MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

 

Monday, MAY 20, 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: Tony Brooks, Code Compliance; Katie Beilby, Lesli Ellis, Katie Gray, Rob Helmick, Matt Laffferty, Community Development; Traci Shambo, Engineering; Linda Harting, Jeff Warber; Estes Park; Lea Schneider, Health Department; Frank Haug, County Attorney and Deirdre O'Neill, 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.

 

Carol Kuhn explained that number five , Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code 9.2 and 9.3 to remove restrictions that limit planned unit developments to the CO (outlying commercial) zoning district has been requested by Estes Park to be continued until the July 15, 2019 land use hearing at 3 p.m.

 

Chair Donnelly explained that number seven Crystal Lakes 8th lots 61 & 64 lot consolidation, file #19-land 3892 has been requested by the clerk be removed from the consent agenda and approved with one motion including the findings and resolution.

 

1.         AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE 5.1B VACATION HOMES AND SECTION 5.1 U BED AND BREAKFAST INNS: To review and approve proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC): To review current conditions regarding the vacation home and bed and breakfast inn regulations; To amend regulations as deemed necessary.

 

2.         AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.2 TO CLARIFY AND DEFINE PROCEDURES, APPLICABILITY, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY MEETINGS: Amend the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Section3.2 Standard Review Procedure as follows:

 

·  Section 3.2 – Standard Development Review Procedure.  Thirteen references in this Section to “neighborhood meeting” would be revised to “neighborhood and community meeting.”

 

·  Section 3.2 – Standard Development Review Procedure, B. Step 2:  Neighborhood and Community Meeting, 1. Purpose, b. Applicability.  Text would be added to clarify that neighborhood meetings are voluntary for application/projects that do not require a public hearing, and mandatory for those that do require a public hearing.

 

·  Section 3.2 – Standard Development Review Procedure, B. Step 2: Neighborhood and Community Meeting.  New text would be added with requirements for posting notices for neighborhood and community meetings. This section was accidentally left out of the original amendment last year.

 

·  Section 3.2 – Standard Development Review Procedure, G. Summary Table – Standard Development Review Process by Application Type.  The Table would be revised to add a process category for “Development Plan, Review, Staff Level,” and to clarify that the existing “Development Plan, Review” process category involves a “Public Hearing.” This revision aligns the neighborhood and community meeting requirements with the existing Development Plan requirements in Section 3.8 of the EVDC.

 

Staff recommends approval of the language to the Board of County Commissioners and the Town Board of Trustees.

 

The language now in the code regarding neighborhood and community meeting applicability and requirements does not fully cover what was intended when the language was first drafted. This proposed amendment is to remedy that and add clarity to when and what projects require a neighborhood and community meeting.  This will provide more guidance for both applicants and the community. By adding language that refers to “Summary Table G.,” it clearly delineates what projects are voluntary and mandatory for neighborhood and community meetings. For example, if a development review is a staff level approval, the neighborhood and community meeting would be voluntary. If the development review requires approval by a review board, such as the Planning Commission and/or Town Board, the neighborhood and community meeting is mandatory. This is based solely on the complexity of projects that need board action, usually requiring more review and approval compared to staff level projects.

 

The code amendment is also needed to require an applicant to post a sign or signs for a neighborhood and community meeting. By adding language that refers to procedural aspects in Section § 3.15.C General Notice Requirements, the code remains consistent and provides clear guidance on required sign posting.

 

It is staff’s recommendation that including this update to the neighborhood and community meeting code in the EVDC would address some clarity issues in this code section and address sign posting requirements not previously provided for.

 

3.         AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.8 TO REVISE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROPOSED THAT WOULD REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: Amend the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.8 Development Plan Review, Table 3-3, Development Plan Review Requirements. Table 3-3’s requirement for a “Staff Review” Development Plan that is based on “Number of Parking Spaces” would be revised from the current ten - twenty Spaces, to three – twenty Spaces.

 

Currently, development plans are processed at staff level review, or through an Estes Valley Planning Commission/Board review. This is based on a given project’s proposed square footage added and increase in parking spaces.  The EVDC does not have a requirement for a review process for projects with ten or fewer parking spaces.  Building permit review and approval is required for projects with ten  or fewer spaces. However, projects of that size may create impacts that are appropriate to address through development plan review.

 

The EVDC has an existing standard requiring Planning Commission review of any project proposing 21 or more parking spaces.  This would remain unchanged.

 

Staff recommends amending the EVDC, Section 3.8 Development Plan Review, Table 3-3 Development Plan Review Requirements, to require review and approval of a staff-level development plan for projects proposing between three and twenty parking spaces.

 

4.         AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE 4.4 ADDING AN “EVENT FACILITY” USE TO THE A (ACCOMMODATIONS) AND THE CO (OUTLYING COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS AND 13.2 ADDING A DEFINITION OF “EVENT FACILITY”: Add an “Event Facility” use to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) as an S-1 Special Review in the A (Accommodations) Zoning District and as a use-by-right in the CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning District. A definition of “Event Facility” would be added to Chapter 13, Definitions.

 

Staff recommends approval of the language in Exhibit [Red] to the Board of County Commissioners and the Town Board of Trustees.

 

As a popular destination for weddings, anniversaries, reunions and the like, the Estes Valley area has numerous existing venues and facilities in place to serve these types of functions and events.

The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) currently does not address this type of use directly, which staff will refer to as an “Event Facility.”  That use, aka “Wedding Venue” or similar, is not specifically defined in the EVDC, and not listed in the EVDC’s Permitted Uses Tables (4-1 or 4-4).

Staff has researched what type of zoning approvals have been required to establish these existing uses and found that some were established prior to the EVDC adoption in 2000, and some were established as a “Religious Assembly” use. These were predominantly identified as “Wedding Venues,” or “Wedding Event Venues.” There is also an accessory use allowed in the A (Accommodations), CD (Commercial Downtown), and the CO (Commercial Outlying) nonresidential zoning districts that might have been applicable in some cases.  This accessory use, listed in Table 5-2 of the EVDC, is “Meeting rooms, banquet halls and similar group gathering spaces and uses.”  However, the vast majority of the existing Event Facility uses should appropriately be defined as a principal use.

 

It is common, in many zoning codes for commercial properties to have more than one principal use.  A shopping center would be a classic example.  “Accessory,” per the EVDC, is “…customarily and clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use…”  This is a fairly standard and accepted zoning practice.

 

It has become clear, in light of a recent review of a Development Plan application, and also discussion of another possible upcoming application, that the EVDC needs to be amended to address this use.  Permitting these uses as has been done in past years is potentially problematic.  First, the “Religious Assembly” use in the EVDC is defined as “A place of assembly for religious worship.”  There are weddings that do not involve any religious worship.  It is also not uncommon for a “Wedding Venue” type facility to be made available for other types of events, parties and functions, few of which are likely to involve religious worship.  As mentioned above, determining that a proposed “Event Facility” is always accessory to a hotel, lodge, etc. is also an unsuitable approach.

 

5.         AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE 9.2 AND 9.3 TO REMOVE RESTRICTIONS THAT LIMIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS TO THE CO (OUTLYING COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT : The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Chapter 9, Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) would be amended such that PUDs would no longer be limited to only the CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning District.

The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), Chapter 13 Definitions, defines a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as follows:

 

Planned Unit Development shall mean a development of a property as a single entity for mixed residential/commercial purposes, when the zoning regulations that would normally apply may be superseded by controls specific to the project that allow a more sensitive and more economical arrangement of buildings and streets on the site.

 

The EVDC Chapter 9, Planned Unit Developments, has a limitation on PUDs stating that they are allowed only in the CO (Outlying Commercial) Zoning District.

 

This limitation apparently has resulted in very few PUDs being proposed or approved in the Estes Valley, since the EVDC adoption in 2000.  There simply are not many areas in CO District zoning where it has applicability or benefits. Undeveloped, privately owned land zoned CO is generally very scarce.

 

Note, the following Windcliff discussion is for background and context.  A Windcliff PUD approval process would be separate and apart from this Code Amendment.

 

Recently, the Homeowner’s Association for Windcliff Estates, located in the far southwest part of the EVDC planning area, has approached Community Development to explore the possibility of re-establishing a PUD in that area.

 

Various filings of Windcliff Estates were approved and recorded as PUDs through Larimer County, beginning around the mid-1970s.  Then, with adoption of the EVDC in 2000, Windcliff Estates was zoned to E-1 (Estate).  Adoption of the EVCD and new Official Zoning Map, without reconfirming the Windcliff PUD zoning, in effect erased the Larimer County PUD zoning from the map. 

 

Minimum setback requirements in E-1 have led to numerous Windcliff variances being required over the last 19 years, most of which would have been unnecessary prior to 2000.

 

Many of the residences in Windcliff were, or are, longtime vacation rentals, and were built as such.  This has been somewhat problematic, as there is a cap on the maximum number of vacation rentals allowed. Establishing a PUD overlay in Windcliff may allow some additional vacation rentals, as appropriate. The currently proposed amendment does not address any vacation home issues; those will be addressed later in the specific Windcliff context.

 

With that, there is a requirement in Chapter 9, where a PUD overlay must be a “Planned Mixed-Use District.”  “Mixed-Use” is defined, in Chapter 13, Definitions, as development “…with two (2) or more different principal uses…”  In keeping with this requirement, Windcliff would need to propose two principal uses: 1) Single Family Dwelling.  2) Vacation Home.  Both are uses allowed in the E-1 (Estate) zoning, and both have existed in Windcliff for many years.

 

Per the EVDC Chapter 3, Review Procedures and Standards, any Planned Unit Development would require an individualized PUD Preliminary Plan, which requires Estes Valley Planning Commission and Board action, and then a PUD final plan, requiring Board action only.  Some PUDs would also entail subdivision plats, which typically run concurrently with PUD Plans. Each would undergo review on its own merits, case by case.

 

Staff does not envision many PUDs being proposed because of this amendment. Windcliff is the only active example, to our knowledge. However, the amendment could be useful for other types of mixed-use development in the future—in or near downtown, for example.

 

Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment.

 

The Estes Valley Planning Commission, at their April 16, 2019 meeting, forwarded a recommendation of approval of the Code Amendment, by a vote of four in favor, one against, and one recusal.

 

6.         YMCA OF THE ROCKIES STEALTH WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY SPECIAL REVIEW: Applicant requests approval of an S1 Special Review to allow a “Wireless Telecommunication Facility,” “Concealed (Stealth) Antenna,” in an A (Accommodations) Zoning District.  The antenna will be disguised as a pine tree, 65 feet in height.  The facility will also include a 35 x 40-foot fenced area for ground equipment, etc.

 

Applicant’s letter of request and application submittal materials are attached as Attachment 1.  The letter of request lists a number of submittal materials.  Staff has not attached all of these due to size constraints, but has included site plans, an elevation drawing of the monopine structure, photo simulations of the monopine and facility on the proposed site, and an analysis of the requirement for the new antenna and facility.

 

The antenna is proposed for a location north of Mountainside Drive within the YMCA of the Rockies property.  This is within a portion of the SE ¼ of Section 5, Township 4 North, Range 73 West, Larimer County, Colorado. 

 

SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA: The following is from the EVDC, Chapter 3 Review Procedures and Standards, Section 3.5 Special Review Uses:

 

A. Procedures for Approval of Special Review Uses. Applications for approval of a special review use shall follow the standard development approval process set forth in  §3.2 of this Chapter. Uses that require a Special Review and are subject to the regulations of this section are stated in Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts and Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.

 

Special Review Uses shall be reviewed through an S1 or S2 procedure. Those uses that have a wider public interest or impact shall be reviewed through the S2 procedure. Both review procedures provide an opportunity to allow the use when there are minimal impacts, to allow the use but impose mitigation measure to address identified concerns, or to deny the use if findings establish that concerns cannot be resolved.

 

Approval of a Special Review Use shall not constitute a change in the base zoning district and shall be granted only for the specific use approved at the specific site. Approval is subject to such modifications, conditions, and restrictions as may be deemed appropriate by the Decision-Making Body.

 

B. Standards for Review. All applications for a special review use shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria and standards set forth in Chapter 5, "Use Regulations," of this Code.  As mentioned above, the EVDC, Section 5.1.T., requires “Compliance with Larimer County Wireless Facilities Siting Regulations,” which has been addressed in the applicant’s submittal. 

 

Applications for S1 or S2 Special Review shall provide a narrative that describes how the proposed use fulfills the applicable requirements and standards for the use. In order to minimize adverse impacts of the proposed use, an approval of Special Review Use may be conditioned based upon information provided in the narrative and staff findings.

 

For purposes of the Special Review, the narrative shall describe the following, as applicable:

 

1. The proposed use and its operations;

2. Traffic generation including a Traffic Impact Study if determined necessary by the Decision-Making Body;

3.  Existing zoning compatibility;

4. Location of parking and loading, including size, location, screening, drainage, landscaping, and surfacing;

5.  Effect on off-site parking;

6.  Street access points, including size, number, location and/or design;

7.  Hours of operation, including when certain activities are proposed to occur;

8.  Exterior lighting;

9.  Effects on air and water quality;

  10.  Environmental effects which may disturb neighboring property owners such as; glare, noise and dust.

  11.  Height, size, setback, and location of buildings and activities;

  12.  Any diking, berms, screening or landscaping, and standards for their installation and maintenance; and

  13. Other resources. This description shall include information on protection and preservation of existing trees, vegetation, water resources, habitat areas, drainage areas, historic resources, cultural resources, or other significant natural resources.

 

The applicant’s submittal includes a narrative describing and addressing NOS. 1-13.

 

This application has been submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff.  Staff notes no water or wastewater service is needed for this proposed use.

 

The Larimer County Building Department provided comments regarding applicable building codes, electrical codes, and ANSI/TIA standards.  A building permit is required for the antenna.

 

The Larimer County Engineering Department emailed comments for the project, including requirements for drainage and erosion control plans, a Development Construction Permit, and noting the access and maintenance agreement is to be recorded.

 

The Estes Valley Fire District has reviewed the proposed antenna and facility and has provided emailed comments with a requirement for an on-site fire extinguisher, and a gate with a “Knox Box” for controlled emergency access.  With some grades exceeding 12% on the access road, the applicant’s engineering staff recently coordinated with the Fire Marshall, and then submitted a road design plan.  With that, “The Estes Valley Fire District has reviewed and approves of the access plan as submitted.”

 

The Town of Estes Park Light and Power Division has “no objection to this project.”

 

Applicant understands and is aware of agency requirements.  Staff will monitor and ensure compliance when permitting and construction are underway.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Special Review Use for a Wireless Telecommunication Facility.

 

7.         CRYSTAL LAKES 8TH LOTS 61&64 LOT CONSOLIDATION, FILE #19-LAND 3892: This is a request to combine the area of Lots 61 and 64 to create a 5.84-acre lot in Crystal Lakes 8th Filing.

 

The applicants seek to combine two lots within the Crystal Lakes 8th Filing to create one 5.84-acre lot. 

 

The 8th Filing plat contains utility easements along the property lines, and no request has been made to vacate these easements.  No construction or other development impact would be permitted within the platted easements.

 

The Larimer County Land Use Code (Section 5.7.3) allows for the approval of a lot consolidation if the following review criteria are met:

 

A.  No additional lots will be created by the lot consolidation.

 

B.   The resultant lots will meet the required minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district and the lot dimension ratio required by subsection 8.14.1.H. If any of the lots are nonconforming with respect to the minimum lot size or the lot dimension ratio, the lot consolidation must not increase the nonconformity.

 

C. The lot consolidation will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing building;

 

D. The resultant lots will meet the requirements of subsection 8.14.1.I.  Lots can not be divided by a municipal or county boundary line, road, alley, or another lot.

 

E. The lot consolidation will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area.

 

F. Any covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the final plat, except those changes to a condition or note on a plat that are approved with this application. The County Commissioners shall consider the original reason or circumstance for a condition or note on a plat when approving a change.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Lot Consolidation, subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met, and the final resolution recorded by November 28, 2019 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.

 

8.         CRYSTAL LAKES 12TH, LOT 98, ROW & EV, FILE 18-LAND3856: Right-of-way vacation of the portion of Pensacola Court right-of-way that is within the boundaries of Lot 98, Crystal Lakes 12th Filing, and vacation of utility easements within the boundaries of Lot 98, Crystal Lakes 12th. The 20-foot utility easement along the north property line is proposed to remain. The owners of Lot 98, Crystal Lakes 12th filing is proposing to vacate the portion of the Pensacola Court right-of-way that is within the boundaries of Lot 98, and to vacate all of the utility easements within the boundary of Lot 98, except for the 20-foot utility easement along the north property line. The northern 20-foot utility easement is to remain for Poudre Valley REA. The owner of Lot 98 intends to build a cabin on the property and desires to vacate the Pensacola Court right-of-way and utility easements on Lot 98 in order to have more potential building locations for the proposed cabin.

