PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, January 10, 2000
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 Pro-Tem Rennels presided and Commissioner Disney was present. Also present were: Russ Legg, Chief Planner; Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Matt Lafferty and Fred Starr, Planners II; Sylvester Mabry, Civil Engineer; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner; and Bryan Treu, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, Sherry Graves.
Mr. Timm stated that the Vista View Estates PUD Release of Warranty Collateral for Landscaping Requirements (#94-MS0505) has been withdrawn from today's agenda and will be rescheduled on a future date. Commissioner Disney stated for the record that he received a call from a citizen concerning this item saying that the landscaping materials that were required in the islands and cul-de-sacs were to be dispersed around the detention pond and placed in other areas in the subdivision and that hasn't been done.
Chair Pro-Tem Rennels stated that the following are consent items and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners or members of the audience.
(#95-ZR0713): SW 1/4 10-7-68 - NORTH OF HIGHWAY 14, 1/4 MILE
EAST OF I-25
This is a request for release of collateral for site improvements and landscaping. The staff recommendation is for approval of the release of collateral for the Cloverleaf Mobile Home Community, in the amount of $51,250.00.
(#99-S1489): SW 1/4 OF 28-05-69 ON THE EAST SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 21,
1/4 MILE NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 16; 9.66 ACRES; FA-1 FARMING ZONE
This is a request for an amended exemption of the Arnold and Barnhart exemption (#69-72EX) and the Arnold and Barnhart Exemption (#158-76) by adjusting the boundary between portions of the two exemptions. Staff findings include: 1) The proposed amended plat is in compliance with the Larimer County Master Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution; 2) The amended exemption is compatible with other development in the surrounding area; 3) Approval of the amended plat will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure; 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the amended plat. The staff recommendation is for approval of the amended exemption of the Arnold and Barnhart Exemption (#69-72EX) and the Arnold and Barnhart Exemption (#158-76) by adjusting the boundary between portions of the two exemptions.
HAVEN SUBDIVISION (#99-S1510): 28-06-72 BETWEEN 850 AND 1036
FOX CREEK ROAD; 9 ACRES; 15 LOTS.
This is a request for an amended plat of portions of Lots 22, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40, Block 11 and Lots 42 & 43, Block 12 in Glen Haven Subdivision to divide legal improvements, placing them on separate parcels and to correct description errors and structure encroachments. Staff findings are: 1) The original plat for the Glen Haven Subdivision was filed in 1939; 2) There have been numerous amended plats filed for this subdivision due to errors and problems; 3) No referral agency has identified a conflict with the requested amended plat; 4) All affected/interested property owners are a party to this application. The staff recommendation is for approval of the amended plat of portions of Block 11 & 12 in the Glen Haven Subdivision.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendations and approve the Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park Release of Collateral (#95-ZR0713); Amended Exemption of the Arnold/Barnhart Exemptions (#99-S1489); and the Amended Plat of a portion of Block 11 & 12 in Glen Haven Subdivision (#99-S1510).
Motion carried 3 - 0.
SW 1/4 33-04-69 ON THE EAST SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 21, 3 MILES
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 56; 40.84 ACRES; 9 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING ZONE
This is a request for preliminary plat approval for Eagle View Estates, a single-family residential subdivision containing 9 lots. Mr. Lafferty reviewed the history of this proposal, noting that it was first heard by the Planning Commission on September 15, 1999; at that hearing, Ms. Lemmon, an adjacent property owner, voiced concerns regarding disturbance of existing irrigation laterals crossing the proposed site. Ms. Lafferty continued that as a result of the discussion, the proposal was tabled until November 17, 1999 so the applicant and Ms. Lemmon could reach an agreement regarding those irrigation laterals. On November 17, 1999, the application was reconsidered and it was determined that the applicant and Ms. Lemmon had not reached a formal agreement. However, based upon the testimony given at that hearing, the Planning Commission believed that the applicant had made a good faith effort toward a resolution and conditions of approval were sufficient to make a recommendation of approval. Mr. Lafferty informed the Board that the applicant and Ms. Lemmon have still not reached a formal agreement and, in his opinion, it is not the County's responsibility to insure they reach an agreement. Mr. Lafferty stated that all the issues surrounding this project have been resolved with staff and noted that this plan is subject to the 1983 Larimer County Zoning Resolution and Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Commission/Staff recommendation is for approval of this request, with numerous conditions.
