> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 12/18/06  

 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2006

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(# 154)

 

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:  Christie Coleman, Engineering Department; Wendy Dionigi, Planning Department; Dave Shirk, Estes Park Community Development Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, 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 then explained that Items 1 and 2 were on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.  Several audience members were interested in removing both items from the consent agenda. 

 

 

1.  IDELWILDE BY THE RIVER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP EXTENSION:  The Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary and final condominium map applications for Idlewilde by the River on June 21, 2004, however, those approvals have since expired. The property owner is requesting a time extension for the preliminary condominium map application and approval of a new final condominium map application.

 

The property owner had one year from the date of this approval to submit a final map application. The application was submitted in the summer of 2005 and approved by the County Commissioners on September 19, 2005. The applicant then had sixty days to satisfy the Commissioners conditions of approval and submit all information necessary to record the condominium map and declaration. This did not occur, so the property owner is requesting a time extension for the preliminary condominium map application and approval of a new final condominium map application.

 

The applicant intends to condominiumize fourteen existing cabins at 2282 Colorado Highway 66. The property is zoned “A” Accommodations/Highway Corridor and the current uses are accommodations and seasonal residential.  Staff recommends approval of the preliminary condominium map time extension subject to the County Commissioners June 21, 2004, findings and conditions of preliminary map approval.  Staff also recommends approval of the final condominium map application subject to the following:

 

Findings:

 

1.   Pursuant to C.R.S.30-28-110, sub-section 4(a), “no plat for subdivided land shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners unless at the time of the approval of platting the subdivider provides the certification of the county Treasurer’s Office that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid.”

2.   This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.

3.   This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.  No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.

4.   If the condominium map and declaration are not submitted for recording within sixty (60) days of the Board’s approval, along with all information needed for recording, the preliminary and final condominium map approvals shall automatically lapse and be null and void.

 

Conditions:

 

1.   Compliance with comment #2 in Greg White’s memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 21, 2006, which states: The Dedication Statement shall be changed to read “do hereby dedicate and convey to and for public use a non-motorized public access easement and the utility easements for the installation and maintenance of the utilities and drainage, and dedicate and convey the private sewer easement as are laid out and designated on this plat,” with the removal of the words “and drainage.”

2.   Compliance with Comment #1 in Traci Downs’ memo to Alison Chilcott dated November 21, 2006. To comply with this comment, the property owner shall submit documentation to the Larimer County Engineering Department demonstrating that improvements to the existing Idlewilde by the River access, which requires a CDOT access permit, has been completed by the property owner and approved by CDOT prior to release of the Development Agreement financial guarantee for these improvements.

3.   To comply with the comments in Karlin Goggin’s November 16, 2006, email to Alison Chilcott, individual unit numbers or letters, as approved by the Larimer County Planning and Building Services Division, shall be posted on each unit prior to recordation of the condominium map.

4.   The Declaration should clarify that the two-foot boundaries are reduced in some areas as shown on the map, i.e., Sections 2.28 and 3.35 of the Declaration should be revised.

5.   An animal-proof dumpster, approved by staff, shall be installed prior to recordation of the condominium map and declaration.

6.   The condominium map, including the vicinity map, shall include the correct name of Colorado Highway 66 at the time of County Commissioner approval.

7.   Accurate property lines, parcel identification numbers, and legal descriptions should be provided for the property immediately to the north of Parcel Identification Number 353543-05-010.

 

Mr. Shirk explained the background of the project and conditions of approval as outlined above.  Chair Gibson opened the meeting for public comment, and Philip Moenning expressed some concerns related to sewer backups in the area.  He proposed that the utility easement be extended to accommodate future homes and condominiums in the area.  He said that the Aspen Brook Homeowners Association (HOA) would be willing to pay for the extension.

 

Lonnie Sheldon, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc., stated that increasing the diameter of the sewer pipe could be an issue to discuss with the Aspen Brook HOA.  Ms. Haag explained that this was not an issue to be decided today and encouraged the applicant and the Aspen Brook HOA work the issue out on their own. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the preliminary condominium map time extension subject to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners June 21, 2004, findings and conditions of preliminary map approval in addition to approving the final condominium map application subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.  DRY CREEK RESERVOIR MINOR LAND DIVISION (MLD) - #06-S2647:  This is a request for a Minor Land Division on 567 acres to create 16 building lots, 16 non-building lots and 2 lots for the applicant districts, including an appeal to Section 9.7.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding the dedication of right-of-way.

 

This proposal is a unique application both for its size, 567 acres, and the number of parcels created.  The districts originally approached County staff members shortly after the approval of the Location and Extent review approval for the storage reservoir.  The discussion at that time related to the process necessary for the district to acquire parts of parcels affected by the reservoir.  As a part of the discussion it became apparent that the scope and scale of an application would be significant.

 

Issues with this application are in part related to the public use and the role of the districts and the “relationship” that exists between some of the participants.  The districts have taken the position that no County approvals are required for the creation of the remainder parcels caused by their need for the land for the reservoir.  This is due in part to the fact that some of the parcels were, and all of them could have been, created by an action of the court (condemnation). 

 

Additionally, the other significant issue with this application is that, as an MLD, there is a final plat which requires a dedication statement.  However, this plat will specifically exclude any creation, conveyance, grant, or acknowledgment of any easement of right-of-way shown on the plat.  Therefore, the applicants have appealed to the requirement of the Code found at 9.7.2, which requires the dedication of right-of-way.  There is a history of conflicts over the accesses in this area, which has engendered several suits and litigation.  As the Board of County Commissioners may recall, staff and some of these same parties went through an exercise known as the “not CR 23” this past spring.  The result of that exercise was to acknowledge that thru public roads, might be a good plan for the area but that no one was willing to fund or participate in its development.  There are parts of the alignment that are or will be dedicated as right-of-way for a part of CR 23 but there is no through connection.  On the south side of the parcels, the alignment of CR 6 has been the subject of significant litigation and discussion for several years and none of the parties are willing to compromise on the dedication until that issue is resolved.

 

The County Attorney was consulted early on in this matter and did not find a legal conflict.  The statement noted above regarding “no conveyance…” is however necessary because by law the surveyor is obligated to show easements and rights-of-way apparent or of record on a plat, and the applicants are appealing the requirement of the Code.

 

The result of this application will provide the Districts with a platted area to be owned and used by them for the reservoir and legal parcels with simplified legal descriptions for all of the remainder parcels, many of whom will be further divided through the RLUP process.

 

The Development Services Team finds that this request meets the criteria for approval of a Minor Land Division, and recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the Dry Creek Reservoir MLD and appeal with the following conditions:

 

  1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final plat recorded by June 18, 2007, or this approval shall be null and void.
  2. The plat notes shall add lots 14-16 to the same category as lots 17-28 “not for residential purposes but may be used in RLUP density calculations.”
  3. Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall make technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

Mr. Helmick detailed several aspects of the MLD, and explained that a change to Condition #2 was added in the Development Services Team recommendations for approval.  Condition #2 will now read:  The plat notes shall add lots 14-16 to the same category as lots 17-28 “not for residential purposes but may be used in RLUP density calculations or used in other off parcel methods approved by the Board of County Commissioners which may become available.”

 

Chair Gibson opened up the meeting for the applicant to respond.  Mike Cook, Little Thompson Water District, explained that they were using this process to make sure that in the County records, the appropriate lots were plotted out. 

 

Chair Gibson opened the meeting for public comment, and Walter Graese stated that he has a concern with his ownership of mineral rights in the area.  He is specifically concerned with accessibility of those mineral rights once the area is under water.  He questioned the value of the mineral rights, and hoped that the County and the Little Thompson Water District would provide more information and stay in contact with him and others affected by the Dry Creek Reservoir.   Ms. Haag explained that it is not the authority of the County to decide mineral rights, but suggested that there be a conversation between the mineral owners and the district.  At this time Chair Gibson closed public comment.

 

M O T I O N

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

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Herman Anderson expressed his concerns with the ownership of mineral rights in the area.  Mr. Anderson explained that he currently lives in Greeley and hopes that he is able to be more informed about the Dry Creek Reservoir in the future.  Mr. Helmick said that he would help the two individuals at the hearing today get in contact with the appropriate people. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Dry Creek Reservoir MLD and appeal to Section 9.7.2, as recommended by the Development Services Team along with the amendments made today.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  JONES ZONING VIOLATION - #06-CC0406:  Ms. Dionigi explained that the property owners at 4120 Scilla Place in Loveland are in violation of Section 4.1.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code which regulates the R-Residential Zoning District by virtue of outdoor storage of junk, debris and an unlicensed vehicle.

 

Ms. Dionigi stated that she spoke with the applicant on the day of the hearing, and was told that the home was going in to foreclosure today.  Due to this recent change, Ms. Dionigi asked that the Board remove this item from the agenda.

