PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1995

SUBDIVISIONS

(#199)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with John Barnett, Director of Planning. Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were: Richael Michels, Planner; Al Kadera, Subdivision Administrator; Russ Legg, Chief Planner; Rex Burns and Harry Lynam, Engineering; Jerry Blehm, Environmental Health; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Chair Disney noted that the following is a consent item and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Board or members of the audience.

1. BLUE HERON LANE STREET NAME CHANGE (#94-0S0635): NW 1/4

26-08-69; EAST OF CR 17 (N. SHIELDS) 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF CR 54

(DOUGLAS ROAD); FA-FARMING ZONING (02-06-95).

This is a request to assign the name "Blue Heron Lane" to the previously unnamed street in Country Squire Minor Residential Development. Staff Findings include: 1) All of the property owners that utilize this street consent to naming the street Blue Heron Lane; 2) All utility companies and other referral agencies have stated no objections to this name change; 3) Naming this street Blue Heron Lane will not duplicate another street name in Larimer County. The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the request to assign the name Blue Heron Lane to the currently unnamed street in the Country Squire Minor Residential Development #S-122-88.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that he Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendation and approve the Blue Heron Lane Street Name Change (#94-0S0635).

Motion carried 3 - 0.

2. SUMMIT ENTERPRISES MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

APPEAL (#94-EX0636): 02-07-69; SOUTH SIDE OF WILLOX LANE,

EAST OF SHIELDS STREET (COUNTY ROAD 17); 45 ACRES; 2 LOTS;

O-OPEN ZONING (02-06-95).

This is a request for an appeal of the Minor Residential Development regulations to permit a Minor Residential Development to be processed for a non-residential use. Mr. Kadera reviewed the major concerns and issues, described the property location, and noted that the applicant would like to build commercial greenhouses on this site. Staff Findings are: 1) The Minor Residential Development regulations were intended to be used only to create lots for residential uses. The applicant wishes to buy a portion of an existing parcel for greenhouses and he proposes using the MRD process to create the lot; 2) The proposed greenhouses are permitted in the O-Open Zoning District, which is the current zoning of the subject property; 3) The Planning Staff has consistently recommended denial of all MRD appeals, leaving the policy decision to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. The Staff Recommendation is for denial of the Summit Enterprises appeal of the Minor Residential Development regulations.

Tom Smith, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that their business is growing and they want to expand; he assured the Board that they are not planning to build a house on the site. Mr. Barnett stated that if the applicant went through the subdivision process, it would trigger several requirements from the UGA Review Board, and some street waiver issues which don't typically apply to the MRD process; therefore, if this request is approved, comments should be solicited from the City of Fort Collins as a reviewing agency.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board allow the Summit Enterprises Minor Residential Development Appeal (#94-EX0636).

Motion carried 3 - 0.

3. ADAMS MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPEAL (#95-EX0641):

11 -05-70; NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 34, WEST OF THE BIG

THOMPSON SCHOOL; 9.4 ACRES; 1 LOT; FA-1 FARMING ZONING

(02-06-95).

This is a request to consider changing a condition of approval for an exemption or to allow a Minor Residential Development appeal to designate a parcel as a building site. Al Kadera submitted a map of the site and reviewed the complicated history of the site and the major concerns and issues. To further complicate the situation, Mr. Kadera noted that this property has been sold several times and at sometime during the transfer of the deed, the County Assessor began to assess the property as two separate parcels. Mr. Kadera assured the Board that if they allow the appeal for a MRD on this site, during the MRD review process there will be a review of access, utilities, fire protection, etc. Staff Findings include: 1) The property in question was divided by an exemption in 1973. The exemption was intended to serve as a boundary line adjustment and was not intended to create any new lots; 2) The parcel created by the exemption was deeded separately rather than added to the adjacent parcel, as stated in the exemption application and approval; 3) The applicant is requesting that the condition of approval be removed so a building permit can be issued for the parcel; 4) If the request to remove the condition is denied, the applicant also requests an appeal of the Minor Residential Development regulations to allow an application to be filed for an MRD on property that does not meet the minimum criteria for an MRD; 5) Staff does not support the removal of the condition because it would result in a building site that was not reviewed with respect to access, utilities, natural hazards or other criteria; 6) Staff does not support the appeal of the MRD regulations because this is a policy decision that should be left to the Board of County Commissioners.

The Staff Recommendations are for denial of the request to remove the condition of approval of the 1973 exemption; and denial of the appeal of the Minor Residential Development regulations.

William Adams, applicant, reviewed the history of the original twenty acres and stated that over the years it has become split into three parcels; he admitted a mess has been created, and is requesting assistance from the Board to straighten it out.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Adams Minor Residential Appeal (#95-EX0641) in order to gain understanding and bring clarification and legality to the land divisions which have taken place on this piece of property; and moved for denial of the request to remove the condition of approval of the 1973 exemption, until all the details relating to this property have been resolved and clarified.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

4. VISTA VIEW ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (#94-MS0505):

SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 25-06-69; NORTH SIDE OF 57TH STREET (COUNTY

ROAD 28), 1/2 MILE EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 287, NORTHEAST CORNER

OF MONROE AND 57TH STREET; 34.63 ACRES; 93 LOTS; R2-

RESIDENTIAL ZONING (02-06-95).

This is a request to change the approved phasing plan by changing the condition of approval that specifies which portion of the subdivision should be constructed first. Staff Findings are: 1) Both the phasing plan, as approved, and the modified phasing plan appear to meet the following criteria; i.e., Is the proposed phasing safe? Is there sufficient collateral for each phase?, and, If future phases are not built, will the phasing program stand alone? The Larimer County Engineering Department does not object to the change in phasing, as requested by the applicant; 2) The Planning Staff usually does not become involved in the construction phasing program since construction phasing is reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division; 3) The legal ad for this change of condition referenced file #93-MS0410, rather than file #94-MS0505; upon the advice of the County Attorney, an amended legal ad was published that noted the correct file number. The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the revised phasing proposed.

Roger Clark, attorney for the applicant, stated that extensive discussions have ensued with Mike Shultz, attorney representing several of the Horseshoe Estates residents, and they have agreed upon the following conditions, which, if approved by the Board today, will become part of the conditions of Final Plat approval. Mr. Clark noted that the developer has agreed to these conditions provided that the opposition to the development is withdrawn and not pursued further. Mr. Clark read the additional conditions into the record as follows: 1) The developer will provide that the entire fence along the eastern boundary of the property would be built as part of the first phase of development; 2) The developer will modify the covenants at Paragraph 4.1 to provide that all dwellings built east of Monroe, whether one story or two story would include a minimum of 1,800 square feet of usable area, exclusive of garage; 3) The developer will agree also that Paragraph 4.1 will also state that no structure will exceed 28' in height and the measurement of height will be as defined in the current building code; 4) The developer will agree that 1/3 of entire facade of each residence, exclusive of the garage, shall be brick; 5) The developer will agree that no front yard light will be higher than 5' in height, security lights on garages can be up to 8', and those lights will be 40 watts or comparable low intensity lighting; 6) All structures will be detached single family dwellings; 7) The above conditions will be reflected on the plat, as well as in the covenants; and 8) The developer agrees that the opposition side to this development may reserve their right to make objection if the final plat and the final PUD plan do not comply with the conditions as agreed. Mr. Clark informed the Board that the applicant has agreed to supply the opposition side with the final documents by February 13, 1995 and the public hearing for Final Plat approval is scheduled for February 27, 1995.

Mike Shultz agreed that Mr. Clark summarized very well the additional conditions which the parties agreed to this morning. Mr. Shultz reiterated, however, that the neighbors reserve the right to review the final subdivision plat and final PUD plan to insure that those documents are in strict compliance with the preliminary subdivision plat and the preliminary phase plan, as they have been conditionally approved by this body. Also, he requested at this time, a decision be made by the Board whether or not they are in agreement with the additional proposed conditions which Mr. Clark just read, and if those conditions will be a part of the conditions of approval on the subdivision plat. Mr. Legg informed the Board that staff has reviewed the proposed conditions and support them; he further noted that this is an opportunity for a win-win situation with this proposal.

Commissioner Duvall asked Mr. Clark why the applicant is requesting the revised phasing plan, which is attached to some concerns about drainage. Mr. Clark stated that the reason for the request is that the developer has agreed to construct a regional drainage system which must be completed starting with the areas of lowest elevation and proceeding to areas of higher elevation. Mr. Clark informed the Board that the neighbors will not object to the phasing, as requested, if the applicant agrees to the additional conditions offered this morning. Mr. Clark stated that at this time, before today's hearing continues, the Board needs to state their position whether or not they are in agreement with the conditions outlined this morning; after further discussion, CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to agree to the proposed conditions, as presented today.

At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment: Lou Schotmetz asked what will happen to the undeveloped areas if this development fails--could those areas be subdivided into smaller lots; she wants assurance that the homes and lots will be compatible in size to those in her neighborhood. Denise Praizler asked the Board and staff where she could find a copy of the approved phasing plan so she could review it; Mr. Legg responded that the approved phasing plan will be presented in the final plat process as it becomes part of the construction plans and documents associated with final plat approval. Ms. Praizler expressed concern that conditions agreed to at other meetings will not be reflected in the final Findings and Resolution. Mr. Shultz recommended that the Findings and Resolution be amended to reflect the change in conditions being approved today; Ms. Haag stated that if the additional conditions are approved today, it will constitute an amendment to the Findings and Resolution and be recorded as such. Kathy Kuhlman requested that prior to filing of the Findings and Resolution they be allowed to review them.

Mr. Clark responded to comments made by the public, noting there can be further discussion with the Board regarding whether or not they have complied with prior condition approvals, and as amended by today's proceedings. With respect to the phasing and to the concern about when lots will be developed, Mr. Clark noted that the phases run east and west and, if the lots were going to made smaller, the developer would have to come back to the Board for approval; he assured Ms. Schotmetz that the lot size as proposed will not change.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendation and approve the change requested to the formerly approved Vista View Estates Planned Unit Development, in accordance to the comments which were stipulated and read by Mr. Clark this morning.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The meeting recessed at 10:10 a.m.




PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING PROJECT PRIORITIES

(#200)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with Doug Rames, Regional Transportation Director Region 4; William Neal, Transportation Commissioner and L.G. Duncan, Assistant to the Regional Transportation Director Region 4. Chair Disney presided, Commissioners Duvall and Clarke also were present. Also present was Elaine Spencer, Manager of Operations and Planning Engineering, and Rex Smith, Director of Public Works. Recording Clerk, A. Jensen.

Chair Disney began by stating today's meeting was to discuss the various transportation projects involving Larimer County with Mr. Rames, Mr. Neal and the public. Mr. Neal addressed the Commissioners giving a brief history of the series of meetings that have led to today's meeting. Mr. Rames distributed a packet of information containing numerous maps and reports; answering questions as they were posed by the Board while reviewing the contents. At this time 1:45 p.m. Commissioner Duvall excused herself to attend another meeting.

Chair Disney made several inquiries of Mr. Neal and Mr. Rames: which criteria is used to determine road quality, how are priorities determined with respect to allocating funds annually, diagram showing design capacities of Colorado roads, has CDOT established a policy regarding toll roads and if plans to re-build the 287 and Berthoud exchange have been changed. Mr. Rames responded to Chair Disney's questions stating: a visual inspection is used to determine the quality of the road, an established team annually reviews the worst roads to determine where the money is best spent, will provide Chair Disney with a map showing the design capacities of roads in Colorado, CDOT does not have a policy regarding toll roads and the plans to re-build the 287 and Berthoud exchange has not changed from the original course of action. Mr. Neal stated, at this point, approximately 50% of the highways are considered in poor quality, down from 65% with the goal to have 60% of the highways in good condition.

Discussion continued between Mr. Rames, Mr. Neal and the Commissioners covering issues such as, boundary map re-alignment and funding difficulties the Department of Transportation is experiencing due to growth, inflation and an aging roadway system. Mr. Neal spoke briefly of a coalition that has been formed to address these subjects. As an item of interest, Mr. Neal stated that the re-construction costs for I-25 in Larimer County were approximately $1,000,000 a mile. Mr. Neal emphasized the amount is so high since they not only re-pave the Interstate, but re-construct the roadway to meet higher standards. Mr. Neal reported the stretch of I-70 between Denver and Kansas is in the process of being re-built, there have been no accidents at the intersection of Highway 287 and 54G between November 11, 1993 through September 1, 1994, and the road between Loveland and Estes Park will be re-surfaced this summer.

The meeting was then opened to public participation by Chair Disney. Mr. John Peacock with the Front Range Railroad addressed the Board. Mr. Peacock gave a concise history of Front Range Railroad as well as their vision statement and progress being made in achieving their ambitious goals.

Chair Disney closed the public participation aspect of the meeting. Commissioner Clarke expressed his concerns with Burlington Northern transporting hazardous waste through heavily populated areas and his wish to move these types of transportation to less populated areas, possibly using the railroad easement for alternative localized transportation. Commissioner Clarke also stated his support of Mr. Peacock's statements and of Larimer County taking charge of their transportation issues.

Meeting recessed at 2:40 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING ON SANDY FLATS QUARRY

(#201, #202, #203, #204 & #205)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7 p.m. for a Public Hearing regarding Sandy Flats Quarry. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Clarke and Disney were present. Also present were: Director of Planning John Barnett; Jerry White, Zoning Administrator; Rex Burns, Engineering; Jerry Blehm and Rich Grossmann, Environmental Health; Frank Lancaster, County Manager; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

SANDY FLATS QUARRY (#94-ZR0515): SECTION 13-10-70; MINING TO

OCCUR ON SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 80, 4.2 MILES EAST OF

HIGHWAY 287, SOUTHWEST OF PARK CREEK RESERVOIR; 105 ACRES;

O-OPEN ZONING (02-06-95)

This is a request for Special Review to mine sandstone on 45 acres over a period of 23-28 years. Before opening the hearing, Chair Disney noted that a request has been received from a group of citizens in opposition to the proposal asking for continuance of this item until a time as yet unspecified to allow more time for them to gather scientific evidence and information regarding this proposal. Chair Disney outlined the format for the evening stating that the first phase of tonight's hearing will be to consider the request for continuance; the second phase will be to receive comments from the applicant, followed by general comments, and then the Board will render their decision.

Chair Disney requested a show of hands from the audience how many persons favor the continuance of this matter; approximately 30 persons responded. Edie Yates, spokeswoman for the group, provided the opening remarks stating that these citizens are all concerned about responsible development of the Buckeye area and they are a representative group of ranchers and farmers who have lived in the area for many years. She noted that Colorado Lein and Larimer County have had three years to compile their information and expertise and this group feels they cannot respond at this time to all of the unresolved issues surrounding the approval of the proposal; she stated that they are entitled to as much time to prepare their side and find unbiased answers to the unresolved questions that affect the health, safety, and welfare of their community. Ms. Yates stated that the group estimates that the information they have requested from the experts they have contacted will be available in six months; however, additional studies will require a minimum of one year to complete.

The following persons, the majority of which are Buckeye residents, addressed the Board and reviewed at great length the following subjects and concerns: Chuck Miller - blowing sand and effects of the mine blasting on the water line; Chris Joitel - showed video of dust generated from haul trucks on unpaved CR 80 resulting in a health and safety issue and she discussed the reduction in property values in the area; Dan Miller - air quality; Bruce Joitel - historical significance of the site and reclamation; Edie Yates - disturbance of geological findings; Mary Beth Simon - wildlife and possible disturbance of two eagle nests on the property; Jim Wade - concern for effects on human health and citizens with asthma; Cheryl Nockles - effects on animal health and requested the county to hire the experts to do the studies; Monty Davis - noted that damage caused from blasting is not covered by insurance unless house completely collapses; Del Black - destruction of their quality of life and he recommended environmental studies be conducted; Bob Turley - cited language from the Larimer County Comprehensive Land Use Plan: "...protect the existing rural residential and agricultural land uses from encroachment of incompatible uses; Dehn Solomon - reviewed development proposal. Most of these persons complained to the Board that they were not properly notified of the Sandy Flats Quarry proposal and only learned of it by word of mouth.

After three hours of discussion requesting the continuance of tonight's hearing, Ms. Yates provided the closing remarks stating that these citizens love their area and are very proud of it and would like to preserve it the way it is for ever.

Sam Lien, President and General Manager Colorado Lien Company, gave a brief introduction and history of the company, noting that her company has been in business for fifty years and twenty-five of those in this area. To address the continuation question of this hearing, she briefly explained why they are here tonight and why they are asking for denial of the continuance. She noted that this proposal is being presented as an alternative to the Weaver Quarry, which she presented to the Commissioners three and one-half years ago. During that hearing, she was asked by the Board to do two things: 1) Be more aggressive in reclamation efforts, and 2) Try and find an alternative site so as to not mine on the scenic vistas of the front range. Ms. Lien stated that she has honored those two requests and now is faced with a dilemma--does she open up a new quarry that is not contiguous with the existing Weaver Quarry, or does she open a new quarry at Sandy Flats? Ms. Lein noted that the Sandy Flats site, with all the voluntary conditions which they have placed on themselves to mitigate the neighbors concerns, will definitely be more expensive, but the whole purpose of proposing Sandy Flats was that it will have less impact on the neighbors than the Weaver Quarry. She noted that timing is critical and she has to have a decision tonight; she further noted that these people are not happy with any mining and one hour, one day, or one year will not make any difference to them. Ms. Lein assured the Board that she does not intend to mine both quarries, but she does request a one-year overlap to make sure her customers are happy with the product from Sandy Flats before totally closing the Weaver Quarry. Ms. Lien suggested that in order to allay any concerns that she might mine the two quarries, she could assign the claims to the county until the Weaver Quarry is withdrawn from the mineral entry list; however, she requested assistance from the county to get the claims withdrawn because it takes two parties to have it withdrawn. Much discussion followed regarding how to handle the assignment of the Federal claims.

The following persons also gave their names in support of the continuance of tonight's hearing: Derek Roberts, Maxine Weaver, Marcy Yates, Randy Yates, Shandra Dill, Eldon Ackerman, Alan Carlson, Beth Carlson, Rick Barrett, Bernie Bickel, Moby Wile, Duane Rennels, Joannie Van Beker, and Dennis Montgomery. Chuck Miller asked Ms. Lein to address why she doesn't want to go to the Sheep Draw Quarry, which would be an alternative site; she responded that they withdrew from Sheep Draw for economic reasons and noted that the truck traffic would go down 29 miles of CR 19, and by 100+ homes. Ms. Lein stated they considered this alternative, but their goal was minimal impact and that is why they chose Sandy Flats.

Commissioner Clarke stated that he is very concerned that these folks have the impression that the staff is an advocate for the applicant; he advised them that the staff is objective when reviewing the information to address all the concerns regarding health issues, air quality, etc. Mr. Barnett reviewed the process that staff goes through when an application is received - they review the information received against a series of criteria contained in the regulations and they rely on their in-house experts to assist in that review; they also review a variety of state, federal, and other quasi-governmental agencies to review impacts and he stated that it is a very thorough review.

Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Blehm about the air quality in this area and if the county can assure these folks that there is no reason for them to be concerned for their health; Mr. Blehm responded that the applicant will have to apply for a state emission permit for the proposed quarry and the research that the county has done in conjunction with the State Health Department finds that there is no specific documentable silicosis problems from ambient souces in the area. Commissioner Clarke asked if the staff has looked at all the concerns raised tonight; Mr. White responded affirmatively and noted that all the issues have been addressed in the staff report.

Commissioner Duvall stated she has gained a great deal of respect for Sam Lien over the years - she tells you what she means and she means what she says, and if you ask her a question she will give you a honest answer; Ms. Lien has done a good job of going beyond the call of duty and she has reclaimed areas that don't even require reclaiming and has made an effort to reach out to the people. Commissioner Duvall stated, however, that she is concerned that there is something wrong with the process when she hears people say Colorado Lien and the county have had three years to prepare their case, the burden of proof is on the citizens, the community was excluded from all discussions between county staff and the mining company, and they have not had the time needed to compete with the combined resources of the county and a prominent mining company. Commissioner Duvall stated that even though she understands that continuance today would by default require mining another section of the Weaver Quarry, she cannot support opening another mine without looking at the environmental questions. Therefore, she favors a continuance of this matter to allow time to answer the concerns raised here tonight.

Commissioner Clarke noted that originally this group of citizens was requesting continuance of 90 days and now they are requesting one year, and possibly up to three years; he wonders what amount of time is reasonable. Commissioner Clarke is concerned that if Sandy Flats is not approved, Colorado Lien will continue to mine the Weaver Quarry and the county will lose their ability to moniter that site; he does not think a one year continuance is reasonable and anything beyond 90 days is inappropriate and he is inclined not to grant any continuance.

Chair Disney asked Ms. Lien two questions: What is the estimated life of the Weaver Quarry; she responded that if they open the new section of Weaver it will have about 30 years of reserves. He asked if that area would have a mandatory reclamation; she responded "Yes". Chair Disney stated that he also is not comfortable, at this time, with the weather data for the air quality permits and he is inclined to support the continuance if Mr. Blehm can give a reasonable length of time to obtain a wind measurement study at this site; Mr. Blehm stated he could not answer that question. Mr. Barnett stated that there are two options for the Board to consider at this time: 1) Proceed with the hearing tonight on the information available and make a decision with the inherent uncertainties; or 2) Set a continuance of the hearing to a specific date in the future. However, if it is continued to 30-60 days, the Board will not have much more information in terms of air flow than is available tonight as it takes a long time to put that information together; if the continuation is longer, it will be a decision based on default. Therefore, the Board decided to take the following action:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board not grant a continuance of the Sandy Flats Quarry Hearing and instead continue with the hearing tonight as scheduled.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

At 10:20 p.m., the Public Hearing for the Sandy Flats Quarry Special Review commenced. Mr. White provided the project and site description, reviewed the history of the mining operation in the area, and briefly discussed the major concerns and issues. Mr. White submitted to the Board two letters in support of the Sandy Flats Quarry, 18 letters in opposition, photos of the site, a packet of information submitted by the property owners to the Planning Commission, a letter from the State Mine Land Reclamation Board indicating their approval of the state permit, a letter from the State Engineer's Office indicating that, in their opinion, the blasting would not damage the dam, etc. Mr. White noted that the following agencies have reviewed this proposal: Larimer County Engineering Department, Colorado Department of Transportation, North Poudre Irrigation Company, and the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposal complies with the intent and purposes of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan; 2) Surrounding land uses in the area are limited to livestock grazing; the proposal is harmonious with this use, and will have little or no impact on other uses or on property values in the area, if developed and operated consistent with the recommended conditions; 3) If developed, operated, and reclaimed in accordance with the submitted plans and the conditions of approval, the proposal will not impair the public health, welfare, prosperity, or safety; 4) The anticipated timetable for the mining operation is 23-28 years, with reclamation being accomplished concurrently with the mining. The Staff/Planning Commission Recommendation is for approval of the Special Review of Sandy Flats Quarry, with twelve conditions.

Sam Lien, applicant, stated that during her presentation seven areas of concern will be addressed: 1) Viewshed; 2) Property values; 3) Environmental - Air, Water and Wildlife; 4) Blasting; 5) Reclamation; 6) Truck Traffic; and 7) Historic and Archeological. Jerry Moore, Certified Appraiser, addressed property values in the area and noted that after doing extensive research and on-site and cursory on-site inspections, his conclusion is that existing mining operations have not depressed market prices for land in the neighborhood and no evidence was revealed that would indicate that the Sandy Flats Quarry would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood property values. Robert Glenn, President National Industrial Sand Association from Washington, D.C., addressed ambient exposure to silica and environmental exposure and respiratory disease in detail; in summary, he concluded that the proposed Sandy Flats Quarry poses no significant risk to the public and denial of the Sandy Flats Quarry permit application cannot be justified on public health concerns. Ms. Lein addressed the environmental and blasting concerns and noted she expects zero-ground vibrations; she stated that they have taken an aggressive approach to reclamation and are committed to reclaim ten acres per year. With regard to truck traffic, she noted there will no truck traffic going east, they will never haul on weekends, and only from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. on weekdays; she noted that these are self-imposed restrictions. Ms. Lein stated that Colorado Lien has done everything they can to be a good neighbor and she is trying to do the right thing and everything above the law and her proposal is what the Board of County Commissioners asked her to do 3 1/2 years ago.

Ms. Edie Yates voiced the group's objection to going forward with this public hearing tonight as they feel their rights are being violated, but they will not forfeit their right to be heard. Therefore, she presented large pictures showing the beauty of the area, the eagles nests, pictures of the proposed site, and pictures of present/past mining operations in Larimer County. Dr. Jeff Eighmy, archeologist from Colorado State University, stated that Larimer County is a very rich archeological area, particularly around the Roberts Ranch; he noted that the site includes Indian artifacts, ceremonial rings, dinosaur tracks, and a stratified site dating back over 6,000 years, Dr. Eighmy predicts that if mining is allowed to occur in this area, significant archeological resources will be uncovered and there will be direct and indirect impacts.

At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment and the following persons addressed the Board and reiterated their concerns expressed previously: Dehn Solomon, April Joitel, Moby Wile, Duane Rennels, Jim Wade, Monte Davis, Amy Joitel, Del Black, Joan Van Beker, Cheryl Nockles, Peter Mondaver, Chris Joitel, Mary Beth Simon, and Catherine Roberts. Bob Turley quoted from the Comprehensize Zoning Resolution, adopted by the County in 1993: "A special review request shall be denied if it is found by the Board of County Commissioners that it is probable that the proposed use will be contrary to the public interest by being a nuisance..." Then he quoted from Webster's Dictionary the definition of nuisance, "An act, condition, thing, or person causing trouble, annoyance, or inconvenience...to a limited number of persons or to the general public..." Maxine Weaver, who has a home within a mile of the Weaver Quarry, commended Ms. Lien for the reclamation she has done and affirmed that Ms. Lien is a lady of her word and will do what she says she will do. Alden Hill, representing North Poudre Irrigation Company, noted that the Board of Directors' prime concern is for the safety of the Park Creek Reservoir; however, ten pages of conditions have been proposed, which Colorado Lien has agreed to accept if the proposal is approved. Bruce Joitel discussed the different set of staff findings for Weaver Quarry and the Sandy Flats Quarry - one complies with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and one does not. Chris Joitel stated she is angry with Larimer County for being willing to trade the health and safety of the citizens in the area for visual impact. Dan Miller submitted fifteen additional conditions of approval for Sandy Flats Quarry, if the Commissioners should approve the proposal.

To summarize, Ms. Lein noted that she believes that all the issues brought up tonight have been addressed and reviewed by the staff, and the choice for the Board to make is whether to open the Sandy Flats Quarry or to open another section of the Weaver Quarry. Mr. Grotenhouse offered that if this proposal is approved, Colorado Lien will transfer the mining claims to the county and Lien has offered to pay the annual rental fees of $1,600, instead of having the county pay them.

At this time, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed and Commissioner comments were solicitied.

Commissioner Duvall stated that she appreciates that there are a number of things that could be done, as suggested by Mr. Grotenhouse; however, she is uncomfortable making a decision to open one quarry until they have assurance that the other will be closed. She further noted that earlier this evening, it didn't seem fair to allow the continuance since the default decision would not be fair to Colorado Lien; now she feels making a favorable decision is not fair to the neighbors who have not had time to have their experts submit information that needs to be heard. She also feels that we have over a 100 years of silica sand and mining already available, so she cannot see the need to open up another mine. In her opinion, approval of this request is only taking a visual problem at the Weaver site and moving it to another site, and it would not be in the best interests of the citizens of Larimer County to do so; she thinks Colorado Lien should continue mining the Weaver Quarry and continue with their good job of reclamation.

Commissioner Clarke stated that he is very concerned about what will happen to the front hogback if the Weaver Quarry continues with expansion; he noted that he is concerned about all the things the neighbors have said, but based on what the Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, and all the other experts have determined, he is not convinced that opening Sandy Flats is the wrong thing to do. Commissioner Duvall responded that, with all due respect to the Staff, they are not air-quality experts and she doesn't understand our process and why environmental assessments are not done for a project of this nature. Commissioner Duvall noted that this is a key project and should have environmental guidelines; she is not comfortable opening up this whole new area with a health concern for only a visual reason. Much back and forth discussion ensued between the Board.

Chair Disney stated that he is really torn about this issue and he commends Colorado Lein for coming up with an outstanding proposal; however, he is not comfortable with the lack of wind and dust data.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board deny the Sandy Flats Quarry Special Review based on a regulation in the Larimer County Comprehensive Land Use Plan that a special review request shall be denied if it is found by the Board of County Commissioners that it is probable that the proposed use will be contrary to the public interest by being a nuisance, dangerous, detrimental or injurious to nearby residents, properties or businesses. Further, the proposed special review is in that catagory, is not unique to the site, and does not have significant economic or strategic value to the area, state or nation; the proposal raises some unanswered health and safety questions and, therefore, is not in the best interests of the citizens of Larimer County.

Motion carried 2 - 1; Commissioner Clarke dissenting.

The meeting adjourned at 2:20 a.m.










TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1995

PUBLIC WORKS STANDING MEETING

(#206)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular session with G. Rex Smith, Director of Public Works. Chair Pro-Tem Clarke presided; Commissioner Duvall was present. Chair Disney was attending a meeting in Loveland. Also present were: William Heiden, Director of Road and Bridge Department; Dale Miller, Assistant Director of Road and Bridge Department; Dick Anderson, Facilities Director; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, W. Gebauer.

1. ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM: Mr. Heiden noted that the Road and Bridge Department has received numerous requests from the public for the County to start an Adopt-a-Road Program. In the program, different groups of volunteers would remove trash on 3/4-mile to 1 and 1/4-mile sections of county roads, in exchange for the public recognition. He added that the department looked at programs in Boulder and Weld counties before developing the current proposal.

Commissioner Duvall stated that she would prefer to recognize the contributions of the participants in some manner other than by posting additional signs for the Adopt-a-Road Program. Chair Pro-Tem Clarke stated that periodic advertisements may be a more effective means of publicizing the program and recognizing participants, because more people may notice the advertisements than would notice the signs. He added that such advertisements may also encourage people to adopt rural roads with less traffic. Mr. Lancaster stated that the advertisements would probably not be significantly more expensive than the Adopt-a-Road signs over time, since the county would need to maintain two such signs at each road section.

MOTION

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board adopt and sign the resolution establishing an Adopt-a-Road Program, with the County to recognize participants through periodic advertisements.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

R95-16g ADOPT-A-COUNTY-ROAD LITTER CONTROL COOPERATIVE

2. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COMPLETION OF TIMBERLINE EXTENSION: Mr. Smith informed the Board of the status of the Timberline Road extension proposed by the City of Fort Collins. The City of Fort Collins Planning Department has sent a memorandum to the Fort Collins City Council outlining the proposed time line for extending the road. If the city council accepts the proposal, they would start designing the road extension in August 1995, after a period of public review, and construction would probably continue into 1997. The current plan would build a two-lane road extension from Prospect Road as far north as Summit View Drive, if funds are available. The City could widen the road to four or six lanes in the future if increased traffic required it. One design issue to be resolved by the city is how to handle the road extension on or over Riverbend Ponds. Mr. Smith showed the Board an aerial map of the affected area. The Board thanked Mr. Smith for his thorough research and presentation of the proposal.

Commissioner Clarke noted that the road extension would provide significantly improved access for the hazardous materials team and the firefighters located at the area fire station. Commissioner Duvall asked if the road extension would significantly increase the traffic on County Road 9. Mr. Smith stated that the road extension would probably have a greater impact on other streets south of Prospect Road, and would probably not noticeably increase traffic on County Road 9.

3. USE OF ROAD AND BRIDGE RESOURCES FOR ESTES PARK BUILDING AND OTHER INTERNAL NEEDS: Mr. Smith stated that, when he first became the director of the Public Works Division, the diversion of departmental resources was preventing them from completing road and bridge projects promptly. Therefore, the Board decided at that time to limit the use of Road and Bridge personnel and equipment to departmental projects only. Mr. Smith added that he generally agreed with this policy, and that he would prefer that a private contractor be used for the Estes Park project. However, if they could schedule the grading work in such a way that it did not significantly affect road and bridge work, he would not object to providing departmental resources to the project. Mr. Smith added that the Road and Bridge Department would probably not be as efficient as a private contractor. He explained that the fine grading done on parking lots requires different techniques and equipment than the type of grading done on county roads.

Commissioner Duvall asked if there are any time periods when the department is not fully utilizing its personnel and equipment, which the County could then use for other projects. Mr. Heiden responded that, while there are times when some equipment is not being used, the employees are fully scheduled year round. He added that this is possible because the size of the Road and Bridge staff nearly doubles through the use of temporary employees in the summer. Mr. Heiden agreed with Mr. Smith that lending equipment or employees for other projects should not cause significant problems. However, Mr. Heiden cautioned that the County should not borrow departmental resources too frequently, and that they should schedule such changes ahead of time.

Commissioner Duvall asked if a bid process would be appropriate to compare the cost of using Road and Bridge employees versus using a private contractor. Mr. Heiden stated that using the Road and Bridge Department would probably be more expensive, because they do not specialize in this type of work.

Chair Pro-Tem Clarke asked for the time frame of the Estes Park project. Mr. Anderson said that they have not completed the final schedule, but that they should finish the design in about 20 days, and that the plans will be available in about 45 days.

4. Above-Ground Storage Tank Requirements: Mr. Smith warned the Board that the Public Works Division may have to request additional funding in 1995 in order to meet new requirements governing the installation of above-ground storage tanks. He stated that the funds could possibly take the form of a loan from the capital expenditures account or from the fleet balance.

5. Colorado State University Discussions: Mr. Lancaster notified the Board that he had met with the Vice President of Colorado State University, Gerry Bomotti. Mr. Lancaster reminded the Board that the University and the State Attorney General are concerned about work done near the landfill on a county road that may have damaged a diversion ditch on Colorado State property. Vice President Bomotti was displeased with how the problem was handled, and he hoped that there would be better communication between the County and the University in the future. Mr. Smith added that a Colorado State Engineer would design the project to correct the problem, and that the County intends to work with the University to solve the problem.

The meeting recessed at 10:10 a.m.

LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING FOR SCHMIDT'S

OLDE TIME BAKERY, LTD

(#198)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:30 p.m. for a Liquor License Hearing for Schmidt's Olde Time Bakery, Ltd. Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present was George Hass, County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Following a review of the contents of the application file by Mr. Hass, applicant Harry David Schmidt was sworn in and questioned. Mr. Schmidt made a presentation concerning the application, including clarifications required during the review of the file. For the record, Mr. Hass noted that there was no one appearing at today's hearing in opposition to the granting of this license.

This matter coming on to be heard this 7th day of February, 1995 of an application for a 6% Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License from Schmidt's Olde Time Bakery, Ltd., and the Board of County Commissioners having heard the testimony and evidence has considered the same and being fully advised on the premises, find that the requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants indicate that the said license should be granted. Therefore, it is ordered that a Colorado 6% Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License be granted to Schmidt's Olde Time Bakery, Ltd.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the application of Schmidt's Olde Time Bakery, Ltd. for a 6% Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License, at the location of 2248 W. First Street in Loveland, Colorado 80537 in the County of Larimer, be granted.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1995

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#208)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Disney presided; also present was Commissioner Clarke. Commissioner Duvall joined the meeting at 9:55 a.m. Also present were: Ralph Jacobs, Human Resources Director; Gayle Morgan, Planning Staff Services Manager; Joan Duchene, Office Supervisor; Bob Keister, Larimer County Budget Manager; Russ Legg, Senior Planner and Donna Hart, Assistant to the County Manager. Recording Clerk, A. Jensen.

1. APPOINTMENT TO THE LARIMER/WELD REVOLVING FUND BOARD: The Board received a request to appoint Mr. Chris Zell to a 3 year term to the Larimer/Weld Revolving Fund Board.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board appoint Mr. Chris Zell to a 3 year term to the Larimer/Weld Revolving Fund Board.

Motion carried 2-0.

2. YOUTH ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PROGRAM: Mr. Jacobs submitted two memos to the Board regarding the employment of "at risk" youths in the Weatherization program. Ms. Friedman has requested Mr. Jacobs to grant a variance in the Personnel Manual so she may hire "at risk" youth. At issue is the clause in the Personnel Manual that requires the "best qualified" applicant to be selected for employment; in many instances, this would preclude employment of these "at risk" individuals.



M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the request of Mr. Jacobs to waive the recruiting and selection procedure of the Larimer County Personnel Policy Manual to permit the selection of these employees/clients based on program eligibility criteria and require as a condition of employment that these employees are subject to the policies and procedures of the program, as well as consider that these employees to be "at will" employees and are not entitled to disciplinary, grievance or lay off rights.

Motion carried 2-0.

3. REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL .5 FTE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Ms. Morgan and Mr. Legg came before the Board to request an additional .5 FTE Senior Office Clerk and approve reclassification of an existing .5 FTE Secretary II to Senior Office Clerk (Planning Meeting Coordinator) to form 1.0 FTE. Ms. Morgan emphasized that funding would only be needed for the .5 FTE Senior Office Clerk. Commissioner Disney inquired as to how the Planning Meeting Coordinator position would fit in with the consultant already retained; Mr. Legg responded that the Planning Meeting Coordinator would be in a support position to the consultant. The Board requested the Planning Department to submit an organizational chart of the Planning Department. Mr. Keister stated the $200,000 for the Work Program has been set aside, but not appropriated and will require an amendment to the budget. The funding for the .5 FTE Senior Office Clerk would need to be in addition to the $200,000 already set aside.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve funding for an additional .5 FTE Senior Office Clerk and approve reclassification of an existing .5 FTE Secretary II to Senior Office Clerk (Planning Meeting Coordinator) to form 1.0 FTE.

Motion carried 2-0.

At this time, Commissioner Duvall joined the meeting.

4. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE TIMBERLINE ROAD EXTENSION: A Resolution supporting the completion of the Choices 95 Timberline Extension Project was presented to the Board for approval and the Chair's signature. Commissioner Duvall posed the question to Chair Disney and Commissioner Clarke if this project is considered a high priority for the Board or if there are other projects the Board would rather be undertaken. A discussion of various projects ensued with respect to traffic flow in the City of Fort Collins. Commissioner Clarke stated that extending Timberline Road would enhance the response time of emergency personnel.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the Resolution Supporting the Completion of the Choices 95 Timberline Extension Project, and authorize the Chair to sign same.

Motion carried 3-0.

R95-17g RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE COMPLETION OF THE CHOICES 95 TIMBERLINE EXTENSION PROJECT.

5. FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION SLIDE SHOW: Mr. Lancaster presented a slide show and accompanying speech to be used by the Commissioners at meetings with various groups showing a variety of sites within Larimer County as an introduction for a discussion emphasizing the framework for action concepts. Commissioner Disney suggested producing an audio tape to accompany the slide show. Ms. Hart will contact Mr. Will Hewitt to create an audio tape for the slide show. A discussion of specific pictures and charts resulted. Commissioner Duvall requested Mr. Lancaster to highlight certain slides to emphasize the framework concepts. Ms. Hart and Mr. Lancaster will make the suggested changes prior to the Commissioners meeting to be held in Wellington next week. Mr. Lancaster will circulate the script to the Commissioners for their review.

6. WORKSESSION:

-- Letter from Michael Shultz: Chair Disney gave a brief overview of the history behind the letter written by Mr. Shultz. Mr. Lancaster will follow up on Mr. Shultz's letter.

-- Items for Policy Worksession: Mr. Lancaster stated the agenda items for the Policy Worksession will include: 1) Discussion of Environmental Advisory Board Recommendations; and 2) Discussion of Performance Appraisal of Commissioners Appointed Officials.

-- Items for Next Weeks Standing Meetings: The Board instructed Mr. Lancaster to inform Mr. Jacobs of the topics for discussion for the Personnel Standing Meeting. The Board requested Mr. Lancaster to add to the agenda for the next standing meeting with Mr. Barnett a review of the tasks involved with re-working the Larimer County Land Use Guide. The Board also requested that Mr. Anderson and Mr. MacFarlane attend the next Public Works Standing Meeting to review several topics. Mr. Lancaster stated Mr. Anderson will present the Facilities Study Committee's recommendation at next week's Administrative Matters.

-- Meeting with Mr. Willard: The Board instructed Ms. Hart to arrange a luncheon or breakfast meeting between Mr. James Willard with the Thompson R-2J School District, the Commissioners and Mr. Jacobs. Ms. Hart stated there are no invitations to review this week.

7. COMMISSIONERS REPORTS: Commissioner Duvall mentioned her attendance at the 125th anniversary party for Colorado State University. Chair Disney briefly discussed the Environmental Advisory Board meeting, stating 4 to 5 citizens attended the meeting as well as meeting with concerned individuals of Berthoud regarding the Berthoud water supply.

8. DOCUMENT REVIEW: The following documents, of a routine nature, were considered by the Board:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke that the Board approve the Minutes for the week of January 30, 1995 and the Schedule for the week of February 13, 1995, as submitted.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the following miscellaneous documents: McMurry Minor Residential Development Plat and Turner Minor Residential Development Plat.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to St. Louis Liquors - 6% - Loveland, CO. and Sandy's - 3.2% - Fort Collins CO. County Approval was granted to Total #2743 - 3.2% - Loveland, Colorado; and Aspen Lodge - 6% - Estes Park, Colorado.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the following document:

C95-09 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS (Family Preservation

Services for youth referred by the Probation Department.)

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m.




PUBLIC HEARING ON "THE PLAN FOR THE REGION BETWEEN

FORT COLLINS AND LOVELAND" AND JOINT MEETING WITH THE

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

(#198 A & B)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. in the Fort Collins City Council Chambers for a Joint Meeting with the Larimer County Planning Commission. Chair Disney presided and Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Planning Commission Members present were: Steve Johnson, Vern Sunset, Kay Carter, Jim Hoeven, Mike Doten, Linda Stanley, and Wendell Amos. Also present were Planning Director John Barnett and Jill Bennett, Comprehensive Planner. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. Welcome and Introductions: Chair Disney welcomed every one attending the hearing tonight and the County Commissioners and Planning Commissioners Members were introduced.

2. Explanation of Hearing Process: Chair Disney stated that the purpose of tonight's hearing is to obtain public input on the proposed "Plan for the Region between Fort Collins and Loveland" and he emphasized that no decision will be made by the Board on the Plan tonight. Chair Disney stated that there will be a second public hearing regarding this "Plan for the Region" in Loveland on February 23, 1995; he noted that written comments on the Plan will be taken until February 24 until 4:00 p.m. by the County Planning Department. Chair Disney further stated that on March 6, 1995, the County Commissioners will consider making a recommendation regarding the Plan to the Planning Commission who will then consider taking final action on the Plan at their regular meeting on March 15, 1995.

3. Presentation of Slide Show of the proposed Plan: Ms. Bennett introduced Clark Mapes from the City of Fort Collins Planning Department, and Deb Pearson from the City of Loveland, and noted that development of this Plan has been a three jurisdiction project. Ms. Bennett presented a slide show of the proposed "Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland". Ms. Bennett stated that citizen focus groups developed a vision summary regarding community identify and visual separation, private property rights, and consideration of natural, rural and agricultural areas. She reviewed the Citizen's Corridor Task Force (comprised of 37 members) Recommendations, which are to: 1) Incorporate a conservation plan; 2) Enhance separate identities; 3) Support transportation system data; and 4) Wherever possible, roads should be designed with unique character; 5) Devaluation of property values through government regulation without compensation is unacceptable. Ms. Bennett presented maps of the two scenarios of the Plan noting that some of the key concepts of the Preferred Land Use Scenario are: 1) Establish Fossil Creek Reservoir as a regional open space resource; 2) Protect the Poudre River floodplain as a regional open space resource and preserve the rural open character that now exists along the major roadway corridors; and 3) Recognize the foothills and the Dakota Hogback as a significant visual and open space resource. Ms. Bennett stated that the primary difference between the two scenarios is that even though the Alternative scenario achieves many of the same goals as the Preferred, it does so by guilding development patterns rather than focusing on maintenance of open space, either through acquisition or some other method and the Alternative map shows more clusters of residential development. Ms. Bennett stated that to make the Plan happen, we need to: 1) Adopt the Plan; 2) Amend the Intergovernmental Agreements; 3) Develop strategy for property acquisition; 4) Amend existing regulations and policy documents in each jurisdiction; and 5) Establish intergovernmental framework. As requested by the elected officials, Ms. Bennett reviewed the list of priority projects: 1) Work with landowners in the Fossil Creek and southwest foothills sub areas; 2) Consider innovative land use regulations, such as, clustering and transfer development rights ; 3) Develop design and access at the multiple area; 4) Implementing the Airport Master Plan. In summary, Ms. Bennett read a quote from Ian McHarg: "Planned growth is more desirable than unplanned growth and more profitable; and public and private powers can work as partners in a process to realize the plan".

At this time, Commissioner Clarke left the hearing to attend the Parks Board Meeting.

4. Questions from the Board and Planning Commission: Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Bennett if they were envisioning that the Citizens Task Force will remain active in the implementation of this Plan; Ms. Bennett responded that they are talking about working directly with small groups of landowners and working with those people who will be affected by the implementation. Mr. Amos asked if any of the members of the citizens groups that came up with the recommendations were from this particular corridor area; Ms. Bennett responded affirmatively. Ms. Stanley asked if this Plan is approved, will both the Preferred and Alternative scenarios be included; Ms. Bennett responded affirmatively. Ms. Stanley asked what sort of commitment do we have that the Preferred scenario will be the likely outcome; Ms. Bennett responded that the key will be in the implementation. The Preferred scenario points more clearly to achieving all the goals and the Alternative scenario is also a possible outcome that achieves most of the goals.

5. Public Testimony: At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment. Louis Swift, one of the larger property owners residing on the north shore of the Fossil Creek Reservoir and member of the Corridor Task Force, stated that he believes that much of the Plan was developed by the planners and not the members of the Corridor group or citizens. Bob Everitt, developer, stated that the County wants to be careful that they don't send the message to large quality industries that we want you to come but we won't provide a place for you to live; he cautioned that they not go beyond the point of reason with green areas and open space. Scott Mason, President Citizen Planners, stated that their group endorses the Preferred scenario of the Plan and they are also interested in preserving the foothills, wildlife habitat, and agricultural lands between the two communities. Dallas Horton, another large property owner on Fossil Creek Reservoir, stated in general he supports the concept of an open corridor between the two cities. Bobbie Douglas, Task Force Member, has lived in this area for over 20 years and is very upset with the possibility of high density around them; they appreciate the lifestyle they have and want to keep it that way. She also wants the low-density Preferred scenario. David Roy supports the Preferred scenario. Glen Colton, member Corridor Task Force, supports the Preferred scenario and stated that 80% of the people in Fort Collins think that Larimer County is growing too fast. Duane Rennels, Board Member of the Citizens for the Recognition and Preservation of Private Property Rights, stated that protection is a very important right and he doesn't disagree with the concept of the corridor and he doesn't disagree that to a certain point development needs to help pay its way; however, he does disagree with the magnitude of the map and noted that over 60% of the land in Larimer County is in public hands and the more land that is in public hands, the less tax base and who is going to pay the bills? Steve Anderson, farmer west of Berthoud, stated that it is time for staff to explain the concept of TDR's and arbitrary agricultural preserves. Kelly Ohlson, former member Fort Collins City Council, commented on comments made previously with reference to "too much green" and "too much public land". He noted that except for the Soderburg Ranch, the County has spent almost nothing on open space and land acquisition in the history of Larimer County. He further stated that all studies show that development costs government ten times more than what is ever returned in taxes over the cost for maintaining lands in an open and natural state. He noted there are two ways this Plan is going to be achieved: 1) Public purchase, and 2) Land use regulations. Mr. Ohlson stated that it is the charge of the Board to find the resources to provide adequate staff so the Plan is implemented. Harry Sauer, farmer residing in the corridor, supports the Preferred scenario if a funding mechanism was in place; however, until there is funding, the Alternative scenario should take precedent. He stated that the elected officials have been promoting clustering and then applicants who come up with such a plan get turned down; the land owner is made to carry the burden of open space and view shed for the entire county. The statement of "Payment fair to the land owner" needs to be changed to "Pay fair market value". Moby Wile, member of Citizens Against Ridgeline Development", stated he is very happy with the Plan and he commended everyone for all their hard work. John Knezovich stated that costs should be a part of the record and he advocates the purchase side of Mr. Ohlson's suggestion. However, he thinks it will be a $25 million expenditure for acquisition and to implement the Plan and a funding mechanism needs to be found. Kathy Kuhlman, member of the Focus Groups and Task Force, requested the Board not lose site of compatibility when approving the Plan. Brad Pace stated that ten years from now either of the two options will look good, even the Alternative, and he just hopes that something comes out of this planning effort.

At this time, Chair Disney asked if there was additional public testimony; there being none, he asked for Board and Planning Commission discussion. Ms. Amos noted that we have a "Catch 22" situation here - people say, if you don't tell us what you are going to spend the money for, we are not in favor of the Plan and if you don't have a Plan, we don't know how much money it will take. He stated that in this situation, the County and Planning Staff chose to devise and work up a plan that meets with the majority of the participants in the Task Force and the implementation will come later. Ms. Stanley added for the record that you cannot apply for grants, such as for Colorado Lottery funds or "GO Colorado", until there is some sort of plan, and that is why it is necessary to have a plan and then to work on the implementation. As requested by Mr. Anderson, Mr. Barnett explained TDR's, by using the example of the McKee Trust PUD proposal, and Ms. Bennett explained agricultural preserves to the group.

6. Adjournment: The Planning Commission and the Board individually expressed their appreciation to the audience for their comments, noting that they were helpful and constructive.

The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1995

MEETING FOR APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE

COVERAGE FOR 1995

(#198 @ 1500)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with Ralph Jacobs, Human Resources Director. Chair Pro-Tem Clarke presided and Commissioner Duvall was present. Also present were: Patsi Maroney, Compensation and Benefits Specialist; Jane Jensen, William Mercer Company; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mr. Jacobs stated that the purpose of today's meeting is to obtain the Board's approval and signature on three documents needed to finalize the 1995 CIGNA Health Insurance Contract. Mr. Jacobs noted that the documents have been reviewed and approved as to form by Assistant County Attorney Marla Hehn.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board sign the three documents to finalize the 1995 CIGNA Health Insurance Contract, as presented, and authorize the Chair to sign same.

Motion carried 2 - 0.












C95-10 CONTRACT AND ATTACHMENTS BETWEEN THE BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CIGNA HEALTH FOR 1995

The meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m.



______________________________________

JIM DISNEY, CHAIR

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

( S E A L )

ATTEST:



_______________________________________

Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk




_______________________________________

Aimee Jensen, Deputy County Clerk



_______________________________________

William Louis Gebauer, Deputy County Clerk

February 6, 1995