> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 06/11/12  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, June 11, 2012

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Russell Legg, Interim Planning Director. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present. Also present were:  Toby Stauffer, and Rob Helmick, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Eric Tracy, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Dana Bouchard, Deputy Clerk.

  

Chair Gaiter opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance, and explained that the following items were on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested to do so by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.  Mr. Helmick explained that Item 3, the Dyer Public Site Plan, File #12-PSP0031, had no public opposition and requested that this item be moved to the consent agenda as well.  Seeing no opposition from the audience, Item 3 was moved to the consent agenda:

 

 

1.   SAWMILL JUNCTION SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #12-Z1882:   This is a request for a special review for enclosed storage on site zoned Red Feather Lakes Business with existing and approved business. This item was placed on the consent agenda for the Larimer County Planning Commission.  There was no public present to comment on the application. 

 

The Development Services Team and the Larimer County Planning Commission recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the sawmill Junction Special Review with 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.

 

  1. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Sawmill Junction Special Review, File #12-Z1882, 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 Sawmill Junction Special Review.

 

  1. 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

 

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

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. The applicant shall pay the apportioned Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) for the uses approved under this special review at the issuance of each building permit for that use. The TCEF fees paid at time of permit shall be apportioned proportionally based on the square-footage of the building permitted.

 

  1. All exterior lighting associated with this use shall be building mounted, down directed, sharp cut-off and manually switched fixtures. 

 

  1. The applicant shall develop a plan for dealing with solid and hazardous waste prior to final building permit approvals. The plan shall address diversion, collection management and disposal.

 

  1. The applicant shall provide an updated traffic report, if required by the Engineering Department, to insure the traffic analysis is correct and an appropriate TCEF can be calculated.

 

3.  DYER PUBLIC SITE PLAN, FILE #12-PSP0031:   The applicant has proposed the construction of an accessory wind generator on their lot.  The lot, which is .97 acres, was platted in 1971 when adjacent right of ways were counted as a part of the lot area.  The Development Services Team has interpreted that this lot area meets the one-acre lot requirement for accessory wind generators.  The proposal is for a 45-foot tower to be located 30 feet from the rear property line.  This does not meet two of the requirements for a use by right wind generator, so an application for Public Site Plan was initiated to request approval in this location request a different height to setback ratio and at 45 feet in height.

 

The applicant indicates that the 45 foot height is necessary because the stock towers come in standard heights for this type of generator.  The 45 foot is the shortest of the stock towers.  The setback is requested to provide the best access to wind and be setback from both the home on the applicant’s lot as well as homes on other lots.  The standard setback of a tower is twice the height, which would require in this case the tower be 90 feet from the lot line.  This would put the tower in or immediately adjacent to the applicant’s home on the lot and closer to all other homes in the subdivision. 

 

The applicant/property owner already has a small solar array on the lot to the south of the proposed tower location. 

 

A hearing with the Board of County Commissioners is required when after the referral period on a PSP there continue to be unresolved neighbor property owner comments of concerns.  In this case, referrals were sent to 19 surrounding owners.  Responses from seven owners were received.  Four responses were in support and three were in opposition to the proposal.  The applicant contacted those individuals and was able to resolve one persons concern; there remain two neighbors in opposition to the request.  Of the two one owner is to the immediate west and has noise, visibility and resale value issues; while the other is located two lots to the south and has visual and compatibility concerns. 

 

An accessory wind tower is a use by right when it meets the standards of the Code.  In this case, the objections do not appear be about the height or specific site location but to the existence of a tower at all.  The Team believes that the application is a reasonable response to the site conditions and the limitations of the particular product.  The applicant has provided information, which would suggest the balance of the standards could be met. 

 

With respect to the proposed tower setback, the Team believes it a reasonable to request an acknowledgement from the owner to the east; the Curtis’s that the proposed setback and placement is not in conflict with their plans or uses of the property.

 

The Development Services Team finds:

 

1.   The public site plan complies with all applicable requirements of the Land Use Code and any applicable supplementary regulations; and

 

2.   The public site plan complies with all conditions of approval imposed by the County Commissioners, the Board of Adjustment or Floodplain Review Board under another approval process authorized by the Land Use code.

 

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

 

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

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Dyer Public Site Plan, File # 12-PSP0031, subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   This approval shall automatically expire in two years if the use has not commenced and/or a building permit and/or development construction permit are not issued.

 

2.   The owner shall provide written acknowledgement from the owner to the east that they have no conflict with the placement of the tower. 

 

3.   The tower shall be installed per the approved plans.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve consent agenda as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.  LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS – NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REQUIREMENTS, FILE #12-CA0124:   The Planning Commission discussed the proposed code amendments at their May 16, 2012 hearing.  There was little discussion and no public comment. 

 

The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the following Land Use Code Amendments, File #12-CA0124, regarding neighborhood meeting process and procedures, be approved:

 

PROPOSED CHANGES:

1 .   Amend Section 12.2.3 (Sketch Plan Review) as follows:

B.  Upon receipt of a complete application, the planning department will refer the appropriate application materials to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal (neighbors), to the appropriate referral agencies (utilities, fire department, county health, county engineer, school district, etc.) and schedule the sketch plan review meeting. The staff person assigned to the case will compile the responses from neighbors and referral agencies and will review the application for compliance with all provisions of this Code. A written staff report will be presented at the meeting.

2.   Amend Section 12.2.4 (Neighborhood Meeting) as follows:

12.2.4 Neighbor Referral and Neighborhood Meeting

A. Neighbor Referral

1. The Neighbor Referral shall provide information about a specific development application, the development review process, and process time frame.  The Neighbor Referral and comment process will serve three purposes:

a.   to provide information about a development application and an opportunity for property owners in the vicinity to comment on a land use application that requires County approval;

b.   to gather neighbor comments, concerns, and/or suggestions about the development application early in the review process and enable the applicant ample opportunity to address the comments, and

c.   to provide a written report to boards and commissions describing comments received and any modification(s) made in response to the comments.

2.  The Neighbor referral is required for all Minor Special Review, Special Review, Special Exception, Rezoning, Conservation Development, Subdivision, and Planned Land Division applications. The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for a project if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. The Director’s decision to require a meeting cannot be appealed. 

3.  Neighbor referral and comment process for Sketch Plan.

a.   Upon receipt of a sketch plan application, property owners in the vicinity of the proposal will be mailed referral materials which will include information about the application and the development review process.

b.   The referral shall provide 14 days for property owners or neighbors in the vicinity to respond with any comments, questions, or concerns about the application. Comments shall be submitted to the planning department. The planning department shall provide the applicant with a copy of any comments received.

c.   At the Sketch Plan meeting the Planning Director will determine if a neighborhood meeting (see Section 12.2.4.B.) is required based on land use impact or comments received.

d.   Prior to the neighborhood meeting (if required) or public hearing application, the applicant shall respond to comments received during the neighbor referral. The applicant shall provide a written report detailing comments and the applicant’s response to those comments. The written report will be available for review and will also be included in the staff report prepared for any public hearing on the proposal.

4.  Neighbor referral and comment process for Public Hearing.

a.   Upon receipt of a development application, property owners in the vicinity of the proposal will be mailed referral materials which will include information about the application and the development review process.

b.   The referral shall provide property owners or neighbors in the vicinity an opportunity to comment on the application. Comments shall be submitted to the planning department. The planning department shall provide the applicant with a copy of any comments received.

c.   Comments will be included in the staff report prepared for any public hearing on the proposal.

d.   Throughout the public hearing process, interested parties will have the opportunity to review application materials online or in person at the planning department.

 

B. Neighborhood Meeting

The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to allow the applicant to present the proposal to nearby residents and property owners who may be affected by the proposal. A neighborhood meeting is may be required for amendments to the official zoning map, special reviews, special exceptions, subdivisions, planned land divisions and conservation developments. (Note: A neighborhood meeting is also required for a rural land use plan but has different requirements. See section 5.8.5.C.6). The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for a variance if he/she determines the meeting would benefit the board of adjustment's review.

1.         When required, a The neighborhood meeting must be conducted after sketch plan review and before an application is submitted for any procedure requiring a public hearing. (Note: A neighborhood meeting is required for a rural land use plan but has different requirements. See section 5.8.5.C.6). Neighborhood meetings for variances, if required by the planning director, will be conducted before the board of adjustment hearing.

The neighborhood meeting will identify items issues needed to be addressed in the next submittal and allow the applicant to assess how those items issues will affect the proposal. The neighborhood meeting is intended to result in applications that are less likely to require changes as the result of input received from neighbors at public hearings.

2.         Neighborhood Meeting process.

a.         Neighborhood meetings will be conducted by a facilitator who is retained by the applicant or the applicants’ designee.

b.         The staff planner assigned to the project and the applicant will coordinate meeting time, place and notice to neighbors.

c.         Property owners in the vicinity of the proposal will be notified of a neighborhood meeting by mailed notice at least 14 days in advance of the meeting date.

d.         The staff planner will attend the neighborhood meeting as a resource for process questions. Staff will not provide information about project specifics or facilitate the meeting.

e.         The applicant is responsible for all expenses of the neighborhood meeting, including but not limited to the facilitator's fee, facility costs and the cost of the meeting notice. The applicant will provide a meeting note taker.

f.          The applicant will prepare a written report of meeting comments. The report will become part of the case file. The applicant will document and respond to all comments provided at the neighborhood meeting and neighbor referral process for sketch plan. facilitator is responsible for encouraging a free exchange of information between the applicant and those potentially affected by the proposal. The facilitator will prepare a written report that will become a part of the case file. The written report will be available for review and it will also be included in the staff report prepared for any public hearing on the proposal. The applicant is responsible for providing notice to the property owners in the vicinity of the proposal and for presenting the proposal to those attending the neighborhood meeting.

Amend Table 12.3.I (Public Hearing Notice Requirements) as follows:

 

Neighborhood Meeting (if required)

N/A

14 days

N/A

 

 

 

1.   Amend Section 4.5.9 (Special Review and Minor Special Review process) as follows:

All applications for special review require a pre-application conference, sketch plan review, neighbor referral, neighborhood meeting, planning commission review and county commissioner review. The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for an application if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. Each of these processes is described in section 12.2 (development review procedures).

 

All applications for minor special review require a pre-application conference, a neighborhood meeting neighbor referral, and county commissioner review.  The planning director may waive the neighborhood meeting, in writing, if he/she determines the meeting would not benefit the county commissioners' review of the application.

 

2.   Amend Section 4.6.5 (Zoning Variances process) as follows:

All applications for zoning variances require a pre-application conference and a public hearing before the board of adjustment. If the planning director determines a zoning variance may have a significant impact on a neighborhood, a neighborhood meeting is also required. Each of these processes is described in section  12.2 (development review procedures). All board of adjustment decisions must be recorded with the county clerk and recorder.

 

3.   Amend Section 4.7.7 (Zoning Special Exceptions process) as follows:

All applications for special exception require a pre-application conference, sketch plan review, a neighborhood meeting, neighbor referral, planning commission review and county commissioner review. The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for an application if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. Each of these processes is described in section 12.2 (development review procedures). All county commissioner decisions concerning special exceptions must be recorded with the county clerk and recorder.

 

4.   Amend Section 5.1.4 (Subdivision process) as follows:

A.     Any application for a subdivision requires a pre-application conference, sketch plan review,—see section 12.2 (development review procedures), neighborhood meeting, neighbor referral, (see section 12.2 (development review procedures)) preliminary plat review, and final plat review (see section 5.13 (land division process)). The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for an application if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. All multiple-phase subdivisions also require a general development plan review. An applicant may choose to submit the application for general development plan review (see section 12.2) for a single-phase subdivision.

 

5.   Amend Section 5.2.4 (Planned Land Division process) as follows:

All applications for a planned land division require a pre-application conference, sketch plan review, general development plan review (optional for single-phase developments) neighborhood meeting, neighbor referral, (see section 12.2 (development review procedures)) preliminary plat review, and final plat review (see section 5.13 (land division process)). The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for an application if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial.

 

6.   Amend Section 5.3.4 (Conservation Development review criteria and process)as follows:

B.   All applications for conservation development require a pre-application conference, sketch plan review, neighbor referral, (see section 12.2 (development review procedures)) and a neighborhood meeting as described in section 12.2 and preliminary plat review and final plat review as described in section 5.13. The planning director may require a neighborhood meeting for a project if he/she determines the meeting would be beneficial. All multiple-phase conservation developments also require a general development plan review. Single-phase conservation developments may be submitted for general development plan review at the choice of the applicant.

 

7.   Amend Section 5.13.4.A.3 as follows:

3. The planning department will not accept an application for preliminary plat review until concept review (or optional sketch plan review), a neighborhood meeting and a pre-application conference, and a neighborhood meeting (if required by the Planning Director) have been completed.  unless The planning director waives these processes in writing.

 

 

Chair Gaiter asked if there was anyone present who wished to present comment regarding the Amendments to the Land Use Code as presented.  Seeing none, Chair Gaiter closed public comment.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding neighborhood meeting process and procedures, File #12-CA0124.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.  FOX ACRES LEGAL LOT APPEAL, FILE #12-G0238:   The applicant has submitted this appeal in response to a decision by the Planning Director that the parcel they wish to sell is in fact not currently divided from a larger parcel and an application for PUD/Master Plan amendment and subsequent platting. 

 

This issue came to the attention of the staff when the principal of the FA Club Properties contacted staff regarding possible use and transfer of what is known as the “Welcome Center”.  This facility at Fox Acres was constructed in the mid 1990’s as a location outside the gate for sales and promotions for prospective buyers.  Its location and use were approved in 1995 as a part of an amended master plan for the welcome center and recreation center and pool.  Subsequent to that, approval an amended plat was approved which at that time changed the boundaries of the first and third filings of Fox Acres and placed the area for these facilities in the third filing where other club properties are located. 

 

There have been subsequent plats and amended plats in Fox Acres since that time and due to the complexity of the plats and the issues related to ownership and surveying those plats have not all been fully “worked”, integrated into the parcel map structure.  In all of those, it is clear that there is not a separate parcel or lot.  There are representations of lines to be removed but no lot line has ever been drawn around this parcel.  This has resulted in the area around the center being shown for several years as a separate parcel.  It has a separate tax ID and the owner receives separate tax notices.  For this reason, they believe that parcel is a separate salable parcel.  The staff has included a number of these plats, in reduced form, for your review as a part of this memo. 

 

The Staff finds no evidence in the County records that the parcel is or ever was intended to be separate and has never been platted separately.  The applicant disagrees and presented information from a prior owner and their interpretation of the sequence of platting.  The applicant’s submission references sales and deeds for the “parcel”. 

 

A referral was provided to the Community Service Corporation at Fox Acres the equivalent of its Home Owners Association.  Their response to this issue is attached as a part of this packet; it is their conclusion that no separate parcel exists either.  Part of their response is their own legal analysis of the situation and a chronologic discussion of the plats, which occurred, and they were in some cases a party to.

 

Although the applicant makes a case to have, the appeal here considered.  The evaluation of the appeal reveals that the parcel was never been created except through the actions of the Assessor’s Office and that no plat or official document that is part of the County records exists to suggest the parcel was ever intended to be separate.  To approve the requested appeal would be contrary to the intent and purposes of the Code.  It would further violate the approved PUD and Master Plan for Fox Acres, which was specifically amended to facilitate the construction for the development of this site as a part of the club properties.  The Development Services Team recommends denial of the Fox Acres Club Legal Lot Appeal, File #12-G0238.

 

Mr. Helmick explained the application as outlined above. The applicant, Kevin Frazier represented by his attorney Rick Zier, detailed his understanding of how the lot was previously purposed and explained that the Assessor’s Office had always treated it as a separate lot. Much discussion ensued regarding the transfer of ownership, boundary lines, and the date those lines were established.

 

Ted Carter, and William Butin addressed the Board in support of the staff recommendation to deny the appeal stating their belief that the lots were never separated.  Mr. Butin also presented the Board with a signed affidavit from John Stenzel stating his understanding of the lot lines.

 

Mr. Zier re-stated that the issue was not the creation of the separate lots, but that the properties have historically been sold separately.

 

At this time Chair Gaiter closed public comment. 

 

Discussion ensued regarding the cost of creating a separate legal lot, the existing plat, and the property tax statements.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Fox Acres Club Legal Lot Appeal, File #12-G0238.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business the meeting recessed at 4:25 p.m.

 

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

PARKS PERMIT REVISION HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Gary Buffington, Director of the Natural Resources Department.  Chair Gaiter presided, and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present.  Also present were:  Dan Rieves, and Shannon Barnes, Natural Resources Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Mr. Rieves proposed changes to the annual vehicle and boating permits for Larimer County Parks and Open Spaces. If approved, the new vehicle passes would be transferable between members of the same household and the cost would increase from $65 to $75.   In addition, Mr. Rieves proposed eliminating paddling permits, second vehicle permits, and the requirement for multiple permits for multiple motorized vessels transported on one trailer.  Finally, Mr. Rieves stated that they solicited public input in the form of a survey and that citizens overwhelmingly supported the proposed changes, as did the Parks Advisory Board. 

 

Chair Gaiter noted for the record that there was no one in the audience to comment on the proposed changes.

 

Some discussion ensued.  The Board thanked the Mr. Rieves and all of the Natural Resources staff for their hard work and effort on these innovative changes.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approved the proposed changes to the annual parks permits and fee changes, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS MEETING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met a 9:00 a.m. with Linda Hoffmann, County Manager. Chair Gaiter presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were:  Neil Gluckman, Diane Tokarz, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Deborah Moeck, Small Business Development Center; Kathay Rennels, Colorado State University; Linda Sanders, Engineering Department; Ed Schemm, Environmental Health Department;  Linda Conners, County Attorney’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

In light of the fire and all the devastation within the community, Chair Gaiter had Pastor Darell Hailey begin the meeting with a prayer and a moment of silence.  Then he formally opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

1.         PUBLIC COMMENT:  Mel Hilgenberg provided an update regarding many community events, and made additional comments regarding petitions currently being circulated that could change water history in this area; he urged the commissioners to oppose this measure.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEKS OF MAY 29, 2012 AND JUNE 4, 2012: 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the weeks  of May 29, 2012, and June 4, 2012.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

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

 

06122012A001           DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CONTRACT FOR INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROGRAM SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, AND YOUTHFUL OFFENDER SYSTEM

 

06122012A002           RESIDENTIAL DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND LARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

 

06122012A003           CONTRACT FOR SEX OFFENDER SUPERVISION BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND LARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

 

06122012D001           DEED OF DEDICATION – RICHARD L. COULSON

 

06122012D002           DEED OF DEDICATION – THE MURIAL L. MACGREGOR TRUST

 

MISCELLANEOUS:   Chafee Foster Care Independence Program – Proposed Annual Plan.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.   DECLARATION OF RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO FIRE BAN AND BAN ON THE SALE OF FIREWORKS:  Chair Gaiter presented a letter proposing that Governor Hickenlooper enact a statewide non-urban fireworks ban, or at the very least a ban for Northern Colorado, and he also presented a resolution to create a fire ban and fireworks ban in the non-urban areas of Larimer County.  (A map depicting the boundaries of these areas is attached to the Resolution.) 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the letter to Governor Hickenlooper urging a statewide non-urban fireworks ban, or a ban specifically for Northern Colorado.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of county Commissioners approve the Resolution and map declaring fire restrictions and a fireworks ban in the non-urban areas of Larimer County.

 

At this time Commissioner Donnelly made a subsequent motion to ban the use of fireworks in all areas of Larimer County. 

 

Chair Gaiter called for a vote on the subsequent motion banning the use of fireworks in all areas of Larimer County.

 

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

 

Chair Gaiter called for the vote on the initial motion, approving the Resolution and map declaring fire restrictions and a fireworks ban in the non-urban areas of Larimer County, effective June 16, 2012.

 

Motion carried 2-1; Commissioner Donnelly dissenting.

 

06122012R003           RESOLUTION DECLARING FIRE RESTRICTIONS IN LARIMER COUNTY

 

5.  BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:  Ms. Tokarz presented the following recommendations for Boards and Commissions: 

 

Board of Appeals:  Chris Allison, reappointment for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.

 

Board of Health:  Jennifer Lee, appointed for a 5-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2017.

 

Citizen Review Panel:  Carol Furcolow and Jason Van Tatenhove, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.  Nancy Kain and Dushan (Duke) Sumonia reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.

 

Community Corrections Advisory Board:   Laurie Barnhill, Chris Hefty, Sidney Simonson, and William Sublette, reappointed for 2-year terms beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2014.

 

Estes Valley Board of Adjustment:   Robert Christian, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.  John Lynch, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.

 

Juvenile Community Review Board:   Arlene Schiffman, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.  Liz Davis, Andy Josey, Michelle Leschinsky, and Michael Ruttenberg, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.

 

Land Stewardship Advisory Board:   Vic Day, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.  Ken Mathias, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.

 

LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee:   Allan Leibow, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.  Susanne Cordery-Cotter and Ed Ott, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.

 

Larimer Integrated Family Enhancement Board:   Eric Moskalski, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.  Laura Garrett, Jerri Howe, Laurie Klith, Kristin Mooney, and Michael Ruttenberg reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.

 

Open Lands Advisory Board:  Ladonna Lee, John Phipps, and Carl Sorrentino, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.  Gerry Horak, Peter Kast, and Steve Vessey, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.

 

Parks Advisory Board:  Steve Ambrose, and David Hattis, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.   John Tipton, appointed for a 2-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2014.  Frank Gillespie, and Forrest Orswell, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.

 

Planning Commission:  Peter Bohling, appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.  Mina Cox, and Curtis Miller, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2012, and expiring June 30, 2015.

 

M O T I O N

 

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

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  UPDATE ON SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER:  Ms. Moeck provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Board, outlining how the program is funded, the marketing strategies used, workshops available, and statistics on jobs created and retained in the area.  Ms. Moeck and Ms. Rennels asked the Board to partnership with them and sponsor an upcoming training session.  The sessions are 12-weeks long, and it would require a $4500 match in funding.  The Board agreed to take this request under consideration.

 

7.  CREATION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #2012-1 – RIVER GLEN:   Mr. Schemm and Ms. Sanders explained that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is requiring that the current wastewater treatment system for River Glen be replaced, and requested the Board order a hearing for the creation of Local Improvement District 2012-1, River Glen, and approve preliminary plans for the sanitation improvements for the 86 properties involved in the proposed district.  Some discussion ensued.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution 06122012R001 declaring the intention to create a Local Improvement District within the County, to be designated as Larimer County Local Improvement District No. 2012-1 (River Glen), adopting details and specifications therefore, and ordering publication and mailing of Notice of Hearing to the owners of the property to be assessed for improvements in said district.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

06122012R001           RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WITHIN THE COUNTY, TO BE DESIGNATED AS LARIMER COUNTY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2012-1 (RIVER GLEN)

 

At this point in the meeting Sheriff Smith provided an update on the High Park Fire for the Board, after which Commissioner Johnson left the meeting.

 

8.   COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:   Ms. Hoffmann presented a resolution declaring the emergency for the High Park Fire, noting that she enacted it over the weekend, as advised by the Office of Emergency Management; however, it must be ratified by the Board of County Commissioners within 72 hours. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution Declaring an Emergency for the High Park Fire.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

06122012R002           DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY FOR THE HIGH PARK FIRE

 

Ms. Hoffmann then informed the Board that the Department of Local Affairs will be setting up a disaster recovery center at Colorado State University and that Ms. LaRue would be working with them to get information out to the public.

 

Finally, Ms. Hoffman stated that up to 3-days of Administrative Leave will be extended to employees affected by the High Park Fire.

 

9.  COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:   The Board reviewed their activities at events during the past week.

 

10.   LEGAL MATTERS:  Ms. Connors presented the stipulation agreement with Hacienda Real, pertaining to their liquor license violation, and requested approval on the same.

 

M O T I O N 

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners accept the stipulation agreement regarding the liquor license violation for Hacienda Real.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

Ms. Connors then requested that the Board go in to executive session for legal advice regarding a Board of Assessment Appeals case.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners go in to executive session for conferences with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402-(4)(b) C. R. S.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 11:05 a.m.

 

 

 

__________________________________________

   LEW GAITER III, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

______________________________________

Dana S. Bouchard, Deputy Clerk

 

______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk