarry, which originally received approval from the county and the state in 1997.  At that time, the quarry and processing area was 9.9 acres.  Since then, the quarry has become more successful and needs to expand both the mining area and the waste rock storage areas.  The total area disturbed within the 58.75 acres is approximately 29 acres.  This site is located above all surrounding properties except others in the same ownership, over 500 acres.  This results in the active mining area not being visible to other properties nor the public traveling along the nearby highway. 

 

The applicant has an off site sales area, the “Rock Garden” so the only traffic to the site consists of employees and deliveries.  Although the application does not specify the number of employees or deliveries, the contention is that there is no increase in traffic from this application.  All haul traffic exits the site to County Road 56 and proceeds east to the east intersection of County Road 56 and Highway 287, across from Log Knowledge.  The applicant has posted the site and surrounding area with information about haul traffic and set a speed limit to be obeyed by haulers.  This quarry has been in operation since 1997 and to staff’s knowledge, there have been no complaints regarding operation or use at the site.

 

There were some code compliance issues with this application; however, they have since been completely resolved.  There were no issues that arose from the neighborhood meeting or at the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee meeting which needed to be addressed.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Brownstone Quarry Special Review Amendment, File # 08-Z1679 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 the Brownstone Quarry Special Review Amendment, File #  08-Z1679 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 Brownstone Quarry Special Review Amendment, File #  08-Z1679.  Furthermore this application is limited and conditioned by the original conditions of approval found in File 97-Z1066, specifically:

 

a.         The hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

 

b.         There shall be no blasting at any time.

 

c.         Where possible, reclamation shall be accomplished in a phased manner, concurrent with the mining operation.

 

d.         Should the mining activity still be active January 1, 2037, the Board shall review and update the conditions approved for this special review.  The Board of Commissioners’ review may include additions, deletions, and modifications of the conditions as necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Larimer County.  This review shall be completed in 25 year intervals thereafter.  The quarry operator shall submit the following information by July 1 of the year that the review is to be completed:

 

·   A current site plan of the quarry.  The site plan should be similar to those submitted as part of the special review application. The site plan should clearly show: the property boundaries, the location of the permanent identification posts that were to be placed on the perimeter of the quarry area, current approved mining boundaries, current and old mining areas with acreage, storage and loading areas, processing areas and any structures or improvements on the property.

 

e.         A narrative that describes the current operation and any reclamation efforts that have been completed.

 

f.          Materials shall not be removed form the top of the hogback.

 

g.         Heavy equipment maintenance, including oil changes shall be done off site.

 

h.         The proposed fuel tanks shall be bermed to contain spills and leaks in accordance with the requirements of the Larimer County Health Department.

 

i.          The mining operation shall comply with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance.

 

3.         Failure to comply with any conditions of the special review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the Board of Commissioners’ approval.

 

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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

6.         Larimer County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and status reviews 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.         The operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the State that details overall compliance with the stormwater management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the state MLRB (?).

 

9.         No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the county right-of-way

 

10.       Trucks shall not back onto the county road, nor shall county road be used as a turnaround.

 

11.       Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.

 

12.       The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of any materials spilled onto the county roadway.

 

13.       The applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees before the use commences, or within 120 days of the recordation of the Findings and Resolution approving the special review, whichever occurs first. The fees calculated are based on the projected average daily traffic submitted with traffic study.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Consent Agenda for September 15, 2008.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

5.         ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 11 AMENDMENTS AND APPEALS:  The purpose of the proposed revision is to provide a specific time frame for the filing and hearing of appeals under the Estes Valley Development Code.  The current code language provides for appeals but does not specify a time frame for the process.

 

The Estes Valley Planning Commission recommends the Development Code be modified to read as follows:

 

§ 12.1  APPEALS

See also Chapter 2, “Code Administration And Review Roles,” §2.1.B.

 

A.        Appeals from final decisions by the Board.  A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees pursuant to this code.  All such appeals shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction.

 

B.         Appeals from final decisions by the Estes Valley Planning Commission.  A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by the Estes Valley Planning Commission pursuant to this code.  All such appeals shall be taken to either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, as applicable.

 

C.        Appeals from final decisions by staff.  A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by staff in administrating or interpreting this code.  All such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Adjustment, except that appeals from Staff decisions on use classifications and separate lot determinations shall be taken to either the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Trustees, as applicable.  (Ord. 18-02 #1)

 

D.        Appeals from final decisions by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.  A party-in-interest may appeal a final decision made by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.  All such appeals shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction.

 

E.         Appeals from enforcement actions.  Appeals from issuance of a notice of violation or stop work order shall be taken to a Colorado court of competent jurisdiction.

 

F.         Timing of appeals.  Unless a different time frame is set forth in a specific provision of this code or in applicable provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes, all appeals shall be in writing and filed within thirty (30) days after the final action or decision being appealed. There shall be no right to appeal any action or decision if a written notice of appeal has not been filed within the said thirty (30) day period.

 

G.        Filing of appeals.  Written notice of appeals shall be filed as follows:

1.         Appeals to the Town Board of Trustees shall be filed with the Town Clerk.

2.         Appeals to the Board of County Commissioners shall be filed with the Estes Park Community Development Department.

3.         Appeals to the Estes Valley Planning Commission shall be filed with the Estes Park Community Development Department.

 

H.        Hearing of appeals.  The hearing before the Estes Valley Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners, or Board of Trustees shall be held within sixty (60) days of filing the written notice of appeal.

 

I.          Form of appeal.  Each written notice of appeal shall state specific grounds for the appeal and cite all relevant Sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. The Board hearing the appeal shall only consider those matters specified in the written notice of appeal.

 

Mr. Shirk stated that as of Tuesday August 26, 2008, the Estes Valley Planning Department and the Estes Park Town Board had approved the code modifications as illustrated above. He also stated that, should the Board of County Commissioners approve these changes, they would become effective thirty (30) days hence.

 

Commissioner Eubanks asked whether the changes would be retroactive and Mr. Shirk stated they would not because presently there are no appeals in progress.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 11 Amendments and Appeals, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

 

 

 

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#15)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks, and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Myrna Rodenberger, County Treasurer; Neil Gluckman, Donna Hart, Bob Keister and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Jim Alderden, Ernie Hudson, Darrell Frank, Justin Smith, Sheriff’s Office; Gael Cookman, Clerk and Recorder’s Office; George Haas, County Attorney; Jeannine Haag, William Ressue, and David Ayrand, Assistant County Attorneys; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.         PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2008:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of September 8, 2008.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for September 16, 2008:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT: As proposed by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are presented for approval:  Harvey D. and Kelly A. Thompson; CBO Investments LLC; Gregory H. and Joann E. Hammond; Lynn Clemmer and Linda Felker; Wallace F. and Janet A. Miceli; Patrick B. and Glynnis A. Malloy; Poudre Valley Health Care Inc.; Richard L. and Eleanor P. Anderson; Iron Horse LLC; and Ward Mountain Ranch LLC. 

 

09162008A001           CONTRACT AMMENDMENT NUMBER 3 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR USE AND THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR USE AND BENEFIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY & FINANCING AND BENEFIT OF THE LARIMER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

 

09162008A002           AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH LARIMER COUNTY WORKFORCE CENTER AND LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH

 

09162008A003           HERMIT PARK OPEN SPACE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, PHASE I AGREEEMNT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE BOARD OF THE GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND

 

09162008R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE OVERHOLT MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL TO SECTION 4.3.10.F.1.d OF THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE

 

09162008R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE WARBERG FARM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPEAL

 

09162008R003           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF THE EHRLICH PLD LOT 1 & LOT 2 AMENDED PLAT/EASEMENT VACATION

 

09162008R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WILDER-NEST RETREAT SPECIAL REVIEW, WEDDING VENUE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND APPEAL TO SECTION 8.6.3 OF THE LAND USE CODE

 

MISCELLANEOUS: Annual Compliance Certification and Semi-Annual Monitoring Report.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:           The following licenses were approved and issued:  Hangloose Liquors LLC, doing business as, Fort Namaqua Liquors – Retail Liquor Store – Loveland; Hotel Gold Crown Fort Collins, doing business as Ramada Fort Collins – Hotel and Restaurant – Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2008:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

5.         FOLLOW-UP ON LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCOUNTING DISCREPANCIES:  Commissioner Eubanks requested that the County Budget Manager, Mr. Keister, examine the accounting discrepancies that appeared in the Sheriff’s report presented earlier this year.  After researching the discrepancy, Mr. Keister felt the problem was most likely due to the way that the Sheriff’s office had recorded and divided costs.  After discussing the need to unify accounting practices across all county departments, the Board determined that there was no need to have a formal audit of the Sheriff’s accounts, instead,  Mr. Keister felt it would be more helpful to have a discussion with the Sheriff and staff in order to provide them with advice and direction for their accounting practices.   

 

Major Smith presented a detailed analysis of the accounting discrepancy to illustrate that it was indeed the manner in which the expenses had been recorded, which caused the inconsistency.  Major Smith’s breakdown of the report showed that, although there initially appeared to be a greater sum of money budgeted for Wellington Law Enforcement, the report failed to mention other relevant and allowed areas to which the money was dispersed.

 

Sheriff Alderden and his staff expressed their willingness to meet with Mr. Keister to devise a better accounting method to standardize their practices with those of the Board and other county departments.

 

6.         COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Commissioner Rennels reiterated her desire for a worksession to discuss the problems that citizens have experienced with the company hired by the county to bill for alarm system false alarms.  Due to necessary personnel being unavailable up to this time, the Board has not yet addressed this issue.  Mr. Lancaster assured Commissioner Rennels that he would schedule a worksession as soon as possible.

 

Mr. Lancaster called the Board’s attention to the procedure for removing an item from a Commissioner Worksession.  After some discussion, it was agreed that any Commissioner can request the removal of an item via email as long as they provide an explanation for the request.

 

Mr. Lancaster also presented the Board with information regarding the second annual “Colorado’s New Energy Economy: The Path Forward – A Local Focus,” a conference arranged by Governor Ritter. The Board agreed that they would attend the conference on Tuesday, October 14, 2008, and not to hold an Administrative Matters meeting that day.  

 

7.         COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.

 

8.         LEGAL MATTERS:  Mr. Haas requested that the Board go into executive session to receive legal advice on specific legal questions.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to receive legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The Board ended the Executive Session at 11:45 and resumed Administrative Matters.

 

Ms. Haag called the Board’s attention to the way in which complaints are filed within the county and the fact that the complainant’s name is made public.  It was determined that the current procedure should remain in place to prevent abuse of the system and citizens should be made aware, at the time of filing a complaint, that they will be named in the complaint, which then becomes public record.  Citizens who are concerned about possible retribution should be instructed to contact the Sheriff’s Office to report their concern.

 

Ms. Rodenberger requested that the Board go into executive session to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(e).

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting recessed at 12:00 p.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

 

LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING FOR OSIRUS NIGHTCLUB

(#16)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:30 p.m. with Linda Connors, Assistant County Attorney.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Rennels and Eubanks were present.  Also present were:  Melissa Lohry and Tamara Slusher, Clerk and Recorder’s Office; Rebecca Metcalf, Court Reporter; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Ms. Connors reviewed the contents of the application, and accepted Exhibit A (petition demonstrating the needs and desires of the surrounding neighborhood), and Exhibit B (photos of the posting notice on the premises).  The applicant, Dianthe Arico, was sworn-in and Ms. Connors asked Ms. Arico a series of questions regarding the posting of the notice and the circulation of the petition.  Ms. Arico stated that the notice had been posted for 10 days, as directed by staff.  She also noted that she and Mr. Cashman had circulated the petitions, and that the highlighted responses were from those individuals that owned units within the Mulberry Commercial Park.  Ms. Arico stated that those opposed (6 signatures on the petitions), were concerned with cleanliness, under-age drinking, noise, parking, vandalism, and the “fetish balls” that had previously at this location.   

Mr. Cashman was sworn-in and explained that they planned to run a much cleaner and tightly monitored establishment, in order to alleviate the issues that surfaced with past ownership.  Ms. Arico agreed, and stated that they have a vested interest in keeping the premises clean.  She further stated that they are also looking at hiring additional security guards for control of the parking lot and patrons.

Commissioner Eubanks questioned the hours of operation, and Ms. Arico stated that they plan to be open from 9:00 p.m. to 2 a.m., Thursday through Saturday.  Chair Gibson asked if they had plans to host any of the “fetish” events.  Ms. Arico assured the commissioners that she would not be hosting this type of event at any point in the future. 

Ms. Connors noted for the record that there were individuals in the audience that wished to speak in favor of and in opposition of granting this liquor license; she then opened up the hearing for public comment.

Craig Hau addressed the Board, stating that he was the owner of the units leased by Club Osiris.   He explained that the lease was assigned to the current tenants, Mr. Arico and Mr. Cashman, and he stated that he was in favor of granting this liquor license.

The following individuals expressed their opposition to granting this liquor license:  Larry Smith, Gary Huibregtse, Don Bade, and Sergeant John Feyen.   These individuals were opposed to granting the liquor license due to the noise, litter, vandalism, etc.  They all agreed that the a nightclub was not a good fit for the business park, noting that the by-laws have already been amended to prohibit this type of use.  Sergeant Feyen stated that Club Osiris has the history of causing a drain on Sheriff’s resources, and it is in a location where alcohol related crimes are prevalent.  

Ms. Arico stated that the negative past history is related previous ownership, during which drink specials that were offered encouraged excessive drinking amongst the patrons.  She assured the commissioners that they would not be offering this type of drink special and they would not over-serve their patrons.  Ms. Arico also presented an amendment to the covenants for the Mulberry Commercial Park, and Ms. Connors accepted it and marked it Exhibit C.  Ms. Arico pointed out that the sale of alcohol is prohibited with the exception of Unit Numbers 26 and 27 until the expiration or termination of the existing lease between the owner of these units and Club Osiris.  Ms. Arico stated that they simply want to exercise their right to operate under the terms of this amendment.  Some discussion ensued regarding the term and the option to extend the lease.  Finally, Ms. Arico explained that on 6 people in the Mulberry Park have expressed opposition to granting this liquor license versus the 30 who voted in favor of it.

Mr. Cashman stated that they will certainly work with the Sheriff’s Department and will attend TIPS training, as they want to be proactive, not reactive.  He again stated their intention to provide increased security and will comply with the noise ordinance applicable to the area.

Ms. Connors then submitted two e-mails that the commissioners had received in opposition to granting of this liquor license:  an e-mail from Debi Bade, marked Exhibit D, and an e-mail from Kelly Crozier, marked Exhibit E.

At this time there was a request from the audience to speak, so the Board re-opened public comment.  Valery Feavel, owner of a unit within the Mulberry Commercial Park, questioned if Tad Buonamici was still involved with this proposed liquor license.  Ms. Arico stated that Mr. Buonamici was not involved with the liquor license; however, he is the person who sold them the business and he is trying to recoup the money he invested as the original owner of Club Osiris. 

Commissioner Eubanks questioned the individual history of Ryan Dedmond, proposed manager of the establishment, and asked if he had indeed put forth $200,000 towards the business.  Mr. Dedmond was sworn-in and assured the commissioners this was an oversight, and that he was only the manager, with no financial interest in the business. 

Under discussion of the application, the commissioners expressed concerns with the past history of alcohol related crimes due to the location of the club, and concerns with the way the purchase agreement was written giving Mr. Buonamici authority to “choose” the next owner in the event the current owners default, especially given the “trend” of individuals rotating ownership of this establishment.  The commissioners also considered the fact that the Mulberry Commercial Park re-wrote their by-laws to exclude this type of establishment in the future, which clearly indicates that they do not desire to have an establishment serving alcohol in their business park. 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the application for a Beer and Wine Liquor License for Cash Man Enterprises, dba Osiris Nightclub, located at 2649 E Mulberry St #26 and 27, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Motion carried 3-0.

The hearing adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

 

 

 

 

________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

­­­

______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk

 

______________________________________

Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy Clerk