Loveland Bike Trail
 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1999

LAND-USE PLANNING HEARING

(# 434 & 435)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Rennels and Disney were present. Also present were: Rex Burns, Project Engineer; Marc Engemoen, Director of Public Works; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner; Jim Reidhead, Director Rural Land Use Center; Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Sean Wheeler, Planner I; Mark Peterson, County Engineer; Richael Michels and Matt Lafferty, Planners II; Brenda Gimeson, RLUC Technician; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, Gael Cookman.

Chair Olson recommended that the Board rearrange the order of the agenda items so that Commissioner Rennels could participate in the Buehler Farms Rural Land Use Plan discussion.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners rearrange the order of the agenda items and discuss the Buehler Farms Preliminary Rural Land Plan ahead of the Heron Lake Campground Special Review.

Motion carried 3-0.

Mr. Helmick noted that a request has been received to table the Terry Cove Amended PUD item on today's agenda until March 1, 1999.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Terry Cove Amended Planned Unit Development (#98-S1337) until 7:00 p.m., March 1, 1999, as requested.

Motion carried 3-0.

Chair Olson noted that the following are consent items and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners or members of the audience.

1. SIERRA PLAZA SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS SUPPLEMENT ONE, BUILDING C (#98-S1349): 24-05-69, NORTH OF SE 8TH STREET, LOVELAND.

This is a request to condominiumize 11 units within Building C of the Sierra Plaza South Condiminiums, Supplement One. This request will complete the condominiumization process for all buildings located at this site. Staff findings include: 1) The proposed condominiumization of Building C is in compliance with the Larimer County Master Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution. 2) The condominiumization is compatible with other development in the surrounding area. 3) Approval of the condominiumization will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment or the provision of services and infrastructure. 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the amended plat. Staff recommendation is for approval of #98-S1349, Sierra Plaza South Supplement One Condominiumization for the 11 Units in Building C, subject to the following conditions; 1) Each unit shall provide a portable fire extinguisher with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, which shall be hung 4 to 5 feet above the finished floor, with a current inspection tag attached. The City of Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau shall have final approval authority for extinguisher locations. 2) Each unit shall provide legal addressing visible from the parking lot, including the building and unit numbers, on or near each entry door.

2. LETITIA LAKE SUBDIVISION LOT 13, BLOCK 4, AMENDED PLAT (98-S1350): NE ¼ of 27-10-73; MORE SPECIFICALLY LOCATED ON A UNNAMED PRIVATE ROAD ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF DOWDY LAKE IN THE RED FEATHER LAKES AREA

The applicant proposes to incorporate a 0.36 acre out lot into the lot area of Lot 13, Block 4 of the Letitia Lake Subdivision. The 0.363 acre out lot appears to be residual land within the Letitia Lake Subdivision. As such the out lot as illustrated on the proposed amended plat is not a buildable site. This action will result in one larger legal building site. As proposed there are no existing easements being vacated by this action, and no additional density is being created. Staff findings include: 1) The proposed amended plat is in compliance with the Larimer County Master Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution. 2) The amended plat is compatible with other development in the surrounding area. 3) Approval of the amended plat will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure. 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the amended plat. Staff recommendation is for approval of 98-S1350 - Amended Plat to consolidate Block 4, Lot 13 of Letitia Lake Subdivision and the adjoining 0.36 acre out lot subject to the following conditions: 1) All corrections as requested by the County Surveyor shall be completed prior to the signing of the final plat.

3. GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 2ND FILING LOT 75 AMENDED PLAT (98-S1348): NW ¼ of 14-09-72; MORE SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE AND COUNTY ROAD 74E IN GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS

The applicant proposes to divide lot 75 of Glacier View Meadows to create a parcel for a future fire station site. If approved the existing 8.42 acre site will be divided into two lots. The larger of the two lots 5.87 acres will remain a residential lot and the smaller 2.55 acre site will become the fire station site. Staff findings include: 1) The proposed amended plat is in compliance with the Larimer County Master Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution. 2) The amended plat is compatible with other development in the surrounding area. 3) Approval of the amended plat will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure. 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the amended plat. 5) The additional lot created by the amended plat will result in a fire station site, which will enhance fire service for the immediate area. Staff recommendation is for approval of 98-S1348 - Amended Plat to divide Lot 75 of Glacier View Meadows 2nd filing subject to the following conditions: 1) A note shall be place on the amended plat indicating that the use of lot 1 shall be limited to a fire station facility, and no residential use of lot one shall be permitted.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendations and approve the Sierra Plaza South Condominiums Supplement One, Building C (#98-S1349); Amended Plat of Block 4, Lot 13 of the Letitia Lake Subdivision, and an adjoining metes and bounds parcel (#98-SA1350); and the Glacier View Meadows 2nd Filing, Lot 75 Amended Plat (#98-SA1348); each, with conditions as outlined.

Motion carried 3-0.

4. BUEHLER FARMS PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN (98-RLP0019): 34 & 35-04-69; ¼ MILE EAST OF US 287 ON COUNTY ROAD 2E, JUST NORTH OF THE BOULDER/LARIMER COUNTY LINE AND NORTH OF ISH RESERVOIR.

Mr. Reidhead introduced the applicants, Howard and Virginia Beuhler and noted that this is a proposal to divide 262 acres into 13 single-family units including the existing farmstead; he explained that there have been two plans submitted to the Board of County Commissioners, the Original Plan and the Revised Plan. Mr. Reidhead explained that each plan consists of the 13 single-family units; however, the configurations are different and the applicants prefers the Original Plan and seek Board approval on it; he noted that the Revised Plan was approved by the Rural Land Use Advisory Board (RLUB) but it is not favored by the applicants Mr. Reidhead explained that the major difference between the two plans is the lot configurations. Mr. Reidhead explained that the County Engineering Department has recommended moving the proposed driveway to the west of its current location in order to avoid conflicts with County Road 17; he also noted that there are some engineering changes that need to take place along the south side of the property near County Line Road and that the Buehler's plan to work with their neighbors, applicants of the proposed Willis Farm Subdivision, in ensuring proper access along this stretch of road. Mr. Reidhead explained that there was some concern from at least one neighbor on how the home owners association covenants would be enforced. The Board had some questions regarding how the water is tied to the land, and Mr. Reidhead noted that the intent was to legally attach the Old Ish irrigation water to the land as part of the RLUP, but the land owner could, under normal circumstances, sell the water off of their land to be delivered elsewhere within the Old Ish system, and rent it if they choose to. Commissioner Rennels asked why the Land Use Board preferred the Revised Plan instead of the Original Plan and Mr. Reidhead explained that they felt having three management plans, one for each small farm, would just add unnecessary complexity to this land use plan. Finally, Mr. Reidhead noted that currently the Rural Land Use Process fees are set at $850.00 per building permit; he suggested this be re-written to allow for rising costs in the future and have the applicant pay the fees that are in place at the time the building permit is pulled. At this time Mr. Buehler was called to address the Board and Commissioner Disney asked Mr. Buehler if he would be opposed to re-writing the conditions to reflect that he should pay the fees that are in place at the time the building permits are pulled. Mr. Buehler stated that he would agree to this. Mr. Buehler also confirmed for the Board that the water is assessed a $14.00 per share fee each year and that it can be rented but the stock stays with the land.

Mr. Reidhead stated that staff findings include: Both proposals are consistent with the policies of the Rural Land Use Process: 1) RLUC Staff supports the Original Plan of the Buehler Farm Preliminary Rural Land Plan: a) Adding another unit to the cluster may cause problems with maintaining safe distances of homes from Ish Dam and maintaining adequate lot size based on suitability of soils for on-site septic systems. The cluster was carefully designed with adequate but tight acreage to accommodate on-site septic systems (based on discussions with Doug Ryan from the Health Department) and to protect the homes in the event of dam failure (based on discussions with the State Dam Inspector). The southern six lots, Lots 8-13 on the Original Plan, are 3.5 acres in size and occupy 21 acres of dryland. An additional lot, for a total of seven, could be located on this same 21 acres if the smaller lots will adequately handle on-site septic systems. However, the value of a small farm is considerably more than a single cluster homesite; and the goal of making an RLUP project equally profitable with 35-acre divisions of land will be compromised. b) Some RLUB members were appropriately concerned about the potential for increased difficulty in monitoring the residual land if divided into three, as opposed to two, small farms. Staff believe that the smaller ag operations likely to be established on Lots 1-3 may be equally appropriate in the highly-urbanized areas surrounding Berthoud where traditional large-parcel farming has declined. Emerging high-value "niche market agriculture" (such as vineyards, raising of pure-bred livestock and horses, or organic farming) and/or "lifestyle ag operations" (where farming activities are an avocation rather than prime source of income) may be more realistic uses for the smaller farms proposed in the Original Plan. c) The applicants are dedicating valuable water to each agricultural lot for the duration of the 40 year protective covenant: A total of 45 shares of Old Ish irrigation water conservatively valued at $405,000. This water can be readily sold off the Buehler farm. Mr. and Mrs. Buehler have chosen not to do that. d) The Original Plan is based on the landowner's intimate knowledge of the land and recent experience in trying to continue traditional ag practices with nearby residential development. By using the RLUP, Mr. Buehler hopes to preserve the legacy of his parents' hard work in a practical way. Staff feels it's important to respect his reasonable and well-conceived wishes for his family's property. 2) Support of this project is based on the extraordinary growth pressure in this area, the applicants' planning and design rationale for the location of the project's additional residential units, the overall acceptance of the preliminary plat design (the Original Plan) at the neighborhood meeting, and the potential for continued agricultural use of the residual land. Staff believes that this is a worthwhile project, dealing with one of this area's last remaining farms. This property is visible from I-25, the Berthoud area, and the land to the west. If the Original Plan is not acceptable, Staff will work with the applicants to implement the Revised Plan. Both plans consider the various land development and design options, particularly the 35-acre alternative, for which there is no County review. 3) The 114 single-family residential units possible under the current FA1-Farming zoning (with adequate public facilities) of the property support our belief that this is an appropriate project, within both the spirit and letter of the Rural Land Use Process. A new subdivision proposal for 13 lots on 52.2 acres has been submitted to Larimer County Planning to be located immediately to the east of the proposed project. Also, there is a current proposal to bring sewer lines within 1 mile of this property, which increases the chances of this property being developed through the subdivision process at full density, either under current zoning or PLUS. 4) The site-based incentives (6 density bonus unit, or 86%) provide the landowners with benefits roughly equivalent to what they would obtain through dividing their property into individual 35-acre tracts, as well as pre-empting the potential for many more residential units allowed by current zoning. As proposed (with either configuration) this project will also provide commensurate benefits to Larimer County. 5) The plan is compatible with the existing neighboring land uses: agricultural lands, 35s, and subdivisions. 6) The RLUP final fee in effect will be collected for each new dwelling unit constructed at the time of building permit issuance. A note to this effect to be placed on the plat.

Mr. Reidhead noted that Staff recommendation is for approval of the Buehler Farm Preliminary Rural Land Plan (Original Plan). The following contingencies must be met prior to approval of final plat by the Board of County Commissioners: 1) Issuance of a Larimer County Road Access Permit before the access to CR 2E or CR 905 (County Line Road) is constructed. The access must be in accordance with the Larimer County Access Policy. Access issues for both this proposal and the neighboring Willis Farms subdivision proposal will be coordinated with Larimer County Engineering before any permits are issued. 2) Approval of final engineering designs, including design of utilities, roads, ROW dedication, stormwater plan and access from County Road 905, before final plat submittal. 3) Demonstration of adequate water service provided by Little Thompson Water District. 4) Preliminary soil testing to demonstrate soil suitability for on-site sewage systems. 5) Residual Land protective covenants and management plans review and approval by County Attorney prior to final plat approval. 6) Homeowners' covenants, including architectural controls, review and approval by County Attorney prior to final plat approval. 7) Review and approval of final development agreement by County Attorney. 8) Engineered footing and foundations shall be required on all structures. 9) 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 Planning Department. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for 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. 10) Transportation Capital Expansion Fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed on each lot. 11) Park fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed on each lot. 12) RLUP fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall be assessed on each lot. 13) Building envelopes will be called out on the final plat. 14) The applicants agree to provide sales and other information to the Rural Land Use Center Director as necessary to insure that monitoring of the incentives can be conducted. 15) At time of real estate closing, owner or real estate professional shall provide purchasers of residential lots and residual lands with Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County. 16) The owners of the residual land parcels shall be responsible for providing a baseline environmental study and an annual monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center. 17) The following notes shall also be included on the final plat: a) Mosquitoes: During certain times of the year mosquitoes may present a significant nuisance. The County does not have a mosquito control program. Any spraying or other control will be the responsibility of the property owners. b) Wildlife: Wildlife such as skunks, snakes, and prairie dogs occur more frequently than in more built-up areas. Lot owners should be aware of these occurrences and be prepared to address them as residents if they arise. The County is not able to mitigate nuisances if they develop, although information on managing these issues is available. c) Prairie dog colonies do exist in the general area surrounding this proposal. Prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property. The County does not perform prairie dog control, but can advise owners on how to obtain the services of licensed firms that do. At times prairie dogs are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets. The County does monitor prairie dog colonies for evidence of plague. Animal control requirements for both dogs and cats should be observed. d) Adjacent agricultural uses: Farming practices on this and adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust. These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur. e) Horse pasture management: If livestock is to be kept on the smaller parcels, the owners must be aware that lots of this size must be managed very carefully in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture.

Being no public comment on this issue, Chair Olson moved into the discussion phase of the hearing. The Board supported the Original Plan with the changes made to include reference to correcting the access along the south side of the property and ensuring the applicant pays the Rural Land Use Process fees in effect at the time building permits are pulled. Chair Olson also requested that Mr. Reidhead include the water rights issues in the management plan and Commissioner Rennels added that the water rights issues should be addressed in the Homeowners Association covenants as well.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Buehler Farms Preliminary Rural Land Plan (#98-RLP0019), with the changes as outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

At this time Commissioner Rennels left the meeting.

5. HERON LAKE CAMPGROUND SPECIAL REVIEW (97-ZR1045): EAST SIDE OF NORTH TAFT HILL ROAD, NORTH OF THE POUDRE RIVER AND WESTERN MOBILE (LAFARGE) ABOUT ½ MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 54G.

Chair Olson noted that this was a continued item and that the staff and applicant presentations have been completed and all public testimony has been heard; she noted that they are in the discussion phase of this item and she requested Ms. Michels to give a brief overview of the proposal for the audience that may not be familiar with this issue. Ms. Michels noted that this is a proposal for development of a 35-acre parcel located northwest of Ft. Collins and the applicants are seeking approval of a Special Review to develop a campground called Heron Lake. Ms. Michels explained that originally, the applicants had proposed 30 tent sites and 200 RV/travel trailer sites; however, the number of campsites has been reduced to 25 tent sites and 175 RV/travel trailer sites, including 7 handicapped sites for a total of 200 campsites. In addition to the camp sites, numerous accessory uses are planned to make the campground as self-contained as possible providing activities and services on site. The campground will have a small store to serve the campers and the store will include space for a manager's apartment.

Some discussion followed regarding the changes made to the conditions which address the traffic entering and exiting the site, signage for the site, the height of the fence surrounding the site, locating the utilities within the existing utility easement without needing an additional easement, and changing it to a five year completion plan. Mr. Peterson reviewed his memo dated January 25, 1999, and explained that after researching the traffic accident rate and turn lane situations in this area, he does feel there is a need for a left turn lane into the property, and there is a need for a right hand deceleration and turn lane at this site and the Engineering Department recommends this be a condition of approval. Mr. Peterson noted that he did not recommend a northbound acceleration lane since acceleration lanes on two lane highways can often cause more problems than they fix. Some discussion ensued regarding where the sign for the campground would be placed and the Board decided that it was best to let the applicant try to get the easement from Lafarge and a variance from the Board of Adjustment and if that was not possible, then the design and lighting of the sign would be approved by planning staff with consideration of incident light from the sign onto the neighbors properties.

Ms. Michels noted the staff findings include: 1) The proposal is in compliance with the Larimer County Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, Master Plan, and Mobile Home Resolution. 2) Larimer County Health, Engineering, and Planning, the City of Ft. Collins, and other agencies have reviewed this proposal and have stated no objections to it so long as certain conditions are met. 3) The proposal will provide significantly more protection of potential gravel deposits and from property damage due to flooding than a more permanent land use such as a residential development. 4) The proposal will provide public benefit through the extension of sanitary sewer north of the Poudre River and providing improvements on Taft Hill Road that will increase the overall safety of travel in this area of gravel mining operations. 5) This proposal will not have a negative effect on the public health, safety, or welfare.

Ms. Michels noted that Staff recommendation was for approval of the amended conditions as follows: 1) Development of the campground shall be in compliance with the representations of record made by the applicants regarding the proposal except where altered by the staff report and these conditions. No additional substantial changes to the proposal will be allowed without a change of conditions or new Special Review approval from the County Commissioners. 2) A final application is required of the applicant that will include all the required construction plans, legal documents and other information specified in these conditions, the staff report and the application materials. No aspect of project construction shall begin until these documents have been received, reviewed and approved in writing by the appropriate reviewing agency. 3) The applicants will enter into a Development Agreement with collateral prior to beginning construction of the campground or any associated facilities. 4) All new structures require a building permit from Larimer County. The alteration of any existing structures must also obtain a building permit. 5) The proposed monument sign for the entrance on Taft Hill Road will be allowed if the applicants are able to secure variances both for size and location of the sign. 6) If the proposed monument sign is not granted the necessary variances, a sign may be placed on the Heron Lake property but shall not exceed 40 feet in height. The design and any lighting of the sign must be approved by planning staff after considering the effects of the lighting on neighboring properties. 7) On-site directional signage shall not exceed 4 square feet in size. On-site informational signage which identifies the various uses on the property and perimeter fence safety signs shall not exceed 10 square feet in size with the exception of the store. One sign of 15 square feet will be allowed on the store and must not be visible from nor face Taft Hill Road. No signage described in this condition shall exceed 10 feet in height. 8) The design of all roads, drainage facilities, and other site improvements must be approved by Larimer County prior to beginning construction of these improvements. 9) Improvements required by County Engineering for Taft Hill Road must be designed and built by the applicant prior to beginning use of the property as a campground. 10) All on-site standards as specified by County Engineering for road development and drainage must be completed by the applicant. 11) Any additional right-of-way required by County Engineering for improvements to Taft Hill Road required for this development must be secured by the applicant. 12) The access road must be designed to support a 35 ton fire truck and be asphalt paved. 13) Fire hydrants are required at a spacing of one hydrant per 600 feet of approved roadway. The store and any other "commercially" rated (by the Fire Authority) building cannot be more than 300 feet from a hydrant. 14) The Fire Authority approved pump must be on a separate electrical feed that stands alone and is totally separate from any other structures on the property. A backup electrical system is not required. 15) The store must be fire sprinklered unless a Fire Authority approved second point of access is available at all times. 16) A looped water main is required for all fire hydrants. 17) The design of sanitary sewer improvements must be approved by the City of Ft. Collins prior to beginning construction. The applicants and their engineer are required to meet with the City for a pre-design meeting to discuss the standards and requirements. 18) Any easements required for any improvements including roads or utilities are the responsibility of the applicant to acquire. Utilities may be placed in the twelve foot utility easement which is part of the forty foot access easement. Any new easements must be recorded with the documents required for legally granting the easements included with the final application materials. 19) The number of comfort stations must comply with or exceed the Larimer County Mobile Home Resolution. Water and dump stations must be separated by at least 50 feet. 20) On-site settling ponds must be re-graded to provide a less hazardous side slope and fenced with a two rail perimeter fence. The appropriate slope must be approved by the Health Department and confirmation that the slope has been altered must be in the form a typical "as-built" letter from the applicants' engineer to the County Health Department. 21) A final landscaping plan must be approved by the County. This plan must address issues of buffering from adjacent land uses, replacement of dead plant materials, irrigation, maintenance and any other concerns expressed by staff. 22) A final site plan must be submitted and approved by the County. Landscaping may be included on this plan if all of the above conditions are met. The site plan must also show wetlands or wetland fringe areas. 23) Final Rules and Regulations as well as a Management Plan must be submitted with the final materials. These must address how campers will be informed of the rules and how those rules will be enforced. They must also inform campers of the adjacent agricultural, mining and irrigation activities that may cause noise or present hazards to off-site trespassers. Rules must provide consequences for trespassers such as expulsion from the campground. Campers should also be made aware of the potential for noise, dust, odors and other consequences of being located near these existing operations. 24) The operators of the campground will be required to replace all trash receptacles with Division of Wildlife approved bear-proof receptacles if there is ever an incident with a bear at this location. 25) The property must have a six foot chain link fence around the entire perimeter of the property to restrict movement of campers onto adjacent private property. Further, No Trespassing signs will be required at intervals along this fence. 26) A Hazardous Materials plan must be submitted to and approved by the County Health Department prior to beginning construction on the property. The operators of the campground are responsible for ensuring that the terms of the approved Plan are continuously complied with. 27) The applicants must present the County Health Department with a plan for controlling fugitive dust emissions in compliance with the Colorado's Air Quality laws. 28) The applicants must apply for and obtain a permit that is administered by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division if such a permit is required based on the area of disturbance and State Law. A copy of this permit must be provided to Planning and Health prior to beginning construction on the site. 29) A final Stormwater Management Plan must be provided by the applicant and approved by County Engineering and County Health prior to site work beginning for the proposal. 30) No one may camp or otherwise reside (except the on-site manager) on the property for more than 30 days in a calendar year unless a variance is granted by the board of adjustment. No year-round or permanent living will be permitted. No RVs in the campground may be skirted, affixed to a foundation or in any other way made permanent or semi-permanent. 31) All requirements of the County's floodplain regulations must be complied with. All construction in the floodplain must be elevated per these regulations. Further, it must be demonstrated to the County Engineering department's satisfaction that anything placed in the floodway, including berms, fencing, or other site amenity will not cause a rise in the base flood elevation or in any other way increase the flood hazard for surrounding and downstream properties. 32) The applicants must complete these conditions and begin using the property under the conditions of this Special Review within 5 years from the date of County Commissioner approval or this approval will be void. 33) Failure to comply with these conditions and the County Regulations for campgrounds will result in the property owners being required to appear before the Board of County Commissioners and show cause why this Special Review should not be revoked. Should the Special Review be revoked, camping on the property by anyone other than the property owner would be prohibited. 34) The well permit must be extended or a court approved plan for augmentation must be in place by May 27, 1999 or an alternative source of fire protection water must be in place and approved by the Poudre Fire Authority. The applicants must provide documentation of this to the Planning Department by May 27, 1999. 35) Extension of water and sewer shall be placed under ground. 36) An emergency evacuation plan shall be in place and available to all staff and guests.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Heron Lake Campground Special Review (#97-ZR1045), with conditions as amended above.

Motion carried 2-0.



6. DERMODY "CONDITIONAL ZONING" VIOLATION (#98-ZV1269): 390 ELM ROAD; NW ¼ 26-05-73.

Mr. Pedas explained the property in question noting that the main complaint of the surrounding neighbors is the amount of outside storage that is taking place on the property; he noted that a petition to rezone the property from T-Tourist to C-Commercial was granted on April 22, 1981 with the following conditions "This Rezoning and Development of the property are conditioned upon no new building permits nor other development shall occur on the subject property until a development plan, a subdivision or planned unit development, or a detailed site plan if no division is proposed, is submitted and approved for the entire property." Mr. Pedas noted that there have been several different owners of this property since 1981 and the use of the property has been "transitional" with different activities of each owner; he stated that most recently, after March of 1995 when the Dermody's purchased the property, the use of the property became very noticeable as the result of the amount of outside storage that was occurring on the property. This storage consisted of large numbers of trash collection bins, portable toilets, construction equipment, vehicles and other assorted junk and debris, none of which seemed to be accessory to any of the other uses on the property. Mr. Pedas stated that in his opinion, the outside storage was becoming a principal use, rather than an accessory use, and it was not permitted in the C-Commercial Zoning District, and it was clearly inconsistent with the "conditional" rezoning of the property. Mr. Pedas stated that there were other concerns of the neighbors regarding the drainage plan for stormwater run off; he presented a memo from Ed Woodward of the Engineering Department, which explained that the concrete barriers that the Dermody's have erected along their north property line are there to help prevent potential severe erosion of that embankment, and they are not interfering or adversely effecting the drainage for adjacent property owners. Mr. Pedas noted that staff findings include: 1) The subject property was rezoned from T-Tourist to C-Commercial (with conditions) April 22, 1981. 2) One of the conditions of approval was that no new development could take place on the property without subdivision, P.U.D., or site plan approval. 3) Significant outside storage is occurring on the property which is not accessory to the other permitted on non-conforming uses on the property. 4) Continued use of the property inconsistent with the conditions of the rezoning may significantly affect property values in the neighborhood. Mr. Pedas noted that Staff recommendation is to find that a violation exists, and require compliance within 90 days, and authorize legal action if the compliance deadline is not met.

At this time property owner Shon Dermody presented the Board with a packet that he had prepared to defend his position. Mr. Dermody allowed the Board the opportunity to review the packet and view the enclosed pictures that he had taken of the surrounding properties; he then explained that in his opinion, his property is zoned C-Commercial, therefore, it should include all commercial uses. Mr. Dermody stated that his use of the outside storage is consistent with and similar to those uses already enumerated along Elm Road; he also noted that no new building has taken place on the property since they purchased it and the County Enforcement Officer has verified this. Mr. Dermody did concede that the outside storage of vehicles was not appropriate and he was in the process of correcting this; he noted that the property is not isolated in a residential or estate area as it sits at the end of an area where numerous commercial and industrial activities are allowed, and have historically taken place. Mr. Dermody also noted that since they have purchased the property, they have made numerous, costly improvements to several of the buildings, and they have removed an underground fuel storage tank and completed soil surveys to insure there was no contamination on the property. Finally, Mr. Dermody showed a video tape of the view on the trip along Elm Road; he reiterated the use of his property is consistent with the other uses along Elm Road, and in his opinion, his property does not constitute an eye sore. Mr. Carroll Dermody then addressed the Board stating that he believes they should be able to do what they want with their property and not have government or neighbors dictating their use of the property.

