Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Monday, September 18, 2000

LAND USE MEETING

(#653)

The Board of County Commissioners met with Larry Timm, Director of Planning at 3:00 p.m.; Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present were Sean Wheeler, Planner II; Russ Legg, Chief Planner; Steve Ryder, TDU Administrator; Jim Reidhead, Director of the Rural Land Use Center; Steve Stamey, Estes Park Director of Planning; Mark Peterson, County Engineer; Al Kadera, Planner II; Rex Burns, Project Engineer; Sylvester Mabry, Civil Engineer; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk: Jean O'Connor.

Chair Olson noted that item 1 has been removed from the agenda at the request of the Estes Park Planning staff, and that staff is requesting that item 2 be tabled until October 2, 2000 at 3:00 p.m..

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners table Letitia Lake Subdivision Access Easement Vacation #00-S1623 to October 2, 2000 at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

Ms. Judyann Jackson-Rodgers, the applicant, stated that she had not been notified of the request to table her application, had taken off work and driven down from Red Feather Lakes, and that the actions of staff are inappropriate.

Mr. Wheeler stated that the applicant was mailed a copy of the published agenda, which states the request is being made to table the item and that he left phone messages this date notifying the applicant of this action.

Chair Olson stated the consent item #3 has also been removed from the agenda by staff and will not be discussed today.

4. MARTHA'S FARM PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN: 33-05-68; GENERALLY LOCATED 2 1/2 MILES WEST OF INTERSTATE 25 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 60.

This is a request for Preliminary approval to divide 70 acres into three single-family home sites and one farmstead accessory dwelling on 15 acres and 55 acres of private residual land protected from further development by a 40-year covenant. Staff findings are that this proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.8-Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code and staff supports the Martha's Farm Preliminary Rural Land Plan based on 1) The applicant's planning and design rationale for the project, which is consistent with the RLUP; 2) The conservation values of the residual land, including preservation of existing agricultural use of majority of land; 3) Careful location of residences to have minimal impact on ag potential; and 4) The plan is generally compatible with the existing neighboring land uses.

Support for this proposed plan takes into consideration the various other land development and design options, particularly the 35-acre alternative, for which there is no County review. The greater number of residential units possible under the current FA-Farming zoning of the property and the general development pressure within the immediate area for use-by-right 35-acre division of land supports our belief that this is an appropriate project.

The site-based incentive (1 density bonus unit) is allowed under the RLUP's Administrative Process.

As proposed, this project will also provide commensurate long-term benefits to citizens of Larimer County. Those benefits are summarized below:

    • Minimum of 40-year protective covenant
    • Consistent with newly-adopted Loveland Land Use Plan
    • Preservation of existing ag operation
    • Homeowners association protective covenants with architectural controls
    • Transportation capital expansion fees received from the project
    • School and park fees received from the project
    • Fewer residences than likely allowed through subdivision process
    • Ability to influence design of project, as compared to use-by-right division of property into 35-acre parcels.

Staff recommendation is approval of Martha's Farm Preliminary Rural Land Plan. The following contingencies must be met prior to approval of final plat by the Board of County Commissioners 1. Internal road design and other engineering requirements, including utilities, roads, right-of-way dedication, storm water plan, and erosion control plan, shall meet minimum design standards set forth in Appendix G of the Larimer County Road Manual. Design shall be prepared and stamped by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado with review and approval by County Engineering Department; 2. Access permits off of State Highway 60 shall be obtained from Colorado Department of Transportation; 3. Public water shall be provided for this project. A letter of commitment from the Little Thompson Water District must be provided prior to final plat approval. This letter of commitment must specifically state that the water distribution system is (or will be) designed to meet the normal and minimum pressure design standards contained in Section 8.1.2.A.1 of the Land Use Code or more stringent standards as required by the District. If the water system will be designed to provide fire protection, the letter of commitment also must address the pressure and delivery standards outlined in Section 8.1.4 of the Land Use Code; 4. The residual land protective covenant and management plan must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval; 5. Homeowners' association covenants, including architectural controls, and provisions for internal road maintenance, must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval; 6. The final development agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval; 7. Loveland Fire Protection Bureau's Minimum Fire Protection Standard with Fire Sprinkler Systems or Minimum Fire Protection Standard without Fire Sprinkler Systems shall be complied with; 8. Building envelopes will not, in any way, impact the historic irrigation drainage flows; Building envelope on Lot 2 must be setback a minimum of 200 feet from the oil well and storage tank located on the property; 9. All new utilities will be placed underground; 10. The following must be listed as a note on the final plat and on a disclosure statement, approved by the County Attorney, available to lot buyers through the public records at the time of purchase: a) Automatic fire protection sprinklers are required for all new residential structures or written permission for variance from this requirement from the fire district; (this note to be listed only if applicant chooses the minimum fire protection standards with fire sprinkler systems); b) Prior to footing and foundation permits, there shall be a certificate by a surveyor confirming that the construction is within the building envelope designated on the final plat; c) 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; d) The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single-family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Park Fee (in lieu of dedication), Drainage fees, Loveland Drainage Basin fees (if applicable), and Rural Land Use Process fees. The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply; e) At time of real estate closing, owner shall provide purchasers of residential lots and residual lands with the Code of the West, a County document which addresses differences between urban and rural living in Larimer County; f) The owners of the residual land parcel shall be responsible for providing an annual monitoring report for the residual land to Larimer County Rural Land Use Center; g) 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; h) 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; i) 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; j) 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; k) 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; l) Aerial spraying occurs in the area.

Mr. Reidhead stated that this application was reviewed administratively, which does not require a neighborhood meeting but does require a public hearing. Chair Olson asked Mr. Reidhead to address the water rights issue raised in a letter from Ms. Scheck and Mr. Reidhead replied that the applicant would sell one water share with the residual land for irrigation purposes.

Mr. Yelek, the applicant, stated that the majority of water will be sold and that he will retain the right to lease the water back.

Commissioner Disney referred to a comment in Ms. Scheck's letter regarding the land becoming a dry desert setting without water and asked if the management plan would be addressing this issue; Mr. Yelek replied in the affirmative and that sub-irrigation would support the planting of alfalfa.

At this time the hearing was opened to public comment and Mr. Ludwick, an adjacent property owner, stated that historic drainage is toward his property and the silt blocks proper drainage. Mr. Ludwick also expressed concern over the land becoming a weed patch due to the lack of water. Mr. Ludwick disagrees with the administrative review process; which does not require a neighborhood meeting and suggested a management plan be approved prior to preliminary review.

Mr. Reidhead stated that a management plan, final plat and land development agreement have never been required prior to preliminary approval; however, monitoring of the management plan is required after final approval.

Commissioner Rennels stated that the surrounding area is in transition due to the approval of several Rural Land Plans and noted this application is an improvement over allowing development at the maximum density allowed. Commissioner Disney concurred.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Martha's Farm Preliminary Rural Land Plan #00-S1622 as presented and outlined above.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

5. RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE

This is a request to modify the Estes Valley Development Code to (1) amend the definition of Lot of Record; and (2) to add the definitions for Junk Vehicle and Junk Yard to make it consistent with the adopted definitions in the Larimer County Land Use Code. Staff recommendation is to approve the modification of the Lot of Record definition, and addition of the Junk Vehicle and junkyard definitions.

Mr. Stamey stated that the changes are of the "housekeeping" type and will provide consistency with the Town of Estes Park definitions.

Chair Olson noted for the record that there is no public present to comment on this item.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the changes to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented and outlined above.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

6. A. AMENDMENT TO THE LARIMER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN and B. FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION MAP AMENDMENT

Staff requests adoption of an Amendment to the Larimer County Transportation Plan to reflect changes and corrections in functional road classification and related aspects of the Transportation Plan report itself. Some of the changes to the Transportation Plan also represent removal of road segments from the County inventory as a result of municipal annexations by Fort Collins, Windsor, Berthoud or Loveland. Additionally, staff requests the Functional Road Classification map be adopted as the Larimer County Functional Road Classification Map, which is part of the Technical Supplement to the Land Use Code. Among other things, functional road classification is used to establish setbacks from county roads in section 8.9.4 of the Land Use Code. It also helps define access spacing and right-of-way requirements associated with new development and engineering design properties related to road improvements.

Staff recommendation is for the following changes to the Transportation Plan:

  1. Elimination of the reference to "Minor Arterials" in the roadway classifications and throughout the main body of the report. Instead, all such references to Minor Arterials would be replaced with the term "Arterial" for such road types. This is consistent with the terminology adopted in the Land Use Code.
  2. Revisions to Appendix 2 - Larimer County Major Street Inventory as presented in the originally adopted Master Plan to reflect:
  • deletion of road segments annexed by municipalities from the County system
  • addition of some road segments that were correctly shown on the report figures (e.g. Figure 11A), however these major road segments (i.e. collectors or arterials) were inadvertently excluded from the tabulation in Appendix 2 and
  • modification of the functional classifications of some road segments to be more consistent with the functional classifications of adjoining municipal streets. To make the tabulation in Appendix more usable, we have rearranged it to be sorted according to County Road number rather than by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) area as was provided in the Consultant's original report.
  1. The following changes are recommended to the Future Roadway Plan provided in Figure 11A of the Master Plan. The vast majority of the changes being recommended to this figure make it consistent with functional classifications of road segments that were previously defined by Board resolution in 1981. The following tabulations describe the different changes and the reference numbers correspond to the attached diagram.
  2. The following corrections to Figure 11A and the proposed Functional Road Classification Map make the classifications consistent with previously adopted (1981) classification of the County road system.

    Map Reference No.

    County Road No. and Location

    C

    CR 31 extending south from CR 8E should be a Local Road. It was shown in Figure 11A as a Minor Collector.

    D

    CR 13 between CR 14 and CR 16 should be a Minor Collector. It was not shown on Figure 11A.

    E

    CR 13C north of CR 16E should be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road.

    G

    CR 24E east of CR 9 should be changed from a Local Road to a Minor Collector.

    H

    CR 901 between Highway 34 and CR 26 should be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road. This road segment was not clearly shown on the map.

    I

    CR 30 between CR 13 and CR 11C should be shown as a Minor Collector. It was not shown in Figure 11A.

    J

    CR 38E from Foothills Drive to the intersection with CR 23 should be changed from a Minor Collector to a Major Collector.

    M

    CR 42C from CR 21 (Overland Trail) west to Hughes Stadium should be a Major Collector rather than a Minor Collector

    N

    CR 901 extending from Timnath Reservoir north to CR 56 should be a Minor Collector

    O

    CR 48 from CR 5 to CR 901 (County Line) should be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road. It was tabulated in Appendix 2 as a Minor Collector but not shown in Figure 11A as such.

    P

    CR 11 from CR 50 north to CR 54 is not shown in Figure 11A and should be a Major Collector

    Q

    CR 52 west of CR 9 should be shown as a Major Collector. It was probably assumed to be contained within the City of Fort Collins and so it wasn't shown in Figure 11A.

    R

    CR 50E between CR 21C and 23 should be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road.

    T

    CR 52E west of CR 54G should be shown as a Minor Collector. It was shown as a Local Road on Figure 11A.

    U

    The short segment of CR 54E between CR 54G (old US 287) and CR 25E needs to be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road. It was formerly a section of State Highway.

    V

    CR 21C north of CR 54G to Highway 287 should be a Minor Collector rather than a Major Collector.

    W

    CR 19 from CR 54G to Highway 287 should be a Minor Collector rather than a Major Collector

    X

    CR 64 between I-25 and CR 3 should be a Major Collector rather than a Minor Collector.

    Y

    CR 70 between CR 7 and I-25 should be a Major Collector rather than a Minor Collector.

    The following changes to Figure 11A and the proposed Functional Road Classification Map represent a change in classification from a Local road to a major county road:

    Map Reference No.

    County Road No. and Location

    A

    CR 2E between US 287 and CR 17 should be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road. This segment provides a connection between CR 17 and US 287

    B

    CR 17 extending north from CR 2E to CR 4E should also be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road. This section ties to a section of CR 17 north of CR 4E that is already classified as a Minor Collector.

    K

    CR 9 south of CR 36 to Fossil Lake should be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road to be consistent with the adjacent City of Fort Collins road classification

    L

    CR 7 south of CR 36 should be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road to be consistent with the adjacent City of Fort Collins road classification

    F

    CR 18E west of CR 13C should be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road.

    S

    CR 52C (Gregory Road) between Highway 1and CR 50E (Country Club Road) should be a Minor Collector rather than a Local Road. This road is carrying fairly significant traffic (1400 to 1500 vehicles per day). As a point of information, the City of Fort Collins has classified this segment as an Arterial in their plan.

  3. The elimination of some road segments from the tabulation in Appendix 2 to reflect municipal annexations changes the cost tabulation. As a result, changes to Appendix 2 have then been carried to the text of the report, the transportation improvement summary cost tabulations in Appendix 1 and Figure 11A to reflect the changes in Future (2020) road improvement needs. Proposed changes to the main body of the report are highlighted in red on the attached pages.

Functional Road Classification Map

The Larimer County Functional Road Classification Map is recommended for adoption as part of the Technical Supplement to the Land Use Code. It is based on the revised Future (year 2020) Roadway Plan that incorporates the changes recommended above.

Mr. Peterson stated that the proposed changes are of the "housekeeping" type.

Chair Olson noted that there is no public present to comment on this item.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Transportation Plan Amendment #00-CA0013 as outlined above.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve

the Functional Road Classification Map Amendment #00-CA0013 as outlined above.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

7. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS

This is a request to make a number of changes to the adopted Land Use Code. Staff recommendation is:

1. Subsection 4.3.10.D, Storage Buildings, Barns and Garages, Page 4-78. The issue of building a storage building, that is accessory to a residential use, before the single-family dwelling is in place was discussed at great length by the Steering Committee. The Code requires that the building permit for a residential use must be issued within two years of the date that a permit is issued for the accessory building. This has caused some problems in areas like Crystal Lakes and Glacier View Meadows where the homeowners association has allowed the permanent placement of accessory storage buildings without a single family dwelling on the lot. These communities have the option of petitioning the Board of Adjustment for a variance to allow a longer time frame for building the house. We propose amending the Code to allow the Planning Director to grant an extension of

an additional two years if certain criteria are met.

Amend Subsection 4.3.10.D by adding, "The Planning Director may grant, in writing, an additional two years to acquire the building permit for the principal building. The Planning Director may consider the following criteria and any other relevant information in granting such an extension.
A. There are circumstances beyond the control of the property owner that delayed the acquisition of the building permit for the principal building.
B. There have been no objections to the placement of the accessory building by the neighboring property owners.
The decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment."

2. Subsection 4.3.4.N, School, Non-Public, Page 4-71. During the Code adoption hearings we had a lot of discussion about special review requirements for schools. All public schools fall under the Location and Extent Review process. Non-public schools for more than eight unrelated pupils were intended to be under Special Review. The special review requirement is not clear in the use description for a Non-public School.

Amend Subsection 4.3.4.N to read, "School, Non-Public. Any private or parochial school or any school operated as a commercial enterprise that provides education to more than 8 unrelated pupils of compulsory school age. All Non-Public Schools require approval through the Special Review Process."

3. Subsection 4.3.1.C, Tree Farm, Page 4-64. During the Code adoption hearings we discussed the special review requirement for clear cutting more than 40 acres in any 12-month period. It seems that to qualify for an agricultural classification on a parcel there must be a management plan approved by the Colorado State Forest Service . We could allow clear cutting on properties that have such a plan and require Special Review approval for those that do not.

Amend Subsection 4.3.1.C to read, "Tree Farm. Any parcel of land used to raise and harvest trees for wood products such as lumber, posts and poles, fuel wood and Christmas trees, where forest products are sold on site or transported to market and such parcel is included in a forest management plan approved by the Colorado State Forest Service or other state certified Forestry Consultants. Clear cutting of more than 40 acres on a parcel in any 12 month period requires approval through the Special Review Process unless such clear cutting is specifically in conformance with the Forest Management Plan approved by the Colorado State Forest Service or other state certified Forestry Consultants for the parcel being clear cut."

The same change would also occur in the Definitions Section.

4. Subsection 4.4, Amending the Official Zoning Map, Page 4-82. This subsection is not consistent with Subsection 8.1, Adequate Public Facilities. The process for rezoning does not require compliance with the Adequate Public Facilities requirements but the applicability statement in Subsection 8.1.B indicates that Adequate Public Facilities apply to rezonings. We recommend deleting "Rezoning" from Subsection 8.1.B. After a rezoning is approved the Adequate Public Facilities requirements will be applied through the Land Division or Site Plan Review Processes.

Amend Subsection 8.1.B to read, "Applicability. Adequate public facilities requirements apply to all applications for Conservation Development, Planned Development, Subdivision, Special Review, Site Plan Review and Special Exception submitted under this Code".

5. Subsection 4.3.10.F, Guest Quarters, Page 4-79. Questions have been raised concerning finished area in basements being used to calculate the area of Guest Quarters and whether an unfinished basement can be finished to accommodate Guest Quarters. The Code currently does not allow any basement area, finished or not, to be used in the area calculation for Guest Quarters. The Planning Director has issued an interpretation which says that no basement area, finished or not, can be used in calculating the area of Guest Quarters. We believe the Code should be amended to make this concept clear. The Code is currently silent on the issue of placing Guest Quarters in a basement. We should allow basement area to be used for Guest Quarters as long as it meets the maximum 40% requirement. We should also include a definition of "Basement" in the Code to make it clear what area is included or not.

Amend Subsection 4.3.10.F.3 to read, "The size of a guest quarters must not exceed 40% of the total square footage of the single family dwelling , excluding any basement or garage area, whether finished or not."

Amend Subsection 4.3.10.F.2 to read, "An addition to an existing single family dwelling to accommodate guest quarters must be architecturally compatible with the existing structure and must be connected by an enclosed passageway. Guest quarters may be placed in a basement area.

Add a definition, "Basement. Any floor of a building that has at least half of its exterior wall area at or below the average finished grade around the building."

6. Subsection 4.2.2.D FW-Floodway District, Page 4-43. Subsection 1, Principal Uses should be amended as follows:
a. Agricultural uses, excluding buildings, if allowed by underlying zoning (R).
c. Residential accessory uses of less than 200 square feet, if allowed by the underlying zoning (R). Words in italics should be added to existing Code.

7. Subsection 4.2.2.F.2.b. Page 4-46. The reference to Subsection 4 should be Subsection 3.

8. Subsection 4.2.2.F.3, Page 4-48. Engineering has recommended adding Subsection (c) to read, "The applicant must submit a hydraulic analysis showing the boundaries of the floodway based on a 0.5 foot rise and that any fill placed on the site is not placed within the boundaries of the floodway."

9. Subsection 4.2.2.M Definitions, Page 4-55. Amend the definition of Flood Hazard Area to read, "The area delineated as Zone A, Zone AH, Zone AO and Zones A1 to A30 in those detailed studies which do not have a regulatory Floodway defined. Also including areas determined to be subject to 100 year flood hazard on adopted Larimer County drainage master plans."

10. Subsection 4.2.2.H Flood Plain Review Board. Page 4-50. This amendment was not included in the work session with the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners but the Engineering Department asked that it be included.

The powers of the Flood Plain Review Board do not include the granting of variances to expand a building or a use that is non-conforming because it is in a flood plain. This function is granted to the Board of Adjustment with the Flood Plain Review Board acting in an advisory capacity. The problem with this arrangement is that an applicant must first appear before the Flood Plain Review Board and then take their recommendation to the Board of Adjustment. It is unlikely that the Board of Adjustment would make a decision that is contrary to the Flood Plain Review Board's recommendation so we just add time and expense to the process. If we want to make this change there are a number of places in the Code that must be amended.

Amend Subsection 4.2.2.H.2.d to read, "To grant variances to allow the expansion of structures and uses that are non-conforming with respect to the requirements of the Flood Plain sections of this Code."

Amend Subsection 4.8.11, Decisions and Appeals to read, "B. All decisions of the Planning Director concerning Subsection 4.8 of the Code may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment as described in Section 22 (Appeals), except decisions concerning the extension or expansion of a non-conforming use or structure in a flood plain may be appealed to the Flood Plain Review Board."

Amend Subsection 12.2.10, Flood Plain Review Board to read, "This Board has the authority to review and determine the exact location of a zoning district boundary of the FW, FF and FH districts as they relate to any specific piece of property; review and make recommendations regarding Flood Plain Special Review applications; grant variances from the terms and conditions of the Flood Plain sections of this Code; review and grant variances to expand a non-conforming use or non-conforming structure in a flood plain;..."

11. Subsection 4.2.3, Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Transferable Density Units Overlay Zone. Page 4-56. A number of changes are proposed in this subsection. The changes remove references to exhibits, remove the date for changing the number of dwelling units allowed for each TDU, add an affordable housing exemption and change the calculation for fee-in-lieu of TDU transfer.

Amend 4.2.3.C.2, Authority and Applicability to read, "This Section applies to lands within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Plan Area described by map and description in the Technical Supplement to this Code."
Amend 4.2.3.E Receiving Area Designation and Establishment of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area TDU Zone as follows:

"2. The Fossil Creek TDU Zone is a designated Receiving Area and is depicted on the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and in the Technical Supplement to this Code.

3. There are two sub-areas within the Fossil Creek TDU Zone called the Estate Residential and the Mixed-Use Neighborhood Area. These sub-areas are depicted in the Technical Supplement to this Code."

Amend 4.2.3.F Regulations for the Fossil Creek Receiving Area as follows:

"3. For each single TDU transferred to a Receiving Parcel, one and one-half (1.5) dwelling units are allowed."

Amend 4.2.3.F by adding:

"10. Dwelling units in the Receiving Area that meet the County's definition of 'Affordable Housing' are exempt from the TDU transfer requirement."

Amend 4.2.3.G Voluntary Fee-in-Lieu-of-TDU Transfer as follows:

"2. The fee-in-lieu amount is based on the value paid by the County or other public entities for the purchase of conservation easements or similar open space covenants involving less than a fee interest in the Sending Area. The fee is calculated by determining a per-acre price for the similar open space interest, multiplied by two (2), multiplied by seventy-five (75) percent and again multiplied by the number of TDU's for which the fee-in-lieu is paid."

Amend 4.2.3.I.1 to read, "Sending Areas are shown by map and description in the Technical Supplement to this Code. Sending Areas are not overlay zones and do not affect any development potential under existing County regulations."

12. Subsection 4.1.21.B AP-Airport Lot, Building and Structure Requirements, Page 4-29. The old Zoning Resolution required Special Review approval for any land division resulting in lots of less than 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) in the AP-airport Zoning District. We tried to incorporate this requirement in the Land Use Code but we think a General Development Plan is a better process for determining the density.

Amend 4.1.21.B.1.b to read, "15,000 square feet (0.34 acre) for any single family dwelling lot approved through a General Development Plan (See Subsection 5.13.3). Public water and sewer are required for any lot of less than 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres)."

Amend Subsection 12.2.6.A by adding "A General Development Plan is required for all land divisions for residential uses in the AP-Airport Zoning District which result in lots of less than 100,000 square feet."

13. Subsection 6.2.A, Site Plan Review. Page 6-1. This concept was the subject of an interpretation rendered by the Planning Director and is intended to further explain when a separate Site Plan Review application is not required. Subsection 6.2.A.1 should be amended to read, "Prior to the acceptance of any building permit application for a building or structure to be occupied by a multiple family or non-residential use unless the building or structure is being built under a development plan having the same or very similar detail as required by Site Plan Review and the development plan was approved by the Board of Adjustment or the County Commissioners. Buildings or structures that are accessory to a permitted agricultural use do not require Site Plan Review."

Subsection 6.2.A.3 should be amended to read, "Prior to development of property for a non-residential use that does not require a building permit, such as, but not limited to, parking lots, storage yards, junk yards and flea markets. The term development excludes normal agricultural practices." This addition is intended to make it clear that certain development activities, other than buildings, require Site Plan Review.

14. Subsection 5.2.2, Planned Development, Applicability. Page 5-2. There are circumstances in the Growth Management Areas where a Minor Land Division would be appropriate but the Code only allows Planned Developments in the Growth Management Areas. Add, "except those parcels that meet the review criteria for a Minor Land Division."

15. Subsection 5.3, Conservation Development. Page 5-3. This section of the Code is not clear concerning the calculation of the amount of developed land when there are building sites located in the Residual Land. For instance, a large parcel of Residual Land can be divided into 35-acre lots. The dwelling units count as part of the total allowed density so the building site and the leach field should be included in the developed area. The Code requires a minimum lot size of two acres for lots that utilize a well or septic system, therefore for each building site located in the Residual Land, two acres would be counted as developed area. For those lots on public water and sewer, the amount of land counted as developed area would be based on the building envelope designated on the final plat.

Amend Subsection 5.3.6.B.1.f to read, "Residual land may be divided into 35-acre or larger parcels. The number of such parcels created in a Conservation Development counts against the total number of dwelling units allowed by the current zoning and the area contained within the building envelope on each of these parcels counts against the total developed area and not as residual land. Design..."

16. Subsection 8.9.2, Site Lighting. Page 8-62. The Site Lighting standards as written apply only to non-residential land uses. We have occasions where exterior lighting at a residence adversely affects the neighbors.

In Subsection 8.9.2.B add. "Any light used to illuminate signs, parking areas or for any other purposes must be arranged to reflect light away from residential properties and away from the vision of passing motorists."

17. Subsection 8.0, Standards for All Development. Page 8.1. These standards are included in the review criteria for most development review processes. The Code is not clear concerning when, in the review process, the applicant must demonstrate compliance. For this discussion we should note that the vesting of a development now occurs at final plat for land divisions but state statute indicates that the Board cannot approve a "preliminary plan or a final plat" (30-28-133, CRS) unless the applicant demonstrates an adequate water supply and an acceptable method of sewage disposal. At what stage of the development review process should we require compliance with Section 8.0 Standards for all Development? Staff believes that compliance should be demonstrated at the Planning Commission hearing on the preliminary plat for land divisions and at the Planning Commission hearing on Special Review applications.

Add Subsection 8.0.D to read, "The applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable Standards for All Development at the Planning Commission hearing on any Preliminary Plat or Special Review, at the Board of Adjustment hearing on any Special Exception and at the time of application for Site Plan Review."

18. Subsection 8.9.9.A, Maximum Structure Height, Exceptions. Page 8-66. The Code specifies several exceptions to the height restrictions. The Planning Director issued an interpretation that includes architectural features similar to those listed. The Code should be amended to be consistent with the interpretation.

Amend Subsection 8.9.9, Maximum Structure Height to read, "A. Exceptions. The maximum height limitations do not apply to church spires, belfries, cupolas and other similar design or architectural features or other appurtenances that are usually installed above roof level."

19. Section 9, Land Dedications, Fees-in-lieu of Dedications, Facility Fees and Capital Expansion Fees. Page 9-1. The Land Use Code and previous County land use regulations have not been very specific with regard to requirements for road right of way dedications. The Functional Road Classification resolution and the Road Manual indicate minimum dedicated right of way requirements for various classes of roadways but there is no regulatory language that actually requires dedication. Staff proposes adding a subsection to Section 9 that will require dedication whenever there is a development proposal that will impact a county road or state highway. Dedication requirements will be based on the functional classification of the county road or on recommendations of the Colorado Department of Transportation for state highways.

Add a new Subsection 9.7, Right of Way Dedications
9.7.1 Purpose. The purpose of right of way dedications is to provide adequate roadways for safe and convenient access to all development.

9.7.2 Applicability. Right of Way dedications apply to all applications for Conservation Development, Subdivision, Planned Development, Minor Land Division, Special Review, Site Plan Review and Special Exception submitted under this Code.

9.7.3 Dedications Required. Sufficient right of way for all county roads must be dedicated by the property owner(s) for each development proposal to meet the minimum right of way standards cited in the Larimer County Road Manual. Sufficient right of way for all state and federal highways must be dedicated by the property owner(s) for each development proposal consistent with the recommendations of the Colorado Department of Transportation.

9.7.4 Dedication Process. Right of way dedications for all Conservation Developments, Subdivisions, Planned Developments and Minor Land Divisions must appear on the final plat prior to recording. Right of way dedications for Special Reviews, Site Plan Reviews and Special Exceptions must be accomplished by a properly executed Deed of Dedication at the time of final approval. The wording for Dedication Statements is included in the Technical Supplement to the Code.

9.7.5 Dedication for a Land Division. All road rights of way in Conservation Developments, Subdivisions, Planned Developments and Minor Land Divisions must be dedicated for public use. Internal land division roads may be private if specifically approved by the County Commissioners and noted in the Development Agreement for the project.

20. Technical Supplement. There are a number of additions to the Technical Supplement that should be made at this time.

A. Larimer County Functional Road Classification Map. This document is connected to the setback requirements in Subsection 8.9 and is referred to in the Code. There is also a minor amendment that needs to be made. One section of a County road is mislabeled on the map that was adopted with the Transportation Master Plan.

B. Water Reservoir List. Subsection 8.12.6, Water Quality Adjacent to Drinking Water Reservoirs. The Code provides that water quality in drinking water reservoirs must be protected. The Health Department compiled a list of current drinking water reservoirs in Larimer County. The list should be added to the Technical Supplement and the reference should be added to Subsection 8.12.6.

C. There are maps related to the AP-Airport Zoning District that define noise contour areas and critical areas around the airport. The maps referenced in the Technical Supplement are the original maps that were used to create the AP-Airport Zoning District. Since there is a new airport master plan that includes information about the expanded runway, the new maps based on the new information should be included in the Technical Supplement.

D. There are appendices to the Growth Management Area Agreements that are referenced in Subsection 4.2.1, Growth Management Area Overlay Zones. These appendices should be compiled into one document and included in the Technical Supplement so they are readily available.

21. Subsection 22.4.1, Appeals from Decisions of the Flood Plain Review Board, Applicability. Page 22-3. The Engineering Department suggested that we add the words, "or structures" after non-conforming uses. This makes it clear that the provisions of the non-conformity section of the Code apply to both uses and structures.

22. Subsection 12.2.6, General Development Plan. Page 12-5. General Development Plans are specific to the Land Division Process. There is a description of General Development Plans in Subsection 5.13.3 and we can amend 12.2.6 to make it more apparent that GDP's only apply to the Land Division Process.

Amend Subsection 12.2.6.A to read, "A General Development Plan is an intermediate step in the Land Division process. It is required for all Land Divisions that will be completed in more than one phase and is optional for single phase projects. A General Development Plan may be combined with the Preliminary Plat application for the first phase. See Subsection 5.13.3 of the Code."

Amend Subsection 12.2.6.B to read, "General Development Plans are reviewed at public hearings by the Planning Commission or Growth Management Area Review Board and the County Commissioners."

23. Subsection 12.7.B, Vested Rights, Applicability. Page 12-15. This subsection makes reference to Rural Land Use Plans. Amend Subsection 12.7.B to say "Rural Land Plans."

24. Subsection 16.1.2.E Commercial Mobile Radio Service Facilities, Radial Spacing. Page 16-3. The radial spacing section requires special review whenever a proposed antenna tower is less than 1,000 feet from another antenna tower that is over 40 feet high even if the existing antenna tower is not capable of supporting additional CMRS facilities.

Reword Subsection 16.1.2.E to read, "Antenna towers over 40 feet high must be located at least 1,000 feet from other antenna towers over 40 feet high that are capable of supporting CMRS facilities. Closer spacing may be granted through the Special Review process..."

Subsection 16.1.5, Application Review. Page 16-7. Administrative Review of certain cell tower applications is supposed to be completed within 21 days or the application is automatically approved. Our referral agencies are allowed 21 days to review applications and write their recommendations. That does not leave any time for processing the application. Staff recommends changing the review time to 45 days to ensure that our referral agencies get sufficient time to review applications.

Amend Subsection 16.1.5.A., Administrative Review, to read, "Applications for proposed CMRS facilities requiring administrative review must comply with Subsection 16.1.2 (Where Permitted) and Subsection 16.1.3 (Requirements and Performance Standards). The Planning Director will make a decision to approve or deny within 45 days of submittal or the application is deemed approved. If a..."

25. Subsection 4.2.1.D, Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District, The GMA Zone, Annexation Criteria. Page 4-39. The Code requires annexation of property that is eligible for annexation and is located in a Growth Management Area. The County cannot accept an application to develop such property. Staff has been working with the City staff on wording for a new Subsection 4.2.1.D.1.c that would allow development review of such property in a TDU Receiving Area if there is a concurrent petition to annex the site and that an annexation petition cannot be withdrawn after the final plat is approved. This will allow property in a TDU receiving area to proceed through the County development review process prior to annexation but the site will be ready to annex immediately upon County approval and execution of the TDU requirement.

Add a new Subsection 4.2.1.D.1.c to read, "The County may accept a development application as defined in Subsection 4.2.1.B, except Special Reviews for uses that generate 45 or more vehicle trips per day, for lands, located within any area that is part of a "receiving area" established through an adopted sub-area plan for any Larimer County Transferable Density Units Program, which are eligible for annexation to the City of Fort Collins as defined by Article 31, Section 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, or which have contiguity to the City of Fort Collins' city limits and thus can be made eligible for voluntary annexation to the City through a series of annexations. If the County approves a preliminary plat for these lands the owner of said lands must promptly upon such approval petition the City of Fort Collins for annexation and submit a receipt to the County showing such petition has been filed at the time of Final Plat submittals, but in no event less than 120 days before the anticipated date of final plat approval. The Development Agreement must provide that the annexation petition cannot be withdrawn after the Final Plat is approved. The County may withhold issuing building permits for the development up to 35 days following Final Plat approval if necessary to allow the City to complete the annexation. Upon annexation, developers will be subject to the City's development regulations and fees, including but not limited to, City Building Code, inspection fees and impact fees. If the development is intended to be developed in phases, then the applicant must submit a phasing plan, which facilitates annexation of the property to the City at the earliest possible time. Each phase of a development must, at the time of its approval, be independently eligible for annexation. No phased development will be approved which would have the effect of gerrymandering boundaries which, either by plan or circumstance, would delay or hinder annexation to the City."

26. Subsection 12.6.6 Property Owners Association or Equivalent. Page 12-15. The County Attorney noted that this subsection is not adequate to deal with those situations where homeowners do not adequately maintain roads and other common elements of their development and the County is forced to take over such maintenance. This amendment was not included in the work session but the County Attorney would like this amendment to be considered at this time.

Replace Subsection 12.6.6.D with the following:

A. Each project approved under this Code that includes parcels, tracts, common areas, open space parcels, residual land, roads, detention facilities, landscaping or other features requiring maintenance (collectively referred to as common facilities) must provide for a property owners association or an equivalent entity to be responsible for such maintenance. If applicable, each Final Plat and site Plan that is recorded must be accompanied by the appropriate legal documents (covenants, articles of incorporation, by-laws, etc.) necessary to create and operate such an entity.

B. The Development Agreement (see Subsection 12.6.1, Development Agreements) must include a provision for perpetual maintenance of the common facilities by the responsible entity.

C. If a Management Plan (see Subsection 8.10, Management Plans) is required for the project, provisions for perpetual maintenance of the common facilities must be included in the Management Plan.

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

27. Subsection 4.2.1Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District. Page 4-37. The current Code language does not clearly give the County Commissioners the authority to modify standards required by the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Adding the following subsection will not only clarify the authority but also give guidance for applying it.

Add Subsection 4.2.1.H to read, "H. Modifications. Within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area the Board of County Commissioners shall strictly apply the standards contained in Section 8.9.11 and Appendix C. The Board shall grant modifications to these standards only in exceptional circumstances and only if it finds that granting the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that:

(1) By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional and undue hardship upon the owner of the affected property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act omission of the applicant, or

(2) The alternative plan, as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standards for which a modification is requested. In ascertaining the "public interests and purposes of the standards," the Board shall give great weight to: (a) the recommendation of the City of Ft. Collins Planning and Zoning Board; (b) the specific language of the standard, taken in the context of the regulation in which the standard is contained and in the context of the applicable provisions of the Vision, Goals, Principles, Policies and Structure Plan of the City Comprehensive Plan (City Plan); and (c) the willingness and agreement of the City to annex those properties that comply with the Appendix I standards.

28. Subsection 5.3.7, Cluster Design requires consideration of a special area plan whenever development is a 1/4 mile area will provide the potential for 250 or more dwelling units. The Code does not clearly indicate that the decision to do an area plan is to be made by the County Commissioners. Amend Subsection 5.3.7.A.1, Cluster Design to read, "When a single Conservation Development contains over 250 dwelling units, or where the potential exists for multiple Conservation Developments within 1/4 mile of any boundary of a proposed Conservation Development to reach a combined total of more than 250 dwelling units, the County Commissioners must review the cumulative effect of such developments. The County Commissioners will then determine if a Special Area Plan is required for the Conservation Development to be approved. The County Commissioners will make this determination at the Sketch Plan or Concept Review stage of the development review process."

Mr. Kadera noted the Planning Commission, staff believes, inadvertently omitted recommendation #11 in their motion and has been provided for the Boards' consideration. Mr. Kadera stated that after the Planning Commission hearing, staff discovered an additional item that requires consideration and after discussion with the County Attorney, it was determined to be appropriate to add the recommendation to the Board's agenda for consideration; this is listed above as #28.

Chair Olson noted that there is no public present to comment on this item.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code as presented and outlined above, inclusive of #28.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2000

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#654)

The Board of County Commissioners met with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; Chair Pro-Tem Rennels presided and Commissioner Disney was present. Also present were Dr. LeBailly, Director of Health and Environment; Marie Kincher, Director for the Business Office of Health and Environment; K-Lynn Cameron, Open Lands Manager; Jerry White, Right of Way Agent; Donna Hart, Commissioner's Administrative Manager; George Hass, County Attorney; Jeannine Haag and Brian True, Assistant County Attorneys; and Recording Clerk: Jean O'Connor.

  1. PUBLIC COMMENT: The Board is available to the public from 9:00 - 9:30 a.m.
  2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2000:
  3. M O T I O N

    Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of September 4, 2000 as presented.

    Motion carried 2 - 0.

  4. APPROVAL OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2000:
  5. M O T I O N

    Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the schedule for the week of September 25, 2000 as amended.

    Motion carried 2 - 0.

  6. CONSENT AGENDA:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following documents as published on the consent agenda for September 29, 2000:

ACTION ITEMS:

Appointment of Carla Brookman, Robert Havis and Jean Hediger to the LaPorte Planning Advisory Committee for a three year term effective July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003. Reappointment of Pete Dressen to the LaPorte Planning Advisory Committee for a three year term effective July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003.

ABATEMENTS: As recommended by the County Assessor, the following abatements were approved: Abernathy; Antonopulos; Atwood; Barkdoll; Brundage; Campana; Crego; CSI, Inc; Cushatt; Dunn; Gray; Grouhi; Massoumeh; Heard; Webb; Hinst; Jameson; Milacek; MRP, LLC; Nomina Nurseries; Peterson; Samples; Seery; Stringer; Trollco, Inc; Venrick; and Walsh.

A00-132 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THE FOREST SERVICE

D00-12 DEED AND CLOSING FOR COUNTY PROPERTY TO NICHOLAS J. AND JENNIFERL. BRODA

D00-13 DEED AND CLOSING FOR COUNTY PROPERTY TO GEORGE KALAMARAS AND MARY ANN CAIN

R00-187s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MULBERRY COMMERCIAL PARK CONDOMINIUMS SUPPLEMENT 1

R00-188s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HARVEST HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION

R00-189s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 8TH FILING, LOTS 2, 3, 4 AND 5

R00-190s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF PUEBLA VISTA ESTAES

R00-191s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN STANTON MEADOWS LOTS 1 & 2

R00-192s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 12th FILING, LOTS 235A & 237

R00-193s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BUCKHORN GLADE SUBDIVISION CHANGE OF CONDITIONS

R00-194s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 7TH FILING, LOTS 10 & 11

R00-195s RESOLUTION REGARDING RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR TRAILS AT VISTA BONITA

R00-196g RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER

MISCELLANEOUS: Amended Plat Colland Center 3rd Filing, Lots 1 & 13; Personnel authorization request for a new position at the Larimer County Workforce Center; Personnel authorization request for a change in current position from 90% to full time; Approve extension of the 8th Judicial District Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG).

LIQUOR LICENSES: The following liquor licenses were issued: Gonzalo's Spanish Manor- 6%- Fort Collins, CO; Castillon's Lounge- 6%- Fort Collins, CO; and Schrader Country Store #440- 3.2%- Fort Collins, CO.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

5. REQUEST FOR FULL TIME POSITION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: Ms. Kincher requested approval for one full time employee and the upgrade of a workstation; both of which would be financed by grants already received by Larimer County. Ms. Kincher noted that the position would terminate if/when indirect funding from grants were eliminated. Mr. Gluckman suggested the position title include "limited term" since it is dependent upon grant funding.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the establishment of one full time limited term Accountant I position for the Department of Health and Environment, one computer and upgrade of one workstation.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

6. WORKSESSION: Mr. Gluckman requested Board approval to investigate the cost of providing private security for the Courthouse since the Sheriff's Department is no longer present in this building. Commissioner Disney stated that full time security would be a waste of money but that an "as needed" basis could be considered.

Mr. Gluckman suggested the Board send a letter to the Animal Task Force updating them on the status of their recommendation and to thank them for their time and efforts.

Mr. Gluckman noted that Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI) is requesting a position letter from each County Board on Amendment 21 by September 27, 2000; the Board requested a resolution be drafted for next week Administrative Matters.

7. ACQUISITION OF OPEN LANDS AND DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAIL: Ms. Cameron stated that the Open Lands Board is recommending the acquisition of 54.5 acres adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir for $1,188,000 of which the City of Fort Collins will participate in the purchase of, up to 50%. Larimer County will maintain the land as part of the Fossil Creek Regional Park Preserve Project. Commissioner Disney asked if not owning the mineral rights to the land would cause a problem down the road and Mr. White stated that he did not believe it would be a problem. Commissioner Disney asked at what percent the City of Fort Collins would be participating and Ms. Cameron stated that no matter what the percentage, the amount of money spent is not expected to exceed the previously perceived amount allocated for this area. Chair Pro-Tem Rennels noted that she is uncomfortable with the City's share being "up to" 50% and felt there are too many unknowns to make a decision. Mr. Gluckman suggested this item be discussed further in Executive Session.

Ms. Cameron requested Board approval to expend $10,000 as Larimer County's share of the development cost for the Homer Rouse Memorial Trail by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. The trail will be built on Larimer County right-of-way which is no longer used and the trail will be 1.543 miles in length. The trail, Ms. Cameron continued, is a cooperative effort between the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County Open Lands, Estes Valley Land Trust, and Estes Valley Recreation and Park District.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the expenditure of $10,000, from the Open Space Sales Tax, as Larimer County's share of the development of the Homer Rouse Memorial Trail.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

R00-197g RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION OF LARIMER COUNTY IN THE HOMER ROUSE MEMORIAL TRAIL WITH $10,000 FROM THE OPEN SPACE SALES TAX

EXECUTIVE SESSION:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 10:10 a.m. to discuss land acquisition.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

Executive Session ended at 10:45 a.m.; the following action was taken:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the acquisition of 54.4 acres adjacent to the Fossil Creek Reservoir for $1,188,000 using revenue from the Help Preserve Open Spaces sales tax.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

R00-198g RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 54.4 ACRES FROM RIDDELL BROS., LTD FOR $1,188,000

  1. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: None

9. DISCUSSION ON LIQUOR LICENSES: Commissioner Disney stated the purpose of meeting with the owner(s) of Fargo County Roadhouse and Al's Canyon Grill is to have general discussion regarding the responsibilities of holding a liquor license. Mr. Disney noted that several incidents have been reported since these licenses were last renewed, including DUI's and underage drinking for Fargo and noise complaints for Al's.

Mr. Tom Grandbois, owner and Mr. Bob Bucci, head bouncer both of Fargo County Roadhouse, stated that the entire staff of Fargo had met with Sargent Webber from the Sheriff's office just last week and was told that the establishment was doing a great so they were quite puzzled to receive the letter from the County Attorney's office to attend this meeting. Mr. Grandbois stated that he and his staff work very hard to be responsible toward their customers and in dealing with the officers on a daily basis. Sgt. Webber also offered to write a letter commending the establishment. Mr. Bucci added that the establishment has a "zero tolerance" policy on 18 and over nights and notification of such is posted inside and outside of the establishment. Consensus of the Board is that a license renewal hearing is not necessary at this time.

Mr. Alan Evans, owner of Al's Canyon Grill, stated that he was unaware of a DUI being issued until he received the letter from the County Attorney at which time he contacted the Sheriff's Department and obtained a copy of the report. As far as the noise complaints, Mr. Evans continued, there have not been any since he installed a sound barrier in the window adjacent to where bands perform. Chair Pro-Tem asked if Mr. Evans is willing to attend a work session with staff from the Clerk's office, Sheriff's Department, County Attorney's office and other establishments in an effort to come to mutual understanding of what the County expects from liquor establishments and to improve communications between all parties; Mr. Evans noted that he is willing. Consensus of the Board is that a license renewal hearing is not necessary at this time.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the liquor license renewal application for Al's Canyon Grill.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

10. LEGAL MATTERS: Mr. Treu presented the Board with the resolution establishing rules and regulations for the new Justice Center, which was listed on the consent agenda.

EXECUSTIVE SESSION:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 11:40 a.m. to discuss potential litigation.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

Executive Session ended at 1:00 p.m.; no action was taken.

__________________________________

CHERYL OLSON, CHAIR

LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MYRNA RODENBERGER

LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER

S E A L

A T T E S T

___________________________________

Jean M. O'Connor, Clerk to the Board

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.