Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 01/22/07  

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, January 22, 2007

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(# 12)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels presided and Commissioner Gibson was present.  Also present were: Mark Peterson, Rex Burns, and Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Rennels 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 Pro-Tem Rennels then explained that Item 1 was listed on the schedule to be tabled to a later date.  Mr. Helmick stated that the date agreed upon by staff and the applicant was February 12, 2007, at 3:00 p.m.  Jim Martell, applicant representative, stated to the Board that the date of February 12, 2007, was acceptable. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Rose Minor Special Review - #06-Z1621 to February 12, 2007, at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

2.  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING THE CACHE LA POUDRE FLOODPLAIN IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA - #07-CA0067 (TABLED FROM JANUARY 16, 2007): Mr. Burns explained that the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County have differing regulatory requirements for development in floodplains within the Growth Management Area of the Cache La Poudre River. The current differences result in situations where developments that are annexed after development in the county may not meet city requirements. For that reason, city and county staff have agreed on certain changes in the respective Floodplain Regulations as they apply to the Cache La Poudre River in the city’s Growth Management Area.  The changes are summarized as follow:

 

1.   County requirements will be revised to match the city first floor elevation requirements, which are 24 inches higher than base flood elevation instead of 18 inches above base flood elevation.

2.   County requirements will be changed to not allow new critical facilities in the 500 year floodplain.

3.   The County Land Use Code will both allow floodway modifications only if it is shown that channel stability will be maintained, velocities will not be increased, and no adverse environmental effects will occur, and that no rise in flood water surface elevation will result from modifications.

4.   The county will require elevation of first floor levels to match city requirements in cases where the property has been approved by FEMA as LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill).

 

In the same time frame, the city will change its requirements to more closely match the county’s requirements:

 

1.   The city proposes changes to utilize the county floodway definition.

2.   The city will modify its requirements to allow floodway modifications for public and private purposes if it is shown that channel stability will be  maintained, velocities will not be increased, no adverse environmental effects will occur, and there is no rise in flood water surface elevation will result from modifications.

 

City and county staff have agreed to not allow the following critical facilities within the 500 year floodplain:  Critical facilities shall include hospitals, schools, daycare, nursing homes, group homes, police and fire stations, utility facilities, equipment storage for flood response.

 

The public process was initiated through an open house on Tuesday, November 14, 2006, to display the new maps and technical information.  Property owners were advised of the open house through a mailing sent to all property owners of record in those floodplains that will potentially be affected.  Mr. Burns stated that staff has had conversations with the Boxelder Sanitation District since the new regulations may restrict their ability to relocate in the future.

 

Staff recommends approval of the following proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code:

 

Add Sections:   4.2.2 A.4 Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District and Section 4.2.2 A.5 Cache La Poudre River GMA 500 year Zoning District.

 

Add the following language to the end of the current language contained in Section 4.2.2 .B:

 

The Cache La Poudre River GMA 500-year Floodplain Zoning District shall apply within the boundaries of the Fort Collins GMA to all properties lying within the 500-year floodplain of the Cache La Poudre River.

 

The Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District shall apply within that part of the FW-Floodway Zoning District pertaining to the Cache La Poudre River and that part of the FF-Flood Fringe Zoning District pertaining to the Cache La Poudre River which is within the Growth Management Area (GMA) of the City of Fort Collins.

 

Add a new Section 4.2.2 G as follows:

 

G.   Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District

 

1.   Requirements, procedures and uses allowed within the Cache La Poudre GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District shall be the same as requirements, procedures and uses allowed within the FF Flood Fringe and FW Floodway Zoning Districts respectively, except as noted below.

2.   Any new structure excepting expansion of existing non-conforming structures placed in the Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District shall have its lowest floor level placed at or above the GMA regulatory flood protection elevation. 

3.   If any nonresidential structure or portions of any non-residential structure are not constructed on fill, the portion not on fill must be flood-proof in a manner consistent with the requirements for placing a structure within the Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District to the GMA regulatory flood protection elevation.

4.   Critical facilities shall not be allowed anywhere within the Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District.

5.   Modification of the terrain within the FW Floodway portion of the Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District may be allowed only by Flood Plain Special Review.

 

Add a new Section 4.2.2 H as follows:

 

H.      The Cache La Poudre River GMA 500-year Floodplain Zoning District. Critical facilities shall be prohibited within the Cache La Poudre River GMA 500-year Floodplain Zoning District.