 

 

4.  MARR/WAGNER ZONING VIOLATION – 04-ZV0066:  Ms. Dionigi explained that storing a single-wide mobile home on the property (the “Brown Mobile Home”) is in violation of a condition of approval for the Wagner MLD (File #01-S1747). The original hearing on this matter was held on November 6, 2006.  The Commissioners tabled the matter to December 18, 2006, to allow time to talk to the City of Loveland in order to provide a more accurate timeline for a proposed annexation petition.

 

Staff checked with the City of Loveland and confirmed an annexation petition had been filed by the property owner.  Although City of Loveland staff did not provide an estimate of time it will take to complete the annexation process, County staff recommends an additional 90 days from the date of this hearing be allowed to complete the process or remove the Brown Mobile Home from the property.  The outdoor storage of the Brown Mobile Home is not only unsightly, but may have a negative affect on surrounding property values as well.

 

Staff finds that a violation of conditions of approval for the Wagner Minor Land Division (File #01-S1747) exists by virtue of continuing to store the Brown Mobile Home on the property, and order the Brown Mobile Home be removed from the property within ninety (90) days from the date of this hearing.  If the owner’s property is annexed into the City of Loveland prior to this deadline, the issue of outdoor storage of the Brown Mobile Home will be addressed by City of Loveland staff.  If the owner’s property is not annexed into the City of Loveland prior to this deadline, and the Brown Mobile Home remains on the property, authorize legal action to enforce County regulations.

 

Vicki Wagner, applicant, stated that an agreement with the City of Loveland was signed, giving her until March 30, 2007, to have the site cleaned up and the Brown Mobile Home removed.  Ms. Dionigi said that if the annexation does not take place, staff still needs confirmation that something will be done to clean up the property. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that the owner of the property is in violation of the conditions of approval for the Wagner Minor Land Division by failing to remove the Brown Mobile Home from the property.  Legal action is authorized to enforce County regulations if the property is not annexed into the City of Loveland or the Brown Mobile Home is not removed from the property by April 1, 2007.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting recessed at 3:45 p.m.

 

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#155 and #156)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Karlin Goggin, Building Inspections; Kim Culp, Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) Director; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

 

1.  KYLE CIRCLE ADDRESSING APPEAL - #06-S2590 (TABLED FROM SEPTEMBER 11, 2006):  As part of the Rural Addressing System, staff is proposing changes to existing addresses on Kyle Circle located west of County Road 23 off Jordan Drive.  During the analysis of this area, Kyle Circle was found to have parity inconsistencies for a continuous road in accordance with the adopted addressing resolution.  Parity is odds on one side and evens on the other for the entire duration of a continuous road.  There are multiple circumstances that directly relate improper parity on Kyle Circle.  First, Kyle Circle is not truly a circle.  Secondly, there are two points of origin by which addressing numbers can start.  Lastly, from either point of the roads origin, there is simply not proper parity for a continuous road.  For the most part, the roads in this subdivision comply with the Loveland addressing grid, with the exception of Kyle Circle.  The numbers as you travel this road have evens on the right side and odds on the left side of the road, then change suddenly to odds on the right and evens on the left.  This does not meet the rule of parity for a continuous road and can be a source of confusion and delay for emergency service personnel and others.  This fluctuation is the reason for the proposed changes to the Rural Addressing System. Parity consists of evens on one side and odds on the other, for the duration of the road.  For a continuous road, such as Kyle Circle, the numbers must meet proper parity for the duration of the road.

 

The road, Kyle Circle, is currently in what is known as the Loveland area grid system for addressing numbers.  Basically there are two addressing methods, one is distance/integral addressing and the other is grid system addressing.  Grid system addressing is most common in more urbanized areas and subdivisions.  In the case of the Bonnell West Subdivision, the grid system for addressing is the method used.  As with comparable roads in this subdivision, the parity is followed, however, on Kyle Circle at the curve in the road, parity changes.

 

In reviewing Kyle Circle for this appeal, the point of origin for the road was actually at the south intersection of Jordan Drive, making the road a north/south road.  With that stated, the right side would be even numbers and the left side would be odd numbers.   In the analysis of this road, the real problem is the directional changes created by Kyle Circle.  Kyle Circle is not a full circle which creates confusion on its own.  However, since the current alignment and current use is one road name as a continuous road, this necessitates the numbers to comply with parity for the duration of the road segment.  The numbering does not meet the intent of the addressing principals for this being a continuous road.

 

According to the resolution, the approach to this situation would be to correct the parity for Kyle Circle and retain one road name.  This would allow the property owners all to retain the existing road name but change the address number.  It was thought that retention of the road name would likely be more critical to owners, thus the decision was made to retain the road name, but in order to get proper parity in numbering from the point of beginning, the numbers need to change and resolve the issues as well as sustain consistency and logic in the road numbering.  Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA), a funding project sponsor, agrees with the county determinations and the need for re-addressing.  LETA supports the changes recommended by staff on Kyle Circle that parity be followed for the entire duration of the road.

 

The appellant’s request is to retain all addresses on Kyle Circle as assigned, excluding 2927, 2938, 2939, and 2950 Kyle Circle.  In staff’s review of this request, changing the four numbers does not resolve parity issues for the entire road.  The appellant states that the current neighborhood numbering system meets the standards for parity, consecutive numbering, and Loveland grid system standards by changing only four numbers.  The appeal claims this will bring the numbering to sequential order and parity will be resolved.  This proposal by the appellant would only resolve the parity issues if there are two road names created.  Again, parity and sequential numbering is for the duration of the road, not segmented as proposed by the appellant.  The appellant is asking that no action be taken to remedy the addresses along Kyle Circle and that addresses should remain as currently assigned with the exception of 2927, 2938, 2939, and 2950 Kyle Circle.  Staff has found the contrary in that consecutive numbering, parity, and grid system addressing is not followed if one road name is used.

 

After meeting with the appellant and also conducting a neighborhood meeting to identify the issues, staff determined the appeal must include all property owners on Kyle Circle.  The appellant’s proposal was not to change one side over the other.  The appellant clearly wanted to retain addresses as is with the exception of the above four noted addresses.  Staff however reviewed this road in several different ways to determine best practices and options to the residents.  In these findings, it was determined the road was phased in during construction.  The first phase of road construction started off Jordan Drive going north to Kelly Beth Court and around the address of 2833 Kyle Circle.  This plat was recorded in 1993.  The next filing continued construction in 1995 on the road in a westerly direction around the bend.  The final phase of construction for Kyle Circle was completed by the fifth filing in 1998.

 

With road construction being phased, staff found the point of origin could now be from the other side of Kyle Circle creating the two points of potential road origin.  This would provide in accordance with Loveland grid system addressing to have evens on the east and odds on the west.  The situation with this particular addressing is that the first address on the road does not occur until the road runs east/west which allows the numbering to be viewed more accurately as odds on the north and evens on the south.  Thus, staff determined that since the road is not truly a circle, and in neither direction of travel does the road meet parity, this appeal becomes more of an appeal on the entire road which involves all property owners that may potentially have an address change.

 

            With two potential points of access, and with the resulting findings of road construction and address layout, another item staff considered was address signage.  In this subdivision, not only on Kyle Circle, there are many brick or concrete posts with address numbers etched in stone.  The addresses with these types of signs on Kyle Circle are 3016, 3128, 3218, 3219, 3301, 3420, and 3421.  With that noted, there are certain options in readdressing that would allow for these signs to be maintained and limit the cost incurred for new address signage.

 

Staff’s recommendation is to deny the request from the Kyle Circle residents to retain all addresses excluding 2927, 2938, 2939, and 2950 Kyle Circle based upon the following:

 

  1. LETA and the County have funded monies toward this project to ensure a systematic addressing system is achieved, and without re-addressing this road, the intent of the Resolution and the needs of emergency and non-emergency providers are not met.
  2. The Resolution states that the criteria for appeals is that the decisions of the County Addressing Coordinator shall be upheld by the Board of County Commissioners unless a preponderance of evidence that the decision herein is inconsistent, or does not promote the intent and purpose of this Resolution.  Since this road does not meet the basic parity requirement for a continuous road, upholding this appeal would go against the Resolution.
  3. A decision to uphold this appeal request would cause out of scope work with the County’s consult, resulting in additional funding to make changes.
  4. The purpose 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 the change of road names as part of administering the resolution and addressing standards when found to be inconsistent.  The county is to establish a system of unique and consistent road names and address points while providing efficient public services and response.
  5. LETA, in response to this appeal, fundamentally requests that addressing be sequential and meet parity compliance for the duration of the road segment.  Emergency responders and delivery services utilize the basic premise of parity numbering to systematically locate a property.  For example, when looking for 3016 Kyle Circle, driving the road evens are on the right side of the road, 3016 should be on the right side, but it is not.  This creates confusion and lost time by missing the house number, turning around and going back looking for evens on the left side, wasting precious time for all parties.
  6. By allowing this appeal, and exempting this area or creating any area as an exception to the Rural Addressing System, would be negating the efforts to create a logical, systematic, and consistent addressing scheme in Larimer County.  Creation of such “pockets” only hinders this project, and increases the potential for similar appeal pursuits, and disrupts the guiding principals and intent for improvement as requested by funding providers.  If appeals such as this are granted, the rural addressing system will no longer be systematic and predictable, but rather inconsistent and confusing.

 

Staff recommends two potential options, containing two subsets under each option, with option number 1 being the most preferred:

 

OPTION 1:  View the road as a continuous road and renumber the road with correct parity.

 

1A:  In order to have odd/even parity in compliance with the addressing Resolution, the recommendation is to renumber: 2833, 2836, 2844, 2845, 2856, 2857, 2868, 2869, 2880, 2881, 2892, 2893, 2902, 2903, 2914, 2915, 2926, 2938, 2927, 2939, and 2950.  This results in 21 address changes to meet proper parity; or

 

1B:  To obtain proper parity in compliance with the addressing Resolution, the recommendation is to renumber: 2929, 2931, 3005, 3017, 3016; 3128, 3140, 3207, 3218, 3219, 3300, 3301, 3306, 3309, 3420, 3421, and 3433 which results in 17 address changes.

 

OPTION 2:  Create two road names, one being Kyle Circle and the other segment with a new road name.  This would present an option to change the name of the road to a non-duplicated, unique road name at the point of 2929 Kyle Circle.

 

2A:  In order to create proper parity for two road names with a break point of 2929 Kyle Circle, one segment (north/south segment) would incur 21 address changes.  This would allow a majority of addresses to retain the number, but have a road name change; or

           

2B:  Change the east/west segment road name which would allow the numbers to remain, but change the road name.  This would result in 17 address changes.   

 

Ms. Goggin explained the importance of addressing parity, and described the inconsistencies on Kyle Circle.  She explained that LETA, along with the United States Postal Service (USPS), are in agreement with County staff to make changes to the current addresses on Kyle Circle.  Ms. Culp, LETA Director, stated that duplicate names should be avoided; therefore, she agrees with staff’s recommendation to change the numbering on Kyle Circle. 

 

Chair Gibson opened the hearing for public comment.  Lora Lucas, Phillip Decker, Lydia Holden, Bret Milne, Keane Richardson, Charles Cummings, Lori Richardson, and Terrilee Lang, addressed the Board and each homeowner said that their preference would be to keep the current numbering on Kyle Circle the same.  Several residents had concerns regarding the time and money it would take to change their address.  There were worries about lost mail, and changes to in-home business addresses.  Some residents recommended that Kyle Circle be ‘grandfathered’ in to the Rural Addressing System, or have Larimer County pay for the cost to change the addresses.  Others talked about the proposal to change only four home addresses, as a way to conform to the standards of the Rural Addressing System.

 

John Skinner, Mark Crowder, Ed Sharrar, Ron Thomas, Dorothy Kuckuck, all had similar requests and concerns compared to the other residents, but several felt that if the addressing change were to take place, it needed to be done correctly the first time.  Some residents talked about the contention between neighbors, and hoped that a similar situation would not have to take place again in the future. 

 

Ms. Goggin, and Ms. Culp explained that they were against the resident's option of changing four numbers because the proposal does not meet the intent of the Rural Addressing System.  Also, it does not follow the best practices when assigning house numbers, and does not enhance the ability of 911 services.

 

At this time there was a request to reopen public comment.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners reopen public comment.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

William Griffith explained that Kyle Circle is not a north/south or east/west running road.  The road is technically on a diagonal, which does not serve the purpose of the Rural Addressing System at this time. 

 

There was some discussion among the Commissioners at this time.  Ms. Goggin stated that residents would have between 30 and 60 days to change their street signage, and the Post Office will recognize the old addresses for up to one year.  Commissioner Rennels said that those best served by this decision may not be current residents, and she felt that there was a need to set precedence when it came to conformity of addressing in Larimer County.  She suggested that the addressing change take place in January of 2007.  Chair Gibson also stated that he believes that the issue on non-parity needs to be met, and supports what is consistent with the terms of the Rural Addressing System.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to retain existing addresses and that addresses be assigned consistent with the Rural Addressing System and Resolution by retaining the singe road name for all Kyle Circle properties and changing the numbering according to consistent parity as stated in Option 1A. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

 

 

 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2006

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#157 & 158)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with County Manager, Frank Lancaster.  Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were:  Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Larry Abrahamson, and Linda Coxen, District Attorney's Office; Major Justin Smith and Major Bill Nelson, Sheriff's Department; Dave Spencer, Facilities Department; Dale Miller, Road and Bridge Department; Brent Bartlett, Fischer Brown & Gunn PC; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

 

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

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 11, 2006:

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of December 11, 2006, with noted corrections.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 25, 2006The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the upcoming schedule with Ms. Hart.

 

4.  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 December 19, 2006:

 

 

ABATEMENTS:  As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are approved: Global Peptide Services, LLC; Landmark Financial Corporation; Angela and Marvin Thomas; and Timberline Properties, RLLP.

 

12192006A001           LICENSE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND THE COLORADO ICE LLC

 

12192006A002           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TIMBERLINE RESOURCES SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #02-Z1432, BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES, AND HAWKEYE RANCH INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC

 

12192006A003           WARRANTY MEMORANDUM FOR SAGE VALLEY CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT, FILE #05-S2405, BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND JOSH AND PATTI SAGE

 

12192006D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY GALE E. HANSEN FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

 

12192006R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOVELAND READY MIX FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL REVIEW

 

12192006R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JIF REZONING

 

12192006R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE KATSAMAKIS REZONING

 

12192006R004           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HUSCHKA REZONING

 

12192006R005           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED PLAT AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 10TH FILING LOT 60 AND LOT 1 AND LOT 59A OF GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 11TH FILING

 

12192006R006           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BREITSTEIN-PHIPPS MINOR LAND DIVISION AND DENYING THE FEE APPEAL

 

12192006R007           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LUBIN MINOR LAND DIVISION

 

12192006R008           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 4A, 4B, BLOCK 19 OF AMENDED PLAT OF RECORD AND LOT 17, BLOCK 18 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 17, AND AN UNPLATTED TRACT, ALL IN BLOCK 18 IN RAMONA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION

 

12192006R009           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 6A AND 6B, BLOCK 11, AMENDED PLAT OF RECORD IN RAMONA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION

 

12192006R010           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 3, THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 4, THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 12, LOT 13, THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 16, AND THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT 17, BLOCK 35, HIAWATHA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION

 

12192006R011           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 6, 7, AND 8 IN MONT-ROSE SUBDIVISION AND LOT 1 OF STAGE COACH PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT

 

12192006R012           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 38 AND THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 40 IN BIG ELK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

 

12192006R013           RESOLUTION FOR ACQUISITION OF LESSER PROPERTY

 

12192006R014           LOT CONSOLIDATION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOT 32 POUDRE SPRINGS 2ND FILING, LOT 33 POUDRE SPRINGS 1ST FILING AND LOT 34 POUDRE SPRINGS 1ST FILING

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following liquor licenses were both approved and issued:  Cloverleaf Kennel Club - Club Liquor License - Loveland; Moose Lodge 275 - Club Liquor License - Fort Collins.   The following liquor licenses were approved: Berthoud Area Chamber of Commerce - Special Event 6% - Berthoud; Best Western Inn - Transfer of Ownership - Loveland.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:  Mr. Lancaster presented the following appointments and reappointments to Boards and Commissions and requested approval on the same:

 

Agricultural Advisory Board:  Tony Dimas and Jason Kraft, appointed for a 3-year term beginning December 1, 2006, and expiring November 30, 2009.  Brett Markham and Richard Seaworth, reappointed for a 3-year term beginning December 1, 2006, and expiring November 30, 2009.

 

Fair Board:  Mike Adams and Jim Lenz appointed for a 3-year term beginning December 1, 2006, and expiring November 30, 2009.  Harley Leverenz, Loren Maxey, Todd Neiberger, and Pat Young reappointed for a 3-year term beginning December 1, 2006, and expiring November 30, 2009.

 

Red Feather Lakes Planning Advisory Committee:  Gene Allen, Sr. and Dennis Frydendall reappointed for a 1-year term beginning January 1, 2007, and expiring December 31, 2007.  Gene Barker, Ross Reid, Susan Bradley, Terry Ferebee, and Roger Svendsen reappointed for a 2-year term beginning January 1, 2007, and expiring December 31, 2008.  William Gilbert and Gordon (Bud) Thomas appointed for a 3-year term beginning January 1, 2007 and expiring December 31, 2009.  Ted Carter, Eunice Michalka, Lucille Schmitt, and J. Michael Sledge reappointed for a 3-year term beginning January 1, 2007, and expiring December 31, 2009.

