LAPAC             Meeting Minutes

January 17, 2012

 

Members Present: Carla Brookman,  Susanne Cordery-Cotter, Andre Duvall,  Nancy Grice, Mandy Kotzman, Ed Ott, Paul Resseguie, Cordelia Stone, Ed Stoner.

 

Larimer County Planning Staff Members Present: Samantha Mott, Rob Helmick

 

Meeting Called to Order: Mandy Kotzman (Chair) called meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.

 

Agenda: Adopted as written (Ed Stoner made motion to adopt, seconded, approved).

 

Meeting Minutes: September 20, 2011 meeting minutes were adopted as written (Cordelia Stone motion to approve, seconded, approved).

 

Member communication items:

1.   Mandy Kotzman described street markings placed by the County on the north side of 54G at the location where LAPAC had requested a separation between the road and the sidewalk. After one failed attempt, the markings were completed appropriately.

2.   Ed Stoner expressed concern, echoed by others, about the absence of the recycling roll-off in front of LaPorte Hardware. Mandy will inquire about it.

 

County Communication items:

1.   Samantha introduced Commissioner Lew Gaiter to LAPAC (in attendance at this meeting). He is our new LAPAC Board of County Commissioners (BCC) liaison now that BCC boundaries have changed.

2.   Samantha passed around an LAPAC contact list for members to provide updates

3.   Samantha reminded LAPAC members that Larimer County was established 150 years ago, 2011 is its 150th anniversary.

 

Personal Appearances: None

 

Action Item:

                Posting of meetings in compliance with open meetings law.

Paul Resseguie made a motion as follows: “I move that the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee designate the Oak Street entrance to the Larimer County Courthouse as the public posting place for notices of all official actions and public meetings in accordance with the Requirements of the Colorado Open Meetings laws (CRS 24-6-402).”

Motion Seconded by Ed Stoner, passed unanimously.

 

This will need to be repeated, per the bylaws, at our annual meeting in July.

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

 

1.   Facilitated discussion regarding expectations and communications to and from the PAC (Samantha Mott and Rob Helmick)

 

See memo from Rob Helmick dated 12/12/11, and the “By-laws and Rules of Procedure of the Larimer County LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee”.

 

County planning staff are creating a standardized set of expectations, roles and procedures for LAPAC and Red Feather Lakes PAC. Samantha gave background information.  Timing of review has been an issue – too early and it changes before it goes to the Planning Commission hearing. Now the PACs get items to review later in the process. The PACs’ main responsibility is to evaluate the consistency of an application with the Plan (LaPorte Area Plan), but PAC still can present issues of concern.

 

Questions posed by Planning Staff to LAPAC:

Does anything need to change in meetings and communications?

If there is a problem what do we need to do?

 

Mr. Lew Gaiter stated: we do value PACs, in fact Waverly asked for one. We usually do look at the comments; we don’t always do what the PAC wants. When it is close there is controversy present, this constitutes reasonable people disagreeing. LAPAC provides a venue for applicants to work through issues before coming to BCC.

 

There was discussion regarding whether LAPAC should get staff recommendation first; however this might influence LAPAC. Members indicated they would prefer not to get a recommendation first.

 

Discussion regarding timing ensued. Timing can be tight, LAPAC’s recommendation might not be considered. Per Rob, L&E is the tightest  timeframe. LAPAC can schedule a special meeting if schedule is tight.

 

Discussion regarding LAPAC’s purpose ensued:

 

Mandy: Our charge, per Article 1, Section 3 is to review applications to see if they are consistent with the plan, and develop vision for future of community. These two concepts are inconsistent. 

 

Andre: no, the Plan is more of a guideline. We do these five points at each meeting.

 

Carla: The Plan is a living organism that has to do with this community.

 

Discussion concluded with general consensus that the Plan is a guideline.

Samantha provided members with a suggested Bylaws change that would include language like Red Feather’s. The purpose is to “Communicate to the County Commissioners and County Planning Commission concerns, issues or recommendations regarding development review applications received by the County for land within the [LaPorte] Plan area. The types of development review applications that shall be referred to [LAPAC] are subdivisions, conservation development, rezoning, special reviews, minor special review and lot size appeals.”  All LAPAC members like this change and would like this language in LAPAC’s by-laws.

Discussion ensued regarding Section 9: recuse if directly involved. Colorado statute defines conflict of interest as “financial”. “Conflict of Interest” can also be other than financial. Financial or personal conflict. Best not to change the language, it might conflict with statute.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the five minute personal appearance – general consensus is that it is good to have five minutes in the bylaws.

County will try and re-orient LAPAC members; will provide more Board and Commission training.

 

2.   Library Update:

 

Holly Carroll, Executive Director of the Poudre River Library District introduced library board members present: Linda Gabel, Mary Atchison, Cara Neth, and outreach coordinator Irene Romsa.

 

Presentation by Ms. Carroll: New services include a mobile app for smartphones; you can get to catalog and databases, list of book returns, latest newsletter, and program offerings for this area. We continue to grow in use, over 3 million circulation, physical and digital items. More than 1 million people per year are visiting physically. LaPorte: staff assigned to a call center, so no automated attendant. Reference questions, directions, programs, etc.  Or refer to reference staff. Began in Nov. good response. We have added to our digital content, e-books, digital audio.  Giving e-reader classes, no cost for books. Building happening: harmony library modest renovation, the college has money from the State to accommodate doubled student enrollment since 1998, making it more open, laptop counters, giving a facelift. Should be finished February. Main library remodel – was one of the goals of the Master Facilities Plan, just finished phase I, were closed 6 weeks, updated restrooms very popular, will continue through end of May, in Phase II. All materials and services are available, except meeting room, will have study rooms. Was based on demand from the public.

 

Presentation by  Ms. Romsa: Changes have been fast-paced, created outreach department last September, charged with bringing services to underserved groups and outlying communities. Have been listening, and accomplished monthly early literacy program coming to CLP, Timnath and Stove Prairie, visit monthly. PAILs kit for in home child care setting, can check out kits, professionally made, bring to home setting and develop early literacy. Will try and visit each center that checks out that service. Also by June will have books by mail, homebound persons can apply to library, we will interview them for likes, and will mail monthly a selection to their home, they send back postage paid. Third service by March is Tech A La Carte, it is a set of five laptops. Many have a hard time joining computer classes, will offer specific content to groups, if they commit to having five students, library will come to time and place agreed upon. This benefits groups, it takes longer – we design content together. Need input on this – Roxanne principal at CLP proposed joint programing, Library provides content and school provides the setting. She spoke to parents, they liked it, and she approved it in October. PSD charges for use of facilities, but library can use CLP free to offer programing to entire community. See two last pages of handout – two series of programs – Computer classes, and Personal Finance. But we need to hear from you. Some said Tuesday evenings are better, some said early in the day. We need to know what will serve the community.

 

 

 

LAPAC members commented:

 

Nancy thanked the library and asked about services to in-home child care providers. Irene responded that if they are registered or licensed they get an invitation, February 4, brunch for launch concept. Then the District will decide about non-licensed daycares.

 

Ed Ott: no kudos. Library seems to be Fort Collins public library, it seems to have forgotten LaPorte, it is focused on City. You asked us several years ago and we said we want a branch, you said no, we will focus on Fort Collins, and will think about it in ten years. What we have is a box for drop off. Please do more, or LaPorte needs to be let out of this. Money is being spent on building renovations, we asked for a branch.  Thanks for the outreach which is something. But LaPorte needs a branch. I feel left out.

 

Mary Atchison – response. This is a legitimate concern, we are proud to have LaPorte in the district, we feel we have included entire district in discussion. Board of Trustees knew we did not have expertise to plan for future, and we looked at how to expand City of Fort Collins library to serve the larger area. We tried to be most effective with the resources we had. We hired a consultant from outside to take a fresh look and make recommendation about the facilities plan.  Timnath wants a branch, so does North College, West Fort Collins, the Forks. We cannot do all that.

 

Carla asked what amount of seed money is necessary - How much to start a branch?

 

Holly responded that Council Tree was $6 million.

 

Cordelia expressed her appreciation for the District, we understand the cost regarding staffing, insurance upkeep etc. Living in rural area we cannot expect urban service.

 

Nancy stated that in September at Commissioner Johnson’s meeting there was a large crowd expressing the same concerns as Ed Ott. The community made the library district aware of our needs; the Library District seemed enlightened regarding what we need. The Dollar Store was looked at but the District has purchased a different building somewhere else. Nancy stated that in her opinion the District is trying.

Carla mentioned that if we had a leg of the bus system, access would be easier, but we do not have it.

 

Susanne echoed Ed Ott, she said we need a branch, and according to the October 2011 North Forty News, the District is quoted as saying, “The LaPorte community is a top priority”.

 

Mandy asked “What do you take it to mean when communities wish for a library?”

 

Response from District board members: community and high demand.

 

Mandy indicated that a meeting place is important; Holly agreed and said the CLP meetings might provide feeling of community.

 

Meeting adjourned, 8:46 pm.