County Offices, Courts, and the Landfill will all be closed on Monday, May 30, 2016 for the Memorial Day Holiday. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1997
LAND-USE PLANNING MEETING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Olson were present. Also present were: Al Kadera, Subdivision Administrator; Brice Miller, Building Official; Richael Michaels and Carol Evans; Planners II; Lonnie Sheldon, Project Engineer; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner; Dave Farmer, Wildfire Mitigation Coordinator; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
Chair Disney noted that the following are consent items and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners or members of the audience; Commissioner Clarke requested that the agenda item for the proposed Wildfire Mitigation Requirements be removed from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Michaels added additional verbiage to condition #12 for the Buckhorn Glade Subdivision, as agreed to by the applicant and County Engineering.
1. CRYSTAL LAKES 1ST, LOTS 89 & 91 AMENDED PLAT (#97-SA1101):
13-10-74 - WEST OF RED FEATHER LAKES; 5.15 ACRES; 1 LOT;
This is a request to combine two existing lots and vacate the utility easement along the common lot line. Staff findings include: 1) Crystal Lakes First Filing was approved in 1969; 2) The lots met all standards in effect in 1969, but they are relatively small for a mountain subdivision. Combining lots will bring them closer to compliance with minimum zoning requirements and will allow better use of the site; 3) The County Health and Engineering Departments, and all utilities serving this area, reviewed the proposed Amended Plat and stated no objections. The staff recommendation is for approval of the vacation of the utility easement on the common lot line between Lots 89 and 91, Crystal Lakes First Filing, and approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 89 and 91, Crystal Lakes First Filing.
2. TANGER ROAD STREET NAME CHANGE (#97-0S1110): 25-05-73 -
HIGH DRIVE HEIGHTS WEST OF ESTES PARK; E-ESTATE ZONING
This is a request to change the street name Upper Upper High Drive to Tanager Road. Staff findings are: 1) Unique street names are needed to accommodate addressing of each dwelling; having an Upper High Drive and an Upper Upper High Drive only leads to confusion; 2) The proposed street name change will simply extend Tanager Road to the end of the street; 3) The County Health and Engineering Departments, and all utility and emergency service providers in this area, reviewed the proposed street name change and stated no objections. The staff recommendation is for approval of the street name change from Upper Upper High Drive to Tanager Road.
3. CRYSTAL LAKES 8TH, LOTS 152-155 EASEMENT VACATION
(#97-SA1111): 02-10-74 - WEST OF RED FEATHER LAKES; 4 ACRES;
4 LOTS; E-1 ESTATE ZONING
This is a request to vacate an existing access easement and dedicate a new easement in a different location. Staff findings include: 1) Crystal Lakes 8th Filing was approved in 1974; 2) Lots 152-155 have f frontage on Ottawa Way, but also have access via an easement; the access drive that was supposed to be in the access easement was actually built along the north line of the lots rather than in the easement; 3) This request is to relocate the access easement so it coincides with the actual location of the access drive; 4) The County Engineer reviewed the proposed easement vacation and rededication and identified some issues concerning access right-of-way width standards that are based on the number of lots using the access road. The applicant will be required to propose an easement and demonstrate that the width will be adequate to accommodate the road, side slopes and drainage facilities needed for the access road.
The staff recommendation is for: 1) Approval of the vacation of the access easement across Lots 152-155, Crystal Lakes 8th Filing. The grant of easement to replace the easement being vacated must be received prior to the recording of the resolution vacating the original easement; and, 2) Approval of a variance from the access width standards to allow an access easement which is wide enough to accommodate the 20-foot access road and any side slopes or drainage facilities needed for this access road.
4. BUCKHORN GLADE SUBDIVISION (#94-SU0446): 1-5-70 - 1/4 MILE
NORTH OF U. S. HIGHWAY 34, EAST OF COUNTY ROAD 27, WEST OF
BUCKHORN CREEK, NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 24; 72.51 ACRES;
26 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING ZONING
This is a request to divide 72.5 acres into 26 lots for single family dwellings with a 2.5 acre open space tract. Staff findings include: 1) The development of the property known as Buckhorn Glade was approved in various configurations by the Board of County Commissioners in 1981, 1984, and 1987, but none of the approved developments were built; 2) The Larimer County Engineering Department, Larimer County Health Department, and other reviewing agencies have reviewed this proposal and have stated that, with certain revisions, they do not object to this proposal; 3) The soils present on this site have limitations for the construction of on-lot septic systems; however, the Larimer County Health Department believes that the applicant can meet the minimum technical requirements of the Larimer County Water, Sewer and Fire Safety Standards and Procedures Manual relating to the use of on-lot septic systems on this property; 4) The use of multiple access points for the subdivision will lessen impacts of increased traffic on adjacent roads and subdivisions with off-site road improvements lessening the impact on off-site traffic flows; 5) The approval of this subdivision, with certain conditions, should not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of existing residents.
The Planning Commission/Staff recommendation is for approval of the Buckhorn Glade Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1) Fire hydrants must be placed throughout the project and shall be no more than 400 feet from structures at 800 foot spacing; each hydrant must meet minimum flow requirements of 500 gallons per minute with 20 psi residual. The fire hydrants must be tested and accepted by the water association with documentation forwarded to Larimer County Planning with all hydrants meeting the required flows before any collateral will be released for fire hydrants; 2) The road grades shown on the Final Plat and constructed can be no more than 6% on open streets and no more than 4% at intersections; 3) Roofing materials used must be in compliance with Larimer County combustibility standards. A note regarding this must be placed on the plat and the requirement must be included in the covenants prepared for this project; 4) Information must be included in the covenants of Buckhorn Glade informing residents of the potential conflicts with mining, agriculture, wildlife, mosquitoes, and livestock and that Larimer County is neither responsible for these conflicts, nor will they take measures to stop legal land uses; 5) The Buckhorn Glade Subdivision covenants must include information and requirements for road maintenance, including statements that Larimer County is not responsible for the maintenance of the roads in Buckhorn Glade; 6) A school bus stop or waiting area must be provided near the intersection with the County Road chosen by the school district as must appropriate for the location; 7) The following notes must be placed on the Final Plat: a) The lots along the eastern property line may encounter shallow bedrock which will require engineered septic systems; b) The lot size and logistics may dictate that an alternative or secondary absorption field site (to be used after failure of the initial system) may need to be engineered; c) Roofing materials used must be in compliance with Larimer County combustibility standards; d) School fees of $332 for each lot will be collected at the time of building permit for each lot in this subdivision; e) Park fees will be collected at the time of building permit for each lot; f) There are existing mining operations in this area; these mines have a life expectancy of more than 20 years. Visual scarring of hillsides, noise and dust can be expected; g) Mosquitoes can be present in these areas; Larimer County does not perform mosquito control. Any desired control must be performed by the property owner and must comply with all State and Federal regulations; h) Foothills property can be subject to nuisance from wildlife including danger to the lives of animals and children from lions, danger to landscaping from deer and other damage and disease brought by wildlife. Larimer County and the Colorado Division of Wildlife are not responsible for any damage or other problems caused by wildlife and will not remove wildlife from private property. Residents should seek information on how to live with wildlife from the Division of Wildlife; i) Rural areas are prone to agricultural activities and livestock that can create dust, noise and odors. Larimer County will not take action against legal agricultural activities; j) The results of a radon test must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; as an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted; k) Engineered footings and foundations are required for new residential construction; l) All utilities must be installed underground; 8) Internal streets and parking areas must be hot asphalt mat paved to current County standards; 9) Detailed plans for the construction of all utilities and roads showing grades, alignment, details, cross sections, plans, and profiles must be submitted for the approval of Larimer County Engineering with Final Plat documentation. Construction of said improvements may not begin until the plans have been approved by Larimer County Engineering; 10) A final drainage plan must be submitted with the Final Plat documentation; this plan must meet all the requirements of the Larimer County Engineering Department. A detention pond is required as part of this drainage plan; 11) A final erosion control plan must be submitted with the Final Plat documentation; this plan must meet all the requirements of the Larimer County Engineering Department which are briefly described in the comments from Larimer County Engineering, dated February 10, 1997, and in the Larimer County Storm Water Management Manual; 12) A right turn lane on County Road 27 at Red Bluff for northbound traffic is required within the existing 60 ft. right-of-way; 13) Tract A (the open space tract) must be labeled as "Non-buildable".