 

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;

 

B.   The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

.

 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 county commissioners approve the vacation.

 

 

9.         MCGILL MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (MRD) AMENDED PLAT, FILE #19-LAND3864 : Amended Plat of the McGill Minor Residential Development to shift property lines and road alignment.

 

The subject property is located at 3803 Dollar Lake Drive. A Minor Residential Development (MRD) was approved in 1992 for the subject 25-acre property to be subdivided into four residential lots. The MRD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners but was never finalized by the applicant. Children’s Hospital now owns the subject property and is making minor adjustments to the property lines that were originally approved with the original MRD. The property is now located within the Estes Valley Planning Area. However, it was determined between Larimer County and Estes Park that Larimer County would process the amended plat application.

 

Lots 3 & 4 have existing homes with wells and a shared septic system. The residence on Lot 3 will be demolished “and the shared septic system will be replaced with a new septic system to be used solely by the residence on Lot 4,” according to Lea Schneider at the Department of Health and Environment.

 

Lot 2 has a well and will have a septic system. Lot 1 does not currently have a well but will be required to have one.

 

The Larimer County Land Use Code (Section 5.7.3) allows for the approval of an amended plat if the following review criteria are met:

 

A.   No additional lots will be created by the amended plat.

 

B.   The resultant lots will meet the required minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district and the lot dimension ratio required by subsection 8.14.1.H. If any of the lots are nonconforming with respect to the minimum lot size or the lot dimension ratio, the amended plat must not increase the nonconformity.

 

C.   The amended plat will not create a nonconforming setback for any existing building.

 

D.   The resultant lots will meet the requirements of subsection 8.14.1.I.  Lots cannot be divided by a municipal or county boundary line, road, alley, or another lot.

 

E.   The amended plat will not adversely affect access, drainage or utility easements or rights-of-way serving the property or other properties in the area; and

 

F.   Any covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the final plat, except those changes to a condition or note on a plat that are approved with this application. The county commissioners shall consider the original reason or circumstance for a condition or note on a plat when approving a change.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the McGill Minor Residential Development Amended Plat, file number 19-LAND3864, 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.  All conditions of approval shall be met and the final plat recorded by November 20, 2019, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

2. Prior to the recordation of the final plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Ron Perkins, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

MOTION

 

Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve items number one through four, six, eight, and nine from the consent agenda as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0

 

Motion

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that item Number Five Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code 9.2 and 9.3 to remove restrictions that limit planned unit developments to the CO(outlying commercial) zoning district be continued on July 15, 2019, at the 3 p.m. Land Use Hearing.

 

Motion carried 3-0

 

MOTION

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve number seven Crystal Lakes 8th lots 61&64 lot consolidation, file #19-land 3892.

 

Motion carried 3-0

 

DISCUSSION ITEMS

 

10. RAMSEY APPEAL, FILE #19-GNRL0465 : Request to approve an exemption to the Conservation Development process Section 5.3.2.H of the Larimer County Land Use Code, to allow a subdivision of 41.5-acres into 11 lots. Ten of approximately 2.3-acres and one of 10-acres.

 

The applicant proposes to divide their 41.5-acre parcel of land to create 11 lots, 10 lots of approximately 2.3-acres in size and one non-buildable, with a building envelop, lot of 10+ acres surrounding the lake.  This site is located in the area between Loveland and Fort Collins and is outside any Growth Management Area.  The Larimer County Land Use Code requires that such a land division be a Conservation Development, unless the Board of County Commissioners approves an exemption or waiver to the provision and allows the division to occur as a subdivision.  The applicant is requesting the Board of County Commissioners approve such an exemption to allow the application to be processed as a subdivision. 

 

The applicant has not yet submitted a Sketch Plan process, which is their next step.  The decision of the Board of County Commissioners on this appeal will determine the course of action for the applicant.  Additionally, this request is only to allow an 11-lot subdivision although the parcel at 41.5- acres could result in an 18 lot Conservation Development if served by public sewer or 10 lots if on individual on-site sewer. The request has been referred to adjacent landowners and to affected agencies for their comments.  Due to the timing of the hearing process it may be necessary to update the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing with any late arriving information.  It is the applicant’s contention that this plan meets the intent of conservation development while allowing larger lots and slighter higher density than might be allowed in a Conservation Development. 

 

APPEAL TO DEVIATE FROM THE STANDARDS OR REQUIREMENTS:

 

When considering whether to approve an appeal to deviate from standards or requirements of this Code, other than minimum lot size requirements, the county commissioners may grant the appeal subject to safeguards and conditions consistent with their findings concerning the following factors. The county commissioners will consider each of the following factors and make findings pertaining to each one which, in their discretion, applies to the appeal:

 

Appeal from the requirement for a Conservation Development with respect to the applicants request the following criteria are to be considered in the request. Note: If County Commissioners grant an exception from the conservation Development requirement, the property may be subdivided and developed under the Subdivision process.

 

Section 5.3.2.H. Larimer County Land Use Code

Exceptions to the requirement for a conservation development/subdivision may be granted by the County Commissioners. An application for development of the site must be submitted within three years from the date an exception is approved, or the exception will automatically expire. Criteria for consideration of an exception request include, but are not limited to:

 

1. The size and configuration of the site does not permit design consistent with the purpose of conservation developments.

 

The parcel is sized at forty one acres, large enough to allow a Conservation Development of up to 18 lots.  The surrounding area is not developed in that manner, as the parcels are 2-5-acre subdivision lots or exemption lots of 10+ acres.  This property fronts on Donath Lake and there are properties to the south and east that are larger.  The character of development to the north, west and south is consistent with a subdivision rather than a clustered development.  If a lift station were provided to allow public sewer, up to 18 smaller lots could be allowed.  While meeting the intent of the Conservation Development regulations the pattern of development with smaller lots would not be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern.  However, there is a vacant parcel to the east that may develop as a Conservation Development.

