PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995
(#241 & #239)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular
session with John Barnett, Director of Planning. Chair Disney
presided and Commissioner Duvall was present; Commissioner Clarke
was detained in Glenwood Springs due to weather. Also present
were: Carol Evans, Planner; Russ Legg, Chief Planner; Rex Burns,
Harry Lynam and Elaine Spencer of Engineering; Jerry Blehm, Director
of Environmental Health; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney.
Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
Chair Disney noted that the Board has been requested to table
the Wiant MRD (#94-EX0604) until Monday, March 27, 1995.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board table the Wiant MRD #94-EX0604)
until Monday, March 27, 1995 until 9 a.m., as requested by the
Motion carried 2 - 0.
1. FRY MRD #94-EX0588): SW 1/4; 30-04-69; NORTH OF COUNTY
ROAD 4, 1/2 MILE WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 23E; 9.73 ACRES;
2 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING (03-20-95).
This is a request to divide 9.7 acres into 2 lots of 2.3 and 7.276
acres, with one existing house for a new single family dwelling.
Ms. Evans proposed a change to condition #1 of the staff report
that a lot sale restriction and building permit hold be placed
on the lot so the improvements can be spaced over a period of
time, instead of requiring all improvements to be completed and
approved prior to recording of the Final Plat. Ms. Evans also
stated that the applicant wishes to discuss the fire protection
requirement with the Board. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposed
Fry MRD is consistent with the requirements for minor residential
developments, as contained in the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution,
and with the FA-1 Zoning District; 2) The surrounding area has
been developed into subdivisions, exemption lots and minor residential
developments over a period of more than 20 years. There doesn't
appear to be options for re-development of the parcels in the
immediate area surrounding the proposed Fry MRD; 3) The approval
of the Fry MRD, with certain conditions, should not result in
any significant negative impacts on surrounding properties, the
natural environment or the provision of services and transportation.
Virgil Fry, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that his
property is 50 feet short of an existing fire hydrant. Mr. Fry
stated that, in his opinion, for him to install an additional
fire hydrant on his property doesn't make sense because the fire
station is nine miles away and it would take too long for the
fire department to reach his house; therefore, he requested the
Board allow him to install fire sprinklers on his property, noting
that they would activate in 16 seconds. Much discussion followed,
and the conditions of approval were amended as follows:
The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the Fry MRD, with
the following conditions: 1) Installation and completion of all
required subdivision improvements shall be the responsibility
of the developer. These improvements include the common access
road, closing the existing access, capping existing gas and water
service lines, installing new gas and water service lines to the
existing improvements, and installation of a fire hydrant. A
lot sale restriction shall be recorded with the Final Plat and,
when the improvements are completed and accepted, a request shall
be submitted to the County Commissioners to release that lot sale
restriction. Construction plans must be signed by County Engineering,
Berthoud Fire District and Little Thompson Water District. Three
copies of the signed plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to beginning any work or prior to recording the
Final Plat; 2) The common access and utility easement shall be
platted with a 40' width and the existing driveway shall be closed.
Additional right-of-way for County Road 4 in the amount of 20'
shall be dedicated on the plat; this right-of-way shall not be
shown as an "outlet" on the plat. The new access shall
be paved for a distance of 50' from the centerline of County Road
4; the remaining surface can be gravel; 3) The applicant shall
meet the requirements of the Little Thompson Water District regarding
payment of fees and completion of improvements. Written notice
from the Water District that all required fees have been paid
shall be submitted prior to recording the Final Plat; 4) The Final
Plat shall contain the following notes: A) Uses in Minor Residential
Developments are limited to single family residential and permitted
accessory uses; B) Engineering footings and foundations will be
required for all construction on these lots; C) Radon tests shall
be conducted in new residences after the structure is enclosed,
but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Test results
shall be submitted to the Planning Department; D) The Larimer
County Park Fee shall be paid at building permit issuance for
new residences on these lots; E) The Section 2.8 Road Fee of $415
shall be paid at building permit issuance for Lot 2; 5) School
fees of $8 shall be paid prior to recording the Final Plat. Recording
fees shall be paid by the applicant; 6) All conditions of approval
shall be completed and the Final Plat recorded by September 21,
1995 or this approval shall be null and void.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Fry MRD,
with the conditions as amended, and require that the applicants
meet the requirements of the Berthoud Fire Department to install
a fire hydrant on their property.
Chair Disney stated that he prefers the applicant install a sprinkler
system as, in his opinion, it would provide better protection
for his property. It was noted by staff at this time that the
letter from the Berthoud Fire Protection District did state that
if the water line cannot support the fire hydrant, then a sprinkler
system would be acceptable.
Motion failed 1 - 1; Chair Disney dissenting. Therefore, it
was suggested this matter be tabled until Commissioner Clarke
has had time to review the minutes and testimony regarding this
item and then vote to break the tie.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board table the Fry Minor Residential
Development (#94-EX0588) until Monday, March 27, 1995.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
2. REVISED VISTA VIEW ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
REZONING, & MASTER PLAN & PRELIMINARY PLAT (#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;
R-2 RESIDENTIAL ZONING (03-20-95),
Mr. Legg provided the background for today's continued hearing,
noting that revisions to the Findings and Resolution approving
the Master Plan, Preliminary Phase Plan, and the Rezoning of Vista
View Estates Planned Unit Development (PUD) were discussed at
length last Monday, March 13, 1995; at that time, the discussion
was continued until the next day for the attorneys and Mr. Barnett
to try to resolve some of the issues. Mr. Legg continued that
after a 4 1/2 hour session many, but not all, of the conditions
were revised. During Administrative Matters on March 15, 1995,
Mr. Barnett informed the Board that further discussion of the
revisions will be continued until today to try and resolve the
remaining issues. Mr. Legg noted that the significant unresolved
issues are whether a tot lot is to be provided in the common open
space, who will be responsible for the individual lot landscaping,
and the location of the school bus shelter.
Roger Clark, attorney for the applicant, stated that several other
issues may also be reviewed and discussed today; such as, 1) Location
of the fence along the east side of the property line - he noted
that if it is going to be on the property line, they will need
to get appropriate easements from the parties on the other side;
2) Language in the covenants relating to the sales office - he
noted that the developer agrees there will only be one sales office
from which all builders will operate; 3) School bus shelter -
he noted the developer has no problem locating it on the west
side if a suitable location can be found and it is approved by
the school district; 4) Reference in the revised site plan will
be removed that the fence along the east side will be constructed
in Phase II of the improvements and the Final Plat will state
that it will be constructed in Phase I; 5) Detached garages will
be subject to the same height limitations which affect the rest
of the property and the developer has agreed to a maximum size
of those detached garages of 500 sq. ft.
Mike Schultz, attorney for several of the residents in Horseshoe
View Estates, wanted it noted for the record that this is a continued
public hearing on the Final Plat for Vista View Estates PUD and
requested that all prior comments be made a part of the record.
Mr. Schultz reviewed the issues with the Board that were resolved
in last week's 4 1/2 session: 1) The sales office - it was requested
that a statement be included that regardless of the number of
builders in the subdivision, there will be only one sales office;
Mr. Clarke agreed; 2) The manufactured housing - they have asked
that the term 'manufactured housing' be included with mobile homes
and modular homes as not being allowed; Mr. Clarke agreed; 3)
The architectural fence - if the fence is off the property line,
a "no man's land" will be created and who will be responsible
for maintenance; Mr. Clark agreed that the covenants will state
that the homeowner's association will be obligated to maintain
that area; 4) The detached garages - original condition in the
F & R says that accessory structures can't have more than
120 sq. ft.; Mr. Schultz stated that the neighbors have agreed,
as a compromise, to allow the detached garages but restrictions
need to be defined as to size and appearance. An additional issue
Mr. Schultz raised was the requirement of a Development Agreement,
as recommended by the Loveland Planning Commission, which would
incorporate all the conditions that the county could enforce against
the developer; he noted that the applicant agreed to this in a
letter to the Planning Commission, but the staff chose not to
recommended it. Mr. Schultz thinks this agreement is important
to insure sure that the PUD regulations are enforced to protect
neighbor against neighbor.
Sandy Gleitch discussed the location of the school bus shelter
with the Board; she noted that if the bus shelter is located where
it is being proposed, it will require that 45 children cross
the street to reach the shelter and only 10 will not. She stated
that it should be located on the west side of Monroe. Paul Bonomo
thanked the Board for allowing this review of the F & R; he
discussed the Final Plat conditions having the same conditions
of the Preliminary Plat and he discussed the amenities to be placed
in the central park area. Mr. Bonomo stated that the residents
want to see this park happen, it was promised and was probably
an important point in the approval of the Preliminary Plat; he
submitted transcripts of tapes of the previous meetings on this
matter. Kathy Kuhlman discussed the fence issue and also informed
the Board that the drainage swell is to be located entirely on
the Vista View side so it will not encroach on the neighbors on
the other side; Mr. Legg responded that it will be six feet west
of the property line. At this time, Roger Clark noted that
the developer has agreed to place the fence approximately two
inches from the property line. There was further discussion
of the landscaping; Ms. Kuhlman requested clarification about
setbacks and recommended that as the road on 52nd Street is to
be used only for emergency vehicles, it should be gated. Mr.
Legg responded that they will need to get the Fire Department's
approval for this. Ms. Kuhlman also asked that the temporary
road that is a part of the Phasing Plan be vacated when Phase
III starts; she requested clarification regarding who will be
providing water to this subdivision; Mr. Legg responded that it
will be the City of Loveland. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding
all the unresolved issues and agreement was reached on the majority
of the issues.
At this time, the public-comment portion of the hearing was closed,
except for questions from the Board. There was much discussion
regarding the requirement of the tot lot; after consultation with
the developer, Mr. Clark stated that the developer has offered
to contribute $5,000 to the homeowner's association to provide
amenities in the open space area. Mr. Legg suggested that the
county impose a restriction on the $5,000 that it cannot be spent
until the homeowner's association is no longer controlled by the
developer. Commissioner Duvall asked if the conditions of the
Loveland Planning Commission should be met since this site is
in the UGA; Mr. Legg responded that some conditions should be
met and also the Larimer County standards and requirements need
to be met. There was discussion of the location of the bus shelter
and it was agreed by everyone that it will be located on the southwest
corner of Meadow Creek Lane and Monroe. The matter of the detached
garages was discussed at length.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the final landscape
and site plan and the Final Plat for Vista View Estates Planned
Unit Development (#94-MS0505), with the addition of the following
clarifications: 1) Individual lot landscaping will be required
and the homeowner's association will be responsible for completion,
as notated in the covenants; 2) The developer agrees to give $5,000
to the homeowner's association toward the development of a community
park, with a restriction that this money will not be spent until
the homeowner's association is controlled by the new residents,
not the developer; in addition, the homeowner's association will
be responsible for the maintenance of the facilities in the open
space area and Larimer County will not release the collateral
until evidence is provided that the $5,000 has been given to the
homeowners association and park fees will still be collected in
full; 3) The school bus shelter will be located at the southwest
corner of Meadow Creek Lane and Monroe; 4) The detached garages
will be subject to the same height limitations as the main structures
and have the same architectural appearance as the primary structure.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
The meeting recessed at 12:00 p.m.
MEETING TO DISCUSS THE FAMILY EMERGENCY TEAM
(#240 & 241)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 2:00 p.m. in regular
session with the Family Emergency Team (FET). Chair Disney presided;
Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were:
Magistrate Joseph R. Coyte, District Court; Larry Abrahamson,
Chief Deputy District Attorney, Juvenile Division; Lieutenant
Bob Klinger, Loveland Police Department; Sheriff Richard E. Shockley;
Captain Gary Darling, Sheriff's Department; Paul H. Cooper, Community
Corrections Director; Brent Nittmann, Youth Services Bureau Program
Manager; Carla Turner, Family Emergency Team; Sergeant John Higney,
Colorado State University Police Department; Doug Keasling, Social
Services Director; Dr. Keith F. Olson, Mental Health Executive
Director; Jim Geis, Probation Department; Timothy W. Walsh, Probation
Services Chief; Chief of Police Bill Wegener, Berthoud Police
Department; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; and Frank
Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, W. Gebauer.
The group discussed current concerns with the coordination of
the Family Emergency Team (FET) with other agencies. Mr. Nittmann
presented a new organizational chart of FET. Mr. Lancaster, Mr.
Nittmann, Ms. Turner, and other members of the group noted that
their recent meetings had improved the process of deciding to
hold a juvenile for detention. They noted that the State sets
the criteria that FET must use in these cases. Ms. Turner added
that Adams County will not accept youth into the juvenile detention
center on the basis of municipal warrants. Magistrate Coyte stated
that he has been highly satisfied with FET's appearances before
the Court. He added that the current detention center cannot
hold all youth offenders in detention for 48 hours before their
first court appearance.
Mr. Abrahamson, Sheriff Shockley, Chief Wegener, Sergeant Higney,
and Captain Darling expressed law enforcement's concern that FET
is functioning as an advocate for juveniles. Mr. Abrahamson stated
that the public sometimes believes that the justice system is
not concerned about juvenile crime. He added, however, that FET
cannot address all of these concerns. Sheriff Shockley said that
there are ongoing discussions with the governor that address these
issues. Mr. Abrahamson said that FET might be able to make better
use of the flexibility available to them. He also stated that
sanctions against uncooperative parents are possible, and that
the Court may take into account the youth's prior behavior and
the family situation. However, he noted that officials often
do not recommend these sanctions to the Court. He concluded that
it is necessary for all agencies concerned to make such suggestions
as a group. Mr. Nittmann agreed that FET may be more helpful
to officers by providing more information about the history and
progress of cases.
The Board unanimously expressed continued support for a local
juvenile intake facility. Mr. Lancaster stated that perhaps the
group needs to spend more attention to the philosophical issues
related to juvenile detention.
The meeting recessed at 3:45 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ROCKY MOUNTAIN GATEWAY
MASTER PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PHASE PLAN FOR PHASE I
(#242, #243, #244 & #245)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7:00 p.m. for
a Public Hearing in Estes Park, Colorado. Chair Disney presided;
Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were:
John Barnett, Director of Planning; Jerry White, Zoning Administrator;
Jerry Blehm, Director of Environmental Health; and Jeannine Haag,
Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
Chair Disney introduced the county staff, outlined the format
and rules for the meeting, and for the record, made several disclosures
regarding tonight's meeting; such as, he is a member of the Rocky
Mountain Nature Association; he has had several conversations
with Homer Rouse, former Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National
Park, regarding the concept of the project and the access code
of the Colorado Department of Transportation; a conversation with
Mike Bennett of Congressman Wayne Allard's Office in which he
asked Chair Disney if he would be willing to go to Washington
D.C., if this is approved, to testify in front of a Congressional
Hearing; a telephone conversation with Jeff Barker who is in support
of the project; an office visit from Dan Mullison who opposes
the project; and a telephone conversation with Lael Demuth, attorney
for the applicant, regarding some concerns Mr. Demuth had about
the project. Chair Disney noted that he explained to all these
persons that the Board is required to remain objective and neutral
during these conversations. Commissioner Duvall disclosed that
in an attempt to learn more about the wildlife issue, she had
a field trip with Mike Sanem and heard his concerns; and also
spoke with Rick Spowart of the Colorado Division of Wildlife in
regard to his concerns about the wildlife. Commissioner Clarke
addressed the group and stated he considers it a great privilege
and honor to be in Estes Park tonight.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN GATEWAY MASTER PLAN AND PRELIMINARY
PHASE PLAN FOR PHASE I (#93-MS0343): 10.51 ACRES; 3 LOTS;
T-TOURIST ZONING (03-20-95).
This is a request for approval of a Planned Unit Development Master
Plan to develop 10.51 acres with a National Park Visitors Center,
rental cabins, convenience store, laundromat, gift shop, restaurant,
livery, employee housing, and motel and for approval of a Preliminary
Phase Plan for Phase I and a variance for parking. Mr. White
provided the project description and reviewed the background of
the project and the major concerns and issues. Mr. White informed
the Board that the development on the north side of Highway 34
has been eliminated from the plan, the convenience store will
be incorporated into the lodge and no gasoline service is proposed;
also the amphitheater which was proposed originally, has been
eliminated. Mr. White noted that in addition to those entities
mentioned in the staff report in support of this proposal, additional
letters of support have been received from the Estes Park League
of Women Voters, Estes Valley Improvement Association, Art Wilcox,
etc. A letter expressing concern regarding the intensity of the
project was received from John Fielder, photographer, in addition
to a letter of opposition from the Citizens to Save Fall River
Bighorn. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposal is compatible
with the commercial campground to the north. The National Park
Service indicates the proposal is compatible with Rocky Mountain
National Park, which is adjacent to the proposal; 2) The proposal
is generally consistent with the intent and purposes of the County
Land Use Plan, PUD Resolution, and the Zoning Resolution; 3) The
project is supported by the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley
Improvement Association; 4) Rocky Mountain National Park is adjacent
to the project and will benefit from the construction of the Visitors'
Center on this site. The Park Service has strongly supported
the development and encourages the County to approve it as presented;
5) Reviewing agencies' comments have been considered in the conditions
of approval which are proposed; 6) The State Division of Water
Resources indicates the project may not be developed until the
applicant receives approval of the State Water Court; 7) If developed
according to the plans and conditions of approval, all technical
requirements of the County and other agencies can be met; 8) According
to information provided by the applicant, traffic generated by
the new development will not increase more than 20% beyond what
existed prior to 1992; 9) A commercial development presently exists
on the site; additional development was present prior to 1992.
At this time, Commissioner Duvall submitted additional correspondence
opposing the project from the Poudre Canyon Group of the Sierra
Club, Lori Frost, the Indian Peaks Group of Sierra Club, and from
Impact Optics and Imports. Questions from the Board were directed
to Mr. White regarding whether the traffic impact study took into
consideration that this proposed use would be year-round instead
of seasonal, density, possibility of the 60,000 gallon water tank
freezing in the winter, certain uses being grandfathered in, drainage
of water from the parking lots, etc. Ms. Haag responded that,
according to the current zoning regulations, any use which has
been discontinued for a period of one year cannot be re-introduced
or grandfathered in. Mr. Blehm indicated that a drainage plan
has been approved by Mr. Burns of the Larimer County Engineering
Department and he noted that the goal of the developer is to retain
all surface drainage on site.
Mr. Thorp of Thorp Associates of Estes Park, representing the
applicant H. W. Stewart and Family, provided the Board with additional
facts concerning the proposed redevelopment. Mr. Thorp noted
that the property is presently zoned T-Tourist and has been for
over 60 years providing various tourist-oriented accommodations.
Mr. Thorp reviewed the history of the site and noted that the
original proposal did not include "gifting" of the Visitor's
Center to the National Park; however, Shirley Scroggin, one of
the owners of the H.W. Stewart Family businesses, proposed the
idea of developing a trust from her interest in the family's business
to be used for the construction and maintenance of a National
Park Visitor's Center. Mr. Thorp stated that this project is
a great example of an owner working with the Park Service to provide
public service and information to the public. Questions from
the Board to Mr. Thorp followed.
Sheridan Steele, acting superintendent of Rocky Mountain National
Park, addressed the Board and reviewed the number of visitors
entering the Park in 1994; he noted that many enter and travel
throughout the Park without receiving adequate information about
the available facilities, wildlife watching opportunities, wildlife
watching etiquette, recreational activities, and safety. Mr.
Steele noted that in 1989 the Park completed a conceptual plan
for a Visitor's Center which, as proposed, would cost over $2
million and would have disturbed over two acres of open land and
impacted wildlife habitat. Questions to Mr. Steele from the
Board followed and there was discussion of the possibility of
conservation easements on the north side. Rick Spowart, Wildlife
Manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife in the Estes Park
area, addressed the stress problem in the bighorn sheep; he noted
that the herd has been reduced by one-half because of pneumonia
and other diseases and stated that there was no reproduction in
the herd last year due to disease. Mr. Spowart also stated that
other factors contributing to stress in the herd are related to
human interaction, such as: being chased by over-zealous wildlife
watchers, photographers, pets, being caught in fences, hit by
cars, etc.; he also noted that every year there are two or three
sheep killed along this road and, if this development is approved,
he advised not approving anything which will entice the sheep
to cross the road. Mr. Spowart described the area from Nicky's
Restaurant down from the park boundary as critical winter range
and very important habitat to the sheep and he noted that the
bighorn sheep are not as tolerant of human activity as other animals.
At this time, Mike Sanem, member of the Citizens to Save the Fall
River Bighorn and main spokesman for the opposition side to this
proposal, stated that his property borders Rocky Mountain National
Park on the north and the east for 2800 feet and the applicant's
property on the north side of Highway 34. Mr. Sanem expressed
the opposition's concerns regarding the effect this project could
have on wildlife and specifically the bighorn sheep; he noted
that from the beginning of this project, the group's philosophy
has been to protect the wildlife from the higher density, the
widened highway, the year-round tourist activity, etc. Mr.
Sanem asked the Park Service how their endorsement of a large
retail development on their boundary could ever serve the purpose
of setting an example to all the other landowners at or near the
park boundaries; he stated that during other meetings and in written
record they have recommended that the Park Service, and various
other conservation groups, instead seize this one-time opportunity
to fairly purchase Mr. Carle's burned-out parcel and in concert
with his 45 acres and the city-owned 80 acres, they could preserve
possibly forever almost a mile of the Fall River Valley at the
park boundary. Mr. Sanem submitted photos of bighorn sheep on
Highway 34 to the Board to show how much the sheep use that road
and all within 100 to 500 feet of the proposed project and in
the area where the highway will be widened and where the speed
limit is currently 45 mph. Mr. Sanem stated that support of
this project from many people is principally because of the Visitor's
Center portion of the development and yet that portion of the
development is only 8% of the total square footage. Therefore,
Mr. Sanem's final recommendation to the Board is that since much
of the support and endorsements for this project and its density
are due to the supposed certainty that a Visitor's Center will
be on site, he asked that approval be conditional and contingent
upon the owner actually implementing the trust funding and that
the funding of Congressman Allard's bill actually be passed by
Congress; and, if that bill isn't approved, or if there isn't
going to be a Visitor's Center on site for any other reason, then
Mr. Sanem suggested that this process and debate begin again
with the new circumstances.
Following Mr. Sanem's opening remarks in opposition to the proposal,
Brad Edwards, representing the Poudre Canyon Sierra Club, read
a 7-page document citing their reasons for their opposition, and
Anda Kiely read aloud a letter from John Fielder relating the
effects of this proposal on the ecosystem. Other persons speaking
in opposition were: Frank Normali, Judy Gunkler, Elizabeth Shelton,
and Madeline Framson. These persons all cited their concerns
for the bighorn sheep, displeasure regarding the proposal to widen
the road, preservation of our state symbol (the bighorn sheep)
and part of our heritage for future generations, etc.; they also
suggested the speed limit be reduced, requested the posting of
wildlife signs, and they recommended that the Visitor's Center
be located in the center of the Town of Estes Park.
At this time, the hearing was opened to the other members of the
audience and they were requested to limit their remarks to 3 minutes.
Those speaking in support of the proposal were Curt Buchholtz,
Executive Director of Rocky Mountain National Park Associates;
Homer Rouse, former Superintendent of the Rocky Mountain National
Park; Peter Hondius, Warren Clinton, operator of McGregor Lodge;
Dan Ludlum, adjacent campground manager; Cory Blackman, President
Estes Park Area Chamber of Commerce; and Jeff Barker, President
Estes Park Accommodations Association. Lael Demuth, attorney
for the H.W. Stewart Family, noted he is the author of the Scroggin
Trust and he offered to clear up any misconceptions about the
Trust. He addressed four legal deficiencies in the conditions
as adopted by the Planning Commission. Mike Bennett, District
Representative for Congressman Wayne Allard, provided a brief
background regarding the introduction of legislation concerning
this proposal in Washington and noted it has been placed on hold
pending local approval; however, once approved, Congressman Allard
has been advised by others in Congress to move immediately on
this legislation. Mr. Bennett noted that he is optimistic about
this project being passed because no additional appropriate of
money is involved in this legislation. Questions from the Board
to Mr. Demuth and discussion followed and clarifications were
made regarding temporary employee housing being torn down when
permanent employee housing is provided; the annexation requirement,
water decree, etc. Mr. Blehm noted that state regulations require
the Board to insure there is an adequate water supply and the
county will need a letter from the State Engineer stating that
this development has an adequate water supply. Commissioner
Duvall stated that she does not want to let go of the conservation
easement on the north side as it is very important that the north
side remain open so it will not be changed in the future; Mr.
Demuth stated to require that would be in violation of the Tiegard
Case. Commissioner Duvall stated that there needs to be some
guarantee that this land is never developed.
Rebecca Myers, member Citizens to Save Fall River Bighorn, stated
that this development is not progress, but a step backward.
Jeff Carter, disgruntled member of the Rocky Mountain Nature Association,
stated that the joint project is the right idea, but it is in
the wrong place, it should be closer to the town of Estes Park.
Betty Rex noted that she agrees with everything the opponents
have said tonight. Marybeth Rhoades believes we need the Visitor's
Center, but not all the other things. Mike Sanem revisited the
north side issue of the development and said this needs to be
clarified. Bryan Michener expressed concern about the wildlife
and noted that traffic is the biggest problem to the sheep.
Kristen Zumdome stated that we need to educate the people how
to act around wildlife. Scott Webermieyer spoke in support of
Mr. Thorp responded to comments and concerns by stating that the
whole planning process has been an effort to make the proposal
compatible with the site it is being built on; the family has
no intention of endangering the sheep, and this project will not
increase traffic on this road. He stated that the advantage
of this project is to educate people to stay in their cars and
not to chase the sheep up the hill. Mr. Thorp stated that the
family had the option of rebuilding what was there originally,
but they opted to take the higher road and to go to the National
Park and work with them directly. Mr. Thorp stated they would
love to see the highway not be widened and the reduction of the
speed limit in this area; he also noted that they have no intention
of proceeding with the development until they are sure they have
appropriate water and without approval of the Congress for the
Visitor's Center. Mr. Thorp further noted that they have spent
two years figuring out that what they are doing is appropriate
for this site, they have gone through an extensive review process,
and this project will be of value to this community for many years.
At this time the public hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's
comments: Commissioner Clarke noted that condition #16 clearly
states that the applicant will be held responsible for complying
with that condition that all development and use of the site shall
be consistent with Zoning File Exhibit A - the Master Plan and
Phase Plan which clearly shows that all the land north of the
road is not built on and is to remain open space as part of the
project. Commissioner Clarke stated that the county's legal
staff and planning staff have said this will remain undeveloped
and he is comfortable that this land is not going to be built
on with this PUD; he stated that education is very important and
he is supportive of this project. Commissioner Clarke further
added that in terms of the seasonal versus year-round opening,
if the Park Service decides there is enough demand to go year
round, it should remain open; in terms of the wider highway and
speed limit, he stated it would really enhance the quality of
life for the wildlife if the speed limit could be reduced to 25
m.p.h. With regard to widening the road, the State Department
of Transportation determines what shall be done; however, promised
that if this proposal does pass, the Board will have the opportunity
to suggest to them the possibility of reducing the speed limit.
Commissioner Clarke noted that the real problem is to make these
animals safer and, in his opinion, this project will not increase
the cars on the road, but it might slow them down. Commissioner
Clarke that no way would he consider down zoning, and with regard
to other concerns raised tonight, the water tank is already there
and the water decree is a non-issue; he summarized his remarks
by stating that this location makes sense, it is in the right
spot, has the right financing, and is a wonderful site design.
Commissioner Clarke stated that this is a good proposal and needs
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt the Staff Findings and Staff/Planning Commission Recommendations
and approve the Rocky Mountain Gateway Master Plan and Preliminary
Phase Plan for Phase I (#93-MS0343). .
Commissioner Duvall stated that she cannot support the motion;
she noted that Estes Park has wanted a year-round economy for
many years and, therefore, she felt it made sense to locate the
Visitor's Center in the town of Estes Park. Commissioner Duvall
stated she supported the need for a Visitor's Center and for wildlife
education, but not to be situated in a location that would damage
the wildlife habitat and herd about which it was educating.
Commissioner Duvall stated that we need to protect the wildlife
habitat and it is important that someone take the advocacy role
for the animals as the lifeblood of Rocky Mountain National Park.
Commissioner Duvall noted that staff has projected 20-40%
increased traffic due to this project and that she agrees with
lowering the speed limit and not widening the road; she stated
it is highly naive to think that this is the only development
that is going to occur up there if this is approved. Commissioner
Duvall stated that more protection must be built into the conditions
to protect the north lot; she argued for a decreased density--there
are too many unanswered questions. Commissioner Duvall stated
that if this motion passes, it should be contingent on congressional
approval; she proposed either the Board refer this proposal back
to the Planning Commission for further review of the conditions,
or deny it.
Chair Disney stated that both sides have very good points. He
supports the idea of suggesting to CDOT that they strongly consider
reduction of the speed limit in this area, or possibly the Board
pass a resolution making that recommendation. He still has questions
about the livery as "Dust and Odor Mitigation" doesn't
satisfy his concerns. He suggested adding a condition that when
the Health Department inspects the restaurant, they also inspect
the livery operation. He stated that he is going to support
the motion because he doesn't feel it will significantly increase
the impacts beyond what currently exists; he thinks it is an improvement
over what existed before the fire--it is not new development,
it is redevelopment.
Commissioner Duvall offered the following amendments to be added
to the motion and included as additional conditions: 1) Approval
is contingent upon Congressional approval of the partnership and
the Visitor's Center being constructed as a part of Phase I; 2)
The Board will recommend to the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) that there be no widening of the road at this site and
they will request reduction of the speed limit and that other
wildlife protection measures be imposed; and 3) Reduce the number
of horses to be maintained at the stable from 60 to 45. Discussion
among the Board followed and Chair Disney and Commissioner Clarke
agreed to the first two friendly amendments to be added to the
list of conditions, but did not agree to the third amendment.
MOTION TO PASS THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CLARKE
TO ADOPT THE STAFF FINDINGS AND STAFF/PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS
AND APPROVE THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN GATEWAY MASTER PLAN AND PRELIMINARY
PHASE PLAN FOR PHASE I (#93-MS0343), WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
Motion carried 2 - 1; Commissioner Duvall dissenting.
Therefore, the Staff/Planning Commission Recommendations for Approval, and corresponding conditions, were amended as follows: Approval of the variance to allow parking spaces smaller than 200 square feet; Approval of the Master Plan, with the following conditions: 1) The Preliminary Phase Plan for Phase II be presented to both the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners; 2) Prior to submittal of the Preliminary Phase Plan for Phase II, the applicant shall provide to the County and the Colorado Department of Transportation an updated traffic impact report, which will be used to determine whether the access plans must be re-designed in order to develop Phase. The applicant must provide an engineer's evaluation on the adequacy of parking, and recommendations for additional parking required for Phase II; 3) Approval of the Master Plan shall expire five years from date of final approval, unless extended by timely submittal of Phase Plans; Approval of the Preliminary Phase Plan for Phase I, with the following conditions: 1) Parking for the existing convenience store shall be allowed only within the designated 11 parking spaces south of the highway right-of-way. Roadside parking shall be eliminated. All parking shall be paved and marked; 2) The following improvements shall be in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: Landscaping in Phase I, improvements to Highway 34 in Phase I, internal access and parking, radon test results for buildings with dwelling areas; 3) The following improvements shall be in place and operational prior to issuance of a building permit other than a footing and foundation permit: Fire protection facilities and all utilities. Utilities shall be placed underground; 4) At the time of Final Phase Plan submittal, the following shall be provided: a) Written verification from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) that complete and final plans for all proposed highway improvements (including Phase II) have been submitted and approved by CDOT; b) Detailed plans for all fire protection facilities, both on-site and off-site; c) Detailed plans for all other improvements; d) Written verification from the Colorado Division of Water Resources that State requirements for provision of water have been met; e) Evidence of the right to utilize the proposed emergency access road; f) Erosion control plan as required by County Engineering; g) A revised landscape plan which fulfills the PUD requirement for screening of parking areas; 5) Approval is given only for the specific uses as proposed. Any change in use shall require approval by the County by amending the Phase Plan. Minor site design changes may be approved by the Planning Director; significant site design changes must be approved through an Amended PUD Phase Plan; 6) The existing cabins and mobile homes used for employee housing shall be removed within 60 days of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the employee housing in Phase II; 7) Total signage on the sight shall not exceed 300 square feet sign area; 8) The property owner is responsible for compliance with the submitted "Dust and Odor Mitigation Plan" for the livery; 9) All water, sewer, and food service requirements of the County Health Department must be met; 10) Applicant shall provide a report to the County Forester by a qualified arborist addressing the potential impacts of construction on the existing trees and a plan for the protection of those trees; 11) Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Division of Wildlife regarding feeding of animals, bear proofing trash containers, fencing, harassment of wildlife, and control of pets. Information regarding these issues shall be provided to guests; 12) Final Plat shall show additional right-of-way reservation of 25' (total half right-of-way of 75'). Additional right-of-way dedication may be required if determined to be necessary to accommodate the proposed improvements related to this project; 13) Owner shall sign an agreement with 90 days of Master Plan approval, agreeing to annex to Estes Park when eligible, if requested by the Town; 14) A maximum number of 60 horses shall be maintained at the stable; 15) Except as modified by the above conditions, all development and use of the site shall be consistent with Zoning File Exhibit A (Rocky Mountain Gateway Master Plan and Phase Plan (both dated November 15, 1994), and all PUD application material submitted by the applicant and his representatives); 16) Approval is contingent upon Congressional approval of the partnership and the Visitor's Center being constructed as a part of Phase I; 17) The Board will recommend to the Colorado Department of Transportation that there be no widening of the road at this site and will request reduction of the speed limit and other wildlife measures.
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995
STANDING MEETING WITH REX SMITH,
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
(#247 & 248)
The Board of County Commissioners met in regular session at 9:30
a.m. with Rex Smith, Director of Public Works. Chair Disney presided;
Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were:
William Heiden, Road and Bridge Director; Mark Steele, Road and
Bridge Department; Elaine W. Spencer, Engineering Services Manager;
Ralph Jacobs, Director of Human Resources; and Frank Lancaster,
County Manager. Recording Clerk, W. Gebauer.
1. Road & Bridge Restructuring Proposal: Mr. Heiden stated
that, in 1989, the Road & Bridge Department formed a committee,
with members elected by their coworkers, to recommend changes
to the pay plan. At that time, Mr. Heiden placed two constraints
on the committee: the revised pay plan could not cost the County
more than the current system, and Mr. Heiden reserved the right
to appoint team leaders.
Mr. Steele represented the committee and presented the restructuring
proposal. He stated that the goal of the committee was to develop
a system in which Road & Bridge would train and certify all
employees to perform specific duties, and would compensate them
accordingly. The testing procedures would be the same for placement
and advancement. Current employees would not drop any pay grades
for failure to pass the tests, but may be reclassified. Each
employee must take a test every year to maintain their job classification.
The plan allows managers to grant out-of-title pay for employees
who perform duties other than for their normal job classification
as long as certain criteria are met. The pay plan must be reevaluated
at least every three years, and the evaluation committee must
include representatives of the Road & Bridge Director and
the Director of Human Resources. The restructuring committee
would represent the employees. The grievance and complaint policies
would remain the same as in the Personnel Manual. Mr. Steele
also pointed out that, in a vote taken last week, the employees
approved of the plan by a three to one margin. He added that
any employee can raise concerns about the plan.
Commissioner Duvall stated that the effort and initiative of the
employees impressed her. She said that the Board should support
the plan because it would not cost the County any additional funds,
and it has the support of the employees. Commissioner Clarke
stated that he believed it to be an exciting program that could
be used as a model for other County offices. He added, though,
that the plan would require some effort and tweaking of the details
to implement. Responding to a question from Chair Disney, Mr.
Heiden stated that the proposed plan does not deal with temporary
employees. Mr. Jacobs stated that he is comfortable with the
proposal, and that they should plan the implementation of the
proposal because of the large amount of work performed by Road
& Bridge in the summer. Chair Disney stated that it was good
to see the development of a pay-for-performance plan and criteria.
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the Road &
Bridge Department pay structure as presented.
Motion approved 3 - 0.
Mr. Smith stated that Road & Bridge planned to start implementing
the plan by April 1. Mr. Heiden thanked the Board for approving
the proposal, and he predicted that the cost to Road & Bridge
will actually go down over time.
2. County Road 27 Update: Mr. Heiden stated that Road & Bridge
has started evaluating a one-mile long test section of lignum
sulfate on County Road 27. It appears that the lignum sulfate
surface makes it significantly easier to stop on the wet road.
With the Board's approval, Mr. Heiden will instruct Road &
Bridge to continue with the treatment, as they had already planned
to apply lignum sulfate to County Road 27. He suggested that
the county wait and evaluate the effects of this treatment before
attempting other measures; Mr. Smith agreed with this recommendation.
Commissioner Duvall stated that Mr. Schmidt, who had complained
about the road surface, was willing to extend test period time.
Commissioner Clarke agreed with the proposal to wait and see
how the lignum sulfate performs before attempting other, more
costly approaches. Chair Disney noted that the best test of the
road surface would come from a wet, spring snowfall, and he agreed
with extending the test period.
3. Off-Site Road Improvement Regulations: Mr. Smith called the
Board's attention to a copy of proposed changes to the Off-Site
Road Improvement Regulations that he had sent to the Board in
January. He noted that, in 1985, a task force proposed a three-phase
program to address road improvement needs. At the time, the Board
only adopted the portion of the proposal creating a road impact
fee for new developments. The Board did not adopt the proposals
for building fees in existing development, or for a county-wide
sales tax for road improvements. Ms. Spencer noted that, in previous
cases, the County has required developers to make improvements
to off-site roads. In some cases, the County has rejected the
proposed development as being premature for the area, rather than
collecting off-site fees. Mr. Smith stated that the Board should
address the issue in a joint meeting with Planning. Ms. Spencer
said that the County should develop a complete off-site road policy
structure, and that the current proposal was created with the
input of developers and staff. The Board discussed ways in which
the cities and the County could better cooperate on funding and
managing road projects.
4. Larimer County Transportation Plan Process: Commissioner
Duvall said that she was concerned about the relatively low weighting
given to environmental factors and to plan consistency in the
draft of the Transportation Plan. She stated that it was the
Board's intention that the transportation plan would complement
the land use plan, and that she believes that the current weighting
factors do not meet these criteria. She also stated that she
believed that the Environmental Advisory Board should be directly
represented on the transportation plan team. Mr. Smith replied
that road proposals with adverse environmental impacts would probably
be weighted very low on the priority scale, because of the way
the entire evaluation process is structured. He added that the
Board itself needs to answer the philosophical issues related
to road improvements, as the transportation plan itself cannot
answer these questions. Chair Disney and Commissioner Clarke noted
that the Board had previously discussed the weighting factors
with Public Works at a meeting when Commissioner Duvall was not
in attendance. They agreed that this was perhaps not the best
procedure. Commissioner Duvall stated that the weighting factors
would be misleading to members of the public, who would most likely
look at the weighting factors without reviewing the entire evaluation
process. Ms. Spencer replied that the scoring factors must be
evaluated with the weighting factors in order to understand the
scoring procedure. Chair Disney and Commissioner Clarke noted
that environmental concerns indirectly effect several of the other
weighting factors. Chair Disney said that perhaps the definition
of benefit, in the cost versus benefit analysis, should be revised.
He said that it is important to indicate that the benefit of
a project is to be evaluated by many criteria, in addition to
the number of people using the road system. Mr. Smith said that,
while he personally might have ranked the weighting factors differently,
the group as a whole should address any revisions. The Board
discussed how much direction the Board should give the transportation
Chair Disney suggested that the transportation plan group might
take older, controversial projects that have already been built
and use the evaluation criteria to see how they would have been
ranked by this approach. Commissioner Duvall requested that the
record show that she does not support the weighting system as
currently designed. She will wait for additional public input
before deciding if she can support the plan.
The meeting recessed at 11:20 p.m.
MEETING WITH JOHN MACFARLANE ABOUT FUTURE OF PARKS MANAGEMENT
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:00 p.m. with
John MacFarlane, Director of Parks and Recreation; Rex Smith,
Director of Public Works; Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair
Disney presided, Commissioners Duvall and Clarke also were present.
Recording Clerk, A. Jensen.
Mr. MacFarlane stated that the purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the various options facing the Parks Department. A memo was submitted by Mr. MacFarlane outlining recommendations, which was followed by a discussion of the items listed on the memo. Mr. MacFarlane fielded questions from the Commissioners regarding funding and administrative options, as well as various other topics. Discussion continued with respect to the scope of the Parks Departments duties.
Mr. MacFarlane clarified that item 10, as listed on the memo,
was a request for a position to be created that would act as a
depository for historical information for Larimer County as well
as research historical sites in an attempt to preserve this type
of information. Discussion ensued regarding which department
would be best suited to assign this position. The Commissioners
instructed Mr. MacFarlane to enlist the help of local volunteers
as more information is available to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Duvall inquired as to the status of the E.P.A. Wetlands
grant. Mr. MacFarlane mentioned he is moving ahead with this
project and will be attending a meeting this Friday regarding
this topic. At this time Commissioner Clarke complimented Mr.
MacFarlane's management style and expressed his appreciation and
respect for him as an employee.
Discussion continued covering the topic of the open space tax
and the legalities of placing it on the ballot.
Meeting recessed at 2:00 p.m.
STANDING MEETING WITH PAUL COOPER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:30 p.m. with
Paul Cooper, Director of Community Corrections; Steve Schapanski,
Chair Advisory Board. Chair Disney presided, Commissioners Duvall
and Clarke also were present. Also present was Frank Lancaster,
County Manager. Recording Clerk, A. Jensen.
Mr. Schapanski began the meeting by inviting the Commissioners
to the Conrad Ball Award ceremony to be held April 22nd.
1. Day Reporting Center Facility: Discussion of the Day Reporting
Center Facility ensued. Mr. Cooper stated that Sheriff Shockley
is in support of moving this facility to the Mason location and
is willing to assume the monthly lease rate for this new location.
Mr. Cooper requested the Board to sign the lease for the property
at 210 South Mason.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners
approve this lease and authorize Chair to sign.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
2. Follow up to March 20, 1995 Family Emergency Team Meeting:
Mr. Cooper solicited comments from the Commissioners regarding
the March 20, 1995 Family Emergency Team Meeting. A brief discussion
ensued regarding various topics from the March 20 meeting. Mr.
Cooper stated that the performance measures can be reviewed and
amended. Mr. Cooper also stated that he will be responding to
the Family Emergency Team's questions and follow up with meetings
to facilitate communications, as well as initiate a line of communication
with Captain Gary Darling, of the Sheriff's Office.
3. Juvenile Services Planning Committee: Mr. Cooper reviewed his
conversation with Mr. Barnes and stated he will asking Chief Judge
John-David Sullivan to appoint Mr. Nittmann to this committee.
Much discussion ensued regarding this committee. CONSENSUS OF
THE COMMISSIONERS was to expand the Juvenile Services Planning
Committee by one community member and expand the exception criteria
for an individual to be admitted to the Adult Residential Facility.
4. Other Business: Commissioner Duvall presented a letter to the
Board, written by Mr. Abrahmson, regarding the solicitation of
funds for the intake facility. Commissioner Clarke suggested
the Board closely examine next year's budget to examine the feasibility
of making the intake facility a priority. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD
was to meet with Mr. Keister, the County Budget Manager, on a
regular basis to maintain a 'big picture' view of the budget.
Discussion of Mr. Abrahmson's letter continued.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board go into Executive Session
to discuss contractual obligations.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.; no action taken.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1995
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular
session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Pro-Tem
Clarke presided and Commissioner Duvall was present; Chair Disney
was absent. Also present were: Carol Gillespie, Director Community
Development; Robert Thompson, Human Development Program Specialist;
Diane Martell, Past Interim Director Human Development; Ginny
Riley, Director of Human Development; Captain Gary Darling, Sheriff's
Department; Marla Hehn, Assistant County Attorney; Shelly Stevens,
Fort Collins Housing Authority; Gayle Morgan, Planning Department
Staff Services Manager; John Barnett, Director of Planning; Bob
Keister, Budget Manager; Mike Slavic, Microwave Administrator;
Jim Stokes, Director Information Management; Paula McNulty, Systems
Coordinator; Roy Schutt, Software Analyst; Donna Hart, Assistant
to the County Manager; and Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager.
Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
1. Fair Housing Proclamation: Chair Pro-Tem Clarke read aloud
the Proclamation proclaiming the month of April, 1995 as Fair
Housing Month, as a policy and a commitment of Larimer County.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board of County Commissioners
hereby resolve to join with all Larimer County communities to
proclaim and rededicate the month of April 1995 as Fair Housing
Month, and authorize the Chair Pro-Tem to sign same.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
2. Presentation of Appreciation to Diane Martell, Interim Human Development Director: The Board presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Diane Martell, for service beyond the call of duty as Interim Director of Human Development.
3. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application on Behalf
of Headstart: Mr. Thompson requested Board approval of a CDBG
Application on behalf of Headstart, a letter of local priority,
and a local commitment of 10% matching funds in the amount of
$1,834; he noted that this application is to provide playground
equipment and structure for the Headstart facility located in
the Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park at 2025 N. College Avenue.
Discussion followed concerning the source of funds for this
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Community
Development Block Grant Application on behalf of Headstart, contingent
upon receipt of the grant and subject to identification of the
Motion carried 2 - 0.
4. Information and Referral Consortium Agreement: Ms. Gillespie
requested Board approval of an Information & Referral Consortium
Agreement to provide citizens of Larimer County, particularly
low-income and elderly, with easy access to human services through
a comprehensive information and referral (I & R) system
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Information
and Referral Consortium Agreement, as requested by Ms. Gillespie,
and authorize the Chair Pro-Tem to sign same.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
A95-26 INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SYSTEM CONSORTIUM
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, FORT COLLINS AREA UNITED WAY, INC.
AND UNITED WAY OF LOVELAND-BERTHOUD, INC.
5. School Resource Officer Request: Captain Darling requested Board approval of an Agreement between the Poudre School District R-1, the City of Fort Collins, the County of Larimer and the Larimer County Sheriff for the School Resource Officer Program. Captain Darling noted that adoption of this program will put an officer in each one of the high schools and in one of the junior high schools, and the purpose of the agreement is to provide a safer learning environment in the schools. Captain Darling reviewed the funding scale and noted that the first two years, the school district will totally fund the program; after 1999 an assessment will be done to see if the program should be continued. Captain Darling noted that the City of Fort Collins approved this agreement last night; Ms. Hehn stated that the school district has approved the program in concept, but has not yet signed the agreement.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Sheriff's
Department request for the School Resources Officer, and authorized
the Chair to sign the Agreement when the final document is presented
Motion carried 2 - 0.
6. Request for Additional Funding for Computer Equipment:
Ms. Morgan requested Board approval for supplemental funding to
enable the Planning Department to proceed with Phase III of the
technology upgrade. The request is twofold: to upgrade the file
server, which is on the "A" priority list for networking,
and to change one of the ratings from the "C" priority
list to complete their technology upgrade downstairs. The request
for the file server is for $12,000 for the file server over the
amount previously approved on the "A" list. The request
for the hardware upgrade is for $9,100. Much discussion followed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the request for
supplemental funds in the amount of $12,000 to be added to the
current "A" priority 95' CIDA budget to complete the
networking by upgrading the file server and related equipment,
as recommended by Information Management, but not approve the
request to change a priority "C" rating to "A"
to allow them to purchase additional hardware and software.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
7. Update on Long Range Communications Planning Committee: Mr.
Slavic provided an update for the Board on the long range plans
of the Communications Planning Committee; he noted this Committee
was started by the Sheriff's Department and is comprised of agencies
throughout Larimer County concerned with public safety communications
and was formed to discuss future plans for communications. The
meetings have been very positive and included representatives
from Estes Park, Loveland, Fort Collins, Larimer County, Bureau
of Reclamation, REA, Northern Water Conservancy District, etc.
Mr. Slavic stated that the efforts of this Committee will result
in a county-wide communications system built into one big network,
in which all agencies will share. Mr. Stokes noted that this
network will be cost effective. Mr. Slavic outlined the time
frame and noted that the first step will be to conduct tests this
year. He has asked for financial support from the different
agencies to do these tests ($5,000), with $2,500 to be derived
from his budget; a final report will be available by the end of
this year. Mr. Slavic noted that they hope to start building
the backbone of the system in about three years.
-- Items for Next Weeks Standing Meetings at Blue Spruce: Mr.
Lancaster informed the Board that the standing meetings scheduled
for next week with the Health Department and the Human Development
will be held at the Blue Spruce Facility. Mr. Lancaster noted
that Dr. LeBailly has requested an Executive Session with the
Board at the end of the Health Department Meeting.
9. Invitations: Ms. Hart reviewed the pending invitations with
10. Legal Matters:
At this time, County Attorney George Hass and Human Resources
Director Ralph Jacobs joined the meeting for Legal Matters.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board go into Executive Session
at 11:15 a.m. to discuss legal matters.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
The Board came out of Executive Session at 12:15 p.m.; no action
At this time, Marla Hehn joined the meeting to inform the Board
that the City of Fort Collins Office just called and has made
one minor change to the Agreement the Board approved earlier today
for the School Resource Officer Program. Ms. Hehn noted that
the change to Article V was to change the wording "Prior
to June 15, 1999 ..." to "Prior to June 15 of each year
during the term of this Agreement..."
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the revision
as suggested by the City of Fort Collins to the Agreement between
the Poudre School District R-1, the City of Fort Collins, the
County of Larimer and the Larimer County Sheriff for the School
Resource Officer Program.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
11. Document Review: The following documents, of a routine nature,
were considered by the Board:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Minutes for
the week of March 13, 1995 and the Schedule for the week of March
27, 1995, as submitted, as well as the other documents listed
on Document Review for March 22, 1995.
A95-27 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE LARIMER COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT (Office on Aging Grantee
C95-13 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND CONTRACT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO -
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF
PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION (Amendment to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Contract for a Time Extension for
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT - 1995 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG).
LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to The Lovin' Oven - 6%
- Loveland, CO.; Boyd Lake Marina, Inc. - 3.2% - Loveland, CO.;
The Store - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO.; Burger Bay - 3.2% - Loveland,
CO.; and Schmidt's Olde Time Bakery, Ltd. - 6% - Loveland, CO.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
( S E A L )
JIM DISNEY, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk
Aimee Jensen, Deputy County Clerk
William Louis Gebauer, Deputy County Clerk
March 20, 1995