At this time Chair Olson opened up the meeting for public comment and Ms. Cookie Burkhalter addressed the Board noting that she was acting as the spokesperson for all of the property owners in the immediate area around 390 Elm Road; she stated that they believed the following zoning violations were occurring at 390 Elm Road: 1) The outside storage of port-a-potties. 2) The outside storage of dumpsters. 3) The outside storage of construction equipment, building materials, and other debris. 4) Building without a building permit or site development plan; specifically the modification of a fourplex into a duplex and the conversion of a patio into a room addition which infringes on the property setbacks for the adjacent property. 5) The construction of a water diversion system without a site development plan. 6) The manufacturing of furniture in a building designated for the storage of personal items only. Ms. Burkhalter noted that in their opinion, these violations may negatively impact the environment, and they cause grave damage to their view shed and are detrimental to their property values; she requested the Dermody's develop and forward a site plan to the Board within 60 days of the hearing, and also requested that the site plan be presented to the neighboring residents within 30 days of the Board's review. Commissioner Disney noted that there are other companies in the area that are using their property in a similar manner and he asked Ms. Burkhalter if they were only singling out the Dermody property. Ms. Burkhalter noted that they have two other complaints filed with the Planning Department; one regarding the Nytes property as a health hazard in conjunction with the landfill, and also the property at Juniper and Elm where many inoperable/untagged vehicles are being stored. Max Burkhalter and Lori Norton also addressed the Board stating their support of Ms. Burkhalter's comments.

During the discussion phase of the hearing, Commissioner Disney stated that it is a shame that so often neighbors cannot communicate with each other and they end up before the Board of County Commissioners in order to resolve their problems; he stated that given the conditional nature of the rezoning of this property, he did feel the excessive outside storage is indeed a zoning violation. Chair Olson agreed.



M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a zoning violation does exist at 390 Elm Road, require compliance within 90 days, and authorize legal action if the compliance deadline is not met.

Motion carried 2-0.

The meeting recessed at 5:50 p.m.

CONTINUATION OF LAND USE HEARING

(#436 & #437)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7:00 p.m. in regular session with Russ Legg, Chief Planner. Chair Olson presided and Commissioner Rennels was present; Commissioner Disney was speaking to the Association of American University Women in Loveland tonight. Also present were: Pete Wray and Joe Frank, Representatives from the City of Fort Collins Planning Department; Richael Michels, Planner II; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, Sherry Graves.

1. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR AREA

PLAN (#98-CA0001): E ½ 06-06-68 - WEST SIDE OF TIMBERLINE

(COUNTY ROAD 11), SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 35, 1.5 MILES SOUTH

OF HARMONY ROAD

This is a request to amend the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan to include a designation for a Neighborhood Commercial Center and a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Mr. Legg explained that the process for adoption of a plan amendment is for the Board of County Commissioners to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, which then makes the final decision. Mr. Legg noted that the Board heard this item on October 5, 1998, at which time they recommended denial, but also directed staff to explore other location alternatives in the Fossil Creek Area for the Neighborhood Commercial Center and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and explore the potential of integrating these uses into the adopted TDU program. Mr. Legg stated that the analysis has been performed by the City of Fort Collins and, at the joint meeting which was held recently, they committed to thoroughly examine and explore applying TDU's anywhere in the Urban Growth Area (UGA).

Staff findings include: 1) The proposal is supported and recommended for approval by the City of Fort Collins Planning Staff and the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board; 2) The Larimer County Master Plan principles are designed to support and implement municipal planning efforts; 3) The property will be required to annex prior to development. The staff recommendation is for approval of the proposed amendment to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan to include a plan designation for a Neighborhood Commercial Center and a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood in the area west of Timberline Road (County Road 11) and south of County Road 36 (extended) or Mail Creek Ditch.

Mr. Wray reviewed the location of the proposed plan amendment, noting that it is approximately 1½ miles south of Harmony and west of Timberline and includes the Hansen, Rennot, and Johnson properties. Mr. Wray reviewed the five (5) alternatives, as outlined in detail in his memo dated December 1, 1998, which were considered and the reasons for their not being selected: East of Timberline Road, NW corner of Timberline Road/Trilby; NE corner of Timberline Road/Trilby; Se corner of Timberline Road/Trilby; NE corner of South County Road 9/East County Road 36. In conclusion, Mr. Wray stated that the City and County staff continue to recommend that the Commissioners reconsider their recommendation of October 5, 1998 and recommend adoption of the amendment to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, in order to bring the adopted area plan in conformance with the City Structure Plan.

At this time, the public comment portion of the hearing was opened and the following adjacent property owners addressed the Board: Bill Grush, Eric Rennot, Chris McElroy, Doug Hansen, and Tom Johnston. Mr. Grush stated that he doesn't think there is a need for a neighborhood commercial center in this area, but what is missing are recreation facilities, parks, etc., and he asked if this is being considered at all? Mr. Rennot, speaking for his parents who own part of the subject property, stated that there has been no communication with them since this request was denied by the Board in October, 1998 and it is premature to approve this use without further input from the area property owners; he expressed concern about the access to the west being cut off by the railroad tracks and he noted that the space across the road has now been purchased by the school district and he asked if it is appropriate to have a shopping center with its increased traffic directly across from a school. Mr. McElroy concurred with Mr. Rennot about the lack of communication since the last hearing and he asked two questions: Is it the intention of the City to immediately annex this area and does low density between the commercial area and the balance of the neighborhoods mean 5 or 3 per acre? Mr. McElroy commented that the TDU process at best is confusing and he remembers that a 5 per-acre plan does not work in the TDU process. Mr. Hanson, son of parents who own part of this property, stated that his family feels their farm is well suited for a commercial center and noted that six other sites have been considered and he requested the Board to support this request. Mr. Johnston noted that when the residents of Willow Springs expressed their valid concerns about the density of this plan being adjacent to them, it was moved further to the south and now is adjacent to his property; he stated that if this plan is adopted, there needs to be definite acreage limitations and he asked "What is the hurry?"

Mr. Legg responded to the questions raised; he agreed that there is a lack of neighborhood parks in this area but he noted that the Fossil Creek Plan includes the concept of providing the level of service standard that the City of Fort Collins provides for neighborhood and community parks and so as this area develops, those facilities and services will come on board. Mr. Legg confirmed that the school district has purchased a grade school site to the east of this property and what those conflicts might or might not be is up to the school district. With regard to the access to the west, Mr. Legg stated that it is true you cannot cross the railroad tracks in this area, but this commercial center is being placed in this location to serve future populations of the Fossil Creek Area; he continued that the Fossil Creek Plan contemplates 5,000 new dwelling units in this area east of the tracks and those services are needed and there is a lot of development activity in this area now, and therein lies part of the urgency that City and County staff feel for getting this land use designation on a plan that both the City and the County support. Mr. Legg stated that the sooner this is clarified, the planning activities of surrounding developers and landowners can occur with the recognition that there is going to be or not be this type of neighborhood center and the longer we leave an area undesignated, the more it will be pre-empted and used for other development activities. With regard to annexation, Mr. Legg stated that the rules are that when one of these areas is proposed for development west of Timberline, the County's position is that they annex first to the City of Fort Collins and develop within the City; however, the annexation of those properties probably won't occur until some development proposal is underway on the properties.

With regard to the concerns raised about the appropriate process for considering these two land uses, Mr. Wray stated that over the past 2 ½ years in developing the City Plan, they have had lengthy community involvement in formulating the appropriate structure and vision for Fort Collins and beyond its boundaries. Mr. Frank explained why this location was chosen and reviewed the compromises which were made as a result of citizen comment. Much discussion followed.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendation and recommend approval to the Planning Commission of the proposed amendment to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan to include a plan designation for a Neighborhood Commercial Center and a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood in the area west of Timberline Road (County Road 11) and south of County Road 36 (extended) or Mail Creek Ditch.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

Mr. Legg noted that this recommendation of approval of the proposed amendment to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan will be heard by the Fort Collins City Council for their decision on February 2, 1999 and by the Larimer County Planning Commission on February 18, 1999.

2. POUDRE OVERLOOK INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT APPEAL

(#98-S1305): NW ¼ OF 04-07-69 - ON THE EAST SIDE OF OVERLAND

TRAIL, ¾ MILE NORTH OF VINE DRIVE, NORTH OF LIN MAR ACRES

SUBDIVISION; 40 ACRES; 94 LOTS; FA-FARMING ZONING

This is a request for an appeal to be allowed to develop a 40-acre parcel as a Subdivision rather than a Planned Unit Development, as required by the Intergovernmental Agreement between Larimer County and Fort Collins. Ms. Michels reminded everyone that the only matter being considered tonight by the Board is whether or not this development should proceed as a Planned Unit Development or as a Subdivision and other concerns will not be addressed; she described the location of the request and reviewed the history of the project. Ms. Michels noted that while preparing the Preliminary Plat application, staff incorrectly informed the applicant that he could apply for a subdivision rather than a PUD; however, during the review of the application, staff determined that only the Board of County Commissioners could waive the requirements of the IGA and, after further review of the proposal and the area, staff determined that a subdivision would not be the most appropriate development vehicle for this area. Ms. Michels described the difference between a PUD and subdivision in terms of what the development would look like; she noted that the primary impacts would be on the landscaping, zoning, density and open space and she described those differences. Ms. Michels stated that the biggest issue is open space, as under a subdivision no open space is required, but a PUD requires 30% open space, which for this proposal would be 12 acres. Ms. Michels noted that the developer has emphasized that the other developments in this area are not PUDs and believes this justifies allowing future development to proceed outside of the IGA and PUD requirements; however, she noted that mistakes of the past do not justify continuance of mistakes in the future. Ms. Michels stated that the City of Fort Collins did not provide written comments on this request, but she spoke with Bob Blanchard from the City and he indicated that the process used to create the development would not be as important as the final development and the City staff does encourage conformity with City Plan, but they cannot require that conformity because City Plan has not been adopted by the County; however, in recent weeks, she has received different verbal information from different City Planners telling her that it is imperative that this proposal be done as a PUD and in compliance with the terms of the IGA.

Staff findings are: 1) The Intergovernmental Agreement between Larimer County and Fort Collins requires development within the Urban Growth Area to be Planned Unit Developments and the proposed property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area; 2) The Planned Unit Development process allows a more thorough review of development proposals than the Subdivision Resolution; 3) The density of the area and of the proposal indicates that open space will be a necessary component of this proposal; 4) Use of the Planned Unit Development Resolution will allow the property to be densely developed with a lower zoning designation; 5) Use of the Planned Unit Development Resolution will allow the County to require landscaping in the development; 6) There is inadequate justification to waive the requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement for this proposal. The staff recommendation is for denial of the waiver from the requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement.

Questions from the Board and discussion followed; Commissioner Rennels asked if the surrounding subdivisions have required open space. Ms. Michels responded that any open space they have is just undeveloped land around them, such as this property.

Dave Shupe, Consulting Civil Engineer, stated that he and the applicant are not opposed to PUD's, per se, but he thinks that a blanket requirement regardless of land conditions or surrounding conditions is a bit extreme, particularly in light of the 30% of developable land required to be open space, which can sometimes be an onerous responsibility for the homeowners association to maintain. Mr. Shupe stated that this is a project that needs to be compatible with the development on its three sides; he noted that they have held nine separate meetings with residents of these subdivisions to find a common ground and one of their primary concerns was that there be a small neighborhood park in the area that is also available to them, and after consulting with both the County and City Parks people the applicant has agreed to provide the land and develop a public park, which would become part of a recreation district to which all the neighboring people would subscribe for its maintenance. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Shupe stated that they will provide a landscaping plan for the entire subdivision, even though it is not required. Mr. Shupe stated that with regard to spot zoning, the zone they chose was in order for them to be able to provide some lots that were relatively close to the size of the lots in the Stagecoach Subdivision; he noted that the proposed lots are all 8500 sq. ft. or greater and they only have about ten lots that are less than 10,000 sq. ft. and they could adjust that to a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum size, which would then put them in the R-1 zone. In conclusion, Mr. Shupe stated that he hopes that a compromise can be found that won't require that they provide 30% open space, which will require more care than a well developed neighborhood park, and will decrease the lot sizes adjacent to other subdivisions and make them less compatible. Mr. Shupe stated that they have agreed with the County Engineering staff to participate in the drainage basin study; he noted that they need to find a way to develop this property which is compatible with its three sides and economically viable for the property itself.

Commissioner Rennels asked Mr. Legg his opinion about the parks and the mechanism to form a recreation district; Mr. Legg stated that you have to have the cooperation of the homeowners in the area to form a recreation district and it would be the same as forming a special improvement district. Mr. Legg stated that he would like to examine this possibility with the County Attorney and he noted that they could approve a special improvement district and then the homeowners might not vote for it.