In response to Ms. Lemmon's concerns, Mr. Lafferty described how the applicant plans to deal with the open ditches and laterals running through the property and noted that several of the conditions (q, r, & s) are in response to this issue. Mr. Lafferty stated that there are ways for the applicant to further modify his plan; however, it will cost him a lot or two. Mr. Treu suggested that the requirement for a maintenance agreement should be deleted from those conditions.
Commissioner Disney concurred with Mr. Lafferty that to require an applicant to sign an agreement with an adjoining property owner before Board approval, in essence gives away the Board's land-use authority to that adjoining landowner and that is inappropriate.
Keith Ames, architect and Father of the applicant, stated he has met with Ms. Lemmon several times trying to solve the problem and they are reasonably close; he noted that all the laterals have been placed between properties and do not cross any properties, as suggested by Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Ames stated that two weeks ago, however, Ms. Lemmon informed him of two additional laterals that he had not been aware of previously. Mr. Lafferty stated that this lateral issue has grown from three laterals crossing the property to five and now seven laterals and he doesn't know if the Board should approve a plan that could be modified even more. Ruth Lemmon, adjacent property owner, submitted maps and pictures of the site and reviewed her concerns with the proposal
Commissioner Disney stated that with the new information received today, he doesn't think this proposal should be approved today; much discussion followed and Ms. Lemmon stated she is not opposed to this project, she is only trying to protect her land for irrigation. Gaye Sailer, Ms. Lemmon's daughter, informed the Board that her Mother knows this land and understands the water situation and whatever she says is correct with regard to the laterals, water flows and irrigation. Stan Lewis, representative for the Ish Ditch and Reservoir Company, stated that they have been involved with the project over a year and have worked with the Ames' and have reached a satisfactory agreement; Ms. Lemmon stated that she would like to reach a similar agreement.
Discussion ensued regarding a date this matter should be continued to in order to provide enough time for Ms. Lemmon to review what has been proposed today by the applicant and to reach an agreement; Mr. True stated that according to SB 61 of the State of Colorado, the Board can cause a continuance of an issue of no more than 40 days, unless they have consent from the applicant. Tom Ames agreed to a continuance date of more than 40 days until February 28, 2000.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners continue the Eagle View Estates Subdivision Preliminary Plat (#99-S1369) until 3 p.m. on February 28, 2000.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
The hearing recessed at 4:10 p.m.
CONTINUATION OF LAND-USE HEARING
(#566 & #567)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7 p.m. in regular session with Rob Helmick, Senior Planner. Chair Pro-Tem Rennels presided and Commissioner Disney was present; also present were: Marc Engemoen, Director of Public Works; Eve Bassett, Open Lands Technician II; and Bryan Treu, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, Sherry Graves.