 

The existing Section G shall become Section I.  Said section shall be expanded as follows:

 

Add paragraphs h, i, and j, in 4.2.2.I.2 as follows:

 

4.2.2.I.2

h.   Any modification of the terrain within the FW-Floodway Zoning District will not result in a rise in overall flood heights at any location. 

i.   Any modification of the terrain within the FW-Floodway Zoning District will not reduce available flood storage volume.

j.   Any modification of the terrain within the FW-Floodway Zoning District is environmentally sound and will not result in a net loss of vegetation nor wildlife habitat.

 

The existing Section H shall become Section J

The existing Section I shall become Section K

The existing Section J shall become Section L

The existing Section K shall become Section M

The existing Section L shall become Section N

The existing Section M shall become Section O; which section shall be revised by adding the following definitions:

 

GMA Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation:  The elevation two feet above the regulatory flood datum.

 

500-year floodplain of the Cache La Poudre River:  The area of the Cache La Poudre River that has a 0.2 percent chance of flooding in a given year.

 

Critical Facility:  

Critical facilities shall include hospitals, schools, daycare, nursing homes, group homes, police and fire stations, public and private utility facilities that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to flooded areas before, during and after a flood, and equipment storage for flood response.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Rennels opened the hearing for public comment.  Ravi Srivastava, employee of the Boxelder Sanitation District, explained that the sanitation district prefers that there be no changes to the Land Use Code regarding the Cache La Poudre floodplain.  However, the current revisions meet the approval of the sanitation district.  Mr. Srivastava voiced his appreciation to staff for their revision of the floodplain maps, and said that the district agrees to cooperate with the changes.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels closed public comment at this time.

 

Bob Smith, City of Fort Collins, stated that they are going through the process of approving the amendments at the city level, and a second reading of the proposal is scheduled for February 6, 2007. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to the Land Use Code with the modifications as presented.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

3.  SHYANNE PLANNED LAND DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPEAL - #06-G0126:  Mr. Wheeler explained that the applicant seeks an appeal to modify the Shyanne PLD Development Agreement as it applies to the building envelopes for accessory uses.  The applicant has proposed expanding the definition of a boathouse to include a variety of uses as follows:

 

“The accessory building envelope for Lot 2 and the accessory building envelope for Lot 3 shall be used for the construction and use of a boathouse (one per lot) and uses incidental to the purpose of such boathouses, which incidental uses shall include paving, driveway and parking areas, storage facilities, restrooms, food preparation and food storage facilities, deck and patio facilities and related furniture and other recreational equipment facilities commonly associated with recreational boating.”

 

Appeals to Land Use Code requirements are subject to the public hearing process and must comply with the Review Criteria in Section 22.2.3 of the Land Use Code.  When considering whether to approve an appeal to deviate from standards or requirements of this code, other than minimum lot size requirements, the County Commissioners may grant the appeal subject to safeguards and conditions consistent with their findings concerning the below factors. They will consider each of the following issues and make findings pertaining to each one which, in their discretion, applies to the appeal.  The Review Criteria for this use are shown below with staff comments directly following each item:

 

1.   Approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose of the standard or requirement:  It is staff’s assessment that approval of this request will in no way subvert the purposes of the Land Use Code.  The boathouse would be clearly an accessory use to the primary residence for both lots within this Planned Development, and allow residents greater recreational use of their lots.  Staff recommends that the boathouse size be limited by this approval, and set at a maximum of 800 square feet for the area not used for storage of boats, and excluding outside patios, etc.  This limit matches the requirement placed on detached Accessory Living Areas and is intended to ensure that the scale of the accessory use does not become a second full size residence.  Staff also recommends that the boat house not include a full size kitchen or bathroom and bedroom facilities, again in an effort to make a distinction between this as a recreational accessory use and an Accessory Living Area, which would require Minor Special Review.  As a final note, all previous conditions related to architectural style, placement within a designated building envelope, etc., that are not modified with these proposed changes will remain in effect.  Provided the applicant complies with these conditions, staff concludes that the request satisfies this standard.

2.   Approval of the appeal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood:  Staff concludes that approval of the appeal will not have a negative impact on public health or neighborhood values, based on the nature of the appeal and the context of the site.  The request satisfies this standard as well.

3.   Approval of the appeal is the minimum action necessary:  The request to modify the Development Agreement to allow for expanded use of the boat houses will not need any subsequent approvals by the county, other than meeting building permit requirements.  Staff concludes the request satisfies this standard.

4.   Approval of the appeal will not result in increased costs to the general public:  Approval of the request will not result in any measurable cost to the general public.  Thus the application satisfies this code standard.

5.   Approval of the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the code:  It is staff’s assessment that this request fully meets the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, as modified by the recommended conditions of approval.  Limiting the boathouse in size and scale also ensures it does not become an Accessory Living Area, without Minor Special Review approval.  Therefore, staff can find no reason why the language in the Development Agreement should not be modified as proposed.  The request, in staff’s assessment, satisfies this standard.

The Development Services Team has no objections or concerns regarding approval of the appeal to size restrictions in Section 4.3.10.F.1.d of the Land Use Code.  No other individuals or agencies contacted staff with objections or concerns about this request.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the appeal to modify the language in the Shyanne PLD Development Agreement as it relates to the definition and use of boathouses on Lot 2 and Lot 3 to include and allow for the following changes.  However, previous requirements not modified by this approval shall remain in effect:

 

  1. The accessory building envelope for Lot 2 and the accessory building envelope for Lot 3 may be used for the construction and use of a boathouse (one per lot) and uses incidental to the purpose of such boathouses for lot owners and their guests,to include parking and storage facilities; restrooms limited to ¾ bath size; limited indoor food preparation area, which shall not to include full sized kitchen or food storage facilities, and; a deck and patio area related equipment associated with these areas and recreational boating.  The boathouse and incidental uses and structures shall not be used for commercial purposes.
  2. The inside non-storage area of the boathouse shall not exceed 800 square feet.  The applicant shall remain subject to all other previous verbal or written representations and commitments of record for Shyanne PLD Development Agreement, and to those verbal or written representations and commitments of record of the Shyanne PLD Appeal related to file #06-G0126.
  3. 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 approved appeal.
  4. Building permit applications shall be consistent with this approval and previous approvals still in effect.  Owner is subject to all required permits, fees and inspections for the use.

 

Stephen McMillan, applicant, explained that he was in agreement with staff’s proposal, with the addition of including the word “non-storage” to condition 2.  He explained that this addition is for consistency purposes only. 

 

Chair Pro-Tem Rennels opened the hearing for public comment.  No one from the audience addressed the Board.

 

Mr. Wheeler further explained that there is an addition to condition 1, which will read:  “…with recreational boating for lot owners and their guests.  The boathouse and incidental uses and structures shall not be used for commercial purposes.”  Mr. Wheeler read the addition to condition 1 for the record, which is now included in the conditions as outlined above.  Mr. McMillan stated that he approves of the changes.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Shyanne Planned Land Division/Development Agreement appeal to allow for the modification of the boathouse definition subject to conditions 1 through 4 as recommended and as modified with the addition of non-storage.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 3:40 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(# 13)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels presided and Commissioner Gibson was present.  Also present were:  Russell Legg, Planning Department; Jim Reidhead, Rural Land Use Director; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE - #06-CA0066:  Mr. Legg explained that the purpose of this hearing was to make a number of changes to the adopted Land Use Code.  He stated that some proposed changes are minor wording changes because of typographical errors or inconsistencies between parts of the code.  A few of the changes are needed because there are unintended consequences resulting from the current wording.  Mr. Legg presented the ten proposed changes as outlined below:

 

Item 1:  Administrative variance for stream setbacks.

 

In all zoning districts the Land Use Code requires a minimum setback of 100 feet from the centerline of all streams, creeks and rivers that appear on the U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, including intermittent streams.  We already have a minor variance procedure to allow the planning director to approve a 90-foot setback or a 10% variance.  For many of the intermittent streams this does not address the situations where there is very little chance for flooding and the riparian area along the stream is very narrow.  For these situations, the planning director should be able to grant a 50% variance where it can be clearly shown that flood waters will not likely damage the building and the building will not damage the riparian area or any wetlands associated with the stream.  This administrative variance process will replace the existing process in Section 4.6.7.A that deals with setbacks in O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts.  The next item on this agenda addresses these setbacks in a different way.

