MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995


(#241 & #239)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with John Barnett, Director of Planning. Chair Disney presided and Commissioner Duvall was present; Commissioner Clarke was detained in Glenwood Springs due to weather. Also present were: Carol Evans, Planner; Russ Legg, Chief Planner; Rex Burns, Harry Lynam and Elaine Spencer of Engineering; Jerry Blehm, Director of Environmental Health; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Chair Disney noted that the Board has been requested to table the Wiant MRD (#94-EX0604) until Monday, March 27, 1995.


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board table the Wiant MRD #94-EX0604) until Monday, March 27, 1995 until 9 a.m., as requested by the applicant.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

1. FRY MRD #94-EX0588): SW 1/4; 30-04-69; NORTH OF COUNTY


2 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING (03-20-95).

This is a request to divide 9.7 acres into 2 lots of 2.3 and 7.276 acres, with one existing house for a new single family dwelling. Ms. Evans proposed a change to condition #1 of the staff report that a lot sale restriction and building permit hold be placed on the lot so the improvements can be spaced over a period of time, instead of requiring all improvements to be completed and approved prior to recording of the Final Plat. Ms. Evans also stated that the applicant wishes to discuss the fire protection requirement with the Board. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposed Fry MRD is consistent with the requirements for minor residential developments, as contained in the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution, and with the FA-1 Zoning District; 2) The surrounding area has been developed into subdivisions, exemption lots and minor residential developments over a period of more than 20 years. There doesn't appear to be options for re-development of the parcels in the immediate area surrounding the proposed Fry MRD; 3) The approval of the Fry MRD, with certain conditions, should not result in any significant negative impacts on surrounding properties, the natural environment or the provision of services and transportation.

Virgil Fry, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that his property is 50 feet short of an existing fire hydrant. Mr. Fry stated that, in his opinion, for him to install an additional fire hydrant on his property doesn't make sense because the fire station is nine miles away and it would take too long for the fire department to reach his house; therefore, he requested the Board allow him to install fire sprinklers on his property, noting that they would activate in 16 seconds. Much discussion followed, and the conditions of approval were amended as follows:

The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the Fry MRD, with the following conditions: 1) Installation and completion of all required subdivision improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. These improvements include the common access road, closing the existing access, capping existing gas and water service lines, installing new gas and water service lines to the existing improvements, and installation of a fire hydrant. A lot sale restriction shall be recorded with the Final Plat and, when the improvements are completed and accepted, a request shall be submitted to the County Commissioners to release that lot sale restriction. Construction plans must be signed by County Engineering, Berthoud Fire District and Little Thompson Water District. Three copies of the signed plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to beginning any work or prior to recording the Final Plat; 2) The common access and utility easement shall be platted with a 40' width and the existing driveway shall be closed. Additional right-of-way for County Road 4 in the amount of 20' shall be dedicated on the plat; this right-of-way shall not be shown as an "outlet" on the plat. The new access shall be paved for a distance of 50' from the centerline of County Road 4; the remaining surface can be gravel; 3) The applicant shall meet the requirements of the Little Thompson Water District regarding payment of fees and completion of improvements. Written notice from the Water District that all required fees have been paid shall be submitted prior to recording the Final Plat; 4) The Final Plat shall contain the following notes: A) Uses in Minor Residential Developments are limited to single family residential and permitted accessory uses; B) Engineering footings and foundations will be required for all construction on these lots; C) Radon tests shall be conducted in new residences after the structure is enclosed, but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Test results shall be submitted to the Planning Department; D) The Larimer County Park Fee shall be paid at building permit issuance for new residences on these lots; E) The Section 2.8 Road Fee of $415 shall be paid at building permit issuance for Lot 2; 5) School fees of $8 shall be paid prior to recording the Final Plat. Recording fees shall be paid by the applicant; 6) All conditions of approval shall be completed and the Final Plat recorded by September 21, 1995 or this approval shall be null and void.


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Fry MRD, with the conditions as amended, and require that the applicants meet the requirements of the Berthoud Fire Department to install a fire hydrant on their property.

Chair Disney stated that he prefers the applicant install a sprinkler system as, in his opinion, it would provide better protection for his property. It was noted by staff at this time that the letter from the Berthoud Fire Protection District did state that if the water line cannot support the fire hydrant, then a sprinkler system would be acceptable.

Motion failed 1 - 1; Chair Disney dissenting. Therefore, it was suggested this matter be tabled until Commissioner Clarke has had time to review the minutes and testimony regarding this item and then vote to break the tie.


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board table the Fry Minor Residential Development (#94-EX0588) until Monday, March 27, 1995.

Motion carried 2 - 0.







Mr. Legg provided the background for today's continued hearing, noting that revisions to the Findings and Resolution approving the Master Plan, Preliminary Phase Plan, and the Rezoning of Vista View Estates Planned Unit Development (PUD) were discussed at length last Monday, March 13, 1995; at that time, the discussion was continued until the next day for the attorneys and Mr. Barnett to try to resolve some of the issues. Mr. Legg continued that after a 4 1/2 hour session many, but not all, of the conditions were revised. During Administrative Matters on March 15, 1995, Mr. Barnett informed the Board that further discussion of the revisions will be continued until today to try and resolve the remaining issues. Mr. Legg noted that the significant unresolved issues are whether a tot lot is to be provided in the common open space, who will be responsible for the individual lot landscaping, and the location of the school bus shelter.

Roger Clark, attorney for the applicant, stated that several other issues may also be reviewed and discussed today; such as, 1) Location of the fence along the east side of the property line - he noted that if it is going to be on the property line, they will need to get appropriate easements from the parties on the other side; 2) Language in the covenants relating to the sales office - he noted that the developer agrees there will only be one sales office from which all builders will operate; 3) School bus shelter - he noted the developer has no problem locating it on the west side if a suitable location can be found and it is approved by the school district; 4) Reference in the revised site plan will be removed that the fence along the east side will be constructed in Phase II of the improvements and the Final Plat will state that it will be constructed in Phase I; 5) Detached garages will be subject to the same height limitations which affect the rest of the property and the developer has agreed to a maximum size of those detached garages of 500 sq. ft.

Mike Schultz, attorney for several of the residents in Horseshoe View Estates, wanted it noted for the record that this is a continued public hearing on the Final Plat for Vista View Estates PUD and requested that all prior comments be made a part of the record. Mr. Schultz reviewed the issues with the Board that were resolved in last week's 4 1/2 session: 1) The sales office - it was requested that a statement be included that regardless of the number of builders in the subdivision, there will be only one sales office; Mr. Clarke agreed; 2) The manufactured housing - they have asked that the term 'manufactured housing' be included with mobile homes and modular homes as not being allowed; Mr. Clarke agreed; 3) The architectural fence - if the fence is off the property line, a "no man's land" will be created and who will be responsible for maintenance; Mr. Clark agreed that the covenants will state that the homeowner's association will be obligated to maintain that area; 4) The detached garages - original condition in the F & R says that accessory structures can't have more than 120 sq. ft.; Mr. Schultz stated that the neighbors have agreed, as a compromise, to allow the detached garages but restrictions need to be defined as to size and appearance. An additional issue Mr. Schultz raised was the requirement of a Development Agreement, as recommended by the Loveland Planning Commission, which would incorporate all the conditions that the county could enforce against the developer; he noted that the applicant agreed to this in a letter to the Planning Commission, but the staff chose not to recommended it. Mr. Schultz thinks this agreement is important to insure sure that the PUD regulations are enforced to protect neighbor against neighbor.

Sandy Gleitch discussed the location of the school bus shelter with the Board; she noted that if the bus shelter is located where it is being proposed, it will require that 45 children cross the street to reach the shelter and only 10 will not. She stated that it should be located on the west side of Monroe. Paul Bonomo thanked the Board for allowing this review of the F & R; he discussed the Final Plat conditions having the same conditions of the Preliminary Plat and he discussed the amenities to be placed in the central park area. Mr. Bonomo stated that the residents want to see this park happen, it was promised and was probably an important point in the approval of the Preliminary Plat; he submitted transcripts of tapes of the previous meetings on this matter. Kathy Kuhlman discussed the fence issue and also informed the Board that the drainage swell is to be located entirely on the Vista View side so it will not encroach on the neighbors on the other side; Mr. Legg responded that it will be six feet west of the property line. At this time, Roger Clark noted that the developer has agreed to place the fence approximately two inches from the property line. There was further discussion of the landscaping; Ms. Kuhlman requested clarification about setbacks and recommended that as the road on 52nd Street is to be used only for emergency vehicles, it should be gated. Mr. Legg responded that they will need to get the Fire Department's approval for this. Ms. Kuhlman also asked that the temporary road that is a part of the Phasing Plan be vacated when Phase III starts; she requested clarification regarding who will be providing water to this subdivision; Mr. Legg responded that it will be the City of Loveland. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding all the unresolved issues and agreement was reached on the majority of the issues.

At this time, the public-comment portion of the hearing was closed, except for questions from the Board. There was much discussion regarding the requirement of the tot lot; after consultation with the developer, Mr. Clark stated that the developer has offered to contribute $5,000 to the homeowner's association to provide amenities in the open space area. Mr. Legg suggested that the county impose a restriction on the $5,000 that it cannot be spent until the homeowner's association is no longer controlled by the developer. Commissioner Duvall asked if the conditions of the Loveland Planning Commission should be met since this site is in the UGA; Mr. Legg responded that some conditions should be met and also the Larimer County standards and requirements need to be met. There was discussion of the location of the bus shelter and it was agreed by everyone that it will be located on the southwest corner of Meadow Creek Lane and Monroe. The matter of the detached garages was discussed at length.


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the final landscape and site plan and the Final Plat for Vista View Estates Planned Unit Development (#94-MS0505), with the addition of the following clarifications: 1) Individual lot landscaping will be required and the homeowner's association will be responsible for completion, as notated in the covenants; 2) The developer agrees to give $5,000 to the homeowner's association toward the development of a community park, with a restriction that this money will not be spent until the homeowner's association is controlled by the new residents, not the developer; in addition, the homeowner's association will be responsible for the maintenance of the facilities in the open space area and Larimer County will not release the collateral until evidence is provided that the $5,000 has been given to the homeowners association and park fees will still be collected in full; 3) The school bus shelter will be located at the southwest corner of Meadow Creek Lane and Monroe; 4) The detached garages will be subject to the same height limitations as the main structures and have the same architectural appearance as the primary structure.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The meeting recessed at 12:00 p.m.


(#240 & 241)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 2:00 p.m. in regular session with the Family Emergency Team (FET). Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were: Magistrate Joseph R. Coyte, District Court; Larry Abrahamson, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Juvenile Division; Lieutenant Bob Klinger, Loveland Police Department; Sheriff Richard E. Shockley; Captain Gary Darling, Sheriff's Department; Paul H. Cooper, Community Corrections Director; Brent Nittmann, Youth Services Bureau Program Manager; Carla Turner, Family Emergency Team; Sergeant John Higney, Colorado State University Police Department; Doug Keasling, Social Services Director; Dr. Keith F. Olson, Mental Health Executive Director; Jim Geis, Probation Department; Timothy W. Walsh, Probation Services Chief; Chief of Police Bill Wegener, Berthoud Police Department; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, W. Gebauer.

The group discussed current concerns with the coordination of the Family Emergency Team (FET) with other agencies. Mr. Nittmann presented a new organizational chart of FET. Mr. Lancaster, Mr. Nittmann, Ms. Turner, and other members of the group noted that their recent meetings had improved the process of deciding to hold a juvenile for detention. They noted that the State sets the criteria that FET must use in these cases. Ms. Turner added that Adams County will not accept youth into the juvenile detention center on the basis of municipal warrants. Magistrate Coyte stated that he has been highly satisfied with FET's appearances before the Court. He added that the current detention center cannot hold all youth offenders in detention for 48 hours before their first court appearance.

