> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 10/04/10  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, October 4, 2010

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Gaiter and Donnelly were present. Also present were:  Russ Legg, Planning Department; Dave Shirk, Estes Park Planning Department; Eric Tracy, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

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

 

Chair Johnson explained that items 1 – 4 are on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.  Mr. Lafferty noted a slight change to condition number 8 in item 2, regarding the Fernbrook Meadows Lot 10 Amended Plat, in that lot should be singular, not plural.  (This change is reflected below.)   Mr. Lafferty also noted that item #6 will be tabled to October 25, 2010, at 3:00 p.m., as the applicant’s attorney is unavailable for today’s hearing.

 

1.   BRUNELLE/PALMER PHEASANT RUN EXEMPTION AMENDED PLAT, FILE #10-S2984:  This is a request to amend the plat of Tract 1 of the Brunelle Exemption, Parcel B of the Palmer Exemption and Lot 19 of the Pheasant Run Subdivision.  Approval of the amended plat will equally divide approximately 4 acres of the applicant’s 8 acre total lot between Lot 19 in Pheasant Run and Parcel B of the Palmer Exemption.  No additional lots will result if the request is approved, and the existing rural residential uses on all three properties will continue unchanged.  For reference, the subject property is located on the west side of South County Road #21, southwest of Berthoud.

 

The Development Services Team has no concerns or issues regarding this request.  The referral agencies contacted did not object to approval of this request, and the Development Services Team recommends approval.

 

Staff concludes this project satisfies the requirements for an Amended Plat.  Adjustment of the property lines between Tract 1 of the Brunelle Exemption, Parcel B of the Palmer Exemption, and Lot 19 of the Pheasant Run Subdivision will not create any conflicts with setbacks or minimum lot sizes.  No additional lots will be created as well.  Based on this assessment, Staff supports approval of the Amended Plat for Tract 1 of the Brunelle Exemption, Parcel B of the Palmer Exemption, and Lot 19 of the Pheasant Run Subdivision.

 

Development Services Team findings are as follows:

 

A.  This amended plat will not create any additional lots.

B.  The resultant lots meet the requirements for lot sizes, etc, and no non-conforming lots are created by this action.

C.  The amended plat will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing structures.

D.  The amended plat will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area.

E.   Any covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the final plat

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Tract 1 of the Brunelle Exemption, Parcel B of the Palmer Exemption, and Lot 19 of the Pheasant Run Subdivision (File #10-S2984) by Findings and Resolution, subject to the following condition:

 

  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by March 31, 2011 or this approval shall be null and void.

 

  1. All other previous conditions of approval for the Brunelle Exemption, the Palmer Exemption and the Pheasant Run Subdivision, not altered by these conditions of approval, shall remain in effect.

 

2.         FERNBROOK MEADOWS LOT 10 AMENDED PLAT/WOLAVER BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, FILE #10-S2983:  This is a request to adjust the lots lines between four adjacent parcels by reconfiguring and combining the four parcels into two new parcels.

 

There are currently four existing parcels, Lot 10 of the Fernbrook Meadows Subdivision and three metes and bounds lots.  The applicant’s intent is to adjust the lot lines between the four parcels and combine them so that they end up with only two parcels.  The result of the lot line adjustments proposed with this amended plat/boundary line adjustment will be one 39.269 acre lot and one 5.696 acre lot. 

 

An illegal lot was created in 2003 by splitting a 0.43 acre portion off of the metes and bounds parcel adjacent to Lot 10 on the north side.  The intent at the time was to add that 0.43 acre piece to Lot 10 of the Fernbrook Meadows Subdivision.  This amended plat/ boundary line adjustment will incorporate that 0.43 acre lot into Lot 10 of Fernbrook Meadows as well as add an additional portion of the adjacent metes and bounds lot to Lot 10.

 

There are two large metes and bounds parcels, a 24.57 acre parcel and a 12.82 acre parcel.  It appears that these two parcels are actually one lot shown with different parcel numbers because they are in two different sections, Sections 35 and 36 of Township 6 North, Range 70.  This amended plat/boundary line adjustment will show these two parcels as one parcel on the plat.

