text:
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner. Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Gibson and Rennels were present. Also present were: Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Matt Lafferty, Samantha Mott, and Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Wagner opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics. Chair Wagner explained that the following item has been withdrawn from the agenda:
1. JOHNSON MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW & APPEAL - #07-Z1648: This item was withdrawn from the agenda, as the applicant will need to work directly with state agencies in order to accomplish his goals.
Chair Wagner then explained that the following item is on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience:
2. GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS SUBDIVISION 7th FILING PUD LOTS 41 & 43 LOT CONSOLIDATION - #07-S2695: This is a request for lot consolidation to combine two contiguous lots into one lot in the Glacier View Meadows Subdivision 7th Filing PUD; if approved, the recording instrument will be a Finding and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.
There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:
· The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment
· The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team
· The Larimer County Addressing Coordinator
· The Glacier View Meadows Association
The proposed Glacier View Meadows Subdivision 7th Filing PUD Lots 41 and 43 Lot Consolidation will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Typically staff does not support creating a lot split by a road. However, the Lot Consolidation review criterion does not address this issue. This lot consolidation meets the review criteria as set forth in the Larimer County Land Use Code and, for this reason, staff supports this request.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Glacier View Meadows Subdivision 7th Filing PUD Lots 41 and 43 Lot Consolidation, subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by December 25, 2007, 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.
3. The existing access road, Shavano Court, shall not be blocked or otherwise encumbered by preventing the adjacent property owners or their guests from getting access to their properties.
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Item 2, as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. PEARL CREEK ONE APPEAL - #07-G0137: This is a request for an appeal to be allowed to process a Subdivision instead of a Conservation Development at a mountain site larger than 30-acres in size.
The applicant seeks approval to process a subdivision request in lieu of a Conservation Development. Please note, the project materials describe a 6 lot subdivision request. At the Sketch Plan meeting the applicant verbally indicated he would like to reduce this to just 2 lots, shown as Lots 1 and 2 on the applicants site map.
The subject property is approximately 207 acres in size, but its exact legal size or status of the parcel(s) is unknown. This is because the applicant has unresolved differences with the Assessors Office over land record issues related to a Rural Land Use Plan (Pearl Creek Estates). These differences remain unresolved at the writing of this report, based on the information in the Assessors records and that verbally provided by the applicant at the Sketch Plan meeting.
For background, the applicant submitted a concurrent Sketch Plan request for development of this site. At Sketch Plan Staff advised the applicant that the lot configuration issues needed resolution before the County could process either a Subdivision or Conservation Development request. This is based on the requirements in Section 8.14 (Development Design) subsection C. which states that Applicants who do not develop an entire parcel must include the entire area of each parcel in the development, and they must indicate the intended plans for the remainder of the parcel in their project materials. This Section also requires that any remaining undeveloped parcel must be at least 35 acres in size if it is not included in the proposed development. For any process to happen, the parcel (or parcels) under consideration for development must be defined and considered legal lots. For the record, the Assessors Office currently shows one configuration for the area and the applicant describes another. There are two parcels containing the proposed lots, which have a total acreage of 207 + acres. The legal status of Parcel #40103-00-025 is unclear as it is only 28-acres in size and the applicant did not provide any clarifying information as to how it was created, except to state it should have been reconfigured following the Rural Land Use process. Again to be clear, the original request outlined in the project description for this request describes 6 lots in the subdivision. After the Sketch Plan meeting the applicant verbally indicated he wanted to reduce the number to 2 lots. The applicant has indicated that by creating only the 2 lots, he believed he would eliminate the requirement to make road improvements because of the Standards in the Engineering Department comments. The applicant has withdrawn Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 from consideration at this time, for this appeal. He did not indicate that whether or not he would seek approval for these other lots in the future.
County Planning Division: Most of the items of concern for the Planning Department at this stage are addressed in the sections above, with the following exceptions.
1. Subdivision vs. Conservation Development: The applicant indicated he wants to pursue creating two lots (instead of six) to avoid the costs associated with road improvements that are required for three or more lots. He also indicated he would likely seek approval to develop the larger parcels in some form in the future. While the discussion of this request has focused on the appropriateness of allowing the applicant to submit a subdivision instead of a Conservation Development, it would not be complete without raising some other points of concern for Staff.
First, the applicant should understand that Staff and the Planning Commission can still recommend a variety of conditions of approval to the Board of County Commissioners to mitigate the impacts from development, even for just 2 lots. The County Commissioners have the option to accept those and add other conditions they find are reasonable and necessary to address impacts from the subdivision and development of land.
The applicant should also note that development to the maximum density, based on zoning, is not a guarantee in the Land Use Code. Natural or other conditions at a site can limit the number of lots that may be approved for any development. However, the residual land in a Conservation Development is designed to allow protection of these areas, while still providing for more development in areas where there are no environmental or other impacts.
2. Incremental Development: Another concern for the Development Services Team is the effect of incremental development in the area of this site, in the form of successive two-lot subdivision plans. The Engineering Department has indicated that the roads in the area of this site are in need of improvements. Earlier development by the applicant and others contributed to this situation significantly. As the applicant indicated he intends to continue seek approval for development in this area, Staffs assessment is that no additional lots should be approved without some consideration given to resolving road impact concerns. For the public hearings on the Subdivision, the Development Services Team will look at consider recommendations to fairly address the road impact concerns, along with other issues as thought necessary to protect the health and welfare of the greater community around the site.
3. Other Development Requests: For the record, another property owner has contacted Planning Staff and indicated he is working with the applicant on developing another part of this same site. That other owner has expressed an interest in buying 35 acres from the applicant, but because the legal description of the parcels is unclear based on discrepancies between the Assessors records and the applicants representations. The Preliminary Plat application must include a formal survey, and proof that the parcels under development are legal, and that they are consistent with information on file in the County Assessors records. The applicant is strongly urged to contact the Assessor and resolve these issues, before submittal of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat.
The Engineering Department has no objections to the appeal to process a Subdivision versus a Conservation Development. Their comments note that their recommendations would be the same for a Subdivision or CD at the public hearing. Reducing the number of proposed lots will mitigate some of the concerns expressed by the Engineering Department in discussions with other Staff and the applicant. However, the Engineering Staff as part of the Development Services Team remains concerned about the incremental impacts of numerous small subdivision requests.
Like those of the Engineering Department the Health Departments comments are attached. Because the applicant has reduced the number of proposed lots, and removed lots from consideration that created concerns, the Health Department has no objections to allowing the applicant to pursue a Subdivision instead of a Conservation Development.
Several residents in the Crystal Lakes area have expressed concerns to staff about increased development in the area, especially the impacts on roads, water, etc. These concerns will be discussed in greater detail during the public hearing and prior to that at the neighborhood meeting. They are mentioned in this report to give the applicant notice that other property owners concerns at this time.
Staff supports the creation of two lots at this site as a subdivision instead of a Conservation Development. This is based on the verbal representations from the applicant at the Sketch Plan meeting with Staff that the subdivision request will be for 2 lots and not 6, and that the proposed 2 lots exist as being divided off the larger parent parcels by roads through the site.
A larger concern is that the parcel information provided to Staff for review is unclear. The County Assessors records indicate different parcel configurations from those represented by the applicant in his discussions with Staff. However, Section 8.14 subsection C. is very clear. It states that Applicants who do not develop an entire parcel must include the entire area of each parcel in the development, and they must indicate the intended plans for the remainder of the parcel in their project materials. This Section also requires that any remaining undeveloped parcel must be at least 35 acres in size if it is not included in the proposed development To meet this standard the Preliminary Plat application must include a site inventory map that shows the correct, legal parcels under consideration for development. The 2 proposed lots would be shown as to their location on the site inventory map. The remaining portions of each parcel must be larger than 35 acres. The Preliminary Plat application will also need to include individual Plats for each of the two proposed lots. All of the parcel information must also be consistent with that on file with the County Assessors Office. Staff encourages the applicant to meet with the County Assessor and resolve the outstanding land record issues for the parcels under review.
Staff remains concerned about the impacts from incremental development in the form of a series of two lot subdivisions; however, this is a discussion more appropriate for the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat, and being raised here only as a point of concern.
Staff recommends approval of the appeal to the requirements in Sections 5.3 of the Land Use Code that parcels larger then 30 acres be divided as a Conservation Development, and to allow the property identified in this report to be processed as a Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Preliminary Plat shall include no more than two single-family residential lots, located as shown on the information provided by the applicant for this appeal and as represented to Staff.
2. The Preliminary Plat application will satisfy the requirements of all applicable Land Use Code standards, including Section 8.14. Subsection C. The applicant will provide Plats for each proposed lot single family lot. The Site Inventory Map will accurately depict the size of the remaining parcels as being 35 acres or larger in size, and that information shall be consistent with information on file in the County Assessors records. The applicant must also provide proof that all parcels under review are legal lots. The application will include information that describes the use, possible future uses and dispositions of the larger remaining parcels.
Mr. Wheeler briefly explained the application as outlined above, and Mr. Helmick noted that the Board will only be considering the appeal and not the content of the application.
Don Weixelman, applicant, noted for the record that the property owner is Diane Weixelman, not North Fork LLC, as published. Mr. Weixelman stated that they wish to divide the property amongst family members and create separate residential properties.
There was no public comment regarding this item.
Discussion ensued regarding how the parcels were a result of pieces of land that were adjacent to a Rural Land Use project; however, they were not including in the project. Mr. Wheeler stated that the property legal descriptions would need to be reconciled with the Assessor's Office.
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Pearl Creek One Appeal to allow development of a site larger than 30 acres as a Subdivision and not a Conservation Development.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. LEE SPECIAL EXCEPTION - #07-Z1644: This is a request for a Special Exception to allow an existing residence on the commercially zoned property to be used as a caretakers residence for the automobile sales business on the property.
On May 16, 2007, the Development Services Team presented the Lee Special Exception application to the Planning Commission. At this hearing the Planning Commission heard testimony from both the Development Services Team and the applicant regarding the proposal, no members of the public showed up in support or opposition to the request.
Discussion by the Planning Commission, after hearing the testimony, revolved around the desire to not establish precedence, as well as similar actions taken in the recent past. At one point the Commission discussed possibly allowing the use for one year as they thought the property was in transition from residential to commercial, which was in part diffused by further discussion about the history of the property.
Upon conclusion of the Planning Commission discussion a motion was made and passed to deny the request. Since this recommendation was made no changes have been made to the application.
The Planning Commissioner and the Development Services Team recommend that the Lee Special Exception, file #07-Z1644, for the property described on Exhibit A to the minutes, be denied.
Mr. Lafferty explained the application as outlined above, noting that the applicant was not present and had indicated that he was considering withdrawing the application entirely; however, since he had not formally done so, a decision from the Board is necessary.
There was no public comment on this item.
Some discussion ensued regarding the need to include some provision in the Land Use Code to accommodate security monitoring utilizing some sort of on-site "facility" or "residence."
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Lee Special Exception, File #07-Z1644, as recommended by the Planning Commission and Development Services Team.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the meeting recessed at 3:45 p.m.
(#81 & 82)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Planning Department. Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Gibson and Rennels were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Commissioners Office; Christy Coleman, Engineering; Brenda Gimeson, Rural Land Use Center; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. MILLER/VAN VELSON RURAL LAND USE PLAN FILE #07-S2684: This is a request for preliminary approval to divide 141 +/- acres into five (5) lots in the following manner: Two (2) Residual Lots with a building envelope for a single-family dwelling and three (3) single-family residential lots, ranging in size from 4 to 12 acres. The Residual Lots will be protected in perpetuity.
The proposal for the Miller/Van Velson Preliminary Rural Land Plan is to combine an 82-acre piece of property with a 59-acre piece of property for a total of 141 acres. The 141 acres will be divided into 5 lots. This application is for a total of three (3) single-family residential lots ranging in size from 4 to 12 acres and two (2) Residual Lots, with building envelopes of 4-5 acres for one single-family dwelling on each Residual Lot. There are already three (3) existing residences located on the property. The undeveloped portion of the Residual Lots (about 78.1% of the property) will be protected in perpetuity by either a covenant or conservation easement, as required under the RLUP. The residual land parcels will remain as undeveloped dry forested grazing land.
The property is located in Sections 19 and 30, Township 8 North, and Range 70 West and Section 24, Township 8 North, Range 71 West. It is generally located 6 miles west of Bellvue and is immediately southwest of the Rist Canyon Fire Department. The property consists of dry forested grazing land. The land could be divided into four (4) 35-acre parcels without County approval. The property is zoned O-Open. Under the propertys current O-Open (1 home site per 10 acres) zoning, up to 14 homes could potentially be built if approved through the County's Conservation Development (CD) process.
Three single-family residences already exist. Two of the homes are owned by Tom Van Velson and one by Carol Miller. This proposal creates 2 additional building sites for a total of 5. The proposed design assures proximity to existing roads, adequate soils for septic systems, and the preservation of heavily forested areas.
Building envelopes will be required for Lot 1 (to assure the new residence is situated to access adequate soils for on-site septic system) and for Lot 3 (to assure preservation of the meadow that comprises the majority of this lot). Forestry management plans are already in effect and will continue to address prescriptions and implementation strategies for reducing wildfire hazards on Residual Lots A and B. Water to these lots will be provided by on-lot wells, and each lot will have individual septic systems. The surrounding properties consist mainly of 35-acre and larger parcels. There are a few smaller residential lots (less than 35 acres) that have been created through the Minor Land Division process or before 1972.
There is significant development pressure in this area for 35-acre parcels and smaller residential lots, if available. This pressure is caused by general growth along the Front Range, as well as by pressure specifically associated with growth in Fort Collins; and attractiveness of close-in foothills property. The proposed density of the Miller/Van Velson Rural Land Use project, one unit per 28.2 acres, appears to be compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with established development patterns in the area.
The undeveloped portion of the residual land, approximately 111 acres and comprising roughly 78.1% of the property, will be protected from further development in perpetuity, either with a deed restriction or conservation easement. The RLUP requires that residual land be protected for a minimum of 40 years with no further development. The owners of the residual land parcels will be responsible for maintaining the residual land and for providing periodic monitoring report(s) to the County. A road maintenance agreement will include provisions for access road maintenance.
Comments were solicited from the following agencies: Larimer County Engineering Department, Health Department, Larimer County Planning, Rural Land Use Advisory Board, and Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department. Because of the way the Administrative Process works, the Rural Land Use Advisory Board will not make an official recommendation regarding this project. The neighboring property owners were notified of the project by mail and have been given an opportunity for comment either by written correspondence or this public hearing.
This project was processed consistent with Section 5.8Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code. Section 5.8.5.D (Administrative Process) was used to determine the maximum number of building lots, referrals sent, and hearings held. The development will comply Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution, Section 8.8Irrigation facilities and Section 8.10Management/Use Plans.
The referral agencies have responded and applicable fees will be collected at building permit issuance to meet the requirements in Section 9.0Land Dedications, Fees-in-Lieu of Dedications, Facility Fees and Capital Expansion Fees. The fees that will be collected on this project are park fees, school fees, and Transportation Capital Expansion fees. Other fees that will be collected are Rural Land Use Process fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Neighboring landowner Concerns/Issues: The Rural Land Use Center has received letters stating the following concerns about the Rural Land Plan not following Section 8 of the Land Use Code regarding the proposed Lot 3.
· Concern about the 30% slope on Lot 3 and positive drainage
· The depth-to-width issue on the lot
· The possibility of the creek next to the lot being disturbed
· The misuse of the natural terrain
· The concern about the distance between the well and septic.
The Rural Land Use Process is exempt from Section 8 of the Land Use Code. Those standards are designed for higher density projects. The section of the Code that applies to Rural Land Use projects is Section 5.8.
Staff is aware there is a 30% slope or greater on this proposed lot and the constraints of that slope is recognized. The design of the project provides for direct access to County Road 52E, which prevents additional road cuts, and allows for the preservation of a larger tract of forested land. Also, the Health Department has visited the site and Mr. Doug Ryan from the Health Department writes: Lot 3 is the most constrained. The most feasible building site is adjacent to the steep north-facing slope set back as far from the County Road and drainage as feasible. The mapped soils in this area are limited due to steep slopes and shallow bedrock. I believe there is a reasonable building site, and that the challenge will be to fit in the driveway, well, house and septic system. Our recommendation in this case is that prior to final plat approval, the applicant submit a scaled site plan to show how these features can be accommodated. This will be made a condition of approval. (# 8).
Other issues brought up by the neighboring property owners, Ms. Kathy Lake and Mr. Alton Askeland and Ms. Ione Askeland, were that the number of lots/home sites was confusing in the letter that was sent to them and that allowing more wells would cause the already dropping water level to drop more. The neighbors were under the impression that there would be eight (8) buildable lots, which is simply not true. There are only 5 planned home sites, in which three (3) already exist. The new homes are proposed for the 4-acre building envelope on Residual Lot A and Lot 3. The overall density of the project is one single-family residential unit per 28.2 acres. The density of some of the lots in the area is greater than what is proposed here. The well permits are governed, permitted, and approved by the Colorado State Engineers Office and authorized by Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-401-404.
One last issue is that the neighbors felt the Rural Land Use Center did not provide adequate notification of property owners. Section 220.127.116.11 requires that property owners abutting the property proposed for development and others within an area to be defined by the landowner and RLUC Director be notified. Staff notified property owners within ½ mile. Section 12.3.1 of the Land Use Code requires published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed project that must include the date, time and place of the public hearing, a general description of the proposed project; a general description of its location; the legal description of the property; and the place where the application can be reviewed. That notice was run in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on May 4, 2007. Section 12.3.1 also requires that a sign be posted along each street frontage of the property. Signs were posted on the property on May 4, 2007. This project was also tabled from a 3:00 p.m. hearing on May 21st to a 6:30 p.m. hearing on June 25, 2007, to accommodate the neighbors request for more time to review the project, and for a more appropriate time when more of the affected property owners could attend.
The Rural Land Use Director recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Miller/Van Velson Rural Land Plan. The following contingencies must be met prior to approval of final plat by the Board of County Commissioners:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Miller/Van Velson Rural Land Plan (File # 07-S2684) 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 Miller/Van Velson Rural Land Plan.
2. All roads constructed within the Rural Land Plan shall be in accordance with Section 5.8.6.D of the Rural Land Use Process. All designs must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that design standards in 5.8.6.D. were followed, before final approval. Internal roads may be contained in a private access and utility easement. The owners shall dedicate a 40-foot half right-of-way along Larimer County Road 52E. This dedication shall be shown on the final plat. Road names and addressing shall meet standards in the Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution.
3. Applicants shall enter into a binding fence removal agreement with the County which, at the request of the County, shall obligate the owners to remove, at their expense, the existing fences in the dedicated half ROW. No new fences or buildings shall be allowed in the half ROW; however repair and maintenance of existing fences shall be allowed. The fence removal agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney.
4. Applicant must obtain an access permit from the Larimer County Access Coordinator prior to commencing any construction on the project. Before designing roads, applicant and applicant's engineer must contact the Larimer County Access Coordinator to discuss access design requirements. Applicant shall comply with all such design requirements. Applicant's plans must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that they meet the access design requirements.
5. Applicant must provide a storm water management report to the Rural Land Use Center prior to commencing any construction on the project. Before designing stormwater drainage facilities, applicant and applicant's engineer must contact the Larimer County Engineering Environmental Specialist to discuss stormwater management design requirements. Applicant shall comply with all such design requirements. Applicant's plans must be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and certified that they meet the stormwater management design requirements.
6. On-lot wells will be provided for this project.
7. Building envelopes shall be placed on Residual Lots A and B and Lots 1 and 3. Lot 1 must contain a no-build area to protect the meadow. All building envelopes shall meet minimum setback requirements listed in the Larimer County Land Use Code.
8. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a scaled site plan to show how the driveway, domestic well, house and septic system can be accommodated for Lot 3. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Health Department before final approval.
9. Automatic fire protection sprinklers will be required for all new residential structures or written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district.
10. The residual land protective covenant and use plans must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval.
11. Restrictive covenants, including provisions for internal road maintenance, must be reviewed and approved by the Rural Land Use Center Director prior to final plat approval.
12. The final development agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval.
13. Forest management plans for Residual Lots A and B, including an implementation strategy and funding mechanism, shall be reviewed and approved by the County Forester or Colorado State Forest Service prior to final project approval.
14. A Lot Sale Prohibition shall be placed on this property preventing the sale of any new lots until the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply and electricity) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements. The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed. The Lot Sale Prohibition will be recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and will be a covenant running with the Lots. Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for the particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed.
15. The following must be listed as a note on the final plat and on a disclosure statement, approved by the County Attorney, available to lot buyers through the public records at the time of purchase:
a) LOT SALE PROHIBITION. Developers have executed a Lot Sale Prohibition Agreement which stipulates that Lot 3 and Residual Lot A cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developers provide to County a written designation stating that all the applicable improvements (i.e., legal access and public utilities, including but not limited to water supply, and electricity) have been completed and/or installed according to the project requirements. The lots cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed unless and until Developer provides written designation stating whether the improvements have been completed for the lot proposed to be sold, transferred or conveyed. The Lot Sale Prohibition is recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and is a covenant running with the Lots. Upon receipt of such written designation, County will provide to Developers a release of the Lot Sale Prohibition for particular lot(s) for which the improvements have been completed.
b) There is an agreement between the County and the property owners regarding the removal of fences within the dedicated 40 half ROW along County Road 52E. This agreement is recorded in the Larimer County Records. Anyone purchasing a lot along County Road 52E will be bound by this agreement and should obtain and read a copy of the agreement.
c) The construction of any single-family residence in this development will require the installation of residential fire sprinklers if fire hydrants and/or a public water supply are not present to provide fire protection unless written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district is received.
d) Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of structures designed for habitable space 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.
e) Some or all lots in this development include building envelopes. All structures must be located within these Larimer County approved building envelopes, as shown on the approved Plan. If a structure within the building envelope is located 5 or less from the boundary of the building envelope, the owner/applicant for a building permit will be required to demonstrate that the structure(s) is located within the building envelope prior to the approval of the footing and foundation inspection. This shall be accomplished by a written certification by a Colorado Licensed Surveyor.
f) All structures and septic systems must be located within the building envelopes on any Residual Lots.
g) Engineered footings and foundations may be required for new habitable construction. Please check with the Larimer County Building Department for requirements prior to submitting a building permit application.
h) Lot owners should be advised that there is a potential for nuisance conflicts from wildlife (such as skunks, mountain lions, bears, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, prairie dogs and snakes). The Colorado Division of Wildlife can provide information to property owners about how to handle these situations, but lot owners are responsible for addressing wildlife conflicts if they arise.
i) No feeding of any wildlife. Any food placed for wildlife will eventually attract the Black Bears traveling through the area. Once a bear finds food around homes and trailers, they become habituated to humans, often causing damage to property in their search for food. The State of Colorado is not liable for damages to non-agricultural property. Homeowners insurance is strongly advised.
j) Keep trash and garbage removed from site. Bear proof containers are commercially available and they work. Garbage and trash can be as attractive to bears as placing out food for wildlife.
k) It is strongly recommended that trailers and motor homes not be left on site unattended. These items may be destroyed by bears if left unattended. This is particularly important during the months of July to September, when the bears are most active in their search for food.
l) Many other species of wildlife live in the area; some can be dangerous to humans and pets. It must be remembered that landowners will be living with wildlife. Species that may be found in the area are coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats, skunks, badgers, raccoons, deer, elk, hawks, owls and eagles.
m) Pets must be contained on property, either by leash or enclosure.
