Cirque Meadows by Adam Johnson
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 08/11/08  













Monday, August 11, 2008



Land use hearing



The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present. Also present were: Samantha Mott, Sean Wheeler, and Michael Whitley, Planning; Christie Coleman, Traci Downs and Mark Peterson, Engineering; Angela Myers and Tamara Slusher, Clerk and Recorder Office; Jeannine Haag and William Ressue, Assistant County Attorneys; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.


Chair Gibson 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.


Chair Gibson noted that the following items were on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:


1.         john deere drive (121) rezoning, file #08-Z1685:  This is a request to rezone a 2.87 acre parcel of land from O (Open) to PD (Planned Development) with the uses allowed being consistent with the land use objectives of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, which are industrial.  


The subject property is situated on the west side of John Deere Drive, approximately ¼ mile from the Highway 14 Frontage Road and contains an existing building and infrastructure that is currently being utilized by Ryder Rentals.  The property appears to have been divided from the Centennial Livestock Auction site prior to 1973 and has been serving commercial and industrial uses since that time.  However, because rezoning did not occur with the division of the property, the current industrial use is not considered legally established.  Therefore, the applicant, Stewart and Associates, is requesting the area be rezoned to allow for the current use of the property and to establish allowed uses for the future, in the event the current occupant chooses to leave the site.


The Development Services Team finds that this request is consistent with the Master Plan (East Mulberry Corridor Plan), is compatible with existing and allowed uses on properties in the neighborhood and is the appropriate zoning for the property.  The Development Services Team further finds that the conditions in the neighborhood of the John Deere Drive (121) rezoning request have changed to the extent that the proposed change is necessary; and the request does not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, addresses a community need, results in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood, and is within a Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District and is consistent with the East Mulberry Corridors Plan, which suggests that these types of uses are appropriate for this area.


The Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for John Deere Drive (121) Rezoning, to rezone the property from O (Open) to PD (Planned Development), subject to the permitted uses outlined below.


The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for John Deere Drive (121) Planned Development shall be as follows:


A. Principal uses:


1.   Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

2.   Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

3.   Pet animal facility (R)


4.    Permanent fireworks sales (S)

5.   Adult use (S)

6.   Outdoor display/sales (R)

7.   Convenience store (R/S)

8.   Automobile service station (R/S)

9.   Car wash (R/S)

10. Professional office (R/S)

11. General retail (R/S)

12. General commercial (R/S)

13. Personal service (R/S)

14. Restaurant/take-out (R/S)

15. Restaurant/sit-down (R/S)

16. Nightclub (R/S)

17. Flea market (R/S)

18. Instructional facility (R/S)

19. Clinic (R/S)


20. Place of amusement or recreation (R/S)--See section 4.3 (use descriptions and conditions)

21. Shooting range (R/S)--See section 4.3

22. Membership club/clubhouse (R)


23. Enclosed storage (R)

24. Outdoor storage (R/MS)

25. Trade use (R)

26. Light industrial (R)

27. General industrial (S)

28. Mining (S)

29. Oil and gas drilling and production (R)

30. Land fill (S)

31. Recycling (S)

32. Hazardous materials storage and handling (S)

33. Junkyard (S)


34. Utility substation (L)

35. Treatment plant (L)

36. Radio and television transmitters (S)

37. Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)--See section 16

38. Water storage facility (L)


39. Transportation depot (R)

40. Bus terminal (R)

41. Truck stop (R)

42. Transportation service (R)

43. Parking lot/garage (R)

44. Park and ride (R)

45. Heliport (S)

46. Train station (R)


47. Sheriff/fire station (L)

48. Church (R)


B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

1. Minimum lot size:

a.  100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

b.  15,000 square feet (0.34 acre) if public water and sewer are used.

         2. Minimum setbacks:

a.  Front yard – -Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways and county roads.

b.  Side yards – ten feet.

c.  Rear yards – ten feet.

d.  Streams, creeks and rivers – 100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

3.  Maximum structure height – 40 feet.

4.  No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.


Where as, uses followed by an (R) are allowed by right;  uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the Minor Special Review process;  uses followed by an (S) require approval through the Special Review process described in Section 4.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended;  uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by right or require special review approval based on thresholds in Section 4.3 (use descriptions) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended;  and uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in Section 13.0 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.


2.         Yelek exemption parcel 1 and 2 amended plat/easement vacation, file #08-s2811: This is a request for an Amended Plat of the Amended Yelek Exemption to adjust the common lot line between the two lots and to vacate an existing 30-foot access and utility easement identified on the recorded plat for the Yelek Exemption.


The proposed plat amendment will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency.  The vacation of the access easement will not leave any adjoining lots without access and the Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots.  Therefore, staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.


The Development Services Team recommends approval the Amended Yelek Exemption and Easement Vacation (and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature), subject to the following conditions:


A.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by February 11, 2009, or this approval shall be null and void.


B.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.


C.    Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the title must be revised to read “Amended Plat of the Amended Yelek Exemption.”  The Surveyor’s Certificate and Certificate of Ownership and Dedication must be revised to match this title.


D.   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the Certificate of Ownership and Dedication must be revised to use the standard language.


E.    Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall include a note on the plat stating that the lot will still be subject to the same restrictions, covenants, and regulations as set forth in the Plat of Record for the Amended Yelek Exemption.


F.    Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, it must be revised to read “Lot 1” and “Lot 2” instead of “Tract 1” and “Tract 2.”


G.   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall include a note on the plat stating that the original plat of the Yelek Exemption was amended by an Add-On Agreement recorded August 27, 1981, Book 2130, Page 816.


H.   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, it must be revised to include a signature block for all lien holders.


3.         colley home occupation minor special review, file #08-Z1702: This is a request for approval of a Minor Special Review to allow a Home Occupation in a detached building on a 2.3 acre property situated on the south side of Peep O’ Day Lane approximately 1/4 mile north of the intersection of Peep O’ Day Lane and Wild Lane.  Peep O’ Day Lane is gated north of Wild Lane.


The property is zoned FA-1 (Farming) and has an existing 3,580-square-foot residence as well as an approximately 5,200-square-foot detached accessory building that is used as a garage, accessory living area, and hobby recording studio.


The property is surrounded by other properties zoned FA-1 (Farming). The Wild Bed & Breakfast is located on the lot immediately to the south.  Other adjacent properties contain single-family homes or are undeveloped single-family residential lots.


The property owners applied for a permit for the accessory building in December of 2006.  At that time, the owners signed a Use Affidavit stating that the “use of the building shall be accessory to the primary dwelling on the property and shall be for private, personal use only.  It shall not be used for accessory living area (2nd living quarters), home occupation, commercial or industrial purposes unless and until proper County approval is granted for such uses.” 


The Board of County Commissioners approved a Minor Special Review and appeal to the maximum size of an Accessory Living Area to allow an 880-square-foot Accessory Living Area within the detached building on October 15, 2007.  The property owners have now applied to allow a Home Occupation in the detached building. 


The proposed Home Occupation would allow professional recording artists to pay a fee to use the existing studio.  The applicant anticipates scheduling approximately two one-day recording sessions per week.  Each recording session would typically involve three to five band members and occasionally include the band’s engineer.  The majority of the on-site work would involve mixing and mastering music, which typically requires two to three people on-site.  The property owners anticipate having one full-time engineer as an employee. 


The applicant’s narrative states the anticipated hours of operation would be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.  For the purpose of neighborhood compatibility, Development Review Team staff proposes to limit vehicular traffic to and from the site to the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 


The Larimer County Building Services Division and the City of Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau indicate that the level of activity described in the applicant’s narrative would not require modifications or upgrades to the existing building.


The previously approved Accessory Living Area will only be used for guests of the property owners and will not be utilized by people on-site for activities associated with the Home Occupation.


The Development Services Team believes that the Colley Minor Special Review application meets the Minor Special Review criteria and the requirements for a Home Occupation in a detached accessory building.  As proposed, the use will not adversely affect adjacent properties.  Therefore, the Development Services Team recommends that the Board of County Commissioners Approve the Colley Home Occupation Minor Special Review, subject to the following conditions:


A.         The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Colley Home Occupation Minor Special Review, File #08-Z1702, 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 Colley Minor Special Review.


B.         This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.  In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, applicant agrees that, in addition to all other remedies available to county, county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Minor Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.  The county may conduct periodic inspections of the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review, as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review approval.


C.         The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the property.  Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Minor Special Review approval.


D.   The area of the recording studio within the current structure shall not be further expanded beyond the existing 925 square feet.


E.    Vehicular traffic to and from the property associated with the Home Occupation shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.


F.    At the minimum, a 2A:10BC rated fire extinguisher must be provided in the recording area.


G.   The gate at the intersection of Wild Lane and Peep-O’ Day Lane must be brought into compliance with current standards through the installation of a siren-activated sensor and installation of a Knox Key switch override to lock the gate open as needed. 




Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Consent Agenda items for August 11, 2008.


Motion carried 3-0.


4.         Waste-not recycling special exception show cause, file #02-boa0343 tabled from july 21, 2008:  This is a staff initiated request to determine if the Special Exception approval for Waste-Not Recycling (02-BOA0343) is null and void or if the approval can be extended with specific conditions.


On July 21, 2008 the Development Services Team presented updates regarding the Waste-Not Recycling Special Exception to the Board of County Commissioners.  After taking testimony from staff, the applicant and public, the Board tabled the item, directing staff to look at alternative solutions to the traffic safety issues.  On July 29, 2008, staff proposed the restriction of access between Highway 34 and the Kelim Frontage Road via Larimer County Road 3 and Poplar Street with all deferred traffic utilizing the Weld County Road 13 intersection.  In addition to the deferment of traffic, the turn lanes for access to and from Highway 34 must be lengthened to meet current safety requirements.  The cost of building adequate turn lanes will be paid by CDOT and completed during the span of their current overlay project, thus resolving the traffic safety concerns. 


The Development Services Team recommends that the Board uphold the May 19, 2008, approval for an extension to the Waste-Not Recycling Special Exception subject to the following modified conditions of said extension:


1.         By September 15, 2008, Waste-Not Recycling will provide to the Larimer County Planning Department all items required to be submitted for the Site Plan Review application (03-SP0105).


2.         Eliminated


3.         Eliminated


4.         By May 1, 2009, Waste-Not Recycling will complete all construction of the improvements required by the County approved Site Plan.


Chair Gibson opened the hearing to the applicant for comment.  Anita Comer, owner and operator of Waste-Not Recycling, addressed the Board and staff, thanking everyone for their work in resolving the safety violation problems.  Ms. Comer stated that she agreed with the conditions set forth by staff and had no concerns with the requirements.


There being no public comment on this item, Chair Gibson opened the hearing to questions and or comments from the Commissioners.  Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels expressed thanks to staff, specifically Martina Wilkinson and Gloria Hice-Idler from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for all of the work put into finding a sensible solution to this problem.    




Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners uphold the May 19, 2008, approval for an extension to the Waste-Not Recycling Special Exception, File #02-BOA0343, subject to the modified conditions (with Condition 4 stating a date of May 1, 2009) recommended by the Development Services Team.


Motion carried 3-0.  


5.         warberg farm irrigation requirements supplemental hearing, file #04-s2296 Tabled from July 21, 2008:  This is a review of the County Engineering Staff’s assessment of information provided by the engineering representatives for the Warberg Farm CD Final Plat and the Gard Lateral Ditch Company, related to drainage improvements for the Warberg Farm CD.


Mr. Wheeler began by recapping the June 23, 2008, public hearing, in which the Board of County Commissioners directed the Engineering Staff to review the contradictory information provided by engineers representing the Warberg Farms CD and the Guard Lateral Ditch Company, with respect to engineering technical standards and drainage related issues.  


Ms. Coleman stated that, after reviewing the contradictory information provided by the Gard Lateral Ditch Company and the Warberg Farm CD, staff discovered the drainage measurements provided by Warberg Farm CD did not account for drainage from the eastern portion of the development.  The development currently contains a northern water quality and retention pond as well as a smaller, southern water quality pond.  Ms. Coleman explained that staff has determined that water retention issues could be resolved by simply enlarging the southern pond.  Through the proposed transformation of the southern pond, drainage problems would be resolved, minimal change would be made to the adjacent lots, and septic system viability for the adjacent lots would not be compromised.  The proposed modifications to the southern pond have been reviewed and accepted as a viable resolution by engineers for both Warberg Farm CD and the Guard Lateral Ditch Company.


Ms. Coleman also stated that, during the past week, there was a new issue raised by representatives of the Gard Lateral Ditch Company concerning the construction of a pedestrian trail on the west side of the development.  After a visit to the site by staff, it was determined that the erosion control aspect of the trail was in severe disrepair.  Ms. Coleman advised the Board that erosion control is regulated by the county, in accordance with the National Construction Pollution Discharge Elimination System.  Larimer County does not, however, review or regulate pedestrian trail configuration, surfacing, placement, etc.


Chair Gibson opened the hearing to the applicant. Alden Hill, applicant’s attorney, called Dr. James Ruff, hydrology expert, to appear before the Board and asked him to outline his qualifications and background.  Dr. Ruff stated that the proposal made by staff would be a viable solution to the drainage issue in question.


Mr. Hill called attention to a bill received by the applicant from the Gard Lateral Ditch Company, in the amount of $19,230.50, for charges stemming from legal and engineering services obtained by the ditch company since March 2008.  Mr. Hill reminded the Board that the applicant has already voluntarily paid $7,700, toward the cost of expert analysis and legal representation.  Mr. Hill declared that the Gard Lateral Ditch Company had no legal right to bill Warberg Farm CD, quoting various statutes and legal precedence and stating that the county does not have the right to tax attorney fees in these instances.


Ms. Sonya Warberg Mast, Applicant, addressed the Board and stated that, although she will agree to expand the southern pond on the development to resolve this issue, doing so would benefit only the Gard Lateral Ditch Company.  Ms. Mast provided three supplemental exhibits to the Board.  [Exhibit 1, Statement of Position of Applicant Re: Attorney Fees, Engineering Fees and Costs; Exhibit 2, Applicant’s Statement of Position Re: ‘Communication’ Between the Gard Lateral Ditch Co., Larimer County and Warberg Farm, dated July 17, 2006; and Exhibit 3, copy of the site data and cover letter from Mr. Wheeler to the Gard Lateral Ditch Company, informing the company of Warberg Farm CD’s filing of a finalized plat.


Ms. Mast stated that there was no response from the Gard Lateral Ditch Company to the letter of notice issued by Mr. Wheeler.  Therefore, she believed there was no problem with the finalized plat of the development and moved forward with her plans.  She stated that the lack of communication on the part of Gard Lateral Ditch Company, the county and Warberg Farms is to blame for the fees incurred during the time spent trying to resolve this issue.  She further stated that, up to this date, Warberg Farm CD has spent $67,564 in construction, engineering and professional fees.


Chair Gibson opened the hearing to public comment and Mr. Andy Jones, attorney representing the Gard Lateral Ditch Company, stated that the company was in agreement with the recommendations presented by Ms. Coleman.  He stated, however, that to reach this point, significant fees have been incurred.  Mr. Jones stated problems began when county staff did not review the historic flows of the area, which would have called their attention to the engineering errors prior to approval of the submitted plat.  He further stated that, because of this, Landmark Engineering Ltd. then had to be hired to conduct a separate hydrology analysis, at which time it was discovered that the finalized plat neglected to include in its figures water flow from the eastern portion of the development.   This finding was brought before the Board and ultimately verified by staff, resulting in the present hearing.  Mr. Jones stated that, the Gard Lateral Ditch Company also incurred fees from the legal representation necessary to protect their interests in this matter.  In summary, he stated that the fees incurred by the company result from faulty engineering and lack of communication on the part of Warberg Farm CD, and therefore, should be the responsibility of Warberg Farm CD.


Commissioner Eubanks asked Mr. Jones if Gard Lateral Ditch Company had responded to the final plat notification.  After some discussion, it was determined that Gard Lateral Ditch Company neglected to send a copy of its response to Messner Engineering, instead sending it only to county staff, in direct conflict with the response that the notification requested.  Commissioner Eubanks indicated that this reflects communication errors on both sides of this controversy, resulting in increased legal and engineering fees incurred by both entities.


Following questions pertaining to the details of Mr. Jones’ billing statement by the Board, Chair Gibson opened the hearing to the applicant for rebuttal.  Mr. Hill again addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated he believed the recommendation presented by staff was an acceptable resolution of the issue.  However, Mr. Hill reiterated that he felt very strongly that Warberg Farm CD should not have to pay the $19,230.50 billed to them by the Gard Lateral Ditch Company.


Chair Gibson re-opened public comment and Mr. Jones again appeared before the Board on behalf of the Gard Lateral Ditch Company, and the Board resumed their questioning about the billing statement.  Chair Gibson addressed legal counsel as to the authority of the Board to rule on the monetary charges brought before them and Ms. Haag stated that the Board must make a motion on the issue, leaving the parties with the option of civil action if they were unsatisfied with the Board’s decision.  


Mr. Jones stated an agreement had previously been reached in which the Warberg Farm Home Owner Association would pay for any required maintenance to the drainage system; however, to date, Mr. Jones had not observed any requirements for drainage maintenance in the Home Owner Association’s Covenant.  Mr. Lafferty informed the Board that Sections 6.7 and 6.8 of the Covenant require the Home Owner Association to pay fees associated with the maintenance of the drainage system.


The Board agreed that they were not comfortable assigning fees from one party to another, because fees had been incurred by both parties due to a lack of communication and compliance.  Commissioner Eubanks also did not want the Board to be required to police the installation of a silt fence along the pedestrian trail. 




Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners find in favor of the Gard Lateral Ditch Company and find they have made reasonable and necessary requirements of the applicant for the Warberg Farm Conservation Development.  He further moved that the County Commissioners require the applicant to enlarge the water quality pond at the southeast corner of the property to accommodate additional area for stormwater detention with discharges from the pond not exceeding current engineering standards of the Larimer County Stormwater Manual, require the applicant continue compliance with the National Construction Pollution Discharge Elimination System; and to deny the Gard Lateral Ditch Company’s request for payment of additional attorney fees.


Motion carried 3-0.


6.         Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use code to add section 4.3.1.j – Apiary, file #08-ca0086:  Mr. Lafferty explained that this is a request to amend the Land Use Code to add section 4.3.1.J – Apiary.  He stated that the Larimer County Land Use Code currently addresses bees (apiary) only in the context of a farm and that staff was given direction to move forward with this code amendment using the City of Fort Collins Bee Ordinance as a model.  The following proposed amendment has been adapted to fit with the Larimer County Land Use Code. 


Replace the existing reserved Section 4.3.1.J. with the following:


J.          Apiary.  An assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location.  An apiary must meet the following standards:


1.         Hives.  All bee colonies shall be kept in Langstroth type hives with removable frames, which shall be kept in sound and usable condition.


2.         Fencing of flyways.  In each instance in which any colony is situated within twenty-five (25) feet of a public or private property line of the lot upon which the apiary is situated, as measured from the nearest point on the hive to the property line, the beekeeper must establish and maintain a flyway barrier at least six (6) feet in height consisting of a solid wall, fence, dense vegetation or combination thereof that is parallel to the property line and extends ten (10) feet beyond the colony in each direction so that all bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six (6) feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the apiary.


3.         Water. Each beekeeper must ensure that a convenient source of water is available at all times to the bees so that the bees will not congregate at swimming pools, bibcocks, pet water bowls, birdbaths or other water sources where they may cause human, bird or domestic pet contact.


4.         General maintenance.  Each beekeeper must ensure that no bee comb or other materials that might encourage robbing are left upon the grounds of the apiary site.  Upon their removal from the hive, all such materials must be promptly disposed of in a sealed container or placed within a building or other bee-proof enclosure.


5.         Queens.  In any instance in which a colony exhibits unusually aggressive characteristics by stinging or attempting to sting without due provocation or exhibits an unusual disposition towards swarming, it shall be the duty of the beekeeper to requeen the colony.  Queens must be selected from stock bred for gentleness and nonswarming characteristics.


6.         Colony densities.


a.         No more than the following number of colonies may be kept on any lot, based upon the size or configuration of the lot on which the apiary is situated:


1.         One-quarter (1/4) acre or less lot size - two (2) colonies;


2.         More than one-quarter (1/4) acre to one-half (1/2) acre lot size - four (4) colonies;


3.         More than one-half (1/2) acre to one (1) acre lot size - six (6) colonies;


4.         More than one (1) acre or larger lot size - eight (8) colonies; and


5.         Regardless of lot size, where all hives are situated at least two hundred (200) feet in any direction from all property lines of the lot on which the apiary is situated, there shall be no limit to the number of colonies.


b.         For each two (2) colonies authorized under colony densities, Subsection (a) above, there may be maintained upon the same lot one (1) nucleus colony in a hive structure not exceeding one (1) standard nine and five-eighths (9 5/8) inch depth ten (10) frame hive body with no honey super(s) attached as required from time to time for management of swarms.  Each such nucleus colony must be disposed of or combined with an authorized colony within thirty (30) days after the date it is acquired.


Add definitions for:


1.         Apiary – An assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location. 


2.         Beekeeper – any person producing or causing to be produced bees or bee products.


3.         Bees – honey-producing insects of the genus apis, including all life stages.


4.         Colony – one group of bees established in a place acceptable to said bees for the rearing of young and the storage of honey.


5.         Hive – a structure containing bees and designed to receive movable frames of comb.


6.         Honey super – any hive body, or smaller box, used for the storage of surplus honey.


Add Apiary as a new use by right to the Section 4.1 zoning districts under Agricultural uses and renumber the remainder of the sections as necessary:


1. Principal uses:


            a.   Category is agricultural


            b.   Use is Apiary


            c.   All zoning districts are “R”


The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, regarding apiary.


Chair Gibson asked staff whether beekeepers had been involved in crafting the language of the amendment to ensure it is appropriate.  Mr. Lafferty state that opportunity was provided for public review and comment.  Commissioner Rennels stated that the City of Fort Collins had involved the beekeepers association when their code was formed, and the language contained in this code parallels the City of Fort Collins code.


Chair Gibson opened the hearing for public comment.  No one from the public was present to comment on this item.




Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the code amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff in regard to apiary.   


Motion carried 3-0.


7.         Amendments to the Larimer County land use code regarding changes to notice requirements (sections 12.3.3, 22.2.2, 12.2.4, 4.3.10.G, 0.1, 8.10.6, 12.6.6), file #08-ca0087:  Mr. Lafferty explained that this is a request to make changes to the adopted Land Use Code regarding Notice Requirements.  The Land Use Code currently uses the word “affected” property owners in several places where the topic is mailed notice of a public hearing.  The concern is that staff may not know who all the “affected” property owners are.  The current code language could set up a situation where people show up at a public hearing saying they are “affected” but did not receive notice.  These code amendments are proposed to avoid this situation and still meet the intent of mailed notice.


Proposed changes to the code are as follows:


1. Change Section 12.3.3 Mailed Notice as follows:

12.3.3. Mailed notice.


A.      When required by the notice of public hearing table in this section, a notice must be mailed (first-class, postage-paid) to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal. Records of the county assessor will be used to determine the names and mailing addresses of those to be notified.  At the pre-application conference prior to submitting the application, the applicant and the staff planner assigned to the project will determine the area to be included in the mailing list.  The area included can not be less than 500 feet surrounding the property.


B.          Depositing the notice in the U.S. Mail with postage prepaid is the responsibility of the planning department or rural land use center and satisfies the mailed notice requirement.  Failure to send a mailed notice does not invalidate any public hearing.


2. Change Section 22.2.2. Process as follows:

22.2.2. Process.


A.       Appeals of administrative decisions and planning director interpretations.


4.       Notice.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date.  Notice by first-class mail may be sent to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal if the planning director determines such notice is appropriate. 


B.        Appeals to deviate from standards or requirements not filed concurrently with development applications.


4.       Notice.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date.  Notice by first-class mail may be sent to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal as determined by the planning director. 


C.   Appeals to deviate from standards or requirements filed concurrently with development review applications.


4.    Notice.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation as part of the notice of the development review application.  Notice by first-class mail may be sent to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal as determined by the planning director with the notice of development review. 


3.  Change Section 22.3.2. Process as follows:

22.3.2. Process.


C.      Notice.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date.  Notice by first-class mail must be sent to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal as determined by the planning director. 


4.  Change Section 12.2.4. Neighborhood meeting as follows:

12.2.4. Neighborhood meeting.


D.        Neighborhood meetings will be conducted by a facilitator who is retained by the applicant.  The applicant is responsible for all expenses of the neighborhood meeting, including the facilitator's fee, facility costs and the cost of the meeting notice.  The facilitator is responsible for encouraging a free exchange of information between the applicant and those potentially affected by the proposal.  The facilitator will prepare a written report that will become a part of the case file.  The report will also be included in the staff report prepared for any public hearing on the proposal.  The applicant is responsible for providing notice to the property owners in the vicinity of the proposal and for presenting the proposal to those attending the neighborhood meeting.


5.  Change Section 4.3.10.G Extended Family Dwelling as follows:

4.3.10. Extended family dwelling.


G. Extended family dwelling. 


2.         A permit for an extended family dwelling used to house immediate family members for reasons other than age or disability, or on lots or parcels containing fewer than four acres, may be issued by the county commissioners after a public hearing with notice to property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the lot or parcel on a finding that the following standards and conditions have been met.


6.  Change Section 0. Definitions as follows:



1.         Property owner in the vicinity of the proposal.  Those property owners in the vicinity of a development application and includes all those owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the site of the application. 


7.  Change Section 8.10.6. Amendments as follows:

8.10.6. Amendments.


1.         The planning director may authorize minor adjustments to the use plan for residual land and common area upon a finding that the original intent and purpose of the approved use plan is preserved.  If the planning director determines the adjustments are not minor or will change the intent and purpose of the original use plan, the county commissioners must approve the amendments at a public hearing with notice to property owners within the development.


8.  Change Section 12.6.6. Property owners association or equivalent as follows:

12.6.6. Property owners association or equivalent.


D.      All documents providing for maintenance must include a provision allowing county commissioners to take over maintenance of the common facilities and assess the cost of maintenance, including inspection fees, legal fees and administrative expenses, to the property owners within the development, if the responsible entity fails to maintain the common facilities in a reasonable condition.  Any unpaid assessments will become a lien upon the properties payable in the same manner and with the same priority as provided by law for the collection, enforcement and remittance of general property taxes.  The county will file a notice of such lien in the office of the county clerk and recorder upon the properties and will certify such unpaid assessments to the county treasurer for collection, enforcement and remittance.  Before taking over maintenance of any property the county commissioners will hold a public hearing with at least 14 days' notice to the property owners within the development.  If the county commissioners take over maintenance of the common facilities, the commissioners will continue the maintenance until it is assured that adequate provisions have been made for the maintenance of the common facilities.


Staff finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the Master Plan and the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code; are necessary to correct an omission or error in the Land Use Code; and satisfy the review criteria for changes to the text of the Land Use Code.


Planning Staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code.


Commissioner Rennels questioned staff as to who had define the term “vicinity.”  Mr. Lafferty stated that state statute defines vicinity as any property within 500 feet; however, staff does retain the ability to expand notification on a case-by-case basis as necessary.


Chair Gibson opened the hearing for public comment.  No one from the public was present to comment on this item.




Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the code amendments as recommended by staff regarding notification.


Motion carried 3-0.


There being no further business, the meeting recessed at 5:05 p.m.




Land Use Hearing



The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present. Also present were: Angela Myers and Tamara Slusher, Clerk and Recorder’s Office; George Haas, County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.


1.         Intergovernmental agreement for US 34/Crossroads Corridor Renewal Plan:  This is a request for approval of proposed changes to an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) regarding the US 34/Crossroads Corridor Renewal Plan (“Plan”).  The Plan was originally approved by means of an IGA entered into by and among Larimer County, the City of Loveland, Centerra Metropolitan District No. 1, Centerra Properties West, LLC and the Loveland Urban Renewal Authority (“LURA”) in 2004.


Lucia Liley, Attorney representing the Applicant, Centerra Properties West, LLC (“McWhinney”), approached the Board and introduced John Duvall, Loveland City Attorney and Attorney for the Loveland URA; and Alan Pogue, Attorney for the Centerra Metropolitan District I; all of which are parties to the IGA.  She stated that all of these attorneys, along with George Haas, have participated in revising the document being discussed.


Ms. Liley described the history and purpose of the original URA plan, which was approved in 2004, and the few minor modifications to it which were made for the purpose of adding school district properties and major rights-of-way so that improvements in those areas could also be funded.  She stated that the acreage of the plan, as it exists today, with those modifications, is 1560 acres; and she reviewed a map of the properties included.  She then described the mechanism in the plan for making sure the money is spent appropriately for the specifically defined public improvements, and why this mechanism was embodied in a legal commitment.


Ms. Liley then described what has been accomplished on the project thus far, stating that the Centerra Parkway improvements are complete ($6.6 million), coupled with the associated Union Pacific RR underpass (another $3.2 million); the I-25 Crossroad interchange design is expected to be completed in November; and the I-25/US 34 interim improvements of the engineering design is complete and will be out to bid very shortly, and all the construction funding for that $12 million is in place as a result of the last bond issuance.


She then spoke about the proposed modification being discussed today, stating that the primary purpose is to add some property to the URA that will provide for maximum land use flexibility, so that when a project comes in there is more ability to adapt to changing market trends and to keep the area regionally competitive, without negatively affecting the county budget.  She went on to explain that this is being done by a plan modification proposed to the Loveland City Council that would add 509 acres to the existing 1560 acres, without increasing the net developable acreage eligible to capture tax increment revenues.  In essence, the plan area would be bigger, but the number of TIF acres would not be increased over that which was originally approved, keeping this modification as a neutral from a county financial standpoint.  She further explained that the plan will operate essentially as originally intended; it will keep the same URA term (not increasing from the original 25 years), will keep regional roadway funding, and will not capture new tiff acres from development.


Ms. Liley showed a map of the proposed 509 acres to come in under this modification.  These areas included the Clover Leaf Dog Tracks; property that has always been in the Millennium GDP, but not in the URA (which will be the second phase of Grand Station); the McDunnah property; the dog kennels, which were a small part of the dog track operation; and what has been known as the “Short” property.  She stated that all of these pieces have been annexed and zoned into the Millennium GDP and are all master planned under the same PUD.


Ms. Liley showed a map of the combined acreage (2069 acres), should the modification be approved.  She then spoke about the IGA and the methodology regarding what to count as TIF acres and what not to count.  She stated that all the property is located within the Millennium GDP and, therefore, has all the necessary infrastructure.  She described what areas are developable, what defines a developed property, and when it counts against the TIF.


Ms. Liley spoke briefly about the fact that parking lots could be stand-alone structures, and that, going forward, they will be considered developed property and count against the TIF.  She reviewed exactly how many acres of developable property exist today (255).  She stated that, while tax-exempt properties do not generate TIF and do not count as developed property; already developed properties, even though tax exempt, have been included in the total number of developed acres and will count against the TIF cap.  She summarized that there are 969 net developable acres, less the 255 already developed, leaving 714 acres moving forward that can be used for TIF.  Ms. Liley emphasized that going forward, no more than the remaining 714 acres can be used for TIF, regardless of the expanded area being proposed.


Ms. Liley explained the process of keeping track of the development and reporting requirements designed to keep all entities informed as to the ongoing status and when the development of all TIF properties associated with this project has been completed.


Ms. Liley went on to explain that, if a future city council decides to amend the plan and to cause TIF to be captured on more than the agreed upon net developable acres, and in order for the county to have an easy to identify enforceable remedy, a provision has been included in these proposed modifications.  The added provision means that if a future city council would ever take action to amend the plan in a fashion that is contrary to the IGA, the Loveland Urban Renewal Authority makes a legal commitment, in this agreement, that it will annually rebate, to the county, all county property tax increment revenue which is being generated by any additional exclusion properties.  She explained that the Urban Renewal Authority gets the money; is not subject to TABOR restrictions; and can, therefore, enter into this type of a multi-year agreement.


She spoke about the residential properties in the TIF; stating that it has been agreed that no TIF should be kept or used from the residential properties in the modified area and that any TIF monies collected by the Metro District for these properties will be rebated on an annual basis. 


Ms. Liley stated that this agreement is contingent upon approval of the plan amendment by Loveland City Counsel, which is scheduled for August 19, 2008.  She then detailed a few minor language clarifications made to the URA Plan and the IGA after it had been submitted to the county.


Chad McWhinney, Applicant, addressed the Board and stated that these modifications are an attempt to solve development related traffic issues before they occur.


There being no public present to comment on this item, Chair Gibson opened the hearing to Commissioner comment.  Discussion ensued regarding the road construction and reconfiguration of the intersection of Crossroads Boulevard and Interstate 25.  Mr. McWhinney stated that the resources originally intended for that intersection were put toward the construction of County Road 5, and the remaining resources are currently being put into construction work on US 34 and Interstate 25.  Mr. McWhinney stated that the decision to stall construction on Crossroads Boulevard was strongly influenced by individuals representing the City of Loveland and was not his preference.  He offered to have an in-depth discussion about this topic with the Board and the City of Loveland.  The Commissioners expressed interest in having such a discussion and accepted Mr. McWhinney’s offer to do so. 


The Commissioners expressed their appreciation to Mr. McWhinney for taking the time to bring the modification proposal before the Board for consideration.


Ms. Liley asked the Board move to approve the modifications to the IGA and asked that the Board authorize any minute changes that might be made to the IGA by the City of Loveland during a similar presentation planned for August 19, 2008.  The Board asked that any minor changes be provided to George Haas for review and then to the Board for consideration during Administrative Matters, rather than creating the necessity for a subsequent hearing date.




Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding the US 34/Crossroads Corridor Renewal Plan with the addition of the new language contained within, which includes the Centerra Metropolitan District, subject to minor corrections by the Loveland City Council, with approval of the finalized agreement to occur at a future Tuesday Administrative Matters Meeting.


Motion carried 3-0.


There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 7:30 p.m.




Tuesday, August 12, 2008






The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager, Frank Lancaster. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Bob Keister, and Donna Hart, Commissioners’ Office; Bob Herrfeldt, Fairgrounds/Events Center; John Gamlin, Pam Stultz, and Liz DeJongh, Human Resources; Tom Garton, Building Inspections; Melissa Lohry and Angela Myers, Clerk and Recorder Office; Tamara Slusher, Deputy Clerk.


1.         PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment.






Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the weeks of July 28 and August 4, 2008.


Motion carried 3-0. 


3.    REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 11, 2008Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.






Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for August 12, 2008:


PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are presented for approval:  Pierce Land and Water LLC; Terry L. and Theresa K. Sybrandts; Robert Sprenger.  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are presented for denial:  Agilent Technologies Inc. (2005/2006); SB Professional Marketplace LLC (2007).














MISCELLANEOUS: Workforce Investment Act (WIA) PY07 Closeout Package for Grant 08-KAA-0007.


LIQUOR LICENSES:           The following licenses were approved and issued:  Castillon’s Mexican Restaurant – Hotel and Restaurant – Fort Collins; Riverbend Campground LLC dba Riverbend Resort – Transfer of Ownership – Loveland.


Motion carried 3-0. 


5.  UPDATE ON THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL AT THE RANCH:  Mr. Herrfeldt addressed the Board and provided an update on the ongoing Embassy Suites Hotel Project currently underway at The Ranch.  He explained that construction on the facility broke ground in August 2007, and is progressing well. Mr. Herrfeldt informed the Board that the interior finishing work is currently being performed at the facility on both the conference center and the hotel.  He further explained to the Board that there have been no significant construction delays, and the projected opening date for the hotel and conference center is March 2009.  Mr. Herrfeldt informed the Board that there are two large events already scheduled that will partner the hotel and The Ranch: 1) the Corporate Sustainable Responsibility Summit, scheduled for May 2009; 2) the Colorado State Association of Executives Conference, scheduled for the summer of 2009.  Mr. Herrfeldt stated that the collaboration between the County staff and the employees of John Q. Hammond and Company has gone well and the two entities are currently sharing common office space with great success. 


Mr. Herrfeldt described a banner on display at the construction site, explaining that it concerns a previous construction project dispute involving John Q. Hammond & Company and a union and has nothing to do with Larimer County or the current construction project.  Mr. Herrfeldt explained that the banner was produced as a result of an ongoing dispute involving John Q. Hammond and Company staff and a local union, regarding a lack of support for workers.


The Board expressed gratitude to Mr. Herrfeldt and Fairgrounds staff for the excellent job and hard work involved in the implementation of the County Fair this year.  Discussion ensued regarding the increased attendance and sales: concession sales increased by 20%; vendor sales increased by 11%; and attendance and gate statistics are still being compiled and will be provided to the Board when finalized.


6.  2009 MEDICAL INSURANCE PLAN RENEWAL:  Mr. Gamlin began by explaining the documentation that was distributed to the Board detailing the county’s medical plan cost history and comparing the current medical plan to national averages, and to other Category 1 counties statewide.  He also explained the different methods used by the Insurance Advisory Board, Human Resources and Hays Companies to arrive at the proposed 3% rate increase for 2009.


Ms. Knox recounted the history of Hays Companies involvement with the Larimer County Medical Insurance Plan, explaining that her firm began working with the County after the self-funded medical plan was put into place.  When Hays Companies began working with Human Resources in July 2007, it found that the current plan was operating in a reserve deficit and a plan was put into place to remedy that situation.  Ms. Knox explained that the increase in rates for 2008 helped to resolve the deficit and that the focus now is to maintain a “safe” balance in the reserve.


Chair Gibson inquired as to what the proposed reserve goal is.  Ms. Knox recommended that the county reserve be at least 25-30% of the total plan cost, given the history of claims.  She further explained that if the county does not have the recommended 25-30% reserve balance, it is possible that another year with catastrophic claims amounts, such as occurred in 2007, could result in drastic rate increases in the future.  Ms. Knox informed the Board that she worked closely with Human Resources and the Employee Insurance Advisory Committee in exploring all options; including a decrease in rates, no change to the current rate, the proposed 3% increase, and an additional 5% increase.  The majority subsequently agreed that the 3% rate increase would be most appropriate and would establish a conservative balance in the Medical Plan reserve.


The Board questioned staff regarding the current status of the reserve and the 2009 projections if the 3% rate increase were enacted.  Mr. Gamlin explained that, at the current level of claims and with the 3% rate increase in 2009, the reserve would be approximately $5.7 million (as opposed to $5.4 million if there is no increase), which is approximately 38% of the total plan cost.  Discussion ensued regarding the fact that this amount is above the recommended 25-30% reserve, the possibility that claims will remain low going forward, the county’s “appetite for risk,” options for having a larger percentage born by the county and a lower percentage born by the employees, the option for a 2% or 1% (rather than a 3%) increase, and the Boards desire to keep rates as low as possible for employees.


Ms. Knox explained that it is also a goal to have the reserve be at least two to three times that of the Incurred-But-Not-Reported (IBNR) claims, which are projected to be $2 million in 2009.  She further explained that the current reserve is recovering from a deficit and, regardless of the projected reserve surplus, if the county were to experience another year with extremely high claims activity, the projected 2009 surplus would be the “bare-bone” minimum to cover costs without placing additional burden on the county or the employees.  Discussion ensued regarding trending, inflation rates, the proposed 3% increase in comparison and the minimal ($1.26 monthly) premium increase that the 3% represents for employees.


Ms. Stultz reviewed documentation comparing the Larimer County proposed 2009 insurance rates to those of other counties and municipalities.  Discussion ensued regarding the differences between the Larimer County Medical Insurance Plan and the options offered by other entities.


Commissioner Eubanks asked Ms. Stultz to explain why other counties of similar size have not considered the option of grouping together to form an insurance “pool” to, theoretically, lower administrative costs and, in turn, lower premiums.  Discussion ensued regarding the requirements and challenges associated with creating such an insurance pool.  Mr. Lancaster explained that there is currently such an insurance pool active in Colorado under the non-profit organization County Technical Services, Inc. (CTSI), in which many of the smaller counties are currently participating.  He explained, however, that larger counties have not, thus far, gotten involved.  Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that CTSI would be a good forum to begin a discussion on insurance pooling. 


Mr. Keister provided insight regarding what would happen if the county did not increase the insurance rates for employees and had another year with high claims activity.  He explained that if the reserve could not cover the cost of those claims, the Board may have to infuse cash from the individual departments who are already dealing with very tight budgets.  The cost might also be passed on to employees in the form of higher premium increases.


Mr. Gluckman and Ms. Stultz further stated that most of the employees who provided feedback regarding the proposed 3% rate increase were relieved that the amount was not higher.  Each of the Commissioners expressed great respect for the work done by the advisory board and their collective perspective.




Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the recommendation of Human Resources and the Employee Insurance Advisory Committee to renew the Medical Insurance Plan with a 3% increase in rates effective in 2009.


Motion carried 3-0.


Discussion continued with Commissioner Rennels asking for explanation as to why the current medical plan covers symptomatic treatments but does not always offer coverage for preventative treatment, especially with respect to obesity issues.  Ms. DeJongh explained that only 13% of the total claims in 2007 were preventative in nature, due primarily to the cost of preventative care.  She indicated that she is currently working with Great West to offer more extensive options for preventative care for conditions such as obesity, tobacco cessation, cancer screenings, etc.  Ms. DeJongh explained that many organizations are turning to free mandatory health screenings for employees, with the goal being to lower symptomatic insurance claims in the long run.  Ms. Stultz and Ms. DeJongh expressed interest in exploring these types of options and possibly having work sessions with the Board on this topic in the future.


7.  2008 PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND ALLOCATION:  Ms. Block introduced Megan Wachtman and Kathleen James of Remax Alliance, and Troy Heckel, a local builder/developer, and addressed the Board regarding the Private Activity Bond Allocation for 2008.  Ms. Block explained that this would not be a cash allocation, but rather provides authority for the Board to issue tax-exempt debt to projects that meet certain qualifications and provide benefit to the public. 


Ms. Block requested that the Board allow the 2008 allocation to be directed to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) to specifically fund the Copper 10 Project in Loveland, Colorado.  Ms. Wachtman explained the details and history of the project, which will provide much needed affordable housing to citizens who are currently employed in Loveland but commute from neighboring cities for lack of local affordable housing opportunities.  Ms. Wachtman further explained that the proposed development would encompass 64 lots located near First Street and Boise Avenue in Loveland, with homes priced between $175,000 and $225,000.  Ms. Jones informed the Board that there is currently only one such development in the area, and it has been very successful.


Commissioner Rennels questioned Ms. Wachtman regarding Employee Home Ownership Plans (EHOP) in the local community.  She also expressed the need for local employers to become more proactive in providing this type of assistance to their employees and encouraged Ms. Wachtman and her company to promote the EHOP programs.


Commissioner Eubanks asked if the Loveland Housing Authority is endorsing this requested bond allocation.  Ms. Wachtman explained that she has been working the Loveland Housing Authority regarding possible collaboration on this project and believes they would be in favor of this request.  The Board expressed a desire to see a recommendation or endorsement of the project from the Loveland Housing Authority prior to approval of this allocation.  It was agreed that once such an endorsement has been received, this request could be approved via consent agenda.


8.  WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that he received an email from Mr. Triplett, a Larimer County resident who lost several structures in the storms that affected Windsor and northern Larimer County.  The email contained a request for the Board to waive the building permit fees he will incur for the rebuilding of the storm-damaged outbuildings on his property.  Mr. Lancaster stated that it would not be fair for the Building Department to absorb the cost of these permits and that, if such a request is approved, the Board would need to pay the fees out of the Special Projects Fund.


Mr. Garton shared with the Board his review and subsequent estimate of how many structures were affected by the storms in Larimer County, stating that approximately 30 to 40 accessory structures and homes experienced significant wind and hail damage in this particular storm.  Mr. Garton further explained that it would be difficult to give rebates fairly to all residents who incurred damage, because the building permits issued since the storms would not indicate if the construction was due to repair of storm damages.


In his e-mail, Mr. Triplett also expressed concern regarding the $1 million given by the Board for assistance to residents of Windsor, stating that some of that money should have been allocated to help the affected residents in Larimer County.  Commissioner Rennels clarified that the $1 million allocated by the Board was not cash from the General Fund, but rather was a diverted federal allocation that Larimer County had available to it (for similar circumstances), but instead chose to divert to assist Windsor. 


The Board expressed great concern regarding the hardships of the local residents affected by the storm.  However, all were concerned about the precedent such a waiver would create, and their inability to apply it fairly to all affected residents.  The Board asked Mr. Lancaster to respond to Mr. Triplett’s e-mail on their behalf and to let him know they could not accommodate his request.


9.   COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week.


10.  LEGAL MATTERS:  There were no legal matters to discuss.


There being no further business, the meeting recessed at 11:20 a.m.






                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR










Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy Clerk




Tamara L. Slusher, Deputy Clerk





Background Image: Cirque Meadows by Adam Johnson. All rights reserved.