 

The following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Larimer County Addressing Coordinator; The Larimer County Engineering Department; The Larimer County Code Compliance Section; Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department identified several required corrections to the plat; Megan Harrity of the Larimer County Assessor’s Office identified several required corrections to the plat.

 

The proposed plat amendment to adjust the lot lines between adjacent parcels will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots.  The Development Services Team finds that with the conditions as listed below, this request meets the requirements of Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 10, Fernbrook Meadows and Wolaver Boundary Line Adjustment, File # 10-S2983, 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.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by April, 4, 2010 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 Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

3.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the corrections required by Megan Harrity of the Larimer County Assessor’s Office.

 

4.   Prior to recordation of the final plat show/indicate all easements on the lots.

 

5.   Prior to recordation of the final plat revise the title of the plat to include the name ‘Wolaver’ before ‘Boundary Line Adjustment’.  Revise the Surveyor’s Certificate and Certificate of Ownership and Dedication to match the title.

 

6.   Prior to recordation of the final plat remove the Larimer County Planning Department Approval signature block.

 

7.   Prior to recordation of the final plat revise the Certification of Ownership and Dedication to indicate ‘streets’ instead of ‘street’.

 

8.   Prior to recordation of the final plat include a note stating the following:

 

“The new lot created by this action is subject to the same restrictions, covenants, and regulations as set forth in the plat of record of Fernbrook Meadows.”

 

9.   Prior to recordation of the final plat the applicant shall provide an Ownership and Encumbrance for Parcel #06363-00-011.

     

 

3.   CRONE LOT SIZE APPEAL, FILE #10-G0200:  This is a request for approval of appeals to Sections 4.1.16.B and 8.14.2.H of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow a substandard non conforming lot be reduced in size and to allow a new lot to not meet the width to depth ratios.  (Related file # 10-S2986.)

 

 

The applicants own four separate parcels in the Glen Haven area.  Mr. Crone owns two parcels which at on either side of the Post Office on the east side of CR 43.  The Jokinen’s own a parcel on the west side of the road.  In 1991 the previous owner applied and was approved for a special exception and lot size variance and amended plat to create the parcel on which the “new” post office was located.  The original parcels were on both sides of the road and although there was some effort to separate them they were platted crossing the road. 

 

At some point, approximately 1994 or 1995, the area of the parcel on the west side of the road was sold to the Jokinen’s.  With the current setback requirements from the road and the potential impact of the flood plain for West Creek these parcels have limited utility.  The Jokinen’s previously had acquired two parcels north of this site along the road.  Mr. Crone acquired the two parcel next to the post office in the early 2000’s and approached the County with an application to use one of them in 2008.  At that time it was discovered that the parcels had been illegally divided. 

 

Initial attempts to resolve the parcel question with the Jokinen’s were not successful and Mr. Crone approached the Board of County Commissioners with an appeal in 2009 to allow the parcel to be recognized.  The Board of County Commissioners at the time advised that they were not inclined to approve the appeal and the result was Mr. Crone would need to pursue a subdivision for the parcel that he owned without the participation of the Jokinen’s.  This application now has the participation of all the owners and the result is this amended plat to recognize the two parcels owned by Mr. Crone and to combine the area west of the road with one of the Jokinen’s parcel. 

The appeals are necessary to allow the amended plat to proceed.  They reflect current conditions and are a minimum action.

 

The Development Services Team finds that t he proposed appeals are necessary to allow for the companion amended plat to proceed forward, they are the minimum action necessary and are the result of the physical environment and prior county actions.  The requested actions are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Crone Lot Size Appeal and Lot Width-to-Depth-Ratio Appeal file # 10-G0200 subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   Approval of the Amended plat file # 10-S2986 and recordation of the plat is necessary.

 

 

4.   GLEN HAVEN LOTS 6, 7, 27 AND 47, AMENDED PLAT, FILE #10-S2986:  This is a request for approval of an amended plat for the Lots 6 & 7 of Block 7 Glen Haven and Lots 27 & 47 of the Amended Plat of Lots27, 34 and 47 Block 7 Glen Haven to correct unapproved divisions.

