Loveland Bike Trail
 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Monday, August 13, 2001

LAND USE HEARING

(#70)

The Board of County Commissioners met with Larry Timm, Director of Planning; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present. Also present were Matt Lafferty, Planner II; Sarah Flick, Environmental Planner; Tom Garton, Chief Building Official; Roxanne Hayes, Development Review Engineer; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Jean O'Connor, Clerk to the Board.

Chair Rennels stated item #1, Harvest Heights Subdivision Final Plat #99-S1453 has been removed from the agenda and the following item is consent and will not be discussed unless requested by the Board or members of the audience.

2. OWENS MINOR LAND DIVISION: SW 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 8N, RANGE 69W; LOCATED ALONG THE S SIDE OF CR 52E

This is a request to split a metes and bounds parcel. Current parcel contains two houses approved by Board of Adjustments in 1979. Owners now want the houses to be on separate parcels. Staff recommendation is approval of the Minor Land Division for a Portion of the SW 1/4 of Section 30, Township 8N, Range 69W.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Owens Minor Land Division #01-S1810 as presented and outlined above.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

3. WINDSOR-SEVERANCE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ADOPTION OF THE 1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODE

Chair Rennels noted that his item was tabled from the July 16, 2001 hearing.

Staff findings are that the adoption of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code and amendments proposed would be beneficial and will coincide with our adoption of the 1997 Uniform Building, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes. The Fire Code is a useful tool to achieve safety and protect the welfare of all citizens throughout the County. Staff recommendation is to adopt the 1997 Uniform Fire Code and proposed amendments for the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District. Proposed amendments are:

SECTION II: Establishment and Duties of Fire Prevention

Organizational structure and duties of the fire prevention bureau or Division, if any, shall be as provided by the District's policies and or directives.

SECTION III: Definitions.

Wherever the word "District" is used, it shall mean the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District.

Wherever the word "jurisdiction" is used in the adopted Code and Standards, it is meant to be inclusive of the boundaries of the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District as they now or may hereafter exist.

Where the term "Chief or "Chief of the Bureau of Fire Prevention" is used, it shall be held to mean the Chief of the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District, or a designated member of the District.

Where the term "Bureau of Fire Prevention" is used, it shall be held to mean either the entire Fire Prevention Division or those employees (paid or volunteers) designated by the Chief to carry out enforcement duties relating to the prevention of fires and the suppression of arson.

Where the term "Board" is used, it shall be held to mean the Board of Directors of the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District. .

Wherever the term "Uniform Building Code" is used, it shall be held to mean the Uniform Building Code as adopted, amended and incorporated into the Weld/Larimer County Building Code, Town of Windsor/Severance Building Code.

SECTION IV: Establishment of Limits in Which Storage of Flammable or Combustible liquids are within the limits of the Town of Windsor or Severance shall be governed by any and all Town ordinances. Outside the Town limits, this shall be governed by either Larimer/Weld county standards or the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.

SECTION V. Amendments made in and to the Uniform Fire Code. The Uniform Fire Code is amended and changed in the following respects:

1. The following Section to be added to Article 1, and to be known as Section 103.4.7, Compliance Agreements.

"The Board upon recommendation of the Chief or upon its own motion may enter into written agreements for enforcement or compliance with the owner, lessee, occupant or authorized agent thereof, or any property, building or structure, or any interested person directly affected by the application of this code. Said agreements may extend the time for compliance with this code, and may contain such terms and conditions that the Board deems appropriate to adequately protect the life, health, property, security and welfare of the general public."

2. The following section is to be added to Article 1, and to be known as Section 103.3.5 Inspections: "Pursuant to 32-1-1002(l)(e)(11) C.R. S. , the Board may fix and from time to time may increase or decrease fees and charges , in its discretion, for inspections and review of plans and specifications which are:

(a) Requested or mandated for existing structures, buildings and improvements; and

(b) Necessitated in conjunction with any county regulation, resolution or condition of development; or

(c) Performed in conjunction with the construction of new structures, buildings, and improvements.

(d) Fees for such items shall be assessed per the 1997 Uniform Building Code fee schedule Table 1-A or as amended by the board or their representative.

Said fees and charges may in the discretion of the Board, include a charge for reimbursement to the District of any consultation fees, expenses or costs incurred by the District in the performance of the inspections or review of the plans and specifications.

3. The following section is to be added to Article 1, and to be known as Section 101. 10 "This Article shall be interpreted to be consistent with the provisions of 32-1-1002(3), C.R.S."

4. Article 1. Section 105.1 shall be amended by the addition of a sentence reading as follows: "No such permit shall be required where burning is regulated pursuant to regulations promulgated under 25-7-123, C.R.S. and regulated by the Weld/Larimer County Health Departments or municipal authorities.

5. Appendix III-B shall be supplemented by the following:

Supplement to Appendix III-B

Types of Hydrants:

Fire Hydrants shall be the Mueller Centurion or the Waterous Pacer. The Waterous Pacer shall be equipped with an upper standpipe section with a nominal height equal to the Mueller Centurion. Fire hydrants shall be dry barrel. Fire hydrants shall have two 2 1/2" ports and one 4 1/2" port. All thread shall be National Standard Thread, (NST). Fire Hydrants shall operate by opening in a counter- clockwise direction and closing in a clockwise direction. The hydrant shall have the standard five-sided nut on the port caps and the operating stem. The hydrant shall be installed with the 4 1/2" port facing the roadway.

Hydrant installation:

Fire Hydrants shall be constructed such that an isolation valve is located between the hydrant and the water main. The valve shall be accessible.

The hydrant shall be installed so that the base flange is above grade with at least the base flange bolts exposed, and not greater than five inches from the grade to the bottom of the base flange bolts. Hydrants shall have a breakaway section per manufacturer specifications. The breakaway should be installed level with grade.

All fire hydrants shall be installed with a course gravel bed to ensure adequate drainage from hydrant weep holes. Thrust blocks shall be installed in accordance with AWWA and NFPA -

Hydrants shall be visible and accessible for fire fighters without difficulty. Vegetation and landscaping shall not conceal the hydrant.

Hydrant Spacing:

Residential - Fire Hydrants should be no greater than 600 feet apart; with no structure greater than 300 feet from hydrant (600/300).

Low Density Residential - An individual analysis will be conducted for each subdivision where lots within the subdivision are equal or greater than 2 acres. Low Density Residential shall comply with residential unless the District approves an alternative. Alternatives shall be based upon the individual Analysis and the proposal submitted by the developer. Cisterns, dry hydrants and open water sources are not acceptable alternatives.

Multi-Family Residential - Hydrants shall be 200' from structures and spacing of 400' in city limits.

Commercial and Industrial - Hydrants shall be 150' from structures and spacing of 300'.

Streets with islands may require additional hydrants unless the hydrants are placed in

the islands.

Hydrants on streets without access to structures or where no structural hazard is present shall be spaced at 1000 feet, except in rural areas where water supplies may not be available.

Hydrants shall not be more than 10 feet from an approved fire access or roadway. The grade from the roadway or access and the hydrant shall be near to level.

The placement of hydrants in developments without a grid type street design will be based upon an evaluation by the fire department to ensure operational needs.

Placement of hydrants in dead end streets shall be based upon the distance of the street from the intersection to the end of the street.

The placement of hydrants at the end of the dead end street is for use as a blowout and it is not credited for use in fire fighting operations.

Blowouts should meet the same criteria as hydrants for fire fighting operations, or designed to ensure that the blowout will not adversely affect fire-fighting operations due to failure.

6. Appendix III-A Fire Flows shall be amended as follows:

Fire flows shall be not less than 1000 gpm at 20 psi minimum for single family residential. Multi- Family Residential, Commercial and Industrial fire flows will be calculated based upon appendix III-A and Table A-III-A-1 and appendix III-B and Table A- III-B-1.

7. General:

Section 1003.1 is amended to read as follows:

An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in this section 1003, or in any building where the floor area exceeds 5000 square feet.

For purposes of this section 1003, the term "floor area" shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Uniform Building Code, 1997 edition.

The floor area of any portion of a basement having a ceiling height of eighty inches or greater shall be included in the calculation of the floor area of the building.

The requirement for the installation of automatic sprinkler systems shall not apply to floor area expansions of existing buildings where the cumulative floor area of all such expansions does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the floor area of the building as it was permitted on the day this adoption is signed.

For buildings permitted after this adoption is signed, the installation of automatic sprinkler systems shall apply when the floor area exceeds 5000 square feet, regardless of the cumulative floor area expansion.

Exception: This section 1003.1 shall not be applicable to Group R, Division 3 Occupancies.

SECTION VI: Article1 sect. 103.4 Enforcement Procedures and Article 1 sect. 103.1.4 Appeals shall read as follows.

1. The Chief or his designee shall enforce this code and shall inspect or cause to be inspected all buildings, structures, property, premises, and public places, except the interior of any private dwelling, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 32-1-1002(3). C.R.S. All inspections shall be recorded in an inspection report.

2. A "Notice of Violation or Hazard" may be issued by the Chief or his designee concerning violations or hazards which are not corrected on-site during an inspection. Said Notice shall be signed by the inspector and contain, as a minimum, the following information:

a. Date of inspection;

b. Name/address of premises inspected;

c. Name of inspector;

d. Nature of violations, including specific reference to section/subsections of code;

e. Date of compliance/reinspection;

f. Suggested methods of correction, if applicable;

g. Right to appeal to Board;

h. Consequences of failure to correct the violation

3. An "Order for Immediate Correction of Hazard" may be issued by the Chief:

a. For Failure to correct a violation or hazard within the time specified in a previously issued Notice of Violation or Hazard; or

b. For violating the code or state statute and said violation renders the building structure or premises especially liable to fire or is hazardous to the safety of the occupants thereof, or which is so situated as to endanger other property as set forth in 32-1-1002(3)(c), whether or not a Notice has been previously issued.

c. An Order shall be signed by the Chief or his designee and shall contain, as a minimum, the following information:

I. Date of issuance;

II. Name/address of premises inspected;

III. Nature of violation or hazard;

IV. Time limit for correction;

V. Right of appeal if any to the Board;

VI. Right of appeal to the District Court and time limit;

VII. Penalties for violation of order;

VIII. Signature of the Chief or his designee;

IX. Acknowledgment of receipt signed by owner, lessee, agent or other responsible person.

4. An appeal of a Notice of Violation or Hazard may be made to the Board of appeals by delivery to the Chief in writing a notice of appeal within five days of the issuance of the Notice of Violation or Hazard. The appeal shall be heard at the next regular meeting or special meeting called for that purpose. The Board may affirm, rescind, or modify the Notice and may enter into such enforcement agreements as it deems proper.

5. An appeal of an Order for Immediate Correction of Hazard may be made to the Board of appeals only if no previous appeal has been made of a previously issued Notice of Violation or Hazard concerning the same violation or hazard. An appeal of an Order must be in writing and filed with the Board within three days of issuance of the Order.

6. The Board of appeals shall hear all such appeals and application for relief and render its decision thereon in accordance with its bylaws, rules and regulations.

7. In the event no appeal is made to the Board pursuant to this code and resolution or to the court pursuant to 32-1-1002(3) C.R.S. and in compliance with the Order and /or correction of the hazard has not occurred, the Board may upon recommendation by the Chief or upon its own motion refer the matter to the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurs.

8. An appeal shall suspend the time limits for compliance or correction of a fire hazard or hazards, until the appeal is resolved for appeals of a Notice of Hazard which is issued pursuant to Section VIII. paragraph 3(a) herein. An appeal shall not suspend the time limit for compliance or correction of life safety deficiencies or violations. An appeal of an Order issued pursuant to Section VIII paragraph 3(b) herein shall not suspend the time limits for compliance or correction, and compliance or correction shall be made or rendered forthwith, unless the Order is suspended by the Board of appeals.

SECTION VII: Penalties.

1.Any owner, lessee, agent or occupant of any building or premises maintaining any condition likely to cause fire or to constitute an additional fire hazard or any condition which impedes or prevents the egress of persons from such building or premises in violation of the provisions of 32-1-1002(3) C. R. S. shall be deemed to be maintaining a fire hazard. Any person who violates any provision of said subsection 3 is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50.00 or no more than $250.00. Each day in which such violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation of 32-1-1002(3) C. R. S.

2. The application of the above penalty shall not be construed to prevent the enforced removal or correction of prohibited conditions or other injunctive relief.

SECTION VIII: Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances or Resolutions:

All former ordinances or resolutions enacted by the District or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution of the Code or standards hereby adopted are hereby repealed.

SECTION VIII: Validity and Conflict

The Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District Board of Directors hereby declare that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this resolution or of the code or standards hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be invalid it is the intent of the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District Board of Directors that it would have passed all other portions of this resolution independent of elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid.

It is further the declaration of the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District Board of Directors that no provision of this resolution or the code or standards adopted herein be interpreted in conflict with existing State law, In the event there is a conflict between State law and this code. State law shall take precedent.

SECTION X: Date of Effect.

This resolution shall take effect and be enforced within incorporated municipalities and unincorporated portions of Weld/Larimer Counties from and after its approval as set forth in

32-1-1002(l)(d) C. R. S.

Adopted this day of ,2001.

WINDSOR-SEVERANCE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

By: _______________________________

President of the Board

ATTEST:

By: _______________________________

Secretary of the Board

Mr. Garton stated that this item was tabled from July 16, 2001 to allow the applicant to discuss required flows with water districts.

Mr. Mike Davis, Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District, stated that he met with three water districts and all concur that water to rural areas is different than water to urban areas. However, discussions will continue to determine the feasibility of specified flows within different areas of the County. Mr. Davis noted that the 1997 Uniform Fire Code contains the same wording as the currently adopted 1994 Code and noted flexibility would be required dependant upon proposed densities.

Mr. Jerry Ward, Chief of the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District, noted that as a result of the previous hearing, he assembled the County Fire Marshals/Chiefs to discuss a minimum design requirement, and to establish a goal for County Fire Marshals to obtain a common fire flow for all departments.

Commissioner Gibson asked if the fire departments are going to "require" specified flows; would those departments be supplementing those developments that are in water districts that can not meet the minimum flow? Mr. Ward stated that developers would be "supplementing" those developments that can not be supplied the required flows with conditions of approval such as sprinklering. The cost burden, Mr. Ward continued, is on the developer not the fire departments. Mr. Ward reiterated the proposal contains minimum design standards.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the 1997 Uniform Fire Code and proposed amendments for the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District as presented and outlined above.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

There being no further business, the hearing recessed at 3:30 p.m..

LAND USE HEARING

(#70, 71, 72, 73)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present. Also present were Jim Reidhead, Director of the Rural Land Use Center; Sarah Flick and Doug Ryan, Environmental Planners; Christie Coleman, Development Review Engineer; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Jean O'Connor, Recording Clerk.

  1. BIG VALLEY HOMESTEADS II PRELIMINARY RURAL LAND PLAN: 11, 12, 13, & 14-5-70; GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF LOVELAND, 1 1/2 MILES SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 34, ON THE EAST SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 29.
  2. This is a request to divide 248 acres into 14 single-family residential lots on approximately 45 acres, each lot being roughly 3 acres each, and approximately 203 acres of residual land protected from further development in perpetuity. Staff finding is that the proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.8-Rural Land Use Process of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

    Support for the Big Valley Homesteads II Preliminary Rural Land Plan is based on 1. Applicant's planning and design rationale for the project, which is consistent with the RLUP; 2. Conservation values of the residual land, including preservation of open space; 3. Careful location of residences; 4. General compatibility with the existing neighboring land uses.

    Support for this proposed plan takes into consideration the various other land developments 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 FA1-Farming zoning of the property, and the general development pressure within the immediate area for use-by-right 35-acre division of land, supports that this is an appropriate project.

    The site-based incentives (7 density bonus units) are allowed under the Rural Land Use Process.

    As proposed, this project will also provide commensurate long-term benefits to citizens of Larimer County. Those benefits are 1. 203 acres of residual land protected from further development in perpetuity; 2. Preservation of open space and existing ag operation; 3. Homeowners protective covenants with architectural controls; 4. Transportation Capital Expansion fees received from the project; 5. School and park fees received from the project; 6. Fewer residences than likely allowed through subdivision process; 7. Ability to influence design of project, as compared to use-by-right division of property into 35-acre parcels.

    Staff recommendation is approval of Big Valley Homesteads 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, erosion control plan, and emergency access, shall meet minimum design standards for public health, safety and welfare. Some of these standards can be found 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. Internal roads shall be dedicated and conveyed for public use. The access road that will serve the proposed lots should be contained in a 60 feet right-of-way for access and utilities; 2. If public water is provided for this project, a letter of commitment from 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; 3. Representative soil testing shall be submitted prior to final plat submittal to allow verification of soil suitability for septic systems. The result of those tests may impact the lot size and configuration; 4. Preliminary soils testing shall be performed prior to final platting. These tests may impact the lot sizes and the applicant may need to adjust lot sizes/configurations based on these tests. Minimum lot sizes for Lots 1-7 must be 2.0-acres and Lots 8-14 must contain 2.0-acres west of the toe of the hogback ridge; 5. Building envelopes shall be located on each lot; 6. The residual land protective covenant or conservation easement and management plan must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval; 7. Homeowners' covenants, including architectural controls, and provisions for internal road maintenance, must be reviewed and approved by the RLUC Director prior to final plat approval; 8. The final development agreement must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to final plat approval; 9. 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; b) Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots. The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted) Engineered footings and foundations are required for new residential construction; d) Lot owners should be advised that there is a potential for nuisance conflicts from wildlife (such as skunks, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, prairie dogs and snakes). The Colorado Division of Wildlife can provide information to property owners about how to handle these situations, but lot owners are responsible for addressing wildlife conflicts if they arise; e) During certain times of the year mosquitoes may present a significant nuisance. Larimer County does not have a mosquito abatement program. Any mosquito abatement activity will be the responsibility of the homeowner; such activity must be according to applicable Federal, State and local rules and regulations; f) Prairie dog colonies exist in the general area; prairie dogs can be a nuisance if they migrate to developed residential property. At times these animals are implicated in the transmission of plague to people or their pets. It is important for residents to observe animal control requirements for dogs and cats; g) Agricultural operations and farming practices on adjacent properties can produce odors, noise and dust. These are a normal part of agriculture and should be expected to occur. In addition, plowing, planting, cultivating, spraying, harvesting, and various livestock operations may be carried out at all times including nighttime; h) If livestock will be kept on these lots, it will be important to carefully manage grazing in order to maintain grass cover in the pasture. Overgrazing will produce bare ground, weeds, erosion and polluted runoff. Management of these lots should be coordinated with drainage and erosion control issues, siting of sanitation systems, fencing and feeding; i) Larimer County has adopted a Right to Farm Resolution; j) 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), and Rural Land Use Process fees. The fee amount that is current at time of building permit application shall apply; k) Some or all lots in this development include building envelopes. All structures must be located within these Larimer County approved building envelopes, as shown on the approved subdivision plat. Prior to the approval of the footing and foundation inspection, the owner/applicant for a building permit will be required to demonstrate that the structure(s) is located within the building envelope. This shall be accomplished by a written certification by a Colorado Licensed Surveyor (form available from the Larimer County Planning Department). If the structure requires a county Setback and Use Permit rather than a building permit, this surveyor's certification is also required; l) Larimer County shall not maintain roads or streets in this development. Maintenance of the streets shall be the responsibility of the property owners. Failure to maintain streets may result in a lien being placed on these lots; m) 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; n) 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.

    Mr. Reidhead stated that the neighbors may request that this item be tabled due to a lack of notice of the hearing to some neighbors. The lack of notice, Mr. Reidhead continued, was caused by a "glitch" in the computer database; however, additional notice was sent to neighbors who were not notified once the error was discovered, notice was posted on the property at the required time, and legal notice was published in accordance with State Statute. The applicant requests the hearing be continued as published. The Board concurred and the hearing continued. Mr. Reidhead requested that #5 under Staff Finding be deleted since it is not applicable to this project, and requested the proposed Staff Recommendation #4 be deleted and replaced with, "Preliminary soils testing shall be performed prior to final platting. These tests may impact the lot sizes and the applicant may need to adjust lot sizes/configurations based on these tests. Minimum lot sizes for Lots 1-7 must be 2.0-acres and Lots 8-14 must contain 2.0-acres west of the toe of the hogback ridge."

    Commissioner Bender noted that letters had been received noting concerns with impacts of the wildlife corridor. Mr. Reidhead stated that the Division of Wildlife (DOW) did have a concern, but noted that there is a draw approximately 1/4 - 1/2- mile north of the lots and that wildlife would have an alternative migratory route.

    Mr. John Mathey, applicant clarified that #2 under "Other Major Concerns & Issues" is not a requirement but a possibility. Mr. Mathey noted that the application contains a proposed second access and that #2 is simply another option. As far as concerns with the wildlife corridor, Mr. Mathey continued, the elk will easily change their migratory route.

    Mr. Marty Ballinger, adjacent property owner, stated that the Rural Land Use Process claims to protect viewsheds and requested proposed lot #1 be moved to the north side of proposed Lot 14. Mr. Ballinger stated that Big Valley Homestead I was sold under the pretense that the lots would view 660-acres of open space, not a second phase of the development.

    Mr. Mike Salza, existing resident in Big Valley I, stated that his viewshed would be impacted by the proposed Lot 1, and noted concern with dust mitigation during construction of phase II.

    At this time the public was closed and Mr. Mathey stated that dust mitigation has been discussed and that construction traffic would utilize the proposed emergency access. Mr. Mathey further noted that covnants propose that residents of Phase II join the existing road association of Phase I.

    Mr. Mathey stated that the applicants anticipate the proposal to be completed in two Phases, the 1st Phase being Lots 1-8, and that Lots 9-14 may be left undeveloped. Mr. Mathey stated that every effort would be made to work with existing residents regarding site locations of homes and building envelopes.

    Commissioner Gibson noted that the proposed Lot 1 would affect several lots in Phase I and asked if the proposed Phase II was made clear to potential purchasers of Phase I. Mr. Mathey stated that a Phase II was not even conceived at the time of Phase I.

    Commissioner Bender stated that viewsheds are not guaranteed but concurred that proposed Lot 1 would impact residents of Phase I and suggested the lot be moved.

    Much discussion ensued regarding the re-configuration or re-location of proposed Lot 1.

    Mr. David Jessup, applicant stated that no guarantees were made that the land would remain in agriculture and noted that every effort is being made to preserve as much of the valley and Sylvan Dale Ranch as possible. Mr. Jessup stated that he is willing to re-design the boundaries of Lot 1 to protect views to the extent possible.

    M O T I O N

    Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioner re-open public comment.

    Motion carried 3 - 0.

    Mr. Salza stated that he supports the relocation of proposed Lot 1 but not the re-configuration of the lot.

    At this time the public hearing was closed.

    M O T I O N

    Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Big Valley Homestead II Rural Land Plan and the re-location of Lot 1 to the north of proposed Lot 2.

    Mr. Mathey explained how to re-configure Lot 1 and the placement of a building envelope. Commissioner Bender withdrew his motion.

    M O T I O N

    Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Big Valley Homestead II Rural Land Plan with the condition that Lot 1 is re-configured so the western most side of the building envelop for Lot 1is no further west than the west boundary line of proposed Lot 2.

    Motion carried 2 - 1.

    Ms. O'Connor asked if the Board intended to accept the proposal as presented or with corrections presented by staff?

    M O T I O N

    Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners re-open the public hearing for Big Valley Homestead II Rural Land Plan #01-S1653.

    Motion carried 3 -0.

    M O T I O N

    Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Big Valley Homestead II Rural Land Plan including amendments presented by staff and outlined above.

    Motion carried 3 - 0.

    2. BRILL MEDIA FM RADIO TOWER SPECIAL REVIEW: WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 11N, RANGE 69W; LOCATED NORTHEAST FROM THE TERMINUS OF CR 23.

    This is a request to construct a 199-foot high, steel, lattice, FM radio station antenna tower to serve a proposed, radio station in Wellington. Staff recommendation is approval of the Brill Media FM Radio Tower Special Review with the following conditions 1. The applicant must submit a Development Agreement with adequate collateral (115% of estimated cost of improvements) to cover all the road and drainage improvements that are required by the Engineering Department under the Larimer County Road Manual, and the Larimer County Stormwater Manual. These improvements (also described in letters from Traci Downs (12/7/00) and Scott Cornell (2/14/01)) are the following a) Applicant will provide a cross-section of the access road (Larimer County Road Manual, G-1); b) The access road will meet the County's Private Road Standards (Larimer County Road Manual, G-1); c) Applicant will incorporate water bars on the access road on gradients >5%; d) Applicant will install a lockable gate and fence on the access road; e) Applicant will mulch and seed the access road according to Engineering guidelines; 2. The applicant will allow County staff to monitor bird mortality at the tower for as many as fourteen days during spring migration and fall migration. If deaths are documented, Planning staff will present the findings to the BCC and discuss possible plans of action including changing the color of the tower's light from red to white. The BCC may, in a public hearing, amend the Special Review to require appropriate changes that will lessen bird mortality; 3. There shall be an independent study pursuant to Section 8.0.A of the Land Use Code, funded by the applicant to determine if technical information presented regarding location requirements for this tower are accurate including possible variances available; 4. The applicant shall remove the tower within 12-months of ceasing the operation; 5. The tower shall be lighted as proposed unless staff receives a letter from Harold E. Reed, COL., WY ANG Vice-commander, 153 AW, noting from a military standpoint, that lighting of this tower is not required.

    Ms. Flick stated the two concerns from the area residents are a) The tower is too tall and conspicuous even for residents several miles away, and b) The Special Review criteria requires that there would be no impact on migratory birds. The other concern, Ms. Flick stated, was the lighting of the tower, however, due to comments received this morning from the Sheriff's Department and Emergency Services, the tower will not have any lights.

    Ms. Flick stated that an independent consultant approved by staff and hired by the applicant would address the location of the tower in accordance with FCC regulations. The results of this study have been submitted to staff and for the Board's consideration. As for migratory birds, Ms. Flick continued, most, if not all research is directed at studies performed along the East Coast and may not be applicable to the Rocky Mountain region. As a condition of approval, Ms. Flick noted, staff will monitor bird mortality at the tower for up to 14 days during spring migration and fall migration.

    Mr. Timothy Cutforth, Broadcast Engineering Consultant, explained why the site was chosen in accordance with FCC regulations.

    Mr. Dave Williams, representative for the applicant believed previous presentations to the Board regarding the proposal have been adequate and noted that the towers visibility would be minimal, if at all, due to topography.

    Mr. Ed Harris, area resident stated that the tower would be visible from his home and despite efforts of the applicant to mitigate concerns, the proposal is not compatible or harmonious with existing uses. Mr. Harris noted that there are no other "man made" marks within the panoramic view of the Front Range, and stated that visual impact to the ridgeline can not be mitigated. Mr. Harris encouraged the Board to deny the proposal.

    Mr. Bruce Joytell, area resident provided pictures to the Board and noted the tower would be visible from all directions. Mr. Joytell stated that the Planning Commission asked the feasibility of lowering the tower from the ridge, thereby reducing it to approximately 6200-feet, which would still allow an unobstructed line of sight to the Town of Wellington. Mr. Joytell asked when that question would be answered.

    Ms. Chris Joitel reviewed criteria for a Special Review and themes from the County Master Plan, and noted the proposal does not comply with either. Ms. Joytell encouraged the Board to deny the application and protect views and the ridgeline.

    Ms. Edy Yates noted the pristine beauty of the Buckeye area and noted that the County recently joined area residents and the Larimer Land Trust in placing a conservation easement on several hundred acres in the area. Ms. Yates requested the Board protect the ridgelines and noted the area is not intended for development and towers.

    Mr. Joe Courant stated that his employer recently transferred him from Detroit, Michigan and that although he searched the Front Range from Cheyenne to Colorado Springs; he settled on the Buckeye due to its pristine beauty. Mr. Courant noted that the ridgeline of the Buckeye must be protected, not just for Larimer County but for visitors passing through from all over the country.

    Mr. Ed Hanson, a Livermore resident, stated that the service provided by Brill Media would be beneficial to the community and noted that private property rights allows the landowners and the applicant to make this proposal.

    At this time the hearing was closed to the public.

    Mr. Helmick stated that staff would request a letter from Harold E. Reed, COL., WY ANG Vice-commander, 153 AW, agreeing, from their standpoint, that no lighting of this tower is required, prior to the Board removing the condition of approval.

    M O T I O N

    Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners re-open the public comment portion of the hearing.

    Motion carried 3 - 0.

    Ms. Chris Joytell stated that she takes issue with the visual analysis provided by the applicant and consultant.

    At this time the hearing was again closed to the public.

    Commissioner Bender stated that the existing uses in the area seem to be mining and agriculture and that dollars allocated by the County for the easement, were to protect agricultural lands. Commissioner Bender noted that he does not see any real impact on viewsheds.

    Chair Rennels noted the service to Wellington is important to those residents.

    Commissioner Bender requested a condition be added requiring the applicant remove the tower within 12-months of ceasing the operation. Mr. Helmick suggested that the proposed condition #4 be deleted, and replaced with Commissioner Benders suggestion and a new Condition #5 be added requesting the letter from Col. Reed.

    M O T I O N

    Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Brill Media Tower Special Review as presented and amended by deleting condition #4.

    Much discussion ensued regarding the meaning of the motion and what Commissioner Gibson meant to say.

    Commissioner Bender requested the motion be amended to include condition #4 be replaced with his suggested condition regarding removal of the tower and that a condition #5 be added to address lighting of the tower based on comments from Col. Reed.

    Commissioner Gibson accepted this amendment.

    Motion carried 3 - 0.

  3. CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCAST SPECIAL REVIEW: 26-11-70; APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 23. THE SITE IS NORTH OF SLAB CANYON, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 15-MILES NORTHWEST OF WELLINGTON.

This request is for approval of a Special Review for a 494-foot tall-guyed tower for FM broadcast station KIGN and an appeal to Section 8.5.9.G of the Larimer County Land Use Code. Staff recommendation is approval of the application of Clear Channel of Northern Colorado file # 00-Z1364, with the following conditions 1. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department requirements as noted in the memo of 4/11/01 from Roxanne Hayes, Senior Civil Engineer; 2. The applicant shall establish the study group within 4 months of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The study group shall be as described in their supplemental submittal. The applicant shall be responsible for all funding of any study(s). The applicant shall modify, if required by the County staff, the tower and any appurtenances consistent with recommendations of the study group, with respect to the issue of avian strikes/kills. It shall be the responsibility of the County staff to determine if modifications are necessary and/or appropriate based upon the recommendations of the study group. The applicant may appeal the determination of the County staff to the Board of County Commissioners; 3. The applicant shall remove the tower within 12-months of ceasing the operation; 4. Lighting of the tower shall be standard alternating, white during the day and red at night. Shields shall be installed for the strobe lighting.

Mr. Helmick stated that wildlife migration and visibility are the main issues with this item. Mr. Helmick further stated that Mr. Tim Cutforth, Independent Consultant for the County, is present if the Board has questions and that his report is included for the Board's review.

Mr. Jim Martell, representative for the applicant, requested that the audio/video and presentation materials from the previous hearing of Brill Media Tower Special Review, be incorporated into this hearing for the record. The Board agreed.

Mr. Martell stated that the proposed location meets FCC requirements to service Cheyenne, Loveland and Greeley areas and noted that the license was granted to the applicant approximately 50-years ago for the Cheyenne location. Because of the increasing population along the Front Range, Mr. Martell continued, the applicant would like to re-locate the tower to the proposed site in order to provide better community service. FM towers, Mr. Martell stated, requires line of sight transmission and that the visual impact is being presented as more complex than it really is by area residents. Mr. Martell agreed with Commissioner Bender's statement during the previous hearing in that the tower is compatible with agriculture and noted the tower would be on an existing "substantially large" agricultural ranch.

Mr. Scott Giles, Project Designer, explained the visual analysis submitted and noted that the existing mining, the Rawhide Power Plat and the Cement Plant impact views more so that the proposed tower. Mr. Giles stated that he has worked diligently on site design to minimize visual impacts and mitigate potential wildlife hazards. Mr. Giles stated that the applicant is also willing to contract with Colorado State University to perform an impact study.

Mr. Stu Haskell, General Manager of local radio stations submitted letters of support from area businesses encouraging approval of the proposal in an effort for those businesses to remain competitive with Denver stations/advertisers. Mr. Haskell stated that radio provides a public service seven days a week/24 hours a day and that Clear Channel of Northern Colorado is a community partner, not just with businesses and retail, but also non-profit organizations.

Ms. Nannet Domenici stated that she works at the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and expressed gratitude to Clear Channel noting their proven true community partnership in many ways. Ms. Domenici encouraged the Board support the application.

Ms. Kathryn Hendren, area resident approximately 6-miles away, noted concern with light pollution from the tower and requested the Board deny the application.

Ms. Kristine Houldsworth, representative for Boys and Girls Club, requested the Board support the application and expressed appreciation for support received from Clear Channel.

Mr. Ed Harris, area resident invited the Board to come and sit on his back porch and then tell residents the tower is not in their "neighborhood". Height and flashing lights, Mr. Harris stated, are the real issue. Mr. Harris stated that the Land Use Code calls for the protection of "special places" and proposed that Clear Channel leave the tower in Cheyenne and install a transmitter station instead of a 494-foot tower.

Ms. Mary Beth Simon, area resident presented a video of her travels from Fort Collins to La Salle, while maintaining clear reception on her automobile radio and a "boom box" from the Clear Channel radio tower in Cheyenne. Ms. Simon stated that the company is already servicing the area and beyond, and that the relocation of the tower is not necessary.

Mr. Michael Gould, President of the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce stated the competition for airwaves is a marketing challenge and that a local tower would improve advertising for over 5000 local businesses and further noted that Clear Channel has been a good neighbor.

Mr. Joe Courant stated that the ridgeline is a real value to Colorado and that perhaps long time residents have forgotten the spectacular impact of our mountains.

Mr. Bruce Joitel agreed that the existing mine is ugly and noted that a lit tower would not improve that vision. Mr. Joytell stated that a "need" is not warranted and the Land Use Code discourages development on the ridgeline.

Mr. Rick Knight reminded the Board that the proposal has an economic impact, but the tower could mean, "Death by a thousand cuts.... Slowly x-ing out the beauty of Colorado; approve one and they'll all come.

Ms. Chris Joitel stated the tower would be visible from her home, a location she chose due to the viewshed and that she does not desire a tower within that viewshed.

Mr. Derek David Roberts, area resident stated that his family ranch borders the proposed site on two sides, and does not believe the tower is compatible with agriculture. The tower, Mr. Roberts continued, is more than "property rights", which everyone else would have to deal with. Mr. Roberts opposes building anything on ridgelines and urged the Board to deny the application noting that the tower is not necessary.

Mr. Loren Maxey stated that the tower would not really be visible and a person would get use to seeing it.

Mr. Ed Hanson stated the buzzword about Larimer County the past 4-5 years has been "preserve agriculture". The reason the tower is to be placed on the proposed site is to assist the property owner in keeping his agricultural operation and keep the land from turning into a field of homes.

Mr. Dan Miller stated that the tower is not the only way to preserve agriculture and noted that community rights deserve the same consideration as property rights.

Mr. Elden Ackerman, property owner of the proposed site stated that the tower would not assist the family greatly but would help. The family members all work the ranch and do not have outside employment, and struggle to maintain agriculture. Mr. Ackerman stated that the tower would be less intrusive than the impact of a development on the 11,000 thousand acres.

At this time the hearing was closed to the public and Mr. Cutforth stated that the signal reception portrayed in the citizens video would not be the same as a home table radio that does not have an antenna, which is the standard he used in his analysis.

Much discussion ensued regarding the lighting of the tower, colors for the lights and painting of the tower.

Commissioner Bender stated that the Board is to determine if the tower complies with the Land Use Code, which he believes it does, not to determine if there is a need for the tower.

Commissioner Gibson expressed concern with light pollution and whether the applicant meets the needs of the community. Commissioner Gibson noted that he believes the needs of the community have already been met, and prefers the Board address the lighting issue prior to a decision.

Chair Rennels stated that the Planning Commission found that there is not a need, but noted that it is not the position of the Board to determine "need". As for lighting, Chair Rennels continued, her preference is alternating lighting; white strobe during the day and red at night, with shields on the strobes.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Clear Channel Broadcast Special Review as presented and with two additional conditions to address alternating lighting and the removal of the tower within 12 months of the ceasing of the operation.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 11:20 p.m.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2001

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#73)

The Board of County Commissioners met with Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present. Also present were George Hass, County Attorney; Carol Block, Director of Finance; K-Lynn Cameron, Manager of Open Space; Michelle Bush of Dwyer, Huddleson and Ray; Chip Steiner, Fairgrounds and Event Center Coordinator; Ann Lujan, Natural Resources; Marc Engemoen, Director of Public Works; Mark Peterson, County Engineer; Ron Winne, Project Engineer; Donna Hart, Commissioner's Administrative Manager; Deni La Rue, Community Information Manager; and Jean O'Connor, Clerk to the Board.

1. PUBLIC COMMENT: The Board is available for public comment from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 6, 2001:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of August 6, 2001 as presented.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

3. APPROVAL OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 20, 2001:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the schedule for the week of August 20, 2001 as presented.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

Chair Rennels presented Mr. Lancaster with a 20-year longevity award and thanked him for outstanding service to Larimer County.

4. CONSENT AGENDA:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as listed on the consent agenda for August 14, 2001:

ACTION ITEMS: Reinstate expired Records Manager Position; Appointment of Deputy District Attorney Emily H. Titelbaum.

A01-133 FIRST ADDENDUM TO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REGARDING USE OF GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL AND VIDEO PRODUCTION

A01-134 WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT CLOSEOUT PACKAGE FOR THE PROGRAM YEAR 2000

A01-135 WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT CLOSEOUT PACKAGE FOR THE PROGRAM YEAR 1998 REALLOCATION

C01-38 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND CONNELL RESOURCES

C01-39 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO THROUGH LARIMER COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, YOUTH OFFENDER SYSTEM

R01-128g RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING LETTERS TO INCREASE PROJECT AMOUNT FOR REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE #LR19-1.1-48 ACROSS CACHE LaPOUDRE RIVER

R01-129z FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PETITION OF HERON LAKE RV CAMPGROUND

R01-130s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HORSE CREEK RANCH SUBDIVISION

R01-131s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT IN RAMONA HEIGHTS

R01-132s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT IN LETITIA LAKE SUBDIVISION

R01-133s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING STREET NAME CHANGE IN CUSHMAN ESTATES

MISCELLANEOUS: Approve the Larimer County Treasurer's Six Month Report; Soldier Canyon Estates 2nd Filing Lots 54 & 56 Amended Plat.

LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were approved Supermarket Liquors- 6%- Fort Collins, CO and Zippy's Liquor- 6%- Fort Collins, CO (Duplicate).

Motion carried 3 - 0.

5. ASSIGNMENT OF COUNTY'S 2001 PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND ALLOCATION TO THE COLORADO HOUSING AND FINANCE AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF GENESIS INNOVATIONS: Ms. Bush requested that the County authorize assignment of its' 2001 Private Activity Bonds to Colorado Housing and Finance Authority on behalf of Genesis Innovations. Ms. Block stated that no other requests have been received for these dollars and that often, Larimer County receives requests from other municipalities for this money or returns it to the State for re-allocation.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the assignment of Larimer County's 2001 Private Activity Bond allocation to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

R01-134g RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ASSIGNMENT TO THE COLORADO HOUSING AND FINANCE AUTHORITY OF A PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND ALLOCATION OF LARIMER COUNTY

6. FAIRGROUNDS UPDATE: Mr. Steiner stated that opportunities for "naming rights" of individual buildings at the fairgrounds will begin at $50,000 and that the proposed completion date is July 1, 2003 with the 1st County Fair being held that year. Mr. Steiner further noted that a hotel at the site is being pursued and that a letter of intent for a hockey franchise should be received within 24 hours.

Chair Rennels requested a letter to the Larimer County Stockgrowers requesting permission for the use of their brand and noted that each building at the new facility should also include the current name of that building to honor past history of the Larimer County Fairgrounds. Mr. Steiner stated potential for a plaque at each building explaining the history behind that building.

7. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PERSONNEL POLICY TO RESTORE 62-HOURS OF VACATION TIME: Ms. Lujan requested that 62 hours of vacation time be restored to Mr. Mike Carroll, the Weed District Manager, and noted that due to increased workload, reduced staff and legislative efforts in Washington, D.C., Mr. Carroll has not been able to utilize vacation time.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve restoring 62 forfeited hours of vacation to Mr. Carroll, Weed District Manager.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

8. REQUEST WAIVER OF PERSONNEL POLICY REGARDING POSTING OF WEED SPECIALIST I POSITION: Ms. Lujan stated that this position is vacant due to a recent resignation, and requested a waiver of posting policy in order to offer the position to a current Weed Control Technician, Mr. Bobby Goeman.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a waiver of Personnel Policy for posting an unfilled position to hire Mr. Goeman to fill the Weed Specialist I position.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

9. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTMENT: Mr. Lancaster requested the Board appoint Mr. Christopher Thornton to an unexpired term on the Flood Review Board. Mr. Lancaster stated that the Flood Review Board and staff reviewed two applications and the recommendation is based on proper technical expertise.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointment of Christopher Thornton to the Flood Review Board in order to fill an unexpired term beginning August 1, 2001 and expiring on June 30, 2004.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

10. TO APPROVE A REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF LOVELAND TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN ANNEXATION IMPACT REPORT FOR ANNEXATION OF AIRPORT SUBSTATION FIRST AND SECOND ADDITION: Mr. Lancaster stated that State law requires an Annexation Impact Report and that the City of Loveland is requesting that this requirement be waived in an effort to save time and money. Mr. Lancaster noted that no disadvantages to this request are anticipated and requested the Board approve the waiver and authorize the Chair to sign a letter stating such to the City of Loveland.

M OT I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to waive the requirement for the City of Loveland to submit an Annexation Impact Report and authorize the Chair to sign a letter approving such waiver.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

11. ADOPTION OF REVISED GOVERNING POLICIES AND CANCELLATION OF BOARD POLICY P-#3B AND P#6: Mr. Lancaster presented the Board with a draft of the revised Governing Policies, which shows changes proposed during a previous worksession. Mr. Lancaster requested the Board approve a resolution adopting the new policy and canceling Policy #3B and P#6.

Commissioner Gibson suggested the policy be reviewed annually in March; the Board concurred.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution adopting governance policies to guide the Board of Commissioners and County Staff in providing effective leadership and efficient administration of County Government to the citizens of Larimer County and canceling the Board Policy P#3B and P#6.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

R01-135g RESOLUTION ADOPTING GOVERNANCE POLICIES TO GUIDE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY STAFF IN PROVIDING EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO THE CITIZENS OF LARIMER COUNTY.

**(Clerk's Note: No "Exhibit A" attached to the resolution and no policy submitted for signature of the Board.)**

12. APPROVAL OF REVISIONS OF OPS 100.7J: Mr. Lancaster presented the Board with a revised OPS 100.7J and requested Board approval.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve revisions to OPS 100.7J as presented.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

**(Clerk's Note: No policy was submitted for signature of the Board.)**

13. WORK SESSION: Discussion ensued regarding Executive Sessions and how they would be handled since new legislation is now in affect.

Mr. Engemoen, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Winne provided the Board with an update on the Taft Hill bridge over the Cache LaPoudre River.

14. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: Commissioner Bender noted his attendance at the Office on Aging Advisory Board meeting at which an "Outsourcing Report" was distributed.

Commissioner Gibson stated that he attended the first Highway 34/I-25 meeting and discussions ensued regarding ingress's/egresses along Hwy.34. Commissioner Gibson also attended Boys & Girls Club event as well as a Future Technology meeting in Colorado Springs.

15. LEGAL MATTERS: Mr. Hass distributed a "cheat sheet" for the Board outlining the applicable statutes for executive sessions.

Mr. Hass requested the Board approve a closing agreement with the Internal Revenue Service as to final determination of tax liability for the recycling center.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a closing agreement as to final determination of tax liability and specific matters relating to the recycling center.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

A01-136 CLOSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AS TO FINAL DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY AND SPECIFIC MATTERS

Executive Session (#75)

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into executive session at 11:05 a.m. to discuss land negotiation as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(a) and 24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

Executive session recessed at 11:15 a.m. to allow staff to locate a previous motion of the Board; no action was taken.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into executive session at 11:25 a.m. for the same reasons previously stated.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

Executive session ended at 12:00 p.m.; no action was taken.

LIQUOR LICENSE HEARING

RAINBOW PLAZA, INC.

(#74)

The Board of County Commissioner met with George Hass, County Attorney; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioner Bender was present. Also present were Mary Ratcliff, Betters Court Reporting and Jean O'Connor, Recording Clerk.

Mr. Hass stated that Rainbow Plaza, Inc. has applied for a new Tavern Liquor License, which is owned by Celerina (Sally) M.C. Garcia and Samuel Garcia. Ms. Garcia, President of Rainbow Plaza, Inc. was sworn in and submitted pictures and petitions to the Board as exhibits. Mr. Hass asked if the applicant is aware of the requirements for holding a liquor license and Ms. Garcia replied in the affirmative and noted that she has obtained a Liquor Code and will be attending a class along with her bartender to learn more about intoxication, ID's, etc.

Mr. Hass noted for the record that there is no public in attendance for this hearing and no objections regarding the issuance of this license has been received.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Tavern Liquor License for Rainbow Plaza, Inc., 4229 W Eisenhower Blvd., Loveland, CO 80537.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

FORT COLLINS INDUSTRIAL PARK LID #2001-1

(#74)

The Board of County Commissioners met with Rex Burns, Project Engineer; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present. Also present were Mark Peterson, County Engineer; Linda Sanders, Staff Service Manager and Jean O'Connor, Recording Clerk.

Mr. Burns provided a history of the project and current road conditions and noted that the original estimate for the repairs is no longer accurate, and has increased significantly. Mr. Burns stated that the property owners have suggested the County process be a backup; while they pursue a private administrative process, thereby causing this hearing to be tabled to a later date.

Chair Rennels expressed concern over the timing of a public hearing and certification of the November ballot. Ms. Sanders stated that the Board can certify the issue via Resolution prior to a public hearing noting that there are no requirements to hold a public hearing prior to certification.

Mr. Peterson suggested this item be tabled to September 25, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Fort Collins Industrial Park LID #2001-1 to September 25, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.

_______________________________

KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

MYRNA J RODENBERGER

CLERK & RECORDER

(S E A L)

A T T E S T

_______________________________

Jean M. O'Connor, Clerk to the Board

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