Mr. Abrahamson, Sheriff Shockley, Chief Wegener, Sergeant Higney, and Captain Darling expressed law enforcement's concern that FET is functioning as an advocate for juveniles. Mr. Abrahamson stated that the public sometimes believes that the justice system is not concerned about juvenile crime. He added, however, that FET cannot address all of these concerns. Sheriff Shockley said that there are ongoing discussions with the governor that address these issues. Mr. Abrahamson said that FET might be able to make better use of the flexibility available to them. He also stated that sanctions against uncooperative parents are possible, and that the Court may take into account the youth's prior behavior and the family situation. However, he noted that officials often do not recommend these sanctions to the Court. He concluded that it is necessary for all agencies concerned to make such suggestions as a group. Mr. Nittmann agreed that FET may be more helpful to officers by providing more information about the history and progress of cases.

The Board unanimously expressed continued support for a local juvenile intake facility. Mr. Lancaster stated that perhaps the group needs to spend more attention to the philosophical issues related to juvenile detention.

The meeting recessed at 3:45 p.m.



(#242, #243, #244 & #245)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 7:00 p.m. for a Public Hearing in Estes Park, Colorado. Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were: John Barnett, Director of Planning; Jerry White, Zoning Administrator; Jerry Blehm, Director of Environmental Health; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Chair Disney introduced the county staff, outlined the format and rules for the meeting, and for the record, made several disclosures regarding tonight's meeting; such as, he is a member of the Rocky Mountain Nature Association; he has had several conversations with Homer Rouse, former Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park, regarding the concept of the project and the access code of the Colorado Department of Transportation; a conversation with Mike Bennett of Congressman Wayne Allard's Office in which he asked Chair Disney if he would be willing to go to Washington D.C., if this is approved, to testify in front of a Congressional Hearing; a telephone conversation with Jeff Barker who is in support of the project; an office visit from Dan Mullison who opposes the project; and a telephone conversation with Lael Demuth, attorney for the applicant, regarding some concerns Mr. Demuth had about the project. Chair Disney noted that he explained to all these persons that the Board is required to remain objective and neutral during these conversations. Commissioner Duvall disclosed that in an attempt to learn more about the wildlife issue, she had a field trip with Mike Sanem and heard his concerns; and also spoke with Rick Spowart of the Colorado Division of Wildlife in regard to his concerns about the wildlife. Commissioner Clarke addressed the group and stated he considers it a great privilege and honor to be in Estes Park tonight.



T-TOURIST ZONING (03-20-95).

This is a request for approval of a Planned Unit Development Master Plan to develop 10.51 acres with a National Park Visitors Center, rental cabins, convenience store, laundromat, gift shop, restaurant, livery, employee housing, and motel and for approval of a Preliminary Phase Plan for Phase I and a variance for parking. Mr. White provided the project description and reviewed the background of the project and the major concerns and issues. Mr. White informed the Board that the development on the north side of Highway 34 has been eliminated from the plan, the convenience store will be incorporated into the lodge and no gasoline service is proposed; also the amphitheater which was proposed originally, has been eliminated. Mr. White noted that in addition to those entities mentioned in the staff report in support of this proposal, additional letters of support have been received from the Estes Park League of Women Voters, Estes Valley Improvement Association, Art Wilcox, etc. A letter expressing concern regarding the intensity of the project was received from John Fielder, photographer, in addition to a letter of opposition from the Citizens to Save Fall River Bighorn. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposal is compatible with the commercial campground to the north. The National Park Service indicates the proposal is compatible with Rocky Mountain National Park, which is adjacent to the proposal; 2) The proposal is generally consistent with the intent and purposes of the County Land Use Plan, PUD Resolution, and the Zoning Resolution; 3) The project is supported by the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Improvement Association; 4) Rocky Mountain National Park is adjacent to the project and will benefit from the construction of the Visitors' Center on this site. The Park Service has strongly supported the development and encourages the County to approve it as presented; 5) Reviewing agencies' comments have been considered in the conditions of approval which are proposed; 6) The State Division of Water Resources indicates the project may not be developed until the applicant receives approval of the State Water Court; 7) If developed according to the plans and conditions of approval, all technical requirements of the County and other agencies can be met; 8) According to information provided by the applicant, traffic generated by the new development will not increase more than 20% beyond what existed prior to 1992; 9) A commercial development presently exists on the site; additional development was present prior to 1992.

At this time, Commissioner Duvall submitted additional correspondence opposing the project from the Poudre Canyon Group of the Sierra Club, Lori Frost, the Indian Peaks Group of Sierra Club, and from Impact Optics and Imports. Questions from the Board were directed to Mr. White regarding whether the traffic impact study took into consideration that this proposed use would be year-round instead of seasonal, density, possibility of the 60,000 gallon water tank freezing in the winter, certain uses being grandfathered in, drainage of water from the parking lots, etc. Ms. Haag responded that, according to the current zoning regulations, any use which has been discontinued for a period of one year cannot be re-introduced or grandfathered in. Mr. Blehm indicated that a drainage plan has been approved by Mr. Burns of the Larimer County Engineering Department and he noted that the goal of the developer is to retain all surface drainage on site.

Mr. Thorp of Thorp Associates of Estes Park, representing the applicant H. W. Stewart and Family, provided the Board with additional facts concerning the proposed redevelopment. Mr. Thorp noted that the property is presently zoned T-Tourist and has been for over 60 years providing various tourist-oriented accommodations. Mr. Thorp reviewed the history of the site and noted that the original proposal did not include "gifting" of the Visitor's Center to the National Park; however, Shirley Scroggin, one of the owners of the H.W. Stewart Family businesses, proposed the idea of developing a trust from her interest in the family's business to be used for the construction and maintenance of a National Park Visitor's Center. Mr. Thorp stated that this project is a great example of an owner working with the Park Service to provide public service and information to the public. Questions from the Board to Mr. Thorp followed.

