Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 11/15/10  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, November 15, 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 Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Michael Whitley, Karin Madson, Samantha Mott, and Toby Stauffer, Planning Department; Jeff Goodell, and Eric Tracy, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Chad Gray, Code Compliance; Jeanine Haag, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Johnson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code.  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.  At this time, Mr. Lafferty requested that item 5, regarding the Berthoud Family Church Special Review, also be added to the consent agenda, as staff and the applicant are in agreement and there is no public opposition to the application. 

 

Chair Johnson added item 5 to the consent agenda and then asked if anyone present wished to have an item pulled from consent for discussion.  Two members of the audience requested that item 4, Land Use Code Amendments regarding chickens, be removed from consent for discussion.

 

1.   GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 1ST FILING LOTS 42 & 43 LOT CONSOLIDATION AND EASEMENT VACATION FILE #10-S2996:  This is a request to combine two adjacent lots, Lots 42 & 43 of Glacier View Meadows 1st Filing, into one lot and vacate two 10’ utility easements along the common lot line of the two lots.

 

There have been no objections to this proposal voice by the surrounding neighbors. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment and the Larimer County Addressing Section.  The Larimer County Assessor’s office has provided the new legal description for the consolidated lot.

 

The proposed Glacier View Meadows 1st Filing, Lots 42 & 43, Lot Consolidation and 20’ Utility Easement Vacation will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots and no other services will be affected.  The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Glacier View Meadows 1st Filing, Lots 42 & 43, Lot Consolidation and 20’ Utility Easement Vacation, File # 10-S2996 subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution recorded by May 15, 2011 or this approval shall be null and void.

 

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

 

3.   The vacation of the utility easement and the reconfiguration of the lots lines shall be finalized at such time when the plat and findings and resolution of the County Commissioners are recorded.

 

2.   CRYSTAL LAKES 5TH LOTS 27 & 40 LOT CONSOLIDATION, FILE # 10-S2995:  This is a request for approval to consolidate two lots in the Crystal Lakes 5th Subdivision into a single lot.  Consolidation of the lots will provide the owner with better access to the existing cabin, and reduce their assessment fees with the Homeowner’s Association.  The site is located on the north side of Osage Trail and southeast of Muskogee Trail.  There is an existing single-family residence on the property, which is served by an on-site well and septic system.  The site is in the O-Open zone district, which has a minimum lot size of 10 acres.  Both lots are in a platted subdivision and consolidation of the two lots will increase the resulting lot to 4.54 acres in size.  Finally, the recording instrument for this application will be the Findings and Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Development Services Team:  Staff from the Planning and Engineering Departments, and the Department of Health and Environment reviewed the request.  None of these offices expressed objections to approval of the request.  As part of the referral process, Planning Staff provide information about the request to other referral agencies such as the Fire Department, Utilities, etc.  None of these reviewing agencies objected to approval of the Amended Plat.

 

Consolidation of the two lots into a single lot will provide improved access to the site for the applicant, and reduce their Homeowner’s Association related costs.  With the existing single family home on the site, impacts from the creation of new residential uses are not a factor as these have been accounted for previously.  In addition, none of the reviewing offices or agencies objected to approval of the request.  With regard to the review criteria, the following are noted:

 

A.  Approval of the lot consolidation will not create any additional lots.  Consolidation of the lots will also decrease, not increase, the non-conforming lot size.

 

B.  The lot consolidation will not create a nonconforming setback for any buildings, nor will it adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area.

 

C. Any covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots will continue to apply to the resultant lot.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Crystal Lakes 5th Lot Consolidation of Lots 27 and 40 as described in File #10-S2995.

 

3.   STRATMAN/GRIFFIN APPEAL, FILE #10-G0204:  This is an appeal to build a 1440 square foot storage building/garage on a vacant lot less than 2.0 acres in size.  Section 4.3.2.J of the Larimer County Land Use Code specifies that the size of storage buildings and garages on vacant lots less than 2 acres in size may not exceed 800 square feet.  The subject parcel is located on North Hollywood Street approximately 300 feet south of Vine Drive on the west side of the street. The lot is currently vacant.  

 

The owner is proposing to construct a 1440 square foot detached garage/storage building with no utilities on the vacant lot.  The owner has no immediate plans to build a single family dwelling on the property but does plan on doing so in the future.  In 2008, the current owners demolished the home that was located on the lot.  That home was built around 1945.

 

The applicant is requesting an appeal of Section 4.3.2.J of the Larimer County Land Use Code which establishes size requirements for storage buildings and garages on vacant lots.  This section of the Code limits the size of storage buildings and garages based on the lot size.  In this case, the lot size is 0.48 acres and the restriction on lots less than 2 acres is that these buildings may not exceed 800 square feet as stand alone uses, or without a single family residence on the property.

If the owners had applied for a building permit for this proposed storage building prior to demolishing the home on the lot they would not have to request an appeal from the Board of County Commissioners.  If the lot were not vacant, if the house were still there, the only size restriction to detached storage buildings and garages would be that they not exceed 10% of the net area of the lot.  This lot is 0.48 acres in size.  The 10% size restriction for detached garages and storage buildings on this lot is 2090 square feet.  The proposed building is 1440 square feet which is less than the 10% square footage limit if the lot were not vacant.  In this case, the applicant is going to build a house on the lot; the proposed building will just be constructed prior to the house being built.  

 

The lot is only 50 feet wide and it would be difficult to construct the proposed building after the new house is constructed because access would be limited to get around the house.

The Development Services Team finds that the proposed size appeal meets the review criteria found in Section 22.2.3 (Review criteria for appeals to deviate from standards or requirements other than minimum lot size requirements) of the Land Use Code.

 

·  The County Engineering Department has no objections to this appeal but did note that a drainage plan would need to be submitted for review and approval if the general drainage patterns in the area are going to be changed more than would be typical for this type of request.  Generally grading and drainage away from outbuildings are handled by the Building Department.

·  The City of Fort Collins had no major concerns with this proposal but did note that a grading plan should be required for the building.  This is not a Larimer County Code requirement so one will not be requested. 

·  The Department of Health and Environment has no objections to the appeal.

·  No objections have been received from any surrounding property owners or referral agencies.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Stratman/Griffin Appeal, File # 10-G0204.

 

5.  BERTHOUD FAMILY CHURCH SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #10-Z1816:   This is a request for approval to allow a child care center within an existing church for up to 30 children in the FA-1 Farming Zoning District.

 

This item was on the consent agenda for the October 20, 2010, Planning Commission public hearing at 6:30pm.  At the hearing the item was pulled from the consent agenda because members of the audience requested to have a full presentation of the item.  Staff presented the Development Services Team report recommending approval of the proposed Special Review.

 

 

The Planning Commission listened to testimony from the applicant and four members of the public regarding the application.  The public testimony was from three neighboring property owners who stated concerns regarding traffic, noise and compatibility.  Another member of the audience commented on whether the proposed use was needed in the area.  A summary of the public testimony and subsequent discussion can be found in the attached Planning Commission minutes.

 

After taking testimony the Planning Commission deliberated and voted 8 to 0 to recommend approval of the Berthoud Family Church Special Review.

 

The Planning Commission and the Development Services Team recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Berthoud Family Church Special Review, File #10-Z1816, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Berthoud Family Church Special Review, File #10-Z1816, 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 Berthoud Family Church Special Review.

 

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

 

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

 

5.   The child care center shall be limited to 30 children.

 

6.   The child care center shall be limited to the hours of operation of Monday through Friday from 6:00am until 6:00pm.

 

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

 

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

 

9.   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.

 

10.   The applicant shall obtain all necessary building and/or change of occupancy permits and shall comply with the applicable Building and Fire Code requirements.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve items 1, 2, 3, and 5, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.  LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS (CHICKENS), FILE #10-CA0111:  This is an amendment to add backyard chickens as an accessory use to Section 4.3.10. of the Land Use Code.  This item was moved to the consent agenda at the Planning Commission hearing.  One citizen attended to express support of the proposed amendment.

The Planning Commissioner and Development Services Team Recommend adding a new accessory use to Section 4.3.10.D. “Backyard Chickens” (following pet animals) as follows and renumber the balance of the section:

 

D. Backyard Chickens - The keeping of up to (six) 6 chicken hens is permitted as an accessory use to a residential use. The keeping of roosters or more that six (6) chicken hens is prohibited in all zone districts except those that allow farm uses.  The following requirements apply:

1.   The chicken hens must be provided with a covered, properly ventilated and predator-resistant chicken coop.

2.   The chicken hens must have access to an outdoor enclosure that is adequately fenced to protect them from predators.

3.   The coop and enclosure are limited to a maximum size of 120 square feet.

4.   The chicken coop and outdoor enclosure shall be regularly cleaned to control dust, odor and waste and not constitute a nuisance, safety hazard, or health problem to surrounding properties.

 

Ms. Madson briefly explained the amendment as outlined above, stating that the limit was set at six chickens and no roosters, as this standard amongst the neighboring Front Range communities. 

Chair Johnson opened up the hearing to public comment and the following individuals addressed the Board:  Dan Wagner, Ralph Walsher, Kevin List, and Jennifer Culler.  Mr. Wagner expressed opposition to the restrictions, as his daughter raises chickens for 4-H and often has up to 20 chicken at a time on their property.  Mr. Walsher stated that “raising chickens,” implies the need for a rooster, and requested the ability to include roosters as well.  Mr. List and Ms. Culler both were in favor of the amendments as written.

Chair Johnson then closed public comment.  After a brief discussion amongst the Board, the following action was taken:

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment, file #10-CA0111, to the Larimer County Land Use Code, as outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.    FLOWER POWER BOTANICALS SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #10-Z1798:  This is a request for approval of a Medical Marijuana Grow Operation & Dispensary in the I–Industrial Zoning District.  This item was on the discussion agenda for the October 20, 2010, Planning Commission public hearing at 6:30 p.m.  At the hearing Staff presented the Development Services Team report recommending approval of the proposed Special Review. 

 

The Planning Commission listened to testimony from the applicant and one member of the public regarding the application.  The public testimony was from a property owner on South Link Lane who considers the subject property to be part of his neighborhood even though his property is outside of the 1,000 foot notification boundary.  That property owner was concerned that the proposed dispensary would not be good for the airpark neighborhood, would lower property values and would be counter to efforts to clean up the area.  The property owner stated that he is seeking a child care license for his facility and the child care center would be open by the beginning of 2011. 

 

After taking testimony the Planning Commission deliberated and voted 6 to 2 to recommend approval of the Flower Power Botanicals Special Review.

 

The Planning Commission and Development Services Team recommends to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners Approval of the Flower Power Botanicals Special Review, File # 10-Z1798, subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Flower Power Botanicals Special Review File # 10-Z1798 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 Flower Power Botanicals Special Review.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8.   The applicant shall obtain all necessary building and/or change of occupancy permits and shall comply with the applicable Building and Fire Code requirements which may vary depending on the type and quantities of chemicals used and stored within the building.

 

9.   The applicant shall provide a letter from ELCO indicating the installation of a back flow prevention device has been completed.  

 

10.   The property owner shall sign an Annexation Agreement to the City of Fort Collins within 60 days from the date of approval.

 

Mr. Whitley displayed aerial photos and maps of the property, and he briefly explained the appeal, as outlined above. 

The applicant, Peter Verchick, noted that his application meets all six requirements set forth by the Board, and he presented numerous letters of support from the surrounding property owners.

There was no public comment on this item.

