MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, March 2, 2009
(No Audio Available)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 1:40 p.m. to go into Executive Session. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also Present were: Matt Lafferty and Frank Lancaster, Commissioners’ Office; Russ Legg and Larry Timm, Planning Department; Tracy Shambo, Engineering Department; Jeffery Boring, Department of Natural Resources; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into executive session for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategies for negotiations, and developing strategies for negotiations, as outlined in 24-6-402 (4)(e) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The session ended at 2:25 p.m. with no action taken.
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were: Rob Helmick and Samantha Mott, Planning Department; Eric Tracy, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Linda Hoffman, Rural Land Use Center; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget or Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding either of these topics.
Chair Rennels noted that the first item is on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or a member of the audience:
1. CRYSTAL LAKES 6TH FILING LOT 97 & 98 LOT CONSOLIDATION, FILE #09-S2857: This is a request to combine Lots 97 and 98 of Crystal Lakes 6th Filing. If approved, the recording instrument for this application will be a Findings and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed consolidation is located in the northeast quarter of Section 1, Township 10 North, Range 74, 196 Okmulgee Circle, Red Feather Lakes.
Staff has found the proposed lot consolidation will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency, nor will it result in any additional lots. Staff also finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code and recommends approval of Crystal Lakes 6th Filing Lots 97 & 98, Lot Consolidation, file #09-S2857, subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by September 2, 2009, 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.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Crystal Lakes 6th Filing Lots 97 & 98, Lot Consolidation, file #09-S2857, subject to the conditions outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
2. RAINS AMENDED SPECIAL EXCEPTION, FILE #09-G0166: This is a request to modify the condition of approval for a variance that was approved in 1988, allowing a guest house on the same lot with another single family dwelling. The condition to be amended pertains specifically to the 800-square-foot size limit.
In 1986, the current landowners applied and received approval for a variance from the Board of Adjustments to allow a guest house to be on the same lot as a single family dwelling. The guest house was approved with a condition specifying that the size remain 800-square-feet. In 1995 the guest house was expanded an additional 336 square feet connecting it to the detached garage and this addition was never permitted or approved. The current request is to amend the condition of approval and allow the 336-square-foot addition to remain. In order for the Planning Department to approve the building permit, the owner must receive approval from the Board of County Commissioners to allow the size of the building to be expanded by 336-square-feet.
Back in 1986 the Land Use Code had no provisions for accessory living areas. Applicants had to go to the Board of Adjustment and receive approval through a variance or special exception. The current Land Use Code language allows accessory living areas, provided they meet the review criteria in the Land Use Code and they receive approval from the Board of County Commissioners using the Minor Special Review process.
It should be noted that accessory living areas are intended to allow property owners full use of their property while maintaining the integrity and character of residential neighborhoods. To fulfill this goal, accessory uses and buildings must be erected and used only for purposes that are clearly secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property. Also, no individuals or agencies contacted staff with objections to the project.
Staff has concluded that:
1. The proposed use is compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and in harmony with the neighborhood.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the Larimer County Master Plan.
3. There are no known or evident conflicts with the requirements of the Land Use Code.
4. The proposed use is not anticipated to have any impacts on other property.
5. The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.
6. Approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose of the requirement of the Code. The expansion of the previously approved guest house is located in an area between the permitted guest house and the existing garage.
7. Approval of the appeal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood.
8. Approval of the appeal is the minimum action necessary. The request will not need any subsequent approvals by the county other than building permit requirements.
9. Approval of the appeal will not result in increased costs to the general public.
10. Approval of this Amended Special Exception will replace the previous Wilson H. Rains Variance and the new conditions of approval will replace any previous conditions of approval.
Staff recommends approval of the Rains Amendment to Special Exception, file #09-G0166, subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Rains Amendment to Special Exception, file #09-G0166, 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 Rains Amendment to Special Exception.
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 Amended Special Exception, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the county, the county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to the applicant to appear and show cause why the Amended Special Exception approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Amended Special Exception. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Amended Special Exception approval, the applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees. The county may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Amended Special Exception as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Amended Special Exception 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 Special Review approval.
4. The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for the addition. All applicable fees, including permit fees, shall apply to this use. Within 90-days of the date of approval, the owner shall obtain all outstanding the building permits and inspections for all previous work in the existing building.
5. The single-family character of the property must be maintained. The entrance to the accessory living area must not be visible from any road.
6. The accessory living area is to be used solely for guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling or those providing a service on site in exchange for their residency.