 

2. Development of the site as a conservation development is not compatible with existing or allowed adjacent development.

 

As noted, the parcel is in the midst of an area bordered by subdivisions to the north, west and south.  A clustered development in the midst of this area would establish a different pattern of development.  This is not necessarily a compatibility issue but in anticipating that other lots might develop in the future, matching the existing pattern of larger subdivided lots may be more appropriate for this area. 

 

3. The site does not have environmentally sensitive areas or agricultural uses and clustered design would not contribute to the open character of the rural area.

 

The site borders on three sides of Donath Lake.  The applicant’s proposal is to buffer the lake with one large lot, 10+ acres, keeping the balance of the lots away from and not fronting

directly on the lake.  The environmental concerns are located on the periphery of the site.  Most surrounding development is not clustered.  The applicant has indicated that it is their belief that a subdivision restricting development or disturbance of the area near the lake is as protective of these areas as a Conservation Development would be.  The current pattern of development is the area is one of large lot development and this proposal would continue that pattern.  The introduction of smaller lots in the middle of this area would not necessarily contribute to the open character. 

 

4. Development of the site as a conservation development may impact adjacent environmentally sensitive areas or agricultural uses more so than other forms of land division allowed under this code.

 

As noted, the pattern of development surrounding this site is of mostly subdivided property, a further subdivision would be consistent with this pattern.  There are no small lots in the neighborhood.  The land is not used for production agriculture but rather equestrian and pasture uses. 

 

5. The site is a replat of an existing subdivision or portion of an existing subdivision.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the RAMSEY SUBDIVISION APPEAL file # 19-GNRL0465 subject to the following condition(s):

 

1. A three lot subdivision with building envelops as proposed by the applicant is the maximum that may be processed and proposed as a subdivision. 

 

2. The larger conservation lot would be restricted from any further development or subdivision.

 

3. No additional lots or density beyond that allowed via a Conservation Development, i.e.10 lots in individual sanitation systems or 18 with connection to public sewer.

 

Rob Helmick, planning, went over a brief description of the appeal according to the Larimer Land Use Code above.

 

Chair Donnelly invited the applicant, Russel Baker, to address the Board.

 

Mr. Baker went over a brief description of the request.

 

The Board did not have any questions for the applicant.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the discussion for public comment.

 

Ryan McConnell explained that he is concerned about nesting raptors.

 

Chair Donnelly closed public comment.

 

Mr. Baker explained this will be addressed during the process and he understands the concern.

 

There was some discussion between the Board and staff including discussion on the parcel that is adjacent to the lake and the nesting raptors and conservation issues. There was also discussion on the length of the shared driveway.

 

Mr. Helmick went over the appeals process and time frames with the Board as well as mentioned that this is only a vote on the process.

 

MOTION

 

Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Ramsey Subdivision Appeal file #19-GNRL0465 subject to condition two and three as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0

 

11. STONEWALL FARMS SPECIAL EVENT: This is a request to host a wedding of less than 200 people.

 

The applicants are applying for the event, Stonewall Farm Wedding, which is taking place on Saturday, June 08, 2019 from 8 a.m. through 10 p.m. The wedding will host less than 200 people and the applicant is stating they will conform to all Larimer County Environmental (noise) and fire safety requirements. The applicant has provided a site plan showing where the parking, ceremony and tent location will be located. The County has also received comments from interested parties and neighbors who have expressed concerns regarding noise, lights and safety. There was also a letter in favor of the event.

 

Lesli Ellis went over the special event request for the Board including the criteria as well as comments received from neighbors.

 

The Land Use Code, Section 7.5 sets forth the Review Criteria for a Special Event. To approve a Special Events Permit, the County Commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

 

            A. The applicant has demonstrated that the special event can be compatible with existing and

allowed uses in the surrounding area.

 

            B. The applicant has demonstrated that the special event complies with all applicable

requirements of this code.

 

            C. The applicant has demonstrated that the special event will result in no substantial adverse

impact on other properties in the vicinity, including environmentally sensitive areas or features or other lands.

 

D. The applicant has demonstrated that the special event has addressed the recommendations of the referral agencies.

 

            E. The applicant has demonstrated that the special event will comply with the applicable

performance standards as set forth in section 7.7 of this code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the

Stonewall Farm Wedding Special Event, application #4583 with the following conditions:

 

            1. Shall meet all performance standards set forth in Section 7.7 of the Land Use

Code, compliance with Section 7.8 and Section 7.9 regarding clean up and all

referral agency comments.

 

            2. An emergency access path shall be provided in accordance with

recommendations by Berthoud Fire and Larimer County Building

Department.

 

            3. Tent permit for a structure greater than 700 square feet is required.

 

            4. No activities shall occur in unpermitted buildings.

 

            5. A minimum of four portable restroom units shall be provided with at least one

accessible unit and handwashing station available.

 

            6. The noise amplification decibels shall be decreased by reducing the volume

of the sound system, per comments from the Health Department.

 

7. The reception site shall be moved to the east side of the property to mitigate

noise from crowd cheering and celebration.

 

            8. The applicant must furnish the insurance specified by Risk Management for the event.

 

There was some discussion between the Board and staff about the history of the property for special events.

 

Chair Donnelly invited the applicants to address the Board.

 

Michael and Kennan Verzuh addressed the Board. They explained that they have owned the property since 1991 and have had a few small weddings over the years and would like to host larger gatherings in the future and this is why they are applying for a special permit. They went over proposed hours of operation and the number of guests at the events as well as went over what would take place such as catering, outside toilets, wash stations, alcohol, licensed, insured, dedicated staff, noise mitigation, no trespassing signs so neighbors are not disturbed.

 

There was some discussion between the Board and applicants.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the hearing for public comment.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Board: Dave Cozad, Cal Warnecke, Chuck Peabody, Tracy Ireland, Barbara Cozad, Bryce Barker, John Ellis, Jim Neeley, Brian Henderson, Linda Ann Goe, Dianne Wood, Steve Gardner, and Robin Barker. Their collective concerns are: noise, excessive drinking, effects on livestock, trash, amplified music, traffic, trespassing, blocking driveways, party buses, golf carts on roads, car accidents, no handicapped parking and safety.

 

Chair Donnelly closed public comment.

 

The applicants addressed the Board for a chance at rebuttal. The Verzuh explained that they now have no trespassing signs as well as dedicated staff to make sure wedding guests only stay on property. They explained that this has been a learning curve and want to respect the neighbor’s concerns. They are asking for three events per year for this size event, not every weekend. They also mentioned that the Bride and Groom will be devasted if this request is turned down as they have been planning their upcoming wedding for a year.

 

There was some discussion between the Board and applicants about dealing with alcohol.

 

There were some questions for code compliance about past events.

 

There was some discussion among the Board about proximity to neighbors and going over the review criteria.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of Commissioners deny the Stonewall Farm Wedding Special Event #4583.

 

Motion carried 2-1, Chair Donnelly dissenting.

 

With there being no further business, the Board recessed at 4:55 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Lesli Ellis, Community Development Director; Chair Donnelly presided, and Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Kefalas were present. Also present were: Katie Beilby and Matt Lafferty, Community Development; Lea Schneider, Health Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney and Deirdre O’Neill, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION ITEM:

 

1.         ARISE MUSIC FESTIVAL SPECIAL EVENT: This is a request to host a music festival/special event on the property from August 2nd to August 5th, 2019.

 

The applicants are applying for the 7th annual Arise Music Festival from August 2 to 4, 2019 with clean up occurring on Monday, August 5, 2019.

 

The three-day music event includes one main performance stage and a smaller stage and is a venue for musicians and other events, workshops, and seminars, etc. on the 100-acres of the site slated for the event. The applicant estimates ticket-buying participants to be approximately 9,000 people and up to 250 volunteers and staff, although the application notes that attendance could reach 13,500 people. The application describes onsite parking and camping, and other activities on the site. Potable water (1 gallon/per person per day) and portable toilets (one per 100 people) will be delivered to the site to accommodate the attendance, as well as solid waste management. The applicant proposes on site emergency and medical response as well. Access to the event is off of County Road 29, and no parking will occur along the road. The applicant describes hours of operation as being “24 hours per day” for camping. Concerts will occur on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights with stages closing a 2:30 a.m. The activity includes on site food and alcohol vendors.

 

The applicant has also provided supplementary information about the economic impacts and benefits of the event, noting that many of the vendors and staff are local, and that the event provides a benefit to Larimer County.

 

As of Friday May 10, 2019, the County has also received many comments from interested parties both in favor of approving the permit, and neighbors who have expressed concerns regarding traffic, noise and the impact to the area.

 

When the Land Use Code Special Events section (Sec. 7) was updated in 2017, Sunrise Ranch became ineligible for a Special Events permit because Devine Emissaries’ existing Special Review land use approval limits the size of gatherings on the property to 170 people. However, because the Arise Music Festival had been held on the property for five years prior, the County allowed approval for two events in summer 2018 and notified the applicant that they would need to amend the land use approval for the site if they wanted to host the event in 2019. These discussions occurred at meetings held on July 20, 2018 with applicants, and with owners at a hearing on August 13, 2018. Currently the owner is working to amend their approval, and that review and decision will occur as a separate process from this Special Events permit process.

 

On March 11, 2019, the property owners and the applicant for the Arise Music Festival came before the Board of County Commissioners seeking an appeal to Section 7.3.B.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow the applicant to apply for a Special Event Permit on a property that has received and is subject to an existing land use approval that limits the number, type, and nature of gatherings to be held on the property. The Board approved this appeal. Additionally, Land Use Code Sec. 7.6.B.3 Action on Application notes that the Community Development Direction may schedule the application for hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to determine if the event should be allowed or denied.

 

The Land Use Code, Section 7.5 sets forth the Review Criteria for a Special Event. To approve a Special Events permit, the County Commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

 

A.   The applicant has demonstrated that the special event can be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area.

 

 

B. The applicant has demonstrated that the special event complies with all applicable requirements of this code.

 

C. The applicant has demonstrated that it complies with the requirements of the Land Use Code, and the development review team and referral agencies have reviewed the application and recommend approval with certain conditions.

 

D. The applicant has demonstrated that the special event will result in no substantial adverse impact on other properties in the vicinity, including environmentally sensitive areas or features or other lands.

 

E The applicant has demonstrated that the special event has addressed the recommendations of the referral agencies.

 

F. The applicant has demonstrated that the special evet will comply with the applicable performance standards as set forth in section 7.7 of this code.

                       

 

The Development Services Team recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the Arise Music Festival Special Event, application #4579, with the following conditions:

 

1.Shall meet all performance standards set forth in Section 7.7 of the Land Use Code, compliance with Section 7.8 and Section 7.9 regarding clean up and all referral agency comments.

 

2.Amplified music on the main stage shall end at 12:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday night and 10:00 p.m. on Sunday night, unless applicant has a noise plan so that only acoustic or lower decibel music will occur after that time.

 

Lesli Ellis presented the Board with the special event request. She explained that this festival is an annual event and this year’s event will take place, if approved, on August 2 -August 4, 2019.

 

Ms. Elis went over the review criteria and the applicant response to each criteria.

 

Ms. Ellis went over applicant response to issues such as mitigating noise to the surrounding area. Trees, underbrush, large rocks and other natural resources are left intact, natural vegetative cover is retained, protected and maintained. The applicant has an adequate water supply for the event attendees. They will supply a minimum 135 toilets with one sink per every five toilets. They will have medical staff on hand that includes doctors, nurses and paramedics. The applicant has adequate security in place and that the fire district has been notified through the Larimer County Special Event permitting process. Generators will be used, and individual vendors will be supplying food during the event. Staff has reservations about the growing size of attendance at the event and hours of operation.

 

There was some discussion between the Board and staff regarding parking, hours of operation, sound systems and impacts to Glade Road residents, adequate water supply.

 

Chair Donnelly invited the applicants to address the Board.

 

Jess Gries, attorney for the applicants went over the process and the past festivals. Mr. Gries explained the changes they have made from events in the past. They believe they have addressed the complaints of neighbors and explained that this is a family friendly festival and went over issues in the past with noise, as this seems to be the biggest complaint.

 

The applicant has had a meeting with the Colorado State University’s Environmental and Radiological Health Services Department to discuss a monitoring plan and additional sound mitigating options.

 

Mr. Gries explained the orientation of the main stage will be adjusted in an attempt to correct the anomaly reported in 2018 to Glade Road residents.

 

Tierro Lee, Paul Franzen and Paul Basis, co-producers of the event also addressed the Board. They spoke about the economic impacts to Larimer County which draws up to ten thousand visitors to Sunrise Ranch in Loveland. They believe the music festival is a healthy event that has grown and has hired more than one hundred small businesses from Larimer County.

 

The producers have offered to end music on the main stage and hour earlier (1:30 a.m.) while also implementing and aggressive sound mitigation policy designated to address the complaints from neighbors.

 

There was some discussion between the Board and the applicants.

 

Bevin Luna, OSHA consultation addressed the Board and explained their role.

 

Chair Donnelly opened the hearing to public comment and explained that the Board needs to make their decision based on the Land Use Code.

 

The following people addressed the Board on their support for the ARISE Music Festival:

Joel Gustafson, Nathan Smiley, Phillip Gottula, Alva Lenay, Makasha Rain, Jim Jobson, Beth Luna Light, Keahi Ewa, Uma Faith, Craig Blockwick, Christina Huff, John White Antelope, Bob Ewing, Greg Johnson, Sebastian Africano, Robert Warner, Jane Anetrini, Ally Constine, Tom Scharf, Nina Skidmore, Mo Hnatiuk, Bruce Campbell, Melissa Jacobs, Mallory Ciovacco, Kirsten Ciovacco, Andrea Ciovacco, Lauren Ciovacco, Gary Goodhue, Shilo Lewis, and Bridget Law. They believe it is a fun, family festival that has been going on for the last six years and is always a great time. They believe it is well organized and professionally run with great music and positive energy and creativity.

 

The Following spoke in opposition to the ARISE Music Festival: Paul Hudnet, Sara Hall, Brain Carran, Brain Diamond, Ruth Swanty spoke that she wants to believe that the applicants have taken their concerns into consideration and have made significant changes but is concerned on how this will be enforced. Fred, Riehm, Tom Miller, Clayton Nunes, and Stan Colesky who provide the Board with police calls last year during the three-day event. Their collective concerns are noise, lights, safety, trash, late hours and decibel levels.

 

Chair Donnelly closed public comment.

 

Chair Donnelly invited the applicants to address these concerns.

 

Mr. Lee and Mr. Franzen explained they will continue to monitor sound levels and have also set up a 24-hour hotline for neighbors to call with concerns.

 

They also spoke about the maximum number of persons that will be permitted to attend at any single time as well as their emergency operations plan.

 

There was some discussion among Board and staff about meeting with CSU regarding sound levels.

 

Commissioner Kefalas thanked the public for attending and appreciated everyone’s time and comments. He explained this is not an easy decision and many factors go into the decision making. He mentioned that he would be inclined to support if the hours on Friday and Saturday nights would be reduced until midnight based on staff’s recommendation. He would also like to cap the event to nine thousand sold tickets and appreciated all the efforts of the applicants to mitigate many of the noise factors as well as setting up the 24-hour hotline. He would like to have them extend their letter outreach outside the 1.5- mile radius.

 

Commissioner Johnson mentioned he had many concerns during the March hearing but was very pleased to see the steps the applicants have taken and that they have taken those concerns seriously. He also mentioned he would be inclined to support with the reduction of hours to 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday evenings and 10 p.m. on Sunday. He also mentioned that the wording in condition to be change as to strike everything past “unless applicant” as there is no way to enforce this. The Commissioners also mentioned they are pleased that they are going through a Special Review as well.

 

Chair Donnelly thanked everyone and spoke about making a clear point operationally and to use this as a basis moving forward and mentioned that everyone deserves a fair hearing, and this is a good starting place to see what is acceptable and what is not in the future

 

MOTION

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Arise Music Festival Special Event #4579 with the following conditions:

1.Condition one as stated above

2.The amplified music on the main stage will end at 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and Sunday at 10 p.m.

3.Limit ticket sales to 9000.

4.The applicant will submit a plan for neighborhood outreach including e-mails the County has received as well and individuals that have testified this evening and the 24-hour phone number.