5. U. S. WEST WIRELESS/HICKS SPECIAL REVIEW (#97-ZR1001PCO):
S 1/2 26-04-69 - 616 W. COUNTY ROAD 4E, EAST OF U. S. 287;
.01 ACRES; FA-1 FARMING ZONING
This is a request for Special review to allow a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) facility (antennas mounted on an existing silo, and associated equipment) in the FA-1 Zoning District. Staff findings are: 1) The proposed U. S. West Wireless CMRS facility is in compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Plan and the Larimer County Zoning Resolution. The proposed facility will not be made a non-conforming use by the current draft of the County's proposed CMRS facility regulations; 2) The proposal is compatible with other development in the surrounding area; 3) Approval of the U. S. West Wireless CMRS facility will not result in any significant impacts neighboring properties, the visual and natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure; 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the U. S. West Wireless CMRS facility. The Planning Commission/Staff recommendation is for approval of the U. S. West Wireless CMRS facility.
6. NEWMAN SUBDIVISION (#96-SU0972): SE 19-06-68 - NORTH SIDE OF
COUNTY ROAD 30, 1/2 MILE WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 11; 5 ACRES;
2 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING ZONING
This is a request for Preliminary Plat to subdivide a 5-acre lot with one existing residence into two lots of 2.3 and 2.7 acres for single family residential use (being a replat of Lot 2, Lamb MRD #S-120-88). Staff findings include: 1) The proposed Newman Subdivision is consistent with the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan (Sub Area 13 - Plan for the Region between Fort Collins and Loveland), the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, the existing zoning on the property, and the Subdivision Resolution, and is compatible with existing and planned uses in the area; 2) The requested variance from the Water, Sewer and Fire Safety Standards requirement that at least 70% of the lots must utilize standard septic systems is similar to previously approved requests for subdivisions of 2 or 3 lots; 3) Approval of the Newman Subdivision, with certain conditions, should not result in any significant negative impacts on neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and transportation.
The Planning Commission/Staff recommendation is for approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat of the Newman Subdivision and approval of the variance from the Larimer County Water, Sewer and Fire Safety Standards regarding use of standard vs. engineered septic systems, with the following conditions: 1) The Final Plat shall be completed in strict conformance with the conditionally approved Preliminary Plat, including all notes. Easements as requested by the utility companies shall be provided on the Final Plat; 2) The following notes shall be included on the Final Plat: a) Streets in this development shall not be maintained by Larimer County. Maintenance of the streets shall be the responsibility of the property owners. Failure to maintain these facilities may result in a lien being placed on these lots; b) Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots. The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed, but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, shall be submitted to the Planning Department. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted; c) Engineered footing and foundation plans shall be required for all construction on these lots; d) Rural area issues: 1) Lot owners should be advised that there is a potential for nuisance conflicts from wildlife (such as skunks, raccoons, prairie dogs and snakes). Lot owners should be prepared to address wildlife conflicts if they arise; 2) During certain times of the year, mosquitoes are numerous and vicious biters; Larimer County dies not have a mosquito abatement program. Any mosquito abatement activity will be the responsibility of the homeowner; such activity must be according to applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations; 3) Prairie dog colonies do exist in the general area; prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property. At times, these animals are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets. It is important for residents to observe animal control requirements for dogs and cats; 4) Farming practices on adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust. These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur; 5) If livestock will be kept on these lots, it will be important to carefully manage grazing in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture. Overgrazing will produce bare ground, weeds, erosion and polluted runoff; e) The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Larimer County Park fees, Thompson R2-J School fees, Section 2.8 Fee of $950 and drainage fees for the Fossil Creek Drainage Basin (amount to be calculated by applicant's engineer and noted on the Final Plat). Unless specified, the fee current at time of building permit application shall apply; f) Engineered septic systems shall be required for these lots. Lot owners are advised that engineered septic systems are more expensive to construct than a standard septic system, require more space and may be less reliable than a standard septic system; g) Residential fire sprinkler systems shall be required for these lots. Lot owners are advised that engineered septic systems are more expensive to construct than a standard septic system, require more space, and may be less reliable than a standard septic system; g) Residential fire sprinkler systems shall be required in new residential structures on these lots. Plans for fire sprinkler systems shall be approved by the Loveland Fire Department prior to building permit issuance; h) Underground utilities shall be required; 3) Full construction plans, a final stormwater drainage report, and an erosion control report shall be submitted for approval by County Engineering. Road construction plans must be approved by the Engineering Department and the Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau; all plans must be approved prior to recording of the Final Plat; 4) All improvements for this development shall be included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) which shall be secured by appropriate collateral of a type and amount approved by the County Commissioners. The SIA, along with cost estimates and collateral, shall be submitted to the Planning Department. These documents must be approved prior to recording the Final Plat; 5) The Final Plat shall plat the portion of the future road right-of-way on this property (as shown on the Preliminary Plat) as an access easement and future road right-of-way reservation. The Final Plat shall note that the purpose of the reserved right-of-way is that it is intended for a coordinated road system at the time the land adjacent to the east develops and that construction of the common access road would be required at the time development to the east occurs. The Plat shall also note that, if and when the development to the east is approved, then an Amended Plat of the New Subdivision would be required to reconfigure boundary lines and that dedication of the right-of-way would be required at that time. Once the common access road is constructed, lots in the Newman Subdivision would then take access from and be addressed off of the new named street; 6) A written agreement, binding on future owners, stating the terms established between the developer of the Newman Subdivision and the developer of the property to the east regarding the road shall be submitted for recording with the Final Plat. Plat notes regarding the road right-of-way shall reference the recorded written agreement between the developers, so that future owners will be aware of requirements for and participation in amending boundary lines and dedicating right-of-way; 7) The access road shall be maintained to emergency access standards; maintenance is the responsibility of the property owners. If and when the future common access road is constructed, then the lot owners in the Newman Subdivision will be required to participate in maintenance of that road. A road maintenance covenant or agreement shall be submitted; this document should include provisions regarding coordinated maintenance of the future road is and when it is constructed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and Planning Commission/Staff recommendations and approve the Crystal Lakes 6th, Lots 89 & 91 Amended Plat (#97-SA1101); Tanager Road Street Name Change (#97-OSO1110); Crystal Lakes 8th, Lots 152-155 Easement Vacation (#97-SA1111); Buckhorn Glade Subdivision (#94-SA0446); U. S. West Wireless/Hicks Special Review (#97-ZR1001PCO); and the Newman Subdivision (#96-SU0972); each, with the conditions as amended and outlined.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
7. PROPOSED WILDFIRE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS:
Commissioner Clarke stated that he asked that this item be removed from the Consent Agenda, not to indicate his lack of support, but because he noticed in the Building Board of Appeals' Minutes of August 12, 1997 that a "No" vote was cast by member Freeman with an explanation that even though the proposal was something he could support given the right administrative conditions, he requested the Commissioners to think about this issue more than if it was an unanimous vote. Commissioner Clarke noted that the message he heard is a message that applies to all regulations in Larimer County in which County staff is given a lot of authority to enforce the regulations fairly and equally and in such a way that they do not become onerous.
Commissioner Olson thanked Mr. Farmer for his efforts in working with the Task Force to bring about these wildfire mitigation regulations. Dave Farmer addressed the Board and stated that at first he was really apprehensive about working with such a diverse group of folks; however, he stated that when it was over, he really appreciated their different perspectives and the way they got along in the meetings, even through they had differences of opinions. He introduced the members of the Task Force present today: Mary Beth Snyder, representing the citizens; Rick Whitworth, insurance industry representative; Mike Foley of the U. S. Forest Service; Kimberly Mavers, representing the home builders; Don Weixelman, long-time involvement with land use in the County; Gene Michaud, Fire Council Representative; Mark DeGregario, Forester, Natural Historian, and member of Environmental Advisory Board; Ed Zdenek, member of 35-Acre Task Force, and the following members of the Larimer County Staff: Al Kadera, Tom Garton, David Korth, Dan Kunis, and Don Griffith. Mr. Farmer expressed appreciation to the Board for giving him the opportunity to expand his skills and horizons in dealing with this diverse group of people.
On behalf of the Board, Chair Disney thanked Mr. Farmer and the Task Force for the work they have done and noted that this County is really blessed in the numbers of people who give of themselves to help make County government better.
A) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
REGULATION REGARDING WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION
This is a request to amend the 1991 Uniform Building Code by adding Chapter 14 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Requirements for New Construction. Staff findings are that the Wildfire Safety Task Force was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to review the hazard area regulations and to make recommendations concerning wildfire hazards in the County. The Task Force recommends the adoption of Building Code amendments to address defensible space and building materials, some minor changes to the Natural Hazard Area Regulations Along with the Water, Sewer, and Fire Safety Standards and Procedures Manual plus the creation of a Wildfire Safety Coordinator position in the Building Department to help reduce the risk from wildfire hazards. The Building Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption of the Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Requirements and the Rural Land Use Center supports adoption of this regulation, which would apply to RLUC projects. The proposed regulations were sent to thirty-four referral agencies for comments and all the comments received have been in support of the regulations. The Building Board of Appeals recommendation is for approval of the Amendments to the 1991 Uniform Building Code by adding Chapter 14 - "Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Requirements for New construction, to address wildfire hazards with noted changes to be effective February 1, 1998.
B) PROPOSED LARIMER COUNTY NATURAL HAZARD AREA
This is a request to amend the Natural Hazard Area Regulation to address wildfire hazards, and to amend the Water, Sewer, and Fire Safety Standards and Procedures Manual. Staff findings include: 1) Larimer County adopted a Natural Hazard Regulation in 1977; this regulation addresses wildfire hazards and requires that mitigation plans be devised for all development in the County; 2) The Wildfire Safety Task Force was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to review the hazard area regulations and to make recommendations concerning wildfire hazards in the County. The Task Force recommends some minor changes to the Natural Hazard Area Regulations, along with the adoption of Building Code amendments, to address defensible space and building materials and the creation of a Wildfire Safety Coordinator position in the Building Department to help reduce the risk from wildfire hazards; 3) The Task Force also recommends amending the Water, Sewer and Fire Safety Standards and Procedures Manual to delete Section 3.3A and B to remove the requirement for individual water storage on each rural lot in the County which is more than one mile from a water line capable of providing the required fire flow.
The Planning Commission/Staff recommendation is for: 1) Approval of the Amendments to the Natural Hazard Area Regulation to address wildfire hazards and adoption of the map defining Wildfire Hazard Area; and 2) Approval of the Amendment to the Water, Sewer and Fire Safety Standards and Procedures Manual to delete Sections 3.3A and B to remove the requirement for individual water storage facilities on each lot more than one mile from a water line capable of providing the required fire flow.
C) ADMINISTRATION/IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE REGULATION AND LARIMER
COUNTY NATURAL HAZARD AREA REGULATION
This is a request to create a new Larimer County position for a Wildfire Safety Coordinator; this position is to be funded by fees from building permits and development review. The staff recommendation is to hire a full time Wildfire Safety Coordinator as soon as possible after January 1, 1998 to assist with the implementation process and prepare for when the regulations go into effect; establish a $130.00 fee per building permit for construction in the Wildfire Hazard Zone; and establish a $30.00 per hour fee for Land Use Review on development in the Wildfire Hazard Zone and RLUC wildfire hazards planning review, mitigation and monitoring.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and Building Board of Appeals/Staff recommendations and approve the proposed Wildfire Mitigation Requirements, to amend the 1991 Uniform Building Code by adding Chapter 14 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Requirements for New Construction; amend the Natural Hazard Area Regulation to address wildfire hazards, and amend the Water, Sewer and Fire Safety Standards and Procedures Manual; and create a new Larimer County position for a Wildfire Safety Coordinator.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
At this time Don Weixelman addressed the Board and stated that he is in favor of this action; but he wanted to take this opportunity to make some comments. He noted that he is currently processing a subdivision request in the mountains and these new regulations are fair and something they can live with, but at Concept Technical Review (CTR) he was informed that he had to do abide by the regulations before Preliminary Plat approval. Mr. Weixelman stated that when it is required before Preliminary Plat approval, the developer is taking a chance on spending several thousand dollars when there is the possibility the proposal could be denied; therefore, he would like for completion of the regulations to be on Final Plat approval and not Preliminary Plat approval. Mr. Weixelman recommended that at the building permit stage, the Forester meet with the person wanting to build a home and give him a brief education about defensible space around the home; he noted it would be a tremendous benefit to the home builder and the surrounding community. Chair Disney requested Mr. Kadera to review the comments made by Mr. Weixelman and report back to the Board with regard to the difference between CTR requirements and Preliminary Plat requirements.