7. The accessory living area must not be rented or leased separately from the single-family dwelling.
8. This Amended Special Exception approval will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
Commissioner Johnson inquired how staff became aware of the code compliance violation. Ms. Mott stated that she was unsure but believed staff was notified when the single-family home on the property burned down. At that time, a new building permit was applied for in order to begin rebuilding the single-family home.
Charlie Philips, representative for applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Philips explained that the addition was constructed by the applicant’s mother when the applicant was out of town. The applicant believed his mother had gone through the necessary channels to have the addition approved, but during demolition of the burned single-family home, he discovered approval from the county had not been acheived.
Mr. Philips stated the applicant was in agreement with staff regarding the conditions of approval and did not have any additions or objections.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Rains Amendment to Special Exception, file #09-G0166, subject to conditions 1 through 8 as listed above. Also, that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal to Section 4.3.10.F.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, to allow the total square footage of the guest house to exceed the 800-square-feet limitation, as described by the applicant, and recommended by staff.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. SWIFT PONDS PLAT VACATION, FILE #08-S2853: This is a request to Vacate the plat for the Swift Ponds R.L.U.P. 99-RLP0028, located about 1˝ miles north of State Hwy 392 on County Road 5, or approximately 1 mile south of County Road 38, Harmony Road, on County Road 5, east of I-25. This property consists of 240.7-acres and is platted with 13 lots (Lots 1 through 11, Residual Lot A, and Outlot A). The zoning on this property is FA-1 Farming. This site is adjacent to an active gravel mine to the north, I-25 to the west and grazing/pasture land to the south. Properties to the east include residential, agricultural, and gravel mining/processing uses.
This rural land plan received final approval on June 5, 2001, and the final plat and associated documents were recorded on June 6, 2001. When a final plat and supporting documents are recorded for a rural land plan, the lots are restricted to certain uses listed in the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement also specifies the infrastructure requirements for that specific rural land plan. In general, rural land plans do not require the infrastructure to be built within a specific time period and the infrastructure in this rural land plan has not been constructed.
On September 29, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners approved a special exception on this property for an outdoor education program by Colorado Youth Outdoors; however, the Rural Land Plan does not allow for this use on the property. Residential uses specified by the Rural Land Plan are not compatible with the uses allowed by the special exception. If Colorado Youth Outdoors wishes to pursue the outdoor education program, the plat and supporting documents must be vacated.
Staff has no concerns regarding this plat vacation. As infrastructure was not built and individual lots have not been sold, vacating the plat will not create consequences for surrounding properties. It should be noted that once the plat is vacated and the supporting documents such as the development agreement and covenants are voided, all rights to plat and sell lots for residential purposes will be revoked. A new rural land use plan proposal or other subdivision process would have to be completed under the then current regulations in order for home site lots to be recreated.
It should be noted that staff is aware that the Legacy Land Trust (LLT) Board is actively working with Colorado Youth Outdoors to address the relationship between the missions of the two organizations, and how those can be best accommodated within the framework of the existing Conservation Easement.
No objections have been raised to the plat vacation request relative to the criteria established by Section 5.10 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. There are some concerns related to the approved special exception land use, but those objections do not have bearing on the plat vacation proposal. Negotiations between the property owner and the holder of the conservation easement, LLT, can continue independent of the county’s action on the plat vacation request.
Staff recommends approval of the Swift Ponds R.L.U.P. 99-RLP0028 Plat Vacation, file #08-S2853 and approval to rescind all related county documents.
Bob Hewson, applicant and representative for Colorado Youth Outdoors, addressed the Board. Mr. Hewson assured the Board that he has been working with Legacy Land Trust to address their desires for the property.
Chair Rennels opened the hearing to public comment but cautioned those who spoke that they should only be addressing the plat vacation and not the Special Review that was previously approved.
Jim Martell, Bill Wyatt, Tom Quinn, Craig Harrison, Don Shannon, Dallas Horton, Gene Fisher, Tim Dow, and Carol Harrison addressed the Board in opposition to the plat vacation. These individuals cited a lack of compatibility with the surrounding area, conflicts with the existing conservation easement, and the wishes of the original owner, Mr. Swift, for the use of the property. Many of these individuals also questioned whether notice of today’s hearing was required to be posted on the property, which was not done.
Mike Lynch, Chase Swift, and Barb Patterson addressed the Board in favor of approval of the plat vacation. Mr. Swift assured the Board that his father would have wanted the property to be used by Colorado Youth Outdoors to educate children about the wilderness and conservation.