 

Delete the current Section 4.6.7.A and replace with the following:

 

A.  The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from the required 100-foot setback from the centerline of streams, creeks and rivers up to 50% of the required setback provided the following criteria are met.  The administrative variance process requires a pre-application conference and review by the planning director.  The decision of the planning director may be appealed to the board of adjustment.

 

  1. The review criteria for a setback variance in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable.
  2. The proposed building site is not within a wetland area.
  3. The proposed building site is not within a 100-year floodplain.
  4. The proposed building site is not within any federally designated threatened or endangered species critical habitat;

           

Administrative variances automatically expire if not acted upon within 12 months of the date of the written approval of the planning director.

 

Item 2:  Setback requirements in O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts.

 

Staff has been discussing setbacks in these two districts for quite a long time.  Section 4.6.7 was previously amended to provide for an administrative variance process to deal with additions to existing buildings or to allow new buildings that line up with existing, nonconforming buildings.  This amendment will remove the need for any kind of variance when an addition or a new building is proposed on a lot in these two zoning districts and there is a nonconforming building on the lot.  Staff will leave the 25-foot side and rear setbacks in place for all new construction in these zoning districts that does not fall under the exception proposed below.

 

Amend Section 4.1.5.B.3.b and c to read as follows:

 

b.  “Side yard—25 feet except that if there is an existing building over 120 square feet in area that has been legally established prior to (date of code amendment) that is setback less than 25 feet from the side yard, said existing building shall be deemed conforming with respect to side yard setback, and an addition to said existing building or a new building shall be allowed a side yard setback equal to or greater than the existing building, but in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 5 feet.”

 

c.  “Rear yard—25 feet except that if there is an existing building over 120 square feet in area that has been legally established prior to (date of code amendment) that is setback less than 25 feet from the rear yard, said existing building shall be deemed conforming with respect to rear yard setback, and an addition to said existing building or a new building shall be allowed a rear yard setback equal to or greater than the existing building, but in no case shall the rear yard setback be less than 10 feet.”

 

Amend Section. 4.1.8.B.2.b and c to read as follows:

             

b.  “Side yard—25 feet except that if there is an existing building over 120 square feet in area that has been legally established prior to (date of code amendment) that is setback less than 25 feet from the side yard, said existing building shall be deemed conforming with respect to side yard setback, and an addition to said existing building or a new building shall be allowed a side yard setback equal to or greater than the existing building, but in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 5 feet.”

 

c.  “Rear yard—25 feet except that if there is an existing building over 120 square feet in area that has been legally established prior to (date of code amendment) that is setback less than 25 feet from the rear yard, said existing building shall be deemed conforming with respect to rear yard setback, and an addition to said existing building or a new building shall be allowed a rear yard setback equal to or greater than the existing building, but in no case shall the rear yard setback be less than 10 feet.”

 

Item 3:  Home Occupation Signs.

 

Section 10.13.A.5 currently requires that a sign for a home occupation be mounted on the building near the entrance to the home occupation.  In some cases this is not practical because there may be a very long driveway making a three square foot sign unreadable from the road.  Allowing the sign to be placed anywhere on the same lot with the home occupation will overcome this problem and should not result in any problems for the neighborhood.

 

Amend Section 10.13.A.5 as follows:

 

Signs for home occupations and uses approved by minor special review shall be limited to one sign not to exceed three square feet in area, and located on the same lot as the home occupation or use.

 

Item 4:  Section 4.7.8.

 

When staff amended the regulations pertaining to special exceptions in Section 4.7 they overlooked Section 4.7.8 which was to be deleted.

 

Delete Section 4.7.8.

 

Item 5:  Rafting Business.

 

Staff has been talking to some of the rafting companies who have had difficulty finding places from which to operate their business.  Under the current code, these businesses are limited to property that is zoned C-Commercial or I-Industrial.  There simply is not much of that zoning in the areas close to the rafting places.  By adding “rafting business” to the O-Open Zoning District through the minor special review process the county can add many more possible locations for this type of business.

 

Add a definition for “Rafting Business”- A facility for the operation of a commercial rafting business where vehicles, rafts and other equipment are stored and where customers congregate to change clothes and be transported to and from the put in and take out sites.”

 

Add “Rafting Business” to Section 4.3.5, Recreational Uses under a new subsection J.

 

Add “Rafting Business (MS)” to Section 4.1.5.A under the heading of Recreational Uses and renumber the rest of Section 4.1.5.A.

Add “Rafting Business” to the recreational use section of the zoning table at the end of Section 4.1 and place the “MS” designation under the O-Open column.

 

Item 6:  Rural Land Use Process.

 

The director of the Rural Land Use Center has two minor changes to make in Section 5.8.6.  There is a typographical error in the italicized guideline portion of the Road Grade section (for the purposes of the RLUP guidelines are intended to be “recommendations and suggestions”).  The last sentence should read: “However, the average grade for 200 feet “should” not exceed 12%.”  It currently says “must.”  There is a big difference between “should” and “must”.  For the RLUP, “should” designates a recommendation or suggestion and “must” or “shall” designates requirements.  However, it was intended that this particular RLUP Guideline reflect the precise wording (“...should not exceed...”) used in Appendix G - Design and Construction Standards for Private Local Roads (Section G.7.B). 

 

In section 5.8.6.C.3.c Road and Driveway Drainage it states: “...Road and driveway design must contain provisions for storm water drainage sufficient to achieve a standard of no ponding at all locations.”  The changes will now read, “Road and driveway design should provide for positive storm water drainage at all locations.”

 

Item 7:  Connectivity.

 

From time to time there are land division projects that have connectivity issues with adjacent parcels.  There is always the discussion concerning the construction of the connecting road even though the road is not needed for the project under review.  If the road is not built, the right of way is gradually appropriated by the adjacent lot owners who plant landscaping, install play ground equipment and other improvements which then must be removed.  If the road is constructed and signage is installed to advise of the future road connection, staff can avoid any surprises when the adjacent property is developed.

 

Staff proposes to add a new paragraph under LCLUC Section 8.14.2.S (Connectivity) as follows:

 

Where future connectivity is required to adjacent undeveloped parcels, a road must be constructed to the property line meeting applicable County Road or Street Standards.  When such a road is constructed, a sign stating “Future Road Connection” shall be erected and maintained in a conspicuous location along such road.

 

Item 8:  Power Plant.

 

Power Plant is listed as a use permitted by special review in the I-1 Industrial Zoning District and it is listed in the zoning table which follows Section 4.1 of the Code.  However, this use was omitted from Section 4.3, Use Descriptions.

 

In Section 4.3.7, Industrial Uses add a new subsection “M.  Power Plant.  A facility designed, constructed and operated to generate electric power by steam, wind, solar, water or other means.”

 

Item 9:  Incorrect reference in Section 4.1.10.B.4.

 

There is a typographical error in Section 4.1.10.B.4 where there is a reference to Section 4.2.10.  The correct reference is to Section 4.3.10.

 

Item 10:  Private Road Easements.

 

Section 8.14.2 provides a mechanism for a developer to request that roads in a development be private.  There is some concern that private road easements might preclude the installation and maintenance of street name signs.

 

Staff proposes amending Section 8.14.2.N.2.a to read as follows:  “There is an easement, agreement, covenant or other appropriate document to be recorded in the county records that grants the right of access for emergency and service vehicles and that defines the persons/entities entitled to use the road easements, including the installation and maintenance of street name signs within the easement, the purpose for and manner in which the roads may be used, any limitations on the use of the roads, the persons/entities authorized to enforce the terms of the easement and penalties for violation of the terms of the easement.”

 

Mr. Legg stated that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve all items, except for number five, related to rafting businesses.  He also explained that an email was received from Evelyn King, Loveland resident, who provided questions, and suggestions to the Board regarding the administrative variance for stream setbacks, and setback requirements in O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts.

 

At this time, Chair Pro-Tem Rennels opened the hearing for public comment.  No one from the audience addressed the Board. 

 

Chair Pro-Tem Rennels stated that she wanted to table Item 5, related to rafting businesses, in order to provide more time for discussion with the steering committee, and the Planning Commission. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code with the exception of Item 5 that is being removed for further discussion at a later date.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

The meeting ended at 7:00 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2007

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(# 14)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels presided and Commissioner Gibson was present.  Also present were:  Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Gary Buffington, Parks and Open Lands Department; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

 

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

 

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 15, 2007

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of January 15, 2007.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 29, 2007:  The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the upcoming schedule with Ms. Hart.

 

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the consent agenda for January 22, 2007:

 

01232007A001           IGA FOR 2007 BYRNE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM AWARD

 

01232007A002           GRANT CONTRACT FOR HIDDEN VIEW ESTATES WASTEWATER ENGINEERING STUDY

 

01232007A003           WARRANTY MEMORANDUM FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT VISTA GRANDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1 AHD PHASE 2

 

01232007A004           ANNUAL CONTRACT WITH ISLAND GROVE TREATMENT CENTER FOR TREATMENT SERVICES AND TRANSPORTATION FOR LARIMER COUNTY RESIDENTS

 

01232007R001           RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE NORTHWEST SUBAREA PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE LARIMER COUNTY MASTER PLAN

 

01232007R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DRY CREEK RESERVOIR MINOR LAND DIVISION AND APPEAL

 

01232007R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE KYLE CIRCLE ADDRESSING APPEAL

 

01232007R004           RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK EIGHT (DAY CARE)

 

01232007R005           AMENDED RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE

 

01232007R006           APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF A PORTION OF LOT 8 IN BALLARD PLACE SUBDIVISION

 

01232007R007           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING DEMMEL LAKE ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT AND APPEAL TO CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS

 

01232007R008           RESOLUTION ADOPTING PRESONNEL POLICIES IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ASSESSOR

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Larimer County Charles Heights Public Improvement District #32 Advisory Board Bylaws; Larimer County Crown Point Public Improvement District #27 Advisory Board Bylaws; Larimer County Bruns Public Improvement District #35 Advisory Board Bylaws; Larimer County Bonnell West Public Improvement District #36 Advisory Board Bylaws; Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Assurances for annual work plan.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following liquor license was approved and issued: A Hunt Club – Tavern – Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

5.  EXTEND THE CITIZEN TASK FORCE AUTHORITY FOR THE PARKS MASTER PLAN AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN:  Mr. Buffington asked for approval from the Board to extend the authority of the Parks Task Force until April 15, 2007, to successfully complete the Parks Master Plan updated and Resource Management Plan.  The Commissioners established the Parks Task Force approximately one year ago to work with the public, staff, and a consultant to update the plans as required by the Bureau of Reclamation.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners extend the Citizen Task Force Authority for the Parks Master Plan and Resource Management Plan until April 15, 2007.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

6.  CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION FUNDING AND FLIER:  Mr. Lancaster stated that the Board of County Commissioners have previously helped sponsor the Fort Collins community wide Cinco de Mayo celebration.  The organizing committee of this event has requested that the Board consider sponsoring the event this year in the amount of $1,000.  The money would be taken from the Commissioners’ special projects fund. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve $1,000 from the Commissioners’ Special Projects Fund for support of the Fort Collins community wide Cinco de Mayo celebration. 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

7.  WORKSESSION:  Mr. Gluckman outlined proposed Senate Bill 89 concerning a requirement that annexation of an enclave be approved by a vote of the majority of specified persons in the enclave.  He stated that the city is asking for the Board to oppose this legislation. Chair Pro-Tem Rennels explained that since an annexation would affect surrounding neighbors as well, they are entitled to representation through a vote also.  Commissioner Gibson stated that he could not support the bill currently.  The Board agreed that they were not ready to make a decision concerning Senate bill 89 at this time.

 

Mr. Gluckman explained that it is currently a requirement of all gymkhana participants to wear equestrian helmets, as of October 1, 2006.  Senator Tom Wiens of Castle Rock has introduced a Senate Bill specifically preventing a state agency from requiring equine helmets for gymkhana events; the wearing of helmets would be determined by parental choice instead.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels emphasized that 4-H and similar organizations currently have the freedom to decide on their own whether to require helmets or not.  If this bill passes, agencies such as 4-H would lose their authority to make this decision on their own and in turn would enable state agencies to make decisions for them instead.  Commissioner Gibson does not want to add more government to organizations similar to 4-H, and therefore opposes the bill.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels is in agreement with Commissioner Gibson. 

 

 

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

 

 

9.  LEGAL MATTERS:  There were no legal matters to discuss today.

 

 

The meeting ended at 10:10 a.m.

 

 

 

__________________________________________

KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR PRO-TEM

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 _________________________________

Kristen L. Romary, Deputy Clerk

 

 

 

 

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.