Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 08/14/06  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2006

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#93)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Matt Lafferty, and Samantha Mott, Planning Department; Matt Johnson, and Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Tom Garton, and Karlin Goggin, Building Department; George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  Chair Gibson noted that staff is requesting that Item 1, regarding the Preserve Conservation Development and Preserve Rezoning, be tabled to August 28, 2006.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Preserve Conservation Development (File #05-S2522) and the Preserve Rezoning (File #05-Z1576), be tabled to August 28, 2006, at 6:30 p.m.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Chair Gibson then noted that Items 2 through 4 are on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

2.  GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 4TH FILING LOTS 57 AND 58 LOT CONSOLIDATION - #06-S2597:  This is a request to combine Lots 57 and 58 in the Glacier View Meadows Subdivision 4th Filing PUD 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 Larimer County Addressing Coordinator, Planning & Building Services Division

 

The proposed Lot Consolidation for Lots 57 and 58 of the Glacier View Meadows Subdivision 4th Filing PUD 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 Service Team recommends approval of the Lot Consolidation for Lots 57 and 58 Glacier View Meadows Subdivision 4th Filing PUD, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by February 14, 2007 or this approval shall be null and void.

 

2.   The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.

 

 

3.  SCHNEIDER EXEMPTION 2ND AMENDMENT AMENDED PLAT/BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT - #06-S2594:  This is a request for an amended plat to reconfigure the boundary line between Parcel 2 of the Amended Schneider Exemption S-121-78 (File # 95-EX0775) and an adjacent metes and bounds parcel.  In addition, this Amended Plat/Boundary Line Adjustment will include what is recognized by the assessor’s office as Parcel # 94130-00-009 but not recognized as a ‘Legal Lot’ by the Larimer County Planning Department.  Currently there is a single family residence on this parcel.  This process will create a ‘Legal Lot’, Lot 1, for this residence.

 

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 Larimer County Addressing Coordinator, Planning & Building Services Division

·  Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department (refer to his letter dated July 5, 2006) identified several required corrections to the plat.

·  Christine Bebow, Assessment Specialist of the Larimer County Office of the Assessor (refer to her e-mail dated July 11, 2006) identified another property owner that needs to sign the plat.

The proposed plat amendment and boundary line adjustment to reconfigure the lot line between Parcel 2 of the Amended Schneider Exemption S-121-78 (File # 95-EX0775) and an adjacent metes and bounds parcel will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  The Amended Plat/Boundary Line Adjustment will not result in any additional lots.  The staff finds that this request meets the requirements of Larimer County Land Use Code.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the 2nd Amended Schneider Exemption S-121-78 & Weber Boundary Line Adjustment File # 06-S2594, subject to the following condition(s) and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by February 14, 2007 or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department, in his letter dated July 5, 2006.

3.   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall address the following comment from the Larimer County Office of the Assessor, in Christine Bebow’s e-mail dated July 11, 2006:

 

·  Sue Ann Prucha is listed as an owner of record along with Anna Mary Weber and Gary Weber on parcel 94130-00-009 and therefore needs to sign the plat. 

·   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall make the changes to the plat as required by Samantha Mott, Planner I of the Larimer County Planning Department, in her letter dated July 26, 2006.

 

 

4.   AMERICAN DOG SCHOOL MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW - #06-Z1587:  This is a request for approval of a Minor Special Review in order to continue to operate an existing dog training facility on a 4.5 acres FA-1 Farming zoned site. In January 2005 the applicant was informed by the Larimer County Code Compliance Department that the existing dog training business requires approval through the Minor Special Review process.  

 

The parcel is located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of County Road 7 and County Road 36.   The dog training facility consists of a 24’ x 12’ kennel room and 25’ x 50’ partially covered dog run.  This site also contains a single-family residence, indoor horse arena, pole barn and loafing sheds. Solid animal waste is disposed of through regular trash service and a small detention pond has been provided to address stormwater runoff leaving the dog run areas.  Currently, up to 10 dogs are housed inside the kennel.

 

Staff should note that the conditions from the latest memo from Doug Ryan of the Health Department are different than the conditions proposed in this staff report.  These updated conditions are based on a recent meeting between the applicant and the Engineering and Health Department. At this meeting Planning, Engineering and Health Department staff agreed to allow the applicant to have up to 15 dogs boarded overnight for a limited period of time and limited the number of dogs to 10 for the daily individual training operation. Staff felt it was important to make a distinction between the two types of services this facility provides.  Staff concluded that the increase in the number of dogs allowed to be boarded overnight would have a negligible impact on noise, traffic, sewer and water quality issues.     

The neighborhood meeting took place on December 3, 2005 at 4100 East County Rd. 36 at the Applicant’s home.  Four neighbors were in attendance, a Teresa and Dorothy Borduras, a Mr. Rodger Evans and a Mr. Dale. Brown.  Teresa and Dorothy Borduras voiced concern that the kennel facility was not “high scale”. Mr. Evans and Mr. Brown voiced no objections to this application. 

The Health Department’s review focused on the water and sewer issues already discussed.  The Department also requested that the applicant submit a noise mitigation plan to address concerns regarding the boarded dogs.  The department reviewed the noise mitigation plan and found it to be in compliance with the Larimer County noise ordinance.  

Staff findings are as follows:

1.         The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and in harmony with the neighborhood; 

2.         The proposed use is consistent with the applicable supplementary regulations to the GMA district, or if none, with the county master plan;

3.         The applicant has demonstrated that this project can and will comply with all applicable   requirements of this Code;

4.        The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject property; and

 5.        The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered

 

It is the opinion of the Development Services 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, the application meets the intent of Section 8 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The Development Services Review Team recommends approval of the American Dog School Minor Special Review subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    The kennel and dog training operations shall be conducted in accordance with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance at all times.

2.    The kennel shall be licensed as a Pet Animal Care Facility by the Colorado Department of Agriculture, and shall comply with the regulatory standards they administer. 

3.    The kennel boarding/training operation shall be limited to 10 dogs and not to exceed 15 dogs during any 60 day period.

4.    The daily individual dog training operation shall be limited to 10 dogs.

 

5.    The Minor Special Review approval is limited to the current owners/applicants.  Future owners wishing to continue the dog training and associated boarding operation will be required to obtain the necessary land use permits prior to transferring the operations.   

6.    Prior to recordation of the Findings and Resolution for this Minor Special Review, the Deeds of Dedication for the additional rights-of-way and adjacent 15-foot utility easements along Larimer County Road 7 and Larimer County Road 36 must be executed.

7.    Transportation Capital Expansion Fees shall be collected prior to the recordation of the Findings and Resolution for this Minor Special Review.

8.    A Development Construction Permit must be obtained from the County Engineering Department within 60 days of the Minor Special Review approval for the construction of the parking and water quality pond. 

9.    Building permits submitted in July 2005 have expired. All engineered plans, or plans with accompanying Engineers’ letters, must be submitted to the Building Department along with new permit applications for Building Department review within 90 days of the Minor Special Review approval.

10.   Site Plan review is not required for this application.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 2 through 4, as presented on the consent agenda and outlined above.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  COUNTY ROAD 18 ADDRESS APPEAL - #06-S2599:   This is a request from Evelyn King, property owner at 6321 14th St SW requests the Board to retain the addresses as assigned and not change them in accordance with the addressing resolution and staff recommendations to utilize the County Road designation.

As part of the Rural Addressing System, staff is proposing changes to existing addresses currently using 14th St SW or SW 14th St near Loveland.  During the analysis of this area, the road serving these properties is outside the Loveland Growth Management Area (GMA).  In accordance with the addressing resolution and the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with municipalities, there are rules established with the IGA on road naming standardization between the municipalities and unincorporated areas of Larimer County. 

 

The IGA specifies that within the Growth Management Area around each municipality, roads will be named using city/town names, not County Road numbers.  Outside the GMA Boundary, County Road numbers will be used.  The IGA was approved by the BOCC and municipalities in 2001.  The appealant seeks to retain a city road name designation in rural Larimer County rather than assume County Road 18.  The properties denoted for change are outside the GMA boundary.

 

By following these rules stated in the IGA, the County eliminates the confusion by standardizing road naming conventions and also clearly denotes the GMA boundaries from County boundaries.  The confusion is vast across the county and this is not the only road segment targeted for change due to the IGA on standardization of street naming.

 

The determination made by staff to deny the appeal is consistent with the intent of the resolution and IGA.  The appealant says there is currently no consistency in road naming and signage along this road.  Staff concurs with this assessment and thus the necessity to implement the addressing resolution on this road. 

 

An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Loveland regarding road naming and the adoption of the county addressing resolution clearly dictates the naming conventions to be used on roads.  Roads inside the GMA will take on the city road name designation.  Roads outside the GMA shall follow the adopted hierarchy in road naming.  With that said, the GMA boundaries are clearly established and the IGA should be followed by the County.  We have asked municipalities to adhere to the IGA as well.  The IGA should not be amended with respects to boundary or road naming for the purpose of this appeal.  Amendments to an IGA must be for the greater good for the parties involved.

 

The appealant also states properties have been asked to change their address from County Road 18 to 14th St SW in the past.  This has furthered confusion created in the whole addressing scheme with multiple road name designations and no defined boundary line.  Staff’s proposal to change the addresses to use the County Road 18 designation will eliminate these types of confusing address and road naming schemes.

 

As a part of the rural addressing improvement project and the addressing resolution, the County is responsible for proper signage.  With the criteria established the appealants concerns regarding replacement of signage is not at issue.  The county will be placing the appropriate road name signs on all county roads and intersections as deemed necessary. 

 

The road naming of 14th St SW also poses great confusion as many refer to this road as SW 14th St.  As with all addressing, whether new or reassigned address, consistency has long been the approach of this project and team.  The Emergency dispatch center shows this road segment as County Road 18 with an alias of SW 14th St.  As a result of this project, we are not recognizing alias road names for property location address.  The use of three different road names SW 14th, 14th St SW, and County Road 18 is confusing not only to service providers and emergency service personnel, but the general public.  The intent to use the hierarchy in road naming eliminates this confusion and clearly defines the boundaries of the GMA and road naming conventions used.

 

Staff’s recommendation is to deny the request from Evelyn King and other residents based upon the following:

                       

1.    The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) on street naming standardization within municipalities and unincorporated Larimer County is adopted and in use by all signing parties.  This IGA governs the basis of road naming conventions and creates the standardization needed between incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county.

2.    LETA and the County have funded monies toward this project to ensure a systematic addressing system is achieved.  Without re-addressing this road, the intent of the Resolution is not met.

3.    The purposes of the Site Addressing and Road Naming System is to provide property owners, the general public, and Larimer County with an accurate and systematic means of identifying and locating property.  This includes the modification of address numbers on existing addresses and changing road names as part of administering the resolution and addressing standards when found to be inconsistent.  The county is working to establish a system of unique and consistent road names and address points while providing efficient public services and response.

4.    The basic premise of consistency in road naming is at issue, which is why this project was in-acted.  The hierarchy was established to eliminate road naming conventions that added confusion.  By establishing the GMA as the boundary to this project, the rural area is defined by any property outside the GMA thus necessitating the requirement to use the County Road name.  The road naming conventions for roads outside a GMA need to follow the established hierarchy to eliminate the confusion as presented by this appeal.

5.    By allowing this appeal and exempting this area or creating any area as an exception to the Rural Addressing System, it would be negating the efforts to create a logical, systematic, and consistent road naming scheme in Larimer County.  Creation of such “pockets” will only hinder this project, increase the potential for similar appeal pursuits, and disrupt the guiding principals and intent for improvement as requested by various service providers of Larimer County. 

 

Ms. Goggin explained the request and staff's recommendation, as outlined above.  Mr. Garton explained the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Loveland and noted that changing from street names within the GMA, back to County Road names in the un-incorporated areas would create buffers between cities. 

 

Evelyn King, applicant, explained that she understands the need to have a consistent addressing system; however, she has always had the 14th Street address and does not see the need to re-name the street.  Ms. King noted that the resolution regarding the readdressing project states that road and street names should be retained whenever possible.  Ms. King stated that the GMA can shift and change; therefore, it should not solely be what triggers a street name change.  Ms. King stated that there is only a 2-mile stretch of road being affected and it will be less confusing to all if the name remains the same throughout. 

 

There was no public comment on this item.

 

Commissioner Wagner stated that she would not be willing to ignore the IGA that was agreed to and signed by the Commissioners.  Commissioner Rennels agreed that it was important to honor the IGA and stated concern with the possibility of additional homes and subdivisions being added to the area, which would require consistency in addressing for emergency responders and the like.

At this time the applicant requested the opportunity to address the Board again.

 

M O T I O N

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

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Ms. King explained that there are two properties that have been assigned County Road 18 as their address; however, they were only assigned those addresses as a result of the rural addressing project, otherwise they would have been assigned the 14th Street address.  Ms. King reiterated that it will become confusing for those traveling the road and also noted concern that it may be confused with County Road 18 East.

 

Chair Gibson closed public comment and stated that he was not in favor of changing the street name because of the confusion and impacts to the homeowners.   Chair Gibson stated that the one-size-fits-all rule does not work and stated that the road basically dead-ends; therefore, in this instance he would agree that the road should remain as previously named.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to retain the existing road name used by residents and modify any non-sequential addresses in accordance with the Rural Addressing System and Resolution, and name the road County Road 18.

 

Motion carried 2-1; Chair Gibson dissenting.     

 

 

6.  ROSGEN-TIMMINS MINOR LAND DIVISION AND FEE APPEAL - #06-S2593:  This is a request for approval of a Minor Land Division (MLD) to move the property line between two meets-and-bounds parcels.  The Rosgen property is approximately 86.5 acres.  Timmins property is about 35 acres.  The resulting Timmins property will be 30.18 acres.  Board of County Commissioners approval is required because this proposal results in one lot less than 35 acres.  Therefore, the change in boundaries is being processed as a Minor Land Division.

 

There are two houses located on the Timmins parcel.   The second residence was permitted with the condition that the original residence be removed (see 7/21/06 Code Compliance memo).  The County is processing a Minor Special Review application for an Accessory Living Facility.  Staff wants to make clear that approval of this Minor Land Division in no way approves or allows keep two single-family residences on the Timmins parcel.

 

Staff has no objection to approval of the Minor Land Division.  Engineering (7/12/06) and Health Department (7/5/06) comment on utility easements, future drainage improvements, fences and Transportation Capital Expansion Fees.  

 

The applicant is appealing the processing fee.  He requests a reduction from the $1000 MLD application fee to the $300 fee for Boundary Line Adjustments.  Other applicants have paid the full processing fee in a variety of situations requiring Minor Land Division.   There are no apparent extenuating circumstances.  As a matter of fairness, the Planning Director denied the requested fee reduction

 

This Minor Land Division satisfies the requirements in Section 5.7.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Staff recommends the Commissioners approve this application.  This action will move a boundary line between the subject parcels with on lot smaller than 35 acres. Staff does not support the fee appeal.   

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Rosgen-Timmins Minor Land Division subject to the following condition and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.    Corrections and additional materials identified in Dale Greer’s July 3, 2006, comment letter are approved by the County Engineering Department.

 

The Development Services Team recommends denial of the appeal of a portion of the Minor Land Division processing fee. 

 

Mr. Helmick presented the MLD request and fee appeal noting that staff was in agreement with creating the MLD, but they do not support the fee waiver.

 

Rob Persichitte, applicant on behalf of David Rosgen and Patrick Timmins, stated that they are requesting the fee waiver as the application was submitted as a Boundary Line Adjustment, but was then changed to a Minor Land Division due to the fact that the one of the resulting lots would be less than 35 acres in size.  Mr. Persichitte stated that the BLA application fee is $300 and the MLD application fee is $1000, and they are requesting to only pay $300.

 

There was no public comment on this item.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the MLD process is substantially different and there are more costs associated with it.   Chair Gibson stated that he would not be willing to waive the entire fee, but would consider waiving a portion, as the applicant had complied with staff's determination that the property go through the MLD process.  Commissioner Rennels concurred, given the fact that the application was initially submitted as a BLA.  Commissioner Wagner disagreed, as the applicant had agreed to go through the MLD process knowing the fees would be greater.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Rosgen-Timmins Minor Land Division subject to the following condition and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:  1. Corrections and additional materials identified in Dale Greer’s July 3, 2006, comment letter are approved by the County Engineering Department.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the fee appeal for the Rosgen-Timmins Minor Land Division.

 

Motion carried 2-1; Commissioner Wagner dissenting.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2006

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#95 & 96)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Rennels and Wagner were present.  Also present were: Deni LaRue, Donna Hart, Angela Erker, and Bob Keister, Commissioners Office; K-Lynn Cameron, and Gary Buffington, Parks and Open Land; Charlie Johnson, and Jerry White, Engineering; Larry Timm, Planning Department; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Department; Tom Garton, Building Inspection; Wynette Cerciello, and Ann Wardle, Human Resources; Justin Smith, and Diane Webber, Sheriff’s Office; George Hass, County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment today.

 

2.  EXECUTIVE SESSION: (Tape #96)

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real or personal property interest as outlined in 24-6-402-(4)(a) C.R.S.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The Executive session ended at 10:25 a.m., and the meeting continued.

 

3.  UPDATE ON MERIT/MARKET INCREASES FOR 2007 AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PERSONNEL POLICY 331.5C.II.B2F MARKET BASED ADJUSTMENTS FOR CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES:  Ann Wardle and Wynette Cerciello addressed the Board and explained that 73% of employers (public and private) no longer give employees market increases.  It has been the goal of the Board of County Commissioners to remain competitive within the market; however, the practice of giving market increases to employees goes above and beyond market practices.  Ms. Cerciello stated that she surveyed other county offices in Colorado, and Larimer County is one of the only counties that still provides market increases to its employees.  Due to limited resources, there is a continuous struggle with the question of how to balance the need to update salary ranges in order to maintain a consistent position within the market, while also trying to reward employees for their performance.  It is the belief of the Human Resources Department, that if we were to continue our practices of giving market increases and 5% merit increases; the County would be deviating from market practices.  The Human Resources Department and the County Manager have agreed to the following:  No market increases for employees, but move salary ranges to reflect the changes in the market in order to remain competitive; and cap merit increases and end of probation increases at 3.5% for 2007.

Mr. Keister explained that to mitigate the effects of decreased revenue, a change in the merit/market policy must take place, or layoffs will occur.  Mr. Smith addressed the Board and presented a spreadsheet explaining the effects of a merit cap.  He stated that it will take an employee 18 years to reach the top of their pay scale if there is a decrease in merit/market pay.

At this time, Commissioner Wagner left the meeting, but participated via a phone conference. 

Mr. Lancaster explained that the decision made today was just a waiver for this year and that there was still a potential for change in policy next year.  Commissioner Rennels asked if this item could be tabled for one week in order to provide more time for discussion between Human Resources and County employees.  However, due to time constraints on the submission of the County budget, a decision needed to be made today.  Commissioner Wagner emphasized that County employees need to meet the expectations of local citizens who are most likely seeing cuts based on their own salaries.  The Commissioners agreed to approve the new policy as long as alternatives continued to be discussed between staff and County employees.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for a waiver of Personnel Policy 331.5C.II.B2F Market Based Adjustments for Classified Employees which would discontinue the practice of market increases to employees’ payrates and support for change in merit increases from 5% to 3.5% for 2007 only. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Commissioner Wagner ceased participation in the meeting at this time.

 

4.  CREATE A POLICY TO GUIDE COUNTY EMPLOYEES, APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS DURING A SEVERE COMMUNICABLE DISEASE OUTBREAK:  Ms. Cerciello and Ms. Wardle explained that the following statement was added to section II part A of the policy: Distribution of antivirals and vaccines will be in accordance with State and Federal mandates. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Human Resources Policy and Procedure 331.4.24A Business Continuity (in the event of) Severe Communicable Disease Outbreak.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

5.  DISCUSSION OF RURAL ADDRESSING AND GLEN HAVEN:  Mr. Timm explained that there is a need for a Commissioner’s worksession regarding the rural addressing system.  He stated that the address changes are subject to approval by the Post Office.  Currently, the Post Office does not recognize Glen Haven as a valid city address; Drake is the only city acknowledged by USPS (United States Postal Service).  Ms. Webber explained that incorrect notation of the city is a major problem for reverse 911 calls.  It was decided that the Community Council members from Glen Haven will be invited to the worksession held on August 21, 2006.

 

6.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 7, 2006

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the Land Use Hearing held on August 7, 2006; and table the minutes for the Administrative Meeting held on August 8, 2006, to August 22, 2006.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

7.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 21, 2006:  Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board. 

 

8.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for August 15, 2006:

 

08152006A001           GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE BOARD OF THE GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND AND LARIMER COUNTY

08152006A002           SOFTWARE LICENSE AND SERVICE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CS STARS LLC AND LARIMER COUNTY

08152006A003           RESIDENTIAL AFTER CARE PROGRAM STATEMENT OF GRANT AWARD (SOGA)

08152006D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY LARRY JOE HALSEY AND GAIL LEAH HALSEY FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

08152006D002           DEED OF DEDICATION BY WILLIAM HAROLD WRIGHT FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

08152006R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF AMENDED PLAT OF ENVELOPE J IN FOX ACRES COUNTRY CLUB

08152006R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GARDELS PIT LOW WATER CROSSING FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW

08152006R003           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR CEDAR SPRINGS 2ND FILING BLOCK 3, LOTS 11-13AP

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Department of Human Services Payments for June 2006.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following liquor licenses were approved: Cloverleaf Kennel Club – Modification of Premises – Loveland; Sylvan Dale Ranch-Duplicate License – Hotel and Restaurant with Optional Premise – Loveland; Loveland BPOE #1051 – 6% - Loveland.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

9.  COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster explained that there was a request for $1,000 to be taken from the Special Projects Fund to pay for special events related to Hispanic Heritage Month.  This request was approved last year as well.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the allocation of $1,000 from the Special Projects Fund to pay for events related to Hispanic Heritage Month.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

Mr. Lancaster discussed the need for a letter to be written to the Federal Delegation regarding cable franchise fees and the impact these fees have on the County.  Without the fees, there would be a loss of $260,000 in revenue, which would have a direct effect on Larimer County outreach programs and newspaper publishing.

 

Ms. Erker explained that a News Release, effective August 15, 2006, was distributed regarding the completion of a new criminal justice web site.  The site includes information regarding the overcrowded jail, early release of criminals, a sexual offenders list, and proposals for treatment programs and alternatives to incarceration.

 

10.  COMMISSIONER REPORTS:  The Board discussed their attendance at events during the past week.

 

11.  LEGAL MATTERS:  There were no legal matters to discuss.

The meeting recessed at 11:55 a.m. with no further action taken.

 

 

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

ADVISORY BOARD BYLAWS HEARING

(#97)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened 6:30 p.m. with Rex Burns, Project Engineer. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioner Rennels was present.  Also present were:  Linda Sanders, Engineering Department; and Gael Cookman, Clerk and Recorder's Office.

Mr. Burns explained the history of Public Improvement Districts and General Improvement Districts in Larimer County, noting that the districts are formed in order to maintain subdivision roads within the district.  Mr. Burns noted that staff provides engineering and administrative support to the districts, and due to the increased number of districts that have formed over the years, staff would like to streamline processes and create similar by-laws for all districts.  Ms. Sanders presented by-laws for the following PID's and GID's:  PID #24 - Westridge; PID #21 - Solarridge; PID #22 - Saddleback; PID #28 Trotwood Ranches; PID #29 - Vine Drive; GID #8 - Namaqua Hills; GID #1991-1 Arapahoe Pines; GID #16 - Kitchell; and GID #12 - Club Estates; she requested approval on the same.

Chair Gibson then opened up the hearing for public comment and Pete Alrich, Westridge Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) member, addressed the Board.  Mr. Alrich had many questions regarding how notice will be posted, potential conflicts with the annual PID meeting and their HOA meeting, how members are selected and how they might be removed if they were not performing to standard.  Commissioner Rennels explained that the HOA and PID annual meeting could be combined, and the Board of County Commissioners will consider citizen comments when appointing Board members. 

Caroline Better, Arapahoe Pines resident, explained that their GID has been inactive and the mill levy was reduced to zero; she asked if there are costs to re-instate it.  Commissioner Rennels explained that there is no cost to re-instate the mill levy.  Ms. Better asked if it is possible to have three Board members appointed instead of five.  The Board agreed and Ms. Sanders noted she will make this change in their by-laws.

Andrew Slaber, concerned citizen, questioned how one would become eligible to serve on the PID or GID Board, as his corporation owns property within a district, but does not reside within the district.  Commissioner Rennels explained that he could serve on the district board if he or his corporation owns property within the district.

Lee Evans, Chair of the Westridge PID, stated that they would prefer to continue to elect their members, rather than have the Board of County Commissioners appoint member to the PID Board.  Mr. Evans also asked what the procedure was to dissolve a PID.  Mr. Burns stated that there is a procedure to dissolve a PID and that it was governed by state statute, but ultimately the PID could be dissolved by the Board of County Commissioners in a public hearing.

Commissioner Gibson closed public comment and the Board supported the proposed by-laws.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed by-laws for the following districts:  PID #24 - Westridge; PID #21 - Solarridge; PID #22 - Saddleback; PID #28 Trotwood Ranches; PID #29 - Vine Drive; GID #8 - Namaqua Hills; GID #1991-1 Arapahoe Pines; GID #16 - Kitchell; and GID #12 - Club Estates.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

 

 __________________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

_______________________________________

Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk   

 

_______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk   

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