Chair Rennels closed public comment and opened the hearing for applicant rebuttal. Mr. Hewson readdressed the Board and stated that he was confident in his request for a plat vacation. Jim Borzell, attorney representing the applicant, also addressed the Board and stated that his client had not posted the premises with notice of the hearing because he did not believe it was required for this specific type of hearing.
Chair Rennels asked staff whether Mr. Hewson was required to post the premises for this item and Mr. Lafferty stated the applicant was only required to fulfill notice through mailing and publication, both of which were completed.
Commissioner Johnson questioned the applicant about why he had not pursued vacation of the plat at the time of Special Review and Mr. Hewson stated that he is trying to complete the process one step at a time.
Chair Rennels stated that she does not believe the Board should make a decision that would force a property owner to develop property against their wishes.
Commissioner Donnelly encouraged all parties to try to find an amicable solution.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Swift Ponds R.L.U.P. 99-RLP0028 Plat Vacation, file #08-S2853 and grant approval to rescind all related county documents.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the hearing recessed at 4:30 p.m.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were: Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Chad Gray and Rob Helmick, Planning Department; George Haas, County Attorney; and Melissa Lonry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels opened the hearing and asked for public comment on the County Budget or Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding either of these topics.
1a. MONROE EXCAVATING (DEADMAN SITE) SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #07-Z1650: This is a request to operate a 6.4-acre quarry for construction and roadway materials. The proposed site has been used in the past as a sawmill and for equipment storage. Over the last 10 to 15 years, minor mining activities have occurred on the site. The prior owner sold a part of the site to Rural Electric Authority (REA) for a new electric substation and the applicant is in the process of acquiring the site from P & E Investments, LLC.
Last year the owners and REA submitted a Minor Land Development (MLD) application to the county. As part of the review, staff determined there were outstanding code compliance issues with the property pertaining to junk and an un-permitted mobile home. Further inquiry into the land owner and Monroe Excavating revealed mining operations on the site had commenced without county or state approval. As a result of these determinations, the platting of the site was delayed until an application for special review was submitted. The MLD plat has now been recorded and an application for special review for mining has been accepted for processing.
The Development Services Team presented the Monroe Excavating Deadman Quarry Special Review to the Planning Commission on January 21, 2009. The presentation was followed by the applicant’s testimony, as well as testimony from citizens in the area. Public testimony against the quarry stressed issues of compatibility focusing on noise and visual qualities associated with the operation and the impact on property values; whereas, public testimony in support of the quarry stressed the need for local gravel resources for roads and other construction activities.
After hearing testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and a motion for denial was made, but the vote resulted in a tie. The Planning Commission then deliberated a new motion including more conditions to the Development Services Team recommendation, but no consensus could be met. Therefore, this request has been forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners without a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends approval of the Monroe Deadman Quarry Special Review, file #07-Z1650, subject to the following condition(s):
1. This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
2. The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Monroe Deadman Quarry Special Review, file #07-Z1650, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement between the county and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record.
a. The hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. With Saturday load-out hours from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and no processing or mining may occur on Saturday.
b. There shall be no blasting at any time.
c. Where possible, reclamation shall be accomplished in a phased manner, concurrent with the mining operation.
d. Heavy equipment maintenance, including oil changes, shall be done off site.
e. Any proposed fuel tanks shall be bermed to contain spills and leaks in accordance with the requirements of the Larimer County Health Department.
f. The operator shall acquire and use “white noise” back up alarms that are compliant with the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA0 requirements.
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 the county, the 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 the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.
6. The county may conduct periodic inspections to the property and review the status of the Special Review, as appropriate, to monitor and enforce the terms of approval.
7. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the property. Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.
8. The operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the state, which details overall compliance with the stormwater management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the State Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB).
9. No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the county right-of-way
10. Trucks shall not back onto or use the county road for a turnaround.
11. Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.
12. The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the county roadway.
13. Within 3 months of special review approval by the Board of County Commissioners, or prior to commencing the use, whichever comes first:
a. The 40-foot right-of-way Deed of Dedication for Deadman Road, adjacent to the site, shall be recorded.
b. The Transportation Capital Expansion Fee of $2,060.00 shall be paid.
c. A final set of construction plans and a drainage/erosion control report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the county.
d. A certification letter from a professional engineer shall be submitted that states the sediment ponds have been constructed and reseeded per the approved county and state plans, reports and permits.
e. The removal of the existing access and the construction of the new access shall be completed as part of an Access Permit issued by the Larimer County Engineering Department.
14. The mining operation shall not use the proposed residential access off of County Road 73C unless there is an emergency situation.
15. The quarry and processing operations shall be conducted under the terms of a Colorado Stormwater Discharge permit and an Air Pollution Exemption Notice permit exemption authorization at all times.
16. Noise levels associated with the quarry and processing operations shall comply with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance.
17. The Larimer County Code Compliance staff shall continue to monitor the accumulation of objects on the property and insure that any objects on the property are in compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code. Any current violations shall be resolved prior to the commencement of any further mining on the property.
Chair Rennels opened the hearing to public comment and Michael Chalona addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Chalona explained that the property is zoned O-open and mining is an allowed use in O-open zoning districts. He stated the mine has been approved by the state and gravel from the mine is in great demand for road resurfacing in the Red Feather Lakes area.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Chalona why the applicant went through the process of having the mine approved by the state without having it approved by the county. Mr. Chalona stated the state approval was obtained in 2007 when the county approved a temporary mine at the site to accommodate the REA substation.
Mr. Chalona also stated the mine is bonded with the state for the amount of $177,600.00 for reclamation purposes.
Ed Seward addressed the Board and explained that he had submitted a complaint to Mr. Gray about the junk on the property and when Mr. Gray investigated the complaint, he became aware of the mining activity on the site. Mr. Seward stated that when the state became aware of the mining activity, they found it to be illegal and issued a Cease and Desist Order. He argued that the applicant has not been forthcoming with the state or the county in the past and only follows protocol once he is caught and, in addition to the current violation faced by the applicant, he his three other mines are also in some sort of violation. Mr. Seward concluded by saying the applicant cannot be trusted to abide by the conditions recommended by staff. Therefore, he should not be permitted to continue the illegal mining operation.
Commissioner Donnelly asked staff if there were indeed other outstanding code compliance violations and Mr. Gray stated that at least two of the applicant’s other sites are in violation of their approval and/or the Larimer County Land Use Code and one is pending legal action initiated by the county.
Don Tiller, Ben Myers, Ramsey Myatt (attorney representing the Quintance Family Trust), Kevin Menke, Bill Gargin (representative for Our Lady of the Lakes Church), and Kevin Fraiser, all adjacent land owners addressed the Board in opposition to approval of the Special Review. All cited visual, audible, and physical impacts that have accompanied the mining operations thus far. Many of the individuals also referred to the applicants outstanding violations and his propensity to ignore regulations to suggest that he would not abide by the conditions outlined by staff.
Michael Sledge, Bill Gilbert, Gene Barker, Ross Reid, and Lucille Schmill, all members of the Red Feather Lakes Area Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) also spoke in opposition to the excavation for many of the same reasons listed above.
Chair Rennels closed public comment.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff for clarification regarding the Findings and Resolutions presented to the Board. He also stated that this excavation site is seemingly incompatible with the area.
The entire Board emphasized their support for the Red Feather Lakes Area Planning Advisory Committee and their confidence in the PAC’s recommendation of denial.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Monroe Excavating (Deadman Site) Special Review, file #07-Z1650.
Motion carried 3-0.
1b. MONROE EXCAVATING (DEADMAN SITE) CODE COMPLIANCE: The owner of the subject property is in violation of Section 4.1.5 O-Open Zoning District of the Larimer County Land Use Code adopted by Larimer County, by virtue of operating an industrial mining operation in the O-Open Zoning District. This use is not an allowed without Special Review approval.
After some discussion with staff about the reclamation process, the Board decided to table this issue until the State of Colorado can be notified about the ruling on the previous item and design a procedure and timeline for reclamation of the site.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Monroe Excavating (Deadman Site) Code Compliance until April 20, 2009, at 3:00 p.m.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Tuesday, MARCH 3, 2009
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present. Also present were: Bill Jerke, Private Contractor; Dale Miller, and Drew Davis, Road and Bridge Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Moby Wile explained that his property neighbors the W.O.L.F. sanctuary in Rist Canyon and he stated that the sanctuary recently was inspected and had exceeded their maximum allowance of animals. He also noted that many of the affected neighbors who used to support the sanctuary are now very frustrated, as the wolf owners are not adhering to their stipulations. Mr. Lancaster stated that the owners have gotten rid of the extra wolves and now either need to remove the illegal buildings on their property, or get a permit for them. Finally, Mr. Wile asked if the owners could apply for another Special Review while there is a court case pending. Commissioner Johnson stated that there would not be anything to prevent them from doing so.
Forester Bill Gherardi addressed the Board with concerns regarding the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation. He requested that the Board consider increasing the size of slash piles for burning infected trees, as he believes that the current 6 x 8-footprint will not be sufficient to accommodate the amount of trees that will need to be burned. Some discussion ensued and Mr. Lancaster will review this with the fire districts and the Environmental Health Department.
Bonding Agent Sue Miller read a letter from one of her clients regarding pre-trial conditions and the terms of her bond, noting that the client feels her constitutional rights were violated during this process.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of February 23, 2009.
Motion carried 2-0; Chair Rennels abstained.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 9, 2009: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly had questions regarding two of the documents on the Consent Agenda; therefore, the Custodial Services Agreement and the Miscellaneous Employee Agreement were pulled for discussion.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for March 3, 2009:
PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT: As proposed by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are presented for approval: Millbrae Square Co; Anderson Loveland LLC; and Warray II LLC. The following Petitions for Abatement were denied: Land Securities Investors, Ltd (3 parcels for 2006 and 2007); and Christi Lee Nobel (1 parcel for 2007).
03032009R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE PETITION OF NICOLE COLLINS AND COMPLETE EQUESTRIAN
03032009R002 RESOLUTION RESCINDING FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION THAT APPROVED THE BECKER SUBDIVISION PRELMINARY PLAT AND APPEAL TO SECTIONS 8.14.2.Q AND 8.14.2.S OF THE LAND USE CODE (RECEPTION NUMBER 20090002367)
03032009R003 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WALTER SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT
03032009R004 SPECIAL EXCEPTION FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF SUNNY JIM’S CANDY RANCH
03032009R005 SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF PTARMIGAN RUN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY
03032009R006 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COYOTE CROSSING CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT
03032009R007 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BOWSER MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS
03032009R008 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK D OF MYCAMP SUBDIVISION
03032009R009 SPECIAL EXCEPTION FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF SCHRADER PROPANE LIVERMORE FACILITY AND APPEAL
03032009R010 SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF FIRESIDE RV PARK AND APPEALS
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were approved and/or issued: Sundance Trail Guest Ranch – Retail Liquor Store – Red Feather Lakes; Loveland Mountain View Rotary – Special Event 6% – Loveland; Daisy Duke’s – Tavern – Loveland; Rainbow Plaza – Tavern – Loveland; Horsetooth Liquor – Retail Liquor Store Transfer of Ownership – Fort Collins; Horsetooth Sertoma – Special Event 6% – Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. SEVERANCE TAX EMPLOYEE COUNTS: Mr. Jerke explained that the State of Colorado provides a share of the mineral severance dollars to the county based on a formula using the number of workers in the industry who live in the county. He noted that although companies are required to report where their employees live, there are numerous errors and omissions, and often towns and cities get credit for workers living in the unincorporated portions of the county. By tracking down these employees, the county could see a substantial increase in the amount of severance tax dollars provided directly to the county. Mr. Jerke presented an agreement for the Board to consider, in which his company would help to identify the number of workers living in the unincorporated parts of Larimer County, noting that his company would take 10% of the monies recouped. The Board agreed that it was a good idea and asked Mr. Jerke to forward his agreement to the county attorney for review.
6. SEMI-ANNUAL CREDIT CARD REPORT: Mr. Lancaster provided the semi-annual credit card report for the Board’s review, noting that it only applies to credit cards and not the commercial cards that most departments are currently utilizing.
7. COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster stated that he had a citizen request for the Board to take a stand against SB148, which gives road bicyclists more rights to the road.
Mr. Lancaster also explained the county’s history regarding hiring freezes. He noted that the county’s budget does not fluctuate as much as the cities budgets, since the cities rely on sales tax and the counties rely on property taxes. Mr. Lancaster also stated that, in essence, the county has somewhat of a “hiring freeze” in place since all departments and divisions must gain the Board’s approval prior to implementing new positions. Commissioner Donnelly asked if the budget manager could give an idea as to how much savings the county could realize if critical positions were not filled for a period of six months. Mr. Lancaster stated that he would have Mr. Keister analyze those numbers and report back to the Board.
8. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.
9. LEGAL MATTERS: Ms. Haag requested that the Board go into executive session to receive legal advice on specific legal questions.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to receive legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
The Board ended the Executive Session at 11:45 and the following action was taken:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Miscellaneous Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and Employee.
Motion carried 2-0; (Chair Rennels left the meeting prior to the end of this Executive Session.)
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
KATHAY C. RENNELS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy Clerk