Under Board discussion, Commissioner Donnelly stated that while he does have some concerns about this particular neighborhood, the applicant appears to be responsible and competent, therefore, he will support the appeal.  Chair Johnson stated that the application does meet all of the criteria, and he always listens to the needs of the neighborhood, as they know their neighborhood best.   Commissioner Gaiter concurred. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Flower Power Special Review, File #10-Z1798, subject to the conditions outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.   PREMIER WELLNESS CENTER SPECIAL REVIEW & APPEAL, FILE #10-Z1807:   This is a request for approval of a Medical Marijuana Dispensary in the C – Commercial Zoning District and an appeal to Section 4.3.3.F.1 of the Land Use Code to allow the dispensary to be within 500 feet of a public park

 

This item was on the discussion agenda for the October 20, 2010, Planning Commission public hearing at 6:30pm.  At the hearing Staff presented the Development Services Team report recommending approval of the proposed Special Review. 

 

The Planning Commission listened to testimony from the applicant and two members of the public regarding the application.  The public testimony was from condominium unit owners within the same building as the proposed medical marijuana dispensary.   Those property owners raised concerns over the proposed appeal from a public park, the compatibility of the proposed dispensary with other businesses within the building, the number of on-site parking spaces and the tight maneuvering area on the property. 

 

After taking testimony the Planning Commission deliberated.  There was a motion to recommend approval of the Special Review which was defeated 5 to 3. 

 

Some members of the Planning Commission reiterated the same concerns raised by the public.  This report includes an excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes to illuminate their discussion.

 

For this Special Review the Development Services Team is presenting both its original recommendation, which is for approval, as well as the Larimer County Planning Commission recommendation which was for denial.  The Development Services Team appreciates the concern of the Larimer County Planning Commission regarding parking and access but differs on the conclusions. 

 

Given that the site is fully developed, any tenant within unit 12A of the Small Mall Condominium would face the same parking and access issues.  The subject building has historically been occupied by a variety of uses including retail and personal services but a number of tenant spaces are vacant.  The Development Services Team would not deny a retail business the ability to locate within any of the vacant units within the building and would extend the same accommodation to the proposed dispensary. 

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Premier Wellness Center Special Review, File # 10-Z1807, subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Premier Wellness Center Special Review File # 10-Z1807 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 Premier Wellness Center Special Review.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8.   The applicant shall obtain all necessary building and/or change of occupancy permits and shall comply with the applicable Building and Fire Code requirements which may vary depending on the type and quantities of chemicals used and stored within the building.

 

9.   The applicant shall provide a letter from ELCO indicating the installation of a back flow prevention device has been completed.  

 

The Development Services Team also recommends approval of the appeal to Section 4.3.3.F.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Mr. Whitley explained the background of this application, as outlined above.  He displayed photos of the property and its proximity to the natural area.  He explained that the natural area is not accessible, and that individuals would have to trespass across private property to get to it.

 

Applicants Scott Stokely, Lacy Bittner, and Jim Bramley addressed the Board.  Mr. Stokely stated that they looked for a property along the Mulberry corridor that would meet their needs, and he felt that they could work within the parking limitations.  He explained that they would not be including a grow operation at this location; therefore, they do not require a lot of space.  With regards to the natural areas issue, Mr. Stokely stated that in his opinion, this is a perfect example for approval of an appeal since it is not easily accessible to the public.

 

Chair Johnson opened up the hearing for public comment and the following individuals addressed the Board:  James Wade, Debbie Jackson, and Rolland Kuehm.  They expressed concern with the limited parking, the possibility of increased crime, the impact on property values, and the possibility of an increase or cancellation of their association’s insurance policy.

 

Chair Johnson closed public comment and Mr. Stokely stated that statistics show that crime rates actually decrease in places where medical marijuana facilities are established.  Mr. Stokley also noted that he would be willing to incur the costs of any rise in insurance costs due to his facility. 

 

Under discussion, Commissioner Donnelly stated that he will oppose the application, as he believes that parking will be an issue, and possible annexation into the City of Fort Collins could also be an issue in the future.  Commissioner Gaiter was not in favor of the application, as it is clearly within 1000 feet of a public access point, and within line-of-sight of a residential neighborhood.  Chair Johnson agreed, and stated that this application had many unresolved compatibility issues.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board deny the Premier Wellness Center Special Review, File #10-Z1807.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  OTTE CODE COMPLIANCE, FILE #10-CC0259:  This is an alleged violation of Section 4.1.5 O-Open Zoning District of the Larimer County Land Use Code by virtue of operating an industrial sawmill in the Open Zoning District which is not an allowed use without approval of a Special Review, and Section 10.5.E Sign Code, for the off-premise sign advertising wood burning furnaces for a company out of Larimie, Wyoming.

 

On September 21, 2010, Code Compliance received a complaint against the property owner for operating a sawmill and some potential building violations. The complainant stated the sawmill creates a noise and odor nuisance. On September 24, 2010, Chad Gray met Mr. Otte at his property to inspect the firewood cutting operation and take photos. Mr. Otte explained that all the lumber was coming onto the property from other locations except for the occasional tree that dies on his own property. Two additional complaints were received on September 27, 2010, along with numerous follow up emails from the original complainant. Mr. Otte met with Planning on September 28, 2010, to discuss his options. At that meeting a hearing was discussed for the firewood cutting operation and the date set.

 

Several adjoining property owners have raised concerns about impacts on their quality of life from traffic, fumes, noise and visual impacts caused by this firewood cutting operation.  The site is a residential lot, in a rural area, and it is reasonable to assume that adjoining residential properties will not become industrial properties. 

 

Staff findings are as follows:

 

1.   The property is zoned O-Open.

 

2.   A sawmill is listed as an industrial use that requires Special Review approval in the Open Zoning District.

 

3.   Sawmills are defined as:  A facility where logs or partially processed cants are sawn, split, shaved, stripped, chipped or otherwise processed to produce wood products, not including the processing of timber for use on the same lot by the owner or resident of the lot.

 

4.   Off-premise signs are not allowed in Larimer County.

 

Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find that violations of the Larimer County Land Use Code exist, require compliance with County regulations within a time determined by the Commissioners, and authorize legal action if deadlines set by the Commissioners are not met. 

 

Mr. Gray explained the circumstances, as outlined above, and recommended that the Board find that a violation exists.

 

Property owner Gary Otte, addressed the Board.  Mr. Otte stated that he has been in business for four years and he explained his operation in great detail.  He stated that he is not running a sawmill, but rather a firewood processing facility.  Mr. Otte also stated that he only runs this operation an hour or two at a time, not all day long.

 

Chair Johnson opened up the hearing for public comment and Marty Schreifer, Tony Smith, Steve May, and Dan Koturov all expressed opposition to Mr. Otte’s firewood processing facility.  All cited noise, fire hazards, public safety, decreasing property values, and negative impacts to their quality of life, as their main objections.

 

Mr. Otte stated that his property was just reappraised and the decreasing property values are only following the market trends.  He stated that there is no possibility of logs rolling into the roadway.  He noted that other log trucks are utilizing the highway daily that have nothing to do with his business.  Mr. Otte stated that the bigger pieces of machinery are currently staged on his property, waiting to start the ground work on the house that he will be building for his son-in-law.  Finally, Mr. Otte stated that he will build a privacy fence to shield the operations from the roadway if necessary.

 

The Board had a 6:30 p.m. meeting scheduled, and therefore, had to table discussion and decision making to December 6, 2010.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Otte Code Compliance, File #10-CC0259, to December 6, 2010, at 3:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing recessed at 6:25 p.m.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:35 p.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Robert Keister, Budget Manager; Stephen Gillette, Solid Waste Director; Deni LaRue, Community Information Manager; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Johnson opened the meeting by explaining that the two topics of discussion would be the Proposed Fee Schedule for Landfill and Berthoud/Wellington/Red Feather Lakes Transfer Stations and the Proposed 2011 Larimer County Budget.  He further explained how citizens can participate in the meeting via email and/or phone connection. 

 

1. PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE FOR LANDFILL AND BERTHOUD/ WELLINGTON/RED FEATHER LAKES TRANSFER STATIONS:  Mr. Gillette approached the Board and explained the details of the proposed fee schedule, which results in a 5% increase across the board.  He quickly reviewed the department’s budget, historical data on fee increases, the current rates, and how the Larimer County Landfill rates compare to other landfills in the area.  He further explained that the fees for Estes Park will be discussed in a separate hearing there on November 22, 2010.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the need for this fee increase, customer use patterns, competition in the area, and the department’s budget.

 

Chair Johnson opened the meeting to public comment.  No one approached the Board, and public comment was closed.  Chair Johnson then explained that this meeting was held to provide opportunity for public comment on the matter and that no decision would be made by the Board at this time.

 

2. PROPOSED 2011 LARIMER COUNTY BUDGET:  Chair Johnson briefly explained the budget process, the dollars involved in the budget, and how decreased property values are expected to affect the budget in the coming years.  He further explained that the county is now budgeting for outcomes, which is considered a more effective approach to the process.  He went on to briefly describe how the county budgets for the long-term impact of reduced property taxes, efficiencies that have been implemented, and the budget reduction expectations that were given to the various departments as they began preparing their budgets. 

 

Mr. Lancaster further explained some budget parameters; including the types of budget dollars the Board has no discretion over, the effects of budget reductions on staffing and staff salaries, investment proposals requiring spending in order to realize savings and increased efficiencies, and outstanding issues that will need attention in future budget cycles.

 

Mr. Keister then gave a presentation on the basics of building the budget, budget timeframes, where the money comes from, how it is proposed to be spent, the tax impact on the budget, and how Larimer County compares with other organizations. 

 

Chair Johnson opened the meeting to public comment.  Sue Foster, county resident, approached the Board and requested clarification on how public safety and county road maintenance dollars are spent.  Discussion ensued on these topics.  Chair Johnson suggested that Ms. Foster might find participation in the Sheriff Department’s Citizens’ Academy a helpful source of information as well.

 

Mr. Gary Marison, county resident, approached the Board and requested clarification on how open space dollars are spent.  Discussion ensued on this topic.

 

Seeing no further interest, and there being no citizen phone calls or emails, Chair Johnson closed public comment.  He concluded the hearing by commenting on Larimer County’s financial status and by explaining the next steps in the budget process will be a final hearing on December 20, 2010.  He stated that interested citizens can find valuable information at the county’s website (www.larimer.org).

 

The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 2:00 p.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Johnson presided, and Commissioners Gaiter and Donnelly were present. Also present were:  Donna Hart, Deni LaRue, and Diane Tokarz, Commissioners’ Office;  Peggy Campbell, Scott Webermeier, Lee Lasson and Bill Almond, Estes Park Local Marketing District; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

1.   PUBLIC COMMENT:    Larry Newman commented on a recent news article regarding inaccurate notification to property owners for the Boxelder Stormwater Authority Open House sessions.  He also expressed concern regarding the records retention timeframe for emails and audio recordings of meetings pertaining to the Boxelder Sanitation District.

 

Mark Glorioso, General Manager with Gallegos Sanitation, suggested that the Board consider a tiered pricing system, or volume discounts for trash haulers and citizens alike.  He stated that Larimer County is competitive in the market-place for compacted trash, but not as competitive in terms of non-compacted or “loose” trash.  Mr. Glorioso offered to put together a scenario for the Solid Waste Director to consider. 

 

2.    APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 8, 2010: 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of November 8, 2010.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.    REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 22, 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:

 

 

11162010A001           AGREEMENT FOR RECEIPT OF COURT SECURITY GRANT FUNDS BY AND BETWEEN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND COLORADO JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT  

 

11162010R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HAZLETT AMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL

 

11162010R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GARCIA MINOR LAND DIVISION

 

11162010R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SADDLE RIDGE ACRES PUD AMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL

 

11162010R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BLUE SKY AUTO SALES VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT

 

11162010R005           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GLADSTONE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING BUILDING

 

11162010R006           RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE CARTER LAKE CAMPER SERVICES PROJECT BETWEEN THE LARIMER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE STATE BOARD OF THE GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND

 

11162010R007           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LEIGHTON ACCESSORY LIVING AREA MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:   The following licenses were approved and/or issued:  Young’s Liquor – Retail Liquor Store – Fort Collins. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 2011 OPERATING PLAN:  Mr. Webermeier provided the 2011 business operation plan and budget for the Board’s consideration, and he entertained questions on the same. Ms. Campbell shared their highlights and accomplishments thus far, and she explained that the main focus for 2011 will be to incorporate branding and a new website for the Estes Park Local Marketing District.  The Board commended them on their efforts.

 

6.   APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:  Ms. Tokarz requested approval on the following Boards and Commissions recommendations: 

 

Board of Adjustment:   Sheri Hofeling appointed for a 3-year term beginning November 16, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2012.

Community Corrections Advisory Board:   Laurie Barnhill appointed for a 2-year term beginning November 16, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2012.

GID #11 Meadowdale Hills:   Martha Leadbitter and Larry Olson reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

GID #12 Club Estates:   Kevin Cassidy and Clark Mapes reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

GID #13A Red Feather Lakes:   Terry Ferebee, Rusty Iverson, and J. Michael Sledge reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

GID #14 Little Valley:   William Conger, (reappointed) Donald Lowe, and Linda Moak (appointed) for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

GID #16 Kitchell:   Richard Cape and Kris Laine reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

GID #1991-1 Arapahoe Pines:   Paula Gamble and Karen Ledbetter reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

GID #4 Carriage Hills:   Ron Duell (reappointed) and Joseph Wise (appointed) for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

GID #8 Namaqua Hills:   Stephanie Soule and Mike Thompson appointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

Office On Aging Advisory Council:   Randy Mergler filling an unexpired 3-year term beginning November 16, 2010, and expiring June 30, 2011.

PID #21 Solar ridge:   Gerald Gates and Andrew Wolfe reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #22 Saddleback:   James Hartman appointed to fill an unexpired 4-year term beginning November 16, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2012.  Keith Olson (appointed) and Don Jaffee (reappointed) for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #23 Eagle Rock:   Alan Miller and Barbara Widrig reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #24 Westridge:   Leland (Lee) Evans and Joe LaGrotta reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #25 Estes Park Estates:   Dana DeLong and Lawson Smith (appointed) and George (Gary) Shepherd (reappointed) for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #26 Eagle Ranch:   William Davis, Will Geiger, and Dennis Spencer reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #27 Crown Point:   Chris Scribner appointed to fill unexpired 4-year term beginning November 16, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #28 Trotwood Ranches:   Roger Dechairo and Cindy Gallenstein reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #29 Vine Drive:   Amy Reader and Andrew Sleeper reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #31 Foothill Shadows:   John Chilson and Rhonda Cooper reappointed for 4-year terms beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #34 Mountain Range Shadows:   Robert Holm appointed to fill an unexpired 4-year term beginning November 16, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2012.  Harold Barhite reappointed for a 4-year term beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #38 Centro Business Park:   Joe Larson reappointed for a 4-year term beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

PID #40 Paragon Estates:   Jeffery Warning reappointed for a 4-year term beginning December 1, 2010, and expiring November 30, 2014.

Weld/Larimer Revolving Loan Fund:   Kathe Mehlbach reappointed for a 4-year term beginning January 1, 2011, and expiring December 31, 2014.

 

M O T I O N

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

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  COUNTY MANAGER WORK SESSION:  There were no work session items to discuss.

 

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

 

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

 

The meeting ended at 2:50 p.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

   STEVE JOHNSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk

 

 

______________________________________

Angela Myers, Deputy County Clerk

 

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.