PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MONDAY, MAY 22, 1995

SUBDIVISIONS

(#290, #291 & #292)

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: Al Kadera, Subdivision Administrator; Richael Michels, Planner I; Rob Helmick, Planner II; Jerry White, Zoning Administrator; Rex Burns and Harry Lynam, Engineering; Jerry Blehm, Director of Environmental Health; and Michael Abrams, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mr. Barnett informed the Board that the alleged violation at 1000 South Lincoln Avenue has been removed from today's agenda, noting that an interim resolution regarding this matter has been reached.

Mr. Barnett noted that the following are consent items and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners or members of the audience.

1. POUDRE RIVER RANCH STREET NAME CHANGE (#95-OSO696):

SEVERAL SECTIONS IN 11 NORTH, RANGE 72 & 73 WEST,

CHEROKEE PARK AREA; O-OPEN ZONING (5-22-95)

This is a request to name several unnamed roads which provide access to 35-acre lots. Staff Findings include: 1) Poudre River Ranch is an area of 35-acre lots in the Cherokee Park area; 2) Names have been proposed for the roads that were constructed to provide access to these parcels; 3) The County Health and Engineering Departments and all affected agencies reviewed the proposed road names and stated no objections.

The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the road names Devil's Creek Trail, Snowshoe Court, Deer Park Drive, Deer Park Court, Starwood Trail, Pine Ridge Trail, Horseshoe Trail and Prickly Pear Path proposed by Poudre River Ranch Association.

2. PETERSON 2ND AMENDED EXEMPTION (#95-EX0681):

25-08-68; NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 52, EAST OF COUNTY

ROAD 3; 48 ACRES; 3 LOTS; FA-FARMING ZONING (5-22-95)

This is a request to reconfigure three existing lots on the Peterson Exemption. Staff Findings are: 1) The Peterson Exemption, which created three lots, was approved in 1976; 2) The proposed Amended Exemption will not result in any additional building sites; the intent is to reconfigure the three existing lots; 3) The County Health and Engineering Departments and all utilities serving this area reviewed the proposed Amended Exemption and stated no objections. The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the Second Amended Peterson Exemption.

3. HUGH M. WOODS RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION (#95-OSO694):

11-06-69; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SKYWAY DRIVE AND HIGHWAY

287 (5-22-95)

This is a request to vacate part of the right-of-way for Skyway Drive and to dedicate new right-of-way south of the existing right-of-way. Staff Findings include: 1) Skyview Subdivision was platted in 1964. Skyway Drive is a dedicated public right-of-way depicted on the Final Plat; 2) To accommodate road improvements for the proposed Hugh M. Woods project, it is necessary to vacate the north ten feet of Skyway Drive; 3) The County and City of Fort Collins Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposed vacation and both recommend approval; 4) An Amended Plat should be required to clearly demonstrate how the right-of-way is added to the adjacent subdivision lot; 5) A utility easement should be dedicated in place of the vacated right-of-way to protect an existing water line.

The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the right-of-way vacation proposed for Skyway Drive in the Hugh M. Woods project with the condition that an Amended Plat be prepared to demonstrate how the vacated right-of-way will be added to the adjacent subdivision lot. The Amended Plat shall also dedicate a utility easement in place of the vacated right-of-way.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendations and approve the Poudre River Ranch Street Name Change (#95-OSO696); Peterson 2nd Amended Exemption (#95-EX0681); and the Hugh M. Woods Right-of-Way Vacation (#95-OSO694); each, with the conditions as outlined.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

4. PARKER MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPEAL (#95-EX0693):

SE 1/4 32-05-69; NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 14 AND

COUNTY ROAD 21; 44.78 ACRES; 2 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING ZONING

(5-22-95)

This is a request for an appeal to allow a Minor Residential Development on a 45 acre parcel that was divided in 1994 to be divided into two parcels. Mr. Helmick provided the site description and reviewed the major concerns and issues. Staff Findings are: 1) This parcel was divided from a larger parcel in December 1994 and is therefore not eligible to be divided through the Minor Residential Development Process; 2) The Minor Residential Development Process was amended to limit the types of parcels that are eligible to be divided by MRD; 3) The Planning Staff has consistently recommended denial of all MRD appeals; this is a policy decision which is more appropriately made by the Board of County Commissioners; 4) The full subdivision process is available to divide parcels that are not eligible for consideration under the MRD process. The Staff Recommendation is for denial of the appeal of the Minor Residential Development Regulations submitted by Virlon and Edna Parker.

Dave Shupe of Landmark Engineering, noted that the applicants purchased the property in 1957 and are now past retirement age and this property represents what will take care of them in the remaining years of their life. Mr. Shupe stated that the applicants did apply for a subdivision of the entire 80 acres, but in the process found that it would require far more resources than they had and therefore withdrew the application. They now want to divide off a parcel for their nephew so he can build a house adjacent to them, continue to farm the remaining property, and be close by to assist them, if needed; they have submitted an MRD request on the remaining 45 acres. Mr. Shupe stated that the applicants have complied adequately with all the concerns raised by the subdivision CTR and also with those conditions in the MRD submittal process and approving this appeal would in no way contravene the public health, safety and welfare of the county.

Warren Wolaver and David Willey spoke in support of the appeal; Mr. Wolaver noted that the land is marginal farmland and is a desirable area to divide for residences. Mr. Willey stated that the Parkers have proven they are responsible to the land and to their neighbors and they will be responsible with this land division.

At this time the public portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's comments. Commissioner Clarke noted that this is a reasonable approach to this piece of property as the underlying zoning would allow significantly more density to occur; Commissioner Duvall and Chair Disney concurred.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Parker Minor Residential Development Appeal (#95-EX0693).

Motion carried 3 - 0.

5. PUTT-PUTT BATTING CAGES SPECIAL REVIEW (#94-ZR0566):

NW 18-7-68; 1/4 MILE EAST OF LEMAY AVENUE ON THE SOUTH

SIDE OF COLORADO HIGHWAY 14; 1.53 ACRES; C-COMMERCIAL

ZONING (5-22-95)

This is a request to operate a batting cage facility in conjunction with the existing Putt-Putt Golf and Games. Ms. Michels provided the site description and noted that the surrounding land uses include various commercial and recreational businesses. Staff Findings include: 1) This proposal has been reviewed by the County Engineering and Health Departments as well as other interested agencies; none have stated any objections to this proposal; 2) This proposal is an extension of the existing recreational uses on the site; 3) This proposal will provide additional recreation opportunities for the citizens of Larimer County with no detrimental effect on the public's health, safety, or welfare.

The Staff/Urban Growth Area Review Board Recommendation is for approval of the Putt-Putt Batting Cages Special Review, with the following conditions: 1( Completion of a Boundary Line Adjustment to add that portion of Parcel #87182-00-110 that will house the Batting Cages to Parcel #87182-00053; 2) Execution of an agreement which obligates the applicant to install curb, gutter and sidewalk to City standards at such time as adjacent property owners are asked to do the same; 3) Execution of an Annexation Agreement.

Commissioner Clarke asked the applicant about adequate parking; he was assured by the applicant that adequate parking is available. William Reager, applicant, stated that with the growing population of Fort Collins and the popularity of softball and baseball, there is a need for this additional type of activity. Jack Bisceglia, owner of the adjacent Lakeview Amusement Park, stated he has six batting cages at his place of business and thinks that is enough for the area. He informed the Board that he is going to make application to add miniature golf to his park and he will also expect approval of his application if this request is approved today; the Board assured Mr. Bisceglia they cannot provide him with a guarantee - he must go through the process the same as Mr. Reager.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendation and approve the Putt-Putt Batting Cages Special Review (#94-ZR0566), with the conditions as outlined.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

6. BICKELS SPECIAL REVIEW (#94-ZR0551): SW 1/4, 02-09-69; NORTH

OF COUNTY ROAD 72, WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 15, LOT 15,

HORSEMAN HILLS; 4.5 ACRES; O-OPEN ZONING (5-22-95)

This is a request for Special Review to allow a "hair-on" tanning business, which currently exists and operates out of an accessory building in a rural subdivision. Mr. White reviewed the history of this business, noting the proposed tanning operation first came before the County as a Special Exception application in 1984 and was denied because of lack of compatibility. Mr. White reminded the Board this request was heard by the Commissioners on April 17, 1995 and at that time Mr. Bickels offered an amendment to the application to remove the wet process from the property to be done elsewhere in a commercial zone and on public sewer. At that time, the Board requested the project be sent back to the Planning Commission for their review; Mr. White noted that the Planning Commission has reviewed the new proposal and is still recommending denial. Staff Findings are: 1) The proposal does not comply with the intent and purposes of the County Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Zoning Resolution; 2) The proposed commercial use is not harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood, and may have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood and on property values in the area; 3) The applicant has not provided adequate justification for placing this business in a residential area rather than a commercially zoned area. The Staff Recommendation is for denial of the request for Special Review.

Bernie Bickels, applicant, submitted a number of letters from adjacent property owners indicating their support for continuation of the existing operation. Mr. Bickels stated that since the Planning Commission denied his amendment to remove the wet process from the site, he requested the Board review the original request that both the wet and dry process be continued on site; therefore, he retracted his letter of March 26, 1995 suggesting the removal of the wet process. Mr. White responded that the staff has reviewed both proposals and each time their recommendation was for denial, as well as that of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bickels reviewed the original application and stated that he feels the use is appropriate; he read a letter from an appraiser which stated that after completing an analysis of the business, it was determined that the business has no negative impact on the neighborhood and in no way causes an external depreciation on the surrounding properties. Mr. Bickels stated he feels he is in compliance with the zoning regulations and that his business is less offensive than many businesses allowed. Judy Smith, adjacent property owner, speaking for Ron Walker and Jan Miller who could not attend today's hearing, addressed the Board and reminded the Board that the business has been deemed commercial and denied four times; it still is incompatible, contributes nothing to the neighborhood, and only benefits the Bickels. She wants the subdivision to remain residential and not become a commercial area. Patty Grant, adjacent property owner, spoke in support of the business stating she has known the Bickels for 13 years and they have greatly improved the property, installed beautiful landscaping, and have one of the better looking properties in Horseman Hills. She noted that only 10% of the neighbors are objecting to the operation and 70% have signed a petition supporting the business. Gladys Ellerman and Earl Valentine also spoke in favor of the business, noting it is very low-key and does not create a traffic problem.

At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's comments: Commissioner Duvall thinks that in the future the county will have more and more requests for mixed uses out in the county and she thinks that home occupations, when appropriate, could help with some of the issues the Board is trying to address, such as reducing traffic, etc.; she further noted that if a neighborhood is set up for mixed use, it is only fair that all people buying into the neighborhood know it from the beginning. She also expressed concern concerned with the history of denials on this operation over the past eleven years and yet they have continued to operate the business. Commissioner Clarke also expressed conflict with the situation; he appreciates the idea of home businesses, but he doesn't want to approve something that doesn't respect the covenants. Chair Disney stated he feels strongly the Board should not reward a known violation by granting this appeal.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff/Planning Commission Recommendations and deny the Bickels Special Review (#94-ZR0551).

Motion carried 3 - 0.

7. PINECREST LEGAL LOT APPEAL (#95-EX0695): 29-07-69; EAST

SIDE OF HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR; 2.5 ACRES; FA-1 FARMING

ZONING (5-22-95)

This is a request for the County Commissioners to review the legal status of three lots. Mr. Kadera reviewed the major concerns and issues and noted that the Board has three options to consider: 1) Grant an exemption from Senate Bill 35 and declare the three lots legal building sites; 2) Deny the request for the exemption and require the applicant to apply for a Minor Residential Development; 3) Deny both requests thereby leaving the option for the applicants to go through the full subdivision process to seek approval of the lots. Staff Findings include: 1) The parcels in question were divided from larger parcels after the adoption of Senate Bill 35 but were not approved by the Board of County Commissioners; 2) Some technical problems have been identified in this area; without detailed reports concerning soils, geology, water supplies, access and sewage disposal, there is some question about the viability of these building sites; 3) The appropriate procedure to approve these lots as building sites would be through the MRD process. Advertised public hearings should be conducted to give members of the public an opportunity to comment. The Staff Recommendation is for denial of the request to declare the three subject parcels to be legal building sites.

Gene Fischer, attorney representing the three property owners, noted that these lots were surveyed, staked, given separate tax notices and considered by the Assessor's Office as buildable lots. Mr. Fischer stated he represents three innocent purchasers who purchased the lots thinking they had legality; he noted that no one will be harmed by declaring these lots legal and the taxpayers of Larimer County will benefit because if the request is denied, the tax assessments on these lots will be greatly lowered. Mr. Fischer noted there is a precedent for declaring these lots buildable because a few years ago the Board of County Commissioners granted an exemption from the subdivision resolution to a similar lot in Pinecrest; he noted that, in their opinion, access is not a problem. Glenn Dundas, one of the property owners, addressed the Board and noted that his lot is two down from the one from which the exemption was allowed and a house was recently built on that lot.

At this time, the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's comments: Commissioner Duvall stated she cannot imagine widening Broken Bow Road and definitely thinks there is an access problem. As requested by Commissioner Duvall, Mr. Burns addressed the access problem, noting it would be a fairly rocky, steep access. Commissioner Duvall thinks it is pertinent for staff to consider soils and hazardous building conditions, slope instability, inappropriate conditions for septic tanks, etc.; she noted she is very opposed to this request being allowed. However, she expressed sympathy for the innocent purchasers and noted the situation of the Assessor taxing lots as buildable, and then subsequently when the owners try to get a building permit find the lot is not buildable, has occurred previously and the county needs to address this problem so it does not continue to happen. Commissioner Clarke stated he agrees that building homes on this site is a tragedy; however, these people own lots which they purchased in good faith thinking that they could build on them. He thinks if they own the lot, they should be allowed to build there and if the county doesn't want development on the ridge, the county should buy their land. Chair Disney stated that the free market system is "Buyer Beware"; he noted he feels sorry for the property owners but the county did not create this problem. He said he could not support granting an exemption, but could support allowing the applicants to proceed with the MRD process.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendation and deny the Pinecrest Legal Lot Appeal (#95-EX0695).

Motion carried 2 - 1; Commissioner Clarke dissenting.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that at this time the Board grant the applicant the ability to proceed through the Minor Residential Development process, thereby eliminating the need for the applicant to request an appeal to apply for a MRD at a later time.

Motion carried 2 - 1; Commissioner Duvall dissenting.

8. BAKER-WILLIAMS MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPEAL

(#95-EX0692): 32-08-70, 5 MILES WEST OF BELLVUE AND 3/4 OF A

MILE SOUTH OF RIST CANYON ROAD; 14.9 ACRES; 2 LOTS (5-22-95)

This is a request for an appeal to allow a Minor Residential Development outside of the area allowed and for lots smaller than allowed. Mr. Helmick informed the Board that the request is to divide a single parcel of 14.9 acres into two parcels of approximately 7.45 acres each, both parcels are currently occupied by single family residences constructed in 1969 and 1970 with valid building permits from Larimer County, and a variance has been approved by the Board of Adjustments for this proposal. Staff Findings are: 1) The parcel proposed for the Minor Residential Development is located in Range 70 West, which is west of the area in which MRD's are permitted; 2) The parcels which would result from the Minor Residential Development do not meet the minimum lot size requirement for the Open Zoning District; 3) The Minor Residential Development process was amended to limit the types of parcels that are eligible to be divided by MRD; 4) The Planning Staff has consistently recommended denial of all MRD appeals; this is a policy decision which is more appropriately made by the Board of County Commissioners; 5) The full subdivision process is available to divide parcels that are not eligible for consideration under the MRD process. The Staff Recommendation is for denial of the appeal of the Minor Residential Development Regulations submitted by Robert and Patricia Baker and Ronald and Barbara Williams.

Nancy Wallace, attorney for the property owners, noted that the issues of utilities and ownership have been resolved, the houses have been there for 25 years, access is provided, the septic systems are in place, and the owners have paid taxes on the two residences for a number of years. She stated that at this point in time, the owners just need to have their legal title and ownership resolved, they want to proceed with the MRD process in order to establish their legal titles to the property, which has been surveyed.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the Baker-Williams Minor Residential Development Appeal (#95-EX0692).

Motion carried 3 - 0.

9. SUN VALLEY MOBILE HOME PARK (#94-ZR0452): NW 16-07-68;

SOUTH SIDE OF COLORADO HIGHWAY 14 (FRONTAGE ROAD),

ONE MILE WEST OF I-25; 1.93 ACRES; 6 LOTS; M-1 MULTIPLE

FAMILY ZONING (5-22-95)

This is a request to rezone from C-Commercial to M-1 Multi-Family and Special Review to allow a 5-unit mobile home park and to subdivide a 1.25 acre commercially zoned property for an office-warehouse building. Mr. Helmick reminded the Board that this item was heard by the Board on April 24, 1995 and at that time was tabled to allow time for review and to resolve specific issues relating to the conditions of approval recommended by the Urban Growth Area Review Board (UGARB); such as, the question of ownership of the lands adjacent to the right-of-way dedication, and whether or not condition #6, requiring dedication of an additional 10-feet of right-of-way, should be included. Mr. Helmick noted that based on the research, completed survey, the deed of dedication, and thorough analysis of the site, there is no question of ownership. Staff Findings include: 1) The application meets the standards for review of a mobile home park within the UGA, except as noted; 2) The application meets the UGA phasing criteria; adequate urban water, sewer and roads are currently available and in place; 3) The proposed use is harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood; an existing mobile home park and mini-storage facility adjoin this site; 4) The addition of five mobile homes will not have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood; 5) The City of Fort Collins has not identified any issue with this request.

Applicant Gene Homolka stated he is just trying to develop a mobile home site to provide low-cost housing for small families; he noted he is under financial constraint and has reached a maximum amount he can put into this project and granting an additional 2,000 sq. feet of land is out of the question. He stated he measured the blacktop on the 40-ft. ROW and presently there is 24 feet being used and 8 feet on each side of the ROW is not being used; he thinks the 40 feet should be more than adequate and provides a 20-foot lane both directions. Terry Valnes, owner of the adjacent Mountain View Mobile Home Park, requested clarification whether it has been established if Mr. Homolka is putting in a mobile home park or houses; Mr. Homolka responded he had planned to place the mobile homes on concrete blocks, rather than skirting, but he will do whatever pleases the Board and staff. In regard to the 10-ft. ROW dedication, Ms. Valnes noted that in the future in case they wanted to turn the mobile home park into a development of nice double-wide mobile homes on foundations, it would be wise to have the additional 10-ft. of ROW dedicated because it would be required for a residential area; she stated that if it becomes a housing development in the future, they too would be willing to give up 10-feet for the road. Responding to clarification requested by Commissioner Duvall regarding condition #6, Mr. Helmick stated that Staff is still recommending that condition #6 be included in the list of conditions.

Therefore, the Staff/Urban Growth Area Review Board Recommendation for approval of the Sun Valley Mobile Home Park was amended with the following conditions: 1) Road, park and drainage fees shall be paid at the time of issuance of the construction permit for the park; 2) Applicant shall provide additional landscape screening to the south, to include evergreens at least four feet in height; 3) Additional landscaping to be provided on each lot, may include screen to the south; Lots 1 and 5 must provide frontage screening to the adjoining roads; 4) Any additional uses shall require the property to be subdivided or a PUD; 5) Approval of a setback variance shall be obtained from the Board of Appeals; 6) 10 feet of ROW shall be dedicated along the west of the site to enlarge the public ROW to 50 feet; 7) Construction plans for the internal roads shall be submitted and approved by the County Engineer; design to urban standards is required; 8) Plans for park lighting and signage must be provided; 9) No inoperative motor vehicles will be stored or maintained on any space; 10) No storage of motor homes, boats or campers is allowed except within a garage; 11) A single trash dumpster will be provided for the use of all tenants. The site plan will be revised to reflect its location and screening; screening shall be with a minimum of a six-foot cedar fence.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendation and approve the Sun Valley Mobile Home Park (#94-ZR0452), with the conditions as revised and reinstatement of condition #6.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.







TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1995

STANDING ETS MEETING WITH JONI FRIEDMAN

(#293)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular session with Joni Friedman, Director of Employment and Training Services. Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were: Lew Wymisner, Program Support Manager; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, A. Jensen.

1. Presentation of Operation Brightside Funding by Anheuser-Busch: Mr. Garcia and Mr. Webb, Anheuser-Busch representatives, attended the meeting to present a check to the Commissioners and Joni Friedman to be used in funding Operation Brightside. Ms. Friedman briefly outlined Operation Brightside's goals, objectives and accomplishments for the Commissioners. The Commissioners expressed their appreciation of Anheuser-Busch for their community involvement. It was also noted that the City of Fort Collins has also been a good partner in working on community projects. The Commissioners requested Ms. Friedman to compose a letter to be sent to Anheuser-Busch commending their involvement. Ms. Friedman will compose a draft and forward it to the Commissioners for their perusal.

2. Update on Federal Legislation impacting Job Training Partnership Act: Ms. Friedman discussed the Summer Youth Program, mentioning that they had been issued an allocation. Ms. Friedman noted that, with respect to the rescission bill, nothing has been finalized and they do not know the status of some of their programs. In response to this situation, Ms. Friedman is proceeding cautiously in anticipation of diminished funding. Discussion ensued regarding potential projects for the participants in the Summer Youth Program.

3. Update on Larimer County Employment and Training Services Programs: Ms. Friedman gave a detailed account of the various programs offered through Employment and Training Services (E.T.S.). As part of the report, Ms. Friedman reported that the Department of Energy was pleased with the work presently being done by the youths; the Last Resort program at the landfill is working well and E.T.S. has met and exceeded all standards previously set. Ms. Friedman reported numerous figures which demonstrated their high level of achievement with respect to service and customer satisfaction. Other topics covered by Ms. Friedman were: implementation of self-directed teams and the development of a partnership with the Hospital District to assess the human services offered in Larimer County. Chair Disney expressed interest in an assessment of how effective the County is on a continual basis with respect to human services. It was also noted that E.T.S. will be applying for year-round Conservation Corp funding.

4. Private Industry Council Update: Ms. Friedman introduced Ms. Jean Thomas, Chair of the Private Industry Council (P.I.C.). Ms. Thomas proceeded with an overview of current events involving the P.I.C. Ms. Thomas also emphasized the importance of continuing the E.T.S. programs and developing private/public partnerships. Discussion continued along the topics of the Economic Development Committee and the Conservation Corp. The Commissioners commented on the positive attributes of the Conservation Corp and expressed their gratitude of Ms. Thomas's involvement.

At this time Commissioner Clarke excused himself from the meeting to attend an assembly at a local high school.

5. Enterprise Zone Update: Mr. Wymisner informed the Board that the Employer Roundtable series has ended for the year with next year's planning already underway. It was noted that Governor Romer will be re-examining the Enterprise Zone topic which may cause some changes for next year. The meeting continued with a discussion of the zone criteria, moratoriums, and amendments. Mr. Wymisner also remarked on goals set and his progress in achieving them. Chair Disney requested Mr. Wymisner to contact Mr. Peterson, Wayside Inn proprietor, to discuss services E.T.S. may have to offer to Mr. Peterson. The Commissioners thanked Mr. Wymisner for his continued efforts in achieving his goals.

Ms. Friedman briefly commented on the Poudre R-1 Advisory Committee with respect to the School to Work programs.

The meeting continued with a discussion of coordination and collaboration between various departments with emphasis on the avoidance of duplicating efforts.

The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

QUARTERLY MEETING WITH HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL

(#294)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 10:45 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Disney presided; Commissioner Duvall was present. Commissioner Clarke was absent as noted previously. Also present were: Keith Olson, Ph.D., Mental Health Executive Director; Adrienne LeBailly, Health Department Director; Joni Friedman, Director of Employment and Training Services; Doug Keasling, Social Services Department Director; Ginny Riley, Human Development Executive Director; Laurel Kubin, Extension Office Director. Recording Clerk, A. Jensen.

1. Structure of Health and Human Services: Mr. Olson stated that the purpose of today's meeting was to discuss the progress the Health and Human Services Council has made towards their goal to present a viable plan to the Board by July 1, 1995. It was noted that the Council will not be ready by July 1, 1995 to make their presentation, but have attended this meeting to address concerns and issues the Board may have. Commissioner Duvall inquired if the problem before the Council has been clearly defined as well as distributed a memo listing numerous questions to stimulate discussion. Much discussion ensued regarding various topics, including: coordination of services and resources between departments, self-directed work teams, inventory of services offered, competition with the private sector, and public perceptions. It was noted that clients usually have multiple problems which are handled by several different departments. Commissioner Duvall posed a rhetorical question of how do we provide services that are seamless between the departments. Chair Disney stated there are diminishing resources and that we must conserve what is available, while maintaining the best customer services possible. Ms. Riley stated that the Commissioners perceive there are problems between the departments on this Council and that the Commissioners are desirous of these departments improving their working relationships. Ms. Riley also inquired as to how quickly the Commissioners expect the Council to establish a framework from which to improve their working relationships. Commissioner Duvall suggested a year as a time frame. Chair Disney stated he does not want to mandate a specific time, however he wants a regular update as to their progress. In response to Chair Disney's request, Ms. Friedman stated that the Council should have a better idea of when this framework will be completed within the next couple of months. Ms. Kubin cited the biggest problem facing this Council is finding the time when everyone can attend these meetings. The meeting continued with a discussion of possibly engaging a consultant to facilitate the Health and Human Services Council in achieving their goals. In turn the members of the Council voiced their opinions, expressed their understanding of the importance of coordinating their efforts and the lack of time available, but are still unclear as to how to accomplish these goals.

Commissioner Duvall expressed her appreciation for the Council's time and efforts.

The meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 1995

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#292 @ 900)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were: Al Kadera, Subdivision Administrator; Joan Duchene, Commissioner's Office Supervisor; and Donna Hart, Assistant to the County Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. WORKSESSION:

-- Appointed Officials' Evaluation Schedule: Mr. Lancaster submitted a tentative schedule for the Board's evaluations of Appointed Officials; the schedule included a half-hour private discussion among the Board regarding each individual before meeting with them, followed by an hour with each individual. Mr. Lancaster requested the Board's input regarding the schedule and if they would like it changed in any way; the Board approved of the schedule as outlined.

-- Discussion of What to Put on Cable TV: Mr. Lancaster submitted a proposed list of the meetings to be scheduled for televising and requested the Board's opinion of same. Much discussion followed and the Board decided to only televise a few meetings at first; such as, land use matters, Planning Commission, and major policy discussions. It was noted that several departments have requested the opportunity to televise some informational, educational shows. Mr. Kadera offered the suggestion that if the Planning Commission meetings are televised, then the UGARB meetings should also be televised. Mr. Lancaster noted he needed this input from the Board to begin contract negotiations.

-- LAPAC Appointments: Ms. Duchene noted that Mr. Legg is requesting the Board to appoint two new members to the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee, which currently has three vacancies -- two resulting from recent resignations and one from a normal term expiration. The two vacancies need to filled as soon as possible in order for LAPAC to have a quorum. Discussion followed whether or not to interview the applicants; Commissioner Duvall suggested that the two vacancies could be filled from applications received last year and were interviewed at that time. The Board concurred and they will discuss these applications during a worksession on Tuesday, May 30, 1995.

-- Board Involvement with Board of Equalization: With regard to the Board of Equalization Hearings which will be held in July, Mr. Lancaster asked the Board what hours they would like the hearings scheduled, if evenings should be scheduled, if they would only like to hear certain types of protests (commercial or residential), etc. After discussion, the Board decided the hearings should be held 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., to hold hearings one night only if the public requests them, and the Board would like to hear a mixture of types of protests.

-- Sheriff's Budget Request: Mr. Lancaster requested direction from the Board regarding the memo from the Sheriff about the $500,000 extra revenue in his department in which he requested using a portion of those funds ($147,574) for several needs. After discussion, the Board concurred with the Sheriff's request to use the $147,574 generated from extra revenue in the Sheriff's budget, to be used for the items as listed in the memo.

-- Meeting with City of Loveland Council: Mr. Lancaster reviewed the agenda items for the meeting with the Loveland City Council next week and asked if the Board had any additions. As the agenda was quite lengthy, no additions were suggested; however, the Board recommended that the items Transferable Development Rights, Partnership Land Use System, and and Update on UGA and the City of Loveland Master Plan be moved to the top of the list. It was recommended that Frank Lancaster, Director of Planning John Barnett, and Rex Smith or Elaine Spencer from Public Works also attend the meeting.

-- Items for Next Week's Standing Meetings: The list of agenda items for next week's standing meetings with the Budget Manager and Planning were reviewed and no additions were made.

-- Discussion of Contest for Naming Bridge after Bill Campton: Mr. Lancaster apprised the Board of a contest being held for naming the new bridge on North College Avenue; a letter in this morning's Coloradoan suggested naming it after Bill Campton. Mr. Lancaster noted that Mr. Campton worked for the County for over 30 years, designed a large number of roads in the county, came from a pioneer family, etc. The Engineering Department is working with Dot McKean, Right-of-Way Agent, on this contest and sent over some applications if the Board and other county employees wish to submit their recommendations. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to endorse a recommendation to name the new bridge over the Poudre River on North College after Bill Campton.

2. DECISION ON FACILITIES BALLOT:

At this time, the Board moved into the Hearing Room to publicly announce their decision on whether or not to place the Facilities proposal on the 1995 or 1996 Ballot. Chair Disney opened the hearing for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Duvall noted for the record that a public hearing was held regarding this issue and the Board met several times with the various committees and boards and she feels there are two areas of concern: 1) The public concern over the increased assessments and taxes; 2) The need for a number of informational and educational public input meetings, and to start now to prepare to place it on the ballot in '96. She noted the public needs a bigger vision of the plan--not just government buildings, but an entire downtown civic center and the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland need to be involved as partners; they need to create a vision of something more exciting to put on the ballot. She further noted that it needs to be decided what kind of tax should it be - property tax or sales tax; therefore, she is not comfortable putting this issue on the ballot in '95. Commissioner Clarke noted the Board received a letter from Jim Bragonier, a member of the project committee; the letter shows that there is someone in the community concerned with what is currently happening in this building, such as the security problems, lack of the ability to function efficiently, and a number of other important things. The letter outlines the kinds of problems the Board is trying to solve; however, in Commissioner Clarke's judgement, '96 is a better time. Chair Disney stated that he agrees with both of his colleagues and noted there are two pieces to this issue: 1) To identify the county's needs; he noted that the project team, Interplan, and the other persons who have worked on this project, have done an outstanding job of starting to identify those needs; 2) To get the people to understand those needs and be willing to vote to tax themselves to address those needs and he noted a great deal of education needs to be done in the southern part of the county. Commissioner Duvall stated that the Board is having discussions with the school district regarding the possibility of working out a package to present to the voters which would also include the facilities needs of the school district. Commissioner Clarke stated that the current needs are so critical and to make the decision to wait is extremely difficult; however, the Board concurred with taking the following action:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the County not pursue placing a ballot question for funding of identified County facilities on the 1995 General Election Ballot.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TWO FINAL PLATS: Before requesting Board approval of the plats to be presented today, Mr. Lancaster suggested that in the future if the Board is going to approve Final Plats on Wednesday mornings, that they be listed separately on the agenda and then to list the agenda items for Administrative Matters. After discussion, the Board directed that, in the future, Mr. Lancaster list the approval of Final Plats at 9:30 a.m. on the agenda before commencing Administrative Matters on Wednesday mornings.

Mr. Kadera requested Board approval of two Final Plats and Subdivision Improvement Agreements for Timnath Meadows Estates and the Point Townhousmes PUD Phase III, and the Chair's signature on three Plats, one being the Amended Plat for the Ptarmigan Subdivison First Filing, which was previously approved by the Board last week during Administrative Matters.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the Final Plats for Timnath Meadows, LLC and The Point Townhomes P.U.D., Phase III and accompanying Subdivision Improvement Agreements and authorize the Chair to sign same, as well as the previously approved Amended Plat for the Ptarmigan Subdivision First Filing.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

A95-57 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND TIMNATH

MEADOWS ESTATES, LLC

A95-58 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE POINT

TOWNHOMES P.U.D., PHASE III

4. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROPERTY NEGOTIATION: Due to a time constraint, this agenda item was postponed until next Wednesday, May 31, 1995.

5. INVITATIONS: Ms. Hart reviewed the pending invitations with the Board and they indicated to her which events and meetings they will be able to attend.

6. DOCUMENT REVIEW:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the Minutes for the week of May 15, 1995, as submitted.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the Schedule for the week of May 29, 1995, as submitted.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the following Consent Agenda items as listed on Document Review for May 24, 1995.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Crystal Lakes 14th Amended Plat, and the Larimer County Operating Procedure 100.7H - Rules of Procedure for Larimer County Board of Commissioners. LIQUOR LICENSES: County Approval was granted to Hickory House South - 6% - Fort Collins, CO.

A95-59 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND LEE FRUDDEN DBA AAA WEED

CONTROL (Herbicide Application)

A95-60 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND MAUAID AL-ANI DBA GARDEN

DOCTOR (Mowing Service)

A95-61 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND MARK BUCKLEY DBA CUSTOM

SERVICES OF COLORADO (Mowing Service)

A95-62 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND MIKE FELTZ DBA A & L SERVICES

(Mowing Service)

A95-63 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND EARL ALPS DBA ALP'S CUTTING

SERVICE (Mowing Service)

A95-64 AGREEMENT CONCERNING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON

CR 23 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AND MMPMSC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (Project #148)

A95-65 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES

BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND

GENETIC DESIGN, INC.

R95-68s RESOLUTION REGARDING RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR

CRESTVIEW ESTATES

R95-69s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF

JOHANNSEN-TROTTER MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

R95-70d RESOLUTION CONCERNING ELECTION ON REFERRED ISSUE

1B - COLONY RIDGE (Certification of Election Results)

R95-71d RESOLUTION CANCELING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE

PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1994-1 (Colony Ridge Subdivision)

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The meeting recessed at 10:15 a.m.

CABLE HEARING ON CABLE SYSTEMS, INC.

(#295)

Chair Disney presided over a Cable Hearing concerning Cable Systems, Inc. at 7 p.m. in the Estes Park Municipal Building in Estes Park, Colorado. The following county personnel were present: Russ Legg, Cable TV Coordinator; Tom Duchen, President River Oaks Communications Corporation which is the Consultant for Larimer County; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. Introductions: Chair Disney called the hearing to order and introduced the county personnel in attendance.

2. Brief Overview of the Cable Renewal Process: Mr. Duchen informed the audience that tonight's hearing is part of a process in which the past performance of the cable operator is reviewed and assessment is made as to whether the system will meet the future needs and interests of the unincorporated area of Larimer County in the Estes Park area. Mr. Duchen noted that under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, there is a process that starts three years prior to a franchise expiration date with regard to renewals; in this particular case, the Cable Agreement expires October 16, 1998. Mr. Duchen noted that the Cable Operator has submitted a letter to the County requesting that the renewal process be commenced; however, this hearing is part of early renewal discussions rather than part of the renewal process and he stated there are certain items that can and cannot be addressed under the Cable Acts: 1) It is not within the province of the County to mandate the actual programming; and 2) The County has elected not to engage in rate regulation.

3. Presentation by Cable Systems, Inc.: Craig Paulson, General Manager of Fanch Communications which owns and operates Cable Systems, Inc., stated he is here tonight to listen to what the subscribers have to say. Mr. Paulson noted they are currently considering upgrading the system and equipment to accommodate more channels in the future; he stated they haven't received many complaints in this area and he assured the subscribers his company will continue to improve service as much as possible. Mr. Paulson stated they have recently gone to a centralized call center, which has greatly improved response time and service calls.

4. Public Comment: At this time, the hearing was opened for public comments: Dick Martin Pratt reviewed his background and experience in broadcasting and noted that during the past 2 1/2 years he has been directly involved with questions regarding the Cable Systems Franchise Agreement in Estes Park and Larimer County and, in his opinion, the company has failed to comply with the agreement in specific areas. Mr. Pratt stated that according to the new franchise agreement with Estes Park, which was signed last year, they still have failed to completely fulfill their obligations with regard to community programming and he feels their franchise should not be renewed until they comply with the current contract. Mr. Pratt listed several other requirements of the contract which have not been fulfilled; such as, a 1200 ft. studio, lack of equipment to be made available for use by the average citizen, equipment or facilities for educational access, provision of a limited amount of government access, but it is prejudiced and very biased. Mr. Pratt stated that Cable Systems, Inc. takes more than 1/2 million dollars out of the Estes Valley in gross revenue each year, but they give nothing back to the citizens, as required in their contract obligations. Raymond Stillwell noted that when he was building his new home, he noticed cable service immediately to the east and south of him; after he obtained his Certificate of Occupancy in January of 1994, he applied for cable service and was told they couldn't run the line to his home because of a cash flow shortage. Mr. Stillwell has called every month and told the same story each time. Robert Burnhard stated that when he requested cable service, he was told they need to get 15 people to sign up for cable service before the line can be extended. Kip Baker asked about pro-rating of charges when service is down; he thinks compensation should be given when service is out and he also expressed dissatisfaction with the new 800 number in Denver to call for service.

5. Response by Cable Systems, Inc.: Mr. Paulson stated he will be happy to meet with Mr. Stillwell and Mr. Burnhard about providing service to their homes; he noted, however, that the existing agreement with the county requires 30 homes per mile to justify laying cable but his company has voluntarily lowered that to 20 homes. Mr. Paulson stated that his company currently does have plans this year to do extensions into several areas in the Estes Park area. At this time, Mr. Legg noted for the record that none of the county agreements with any of the cable operators contain a "Must Serve" provision for a certain number of houses. To respond to pro-rating of charges, Mr. Paulson noted that most standard contracts have the provision that if cable service is out for 24 hours, a refund is given when requested. With regard to the 800 line, Mr. Paulson stated everything is computerized and there are much better monitoring abilities with the computer system; their goal is to have someone at the Center 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. He acknowledged that the requirement for public access is in the agreement, but the school district is to provide it; however, they have lost their equipment. Much discussion followed regarding this matter.

At this time, Mr. Duchen made several requests of Cable Systems, Inc. With regard to the compliance issue, Mr. Duchen requested a written response be provided that addresses, on a provision by provision basis, their view whether they are or are not in compliance with each and every section of the current agreement with the county. In addition, Mr. Duchen stated he will continue to work with the county in requesting additional information with respect to the past prerformance and operations of Cable Systems, Inc. Mr. Duchen noted that with regard to the line extension issue, it is very important that in each situation the company address why service is not being provided. Mr. Duchen urged Mr. Paulson to take a closer look at the safety and operational issues. With regard to upgrading the system, Mr. Duchen asked what channel capacity is being considered; Mr. Paulson responded they are considering 450 megahertz; Mr. Duchen recommended they consider the possibility of going with a 550 system spaced to 750 Mhz and he encouraged Mr. Paulson to look at all the new systems now available. Mr. Paulson advised Mr. Duchen that they currently have approximately 3,000 subscribers and this new equipment is very costly, but he will look at it.

6. Commissioner Comments: Chair Disney expressed appreciation to everyone for attending tonight's hearing and noted their comments will be seriously considered when the county renegotiates the cable agreement. Mr. Legg reminded the participants that cable agreement renewal is an on-going and continuing process and that there will be additional opportunities for public input in the future.

The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

______________________________________

JIM DISNEY, CHAIR

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

( S EA L )

ATTEST:

_______________________________________

Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk

______________________________________

Aimee Jensen, Deputy County Clerk

May 22, 1995