n) During certain times of the year mosquitoes may present a significant nuisance. Larimer County does not have a mosquito abatement program. Any mosquito abatement activity will be the responsibility of the homeowner; such activity must be according to applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations.
o) Prairie dog colonies exist in the general area; prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property. At times these animals are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets. It is important for residents to observe animal control requirements for dogs and cats.
p) Agricultural operations and farming practices on adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust. These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur. In addition, plowing, planting, cultivating, spraying, harvesting, and various livestock operations may be carried out at all times including nighttime.
q) If livestock will be kept on these lots, it will be important to carefully manage grazing in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture. Overgrazing will produce bare ground, weeds, erosion and polluted runoff. Management of these lots should be coordinated with drainage and erosion control issues, sitting of sanitation systems, fencing and feeding.
r) Larimer County has adopted a Right to Farm Resolution.
s) The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Poudre R-1 school fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Park Fees (in lieu of dedication), and Rural Land Use Process fees. The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply.
t) Larimer County shall not maintain roads or streets in this development. Maintenance of the streets shall be the responsibility of the property owners. Failure to maintain streets may result in a lien being placed on these lots.
u) At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential lots and Residual Lot(s) A and B with the Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County.
v) The owners of the residual land parcel shall be responsible for providing, at the request of the Director, a periodic monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center.
w) Lots in this Rural Land Plan are subject to the conditions and requirements of a Development Agreement. The Developer and Larimer County executed this agreement in consideration of the approval of this Development. This Agreement was recorded in the Larimer County Clerks and Recorders office immediately after this plat. All purchasers should obtain and read the Development Agreement.
Ms. Ponce-Pore gave a brief presentation of the application and presented some aerial photos of the property and proposed lot configurations. Ms. Ponce-Pore noted that there are three existing homes, and the applicants are proposing two additional home sites.
The applicants Tom Van Velson, and C.W. Miller, addressed the Board and explained that they would like the opportunity to build their dream home, to add value to their property, and to capitalize on tax credits available with the Rural Land Use Process. The applicants noted that the will enact a permanent deed restriction to prevent further development, and they will enter into a land trust agreement for management of the property.
Some discussion ensued regarding the buildability of lot 3, as the terrain is rather steep and might impede construction efforts and the siting of a septic system. Mr. Ryan explained that if the Board approved the preliminary plan this evening, then the applicants would need to provide a scaled site plan to reveal just how lot 3 could support a driveway, septic system, a well, and the home site itself. Mr. Ryan stated that this was outlined in Condition 8 above.
At this time Chair Wagner opened up the hearing for public comment, and the following individuals stated that they were in opposition of the proposal, or they had questions that were unanswered: Cheryl Pyatt, Lloyd Hartzell, Bob Hartzell, Kathy Lake, Lynda Knab, Chuck Lloyd; Hank Shaber, and Mary Ann Martin.
Their comments were as follows: Lot 3 is adjacent to a pond and the area and terrain are unstable; any construction in this area will impede with drainage already in place; the leach field will contaminate the pond; the market does not warrant another subdivision in the canyon; 4-acre lots should not be supported, as it will set a precedent in the area; the applicants have already built a substandard road in the area; neighbors should not be allowed to combine land in order to create smaller lots; there is no evidence that they applicants have been accepted by the Legacy Land Trust; Who monitors the property in perpetuity?; Does every lot get a drilled well?; Are the applicants trying to sell off other 35-acre properties?; How much tax credits will the applicants receive?; there is already a shortage of water in the canyon; and over-development of certain areas simply should not be allowed.
The following individuals were in favor of the proposal: Joh Stephens, and Wes Rutt. They noted that the Legacy Land Trust was would be able to implement strict guidelines for management of the property, the proposal only adds two additionally home sites, and the applicants are honorable and good stewards of their land.
Chair Wagner closed public comment. Mr. Van Velson explained that they have not committed to any particular entity for land management, as they must obtain the Rural Land Use approval before the Legacy Land Trust will consider their proposal. Mr. Miller explained that they do not have any other 35-acre parcels for sale. He also noted that the road they built was constructed to meet county standards; however, they do need to make further improvements and intend to do so. Carol Miller explained that they will actually have to pay to preserve the land via the Legacy Land Trust, but they feel that this is the best way to preserve and maintain the integrity of the land.
At this time a request was made to address the Board.
Mr. Hartzell asked clarifying questions regarding how many home sites could be built in this area. The Board explained the difference between the 35-acre rule as it relates to the underlying zoning for the area which allows for 1 home site per every 10-acres. Technically, with their combined properties, the applicants could propose an 14 additional home sites; yet they are each only asked for one. Ms. Pyatt asked if the residual land would be public or private. Commissioner Rennels explained that it would remain private land.
Chair Wagner closed public comment.
Discussion ensued amongst the Board and staff. The commissioners felt this was a good proposal; one that met the intent and spirit of the Rural Land Use Process. They took time to explain the trade-off and the benefits, in that although there will be two additional homes, that will be the extent of further development of these two properties. The bonus is that the rest of the land will be protected in perpetuity. Chair Wagner thanked everyone for coming to provide input and voice their opinions.
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Miller/Van Velson Preliminary Rural Land Plan subject to the conditions recommended by the Rural Land Use Center Director.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
(# 83 & 84)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Assistant County Manager Neil Gluckman. Chair Wagner presided and Commissioners Gibson and Rennels were present. Also present were: Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners Office; Larry Timm, Planning Department; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; Cliff Davidson, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization; Rusty McDaniel, Linda Sanders, Rex Burns, Charlie Johnson, and Dale Greer, Engineering Department; Ed Schemm, Environmental Health Department; Ginny Riley, Jim Drendel, Cheryl Smith, Marsha Ellis, Jane Rust, and Ella Gifford, Human Services Department; Gary Buffington, K-Lynn Cameron, Meegan Flenniken, Kerry Rollins, Parks and Open Lands Department; Dwayne Pond, Sharon Green, Tom Kristen, Friends of Parks and Open Lands; Peggy Reeves, Great Outdoors Colorado; Stephanie Brothers, Town of Berthoud; Brian Hayes, City of Loveland; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tim Johnson, former member of the steering committee for the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA), presented ideas for sustainability of the RTA regarding funding, revenue sources, issues of road maintenance, and road safety and efficiency. He suggested various methods of generating revenue via impact fees, creation of Improvement Districts, etc. Mr. Johnson recommended placing the burden of road expansion of growth and development, instead of on the tax payers. Some discussion ensued, and Mr. Johnson stated that he would provide a copy of this proposal to the Board via e-mail.
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of June 19, 2007, as presented.
Motion carried 2-0; Chair Wagner abstained.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 2, 2007: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for June 26, 2007:
MISCELLANEOUS: Replat of Lot 101, Lake Shore Gardens Planned Land Division Final Plat; Amended Plat of Lot 59 Third Filing of Fairway Estates; Silo Estates Subdivision Plat.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following liquor license was issued: Red Feather High Country Restaurant, Red Feather Lake - Tavern.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. NORTH FRONT RANGE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) UPDATE: Mr. Davidson, Director of the North Front Range MPO, reviewed the MPO Activity Report via a slide-show presentation. The report included a description of the specific activities that the MPO is engaged in, and exhibits from various work tasks the MPO is currently performing. The Board thanked Mr. Davidson for the update.
6. HOTEL AT THE RANCH: Mr. Engemoen explained that John Q. Hammons has requested an extension to delay construction on the hotel at The Ranch until April 2008, so construction can begin in the spring in order to avoid another possibly harsh winter. Mr. Engemoen stated that Mr. Hammons is willing to put forth another $50,000 in earnest money, bringing the total investment of earnest money to $350,000. Mr. Engemoen explained that if, for some reason, Mr. Hammons ends up not building the hotel at The Ranch then he will forfeit all the earnest money to Larimer County. Mr. Engemoen further noted that Mr. Hammons has spent a considerable amount of money on plans that are tied specifically to The Ranch, which means that if Mr. Hammons was to pull-out of the deal now, he stands to lose somewhere between $700,000 to $1,000,000 dollars. A brief discussion ensued and the Board gave Mr. Engemoen direction to work with Mr. Hammons on extending the commencement of construction until April 2008. Chair Wagner also invited public comment on this "proposed" delay, prior to Mr. Engemoen bringing the extension agreement back to the Board for signature.
Mr. Engemoen then provided an update for the Board regarding construction of the round-about on Taft Hill Road and Vine Drive. He explained that Xcel Energy has now declared that they have no intention of relocating a power pole, which is in the center of the newly constructed road. Mr. McDaniel handout out photos of the power pole and some discussion ensued. Mr. Engemoen stated that he will be meeting with the County Attorney to discuss the matter and how to proceed.
7. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR COMPLETION OF CHILD WELFARE PROJECT FEDERAL GRANT: Ms. Riley and Mr. Drendel explained that Larimer County and Weld County are partnering to apply for a federal grant in the amount of $2.575 million over a three year period. Mr. Drendel stated that the grant is specifically tied to child welfare and the money will be used to assist parents who are losing their children (mainly) to methamphetamine abuse. Mr. Drendel requested Board approval for the Memorandum of Understanding related to this effort.
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Memorandum of Understanding for the Child Welfare Project Federal Grant.
Motion Carried 3-0.
8. REQUEST FOR NEW FTE FOR A LONG TERM CARE MANAGER POSITOIN: Ms. Riley and Ms. Smith explained that the Options for Long Term Care (OLTC) program has existed in Larimer County since 1993, and is a program that has grown from 250 clients has now grown to over 850, who are receiving care in their own homes or alternative care facilities instead of nursing homes. As a result, there is a need for an additional Long Term Care Manager, which would allow the OTLC unit to be split into two units, each with a dedicated supervisor. Ms. Riley explained that the position would be funded through the state and requested Board approval to add a Long Term Care Manager FTE.
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve one new FTE for a Long Term Care Manager Position.
Motion Carried 3-0.
9. UPDATE ON THE COLORADO WORKS POLICY: Ms. Riley, Ms. Ellis, Ms. Rust, and Ms. Gifford presented updates to the Colorado Works policies that are required to be included in the Larimer County plan. Ms. Riley explained that the polices have been reviewed by the state and do meet state requirements. Some discussion ensued. The Board noted that in the future, significant policy changes should be scheduled as agenda items for discussion; all others could be submitted via the consent agenda.
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Colorado Works Policy revisions; the State Diversion, Works County Option Activities, Works Failure to Cooperate, Grandparent Guardianship Payment Standards, Individual Development Accounts, Earned Income Credit Access, and County Diversion policies with an effective date of July 1, 2007; and the Demonstrable Evidence/Sanction policy with an effective date of August 1, 2007.
Motion carried 3-0.
10. RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CREATE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) #2007-1 FOR GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS FOR LOCAL SANITATION IMPROVEMENTS: Mr. Burns explained that Glacier View Meadows 4th, 7th, and upper 8th filings utilize community leaching fields that are failing and must be replaced with a mechanical sewage treatment that will meet Colorado water quality discharge standards. Mr. Burns presented a breakdown of the costs involved, noting that ultimately it will cost $265 per lot owner, per year, for a period of 20 years, to fund the project. He requested that the Board approve a resolution that outlines the term and sets the stage for the LID formation. Mr. Burns noted that the resolution takes place of the citizen petition; however, they will still hold a public hearing, and the issue will be placed on the November ballot for the homeowners to vote on. Commissioner Gibson asked why the petitioning process did not occur. Ms. Sanders explained that the law does not require a petition for Local Improvement Districts and they feared that the petitioning process might delay it for another year; she stated that since it is a health and safety issue, it is critical that it be included in the November 2007 election.
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution for Declaring the intention to create Local Improvement District #2007-1 for Glacier View Meadows 4th, 7th and Upper 8th filings, adopting the details and specifications pertaining therefore, and ordering publication and mailing of the notice of hearing to the owners of the property to be assessed for improvements in said district.
Motion Carried 3-0.
11. UPDATE ON HERMIT PARK OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN/NOTES: Ms. Flenniken presented an update of the management plan for Hermit Park and explained what types of camping, vehicles, and animals would be allowed, how the trails would be improved, access to the site from Hwy 36, accessibility for disabled persons within the site, and proposed hunting on site. Ms. Cameron explained the fund raising efforts that had taken place to date, noting that they have raised the entire $1.2 million to satisfy the required internal loan for the purchase of this property. She introduced many of the people that helped with the fundraising efforts: Dwayne Pond, Sharon Green, Tom Kristen, Peggy Reeves, Stephanie Brothers, and Brian Hayes. Ms. Cameron stated that the following entities were contributors to the fundraising efforts: Great Outdoors Colorado, City of Loveland, Town of Berthoud, McWhinney Foundation, Erion Foundation, Mark Tabb & Julie Vida, Microsoft Corporation, Northern Colorado Community Foundation, Verigy, Hewlett-Packard, Whole Foods, and the Hermit Park auction benefit. Mr. Pond then presented the Board with a check for $80,000. The Board thanked everyone for their hard work and enthusiasm for the project.
12. WORKSESSION: There were no worksession items to discuss.
13. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: The Board discussed their attendance at events during the past week.
14. LEGAL MATTERS: There were no legal matters to discuss.
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk


text:
TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY AMAZINGLY WRONG!a 4-8% loss in DPS is huge, and there is really nothing more to say about that.
There is a great deal to say about that, so lets put that into context.
Damage against Marrowgar, average of 50 guilds fights (that went on to kill the Lich King) in the last two weeks:
Code:Average StdDev Warrior Fury 14,955 928 Rogue Combat 14,771 1,072 Mage Fire 13,795 854 Rogue Assn 13,783 445 Paladin Ret 13,516 705 Druid Feral 13,377 776 Mage Arcane 13,247 833 Hunter Marks 13,147 454 Warlock Affl 13,075 804 DK Frost 12,912 776 Warlock Dem 12,896 625 Shaman Enh 12,888 628 DK Unholy 12,853 668 Druid Balance 12,823 381 Shaman Elem 12,759 440 Priest Shadow 12,646 703 Warlock Destruct 12,307 630 Hunter Survival 11,721 492 Warrior Arms 11,659 567 DK Blood 11,657 777 ------ ----- 13,039 678
For a feral druid, a 5% loss in DPS is a 670 DPS loss; less than the standard deviation of druid DPS. It is not a completely trivial loss, but you wouldn't be able to detect it without averaging it across multiple fights and doing some statistical analysis.
That DPS loss is 40% of the DPS loss you take by bringing a feral druid instead of a combat rogue or fury warrior. The DPS loss we are talking about is a significantly smaller than a gap that raids already accept for bringing hybrids.
With the DPS loss we are talking about, a feral would do average damage on par with demonology warlocks, enhancement shaman, unholy DKS, balance druids, elemental shamans and shadow priests. Which is to say, you are doing DPS competitive with the bulk of the DPS on a raid.
You are also somewhat better off than survival hunters, arms warriors, blood DKs ... and not even mentioning the absolute foolishness of bringing a BM hunter, frost mage, or subtlety rogue along (although many guilds do, and somehow manage to progress just fine!)
So, to come back to the point.
The loss is not 'huge'; it is a loss you should feel rather comfortable with. It is a loss to be sure, and if you are 100% focused on DPS, probably not worth paying. On the other hand, if you were trying to decide whether to swap to your 100% boomkin DPS off-spec, knowing that you can do the same damage as a feral in your tanking spec is a very valuable thing to know.
You expect some loss for having a more flexible spec. You are not going to be able to do everything as well as a highly focused specialist. You need to decide whether the loss of DPS is worth the flexibility.
From a tanking point of view, picking up the DPS talents is pretty attractive: there is almost no downside to picking up the talents to do 95% of the DPS of a focused DPS spec. From a DPS point of view, that difference is sufficiently small that you could reasonably consider using your off-spec to do something different entirely.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Provost Kenneth Greene bids adieu
College at Florham Provost Kenneth Greene receives a hug from granddaughter Melina at his retirement party in May.
By Kenna Caprio
At his retirement soiree in the middle of May, a crowd filled with colleagues, family and friends in Lenfell Hall listens as College at Florham Provost Ken Greene recalls some of the most memorable moments of his tenure at Fairleigh Dickinson University.
The stories range from the difficult to handle snowstorms and the norovirus to the sweet to recall his children and now, grandchildren, playing on Reuters rock.
He refers to the faculty and staff gathered as his friends, and poignantly tells that crowd he will miss them.
After 38 years with the University, Greene will step down on June 30, 2012.
His colleagues will miss him too. In addition to my boss, I consider him also my friend, says Bill Klika, Director of Athletics at the College at Florham.
In many ways, the biggest thing is Im going to miss is him just being able to pick up the phone and stop in the office to bounce ideas off of him, says Klika. I really appreciate the way he deals with people and his ability to interact.
In his retirement, Greene plans to travel with his wife Pam, play golf, visit Maine and spend time with his grandchildren.
At one point during the celebration, Greene assures the packed room that he and his wife Pam are retiring to the home they maintain now in Morris County and that they will return to campus for sporting and theater events.
Along with the pep band, Green often points to the theater department and athletics programs when lauding the Universitys small college status. The active intellectual community plus increased student involvement at the College at Florham together fulfill Greenes vision of a small college.
We push that Florham experience with learning beyond the classroom to build on this idea of the quality small college, he says.
At the retirement party, associate provost Marilyn Rye notes changes made under Greenes direction, highlighting in particular the plaza walkway construction near the rec center.
Despite his accomplishments as provost and the projects completed under his tutelage, Greene is eager to reinforce that the success of the past ten years is due to the commitment of the University community.
Ken's a quiet, understated guy. He tends to do a lot behind the scenes, says Peter Woolley, the newly minted College at Florham provost, professor of comparative politics and executive director of PublicMind the universitys independent polling and research center.
Ken has never been one to seek credit for himself. He's always been a good organizer of people and that's key in the provost role. People often think of leading as getting people to do something, but it's also always about letting people do something, continues Woolley. And that's been one of Ken's great strengths, giving the staff room to do what they do best.
It's something I aspire to be as good at, as I take on my new role as College at Florham provost."
Woolley will assume the post of College at Florham provost come July 1, 2012.
Greene started at FDU in 1974 as an assistant professor of political science, specializing in American politics, following five years of teaching at Allegehny College in western Pennsylvania. He served as chair of the social sciences and history department from 1979 to 1997 and later as assistant and then associate provost from 1997 to 2002.
Though Greene says he never aspired to an administrative position, he nevertheless agreed to the assistant provost position.
In the late 1990s FDU created the campus provost structure and the Dean of the Maxwell Becton College of Arts and Sciences, Peter Falley, became the Provost, says Greene. He asked me to be his assistant provost, and since I had been chair of the social sciences and history department for a number of years, I said Why not?
In 2002, when Falley retired, Greene was appointed provost.
Throughout his tenure, Provost Greene has shown remarkable dedication to students, faculty, staff and alumni. He has been a role model for the community, a leader of great character and judgment and a model of professionalism, openness and integrity, says Acting University President Sheldon Drucker. He will be greatly missed and warmly remembered.Greene takes to the podium to express gratitude and deliver remarks to the crowd gathered at his retirement party.


text:
Libor Process Under Review
The process for setting one of the world's most important interest rates veered toward a shake-up when the U.K. banking group responsible for the rate asked government officials to intervene.
"We will now be asking the authorities to consider in what manner the Libor setting mechanism should be regulated in the future," the British Bankers' Association said Thursday.
The move came a day after the announcement that...


text:
The Office of Distance Education offers professional exam proctoring services for students enrolled in online and distance education classes at UNC Pembroke as well as other universities within the University of North Carolina system. As an approved site in the UNC Online Proctoring Network, UNC Pembroke's Proctoring Services is committed to enhancing the academic integrity of online and distance education courses by administering exams in a secure and professional environment.
Proctoring Hours*
Monday: 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Tuesday: 8:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Wednesday: 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Thursday: 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Friday: 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
* All exams must be scheduled through UNC Online Proctoring Network
Proctoring Services Location
Magnolia House
One University Drive
PO Box 1510
Pembroke, NC 28372-1510
For More Information:
Kineisha Hunter
Administrative Support Associate
Proctoring Services
Magnolia House
Email: email@example.com
Phone: 910.775.4071
UNC Online Proctoring Network Help Center
Student FAQ's CLICK HERE >
Faculty FAQ's CLICK HERE >


text: This hotel has a good located between Hwy 1 and the bay. We received a friendly welcome upon our arrival. We were able to check in at about noon. Our king room with fireplace was spacious and clean. Cleaning staff did a nice job refreshing our room the next day while we were away for a few hours. There's a... More


text:
Skimpy David Beckham Ad: Drool Now!by Hilton Hater at . Comments
Consider yourselves warned, female readers: Drool can cause permanent damage to one's keyboard.
Just something to keep in mind as you ogle the following David Beckham ad.
Directed by Guy Ritchie, it finds the soccer player locked out of his house... and stripped down to his skivvies.
It's two minutes long, it's in honor of an H&M underwear line and you really should stop wasting time reading. Watch now!


text:
It's not easy to break into the music business, much less remain relevant after your first hit, but Ms. Cyndi Lauper has managed to elevate herself to superstar status and stay there throughout her 30 years as a performer. And all the while, she juggles touring, a family and now a fledging Broadway career!
Ms. Lauper's already crazy life has gone into overdrive the release of her tenth studio album, Memphis Blues, in 2010. Within three years, she competed in The Celebrity Apprentice, composed the music for the Tony-award winning musical Kinky Boots and now she has a new reality TV show, Cyndi Lauper: Still So Unusual. The incredible Ms. Lauper tells us more:
1. 30 years have come and gone since the release of your debut album She's So Unusual, How does it feel like being back on tour and performing songs from the same albumthat propelled you into superstardom?
It's really been a lot of fun. It was really fun to go back and listen to the album - really listen to the album - so I could replicate it note for note with the same arrangements that we recorded for the album and reproduce it live. Over years, as you play songs out on tour, they change slightly. Some songs change more than slightly, so to go back and listen to what we did was just really a great visit down memory lane. We tried so hard to make the album great and to give positive messages through storytelling of the songs - and at the same time make it a bit of a party. I think we pulled that off.
2. Is there any specific track on the album that you're particularly excited to perform again?
There are many songs that I hadn't performed live in years like Kiss You and Yea Yea, so it's been fun performing them again. It's just been great.
3. You recently wrote for and won a Tony for the musical Kinky Boots, congratulations by the way. Tell us, how did you initially get involved with the project and what compelled you to do it?
Harvey Fierstein called me and asked me. That simple. He is a friend, and he's a genius, and before he even finished getting the sentence finished I said "yes." Just to work with Harvey was a privilege. I have always been a fan of Broadway. The first records I ever heard were Broadway records because that is what my Mom listened to - her "show tunes." I found I had a voice when I was just like 4 or 5 years old, singing along to my mom's records and performing for her and my grandparents and sister and baby brother. So in a funny way getting to work on Broadway is like my life coming full circle.
4. How different was the process in writing for Kinky Boots different from, say, writing songs for a studio album
Songwriting is story telling. When you write a song, you are telling a little story. The thing that is different about writing a song for a musical is your song needs to move the story of the show forward scene to scene, and you don't have that particular task when recording an album.
5. You have a new show Cyndi Lauper: Still so Unusual. How did the show come about?
I got to meet a few of the executives of Mark Burnett Productions, and I had this idea for a TV show. So over the course of many meetings with them somehow they turned to me and said your life is so interesting. You have so much going on - I was touring, I was writing my autobiography Memoir, I was working on Kinky Boots and they said they needed to document this year of my life. We included my family because, of course, they are a big part of my life, so what you see is me trying to balance all those projects and still be a good wife and mother.
6. What can viewers expect to see when they tune in to your show?
You will meet my family, my business family and you will get a behind the scenes look at me doing what I do – being on TV, making music, writings songs and how I try to keep all these balls in the air at the same time and do my best work and still try and be there for my family Sometimes I fail and sometimes I succeed, and you will see all of that the good and the bad.
7. You have been nominated for and won Tonys, Grammys, MTV awards, been on over a dozen tours, topped charts all around the world, and now you have your own TV show. What would you say is your proudest and wildest moment?
The day my son was born.
8. What do you think about pop music today?
There is a lot of great music being made all the time. It's just harder to find it because the old system doesn't work and finding new music online is tough because there is so much. I always find new bands I love, like the band Hunter Valentine who I brought out on tour with me. I love the new P!nk album - she's one of my favorites. I love Jake Bugg. There is lots of great music out there.
9. Finally, do you have anything you'd like to say to your fans in Singapore?
Thanks for tuning in! I promise to come tour there soon so we can have a party together.
Cyndi Lauper: Still so Unusual on premiere on WE tv (SingTel Mio TV Channel 259) on 5 September, 11PM.


text:
VANCOUVER — Ryan Suter tied the game with 67 seconds left and Matt Halischuk won it 14:51 into double overtime as the Nashville Predators beat the Vancouver Canucks, 2-1, last night to tie their Western Conference semifinal series, 1-1.
After Nashville's Pekka Rinne made several acrobatic game-saving stops in extra time, Halischuk took a cross-ice pass from Nick Spaling and fired a quick shot over a diving defender and past the glove of goalie Roberto Luongo.
Alex Burrows scored a shorthanded goal two minutes into the second period and it appeared Luongo would make it stand up for his second straight shutout in the series.
But Suter tied it on Nashville's 36th shot, a harmless looking centering pass from below the goal line that went between Luongo's legs and bounced in off his left skate.
Luongo finished with 44 saves.
Game 3 is Tuesday at Nashville.
Rinne made the best of his 32 saves in overtime, including robbing Henrik Sedin alone atop the crease on a rebound, and a headfirst diving stick stop to take an empty net from Kevin Bieksa with 2:14 left in the first overtime. He stretched out to turn away Maxim Lapierre with his glove a minute later.
Nashville carried the play, outshooting Vancouver, 36-15, in regulation, and forcing Luongo to make several good saves, including a stacked-pads stop on Jordin Tootoo's breakaway with 8:46 left.
The best of the rest of his saves came against the Predators' power play. So did the Canucks' chances, and Burrows converted one early in the second period.
But Luongo looked bad on Suter's shot from well below the goal line, ending his shutout streak at 126 minutes, 11 seconds — his best stretch in the playoffs.


text:
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) – Workers fixed a broken water main on Provin Mountain in Agawam Sunday night, which means the water restriction for five communities has been lifted.
Since Thursday, the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission asked residents in Springfield, Longmeadow, East Longmeadow, Agawam and Ludlow to limit their water usage. Still no word on what caused the break.
(Did it impact what you did over the weekend, whether its water or lawn?) Jack Griffin of Longmeadow said, "It had no effect on it whatsoever."
Joyce Mulvaney of the Springfield Water & Sewer Commission says the city's blackboard connect system placed 57,000 calls notifying homes and business of the water situation, but there are many people who haven't signed up to receive those alerts.
To learn how to be contacted when there are water restrictions, Click Here.


text:
Crab and Bacon Stuffed Mushrooms
I use to absolutely hate mushrooms. But I also used to hate sushi, and now I can proudly say that it's probably one of my favorite foods! I always like to try everything at least once, just to give it a chance–even if it looks extremely bizzare. And for some reason, even if I don't like it the first time, I give it another try. Why? I have no clue. Maybe because I don't like limitations on what I can and can't eat, or maybe I'm just prone to giving new experiences a second chance. Either way, I begin to like many things after a couple times of trying them. In fact, raw fish, mushrooms, kim chi, onions, olives, and even jellyfish are just some examples of what my palate needed some time to adapt to, and eventually it did! I guess I keep doing it because I've had a lot of success in changing my mind about foods! Honestly, I didn't even like (dare I say it) coffee when I first tried it, and now I can't imagine my life without it! Maybe my taste buds are wary of the new favors and textures at the beginning, but after a few tastes, they start to understand the complexity of the ingredient. So, long story short, that's how I came to enjoy mushrooms so much!
And with the same way I feed off of my experiences with food, I feel that I try to do the same with life. One of my biggest attempts is to never judge a book by its cover and to try and understand both sides to every story. Just like believing in the flavors of the ingredients, I believe in the flavors of life. Every experience, person, and circumstance never deserves to be written off at first glance. We must dig deeper to appreciate the true beauty and meaning behind the moments we experience. So, remember to always to give people the chances they deserve, try to understand circumstances without judgement, and most importantly, never give up on the positive image you have of yourself and who you strive to be. With food and life, if you fail to enjoy or do something, try again until you're certain you've done your best to appreciate it. In my book, that method is a great way to cover all the experiences you encounter.
So with food, what's a better way to taste new flavors and appreciate the fusion of different ingredients than through eating mushrooms that are stuffed to the brim with crab, gruyere cheese, onion, and bacon? It's hard to think of one. Better yet, enjoy this experience with friends or family to really bring it to life. Remember my love for bacon? Well, when I do buy some, I like to go all out. This recipe didn't originally call for bacon, but I thought, "Bacon makes everything better!!" So I had to add some. This dish is really delicious. The powerful flavors compliment each other, and you can essentially customize it with the ingridents that suit your palate whether it's adding bacon, using a different type of mushroom or maybe adding a kick of spice with some jalapenos. I used baby portabella mushrooms for this dish which turned out to be a great idea. You could also use smaller white cap mushrooms and make these as an appetizer! Or larger portabella mushrooms for a main dish. I served mine as a side dish, but no matter what you choose, these stuffed mushrooms will not disappoint.
Crab and Bacon Stuffed mushrooms
- 3 tablespoons butter, melted
- 6 fresh baby portabella mushrooms
- 2 tablespoons butter
- 2 tablespoons minced green onions
- 1 teaspoon lemon juice
- 1 cup diced cooked crabmeat
- 4 slices of bacon, fried crispy and crumbled
- 1/2 cup bread crumbs
- 1 egg, beaten
- 1/2 cup shredded cheese (the original recipe called for Monterey Jack but I used Gruyere), divided
- 1 teaspoon red pepper flakes
- 1/4 cup dry white wine
Preheat oven to 400 degrees F. Prepare a 9×13 inch baking dish with 3 tablespoons of melted butter. Remove stems from mushrooms. Set aside caps. Finely chop stems.
Melt 2 tablespoons butter in a medium saucepan over medium heat. Stir in the chopped stems and green onions and cook until soft, about 3 minutes. Remove saucepan from heat. Stir in lemon juice, crabmeat, bacon, bread crumbs, egg, red pepper flakes and 1/4 cup cheese. Thoroughly blend the mixture.
Place mushroom caps in the buttered pan, and stir until caps are coated with the butter. Arrange caps cavity side up, and stuff cavities generously with the green onion and crabmeat mixture. Top with remaining cheese. Pour wine into the pan around the mushrooms.
Bake uncovered in the preheated oven 15 to 20 minutes, until cheese is melted and lightly browned. Serve warm.
7 Responses to "Crab and Bacon Stuffed Mushrooms"
Crab meat and bacon sound like a really interesting stuffing for mushrooms. They look so lovely :)
These would be some seriously delicious stuffed mushrooms!! Bacon, crab meat, cheese… it's all there! Lovely photos too!
– Brittany
This is so clever – a crab cake taken to the next level. It's perfect for summer and I can't wait to try it out!
Gurrrrl…. these are incredible! Nice job. :)
[…] Crab and Bacon Stuffed Mushrooms (Life Tastes Like Food) Stuffed mushrooms are one of my favorite side dishes, and this version looks spectacular. […]
I've had success "revisiting" foods with everything but one. Natto. Everytime I try it it gets worse…more pungent, more offensive. I've had it in the US and Japan and it's terrible every time. I think I have maybe two more tries in me.
I love our outlook on trying foods you dislike though…that it's a reflection of an attitude toward life. Thanks for this post.
[…] Size Hamburger Crab and Bacon Stuffed Mushrooms Pizza Pretzel Bites Cheezit Barbecue Mix Grilled Chicken on a Stick Kickoff […]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


text:
Tara Conner: High on Cocaine, Riding Miss USA Train
Tara Conner is an alcoholic.
But that's not so uncommon in Hollywood. Just ask Mel Gibson or Lindsay Lohan. What helps to set Miss USA apart in that case?
Tara Conner is an alcoholic.
But that's not so uncommon in Hollywood. Just ask Mel Gibson or Lindsay Lohan. What helps to set Miss USA apart in that case?
As Kevin Federline and his estranged wife battle over their divorce settlement, sources have heard from both camps that the couple is seriously trying to settle the case and put it behind them.
That includes the financial end of things.
It's this guy's lucky day.
Stopping by the Coked-Up Slut Store in suburban L.A., he thought he'd order a companion for the night. Little did he know they were offering a special 2-for-1 promotion until the end of January! Who knew?
It's chaos on the set of VH1's hit show Celebrity Fit Club, according to TMZ, which has exclusive details on multiple battles raging between its "stars."
According to sources, the first flare-up took place between medical/diet expert Dr. Ian and Ant, the show's host - over a cigarette. Dr. Ian blew up (figuratively) when Ant fired up a Marlboro Light in the doc's vicinity. Britney Spears would be proud.
We tried to tell you.
All those people that mistakenly drooled over Mischa Barton during her time on The OC were missing out on the best looking gal on the show.
We were pretty much already sold on the next Batman movie once Heath Ledger signed up as The Joker.
Then, we heard that Scientology slave, Katie Holmes, had bowed out of production and we were looking to buy tickets months in advance.
Katharine McPhee has a new album out today.
It appears as though the American Idol runner-up from a season ago would prefer if we focus our attention on other assets of hers at the moment, however.
She's been linked to Leonardo DiCaprio.
He just had twins with longtime lover Kim Porter.
James Bond has been a wanted man by countries around the globe for years - except one.
Until now, China had never entertained a portrayer of 007, but Daniel Craig became the first when he walked down the red carpet for the premiere of Casino Royale in the nation yesterday.
We knew he was a decent fellow, but it looks like Britney Spears' new man is bringing one of the most elusive and important things into her life:
Well, that whole Firecrotch and promiscuity thing aside.
Speaking strictly about alcohol consumption, we assume, Gwyneth Paltrow came out in defense of our least favorite red head. The Oscar Award-winning actress forecasted the following.
Emma Bunton is no longer Baby Spice - but the news of her actually having a little one is causing former singing mates to offer their congratulations.
The most notable, of course, is Victoria Beckham. A mother of three herself, the ex-Posh Spice told People magazine:


text:
Explore everything Viera has to offer with a visual perspective of the area with location icons and points of reference.
Exclusively built by Viera Builders, this new community features a striking Spanish Colonial architecture design similar to Florida's own St. Augustine area. Each floor plan offers a semi-custom studio living space for entertaining or extended family, verandas, and private courtyards with an available summer kitchen option. Additional features, such as a balcony (per elevation) create curb appeal and create a living space unique to the individual. Don't let the close proximity to your neighbor fool you. Arrivas Village is built with the design concepts of Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) and is creating new choices for the local buyer. A home with walking distance to Viera's premiere shopping and dining destinations, a world-class golf course with development center, and Viera Regional Park all become part of the easy access to amenities you are looking for. Viera Builders is a proud member of Florida's Build Smart program and every home in Arrivas Village will include energy efficient features.


text:
Welcome to the Department of Learning Sciences Seminar Series for 2011-2012 co-ordinated by Dr Olivia Hurley.The seminar series has concluded for the year. Thanks to everyone who attended, all our speakers and Dr Olivia Hurley for organising the seminars.
October 2011
Dr John Greaney, IADT, Encouraging use of emergency contact details on mobile phones.
Dr. Mark Campbell, UL, A Case Study in Sport Psychology: Working with an elite golfer
November 2012
Dr. Arlene Egan Building2Think, Teaching Thinking Skills at University
January 2012
Bernard Jackman, How to create a winning mindset?
February 2012
Dr. Elizabeth Nixon, TCD, Children as agents in one parent families.
March 2012
Dr Maura Conway, DCU,Terrorism and the Internet


text:
Monday, July 28, 2014
Sailor Moon Lemon & Strawberry Donuts!
These heart, moon and star adorned donuts are a tasty tribute to Sailor Moon. These donuts are more than just eye candy though, they are full of lemon and strawberry goodness. Click here for recipe from Fiction Food!
3 comments:
- cookiescorpse said...
oh pls *___* it looks delicious! I love Sailor Moon, I need to try it!
- Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:29:00 AM
- Kelsea Echo said...
These are SO cute! I never saw Sailor Moon growing up, but I've been seeing Sailor Moon stuff everywhere lately! Maybe because of the Mooncrisis show? My fave artist, Miss Kika, recently did a few sailor moon pieces and they're so pretty!
- Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:53:00 PM
- Diana said...
Thanks for directing me here, Kelsea! And, PetSugar, thank you for sharing my doughnuts on your blog! These were a lot of fun to design and make. And so yummy, too!
- Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:34:00 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
After my post last week on attracting the Bullocks Oriole to a feeder outside our kitchen window I received several emails asking what specific feeder I use. It is one I purchased at a local feed store and I don't know the brand but I do know it was designed specifically for Orioles. I have included a couple of photos at the end of this post if that helps to find one that works for you.
On another note, our Orioles seem to have become more brave as time goes by. We can now easily watch them out the window without them always flying away. We have at least one breeding pair and one additional male. We may have two breeding pairs though. The two males we see are easy to tell apart, but the females are much harder. Also, in addition to their beautiful song we can hear when they are up in the trees, the males have become even more vocal when at the feeder. There they often make a very shrill, short, sharp, single note call. Almost as if they are being territorial or announcing to their mates that we have replenished the jelly.
I plan to try again to see if I can get a photo out the window and will post them if I am successful. For now, here are a couple photos of the feeder. Mainly they eat the jelly, but sometimes they also drink the sugar water through the 4 holes in the lid.


text:
If you're looking for affordable computer or network support for individuals and small to medium businesses, ACI is the answer!
Network Projects & On Call Support. Security? Backups? Colocation? ISP Problems? Our IT professionals manage all areas of network support on an as-needed basis. Let our experts handle your network from one-time network design projects to connectivity troubleshooting to desktop support. No job or network is too big or too small.
You can use our Contact form if you'd like to know more or to schedule an appointment. For faster service or response, please call us at the phone number listed below.


text:
"Jim Buttafuoco" <jim(at)contactbda(dot)com> writes: > Change: > CheckFloat4Val(result); > To: > CheckFloat4Val((float4)result); CheckFloat4Val is defined to take a double, so whatever the above is accomplishing is wrong: probably it's masking an out-of-range result. I think you've hit a bug in Debian's version of gcc for PA-RISC. regards, tom lane
Next: From: Jim Buttafuoco Date: 2005-02-01 22:20:17 Subject: Re: float4 regression test failed on linux parisc Previous: From: Darcy Buskermolen Date: 2005-02-01 22:10:35 Subject: Re: FunctionCallN improvement.


text:
Submitted by stevethompson166 • May 30, 2012 leopisces.com
Leo Pisces love match and compatibility, Pisces Leo Friendship Compatibility, Leo Woman and Pisces Woman, Pisces Man and Leo Woman and lots of similar compatibilities. This site is dedicated to Leo Pisces sun signs.
- Category: Entertainment
- Tags: leo pisces, pisces leo, pisces leo compatibility


text:
Sanford is a midsize town of some 50,000 residents in Central Florida, a 30-minute drive northeast of Orlando and not quite an hour from the magic of Disney World.
It is likely that, until recently, few people outside Florida had heard of this city, established in the mid-19th century by land developer Henry Shelton Sanford, who hoped it would become "The Gate City of South Florida."
Today, however, it is better known as the place where Treyvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager wearing a hooded sweatshirt, was shot to death by a nervous neighborhood watch volunteer in a mostly white gated community. The city is receiving worldwide publicity, the kind no chamber of commerce would welcome, as the trial to determine whether George Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder gets under way.
There are lots of side stories to this case, one being the legitimacy of the state's Stand Your Ground law, which makes it legal to use lethal force if a person feels threatened. But the subplot, as is so often the case when blacks and whites interact with tragic consequences, is race, and Sanford has a checkered history along racial lines.
The Brooklyn Dodgers triple-A farm team, the Montreal Royals, had planned to conduct spring training in Sanford in 1946, the year that Jackie Robinson and another African-American player, Johnny Wright, began playing with the Branch Rickey-led organization. But the training was moved to Daytona Beach after townspeople threatened the safety of the two as well as the black families who were housing them.
Robinson had another encounter with Sanford racism a few weeks later, according to Chris Lamb, who wrote the book, "Blackout: The Untold Story of Jackie Robinson's First Spring Training." When the Royals returned to play a game, the chief of police escorted him off the field. Likewise, games in other Florida cities were mysteriously canceled.
Today, Sanford's chief of police is an African-American, named to replace the previous chief, who left under pressure over his handling of the Martin killing.
The new chief, Cecil Smith, has faced naysayers in his own department and at least one supervisor is reported to have said he would not serve under a black chief. But Smith has had to deal with opposition as well from the black community, skeptical of his Northern roots and distrustful of the police department in general. An article in The New York Times tells of Smith's door-to-door campaign to win over residents who wonder if he can relate to the plight of Southern blacks.
In many ways, Sanford is no different from many other small and large towns throughout the South, where the wounds of segregation, and even the vestiges of slavery, still form barriers to reconciliation. But discrimination is not limited to the South, nor to African-Americans. It can be seen in large cities, where ethnic groups live in certain sections, rarely interacting with the rest of the community. The current debate over immigration reform has once again brought to the surface the specter of discrimination based on race and culture.
It is likely that the Sanford trial will elicit discussion across the land about the issues surrounding racism, and that could be a good thing. Few solutions to thorny problems can be found when they are swept under the rug. The best outcome would be that discussions remain civil, with people of good conscience truly seeking new paths to a better world. And it is fervently hoped that violence will not be the response, regardless of the outcome of the trial in Sanford.
It has been 50 years since Alabama Gov. George Wallace attempted to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama by literally standing in the schoolhouse door. That same summer of 1963, civil rights activist Medgar Evers was shot in the back in his own driveway in Jackson, Miss., and it took three trials and 30 years to convict his killer.
It was also in 1963 that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his now-famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, "Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty."
Despite progress on many fronts, even in places like Sanford, that beauty remains elusive as the battle to win over hearts and minds goes on unabated. Time, and the tireless efforts of those dedicated to the belief that all people should be allowed to live in dignity, will be needed to reach the goals King so eloquently envisioned.
Kathy Silverberg is the former publisher of the Herald-Tribune's southern editions. Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Kathy Silverberg: Racism a subplot at Zimmerman trial
Sanford is a midsize town of some 50,000 residents in Central Florida, a 30-minute drive northeast of Orlando and not quite an hour from the magic of Disney World.