Holiday Fog in Larimer County

Larimer County Offices, Courts, and District Attorney will be closed February 20, 2017 for the Presidents' Day Holiday. The Landfill will be open. Critical services at Larimer County are not disrupted by closures.

> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 05/23/05  



Monday, MAY 23, 2005





The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principle Planner.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Wagner was present.  Also present were:  Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Matt Lafferty, Porter Ingrum, and Claudia Delude, Planning Department;  Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Christy Coleman, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.


Chair Pro-Tem Gibson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson noted that staff has requested Item #1 be tabled to June 20, 2005.




Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Landers Zoning Violation until June 20, 2005, at 3:00 p.m.


Motion carried 2-0.


Chair Pro-Tem Gibson then explained that the following items are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:


2.   SOUTH NOKOMIS LAKE BLOCK 38, LOTS 8, 9, AND 10 LOT CONSOLIDATION; #05-S2421:  This is a request to combine Lots 8-10 of Block 38 in S. Nokomis Lake Subdivision into one building lot.  There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Team.  The Health Department has commented that the vaulted sewer system that will be used on this site must be inspected if this application is approved.  The proposed Lot Consolidation of S. Nokomis Lake Block 38 Lots 8-10 will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots.  The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The Development Services Team Recommendation is for approval of the Lot Consolidation for S. Nokomis Lake Subdivision Block 38 Lots 8-10 (#05-S2421), to be known as Lot 9A of the Lot Consolidation of Lots 8, 9 & 10 of S. Nokomis Lake Subdivision Block 38 and subject to the following conditions:   1.  The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.  2.  All conditions shall be met and the final executed deed and resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by November 23, 2005 or this approval shall be null and void.  3.  As part of the building permit process, the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment must inspect the vaulted sewer system connection prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.  


3.  ANDREWS MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW; #05-Z1538:   This is a request for approval of a Minor Special Review for a home occupation in a detached structure in order to utilize the existing garage as an art studio for welding metal art.  She currently has a computerized graphic design business as a home occupation, in her single-family home.  The studio proposed in the detached structure requires a space that is 22’ x 20’ or approximately 440 square feet.  The graphic art home occupation requires 10’ x 12’ for a total of 120 square feet; together the uses do not exceed the 800 foot threshold for Home Occupations as set forth in the Larimer County Land Use Code.   The lot on which the business is located is in an urbanized area of Unincorporated Larimer County, in an enclave, surrounded by the City of Loveland.  The lot is served by septic and public water, and accessed by a paved, dedicated public road (West 8th Street).  The art studio, because it is home occupation and taking place in a detached structure, is required to go through a Minor Special Review.  The proposed use is the creation of welded, metal art.  There are no employees, and the artist holds a degree in welding. All welding activity takes place within the enclosed detached structure; there are no fumes or noise that migrates across the property line. The outside storage is for materials used in the art, and is located adjacent to the structure. The lots platted in this neighborhood are rectangular in shape, and are about 62’ wide.  The two requested appeals are to appeal the 50’ setback for both the outside storage and for the detached structure. The detached structure and the outside storage both have very low visibility from the road.  A Home occupation is a use conducted as a personal service, professional office or by a writer, artist or craftsman or trade use, and which is conducted within a dwelling and/or attached garage. Uses described as home occupations in section 4.3.10.B may be conducted in detached accessory buildings garage only if they are approved through the minor special review process.   To approve a minor special review for a home occupation the County Commissioners must find the following conditions exist, in addition to the review criteria for minor special review (section 4.5.5):

1.   All outdoor storage of materials, parts, equipment, finished product and other items associated with the approved home occupation will be effectively screened from surrounding properties and limited to an area not to exceed 200 square feet and set back at least 50 feet from all property lines;

The 150 square foot outdoor storage area for art materials is located adjacent to the studio, and is less than 200 square feet.  It is screened from the neighboring properties by a storage shed and established, mature landscaping located on along the lot lines.  Because of garden walls, topography, and established landscaping, the storage area appears to not be visible from neighboring properties.  Neither the applicant not Staff has received any complaints about outdoor storage on this site.


However, because the entire width of the lot is 62 feet, the applicant is requesting an appeal of the 50’ setback requirement.  The mature landscaping and existing improvements appear to adequately screen the storage area; Staff has received no complaints regarding the outside storage.

Staff can support this request to appeal, Section 4.3.10.B.4.1.

2.   The home occupation will not occupy more than 800 square feet in a detached, accessory building. More than one home occupation may be approved on a lot but the total area occupied by all home occupations will not exceed 800 square feet;

The graphic business, located in the single-family home, consumes 120 square feet; the art studio consumes 440 square feet.  Together both uses require 560 square feet and do not exceed the 800 square foot threshold.

3.   The use will be located on the same lot with the single family dwelling occupied by the owner/operator of the use;

The studio and house are both located on the same lot.

 4.   The proposed home occupation will not change the character of the lot or the neighborhood;

The proposed studio is not visible from neighboring properties, will be conducted indoors, and will result in significantly less than 20 trips per day, which by county standards is considered an “insignificant impact.”  The use has been in operation for several years; Staff has received no complaints.  It is anticipated that the approval of the use at this time as proposed will result in no additional impacts or changes to the house, structure or neighborhood.

5.   The home occupation will be located at least 50 feet from all property lines;

The intent of this requirement is to create a buffer between uses that are potentially a nuisance.  The lot on which the use is proposed has a total width of 62 feet; the established 50 setback threshold it not possible on this lot.  Further, the use will take place within an existing detached structure.  The structure has been inspected by both the Chief Building Official of Larimer County and the Loveland Fire Department.

6.   On-site retail sales will be limited to products identified and declared in the minor special review application for the home occupation and approved by the county commissioners;

Any sales that take place will be of those finished art products that are created in the studio.

7.   The home occupation will employ no more than one full time equivalent employee who does not reside on the premises as a member of the family;

No employees are proposed.

8.   All parking required to accommodate a home occupation approved through the minor special review process will be provided on the site of the use; and

The site can accommodate the anticipated minimal parking required.  Customers rarely visit the site, and if they do, it is one at time and requiring one vehicle at a time.  The driveway and parking area are adequate to serve this need.

9.   The maximum sign size for a use permitted by home occupation will be three square feet. Each home occupation approved by minor special review is limited to one sign, which will be located on the same lot as the use.

No signs are proposed; any future signs must meet the maximum of 3 square feet.

It appears that the application will meet all regulations.

The site is currently served by an approved septic system.  Larimer County Health has approved the septic permit.  No additional comments were made regarding the septic system; there are no outstanding issues related to septic. (For more detail, please see letter from Doug Ryan, Larimer County Health, dated April 1, 2005).  The site is served by the City of Loveland.  They stated they have no issues. (See letter, dated April 18, 2005).    The Health Department has no objections. (For more detail, please see letter from dated April 1, 2005).  No additional structures are proposed; no changes to drainage are proposed. No outstanding issues regarding drainage exist.  Loveland Fire Authority with the Larimer County Building Official performed a site visit and inspection, on April 4, 2005.  No issues were raised as a result of that inspection.  Since this visit, the applicant has purchased and installed two additional fire extinguishers in the studio, as suggested by Loveland Fire.  Loveland Fire has voiced no objection to the proposed use or structure as it exists.  The proposed project will take access from West 8th Street a paved, publicly dedicated road; the proposed use will generate less than 20 trips per day; this is considered an insignificant impact; the existing road is adequate to serve the site and proposed use.   No wetlands exist on this site.   The existing landscaping adequately screens the site; no additional landscaping is required.   Parking requirements can be met on this site for the proposed use.   No signs were specifically requested with the application.  Any future sign cannot be greater than three square feet.  No irrigation facilities have been identified on site.   No Use Plan is required.  No additional lighting is proposed.   No additional fencing is proposed.   Setbacks can be met by all existing structures for zoning.  

Upon review of the original application, the Building Department required several changes be made to the structure in order to meet Federal regulations regarding the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  Following a consultation with the applicant, it was decided that restricting access to the studio was desirable, and the applicant agreed to maintain the studio for her use alone, and not permitting public access to the building.  With this stipulation, all ADA requirements were eliminated and there are no outstanding issues regarding the proposed use in the structure. (See Condition of Approval #3).  The neighborhood meeting took place on Saturday, March 5, 2005 from 2 pm to 5 pm at the studio and no issues were raised. Staff has received one letter, from the applicant’s neighbors at 1239 W. 8th Ave., who spoke strongly in support of the application.

Staff findings are as follows:

1.   Outdoor storage will not exceed, 200 square feet;

2.   The home occupation and Minor Special Review use will not occupy more than a total of 800 square feet;

3.   The use will be located on the same lot with the single family dwelling occupied by the owner/operator of the use;

4.   The proposed home occupation will not change the character of the lot or the neighborhood;

5.   Retail sales will be limited to those finished products produced in the art studio;

It is the opinion of the Development Review Team that the proposal is compatible when viewed in the context of the development pattern in the area, the surrounding existing and allowed uses, the size of the parcel and the intensity of the use.  Further, Staff finds that the Appeal requests are reasonable, and will not compromise or negate the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding area or adjacent neighboring properties. It is the opinion of Staff that the application meets the intent of Section 8 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The Development Review Team recommends approval of the Andrews Studio Minor Special Review and Appeals to Sections 4.3.10.B.4.1 and 4.3.10.B.4.5 regarding setbacks for outdoor storage and setbacks for the detached structure as included in File #05-Z1538 with the following conditions:

1.         The use shall operate at all times consistent with the information as presented and approved as a part of the Andrews Studio Minor Special Review, File #05-Z1538.

2.         The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

3.  There shall be no public access to the studio/ detached structure. 

4.         There shall be no Development Agreement or additional Site Plan Review process required with this application. In the event applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review and Amended Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.


4.  MANZANARES EXTENDED FAMILY DWELLING; #05-SP0153:  This is a request for an Extended Family Dwelling (EFD) on a lot less than four acres.  Mr. Manzanares lives at 413 N. Hollywood Street in an urban area of unincorporated Fort Collins.  Staff received a letter from a Dr. Bermingham, MD.  This letter states that Mr. Manzanares has several complicated medical problems.  Staff has reviewed the letter and does not disagree.  His daughter, Mary Ellen McKie, the applicant and her husband, currently live at 401 Timberline Road in Fort Collins. They wish to be closer to their father to assure adequate care for him.   Cherry Street is a publicly dedicated, privately maintained road.  The Applicant has agreed to pay their fair share into the continued maintenance of this road.  The applicant is proposing a double-wide manufactured home to be placed on the same lot as Mr. Manzanares.  The lot is 70’ X 189’, or 15,616 square feet; it is less than the 4-acre minimum required for an Administrative Review of an Extended Family Dwelling, and thus requires a public hearing.  Staff findings are as follows:   The request for this dwelling meets the following conditions, as described in the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 4.3.10.G: 

a.  There is a legitimate family hardship that justifies the need for an extended family dwelling;

      The letter provided Staff by Mr. Manzanares’ doctor, states that he is ill and in need of medical attention.  An approved Extended Family Dwelling will allow his family to live nearby, and allow them to answer to his medical needs promptly.

b.  The extended family dwelling will not substantially adversely impact the surrounding area;

      The additional home will be a residential structure in an urban area, served by public roads, public sewer and public water.  All agencies have stated they can and will serve the additional home.  Further, the size of the lot allows for placement of the home while still meeting all required setbacks. 

c.  The extended family dwelling will be removed within three months from the date of the expiration of the permit, unless an application for land division is submitted;

      The applicant has committed to leaving only one single-family home on the site at the expiration of the permit, unless granted an extension by the Board.

d.  All applicable capital expansion fees will be paid; and

      The applicant will pay all capital expansion fees at the time of building permit.

e.  In no event will a lot or parcel used for an extended family dwelling be less than four acres, unless public sewer service is used by the principal dwelling and the extended family dwelling; and

      This parcel is less than 4 acres, but is served with public sewer form the City of Fort Collins. 

f.  A simplified site plan was provided with the application.

   A site plan showing the lot, the existing and proposed structure was reviewed and approved.

The main issue with the application was the existence of a 100-year floodplain that was defined based on the Hollywood and Irish Storm Drain Improvements Study.  In order to be located outside any area of flooding, Engineering requested that the site plan reflect the structure to be at least 30 feet from the western edge of the existing home.   The applicants complied, and the re-drawn site plan shows the relocation of the structure.  The proposed Extended Family Dwelling is now not in the designated 100-year floodplain.  Engineering had no further concerns.   Larimer County Health and Environment stated that the applicants have made adequate provisions for water and sewer.  They have no issues.   The City of Fort Collins agrees to provide wastewater service to the site.   Staff recommends approval of the Extended Family Dwelling with the following conditions:

1.  The new, temporary access to serve the proposed structure shall be a minimum of 12 feet wide and a 4” minimum all-weather gravel surface, per Larimer County Engineering.

2. Transportation Capital Expansion and Building Permit fees shall be paid by the applicant at the time of building permit.

3.  The location of the extended family dwelling shall be consistent with the site plan and the information in File #05-SP0153.

4.  The applicant is responsible for payment of all required fees and obtaining required building permits; a building permit must be issued and all required inspections must be completed with in 90 days of this approval.

5.  Approval of the Extended Family Dwelling will be in effect for a maximum of 3 years from the date of this approval, after which one of the structures must be removed.  An additional 3 years may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners, provided that the conditions noted in Section 4.3.10.G.1.b. continue to exist.

6.  At the end of three years from this approval, the existing single-family home will be removed from the site, and at that time or sooner, the proposed double-wide modular will be placed on a permanent foundation, and become the only single-family home on this site.

7. At the time of removal of the second single-family home, the applicant shall notify the City of Fort Collins Utilities regarding the discontinuance of utilities.



Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined above.

Motion carried 2-0.


5.  BRECKENRIDGE ZONING VIOLATION; #04-ZV0164:  This is an alleged violation of Section 6, in that any change or use, other than Residential, requires Site Plan Review approval.  A rafting business has opened where there used to be a bait shop. Although the property is zoned C-Commercial, any change of use, other than residential, requires site plan review approval. This is to ensure development standards are met.  On August 17, 2004 a 15-Day compliance letter was mailed to the owner.  A copy of the letter was sent to Peter Barnes at the City of Fort Collins as a parcel on the south side of the Larimer/Weld Canal is being occupied for parking/storage also. That parcel is within Fort Collins city limits.  On October 11, 2004, Ms. Delude called Mr. Breckenridge several times and received recorded messages stating that the season was over.  Mr. Breckenridge did not return the phone calls.  On January 12, 2005, a 30-day compliance letter was mailed, and on February 11, 2005 Mr. Breckenridge called concerning the 30-day letter.  He was advised that Ms. Delude would call on February 14, 2005 to discuss the letter.  On February 23, 2005, Ms. Delude met with the owner on site, who stated that he would submit (in writing) a description of the previous use of the property and a description of the current use for Mr. Lafferty to review.  This will be to see if site plan review will be required.  On April 14, 2005, nothing had been received from the owner.  A notice was mailed and the hearing was scheduled for May 23, 2005.  Staff recommendation is as follows:

1) Find a violation exists.

2) Require compliance within 60 days. Compliance requires:

The owner must apply for site plan review. Further code enforcement actions will not be pursued while a site plan is under review if the owner submits a complete and sufficient application.

3) Authorize legal action if the deadline is not met.

Ms. Delude displayed aerial photos of the property in question and stated that Mr. Breckenridge has been in contact with Mr. Lafferty to start the site plan review process.  As a result, Ms. Delude requested that the applicant be given 60 days to comply with the above conditions.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson questioned how much it will cost for Mr. Breckenridge to apply for the site plan review.  Mr. Lafferty estimated it would cost approximately $1300.00.  Commissioner Wagner stated that traffic is a concern with the location and Mr. Lafferty explained that traffic, customer parking, drainage, and landscaping would be some of the items addressed with the site plan review.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson noted for the record that Mr. Breckenridge was not present and there was no public comment on this item.



Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation exists and require compliance within 60 days.  Compliance would require that the owner apply for site plan review.  Legal action is authorized if the deadline is not met. 

Motion carried 2-0.


6.  CHALEDON ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT REVOCATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL; #02-S1965:   The preliminary plat for Chaledon Estates Conservation Development (CD) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners at a hearing on January 15, 2003.  The Findings and Resolution for the approval was signed on April 15, 2003 and recorded at reception number 2003-0046075.  The applicant submitted a final plat application on April 29, 2003.  Staff reviewed that application, and many of the issues raised in that review have been resolved.  However, several issues remain outstanding and need to be resolved prior to approval of the final plat.  On September 19, 2003 a letter was sent to the applicant’s representative outlining the issues and items that remain outstanding.  The applicant attempted to resolve some of these issues until January 9, 2004 (the date of the latest submittal).  Since that time there has been no action to complete the requirements for approval of the final plat.  A letter was sent to the applicant and other interested parties on November 23, 2004 inquiring into the status of the application and indicating that if there was no further communication or action on the application by February 1, 2005 action would be taken to close the file and rescind the preliminary plat approval.  This letter was sent to the applicant by both regular and certified mail.  The certified letter was returned “unclaimed”.  The regular mail letter was not returned.  All contact information supplied with the application became invalid.  Within the last year the property changed ownership due to foreclosure.  Staff met with this current property owner (Thomas Dunn) on January 19, 2005 to discuss the status of the application, and what was needed for the new owner to either complete the application or submit a new application.  Since that time there has been no further communication from the current property owner.  At this time there has been no action on the final plat application since January 2004.  Notice of this hearing was sent (by both regular and certified mail) to the current and previous property owners, the previous applicant, and the surveying and engineering representatives involved with the application.   Staff recommendation is as follows:  Since there has been no action on the application since January 2004, the applicant no longer has ownership of the property and has not indicated that they wish to complete the final plat, and the present owner has not expressed a desire to complete the final plat application requirements, Staff recommends that the Preliminary Plat approval for Chaledon Estates Conservation Development file #02-S1965 be revoked. 

Mr. Helmick noted that the property owner was not present; however, the surveyor and engineer who worked on the initial project are in attendance and would like to address the Board.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson opened the hearing up for public comment and Robert Persichitte stated that he has been in contact with the new property owner, Mr. Thomas Dunn, and requested an additional 60 to 120 days on behalf of Mr. Dunn so they can determine how to best proceed with this application.  Mr. Persichitte explained that Mr. Dunn has taken the property out of foreclosure but is not sure if he wants to continue with the present application, or present a new proposal for this property.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson asked if Mr. Dunn could make this determination within 60 days.  Mr. Persichitte replied in the affirmative.  Brian Shear, engineer for the original applicant, addressed the Board noting that both he and Mr. Persichitte have a financial interest in this application as they have not been paid for their services in the amount of approximately $50,000.  Mr. Shear requested that the Board not revoke the application at this time, in order to give them the opportunity to work with the new owner to resolve this issue.  Mr. Shear stated that if the Board was inclined to revoke the application, then he requested that the Planning Department inform him of any future applications by Mr. Dunn, so he could review the application to see if any of his engineering specifications were used in the new application.  Commissioner Wagner asked if Mr. Persichitte and Mr. Shear have taken legal action against the applicant.  Mr. Shear replied in the affirmative.  There was no further public comment.  Mr. Helmick stated that if the Board was inclined not to revoke the application, then he requested that it be treated similar to a zoning violation and table it to a future date. 


Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Chaledon Estates Conservation Development Revocation of Preliminary Plat Approval, File #02-S1965, to August 1, 2005, at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 2-0.

Their being no further business, the meeting recessed at 3:45 p.m.





The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Rex Burns, Project Engineer.   Chair Pro-Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Wagner was present.  Also present were:  Lisa Dunn, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 


1.  ADOPTION OF THE FORT COLLINS, LAPORTE, AND LOVELAND STORM WATER MASTER PLANS:   Staff is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission for adoption of the revised City of Fort Collins, LaPorte, and Loveland Storm Water Master Plans.  With exception of the LaPorte Area Master Plan, all of Plans have already been adopted by the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland.  Adopting these plans makes sense due to the “checkerboard” pattern that exists between City and County jurisdictions.  Most, but not all of the area covered by the Storm Water Master Plans is located within the Growth Management Areas of the respective cities and will eventually be annexed.  Staff held an open house on the proposed master plans with members of the local and Denver area design community.  About 100 meeting announcements were mailed.   That event was attended by 16 members of the design community as well as staff members from adjacent jurisdictions. Staff compiled all of the comments that were made at that meeting and is addressing each comment either by incorporation in the design standards or discussing the issue with the person or firm bringing it up.   At the request of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, the Engineering Department participated in an additional round of public notification.  As such, 8,872 postcards were mailed out on April 21 and April 27, 2005 to Larimer County Residents affected by the proposed adoptions of the Master Plans and Stormwater Design Standards.  To date, Mr. Burns and Ms. Dunn have spoken with approximately 35 respondents.  The questions mostly asked by the respondents were how will this affect my property? And/or what will this do to my taxes or fees?  We pointed out that adoption of the master plans will not affect existing properties and their owners, but it will affect now vacant properties that may be developed in the future.  There has been only one negative response received to the proposal for adoption of the storm water master plans.  Based on this low percentage of responses and only one negative response, staff is planning to move forward toward the goal of adoption of the master plans.  Staff recommends that the Commissioners provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission for adoption of the revised City of Fort Collins, LaPorte, and Loveland Storm Water Master Plans.

Mr. Burns explained that approval for this item is different in that the Board of County Commissioners first hears the proposal and they make a recommendation to the Planning Commission who is the final approving authority.   Mr. Burns presented a slide show outlining the proposal and noted that the Master Plans identify facilities to handle future development, identify paths of flow for storm water, and estimate the cost of needed facilities.   Ms. Dunn presented a conceptual view of the West Vine Basin, explaining how the water flows currently and the proposed paths of flow for this area.  Ms. Dunn stated that if the Master Plans are approved, the next steps would be to obtain monies in the form of Federal Grants and matching funds in order to be able to complete the projects.  Mr. Burns stated that this may not happen for the next 30 years or so, but that future planning is critical and that the Master Plans being presented will assist future planners in this endeavor.  

Chair Pro-Tem Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Lynn DeMaranville stated his concerns with the path flows that were presented noting that, in his opinion, the water paths should be straight with no right angles, in order to facilitate natural movement of the water.   Mr. DeMaranville opposed placement of the maintenance road outlined in the proposal as it will be constructed right behind his house.  Mr. DeMaranville stated that, in his opinion, this proposal was not well planned or thought out, and that the public outreach and notification for this hearing, in particular, was inadequate.  Commissioner Wagner asked if Mr. DeMaranville received notice of this hearing.  Mr. DeMaranville stated that he received a yellow card in the mail which directed him to an internet site for further information.  Mr. DeMaranville explained that he did not own a computer so he had to place phone calls to discover more about this proposal.   Ms. Dunn explained that there have been meetings held with consultants and city staff, that they have made a site visit to Mr. DeMaranville's home, and that this proposal has been published in the newspapers and publicly discussed.  Ms. Dunn stated that she has worked with the property owners in the area and has even given them the opportunity to present their own options and plans for this area.  Ms. Dunn stated that the City has spent over $400,000 on this proposal and she does not agree that there has not been enough planning or public outreach.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson closed public comment and stated that it is vitally important that citizens be aware of hearings of this nature.  Commissioner Wagner noted that it is important to plan for the future and explained that at this point the plans are being presented for approval; however, the specific improvements can be altered and adjusted if indeed funds become available to complete these projects. 



Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission for adoption of the revised City of Fort Collins, LaPorte, and Loveland Storm Water Master Plans.

Motion carried 2-0.


The hearing adjourned at 7:15 p.m.



TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2005   






The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster, Chair Pro-Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Wagner was present.  Also present were:  Robert Thompson, Health & Human Services; Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.


Mr. Thompson stated that the purpose of the meeting was to present a short presentation of the project and give citizens the opportunity to comment on the same; he introduced Doug Frisbie, from the Salud Clinic, and Don Sandovol, from the State Department of Local Affairs.  Mr. Frisbie explained that the Salud Clinic serves the uninsured and under-insured residents of the Estes Valley; he noted that they are proposing a new facility that will cost $1,600,000 to build and will include the ability to offer dental services to the residents utilizing the facility.  Mr. Frisbie stated that they have raised 80% of the funds, and that some of the costs have been in-kind donations, such as the architectural drawings, and donations of dental equipment.  Mr. Frisbie stated that the Board will need to approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application as part of this proposal; he noted that the application requests $260,000 toward construction costs of the Salud Clinic.  Commissioner Wagner questioned how many clients are served by the clinic.  Mr. Frisbie stated that they serve approximately 2000 clients, but will be able to do much more with the new facility with the ability to offer dental services.  Mr. Frisbie also noted that there are many retired doctors in the community that wish to give back in the way of volunteering, and the larger facility will allow them to do so.  Mr. Sandovol stated that the Department of Local Affairs supports this project and stated that the local commitment by those involved in the effort has been most impressive.




Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Community Development Block Grant assurances and Certifications for the Estes Park Salud Clinic Application. 


Motion carried 2-0.


The meeting adjourned at 9:15 a.m.





The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 9:15 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster, Chair Pro-Tem Gibson presided and Commissioner Wagner was present.  Also present were:  Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Marc Engemoen, Public Works; Ginny Riley, Human Services Department; Gary Buffington, and Dan Reeves, Parks & Open Lands Department; Jay Hardy, Fairgrounds & Events Center; Irene Josey, Treasurer's Office;  George Hass, and Jeannine Haag, County Attorney's Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.


1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:   Kevin Stees, landowner in the Big Thompson Canyon, addressed the Board with concerns regarding the fact that his property boundaries were moved between 84 and 104 feet back in the mid 1970's when the Bureau of Land Management acquired certain properties in the area due to the Big Thompson flood.  Mr. Stees presented the Board with photos of the property and some discussion ensued.  Mr. Lancaster questioned who owned the adjoining properties, and Mr. Stees explained that the County currently owns the adjoining land.  Chair Pro-Tem Gibson explained that the Board would forward this information to the proper county staff and that they would be in contact with Mr. Stees regarding this matter.






Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of May 16, 2005, as amended.


Motion carried 2-0.


3.  REVIEW THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 30, 2005:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.






Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for May 24, 2005:


PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following petition for abatement is approved:   General Electric Capital Corporation.
















MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS:  Larimer County Environmental Advisory Board Bylaws.


LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following license was approved and issued:   Gateway Liquors Inc., - Retail Liquor Store - Loveland.   The following licenses were issued:  Rotary Club of Fort Collins - Foothills - Special Event 6% - Fort Collins; Boys and Girls Clubs of Larimer County - Special Event 6% - Loveland; Partners Mentoring - Special Event 6% - Fort Collins. 


Motion carried 2-0.


6.   MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR HB 04-1451 PLAN:  Ms. Riley explained that the 2004 State Legislature passed House Bill 1451 in an effort to encourage collaboration among agencies who serve children and families; she noted that as part of the bill, each interested County is required to submit a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the type of services available for children and families and how they will be integrated into the system.  Ms. Riley stated that if the funding for this effort remains in the State budget, then the Health and Human Services Department would be reimbursed between $150,000 and $200,000 as part of the incentive program. 




Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Memorandum of Understanding for HB 04-1451 Plan.


Motion carried 2-0.




7.   UPDATE TO PARKS AND OPEN LANDS REGULATIONS:  Mr. Buffington presented the Board with a number of updates to the Parks and Open Lands regulations, noting that the major changes pertained to issuing windshield tickets to those individuals that do not purchase parks passes, fees for additional campers per camping unit, aggressive or viscous dogs have been addressed, and hunting and trapping of wildlife is now included.  Commissioner Wagner informed Mr. Buffington that she has received positive feedback on the park regulations and commended him on them.




Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve of the update to the Parks and Open Lands Regulations as presented.


Motion carried 2-0. 




8.  MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF GREELEY AND WELD COUNTY PERTAINING TO ISLAND GROVE REGIONAL PARKMr. Hardy explained that when the Fairgrounds were being built there was some concern regarding competition with the Greeley Stampede and other events that take place at Island Grove. Mr. Hardy noted that The Ranch and Island Grove are both important venues for events in Northern Colorado; he further explained that the proposed MOU is designed to provide a template of cooperation between both entities to encourage maximum business opportunities for the region.   Mr. Hardy explained that there are four pieces to the MOU:  1.  A non-solicitation agreement.  2.  Courtesy calls to one another if a promoter wishes to change venues.  3.  A referral program (to entice business in the region).  4.  Joint use events that occur simultaneously.   Chair Pro-Tem Gibson commended Mr. Hardy for his communication efforts with the City of Greeley and Weld County.  Mr. Hardy thanked Mr. Lancaster for his assistance in drafting the MOU. 




Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Greeley and Weld County pertaining to the Island Grove Regional Park.


Motion carried 2-0.




9.  TREASURER'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE:   Ms. Josey requested the Board's approval to use existing temporary salary funds in order to establish a new permanent employee position.  Ms. Josey explained that this will allow the Treasurer's Office to provide better customer service to the public, and will provide the opportunity to retain an employee that will gain knowledge and longevity, rather than depending upon temporary help which results in high turn-over and excessive retraining efforts.




Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a new Full Time Employee for the Treasurer's Office with existing funds from their Temporary Salary Line Item.


Motion carried 2-0.


10.  RESTORATION OF FUNDING TO THE COMMUNITY INFORMATION BUDGET:  Ms. LaRue explained that as part of the 2005 budget proposal she was required, as were all departments, to submit a budge with a 5% reduction, which resulted in a $9,768 cut to the community information budget.  Ms. LaRue noted that an additional $10,000 was cut from the Intergovernmental Agreement Contract with Cable 27, which would result in a reduction of services and citizen outreach.   Ms. LaRue stated that the revenues received for the community information budget exceeded her projections and there is an excess in revenue of $90,572.  Ms. LaRue requested the Board reinstate $19,768 to the community information budget in order to restore the level of service and citizen outreach the public has become accustomed to.




Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve reinstating $19,768 to the Public Communication Budget for 2005.


Motion carried 2-0.


11.  WORK SESSION:  There were no work session items to discuss.


12.  COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week. 


13.  LEGAL MATTERS:   (Affidavit provided.)




Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and for personnel matters as outlined in 24-6-402 (4) (b) C.R.S. and 24-6-402 (4) (f) C.R.S.


Motion carried 2-0.


The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m., with no further action taken.




                                    GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR PRO-TEM

                        BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS









Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk 

Background Image: Holiday Fog III, AJ Schroetlin . All rights reserved.