           

Motion carried 3-0

 

With there being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 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 Deirdre O'Neill, 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. No members of the public addressed the Board.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 13, 2019:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the weeks of May 13, 2019.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 27, 2019:   Ms. Jeffers 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: HARTFORD HOMES AT WEST HORSETOOTH LLC R1635243/97273-13-001(2018)

 

05212019A001             PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND DITESCO LLC

 

05212019A002             PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT-HB1251 BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

 

05212019A003             PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN MICROFILM AND IMAGING LLC

 

05212019A004             ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND UMR INC

 

05212019A005             FISCAL YEAR 2019-2020 SINGLE ENTRY POINT CONTRACT- GRANT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY AND FINANCING

 

05212019P001             HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY AND PROCEDURE 331.6N- BENEFITS

 

05212019R001             SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF RALPH NATIONS AND BOB RIRSCH

 

05212019R002             RESOLUTION ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PETITIONS FOR MANOR RIDGE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

 

05112019R003             RESOLUTION ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PETITIONS FOR SCENIC RANCH ESTATES PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  Overland Foods – Fermented Malt Beverage Off Premises – LaPorte; Project Self-Sufficiency–Special Event –6%– Fort Collins; Rocky Mountain Gateway #1– Hotel and Restaurant– Estes Park; Rocky Mountain Gateway #2– Fermented Malt Beverage Off Premises– Estes Park; Chill– Tavern– Fort Collins; Masonville Mercantile Transfer of Ownership– Fermented Malt Beverage On/Off Premises– Masonville

 

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.   

 

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

 

 

6.          PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 30-JULY 6, 2019 TINY HOUSE APPRECIATION WEEK:  Tiny Houses offer opportunities for lessening environmental impacts to Larimer County caused by human living including smaller footprints, energy efficiency, and more simple installation of renewable resources such as solar power and heat; multiple opportunities and solutions to many issues that homeless populations face and to the issues surrounding homelessness in general; housing solutions in tight economic times for many younger buyers, those new to workforce, or those seeking lower cost housing; and dignity to those seeking their own living space.

 

Commissioner Kefalas read the following Proclamation:

 

WHEREAS, tiny houses offer opportunities for lessening environmental impacts to Larimer County caused by human living including smaller footprints, energy efficiency, and more simple installation of renewable resources such as solar power and heat; and

 

WHEREAS, tiny houses offer multiple opportunities and solutions to many issues that homeless populations face and to the issues surrounding homelessness in general; and

 

WHEREAS, tiny houses offer housing solutions in tight economic times for many young buyers, those new to the workforce, or those seeking lower cost housing; and

 

WHEREAS, tiny houses offer dignity to those seeking their own living space;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County do hereby recognize the efforts of the Larimer County Long Term Strategic Planning Department, Larimer County Emergency Services, Ashley Artlip, Maya Eakins, and our regional partners, and reaffirm the importance of inclusive regional economic development in Larimer County by proclaiming June30-July 6, 2019 as Tiny House Appreciation Week.

 

 

MOTION

 

Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim the week of June 30-July 6, 2019 as Tiny House Appreciation Week.

 

Motion carried 3-0

 

7.          2019 CWFS/SSTABS CONFERENCE AWARD RECIPIENTS; HUMAN SERVICES “OUTSTANDING SUPPORT TEAM OF THE YEAR: Recognize Larimer County Human Services "Outstanding Support Team of the Year" award recipients from 2019 CWFC/SSTABS Conference.

 

Larimer County Human Services' Content Management Team received the Outstanding Support Team of the Year at the 2019 Annual Conference sponsored by the Colorado Welfare Fraud Council (CWFC) and Social Services Technical & Business Staffs (SSTABS). This award comes because of the additional duties and job responsibilities taken on by the Content Management Team, including participating in several technical initiatives geared towards process improvement for the entire Department of Human Services. The Unit has a diverse list of responsibilities, but the team takes on the challenges without hesitation knowing that the result will provide better customer service to the citizens of Larimer County. Our Unit is responsible for prepping, scanning, indexing and QA’ing all the documents and scanned over 225,000 documents (or just over 2 million pages) in 2018. We are also responsible for locating missing documents. In 2018, we handled roughly 33 reports of missing documentation; only 6 were errors on the part of the Content Management Team. All in all, 33 missing documents out of 225,000 is phenomenal.

 

Content Management employees have worked hard at continuous improvement on behalf of the Department of Human Services. They have taken on several new roles, expanding their responsibilities from capturing and tracking all the documentation provided by our clients and coordinating mail delivery to being responsible for our revised website, taking over updating and managing the various forms used by the department, coordinating print orders for the department and working very closely with IT in technology developments involving OnBase and other tools.

 

Shannon Reiff, Human Services Division Manager, Susan Neiman, Human Services Office Supervisor spoke about how grateful there are to their staff and are excited about the recognition and appreciation for all their hard work. They went into some detail explaining to the Board the number of documents that were scanned and uploaded in 2018 as well as locating missing documents and the continued efforts of fraud detection and recovery.

 

The Board took a brief recess for a photo.

 

The Board returned to session.

 

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

 

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

 

10 .        EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board went into Executive Session to Discuss Real Estate Pursuant to C.R.S 24-6-402(4)(b) and Amicus Brief on issue of “common ownership” in Supreme Court Case 18 SC 499, 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 Amicus Brief on issue of “common ownership” in Supreme Court Case 18 SC 499, pursuant to C.R.S 24-6-402(4)(b).

 

Motion carried 3-0

 

Decision expected

 

MOTION

 

Commissioner Kefalas moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize signing an Amicus Brief on issue of “common ownership” in Supreme Court Case 18 SC 499, pursuant to C.R.S 24-6-402(4)(b).

 

Motion carried 3-0

 

MOTION

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners enter Executive Session to Discuss Real Estate Pursuant to C.R.S 24-6-402(4)(b)

 

Motion carried 3-0

 

With there being no further business, the Board adjourned at 10:00 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________

                        TOM DONNELLY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

ANGELA MYERS

CLERK AND RECORDER

ATTEST:

 

__________________________________________

Deirdre O’Neill, Deputy Clerk