The hearing recessed at 3:25 p.m.
CONTINUATION OF LAND-USE PLANNING MEETING
(#249 @ 2000 & #250)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7:00 p.m. in regular session with Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center Director. Chair Disney presided and Commissioners Clarke and Olson were present. Also present were: Larry Timm, Director of Planning; Marc Engemoen, County Engineer; Lonnie Sheldon, Project Engineer; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner; Brenda Gimeson, RLUC Technician; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
Chair Disney introduced staff and noted that each agenda item tonight will be allotted one hour and 30 minutes and if a decision is not reached in that time, the item will be tabled to another date for continuation.
1. SYLVAN DALE RANCH PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN
(#97-EX1087): 13 & 14-05-70 RESIDENTIAL LAND, 1 1/2 MILES SOUTH
OF U. S. 34 ON CR 29, EAST SIDE AND 20 & 29-06-70 - MOUNTAIN
EASEMENT IN THE FOOTHILLS - 5 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE
MIRAVALLE SUBDIVISION AND 3 MILES SOUTHWEST OF
MASONVILLE AT THE HEAD OF SULZER GULCH; 50.0 ACRES
RESIDENTIAL LAND; 12 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING ZONING
This is a request to place approximately 400 acres of foothills land under conservation easement and transfer 11 residential units to 50 acres of land, with one residential site, owned by the applicant on County Road 29 for a total of 12 residential units proposed. Staff findings include: 1) This proposal is consistent with the policies of the Rural Land Use Board. The Planning Staff expressed appropriate concerns regarding this project's TDR-like characteristics, specifically inquiring about the standards of review. The Rural Land Use Process was designed as a highly-interactive, negotiated, descriptive (rather than prescriptive) process. Both the Rural Land Use Center Director and Board believe that this project is in keeping with both the spirit and letter of the Rural Land Use Process. A number of factors have led to its support: a) The underlying FA-1 Farming Zone of the Big Valley and the Development Land; b) The Development Land's proximity to existing infrastructure; c) The density and character of the surrounding development, from the contiguous subdivision to the south to the other nearby subdivisions and 35-acre divisions; d) The visibility and conservation values of the Open Land; e) The fact that the Open Land is well-suited for development into 35-acre exemptions with the ability to provide reasonable, affordable access; 2) The applicant was not asked to address Planning Staffs' question concerning additional impacts remote from the residual lands (referred to as Open Land in this report) for the following reasons: a) The Rural Land Use Process was designed as an alternative to 35-acre use-by-right development for which there is no County review and the applicant asked for no density bonuses; b) This is the beginning of a phased conservation development of 3200 acres which promises to result in a lower net number of residential units than allowed under the existing zoning through the subdivision process; c) This is an innovative prototype project with sufficient compensating benefits to the County as defined by the Rural Land Use Process; 3) To briefly address the question regarding plans for the contiguous properties now owned by the applicant (The Big Valley): a) The applicant has stated that this initial Rural Land Use Process project "is only the first part of a larger master plan for conserving the bulk of the 3200 acres owned by Sylvan Dale Ranch, LTD"; b) Engineering designs will be submitted for approval with the Final Plat; c) Conservation easement and management plan will be reviewed and approved with the Final Plat; d) Architectural controls will be reviewed prior to final approval.
Mr. Reidhead informed the Board that there are two pieces of land under one ownership being considered tonight and the proposal is a non-contiguous development where the potential development is being moved from one highly visible area in the foothills to a lower parcel of land. Mr. Reidhead stated that the foothills land is surrounded by National Forest and other protected land and the owners approached the RLUC about the possibility of moving the development to the lower location closer to development infra-structure. Mr. Reidhead showed photos of the site and stated that the RLUB was interested in this proposal because the land is visible from the City of Loveland and to keep development off this land, they would transfer the 11 units allowed for this site (under the 35-acre rule) with no County review and move them to a lower area. Mr. Reidhead noted if the applicants went through the subdivision review, there could be 21 lots on this lower land of 50 acres, rather than the 12 proposed, and the density is less than the underlying zoning; he noted also that the owners could develop the mountain property into 11 35-acre sites. Mr. Reidhead explained that the reason they went from 11 to 12 units is that there was a dump at the south end of the project that was cleaned up and now will be a buildable lot. Mr. Reidhead noted also that at the neighborhood meeting held on August 5, 1997, the neighbors to the south expressed strong concern that the project would infringe upon their view and so the owners reconfigured their plat to move the sites further to the north. Mr. Reidhead stated that another concern of the neighborhood was with regard to the traffic and safety on the road; he read aloud the letter dated August 1, 1997 signed by 38 neighboring landowners expressing their extreme concern and opposition to this proposal and stating that they believe it is an attempt to circumvent the existing Larimer County subdivision regulations and will create serious traffic and safety issues on CR 29, threaten wildlife, and lower the quality of life for the individuals currently residing in the valley. Mr. Reidhead reviewed the pictures and project in detail and noted that there is a proposed frontage road adjacent to CR 29 to keep most of the traffic internal in the subdivision; he noted that this proposal will protect agriculture and the visual integrity of the Big Valley.
Questions from the Board and discussion followed regarding the daily vehicle trips on CR 29, and if road improvements will be required with the additional traffic generated from this proposal; Mr. Sheldon responded in the negative. Chair Disney asked Mr. Sheldon if he has the current accident history; he responded that he does not have it, but he is not aware of a high number of accidents on CR 29. Chair Disney asked who will maintain the strip of land between CR 29 and the frontage road; Mr. Reidhead responded that it would be the responsibility of each lot owner.
John Mathey, from Northern Colorado Appraisers Real Estate and representative for the applicants, informed the Board that covenants are not yet set in concrete; however, he noted that they have compiled covenants from other subdivisions to devise a set of covenants at least as restrictive as any of those covenants. Mr. Mathey stated that they will either severely restrict or not have livestock at all and they are going to restrict high profile houses and have a minimum of 1500 sq. ft., with building materials that fit into the area; he noted they are concerned with what the development will look like and the impact it will have on the area. Commissioner Clarke asked about the distance from the frontage road to the County road; the answer was 100 ft.; Mr. Mathey stated that their main objective is to not have the houses built near the road.
John Chilson, attorney representing many of the neighbors in this area, stated that he has never come before this Board or any Board representing neighbors in opposition to a land use application; he is always on the other side. Mr. Chilson stated that if this project was going through the subdivision regulation process, he would not be here tonight; however, the reason he is here tonight is that this project is not going through those regulations, and it will create problems down the line. Mr. Chilson noted that the RLUC process is under a Statute and the Bill, as proposed to the Legislature to create this Center and process, was lobbied both as a relief measure for large agriculture land owners who had waste land that could be put to better purposes and still enable them to continue to farm or ranch, to promote cluster development on 35-acre tracts as an alternative to a development process, and for the public to obtain substantial commitments for on-site open space, not off-site. Mr. Chilson stated that this Bill was not lobbied as a transferable development rights (TDR) Bill or as a method to buy your way out of the subdivision regulations - the intent was strictly to permit development at rural densities in rural areas at substantially less cost to the landowner than having to go through the subdivision regulations. The impact of having 2 or 3 clustered parcels on a 35-acre tract is minor compared to 12 2.29 acre lots, and the creation of common open space within the tract being developed was also thought by the Legislature to yield a public benefit. Mr. Chilson stated that this is not a TDR because of the density sought, as classic TDR's are used to increase the density permitted by the zoning by committing off-site space to a conservation easement, etc. for non development in order to transfer density rights to a piece of land that doesn't have them; however, this land has them and the applicants are seeking to build at the highest density permitted under the County's zoning in an area that is very rural and very low density, creating a major conflict with compatibility with no process for the neighbors to become involved. Mr. Chilson stated that, if this proposal is approved, two very serious precedents will be set in Larimer County: 1) The developers in this County can go to the foothills and buy land that is basically undevelopable and bring it through the RLUP and buy off on the subdivision regulations and buy their way out of having to comply with compatibility issues, health, safety, and welfare issues on water, sewer, erosion and drainage control, etc.; 2) The rest of the applicant's land can now be set up for development at the highest density allowed by the County. Mr. Chilson stated that it is not true that there could be 21 units instead of 12 on this 50 acres because there is no sewer available on site. In summary, Mr. Chilson stated that the landowner should have the right to proceed with this project under the subdivision regulations which insure that this kind of density is done in such a manner that public health, safety and welfare are protected; he cannot support a proposition in which those subdivision regulations have no part because we are being bought off with the promise of 400 acres of land that is inaccessible and undevelopable.
The following adjacent property owners addressed the Board with their concerns: Susan Teumer, Cody Smith, Warren Wolaver, Laura Harmon, and J. D. Wiant. They discussed the many serious accidents which have occurred on CR 29, the possible impact on the lot which was previously the site of a septic dump and that this disclosure should be made to the future owners, this site is a gift of nature and should not be developed, and if the project is approved, it will do away with the County's subdivision regulations. Jim Crowder stated that what is proposed is not too different from what is out there now, but he would like to see the Board enforce some standards like having the road paved; he noted that the lots are large enough, the open space is a bonus, and the development is OK, with standards. Mr. Mathey responded to the concerns raised and stated that he will defer to the engineering experts, but he thinks there is plenty of site distance on the roads, and he felt they were working within the legal perimeters set out by Statute in the Rural Land Use Process.
At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was closed; Commissioner Olson stated that at a previous hearing she had concerns how standards are met with the RLU process and she asked Ms. Haag to explain the difference between the subdivision process and the RLU process and she asked her to do that again today. Ms. Haag explained that the way the Rural Land Use Process was initially developed is different than the subdivision process: 1) The subdivision process requires a great deal of work to be done upfront before you come to the Commissioners for Preliminary Plat approval; 2) The RLU process was designed to be much more flexible, voluntary and negotiable so that a developer, up to this point in time, would not need to spend a great deal of money on concepts, designs, or studies - it is a very negotiated process and at this stage it is more conceptual and, if approved tonight, the Board will be approving the concept of the project. Ms. Haag continued that once the developer gets the thumbs up by the Commissioners, he goes forward and is obligated to do many more studies to work out the details and ultimately come back to the Commissioners with a fully developed project that will be incorporated into a development agreement; the Commissioners are free at that point, if they are not satisfied that there aren't any issues outstanding or there is a problem with the covenants or project or have questions, they can walk away from the deal at that time, as can the landowner. By contrast, once the preliminary plat is approved in the subdivision process, the Final Plat is an administrative type procedure and the Board doesn't have the discretion to say they have changed their minds. With the RLU process, at the final stage the Commissioners have to be fully satisfied that all issues have been met, that it is a good project, that water, sewer, access, etc. all have been thoroughly thought out and addressed before they are going to give final approval to the project. Much discussion and more questions from the Board followed; it was noted that there was a neighborhood meeting on August 5, 1997 and 45 people attended, but through the subdivision process, there is no requirement for a neighborhood meeting and citizen input. There was further discussion of the accidents on CR 29, disclosure to the future property owners of Lot 12 (the old dump site), etc. Mr. Reidhead reiterated that the owners are willing to put the 400 acres protected in perpetuity, not just for 40 years. Chair Disney stated he appreciates the concern about setting a precedent; however, the RLUB and the Commissioners can say "No" at any time if the sending parcel does not benefit the County and citizens. Commissioner Olson reiterated that the Board will actively follow this project to the end; she noted it is an unusual format, but in the end we will have a quality development.
The Rural Land Use Board and Director recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Sylvan Dale Ranch Preliminary Rural Land Plan. After lengthy discussion, the following issues or review, which need to be resolved prior to presenting the Final Plat to the Board of County Commissioners, were amended as follows: 1) Demonstration that adequate sight distance is available for the access to the project and that the accident history at this site be considered; 2) Clean-up of dump site on Development Land per County requirements; 3) Demonstration of adequate water service provided by Little Thompson Water District; 4) Engineering designs will be submitted for approval with the Final Plat; 5) Preliminary soil testing to demonstrate soil suitability for on-site sewage systems; 6) Conservation easement and management plan will be reviewed and approved with Final Plat; 7) Architectural controls will be reviewed prior to final approval; 8) Engineered footing and foundations shall be required on all structures; 9) The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be submitted to the Planning Department. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted; 10) Homeowners' Association covenants will be reviewed by the Rural Land Use Center prior to final approval; 11) The applicant shall provide sales and other information to the Rural Land Use Center Director as necessary to insure that monitoring of the incentives can be conducted; 12) Road fees shall be paid at the time of building permit, if determined applicable by the Engineering Department; 13) Park fees shall be paid at the time of building permit; 14) School fees shall be paid at the time of building permit; 15) Owner or real estate professional shall provide purchasers with "Code of the West" at the time of closing; 16) Additional information will be supplied prior to submittal of Final Plat to allow the Health Department to analyze the potential health significance of Lot 12 as a building site; 17) If dump site is included in Lot 12 at Final Plat, it must be disclosed to the future owners of Lot 12 that it contains land which was previously a dump site.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and the Rural Land Use Board and Director's recommendation and approve the Sylvan Dale Ranch Preliminary Rural Land Plan (#97-EX1087), with the conditions as amended and outlined.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
2. DIXON COVE ESTATES PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN
(#97-EX1064): SECTION 30 & 31, TOWNSHIP 4, RANGE 69; ON THE
WEST SIDE OF HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR BETWEEN DIXON COVE
AND INLET BAY, NORTHEAST OF COUNTY ROAD 25G VIA DIXON
COVE DRIVE; 74 ACRES; 4 LOTS; O-OPEN ZONING
This is a request to create four building sites of approximately 3 acres each with the remaining land, approximately 62 acres, to remain as open space, protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement. Staff findings are: 1) This proposal is consistent with the policies of the Rural Land Use Board; 2) Resolution of the issues surrounding the road access, including repair, maintenance, and participation in road association, particularly in light of the recent flood damage, must be made a requisite of final approval of the project; 3) Engineering designs will be submitted for approval with the Final Plat; 4) Conservation easement and management plan will be reviewed and approved with the Final Plat; 5) Architectural controls will be reviewed prior to final approval.
Jim Reidhead stressed the preliminary nature of this request and noted that there is a great deal to be resolved between now and final approval, if the plan is approved; he discussed the road issue, the neighborhood, and the RLU Board's rationale for bringing this project to the Commissioners. Mr. Engemoen also discussed the road issue; he noted that the heavy rains in July resulted in a lot of damage on Dixon Cove Drive and the Poudre Fire Authority has expressed concern that they may have difficulty providing emergency services to the area. Mr. Engemoen stated that the condition of the road is a difficult problem to repair; they have estimated that a band-aid repair to restore the road to its pre-flood width would cost $30,000 to $50,000 and might last 5 to 10 years, but also might not last through next spring. He noted that a more permanent improvement would cost $100,000; he noted there are other options, but they are all expensive and there is the dilemma of who should be responsible for doing these repairs. Mr. Engemoen stated that Larimer County has a perpetual easement from the Bureau of Reclamation for the section of road that sustained the damage and Larimer County has an agreement with Continental North Subdivision in which they assume responsibility for maintaining that section of the road; however, they have given notice that they intend to terminate that agreement. In summary, Mr. Engemoen stated that there is a real question whether or not there is adequate access to the subject property. Mr. Reidhead stated that one thing the RLUB has required as a technical condition for final approval is that a satisfactory solution to the road situation be attained; he described the project, noting that the land could be divided into two 35-acre exemptions without County input or potentially 7 single-family sites, if brought through the subdivision process, but this proposal is for 4 residential parcels of approximately 3 acres each for a total of 12 acres, with 62 acres to remain in open space protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement. He discussed the character of the land and the neighborhood and reviewed the pictures of the area; he stated that they had a community meeting on June 16, 1997 and he itemized the concerns raised about the project: 1) Cost and impact on water and sewer service from Spring Canyon Water & Sanitation District; 2) Additional traffic and safety; 3) Paying for road maintenance and insurance costs; 4) Problems with blasting and excavation impacting roads and structures in the area; 5) Lack of architectural controls; 6) Changing the rules on adjacent land development after residents purchased their property; 7) Housing structures, power lines, road cuts, etc. impacting the landscape and views; 8) Use of remaining open space; 9) Lack of trust that the applicant will fully support the spirit and intent of an agreement; etc. Mr. Reidhead stated that the challenge of the RLUP with any development is reconciling an owner's rights to develop their property under the existing policies and rules with the character and values of the neighborhood and reconciling those with the technical requirements of the regulating agencies and it is the job of the RLUB to put stringent requirements in place.
Ed Zdenek, representing the applicant, reviewed the history of Continental North Subdivision, beginning in 1973; he noted that in May of 1997, the applicant went to the Planning Commission for 7 units and came to the RLUC simultaneously to see which would be most appropriate. Mr. Zdenek stated that the applicant subsequently dropped the subdivision request and the current proposal is for 4 units and they have tried to locate those 4 units in a way that is consistent with the ecology of the area, the surrounding neighborhood, and the external community; he described those 4 sites in detail. Mr. Zdenek stated that the Division of Wildlife and a grasslands expert visited the site to discuss the wildlife; he noted they are trying to leave in tact this wonderful piece of land and not interfere with the natural surroundings and they have tried to locate these homes to have the least impact to the community. Mr. Zdenek addressed the neighborhood concerns, noting they have met with the District and will do a flow analysis and figure out a way to deal with the water and sewer issue; with regard to traffic, they will provide a very strict management plan. He continued that they will be providing all that is required with the subdivision regulations and he requested approval of this proposal, contingent upon the resolution of the road issue; questions from the Board and discussion followed.
The following persons addressed the Board citing their concerns regarding this proposal: Lillian Mezey, Von Campbell, Denisa Curtzinger, Norman Dill, Dr. Raggio Colby, Scott Ragsdale and Todd Tolly. Their concerns were with regard to the geology of the area and blasting, concern that the plan does not look like clustering, which is an objective of the RLU process, the impact on movement of wildlife in their habitat, visibility, subsidizing of the financial activities (water, sewer, & utilities) to make sure this plan doesn't become a burden on the current homeowners in the area, concern regarding the many things that are left to be investigated and determined, especially enforcement provisions or activities surrounding the maintenance of the open space, concern about some of the Board members having a conflict of interest, cost to upgrade the entire water and sewer system, commercial horse business, instability of the rock formations, architectural controls and power lines, the 1.2 miles of road that has to be traversed before you get to Dixon Cove, which is maintained by another homeowner's association, etc. It was suggested that, before this proposal goes further, someone needs to meet with their association and lawyers and draft some kind of plan for the County, the association, and the developers to work out a contract for maintenance. A copy of the geophysical survey report from the State of Colorado in 1986 discussing the instability of the area was submitted for the Board's review.
Mr. Zdenek responded to some of the concerns; he noted that there is no question that this is an unstable area and they will be doing additional geological studies, which is one of the conditions of approval. He stated that they will try to minimize blasting in the area and they think they have positive solutions that will work to everyone's interest; he noted that they are putting all the power lines underground. In response to the concern about the possibility of a commercial horse business in this area, Mr. Timm read from the O-Open zoning regulations which stated that 1 horse per 1/2 acre is permitted and to have a boarding stable would require special review. Mr. Reidhead responded to the concern about specific siting versus clustering; he noted that the Ordinance requires specific siting for each project going through the process and there are two alternatives: 1) Disperse siting; and 2) Clustered siting. He noted that they have looked at both of these options and they try to let the land dictate what should be done.
Further questions from the Board and discussion followed; Commissioner Clarke commented that this is a project that should go through, but he is concerned about some of the issues the neighbors brought up; such as, blasting and rocks falling down and he thinks there should be some way to warn people that blasting is going to take place. With regard to the roads, there is a need for the new lot owners to join with the road association and pay their equitable and fair share. Chair Disney requested clarification regarding the comment from the Colorado Division of Wildlife that the Larimer County Board of Commissioners bear the responsibility for adding more human, pet, and livestock to this area for any future mountain lion instances; Ms. Haag responded that we are not liable. Chair Disney asked about the use of black powder for blasting, because the force of the blast is considerably less. Commissioner Olson addressed the management plan issue; she noted for this audience, as discussed at length earlier this evening, that this is the beginning of the process and there is much negotiation and many details to be worked out between now and the Final Plat and development, and a part of that is the management plan and the long term aspects of how we manage open space - this is only preliminary approval.
The Rural Land Use Board and the Director recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Dixon Cove Estates Preliminary Rural Land Plan. After lengthy discussion, the following issues or review, which need to be resolved prior to presenting the Final Plat to the Board of County Commissioners, were amended as follows: 1) Satisfactory resolution of road access situation; 2) Demonstration of adequate/satisfactory water and public sewer service provided by Spring Canyon Water and Sanitation District; 3) Engineering designs will be submitted for approval with the Final Plat; 4) Drainage issues are resolved; 5) Conservation easement and management plan (or other satisfactory legal instrument in accordance with Rural Land Use Process Ordinance) will be reviewed and approved with Final Plat; 6) Architectural controls will be reviewed prior to final approval; 7) Engineered footing and foundations shall be required on all structures; 8) The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed, but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, shall be submitted to the Planning Department. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted; 9) Homeowners Association covenants will be reviewed by the Rural Land Use Center prior to final approval, and they include wildfire mitigation; 10) The applicant shall provide sales and other information to the Rural Land Use Center Director as necessary to insure that monitoring of the incentives can be conducted; 11) Road fees shall be paid at the time of building permit, if determined applicable by the Engineering Department; 12) Park fees shall be paid at the time of building permit; 13) Schools fees shall be paid at the time of building permit; 14) Owner or real estate professional shall provide purchaser with "Code of the West" at the time of closing; 15) The new properties must join the road association and pay a fair and equitable fee; 16) If blasting occurs for foundations, utilities, and other improvements that: a) There be a way devised to warn the residents that blasting is occurring, and b) There be a way that if damage results from the blasting, there be a liability on the part of the blaster as pertains to the blastee; 17) Power lines must be underground; 18) Reclamation of the old building site where blasting and stone removal has occurred.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and the Rural Land Use Board and Director's recommendation and approve the Dixon Cove Estates Preliminary Rural Land Plan (#97-EX1064), with the conditions as amended and outlined.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The hearing adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1997
(# 251 & 252)
The Board of County Commissioners meet at 9:00 a.m. in regular session. Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Olson were present. Also present were: Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Keith Olson, Director of Mental Health; Vicki Grassman, Assistant Director of Mental Health; Isabel Rodrequez-Thacker, Mental Health Coordinator; John MacFarlane, Director of Parks; Ralph Jacobs, Director of Human Resources; Andy Paratore, Director of Information Management; Gary Janezich, Systems and Programming Manager; Dick Anderson, Facilities Manager; Lorrie Wolfe, Grant Program Coordinator; Averil Strand, Community Health Services Director; Deni LaRue, Community Information Manager; and Donna Hart, Commissioner's Office Staff Services Manager. Recording Clerk, Gael Cookman.
1. OPEN SESSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Tom Bender addressed the Board during the open session for public comment; he expressed concern about the local newspapers focusing on the possible elimination of the County's 4-H program. Mr. Bender stated that he feels the newspapers are trying to use this to get the tax increase passed; he stated this is inappropriate and thinks the newspapers owe the public an apology. Mr. Lancaster explained that the possible elimination of the County's Extension program has attracted a lot of attention as it represents a large portion of the budget that could be reduced; he also explained that government funding of the 4-H program is continually questioned as this program could possibly be privately funded similar to the Boy and Girl Scouts programs. Mr. Bender then questioned the new county noise ordinance that is proposed; stating that he is concerned about a clause within the ordinance that reads "if a person of normal sensitivity complains about a noise, the complaint would be considered valid". Mr. Bender stated that this is too subjective and he is concerned that this will cause citizens to register more complaints. Commissioner Clarke assured Mr. Bender that the ordinance would be enforced with common sense, and that the normal sensitivity clause was included to address the low bumping/thumping noises that could possibly interfere with an individuals peace of mind and tranquillity. (Low thumping noises often do not meet the higher decibel levels commonly used to judge noise pollution.) Commissioner Disney explained that there is already a State noise ordinance in place, but it does not cover the nuisance factor which could be caused by the low thumping noise of music from a neighborhood bar. Mr. Bender was also concerned about the right to farm issue that will be included in PLUS; he asked if it would be feasible to make the right to farm and ranch an ordinance. Chair Disney explained that this issue is included in the Master Plan but it is too soon to tell if it will actually become an ordinance. Mr. Bender explained that some individuals are upset about cows entering their property and that the individuals do not realize their responsibility to erect a fence to keep the animals off of their property if they do not want them there.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1997:
Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for the week of September 29, 1997.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. APPROVAL OF SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 13, 1997:
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule for the week of October 13, 1997.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
Commissioner Olson moved for approval of the following documents as listed on the consent agenda on document review for October 7, 1997:
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT: McCormick Minor Residential Development Plat 96EX0971. LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to: Hilltop Outpost - 3.2% - Red Feather, CO.; La Chaumiere, Inc. - 6% - Lyons, CO. County approval was granted to: Red Feather Lakes Café & Bar - 6% - Red Feather Lakes, CO.; American Legion Post Home Association George Beach Post No. 4 - 6% - Ft Collins, CO.
A97-146 DETOXIFICATION SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ISLAND GROVE REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTER, INC.
C97-49 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS FOR THE PROVISION OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
R97-142z FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION
OF ROCKY ROAD QUARRY
R97-143s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF EAST OWASSA SUBDIVISION AND VACATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT.
R97-144s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN HICKS MINOR
R97-145z FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF
Motion carried 3 - 0.
5. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 5 - 11, 1997 AS MENTAL ILLNESS WEEK AND OCTOBER 9, 1997 AS NATIONAL DEPRESSION SCREENING DAY:
Ms. Rodrequez-Thacker explained that the goal of this proclamation is to increase public education and awareness in an effort to remove the debilitating stigma that accompanies the personal battles against mental illness, to inform people that depression is treatable, and to let the public know what resources are available for treatment. Ms. Grassman distributed buttons for the Board to wear in support of this proclamation and Mr. Olson noted that Depression Screening Day (October 9th) is observed in both the United States and Canada; he explained that there is no charge and no appointment necessary to stop by the Health Department for the screening. Commissioner Clarke then read the Proclamation aloud.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim the week of October 5 - 11, 1997 as Mental Illness Awareness Week and October 9th as National Depression Screening Day.
Motion carried 3-0.
6. APPOINTMENTS TO THE FAIRGROUNDS TASK FORCE: Chair Disney explained that he, along with John MacFarlane, Loren Maxey, and Bob Holt, interviewed a number of people; focusing on the expertise needed for site evaluation and economic analysis. Commissioner Disney noted that there were so many qualified individuals to choose from that they will be asking some who not are appointed to the task force, to contribute to the sub-committee members. Commissioner Clarke stated that he recognized a number of people on the list and supported the recommendations, as did Commissioner Olson.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Olson recommended approval to appoint Barney Cosner, Faren Stroh, John Benson, Bob Starman, Suzanne Bassinger, Roger Kenney, Rita Greene, Steve Humann, and J.D. Wiant to the Fairgrounds Task Force.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. TURN OFF THE VIOLENCE DAY PROCLAMATION: District Attorney Stu VanMeveren requested the Board to proclaim Thursday, October 9, 1997 as Turn Off the Violence Day in Larimer County, in an effort to encourage non-violent means to resolve conflict within the community.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim October 9, 1997 as Turn Off the Violence Day in Larimer County.
Motion carried 3-0.
8. LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY BOARD: Mr. Lancaster explained that the City of Loveland requested that the Board approve the appointment of Captain John Walker to serve the remainder of Mary Moore's term on the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority Board.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointment of Captain John Walker of the Loveland Police Department to serve the remainder of Mary Moore's term on the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority Board, representing the City of Loveland, as requested by the Loveland City Manager.
Motion carried 3-0.
9. DISCUSSION OF PARK RANGERS AND VOLUNTEER RANGERS: Mr. MacFarlane passed out the staffing document for the park ranger positions and requested Board approval for changing three temporary Park Ranger II positions to three regular classified Park Ranger positions beginning January 1, 1998. Mr. Jacobs stated that Human Resources needed Board approval for this action.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners change three of the temporary Park Ranger positions to regular full time positions beginning January 1, 1998.
Motion carried 3-0.
At 10:05 a.m. Commissioner Olson left meeting.
10. OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR DISPATCHER IN SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: Mr. Jacobs explained that Manager Diane Jaso was called upon to work during the March 17, 1997 'Heat is Still On' Drunk Driving Initiative, and that the Sheriff's Department had agreed to pay Ms. Jaso overtime compensation for her hours worked during this campaign; however, Ms. Jaso is an exempt employee and is not entitled to overtime pay. Mr. Jacobs noted that the Board would have to approve an exception to policy if Ms. Jaso is to be paid any wages for the hours worked. Commissioner Clarke stated that Ms. Jaso is entitled to be paid for the hours she worked, as that was the agreement between herself and the Sheriff's Department; he then suggested the possibility of awarding Ms. Jaso a bonus for the hours worked since she is not eligible for overtime pay.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that a bonus of $265 dollars be paid to Manager Diane Jaso, for her work on March 17, 1997, during the "Heat is Still on" drunk driving initiative.
Under discussion of the motion, Chair Disney wanted to emphasize that whenever possible, departments should request approval for extra pay for exempt employees, rather than promise payment to the employee and then come to the Board for approval.
Motion carried 2-0.
11. FACILITIES FUNDING FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES (IMS): Mr. Janezich outlined the reorganization process that IMS recently undertook and explained the proposal to redesign the physical working environment of the IMS office in order to support their new open team service. Mr. Janezich stated that this would promote a more friendly customer service center, that it would be ergonomically designed for the benefit of the IMS employees, and that it would increase cross training and information sharing within the department. Mr. Anderson passed out a diagram of the proposed space designs and explained that the cost to renovate the two offices would be $24,720. Commissioner Disney asked Mr. Anderson if this proposal conforms to the long term plan for county space needs. Mr. Anderson explained that he believed it did as at this point IMS is scheduled to remain in the basement. Commissioner Clarke stated that he is really not comfortable with keeping all the computer equipment in the basement in the future, but he realized that even if IMS moves to a different location sometime in the future, there is a genuine need to redesign the current location.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve $24,720 from the Capital Expenditures fund for remodeling costs in the Information Management Department.
Motion carried 2-0.
12. PROPOSAL FOR ASSET BUILDING COALITION (ABC) GRANT: Ms. Wolfe requested Board approval for financial support in the sum of $2,000 to participate in the Asset Building Coalition (ABC) project for Larimer County; she noted that they will also be required to generate a local cash match of approximately $5,000 during years two and three of the project. Ms. Wolfe explained that this is a three year project with the goal of bringing together Colorado residents and institutions in the effort to build "developmental assets" in young people so they will grow up to be healthy, caring, and responsible. Ms. Wolfe handed out a list of 40 developmental assets and reviewed how certain experiences can assist youth in becoming responsible adults. Ms. Strand explained that training would be conducted within the community in order to teach asset building.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the sum of $2,000 from the Grantwriters already budgeted seed funds as part of the local match required for the Asset Building Coalition Grant.
Under discussion of the motion, Commissioner Disney asked how the $5,000 matching fund would be obtained, as it seems the County sometimes ends up picking up the tab for this type of project. Ms. Wolfe stated that instead of making a cash contribution, the funds could be repaid with in-kind service. Commissioner Disney suggested changing the motion to read that this project would be reassessed each year to determine if the funds were available to continue participation. Commissioner Disney was also curious to know how this projects success would be measured. Ms. Wolfe explained that the Search Institute Survey would be used to measure this projects progress from the beginning to the end and the administrative costs for this are already covered.
Motion carried 2-0.
13. COMMISSIONER REPORTS:
Commissioner Disney explained that the Transportation Legislative Review Committee that he is serving on will be introducing a bill to the General Assembly to outlaw all vehicles whose suspension has been modified from the original manufactures specifications. (i.e. vehicle bodies that are dropped low to the ground and those that are jacked up extra high.) Discussion followed on the public attention that this will generate.
14. LEGAL MATTERS:
Jeanine Haag joined the meeting at this time, and suggested that both of her items be discussed in executive session.
Mr. Lancaster asked for clarification on what commitment was made to mediate the humps and bumps issue between the Saddleback and Solar Ridge subdivisions. Some discussion followed regarding the County's responsibility for this matter; Commissioner's Disney and Clarke agreed to authorize payment not to exceed $500.00 for a facilitator for up to two meetings in order to assist the subdivisions in reconciling this issue. In addition, Commissioner Disney recommended they work towards adopting a policy that addresses how and when the County gets involved with neighborhood disputes.
George Hass joined the meeting at this time; he presented a letter he drafted to the City of Fort Collins requesting that the County be excluded from the Human Rights Ordinance. After reading the letter, both Commissioner's Disney and Clarke agreed that Mr. Hass should sign and submit the letter to the City of Fort Collins on behalf of Larimer County.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 11:20 a.m.
Motion carried 2-0.
Executive Session adjourned at 12:00 p.m. with no further action taken.
JIM DISNEY, CHAIR LARIMER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MYRNA J. RODENBERGER
LARIMER COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
( S E A L )
Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk