Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 12/22/08  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, December 22, 2008

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#40)

 

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: Sean Wheeler, Toby Stauffer, and Rob Helmick, Planning Department; Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Karlin Goggin, Building Inspections; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Tamara Slusher, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gibson opened the hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public to comment on the County Budget, Land Use Code or Rubbish Ordinance.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.

 

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

 

1.         SANCHEZ MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #08-Z1724:  This is a request for a Minor Special Review for an accessory dwelling unit in a detached garage.  The applicant seeks approval to convert an existing detached garage into an Accessory Living Area on a single-family residential lot.  The property is Lot 2 of the Shideler Subdivision and is located at 2804 North Overland Trail.  The lot is 9100 square feet in size and is large enough to accommodate any additional off-street parking.  The Accessory Living Area will be approximately 720 square feet in size.  It will have two bedrooms, a shared closet, bathroom, small kitchen and living room as illustrated on the applicant’s site plan.  The structure will be for the use of family and friends of the property owner and not as a rental property.  Water and sewer will be provided by the City of Fort Collins.  The garage was originally built without a permit and the applicant is working with the County Building Department to resolve the outstanding permit requirements.  Adjacent uses include other single family homes, businesses to the south and southwest, and a fire station to the west.  This request includes an appeal to Section 4.3.10.F.2 to exceed 40% of the square footage in the primary single-family dwelling. 

 

Planning staff supports the Minor Special Review use and the appeal to exceed the 40% maximum square footage allowance for the Accessory Living Area.  The applicants held the required neighborhood meeting for this request on September 15, 2008.  None of the surrounding neighbors have contacted staff with objections to this request.

 

Staff from the County Engineering and Health Departments reviewed the proposed Minor Special Review.  The Engineering Department notes that the applicant will need to pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee, but did not indicate any other concerns.  The Health Department stated that the applicant will need to comply with the requirements from the City Utility for water and sanitary sewer services.

 

The City Utility comments indicate that the applicant must pay development fees and water right costs at the time of building permit.  A City Water/Sewer permit is required prior to issuance of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy.

 

Poudre Fire Authority did not object to this request.  At the time the building permit is issued the applicant must identify if a hydrant is no farther than 1,000 feet from the new structure.  If a hydrant is not available the building permit application must include a sprinkler system plan for the habitable space.

 

Accessory Living Areas are intended to allow property owners the full use of their property, while maintaining the integrity and character of the neighborhood.  To meet these goals, accessory uses and buildings must be erected and used only for purposes that are clearly secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property.  No individuals or agencies contacted staff with objections to this project.  The Development Services Team concludes that this request meets the requirements of the Land Use Code, and supports the appeal to the maximum 40% square footage allowance in Section 4.3.10.F.2 of the Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of an appeal to Section 4.3.10.F.2 of the Land Use Code to allow the total square footage of the Accessory Living Area to exceed 40 percent of the total square footage of the single-family dwelling, for the Sanchez Minor Special Review, File #08-Z1724,.  The Development Services Team also recommends Approval of the Sanchez Minor Special Review for an Accessory Living Area, File #08-Z1724, subject to the following conditions:

 

1. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Sanchez Minor Special Review for an Accessory Living Area, File #08-Z1724, 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 Sanchez Minor Special Review.

 

2. 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 fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, the 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 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.  County may conduct periodic inspections to 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.

 

3. 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.

 

4. The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for the Accessory Living Area.  All applicable fees, including permit fees and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, shall apply to this use.  Within 90 days from the date of approval, the owner shall obtain all outstanding the outstanding building permits and inspections for all previous work in the existing building.

 

5. The habitable space of the Accessory Living Area shall not exceed 800 square feet.

 

6. The single-family character of the property must be maintained.  The entrance to the Accessory Living Area must not be visible from any road.

 

7. The Accessory Living Area is to be used solely for guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling or those providing a service on site in exchange for their residency.

 

8. The Accessory Living Area must not be rented or leased separately from the single-family dwelling.

 

9. This Minor Special Review approval will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

 

2.  BINGER MINOR LAND DIVISION:  This is a request to divide a 36 acre piece of property into two lots; creating a 12 acre piece of property with an existing residence and a 24 acre remainder vacant property. The remaining vacant 24 acre property will need to go through an approved county process before any further development of the property can occur.

 

Other properties in the area are of similar size and land use. The property is adjacent to Windsor, Loveland, and Weld County.

 

This project meets all applicable review criteria and there have been no objections from any review agencies or surrounding property owners. Several review agencies offered comments on the project.

 

The Engineering Department indicates that County Road 26 and County Road 1 are functionally classified as arterials in the Larimer County Transportation Plan. This requires the application to dedicate right-of-way for future roadway improvements. One hundred-twenty feet (120’) of right-of-way or a 60 foot half right-of-way is required on the plat with this application. Staff requests that right-of-way dedications be noted on the plat as “## feet (##ac) of additional right-of-way dedicated with this plat.”

 

The Development Services Team finds that this request meets the review criteria for a Minor Land Division.

 

1. The property is not part of an approved or recorded Subdivision plat.

 

2. The property is not part of an Exemption or Minor Residential Development approved under the previous Subdivision Resolution or a Minor Land Division. 

 

3. The newly created parcels will meet the minimum lot size required by the applicable zoning district. 

 

4. The newly created parcels meet minimum access standards required by the County Engineer. 

 

5. Approval of the Minor Land Division will not result in impacts greater than those of existing uses. 

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Binger Minor Land Division File # 08-S2843 subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by June 22, 2009 or this approval shall be null and void.

 

2. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school district fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Regional or Community Park Fee (in lieu of dedication).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

3. 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.

 

4. Future development of the vacant property, Lot 2, including building permit applications, will not be allowed unless approved through an appropriate county development action.  Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant will be required to place a note on the plat indicating this condition.

 

5. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, existing right-of-way and a proposed 60’ half right-of-way will need to be delineated on the plat in the manner as specified in comments from the Eric Tracy dated November 20, 2008.

 

3.  NEWT PLANNED LAND DIVISION:  This is a request to divide an existing 5.5 acre residential lot, Lot 21 of the Victoria Estates Subdivision, into two, single-family residential lots. The property is located northeast of the intersection of South College Avenue and East County Road 32/Carpenter Road.

 

There is an existing single-family residential use on the property. The second lot in the subdivision is proposed as single-family residential. The property is zoned FA-1, Farming, with adjacent lands to the north, east and southeast of the subject site inside the city limits of Fort Collins. Adjacent zoning includes Fort Collins Public and Open Lands, FA, and FA-1. Victoria Drive serves the property and it is a local collector.

 

On November 19, 2008, the Newt Planned Land Division request was presented to the Larimer County Planning Commission as a consent agenda item.  The project remained on the consent agenda, no additional comments were provided at the hearing, and the project received a unanimous recommendation for approval.

 

Since the Planning Commission hearing, there has been one change in the conditions of approval. Condition 12 requested an annexation agreement, that agreement has been provided and the condition is no longer necessary.

 

The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Newt Planned Land Division, (File #07-S2739), for the property described on “Exhibit B” attached to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

Approval of the request to rezone the property for the Newt Planned Land Division (File #07-S2739) from FA-1 Farming to PD- Planned Development, subject to the following conditions:

 

  1. The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the final plat of Newt Planned Land Division.

 

  1. The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Newt Planned Land Division shall be as follows:

 

    • 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.
    • 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).
    • Uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in section 13.0.

 

A. Principal uses:

Agricultural

1. Farm (R)

2. Tree farm (R)

3. Greenhouse (R)

4. Boarding stable (S)

5. Pet animal facility (MS/S)

6. Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S)

 

Residential

7. Single-family dwelling (R)

8. Dwelling, cabin (R)

9. Group home for the developmentally disabled (R)

10. Group home for the aged (R)

11. Group home (R)

12. Storage buildings and garages (R)

13. Group home for the mentally ill (R)

 

Institutional

14. Cemetery (S)

15. School, public (L)

16. School, nonpublic (R/S)

17. Church (R/S)

18. Child/elderly care center (S)

19. Child/elderly care home (R)

20. Community hall (R/S)

21. State-licensed group home (S)

 

Recreational

22. Public park/playground (L)

 

Accommodation

23. Bed and breakfast (MS/S)

 

Utilities

24. Water storage facility (L)

25. Radio and television transmitters (S)

26. Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)

27. Small Wind Energy Facility (MS)

 

B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

1. Minimum lot size:  2.5 Acres

2. Minimum setbacks:

a. Front yard- twenty-five (25) feet

b. Side yards--five (5) feet.

c. Rear yards--ten (10) feet.

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

e. Wetland buffer- 50’ feet- see the plat associated with this development.

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.

 

Approval of the Newt Planned Land Division (File #07-S2739) and the appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.4 of the Land Use Code subject to the following conditions:

 

1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Newt Planned Land Division (File #07-S2739), 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 Newt Planned Land Division.

 

2. The following fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance: the Thompson R2-J School District fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County Community and Regional Park Fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion and applicable drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

 

3. All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation.  The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table.  Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.

 

4. Due to the shallow groundwater of this area, construction plans shall be prepared in accordance with the recommendations from the applicant’s geotechnical engineer.

 

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. The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County, as a part of the Final Plat and to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice 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, soil testing for the new septic permit and other issues raised in the review, or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

7. The lowest opening elevation of any structure placed on proposed lot 2 will be 104.12 feet or higher using the same relative elevation datum as shown on the preliminary plat that established the Fairport Reservoir spillway as being at elevation 102.62 feet.  Any proposed structure shall be a minimum of 1.5 feet above possible ponding depths of the reservoir. The spillway elevation shall be labeled on the final plat and a plat note shall be included relating this condition of approval. 

 

8. The developer shall provide an access easement agreement that includes provisions for Lot 1 and Lot 2 to use and maintain the access easement along the southern edge of the property.

 

9. Residential sprinklers shall be required within the dwelling unit on Lot 2 and installed as part of any building permit application for a dwelling unit.  Prior to approval of the final plat the applicant shall provide information to the Planning Department indicating that the water flow and pressure from the service provider is adequate for fire protection.

 

10. The applicant will need to submit a plan addressing livestock management in relation to wetland and buffer areas with the final plat submittal.

 

11. The applicant will be required to obtain any required permits concerning water quality management for the development. As building permits are applied for, the applicant for each building permit will be required to apply for any necessary permits.

 

3.  TEN BEARS WINERY SPECIAL REVIEW:  The is a request for a Special Review for an accessory agricultural use for value added processing where more than 50% of the products used are imported to the site and the parcel is less than 35 acres in size, including an appeal to Section 8.1.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow the use of hauled water for the winery.

 

The applicant proposes to establish a winery use on his lot in the Harvey Rolling Hills PLD.  The property is zone Open and therefore allows agricultural uses on site.  At this time the applicant has not established an agricultural use on site, in this case the grape vines.  It is his intent to do this and suggests that within 5 years he would be in a position to not rely upon or import any grapes to the site.  In the interim however it is his intention to import grapes to make wine on site until he can successfully harvest the grapes, in sufficient quantities to allow for the production of wine from on site produce.  Based on the review at sketch plan and the comments from the Health Department, Poudre Fire Authority and the Building Department a retail/tasting operation will not be a part of the use as currently proposed.

 

The Ten Bears Winery Special Review was presented to the Larimer County Planning Commission at the regular meeting on November 19, 2008.  The application was placed on and remained on the consent agenda.  There were no issues or concerns raised at that time.

 

During evaluation of this application staff found issues which needed resolution prior as a part of the public hearing application related to the potential for and possibility of retail sales and tasting at the site.  These are referred to above as the “public use” and influenced the comments related to water supply and use, from the Health and Building Department as well as the Poudre Fire Authority.  Additional issues related to licensing and food service plan review were also resolve in the review process.  

 

The Development Services Team in their evaluation of the request and the comments received in the course of the review of this application find the following:

 

  • The application meets the review criteria of for a Special Review and the additional criteria for Agricultural processing by

 

  • Being compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood;

 

  • Outside a GMA district, the proposed use is consistent with the County Master Plan;

 

  • This project can and will comply with all applicable requirements of this code;

 

  • Will not result in a substantial adverse impact on property in the vicinity of the subject property; and

 

  • The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Ten Bears Winery Special Review file # 08-Z1695 subject to the following condition(s):

 

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.

 

2. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Ten Bears Winery Special Review file # 08-Z1695 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 Ten Bears Winery Special Review file # 08-Z1695.

 

3. Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners

 

4. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.

 

5. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved 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 Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

6. 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.

 

7. 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 Special Review approval.

 

8. The applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) before the use commences, or within 120 days of the recordation of the Findings and Resolution approving the Special Review, whichever occurs first. The Larimer County Land Use Code does not have a land use category that covers winery, so the fees will be calculated based on the projected average daily traffic submitted with traffic study.

 

9. There shall be no retail sale or public events/tastings at this site.

 

10. The addition of retail sales, tastings or public events shall cause the use to be subject a t minimum to Site Plan Review or reconsideration of the Special Review.  This is in part based on the volume of imported grapes used in the production. 

 

11. The applicant shall conform to the following Health Department conditions; operation of the winery shall conform to the State of Colorado Food Manufacturing Practices,  the cistern for hauled in water may be used both as detailed in the letter of August 7, 2008, and an ISDS permit must be issued for the use.

 

5.  STEVE SARNO ADDRESS APPEAL:  The applicant seeks to appeal his address change from 417 Indian Ridge Road to 417 East County Road 66.  As part of the Road Naming and Site Addressing System, the county code provides in Section 10-175.(a)(4)a: the County Addressing Coordinator shall be responsible for assigning and modifying address numbers or road names.  Section 10-175 (b)(1)q of the county code establishes a road naming hierarchy.  From the appeal application and discussion with the owner, the appellant seeks to retain the address of 417 Indian Ridge Rd.  However, the property involved in this appeal takes direct access from E County Road 66.  County Road 66 is a publicly dedicated road and is county maintained.  The property does not have direct access from the unmaintained portion currently named Indian Ridge Rd.  Thus in accordance with the county code, the address should change to reflect the proper road name designation of E County Road 66.

 

The subject property had an address of 417 Indian Ridge Rd prior to the Rural Addressing Improvement Project.  As part of the addressing project, the subject property was found to take access from a county maintained road, E County Road 66.  With that said Section 10-175 (b)(1)q provides the following:

 

The names of state and federal highways are assigned based on their state or federal highway number. If any given section of a road has multiple designations, e.g.: a state and a federal highway number or two federal highway numbers, the following hierarchy shall be used within the Larimer County Addressing/Road Naming System:

 

1. Interstate (lowest interstate number takes precedence if more than one).

2. Federal highway number (lowest federal highway number takes precedence if more than one).

3. Forest service roads.

4. State highway number (lowest state highway number takes precedence if more than one)

5. County highway number.

6. The hierarchy in road naming shall supersede and take precedence over historically significant and/or alias road names.

 

The address in turn was changed to reflect the road naming hierarchy and is now addressed 417 E County Road 66. 

 

Mr. Sarno is not adversely opposed to an address change. However, he considers the change to be more confusing rather than an improvement.  Mr. Sarno brought to staff’s attention that his new address of 417 E County Road 66 is too closely related to an address of 417 E County Road 66E.  It is important to note that 417 E County Road 66E was not impacted by the Rural Addressing Project and we are not suggesting changing this site location address.  Mr. Sarno indicated that mail was being misrouted and received at the other location bringing to his attention concern regarding the new address as a whole.

 

In discussions with Mr. Sarno staff recommended changing the number for his address.  Since there is a 417 E County Road 66 and 417 E County Road 66E staff felt that changing the address numbers would eliminate the confusion with postal delivery.  At that stage Mr. Sarno expressed apprehension that changing the number would likely not eliminate the confusion as he stated “systems” for Qwest and others default him to County Road 66E.  Perplexed by this statement, staff confirmed with Kimberly Culp, LETA Executive Director, that Qwest Communications would not default to a road name.  If a road name does not appear in the MSAG (Master Street Address Guide), the error is received at LETA to either enter a new road or confirm the road name.  It has been confirmed that both E County Road 66 and E County Road 66E are valid road names in the Larimer County MSAG and Qwest Communications has the new address in 911.

 

The appellant requested the county to research the possibility to re-route him from the Wellington Post Office rather than Fort Collins.  He has stated he is closer to Wellington than to Fort Collins.  A proxy to USPS was completed and a response was provided (attached).  Proximity to post offices is not how routes are determined by USPS.  They are designed to facilitate efficient and orderly delivery of mail and may not necessary correspond to municipal boundaries.  Since Larimer County is not a municipality, we use postal compliant city, state, and zip as provided by USPS.  Larimer County has no authority over zip code delivery boundary and in order to consider such a request would require moving a minimum of 25 other addresses to the Wellington zip code and a petition by residents to USPS.

 

The appellant also suggested leaving the address of 417 Indian Ridge Rd.  Unfortunately, based upon the road hierarchy and the fact that access is from County Road 66, a maintained county road, the address needs to reflect this official road name designation.  It is potentially feasible to grant the address of 417 Indian Ridge Rd., in order to be consistent with previous appeals of this nature, the county road maintenance would need to be eliminated to do so. 

 

As staff representative, I can comprehend the confusion with respect to mail delivery.  The difference between the addresses is minimal and can create human error.  With respect to locating the property, the addresses are ˝ mile apart and distinguishable from a dispatch and emergency service aspect. 

 

One final suggestion from the appellant was to renumber county roads and eliminate the designation of “E” after county road numbers.  The use of “E” in the county road numbering system denotes the tenth of a mile from the section line.  With citizens the use of “E” has long been confused with being on County Road 66 East.  It is an unfortunate situation yet the magnitude to change the county road numbering system would be enormous.  Although in addressing, mail delivery, and citizen awareness of road names, this schematic would alleviate some confusion however the suggestion is simply one that crosses extensive department lines and beyond the scope of this project.

 

Mr. Sarno’s suggestions have been reviewed by staff.  It is simply unfortunate those suggestions can not be immediately implemented or approved due to the various levels of departments impacted thus staff feels are not viable solutions at this time.  On the basis of researching options as well as considering the suggestions from Mr. Sarno the potentials are:

 

a) Change the address number from 417 E County Road 66 to another number in accordance with the Fort Collins grid system (423, 425, 431, etc)  Staff is favorable to working with the property owner to determine a new number in accordance with the Fort Collins grid.

 

b) Request to vacate maintenance of the county road.  If the maintenance is eliminated the county road designation can be eliminated.  This would still be a public right of way, but not county maintained. By eliminating maintenance, the county road designation ceases and the address of 417 Indian Ridge Rd can be retained.  This would impact all owners east of County Road 15.  If the Board wishes to give this option further consideration, this matter should be tabled until proxy to all owners is completed.  Also, address changes would be intact until the completion of the road maintenance has been officially terminated if this is the course of action selected. 

 

c) Allow the platted road name of Indian Ridge Rd from N County Road 15 east on what is E County Road 66 to be the official road name as exception to the county code. If the Board desires to give this option further consideration, this matter should be tabled and re-heard following notice to the other property owners taking access from this portion of the road.

 

Staff findings are as follows:

  • LETA and the County have funded monies toward the rural addressing project to ensure a systematic addressing system is achieved.  Naming conventions must be in compliance with the county code.  Departure from the adopted naming conventions tends to undermine the intent of the rural site addressing improvement project.

 

  • The Resolution states that the criteria for appeals is that the decisions of the County Addressing Coordinator shall be upheld by the Board of County Commissioners unless a preponderance of evidence that the decision herein is inconsistent with or does not promote the intent and purpose of the Resolution.  Since the existing address scheme does not adhere to the county road designation to which they access from, upholding this appeal would go against the Resolution.

 

  • A decision to uphold this appeal request would result in out of scope expenses for our consulting requiring additional funds being allocated to the project to make the changes.

 

  • The Resolution provides in Section 10-175 (a)(4)a to modify existing address numbers and road names where applicable.  Also, Section 10-176 (b) states:  Larimer County shall balance the need to modify existing address numbers and/or road names for compliance with this article and postal standards with the desire to retain existing address numbers and/or road names where possible. Larimer County may initiate one or more of the following: the naming of an unnamed road, the modification of an existing road name, the assignment of an address number to an unaddressed structure or unit, or the modification of an existing address number.  In this case, with two “like” addresses and mail has been switched between properties, renumbering the property is best approach.

 

  • Staff finds the road is a publicly dedicated right of way; is county maintained; and of record as County Road 66.

 

  • The purposes of the Site Addressing and Road Naming Resolution is to provide property owners, the general public, and Larimer County with an accurate and systematic means of identifying and locating property.  This includes the modification of address numbers on existing addresses and changing road names as part of administering the resolution and addressing standards when found to be inconsistent.  The county is working to establish a system of unique and consistent road names and address points while providing efficient public services and response.
  • By allowing this appeal and exempting this address to retain 417 Indian Ridge Rd would creating an exception to the addressing system and be negating efforts to create a logical, systematic, and consistent addressing scheme in Larimer County.  Approval of such a request would create an exception to the intent of the enabling guidelines and promote further addressing anomalies which then demonstrates inconsistency and confusion.

 

  • The appellant suggested potentially viable options.  Some of the suggestions by the appellant warrant consideration however at this time are not readily feasible by staff.  To retain Indian Ridge Rd is likely the desire of many on this road but the County would be requested to change addressing rules that have been implemented throughout the county thus far.  The road name of Indian Ridge Rd was platted with Geist First Subdivision in 1971.  However, Road & Bridge records indicate the county road numbers were created in 1970 and maintained from that point forward.

 

In order to maintain integrity and consistency in the county addressing system, staff preference is to remain in harmony with completed areas of the county, retain the county road designation, and renumber the “417” portion of the  E County Road 66 address to another number not duplicated on E County Road 66E.  Staff recommends that the Board approve the assignment of 459 East County Road 66 to Mr. Sarno’s residence.

 

Pat Binger informed the Board that on Item #2 there was a typo in her last name on page 20 of the staff report.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Consent Agenda for December 22, 2008.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  TIMBERLINE RESOURCES SPECIAL REVIEW AMENDED CONDITIONS FILE #08-G0158:  This is a request to amend the conditions of approval to allow an additional 3 years to commence mining (until September 21, 2011) and amend the Development Agreement to extend the timeframe for completion of improvements required as conditions of approval (until December 27, 2011). 

 

The Planning Commission discussed this request at their November 19, 2008 meeting.  There was a brief discussion about the time extension request as it relates to the Highway 287 improvements.  Those improvements must be in place prior to the commencement of mining.  There was no public comment.  A copy of the minutes is included with this report.

 

The Timberline Resources Special Review was approved with conditions on September 12, 2005.  The conditions of that approval included a condition for the commencement of mining as follows:

 

This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced after the Stegner operation is completed or within three years of the date of approval, whichever occurs first.

 

Another condition of approval states that the commencement of mining of the Timberline mine can not occur until after completion of mining of the Stegner Pit as follows:

 

The time allowed to complete mining operations is a maximum of 10 years beginning on the date of completion of mining for the Stegner Pit (File #98-Z1281).

 

The applicant has requested an extension of that time frame, until September 12, 2011.  In addition, certain improvements related to the Highway 287 access to the mine were required as follows

 

All improvements required to be constructed or installed for mining use of the Property shall be installed, constructed or performed by Operator on or before commencement of the use but no later than December 27, 2008.

 

The applicant has also requested an extension to this timeframe, until December 27, 2011

 

The Engineering Department recommended that Aggregate Industries coordinate with the Colorado Department of Transportations regarding the time extension for the Highway 287 improvements.  Coordination with CDOT prior to the construction and installations of any improvements is already an approved condition of the project approval.

 

The LaPorte Area Advisory Committee reviewed the request at their meeting October 21, 2008 and had no concerns.

 

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Timberline Resources Special Review Amended Conditions File # 08-G0158.

 

Commissioner Eubanks requested clarification on the extension and staff informed him that the approval time, as well as the life of the mine, would be extended by 3 years. 

 

The applicant stated that they were in agreement with the conditions as published and had no concerns or objections.

 

Chair Gibson opened the hearing for public comment. Commissioner Eubanks read a letter from Jeri and Frank Holzworth which expressed their concerns regarding the extension of activities at the mine as well as concerns regarding the burden on the surrounding property owners should the operations be extended indefinitely.

 

Terry Waters addressed the Board as a resident in the area of the Stegner site.  Ms. Waters informed the Board that there was a great amount of public concern regarding the poorly managed operations at the site. 

 

Bill Friehauf, a resident across the street from the Stegner site, expressed concerns regarding the poor operations management and lack of trustworthiness of Aggregate Industries.  Mr. Friehauf disliked the idea of the mine continuing operations indefinitely.

 

Commissioner Eubanks reiterated the fact that the LaPorte Area Advisory Committee did not have any concerns with this application for extension. Commissioners Rennels and Gibson expressed the need to be cognizant of issues that may arise as the demand for gravel decreases in the future. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Timberline Resources Special Review Amended Conditions, File #08-G0158.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  MOEN RANCH ROAD ADDRESS APPEAL:  This is a request by property owners on an unnamed road to name that road after a family surname which is prohibited by Resolution unless approved by the Board.  As part of the Road Naming and Site Addressing System, the Resolution provides in Section 10-175.(b)(1)d.  of the county code prohibits the use of family names and surnames.  The road in reference under this appeal is currently unnamed and serves several properties.  Property owners on this road are all related to the Moen surname.  With that said, the Resolution Section 10-175(b)(1)e also has a provision allowing the County to retain historically significant road names.

 

Section 10-175 (b)(1)d states that the road name shall not be a proper name or family surname

 

Section 10-175 (b)(1)e states that road names may be based upon historical significance provided the road naming hierarchy requirements in subsection q. below are met. In order for a road name to be based on historical significance, it must represent clear significance to Larimer County and its history. Requests to add historically significant road names must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) following a public hearing. Recorded documentation and supporting evidence must be submitted to the county addressing coordinator to initiate the request for approval.

 

Property owners on this road would like to appeal on the premise of unanimous agreement to name the road Moen Ranch Road and based upon historical significance.  Section 10-175(b)(1)e establishes the ability to use historically significant road names. 

 

The property owner provided numerous articles that chronicle the existence of the Moen Family Ranch in the Livermore area.  To date, each of the addressable points on this road is owned by a Moen family member.  The Moen Family Ranch consists of more than 6,000 acres and currently five generations of descendents live on the ranch.  Staff finds there are no immediate concerns with the spelling and use of such a name.  Although the resolution prohibits the use of family surnames, in this case, all property owners are in agreement with the name, are related to the family surname, and the documentation represents a clear history to the area in the county.

 

Staff findings are as follows:

 

  • The Resolution provides the provision of historical significance can be proven as provided in Section 10-175(b)(1)e.  Staff finds there is significant supporting documentation in history readings regarding the Moen Family Ranch.

 

  • LETA and the County have funded monies toward this project to ensure a systematic addressing system is achieved.  Naming this entire road Moen Ranch Rd is compliant from the sense of spelling and pronunciation.  There are no similar roads in the county with such a name.

 

  • The purposes of the Site Addressing and Road Naming Resolution is to provide property owners, the general public, and Larimer County with an accurate and systematic means of identifying and locating property.  This includes the modification of address numbers on existing addresses and changing road names as part of administering the resolution and addressing standards when found to be inconsistent.  The county is working to establish a system of unique and consistent road names and address points while providing efficient public services and response.

 

  • Each of the family members has agreed with the road name of Moen Ranch Rd.

 

Chair Gibson opened the hearing for public comment and John Moen, the applicant, further explained that his family had been in the area for over 100 years.  Currently the fifth generation of his family is living on the land and intends to remain there.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved to grant approval to officially name the unnamed road from County Road 45E starting in Section 31 and 32, Township 12, Range 71 to Moen Ranch Road and in accordance with the Resolution, modify existing addresses to reflect this official road name and obtain proper sequential numbering and parity where needed.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  BACON QUARRY SPECIAL REVIEW:  This is a request for approval to operate a commercial sandstone quarry on 2.5 acres of an 8.8 acres site in the Masonville area.  The request includes an appeal to Section 8.6.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code related to paved parking.

 

This item was considered at the Planning Commission hearing on November 19, 2008.  During the hearing, the Applicant and neighbors (who had concerns about the request) were able to resolve most of their differences.  The Applicant agreed to the Conditions of Approval in the Staff report, but has asked for a 25 year permit life.  As the Applicant would not be able to operate 6 days a week under the recommendations, as other quarries in the area currently do, Staff supports the permit life increase to 25 years.  The Planning Commission accepted this recommendation, and Condition of Approval #1 below reflects the change.

 

The Applicant also withdrew a request to store fuel on-site.  The project description states the Applicant will have 2 to 4 employees.  Following the meeting with the neighbor’s attorney, the Applicant has asked for a maximum of 5 employees.  The Applicant has agreed to using new “white noise” technology for the back-up sensors on vehicles, and to turn alarms down to the lowest permitted level allowed by law thus reducing noise impacts.

 

As part of the final review of the site plan materials, the Applicant will provide for landscape screening in compliance with County Land Use Code standards in Section 8.5.  Fencing is typically part of a landscape screening plan.  If the neighbors object to fencing the landscape buffering standards can be used, but they will not fully obscure the view into the site.  The Applicant’s project description also addresses other concerns raised by neighbors.  An example is the question on on-site sales of the mined product.  The project description states that no on-site sales will take place, and Condition of Approval #2 addresses this representation.  Neighbors expressed a concern about the number of trucks taking product off site during each week.  Again, the project description indicates that a maximum of two trucks per week will visit the site.  Conditions of Approval are shown below to address these requests, but they may be redundant per the standard language in Condition #2.

 

Finally, there was a concern about the proposed point of limited access being directly across from a neighbor’s driveway access.  They asked that it be relocated.  Because this issue was not discussed with the Engineering Department prior to the public hearing, Engineering Staff have agreed to consider the matter and make a recommendation at the Commissioners hearing.  Staff supports all changes agreed to as described above.

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission recommends approval of the appeal to the paving standard for parking areas, required by 8.6.3 of the Land Use Code, to allow the use of gravel in the parking area for the Bacon Quarry Special Review.

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission recommends approval of the Bacon Quarry Special Review, File #08-Z1678, to the Board of County Commissioners 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.  Quarry activities shall be limited to 25 years from the start of operations, unless Larimer County grants approval to extend the permit time.

 

2. The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Bacon Quarry Special Review (File #08-Z1678) 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 Bacon Quarry Special Review.

 

3. The Applicant shall execute a Development Agreement to be signed by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded with the Larimer County Clerks Office, before the commencement of any excavation activities and no longer then one year after the date of the Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing.

 

4. No operation of the quarry shall occur on the weekends or County designated holidays.   Monday through Friday hours of operation are limited to the time between 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, to include time for equipment warm-up.

 

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 quarry activities and no later then the start of the next growing season.

 

7. The Applicant shall comply with requirements with the Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County.

 

8. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the County Engineering Department outlined in their comments dated 10-17-08:

 

a. Within 90 days of Special Review approval at a Board of County Commissioners hearing, the Applicant is required to apply for a Development Construction Permit (DCP) and Access Permit.  The site and access improvements will need to be completed prior to commencing the mining operation.

 

b. Applicant shall provide a right-of-way Deed of Dedication (50 foot half right-of-way) to be recorded prior to or with the Development Agreement.

 

c. The Applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee of $2,833.00 prior to recording of the Development Agreement.

 

d. The State of Colorado approved Mining and Reclamation Permit, State Storm water Discharge Permit, and State Fugitive Particulate Emissions Permit (if required by the State) shall be submitted to the County Engineering Department within 90 days of Special Review approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

e. The temporary northern access shall only be used for the pick up of material and can only be used up to twice per week for this use. The access must be abandoned once the mining operation ceases.

 

f. No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the County right-of-way.

 

g. Trucks shall not back onto or use the County Road for a turnaround.

 

h. Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.

 

i. The Applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of any site material in the County right-of-way.

 

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. The Applicant shall provide copies of all final plans including mining, landscape and  reclamation plans within 90 days of the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, for review and approval by Staff prior to commencement of mining operations.

 

12. The Applicant shall provide secondary containment for outdoor storage areas that are sized correctly to contain possible spills.  All flammable or combustible liquids shall be stored per the requirements in the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.

 

13. All back-up alarms shall be the broadband type using the white noise technology, and shall be reduced in volume to the lowest level allowed by law.

 

14. No retail sales are allowed on site.

 

15. The quarry is allowed a maximum of 5 employees, and no more than two semi-trailer truck loads of quarried material may be removed from the site each week.

 

Discussion ensued between the Board, staff, and the public regarding the best off-set location for the temporary driveway in and out of the quarry as well as the on-site fuel storage conditions at the site.  Commissioner Rennels proposed that this issue be tabled until Monday, January 5, 2008, in order to allow the staff and applicants to arrive at the best possible solution.  Commissioner Rennels also stated that this item could be presented on the consent agenda at that time.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved to table Bacon Quarry Special Review until January 5, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2008

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#41)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 A.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioner’s Office; Mark Peterson, Martina Wilkinson, and Rex Burns, Engineering Department; Jill Bennett, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Duke Sumonia presented the Board with a handout and explained that he is representing the Glen Haven Community Preservation Group advocating for Glen Haven to retain its identity in the rural re-addressing project.  Mr. Sumonia noted that this item is scheduled to be heard on January 5, 2009, and requested that it be tabled to a later date in order to give them time to explore options.  Commissioner Rennels explained that they cannot table the hearing, and suggested that the Glen Haven Community Preservation Group be prepared to discuss this topic on January 5, 2009.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 15, 2008, AND RE-APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 17, 2008

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of December 15, 2008.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of November 17, 2008.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 29, 2008:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as published for on December 22, 2008: 

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petition for Abatement is approved:  Vision Graphics, Inc.

 

12232008A001           SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BY AND THROUGH THE LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, THE LARIMER COUNTY FACILITIES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS

 

12232008A002           NON-PROJECT SPECIFIC BRIDGE-ROADWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND A.V.I. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

 

12232008A003           NON-PROJECT SPECIFIC BRIDGE-ROADWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND LONCO, INC

 

12232008D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY BRIAN A. HARMON AND MARGARET E. HARMON FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

12232008D002           DDED OF DEDICATION BY NICHOLAS M. BLAIR AND HEIDI M. BLAIR; RAYMOND P. AND DONNA R. ELDER REVOCABLE TRUST FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

12232008R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LARKINS MINOR LAND DIVISION

 

12232008R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE HAUX APPEAL TO SECTION 5.3.2.A OF THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE

 

12232008R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISON LOT SIZE VARIANCE

 

12232008R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE S&H REZONING AMENDMENT TO CONDITION OF APPROVAL

 

12232008R005           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS (Laura Robilotta and Rae Anderson)

 

12232008R006           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPOINTED OFFICIALS (Rachel Michael)

 

12232008R008           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRAFF MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW

 

12232008R009           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEWT PIPELINE FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW

 

12232008R010           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEWT PIPELINE FLOOD PLAIN REVIEW

 

12232008R011           RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND AMENDMENTS

 

12232008R012           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RASER CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  CDHS Certification of Compliance County Merit System Year 2009; Community Services Block Grant Application Assurances.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were issued and/or approved:  Red Feather Liquors – Retail Liquor Store - Red Feather Lakes;  Sunshine Ranch – 6% Special Events Permit – Loveland.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  RESOLUTION FOR BOXELDER STORMWATER FEES:  Mr. Peterson presented a resolution of proposed fees for unincorporated portions of the Boxelder Stormwater Authority Service Area, and requested approval on the same.  Mr. Peterson noted that, if approved, the fees would become effective January 1, 2009.  Commissioner Rennels thanked Martina Wilkinson for her efforts in putting this project together, noting that she has received many compliments from citizens with regards to this matter.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution for the Boxelder Stormwater Fees.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

1223200R007             RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STORMWATER SERVICE FEES FOR UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF BOXELDER BASIN STORMWATER AUTHORITY SERVICE AREA

 

6.  NORTH I-25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS):  Ms. Wilkinson presented changes to the comment letter for the North I-25 Draft EIS, and requested approval on the same.  The Board was satisfied with all changes.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the comment letter for submittal to the Colorado Department of Transportation.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTMENTS:  Ms. LaRue presented the following recommendations to Boards and Commissions:

 

FAIR BOARD:  Larry Dunn, John Lee, Melora Luth, Gregg Melick, and Alan Rankin, all reappointed for a 3-year term beginning December 23, 2008, and expiring November 30, 2011.

 

PID#24 WESTRIDGE:  Torsten Eckstein, appointed for a 4-year term beginning December 23, 2008, and expiring November 30, 2012.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments to the Fair Board and to PID#24 Westridge, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  WORKSESSION:  Discussion ensued regarding the Downtown Development Authority Agreement, and the Board requested additional time to review the document.  Mr. Lancaster will bring this back for discussion/approval at the December 30, 2008, Administrative Matters meeting.

 

Mr. Lancaster also informed the Board that the Treasurer has opted to give a bonus to every employee in her office.  He noted that all employees received a letter outlining their exceptional customer service; therefore, this action complies with the county policy regarding employee bonuses. 

 

9.  COMMISSIONER REPORTS:  The Board reviewed their activities during the past week.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m.

 

________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

______________________________________

Tamara L. Slusher, Deputy Clerk

 

­­­______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.