County Offices, Courts and the Landfill will be closed Monday, May 25 in observance of Memorial Day. Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Donnelly presided and Commissioners Gaiter and Johnson were present. Also present were: Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Rob Helmick, Karin Madson, and Toby Stauffer, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Donnelly opened the hearing 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 the following items were on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
1. MEADOWDALE HILLS 2ND FILING LOTS 2 & 3 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #10-S3013: This is a request to amend lots 2 & 3 of the Amended Plat of Lots 95, 96, and 97 within the Meadowdale Hills Subdivision, 2nd filing. The purpose of the request is to change the boundary line between the two lots so that a geologic peak is entirely on one lot allowing a telescope on the peak to remain on the property with which it is associated.
No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal. Additionally, two Larimer County agencies have voiced only minor concerns, Code Compliance raised an issue with an un-permitted finished basement and the Land Surveyor required minor corrections to the proposed plat.
In review, the requested amendment to the Meadowdale Hills Subdivision, to adjust the boundary between two lots, will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency, nor will the amended plat result in any additional lots.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 2 & 3, of the Amended Plat of Lots 95, 96, and 97 of Meadowdale Hills Sub., 2nd Filing, file #10-S3013, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:
1. The final plat shall be recorded by July 24, 2011, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.
3. Prior to the recordation of the final plat, a note shall be added that indicates the resultant lots will be subject to the same restrictions, covenants, and conditions as set forth in the plats of record for these lots in the Meadowdale Hills Subdivision.
2. SCHUMAN EQUESTRIAN MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #10-Z1831: This is a request for an equestrian operation consisting of 35 boarded/trained horses in addition to the owners’ fifteen personal horses. The facility had been leased to a trainer as a horse breeding, training, and boarding facility since 2006. In 2007, when the trainer left, the owner continued to board fifteen horses in addition to the owners fifteen personal horses; however, because of the lapse in time, the application does not meet the criteria for the transition program.
The subject property consists of approximately 36.77-acres, zoned FA-1 Farming, and contains a conservation easement held by the City of Fort Collins, and is located on County Road 5 (the road has been annexed by Timnath). The facility has 41-stalls including: 22-outside runs, nine 1-acre paddocks, one 10-acre paddock and one 5-acre paddock. There is a single family residence on the property along with detached accessory living area that was previously approved by Minor Special Review, file #07-Z1633. The accessory living area has a bathroom with a separate entrance, which is available for boarders to use while visiting the property. Water for the facility includes a tap from the City of Greeley, additional Lake Canal irrigation water, and contains a tail water pond located in the southeast corner of the property. Additional structures include a hay barn, a tractor barn, an 8-stall barn, a 13-stall barn, and an indoor arena with 20-stalls. Outdoor facilities include an outdoor arena and 4 cattle pens. The project description indicates that there will be no nighttime activities in the outdoor arena and that lighting will not be provided. No additional improvements are proposed.
The application also includes an appeal to Section 9.5.5. of the Land Use Code, “Existing traffic-generating development. The most intense use of land within the 12 months prior to the time of commencement of new traffic-generating development.” The applicant is not eligible for the existing transition program because the activity was ceased while the county was in the process of creating new regulations for equine facilities. The applicant requests the ability to use the previous traffic generation counts, which would allow the business to operate at historic levels without paying additional transportation capital expansion fees.
The applicant has provided the required Resource Stewardship Plan checklist. The plan for this facility indicates that a wide range of best management practices to be used in addressing manure management, water run-off and drainage, dust control, pasture vegetation, weed management, and fly control. The site plan for the application illustrates how some of these practices will be implemented such as using stalls to reduce areas of bare ground, providing a vegetated buffer from neighboring properties, cross fencing of the pasture/turn out areas, and the provision of irrigation water for these areas. In other cases, the site plan will need to be modified to include elements such as manure storage area. The boarders are responsible for the cleaning and care of their own livestock. The applicant provides manure removal and disposal only on an as need basis, in which manure is hauled off the property to a nearby farm or composting facility. Ultimately, the property owner will responsible for ensuring these best management practices are utilized.
Comments from the City of Fort Collins, who hold a Conservation Easement on the property, indicated that they are concerned with the parking area located outside the building envelope designated with the conservation easement. Staff has informed the applicant of the city’s concerns, although Larimer County does not enforce private easements, and the applicant has revised the site plan and removed the parking designation from this area. The applicant should work with the city to confirm that this revision is acceptable.
Staff has found that the applicant has provided adequate information and an acceptable Resource Stewardship Plan.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Schuman Equestrian Operation Minor Special Review and Appeal to Section 9.5.5, file #10-Z1831, subject to the following condition(s):
1. The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Schuman Equestrian Operation Minor Special Review, file #10-Z1831, 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 Schuman Equestrian Operation Minor Special Review.
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 Minor Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to county, the county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor 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 Minor Special Review 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 Minor Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review 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 Minor Special Review approval.
4. The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for the Equestrian Operation. All applicable fees, including permit fees, shall apply to this use. Transportation Capital Expansion Fees shall not apply.
5. Within 60-days of approval of this Minor Special Review, the applicant shall provide confirmation that the City of Greeley has approved the revised site plan (1-6-11) addressing their comments dated December 6, 2010.
6. Best management practices. This equestrian operation shall utilize the best management practices as outlined in the resource stewardship plan checklist submitted for the facility. All boarders who are responsible for the care and maintenance of their own livestock shall be provided with a copy of the Resource Stewardship Plan checklist and informed of the best management practices the applicant has indicated will be used for this facility.
7. Outdoor storage of horse trailers is allowed as follows:
a. Only those trailers that are for use by owners of the property, people associated with the operation, and/or boarded horses may be stored. General trailer storage is not allowed.
b. No more than one trailer per horse residing on the property is allowed.
c. All horse trailers shall be currently licensed and operable.
9. This minor special review approval will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. DONALDSON MINOR LAND DIVISION & FEE APPEAL, FILE #10-S3012: This is a request to divide 4.5-acres from a 153-acre parcel to separate an approved commercial use from the agricultural/residential use. This request also includes a fee appeal to reduce application fees to $300. This application has been submitted in response to a condition of approval imposed on a previously approved Special Review.
In August 2010, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Donaldson Special Review, which permitted the use of a portion of the property owner’s lot for a commercial use, Valley Crest Landscaping. One of the conditions of approval of the special review was the division of the uses. Approval of this application would allow the property owner to fulfill that requirement and pursue other land development or conservation options on the remaining 147-acre lot, which contains a residential home and accessory structures. Due to the property’s proximity to the northern end of the Loveland Fort Collins Airport, future uses are somewhat limited, but include options such as a Rural Land Plan or a TDU exemption.
The applicants are requesting a fee appeal to reduce the fee to approximately $300 using the rationale that this request is a continuation of, and arguably a part of, the previous application. The general policy of the Planning Department with respect to fees is to charge multiple fees for a multi-part application. In regards to this case, even if the Special Review and Minor Land Division had occurred together, the total charges would have been $1000. The request is to reduce the fee to the direct “hard cost” which is $300.
As proposed, the minor land division meets the review criteria and is intended to meet the conditions of approval on a prior application. The uses and lay-out have previously been found to be compatible and reasonable. The proposed fee appeal is understandable, in that much of the work to evaluate and understand the property was done as a part of the Special Review process; however, the Planning Department has noted a trend in fee appeals and are unsure of the long term implications of approvals.
Staff recommends a pproval of the Donaldson Minor Land Divisi on, file # 10-S3012, sub ject to the following conditions and authorization for the chairperson to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final plat recorded by July 25, 2011, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and drainage fee. The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.
3. Prior to the recordation of the final plat the application shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.
4. Staff has no specific recommendation with respect to the proposed fee appeal reduction.
Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to the applicant and Andy Reese, representative for the applicant and Northern Engineering, addressed the Board. Mr. Reese stated that the only reason the applicant was applying for the Minor Land Division (MLD) is because it was a condition of the original special review approval; therefore, he does not believe the applicants should be charged the full amount for the MLD application.
Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to public comment; however, no one from the audience addressed the Board regarding this matter.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he had no objection to the MLD; however, he was not in favor of the fee reduction because the applicant was aware of the fees at the time of special review application and failed to prove that any hardship would result.
Commissioner Gaiter asked Mr. Helmick if the applicant was informed at the time of special review application that additional processes would be required, which would then result in additional fees. Mr. Helmick stated that the applicant was informed of the additional requirements and fees.
Chair Donnelly stated that he supported the fee waiver as he did not believe the MLD process was very time consuming, especially because the application is a continuation of the original.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Donaldson Minor Land Division, file #10-S3012, subject to the conditions as outlined above and authorization for the chairperson to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the appeal for a fee reduction for the Donaldson Minor Land Division, file #10-S3012.
Motion carried 2-1, Chair Donnelly dissenting.
4. STEGNER PIT AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #10-Z1832: This is a request for an extension of time to complete the mining and reclamation of the Stegner Pit, submitted by the new owner and operator of the pit. Originally permitted between 1999 and 2000, the approval anticipated an 8 to 10-year mining plan to be followed by reclamation of the site. The original operator did install a slurry wall to isolate the pit from surrounding ground water and a drain to address some of the mounded groundwater upstream of the site. These elements are complete and the reclamation bond held by the state for those elements has been released.
The application materials request an additional three years to complete the removal of material from the site. While the intent is strictly to remove the material, some on-site screening and crushing may be necessary.
The original operator Aggregate Industries ceased operating at the site at the end of 2009 and there remain issues between the current operator and Aggregate Industries regarding bonding and reclamation issues, which are to be addressed by the State of Colorado Department of Minerals and Geology Division of Mine Safety and Reclamation. Although Aggregate Industries has requested the Board of County Commissioners not act unless these issues are resolved, staff has found these issues to be unrelated to any county action, insofar as they are entirely issues of the state permitting process.
Staff would like to note that this request comes at a time when most of the sand and gravel operations within the county go on hiatus or very limited schedules. Staff is aware of at least three other operations that have, or plan to, request additional time to complete the approved mining. This is principally due to the state of the economy and the slow down in all construction activity. From the standpoint of this premise, the request entirely reasonable. The alternative would be to have an open pit remain, with an active state permit, allowing resources to go un-recovered.
This particular pit has had a number of violations in the past and had some history of neighbor complaints throughout its operation. However, the site is under new ownership and most of the mining is completed. The additional time would simply allow material removal and completion of the final grading necessary for the reclamation of the pit.
Mr. Helmick noted that the applicants have conducted an outreach to the surrounding property owners and project information was mailed to approximately 40 property owners in the vicinity. The project was presented to the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee (LAPAC) on January 18, 2011, at which time the application was begrudgingly approved as the LAPAC felt it would be better to finish the quarry and begin reclamation than to leave it in its current state.
Staff recommends approval of the Stegner Pit Time Extension, file #10-Z1832, subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of the original approval shall continue to apply as appropriate.
2. This extension shall expire on January 1, 2014, at which time, all mining activity shall cease and significant site activity related to reclamation shall be completed within one year after that date.
3. The applicant shall coordinate with the Larimer County Engineering and Road and Bridge Departments to remove the concrete jersey barriers along north Taft Hill Road at the direction of those two county departments.
4. The drainage easements dedicated in 2001, as a part of the approval shall be extended by new instruments reviewed and approved by the county which shall extend the time for utilization to 2019, as described in the memo from the Engineering Department dated January 3, 2011.
Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to the applicant and Paul Banks, representative for the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Banks stated that the applicant, TROLLCO Incorporated, wishes to finish mining the minute amount of raw material remaining in the mine and export all of the previously mined materials before reclaiming the land with a lake and seeded grasses.
Some discussion ensued between staff and the Board regarding mining operations and regulations enforced by the State of Colorado versus those enforced by Larimer County.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Banks what would happen if TROLLCO had not sold and removed all mining materials by January, 1, 2014. Mr. Banks stated that TROLLCO is not interested in continuing mining operations any longer than necessary and the company will make sure the remaining materials will be sold and moved before the requested extension expires. Mr. Banks emphasized that TROLLCO is most interested in reclaiming the property so that it can be sold.
Martin Lind, owner or TROLLCO, addressed the Board and stated that his company purchased the property from family members to finish the mining operations that have been managed by multiple different companies over the years, properly reclaim the land, and sell the property. Mr. Lind assured the Board that his only interest is in properly finishing a project in as little time as possible.
Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to the public. Bill Seaworth, Darwin Rowe, Bill Friehauf, and Mike Keegan, all nearby land owners, addressed the Board in favor of allowing TROLLCO to complete the mining operations on the property, so that water, noise, dust, and weed control issues may be resolved. Many of the neighbors who spoke noted special concern regarding the changes to the water table which have occurred since mining first began on the property.
Connie Davis, representative from Aggregate Industries, requested the Board include conditions of approval regarding state licensing issues.
Discussion ensued between staff, the Board, and Ms. Davis regarding the state mining licenses and permits already in place for the subject property.
Mr. Lind readdressed the Board and stated that he will attempt to remedy the problems raised by neighboring property owners. Mr. Lind also requested the Board allow TROLLCO and Aggregate Industries to privately resolve their business issues.
Dick Von Bernuth, representative for TROLLCO, assured the Board that he would look into the water and drainage problems referenced and try to amend the current situation.
Chair Donnelly closed public comment.
Commissioner Gaiter noted that the neighboring land owners present at the meeting were not opposed to the completion of the project; however, they wish the project to be finished correctly as a remedy reoccurring problems.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he was in favor of approving the time extension to allow the project to be completed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Stegner Pit Time Extension, file #10-Z1832, subject to the conditions outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the Commissioners recessed at 4:30 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Donnelly presided and Commissioners Gaiter and Johnson were present. Also present were: Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department; Toby Stauffer, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Donnelly opened the hearing and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
1. PRAIRIE GARDEN EVENT CETNER SPECIAL REIVEW, FILE #Z1822: This is a request to allow an event center to allow the operation of an event center, primarily intended to serve as a wedding venue. The subject property is located off of West County Road 60E, north of Highway 287 and west of County Road 19 (Shields Street), Section 5-8-69. Currently, the property is used for a single family residence and the applicant seeks to add a new venue for weddings, receptions, and other family oriented events. The single family residence will remain and the proposed venue would occupy a portion of the property to the west of the existing house. A renovated barn and an adjacent landscaped/lawn area will be used for the events. One room in the main residence will serve as the dressing room for the bridal party.
The surrounding area is rural with agricultural or grazing type uses and is zoned O-Open. The subject property has an existing residence with small agricultural activities. There is a single family home, a barn, and a loafing shed in the northwest corner of the property.
The community hall/events center would host events on weekends from May through September. One event will be held per day with approximately 20 to 24 events over the 5-month season and would not exceed 30-events per year. The number of guests at an event would be limited by the amount of parking available on the property and occupancy and fire codes for the building. Parking on the site can accommodate about 35 vehicles. Activities would occur inside and outside, though any amplified music would be contained with the barn.
At a public hearing on December 15, 2010, the Larimer County Planning Commission considered this application. At that hearing, the Planning Commission heard a statement from the applicant as well as comments from neighbors and primarily discussed the compatibility of the project. After review and testimony from neighbors, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request.
This application has received some comment from the surrounding neighbors, including three property owners who are all opposed to the proposal. The applicant and property owner have met with the concerned neighbors and can share the outcome of those meetings. Concerns from neighbors include increased impacts from noise and traffic, safety, compatibility, quality of life, and road surface and maintenance impacts.
Staff has reviewed the concerns expressed by neighbors and also evaluated the use based upon the standards set forth in the Land Use Code. If a project can meet the technical standards in the code, staff can conclude that the project can be compatible with other uses from a technical perspective. Comments in this report about the compatibility of the community hall refer to the project’s ability to be compatible with surrounding uses based on the technical standards in the Land Use Code.
The compatibility of a use is also based upon input received during the public hearing process. Additional compatibility concerns, those not based on standards, presented in letters and at public hearings, are evaluated by the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners. The public hearing process is utilized as an important way to hear directly from the applicant and neighbors about the impact from the proposed use. With the additional input, the Commissioners can form conclusions about compatibility issues after the public hearing process. Staff recommends that the public hearing process be used to consider all impacts from the proposed uses and evaluate the project’s compatibility based upon testimony at the hearing and Land Use Code technical standards information provided in the report.
Additionally, the property is subject to covenants and a development agreement that may not allow this type of use. Any interpretation of those documents would be determined by a judge or a court; however, staff has informed the applicant of potential conflicts and indicated that the Commissioners approval may not be the only approval needed for the project.
The applicant has provided a noise mitigation plan that includes measures to address potential noise impacts from the use. The plan is included with this packet for review.
Building Code, Fire Protection
The applicant is working with the Building Department and the Poudre Fire Authority to ensure compliance with current Building and Fire Codes. The structure to be used for the event center will need several building inspections and a building permit. The building will also need to be sprinkled to meet the requirements of current building and fire codes. Handicapped accessibility will also need to be provided for guests of the facility.
Staff recommends approval of the Prairie Garden Event Center Special Review, file #10-Z1822.
Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to the applicant and Duane Bush addressed the Board. Mr. Bush gave a presentation regarding the proposed event center stating that events would only occur May 1st through September 31st, the number of guests would be limited to 90 people, the existing barn would be sprinkled and brought up to code, all amplified music would be contained within the barn, a second driveway would be added, and guests would be encouraged to carpool or charter buses to reach the venue. Mr. Bush also noted that he hired an attorney to review the covenants of the Lovata Rural Land Plan, the subdivision in which the property is located. Mr. Bush stated that the attorney assured him not to be concerned about the use being affected by the covenants.
Chair Donnelly questioned Mr. Bush about the occupancy limit of the barn and Mr. Bush stated that the occupancy was unknown and would be determined by the Poudre Valley Fire Authority during the building inspection process, which is to take place after the structure is sprinkled.
Discussion ensued amongst Mr. Bush and the Board, regarding the number of events per year, the proposed timeframe, the occupancy limit, and the anticipated increase in traffic.
Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to public comment. David Osborn, attorney representing neighboring land owners, explained that the proposed use was not allowed by the covenants of the Lovata Rural Land Plan, without approval from 75% of the landowners. Mr. Osborn requested the Board uphold the findings of the Planning Commission, that the proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding area.
Mark Reed, Pat Reed, and Karen Crawford, nearby landowners, addressed the Board in opposition to the proposed event center. All cited a loss of rural lifestyle, increased traffic and noise, risk of fire, incompatibility with the surrounding area, and the possible loss of wildlife. Ms. Reed also noted the Poudre Valley Fire Authority’s opposition to the proposal due to a lack of fire hydrants and the distance from the fire station.
Mr. Bush and Odile Bush addressed the Board and stated that they have done everything possible to ensure their activities do not negatively affect their neighbors or the surrounding area. Mr. and Mrs. Bush ensured the Board that they will comply with the proposed conditions of approval.
More discussion ensued between Mr. and Mrs. Bush, staff, and the Board regarding the covenants of the subdivision, the number of guests allowed per event, and the number of events allowed per year.
Commissioner Gaiter explained his belief that weddings are compatible with rural settings because they are celebrations of family and friends. However, he warned the applicants of the possibility of revocation if the conditions of approval set forth by staff and the Board, are not stringently followed.
Commissioner Johnson expressed concern about the proposed number of events and the impact they could have on surrounding landowners. He suggested the applicants be allowed to host 20 events per year, between the dates of May 1st and September 31st.
Chair Donnelly also expressed concern about the number of proposed events and his hesitancy to place restrictions on the number of guests per event until occupancy limits had been set by the presiding fire authority.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Prairie Garden Event Center Special Review, file #10-Z1822, 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 Prairie Garden Event Center Special Review, file #10-Z1822, 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 Prairie Garden Event 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 County 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 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/owner shall be limited to no more than 20 events per year.
9. Vehicles for an event shall be parked on the property, no parking for events shall occur on adjacent roadways.
10. The events on the property shall be limited to the building, adjacent landscaped area, and proposed parking lot. No events shall occur east or north of the house. Driveways and other features intended to support the use are included in this approval.
11. One sign advertising the proposed uses will be allowed on the property per Land Use Code Section 10 regulations. A permit will be required for any future sign for the community hall use.
12. All events must occur between the dates of May 1st and September 31st.
13. The number of guests, including event personnel such as caterers, musicians, photographers, etc., shall not exceed 90 persons or the number of persons allowed by the occupancy load as determined the governing fire authority at the time of building inspection, whichever is less.
14. Amplified music can only occur inside the barn. Non-amplified music may occur outside.
15. The applicants must submit a monthly report to the county, containing the number of events held and the number of guests per event.
16. The county forester must inspect the size and species of the trees used for screening purposes to ensure they act as adequate buffers.
Motion carried 2-1, Chair Donnelly dissenting.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2011
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager. Chair Donnelly presided, and Commissioners Gaiter and Johnson were present. Also present were: Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Marija Weeden-Osborn, Pathways Past Poverty Coordinator; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment today.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JANURARY 17, 2011:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of January 17, 2011.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK JANUARY 31, 2011: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedules with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda, as listed below:
PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT: As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are approved: Wallace J. Burke Trust.
01252011A001 CONTRACT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND NORTHERN COLORADO CONSTRUCTORS, INC
01252011A002 ELECTION MATERIALS PRINTING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND INTEGRATED VOTING SOLUTIONS, INC., FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
01252011A003 COMPUTER AIDED FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CAFM) AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND FMx LIMITED
01252011R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LAKE AT BIGHORN CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT TIME EXTENSION
01252011R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION US 287 DRY CREEK BRIDGE FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW
01252011R003 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF AN ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON TRACT A OF THE NITTMAN BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
01252011R004 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS (Amanda J. Duhon)
01252011R005 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS (Dawn Downs)
MISCELLANEOUS: Conveyance of Sewer Easement – Mitchell M. Morgan; Treasurer’s Six Month Report; Four Year Planning & Service Area Aging Plan Fiscal Year 2012-2015.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were approved and/or issued: Inlet Bay Marina – 3.2% - Fort Collins; Pot Belly Deli & Bar – Tavern – Red Feather Lakes; Mishawaka Inn – Temporary Permit - Bellvue.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. PATHWAYS PAST POVERTY UPDATE: Ms. Weeden-Osborn provided an update for the Board regarding the projects they are working on with regards to economic opportunities and programs to teach individuals how to grow and manage an income. Ms. Weeden-Osborn explained that they have hired a Financial Literacy Coordinator and that they will be having a financial literacy roundtable discussion this Thursday. In addition, they have been hosting “poverty simulations” where people can role-play different scenarios so they can understand what it feels like to live in poverty. The Board thanked Ms. Weeden-Osborn for the update and commended her on her progress thus far.
6. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Mr. Gluckman updated the Board on pending legislative items.
7. ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Mr. Gluckman presented a plaque to the Board in honor of the County’s participation in United Way fund raising efforts.
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 9:30 a.m., with no further action taken.
STEVE JOHNSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy County Clerk
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk