Cirque Meadows by Adam Johnson
> Meetings & Minutes > 2004 Minutes > BCC Minutes for 09/13/04  



Monday, September 13, 2004





The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present.  Also present were Matt Lafferty and Al Kadera, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Lisa Dunn and Roxann Hayes, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Jean O’Connor, Clerk to the Board.


Chair Rennels stated that the following item is consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board or members of the audience.




This is a request for a Minor Land Division to formally subdivide existing residential uses.  Staff findings include 1. The Kirtright MLD is consistent with the review criteria and standards of Section 5.4 (Minor Land Division) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, provided the applicant complies with all conditions of approval; 2. The Kirtright MLD is not part of a previously recorded exemption or subdivision; 3. The Kirtright will exceed the minimum lot size requirements for the FA-Farming zoning District where it is located, as the applicant has received approval from the Board of Adjustment for a lot size variance; 4. The parcels created by approval of the Kirtright MLD meet or exceed the minimum access standards of the County Engineering Department; 5. The Kirtright MLD will not result in any negative impacts to surrounding properties or uses; 6. The Board of County Commissioners approved the use of the MLD process during administrative matters on February 24, 2004.  Staff recommendation is approval subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when presented for signature 1. The Plat for the Kirtright Minor Land Division shall be consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in File #04-S2284 except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant; 2. All conditions shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by March 13, 2005, or this approval shall be null and void. 




Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as presented and outlined above.


Motion carried 3 – 0.




This is a request for appeals to Section 8.9.1.B (Supplemental Regulations – Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards) – to require to construction of the adjacent road improvements to Link Lane as required; Section 8.5.5 (Street Landscaping) – to be required to install landscaping along the street frontage as required, and Section 8.6.3.C.1.a (Parking Lot Standards) & 8.9.1.C (Supplemental Regulations – Stormwater Manual) – to allow use of portions of the required parking lot for on-lot detention of stormwater, which is prohibited. Staff findings are that an appeal to Section 8.9.1.B (Supplemental Regulations – Urban Area Street Standards) would not be in the best interest of the public and without such improvements may adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare.  An appeal to Section 8.5.6 (Street Landscaping) would not be to the best interest of the public.  And an appeal to Sections 8.6.3.C.1.a (Parking Lot Standards) & 8.9.1.c (Supplemental Standards – Stormwater Manual) will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the public. 


Mr. Lafferty briefed the Board on the request for three appeals to the Land Use Code and noted that the applicant does not necessarily disagree with the requirements, just the timing of the requirements.


Commissioner Gibson stated that the property was a gas station in the past and asked if the ground was contaminated; Mr. Lafferty responded that any ground contamination was mitigated years ago when the gas station was removed.


Commissioner Bender asked if all properties would be installing sidewalks and curb and cutter or just this parcel.  Mr. Lafferty stated that that is the dilemma of the Urban Growth Area standards; improvements are to be made at the time of development.  Chair Rennels stated that at some point, the County has escrowed funds for future improvements and asked if that is still an option.  Mr. Lafferty replied in the affirmative, and noted that if the funds for the improvements have not been used within 7-years, they must be returned to the owner.


Mr. Gerald Granberg, the applicant stated that he does not object to the requirements but believes that the timing is wrong.  Link Lane, with the improvements, would shrink down to 14-feet wide at the intersection, which is hazardous.


Chair Rennels asked if Mr. Granberg is willing to pay a fee in lieu of for the improvements and Mr. Granberg stated that he is willing to escrow the funds.


At this time the hearing was opened to the public and Mr. Chris Pierson noted that it is nice to address some of the issues along the frontage road and the intersection, however foot traffic is minimal.  The problem with the proposed improvements, Mr. Pierson continued are that they lead to nowhere.


Commissioner Gibson asked if there is any guarantee that a plan would exist 8 – 10 years in the future.  Mr. Lafferty stated that the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and the Transportation Plan were adopted approximately 1-year ago and recommends that the frontage road be realigned so access would be at the north end of this site. 


Commissioner Bender asked why staff is requiring the improvements now and Mr. Lafferty stated the improvements have to start somewhere.


Ms. Cookman advised the Board that the proposed application would require the applicant to proceed through a change of location application for his liquor license.


Chair Rennels asked if the applicant would agree to escrow the funds for improvements and Mr. Granberg replied in the affirmative but his bank prefers a letter of credit.  Ms. Haag stated the letter of credit is acceptable.


Chair Rennels stated that she supports the escrowing of funds for future improvements and Commissioner Gibson concurred except that he would like to see landscaping installed.  Chair Rennels clarified that funds for the landscaping within the right-of-way, as well as funds for the sidewalk, curb and cutter improvements would be escrowed and Mr. Lafferty stated that is correct.  Mr. Lafferty further clarified that the landscaping within the parking lot would be installed as noted on the site plan.


Mr. Lafferty requested that if the Board approves the appeal to Sections 8.9.1.B and 8.5.6 with the applicant escrowing funds for such improvements, that the Board require the applicant to “stripe” along Link Lane.  Mr. Granberg accepted the request to stripe Link Lane.


Mr. Helmick suggested that if the Board accepts the appeals to section 8.9.1.b and 8.5.5 of the Land Use Code, a development agreement with specific language regarding the improvements and the letter of credit that together join the parties with respect to this money should be required.  Mr. Granberg clarified that the letter of credit would contain language specifying what the funds were for and Chair Rennels responded in the affirmative.


 Mr. Lafferty further noted that staff recommendation is approval of the Young’s Liquor appeal to the Larimer County Land Use Code Sections 8.6.3.C.1.a (Parking Lot Standards) & 8.9.1.C (Supplemental Standards – Drainage Manual).





Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Young’s Liquor appeal to Section 8.9.1.B of the Land Use Code and require the applicant to execute a development agreement with Larimer County that identifies the applicant’s financial obligation for special improvements and landscaping and also specifies a timeframe for completion.  The applicant is also responsible for “striping” along Link Lane to be noted in the development agreement.


Motion carried 3 – 0.




Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Young’s Liquor appeals to sections 8.6.3.C.1.a and 8.9.1.C of the Land Use Code.


Motion carried 3 – 0.




This is an alleged violation of Land Use Code Section 4.1.5 Outside storage is not a permitted use in the O-Open zoning district and Section 21.1.B “It is unlawful to use real property…in a way that is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of any land use approval…”


Mr. Kadera stated that staff would like this item removed from the agenda and noted that Ms. DeLude is currently at Mr. Robinson’s home discussing the violation.  Mr. Kadera clarified that there is only one vehicle left on the property, which should be gone next week.  As for the other debris, Mr. Kadera continued everything should be removed in the next two weeks.


There being no further business, the hearing recessed at 3:50 p.m.



(#107, 108 & 109)


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 Frank Lancaster, County Manager; Al Kadera and Geniphyr Ponce- Pore, Planning Department; Christie Coleman, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Jean O’Connor, Clerk to the Board.






This is a request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by adding Section 7 to provide a process for reviewing and approving special events.  Mr. Lancaster stated the purpose of this process is to prevent large events from occurring in a zoning district that does not allow such use and is not compatible with the surrounding area.  Mr. Lancaster stated that discussions during the Planning Commission hearing pertained to determining when a permit is required and it was suggested that events with 300 or less participants would not be required to submit for a Special Events Permit, however staff would recommend that the host advise the Sheriff and Health Departments.  Due to these discussions, the following has been added Section 7.3.D, “Events that will have attendance of 300 people or less, are permitted in all zoning district and do not require a permit.  The property owner or organizer of the event may apply for a permit, but in all cases, they should consult with the Department of Health and Environment and emergency provider services (Sheriff, fire department, ambulance service, etc.) in the area.


Chair Rennels stated that in conversations with other counties it has been suggested that insurance be required at some events, which are more extreme than other events. Chair Rennels further noted that SAR Cards (Search and Rescue) are available to residents for a minimal fee.  Fees collected go toward search and rescue organizations and help offset the costs associated with a rescue.  Mr. Lancaster stated that insurance and a SAR Card could be added as item 7.5.S and is at the discretion of the County Manager


Chair Rennels stated that there is no public present to comment on this item.




Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment to the Larimer County Land Use Code by adding Section 7: Special Events Permit Regulations as contained in the official file #04-CA0048, and with the addition of sections 7.3.D pertaining to the number of attendees and Section 7.5.S pertaining to insurance at the discretion of the County Manager


Motion carried 3 – 0.


CLERK’S NOTE: It is the intention of staff and the Board that this regulation and process are to be effective January 1, 2005.




This is a request for a Preliminary Plat for a three lot subdivision on 10.0 acres, and Appeals to Sections 8.14.2.M (now known as Section 8.14.2.N), Connectivity, 8.14.2.F (now known as Section 8.14.2.G) Maximum lengths for dead-end turn-arounds of the Larimer County Land Use Code, and Section 4.3.L of the Road Manual, which allows an alternative road design.  Staff recommendation is approval of the appeal to Section 4.3.L of the Larimer County Road Manual.  Staff recommendation is approval of the appeal to Section 8.14.2.F (now known as Section 8.14.2.G) of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Staff recommendation is approval to the appeal of Section 8.14.2.M (now known as Section 8.14.2.N) of the Land Use Code. Staff recommendation is approval of the McDonald Subdivision Preliminary Plat #01-S1848 subject to the following conditions 1. The Final Plat of the McDonald Subdivision shall be completed in strict compliance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat and other information submitted by the applicant and contained in the file, #01-S1848, unless modified by the conditions of this approval; 2. The applicant shall provide a final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall also include, but is not limited to; the restrictions of fencing of prohibiting access to all ditches for maintenance and access for those responsible for maintenance, the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for an access permit and culverts, the need for engineered footings and foundations, the need for engineered septic systems, and the need for passive radon mitigation; 3. The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation, Development Construction Permit fees, and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.  Prior to construction, the applicant must contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit; 4. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures in this development. Radon detection tests are required in all new residential structures on this site. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the Planning Department once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for a radon tester that specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted; 5. Footing and foundations for any new houses and septic systems must be constructed in consideration of those specifications by the Colorado State Geological Survey memo, from Celia Greenman dated January 6, 2004, including foundation design, drainage and septic systems (ISDS); 6. The applicant shall provide road maintenance agreements at Final Plat that serve to ensure that the owners of all lots in the McDonald Subdivision shall pay yearly dues for their portion of the maintenance of both Brehm Road and Sanitas Court; 7. Final plat documents shall reflect the expanded irrigation easements on the northern and eastern boundaries of the property, and specific notes regarding the needs of the easement holders to access and maintain those easements; 8. At the time of final plat submittal, the applicant shall demonstrate adequate fire flow or agree to a requirement for residential fire sprinkler systems; 9. At the time of final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that he has acquired the approvals regarding the ditch crossing from the holder of that easement, per the Code, Section 8.8; 10. The plat map shall contain a note, which reflects that both Brehm Road and Sanitas Court are private roads not maintained by Larimer County.


Ms. Ponce-Pore briefed the Board on the application and stated that Nancy Frase, a consultant hired by the neighbors would address the Board with concerns of the neighbors.


Mr. Todd Rogers, attorney for the applicant, briefed the Board on an unrelated situation that occurred on the applicant’s property recently, which upset the neighbors.


Mr. Rogers stated that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and noted that it is one of the last 10-acre parcels in the area, the rest have been divided.  The conditions proposed by staff are acceptable to the applicant and that staff and referral agencies are in support of all requested appeals.  Mr. Rogers further noted that the applicant has gone to great lengths to address all concerns.


Ms. Frase presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Board listing 12 reasons for the neighbors concerns, why the proposal does not comply with the Land Use Code, why the appeals should not be approved, and that the proposal is incompatible with the surrounding area.  Ms. Frase requested the Board refer to the Land Use Code and apply the regulations consistently for this application.


At this time the hearing was opened to the public and Mr. Mike Urban spoke on behalf of Ms. Winn’s irrigation ditch, which is on the north side of the McDonald property.  Mr. Urban stated that irrigation water to the Winn property has been cut off because Mr. McDonald has not allowed access to the ditch for maintenance.  When Ms. Winn asked that he provide access to the ditch, Mr. McDonald installed a gate, but then wired it closed on both ends and installed fence posts, both of which make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Ms. Winn to get through.  Mr. Urban also expressed concern that if this proposal were to be approved, precedent would be set for additional property divisions.


Mr. Joel Bath suggested that the road not be labeled private, but instead require it to be less than 60-feet so it could not even be public.  Mr. Bath also noted that the proposed lots would be dry land adjacent to irrigated land.


Mr. Jerry Geiger stated that since the courts ruled that his expenses be reimbursed, he has not been spoken to by staff or Mr. McDonald.  Mr. Geiger stated that he also has difficulty receiving water to his property due to a lack of maintenance of the irrigation ditch and the inability to even get to the ditch.  On August 23rd, the last day to receive water, Mr. Geiger continued he did not receive any because the ditch had not been maintained.  Mr. Geiger stated that there are too many loose ends with this proposal and agreements are not in place, therefore the Board should deny the application at this time.


Mr. Rick Zier, representing the neighbors explained recent legal history between Mr. McDonald and the neighbors.  Mr. Zier stated that the requested appeals are nothing more then a “wedge” to make the proposal fit the regulations.  Mr. Zier also expressed concern with a development agreement pertaining to Brehm Road since it is co-owned by all the residents.


Mr. KC Scott stated that the neighborhood is an agriculture community for which Mr. McDonald wants to make a residential area in a rural setting.  Mr. Scott stated that if the area is zoned for subdivisions, then why are the appeals necessary?


Ms. Melanie Burell agreed with previous statements and thanked Ms. Frase for all her work.  Ms. Burell stated that Mr. McDonald previously submitted application for a day camp and suggested that a condition be added stating residential uses only.


Ms. Carolyn Goss stated that Mr. McDonald is currently not in compliance with the Land Use Code and that the neighborhood is an established area intended for rural small acreage for agriculture.  Ms. Goss stated that there is no cooperation between the neighbors and Mr. McDonald regarding irrigation water and Brehm Road and stated that there are current building code violations on the McDonald property.


Chair Rennels noted that Ms. Goss’ property seems to be smaller than adjacent properties and Ms. Goss stated that her property was divided in a 1974 divorce, so she and Mr. Seat both have smaller lots.


Mr. Colwell also recalled the past application for a daycare and stated that he is not in favor of funding the proposed development by way of road improvements.  Mr. Colwell also referred to section 12.6.6.A of the Land Use Code, which addresses a road maintenance agreement.  That agreement, Mr. Colwell continued stated that if the road is not maintained to County standards, then the County could come in and fix the road and charge all the homeowners.


Mr. Roger Seat stated that Brehm Road owned by 12 other residents who have not agreed to any development agreement.  Mr. Seat stated that the development standards are not being met and the proposal does not comply with current regulations.


Ms. Pamela Vancel stated that Brehm Road had recently been graveled yet it is already deteriorating and the addition of new homes would only make the situation worse.


Mr. Mark Malone concurred with all previous statements.


Mr. Jerry Gieger stated that he and Mr. Malone own shares of the irrigation water, which Mr. McDonald prohibits them from receiving because he does not maintain the ditch.


At this time the hearing was closed to the public and Mr. Rogers rebutted that the entire neighborhood was involved in the legal dispute over the road at the request of Mr. Seat.  Mr. Rogers stated that the tone of the neighbors concerns is that they know better than staff.  Most of their concerns, Mr. Rogers continued will be addressed at final plat and that the applicant intends to comply with all conditions.


Mr. Rogers stated that the fire department has given their approval; irrigation easements are addressed in the conditions of approval; the development is paying its fair share; and an irrigation ditch agreement already exists so another should not be necessary.  Chair Rennels asked if the applicant is willing to stipulate in a condition, that the lots would be for single family use only and Mr. Rogers agreed.


Chair Rennels stated that irrigation water is critical and Mr. Rogers stated that the existing easements would be enforced.


Commissioner Gibson asked if Sanitas Court would be maintained at the same standard as Brehm Road and Mr. Rogers replied in the affirmative. Chair Rennels requested staff review each of the 12 points raised by Ms. Frase and comment on each as to how the application does or does not comply.  Mr. Helmick, Ms. Ponce-Pore and Ms. Coleman reviewed each issue with the Board.  Chair Rennels asked if the County must get involved with road maintenance and Mr. Helmick stated that getting involved would be at the discretion of the Board.


Chair Rennels asked Mr. Kadera to provide the history regarding the Appeals Section of the Land Use Code.  Mr. Kadera stated that when the County decided to re-write the Land Use Code, he was appointed project manager and has been involved since day one.  The intention of the Land Use Code was to take all the regulations and put them in one book keeping in mind flexability and predictability. It did not take long to discover that you can’t have both.  Much discussion took place during community open houses and Steering Committee meetings regarding how much authority should people like staff and the planning director, Planning Commission and the Commissioners have, who makes decisions and who does what.  Under State law, Mr. Kadera continued the Board of Adjustment must hear all zoning issues.  Everything else is appealable only to the Board of Commissioners.  Mr. Kadera stated that a record was made during the Planning Commission hearing regarding the appeals connected to this application.  The request before the Board tonight is not a variance because variances have to do with zoning issues not with the other standards in the Code.  The requests before the Board are appeals of the standards within the Land Use Code.  This is clearly what the Code indicates, clearly what everyone intended and that is how we have operated in the past.  Since January 2000, when the Code became affective, there have been approximately 42 appeals submitted to the Planning Department and heard by the Board of Commissioners, three had to do with connectivity and the remainder had to do with various other issues in the Code that are not covered in Section 4- the zoning portion of the Code that would be heard by the Board of Adjustment.  The process used for the appeals of this application are consistant with the process used since 2000, consistant with the way the Land Use Code is written and believe it is appropriate for the Board to consider the appeals in the context of this subdivision application.





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


Motion carried 3 – 0.


Mr. Urban asked that Ms. Winn's irrigation easement be enforced and accessible.


Mr. Zier clarified that Mr. Seat did not want all the residents involved in the lawsuit and noted it was necessary because they all own the road.


Mr. Gieger stated that his irrigation ditch would be affected when Sanitas Court is built.


Ms. Goss stated that all the residents worked hard to get their concerns address and noted that there is a plan in place already but Mr. McDonald won’t comply with it.


Mr. Seat stated that the Land Use Code dictates how to calculate the lot ratio and suggested that staff should abide by it.


At this time the hearing was closed to the public and Commissioner Bender asked about in home sprinklers vs. hydrants.  Mr. Helmick stated that in home sprinklers are acceptable because the standards for this application are the rural standards since it is not located in a Growth Management Area.


Commissioner Gibson stated that he believes the area has remained the same for 30+ years and does not believe the proposal fits the décor of the area.


Commissioner Bender stated that any of the lots could be further subdivided and has no problem approving the application at the preliminary plat stage.


Chair Rennels stated that Ms. Goss and Mr. Seat would not have their property now if it had not been subdivided.  Chair Rennels expressed concern with Mr. Malon, Mr. Gieger and Ms. Winn's ability to get their irrigation water.  Chair Rennels stated that she could support the application with the following 1. A condition addressing tenants-in-common for the new lot owners for Brehm Road; 2. Installation of an access gate for Ms. Winn to maintain her irrigation canal; 3. Private road with a secure access crossing to the Malone and Gieger properties for irrigation maintenance; 4. Designation of single-family use only.  Ms. Haag stated that the single-family use would be addressed in the homeowner association covenants.


Ms. Ponce-Pore stated that Ms. Winn requested the specific wording in proposed condition 2 and Chair Rennels replied convenient access would be a gate, not something she has to unwire and then move or pull out posts.




Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the McDonald Subdivision as presented and with the additional conditions stated by Chair Rennels.


Motion carried 2 – 1, with Commissioner Gibson dissenting.




Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal to Section 8.14.2.M (now known as Section 8.14.2.N) of the Land Use Code.


Motion carried 3 – 0.




Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal to Section 8.14.2.F (now known as Section 8.14.2.G) of the Land Use Code.


Motion carried 3 – 0.




Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal to 4.3.L of the Land Use Code.


Motion carried 3 – 0.


There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:05 p.m.








The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Bender and Gibson were present.  Also present were Donna Hart and Deni La Rue, Commissioners’ Office; Gary Buffington, Parks and Open Lands Department; Darin Atteberry, Ron Phillips and Mark Jackson, City of Fort Collins representatives for the Highway 14 Bypass; and Jean O’Connor, Clerk to the Board.








Commissioner Bender moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of September 6, 2004 with noted correction of a typo.

Motion carried 3 – 0.


3.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2004: Ms. Hart reviewed the schedule with the Board.


4.         CONSENT AGENDA:




Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the consent agenda:














MISCELLANEOUS: Notice of Building permit holds on Lots 68 and 69, Block 1 in Stagecoach Subdivision and Authorized official signatures for the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Financial Documents.


LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were both approved and issued Hatrixx- Tavern- Fort Collins, CO and Sun Deck Restaurant- Hotel & Restaurant- Estes Park, CO.  The following license was issued Rams Horn & CSU- Hotel and Restaurant with Optional Premise- Fort Collins, CO.


Motion carried 3 – 0.


6.               WORK SESSION: Mr. Gluckman informed the Board that a Human Resources Director Wynette Cerceillo has been hired and started work yesterday. 


Mr. Gluckman stated that a letter from the Bail Bonds Association regarding potential legislative action is about 180-degrees different from the position of the Community Justice Advisory Board and that the Association would lobby hard against the proposed bill.  Discussions are ongoing, Mr. Gluckman continued in the hopes that negotiations could bring the party’s closer before the legislation session.




8.         HIGHWAY 14 BYPASS UPDATE: Mr. Atteberry reminded the Board that the citizen initiative ballot wording prohibited the expenditure of funds to construct the Highway 14 bypass along Vine Drive.  Mr. Jackson stated that a resolution passed by the Fort Collins City Council encourages the use of Interstates 25 and 80 by communicating with trucking organizations.  This communication also educates the orgainzations that the difference between using the interstates and Highway 14 is a difference of 14 – 17 miles.


Commissioner Bender asked if education has started since there is still much truck traffice on the County roads.  Mr. Jackson stated that the stratigies have not been initiated at this time but round table discussions with industry representative are on going.


Chair Rennels stated that the recent accident on I-80, which detoured traffic, resulted in approximately 1000 trucks on side roads in her area but overall there seems to be more and more trucks staying on the highway.


Mr. Phillips noted that the Colorado Department of Transportation did a feasibility study regarding toll roads in the State and included Highway 287, but it did not prove to be effective for Highway 287.  The “Weigh-in-Motion” transmitters on the Interstates were expected to keep approximately 15% of the trucks on those roads, but in fact estimates are at 50% use.


Commissioner Gibson asked where we anticipate being in 2005 with the sunset of the tax and Mr. Jackson hoped that the strategies would be inplemented and tested.


There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.



















(S E A L)








Jean M. O’Connor, Clerk to the Board


Background Image: Cirque Meadows by Adam Johnson. All rights reserved.