Sheridan Steele, acting superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park, addressed the Board and reviewed the number of visitors entering the Park in 1994; he noted that many enter and travel throughout the Park without receiving adequate information about the available facilities, wildlife watching opportunities, wildlife watching etiquette, recreational activities, and safety. Mr. Steele noted that in 1989 the Park completed a conceptual plan for a Visitor's Center which, as proposed, would cost over $2 million and would have disturbed over two acres of open land and impacted wildlife habitat. Questions to Mr. Steele from the Board followed and there was discussion of the possibility of conservation easements on the north side. Rick Spowart, Wildlife Manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife in the Estes Park area, addressed the stress problem in the bighorn sheep; he noted that the herd has been reduced by one-half because of pneumonia and other diseases and stated that there was no reproduction in the herd last year due to disease. Mr. Spowart also stated that other factors contributing to stress in the herd are related to human interaction, such as: being chased by over-zealous wildlife watchers, photographers, pets, being caught in fences, hit by cars, etc.; he also noted that every year there are two or three sheep killed along this road and, if this development is approved, he advised not approving anything which will entice the sheep to cross the road. Mr. Spowart described the area from Nicky's Restaurant down from the park boundary as critical winter range and very important habitat to the sheep and he noted that the bighorn sheep are not as tolerant of human activity as other animals.

At this time, Mike Sanem, member of the Citizens to Save the Fall River Bighorn and main spokesman for the opposition side to this proposal, stated that his property borders Rocky Mountain National Park on the north and the east for 2800 feet and the applicant's property on the north side of Highway 34. Mr. Sanem expressed the opposition's concerns regarding the effect this project could have on wildlife and specifically the bighorn sheep; he noted that from the beginning of this project, the group's philosophy has been to protect the wildlife from the higher density, the widened highway, the year-round tourist activity, etc. Mr. Sanem asked the Park Service how their endorsement of a large retail development on their boundary could ever serve the purpose of setting an example to all the other landowners at or near the park boundaries; he stated that during other meetings and in written record they have recommended that the Park Service, and various other conservation groups, instead seize this one-time opportunity to fairly purchase Mr. Carle's burned-out parcel and in concert with his 45 acres and the city-owned 80 acres, they could preserve possibly forever almost a mile of the Fall River Valley at the park boundary. Mr. Sanem submitted photos of bighorn sheep on Highway 34 to the Board to show how much the sheep use that road and all within 100 to 500 feet of the proposed project and in the area where the highway will be widened and where the speed limit is currently 45 mph. Mr. Sanem stated that support of this project from many people is principally because of the Visitor's Center portion of the development and yet that portion of the development is only 8% of the total square footage. Therefore, Mr. Sanem's final recommendation to the Board is that since much of the support and endorsements for this project and its density are due to the supposed certainty that a Visitor's Center will be on site, he asked that approval be conditional and contingent upon the owner actually implementing the trust funding and that the funding of Congressman Allard's bill actually be passed by Congress; and, if that bill isn't approved, or if there isn't going to be a Visitor's Center on site for any other reason, then Mr. Sanem suggested that this process and debate begin again with the new circumstances.

Following Mr. Sanem's opening remarks in opposition to the proposal, Brad Edwards, representing the Poudre Canyon Sierra Club, read a 7-page document citing their reasons for their opposition, and Anda Kiely read aloud a letter from John Fielder relating the effects of this proposal on the ecosystem. Other persons speaking in opposition were: Frank Normali, Judy Gunkler, Elizabeth Shelton, and Madeline Framson. These persons all cited their concerns for the bighorn sheep, displeasure regarding the proposal to widen the road, preservation of our state symbol (the bighorn sheep) and part of our heritage for future generations, etc.; they also suggested the speed limit be reduced, requested the posting of wildlife signs, and they recommended that the Visitor's Center be located in the center of the Town of Estes Park.

At this time, the hearing was opened to the other members of the audience and they were requested to limit their remarks to 3 minutes. Those speaking in support of the proposal were Curt Buchholtz, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain National Park Associates; Homer Rouse, former Superintendent of the Rocky Mountain National Park; Peter Hondius, Warren Clinton, operator of McGregor Lodge; Dan Ludlum, adjacent campground manager; Cory Blackman, President Estes Park Area Chamber of Commerce; and Jeff Barker, President Estes Park Accommodations Association. Lael Demuth, attorney for the H.W. Stewart Family, noted he is the author of the Scroggin Trust and he offered to clear up any misconceptions about the Trust. He addressed four legal deficiencies in the conditions as adopted by the Planning Commission. Mike Bennett, District Representative for Congressman Wayne Allard, provided a brief background regarding the introduction of legislation concerning this proposal in Washington and noted it has been placed on hold pending local approval; however, once approved, Congressman Allard has been advised by others in Congress to move immediately on this legislation. Mr. Bennett noted that he is optimistic about this project being passed because no additional appropriate of money is involved in this legislation. Questions from the Board to Mr. Demuth and discussion followed and clarifications were made regarding temporary employee housing being torn down when permanent employee housing is provided; the annexation requirement, water decree, etc. Mr. Blehm noted that state regulations require the Board to insure there is an adequate water supply and the county will need a letter from the State Engineer stating that this development has an adequate water supply. Commissioner Duvall stated that she does not want to let go of the conservation easement on the north side as it is very important that the north side remain open so it will not be changed in the future; Mr. Demuth stated to require that would be in violation of the Tiegard Case. Commissioner Duvall stated that there needs to be some guarantee that this land is never developed.

Rebecca Myers, member Citizens to Save Fall River Bighorn, stated that this development is not progress, but a step backward. Jeff Carter, disgruntled member of the Rocky Mountain Nature Association, stated that the joint project is the right idea, but it is in the wrong place, it should be closer to the town of Estes Park. Betty Rex noted that she agrees with everything the opponents have said tonight. Marybeth Rhoades believes we need the Visitor's Center, but not all the other things. Mike Sanem revisited the north side issue of the development and said this needs to be clarified. Bryan Michener expressed concern about the wildlife and noted that traffic is the biggest problem to the sheep. Kristen Zumdome stated that we need to educate the people how to act around wildlife. Scott Webermieyer spoke in support of the project.

Mr. Thorp responded to comments and concerns by stating that the whole planning process has been an effort to make the proposal compatible with the site it is being built on; the family has no intention of endangering the sheep, and this project will not increase traffic on this road. He stated that the advantage of this project is to educate people to stay in their cars and not to chase the sheep up the hill. Mr. Thorp stated that the family had the option of rebuilding what was there originally, but they opted to take the higher road and to go to the National Park and work with them directly. Mr. Thorp stated they would love to see the highway not be widened and the reduction of the speed limit in this area; he also noted that they have no intention of proceeding with the development until they are sure they have appropriate water and without approval of the Congress for the Visitor's Center. Mr. Thorp further noted that they have spent two years figuring out that what they are doing is appropriate for this site, they have gone through an extensive review process, and this project will be of value to this community for many years.

At this time the public hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's comments: Commissioner Clarke noted that condition #16 clearly states that the applicant will be held responsible for complying with that condition that all development and use of the site shall be consistent with Zoning File Exhibit A - the Master Plan and Phase Plan which clearly shows that all the land north of the road is not built on and is to remain open space as part of the project. Commissioner Clarke stated that the county's legal staff and planning staff have said this will remain undeveloped and he is comfortable that this land is not going to be built on with this PUD; he stated that education is very important and he is supportive of this project. Commissioner Clarke further added that in terms of the seasonal versus year-round opening, if the Park Service decides there is enough demand to go year round, it should remain open; in terms of the wider highway and speed limit, he stated it would really enhance the quality of life for the wildlife if the speed limit could be reduced to 25 m.p.h. With regard to widening the road, the State Department of Transportation determines what shall be done; however, promised that if this proposal does pass, the Board will have the opportunity to suggest to them the possibility of reducing the speed limit. Commissioner Clarke noted that the real problem is to make these animals safer and, in his opinion, this project will not increase the cars on the road, but it might slow them down. Commissioner Clarke that no way would he consider down zoning, and with regard to other concerns raised tonight, the water tank is already there and the water decree is a non-issue; he summarized his remarks by stating that this location makes sense, it is in the right spot, has the right financing, and is a wonderful site design. Commissioner Clarke stated that this is a good proposal and needs support; therefore,


Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Staff Findings and Staff/Planning Commission Recommendations and approve the Rocky Mountain Gateway Master Plan and Preliminary Phase Plan for Phase I (#93-MS0343). .

Commissioner Duvall stated that she cannot support the motion; she noted that Estes Park has wanted a year-round economy for many years and, therefore, she felt it made sense to locate the Visitor's Center in the town of Estes Park. Commissioner Duvall stated she supported the need for a Visitor's Center and for wildlife education, but not to be situated in a location that would damage the wildlife habitat and herd about which it was educating. Commissioner Duvall stated that we need to protect the wildlife habitat and it is important that someone take the advocacy role for the animals as the lifeblood of Rocky Mountain National Park. Commissioner Duvall noted that staff has projected 20-40% increased traffic due to this project and that she agrees with lowering the speed limit and not widening the road; she stated it is highly naive to think that this is the only development that is going to occur up there if this is approved. Commissioner Duvall stated that more protection must be built into the conditions to protect the north lot; she argued for a decreased density--there are too many unanswered questions. Commissioner Duvall stated that if this motion passes, it should be contingent on congressional approval; she proposed either the Board refer this proposal back to the Planning Commission for further review of the conditions, or deny it.

Chair Disney stated that both sides have very good points. He supports the idea of suggesting to CDOT that they strongly consider reduction of the speed limit in this area, or possibly the Board pass a resolution making that recommendation. He still has questions about the livery as "Dust and Odor Mitigation" doesn't satisfy his concerns. He suggested adding a condition that when the Health Department inspects the restaurant, they also inspect the livery operation. He stated that he is going to support the motion because he doesn't feel it will significantly increase the impacts beyond what currently exists; he thinks it is an improvement over what existed before the fire--it is not new development, it is redevelopment.

Commissioner Duvall offered the following amendments to be added to the motion and included as additional conditions: 1) Approval is contingent upon Congressional approval of the partnership and the Visitor's Center being constructed as a part of Phase I; 2) The Board will recommend to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) that there be no widening of the road at this site and they will request reduction of the speed limit and that other wildlife protection measures be imposed; and 3) Reduce the number of horses to be maintained at the stable from 60 to 45. Discussion among the Board followed and Chair Disney and Commissioner Clarke agreed to the first two friendly amendments to be added to the list of conditions, but did not agree to the third amendment.


Motion carried 2 - 1; Commissioner Duvall dissenting.

Therefore, the Staff/Planning Commission Recommendations for Approval, and corresponding conditions, were amended as follows: Approval of the variance to allow parking spaces smaller than 200 square feet; Approval of the Master Plan, with the following conditions: 1) The Preliminary Phase Plan for Phase II be presented to both the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners; 2) Prior to submittal of the Preliminary Phase Plan for Phase II, the applicant shall provide to the County and the Colorado Department of Transportation an updated traffic impact report, which will be used to determine whether the access plans must be re-designed in order to develop Phase. The applicant must provide an engineer's evaluation on the adequacy of parking, and recommendations for additional parking required for Phase II; 3) Approval of the Master Plan shall expire five years from date of final approval, unless extended by timely submittal of Phase Plans; Approval of the Preliminary Phase Plan for Phase I, with the following conditions: 1) Parking for the existing convenience store shall be allowed only within the designated 11 parking spaces south of the highway right-of-way. Roadside parking shall be eliminated. All parking shall be paved and marked; 2) The following improvements shall be in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: Landscaping in Phase I, improvements to Highway 34 in Phase I, internal access and parking, radon test results for buildings with dwelling areas; 3) The following improvements shall be in place and operational prior to issuance of a building permit other than a footing and foundation permit: Fire protection facilities and all utilities. Utilities shall be placed underground; 4) At the time of Final Phase Plan submittal, the following shall be provided: a) Written verification from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) that complete and final plans for all proposed highway improvements (including Phase II) have been submitted and approved by CDOT; b) Detailed plans for all fire protection facilities, both on-site and off-site; c) Detailed plans for all other improvements; d) Written verification from the Colorado Division of Water Resources that State requirements for provision of water have been met; e) Evidence of the right to utilize the proposed emergency access road; f) Erosion control plan as required by County Engineering; g) A revised landscape plan which fulfills the PUD requirement for screening of parking areas; 5) Approval is given only for the specific uses as proposed. Any change in use shall require approval by the County by amending the Phase Plan. Minor site design changes may be approved by the Planning Director; significant site design changes must be approved through an Amended PUD Phase Plan; 6) The existing cabins and mobile homes used for employee housing shall be removed within 60 days of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the employee housing in Phase II; 7) Total signage on the sight shall not exceed 300 square feet sign area; 8) The property owner is responsible for compliance with the submitted "Dust and Odor Mitigation Plan" for the livery; 9) All water, sewer, and food service requirements of the County Health Department must be met; 10) Applicant shall provide a report to the County Forester by a qualified arborist addressing the potential impacts of construction on the existing trees and a plan for the protection of those trees; 11) Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Division of Wildlife regarding feeding of animals, bear proofing trash containers, fencing, harassment of wildlife, and control of pets. Information regarding these issues shall be provided to guests; 12) Final Plat shall show additional right-of-way reservation of 25' (total half right-of-way of 75'). Additional right-of-way dedication may be required if determined to be necessary to accommodate the proposed improvements related to this project; 13) Owner shall sign an agreement with 90 days of Master Plan approval, agreeing to annex to Estes Park when eligible, if requested by the Town; 14) A maximum number of 60 horses shall be maintained at the stable; 15) Except as modified by the above conditions, all development and use of the site shall be consistent with Zoning File Exhibit A (Rocky Mountain Gateway Master Plan and Phase Plan (both dated November 15, 1994), and all PUD application material submitted by the applicant and his representatives); 16) Approval is contingent upon Congressional approval of the partnership and the Visitor's Center being constructed as a part of Phase I; 17) The Board will recommend to the Colorado Department of Transportation that there be no widening of the road at this site and will request reduction of the speed limit and other wildlife measures.

The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.




(#247 & 248)

The Board of County Commissioners met in regular session at 9:30 a.m. with Rex Smith, Director of Public Works. Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were: William Heiden, Road and Bridge Director; Mark Steele, Road and Bridge Department; Elaine W. Spencer, Engineering Services Manager; Ralph Jacobs, Director of Human Resources; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, W. Gebauer.

1. Road & Bridge Restructuring Proposal: Mr. Heiden stated that, in 1989, the Road & Bridge Department formed a committee, with members elected by their coworkers, to recommend changes to the pay plan. At that time, Mr. Heiden placed two constraints on the committee: the revised pay plan could not cost the County more than the current system, and Mr. Heiden reserved the right to appoint team leaders.

Mr. Steele represented the committee and presented the restructuring proposal. He stated that the goal of the committee was to develop a system in which Road & Bridge would train and certify all employees to perform specific duties, and would compensate them accordingly. The testing procedures would be the same for placement and advancement. Current employees would not drop any pay grades for failure to pass the tests, but may be reclassified. Each employee must take a test every year to maintain their job classification. The plan allows managers to grant out-of-title pay for employees who perform duties other than for their normal job classification as long as certain criteria are met. The pay plan must be reevaluated at least every three years, and the evaluation committee must include representatives of the Road & Bridge Director and the Director of Human Resources. The restructuring committee would represent the employees. The grievance and complaint policies would remain the same as in the Personnel Manual. Mr. Steele also pointed out that, in a vote taken last week, the employees approved of the plan by a three to one margin. He added that any employee can raise concerns about the plan.

Commissioner Duvall stated that the effort and initiative of the employees impressed her. She said that the Board should support the plan because it would not cost the County any additional funds, and it has the support of the employees. Commissioner Clarke stated that he believed it to be an exciting program that could be used as a model for other County offices. He added, though, that the plan would require some effort and tweaking of the details to implement. Responding to a question from Chair Disney, Mr. Heiden stated that the proposed plan does not deal with temporary employees. Mr. Jacobs stated that he is comfortable with the proposal, and that they should plan the implementation of the proposal because of the large amount of work performed by Road & Bridge in the summer. Chair Disney stated that it was good to see the development of a pay-for-performance plan and criteria.


Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve the Road & Bridge Department pay structure as presented.

Motion approved 3 - 0.

Mr. Smith stated that Road & Bridge planned to start implementing the plan by April 1. Mr. Heiden thanked the Board for approving the proposal, and he predicted that the cost to Road & Bridge will actually go down over time.

2. County Road 27 Update: Mr. Heiden stated that Road & Bridge has started evaluating a one-mile long test section of lignum sulfate on County Road 27. It appears that the lignum sulfate surface makes it significantly easier to stop on the wet road. With the Board's approval, Mr. Heiden will instruct Road & Bridge to continue with the treatment, as they had already planned to apply lignum sulfate to County Road 27. He suggested that the county wait and evaluate the effects of this treatment before attempting other measures; Mr. Smith agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Duvall stated that Mr. Schmidt, who had complained about the road surface, was willing to extend test period time. Commissioner Clarke agreed with the proposal to wait and see how the lignum sulfate performs before attempting other, more costly approaches. Chair Disney noted that the best test of the road surface would come from a wet, spring snowfall, and he agreed with extending the test period.

3. Off-Site Road Improvement Regulations: Mr. Smith called the Board's attention to a copy of proposed changes to the Off-Site Road Improvement Regulations that he had sent to the Board in January. He noted that, in 1985, a task force proposed a three-phase program to address road improvement needs. At the time, the Board only adopted the portion of the proposal creating a road impact fee for new developments. The Board did not adopt the proposals for building fees in existing development, or for a county-wide sales tax for road improvements. Ms. Spencer noted that, in previous cases, the County has required developers to make improvements to off-site roads. In some cases, the County has rejected the proposed development as being premature for the area, rather than collecting off-site fees. Mr. Smith stated that the Board should address the issue in a joint meeting with Planning. Ms. Spencer said that the County should develop a complete off-site road policy structure, and that the current proposal was created with the input of developers and staff. The Board discussed ways in which the cities and the County could better cooperate on funding and managing road projects.

4. Larimer County Transportation Plan Process: Commissioner Duvall said that she was concerned about the relatively low weighting given to environmental factors and to plan consistency in the draft of the Transportation Plan. She stated that it was the Board's intention that the transportation plan would complement the land use plan, and that she believes that the current weighting factors do not meet these criteria. She also stated that she believed that the Environmental Advisory Board should be directly represented on the transportation plan team. Mr. Smith replied that road proposals with adverse environmental impacts would probably be weighted very low on the priority scale, because of the way the entire evaluation process is structured. He added that the Board itself needs to answer the philosophical issues related to road improvements, as the transportation plan itself cannot answer these questions. Chair Disney and Commissioner Clarke noted that the Board had previously discussed the weighting factors with Public Works at a meeting when Commissioner Duvall was not in attendance. They agreed that this was perhaps not the best procedure. Commissioner Duvall stated that the weighting factors would be misleading to members of the public, who would most likely look at the weighting factors without reviewing the entire evaluation process. Ms. Spencer replied that the scoring factors must be evaluated with the weighting factors in order to understand the scoring procedure. Chair Disney and Commissioner Clarke noted that environmental concerns indirectly effect several of the other weighting factors. Chair Disney said that perhaps the definition of benefit, in the cost versus benefit analysis, should be revised. He said that it is important to indicate that the benefit of a project is to be evaluated by many criteria, in addition to the number of people using the road system. Mr. Smith said that, while he personally might have ranked the weighting factors differently, the group as a whole should address any revisions. The Board discussed how much direction the Board should give the transportation plan group.

Chair Disney suggested that the transportation plan group might take older, controversial projects that have already been built and use the evaluation criteria to see how they would have been ranked by this approach. Commissioner Duvall requested that the record show that she does not support the weighting system as currently designed. She will wait for additional public input before deciding if she can support the plan.

The meeting recessed at 11:20 p.m.



The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:00 p.m. with John MacFarlane, Director of Parks and Recreation; Rex Smith, Director of Public Works; Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Disney presided, Commissioners Duvall and Clarke also were present. Recording Clerk, A. Jensen.

Mr. MacFarlane stated that the purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the various options facing the Parks Department. A memo was submitted by Mr. MacFarlane outlining recommendations, which was followed by a discussion of the items listed on the memo. Mr. MacFarlane fielded questions from the Commissioners regarding funding and administrative options, as well as various other topics. Discussion continued with respect to the scope of the Parks Departments duties.

Mr. MacFarlane clarified that item 10, as listed on the memo, was a request for a position to be created that would act as a depository for historical information for Larimer County as well as research historical sites in an attempt to preserve this type of information. Discussion ensued regarding which department would be best suited to assign this position. The Commissioners instructed Mr. MacFarlane to enlist the help of local volunteers as more information is available to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Duvall inquired as to the status of the E.P.A. Wetlands grant. Mr. MacFarlane mentioned he is moving ahead with this project and will be attending a meeting this Friday regarding this topic. At this time Commissioner Clarke complimented Mr. MacFarlane's management style and expressed his appreciation and respect for him as an employee.

Discussion continued covering the topic of the open space tax and the legalities of placing it on the ballot.

Meeting recessed at 2:00 p.m.



The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:30 p.m. with Paul Cooper, Director of Community Corrections; Steve Schapanski, Chair Advisory Board. Chair Disney presided, Commissioners Duvall and Clarke also were present. Also present was Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, A. Jensen.

Mr. Schapanski began the meeting by inviting the Commissioners to the Conrad Ball Award ceremony to be held April 22nd.

1. Day Reporting Center Facility: Discussion of the Day Reporting Center Facility ensued. Mr. Cooper stated that Sheriff Shockley is in support of moving this facility to the Mason location and is willing to assume the monthly lease rate for this new location. Mr. Cooper requested the Board to sign the lease for the property at 210 South Mason.


Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve this lease and authorize Chair to sign.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

2. Follow up to March 20, 1995 Family Emergency Team Meeting: Mr. Cooper solicited comments from the Commissioners regarding the March 20, 1995 Family Emergency Team Meeting. A brief discussion ensued regarding various topics from the March 20 meeting. Mr. Cooper stated that the performance measures can be reviewed and amended. Mr. Cooper also stated that he will be responding to the Family Emergency Team's questions and follow up with meetings to facilitate communications, as well as initiate a line of communication with Captain Gary Darling, of the Sheriff's Office.

3. Juvenile Services Planning Committee: Mr. Cooper reviewed his conversation with Mr. Barnes and stated he will asking Chief Judge John-David Sullivan to appoint Mr. Nittmann to this committee. Much discussion ensued regarding this committee. CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSIONERS was to expand the Juvenile Services Planning Committee by one community member and expand the exception criteria for an individual to be admitted to the Adult Residential Facility.

4. Other Business: Commissioner Duvall presented a letter to the Board, written by Mr. Abrahmson, regarding the solicitation of funds for the intake facility. Commissioner Clarke suggested the Board closely examine next year's budget to examine the feasibility of making the intake facility a priority. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to meet with Mr. Keister, the County Budget Manager, on a regular basis to maintain a 'big picture' view of the budget. Discussion of Mr. Abrahmson's letter continued.


Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board go into Executive Session to discuss contractual obligations.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.; no action taken.




The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Pro-Tem Clarke presided and Commissioner Duvall was present; Chair Disney was absent. Also present were: Carol Gillespie, Director Community Development; Robert Thompson, Human Development Program Specialist; Diane Martell, Past Interim Director Human Development; Ginny Riley, Director of Human Development; Captain Gary Darling, Sheriff's Department; Marla Hehn, Assistant County Attorney; Shelly Stevens, Fort Collins Housing Authority; Gayle Morgan, Planning Department Staff Services Manager; John Barnett, Director of Planning; Bob Keister, Budget Manager; Mike Slavic, Microwave Administrator; Jim Stokes, Director Information Management; Paula McNulty, Systems Coordinator; Roy Schutt, Software Analyst; Donna Hart, Assistant to the County Manager; and Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. Fair Housing Proclamation: Chair Pro-Tem Clarke read aloud the Proclamation proclaiming the month of April, 1995 as Fair Housing Month, as a policy and a commitment of Larimer County.


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board of County Commissioners hereby resolve to join with all Larimer County communities to proclaim and rededicate the month of April 1995 as Fair Housing Month, and authorize the Chair Pro-Tem to sign same.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

2. Presentation of Appreciation to Diane Martell, Interim Human Development Director: The Board presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Diane Martell, for service beyond the call of duty as Interim Director of Human Development.

3. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application on Behalf of Headstart: Mr. Thompson requested Board approval of a CDBG Application on behalf of Headstart, a letter of local priority, and a local commitment of 10% matching funds in the amount of $1,834; he noted that this application is to provide playground equipment and structure for the Headstart facility located in the Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park at 2025 N. College Avenue. Discussion followed concerning the source of funds for this commitment.


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Community Development Block Grant Application on behalf of Headstart, contingent upon receipt of the grant and subject to identification of the funding source.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

4. Information and Referral Consortium Agreement: Ms. Gillespie requested Board approval of an Information & Referral Consortium Agreement to provide citizens of Larimer County, particularly low-income and elderly, with easy access to human services through a comprehensive information and referral (I & R) system


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Information and Referral Consortium Agreement, as requested by Ms. Gillespie, and authorize the Chair Pro-Tem to sign same.

Motion carried 2 - 0.





5. School Resource Officer Request: Captain Darling requested Board approval of an Agreement between the Poudre School District R-1, the City of Fort Collins, the County of Larimer and the Larimer County Sheriff for the School Resource Officer Program. Captain Darling noted that adoption of this program will put an officer in each one of the high schools and in one of the junior high schools, and the purpose of the agreement is to provide a safer learning environment in the schools. Captain Darling reviewed the funding scale and noted that the first two years, the school district will totally fund the program; after 1999 an assessment will be done to see if the program should be continued. Captain Darling noted that the City of Fort Collins approved this agreement last night; Ms. Hehn stated that the school district has approved the program in concept, but has not yet signed the agreement.


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Sheriff's Department request for the School Resources Officer, and authorized the Chair to sign the Agreement when the final document is presented for signing.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

6. Request for Additional Funding for Computer Equipment: Ms. Morgan requested Board approval for supplemental funding to enable the Planning Department to proceed with Phase III of the technology upgrade. The request is twofold: to upgrade the file server, which is on the "A" priority list for networking, and to change one of the ratings from the "C" priority list to complete their technology upgrade downstairs. The request for the file server is for $12,000 for the file server over the amount previously approved on the "A" list. The request for the hardware upgrade is for $9,100. Much discussion followed.


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the request for supplemental funds in the amount of $12,000 to be added to the current "A" priority 95' CIDA budget to complete the networking by upgrading the file server and related equipment, as recommended by Information Management, but not approve the request to change a priority "C" rating to "A" to allow them to purchase additional hardware and software.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

7. Update on Long Range Communications Planning Committee: Mr. Slavic provided an update for the Board on the long range plans of the Communications Planning Committee; he noted this Committee was started by the Sheriff's Department and is comprised of agencies throughout Larimer County concerned with public safety communications and was formed to discuss future plans for communications. The meetings have been very positive and included representatives from Estes Park, Loveland, Fort Collins, Larimer County, Bureau of Reclamation, REA, Northern Water Conservancy District, etc. Mr. Slavic stated that the efforts of this Committee will result in a county-wide communications system built into one big network, in which all agencies will share. Mr. Stokes noted that this network will be cost effective. Mr. Slavic outlined the time frame and noted that the first step will be to conduct tests this year. He has asked for financial support from the different agencies to do these tests ($5,000), with $2,500 to be derived from his budget; a final report will be available by the end of this year. Mr. Slavic noted that they hope to start building the backbone of the system in about three years.

8. Worksession:

-- Items for Next Weeks Standing Meetings at Blue Spruce: Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that the standing meetings scheduled for next week with the Health Department and the Human Development will be held at the Blue Spruce Facility. Mr. Lancaster noted that Dr. LeBailly has requested an Executive Session with the Board at the end of the Health Department Meeting.

9. Invitations: Ms. Hart reviewed the pending invitations with the Board.

10. Legal Matters:

At this time, County Attorney George Hass and Human Resources Director Ralph Jacobs joined the meeting for Legal Matters.


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board go into Executive Session at 11:15 a.m. to discuss legal matters.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The Board came out of Executive Session at 12:15 p.m.; no action taken.

At this time, Marla Hehn joined the meeting to inform the Board that the City of Fort Collins Office just called and has made one minor change to the Agreement the Board approved earlier today for the School Resource Officer Program. Ms. Hehn noted that the change to Article V was to change the wording "Prior to June 15, 1999 ..." to "Prior to June 15 of each year during the term of this Agreement..."


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the revision as suggested by the City of Fort Collins to the Agreement between the Poudre School District R-1, the City of Fort Collins, the County of Larimer and the Larimer County Sheriff for the School Resource Officer Program.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

11. Document Review: The following documents, of a routine nature, were considered by the Board:


Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Minutes for the week of March 13, 1995 and the Schedule for the week of March 27, 1995, as submitted, as well as the other documents listed on Document Review for March 22, 1995.



OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT (Office on Aging Grantee Agmt.)






and Water Conservation Fund Contract for a Time Extension for

Lyons Park)

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT - 1995 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG).

LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to The Lovin' Oven - 6% - Loveland, CO.; Boyd Lake Marina, Inc. - 3.2% - Loveland, CO.; The Store - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO.; Burger Bay - 3.2% - Loveland, CO.; and Schmidt's Olde Time Bakery, Ltd. - 6% - Loveland, CO.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

( S E A L )






Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk


Aimee Jensen, Deputy County Clerk


William Louis Gebauer, Deputy County Clerk

March 20, 1995