Larimer County Offices, Courts & District Attorney are closed Friday, July 3 for Independence Day
Landfill, Hazardous Waste and Recycle Center are open Friday, July 3 but closed Saturday, July 4
Landfill Business Office are closed July 3 & 4 Critical services at Larimer County will not be disrupted by this closure.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1995
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular
session with John Barnett, Director of Planning. Chair Disney
presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also
present were: Richael Michels, Planner; Al Kadera, Subdivision
Administrator; Russ Legg, Chief Planner; Rex Burns and Harry Lynam,
Engineering; Jerry Blehm, Environmental Health; and Jeannine Haag,
Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
Chair Disney noted that the following is a consent item and will
not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Board or members
of the audience.
1. BLUE HERON LANE STREET NAME CHANGE (#94-0S0635): NW 1/4
26-08-69; EAST OF CR 17 (N. SHIELDS) 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF CR 54
(DOUGLAS ROAD); FA-FARMING ZONING (02-06-95).
This is a request to assign the name "Blue Heron Lane"
to the previously unnamed street in Country Squire Minor Residential
Development. Staff Findings include: 1) All of the property
owners that utilize this street consent to naming the street Blue
Heron Lane; 2) All utility companies and other referral agencies
have stated no objections to this name change; 3) Naming this
street Blue Heron Lane will not duplicate another street name
in Larimer County. The Staff Recommendation is for approval
of the request to assign the name Blue Heron Lane to the currently
unnamed street in the Country Squire Minor Residential Development
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that he Board adopt the Staff Findings
and Staff Recommendation and approve the Blue Heron Lane Street
Name Change (#94-0S0635).
Motion carried 3 - 0.
2. SUMMIT ENTERPRISES MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL (#94-EX0636): 02-07-69; SOUTH SIDE OF WILLOX LANE,
EAST OF SHIELDS STREET (COUNTY ROAD 17); 45 ACRES; 2 LOTS;
O-OPEN ZONING (02-06-95).
This is a request for an appeal of the Minor Residential Development regulations to permit a Minor Residential Development to be processed for a non-residential use. Mr. Kadera reviewed the major concerns and issues, described the property location, and noted that the applicant would like to build commercial greenhouses on this site. Staff Findings are: 1) The Minor Residential Development regulations were intended to be used only to create lots for residential uses. The applicant wishes to buy a portion of an existing parcel for greenhouses and he proposes using the MRD process to create the lot; 2) The proposed greenhouses are permitted in the O-Open Zoning District, which is the current zoning of the subject property; 3) The Planning Staff has consistently recommended denial of all MRD appeals, leaving the policy decision to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. The Staff Recommendation is for denial of the Summit Enterprises appeal of the Minor Residential Development regulations.
Tom Smith, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that their
business is growing and they want to expand; he assured the Board
that they are not planning to build a house on the site. Mr.
Barnett stated that if the applicant went through the subdivision
process, it would trigger several requirements from the UGA Review
Board, and some street waiver issues which don't typically apply
to the MRD process; therefore, if this request is approved, comments
should be solicited from the City of Fort Collins as a reviewing
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board allow the Summit Enterprises
Minor Residential Development Appeal (#94-EX0636).
Motion carried 3 - 0.
3. ADAMS MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPEAL (#95-EX0641):
11 -05-70; NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 34, WEST OF THE BIG
THOMPSON SCHOOL; 9.4 ACRES; 1 LOT; FA-1 FARMING ZONING
This is a request to consider changing a condition of approval
for an exemption or to allow a Minor Residential Development
appeal to designate a parcel as a building site. Al Kadera submitted
a map of the site and reviewed the complicated history of the
site and the major concerns and issues. To further complicate
the situation, Mr. Kadera noted that this property has been sold
several times and at sometime during the transfer of the deed,
the County Assessor began to assess the property as two separate
parcels. Mr. Kadera assured the Board that if they allow the
appeal for a MRD on this site, during the MRD review process
there will be a review of access, utilities, fire protection,
etc. Staff Findings include: 1) The property in question was
divided by an exemption in 1973. The exemption was intended to
serve as a boundary line adjustment and was not intended to create
any new lots; 2) The parcel created by the exemption was deeded
separately rather than added to the adjacent parcel, as stated
in the exemption application and approval; 3) The applicant is
requesting that the condition of approval be removed so a building
permit can be issued for the parcel; 4) If the request to remove
the condition is denied, the applicant also requests an appeal
of the Minor Residential Development regulations to allow an application
to be filed for an MRD on property that does not meet the minimum
criteria for an MRD; 5) Staff does not support the removal of
the condition because it would result in a building site that
was not reviewed with respect to access, utilities, natural hazards
or other criteria; 6) Staff does not support the appeal of the
MRD regulations because this is a policy decision that should
be left to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Staff Recommendations are for denial of the request to remove
the condition of approval of the 1973 exemption; and denial of
the appeal of the Minor Residential Development regulations.
William Adams, applicant, reviewed the history of the original
twenty acres and stated that over the years it has become split
into three parcels; he admitted a mess has been created, and is
requesting assistance from the Board to straighten it out.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Adams Minor
Residential Appeal (#95-EX0641) in order to gain understanding
and bring clarification and legality to the land divisions which
have taken place on this piece of property; and moved for denial
of the request to remove the condition of approval of the 1973
exemption, until all the details relating to this property have
been resolved and clarified.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
4. VISTA VIEW ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (#94-MS0505):
SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 25-06-69; NORTH SIDE OF 57TH STREET (COUNTY
ROAD 28), 1/2 MILE EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 287, NORTHEAST CORNER
OF MONROE AND 57TH STREET; 34.63 ACRES; 93 LOTS; R2-
RESIDENTIAL ZONING (02-06-95).
This is a request to change the approved phasing plan by changing the condition of approval that specifies which portion of the subdivision should be constructed first. Staff Findings are: 1) Both the phasing plan, as approved, and the modified phasing plan appear to meet the following criteria; i.e., Is the proposed phasing safe? Is there sufficient collateral for each phase?, and, If future phases are not built, will the phasing program stand alone? The Larimer County Engineering Department does not object to the change in phasing, as requested by the applicant; 2) The Planning Staff usually does not become involved in the construction phasing program since construction phasing is reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division; 3) The legal ad for this change of condition referenced file #93-MS0410, rather than file #94-MS0505; upon the advice of the County Attorney, an amended legal ad was published that noted the correct file number. The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the revised phasing proposed.
Roger Clark, attorney for the applicant, stated that extensive
discussions have ensued with Mike Shultz, attorney representing
several of the Horseshoe Estates residents, and they have agreed
upon the following conditions, which, if approved by the Board
today, will become part of the conditions of Final Plat approval.
Mr. Clark noted that the developer has agreed to these conditions
provided that the opposition to the development is withdrawn and
not pursued further. Mr. Clark read the additional conditions
into the record as follows: 1) The developer will provide that
the entire fence along the eastern boundary of the property would
be built as part of the first phase of development; 2) The developer
will modify the covenants at Paragraph 4.1 to provide that all
dwellings built east of Monroe, whether one story or two story
would include a minimum of 1,800 square feet of usable area, exclusive
of garage; 3) The developer will agree also that Paragraph 4.1
will also state that no structure will exceed 28' in height and
the measurement of height will be as defined in the current building
code; 4) The developer will agree that 1/3 of entire facade of
each residence, exclusive of the garage, shall be brick; 5) The
developer will agree that no front yard light will be higher than
5' in height, security lights on garages can be up to 8', and
those lights will be 40 watts or comparable low intensity lighting;
6) All structures will be detached single family dwellings; 7)
The above conditions will be reflected on the plat, as well as
in the covenants; and 8) The developer agrees that the opposition
side to this development may reserve their right to make objection
if the final plat and the final PUD plan do not comply with the
conditions as agreed. Mr. Clark informed the Board that the
applicant has agreed to supply the opposition side with the final
documents by February 13, 1995 and the public hearing for Final
Plat approval is scheduled for February 27, 1995.
Mike Shultz agreed that Mr. Clark summarized very well the additional
conditions which the parties agreed to this morning. Mr. Shultz
reiterated, however, that the neighbors reserve the right to review
the final subdivision plat and final PUD plan to insure that those
documents are in strict compliance with the preliminary subdivision
plat and the preliminary phase plan, as they have been conditionally
approved by this body. Also, he requested at this time, a decision
be made by the Board whether or not they are in agreement with
the additional proposed conditions which Mr. Clark just read,
and if those conditions will be a part of the conditions of approval
on the subdivision plat. Mr. Legg informed the Board that staff
has reviewed the proposed conditions and support them; he further
noted that this is an opportunity for a win-win situation with
Commissioner Duvall asked Mr. Clark why the applicant is requesting
the revised phasing plan, which is attached to some concerns about
drainage. Mr. Clark stated that the reason for the request is
that the developer has agreed to construct a regional drainage
system which must be completed starting with the areas of lowest
elevation and proceeding to areas of higher elevation. Mr. Clark
informed the Board that the neighbors will not object to the phasing,
as requested, if the applicant agrees to the additional conditions
offered this morning. Mr. Clark stated that at this time, before
today's hearing continues, the Board needs to state their position
whether or not they are in agreement with the conditions outlined
this morning; after further discussion, CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD
was to agree to the proposed conditions, as presented today.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment: Lou
Schotmetz asked what will happen to the undeveloped areas if this
development fails--could those areas be subdivided into smaller
lots; she wants assurance that the homes and lots will be compatible
in size to those in her neighborhood. Denise Praizler asked
the Board and staff where she could find a copy of the approved
phasing plan so she could review it; Mr. Legg responded that the
approved phasing plan will be presented in the final plat process
as it becomes part of the construction plans and documents associated
with final plat approval. Ms. Praizler expressed concern that
conditions agreed to at other meetings will not be reflected in
the final Findings and Resolution. Mr. Shultz recommended that
the Findings and Resolution be amended to reflect the change in
conditions being approved today; Ms. Haag stated that if the additional
conditions are approved today, it will constitute an amendment
to the Findings and Resolution and be recorded as such. Kathy
Kuhlman requested that prior to filing of the Findings and Resolution
they be allowed to review them.
Mr. Clark responded to comments made by the public, noting there
can be further discussion with the Board regarding whether or
not they have complied with prior condition approvals, and as
amended by today's proceedings. With respect to the phasing and
to the concern about when lots will be developed, Mr. Clark noted
that the phases run east and west and, if the lots were going
to made smaller, the developer would have to come back to the
Board for approval; he assured Ms. Schotmetz that the lot size
as proposed will not change.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendation and approve the change requested to the formerly approved Vista View Estates Planned Unit Development, in accordance to the comments which were stipulated and read by Mr. Clark this morning.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The meeting recessed at 10:10 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING PROJECT PRIORITIES
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with
Doug Rames, Regional Transportation Director Region 4; William
Neal, Transportation Commissioner and L.G. Duncan, Assistant to
the Regional Transportation Director Region 4. Chair Disney presided,
Commissioners Duvall and Clarke also were present. Also present
was Elaine Spencer, Manager of Operations and Planning Engineering,
and Rex Smith, Director of Public Works. Recording Clerk, A.
Chair Disney began by stating today's meeting was to discuss the
various transportation projects involving Larimer County with
Mr. Rames, Mr. Neal and the public. Mr. Neal addressed the Commissioners
giving a brief history of the series of meetings that have led
to today's meeting. Mr. Rames distributed a packet of information
containing numerous maps and reports; answering questions as they
were posed by the Board while reviewing the contents. At this
time 1:45 p.m. Commissioner Duvall excused herself to attend another
Chair Disney made several inquiries of Mr. Neal and Mr. Rames:
which criteria is used to determine road quality, how are priorities
determined with respect to allocating funds annually, diagram
showing design capacities of Colorado roads, has CDOT established
a policy regarding toll roads and if plans to re-build the 287
and Berthoud exchange have been changed. Mr. Rames responded
to Chair Disney's questions stating: a visual inspection is used
to determine the quality of the road, an established team annually
reviews the worst roads to determine where the money is best spent,
will provide Chair Disney with a map showing the design capacities
of roads in Colorado, CDOT does not have a policy regarding toll
roads and the plans to re-build the 287 and Berthoud exchange
has not changed from the original course of action. Mr. Neal
stated, at this point, approximately 50% of the highways are considered
in poor quality, down from 65% with the goal to have 60% of the
highways in good condition.
Discussion continued between Mr. Rames, Mr. Neal and the Commissioners
covering issues such as, boundary map re-alignment and funding
difficulties the Department of Transportation is experiencing
due to growth, inflation and an aging roadway system. Mr. Neal
spoke briefly of a coalition that has been formed to address these
subjects. As an item of interest, Mr. Neal stated that the re-construction
costs for I-25 in Larimer County were approximately $1,000,000
a mile. Mr. Neal emphasized the amount is so high since they
not only re-pave the Interstate, but re-construct the roadway
to meet higher standards. Mr. Neal reported the stretch of I-70
between Denver and Kansas is in the process of being re-built,
there have been no accidents at the intersection of Highway 287
and 54G between November 11, 1993 through September 1, 1994, and
the road between Loveland and Estes Park will be re-surfaced this
The meeting was then opened to public participation by Chair Disney.
Mr. John Peacock with the Front Range Railroad addressed the
Board. Mr. Peacock gave a concise history of Front Range Railroad
as well as their vision statement and progress being made in achieving
their ambitious goals.
Chair Disney closed the public participation aspect of the meeting.
Commissioner Clarke expressed his concerns with Burlington Northern
transporting hazardous waste through heavily populated areas and
his wish to move these types of transportation to less populated
areas, possibly using the railroad easement for alternative localized
transportation. Commissioner Clarke also stated his support of
Mr. Peacock's statements and of Larimer County taking charge of
their transportation issues.
Meeting recessed at 2:40 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING ON SANDY FLATS QUARRY
(#201, #202, #203, #204 & #205)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7 p.m. for a Public
Hearing regarding Sandy Flats Quarry. Chair Duvall presided;
Commissioners Clarke and Disney were present. Also present were:
Director of Planning John Barnett; Jerry White, Zoning Administrator;
Rex Burns, Engineering; Jerry Blehm and Rich Grossmann, Environmental
Health; Frank Lancaster, County Manager; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant
County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
SANDY FLATS QUARRY (#94-ZR0515): SECTION 13-10-70; MINING TO
OCCUR ON SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 80, 4.2 MILES EAST OF
HIGHWAY 287, SOUTHWEST OF PARK CREEK RESERVOIR; 105 ACRES;
O-OPEN ZONING (02-06-95)
This is a request for Special Review to mine sandstone on 45 acres
over a period of 23-28 years. Before opening the hearing, Chair
Disney noted that a request has been received from a group of
citizens in opposition to the proposal asking for continuance
of this item until a time as yet unspecified to allow more time
for them to gather scientific evidence and information regarding
this proposal. Chair Disney outlined the format for the evening
stating that the first phase of tonight's hearing will be to consider
the request for continuance; the second phase will be to receive
comments from the applicant, followed by general comments, and
then the Board will render their decision.
Chair Disney requested a show of hands from the audience how many
persons favor the continuance of this matter; approximately 30
persons responded. Edie Yates, spokeswoman for the group, provided
the opening remarks stating that these citizens are all concerned
about responsible development of the Buckeye area and they are
a representative group of ranchers and farmers who have lived
in the area for many years. She noted that Colorado Lein and
Larimer County have had three years to compile their information
and expertise and this group feels they cannot respond at this
time to all of the unresolved issues surrounding the approval
of the proposal; she stated that they are entitled to as much
time to prepare their side and find unbiased answers to the unresolved
questions that affect the health, safety, and welfare of their
community. Ms. Yates stated that the group estimates that the
information they have requested from the experts they have contacted
will be available in six months; however, additional studies will
require a minimum of one year to complete.
The following persons, the majority of which are Buckeye residents,
addressed the Board and reviewed at great length the following
subjects and concerns: Chuck Miller - blowing sand and effects
of the mine blasting on the water line; Chris Joitel - showed
video of dust generated from haul trucks on unpaved CR 80 resulting
in a health and safety issue and she discussed the reduction in
property values in the area; Dan Miller - air quality; Bruce Joitel
- historical significance of the site and reclamation; Edie Yates
- disturbance of geological findings; Mary Beth Simon - wildlife
and possible disturbance of two eagle nests on the property; Jim
Wade - concern for effects on human health and citizens with asthma;
Cheryl Nockles - effects on animal health and requested the county
to hire the experts to do the studies; Monty Davis - noted that
damage caused from blasting is not covered by insurance unless
house completely collapses; Del Black - destruction of their quality
of life and he recommended environmental studies be conducted;
Bob Turley - cited language from the Larimer County Comprehensive
Land Use Plan: "...protect the existing rural residential
and agricultural land uses from encroachment of incompatible uses;
Dehn Solomon - reviewed development proposal. Most of these
persons complained to the Board that they were not properly notified
of the Sandy Flats Quarry proposal and only learned of it by
word of mouth.
After three hours of discussion requesting the continuance of
tonight's hearing, Ms. Yates provided the closing remarks stating
that these citizens love their area and are very proud of it and
would like to preserve it the way it is for ever.
Sam Lien, President and General Manager Colorado Lien Company,
gave a brief introduction and history of the company, noting that
her company has been in business for fifty years and twenty-five
of those in this area. To address the continuation question
of this hearing, she briefly explained why they are here tonight
and why they are asking for denial of the continuance. She noted
that this proposal is being presented as an alternative to the
Weaver Quarry, which she presented to the Commissioners three
and one-half years ago. During that hearing, she was asked
by the Board to do two things: 1) Be more aggressive in reclamation
efforts, and 2) Try and find an alternative site so as to not
mine on the scenic vistas of the front range. Ms. Lien stated
that she has honored those two requests and now is faced with
a dilemma--does she open up a new quarry that is not contiguous
with the existing Weaver Quarry, or does she open a new quarry
at Sandy Flats? Ms. Lein noted that the Sandy Flats site,
with all the voluntary conditions which they have placed on themselves
to mitigate the neighbors concerns, will definitely be more expensive,
but the whole purpose of proposing Sandy Flats was that it will
have less impact on the neighbors than the Weaver Quarry. She
noted that timing is critical and she has to have a decision tonight;
she further noted that these people are not happy with any mining
and one hour, one day, or one year will not make any difference
to them. Ms. Lein assured the Board that she does not intend
to mine both quarries, but she does request a one-year overlap
to make sure her customers are happy with the product from Sandy
Flats before totally closing the Weaver Quarry. Ms. Lien suggested
that in order to allay any concerns that she might mine the two
quarries, she could assign the claims to the county until the
Weaver Quarry is withdrawn from the mineral entry list; however,
she requested assistance from the county to get the claims withdrawn
because it takes two parties to have it withdrawn. Much discussion
followed regarding how to handle the assignment of the Federal
The following persons also gave their names in support of the
continuance of tonight's hearing: Derek Roberts, Maxine Weaver,
Marcy Yates, Randy Yates, Shandra Dill, Eldon Ackerman, Alan Carlson,
Beth Carlson, Rick Barrett, Bernie Bickel, Moby Wile, Duane Rennels,
Joannie Van Beker, and Dennis Montgomery. Chuck Miller asked
Ms. Lein to address why she doesn't want to go to the Sheep Draw
Quarry, which would be an alternative site; she responded that
they withdrew from Sheep Draw for economic reasons and noted that
the truck traffic would go down 29 miles of CR 19, and by 100+
homes. Ms. Lein stated they considered this alternative, but
their goal was minimal impact and that is why they chose Sandy
Commissioner Clarke stated that he is very concerned that these
folks have the impression that the staff is an advocate for the
applicant; he advised them that the staff is objective when reviewing
the information to address all the concerns regarding health issues,
air quality, etc. Mr. Barnett reviewed the process that staff
goes through when an application is received - they review the
information received against a series of criteria contained in
the regulations and they rely on their in-house experts to assist
in that review; they also review a variety of state, federal,
and other quasi-governmental agencies to review impacts and he
stated that it is a very thorough review.
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Blehm about the air quality in this
area and if the county can assure these folks that there is no
reason for them to be concerned for their health; Mr. Blehm responded
that the applicant will have to apply for a state emission permit
for the proposed quarry and the research that the county has done
in conjunction with the State Health Department finds that there
is no specific documentable silicosis problems from ambient souces
in the area. Commissioner Clarke asked if the staff has looked
at all the concerns raised tonight; Mr. White responded affirmatively
and noted that all the issues have been addressed in the staff
Commissioner Duvall stated she has gained a great deal of respect
for Sam Lien over the years - she tells you what she means and
she means what she says, and if you ask her a question she will
give you a honest answer; Ms. Lien has done a good job of going
beyond the call of duty and she has reclaimed areas that don't
even require reclaiming and has made an effort to reach out to
the people. Commissioner Duvall stated, however, that she is
concerned that there is something wrong with the process when
she hears people say Colorado Lien and the county have had three
years to prepare their case, the burden of proof is on the citizens,
the community was excluded from all discussions between county
staff and the mining company, and they have not had the time needed
to compete with the combined resources of the county and a prominent
mining company. Commissioner Duvall stated that even though
she understands that continuance today would by default require
mining another section of the Weaver Quarry, she cannot support
opening another mine without looking at the environmental questions.
Therefore, she favors a continuance of this matter to allow
time to answer the concerns raised here tonight.
Commissioner Clarke noted that originally this group of citizens
was requesting continuance of 90 days and now they are requesting
one year, and possibly up to three years; he wonders what amount
of time is reasonable. Commissioner Clarke is concerned that
if Sandy Flats is not approved, Colorado Lien will continue to
mine the Weaver Quarry and the county will lose their ability
to moniter that site; he does not think a one year continuance
is reasonable and anything beyond 90 days is inappropriate and
he is inclined not to grant any continuance.
Chair Disney asked Ms. Lien two questions: What is the estimated
life of the Weaver Quarry; she responded that if they open the
new section of Weaver it will have about 30 years of reserves.
He asked if that area would have a mandatory reclamation; she
responded "Yes". Chair Disney stated that he also
is not comfortable, at this time, with the weather data for the
air quality permits and he is inclined to support the continuance
if Mr. Blehm can give a reasonable length of time to obtain a
wind measurement study at this site; Mr. Blehm stated he could
not answer that question. Mr. Barnett stated that there are
two options for the Board to consider at this time: 1) Proceed
with the hearing tonight on the information available and make
a decision with the inherent uncertainties; or 2) Set a continuance
of the hearing to a specific date in the future. However, if
it is continued to 30-60 days, the Board will not have much more
information in terms of air flow than is available tonight as
it takes a long time to put that information together; if the
continuation is longer, it will be a decision based on default.
Therefore, the Board decided to take the following action:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board not grant a continuance
of the Sandy Flats Quarry Hearing and instead continue with the
hearing tonight as scheduled.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
At 10:20 p.m., the Public Hearing for the Sandy Flats Quarry Special
Review commenced. Mr. White provided the project and site description,
reviewed the history of the mining operation in the area, and
briefly discussed the major concerns and issues. Mr. White submitted
to the Board two letters in support of the Sandy Flats Quarry,
18 letters in opposition, photos of the site, a packet of information
submitted by the property owners to the Planning Commission, a
letter from the State Mine Land Reclamation Board indicating their
approval of the state permit, a letter from the State Engineer's
Office indicating that, in their opinion, the blasting would not
damage the dam, etc. Mr. White noted that the following agencies
have reviewed this proposal: Larimer County Engineering Department,
Colorado Department of Transportation, North Poudre Irrigation
Company, and the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Staff
Findings include: 1) The proposal complies with the intent and
purposes of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution and the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan; 2) Surrounding land uses in the area are limited
to livestock grazing; the proposal is harmonious with this use,
and will have little or no impact on other uses or on property
values in the area, if developed and operated consistent with
the recommended conditions; 3) If developed, operated, and reclaimed
in accordance with the submitted plans and the conditions of approval,
the proposal will not impair the public health, welfare, prosperity,
or safety; 4) The anticipated timetable for the mining operation
is 23-28 years, with reclamation being accomplished concurrently
with the mining. The Staff/Planning Commission Recommendation
is for approval of the Special Review of Sandy Flats Quarry, with
Sam Lien, applicant, stated that during her presentation seven
areas of concern will be addressed: 1) Viewshed; 2) Property values;
3) Environmental - Air, Water and Wildlife; 4) Blasting; 5) Reclamation;
6) Truck Traffic; and 7) Historic and Archeological. Jerry
Moore, Certified Appraiser, addressed property values in the area
and noted that after doing extensive research and on-site and
cursory on-site inspections, his conclusion is that existing mining
operations have not depressed market prices for land in the neighborhood
and no evidence was revealed that would indicate that the Sandy
Flats Quarry would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood
property values. Robert Glenn, President National Industrial
Sand Association from Washington, D.C., addressed ambient exposure
to silica and environmental exposure and respiratory disease in
detail; in summary, he concluded that the proposed Sandy Flats
Quarry poses no significant risk to the public and denial of the
Sandy Flats Quarry permit application cannot be justified on public
health concerns. Ms. Lein addressed the environmental and blasting
concerns and noted she expects zero-ground vibrations; she stated
that they have taken an aggressive approach to reclamation and
are committed to reclaim ten acres per year. With regard to
truck traffic, she noted there will no truck traffic going east,
they will never haul on weekends, and only from 6 a.m. until 6
p.m. on weekdays; she noted that these are self-imposed restrictions.
Ms. Lein stated that Colorado Lien has done everything they
can to be a good neighbor and she is trying to do the right thing
and everything above the law and her proposal is what the Board
of County Commissioners asked her to do 3 1/2 years ago.
Ms. Edie Yates voiced the group's objection to going forward with
this public hearing tonight as they feel their rights are being
violated, but they will not forfeit their right to be heard. Therefore,
she presented large pictures showing the beauty of the area, the
eagles nests, pictures of the proposed site, and pictures of present/past
mining operations in Larimer County. Dr. Jeff Eighmy, archeologist
from Colorado State University, stated that Larimer County is
a very rich archeological area, particularly around the Roberts
Ranch; he noted that the site includes Indian artifacts, ceremonial
rings, dinosaur tracks, and a stratified site dating back over
6,000 years, Dr. Eighmy predicts that if mining is allowed to
occur in this area, significant archeological resources will be
uncovered and there will be direct and indirect impacts.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment and the
following persons addressed the Board and reiterated their concerns
expressed previously: Dehn Solomon, April Joitel, Moby Wile,
Duane Rennels, Jim Wade, Monte Davis, Amy Joitel, Del Black, Joan
Van Beker, Cheryl Nockles, Peter Mondaver, Chris Joitel, Mary
Beth Simon, and Catherine Roberts. Bob Turley quoted from the
Comprehensize Zoning Resolution, adopted by the County in 1993:
"A special review request shall be denied if it is found
by the Board of County Commissioners that it is probable that
the proposed use will be contrary to the public interest by being
a nuisance..." Then he quoted from Webster's Dictionary
the definition of nuisance, "An act, condition, thing, or
person causing trouble, annoyance, or inconvenience...to a limited
number of persons or to the general public..." Maxine
Weaver, who has a home within a mile of the Weaver Quarry, commended
Ms. Lien for the reclamation she has done and affirmed that Ms.
Lien is a lady of her word and will do what she says she will
do. Alden Hill, representing North Poudre Irrigation Company,
noted that the Board of Directors' prime concern is for the safety
of the Park Creek Reservoir; however, ten pages of conditions
have been proposed, which Colorado Lien has agreed to accept if
the proposal is approved. Bruce Joitel discussed the different
set of staff findings for Weaver Quarry and the Sandy Flats Quarry
- one complies with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and one does
not. Chris Joitel stated she is angry with Larimer County for
being willing to trade the health and safety of the citizens in
the area for visual impact. Dan Miller submitted fifteen additional
conditions of approval for Sandy Flats Quarry, if the Commissioners
should approve the proposal.
To summarize, Ms. Lein noted that she believes that all the issues
brought up tonight have been addressed and reviewed by the staff,
and the choice for the Board to make is whether to open the Sandy
Flats Quarry or to open another section of the Weaver Quarry.
Mr. Grotenhouse offered that if this proposal is approved, Colorado
Lien will transfer the mining claims to the county and Lien has
offered to pay the annual rental fees of $1,600, instead of having
the county pay them.
At this time, the public testimony portion of the hearing was
closed and Commissioner comments were solicitied.
Commissioner Duvall stated that she appreciates that there are
a number of things that could be done, as suggested by Mr. Grotenhouse;
however, she is uncomfortable making a decision to open one quarry
until they have assurance that the other will be closed. She
further noted that earlier this evening, it didn't seem fair to
allow the continuance since the default decision would not be
fair to Colorado Lien; now she feels making a favorable decision
is not fair to the neighbors who have not had time to have their
experts submit information that needs to be heard. She also
feels that we have over a 100 years of silica sand and mining
already available, so she cannot see the need to open up another
mine. In her opinion, approval of this request is only taking
a visual problem at the Weaver site and moving it to another site,
and it would not be in the best interests of the citizens of Larimer
County to do so; she thinks Colorado Lien should continue mining
the Weaver Quarry and continue with their good job of reclamation.
Commissioner Clarke stated that he is very concerned about what
will happen to the front hogback if the Weaver Quarry continues
with expansion; he noted that he is concerned about all the things
the neighbors have said, but based on what the Planning Staff,
the Planning Commission, and all the other experts have determined,
he is not convinced that opening Sandy Flats is the wrong thing
to do. Commissioner Duvall responded that, with all due respect
to the Staff, they are not air-quality experts and she doesn't
understand our process and why environmental assessments are not
done for a project of this nature. Commissioner Duvall noted
that this is a key project and should have environmental guidelines;
she is not comfortable opening up this whole new area with a health
concern for only a visual reason. Much back and forth discussion
ensued between the Board.
Chair Disney stated that he is really torn about this issue and
he commends Colorado Lein for coming up with an outstanding proposal;
however, he is not comfortable with the lack of wind and dust
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board deny the Sandy Flats
Quarry Special Review based on a regulation in the Larimer County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan that a special review request shall
be denied if it is found by the Board of County Commissioners
that it is probable that the proposed use will be contrary to
the public interest by being a nuisance, dangerous, detrimental
or injurious to nearby residents, properties or businesses. Further,
the proposed special review is in that catagory, is not unique
to the site, and does not have significant economic or strategic
value to the area, state or nation; the proposal raises some unanswered
health and safety questions and, therefore, is not in the best
interests of the citizens of Larimer County.
Motion carried 2 - 1; Commissioner Clarke dissenting.
The meeting adjourned at 2:20 a.m.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1995
PUBLIC WORKS STANDING MEETING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular
session with G. Rex Smith, Director of Public Works. Chair Pro-Tem
Clarke presided; Commissioner Duvall was present. Chair Disney
was attending a meeting in Loveland. Also present were: William
Heiden, Director of Road and Bridge Department; Dale Miller, Assistant
Director of Road and Bridge Department; Dick Anderson, Facilities
Director; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk,
1. ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM: Mr. Heiden noted that the Road and
Bridge Department has received numerous requests from the public
for the County to start an Adopt-a-Road Program. In the program,
different groups of volunteers would remove trash on 3/4-mile
to 1 and 1/4-mile sections of county roads, in exchange for the
public recognition. He added that the department looked at programs
in Boulder and Weld counties before developing the current proposal.
Commissioner Duvall stated that she would prefer to recognize
the contributions of the participants in some manner other than
by posting additional signs for the Adopt-a-Road Program. Chair
Pro-Tem Clarke stated that periodic advertisements may be a more
effective means of publicizing the program and recognizing participants,
because more people may notice the advertisements than would notice
the signs. He added that such advertisements may also encourage
people to adopt rural roads with less traffic. Mr. Lancaster
stated that the advertisements would probably not be significantly
more expensive than the Adopt-a-Road signs over time, since the
county would need to maintain two such signs at each road section.
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board adopt and sign the resolution
establishing an Adopt-a-Road Program, with the County to recognize
participants through periodic advertisements.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
R95-16g ADOPT-A-COUNTY-ROAD LITTER CONTROL COOPERATIVE
2. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COMPLETION OF TIMBERLINE EXTENSION:
Mr. Smith informed the Board of the status of the Timberline
Road extension proposed by the City of Fort Collins. The City
of Fort Collins Planning Department has sent a memorandum to the
Fort Collins City Council outlining the proposed time line for
extending the road. If the city council accepts the proposal,
they would start designing the road extension in August 1995,
after a period of public review, and construction would probably
continue into 1997. The current plan would build a two-lane road
extension from Prospect Road as far north as Summit View Drive,
if funds are available. The City could widen the road to four
or six lanes in the future if increased traffic required it.
One design issue to be resolved by the city is how to handle the
road extension on or over Riverbend Ponds. Mr. Smith showed the
Board an aerial map of the affected area. The Board thanked Mr.
Smith for his thorough research and presentation of the proposal.
Commissioner Clarke noted that the road extension would provide
significantly improved access for the hazardous materials team
and the firefighters located at the area fire station. Commissioner
Duvall asked if the road extension would significantly increase
the traffic on County Road 9. Mr. Smith stated that the road
extension would probably have a greater impact on other streets
south of Prospect Road, and would probably not noticeably increase
traffic on County Road 9.
3. USE OF ROAD AND BRIDGE RESOURCES FOR ESTES PARK BUILDING AND
OTHER INTERNAL NEEDS: Mr. Smith stated that, when he first became
the director of the Public Works Division, the diversion of departmental
resources was preventing them from completing road and bridge
projects promptly. Therefore, the Board decided at that time
to limit the use of Road and Bridge personnel and equipment to
departmental projects only. Mr. Smith added that he generally
agreed with this policy, and that he would prefer that a private
contractor be used for the Estes Park project. However, if they
could schedule the grading work in such a way that it did not
significantly affect road and bridge work, he would not object
to providing departmental resources to the project. Mr. Smith
added that the Road and Bridge Department would probably not be
as efficient as a private contractor. He explained that the fine
grading done on parking lots requires different techniques and
equipment than the type of grading done on county roads.
Commissioner Duvall asked if there are any time periods when the
department is not fully utilizing its personnel and equipment,
which the County could then use for other projects. Mr. Heiden
responded that, while there are times when some equipment is not
being used, the employees are fully scheduled year round. He
added that this is possible because the size of the Road and Bridge
staff nearly doubles through the use of temporary employees in
the summer. Mr. Heiden agreed with Mr. Smith that lending equipment
or employees for other projects should not cause significant problems.
However, Mr. Heiden cautioned that the County should not borrow
departmental resources too frequently, and that they should schedule
such changes ahead of time.
Commissioner Duvall asked if a bid process would be appropriate
to compare the cost of using Road and Bridge employees versus
using a private contractor. Mr. Heiden stated that using the
Road and Bridge Department would probably be more expensive, because
they do not specialize in this type of work.
Chair Pro-Tem Clarke asked for the time frame of the Estes Park
project. Mr. Anderson said that they have not completed the final
schedule, but that they should finish the design in about 20 days,
and that the plans will be available in about 45 days.
4. Above-Ground Storage Tank Requirements: Mr. Smith warned
the Board that the Public Works Division may have to request additional
funding in 1995 in order to meet new requirements governing the
installation of above-ground storage tanks. He stated that the
funds could possibly take the form of a loan from the capital
expenditures account or from the fleet balance.
5. Colorado State University Discussions: Mr. Lancaster notified
the Board that he had met with the Vice President of Colorado
State University, Gerry Bomotti. Mr. Lancaster reminded the Board
that the University and the State Attorney General are concerned
about work done near the landfill on a county road that may have
damaged a diversion ditch on Colorado State property. Vice President
Bomotti was displeased with how the problem was handled, and he
hoped that there would be better communication between the County
and the University in the future. Mr. Smith added that a Colorado
State Engineer would design the project to correct the problem,
and that the County intends to work with the University to solve
The meeting recessed at 10:10 a.m.
LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING FOR SCHMIDT'S
OLDE TIME BAKERY, LTD
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:30 p.m. for
a Liquor License Hearing for Schmidt's Olde Time Bakery, Ltd.
Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were
present. Also present was George Hass, County Attorney. Recording
Clerk, S. Graves.
Following a review of the contents of the application file by
Mr. Hass, applicant Harry David Schmidt was sworn in and questioned.
Mr. Schmidt made a presentation concerning the application, including
clarifications required during the review of the file. For the
record, Mr. Hass noted that there was no one appearing at today's
hearing in opposition to the granting of this license.
This matter coming on to be heard this 7th day of February, 1995
of an application for a 6% Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License
from Schmidt's Olde Time Bakery, Ltd., and the Board of County
Commissioners having heard the testimony and evidence has considered
the same and being fully advised on the premises, find that the
requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants
indicate that the said license should be granted. Therefore,
it is ordered that a Colorado 6% Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License
be granted to Schmidt's Olde Time Bakery, Ltd.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the application of Schmidt's Olde
Time Bakery, Ltd. for a 6% Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License,
at the location of 2248 W. First Street in Loveland, Colorado
80537 in the County of Larimer, be granted.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1995
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular
session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Disney presided;
also present was Commissioner Clarke. Commissioner Duvall joined
the meeting at 9:55 a.m. Also present were: Ralph Jacobs, Human
Resources Director; Gayle Morgan, Planning Staff Services Manager;
Joan Duchene, Office Supervisor; Bob Keister, Larimer County Budget
Manager; Russ Legg, Senior Planner and Donna Hart, Assistant to
the County Manager. Recording Clerk, A. Jensen.
1. APPOINTMENT TO THE LARIMER/WELD REVOLVING FUND BOARD: The Board
received a request to appoint Mr. Chris Zell to a 3 year term
to the Larimer/Weld Revolving Fund Board.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board appoint Mr. Chris Zell
to a 3 year term to the Larimer/Weld Revolving Fund Board.
Motion carried 2-0.
2. YOUTH ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PROGRAM: Mr. Jacobs submitted two
memos to the Board regarding the employment of "at risk"
youths in the Weatherization program. Ms. Friedman has requested
Mr. Jacobs to grant a variance in the Personnel Manual so she
may hire "at risk" youth. At issue is the clause in
the Personnel Manual that requires the "best qualified"
applicant to be selected for employment; in many instances, this
would preclude employment of these "at risk" individuals.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the request of
Mr. Jacobs to waive the recruiting and selection procedure of
the Larimer County Personnel Policy Manual to permit the selection
of these employees/clients based on program eligibility criteria
and require as a condition of employment that these employees
are subject to the policies and procedures of the program, as
well as consider that these employees to be "at will"
employees and are not entitled to disciplinary, grievance or lay
Motion carried 2-0.
3. REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL .5 FTE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
Ms. Morgan and Mr. Legg came before the Board to request an additional
.5 FTE Senior Office Clerk and approve reclassification of an
existing .5 FTE Secretary II to Senior Office Clerk (Planning
Meeting Coordinator) to form 1.0 FTE. Ms. Morgan emphasized that
funding would only be needed for the .5 FTE Senior Office Clerk.
Commissioner Disney inquired as to how the Planning Meeting Coordinator
position would fit in with the consultant already retained; Mr.
Legg responded that the Planning Meeting Coordinator would be
in a support position to the consultant. The Board requested
the Planning Department to submit an organizational chart of the
Planning Department. Mr. Keister stated the $200,000 for the
Work Program has been set aside, but not appropriated and will
require an amendment to the budget. The funding for the .5 FTE
Senior Office Clerk would need to be in addition to the $200,000
already set aside.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve funding for an
additional .5 FTE Senior Office Clerk and approve reclassification
of an existing .5 FTE Secretary II to Senior Office Clerk (Planning
Meeting Coordinator) to form 1.0 FTE.
Motion carried 2-0.
At this time, Commissioner Duvall joined the meeting.
4. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE TIMBERLINE ROAD EXTENSION: A Resolution
supporting the completion of the Choices 95 Timberline Extension
Project was presented to the Board for approval and the Chair's
signature. Commissioner Duvall posed the question to Chair Disney
and Commissioner Clarke if this project is considered a high priority
for the Board or if there are other projects the Board would rather
be undertaken. A discussion of various projects ensued with respect
to traffic flow in the City of Fort Collins. Commissioner Clarke
stated that extending Timberline Road would enhance the response
time of emergency personnel.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the Resolution
Supporting the Completion of the Choices 95 Timberline Extension
Project, and authorize the Chair to sign same.
Motion carried 3-0.
R95-17g RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE COMPLETION OF THE CHOICES
95 TIMBERLINE EXTENSION PROJECT.
5. FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION SLIDE SHOW: Mr. Lancaster presented a
slide show and accompanying speech to be used by the Commissioners
at meetings with various groups showing a variety of sites within
Larimer County as an introduction for a discussion emphasizing
the framework for action concepts. Commissioner Disney suggested
producing an audio tape to accompany the slide show. Ms. Hart
will contact Mr. Will Hewitt to create an audio tape for the slide
show. A discussion of specific pictures and charts resulted.
Commissioner Duvall requested Mr. Lancaster to highlight certain
slides to emphasize the framework concepts. Ms. Hart and Mr.
Lancaster will make the suggested changes prior to the Commissioners
meeting to be held in Wellington next week. Mr. Lancaster will
circulate the script to the Commissioners for their review.
-- Letter from Michael Shultz: Chair Disney gave a brief overview
of the history behind the letter written by Mr. Shultz. Mr. Lancaster
will follow up on Mr. Shultz's letter.
-- Items for Policy Worksession: Mr. Lancaster stated the agenda
items for the Policy Worksession will include: 1) Discussion
of Environmental Advisory Board Recommendations; and 2) Discussion
of Performance Appraisal of Commissioners Appointed Officials.
-- Items for Next Weeks Standing Meetings: The Board instructed
Mr. Lancaster to inform Mr. Jacobs of the topics for discussion
for the Personnel Standing Meeting. The Board requested Mr. Lancaster
to add to the agenda for the next standing meeting with Mr. Barnett
a review of the tasks involved with re-working the Larimer County
Land Use Guide. The Board also requested that Mr. Anderson and
Mr. MacFarlane attend the next Public Works Standing Meeting to
review several topics. Mr. Lancaster stated Mr. Anderson will
present the Facilities Study Committee's recommendation at next
week's Administrative Matters.
-- Meeting with Mr. Willard: The Board instructed Ms. Hart to arrange a luncheon or breakfast meeting between Mr. James Willard with the Thompson R-2J School District, the Commissioners and Mr. Jacobs. Ms. Hart stated there are no invitations to review this week.
7. COMMISSIONERS REPORTS: Commissioner Duvall mentioned her attendance
at the 125th anniversary party for Colorado State University.
Chair Disney briefly discussed the Environmental Advisory Board
meeting, stating 4 to 5 citizens attended the meeting as well
as meeting with concerned individuals of Berthoud regarding the
Berthoud water supply.
8. DOCUMENT REVIEW: The following documents, of a routine nature,
were considered by the Board:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke that the Board approve the Minutes for the
week of January 30, 1995 and the Schedule for the week of February
13, 1995, as submitted.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the following
miscellaneous documents: McMurry Minor Residential Development
Plat and Turner Minor Residential Development Plat.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to St. Louis Liquors - 6%
- Loveland, CO. and Sandy's - 3.2% - Fort Collins CO. County
Approval was granted to Total #2743 - 3.2% - Loveland, Colorado;
and Aspen Lodge - 6% - Estes Park, Colorado.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the following
C95-09 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS (Family Preservation
Services for youth referred by the Probation
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARING ON "THE PLAN FOR THE REGION BETWEEN
FORT COLLINS AND LOVELAND" AND JOINT MEETING WITH THE
LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF
(#198 A & B)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. in the Fort Collins City Council Chambers for a Joint Meeting with the Larimer County Planning Commission. Chair Disney presided and Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Planning Commission Members present were: Steve Johnson, Vern Sunset, Kay Carter, Jim Hoeven, Mike Doten, Linda Stanley, and Wendell Amos. Also present were Planning Director John Barnett and Jill Bennett, Comprehensive Planner. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
1. Welcome and Introductions: Chair Disney welcomed every one
attending the hearing tonight and the County Commissioners and
Planning Commissioners Members were introduced.
2. Explanation of Hearing Process: Chair Disney stated that the
purpose of tonight's hearing is to obtain public input on the
proposed "Plan for the Region between Fort Collins and Loveland"
and he emphasized that no decision will be made by the Board on
the Plan tonight. Chair Disney stated that there will be a
second public hearing regarding this "Plan for the Region"
in Loveland on February 23, 1995; he noted that written comments
on the Plan will be taken until February 24 until 4:00 p.m. by
the County Planning Department. Chair Disney further stated
that on March 6, 1995, the County Commissioners will consider
making a recommendation regarding the Plan to the Planning Commission
who will then consider taking final action on the Plan at their
regular meeting on March 15, 1995.
3. Presentation of Slide Show of the proposed Plan: Ms. Bennett
introduced Clark Mapes from the City of Fort Collins Planning
Department, and Deb Pearson from the City of Loveland, and noted
that development of this Plan has been a three jurisdiction project.
Ms. Bennett presented a slide show of the proposed "Plan
for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland". Ms.
Bennett stated that citizen focus groups developed a vision summary
regarding community identify and visual separation, private property
rights, and consideration of natural, rural and agricultural areas.
She reviewed the Citizen's Corridor Task Force (comprised of
37 members) Recommendations, which are to: 1) Incorporate a conservation
plan; 2) Enhance separate identities; 3) Support transportation
system data; and 4) Wherever possible, roads should be designed
with unique character; 5) Devaluation of property values through
government regulation without compensation is unacceptable.
Ms. Bennett presented maps of the two scenarios of the Plan noting
that some of the key concepts of the Preferred Land Use Scenario
are: 1) Establish Fossil Creek Reservoir as a regional open space
resource; 2) Protect the Poudre River floodplain as a regional
open space resource and preserve the rural open character that
now exists along the major roadway corridors; and 3) Recognize
the foothills and the Dakota Hogback as a significant visual and
open space resource. Ms. Bennett stated that the primary difference
between the two scenarios is that even though the Alternative
scenario achieves many of the same goals as the Preferred, it
does so by guilding development patterns rather than focusing
on maintenance of open space, either through acquisition or some
other method and the Alternative map shows more clusters of residential
development. Ms. Bennett stated that to make the Plan happen,
we need to: 1) Adopt the Plan; 2) Amend the Intergovernmental
Agreements; 3) Develop strategy for property acquisition; 4) Amend
existing regulations and policy documents in each jurisdiction;
and 5) Establish intergovernmental framework. As requested by
the elected officials, Ms. Bennett reviewed the list of priority
projects: 1) Work with landowners in the Fossil Creek and southwest
foothills sub areas; 2) Consider innovative land use regulations,
such as, clustering and transfer development rights ; 3) Develop
design and access at the multiple area; 4) Implementing the Airport
Master Plan. In summary, Ms. Bennett read a quote from Ian McHarg:
"Planned growth is more desirable than unplanned growth and
more profitable; and public and private powers can work as partners
in a process to realize the plan".
At this time, Commissioner Clarke left the hearing to attend the
Parks Board Meeting.
4. Questions from the Board and Planning Commission: Mr. Johnson
asked Ms. Bennett if they were envisioning that the Citizens Task
Force will remain active in the implementation of this Plan; Ms.
Bennett responded that they are talking about working directly
with small groups of landowners and working with those people
who will be affected by the implementation. Mr. Amos asked
if any of the members of the citizens groups that came up with
the recommendations were from this particular corridor area; Ms.
Bennett responded affirmatively. Ms. Stanley asked if this Plan
is approved, will both the Preferred and Alternative scenarios
be included; Ms. Bennett responded affirmatively. Ms. Stanley
asked what sort of commitment do we have that the Preferred scenario
will be the likely outcome; Ms. Bennett responded that the key
will be in the implementation. The Preferred scenario points
more clearly to achieving all the goals and the Alternative scenario
is also a possible outcome that achieves most of the goals.
5. Public Testimony: At this time, the hearing was opened for
public comment. Louis Swift, one of the larger property owners
residing on the north shore of the Fossil Creek Reservoir and
member of the Corridor Task Force, stated that he believes that
much of the Plan was developed by the planners and not the members
of the Corridor group or citizens. Bob Everitt, developer,
stated that the County wants to be careful that they don't send
the message to large quality industries that we want you to come
but we won't provide a place for you to live; he cautioned that
they not go beyond the point of reason with green areas and open
space. Scott Mason, President Citizen Planners, stated that
their group endorses the Preferred scenario of the Plan and they
are also interested in preserving the foothills, wildlife habitat,
and agricultural lands between the two communities. Dallas Horton,
another large property owner on Fossil Creek Reservoir, stated
in general he supports the concept of an open corridor between
the two cities. Bobbie Douglas, Task Force Member, has lived
in this area for over 20 years and is very upset with the possibility
of high density around them; they appreciate the lifestyle they
have and want to keep it that way. She also wants the low-density
Preferred scenario. David Roy supports the Preferred scenario.
Glen Colton, member Corridor Task Force, supports the Preferred
scenario and stated that 80% of the people in Fort Collins think
that Larimer County is growing too fast. Duane Rennels, Board
Member of the Citizens for the Recognition and Preservation of
Private Property Rights, stated that protection is a very important
right and he doesn't disagree with the concept of the corridor
and he doesn't disagree that to a certain point development needs
to help pay its way; however, he does disagree with the magnitude
of the map and noted that over 60% of the land in Larimer County
is in public hands and the more land that is in public hands,
the less tax base and who is going to pay the bills? Steve
Anderson, farmer west of Berthoud, stated that it is time for
staff to explain the concept of TDR's and arbitrary agricultural
preserves. Kelly Ohlson, former member Fort Collins City Council,
commented on comments made previously with reference to "too
much green" and "too much public land". He noted
that except for the Soderburg Ranch, the County has spent almost
nothing on open space and land acquisition in the history of Larimer
County. He further stated that all studies show that development
costs government ten times more than what is ever returned in
taxes over the cost for maintaining lands in an open and natural
state. He noted there are two ways this Plan is going to be achieved:
1) Public purchase, and 2) Land use regulations. Mr. Ohlson
stated that it is the charge of the Board to find the resources
to provide adequate staff so the Plan is implemented. Harry Sauer,
farmer residing in the corridor, supports the Preferred scenario
if a funding mechanism was in place; however, until there is funding,
the Alternative scenario should take precedent. He stated that
the elected officials have been promoting clustering and then
applicants who come up with such a plan get turned down; the land
owner is made to carry the burden of open space and view shed
for the entire county. The statement of "Payment fair to
the land owner" needs to be changed to "Pay fair market
value". Moby Wile, member of Citizens Against Ridgeline
Development", stated he is very happy with the Plan and he
commended everyone for all their hard work. John Knezovich
stated that costs should be a part of the record and he advocates
the purchase side of Mr. Ohlson's suggestion. However, he thinks
it will be a $25 million expenditure for acquisition and to implement
the Plan and a funding mechanism needs to be found. Kathy Kuhlman,
member of the Focus Groups and Task Force, requested the Board
not lose site of compatibility when approving the Plan. Brad
Pace stated that ten years from now either of the two options
will look good, even the Alternative, and he just hopes that something
comes out of this planning effort.
At this time, Chair Disney asked if there was additional public
testimony; there being none, he asked for Board and Planning Commission
discussion. Ms. Amos noted that we have a "Catch 22"
situation here - people say, if you don't tell us what you are
going to spend the money for, we are not in favor of the Plan
and if you don't have a Plan, we don't know how much money it
will take. He stated that in this situation, the County and
Planning Staff chose to devise and work up a plan that meets with
the majority of the participants in the Task Force and the implementation
will come later. Ms. Stanley added for the record that you cannot
apply for grants, such as for Colorado Lottery funds or "GO
Colorado", until there is some sort of plan, and that is
why it is necessary to have a plan and then to work on the implementation.
As requested by Mr. Anderson, Mr. Barnett explained TDR's,
by using the example of the McKee Trust PUD proposal, and Ms.
Bennett explained agricultural preserves to the group.
6. Adjournment: The Planning Commission and the Board individually
expressed their appreciation to the audience for their comments,
noting that they were helpful and constructive.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1995
MEETING FOR APPROVAL OF EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE
COVERAGE FOR 1995
(#198 @ 1500)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular
session with Ralph Jacobs, Human Resources Director. Chair Pro-Tem
Clarke presided and Commissioner Duvall was present. Also present
were: Patsi Maroney, Compensation and Benefits Specialist; Jane
Jensen, William Mercer Company; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County
Manager; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk,
Mr. Jacobs stated that the purpose of today's meeting is to obtain
the Board's approval and signature on three documents needed to
finalize the 1995 CIGNA Health Insurance Contract. Mr. Jacobs
noted that the documents have been reviewed and approved as to
form by Assistant County Attorney Marla Hehn.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board sign the three documents
to finalize the 1995 CIGNA Health Insurance Contract, as presented,
and authorize the Chair to sign same.
Motion carried 2 - 0.
C95-10 CONTRACT AND ATTACHMENTS BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CIGNA HEALTH FOR 1995
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
JIM DISNEY, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
( S E A L )
Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk
Aimee Jensen, Deputy County Clerk
William Louis Gebauer, Deputy County Clerk
February 6, 1995