 

Weld/Larimer Revolving Loan Fund:  Harris Coe appointed for a 4-year term beginning January 1, 2006, and expiring December 31, 2010.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Board and Commission appointments as listed.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that the re-appointment of Marjorie Corcoran as an Estes Valley Public Library District Trustee effective January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2010, should have been included in the minutes of October 31, 2006; however, it was omitted in error.  Mr. Lancaster made note of this re-appointment so that it would be included in the minutes for this week, and made of public record.  

 

Mr. Lancaster then requested Board approval on issuance of a temporary liquor permit for the Bourbon Street Saloon (formally know as The Rock Dance Club), as this establishment is being transferred back to the county until the fate of the City of Fort Collins southwest annexation project is determined.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve issuance of the temporary permit for the Bourbon Street Saloon LLC, dba Bourbon Street Saloon.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finally, Mr. Lancaster explained that the Federal Highway Administration is soliciting for applications for funding to increase truck parking in areas along the interstate highway system.  He presented a letter of support for additional truck parking spaces to be located at Johnson's Corner, contingent upon the endorsement of the Town of Johnstown.  The Board agreed to support this effort.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chair to sign a letter of support, contingent upon the endorsement of the grant by the Town of Johnstown, to increase truck parking at Johnson's Corner.

 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

 

7.  REQUEST FOR ENHANCED RETIREMENT PROGRAM FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE:  Mr. Abrahamson explained that Peace Officers in Larimer County are permitted to participate in an enhanced 457 Retirement program and he requested the ability to offer this option to the Peace Officers within the District Attorney's Office.  He noted that the Police Department and Sheriff's Department both have enhanced retirement plans and the allowing the Peace Officer's within District Attorney's to participate in a similar program would create equality and would help the District Attorney's Office with retaining their Peace Officers.  Mr. Abrahamson stated that approximately $63,000 would be required to fund the program if everyone who was eligible chose to participate.  The Board agreed to consider this request in 2007, and asked Mr. Lancaster to schedule a worksession to discuss the details of the matter.

 

 

8.  USE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S FUND BALANCE FOR 2007:  Ms. Coxen explained that the District Attorney's Office had reserved $175,000 in their operating budget from 2005 to carry over into 2006 for the purpose of implementing a new state-wide prosecutor's tracking system.  She stated that the software has not been implemented, as the state wide project has now been pushed out until 2007; therefore, she requested the ability to again carry over these funds into 2007.  Ms. Coxen also requested the ability to utilize carry over monies from their 2006 budget for use in 2007, in order to fund temporary and overtime salaries.  Commissioner Wagner expressed concern for making decisions based upon assumptions of carry over funds that might (or might not) be available, and without considering the needs and requests of other departments.  However, since the initial $175,000 had previously been approved and committed towards a specific project, the Board agreed to approve this portion of the request.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve $175,000 of the District Attorney's unused fund balance for 2006 for use in implementing a state-wide prosecutor's tracking system, and to consider the remaining requests for the District Attorney's Office in early February of 2007.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

9.  DISCUSSION OF LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY (LETA) BOARD APPOINTMENT:   Major Smith and Major Nelson had a lengthy discussion with the Board regarding the recent appointment of Commissioner Gibson to the LETA Board.  Major Smith explained that he was recommended to replace Major Nelson to serve on the LETA Board.  He stated that he has been regularly attending the meetings and learning as much as he could about a multitude of issues, in order to transition to this position if he was appointed to do so.  Commissioner Gibson expressed his desire to serve on the LETA Board so that he might provide balance by incorporating a "citizen" point of view.  Discussion ensued regarding possible scenarios that would allow both Commissioner Gibson and Major Smith to serve as a LETA member, each for a portion of the 2-year appointment.   Ultimately, Commissioner Gibson offered to resign his appointment to the LETA Board, which would allow the Commissioners to vote on this matter again.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners accept the resignation of Commissioner Gibson as a LETA Board member.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

At this point, Mr. Lancaster reminded Major Smith that the member appointed to the LETA Board would represent the Board of County Commissioners, and would not be representing the Sheriff.  He asked if Major Smith would be comfortable representing the Board of County Commissioners in this capacity.  Major Smith assured the Board that he would be comfortable acting as a member of LETA on behalf of the Commissioners.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners appoint Major Justin Smith to the LETA Board for a 2-year period. 

 

Motion carried 2-0; Commissioner Gibson abstained.

 

 

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

 

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

 

12.  EXECUTIVE SESSION:   (Tape #159)   At this time Dale Miller, Road and Bridge Department, and Brent Bartlett of Fischer Brown & Gunn PC, joined the meeting.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The meeting recessed at 11:15 a.m.

 

 

 

 

BUDGET ADOPTION HEARING

(# 160)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:00 p.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Robert Keister, Cheryl Miget, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk. 

 

Mr. Keister explained that the purpose of the meeting is to approve the 2006 Amended Budget and to adopt the proposed 2007 budget and set Mill Levies.  Mr. Keister noted that the 2006 budget would be revised by $34,387,088, with the net effect on the ending 2006 balance being an increase to the reserve account of $12,608,890.  The $12.6 million dollar reserve amount is mostly due to not building the Loveland facility.  Chair Gibson asked for clarification on the budget as it pertains to several County offices.  Mr. Keister and Ms. Miget addressed these questions individually. 

 

Chair Gibson opened the hearing for public comment.  There was no public comment. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Notice and Resolution to transfer funds and amend the 2006 budget.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12192006R015           NOTICE AND RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS AND AMEND 2006 BUDGET

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution to adopt the 2007 budget and set levies.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12192006R016           RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2007 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR LARIMER COUNTY GOVERNMENT

 

Mr. Keister explained that the following item consists of resolutions to adopt the 2007 budget and set mill levies for each individual entity. 

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolutions to adopt the 2007 budgets and set levies for said entities.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12192006R015           RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE 2006 BUDGET AND TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATE MONIES OF THE COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

12192006R016           RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 2007 BUDGET AND SET MILL LEVIES FOR THE COUNTY OF LARIMER

 

12192006R017  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2007 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE

12192006R018   RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PEST CONTROL DISTRICT

12192006R019   RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #1 IMPERIAL ESTATES

12192006R020  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #2 PINEWOOD SPRINGS

12192006R021  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #4 CARRIAGE HILLS

12192006R022  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #8 NAMAQUA HILLS

12192006R023  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #10 HOMESTEAD ESTATES

12192006R024  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #11 MEADOWDALE HILLS

12192006R025 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #12 CLUB ESTATES

12192006R026           RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #13A RED FEATHER

12192006R027   RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #14 LITTLE VALLEY ROAD

12192006R028  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #15 SKYVIEW SOUTH

12192006R029  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #16 KITCHELL SUBDIVISION

12192006R030  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #17 COUNTRY MEADOWS

12192006R031  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #18 VENNER RANCH

12192006R032  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #19 HIGHLAND HILLS

12192006R033  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #20 PTARMIGAN

12192006R034  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #21 SOLAR RIDGE

12192006R035  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #22 SADDLEBACK

12192006R036  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #23 EAGLE ROCK RANCHES

12192006R037  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #24 WESTRIDGE

12192006R038  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #25 ESTES PARK ESTATES

12192006R039  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #26 EAGLE RANCH ESTATES

12192006R040  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2007 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #27 CROWN POINT

12192006R041           RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #28 TROTWOOD

12192006R042  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #29 VINE DRIVE

12192006R043  RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #30 POUDRE OVERLOOK

12192006R044   RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #31 FOOTHILLS SHADOW

12192006R045   RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #32 CHARLES HEIGHTS

12192006R046   RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #35 BRUNS

12192006R047    RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY PID #36 BONNELL WEST

12192006R048    RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2006 BUDGET AND SET LEVIES FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY GID #1991-1 ARAPAHOE PINES

 

Mr. Keister stated that the next agenda item relates to the approval of a resolution appropriating sums of money for each cost category (i.e. Personnel Costs, Operating Costs, and Capital Costs), which limits spending by County departments to the categories and amounts in this resolution.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution to appropriate sums of money for 2007, which sets the limits for spending for each Larimer County Department. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12192006R049           RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY FOR 2007

 

Mr. Keister outlined and identified the ending balances of each County Fund.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution to designate ending 2007 funding balances.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12192006R050           RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE ENDING 2007 FUND BALANCES

 

Mr. Keister explained that the final agenda item is the Certification of Levies and Revenue, which certifies that the listing of mill levies and revenue are true and accurate copies of those certified to the Board of County Commissioners by various taxing authorities.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2007 Certification of Levies and Revenue.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

                                         

 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2006

 

 

EMERGENCY MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

(No Audio Available)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 8:45 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were in attendance.  All members participated via telephone conference call.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners declare a local emergency and authorize the Chair to sign a Declaration of Emergency, in response to the blizzard conditions consisting of heavy snowfall and high winds which have caused extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within all of Larimer County.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

12212006R001           DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY

 

The meeting ended at 8:55 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 __________________________________________

  GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

__________________________________

Kristen L. Romary, Deputy Clerk

 

 

 ATTEST:

__________________________________

Gael M. Cookman , Deputy Clerk