Larimer County Offices, Courts, and Landfill are all closed on Monday, Sept. 5, 2016 for the Labor Day Holiday. Critical services at Larimer County are not interrupted by closures. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, OCTOBER 22, 2007
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Eubanks were present. Also present were: Sean Wheeler and Toby Leuter, Planning; Christi Coleman and Ed Woodward, Engineering; William Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
Rob Helmick explained that the applicant requested that the TIMMINS MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #07-Z1658, be removed from today’s agenda. At this time, he did not know if the applicant is intending to withdraw the request or not, and indicated that he would be pursuing the answer to this question and will proceed, as appropriate, once the applicant’s position can be obtained.
Chair Rennels explained that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff or members of the audience:
1. GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 4th FILING LOT 19 AND GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 8TH FILING LOT 90 LOT CONSOLIDATION/EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #07-S2724: This request is to combine two adjacent lots, Lot 19, 4th filing and Lot 90, 8th filing, into one lot in the Glacier View Meadows PUD. This application also requests the vacation of the utility easement located on the common lot line of the subject lots.
No neighbors have voiced any objections to this proposal. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal: Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; Larimer County Addressing Section; Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Services; and Larimer County Assessor’s Office.
For detailed comments from each department, please see the letters from each department dated September 17, and September 24, 2007 respectively. The Assessor’s letter provides the new legal description of the resultant lot. Staff referred the application to other internal and external reviewing agencies and the affected utility companies, no other comments were received.
The proposed Lot Consolidation of Glacier View Meadows 4th Filing Lot 19 and 8th Filing Lot 90 and Easement Vacation, will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency. The lot consolidation will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Staff recommends approval of Lot Consolidation for Glacier View Meadows 4th Filing Lot 19 and 8th Filing Lot 90, and the vacation of the 10-foot utility easement located on the common lot line, subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by April 22, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.
3. Prior to recordation of the Findings and Resolution the applicant shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department with a signed and notarized Lien Holder Signature form.
4. The vacation of the utility easement and the consolidation of the lots shall be finalized at such time when the findings and resolution of the County Commissioners is recorded.
2. SWIERS-BELOIN CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT AND APPEAL, FILE #06-S2588: The applicant seeks approval to subdivide 39.77 acres into a Conservation Development (CD) with two single-family residential lots, and a residual lot with a two-acre building envelope for a single-family residential use. The subject property is located on the north side of the County Road 66 and County Road 5 intersection, approximately ¾ miles east of Interstate 25, northeast of Wellington. The request includes an appeal to the access requirements in Section 8.14.2.N and also one to Section 8.14.2.S, related to connectivity. Following the Sketch Plan review, this project underwent two modifications before the public hearing. First, the applicant reduced the number of lots from four to three in compliance with the density allowed by the O-Open zoning. The layout of the lots also changed from being located on CR#66 to a cluster along the eastern property line. An assessment of drainage patterns in the area precipitated this latter change. Yet another constraining factor on the site is the presence of two irrigation ditches, which can limit the placement of building sites. All of these factors, plus the requirements to preserve agricultural uses and natural features such as tree stands, resulted in the current layout.
It is the assessment of the Development Services Team that this project meets, or can comply with, the requirements for a Conservation Development. While there are technical details that remain to be resolved as part of the Final Plat process, it is staff’s assessment that the information provided for this stage meets the standards for Preliminary Plat approval.
The recommended conditions of approval below address the outstanding items of concern. The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development Preliminary Plat.
The Development Services Team finds that the Preliminary Plat for the Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development is compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area, based on an assessment of the design and layout of lots for the project; and will result in no substantial negative impact on environmentally sensitive areas or features, agricultural uses or other lands. Staff’s review of this project did not uncover any potential impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or features.
The Development Services Team further finds that approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the project, given there are no environmental impacts or compatibility issues related to this request; the recommendations of referral agencies have been considered, as reflected throughout this report; and the applicant has demonstrated that the Preliminary Plat for the Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development will comply with all applicable requirements of this code.
The Development Services Team recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the appeal to Section 8.14.2.N in the Land Use Code to allow an access easement in place of a public road for two of the lots in the Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development (File #06-S2588).
The Development Services Team recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the appeal to the connectivity standard in 8.14.2.S. of the Land Use Code for the Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development (File #06-S2588).
The Development Services Team recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development (File #06-S2588). subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plan & the information contained in the Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development (File #06-S2588) except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Swiers-Beloin Conservation Development.
2. The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement for approval by the county as a part of the Final Plat, and to be recorded with the Final Plat. This agreement shall provide notice to all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project. The notice shall include, but is not limited to the issues related to rural development, the need for engineered footings and foundations, the need for passive radon mitigation, the provision of fire protection measures and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.
3. The applicant shall sign a Disclosure Notice for approval by the county as a part of the Final Plat, and to be recorded with the Final Plat, that provides important information to potential buyers about conditions of approval, rural area issues, water rights, etc.
4. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: the Poudre R1 school fee, the Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees in lieu of dedication, and drainage fees. The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.
5. 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 Building 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.
6. Residential sprinkler systems, fire system horns and strobes are required for all new residential construction, per the requirements of the Wellington Fire Protection District.
7. Engineered footings and foundations are required for all new habitable construction. Engineering for any new residential and/or septic system construction shall be done in consideration of the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey, as outlined in their letter on this project dated June 28, 2006.
8. The applicant shall provide written evidence that the State Division of Water Resources has agreed to use of the well for the single residential lot. Without such written evidence, or if the State objects to the request, all three lots must connect to the existing service offered by the Northern Colorado Water Association.
9. As part of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make any technical corrections required as part of this review, and provide the additional information requested by the referral agents as part of this review.
3. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW: The Colorado Department of Transportation wants to replace a bridge on the Big Thompson River at the upstream end of the narrows on Highway 34 in the canyon. The Land Use Code requires a recommendation from the Flood Review Board with final approval from the Board of County Commissioners through a Floodplain Special Review.
The Flood Review Board met on Thursday, July 26, 2007; reviewed the hydraulic modeling report dated revised June 2007; and found the hydraulic analysis to be acceptable. A motion was approved for a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for approval of the Floodplain Special Review with a condition that reach stability analysis and local scour analysis be submitted to staff for review and approval as an addendum to the report. Both analyses were submitted, reviewed and approved by staff. The Board also made a recommendation that scour monitoring of the temporary bridge be conducted during its use.
Staff finds that all review criteria in Section 4.2.2.G.2 of the Land Use Code have been met. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the FPSR for the bridge replacement project.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. BOKELMAN/WALTERS PIT SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #05-Z1536: Sean Wheeler addressed the Board and explained the applicants request and the current status of the matter. He explained that the Planning Commission Board agenda was full when this matter was brought before them; and therefore, the applicant did not discuss the matter in detail at that meeting, intending instead to discuss it in detail here in this Board of County Commissioner meeting.
The applicant seeks approval to mine sand and gravel at a 201-acre site located on the north side of State Highway #402, two miles east of I-25 at the Larimer-Weld County line. The subject property is mapped as having Commercial F1 Aggregate Resources as defined by State Statutes. The extraction of this resource is allowed by and consistent with the requirements of the Larimer County Master Plan, provided the operator obtains a permit for the use from the State Division of Minerals and Geology, along with Special Review approval from the county. The mining plan shows that excavation will take place in two phases, with each phase broken into different cells of various sizes. The two phases are located on separate but adjacent parcels with the west pit being Phase 1 at 67-acres, and the east pit Phase II at 33-acres. The requested permit life is up to 20 years with an estimated 200,000 tons of gravel to be removed each year. The operator will haul the removed material off site and south on County Line Road to the Johnstown Ready Mix Plant for processing. That plant is located nearby, at the southeast corner of SH#402 and County Line Road. Weld County maintains the County Line Road, and staff and the applicants have contacted them about this request. The applicant has provided a draft of their agreement with Weld County for long-term maintenance of the road. Prior to the start of off-site hauling activities, the applicant or operator must provide a signed and recorded copy of the Road Maintenance Agreement with Weld County.
The proposed access to both pit areas will be off the west side of County Line Road into Phase II, as shown on the mining site plan. An internal haul road will provide circulation throughout the site, with access provided between the two parcels on the site plan. Extraction activities typically include the use of front-end loaders, scrapers, haul trucks, water trucks for dust suppression and small tools. The operation of larger equipment such as crushers is not described in the project materials. Staff anticipates that because the material will be taken to a processing site close by, such equipment is not required. For vehicle trips, the applicant estimates forty truck loads daily leaving the site, five days per week, fifty weeks of the year. Each truck load is expected to carry twenty tons. The application does not include detailed information about proposed hours of operation. This site is in a rural location, but there are single-family residential uses nearby. Because of the potential for noise and other conflicts with these residences, staff recommends hours of operation that are consistent with the hours recently approved for other gravel pits by the Board of County Commissioners.
Other uses surrounding the site include the Johnstown Water Treatment Plant directly to the west. In addition, the Big Thompson River runs north of a part of Phase I and along all of Phase II. At Sketch Plan, staff advised the applicant that some parts of the site are located within the 100-year flood plain. Another issue raised at Sketch Plan for this request related to impacts on wildlife from the quarry. For reference, the area’s historic use has been as grazing or pasture land, and the existing uses are expected to continue around the site until the different sections are cleared for mining purposes. Post mining reclamation plans for the site are subject to review and approval by the State Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB). The county has no authority to direct reclamation efforts.
The Engineering Department comments reference an appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1 of the Land Use Code, related to parking lot paving requirements in rural areas. Based on the size and scope of the operation the appeal seems logical. However, the Land Use Code requires that appeals to code standards must be made in writing by the applicants. Planning Staff contacted the applicant’s representative to request the appeal in writing, per the requirements of Section 22.2.2.C of the Land Use Code. It is anticipated that the applicant will want to make the appeal, and it can be advertised accordingly for the Board of County Commissioners public hearing.
The Development Services Team supports conditional approval of the Bokelman-Walters Special Review based on the fact that the mining of sand and gravel is considered a commercial mineral resource. Under the existing State Statutes and the County Commercial Mineral Extraction Plan, if a useable amount of commercial mineral deposits are present at a site, they must be removed before any other type of development activity can be approved for the property. Further, Gravel pits are not a use-by-right, but instead a use allowed only through the Special Review process. The Board of County Commissioners can deny the request, or add conditions of approval on the request to make a use compatible with surrounding properties. Staff’s assessment is that the proposal is compatible when viewed in the overall context of the site, especially given that other non-residential uses exist nearby. The applicant has taken reasonable measures to address the compatibility issue and other review criteria. These include plans for noise and dust control, protection of the wetland area and wildlife habitat, etc. The imposition of other conditions of approval related to things such as hours of operation and landscaping can also help ensure the use meets the review criteria. Staff supports a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission for the Bokelman-Walters Special Review, subject to the recommended conditions of approval outlined below.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of an appeal to the paving standard for parking areas required by 8.6.C.3.1 of the Land Use Code, to allow use of gravel in the parking area. The Development Services Team further recommends approval of the Bokelman-Walters Special Review (File #05-Z1536), subject to the following conditions:
1. This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval. Mining activities shall be completed within no more than 20 years from the start of operations.
2. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Bokelman-Walters Special Review (File #05-Z1536), except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the county and applicant. The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Bokelman-Walters Special Review.
applicant shall execute a Development Agreement to be signed by the Board of
County Commissioners and recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder,
before the commencement of any excavation activities and no longer then
days 30 days after the date of approval.
4. No operation of the quarry shall occur at any time on county recognized holidays. Monday through Friday hours of operation are limited to the time between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to include the time required for equipment warm up and staging. Saturday hours of operation are permitted for loading and transportation of material to the Johnstown Ready Mix Plant between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to include the time required for equipment warm up and staging. Exceptions to the above hours are allowed for emergency operations or operations that are imperative based on extraordinary circumstances.
5. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
6. Reclamation shall begin as soon as possible after the completion of mining activities in each section and no later than the start of the next growing season.
7. The applicant shall comply with requirements contained in the July 10, 2007, memo from the County Department of Health and Environment:
a. State air emission and storm water discharge permits shall be maintained during the mining and reclamation operations, and shall be complied with during each phase.
b. The operations shall be conducted in compliance with the Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County.
c. The internal
haul road shown on the Site Plan shall be
paved treated and maintained
by the operator in order to limit particulate emissions throughout the life
of the quarry, as agreed to with the Larimer County Health Department.
8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the County Engineering Department outlined in their comments dated June 12, 2007:
a. The applicant is required to pay a Capital Transportation Expansion Fee within 60 days of the date of approval by the county in an amount to be calculated by the Engineering Department.
b. As a
condition of approval, please submit a stamped and signed design for the
proposed slurry wall construction for staff to review.
c. No more than 60 days before the planned commencement of construction or mining activity at the site, the applicant shall apply for a Development Construction Permit with the County Engineer and shall be subject to the requirements of this permit.
d. All existing fences and structures must be moved out of the existing and proposed dedicated right-of-way for this proposal.
9. Operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the state that details overall compliance with the storm water management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the State MLRB.
10. No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the county right-of-way
11. Trucks shall not back onto or use the county road for a turnaround.
12. Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.
13. The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the county roadway. The applicant shall provide copies of all final plans including mining, landscape and reclamation plans within 60 days of the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, for review and approval by staff prior to commencement of mining operations.
14. Applicant shall provide a signed and recorded copy of their agreement with Weld County regarding the long-term maintenance of CR#901 (a.k.a. County Line Road or WCR#13).
Mr. Wheeler explained that the applicant is requesting that the above conditions be amended to allow the applicant to commence operations immediately. Typically final documents are prepared, agreed upon and executed prior to commencement of operations, and Mr. Wheeler indicated that the staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request to commence operations in advance of execution of final documents. Commissioner Gibson asked about the county’s liability, should the applicant be allowed to commence operations prior to completion of final documents. Christy Coleman addressed the Board and explained that the Development Agreement establishes the legal framework for what will be expected from the applicant and the county. She explained that staff is hesitant to enter into construction without an executed Development Agreement. She stated that, if something should not go as expected, there would be no pre-established legal framework for remedy. Discussion ensued regarding this matter and what the potential impacts of either perspective would be and the applicable code requirements.
Steve Fancher of Loveland Ready Mix, Applicant, approached the Board and provided a brief history of the company, an explanation of what brought them to the point of submitting this application, and the timeline they have been dealing with up to this point.
Mr. Fancher requested that the Board modify the conditions above by allowing the applicant to begin initial site work on the preliminary grade and perimeter wall immediately. He asserted that Condition 3 could be changed to indicate that no materials could be moved off site until the Development Agreement has been executed, rather than disallowing any excavation activities. He stated that they need to accomplish road and perimeter grade work prior to the onset of winter, so they will be prepared to mine gravel next spring.
Mr. Fancher further requested that the conditions require a stamped and signed design. However, such a design was required and provided for Phase I, and the applicant did not realize that they would also be required to have a stamped and signed design now for Phase II, which is potentially 12 to 15 years down the road.
Chair Rennels requested clarification of the slurry wall and the timing requirement for it. Discussion ensued regarding the slurry wall requirements, timing and how they are regulated by the state.
Peter Weiland of Weiland Inc. (engineering firm representing the applicant) approached the Board and shared a PowerPoint presentation of the state and county application processes thus far and the applicant’s request for changes to the conditions. He explained that the purpose of the slurry wall is to cut off active excavation from the water table, and that these activities are already regulated by the state. Mr. Weiland further explained the bonding that is required by the state as part of their process of regulating these activities and as a remedy against error or substandard construction of the slurry wall. He also explained what happens to the Phase I bond when that phase has been completed, and the requirement by the state for subsequent bonding for Phase II before it can commence. Mr. Weiland outlined the applicant’s need to expedite this project and reviewed the timeline thus far.
Discussion ensued regarding the slurry wall, what it does, the state’s focus in regulating it, and the design document requirement. Mr. Weiland expressed his appreciation that the county is diligent in its efforts but also expressed his concern that the applicant is being required to adhere to regulation by the state and also by the county, effectively resulting in double regulation.
Chair Rennels opened the meeting to public comment at this point. Seeing none, public comment was closed.
Chair Rennels commented that some of these conversations could have been handled during the Land Use meetings. Discussion ensued regarding the signed and stamped design plans, with staff indicating that the design plans for Phase II were received by them today, but have not yet been reviewed; which would indicate that this matter would no longer be an issue. Discussion continued as the Board requested legal perspective from Mr. Ressue and the Board and staff “brainstormed” about the timing required for preparation and execution of the Development Agreement and how or if the applicant could be allowed to commence prior to finalization of the Development Agreement.
Mr. Weiland indicated that the applicant does have the required NPDS permits in place for the project and could provide copies to the Board of same. Mr. Fancher explained that discharges are checked monthly by the state. Discussion commenced regarding specifically what the applicant wishes to move forward with immediately.
Mr. Wheeler explained the process associated with the preparation and approval of the Development Agreement and indicated that it typically takes 60 days or more to accomplish, because of all the parties involved in the review process. Chair Rennels asked if there was any possibility it could be accomplished within a 30-day window. Mr. Wheeler indicated that it could be, if the Board urges it. Commissioner Gibson reiterated his desire that the applicant not be held up in the process, and discussion ensued regarding risks to both the applicant and the county, should activities commence prior to a finalized Development Agreement. Mr. Fancher approached the Board and expressed his choice (between modifying the conditions to allow activity to commence or completion of the Development Agreement within a 30-day window and then commencing) that the Development Agreement be completed within the 30-day window and then commencing activity on the project, and expressed his appreciation to staff for their efforts on this project.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal to Section 8.6.C.3.1 that requires paving for parking areas.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Bokelman-Walters Special Review request to mine sand and gravel as described in Planning File #05-Z1536, subject to Conditions 1 through 14, as recommended, with the following modifications to those Conditions:
In Condition 3, “60 days” shall be changed to “30 days” in the last line.
Condition 7.c. shall be modified to read as follows: “The internal haul road shown on the Site Plan shall be treated and maintained by the operator, as agreed to with the Larimer County Health Department.”
Condition 8.b. shall be removed.
[Note: These changes to the conditions are reflected in the complete list of conditions above.]
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting recessed at 4:02 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 6:30 p.m. with Traci Downs and Martina Wilkinson of Engineering. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Gibson were present. Also present were: Rex Burns and Jeri Feil, Engineering; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; Jeanine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Rennels reopened the meeting by asking for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
1. AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY RURAL AREA ROAD STANDARDS AND FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION MAP, FILE #07-CA0076: Martina Wilkinson addressed the Board and explained that the amendments to the Rural Area Road Standards and Functional Road Classification Map, and the amendments to the Land Use Code and County Code were somewhat interrelated. She reviewed the types of amendments being proposed and the reasons for them. She explained that, with the exception of the revised definition of a “road,” all of the proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
In 2006, Larimer County updated its Transportation Master Plan, Rural Area Road Standards, Roadway Right-of-Way Widths, Functional Road Classifications, Roadway Setbacks and Transportation Capital Expansion (Impact) Fees. This massive effort included several years’ work, an extensive public outreach process, and adoption by unanimous vote through the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The majority of the changes became effective January 1, 2007.
As often occurs with such large scale changes, there are a number of minor clean up (or housekeeping) items that are needed to fully complete the process. Such items are being presented to the Board for consideration at this point. Following is a brief description of the proposed changes.
The new Rural Area Road Standards is the document that supplanted the former Larimer County Road Manual and Larimer County Access Policy. The application of the new standards has been positively received and seems to be successful. Necessary clean up items include spelling, grammar, and format corrections and some minor refinements that are typically not policy changes, but instead technical in nature. An overview of the changes is provided below.
• Miscellaneous items such as fencing, monument mailboxes and private utilities have been added to the list of items that are generally not allowed in the public right-of-way.
• The specifics of culvert design have been made consistent throughout the document.
• A paragraph has been added to the standards acknowledging modern roundabouts as a potential intersection control type.
• Based on input from citizens, road name signs in mountainous regions of the county may now have a brown background, as opposed to the standard green background.
• Access specifics to county roads have been further refined. This includes requiring accesses to be taken from the lower classified road if there is available frontage to multiple roadways; encouraging and providing guidelines for shared privately owned/maintained driveways; better detailing required spacing distances between intersections and accesses; and refining allowable steepness and widths of accesses.
• The new road standards in 2006 introduced a ‘low volume road’ section that is slightly narrower than the typical local road [20 feet rather than 24 feet within a 60-foot (as opposed to 70-foot) right-of-way]. The Engineering Department has seen numerous requests for this section; and as such, has clarified its applicability and broadened its allowable use (to developments with up to nine single family dwellings or 99 vehicle trips per day).
• The analysis requirements for traffic impact studies are being refined to recognize impacts created by larger vehicles (trucks), and more specifically analyze impacts to auxiliary turn lanes.
The purpose of Functional Classifications is to provide an efficient transportation system that balances mobility, access, and safety. The intent is to anticipate “build-out” conditions and allow for future road expansion, with minimal impact to adjacent property owners (structures, trees, landscaping, etc.). During the 2006 updates, classification definitions were updated, and then each Larimer County roadway classification assignment was reviewed and updated if appropriate. There were a few roadway sections slated for classification changes that were overlooked during the transfer from hand-marked maps to the GIS system. There were also a few sections of roadway that need to be added (such as state highways that were converted to county roads).
The largest potential impact of classification changes to the public is if or when a roadway classification changes to a higher level, which increases ultimate right-of-way and setback distances and then potentially renders existing structures on properties non-conforming. The use of aerial photography identified that these clean-up classification changes may impact four properties county-wide.
Public Works finds that the completion of these clean-up items is necessary to finalize the large scale revisions from the past year by fixing grammar, format, and necessary minor corrections; to make the classifications and standards consistent and easier to use; and to further accommodate input/interest from the public.
Staff recommends that the proposed changes to the Rural Area Road Standards and Roadway Functional Classification be approved.
Commissioner Gibson asked about the affect on property values when changes to the code result in properties becoming non-conforming. Ms. Wilkinson replied that, while the change in conformity affects the property, there is a mechanism by which the property owner can requests an administrative variance for the setback. If such a variance is granted, the restrictions to the property owner are alleviated. She admitted that it was an extra step for the property owner, but stated that it should not affect the value of the property itself.
Discussion ensued regarding the definition of a “road” being proposed. Ms. Downs explained that the new definition, for purposes of setbacks and road-naming requirements would indicate that any access sharing more than one house or having to cross over another property would be considered a road. Discussion continued on this subject, with Chair Rennels expressing concern that this would result in a requirement to name numerous roads that should not require naming. She suggested that, since this item was not fully discussed, and its impact considered, in a Planning Commission meeting, she would suggest pulling it at this time.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed changes to the Rural Area Road Standards, with the exception of the revised “road” definition, and the Roadway Functional Classification Map and that the changes be implemented immediately.
Motion carried 3-0.
2. AMENDMENTS TO THE STORMWATER STANDARDS UNDER THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE, FILE #07-CA0075: Rex Burns addressed the Board and provided an overview of the amendments being proposed and the reasons for them.
Larimer County bases its stormwater design standards on the standards contained within the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual (UD&FCD Manual). Larimer County has adopted the UD&FCD Manual and an Addendum which adapts the UD&FCD Manual to specific conditions and practices in Larimer County. From time to time, updates to the UD&FCD manual are needed to reflect changes in practice regarding stormwater design. Staff has completed a detailed review of updates to the UD&FCD manual made to date, and compiled various changes in the Addendum which references the UD&FCD Manual.
Legal staff has advised that, as changes are made to the UD&FCD manual, the updated version must be readopted; and staff believes that, technically, some of the changes are not appropriate for adoption by Larimer County at this time. Staff, therefore, proposes to also readopt the Addendum to reflect those changes which Larimer County will adopt. The changes in both the UD&FCD Manual and the Addendum are primarily technical in nature and will not substantively change the requirements for, or sizing of, stormwater facilities. The primary group that will be affected by these changes is stormwater design engineers.
The following summary of changes to the UD&FCD Manual is presented to give the Board some feel for the technical nature of the changes:
Runoff Chapter: Updated description of CUHP to use of CUHP 2005 software and EPA SWMM 5.0 for routing and deleted use of UDSWM and described EPA SWMM 5.0 for routing CUHP 2005 hydrographs.
Major Drainage Chapter: Cleaned up a number of figures using AutoCAD™; expanded on the description on use of trickle and low flow channels in grass-lined channels; modified submittal checklist to include some design elements not previously listed in them; clarified Froude Number and velocity limitations for concrete and riprap lined channels; clarified that concrete-lined channels are not maintenance eligible; expanded the use of soil riprap to now include VL, L and M riprap sizes; clarified the minimum embedment of riprap bank and channel toe lining for sandy soils; clarified the need to check rock sizes for increased velocities at channel bends and transitions; clarified the use of soil-riprap lining side-slopes above the low-flow section of a channel; added a figure relating grass cover type, velocity, depth and Manning’s n in grass-lined channels; added details for soil-riprap installation; expanded on the need for air-venting when rectangular storm sewers are used; clarified importance of pipe entrance(s) in design; and modified examples to reflect latest spreadsheet workbooks.
Hydraulic Structures Chapter: Revised Manning’s n and Boulder sizing recommendations for grouted boulders; revised simplified Grouted Sloping Boulder (GSB) drop design recommendations and increased the allowable maximum drop for the simplified design from 5-feet to 6-feet; added details for a smaller Impact Energy Dissipating Basin that is recommended for use with pipe outlets from 18 to 48 inches in diameter; added details for the design of an impact basin for pipe outlets 18 inches and smaller in diameter; modified the guidance on pipe outlet rundowns; added details for a Grouted Boulder Rundown; added details for a GSB drop for use in channels with sandy/erosive soils; modified concrete check structure details; added details and design guidance for a sheet-pile check structure; clarifies some point in the Detailed Hydraulic Analysis section including guidance for Manning’s n for Concrete, Boulders and Grouted Boulders; and clarified guidance on the design of low tailwater riprap basins at pipe outlets.
Storage Chapter: Clarifies a number of topics covered in the Design Storms for Sizing Storage Volumes section, including issues dealing with drainage and flood control, spillway sizing, retention facilities, outlet works design (including guidance for triangular weirs) and other miscellaneous items; clarifies the uses Rational Formula-Based Modified FAA Procedure as being applicable only for the sizing of single return period control on-site detention basins; added Full Spectrum Detention procedure for the design of on-site detention facilities for tributary areas of one square mile and less; added guidance for simplified sizing detention volumes; added guidance for simplified perforated outlet design; added a section titled: On-Site Detention and UDFCD 100-year Floodplain Management Policy; expanded on the discussion on use of vegetation in detention basins; and revised the submittal checklist.
Porous Pavement Update: Chapters 04, 05 and 06 of Volume 3 contain the updates to the porous pavement criteria and maintenance recommendations. The original draft chapters were developed by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and were distributed to all cities and counties within the District and to more than one hundred other stormwater professionals in Colorado and other states. A number of valuable comments that are too large to list were received and addressed before the accompanying updated chapters were finalized. This resulted in the December 28, 2004, update. Since then, certain details were reexamined and modified to reduce their complexity and cost. The October 2005 revision incorporated these changes.
These porous pavement criteria and recommendations are being released with full knowledge that much is yet to be learned about the design, installation, performance and maintenance of various types porous pavement. As more experience is gained, these criteria will likely be further updated. In the meantime, the information in this latest update is based on information found in literature, provided by professionals in other parts of the country, provided by trade groups like the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute and National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, and the experiences and field observations of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District.
Addendum: Updated references to coincide with updated manuals.
If the Board of County Commissioners votes to adopt the changes in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, staff proposes to implement the changes immediately. Staff finds that the proposed amendments satisfy the review criteria for changes to the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. Staff recommends approval of the current version of the UD&FCD Manual and the Larimer County Stormwater Addendum.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed changes to the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE AND COUNTY CODE, FILE #07-CA0074: Traci Downs addressed the Board and provided an overview of the amendments being proposed and the reasons for them.
As updates to the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards and Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards were being addressed, staff found that the following Land Use Code Sections need revision for consistency and in order to better represent the county’s current requirements.
In addition, staff identified that Article III of Chapter 50 in the Larimer County Code, titled “Access Policy,” should be repealed, since the information contained therein was revised and placed in the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards when the revisions were adopted on November 20, 2006.
Staff believes that these changes are minor in nature and could be considered “housekeeping” items.
The proposed amendments include:
LCLUC 5.13.6. – Building permits: Based upon request from Planning Department, make text consistent between Sections A and B.
LCLUC TABLE 8.6.3(b).IV – Parking Space Calculations: Add headings to the tables to identify which table should be applied in which instance.
LCLUC 8.6.3.C – Construction Standards: Add paragraph beaks to text for readability.
LCLUC 4.2.2.I.2.i and LCLUC 4.2.2.I.2.j – Review Criteria for Floodplain Special Review: Add the word “significant” to allow for more flexibility in requirements. (This was a requested change from the Flood Review Board.)
LCLUC 8.12.3 Minimizing Water Quality Impacts: Update text to delete outdated references and reflect current standards and requirements.
LCLUC 8.12.4. – Water Quality During Construction: Update text to make it consistent with current state and federal requirements, modify the language to better direct users to the proper reference documents, and better identify the proper review departments for Water Quality issues.
Larimer County Code – Repeal Article III in Chapter 50 of the County Code: Repeal Article III in Chapter 50, as it is no longer applicable. The access requirements are now included in Chapter 10 of the Rural Area Road Standards.
If the Board of County Commissioners votes to adopt the changes in the Land Use Code and County Code, staff proposes to implement the changes immediately.
Public Works finds that the completion of these clean up items is necessary in order to update the various documents to include the latest requirements and reference standards; correct errors and to ensure consistency between various sections of the codes and standards; and make the documents easier to understand and implement. The proposed changes satisfy the review criteria for changes to the text of the Land Use Code
Staff recommends that the proposed changes to the Larimer County Land Use Code and Larimer County Code be approved.
Commissioner Gibson asked for clarification of the term “significant” which is being proposed as an addition to the Review Criteria for Floodplain Special Review. Ms. Downs explained that the section otherwise requires that any perceptible impact would have to be addressed and that the Flood Review Board believed the addition of the word “significant” provides reasonable flexibility. Chair Rennels asked who makes the determination of what is “significant,” and Ms. Downs indicated that it would be the Flood Review Board making the determination.
Ms. Downs reviewed the process of public comment that has been pursued in this effort and indicated that there has been little to no public comment on the subject.
Brief discussion ensued regarding when the amendments would be implemented and the general timing for review of code.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed changes to the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Motion carried 3-0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners repeal Article III in Chapter 50 of the Larimer County Code.
Motion carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Gibson and Eubanks were present. Also present were: Donna Hart, Deni LaRue, and Diane Tokarz, Commissioners’ Office; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; John Hanck, and Tom Pixley, Colorado Mission of Mercy; Gary Janezich, Information Technology Division; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bob Boggio expressed his desire for increasing recycling opportunities in the rural portions of Larimer County. Mr. Boggio also noted that the Waste Haulers Licensing Ordinance had not been update in 15 years, and suggested that staff take a look at changes in the industry and update the ordinance. Discussion ensued and Mr. Engemoen agreed that it was time to take a look at revising the ordinance and he will schedule a worksession with the Board regarding this topic.
Rosemary Van Gorder addressed the Board with concerns pertaining to the manner in which the Human Services Department administers the Child Protection Services program. Ms. Van Gorder requested a written statement explaining why she, as a parent advocate, is not allowed to enter the public facilities and attend meetings when requested to do so by the parents. Finally, Ms. Van Gorder asked the Board to invite some of the directly affected parents to the next worksession, so they could obtain their feedback as to how the process is, or is not, working for them.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 15, 2007:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of October 15, 2007.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 29, 2007: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Eubanks requested that Item 1 be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion purposes, as it pertains to modification of radio towers, which is a subject often controversial in nature.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for October 23, 2007.
PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT: As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are approved: Mark and Katherine Lefanowicz.
10232007A002 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND WAYNE WEISSMAN, DIRECTOR, RAVENCREST CHALET
10232007A003 FINAL PLAT FOR MOSER FIRST SUBDIVISION CONSENT OF LIENHOLDER AND SUBORDINATION OF LIEN
10232007A004 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS , GERALD D. MOSER, AND THE MOSER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
10232007A005 STATE OF COLORADO PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND LARIMER COUNTY
10232007D001 DEED OF DEDICATION FOR RIGHT OF WAY, BY GERALD AND JULIA HOCKER
10232007R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 1A AND TRACT AA OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF TRACT A AND LOT 1 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF THE COLARD MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND VACATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT
10232007R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BINGHAM HILL ROAD ADDRESS CHANGE APPEAL
10232007R003 LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 43 & 44 OF CRYSTAL LAKES SUBDIVISION 7TH FILING
10232007R004 LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 74 & 75 OF GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS SUBDIVISION 8TH FILING
10232007R005 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF AN EASEMENT IN POUDRE OVERLOOK , LOT 64
10232007R006 LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 146 & 147 OF CRYSTAL LAKES SUBDIVISION 12TH FILING AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT
10232007R007 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT IN EHRLICH PLANNED LAND DIVISION, LOT 2
10232007R008 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF THE COMMON PROPERTIES OF THE FOX ACRES COUNTRY CLUB SECOND FILING
10232007R009 LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION LOT LOTS 177 & 178 OF GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS SUBDIVISION 12TH FILING AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT
10232007R010 LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 93 & 94 OF CUSHMAN'S LAKEVIEW SUBDIVISION 3RD FILING AND LOT 95A OF THE LOT CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 95, 105, & 106 OF CUSHMAN'S LAKEVIEW SUBDIVISION 3RD FILING
10232007R011 LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 61A & 74A OF THE LOT CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 61-64 AND 74-75 OF THE CUSHMAN'S LAKEVIEW 3RD FILING
10232007R012 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS (Cynthia T. Hernandez)
10232007R013 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS (Wendy J. Willett)
MISCELLANEOUS: Department of Humans Services Payments for August 2007; Personnel Agreement Between Larimer County and County Employee; Final Plat for Ravencrest Subdivision #03-S2088; Final Plat for Moser First Subdivision.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following liquor licenses were approved and issued: Red Feather Liquors - Retail Liquor Store - Red Feather Lakes; RV's City Limits Lounge - Tavern - Fort Collins; Swing Station - Tavern - LaPorte; Horsetooth Liquor - Extension of Temporary Permit for Retail Liquor Store - Fort Collins.
Motion carried 3-0.
5. COLORADO MISSION OF MERCY PRESENTATION: Dr. Hanck and Dr. Pixley explained that the Colorado Mission of Mercy (COMOM) is a program designed to take care of the dental needs for indigent adults and families who cannot afford it otherwise. They presented a video of the program and photos of the first Colorado Mission of Mercy event held in Alamosa, during which 1359 individuals were provided dental care over the course of two days. Mr. Hanck explained that they have reserved The Ranch for July 17, 2008, through July 20, 2008, to host a COMOM event in Larimer County, and requested monetary assistance from the Board in support of this effort. Chair Rennels suggested that the Board pay for the $3000 facility rental fees in order to support the COMOM event in July 2008.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioner approve the expenditure of $3000 from the 2008 Commissioners Special Projects Fund, to offset the cost of COMOM's rental of The Ranch to provide free dental care for families who could not otherwise afford this service.
Motion Carried 3-0.
At this time Mr. Janezich joined to meeting to explain the Agreement that was pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Mr. Janezich stated that the addendum to the agreement authorizes another microwave dish to be placed on the structure at Pole Mountain in Wyoming. This will provide additional radio coverage to the Bear Gulch area near Red Feather Lakes and Glacier View. This explanation was satisfactory to the commissioners.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the addendum to the site lease agreement with GCR Electronics, LLC, to allow installation of another microwave dish at the structure on Pole Mountain.
Motion carried 3-0.
10232007A001 ADDENDUM TO SITE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND GCR ELECTRONICS, LLC.
6. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTMENT: Ms. Tokarz presented the following recommendation for Boards and Commissions appointment, and asked for approval on the same: Appointment of Dan Cundall to the fill the unexpired term of Christine Cook on the GID #2 Pinewood Springs Board, for a 4-year term beginning October 23, 2007, and expiring November 30, 2011.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointment of Dan Cundall to the Pinewood Springs Board - GID #2, to fill an unexpired term effective October 23, 2007, through November 30, 2011.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster presented two requests from the Agricultural Advisory Board. The first was a request for the Board of County Commissioners to draft a letter of support in order to keep the Farm Services Agency Office active in Fort Collins. The Board agreed to draft a letter of support for this purpose.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners draft a letter of support for the Farm Services Agency located in Fort Collins, and authorize the Chair to sign the same.
Motion carried 3-0.
The second request was for an Agricultural Advisory Board member to be appointed as a liaison to the Rural Land Use Advisory Board, due to the high level of interaction between both boards. The Board agreed to send a letter stating that it would be appropriate to have an Agricultural Advisory Board member act as a liaison to the Rural Land Use Advisory Board.
Finally, Chair Rennels stated that Governor Ritter's office has issued a letter announcing Liberty Day in Colorado. She explained that Liberty Day will celebrate the Constitution and "Liberty books" will be distributed to 5th grade students across the state. Chair Rennels stated that there are some funding requests that will be shared with the Board and brought back to next weeks Administrative Matters meeting.
9. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: The Board discussed their activities at events during the past week.
10. LEGAL MATTERS: There were no legal matters to discuss.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
(Audio not available)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. for an Executive Session with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Gibson were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to discuss personal matters, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S.
Motion carried 3-0.
At this time Ms. Cookman left the room.
The Executive Session ended at 4:20 p.m., with no action taken.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007
BERTHOUD LIBRARY DISTRICT
The Board of County Commissioners met at 2:00 p.m. with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager. Chair Pro-Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Eubanks was present. Also present were: Sara Wright, Library Director; Katherine Churchill, President of the Library Board; Dick Lyons, Attorney for the proposed Library District; Jim White, Town Administrator; Herb Baker, Library Board Member; Linda Matthias, Concerned Citizen; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Lyons explained that the today's hearing was to ensure that citizens had the opportunity to hear details on the proposed library district, and to give them an open forum to ask questions. Mr. Lyons presented a map outlining the boundaries of the proposed district, and noted that the following three questions will be included on the November ballot regarding this proposal: 1. Should the Library District be formed? 2. Should a 2.4 mill levy be approved to fund the District? 3. Should the District be allowed to receive important funding from the State in the form of grants? (De-brucing.)
Ms. Wright explained the purpose of the District, and noted that the expanded boundaries so that citizens of within city limits, as well as those who live in the county, would support the funding of the library.
Ms. Churchill explained that there was a period of time when the library was operating in the "red" as expenditure of their budget had been exceeded; however, that problem was rectified and that are now operating within their budget.
Chair Pro-Tem opened up the hearing for public comment and Linda Matthias questioned the official date the Library District would be formed if passed. Mr. Lyons explained the process that would ensue after the election should the district be approved, and stated that the official date would be January 1, 2008. Ms. Matthias also questioned how the library board members would be chosen. Ms. Churchill explained that they are in the process of re-writing the by-laws and that they will have three members be appointed within the city limits, three members be appointed from the county, and one member will be appointed at large. Chair Pro-Tem closed public comment.
Commissioner Eubanks suggested that when amending the by-laws they might consider a clause that allows them to be flexible with the member positions should they not be able to recruit three from within the city. Ms. Wight stated that this was something that they had not considered and thanked Commissioner Eubanks for the suggestion.
Chair Pro-Tem Gibson stated that this hearing was for informational purposes only and no action would be taken by the Board.
The hearing ended at 2:30 p.m.
KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk