> Meetings & Minutes > 2000 Minutes

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Monday, December 18, 2000

BUDGET HEARING

(#682)

The Board of County Commissioners met with Bob Keister, County Budget Manager at 2:00 p.m.; Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present was Jean O'Connor, Recording Clerk.

  1. RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2000 BUDGET:

    2. M O T I O N

    Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution to amend the 2000 budget.

    Motion carried 3 - 0.

    R00-264g RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2000 BUDGET

  2. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2001 BUDGET, SET LEVIES: County Government:

Mr. Keister stated that staff is requesting the budget be adopted at $524,192 less then that which was proposed, due to some adjustments.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution to adopt the 2001 budget as amended.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

R00-265g RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2001 BUDGET, SET LEVIES: COUNTY GOVERNMENT

3. RESOLUTIONS TO ADOPT 2001 BUDGETS AND SET LEVIES: Other Entities:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve resolutions to adopt 2001 Budges and Set Levies for other entities.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

R00-266g LARIMER COUNTY PEST DISTRICT

R00-267g LARIMER COUNTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE

R00-268g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1- IMPERIAL ESTATES

R00-269g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #2- PINEWOOD SPRINGS

R00-270g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #4- CARRIAGE HILLS

R00-271g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #8- NAMAQUA HILLS MAINTENANCE

R00-272g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #10- HOMESTEAD

R00-273g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #11- MEADOWDALE HILLS

R00-274g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #12- CLUB ESTATES

R00-275g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #13A- RED FEATHER

R00-276g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #14- LITTLE VALLEY

R00-277g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #15- SKYVIEW SOUTH

R00-278g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #16- KITCHELL SUBDIVISION

R00-279g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #17- COUNTRY MEADOWS

R00-280g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #18- VENNER RANCH ESTATES

R00-281g LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1991-1- ARAPAHOE PINES

4. RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY FOR 2001:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution to appropriate sums of money for 2001.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

R00-282g RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY FOR 2001

5. RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE ENDING 2001 FUND BALANCES:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution to designate ending 2001 fund balances.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

R00-283g RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE ENDING 2001 FUND BALANCES

6. CERTIFICATION OF LEVIES AND REVENUE:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the certification of levies and revenue.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

R00-284g CERTIFICATION OF LEVIES AND REVENUE

There being no further business, the hearing recessed at 2:30 p.m.

LAND USE MEETING

(#682, 683)

The Board of County Commissioners met with Larry Timm, Director of Planning at 3:00 p.m.; Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present were Dave Shirk and Bob Joseph, Estes Park Planners; Russ Legg, Chief Planner; Steve Ryder, TDU Administrator; Jill Bennett, Senior Planner; Fred Starr and Sarah Flick, Planners II; Doug Ryan, Environmental Planner; Rusty McDaniel, Project Engineer; Traci Downs, Civil Engineer; Candace Phippen, Code Enforcement Officer; Tony Simons, Wildfire Coordinator; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Jean O'Connor, Recording Clerk.

Chair Olson noted that South Lane Rezoning Lot 33 and portions of Lots 32 and Stanley Heights Subdivision has been withdrawn and stated that the following items are consent and will not be discussed unless requested by the Board or members of the audience. Commissioner Disney requested the item #5- Brown Rezoning be removed from the consent agenda.

1. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 11 AND A PORTION OF LOT 12, MCCREERY SUBDIVISION: THE YOUNG PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1224 CHASM DRIVE, JUST NORTH OF DEVILS GULCH ROAD ABOUT TWO MILES FROM THE HWY 34 BYPASS WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED ESTES VALLEY.

This is a request to combine two lots into a single lot of record. Staff recommendation is approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 11 and a portion of Lot 12 in the McCreery Subdivision.

2. FAIRBANKS MINOR SUBDIVISION: THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 1750 WINDHAM DRIVE, WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED ESTES VALLEY.

This is an application for a minor subdivision to adjust a boundary line between Lot 32 and Lot 20, Dunraven Heights. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Fairbanks Minor Subdivision/Boundary Line Adjustment with the following conditions 1. Prior to recording of plat, the applicant shall submit evidence of petition for inclusion within the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and municipal sub-district; 2. Submittal of a revised plat including the following changes a) Removal of the term "proposed property line"; b) Dedication of public right-of-way beginning at the eastern property line and extending to a line 22.5-feet west of the centerline of existing access easement; c) Removal of the "Boundary Line Adjustment Agreement" statement; d) Changing the title to read "Fairbanks/Boulter Minor Subdivision/Boundary Line Adjustment".

3. AYERIE MINOR SUBDIVISION: THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 2111 AND 2112 EAGLE CLIFF DRIVE, WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED ESTES VALLEY.

This is an application for a minor subdivision to divide one lot into two lots pursuant to §10.1,B.2 of Estes Valley Development Code. Staff recommendation is approval of the Ayerie Minor Subdivision with the following conditions 1. The lot line will be redrawn from the angle to the west, instead of the north, with staff approval, consistent with the Planning Commission discussion; 2. The Dedication Statement should be revised to read as follows: "To hereby subdivide the same into Lots and Blocks, streets, utilities, and private access easements as shown on this Plat and hereby designate and dedicate the streets and the utility easements to and for public use and for the installation and maintenance of utilities, irrigation and drainage facilities and to hereby designate the same as...."; 3. The ingress and egress easements should be designated as private. A note shall be added to the Plat stating that the approval of the Subdivision Plat does not affect the non-conformity of the structures located on the premises with regard to setbacks; 4. This involves a minor modification to lot area and the site is fully developed. No additional dwelling units will be allowed on either lot. A note to this effect shall be placed on the plat; 5. The note that the access easement requires a shared maintenance agreement with the property owners to the north shall be removed from the plat.

  1. PRATT SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT: SOUTH OF YMCA.

    2. This is a request to obtain legal lot status for Lot 1, 4.12 acres. Also request an exception to Larimer Co. private drive standards. Staff recommendation is approval of the Preliminary Plat of Pratt Subdivision with the following conditions 1. The subject property shall be rezoned to RE, Rural Estate, from A-1 at the time of the Final Plat; 2. Signed and recorded shared access and maintenance agreements shall be provided as required to demonstrate legal access to the proposed lot; 3. The owner shall petition to be included in the Northern Colorado Conservancy District and the Municipal Sub-district; 4. The applicant shall obtain a Private Road Construction Permit from Larimer County's Environmental Site and Access Specialist, Scott Cornell, prior to the County Commissioners' hearing; 5. The Estes Valley Planning Commission supports the applicant's request for exemption from the County's private drive regulations.

    6. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEE ADJUSTMENTS FOR 2001

    This is a request to amend the Development Review Fee Schedule. Staff recommendation is approval of the following changes to the application fee system to be effective March 1, 2001, for all fees below except the wildfire fee, which shall be effective January 1, 2001 1. Add a 3rd level of Special Review Fees for Limited Impact uses such as Ag labor housing, alfalfa dehydrators, boarding /rooming houses etc. $800 (Inside or outside GMA's) (For uses generating less than 60 Daily VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel as calculated in accordance with Table 9.5.6.l of the Larimer County Land Use Code). (This trip generation target is based on 80% of the VMT for a 2000 sq ft retail store.); 2. Increase Cell-Tower Administrative Review from $180 to $800; 3. Add Cell Towers to the Special review category of Seasonal Camps Resort lodges and add the words "and similar uses" and the words " regardless of the Vehicle trips generated"; 4. Add Board of Adjustment fee for applications already built $800; 5. Add Special Review Extension/modification $600; 6. Add Board of Adjustment appeal of decision $ 50; 7. Add Board of Adjustment Extension/modification $125; 8. Add wildfire review fees $200 to Planning and RLUC projects that a) are located in designated wildfire hazard area; b) That is located outside of wildfire hazard area mapping, but staff has identified as having a significant wildfire hazard (The wildfire administrator notes that these fees are authorized by the Board of County Commissioners but not implemented by planning. (See Board minutes 10/06/97); 9. Eliminate the three tier Location and Extent Review fee ranging from $2000 to $400 and replace with one fee for all types and scales of Location & Extent review to be $400.

    7. MELIN AMENDED EXEMPTION: 1025 EAST COUNTY ROAD 30

    This is a request to create a building envelope for each of the three parcels created by the 1975 exemption, and to dedicate or acknowledge access and utility easements. Staff finding is that this proposal is consistent with the policies of Section 5.7-Amended Plat Process and Subsection 5.13.5-Final Plat. Staff recommendation is approval of the Melin Amended Exemption with the following condition 1. Prior to footing and foundation permits, there shall be a certificate by a surveyor licensed in the State of Colorado confirming that the construction is within the building envelope designated on the amended plat for these Lots.

    8. ASHCROFT KENNEL - SPECIAL REVIEW: NW 1/4 OF SECTION 1, T 6N, R 68 W, LOCATED EAST SIDE OF SOUTH COUNTY ROAD 3, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF HARMONY RD./HIGHWAY 68.

    This is a request to (a) increase an existing 40 dog, board and breeding kennel to accommodate 80 dogs, (b) build an additional kennel building. Staff findings are that at the time of the Planning Commission hearing on November 15, 2000, staff recommended approval provided that the applicant fulfills two conditions. Briefly, the applicant had to: (a) submit a noise abatement plan for barking dogs to be reviewed by both the Planning Department and the Department of Health and Environment, and (b) submit a drainage and erosion control report to the Engineering Department, as well as an explanation of onsite parking. Both of these conditions have been fulfilled. Staff recommendation is approval the Ashcroft Kennel Special Review, File #Z1333.

    M O T I O N

    Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the McCreery Subdivision Amended Plat, Lot 11 and a portion of Lot 12; Fairbanks Minor Subdivision; Ayerie Minor Subdivision; Pratt Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Proposed Development Review Fee Adjustments for 2001 #00-G0018; Melin Amended Exemption #00-S1712 and Ashcroft Kennel Amended Special Review #00-Z1333 as outlined above.

    Motion carried 3 - 0.

  2. BROWN REZONING: THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 1272 GIANT TRACK ROAD, WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED ESTES VALLEY

This is a request to rezone parcel number 3535300079 FROM "A-1" TO "A" Accommodations with the uses restricted to not permit High Intensity Accommodation uses as defined in the Estes Valley Development code table on page 4-13 including such uses at High intensity Hostels, Hotel/Motels, parks/campgrounds. Staff recommendation is approval of the Brown Rezoning with the following conditions 1. High intensity accommodation uses such as hostel, hotel/motel, RV parks or campgrounds shall not be permitted; 2. No additional units may be constructed without review under the provisions and standards of the Estes Valley Development Code; 3. If the Brown's current active building permit expires (including the possible 6-month extension), then they will be required to reapply in accordance with the EVDC.

Mr. Legg stated that the applicant is not requesting any new uses for the parcel and that this request and that staff had reviewed outstanding building permits of which two have expired. Mr. Legg noted that staff supports the one time renewal of these permits. Ms. Phippen stated that so long as the applicant reactivates these permits and calls for inspections at a maximum of every 6-months, they would be considered in compliance.

Mr. Tom Gerson, adjacent property owner stated that the applicant has agreed not to expand beyond 13-units and suggested staff request a site visit because there are not 13-units there. Mr. Gerson further stated that access to the property, Sutton Lane, was recently denied in court and requested the Board consider the court ruling.

Mr. Legg stated that the outstanding building permits would increase the property to no more than 13-units if renewed. Mr. Legg also stated that staff has sent a letter requesting a site visit and has no knowledge at this time regarding access issues.

Chair Olson asked if the applicant could build the units without this rezoning request and Mr. Legg replied in the affirmative and noted that this rezone will make the units conforming under the current adopted Land Use Code.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Brown Rezoning as presented.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

  1. BERTHOUD AND LOVELAND COMMUNITY SEPARATOR PLAN

    2. Staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners recommend approval and adoption of the Berthoud and Loveland Community Separator Plan as an Element of the Larimer County Master Plan to the Larimer County Planning Commission. Staff findings are: 1. The Plan is a cooperative effort of the affected communities and is consistent with Regional Studies for the area; 2. The planning process has included notice and involvement of area landowners, residents and other interested parties; 3. The Berthoud and Loveland Community Separator Plan is consistent with Principles and Strategies of the Larimer County Master Plan. Staff recommendation is that the Board of County Commissioners recommend that the Larimer County Planning Commission adopt the Berthoud and Loveland Community Separator Plan as an element of the Larimer County Master Plan with the following clarifications 1. The adoption Resolution states that the Growth Management Area, Cooperative Planning Area and Community Influence Area shown on maps in the Plan will not change boundaries of these areas as they are described in existing Intergovernmental Agreements; 2. The adoption Resolution states that adoption of the Plan does not change zoning or the existing development options of any property located in the unincorporated area of the Plan.

    Ms. Bennett stated that the Planning Commissioner resolution has been amended and two paragraphs added in an effort to be clearer that the separator plan is not a land use plan or a regulation and will not change any current zoning in unincorporated Larimer County. It will however, be considered as an element of the Larimer County Master Plan. Commissioner Disney asked if this separator plan is similar to the Fort Collins-Loveland separator plan and Ms. Bennett replied in the affirmative and noted that this plan was modeled after that plan.

    Mr. Paul Hurley stated that he has two concerns 1. Lack of notification in a timely manner if any notice at all, and 2. That current property zoning will be affected. Mr. Hurley also noted that the long-term management costs of maintaining the "open space" created by this plan would potentially place a burden on taxpayers in the future.

    Mr. Rick Johnson noted concern over the lack of notice regarding this plan and stated that property owners are present which represent over 1000-acres and that no one received notice. Mr. Johnson requested the Board table this item until issues can be addressed and a audible speaker system is available for the audience; much of what is being said can not be heard.

    Ms. Sonya Worberger-Mass also noted lack of notice received, opposition to the study, and its relationship to the Land Use Code and Master Plan. Ms. Worberger stated that the study could be used as a guide not as an element of the Master Plan as the resolution is currently proposed. Commissioner Rennels asked if Ms. Worberger felt properties would be condemned as a result of the study and Ms. Worberger said yes, by reference and wondered why property owners were not notified and no details or specifics are available.

    Ms. Kathy McMillian stated that she too has a vision for her 80-acres and requiring it remain "open space" will devalue the property. Chair Olson reiterated that her zoning will not change and if Ms. McMillian chooses, the property can be development after this plan as though the plan did not exist. Commissioner Rennels asked if the plan is adopted, does Ms. McMillian feel her property will not sell and Ms. McMillian replied yes, chances would greatly diminish.

    Mr. Leroy Gabriel stated that it is difficult to determine what will happen because there has been insufficient time to study what is in the plan.

    Mr. Henry Hetsel noted that his property is only 5-miles from Berthoud and questioned why he was included in the study area and considered a viewshed, a designation which will preclude development. Mr. Hetsel stated that the decision to "adopt" guides would in fact be defacto regulations. Commissioner Rennels asked if Mr. Hetsel felt his property would not sell if this plan were adopted and Mr. Hetsel replied that the value will be affected if it can't be developed and noted this is a fairness issue.

    Commissioner Disney asked if property is designated as a viewshed, what would happen and Ms. Bennett stated that the current underlying zoning would determine density. If the parcel is over 30-acres, Ms. Bennett continued, the property owner would be encouraged to do a conservation development designed to protect the viewshed if possible.

    Commissioner Disney verified that a receiving area for transfer of density units (TDU) is proposed in the vicinity of State Highway 402 and property owners always have the voluntary option of participating in the TDU program. Commissioner Rennels asked if a list of notified property owners is available and Ms. Bennett stated that Loveland and Berthoud were responsible for property notification. Mr. Matt Robenault, Advanced Planning, provided a list of property owners which was derived from the County Assessor's office property records and Berthoud water utility records.

    Commissioner Disney noted that similar concerns were heard during public hearings of the Fort Collins/Loveland Separator Plan, however the plan has been instrumental in receipt of GOCo dollars for open space purchases from willing property owners. Chair Olson noted that the plan also increased property values many times. Commissioner Rennels concurred and noted the potential for future GOCo dollars if the plan is adopted and noted that the plan is another potential marketing tools for properties with the area.

    M O T I O N

    Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners recommend to the Larimer County Planning Commission adoption of the Berthoud/ Loveland Separator Plan #00-CA0017 as an element of the Larimer County Master Plan.

    Motion carried 3 - 0.

  2. GRAYBILL PUD - WAIVER: SW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST - MORE SPECIFICALLY THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SE 8TH STREET APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST U.S HIGHWAY 287 IN LOVELAND COLORADO.

This is a request for a waiver of Section 5.2.C of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Loveland Urban Growth Area. Staff finding is that the City of Loveland Public Works Department is recommending that Larimer County deny the requests for waiver of both the adjacent and off-site road improvements. Staff recommendation is 1. Approve the request for a waiver of the ADJACENT road improvements consisting of Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk; 2. Deny the request for a waiver of the OFF-SITE road improvements consisting the widening of SW 8th Street (Co. Rd. 18E).

Mr. Starr stated that the applicant believes money spent on improvements will be wasted since no other section of the road is improved nor has a design for improvements along the road been established. Therefore, staff believes that when the time comes to improve the entire road, any required improvements made at this point will be torn out. Commissioner Disney stated that this is an "enclave" situation - if the City of Loveland would annex, then they would make the improvements, but the City has requested the applicants requests be denied, therefore it will remain an enclave.

Mr. McDaniel noted that due to the location, neither side of the site has curb/gutter and sidewalks and that it is difficult to determine the future height of gutters and sidewalks when/if other development occurs. Commissioner Rennels asked if any other projects have been submitted in the area and Mr. Starr stated that he has no knowledge of other projects.

Mr. Dennis Messner, representative for the applicant, stated that the concern is one of fairness - others were not required to make improvements in the past and that area property owners have stated a willingness to participate in the improvements just not at this time.

Mr. Buck Graybill, the applicant, stated that the improvement requirement is not fair and noted that the letter received from Mr. Brent requested the Board to deny this waiver, is from a developer who has just completed a larger project for which he was not required to make any improvements.

Commissioner Disney asked if the applicant could place a fair portion in escrow for an established period of time while allowing the applicant and/or County to try to establish a general improvement district. Ms. Haag stated that she would like to research this idea further and suggested the item be tabled; Mr. Graybill agreed to be tabled to January 2, 2001 at 3:00 p.m.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Graybill Planned Unit Development Appeal to January 2, 2001 at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

There being no further business, the hearing was recessed at 5:30 p.m.

LAND USE MEETING CONTINUED

(#684 & 685)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with Larry Timm; Director of Planning; Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present were Al Kadera, Planner II; Rusty McDaniel, Project Engineer; Mark Peterson, County Engineer; Russ Legg, Senior Planner; Tom Garton, Chief Building Official; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Jean O'Connor, Recording Clerk.

1A. AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE:

Staff recommended the following changes to the adopted Land Use Code:

  1. Subsection 8.14.2, Development Design Standards. Page 8-80. The naming of lots, outlots, open space tracts and other parcels has never been standardized in the Land Use Code resulting in confusion for anyone using the information on a final plat. The main problem has been with the Assessor's Office, which is responsible for placing a value on every parcel according to the use of the property. Adding the following Code language will standardize the naming of all parcels that appear on final plats.

Add the following to Subsection 8.14.2 after Subsection M:

The following design standards apply to all development, including Rural Land Plans:

  1. Outlots. All parcels that are to be used only for drainage easements, rights of way or other uses that do not need any buildings must be labeled "Outlot" followed by consecutive letter designations beginning with "A".

  2. Residual Lots. All parcels in Conservation Developments and Rural Land Plans that are considered to be Residual Land must be labeled "Residual Lot" followed by consecutive letter designations beginning with "A". Residual lots must be further identified by one of the following applicable designations that must be placed in parentheses after the residual lot label:

  1. Buildable/Residence(s) for those residual lots that may be occupied by a single family dwelling;

  2. Buildable/Support Buildings Only for those residual lots that may be occupied by buildings that are accessory to the use of the residual lot; or
  3. Non-Buildable for those residual lots that are not intended to be occupied by any buildings.

  1. Common Area Lots. All parcels in Subdivisions, Conservation Developments, Rural Land Plans, Planned Developments and Minor Land Divisions that are common open space for the development must be labeled "Common Area Lot" followed by a letter designation beginning with "A". Common Area Lots must be further identified by one of the following applicable designations that must be placed in parentheses after the common area lot label:

  1. Buildable/Support Buildings Only for those common area lots that may be occupied by buildings or structures that are intended for use by the lot owners in the development; or

  2. Non-Buildable for those common area lots that are not intended to be occupied by any buildings or structures.

2. Subsection 5.11.5, Standards for Street and Road Naming. Page 5-41. Road naming in the County has become much more critical since the inception of the E-911 system. We must avoid duplicating road names throughout the County, including the municipalities, and we even need to avoid names that sound alike. Care must be taken to avoid conflicts that would delay or prevent emergency response. The Land Use Code contains some conventions for naming roads in Subsection 5.11.5. The Building Department, which is responsible for addressing in the unincorporated parts of the County, has been working with the Larimer Emergency Telecommunications Authority (the E-911 folks) to refine these regulations and we should amend the Code to incorporate their recommendations.

Add a new Subsection 5.11.5.D, General Naming Standards. Page 5-41. "D. General Naming Standards. Road names must be unique and not repeated in the County. Alternate spelling, homonyms (dear and deer) and corporate or trade names are not acceptable. All road names must use the common spelling as found in a standard dictionary. Road names must not contain any punctuation or symbols. Only letters of the alphabet, numbers from 0 to 9 and blank spaces may be included in road names. Any road that provides access to more than one lot must be named.

Amend Subsection 5.11.5.D (this will become Subsection E with the addition of the new Subsection D above) to read: "County Roads are numbered. North-South County roads are given odd numbers starting at the East County line. East-West County roads are given even number starting with '2' at the South County line. County road numbers followed by a letter indicate a County road is not on a section line. For each tenth of a mile west or north of a section line the letter designation increases. (For example, County Road 38E indicates a County road that is five-tenths of a mile north of County Road 38). Numbered County roads outside designated Growth Management Areas must not be named. Inside Growth Management Areas County roads will be named using the applicable city's street names."

Amend Subsection 5.11.5.F (this will become Subsection G with the addition of the new Subsection D above) to read: "The following road name suffixes must be used in the naming of new roads and streets: Boulevard or Parkway for a collector or arterial street with a raised median; Court or Place for a permanently dead-end street ending in a cul-de-sac; Lane or Way for a curving, minor street; Avenue or Road for a continuous thoroughfare; Drive for a curving, continuous street; and Street as the common or default suffix. Any roads or streets that make a directional change of approximately 90 degrees must have a unique name after each directional change."

3. Section 4.8, Non-conformities. Page 4-91. Subsection 4.8.9, Extension, Expansion or Change in Character indicates that a non-conforming building cannot be expanded. We have had a number of cases before the Board of Adjustment recently where a building was non-conforming with respect to setbacks and the owner wanted to add on to the building. The proposed addition did not increase the non-conformity. The Board of Adjustment routinely approves these variances so it makes sense to consider an amendment to deal with the situation. This was discussed at great length with the Steering Committee and the decision at that time was any addition to a non-conforming building should require a variance. Staff agrees with that position up to a point. Minor additions to non-conforming buildings should be allowed without a variance. This can be controlled by limiting the size of the addition in relation to the size of the existing building and limiting the exception to those buildings that are non-conforming with respect to a setback requirement.

Amend Subsection 4.8.9.A to read, "A use, building or structure that is non-conforming with respect to Section 4 (Zoning) or Subsection 8.9.4 or 8.9.5 (Setbacks) cannot be extended, expanded or changed in character, except a building that is non-conforming with respect to a required setback may be expanded if the following conditions exist:

  1. The proposed addition is not more than 25% of the square footage of the original building and is not more than 1,000 square feet;

  2. The proposed addition is outside the required setback; and

  3. No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right of way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of Transportation.

  4. Subsection 4.2.1 (Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District). Page 4-37. The County Attorney has identified a few housekeeping changes to some of the references in this section of the Code. In the Growth Management Areas there are references to various appendices that were adopted as part of the Intergovernmental Agreements. Some of the references should be deleted because the documents have been replaced by sections of the Land Use Code. The other references to various appendices should be replaced by the name of the documents which are now found in the Technical Supplement to the Code. Two minor typographical errors in Subsection 4.2.1.E.2

also need to be changed.

Amend Subsection 4.2.1.B.1 to read, "The provisions of this section and the GMA District apply to all land use and development applications requiring County Commissioner approval except those listed in Paragraph 2 below."

Amend Subsection 4.2.1.D.1 to read, "All development applications as defined in Subsection 4.2.1.B that are eligible for annexation to any municipality except the City of Fort Collins, under Article 31, Section 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, will not be accepted be accepted except as otherwise provided in this Section."

Amend Subsection 4.2.1.E.1 to read, "All development applications as defined in Subsection 4.2.1.B must comply with the design/development standards contained in the following Sections of this Code:". The remainder of this subsection remains the same.

Amend Subsection 4.2.1.E.2 to read, "All administrative Site Plan reviews for large retail establishments and land use and development applications requiring County Commissioner approval as provided in Subsection 4.2.1.B of this Code for property located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, must comply with the requirements of Subsection 4.2.1.E.1 above and with standards in Subsection 8.9.11 of this Code.

Amend Subsection 4.2.1.E.3 to read, "All administrative Site Plan reviews for large retail establishments and land use and development applications requiring County Commissioner approval , as provided in Subsection 4.2.1.B of this Code, for property located in that portion of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area known as the "Fossil Creek Reservoir Area", must comply with requirements of Subsections 4.2.1.E.1 and 2 above and with the "Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area" which is included in the Technical Supplement to this Code.

Amend Subsection 4.2.1.F (Definitions) to read, "The words, terms and phrases used in Subsection 8.9.11 of this Code and in the "Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area" have the meanings ascribed to them in the "Definitions for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area" which is included in the Technical Supplement to this Code.

Amend Subsection 4.2.1.H (Modifications) to read, "Within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area the County Commissioners will strictly apply the standards contained in Subsection 8.9.11 of this Code and in the "Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area". The County Commissioners will grant modifications to these standards only in exceptional circumstances and only if it finds that granting the modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and that:..."

Amend Subsection 4.2.1.H.2 by changing the reference to "Appendix I standards" to "Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area".

Please note that the last round of Code changes amended Subsection 4.2.1.H so if you refer to your original Land Use Code this subsection will be different.

The documents referred to above will be added to the Technical Supplement.

5. Subsection 4.2.1.D.1 (The GMA Zone, Annexation Criteria). Page 4-39. There have been a few cases where the owner of a large parcel in a Growth Management Area split off a 35-acre parcel that was contiguous to the city limits to allow development of the remaining, non-contiguous parcel without annexation. This practice is contrary to the intent of the Intergovernmental Agreements for the Growth Management Areas. Staff proposes adding wording to prevent circumventing the annexation requirement for development in the GMA's. The County Attorney and the City of Fort Collins Attorney wrote the proposed amendment.

Add a new Subsection 4.2.1.D.1.d (we added Subsection c with the last round of Code amendments) to read, "The County will not accept a development application for any property in the Growth Management Area which was part of a parcel eligible for annexation as of December 18, 2000 but which is no longer eligible because of subsequent land divisions resulting in a break in contiguity."

  1. Subsection 4.3.9.A, Temporary Construction Projects. Page 4-75. We carried this section over from the old Zoning Resolution when the Code was adopted. Continuing discussions with the construction companies seem to indicate that changes are warranted to allow limited excavation for borrow material in conjunction with construction projects and there is a need to have asphalt and concrete batch plants on site. Acquiring fill material in close proximity to the construction site and having batch plants on site will lessen the amount of truck traffic to and from the construction site.

Amend Subsection 4.3.9.A. to read, "Temporary Construction Projects. All zoning districts permit the temporary storage of vehicles, materials, equipment, field offices and the excavation for fill material that are accessory to a construction project with the following conditions:"

Amend Subsection 4.3.9.A.5 to read, "Asphalt and concrete batch plants and rock-crushing facilities must be located on or adjacent to the parcel or right of way being improved;"

Add a new Subsection 4.9.3.A.6 to read, "Borrow or fill material excavation sites must be located within 1,320 feet of the parcel or right of way being improved. Excavation sites more than 1,320 feet but less than one mile from the parcel or right of way being improved may be approved by the County Commissioners pursuant to the appeal process in Subsection 22.2 of this Code. Excavation sites more than one mile from the improvement are subject to the Special Review (Section 4.5) process for a mining operation; and"

Amend the original Subsection 4.9.3.A.6 to become 4.9.3.A.7 to read, "Storage and field office sites must be reclaimed to their original or better condition within 30 days after the temporary construction project is complete. The Planning Director may extend the reclamation period, in writing, upon written request that details reasons for the requested extension. Borrow and fill excavation sites must be reclaimed pursuant to the approved state permit. The Planning Director may require that collateral be provided to ensure reclamation of the storage and field office sites is completed."

7. Subsection 8.7.3, Signs, Review Criteria. Page 8-56. Subsection 8.7.3.A limits each principal use to one sign that is consistent with the size and height standards for each zoning district. These standards were carried over from the old Zoning Resolution. We have encountered an interpretation problem when confronted with a single face sign mounted parallel to the front of the lot as opposed to a double face sign mounted perpendicular to the front of the lot. Is the double face sign one sign or two signs? What happens if the double face sign is erected so the two faces are separated at the back so the faces are angled toward the street?

Amend Subsection 8.7.3.A to read:

  1. Each legally-established principal use is limited to one sign. A double face sign counts as one sign. The faces of a double face sign may be separated by an angle not exceeding 30 degrees.

8. Section 8, Standards for all Development. Page 8-1. Each subsection includes a statement of applicability. Some of these applicability statements were purposely worded differently because the standards in that section were not intended to apply to all development activity. Subsections 8.6, Off-Road Parking Standards and Subsection 8.8, Irrigation Facilities should be consistent with the other subsections that are intended to apply to all development.

Amend Subsection 8.6.1, Applicability, Page 8-48 to read, "This section applies to all applications for Subdivision, Conservation Development, Planned Development, Minor Land Division, Special Review, Special Exception and Site Plan Review."

Amend Subsection 8.8.2, Applicability. Page 8-60 to read, "This section applies to all applications for Subdivision, Conservation Development, Planned Development, Minor Land Division, Special Review, Special Exception and Site Plan Review."

9. The Technical Supplement to the Land Use Code includes a document that was known as Appendix I, Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. These standards were developed in conjunction with the City of Fort Collins. The City has amended some of their standards, therefore some amendments to our standards are needed to reflect these changes. All the amendments noted in this section of the staff report refer to the Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area.

Changes to the Access to Neighborhood Centers requirements will increase the distance between required centers and clarify the requirement. The current requirement is for a neighborhood center in every quarter section (160 acres). Fort Collins has adopted this amendment and recommends that the County adopt it for the Fossil Creek Area of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.

Amend Subsection I.F.4.c(1), Access to Neighborhood Centers to read, "At least 90 percent of the dwellings in all development projects greater than 40 acres shall be located within 3,960 feet (3/4 mile) of either a neighborhood center contained within the project or an existing neighborhood center located in an adjacent development or an existing or planned Neighborhood Commercial District commercial project, which distance shall be measured along street frontage and without crossing an arterial street."

The current standard for all development is to have a neighborhood park within 1/3 mile of 90 percent of the dwellings. The City of Fort Collins recommends amending this standard to require a neighborhood park only for developments of 10 acres or more.

Amend Subsection I.F.4.f of the Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area to read, "Small Neighborhood Parks. Either a neighborhood park or a privately owned park, that is at least one acre in size, shall be located within a maximum of 1/3 mile of at least 90 percent of the dwellings in any development project of 10 acres or larger measured along street frontage. Such parks shall meet the following criteria:..."

Subsection I.F.5 includes development standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area. The City has adopted a new Subsection I.F.5.b to ensure that attached dwelling units and multiple family dwelling units front a street or have a connecting sidewalk that connects to a street. Adoption of the new Subsection b moves the existing Subsection b to Subsection I.F.5.c.

Amend Subsection I.f.5.b to read, "Residential Buildings-Relationship of Attached and Multi-Family Buildings to Streets and Parking.

  1. Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front façade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front façade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than 200 feet from a street sidewalk. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted:

  1. A primary entrance may be up to 350 feet from a street sidewalk if the primary entrance faces and opens directly onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as a major walkway spine.
  2. If a multi-family building has more than one façade, and if one of the front facades faces and opens directly onto a street sidewalk, the primary entrances located on the other front façade(s) need not face a street sidewalk or connecting walkway.
  1. Definitions. For the purpose of this section the following definitions shall apply:

  1. Connecting walkway shall mean (1) any street sidewalk, or (2) any walkway that directly connects a building entrance(s) to the street sidewalk, and connects other origins and destinations for pedestrians, including but not limited to, commercial establishments, schools, parks, dwellings, work places and transit stops, without requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings or follow parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route.

  2. Major walkway spine shall mean a tree-lines connecting walkway that is at least 5 feet wide with landscaping along both sides, located in an outdoor space that is at least 35 feet in its smallest dimension, with all or parts of such outdoor space directly visible from a public street.

  3. Street sidewalk shall mean the sidewalk within the right-of-way of a public street designed to the City of Fort Collins street standards or within the public access easement of a private street designed to the City of Fort Collins street standards. A street sidewalk shall not mean the sidewalk adjacent to a private drive or parking lot.

  1. Street-Facing Facades. Every building containing 4 or more dwelling units shall have at least one building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than an arterial or has on-street parking."

Subsection I.F.5.b becomes Subsection I.F.5.c with the addition of the above text.

Subsection III.D of the Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area deals with fences and walls used for landscaping or screening purposes. Subsection III.D.1 has been amended by the City of Fort Collins to remove the term "Opaque" with wording that better states the objective for perimeter fencing and walls.

Amend Subsection III.D.1 to read, "If used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be made visually interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel" effect by integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone columns, incorporating articulation or openings into the design, varying the alignment or setback of the fence, softening the appearance of fence lines with plantings or similar techniques. In addition to the foregoing, and to the extent reasonably feasible, fences and sections of fences that exceed 100 feet in length shall vary the alignment or setback of at least 1/3 of the length of the fence or fence section (as applicable) by a minimum of 5 feet.

Subsection III.D.3.d has an incorrect reference. The reference to "Section 12" should be changed to "Section III.a.12 of this document".

Add Subsection III.D.4 to read, "For the purpose of this Section, the height of a fence or wall shall be the distance from the top of the fence or wall to the original finished grade of the lot directly under the fence or wall. Any berm, wall or similar feature that is constructed for the purpose of increasing the height of a fence or wall shall be considered to be a part of the fence or wall."

  1. Subsection 12.2.5, Neighborhood Meeting. Page 12-4. The Code was originally written to require that facilitators for neighborhood meetings be employed, retained or approved by Larimer County. We do not want to change the nature of the neighborhood meeting requirement but we need to amend the Code regarding the requirements for one to be a facilitator. The current method of "approving" a facilitator is simply to make sure they are aware of what the facilitator's responsibilities are under the Code. The County does not want to establish competency or training standards for facilitators so the requirements to be an "approved" facilitator should be deleted. It will be the applicant's responsibility to hire a competent facilitator.

    Amend Subsection 12.2.5.D to read, "Neighborhood meetings will be conducted by a facilitator who is retained by the applicant and will agree to conduct the meeting in a neutral manner and in accordance with the general guidelines provided by the Planning Department. The applicant is responsible for ...".

  2. The term "cabin" has always been a problem in the enforcement of our zoning regulations. All of the zoning districts, except for the business, commercial and industrial zones, allow single family dwellings. The definition of "dwelling" has always included a restriction that the building has to contain at least 600 square feet. Historically, the Building Department has issued building permits for residential structures, in the mountainous areas of the County, containing less than 600 square feet and called them "cabins". The distinction between a dwelling and a cabin should be determined by how the building is constructed rather than by the size of the structure or the amount of time the building will be occupied during the year. According to the Building Code a dwelling must have living facilities for cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitation and it must have a permanent heat source, such as a furnace, that will maintain a constant temperature in the structure to prevent the plumbing from freezing during cold weather. A structure that lacks any of the living facilities or a permanent heat source is a cabin. Since cabins have always been allowed Staff recommends making changes to the Land Use Code to make it clear that cabins are allowed. It is also important to indicate that a cabin is a principal use that precludes a property owner from having more than one cabin or a cabin and a dwelling on the same parcel. Listing "cabin" as a principal use in the appropriate zoning districts will address this concern. Add a definition of "Primary Heat Source" to read: A heating systems capable of maintaining room temperatures at 70 degrees Fahrenheit at a point three feet above the floor in all habitable rooms during cold, inclement weather at all times, even when the structure is not occupied.

Amend Subsections 4.1.2, FA-1 Farming, 4.1.3, FO-Forestry, 4.1.4, FO-1 Forestry, 4.1.5, O-Open, 4.1.6, E-Estate, 4.1.7, E-1 Estate and 4.1.8, RE-Rural Estate by adding "Dwelling, Cabin (R)" under the Residential uses in each district.

Amend Page 4-66, Use Descriptions, Subsection 4.3.2 Residential Uses by adding the following:

  1. "Dwelling, Cabin. A structure that contains at least one habitable room for living, sleeping, eating , cooking or sanitation that is designed, arranged and intended to be occupied by one occupant or living unit.

  1. A Cabin that includes a primary heat source will be considered to be a single family dwelling.

  2. Cabins are permitted in the applicable zoning districts (See Section 4.1) only in the West Half of Range 70, in Ranges 71-78 and in Townships 11 and 12, in ranges 68-78."

Add the definition of "Dwelling, Cabin" to the definitions section of the Code.

Amend the definition of "Dwelling" to read, "A building or portion thereof used for residential occupancy, including cabin, single family, duplex and multiple family dwellings. It does not include hotels, motels, boarding/rooming houses, resort cabins, lodges or manufactured homes that comply with the 'National Manufactured Standards Act of 1974, 42 U. S. C. 5401 et. Seq., as amended."

Amend the definition of "Dwelling, Duplex" to read, "A structure designed, arranged and intended to be occupied by two separate occupants or living units, containing a primary heat source and living facilities for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation."


Amend the definition of "Dwelling, Multiple Family" to read, "A structure designed, arranged and intended to be occupied by 3 or more separate occupants or living units, containing a primary heat source and living facilities for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation."

Amend the definition of "Dwelling, Single Family" to read, "A structure designed, arranged and intended to be occupied by one occupant or living unit, containing a primary heat source and living facilities for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation."

Amend the definition of "Dwelling,, Single Family Attached" to read, "A single family dwelling attached to one or more single family dwellings by a common vertical wall, containing a primary heat source and living facilities for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation."

Amend the definition of "Dwelling, Single Family Detached" to read, "A single family dwelling that is not attached to any other dwelling by any means, containing a primary heat source and living facilities for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation."

Add a definition of "Primary Heat Source" to read, "A heating system capable of maintaining room temperatures at 70 degrees Fahrenheit at a point three feet above the floor in all habitable rooms during cold, inclement weather, even when the structure is not occupied."

In Section 9, Land Dedications, Fees-In-Lieu of Dedications, Facility Fees and Capital Expansion Fees, add a category for "Cabin, Dwelling" in the tables for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fees that will be 30% of the fee for a single family dwelling. The 30% amount is recommended by the County Engineer.

  1. From time to time we have inquiries about recreational activities in conjunction with an agricultural use such as a crop maze. These uses were never addressed under the old Zoning Resolution so the only option was to apply to the Board of Adjustment for a Special Exception to allow the use. Staff believes a better solution would be to include a temporary use in Subsection 4.3.9 of the Code to allow these type uses with standards to make sure we have safe and adequate access and parking, sanitation and other facilities. We can use the Simplified Site Plan Process that we use for Extended Family Dwellings to get the proper review from County Health, Engineering and other appropriate referral agencies.

Add Subsection 4.3.9.E to read:

"Temporary Recreational Uses Accessory to an Agricultural Use. Temporary recreational uses, such as crop mazes or hay rides, may be approved by the Planning Director if the following conditions exist:

  1. Safe and adequate access and parking has been approved by the County Engineer;
  2. Adequate sanitation facilities has been approved by the County Health Department;
  3. A specific time frame is established for the use. The maximum length of time for a temporary recreational use is 4 months;
  4. The temporary recreational use is located on the site of an existing agricultural use; and
  5. The applicant submits a Simplified Site Plan that adequately addresses all the requirements noted above."

  1. Amend Subsection 4.3.10.D, Page 4-78 by adding, "Semi-trailers with attached running gear (i.e. wheels, axles) cannot be used as storage buildings."

Mr. Kadera further stated that as an addendum to the agenda, the Board also approve the street naming requirements of LETA which staff has provided.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code as outlined above.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

1B. AMENDMENT TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #00-CA0016:

To amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by adding the text for a Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zoning District; to rezone the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir to the Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zone District; to adopt the Technical Supplement to the Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zone for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area; and to adopt amendments to the existing Appendix I Larimer County Development Standards or the Fossil Creek Reservoir (This Amendment applies only north of the reservoir inside the Fort Collins GMA). Staff recommendation is approval of a new section 4.2.4 to the Larimer County Land Use Code as follows:

      1. Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zone District
  1. Purpose

    2. The Cooperative Planning Overlay Zone District (CPA District) is established to protect the health, safety and welfare of all county residents by providing land use regulations and standards that are consistent with and implement a jointly adopted plan for any Cooperative Planning Area established by Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and a municipality.

  2. Applicability:

  1. The decision to have Cooperative Planning Areas will be as set forth in Intergovernmental Agreements between a municipality and Larimer County, which will be implemented by the application of the CPA District to the Cooperative Planning Area described in the Intergovernmental Agreement.

  2. The provisions of the CPA District apply to all rezonings, special reviews, subdivisions and Conservation Developments, and to any additional land development applications as may be specified in the Supplementary Regulations to the CPA District. There may be numerous CPA Districts, each with its own unique set of Supplemental Regulations.

  3. It is intended that each application of this generic CPA District will be accompanied by Supplemental Regulations to the CPA District, which are contained in the Technical Supplement to this Code. Each set of these supplemental regulations will apply to specific geographic Cooperative Planning Areas. These supplemental regulations are intended to implement the jointly adopted plan for the CPA. The supplemental regulations are intended to specifically set forth requirements pertaining to the type, location and intensity of land use allowed, and additional development standards, if any, as may be needed to implement the jointly adopted plan for the Cooperative Planning Area.

  1. Requirements

  1. Within the CPA District, rezonings, special reviews, subdivisions and Conservation Developments, and any additional land development applications as may be specified in the Supplementary Regulations to the CPA District, must be developed in accordance with this Section and the County's and Municipality's jointly adopted area plan for the CPA. However, for a given parcel, if the underlying County zoning in the existence prior to the application of the CPA District allows a more intensive land use than the type, density and intensity of land use called for in the Supplementary Regulations to the CPA District, the County shall honor the underlying County zoning with respect to use and density in its development approval decisions. The provisions of the CPA District and supplemental regulations may be applied to development applications not listed above as conditions of approval if the County finds the effect on the public health, safety or welfare so warrants.

  2. The CPA District is an overlay zone. Within the CPA District, the County Land Use Code and the underlying zoning district applies unless modified by the Supplementary Regulations to the CPA District, in which case the more stringent applies.

  3. Prior to establishing any improvement district within the CPA Overlay Zone, the county must solicit a recommendation from the applicable municipality.

Staff also recommends approval to rezone and apply the Cooperative Planning Area District Overlay Zone District to the area set forth in the legal discretion.

Staff further recommends approval of a new technical supplement to the Larimer County Land Use Code as follows:

4.2.4.1 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Supplemental Regulations to the CPA District

  1. Purpose

The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Supplemental Regulations to the CPA District are established to:

  1. Protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of Larimer County residents;

  2. Guide future growth, development and distribution of population density and open space;

  3. Implement the goals and objectives of the Larimer County Master Plan, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, and the Plan for the Region between Fort Collins and Loveland; and

  4. Implement the Intergovernmental Agreement between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins regarding development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Cooperative Planning Area.

  1. Applicability

  1. The provisions of these supplemental regulations apply to lands within the boundary of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan and described by map as the Fort Collins Cooperative Planning Area, attached as Exhibit A and which is hereby included in the Technical Supplement to the Larimer County Land Use Code.

  2. The provisions of these supplemental regulations apply to the following applications in addition to those specified in the CPA District: Rural Land Use Plans and Transfer of Density Units (TDU) exemption plats. Down-zonings requested by Larimer County are explicitly excluded from the provisions of these supplementary regulations.

  1. Land Use

  1. Applications for approval must be consistent with the land use types, intensity and density as set forth in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.

  1. Development Standards

  1. Applications for approval must be in compliance with Part 1, Section 1, The Resource Management Area Regulations except that all county conservation development regulations shall continue to apply and have preference over conflicting provisions, contained in Appendix I, Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District. (A technical supplement to the Larimer County Land Use Code).

  2. Applications for approval must be in compliance with Part IV, The Natural Area and Features Regulations contained in Appendix I, Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District. (A technical supplement to the Larimer County Land Use Code).

  3. Applications for approval at the County Commissioner stage must include a signed and binding agreement to annex to the City of Fort Collins. The format and content of the annexation agreement shall be as set forth in the Larimer County submittal requirements. Upon application approval, said annexation agreement shall be recorded and forwarded to the City of Fort Collins.

  4. Residual land in Conservation Developments, Rural Land Use Plans and Transfer of Density Unit (TDU) exemption plats must have Management Plans consistent with the Resource Management Area Regulations and Natural Area and Features Regulations cited above and shall remain undeveloped in perpetuity.

  5. Applications must be forwarded to the City of Fort Collins for review and comment, and no action will be taken by the County until it has received in writing the comments from the City of Fort Collins. If the City fails to respond to such referral within twenty-one (21) days of receipt, the County may proceed to act upon such application without comment from the City of Fort Collins.

Staff also recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Technical Supplement to the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Overlay Zone Appendix I, Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area as follows:

Amend Section 1F2.a (4) of the Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir area to read as follows:

4. Multi-family dwellings (limited to eight [8] or less dwelling units per building

Amend Section 1F5.b of the Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir area by adding a new subparagraph (9) to read as follows:

(4) Design Standards For Multi-Family Dwellings Containing More Than Six (6) Dwelling Units. Each multi-family dwelling containing more than six (6) dwelling units shall feature a variety of massing proportions, wall plane proportions, roof proportions, and other characteristics similar in scale to those of single-family detached dwelling units, so that such larger buildings can be aesthetically integrated into the low density neighborhood. The following specific standards shall also apply to such multi-family dwellings:

(a) Roofs. Each multi-family building shall feature a combination of primary and secondary roofs. Primary roofs shall be articulated by at least one (1) of the following elements:

1. changes in plane and elevation.

2. dormers, gables or clerestories.

3. transitions to secondary roofs over entrances, garages, porches, bay windows.

(b) Facades and Walls. Each multi-family dwelling shall be articulated with projections, recesses, covered doorways, balconies, covered box or bay windows and/or other similar features, dividing large facades and walls into human-scaled proportions similar to the adjacent single-family dwellings, and shall not have repetitive, monotonous, undifferentiated wall planes.

Each multi-family building shall feature walls that are articulated by at least two (2) of any of the following elements within every thirty-six (36) foot length of the façade:

1. Recesses, projections or significant offsets in the wall plane.

2. Distinct individualized entrances with functional porches or patios.

3. Chimneys made of masonry, or other contrasting material that projects from the wall plan.

4. Balconies.

5. Covered bay or box windows.

(c) Variation Among Repeated Buildings. For any development containing at least forty (40) and not more than fifty-six (56) dwelling units, there shall be at least two (2) distinctly different building designs. For any such development containing more than fifty-six (56) dwelling units, there shall be at least three (3) distinctly different building designs. For all developments, there shall be no more than two (2) similar buildings placed next to each other along a street or major walkway spine.

Distinctly different building designs shall provide significant variation in footprint size and shape, architectural elevations and entrance features, within a coordinated overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions, and other characteristics. To meet this standard such variation shall not consist solely of different combinations of the same building features.

(d) Color. Each multi-family building shall feature a palette of muted colors, earth tone colors, natural colors found in surrounding landscape or colors consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. For a multiple structure development containing at least forty (40) and not more than fifty-six (56) dwelling units, there shall be at least two (2) distinct color schemes used on structures throughout the development. For any such development containing more than fifty-six (56) dwelling units, there shall be at least three (3) distinct color schemes used on structures throughout the development. For all developments, there shall be no more than two (2) similarly colored structures placed next to each other along a street or major walkway spine.

(e) Garages. No street-facing façade shall contain more than three (3) garage bays.

Amend Section I.f.5.c.2 of the Technical Supplement to the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Overlay Zone Appendix I, Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, which is a new section added in the previous round of amendments that established residential building-relationships of attached and Multi-family buildings to streets and parking by added the following definition:

  1. Definitions. For the purpose of this section the following definitions shall apply:

***Connecting walkway shall mean (1) any street sidewalk or (2) any walkway that directly connects a main entrance of a building to the street sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings or around parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route. ***

Mr. Legg suggested the Board also adopt the following definition for Cooperative Planning Area (CPA): An area established through Intergovernmental Agreement and County zoning, usually but not necessarily beyond a municipality's Growth Management Area, where urban development is not yet appropriate but where development may have an impact on present and future municipal growth patterns. Due to the complexity of all the requests, Mr. Legg suggested the Board hears comments and take action regarding this definition and the CPA Overlay Zoning District.

Mr. Legg stated that the resource management area will be applied to the southerly boundary of the reservoir and that wildlife and wetland standards as proposed by the City of Fort Collins will apply. Mr. Legg also noted that all conservation developments proposed in the area would be required to place a perpetual easements on the open space. Development to the south of the reservoir, Mr. Legg continued, will be required to sign an annexation agreement with the City of Fort Collins prior to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Disney clarified that the requested action will not change the underlying county zoning and Mr. Legg replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Gary Young expressed concern regarding the lack of notice and input of property owners and the timeframe to be able to review and understand the supplemental regulations. Commissioner Disney asked if there are any specific concerns and Mr. Young noted that he doesn't know enough about the regulations to be able to answer, there just hasn't been sufficient time. Mr. Legg noted that the biggest difference is the addition of the annexation agreement from the City of Fort Collins.

Mr. Norm Bernett stated that notice was insufficient regarding changes to the south and east and noted that Fort Collins regulations now apply but are not available for review; property owners are just told compliance is required.

Mr. Dale Boehom agreed with previous statements and suggested the Board delay action 30-60 days to allow property owners to research regulations and how they would affect property. Mr. Legg clarified that only the Fort Collins wildlife and wetland regulations apply.

Ms. Linda Bernett asked why a representative from Fort Collins has not been available to answer questions.

Mr. Rick Zier stated that he is just not prepared for a public hearing due to the lack of notice. Mr. Zier noted that a meeting was held on the 4th of December and staff is requesting adoption on the 18th of December and suggested the Board has more details than those being affected. Mr. Zier also requested the Board delay action since the Intergovernmental Agreement makes no reference to an adoption date.

Commissioner Rennels stated that there is no real rush and that she has no concerns other than the requests for additional time for property owners to research the proposals further. Commissioner Rennels also noted that Planning Commission members also had concerns regarding review time and annexation language.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the definition of a CPA; amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by adding the text for a CPA Overlay Zoning District; and to adopt the Technical Supplement to the CPA Overlay Zone for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area and to amend the Larimer County Zoning Map as presented and outlined above.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Amendment of Appendix I- Larimer County Standards for Development in the Fossil Creek Reservoir inside the Fort Collins GMA.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

1C. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT

This is a request for adoption of Development Construction Permit and associated fees. Staff recommendation is that Section 12.6 of the Land Use Code be amended by adding a new Subsection 12.6.2, Construction Permit to read, "Prior to the commencement of any improvements associated with an approved project, the applicant must obtain a Construction Permit from the Larimer County Engineer" and also recommends that the Rural Land Use Center Projects be removed from the fee chart and add the word "duplex" to Single Family on the Fee Chart. Mr. Peterson further stated that staff is recommending that after the date of adoption, any project that has not received preliminary approval from the Board of County Commissioners be subject to the requirements of the development construction permit. Any project that has received preliminary approval but not final approval, be required to obtain a development construction permit but not be required to pay the associated fee.

Mr. Peterson stated that a concern was raised regarding how this permit would affect affordable housing.

Commissioner Disney asked how staff would know when to inspect and Mr. Peterson noted that staff would rely on developers/builders. Commissioner Disney asked if the fees generated would establish a full time position or contract labor and Mr. Peterson stated a full time position would be established.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Development Construction Permit and associated fees as outlined above to be effective March 1, 2001.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

1D. LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS

Staff recommendation is approval of the Urban Area Street Standards as an amendment to the Larimer County Road Manual and adoption of the following amendment to Paragraph 2 of Section 1.1, Purpose of the Larimer County Road Manual:

The road standards contained in the main body of this manual apply to all road construction in Larimer County with the exception of private local access roads constructed within subdivisions not governed by normal subdivision review by the County. All requirements applying to urban design and construction contained within this document shall be superseded by the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Road design standards for private local roads exempted from subdivision review but that provide access to two or more residences or to businesses serving the general public are provided in Appendix G. Recommendations for design and construction of driveways/roads to single residences are also included in Appendix G.

Mr. McDaniel stated that the standards have been developed in conjunction with the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland and should provide consistency for developers. Commissioner Disney asked if it is anticipated that Timnath, Windsor, Johnstown and Berthoud will adopt the standards and Mr. McDaniel replied that staff will be working with them.

Much discussion ensued regarding staff's ability to make "minor technical changes" and what could be considered "policy revisions". Chair Olson noted that the drawback to the Board approving revisions is that Larimer County will slow down the process; however, Consensus of the Board is that all revisions are subject to a Planning Commission recommendation and final Board approval.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Urban Area Street Standards as amended.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

1E. US287/SH14 ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN

This is a request for adoption of proposed US287/SH14 Access Management Plan as well as associated Larimer County Land Use Code and Larimer County Road Manual amendments. Staff recommendation is approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the US 287/ State Highway 14 Access Management Plan and the amendment to the Larimer County Land Use Code and Larimer County Road Manual to reflect the recommendations from the US287/SH14 Access Management Plan.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the US 287/ SH 14 Access Management Plan as presented.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

There being no further business the hearing was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#686)

The Board of County Commissioners met with Frank Lancaster, County Manager at 9:00 a.m.; Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Also present were K-Lynn Cameron, Open Lands Manager; Jerry White, Engineering; Linda Coxen, District Attorney's Office; Donna Hart, Commissioner's Administrative Manager; Deni La Rue, Community Information Officer; Mitzi Zmerzlikar and Jean O'Connor, Recording Clerks.

1. PUBLIC COMMENT: The Board is available to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 11, 2000:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of December 11, 2000 as presented.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

3. APPROVAL OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 25, 2000:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the schedule for the week of December 25, 2000 as presented.

    • Ms. Hart reviewed pending invitations with the Board.

4. CONSENT AGENDA:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that item #2 Estes Valley Library District Bond Resolution and #3 Graybill Planned Unit Development be removed from the consent agenda.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

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

Action Items:

Approve the appointment of Lewis Hagler to the Weld-Larimer Revolving Loan Fund Committee for a three-year term effective January 1, 2001 and expiring on December 31, 2003. Waive policy to allow salary for Roseann Bliven to be frozen due to voluntary demotion. Appointment of the following to the Fair Board for two-year terms effective December 1, 2000 to November 30, 2003: Craig Kern; Mike Schwab; re-appointment for the same term: Randal Stephens; Loren Maxey and Everett VanCampen. A waiver of term limits is also approved for Maxey and VanCampen. Ms. Merry Perry in appointed to a three-year term effective December 1, 2000 to November 30, 2003; reappointment of Gary Hausman and Jerry Yoder for the same three-year term, and reappointment of Edward Aitken and Rod Johnson with a waiver of term limits for the same three-year term.

A00-182 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND HUB P. ULRICH AND ROXANNE ULRICH FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 64

A00-183 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND MARY O. SMITH FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 64

A00-184 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSINERS AND LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH THROUGH LARIMER COUNTY WORKFORCE CENTER

A00-185 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH LARIMER COUNTY WORKFORCE CENTER AND STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY THE STATE BOARD OF COLORADO COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

A00-186 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BUREAU OF RECLAMAITON

A00-187 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY TRANSFER BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO TRANSFER McMURRY POND TO THE CITY

A00-188 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND JO ANNE EDWARDS FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 64, COUNTY ROAD 5 AND STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT OF COUNTY BRIDGE 5-0.2-64

A00-189 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ROY SCHNUG AND SHIRLEY SCHNUG FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 64

A00-190 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ROGER K. FAIN AND KIM K. FAIN FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 64

A00-191 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND JACK C. WHITTER AND ROBYNN THORLEY WHITTER FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 64

A00-192 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND DARRELL ROBERT PROWSE FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 64

A00-193 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE TOWN OF WINDSOR

A00-194 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND VERTEX, INC

A00-195 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH

A00-196 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ANDCLEMENT M. McNANEY AND PRUDENCE McNANEY FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY BRIDGE 5-0.2-64

A00-197 REAL ESTATE WATER AND SEWER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND RANDY L AND TAMMY J NELSON FOR SALE OF LOT 75 GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 12TH FILING

A00-198 REAL ESTATE TAX AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND RANDY L AND TAMMY J NELSON FOR SALE OF LOT 75 GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 12TH FILING

C00-66 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CHILDREN'S CLINIC

C00-67 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND LARIMER COUNTY PARTNERS

C00-68 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND WOMEN'S CENTER: HEALTH/DENTAL CARE

C00-69 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND RVNA HOME CARE

C00-70 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND FIRST CALL SERVICENET

C00-71 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE

C00-72 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CROSSROADS SAFEHOUSE

C00-73 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ESTES PARK VICTIM ADVOCACY PROGRAM, ALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE AND LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH

C00-74 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND EDUCATION AND LIFE TRAINING CENTER

C00-75 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY

C00-76 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SUNSHINE SCHOOL

C00-77 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND UNITED DAY CARE CENTER

C00-78 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND WOMEN'S CENTER: CHILDCARE REFERRAL

C00-79 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND COLORADO LEGAL SERVICES

C00-80 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PLAN DE SALUD DEL VALLE, INC

C00-81 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CATHOLIC CHARITIES NORTHERN

C00-82 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CITY OF FORT COLLINS DIAL-A-RIDE

C00-83 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ELDERHAUS

C00-84 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR

C00-85 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM

C00-86 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICAN RSVP

C00-87 ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND STOVE PRAIRIE INSPECTIONS SERVICES OF LARIMER COUNTY

D00-18 DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT BY DONATH PARTNERS I, LLP IN FAVOR OF LARIMER COUNTY

R00-285g RESOLUTION APPROVING COMPENSATION REQUEST FROM THE LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF

R00-286g RESOLUTION FOR CONVEYANCE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, QUIT CLAIM DEED AND CLOSING DOCUMENTS FOR SALE OF LOT 75 GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 12TH FILING BY RANDY L AND TAMMY J NELSON

MISCELLANEOUS: Personnel authorization request increasing FTE for current .5 position ETS-059; Ayerie Minor Subdivision Final Plat.

LIQUOR LICENSES: The following licenses were approved: Sundance Steak House & Saloon- 6%- Fort Collins, CO; St. Louis Liquors- 6%- Loveland, CO; Windjammer Roadhouse and Grill- 6%- Loveland, CO. The following licenses were issued: Red Feather Café and Bar- 6%- Red Feather Lakes, CO; Rock Inn Steak House- 6%- Estes Park, CO; Masonville Store- 3.2%- Masonville, CO.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Estes Park Library District Bond Resolution, Registrar and Paying Agent Agreement.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

R00-287g ESTES VALLEY LIBRARY DISTRICT BOND RESOLUTION, REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT

5. OPEN LANDS ISSUE:

Ms. Cameron and Mr. White stated that the Rimrock project will close on January 26, 2001 and requested Board approval of the contract to purchase the Rimrock Conservation Easement.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the contract to purchase Rimrock Conservation Easement as presented.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

C00-88 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND WHITE CHARITABLE TRUST FOR THE PURCHASE OF RIMROCK CONSERVATION EASEMENT

6. APPOINTMENTS TO ESTES PARK LIBRARY BOARD:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointment of Marshall Hesler, Barbara Lister and Helen Platt to the Estes Park Library Board for a four-year term expiring on December 31, 2004.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

7. WORKSESSION:

Ms. Coxen stated that the District Attorney's salary was last reviewed in 1997 and requested Board approval for a base salary of $131,592 for the first year 2001 and a 5% per annum increase thereafter through 2004.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution establishing salary for the District Attorney through 2004.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

R00-288g RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

8. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: None

9. LEGAL MATTERS:

Ms. Haag stated that the District Court case regarding W.O.L.F. has ruled in favor of Larimer County and ordered compliance with the Board's decision within 30 days. Ms. Haag stated that W.O.L.F. has a hearing before the Board on January 2, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. and the owners have requested that hearing be continued to a later date.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to continue the W.O.L.F. hearing from January 2, 2001.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

Ms. Haag discussed options available regarding the Graybill PUD and improvements to 8th Street. Consensus of the Board is for the Graybill applicant to pursue a local improvement district and work with Rex Burns, Engineering.

Mr. Lancaster presented the Board with an agreement with US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc for County Omnibus Certificate regarding the Estes Park Library District and requested Board approval.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board approve the agreement with US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc for County Omnibus Certificate regarding the Estes Park Library District.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

A00-199 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND US BANCORP PIPER JAFFRAY, INC FOR LARIMER COUNTY

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2000

BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES

The Board of County Commissioners met with Ginny Riley, Director of Social Services and the Board of Social Services from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.; Chair Olson presided and Commissioners Disney and Rennels were present. Agenda items included Outsourcing study recommendations for the Office on Aging; Proposed Larimer County Works Program Mission Statement. Programs Values; and Agreements between the Department of Human Services and Work Force Center; and Child Welfare Managed Care Contract with the State Department of Human Services.

___________________________________

CHERYL OLSON, CHAIR LARIMER COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

MYRNA J. RODENBERGER

LARIMER COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER

(S E A L)

A T T E S T

_________________________________

Mitzi Zmerzlikar, Deputy Clerk

_________________________________

Jean M. O'Connor, Clerk to the Board