 

The applicants own four separate parcels in the Glen Haven area.  Mr. Crone owns two parcels which at on either side of the Post Office on the east side of CR 43.  The Jokinen’s own a parcel on the west side of the road.  In 1991 the previous owner applied and was approved for a special exception and lot size variance and amended plat to create the parcel on which the “new” post office was located.  The original parcels were on both sides of the road and although there was some effort to separate them they were platted crossing the road. 

 

At some point, approximately 1994-5 the area of the parcel on the west side of the road was sold to the Jokinen’s.  With the current setback requirements from the road and the potential impact of the flood plain for West Creek these parcels have limited utility.  The Jokinen’s previously had acquired two parcels north of this site along the road.  Mr. Crone acquired the two parcel next to the post office in the early 2000’s and approached the County with an application to use one of them in 2008.  At that time it was discovered that the parcels had been illegally divided. 

 

Initial attempts to resolve the parcel question with the Jokinen’s were not successful and Mr. Crone approached the Board of County Commissioners with an appeal in 2009 to allow the parcel to be recognized.  The Board of County Commissioners at the time advised that they were not inclined to approve the appeal and the result was Mr. Crone would need to pursue a subdivision for the parcel that he owned without the participation of the Jokinen’s.  This application now has the participation of all the owners and the result is this amended plat to recognize the two parcels owned by Mr. Crone and to combine the area west of the road with one of the Jokinen’s parcel. 

 

Any conditions which were a part of the previous approvals will be continued with this approval. 

This proposal rectifies and resolves a long standing lot division issue.  This application is far simpler than the other possibility, which was to have a single lot subdivision.  Although appeals are necessary to address the lot size and ratio issues this is often case with lots divided by physical features and resulting from an older plat. 

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 6, 7, 27 &47 BLOCK 7 GLEN HAVEN, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman 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 April 4, 2011, 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 Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

3.    Is subject to the approval of the appeals in file# 10-G0200.

 

M O T I O N

 

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

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelley moved that the Board of County Commissioners table item #6, Jones/Slatten Family Trust Appeal, File #10-G020, to October 25, 2010, at 3:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.   ASPEN BROOK REZONING:  This is a request to rezone the Aspen Brook PUD development from “RM” Multi-family residential to “A” Accommodations

 

The applicant, Phil Moenning, asserts the property was incorrectly zoned “RM” with the comprehensive valley-wide rezoning in 2000, and that the property should have retained the “A” designation.  Mr. Moenning further asserts the zoning designation should revert to “A”, and has submitted this request to the Estes Valley Planning Commission and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to alleviate this perceived mistake.

 

Section 3.3.B3 provides that “within one (1) year from the effective date of this Code, any property owner may apply for rezoning on the basis that an error in the original zoning was made.” 

 

Under the “RM” zoning designation, short-term rentals are allowed as Vacation Homes, which place a limitation of 8 guests.  The “A” zoning designation does not include this limit.  The “A” district also allows accessory uses such as restaurants and wedding facilities.

 

Zoning History .  Philip and Tara Moenning were granted a rezoning of the property from “E” Estate to “A” Accommodations by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners in April 1988. 

 

Phase I of the PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in March 1989. 

                                                                          

Phase II of the PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in April 1993.  The zoning resolution specifies “the uses of these lots shall be limited to single-family dwellings and accessory uses.”  This condition was implemented through the placement of a note on the plat.

 

Legislative Rezoning .  In the year 2000, the Estes Valley was rezoned to implement the Future Lane Use Plan contained in the 1996 Estes Valley Plan.  The Future Land Use Plan was intended to zone for the actual use of the property where possible, and for planned future land use. 

 

The “Existing Land Use” map contained in the Estes Valley Plan indicates the use of the Aspen Brook property was multi-family residential. 

 

Neighborhood Correspondence .  Staff has had phone conversations with two notified property owners.   One property owner lives across the Big Thompson River from Aspen Brook.  This adjoining property owner phoned to protest the change.  Concerns include additional traffic and guests, and loss of privacy. 

 

The other phone conversation was with a resident of Aspen Brook, who expressed opposition to the proposed change in zoning.  This resident noted that when he purchased his Phase I unit in 2004, he “understood the units closer to the road would be summer rental, but those in Phase II would not be.”  This resident noted that there were only four people present at the HOA meeting, and most votes were cast by proxy.

 

Mr. Shirk noted that this application has previously been considered by the Board and was tabled in order to give staff time to craft new conditions of approval.  He then presented the revised conditions as follows: 

1.    Aspen Brook Phases I and II are hereby zoned “A-1” Accommodations, as designated in the Estes Valley Development Code, and subject to the conditions stated herein.

2.   Each Phase shall be subject to the notes contained on the plat of record, except as se forth herein.

3.   The principal use for each designated lot shall be limited to one single-family dwelling unit (including Lot 29A).  Each dwelling unit may be occupied either long-term (30 days or greater) or short-term (less than 30 days).  Lot 29A shall also be allowed a manager’s office for on-site sales, rental and management.

4.   Short-term rentals shall not be subject to occupancy limits set forth in the EVDC.

5.   Each lot shall have a minimum of two parking spaces.

6.   Development shall be exempt from: 

a.   Setback, floor-area-ratio, lot coverage, minimum land area, and minimum lot size standards set forth on Table 4-5.

b.   Vehicular Access and Circulation requirements set forth on Table 4-7.

c.   Pedestrian Amenities and Linkage Requirement set forth on Table 4-8.

d.   Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.8, and 7.12.

 

There was no public comment on this item.

 

Ms. Haag suggested that the phrase “subject to the conditions stated herein” be added to condition number 1, and the conditions above reflect this change.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve designating the Aspen Brook Phases I and II, zoned “A-1” Accommodations, as designated in the Estes Valley Development Code, and subject to the conditions stated above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

7.   OTTE EXEMPTION, FILE #10-S2969:  This is a request for approval to divide 34.34 acres into two single-family residential lots as an exemption plat.  The request includes an appeal to Section 8.14.2.B of the Land Use Code to allow buildings in areas of steep slopes.

 

 

This application was presented to the Larimer County Planning Commission at their September 15, 2010 meeting. The Planning Commission, after discussion, recommended approval with conditions in a 5-2 vote.  The minutes of the discussion are attached.

 

The Board of County Commissioners discussed an exemption appeal at the August 23, 2010 meeting of the Board and directed staff to take the request to the Planning Commission first and then to the Board for final review.  See minutes page 233.

 

Discussions of the Planning Commissioners centered on the issue of whether to support the exemption process or not and the differences between this project and future applications which may request exemption. The placement of a conservation easement on the balance of the property was identified as being unique to this property. Other issues discussed included the ability to find water if a well is drilled and the effect of a new well on existing wells. 

 

In addition, neighbors expressed concern regarding noise from the existing lot and dwelling and the effect on a new building site on the visual environment of the area. A petition opposing the land division was presented to the Planning Commission.

 

Planning Commission and Development Services Team Recommend that the Otte Exemption, file #10-S2969, be approved with the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Otte Exemption Plat shall be consistent with the State requirements for exemption plats, and with the information contained in the Otte Exemption File #10-S2969, 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 Otte Exemption.

 

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 Exemption, 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 Exemption approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Exemption.  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 Exemption 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 Exemption as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Exemption 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 Exemption approval.

4.   The owner shall provide to the County a copy of an approved well permit from the State Division of Water Resources for Lot 2 of the Otte Exemption, before County will accept a building permit application. A approved copy of the conservation easement or covenant on the property shall be recorded with the Final plat.

 

5.   The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for Lot 2 of the Otte Exemption.  All applicable fees, including permit fees and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, shall apply to this use.

 

6.   The June 30, 2010 letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey shall be addressed by the applicant. Specifically the applicant should provide (from a professional qualified in the identification, analysis and mitigation of geologic hazards) either an explanation for why the proposed building site is not considered to be in a potential rock fall hazard area, or, a rock fall hazard analysis for the proposed building site, as described in the Colorado Geologic Survey letter.  The State will need to review the plan and provide approval.

 

7.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Thompson School District fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion and the Larimer County Regional Park Fees in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

8.     All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation.  The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table.  Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.

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

10.   The applicant shall apply for an access permit with the County Engineering Department for approval of the shared access onto County Road #27.  The shared access shall receive a road name subject to the requirements in Section 5.11 of the Land Use Code.

 

The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Otte Exemption, file #10-S2969, appeal to Section 8.14.2.B of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow buildings in areas of steep slopes be approved.

 

Mr. Legg presented a change to condition 10 and stated that it should read:  “The applicant shall apply for an access permit….”  (This change has been reflected in the conditions outlined above.)  He then presented a petition from the neighbors who are opposed to this application, but noted that staff is recommending approval of this application.  Mr. Ryan explained that his department analyses the cumulative effects of the wells constructed, as part of the subdivision review process.  He also noted that the state does allow for exemptions, and that this is an exception to the process, not the rule.   Discussion ensued regarding the possible impact of wells downstream versus the water rights of individual property owners.

 

The applicant, Gary Otte, addressed the Board and stated that he had nothing further to add at this point.

 

Chair Johnson then opened up the hearing to public comment and the following individuals addressed the Board in opposition to the application:  Carol Shreifer, Marty Schreifer, Tony Smith, and Dan Kotorve.  All cited lack of water in the area as the primary concern with drilling more wells in the vicinity.  They also had concerns with health problems of Mr. Otte’s son-in-law, stating that it might be more beneficial for him to reside closer to emergency services, as response time in Stove Prairie can be lengthy. 

 

Larry Hersch stated that he has been installing wells in Larimer County for numerous years, and that every well is as individual as everyone in attendance.  He stated that Gary Otte has a very good well, and he believes it will not impact the neighbors in a negative manner.

 

Dale Olson, Mr. Otte’s son-in-law, addressed the Board.  He explained that he had been in a devastating car accident a few years ago and sustained brain injury and a broken back.  He noted that he is on the road to recovery, and his father-in-law has been instrumental in his recovery.

 

Mr. Otte readdressed the Board, and further explained his property and the building envelope proposed. 

 

Chair Johnson closed public comment.

 

The Board discussed the issues at hand and ultimately agreed that this is a specialized situation that warrants an exemption.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Otte Exemption file#10-S2969 subject to the conditions(s) as outline above, and approve the appeal to Section 8.14.2.B of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow buildings in areas of steep slopes.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

The hearing adjourned at 4:50 p.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2010

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Johnson presided, and Commissioners Gaiter and Donnelly were present. Also present were:  Donna Hart, Commissioners’ Office; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Division; Gary Buffington, Natural Resources Department; Andy Paratore, and Michael Kirk, Facilities and Information Technology Department; Major Smith, and Lieutenant Bebell, Sheriff’s Department;  Candice Phippen, Building Department;  Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office;  and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

1.   PUBLIC COMMENT:    There was no public comment today.

 

2.    APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2010: 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of September 20, 2010, as amended.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.    REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 11, 2010:   Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.     CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as listed below:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:   As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are approved and/or partially approved:   Shores V, LLC; New Vista Holdings, LLC; DMGG Properties, Inc; Meldrum Properties, Inc; Kenneth Murphy; Leroy Ehrlich; Olbrys-Dean Sports Crossing, LLC; Blest, LLC; VDW Retail, LLC; Sethre Family Partnership LTD/Norm Jorgensen; Stratborough Investors, Inc; HJJ, LLC.

 

10052010A001           CONTRACT AGREEMENT BY AND  BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF CHILD WELFARE SERVICES

 

10052010A002           AUDITING SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ANDERSON & WHITNEY, PC

 

10052010R001           RESOLUTION RESCINDING FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION THAT APPROVED THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN THE HILDERMAN MLD

 

10052010R002           RESOLUTION RESCINDING FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION THAT APPROVED THE AMENDED PLAT AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION IN THE FORT COLLINS INDUSTRIAL PARK FIRST FILING

 

10052010R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PELPHREY MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL

 

10052010R004           SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF FRONT RANGE VETERINARY CLINIC  

 

MISCELLANEOUS:   Department of Human Services Payments for August 2010; Estes Valley Public Library District Board of Trustees.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following liquor licenses were approved and/or issued:  Horsetooth Liquors – Transfer of Ownership with Temporary Permit – Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.   CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO THE FRONT RANGE ROUND TABLE:  Mr. Buffington explained that the Front Range Roundtable is a interagency group comprised of county, federal, and state agencies to assess risks of forest health and wildfire on a statewide scale and prioritize mitigation needs and fuel treatments.  He informed the Board that the Department of Natural Resources typically donates $1000 from the Forestry Enterprise Funds to help fund the Front Range Roundtable Coordinator position and he requested the ability to do the same this year.  The Board was supportive of this effort.  (No formal action was taken.)

 

6.  FUNDING APPROVAL REQUEST FOR SHERIFF ADMINISTRATION OFFICE BUILDING EXPANSION PROJECT:  Mr. Kirk, Mr. Paratore, Lieutenant Bebell, and Major Smith requested funding in the amount of $5,426,026 from the Courthouse Sales Tax Reserve to cover the design fees, project management, site drainage, and construction costs for the Sheriff Administration Office Building Expansion Project.  Discussion ensued regarding the on-going long-term financial obligations that will be required as a result of the expansion if approved.  Mr. Lancaster will work with the Budget Manager and present these figures for the Board’s consideration at the Administrative Matters meeting on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

 

7.   REVISED BUSINESS PLAN AND REOGANIZATION OF STAFF AT THE RANCH:   Mr. Engemoen presented a revised organizational chart for the positions at The Ranch, and requested the ability to eliminate three positions in order to create a brand new Assistant Director position at The Ranch.  He explained that the Director of The Ranch is responsible for seven buildings on 250 acres, 5 of which have structural problems.  The creation of an Assistant Director position would allow the Director to delegate more responsibility for financial operations, so that he can focus on business development.  Chair Johnson and Commissioner Gaiter expressed support for this request; however, Commissioner Donnelly stated that he did not believe in creating a more “top-heavy” environment would be in the best interests of The Ranch.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed restructuring of the staff at The Ranch, and include creating the position of Assistant Director for The Ranch

 

Motion carried 2-1; Commissioner Donnelly dissenting.

 

8.   RESOLUTION OPPOSING AMENDMENTS 60, 61, AND PROPOSITION 101:   Chair Johnson presented a resolution opposing Amendments 60, 61, and Proposition 101.  He stated that the Board of County Commissioners has a responsibility to inform citizens of the potentially harmful effects these measures could have on the community if passed.  Commissioner Donnelly and Commission Gaiter concurred.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution opposing Amendments 60, 61, and Proposition 101.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10052010R005           RESOLUTION OPPOSING AMENDMENTS 60, 61, AND PROPOSITION 101

 

9.   WORKSESSION:   Ms. Cookman explained that an applicant who recently applied for transfer of ownership of a liquor license, failed to disclose all prior arrests on his individual background check.  She noted that he has submitted a letter explaining the circumstances, and requested direction from the Board as to whether or not they wished to schedule a Show Cause Hearing to discuss this with the applicant.  The Board directed Ms. Cookman to schedule a Show Cause Hearing regarding this matter.

 

10.   COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:   The Board discussed their activities at events during the past week.

 

11.  LEGAL MATTERS:   Ms. Phippen requested the Board’s approval to take legal action against John O’Connor for building code violations that have persisted for years.  She stated this is her only recourse at this point, as Mr. O’Connor has been unresponsive.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize commencement of legal action against John O’Connor for Building Code violations.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Lancaster then requested that the Board go into Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The Board ended the Executive Session with no further action taken.  The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

 

 

 

__________________________________________

   STEVE JOHNSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk