MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, FEBRUARY 4, 2019

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Carol Kuhn, Principal Planner. Chair Donnelly presided, and Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Kefalas were present. Also present were: Jenn Cram, Leslie Ellis, Katie Gray, Rob Helmick and Michael Whitley, Community Development; Eric Tracy and Devin Traff, Engineering; Lea Schneider, Health Department; Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director; Jeanne Haag, County Attorney and Elizabeth Carter, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Chair Donnelly noted 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.

 

1.         LARIMER COUNTY FACILITIES/543 ELM ROAD BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT: Larimer County has had a Satellite Maintenance Facility for their Road and Bridge Department in place on proposed Lot 1 of the subject property since the late 1950s. The shop and associated structures and infrastructure have become outdated and are somewhat in disrepair. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has recently approved funding for a new facility, at this same location. The Estes Valley Planning Commission approved a Location and Extent Review for the new County facility on January 15, 2019.

 

Larimer County has two adjacent parcels at this location. The parcel to the north of the County Road and Bridge facility contains a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintenance facility, which has been established since the late 1970s. Larimer County has leased this property to the State. The two parcels need to be reconfigured for the redesign of the County facilities, as well as to enable CDOT at some point to take ownership of their parcel (“CDOT parcel”). When CDOT takes ownership, the Department will be able to replace their existing facilities, similar to what the County has applied to do.

 

This Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) process will reconfigure the two parcels, as well as dedicate a 60-foot right-of-way along the northern boundary of the CDOT parcel. The redevelopment of the CDOT facility will also involve a Location and Extent review by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. CDOT staff have stated this application is being put together now and will be submitted in the near future.

 

County staff notes there is an existing road over the CDOT parcel, Range View Road. This is a County Road, which is privately maintained by a property association which is comprised of residential owners to the west and north of the County parcels. Range View Road is to be realigned somewhat and will be constructed to intersect with Elm Road approximately 400 feet to the north of its existing intersection with Elm Road. It will then extend approximately 600 feet along the northern boundary of the CDOT parcel and align with the existing location of Range View Road at that point. This redevelopment of the County facilities, the redevelopment of the CDOT facilities, the BLA, along with the related realignment of Range View Road which would involve vacating that portion of the road currently on the CDOT parcel, can all generally be seen as different parts of an overall project. However, staff emphasizes these are all separate and distinct applications and approvals.

 

The one process that has generated questions to county staff at this time has been the realignment of Range View Road, which is a project that will follow this proposed BLA. For informational purposes, county staff has outlined the road project as follows:

 

·   First, approval of this BLA would dedicate new right-of-way for Range View Road, along the northern portion of the CDOT parcel as explained above.

 

·   Road and intersection design of the new road alignment will then be needed, with engineered plans and profiles, drainage improvements, etc. to be approved by Larimer County Engineering prior to construction.

 

·   Prior to CDOT moving forward with redevelopment of the CDOT parcel, the existing portion of Range View Road on that parcel will need to be formally vacated by approval of the BOCC.

 

A recorded 150-foot easement exists along the northern portion of proposed Lot 2, on the same part of that lot as the proposed 60-foot right-of-way dedication for Range View Road. It is recorded at Book 1034, Page 43, on December 4, 1956, in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. This private-party easement was reserved by a seller of a portion of the subject property, in 1956, for “…specific use as a Horse Trail.” Although this easement does not appear to be necessary or used, staff will recommend it be vacated, simply as a housekeeping measure, prior to the development of CDOT parcel.

 

This is a Boundary Line Adjustment, which per the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Section 3.7, is a “Staff Minor Modification to Approved Final Plans.” This proposal involves dedication of right-of-way, which requires review and approval on a plat, by the governing body (Board of County Commissioners). As the Preliminary Plat does not dedicate the right-of-way, it remains staff level, with the Final Plat going only to the governing body, and not requiring Planning Commission review and action per the EVDC, Section 3.9.3. Thus, the Board of County Commissioners will be able to make a dispositive decision on February 4, as appropriate.

 

The application was referred to numerous review agencies for comment including: Larimer County Building, Health, and Engineering Departments, as well as Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and the Town of Estes Park Utilities. Other than some minor revisions to the BLA, such as adding an easement for existing utility line, none of those Departments had concerns or objection to the BLA. Additionally, in accordance with the notice requirements in the EVDC, legal notices were published, and mailed to properties per requirements. As of January 22, 2019, no formal written comments have been received for this application package. Written comments will be posted to www.estes.org/currentapplications if received after May 1st.

 

2.           CITY OF GREELEY BELLVUE WATER TREATMENT PLANT UPPER FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #17-FLD0042 : The City of Greeley is requesting approval of a Floodplain Special Review to allow upgrades to the Bellvue Water Treatment Plant along with Cache La Poudre River, near the intersection of US Highway 287 and Colorado Highway 14, Bellvue, CO. The proposed project is within the Flood Hazard Overlay Zone District. The City of Greeley desires to upgrade the Bellvue Water Treatment Plant. The upgrades will include a new treatment building and associated infrastructure. The construction will take place on property zoned as O-Open. Currently, there are existing structures for the existing treatment plant located in the area of construction. The Land Use Code requires a recommendation from the Flood Review Board with a final approval from the Board of County Commissioners through a Floodplain Special Review for utilities within the floodplain zoning district.

 

The review criteria for Flood Plain Special Reviews are found in the Land Use Code under Section 4.2.2.G.6. These criteria were evaluated relative to the 100-year regulatory flood event and are listed below:

 

A.         The proposal meets all applicable criteria outlined in the General Standards. This proposal   adequately meets the applicable criteria.

 

B.         No danger to life and property may reasonably be expected to result from increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments upstream or downstream within the floodplain.  Increases to flood heights are contained to a small location only directly connected to the main floodplain by the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal intake. These increases are not expected to cause an increased danger to life and property over pre-project conditions.

 

C.         No danger to life or property may reasonably be expected to result from substantial solid debris being carried down the stream by floodwaters. The application materials show that the project will not cause any additional danger to life or property.

 

D.        There is no danger of materials being swept away onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others in the event a flood may reasonably be expected. The application materials show that there is no increased danger of materials being swept away onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others in the event of a flood due to the project.

 

E.         Proposed water supply and sanitation systems have been designed to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions in the event of a flood. The project has been designed for resiliency during a flood event. The new sanitary system will be designed by a licensed professional engineer and will meet all state and county requirements. In the event of a flood, no additional contamination is expected to result from the new sanitary system.

 

F.         The proposed use is consistent with the flood management program for the area in question. The proposed use is consistent with the flood management program.

           

G.        The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of the rise and sediment transport of floodwater at the proposed location is consistent with the proposed use. These items were adequately addressed in the technical documentation prepared by the applicant’s engineer. There are no expected changes between existing and proposed conditions at the proposed project location.

 

H.        Any modification of the terrain within the FW-Floodway Zoning District will not result in a rise in overall flood heights at any location. This project is not located within the FW-Floodway Zoning District.

 

I.          Any modification of the terrain within the FW-Floodway Zoning District is environmentally sound. This project is not located within the FW-Floodway Zoning District.

 

J.          Any modification of the terrain within the FW-Floodway Zoning District will not result in reduced stability of the river channel or floodplain. This project is not located within the FW-Floodway Zoning District.

 

The Flood Review Board met on July 27, 2017, to review the report and associated materials prepared by HDR. A motion was approved at the July 27, 2017, meeting for a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for the approval of the Floodplain Special Review with no conditions.

 

3.         MARSH ESTATES LOTS 1-8 AND OUTLOT A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION FILE #18-LAND3846 : Marsh Estates Rural Land Use Plan (RLUP) was platted in 1998 with 8 lots, Residual Lots A and B and Outlot A. The underlying Zoning is O-Open. All but one of the 8 lots have been developed with single-family residences. At the time the plat was recorded, the right-of-way for Cattlemans Road and Daryn Lane were noted as being public. The property owners within Marsh Estates would like to amend the plat to vacate the public right-of-way. The existing roads and associated right-of-way are proposed to be designated as a private access easement.

 

The Larimer County Land Use Code (Section 5.9.3) allows for the approval of a Right-of-Way or Easement Vacation if the following review criteria are met:

 

A.         Approval of the vacation request will not leave any land adjoining the right-of-way without an established public road or private access easement connecting the land with another established public road, or without utility or drainage services. The vacation of the platted public right-of-way and replacing it with a private access easement will not affect the existing access to any of the lots within Marsh Estates, nor prevent utility access to any of the lots or neighboring properties. No change to existing access and utility easements are proposed.

 

B.         The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered; and referral agency comments have been considered. The Engineering Department has noted that they do not have any concerns as long as the appropriate utility companies have had an opportunity to comment. The Poudre Fire Authority will require that the private access easement also be dedicated for emergency access as well.

 

C.         Any right-of-way that is vacated will be divided equally between the lots on each side, unless it can be demonstrated that all of the right-of-way was originally taken from one parcel. In that case, the right-of-way will be returned to that parcel. Property owners on each side of the right-of-way may agree to divide the vacated right-of-way differently but must sign deeds to transfer ownership after the Board of County Commissioners approve the vacation. No change to existing lots are proposed as a result of changing the public right-of-way to a private access easement.

 

The Engineering Department and Poudre Fire Authority provided comments on the proposed easement vacation. The Utility Check Sheet was also completed and there were no concerns.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Marsh Estates Lots 1-8 and Outlot A Right-of-Way Vacation, File #18-LAND3846 subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    The Board of County Commissioners are authorized to sign the Findings and Resolution for this action when it is presented.

 

            2.         The applicant will work with Poudre Fire Authority to dedicate appropriate emergency   access to all lots.

 

4.         GERRARD ESTATES PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING, FILE #18-LAND3812 : Although this application had been placed on the consent agenda by the staff, the Larimer County Planning Commission removed the request from the consent agenda. The stated rationale for this was to ensure that there were not any issues with a member of the Larimer County Planning Commission having an application reviewed and approved by the Larimer County Planning Commission. After a presentation by staff and comments from the applicant’s son, there were no comments from the public and the Larimer County Planning Commission acted to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners.

 

The Planning Commission adopted the below resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Gerrard Estates Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat File # 18-LAND3812 subject to the following condition(s):

 

1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Gerrard Estates Planned Land Division File # 18-LAND3812, 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 Gerrard Estates Planned Land Division File # 18-LAND3812.

 

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

 

3. Lots 1 & 2 are within standard distance to fire hydrants and will not require fire sprinklers. Lot 3 shall require residential fire sprinklers for any new dwelling, unless it can be shown that the proposed dwelling is within 1000 road feet to fire hydrants at the time of building permit application.

 

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

 

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

 

6. If the appeal to connectivity is granted:

 

1. The applicant must apply for an access permit for the access for Lot 3 and meet the standards found in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.

 

If the appeal to connectivity is not granted by the Board of County Commissioners, the following conditions will apply:

 

1. An internal roadway will need to be built to permit the continuation of streets, roads, trails, pedestrian access, utilities and drainage facilities into Lot 3.

 

2. Construction plans will be submitted to the Engineering Department for the internal subdivision road and must meet the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). Pavement design must meet the requirements of Chapter 10 of the LCUASS.

 

3. A cul-de-sac will need to be constructed at the end of the internal subdivision road.

 

4. The internal roadway will be dedicated as right of way.

 

5. A road maintenance agreement must be recorded for the internal subdivision road.

 

6. Lot 1 and Lot 2 must access off the shared access drive. Any other existing access points on County Road 9 must be removed.

 

7. A drainage report will need to be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval.

 

8. An access permit will need to be applied for through the Engineering Department. 9. A Development Construction Permit will be required upon approval.

 

7. Lot 3 shall only be available for one single family dwelling and accessory uses until the lot is annexed into the city of Loveland.

 

Regarding the appeals: The Team Recommends the Larimer County Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners:

 

1. The appeal to Section 8.14.1.R connectivity be approved.

 

2. The appeal to Section 8.1.1 Onsite sewage disposal in a GMA be approved.

 

With Respect to the PD zoning: The Team Recommends the Larimer County Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners:

 

1. Approval of the rezoning from FA-Farming to PD (Planned Development) subject to the following condition:

 

a. The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the final plat of Gerrard Estates Planned Land Division.

 

2. The permitted uses: lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Gerrard Estates Planned Land Division shall be as follows:

 

A. Principal uses:

 

Agricultural:

1. Agricultural labor housing (S)

2. Apiary (R)

3. Commercial poultry farm (S)

4. Equestrian operation (PSP/MS/S)—See section 4.3.1

5. Farm (R)

6. Feed yard (S)

7. Fur farm (S)

8. Garden supply center (S)

9. Greenhouse (R)

10. Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S)—See section 4.3.1

11. Packing facility (R)

12. Pet animal facility (MS/S)—See section 4.3.1

13. Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S)—See section 4.3.1

14. Sod farm, nursery (R)

15. Tree farm (R)

 

Residential:

16. Group home (R)

17. Group home for the aged (R)

18. Group home for developmentally disabled (R)

19. Group home for the mentally ill (R)

20. Single-family dwelling (R)

21. Storage buildings and garages (R)—See section 4.3.2

 

Institutional:

22. Cemetery (S)

23. Child/elderly care center (S)

24. Church (MS/S)—See section 4.3.4

25. Community hall (MS/ S)—See section 4.3.4

26. Hospital (S)

27. School, nonpublic (S)

28. State-licensed group home (S)

Recreational

29. Country club (S)

30. Golf course (S) Accommodation

31. Bed and breakfast (MS/S)—See section 4.3.6

32. Seasonal camp (S)

 

Industrial:

33. Mining (S)

34. Oil and gas drilling and production (R)

35. Small solar facility (R/PSP)

36. Small wind energy facility (MS)

 

Utilities:

37. Commercial mobile radio service (SP/S)—See section 16

38. Radio and television transmitters (S)

 

B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

 

1. Minimum lot size:

 

a. 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

 

b. 21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) if both public water and sewer are used.

 

C. Maximum density in a conservation development is calculated by dividing the total developable area by the required minimum lot size. Maximum density in a rural land plan is determined by subsection 5.8.6.A. Lots in a conservation development or rural land plan that use a well or an individual septic system must contain at least two acres (87,120 square feet). Lots in a conservation development or rural land plan connected to public water and either a public sewer or community sewer system are not required to meet minimum lot size requirements (except for the purpose of calculating density).

 

2. Minimum required setbacks: (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)

 

a. Street and road setback (Refer to section 4.9.1 setbacks from highways, county roads, and all other streets and roads.) The setback from a street or road must be 25 feet from the lot line, nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

b. Side yards—Five feet. c. Rear yards—Ten feet. d. Refer to section 4.9.2 for additional setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers).

 

3. Maximum structure height—40 feet.

 

4. No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.

 

The above motion passed the Planning Commission by a vote of 6-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent

agenda, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

With there being no further business, the Board recessed at 3:05 p.m.

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Carol Kuhn, Principal Planner. Chair Donnelly presided, and Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Kefalas were present. Also present were: Leslie Ellis and Rob Helmick, Community Development: Mark Peterson and Rusty McDaniel, Engineering; Lea Schneider, Health Department; Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director; Haag, County Attorney and Elizabeth Carter, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Chair Donnelly noted that the following item is a continuation item from January 28, 2019.

 

1.         THORNTON WATER PROJECT 1041, FILE #18-ZONE2305: This is the continuation of the application filed by the City of Thornton to obtain a 1041 permit for the construction of a 48” water line, a 40 million gallon per day pumping facility, one million-gallon above ground water tank and other appurtenant facilities.

 

Chair Donnelly asked if the staff had any updates to present to the Board.  Rob Helmick, Community Development, reported to the Board that the various power points as well as any additional public comments will be posted to the website by late tomorrow morning. Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to public comment.  Public comment continued with presentations from designated neighborhood representatives, property owners, association and boards and then to those present in the audience.

 

Warren Lemerich, a representative of Starlite Drive, noted that he is representing the oldest subdivision off Douglas Road consisting of 16 homes. He reported that the neighborhood is a middle-class diverse community, filled with both older residents and young families.  These are primarily country homes located close to town with unobstructed views. Mr. Lemerich reported to the Board that residents are frustrated with what they feel is a lack of communication from the City of Thornton. He also noted that residents are deeply concerned about the impact of construction will have on the neighborhood.  Residents are particularly worried about safety, the structural integrity of homes, property values, the impact on wildlife and their way of life and increases to air, light, and noise pollution

 

Mr. Lemerich also noted that as a member of the Working Group, he was left with the belief that the City of Thornton was only interested in pipeline options. He also expressed concerns that the City returned with an updated 1041 application just 3 weeks after the last working group meeting.  It seemed a challenge, in his mind, to have taken the residents and Working Group members suggestions to heart when another application was submitted so quickly.

 

Mark Heiden, Eagle Lake Property Owner (President of Eagle Lake HOA).  Mr. Heiden expressed the Association’s support of the Douglas Road option. He stated that when others suggest that Thornton take the water from Windsor, they fail to offer plans as to how and where that is to take place.  He also noted that the pipeline route which follows the Douglas Road option, utilizes the public right of way nearly all the way down I-25.  Additionally, he believes the concessions from the City of Thornton for open space and buffers will help to mitigate the impacts of the pipeline.  Mr. Heiden made it clear that his neighborhood will be affected by the pipeline, and he is seeking the best alternative possible, but there is going to pain regardless.

 

Dick Brach, farm owner.  Mr. Brach noted that he owns the farm land on which the potential pump station would be located.  He currently owns a 24-acre farm which under the current 1041 application plan will potentially be uses for the pump station, leaving his farm essentially nonviable.  He also expressed concern regarding reports that the Thornton is withholding documentations and that the City has failed to be transparent throughout the process.

  

Zach Thode and George Wallace, Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board: Mr. Thode noted that the Agricultural Board has no official stance on where or how the potential pipeline should be laid.  The Board was present only to report on the potential benefits agricultural blocks offer to agricultural economy in the region. Mr. Wallace also reported to the Board, that the City of Thornton’s mitigation contributions to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will help to grow the “agricultural block” which the Agricultural Board is trying to develop. The contiguous blocks will greatly help agricultural development and economy.  There was a discussion between the Board and the Agricultural Board members regarding how the dried-up farms will impact water flow for farmers in the area.

 

Dennis Harmon, General Manager of the Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC).  Mr. Harmon reported that he also served as a member of the Working Group.  He mentioned that the WSSC manages multiple significant water systems throughout Larimer County. Currently, the WSSC service area extends from the Larimer County Canal south to the Eaton Canal with a delivery season that typically lasts from May to mid-September. He also reported that WSSC has existing agreements with multiple municipal holders including the City of Thornton. Mr. Harmon also reported that WSSC supports the Reservoir 4 options. He noted that the ’86 agreement and water decree dictates that the water come from Reservoir 4. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Harmon ensued regarding the alternative options which utilize Reservoir 4 and if the shareholders would oppose those options.  

 

The following residents spoke in opposition to the current City of Thornton 1041 application: Mick Ondris, Loretta Keeton, James McCauley, Charmaine Stavedanhl, Forrest Carlson, Glenn Hass, Andy Miscio, Scarlet Sparkuhl-Delia, John Carroll, Susan Boston, Joel Delia, John Semonchick, Steve Powers, Michael Pruznick, Bonnie Kornfeld, Dale Lake, Larry Lechner, Barry Feldman, Doug Swartz, Norm “Red” Jewett, Dolores Williams, Charles May, Penny Hillman, Charles Kopp, Roberta Normans, John Normans, Patty Clifford, Janet Carabello, Debroah Shulman, Melinda Kontz, Tom Rhodes, Jacob Cox, Ryan Donovan, Cordelia Stone, Elaine Spencer, Fred Kirsch, Tom Peck, Ken Tharp, Robert Kitchell, Mark Bieganski, Rick Steadman, Lynn Utzman-Nicholas, Betsy Cox, Susan Davis, Mandy Kotzman, Dale Squire, Patricia Babbit, Markus Mayer, Judy Harrington and Nancy York. Their collective concerns include the lack of exploration to alternatives by the City of Thornton, the impact upon multiple neighborhoods and property values, increased congestion, impacts upon wildlife and the natural habitat, increases to air, light, and noise pollution and a feeling of that the City Thornton has not met its obligation to meet with resident and neighborhoods.

 

Rebecca Shelley, George Wallace and Roger Morgan expressed support for moving the project forward and they expressed concerns about the delivery of water further down the Poudre River.

Chair Donnelly closed public comment.

 

With there being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2019

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS MEETING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with, Linda Hoffman, County Manager. Chair Donnelly presided, and Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Kefalas were present. Also present were: Brenda Gimeson and Alisha Jeffers, Commissioners’ Office; and Elizabeth Carter, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

1.          PUBLIC COMMENT:  Chair Donnelly opened the meeting to public comment giving citizens the opportunity to address the Commissioners regarding events and issues pertaining to Larimer County.  Curtis Bridges, Shawna Ferrera, Lisa McMahon, John Foster, Christine Holdsworth, Trisha Deal, Todd Medcalf, Stephanie Feller and Eric Sutherland addressed the Board

 

2.         APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 28, 2019:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the weeks of January 28, 2019.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 11, 2019:   Ms. Gimeson reviewed the schedule for the upcoming week with the Board.

 

4.         CONSENT AGENDA:  

 

ABATEMENTS : As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petition for Abatement have been approved: Country Club of FTC, INC. R0196347/88311-00-001 (2017/2018)

 

02052019A001             DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY, CLIFF AND KARYN S. POND AND PONDS FIELDS CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT FILE #16-LAND3512

 

02052019D001            DEED OF DEDICATION FOR THE CITY OF LOVELAND

 

02052019D002            DEED OF DEDICATION FOR THE CITY OF LOVELAND

 

02052019D003            DEED OF DEDICATION FOR THE CITY OF LOVELAND

 

02052019P001             HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY AND PROCEDURE 331.5M, COMPENSATION

 

02052019R001             RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR LARIMER COUNTY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 1

 

02052019R002            RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR LARIMER COUNTY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 1

 

02052019R003            FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CRYSTAL LAKES 12TH FILING, LOT 20 SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND APPEAL

 

02052019R004            FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FERGUSON THREE AND FOUR TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT

 

01082019R005            FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FERGUSON THREE AND FOUR TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT

 

02052019R006            FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COVE AT COUNTRY CLUB AMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL

 

MISCELLANEOUS: Recommended Mid-Term to the Horseshoe View Estates South PID-Jake Gelwicks; Recommended Mid-Term Appointment to the Carriage Hills GID- Tom Morretti; Additional Funding Request for the Muhlenbruck Demolition; Annual Certification of Road Mileage to Colorado Department of Transportation; Final Plat for Pond’s Fields Conservation Development FILE #16-LAND3512

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  Fort Collins Preschool “Springfest”– Special Event 6% – Fort Collins; Hill Top General Store–Retail Liquor Store –Red Feather Lake; The Forks. – 3.2% Beer Retail- Livermore.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent

agenda, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.   

 

5.         COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS’ GUESTS: The Commissioners did not have any guests.

 

6.          COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Ms. Hoffman updated the Board on upcoming projects and activities.

 

7.         COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board detailed their attendance at events during the previous week.

 

8.         EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board went into Executive Session for Consideration of the proposed Tax Increment Revenue Agreement (College & Drake Urban Renewal Authority) pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(e); County’s adopted 1041 regulations, pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b); Human Society Contract for Animal Control Services, pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b).

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners enter Executive Session regarding Consideration of proposed Tax Increment Revenue Agreement (College & Drake Urban Renewal Authority) pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(e) for determining positions for matters that maybe subject to negotiation, developing strategies for negotiations and to give instruction to negotiators; furthermore that the Board go into Executive Session regarding the County’s adopted 1041 regulations, pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b); and the Human Society Contract for Animal Control Services, pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) conference with an attorney to receive legal advice.

 

With there being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:55 a.m.

 

 

 

____________________________________

                        TOM DONNELLY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

ANGELA MYERS

CLERK AND RECORDER

ATTEST:

 

__________________________________________

Elizabeth Carter, Deputy Clerk