1. VACATION OF CURRENT ALIGNMENT - COUNTY ROAD 29 AND
CONSIDERATION OF RELOCATION OR ABANDONMENT (#99-Z1313):
2 & 3-05-70 AND 34 & 35-06-70, NORTH OF THE BIG THOMPSON
RIVER ALONG CR 29 BETWEEN CHASTEENS GROVE AND THE
This is a request to vacate the current alignment of County Road 29 from south of the Green Ridge Glade Dam to a point south of Sunrise Ranch and to consider the abandonment or relocation of the road on either the east or west side of the new reservoir. Mr. Helmick provided the background information and reviewed the major concerns and issues; he noted that testimony received at the Planning Commission hearing were with regard to the impact to the Sylvan Dale Ranch operations and the proximity of the new road to the Conservation Easement recently acquired by the County on the Sylvan Dale Ranch. Concerns about the western alignment focused on the possible impacts to the habitat and ecosystem present along the western edge of the reservoir. Mr. Helmick stated that the recommendation of the Planning Commission is for the eastern alignment of County Road 29 as the preferred route, the Sylvan Dale Ranch owners are in favor of either closing the road or the eastern alignment, the Open Lands Department supports the eastern alignment for reasons of impact to their particular interests, and the Planning Staff and Sunrise Ranch support the western alignment. Mr. Helmick continued that at the neighborhood meetings, the preference seemed to be for the western alignment as the preferred route; he noted that it appears that the western alignment is shorter, but slightly more expensive and creates the potential for conflicts with an adjoining property owner. The eastern alignment will be longer, have fewer conflicts with adjoining owners, and have a slightly higher impact on wildlife. In summary, it is clear from both public comments and referral comments that the "through" connection of County Road 29 should be maintained; what is less clear is a compelling issue or impact which would indicate the location of the preferred route - east or west and the two principal landowners most directly affected by the route choice cannot agree. Staff findings include: 1) The proposed vacation of a portion of County Road 29 will not leave any property without access to a public road; 2) The vacation of County Road 29 has not been objected to by any agency. Most referral comments do indicate that the road should be opened in a new location.
Eve Bassett addressed the Board and expressed the Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Departments' continued support for the eastern alignment of County Road 29 around the reservoir; she noted that the County owns a 444 acre conservation easement on the Sylvan Dale Guest Ranch, which is the neighboring property to the west, and it is their responsibility to protect the integrity of this conservation easement, which is in place for both visual viewshed purposes as well for the protection of wildlife habitat. If the western alignment is used, there are three concerns: 1) It would cross an area of native vegetation identified by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program as containing imperiled plant community; 2) It would have a negative impact on the movement of large animals; 3) It would compromise some of the values for which this conservation easement was purchased to protect.
Larry Howard, Water Resource Engineer for the City of Loveland Water & Power Department, introduced a number of people who have worked on this project. Mr. Howard discussed the importance of this project to Loveland and reviewed the background and history of the project, noting that the current reservoir was built after the flood of 1976 to help protect the citizens from a future similar occurrence; he noted that the existing reservoir has been used basically for emergency purposes since that time and Loveland has grown considerably in size. Mr. Howard stated that another reason for the new reservoir is for drought protection and the planning for this dates back to the early 1980's; he noted that the City commissioned a study at that time to look at water supplies to determine what sort of planning should be done in the future if a drought occurs and that study recommended that they enhance their water storage for the City as well as purchase some additional water supply. Mr. Howard presented a series of large computer enhanced photos of the expanded reservoir and discussed at length a number of options for ways to configure the road and the spillway around the reservoir; he noted that they made an analysis of the cost and the benefits to the City for placing either the spillway and the road in various combinations on either end of the reservoir. Mr. Howard stated that the City of Loveland does not have a strong opinion with regard to where the road should be located. Tom Pitts, Engineer/Planner for Water Consult, briefly reviewed the environmental analysis performed on this project; he noted the public review process started in March 1997 and continued through October 20, 1999. Mr. Pitts stated that this environmental analysis was required by Federal regulations and when conducting the environmental assessment, they looked at all the possible impacts of the project and he listed all the reports, studies and surveys that were done; in terms of results, they found no threatened or endangered species in the area. Mr. Pitts stated that the reservoir will inundate about an additional 135 acres of terrestrial habitat, but adds 135 acres of aquatic habitat, and with regard to the roads, there will be about six acres of habitat lost with the west side alignment and nine acres lost with the east side alignment. In terms of the impact to wetlands, they will inundate about .83 acres, which will be replaced with wetlands that will be developed on the north end of the reservoir. Mr. Pitts summarized the results of the environmental assessment; he noted that with regard to mitigation for vegetation lost, the City will minimize disturbed areas during construction and will revegetate immediately following construction, and implement a weed-management plan. At this time, Mr. Howard reviewed the permitting, design and construction timeline for the project, beginning with the Board's decision tonight and ending approximately in two years. Questions from the Board and discussion followed.
At this time the hearing was opened for public comment. Bill Becker, representing the Emissaries at Sunrise Ranch, stated that from the beginning they have been supportive of this project; he noted their first choice was for abandonment of CR 29, but since that is no longer an option, their second choice is for location of the road on the west side, which would have considerably less impact on their valley from the standpoint of noise, traffic and general impact. Mr. Becker stated that Sunrise Ranch conducts spiritual retreats and people come from all around the world to the Ranch for serenity and peace in the valley. Questions from the Board followed. David Armstrong stated that what we are not seeing in the computer renditions presented tonight are the size of the cuts that will be necessary to build the road through the area; he noted that, in his opinion, the considerations of the Planning Commission for choosing the east alignment of the road were: 1) Wildlife; 2) Proximity of the Conservation Easement the County recently purchased; 3) The entire project is on City property. Paul Larson stated that he travels County Road 29 daily and very aware of the wildlife in the area; he stated that placing the road on the west side would be a crime and would greatly effect a very complex environment. Kathy Martin stated that placing the road on either side is going to impact the wildlife, but if it has to be, she would like to see the road on the west side. Susan Jessup stated that there is no perfect solution; the western alignment calls for condemnation of private land, which is their land, and which they are working hard to protect. She stated that their first preference was for the road closure and she would like that option revisited; she also suggested that the size of the reservoir be reconsidered. She noted that there is a spring that is critical to the grazing of their livestock which will be cut off and make their land not useable for grazing. Katherine Jeneson stated that Sunrise Ranch is a retreat and meditation center and one of her concerns is the echo factor. Tom Gaskill, adjacent property owner, expressed concern about the caveat of recreation possibly being considered in the future; he noted that if the road alignment is on the east, they are going to be impacted by noise, but if the road goes to the west, it will be 150 feet to the left of his bedroom--noise will be factor regardless which side the road is on and the ideal scenario for him would be for the road to be on the west and the spillway on the east. Mr. Gaskill stated that this project divides the valley and whenever a project divides a valley and everyone has to choose sides, something is not right and he thinks the project should be revisited. Greg Fladager stated that if the east alignment is chosen, the north end would be 100 ft. from the cemetery on Sunrise Ranch.
At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for rebuttal from the applicant and Board discussion. Mr. Howard reiterated that they tried to take a good look at all the issues discussed this evening and take them into account as they moved forward with this project; with regard to the spring Ms. Jessup was concerned about, the west road alignment would cut that spring off from the remaining portion of the property, but possibly the water could be pumped back up the hill. With regard to the concern about the cut and fill, their intention would involve revegetation on the fill areas but where the cut is into bedrock, he doesn't think they could revegetate. With regard to the suggestion that the reservoir be down sized, he noted that as they have moved through the planning process, they have tried to update their projections on needs for the City. Commissioner Disney asked if they have considered noise mitigation measures; Mr. Howard responded that they have looked at plantings for a number of reasons, but not for noise mitigation. Mr. Howard was asked about the frequency of traffic to the water treatment plant; he answered five trips per month.
Mr. Engemoen asked for clarification regarding the vacation of the main line road (CR 29) and, if the eastern alignment is chosen, he assumes we would continue to maintain that road; however, he noted that there will be the need for a cul-de-sac or access road that serves some of the properties on the west side of the reservoir. Mr. Engemoen stated that the Commissioners need to take into account that we will be picking up additional mileage with the eastern alignment and picking up a dead-end road that is out of sync with our maintenance of main line through roads in the area. Mr. Howard stated that they assumed that it would remain as part of the County road system down to the point where the road goes up Green Ridge. Commissioner Disney asked what kind of road surface are we contemplating; Mr. Engemoen responded that they did chip seal that road two years ago and they would expect at a minimum to have a chip seal surface restored. Commissioner Disney asked what about closing the road altogether; Mr. Engemoen responded that if this road was closed, the 200 daily trips using this road would have to go elsewhere and he does not recommend closing the road. With regard to maintenance issues for east versus west alignment, Commissioner Disney asked which would be better for the County. Mr. Engemoen stated that there are disadvantages and advantages to both of them; the disadvantage to the east side alignment is that it increases mileage for maintenance and there will be cut sections and on the west side, he is still confused how much will be in the trees. Mr. Helmick stated that the service providers (School District, Post Office, Ditch Riders, Emergency Services, etc. all said they want maintenance on the through linkage of CR 29.
Commissioner Disney expressed appreciation for the presentation made here tonight by Mr. Howard noting that it was very thorough and easy to understand and he appreciates the civility and sensitivity to each others' issues shown. Commissioner Disney stated that he leans toward the Planning Commission recommendation for the eastern alignment of the road as it seems like it will create less maintenance problems; Mr. Engemoen agreed. Commissioner Disney expressed concern about the proximity of the road to the spillway and the huge cut and the potential safety problems would be greater if the road alignment is on the west. Commissioner Disney requested a new condition be written regarding a noise study and ways to mitigate the impact of noise from an eastern alignment to address some of the concerns of the residents at Sunrise Ranch; he noted he also favors the eastern alignment because the destruction of habitat on Green Ridge is more critical than on the eastern side. Commissioner Disney also requested a new condition be written to address the County's concerns in terms of extra expense for maintenance of the dead-end road, such as an agreement with the City of Loveland whereby they either give us some money to pay for that extra road we pick up, or we trade centerline miles, in order to be fair to County taxpayers. Commissioner Disney cautioned the applicant to make sure that the slope on the road cuts are made stable and he recommended that a condition also be written to address this issue. Chair Pro-Tem Rennels stated that she also prefers the eastern alignment but expressed her concern about the noise impact to the Emissaries of Sunrise Ranch. She expressed concern also that when you cut off a spring on a working ranch, you cut off water to animals and use of the grass for grazing, and she doesn't like condemnation; she also stated that it is preferable to have the eastern road alignment all on City property and it is the Board's obligation to honor the conservation easement placed on this property. She also concurred that the presentation made tonight was great. As requested, Mr. Engemoen suggested a condition regarding maintenance of CR 29 (Condition #6 below); Mr. Helmick offered a condition for noise mitigation (Condition #7 below) and the conditions of approval were revised, as outlined below.
The Planning Commission/Staff recommendation is for approval to vacate the current alignment of County Road 29 in the area to be inundated by the new Green Ridge Glade Reservoir, once the following revised conditions have been met. When the following conditions have been met, a vacation resolution will be signed and recorded: 1) The City of Loveland shall construct a new County Road 29 to connect the unaffected segments at the earliest possible time, reducing to a minimum the time when a through connection is unavailable; 2) The road shall be constructed along the western alignment; 3) The City of Loveland shall provide to the County a deed of dedication, including the full legal description, for the new ROW. The County Engineering Department shall determine the width of the ROW; 4) All plans for the newly constructed road shall be reviewed and approved by the Larimer County Public Works Department; 5) The ROW and road shall be of sufficient width to accommodate future trail and bike corridor connections; 6) The City of Loveland and Larimer County shall reach an agreement on sharing the additional costs of road maintenance associated with the relocation of County Road 29; 7) The City of Loveland shall conduct an ambient noise level study prior to commencement of construction. The City shall further conduct a post-construction noise study to determine the additional noise levels. The study methodology shall be approved by Larimer County. The study shall specifically address the increased levels of sound at surrounding properties. There shall be specific recommendations for the implementation of reasonable and prudent noise mitigation techniques, if necessary. Any plan for mitigation shall be reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and Planning Commission/Staff recommendation and approve the Vacation of Current Alignment of County Road 29 and Consideration of Relocation of the road to the eastern alignment (#99-Z1313), with the conditions as revised and outlined above.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1999
(#568 & 569)
The Board of County Commissioners met in regular session at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster; Chair Pro-Tem Rennels presided and Commissioner Disney was present. Also present were: Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center Director; Brenda Gimeson, Rural Land Use Center Technician; Larry Timm, Planning Director; Gary Janezich, IMS Business Administrative Manager; Mark Peterson, County Engineer; Rusty McDaniel, Project Engineer; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Director; Deni LaRue, Community Information Officer; and Donna Hart, Commissioners Office Administrative Manager. Recording Clerk: Gael Cookman.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Wendy Thacker and John Abell addressed the Board during public comment. Ms. Thacker explained that she and Mr. Abell are involved with planning a development proposal and she requested the Board's opinion on the development, mainly so she could satisfy her investors. Commissioner Rennels explained that they really could not comment on the proposal until the development had gone through the required processes. Commissioner Disney noted that it was also inappropriate to be discussing possible land developments without posting a public notice, and doing so in a public hearing. Commissioner Rennels then recommended that Ms. Thacker and Mr. Abell work with the Planning Department to go through the General Development Plan process (GDP), which would allow her to come before the Board and get a legal opinion about the development.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for January 3, 2000.
Motion carried 2-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule for the week of January 17, 2000.
Motion carried 2-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioner approve the following Petitions for Abatement and documents as listed on the Consent Agenda for January 11, 2000:
PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT, as recommended by the County Assessor, were approved for the following: Overhead Door Company; Steve's Cars/Steven Dillman; Ten Bears BBQ/Tanza L. Martin; James P. Johnson; Richard G. & Laura M. Szanto; Jeron W. & Susanna C. Baer; Allen M. & Ernestine A. Corbin; and Janet K. Maharry, Trustee.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Adoption of New Intervention/Failure to Cooperate Policy and an Updated Sanction Policy and an Immunization Policy.
LIQUOR LICENSES: County approval for renewal of liquor licenses was granted to: Branding Iron Liquor - 6% - LaPorte, CO; Burger Bay - 3.2% - Loveland, CO; Boyd Lake Marina Inc. - 3.2% - Loveland, CO; Windjammer Roadhouse and Grill - Manager Registration - Loveland, CO; and Convenience Plus No. 7 - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO. Licenses were issued to: Fort Collins Plaza Inn - 6% - Fort Collins, CO; and Red Feathers Carry Out - 6% - Red Feather, CO.
A00-04 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND STONER AND COMPANY (For lease of storage building on Mason Street)
A00-05 STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ANDREW AND ANDREA ANDREWS
R00-07g RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR LARIMER COUNTY APPOINTED OFFICIALS
R00-08s RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RELEASE OF WARRANTY FOR COLLATERAL VISTA VIEW ESTATES PUD
R00-09s RESOLUTION FOR CLOVERLEAF MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY RELEASE OF COLLATERAL
R00-10g RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS (Mary Joan Berenato)
R00-11g RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS (Leah Bishop)
Motion carried 2-0.
5. FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATIONS FOR PRAIRIE'S END RLUP: Mr. Reidhead explained that there are still a couple of issues with this project that are being disputed between the applicant and the County Engineering Department, with regard to the drainage easements and the size of the pipes being used in the culvert that runs beneath County Road 3. Mr. Peterson explained that the Engineering Department has requested documentation on how the applicant has arrived at the easement widths; much discussion ensued regarding the calculations used to determine the width of the easements. The Board requested the applicant, Mr. Steve Anderson, to work with the Engineering Department again in order to document all of the information that is needed once and for all. Mr. Anderson requested the Engineering Department to submit their requirements in writing, and Mr. Peterson agreed to do so.
6. RESOLUTION TO CREATE THE LAND USE CODE CITIZENS TECHNICAL MONITORING COMMITTEE: Mr. Timm presented the Board with a draft resolution outlining the creation of the Land Use Code Citizens Technical Monitoring Committee. The Board has some questions regarding the "listening log" which will be used as a tool to solicit feedback on how the Code is working for the citizens. Commissioner Disney recommended that the Planning Department survey applicants during each step of the process so that immediate feedback can be obtained while it is still fresh in the minds of the applicants.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the creation of the Land Use Code Technical Monitoring Committee.
Motion carried 2-0.
R00-12g RESOLUTION REGARDING LAND USE CODE CITIZENS TECHNICAL MONITORING COMMITTEE
7. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SECTION 205 IN THE PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL: Mr. Janezich requested Board approval to waive the provisions of the Larimer County Policy Manual that require public announcements be made for vacancies and allow him to offer Cherie Platt the vacant position in their Telecommunications Department; he noted that Ms. Platt was hired as a temporary employee in July of 1999 to assist their department and she is already trained and is currently in charge of the County Employee Cellular Phone Program.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve waiving the provisions of the Larimer County Personnel Policy Manual that require that public announcements be made for vacancies, and allow Cherie Platt to be offered the vacant position.
Motion carried 2-0.
8. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster presented the Board with a resolution establishing recognition of effort for Al Kadera and Russ Legg during 1999, and requested approval on the same.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution Establishing Recognition of Effort During 1999, and that a $1000.00 salary bonus be paid to Al Kadera and Russ Legg.
Motion carried 2-0.
R00-13g RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RECOGNITION OF EFFORT DURING 1999 (Salary bonus for Al Kadera and Russ Legg)
- Mr. Lancaster noted that the Parks Department violated the County Logo Policy when they failed to print the County logo on their Parks Permits for this year; he explained that it would cost approximately $9000.00 to reprint the permits. Mr. Lancaster requested the Board approve a variance to policy, since reprinting the permits for this reason would not be fiscally prudent.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a variance to the County Logo Policy and allow the Parks Department to issue their Parks Permits without displaying the County Logo on it.
Motion carried 2-0.
-- Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that there is a vacancy on the Environmental Advisory Board and asked if they would like to fill it now, or wait until June when they will advertise for this Board again. The Board noted that they would rather wait until June and fill it at that time.
-- Mr. Lancaster explained that the City of Fort Collins is working with LaFarge trying to trade mining permits in order to protect an environmentally sensitive area that is part of LaFarge's mining property; he explained that it will take some time to work out the details and the City of Fort Collins has requested that Larimer County allow LaFarge to mine on the Strang Farm, which is County property, in the interim. Mr. Lancaster noted that the County would trade gravel for gravel while they are mining on County property and that it would be approximately a one-year time frame during which this would take place. The Board agreed that this would be a good idea, and a win/win situation for everyone involved.
-- Mr. Lancaster noted that he would schedule another worksession with the Sheriff if the Board wished to revisit his budget items. The Board stated that they would like to have another worksession with the Sheriff.
10. LEGAL MATTERS: There were no Legal Matters today.
At this time, Commissioner Olson, Bob Keister, and Dave Spencer joined the meeting for a discussion on County facilities. Mr. Lancaster noted that they have calculated the cost to be $130.00 per square foot if the County builds a new administrative facility for County Departments rather than remodel the existing Courthouse; he explained that the cost to remodel the existing Courthouse would be about the same (within $1.00) per square foot, but there may be unforeseen problems, such as asbestos removal, that could greatly increase the cost. Mr. Spencer stated that building a new facility would also allow the County to design a building to meet the County's needs, rather than having to work with the current space in the old Courthouse to try and meet the increased needs of County operations; he also explained that building a new facility would save money because the County would not have to move employees into temporary facilities, and it would provide better customer service since service to the public would not be interrupted. Mr. Lancaster explained that this issue will be presented to the community in the form of a mail ballot sometime in April 2000.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Olson moved that the Board go into Executive Session to discuss potential land acquisition.
Motion carried 3-0.
The Executive Session ended at 12:20 p.m., and the meeting adjourned with no further action taken.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 2000
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. for a Policy Worksession with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present; also present were: Marc Engemoen, Director of Public Works; Janelle Henderson, Director Natural Resources; and Consultants from EDAW.
After discussion of Solid Waste issues during the working, the Board went into Executive Session.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 10:54 a.m. to discuss potential land negotiations.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The Executive Session ended at 11:40 a.m.; no action taken.
CHERYL OLSON, CHAIR LARIMER COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MYRNA J. RODENBERGER
LARIMER COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
( S E A L )
Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk,
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk
JANUARY 11, 2000