At this time the hearing was opened for public comment and the following adjacent homeowners addressed the Board: Elizabeth Miller, Mick Garret, Gary Pelton, Lori Rasmussen, Sue Radford, Jim Miller, Bruce Hartman, John Click, Sylvia Alred, Richard Mangus, Paul Hoffman, Josie Dargatz, Betty Mosley, Dave Dargatz, and Daryl Alred. They cited the following concerns: 1) What the applicant is proposing for a park is a detention pond; 2) This proposal is not in the best interests of the adjacent homeowners; 3) This proposal would result in fairly small lots and many adjacent neighbors have horses and there is a need for buffering; 4) They favor the PUD and the 30% requirement of open space and they recommended clustered housing to retain rural character; 5) It is important for the Board to keep in spirit with the IGA with the City of Fort Collins and it sets a bad precedent to do otherwise; 6) A mistake was made by what the Planning Staff first said, but the Board shouldn't follow up with another mistake; 7) Transportation circulation; 8) Six units per acre is not compatible; 9) Want to maintain rural flavor of the area and quality of life; 10) Etc. Questions from the Board and discussion followed.

In response to the concerns, Mr. Shupe responded that the 30% requirement of open space will result in smaller lots and higher density; he noted that most parks being built today incorporate some degree of detention capability and there is nothing wrong with a park for a dual purpose. Commissioner Rennels asked about detention and discharge ponds and their viability as a park; Mr. Legg responded that detention and drainage facilities are used in parks and if they have a neighborhood park, staff will bring up a minimum size they think is appropriate for a neighborhood for this population base and they will look for certain facilities to be there; i.e., softball diamonds, etc. Mr. Legg stated that the 30% open space in the PUD regulation is usually undeveloped open space and does not necessarily have park facilities; he noted that they will use common sense in working with the developer on a design and there are lots of advantages with a PUD.

Chair Olson stated that she admires what the applicant has done in trying to work with the neighbors for a park, but it is not his responsibility to make up for past mistakes of previous developers who did not provide a park. Chair Olson continued that it is the Board's responsibility to do good planning now and it is different in 1999 than it was in 1994 or 1978 and it is important to uphold the County's agreement with the City of Fort Collins. Commissioner Rennels stated she concurs that if the 30% open space is required, it will create higher density and it is not the applicants responsibility to provide parks or open space for the surrounding neighborhoods; she noted that she has a major concern with the drainage issue. Commissioner Rennels recommended that the applicant move forward with a PUD, and work with the Planning staff on a plan of less than the 30% maximum open space because this is an infill subdivision.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendation to deny the appeal of Poudre Overlook for a waiver from the requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1999

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#438 & #439)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager. Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present were: Dr. Adrienne LeBailly, Director Health Department; Jerry Blehm, Director Environmental Health; Rich Grossmann, Environmental Health; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner; Karen Wagner, Chair Environmental Advisory Board; Ann Watson, Supervisor Health Education; Donna Hart, Commissioner's Office Administrative Manager; Deni LaRue, Community Information Manager; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, Sherry Graves.

1. OPEN SESSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Warring, who lives east of I-25 off State Highway 14, discussed her concerns with the proposed truck routes; much discussion followed regarding funding and if the funding already designated for reconstruction of the I-25 and State Highway 14 Interchange will be affected if the proposed Vine interchange truck route goes through. The Board concurred with her concerns regarding the funding. Commissioner Disney stated that CDOT is now seriously starting to discuss "Super Slab" - a four lane toll road, with railroad and utility right of way, which would take off from I-25 around Wellington and bypass all the major metropolitan areas, including Denver, and come back into the I-25 corridor south of Pueblo.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEEK OF JANUARY 18, 1999:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for the week of January 18, 1999, as submitted.

Motion carried 3-0.

3. APPROVAL OF SCHEDULE FOR WEEK OF FEBRUARY 1, 1999:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule for the week of February 1, 1999, as submitted.

Motion carried 3-0.

4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following documents as listed on the Consent Agenda for Document Review on January 26, 1999:

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Human Services Check Warrant Register for December, 1999; Annual Certification of Larimer County Road Mileage to the Colorado Department of Transportation for 1998; Annual Review of Economic Development Policy for Larimer County; Approval of Procedures for the use of County Credit Cards and Provision of Cross Training and Training of New Personnel; Amended Plat of Lots 7 & 8 for Namaqua Hills 2nd Subdivision; Approval of Changes to the Larimer County Works Policy Manual; Approval of Larimer County Treasurer's Six Month Report; Appointment of Representative to the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority Board representing the City of Fort Collins; and Final Plat for Sierra Plaza Condominiums.

LIQUOR LICENSES: Approval was granted for renewal of liquor licenses for the following: Boyd Lake Marina, Inc. - 3.2% - Loveland, CO.; Burger Bay - 3.2% - Loveland, CO.; Total #2743 - 3.2% - Loveland, CO.; and Drink N Dawg - 6% - LaPorte, CO.

A99-07 AGREEMENT FOR SECURE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND

ANLANCE PROTECTION

A99-08 SYSTEM AND SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND COLORADO CUSTOMWARE, INC.

(Provision of Computer Software and Services for use by County Assessor)

A99-09 FORT COLLINS CAR REPAIR & CAR DONATION PROGRAM

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND SUMMERS AUTO REPAIR, INC.

A99-10 FORT COLLINS CAR REPAIR & CAR DONATION PROGRAM

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND HOUSKA AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, INC.

A99-11 LOVELAND CAR REPAIR & CAR DONATION PROGRAM

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND MIKE'S DOWNTOWN SERVICE, INC.

A99-12 LOVELAND CAR REPAIR & CAR DONATION PROGRAM

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND STAN'S AUTO SERVICE, INC.

A99-13 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND RICHARD A. MALEK, M.D.

(Provision of Professional Services to Mental Health Center Patients)

A99-14 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND NAMAQUA CENTER (Temporary Housing

Site for Loveland Mental Health Center)

R99-10s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MASTER PLAN,

PRELIMINARY PHAS PLAN AND 40 ACRE RULE VARIANCE OF

WILLOW RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

R99-11z REZONING FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE

PETITION OF WATERDALE

R99-12s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF

ACCESS EASEMENT IN LINDEN RIDGE SUBDIVISION, 1ST

FILING

R99-13s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT

AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN GLACIER VIEW

MEADOWS, 5TH FILING

R99-14s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT

TO COMBINE LOTS AND DENYING VACATION OF A 40' TRAIL

EASEMENT IN CRYSTAL LAKES, 11TH FILING, LOTS 48 & 49A

Motion carried 3-0.

5. REPORT ON 409 WEBB STREET - CONCLUSION OF FLOOD REMEDIATION: Mr. Blehm provided an update on the flood remediation at the 409 Webb Street residence; he noted that in the summer of 1998 the Board authorized legal action to facilitate remediation of the property and under the guidance of the Legal and Building Departments, the residence was tested and evidence showed that a potential health problem existed. Mr. Blehm stated that a company was hired to do the remediation and, under the supervision of Mr. Grossmann, it is now completed and the neighborhood is happy.

-- In response to a question from Commissioner Disney, Mr. Blehm provided an update on a chronic problem with a septic vault up the Big Thompson Canyon.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD SELF-ASSESSMENT: Mr. Ryan stated that the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) would like to host a future meeting or retreat with the EAB and the County Commissioners to discuss the future role of the EAB and develop an action plan to implement the recommendations made by the EAB; he noted that each of the 12-member citizen board was asked to consider the overall effectiveness of the Advisory Board and make recommendations of solutions for increasing effectiveness and these recommendations are outlined in the December 10, 1998 memo from Mr. Ryan to the Commissioners. Mr. Ryan stated that they identified some positive outcomes they think are real achievements of the EAB, identified some areas they thought needed improvement, and outlined a series of recommendations where the EAB might want to go. Mr. Ryan stated that their next meeting is next Tuesday and he wanted to discuss three matters with the Board how the retreat might be structured: 1) Agenda; 2) Who should attend; 3) Time and location. It was noted that the EAB will take the lead on the agenda; Ms. Wagner stated that the EAB members want to get back to the original intent of the EAB. There was discussion of the budget and funding for EAB and it was suggested that either Budget Manager Bob Keister, Frank Lancaster or Neil Gluckman attend the retreat to discuss the budget with the Management Team. It was noted that they would like to have the retreat on a Saturday and scheduled for 6 hours and Mr. Ryan will facilitate. Commissioner Disney suggested that another discussion item for the agenda might be what role the EAB could play in TDU's (Transferable Development Rights).

7. TOBACCO SETTLEMENT LEGISLATION: Ms. Watson submitted a report showing the amount to be paid to the State of Colorado from the Tobacco Settlement, which is $2,685,773.548.89 over twenty five years; the first year $33 million will be received. Ms. Watson stated that this is a mixed blessing with the Tabor restrictions; however, she noted that the suit was brought to recover damages and this is a damage award and not revenue and should be exempt from the Tabor restrictions. Ms. Watson stated that the Attorney General appointed a Task Force and Advisory Committee which came up with a report with recommendations on how to deal with the money; a summary of that report was submitted to the Board, along with a draft letter for the Board to sign to send to the local legislative group asking them to support the recommendations. Ms. Watson noted that the recommendations are that 10% of the money be put in an Endowment Fund and not touched for 25 years and allowed to collect interest to be used for tobacco and health problems after the settlement money goes away or to use the money and dedicate it for health. Ms. Watson explained that 55% is designated for health care, with 44% of that to go for children health, specifically the uninsured; 11% is recommended for public health for services and programs and infrastructure; 8% for research; and 27% for tobacco prevention. Ms. Watson stated that the recommendations were sent to the State Legislature and they have to adopt legislation in order to make it so. Chair Olson stated that in her opinion the draft letter submitted is too long and should be rewritten and not include everything that is in the report and she asked if the Board of Health has taken a position on this report; Dr. LeBailly responded that the report will be presented to them in February. Dr. LeBailly noted that CCI supports the report. Much discussion followed; Mr. Gluckman will work with Michelle of CCI, Dr. LeBailly, and the County Attorney and draft another letter to send to the State legislators.

-- Dr. LeBailly stated that another issue important to local health is Footnote 168 of the Long Bill, which was Footnote 151 last year; she noted that in 1997, a Task Force representing local agencies recommended a new funding formula of $2.50/capita for agencies serving populations more than 100,000; she noted that currently they receive $1.20/capita, which is 1 penny less per capita than they were receiving 12 years ago.

8. WORKSESSION:

-- Meeting on Economic Impact Model: Mr. Gluckman reported that he is going to have a meeting with the two professors that developed the regional Economic Impact Model, the Environmental Advisory Board, the Economic Development Board, and Ag Advisory Board and he asked if there is anyone or group that should also be invited. The Board recommended that the members of the Planning Commission should be invited; it was noted that meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. on March 2, 1999 in the Commissioners Hearing Room.

-- Agenda for Legislative Review Committee: Mr. Gluckman submitted the agenda for the Legislative Review Committee meeting this Thursday, January 28, 1999 for the Board to review.

-- Administrative Matters on February 2, 1999: Mr. Gluckman noted that next Tuesday during Administrative Matters, there will be 20 students from Webber Jr. High School attending the meeting as part of a national program called "Shadow Day" to learn more about government; he noted they are going to ask everyone attending the meeting, including the media, to talk about why they are here and why they chose their particular career.

-- Animal Task Force: Mr. Lancaster reported that 40 applications have been received for the Animal Task Force and he requested direction from the Board whether or not they wish to interview all 40 applicants; Commissioner Disney suggested the Board have a worksession to go through the applications, following the guidelines set forth for representation on the Task Force.

-- Invitations: Ms. Hart reviewed the pending invitations with the Board.

9. COMMISSIONER REPORTS:

-- Commissioner Disney reported he attended the Loveland Chamber of Transportation meeting recently and they are working with CDOT for improvements to the State Highway 402 corridor to I-25 and they are concerned that the County doesn't approve some land use adjacent to SH 402 in the interim. Commissioner Disney asked his colleagues if they have any objection to the County's Transportation Plan being modified to declare SH 402 an arterial in the County's Transportation Plan which would require 160 ft. right-of-way instead ofd 100 ft. right-of-way. The Board concurred with the request.

At this time, County Attorney George Hass joined the meeting for Legal Matters.

10. LEGAL MATTERS:

-- Mr. Hass requested Board approval of an agreement with the consultant for editing services for the Land Use Code.


M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve an agreement between the Board and consultant for editing services for the Land-Use Code, and authorize the Chair to sign same.

Motion carried 3-0.

A99-15 AGREEMENT FOR EDITING SERVICES BETWEEN THE BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND STEVE PORTER

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 11:05 a.m. to discuss pending litigation.

Motion carried 3-0.

The Executive Session ended at 12:00 noon; no action taken.


___________________________________________

CHERYL OLSON, CHAIR LARIMER COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

MYRNA J. RODENBERGER

LARIMER COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER

( S E A L )

ATTEST:

____________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk

____________________________________

Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk












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