Feb 13 14 2012 by huangyuarong

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 135

									             ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
              P.O. Box 773598 Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477
                   Tel# (970) 879-0108 Fax# (970) 879-3992

       Nancy J. Stahoviak           Douglas B. Monger            Diane Mitsch Bush
        District 1                   District 2                   District 3



Monday, February 13, 2012
                               ***WORK SESSION***


10:30 to 11:30   COUNTY MANAGER/Tom Sullivan
                Administrative and Commissioners’ Reports/ Helena Silva/
                 Administrative Updates
11:30 to 12:00   LEGAL/John Merrill
                Updates
 1:30 to 2:30    PLANNING/Chad Phillips
                Pre-hearings
 2:30 to 3:00    IS/Terry Barber
                Discussion regarding the Network Attached Storage RFP bid
 2:30 to 3:00    HUMAN SERVICES/Vickie Clark
                Updates



*Work Sessions are open to the public unless otherwise noted
**Meeting Adjourned




                                          1
             ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
              P.O. Box 773598 Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477
                   Tel# (970) 879-0108 Fax# (970) 879-3992

      Nancy J. Stahoviak                Douglas B. Monger               Diane Mitsch Bush
      District 1                        District 2                      District 3

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

                                     ACTION AGENDA


  9:30 to 9:35    CALL TO ORDER
                 Pledge of Allegiance
                 Consideration for approval of accounts payable, manual warrants and payroll
                 Items of note from the previous day’s work sessions
  9:35 to 9:40    Consent agenda items:
                      A. Approval of Routt County Commissioner meeting minutes – January
                          17, 2012;
                         B. Approval of corrected assessments and/or abatements, as listed;
                         C. Approval of the State Human Service Electronic Benefit Transfer in
                            the amount of $208,933.20 thru January 2012;
                         D. Approval and authorization to sign liquor license renewal for T S
                            Marcum Inc for a 3.2% beer retail license off premises;
                         E. Appoint Nance Brandenburg to the Routt County Fair Advisory
                            Board filling a vacant at large position expiring December 31, 2013;

                         F. Approval to sign Gypsum Springs Final Plat PS2008-002;

                         G. Routt County PI2011-020
                            Approval to sign a resolution Amending the Zoning and Subdivision
                            Regulations for the Fair Share Agreements and Federal Lands
                            Permits;

                         H. Approval of Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC reimbursement for
                             repairs to the fuel pumps at the rental car fuel farm for $778.16
                             using Customer Facility Charge funds.

  9:40 to 9:45    Consideration of items pulled from the Consent Agenda
  9:45 to 9:55    PUBLIC COMMENT
                  Public Comment will be heard on any item except quasi-judicial land use
                  items. County Commissioners will take public comment under consideration
                  but will not make any decision nor take action at this time
                 Item #
9:55 to 10:00                 IS/Terry Barber
                   1a.        Consideration for approval the awarding of the Network Attached
                              Storage RFP bid and authorization for the BCC Chairperson to sign
                              the contract with the winning vendor per successful review by the

                                               2
                        County Attorney

10:00 to 11:00          ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF PUBLIC HEALTH/Mike Zopf
                 2a.    Updates from the Northwest Colorado Visiting Nurse Association and
                        Routt County Environmental Health Department on the following
                        items:
                             CDPHE’s 10 Winnable Battles – NWCOVNA
                             Colorado Public Health Plan- NWCOVNA
                             Risk-based Retail Food Program six month report-RCDEH
                             Communicable illness investigation
                             Support for Sustainable, Statewide Medication Collection
                                Program
                             Other

11:00 to 11:30          PURCHASING/Tim Winter
                 3a.    Discussion regarding and consideration for approval and adoption of
                        the revised Routt County Purchasing Manual, Fifth Edition, dated
                        February 2012
                 3b.    Discussion regarding and consideration for approval and
                        authorization of chairperson to sign purchase order for one 2012
                        model year four wheel drive extended cab pickup truck to be used as
                        a winter maintenance plow vehicle for the Building Plant
                        Department
                 3c.    Discussion regarding and consideration for approval to waive the
                        formal purchasing process and utilize the Colorado State Pricing
                        Agreement and approve and sign a purchase order for one 2012
                        model year four wheel drive ¾ ton crew cab pickup truck for the
                        Road and Bridge Department
                 3d.    Discussion, consideration for approval and authorization of
                        chairperson to sign purchase order for replacement of booking
                        counter area in the Sheriff’s Office
                 3e.    Discussion, consideration for approval and authorization of
                        chairperson to sign purchase order for remodel of the control tower
                        area in the Detention Center
11:30 to 11:35          CLERK/Kay Weinland
                 4a.    Consideration for approval and authorization to sign a Resolution to
                        approve mail ballot plan for the 2012 Primary Election
11:50 to 12:00          PUBLIC COMMENT
                       Public Comment will be heard on any item except quasi-judicial
                        land use items. County Commissioners will take public comment
                        under consideration but will not make any decision nor take action
                        at this time
                        PLANNING/Chad Phillips
 1:30 to 1:45    P1a.   Grassy Creek                    PP1980-004
                        Release of Bond #B003160
 1:45 to 2:00    P1b.   Grassy Creek                    PP1973-005
                        Release of Bond # 003968
 2:00 to 3:00    P2a.   Blacktail Meadows               PZ2011-010


                                          3
                             Rezone to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Major
                             Amendment to the Final PUD Plan

  3:00 to 3:30       P3a.    BOLA ENTERPRISES, INC. PS2011-011, PZ2011-005, PZ2011-
                             006, PZ2012-001
                             Lot Consolidation Replat, Rezone, and Vacation of ROW and
                             Utility Easements, Aspen Heights Filing 6
  3:30 to 4:00       P4a.    DOUBLE Y PROPERTIES, LLC PS2011-012, PZ2011-007,
                             PZ2011-008
                             Lot Consolidation Replat, Rezone, and Vacation of ROW and
                             Utility Easements, Elkhorn Subdivision, Filing 5
  4:00 to 4:30       P5a.    SNOKOMO ESTATES                  PS2008-001
                             Request for a 3 year extension of final plat recordation for Snokomo
                             Estates, Filing 3
 5:00 to 6:00                ROAD & BRIDGE/Paul Draper
                     5a.     Discussion and consideration for approval to sign the Chip Seal
                             aggregate size Resolution


*Meeting Adjourned
**Agenda is Subject to change up to 24 hours before scheduled hearings

***NOTE: All programs, services and activities of Routt County are operated in compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need a special accommodation as a result of a
disability, Please call the Commissioners’ Office at (970)879-0108 to assure that we can meet
your needs. Please notify us of your request as soon as possible prior to the scheduled event.
Routt County uses the Relay Colorado service. Dial 711 or TDD (970) 870-5444




                                              4
       ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
           CONSENT AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                     CONSENT ITEM #C D
                                   X
                                     FEBRUARY 14, 2012
                                           9:35am-9:40am
FROM:           Kay Weinland, County Clerk and Recorder
DATE:      January 30, 2012

          Consideration for approval and authorization to sign a renewal for T.S.
         Marcum INC DBA Shop & Hop #7 for a 3.2 percent beer retail license off
         premises.
________                             ______________________________________

                 _x CONSENT ITEM                     (Check one that applies to your item)
                   DIRECTION
                   INFORMATION


I.       REQUEST OR ISSUE:

             Consideration for approval and authorization to sign a renewal for T.S.
             Marcum INC DBA Shop & Hop #7 for a 3.2 percent beer retail license off
             premises.

II.      RECOMMENDED ACTION:
         Investigation Reports sent out.

III.     FISCAL IMPACTS:
         Proposed Revenue:
         Funding Source:

IV.   IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (Identify
any Communications on this Item:


V.       BACKGROUND INFORMATION:



VI.      LEGAL ISSUES:

       VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:



                                                 1
BCC ActionAgenda CommunicationsLiquorLic
February 14, 2012 @ 9:40 a.m.
      ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
                   ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                          CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F
                      Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 9:35-9:40am

FROM:     Planning Dept., Chris Brookshire 
THROUGH:  Chad Phillips 
DATE:     2/6/2012 
AGENDA ITEM: 
Gypsum Springs               PS2008­002 
Consideration for signing Final Plat 
                                                                                    __________      
Check one that applies to your item:                  X ACTION ITEM 
                                                      DIRECTION 
                                                      INFORMATION 
                                                                                                    
       I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
               Gypsum Springs is a Lot Line Adjustment between three parcels.  It is located 
               approximately .75 miles south of Oak Creek, CO on the west side of CR 25.  The 
               process  is  an  administrative  review  and  approval  by  the  Planning  Director.  
               This plat has been approved by the Planning Director and reviewed for Board 
               signature by the County Attorney. 
                
   II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
               Signing of the plat 
        
       III.     DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget): N/A 
              
        
       IV.      IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS N/A 
        
       V.             BACKGROUND INFORMATION:   
        
       VI.      LEGAL ISSUES:   N/A 
        
       VII.  CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:  N/A 
        
       VIII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:    




                                                  1
      ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
                  ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                         CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G
                     Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 9:35-9:40am

FROM:     Planning Dept. 
THROUGH:  Chad Phillips 
DATE:     1/6/2012 
AGENDA ITEM: 
Routt County                 PI2011­020 
Consideration of signing a resolution Amending the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations for the 
Fair Share Agreements and Federal Lands Permits 
                                                                                 __________      
                                        ACTION ITEM 
                                                        
                                                                                                 
       I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
              On January 10, 2012 the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing 
              for approval of the amendments to the Routt County Zoning Regulations and 
              Subdivision  Regulations  for  the  Fair  Share  Reimbursement  Agreements 
              process  and  for  review  for  off­site  impacts  on  certain  Federal  land  use 
              applications.   
               
       II.        RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
              Sign the resolution prior to recordation 
        
       III.     DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget): N/A 
        
       IV.      IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS: N/A 
        
       V.            BACKGROUND  INFORMATION:    The  resolution  has  been  reviewed  by 
                  Planning and Attorney staff and is ready for BCC signing 
        
       VI.      LEGAL ISSUES:   N/A 
        
       VII.  CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:  N/A 
        
       VIII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:   N/A 




                                                1
STATE OF COLORADO )                                   RESOLUTION NO. 2012-P-__
                  )ss.                                RE: Amendment of the
COUNTY OF ROUTT   )                                       Routt County Zoning
                                                          and Subdivision Regulations
                                                          Planning Activity No. PI2011-020


     Amendment to the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations to Include Fair Share
 Reimbursement Criteria and Amendment to the Zoning Regulations for a Permit Process
                      for Review of Proposals on Federal Lands.

                                              Recitals

       A.       Colorado counties are authorized by Section 30-28-111, Colorado Revised Statutes,
to adopt, by resolution, zoning regulations.

       B.       Colorado counties are authorized by Section 30-28-133, Colorado Revised Statutes,
to adopt, by resolution, subdivision regulations.

       C.      Pursuant to its statutory authority, the Board of County Commissioners of Routt
County (hereinafter the “Board”) first adopted zoning regulations in 1972 and has, on a number of
occasions thereafter, amended those regulations.

       D.      Pursuant to its statutory authority, the Board first adopted subdivision regulations in
1970 and has, on a number of occasions thereafter, amended those regulations.

       E.     The Board has proposed the review and amendment of the Routt County Zoning and
Subdivision Regulations (hereinafter the “Regulations”), such amendments are attached in “Exhibit
A”.

        F.      In November and December 2011, the Routt County Planning Commission
(hereinafter the “Planning Commission”) and the Board held public work sessions, respectively,
concerning the proposed amendment of the Regulations.

       G.      The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 15, 2011, notice of
said hearing having been advertised in the Steamboat Today and Steamboat Pilot, a newspaper of
general circulation, and posted in accordance to law, and, upon a motion made and passed,
recommended that the Regulations be amended.

       H.      The Board held a public hearing on January 10, 2012, notice of said hearing having
been advertised in the Steamboat Today and Steamboat Pilot, and posted in accordance to law, at
which hearing the Board considered the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission and
received public comment.

       I.     Following discussion, Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to approve new Section
6.1.9, Construction of Improvements Required as Condition of Permit and Fair Share
Reimbursement, Items A through D, and new Section 6.1.10, Proposals on Federal Lands, to the



                                                  3
Routt County Zoning Regulations, and to add a new Section, 4.8, Construction of Improvements
Required as Condition of Subdivision or Subdivision Exemption and Fair Share Reimbursement,
Items A through D, to the Routt County Subdivision Regulations.

        J.    The motion was duly seconded by Commissioner Stahoviak and passed on a 3 to 0
vote.

        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that by the Board of County Commissioners of
Routt County, Colorado, the Routt County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations are hereby
amended to include the additions as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto, to be effective on the
date set forth below.

    ADOPTED AND EFFECTIVE THIS ____ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012, BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ROUTT COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.

ATTEST:                                    BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
                                           COMMISSIONERS


_____________________________              _____________________________________
Kay Weinland, County Clerk                 Douglas B. Monger, Chair


RESOLUTION VOTE:            Douglas B. Monger:  Yes  No          Abstain   Absent 
                                  Nancy J. Stahoviak:  Yes       No     Abstain   Absent 
                                  Diane Mitsch Bush: Yes         No     Abstain Absent




                                              4
                                  Exhibit A

                  TO ADD NEW SECTIONS 6.1.9 AND 6.1.10
                 TO ROUTT COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS

   ADD NEW SECTION 6.1.9 TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

    6.1.9 Construction of Improvements Required as Condition of Permit and
          Fair Share Reimbursement
          A.      For the purposes of this section, the term “Permit” shall mean a
          Special Use Permit, a Conditional Use Permit, a Minor Use Permit, or an
          Administrative Permit. The term “Authority” shall mean the Planning
          Director in the case of an Administrative Permit or a Minor Use Permit, the
          Planning Commission in the case of a Conditional Use Permit, or the
          Board of County Commissioners in the case of a Special Use Permit.
          However, in the event that a decision is appealed, the term “Authority”
          shall mean the person or body issuing the final decision in connection with
          the permit application. The term “Permittee” shall mean an applicant for a
          Permit or a Permit Holder.
          If, as a condition for the issuance of Permit, the Permittee is required to
          make improvements to publicly owned infrastructure (the “Required
          Improvements”), the Permittee shall also be required to enter into a Public
          Improvements Agreement in the form provided by the Routt County
          Planning Department. As a part of the Permit review process, the
          Authority shall determine the percentage of the capacity of the public
          improvements added by the Required Improvements that are or will be
          required by the activity allowed under the Permit and the useful life of
          those improvements.
          B.      The Public Improvements Agreement shall contain the following:
                  1.     The Permit number;
                  2.     The name of the applicant or permit holder;
                  3.     A description of the Required Improvements to be completed
                         by the permit holder;
                  4.     The total cost of the Required Improvements;
                  5.     The deadlines for completion of the Required Improvements;
                  6.     Provision for the security required for completion of the
                         Required Improvements if the Permit is to be issued before
                         completion of the Required Improvements;
                  7.     The terms of reimbursement; and
                  8.     Current contact information for the permit holder to be
                         reimbursed during the term of the agreement, including




                                        5
                         mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail
                         addresses.
          C.     Upon completion of and acceptance by County of the Required
                 Improvements, the permit holder shall provide proof, satisfactory to
                 the County, of the actual cost of the construction of the Required
                 Improvements which shall be the “Final Cost.” The Final Cost shall
                 not include any cost not reasonably necessary for the completion of
                 the Required Improvements.
          D.     If, within the useful life of any of the Required Improvements,
                 another Permit or a subdivision approval or subdivision exemption
                 is approved which will be directly benefited by or which requires the
                 use of the Required Improvements whose useful life has not
                 expired, then the Authority shall determine the percentage of the
                 total capacity added by the Required Improvements still having a
                 remaining useful life, that will be used by the newly approved
                 Permit, subdivision or subdivision exemption. The new permit
                 holder or developer shall be required, as a condition of the new
                 approval to reimburse the party that paid for the Required
                 Improvements pursuant to the Public Improvements Agreement an
                 amount equal to the Final Cost of the Required Improvements
                 multiplied by the percentage of capacity of the Required
                 Improvements to be used by the new permit holder or developer’s
                 project. In no event shall the party that paid for the Required
                 Improvements recover more than the Final Cost of the Required
                 Improvements reduced by an amount equal to the percentage of
                 capacity required for the first Permit times the Final Cost of the
                 Required Improvements.


   ADD NEW SECTION 6.1.10 TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

    6.1.10 Proposals on Federal Lands
            Although Routt County does not review impacts to federal lands of
            private, non-federal, development on such lands that are subject to
            review and permitting by the federal agency responsible for those lands,
            Routt County does review the off-site impacts of such development
            within Routt County. As used in this section, the term “off-site impacts”
            includes impacts to public roads controlled by Routt County crossing
            federal lands. The party proposing such development must apply for the
            type of permit which would be required for the same type of development
            on private land. The application shall be reviewed using the same
            standards as used for the same type of development on private land
            except that the impacts on federal lands will not be reviewed.




                                        6
                      TO ADD NEW SECTION 4.8
             TO ROUTT COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

   ADD NEW SECTION 4.8 TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

    4.8   Construction of Improvements Required as Condition of Subdivision
          or Subdivision Exemption and Fair Share Reimbursement
          A.      For the purposes of this section the term “Subdivision Approval”
          shall mean the approval of a subdivision or a subdivision exemption,
          including a Land Preservation Subdivision Exemption. The term “Authority”
          shall mean the Planning Director in the case of an administrative
          Subdivision Approval or the Board of County Commissioners or Planning
          Commission, whichever body has the final approval authority for the
          Subdivision Approval. However, in the event that a decision is appealed,
          the term “Authority” shall mean the person or body issuing the final
          decision in connection with the Subdivision Approval. The term
          “Subdivider” shall mean the person or entity seeking a Subdivision
          Approval.
          If, as a condition for a “Subdivision Approval”, the Subdivider is required to
          make improvements to publicly owned infrastructure (the “Required
          Improvements”), the Subdivider shall be required to enter into a Public
          Improvements Agreement in the form provided by the Routt County
          Planning Department. As a part of the Subdivision Approval, the Authority
           shall determine the percentage of the capacity of the public improvements
          added by the Required Improvements that are or will be required for the
          Subdivision Approval and the useful life of those improvements.
          B.      The Public Improvements Agreement shall contain the following:
                  1.     The Subdivision Approval resolution number or the Planning
                         Department activity number;
                  2.     The name of Subdivider;
                  3.     A description of the Required Improvements to be completed
                         by the Subdivider;
                  4.     The total cost of the Required Improvements;
                  5.     The deadlines for completion of the Required Improvements;
                  6.     Provision for the security required for completion of the
                         Required Improvements if the plat required by the
                         Subdivision Approval is to be recorded before completion of
                         the Required Improvements;
                  7.     The terms of reimbursement; and
                  8.     Current contact information for the Subdivider to be
                         reimbursed during the term of the agreement, including
                         mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail
                         addresses.



                                         7
    C.   Upon completion of and acceptance by County of the Required
         Improvements, the Subdivider shall provide proof, satisfactory to
         the County, of the actual cost of the construction of the Required
         Improvements which shall be the “Final Cost.” The Final Cost shall
         not include any cost not reasonably necessary for the completion of
         the Required Improvements.
    D.   If, within the useful life of any of the Required Improvements,
         another land use permit or a subdivision approval or subdivision
         exemption is approved which will be directly benefited by or which
         requires the use of the Required Improvements, then the Authority,
         shall determine the percentage of the total capacity added by the
         Required Improvements that will be used by the newly approved
         permit, subdivision or subdivision exemption. The new permit
         holder or subdivider shall be required, as a condition of the new
         approval to reimburse the party that paid for the Required
         Improvements pursuant to the Public Improvements Agreement an
         amount equal to the Final Cost of the Required Improvements
         multiplied by the percentage of capacity of the Required
         Improvements to be used by the new permit holder or subdivider’s
         project. In no event shall the party that paid for the Required
         Improvements recover more than the Final Cost of the Required
         Improvements reduced by an amount equal to the percentage of
         capacity required for the first Subdivision Approval times the Final
         Cost of the Required Improvements.



 




                                8
        ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
 

                 ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

                            CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # H
                                February 14, 2012
                                                                                                       
FROM:  David E. Ruppel, Airport Manager, YVRA  
                  
DATE:      February 8, 2012   
 
AGENDA ITEM:   Approval of Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC reimbursement for
repairs to the fuel pumps at the rental car fuel farm for $778.16 using CFC funds.
                                                                                                       
 
Check one that applies to your item.  _x__ ACTION ITEM 
                                      ___ DIRECTION 
                                      ___ INFORMATION 
                                                                                                       
 
I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
 
Avis Budget has paid for the indicated repairs and has requested repayment from CFC
funds.

II.      RECOMMENDED ACTION:
          
Motion to approve and authorize Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC reimbursement for
repairs to the fuel pumps at the rental car fuel farm for $778.16 using CFC funds.

III.     DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget):  
          
         Proposed Revenue:  NA 
         Proposed Expenditure: $778.16             
         Funding Source:  CFC Funds. 
 
 
IV.      BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The contract with the rental car companies for the use of the rental car refueling station requires
Routt County to maintain the system. Avis Budget made the indicated repairs and requested
repayment from CFC funds. Per John Merrill this is an acceptable use of the CFC funds in
accordance with the contract. The County Commissioners must approve all uses of CFC funds
so this reimbursement must be approved by the Commissioners to allow the use of these funds.
    V. LEGAL ISSUES: John Merrill has reviewed this issue and his comments are
         attached..


    VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:  None 

 
    VII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS: N/A 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
     

 
 
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
From: John Merrill
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:41 AM
To: Dan Strnad; Tom Heilner
Cc: Tom Sullivan; David Ruppel
Subject: YVRA Rental Car Refueling Facility Repair Reimbursement

 

This is to confirm that, some time ago, I recommended to Dave Ruppel that the County reimburse the 
rental car companies or company that paid for repairs to equipment at the refueling facility.  This was 
based upon the fact that the lease does not contain a provision transferring the repair responsibility to 
the lessees.  Therefore, under normal commercial rental practice, repairs are borne by the landlord.   

 
      ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
                 ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                  CONSENT OR ACTION AGENDA ITEM # 1a
                           (February 14th @ 09:55)

FROM:       Information Systems 
THROUGH:  Terry Barber 
DATE:       February 9, 2012 
AGENDA ITEM: 
         Discussion  of  and  consideration  for  approval  the  awarding  of  the  Network 
         Attached Storage RFP bid  
                                                                              __________    
Check one that applies to your item:                     ACTION ITEM 
                                                         DIRECTION 
                                                         INFORMATION 
                                                                                                       
       I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
               
              Discussion of and consideration for approval the awarding of the replacement of 
              the CH/Annex NAS service Network Attached Storage RFP bid and authorization 
              for  the  BCC  Chairperson  to  sign  the  contact  with  the  winning  vendor  per  the 
              successful review by the County Attorney.   
               
   II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
               
              IS recommends the approval of a NAS purchase from Integrated Storage Consulting 
                 Services, Inc. (ISCSI) for the amount of $18,265.97.   
        
       III.        DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget):  
 
             Proposed Revenue:  N/A 
                 Proposed Expenditure:  
        
       IS  recommends  the  approval  of  a  NAS  purchase  from  ISCSI  for  the  amount  of 
                    $18,265.97.  
        
                 Funding Source:  
        
       IS has $20,000.00 in the IS Pool Fund for the replacement of a NAS solution in 2012.   
        
       IV.      IMPACTS  OF  A  REGIONAL  NATURE  OR  ON  OTHER  JURISDICTIONS 
                    (Identify any Communications on this Item):   
        
       V.              BACKGROUND INFORMATION:   



                                                  1
         
Network Attached Storage (NAS) is a term used to describe a complete storage system which 
is designed to be attached to a traditional data network. 
 
By offering services such as Snapshot, which allows users to manage and even restore their 
own  files,  Network  Appliance  is  the  world  leader  in  unified  storage.  With  positive  past 
experience  and  an  outstanding  reputation,  IS  has  made  Network  Appliance  its  standard  for 
Network Attached Storage. However, when purchasing equipment of this type, a RFP will be 
sent to multiple resellers for competitive bid.   
 
RCSO NAS device (Bigagnes) was due to replaced in 2012 but we would like to use those funds 
to  early  replace  the  CH/Annex  NAS  device  (Littleagnes)  instead.  The  RCSO  NAS  device  isn’t 
being  utilized  as  heavily  as  the  CH/Annex  NAS  which  is  running  dangerously  low  on  disk 
space.    We  were  told  by  the  vendor  that  while  the  RCSO  NAS  is  an  older  unit,  it  will  be 
supported until 2015 while the Annex NAS will not be supported after 2013.     
         
        VI.      LEGAL ISSUES:    
                  
         
        VII.  CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:   
         
        VIII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:    
         
In September 2007, IS published a RFP for a FAS2020 with the minimum of 3 TB usable disk 
space. After evaluating past disk growth and because a vast majority of the counties users are 
utilizing the CH/Annex servers, IS installed the new FAS2020 (Littleagnes) as a replacement to 
our   FAS250 (Bigagnes) and moved that device to the RCSO Campus.  
 
Right now, the FAS250 (Bigagnes) seems to have adequate disk space for growth over the next 
year  or  two  and  don’t  foresee  us  running  short.    Data  at  the  CH/Annex  Campus  has  grown 
exponentially and the FAS2020 (Littleagnes) is quickly running out of disk space.  The cost to 
add more disks to the FAS2020 were comparable to the cost of a new unit and the FAS2020 
will no longer be supported after 2013.     
 
In January 2012, IS published a RFP for a FAS2240 with the minimum of 10 TB usable space.  
We received only one response back from ISCSI for a FAS2240 with 24 TB of disk space, of that 
about 12 TB of disk would be usable.  This would give the CH/Annex Campus a little over four 
times the storage capacity for growth in the future.   
 
 There are cheaper alternatives to Network Appliance equipment but none seem to offer the 
equivalent technology or support.     
 




                                                    2
                                        Network Attached Storage Bid Comparison

Minimum Technical Requirements                                              Vendor                         Vendor                  Vendor        Vendor               Vendor             Vendor
                                                                              ISCSI               Advanced Systems Group   Avaya             CDWG              Mitchell & Company   NE Source

 FAS2240 RK Base Appliance (rack-mount)                                     $16,665.97            No Bid Response          No Bid Response   No Bid response   No Bid Response      No Bid Response
 Rack-mount hardware/kit                                                     Included
 CIFS capable                                                                Included
 Minimum of 10TB usable space (SATA Configuration)                           Included
Maximum 4 Hour, Parts Delivery for Initial 12 months, Install and SW Subs    Included

  Total                                                                           $16,665.97



Optional Pricing
Basic Installation                                                                    $1,200.00




Summary
Budget Amount                                                                      $20,000.00
Bid amount                                                                        ($16,665.97) No Bid Response             No Bid Response   No Bid Response
Optional Pricing items                                                             ($1,200.00)
Freight                                                                              ($400.00)


Available funds                                                                     $1,734.03
PO Amount                                                                         ($18,265.97)
                                                                        TABULATION SHEET




RFP Number: 254

RFP Name: Network Attached Storage

RFP Due Date: 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Current Date:     2/8/12

Budget: Unknown



                                                                        Delivery                  Warranty       Delivery
            Vendor                  Type                     Price      Charges     Total Cost      Period          Time                     Comments
ISCSI                              FAS2240                 $18,190.10    $400        $18,590        3 years      2-3 weeks Various options included in quote
Advanced Systems Group                                                          Declined to respond, no reason given
Avaya                                                                      Asked for RFP, did not respond, no reason given
CDW-G                                                                        Did not respond, confirmed receipt of RFP
Mitchell & Company                                                       Asked for RFP, declined to respond, insufficient time
NE Source                                                                    Did not respond, confirmed receipt of RFP




      M. Hamilton
      U/RFP 254 Network Attached Storage Tabulation Form
      02/09/2012                                                                                                                                       Page 1 of 1
                                   Item # 2A
     February 14, 2012 @ 10 a.m.


XX
                            Colorado Health Assessment and Planning System 

Routt and Moffat Public Health Priorities to be included in the Local Public Health Improvement Plan: 

         1.       Environmental health  
                    a.       Address capacity issues and the need for baseline air and water quality data  
                    b.      Provide community education on environmental health issues 
         2.      Mental health and substance abuse 
                    a.       Provide screenings for mood disorders in the primary care and emergency room 
                    settings 
                    b.      Create systems of care coordination and case management that support referrals 
                    to treatment for mood disorders 
                    c.       Increase awareness of mental health and substance abuse issues 
                    d.      Reduce stigma associated with seeking behavioral health care  
         3.      Unintentional injuries 
                    a.       Increase awareness 
                    b.      Seek funding for injury awareness campaign 
         4.      Family Planning 
                    a.       Unintended pregnancy prevention 
                    b.      Maintain current level of services 
                    c.       Sustain funding  
 
Timeline: 
 
                                  Activity                                               Date 
         Create Action Plans for the 4 priority areas for Routt & Moffat          By end of March 2012 
         Begin prioritization process in Jackson County                           March 2012 
         Create Action Plans for the priority areas chosen in Jackson             May 2012 
         Submit the Local Public Health Improvement Plan to CDPHE                 June 2012 
          Office of Planning and Partnerships 
         Disseminate the Local Public Health Improvement Plan to                  June‐July 2012 
          stakeholders 
              
                    Routt County Department of Environmental Health
                     Risk-Based Retail Food Establishment Program
                               Mid-Year Progress Report
                                   January 31, 2012
  I.       Established baseline of Routt County Foodborne Illness (FBI) and Critical Item
           Violations (CIV) using Digital Health Department (DHD) reports.




*Demonstrates uniformity and consistency in the retail food program compared to DEHS

 II.       Utilized the following DHD reports to identify high-risk facilities & FBI risk factors:
            Critical/FBI Violation Percentage Summaries
            FBI Violations per Inspection (FBI Violations are those linked to Foodborne Illness)
            Voluntary Condemnation Reports

III.       Assessed retail food program inventory to apply risk-based methodology utilized in
           DHD by Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE).
            Generated Retail Food Risk-Based Report

IV.        Developed approved intervention techniques with CDPHE to minimize FBI risk
           factors and address Critical Item Violations.
             Onsite Trainings - open to all facilities and/or tailored to a specific establishment
             Critical Item/HACCP Inspections - scheduled with staff at facilities with history of
             repeated FBI violations to educate and gain compliance
             Announced Inspections - scheduled inspections resulting in written compliance
             agreements with staff to correct previously identified critical violations

 V.        Conducted five food safety training courses to affect the occurrence of FBI and
           Critical Item Violations. Supported CSU Extension Spanish food safety training.

       !            "
                                                                   #        !       #
                                                !                      "
                               # $% &               ' !                "
                                        (   )                          *"
                                         %+                            "
                                   ,- .     /(       0

           $ %                                                     #        !       #
                                  # ,       , 0122                                         3
                "                                                       &                 '(
44          2                 -         ,                5 6   ,        *"      ,
 VI.         High-risk facilities attending Routt County food safety courses

        )
        * +             *        #                 ! !      "                          "
           +           0                  "                          *"                    7
            1          0                                             *"                    7

  ,      -             *         #                 ! !      #                !         "
             8                                                                         " 7
             8                             3                          "                  "7

VII.         Intervention/inspection tracking
               Registration and attendance lists maintained in Excel by Routt County Department
               of Environmental Health (RCDEH).
               RCDEH interventions/inspections assessed using DHD Inspection Progress Estimate
               Report.
               DHD Completed Inspections Report:
                      Onsite trainings credited in DHD – 41(32 twice/year; 9 once/year)
                      Critical item inspections in DHD – 2 (Spanish speaking facilities)
                       CDPHE’s Department of Environmental Health and Sustainability (DEHS)
                       assisted RCDEH in critical item inspections by providing staff fluent in
                       Spanish to accompany inspectors. Improved communication with Hispanic
                       staff and increased opportunities for correction of critical items onsite.
                       These facilities completed CSU Extension Spanish food safety training.

VIII.        Challenges
              Data analyses requires more than six months to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of
              intervention processes on Routt County facilities.
              Inspection completion rates impacted by one of two Environmental Health Specialists’
              (EHS) unforeseen emergency leave and limited work schedule. Having two inspection
              staff, the program had only one EHS performing inspections over a period of six weeks.
              The onsite training program required more time and resources than was anticipated.
              However, future trainings are not expected to be as demanding since groundwork has
              been laid.

 IX.         Strategies to measure effectiveness
              Compare inspections conducted at facilities pre/post food safety trainings to identify
               resultant procedural changes within establishments.
              Compare Voluntary Condemnation Report to previous fiscal year. However, data set is
               incomplete due to the establishment of the risk-based program in Routt County on July
               1, 2011.


                 ! -                 #                                             . ,/    *   0
                                                                 9                        7
                                              3                  9                      " 7
       Evaluate whether risk status of facilities changes in DHD but this would require
       more than a six month time period.
       Evaluate FBI Violation per Inspection (3 or more) Assess changes in high-risk
       facilities and critical item violations as generated by DHD.
       Assess evaluation forms from food safety training attendees (122 respondents).

X.    Post RCDEH Food Safety Training
       Overall satisfaction rating from people attending RCDEH Food Safety Training:
        4.65 based on a 5 point scale
       Email comments received after food safety trainings from owners/operators:
               ‘HUGE THANK YOU for the FREE class! I thought it was fantastic and you
               guys were really well prepared and keep the flow going. As a new food
               industry person, I can’t tell you how much it helps to just hear from the pros
               what’s expected. Both in reassuring that I am doing things correctly, and to
               help in things I just simply didn’t think about. Thanks so much!’
               ‘Thank you for putting on the Food Safety Class on December 13th. One of my
               deli employees came back from the class and was very complimentary about
               what he learned. He was impressed that the Health Dept. is being proactive
               about teaching food safety skills to a large number of restaurant employees in a
               classroom setting and came away from the class with some new understanding
               of what is expected of him in his role in the deli. Keep up the good work!’
               ‘Our staff was very impressed and showed great knowledge after the class!’
               ‘We had a very enthusiastic response to your class from both of my employees
               who attended. They are encouraging their coworkers to attend the next
               session. Can’t wait for that!’
               ‘Thank you for getting our (Routt County Sheriff’s Office) deputies and Lt.
               Richardson into the class. They learned a lot. It is our plan to eventually get
               all of deputies and supervisors to attend the class. Please let me know
               whenever you have more classes and we will keep scheduling them in.
               Thank you.’
       Feedback through RCDEH’s direct contact with community:
               Supportive of RCDEH’s new risk-based approach toward retail food program.
               Appreciate additional contact time with RCDEH during inspections and onsite
               food safety trainings.
               RCDEH’s proactive outreach methods, increased educational opportunities,
               positive rapport, and relationship building has already positively impacted
               the community.
               Additional food safety trainings continuously requested.
       Survey facilities to conduct self-evaluations before/after training.

XI.   Achievements
       Two RCDEH staff standardized as required by DEHS (to achieve statewide uniformity
       of the interpretation and application of the Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules
       and Regulations).
       Enrolled in FDA Voluntary National Program Standards.
       Established online food safety training program with www.StateFoodSafety.com as of
       January 18, 2011 to fill any periods between RCDEH onsite food safety trainings and
       increase overall accessibility of food safety training opportunities.
       ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
                ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                 CONSENT OR ACTION AGENDA ITEM #3a

FROM:  Purchasing/Building Plant 
THROUGH:  Marti Hamilton/Tim Winter  
DATE:      February 14, 2012 
AGENDA ITEM: 
Consideration to approve and adopt the revised Routt County Purchasing Manual, Fifth Edition,
dated February 2012.
                                                                             __________   
Check one that applies to your item:               X___ACTION ITEM 
                                                   ____ DIRECTION 
                                                   ____ INFORMATION 
                                                                                              
    I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
Consideration to approve and adopt the revised Routt County Purchasing Manual, Fifth Edition,
dated February 2012.
 
    II.     RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
Motion to approve and adopt the revised Routt County Purchasing Manual, Fifth Edition, dated
February 2012.
 
    III.     DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS:  
               Budget:                      Not applicable
              Proposed Expenditure:         Not applicable
              Funding Source:               Not applicable
     
    IV.      IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (Identify any 
                Communications on this Item):   
    None

   V.      BACKGROUND INFORMATION:   
On June 28, 2011 the BCC approved the Purchasing Manual, Fourth Edition. We would like to
update the Purchasing Manual to the Fifth Edition; the revisions we are suggesting are listed below:

      Section 3.02 Waivers to the Competitive Purchasing Process a waiver from the BCC is
       not required for items or services under the following conditions:
           o Where a bid or proposal for the item or similar item or service has been awarded
              by the County within the last six months.
           o A Colorado State Price Agreement exists.
           o Where a provision exists in the contract for continuation of another year or years
              contingent upon appropriation of funds by the BCC.




                                                 1
      Section 5.02 Performance and Payment Bonds include the Statement of Policy
       Establishing Criteria for Bonds Acceptable to Routt County, Colorado dated July 16,
       2002. Per this policy, bonds submitted to the County must meet the following criteria:
          1. The bond must be issued by a corporate surely authorized to do business as a
               surety in the State of Colorado;
          2. The surety issuing the bond must have a current Best’s Rating of “A” or better
               (A- is NOT acceptable);
          3. The bond must provide that jurisdiction for any action on the bond shall be in the
               Routt County District Court, Routt County Court or the U.S. District Court for the
               District of Colorado; and
          4. The bond must provide that the substantially prevailing party in any action to
               recover on or enforce the bond shall have the right to recover its reasonable costs
               incurred in such action, including, without limitation, attorney fees.

      Section 9.04 Purchase Orders include
          o If a standard Purchase Order is used, review of the Purchase Order by the County
              Attorney is not required.
          o Any purchase made using a vendor generated purchase order must be reviewed
              and approved by the County Attorney prior to signing the vendor generated
              purchase order.
          o Purchases made and paid by invoices are not considered purchase orders and
              therefore are not contracts and do not fall under Sections 9.04 or 2.02.

   VI.      LEGAL ISSUES:    
None anticipated.

    VII.  CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:   
None anticipated. 
 
    VIII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:    
Recommend to approve and adopt the revised Routt County Purchasing Manual, Fifth Edition,
dated February 2012.




                                               2
      ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
               ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                CONSENT OR ACTION AGENDA ITEM #3b

FROM:  Road and Bridge Department 
THROUGH:  Marti Hamilton/Tim Winter  
DATE:      February 14, 2012 
AGENDA ITEM: 
Discussion for approval and authorization of chair person to sign purchase order for one 2012
GMC Sierra 2500HD four wheel drive extended cab pickup truck to be used as a winter
maintenance plow vehicle for the Building Plant Department.
                                                                               __________   
Check one that applies to your item:                X___ACTION ITEM 
                                                    ____ DIRECTION 
                                                    ____ INFORMATION 
                                                                                               
    I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
Consideration to approve and authorization of chair person to sign purchase order for one 2012
GMC Sierra 2500HD four wheel drive extended cab pickup truck to be used as a winter
maintenance plow vehicle for the Building Plant Department.
 
    II.     RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
Motion to approve and authorization of chair person to sign purchase order for one 2012 GMC
Sierra 2500HD four wheel drive extended cab pickup truck to be used as a winter maintenance
plow vehicle for the Building Plant Department.
 
    III.     DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS:  
                Budget:                      $28,000.00
              Proposed Expenditure:          $27,618.00
              Funding Source:                Road and Bridge Motor Pool
     
    IV.      IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (Identify any 
                 Communications on this Item):   
    None




                                              1
   V.      BACKGROUND INFORMATION:   

The Routt County Purchasing Department sent out Request for Proposal (RFP) #255 for one (1)
2012 model year Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD extended cab pickup truck (or approved
equivalent) to be used as a winter maintenance plow vehicle to five (5) suppliers and two (2)
suppliers responded. A summary is shown below:

                                             Price
                                          (including
                                           delivery          Warranty             Delivery
   Vendor           Vehicle Type           charges)            Period              Time
King Buick        2012 GMC Sierra                           3 year 36,000
                                           $28,634                               90-120 days
GMC                   2500HD                                    miles
Mike Shaw         2012 GMC Sierra                           3 year 36,000
                                           $27,618                                 60 days
Chevrolet             2500HD                                    miles
Cook
                                No response received, confirmed receipt of RFP
Chevrolet
Steamboat
                                No response received, confirmed receipt of RFP
Motors
Transwest
                                No response received, confirmed receipt of RFP
Buick GMC

We recommend awarding to the low-cost respondent, Mike Shaw Chevrolet.

   VI.      LEGAL ISSUES:    
None anticipated.


   VII.  CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:   
None anticipated. 
 
 
   VIII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:    
Recommend to approve and give authorization of chair person to sign purchase order for one
2012 GMC Sierra 2500HD four wheel drive extended cab pickup truck to be used as a winter
maintenance plow vehicle for the Building Plant Department to Mike Shaw Chevrolet for
$27,618.00




                                               2
      ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
               ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                CONSENT OR ACTION AGENDA ITEM #3c

FROM:  Road and Bridge Department 
THROUGH:  Marti Hamilton/Tim Winter  
DATE:            February 14, 2012 
AGENDA ITEM: 
Consideration to waive the formal purchasing process and utilize the Colorado State Pricing
Agreement and approve and sign a purchase order for one 2012 model year Ford F250 four
wheel drive ¾ ton crew cab pickup truck for the Road and Bridge Department.
                                                                                 __________   
Check one that applies to your item:               X___ACTION ITEM 
                                                   ____ DIRECTION 
                                                   ____ INFORMATION 
                                                                                                
    I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
Consideration to waive the formal purchasing process and utilize the Colorado State Pricing
Agreement and approve and sign a purchase order for one 2012 model year Ford F250 four
wheel drive ¾ ton crew cab pickup truck for the Road and Bridge Department.
 
    II.     RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
Motion to waive the formal purchasing process and utilize the Colorado State Pricing Agreement
and approve and sign a purchase order for one 2012 model year Ford F250 four wheel drive ¾
ton crew cab pickup truck for the Road and Bridge Department.
 
 
    III.     DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS:  
               Budget:                      $24,000.00
              Proposed Expenditure:         $25,910.00
              Funding Source:               Road and Bridge Motor Pool
     
    IV.      IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (Identify any 
                Communications on this Item):   
    None




                                               1
    V.      BACKGROUND INFORMATION:   
Per the Purchasing Manual guidelines we would like to utilize the Colorado State Pricing
Agreement with Heritage Ford to purchase one 2012 model year Ford F250 four wheel drive ¾
ton crew cab pickup truck for the Road and Bridge Department. The base price for this truck is
$20,198.00 with the total cost of $25,910.00 which includes crew cab, delivery charges, grill
guard, bed liner, CD radio, full size spare tire, and off road package.

   VI.      LEGAL ISSUES:    
None anticipated.

    VII.  CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:   
None anticipated. 
 
    VIII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:    
Recommend waiving the formal purchasing process and utilize the Colorado State Pricing
Agreement and approve and sign a purchase order for one 2012 model year Ford F250 four
wheel drive ¾ ton crew cab pickup truck for the Road and Bridge Department to Heritage Ford
in the amount of $25,910.00.




                                               2
       ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

                                    AGENDA ITEM # 3d
                                             February 14, 2012

FROM:       Tim Winter

DATE:       February 14, 2012

AGENDA ITEM: Consideration to waive formal bid process, award and
authorization for chairperson to sign purchase order for Herman Miller furniture
for the Booking Counter at the Routt County Detention Facility.



Check one that applies to your item.              _X_ACTION ITEM
                                                  _ _ DIRECTION
                                                  ___ INFORMATION


I.      DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE:

        This request is waive the formal bid process, award and authorization for BCC
        Chairperson to Sign a Purchase Order to Workplace Resource for Herman Miller
        furniture for the Booking Counter at the Routt County Detention Facility.

II.     RECOMMENDED ACTION:

        Waive formal bid process and Award project to Workplace Resource and authorize BCC
        Chairperson to Sign Purchase order for the Booking Counter at the Routt County
        Detention Facility.

III.    DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget):

        Proposed Revenue:
        Proposed Expenditure: Not to exceed $ 6,800.00
        Funding Source:        B&P Pool funds

IV.     BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

        The counters in the Routt County Detention Facility have been in use since 1991 when the
        building was built. Over time the counters have been damaged and the built-in cabinets
        have begun to fall apart. Drawers do not function and the counters are configured in a way
        that does not suit the current function of the Booking Area. Working with the Detention

                                                    1
BCC Action Agenda Booking Counters 2 14 12
        Staff, a design has been developed to use Herman Miller counters and storage units in a
        configuration that is more suitable to the new use of the Spillman Records Management
        System and will be flexible to allow for other configurations in the future should needs
        change. Herman Miller products are in use throughout the County Buildings as office
        furniture and have proved to be durable, flexible and easily replaced or reconfigured as
        needed. The not to exceed amount is

        The justification for waiver of the bid process is based on the fact that Workplace Resource
        is the regional distributor of Herman Miller product for Northern Colorado and other
        Herman Miller distributors will not bid against them in this territory.

V.      LEGAL ISSUES:

        None anticipated


VI.     CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

        None anticipated



VII.    SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:

        Recommend that BCC waive the formal bid process, award and authorize the BCC
        Chairperson to Sign a Purchase Order to Workplace Resource for Herman Miller
        furniture for the Booking Counter at the Routt County Detention Facility for an amount
        not to exceed $6,800.00.




                                                 2
BCC Action Agenda Booking Counters 2 14 12
       ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

                                    AGENDA ITEM # 3e
                                         February 14, 2012

FROM:       Tim Winter

DATE:       February 14, 2012

AGENDA ITEM: Consideration to waive formal bid process, award and
authorization for chairperson to sign contract for Herman Miller furniture for the
Control Booth at the Routt County Detention Facility.



Check one that applies to your item.          _X_ACTION ITEM
                                              _ _ DIRECTION
                                              ___ INFORMATION


I.      DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE:

        This request is for a waiver of the formal bid process, award and authorization for BCC
        Chairperson to Sign a Purchase Order to Workplace Resource for Herman Miller
        furniture for the Control Booth at the Routt County Detention Facility.

II.     RECOMMENDED ACTION:

        Waive formal bid process and Award project to Workplace Resource and authorize BCC
        Chairperson to Sign Purchase Order to Workplace Resource for Herman Miller furniture
        for the Control Booth at the Routt County Detention Facility.

III.    DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget):

        Proposed Revenue:
        Proposed Expenditure: Not to exceed $ 6,500.00
        Funding Source:        B&P Pool funds

IV.     BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

        The counters in the Routt County Detention Facility Control Booth are used 24/7/365 to
        monitor inmates and control movement within the Detention Facility. The work surfaces
        which were last replaced in 2003 are damaged and are configured in a way that does not suit
        the current function in Control. Working with the Detention Staff, a design has been
        developed to use Herman Miller counters and storage units in a configuration that is more

                                                1
BCC Action Agenda Contol Tower 2 14 12
        suitable to the new use of the Spillman Records Management System and will be flexible to
        allow for other configurations in the future should needs change. Herman Miller products
        are in use throughout the County Buildings as office furniture and have proved to be
        durable, flexible and easily replaced or reconfigured as needed. The not-to-exceed amount
        is requested as there are some minor changes to the current cost. The current cost prior to
        changes is $ 5,519.38 but some additional counter space has been requested in addition to
        the layout shown on the current design. I have requested revised cost figures by Tuesday.
        The budget for the reconfiguration is $12,000 and will also include replacement of old,
        bulky CRT monitors with flat screen monitors and a support system to allow for better
        viewing of camera images with less blockage of direct visual observation of the cell areas.

        The justification for waiver of the bid process is based on the fact that Workplace Resource
        is the regional distributor of Herman Miller product for Northern Colorado and other
        Herman Miller distributors will not bid against them in this territory.

V.      LEGAL ISSUES:

        None anticipated


VI.     CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

        None anticipated



VII.    SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:

        Recommend that BCC waive the formal bid process, award and authorize the BCC
        Chairperson to Sign a Purchase Order to Workplace Resource for Herman Miller
        furniture for the Booking Counter at the Routt County Detention Facility for an amount
        not to exceed $6,500.00.




                                                 2
BCC Action Agenda Contol Tower 2 14 12
STATE OF COLORADO )                                                                     RESOLUTION 12-________
                  )                                                                     DESIGNATING A MAIL BALLOT
COUNTY OF ROUTT   )                                                                     ELECTION FOR THE JUNE 26, 2012
                                                                                        PRIMARY ELECTION IN ROUTT
                                                                                        COUNTY COLORADO

A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A MAIL BALLOT ELECTION FOR THE JUNE 26,
2012 PRIMARY ELECTION IN ROUTT COUNTY

        WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. 1-7.5-102, it has been determined that a mail ballot
election for the June 26, 2012 Primary Election will be conducted in Routt County, and

        WHEREAS, it has been determined that mail ballot elections are more cost effective and
do not result in increased fraud, and

        WHEREAS, an increased number of voters in Routt County requesting to vote by mail
indicates support for mail ballot elections by the public, and

        WHEREAS, the Citizens Election Review Committee unanimously supports a mail
ballot election in Routt County,

      NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Routt
County, Colorado, that Resolution #12-________ be adopted and enacted as follows:

       The June 26, 2012 Primary Election shall be conducted by mail in Routt County,
Colorado.

            ADOPTED THIS                             DAY OF                           A.D. 2012.

    BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR ROUTT COUNTY,
COLORADO


                                                                            ______________________________
                                                                            Doug Monger, Chair
                                                                            Board of County Commissioners

                                                                            Vote: Doug Monger                                 Aye          Nay
                                                                                  Diane Mitsch Bush                           Aye          Nay
                                                                                  Nancy Stahoviak                             Aye          Nay



ATTEST:________________________________
Kay Weinland, Routt County Clerk and Recorder



C:\Documents and Settings\hbond\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\LREGCWM8\ResolutionToConductAllMaillBallotFor2012Election.doc
                                 PRIMARY ELECTION MAIL BALLOT PLAN
                                         COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE
                                           1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 200
                                           DENVER, COLORADO 80290
                                              PHONE: 303-894-2200
                                               FAX: 303-869-4861
INTRODUCTION
The designated election official responsible for conducting a mail ballot election must submit a written mail ballot
plan to the Secretary of State at least 120 days before the primary election (section 1-7.5-105, C.R.S.; Election Rule
12).

INSTRUCTIONS

Please read this section COMPLETELY. Failure to do so may result in undue delay in the approval of your plan.
Spaces and check boxes are provided below for each required aspect of the mail ballot plan. Please fill out the form in
its entirety, making sure to check all boxes where applicable.
Election Rule 12 requires submission of a sample secrecy sleeve or envelope and a written timetable. A copy of the
Secretary of State approved secrecy sleeve is included at the end of this form. Please review the secrecy sleeve and
indicate whether you will use the approved sleeve by checking the appropriate box. Additionally, a written timetable
is provided at the end of this fillable form. Please fill in the date column of the timetable to indicate the date or range
of dates for each required occurrence.
When you have checked each applicable box and supplied all required information, please save the form to your
computer.     Once    the  form     is  saved, please    email    your    plan    as    an    attachment   to
state.electiondivision@sos.state.co.us.

Please feel free to contact Ben Schler via phone at 303-894-2200 ext. 6342 or via email at
benjamin.schler@sos.state.co.us with any questions you may have.




          Colorado Secretary of State                                                             Updated 02/03/12
Name and title of person submitting plan: Kay Weinland, Routt County Clerk and Recorder

                 Address: Po Box 773598, 522 Lincoln Avenue, Steamboat Springs, Co 80477

                 County: Routt

                 Email: Kweinland@Co.Routt.Co.Us

                 Telephone: 970-870-5416

   1. Date of the Primary Election: June 26, 2012


   2. Type and name of the jurisdiction(s) involved in the election other than state and county (Example:
      municipal, special election, etc.):


   3. Citation of the statute or home rule charter provisions authorizing the election: §1-7.5-105, C.R.S. (add
      any additional statutes relevant to the election in your county)


   4. Estimated number of eligible electors (Please distinguish by party): Note: eligible electors includes both
      Active and Inactive electors

                 6200     # of Electors                    Democratic Party

                 6400     # of Electors                    Republican Party

                 40      # of Electors                     American Constitution Party

         *If a minor party will be conducting a primary please include the number of electors for the minor party

                          # of Electors                            Party


                 Between 22 and 18 days before the election, the county clerk will mail to each affiliated active and
                 inactive - failed to vote registered elector a mail ballot packet specific to the elector’s affiliation.
                 [§1-7.5.107(3), C.R.S.]

                 No later than 45 days prior to the election the county clerk will send to each affiliated active and
                 inactive - failed to vote registered UOCAVA elector a mail ballot packet specific to the elector’s
                 affiliation [§1-8.3-105C.R.S.]

         Local election coordinated with the primary election

                 **      If the jurisdiction involved in the election plans to coordinate a local election with the
                         primary election please indicate the total number of eligible electors below:

                                  # of Eligible Electors

                         Between 22 and 18 days before the election, the county clerk will mail to each affiliated
                         active and inactive - failed to vote registered elector a mail ballot packet specific to the
                         elector’s affiliation. Additionally, the designated election official will mail to each


                                                           2
                       unaffiliated active and inactive – failed to vote registered elector an issue specific mail
                       ballot packet. [§1-7.5.107(3), C.R.S.]

                       No later than 45 days prior to the election the designated election official will send to each
                       affiliated active and inactive - failed to vote registered UOCAVA elector a mail ballot
                       packet specific to the elector’s affiliation. Additionally, the designated election official will
                       send to each unaffiliated active and inactive – failed to vote UOCAVA registered elector
                       an issue specific mail ballot packet. [§1-8.3-105, C.R.S.]


5.    “Drop-off locations.” Note: For security reasons, unmonitored freestanding places of deposit located out-
     of-doors are not allowed (In addition to indicating the number of “places of deposit,” please read the
     statements below, check the appropriate box, and provide additional information if applicable):[Rule 12.4.2]

               Five # of Drop-off Locations

                       In the space below please provide the address of each drop-of location (attach
                       additional pages if necessary):


               ROUTT COUNTY COURTHOUSE – 522 LINCOLN AVE, STEAMBOAT SPRINGS CO 80487.

               CLARK STORE – 54175 COUNTY RD 129, CLARK CO 80428.

               HAYDEN TOWN HALL – 178 W JEFFERSON AVE, HAYDEN CO 81639.

               OAK CREEK TOWN HALL – 129 NANCY CRAWFORD BLVD, OAK CREEK CO 80467.

               YAMPA TOWN HALL – 56 LINCOLN ST, YAMPA CO 80483.




                       There will be at least one drop-off location for each 30,000 affiliated active registered
                       electors in the county. [§1-7.5-107(4.3)(a), C.R.S.]

                       The hours of operation for each drop-off location will be as follows:

               Routt County Courthouse – 522 Lincoln Ave, Steamboat Springs CO 80487. Drop-off hours will
                      be during regular office hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

               Clark Store – 54175 County Rd 129, Clark CO 80428. Drop-off hours will be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
                       Monday through Friday.

               Hayden Town Hall – 178 W Jefferson Ave, Hayden CO 81639. Drop-off hours will be 8 a.m. to 5
                      p.m. Monday through Thursday and 8 a.m. to Noon on Fridays.

                                                         3
             Oak Creek Town Hall – 129 Nancy Crawford Blvd, Oak Creek CO 80467. Drop-off hours will be
                    8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.

             Yampa Town Hall – 56 Lincoln St, Yampa CO 80483. Drop-off hours will be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
                   Monday through Friday.

                     Example: July 28, 2010 through July 30, 2010, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday through
                     Friday; August 1, 2010 through August 10, 2010, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
                     Saturday. [§1-7.5-107(4.3)(b), C.R.S.]

                     Each drop-off location will accept mail ballots delivered by electors during, at minimum,
                     the fourteen days prior to and including the day of the primary election; except that mail
                     ballots need not be accepted on Sundays or the first Saturday of drop-off period.

                     All “drop-off locations” will be accessible to electors with disabilities. [Rule 12.10.1].

                     The office of the county clerk and recorder will be open 22 days prior to the election during
                     normal business hours, and until 7 p.m. on election day, for eligible electors to walk-in and
                     obtain a mail ballot or a replacement ballot. [§1-7.5-107(3), C.R.S.]




6. The total number of service center voting locations as required by state law: [§1-7.5-107(4.5), C.R.S.]

             *Please check the most appropriate option for your county

                     The county will provide a number of service centers at least equal to the number of motor
                     vehicle offices in the county with a minimum of one service center for every 60,000
                     affiliated active registered electors.

                     The county has fewer than 15,000 affiliated active registered electors for each motor
                     vehicle office and therefore will provide a minimum of one service center for each 25,000
                     affiliated active registered electors.

                     The county has fewer than 30,000 affiliated active registered electors and will provide a
                     minimum of one service center regardless of the number of motor vehicle offices in the
                     county.

             One     # of Designated Service Centers


                     In the space below please provide the location and address of each service center (attach
                     additional pages if necessary):


                     Routt County Courthouse, Office of the Clerk and Recorder, 522 Lincoln Avenue,
                     Steamboat Springs, CO 80487




                                                      4
                     The service center(s) will be open during the eight days prior to and including the day of
                     the primary election; except that the service center is not required to be open on Sundays.




7. Description of the procedures that will be taken to ensure that each service center complies with state
   law: [§1-7.5-107(4.5), C.R.S.]

                     Unaffiliated registered electors will have the ability to affiliate with a political party and
                     cast ballots;

                     The service center(s) will have secure computer access to SCORE;

                     All facilities and equipment are compliant with the federal “Americans with Disabilities
                     Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12101 et seq., as amended;

                     The service center(s) will have direct record electronic voting machines or other voting
                     systems accessible to electors with disabilities as required by Part 7 of Article 5 of Title 1,
                     C.R.S.;

                     One     # of Accessible voting machines at each service center

                     The service center(s) will have voting booths available;

                     The service center(s) will have original and replacement ballots available for distribution;

                     The service center(s) will have the ability to accept mail ballots that are deposited by
                     electors;

                     The service center(s) will have the ability to complete change of address requests and
                     conduct emergency voter registration;

                     The service center(s) will provide electors with the ability to cast provisional ballots;


8. Please complete the written timetable near the end of this form. You must provide a date or a range of
   dates for each occurrence listed in the left-hand column of the timetable.


9. Indication of how postage will be handled for ballot packets returned as undeliverable (Please read and
   indicate your compliance by checking the box):

                     As the designated election official, I hereby affirm that ballot packets will be marked “DO
                     NOT FORWARD. RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED,” “RETURN POSTAGE


                                                       5
                     GUARANTEED,” or any other similar language that complies with United States Postal
                     Service regulations. [§1-7.5-107(3)(a), C.R.S.]

10. Indication of procedures to be followed to ensure compliance with statutes and rules, including persons
    responsible for each stage (Please read and indicate your compliance by checking each box):

                     As the designated election official, I hereby affirm that I have read and understand Part 1 of
                     Article 4 of Title 1, C.R.S., Article 7.5 of Title 1, C.R.S. and Secretary of State Election
                     Rule 12 and that appropriate measures and procedures will be undertaken to ensure
                     compliance with these statutes and rules.

                     Not less than 90 days before the primary election the county clerk will mail a voter
                     information card to any registered elector whose registration record has been marked
                     “Inactive – failed to vote.” [§1-7.5-108.5(1), C.R.S.]

                     Between30 and 45 days before the primary election the county clerk will mail a
                     forwardable notice to each unaffiliated active elector and each unaffiliated elector whose
                     registration records has been marked “Inactive – failed to vote.” [§1-7.5-107(2.3), C.R.S.]

                             The notice will indicate that the unaffiliated elector has the ability to affiliate with a
                             political party in order to vote in the primary election;

                             The notice will have a returnable portion that allows the elector to request
                             affiliation with a political party;

                     No later than 20 days before an election, the county clerk will publish notice of the mail
                     ballot election, which will state the items required by the Colorado Revised Statutes,
                     including but not limited to the following: [§§1-5-205(1), 1-7.5-107(2.5), C.R.S.]

                             A statement that eligible electors who are not affiliated with a political party have
                             the ability to declare an affiliation with a political party and vote in the primary
                             election;

                             The date of the election;

                             The address of the service center locations and hours the service centers will
                             be open;

                             The address of all drop-off locations and the hours the drop-off locations will be
                             open.

                     The county clerk will supervise the distributing, handling, counting of ballots and the
                     survey of returns in accordance with rules promulgated by the Secretary of State and will
                     take the necessary steps to protect the confidentiality of the ballots cast and the integrity of
                     the election. [§1-7.5-105(3), C.R.S.]

                     The Postmaster or local postal representative has been notified of the election and provided
                     with the design of the ballot packet to ensure that postal standards are met.

                             A ballot packet has been subject to a “Tap Test” by a local postal representative to
                             ensure that all relevant mailing information is visible through the envelope
                             window.



                                                      6
                              At least one ballot packet has been submitted to the local postal representative to
                              ensure that all postal regulations are met and all indicia or endorsements are printed
                              correctly.

                      All deposited ballots will be counted as provided in Article 7.5 of Title 1, C.R.S. and by
                      rules promulgated by the Secretary of State. A mail ballot will be valid and counted only if
                      it is returned in the return envelope, the self-affirmation on the return envelope is signed
                      and completed by the eligible elector to whom the ballot was issued, and the information on
                      the return envelope is verified. [§1-7.5-107(6), C.R.S.]

                      If the county clerk determines that an eligible elector who was issued a replacement ballot
                      has returned more than one ballot, the first ballot returned by the elector will be considered
                      the elector’s official ballot. [§1-7.5-107(6), C.R.S.]

                      An elector claiming to be properly registered but whose eligibility to vote cannot be
                      immediately established at a service center is entitled to cast a provisional ballot in
                      accordance with Article 8.5 of Title 1, C.R.S.

                      The county clerk will complete the verification and counting off all provisional ballots
                      within 10 days after a primary election. [§1-8.5-105(5), C.R.S.]




11. Description of procedures to be used to ensure ballot security at all stages of the process (Please read and
    indicate your compliance by checking each box):

                      The ballot or ballot label will contain the following warning: [§1-7.5-107(3)(b), C.R.S.]

                                                             “WARNING:

                              Any person who, by use of force or other means, unduly influences an eligible
                              elector to vote in any particular manner or to refrain from voting, or who falsely
                              makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any mail ballot before or after it has been
                              cast, or who destroys, defaces, mutilates, or tampers with a ballot is subject, upon
                              conviction, to imprisonment, or to a fine, or both.”

                      The return envelope will have printed on it a self-affirmation substantially in the following
                      form: [§1-7.5-107(3)(b.5), C.R.S.]

                              “I state under penalty of perjury that I am an eligible elector; that my signature and
                              name are as shown on this envelope; that I have not and will not cast any vote in
                              this election except by the enclosed ballot; and that my ballot is enclosed in accord
                              with the provisions of the “Uniform Election Code of 1992.”

                              Date:                                Signature of Voter:                           .”

                      When not being processed, ballot packets will be placed in a safe, secure area under the
                      supervision of the designated election official, election judge, or person designated by the
                      designated election official.

                      A replacement ballot may be requested if the ballot was destroyed, spoiled, lost, or not
                      received by the elector. The elector requesting the replacement ballot must complete a
                      sworn statement in compliance with section 1-7.5-107(3)(d)(I), C.R.S. The form may be
                                                         7
                     mailed to an elector along with their mail ballot packet, however, it must be returned to the
                     election official on or before election day. [§1-7.5-107(3)(d), C.R.S.]

                     Ballots will not be left unattended while being processed. After processing is complete,
                     ballots will be placed in a safe and secure area. Access to the secure area shall be
                     determined by the county clerk.

12. Description of procedures for maintaining privacy and security of accessible voting machines to be used
    in the Primary Election:

                     At the voter’s request, the election judge will instruct the voter on the use of the accessible
                     machine. [Rule 9]

                     Each accessible voting device will be positioned as to protect each voter’s privacy while
                     voting. [Rule 12.12.3]

                     A security plan will be submitted in accordance with Rule 43 in addition to the mail ballot
                     plan, if it has not already been submitted. [Rule 43.2]

                     If a voter surrenders a mail ballot and votes in-person on an accessible device provided for
                     the election, the accessible device will be subject to the privacy, security and accuracy
                     standards set forth in the Election Rules and Title 1, C.R.S. [Rule 12.12.3]


13. Description of procedures to be used for ballots returned by electors who have not previously voted in
    Colorado and have failed to include proper proof of identification: [§1-7.5-107(3.5)(d), C.R.S.]

                     Upon receipt of a mail ballot, from an elector who has not previously voted in
                     Colorado that does not contain a proper form of identification as required by
                     section 1-7.5-107(3.5)(b), C.R.S., the county clerk will, within 3 days after
                     receipt of the mail ballot, but no later than 2 days after election day, send the
                     elector a letter explaining the lack of compliance with section 1-7.5-107(3.5)(b),
                     C.R.S.

                     If the county clerk receives a copy of identification in compliance with section 1-
                     7.5-107(3.5)(b), C.R.S. within 8 days after election day, and if the mail ballot is
                     otherwise valid, the ballot will be counted.

                     If the elector is required to provide his or her identification, the outside of the
                     return envelope will be marked to identify the requirement. [Rule 12.5.9]

14. Description of procedures to ensure privacy by use of a secrecy sleeve or secrecy envelope so receiving
    judges cannot tell how the elector voted (Please read and indicate your compliance by checking the box):

                     To protect the voter’s privacy, a secrecy sleeve or envelope will be included in the mail
                     ballot package. [§1-7.5-106(1), C.R.S.]

15. Description of procedures to be used to reconcile ballots issued, ballots received, defective ballots and
    substitute ballots (Please read and indicate your compliance by checking each box):

                     Ballots will be date stamped upon receipt. Each day when ballots come in, a judge will
                     count the ballots, batch them, and record the number of ballots received including those
                     that were returned as undeliverable. [Rule 12.7.2]

                                                      8
 16. Please review the Secretary of State approved Secrecy Sleeve with Voter Instructions at the bottom of
     this fillable form. (Please check one of the boxes below):

                      As the county clerk and recorder, I hereby affirm that the Secretary of State approved
                      secrecy sleeve with voter instructions or voter instructions page as included at the end of
                      this form will be used in the mail ballot election.

                      (Check this box only if you plan to use a secrecy sleeve other than the Secretary of State
                      approved secrecy sleeve that is included at the end of this form)
                      As the county clerk and recorder, I hereby affirm that the county will be using the attached
                      secrecy sleeve and any changes to the content have been approved by the Secretary of
                      State.




17. Signature Verification

       By checking each of the boxes below the county indicates that it will comply with the signature
       verification requirements in Article 7.5 of Title 1, C.R.S.

     Description of procedures to be used for signature verification [§1-7.5-107.3, C.R.S.]

                      An election judge will compare the signature on the self-affirmation on each return
                      envelope with the signature of the elector on file in SCORE.

                      If the election judge determines that the signatures do not match, two other election judges
                      of different political party affiliations will simultaneously compare the signatures.

                      If both other election judges agree that the signatures do not match, the County Clerk will,
                      within 3 days after the signature deficiency has been confirmed, but no later than 2 days
                      after election day, send a letter to the elector explaining the discrepancy in signatures and
                      provide a form for the elector to confirm that he or she returned a ballot to the County
                      Clerk.

                      If the county receives the form within 8 days after the election confirming that the elector
                      returned the ballot and the elector included a copy of identification, the ballot will be
                      counted if the ballot is otherwise valid.

                      If the elector returns the form indicating that he or she did not return a ballot to the county,
                      or if the elector does not return the form within 8 days after election day, the ballot will not
                      be counted, and the County Clerk will send copies of the elector’s signature on the return
                      envelope and the signature on file in SCORE to the District Attorney for investigation.

                      An original return envelope with an enclosed secrecy envelope containing a voted ballot
                      that is not counted due to a discrepancy in signatures will be stored under seal separate
                                                       9
from valid return envelopes and may be removed only under the authority of the District
Attorney or by order of a court having jurisdiction.

In the case of a disagreement among the election judges as to whether the signature on the
self-affirmation on the return envelope matches the signature of the elector on file in
SCORE, the mail ballot will be counted in the same manner as ballots received in valid,
verified return envelopes.

An election judge will not determine that the signature of an elector on the self-affirmation
does not match the signature of the elector on file in SCORE solely on the basis of
substitution of initials or use of a common nickname.




                                10
                            PRIMARY ELECTION WRITTEN TIMETABLE
                                           COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE
                                             1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 200
                                             DENVER, COLORADO 80290
                                                PHONE: 303-894-2200
                                                 FAX: 303-869-4861

 The county clerk must prepare a written timetable for conducting the mail ballot election with specific dates or range
 of dates when each activity is to be completed (Election Rule 12.4.2).

 Please complete the following timetable by supplying the following dates or range of dates on the right:

                                                                                                      Date:
Date the county gave public notice and began receiving public comments on the proposal
to hold the Primary Election as a mail ballot election [§1-7.5-107(1.5), C.R.S.]
                                                                                                   November 28, 2011


Date of approval of election by the Board of County Commissioners [Rule12]                         February 14, 2012

Date the county clerk will mail a voter information card to all registered electors whose
registration records have been marked “Inactive – failed to vote.”                                 March 26, 2012
(Not less than 90 days before the election) [§1-7.5-108.5(1), C.R.S.]


Last date for the county clerk to cancel the primary election (the close of business on the
60th day before the Primary Election) [§1-4-104.5(1), C.R.S.]
                                                                                                   April 27, 2012


Date the county clerk will mail a forwardable notice to each unaffiliated active elector
and to each unaffiliated elector whose registration record has been marked
 “Inactive – Failed to Vote”
                                                                                                   May 14, 2012
(Between 30 and 45 days before the primary election) [§1-7.5-107(2.3), C.R.S]

                                                                                                   May 12, 2012
Date that ballots will be mailed to UOCAVA voters [§1-8.3-105, C.R.S.]

Date that ballots will be in the possession of the county clerk                                    May 25, 2012
(No later than 32 days before the primary election) [§1-5-402, C.R.S.]

Date of close of registration (29 days before the election) [§1-2-201, C.R.S.]                     May 29, 2012

Date ballots will be mailed (no sooner than 22 days before the election and no later
than 18 days before the election) [§1-7.5-107(3), C.R.S.]
                                                                                                   June 4-8, 2012


Date ballots will be made available at the county clerk’s office, or the office designated         June 4-8, 2012
in the Mail Ballot Plan (no sooner than 22 days prior to the election)                             (Same day as ballots
[§1-7.5-107(3), C.R.S.]                                                                            mailed)


Date of publication of notice of election, including information regarding accessible voting       June 3, 2012
options (No later than 20 days before an election) [§1-7.5-107(2.5), C.R.S.]

                                                             11
Date verification and counting of ballots will begin (No sooner than 15 days before
the election) [§1-7.5-107.5, C.R.S.]


Dates the drop-off locations will accept mail ballots delivered by electors
(during the 14 days prior to and until 7 p.m. on election day) [§1-7.5-107(4.3), C.R.S.]
                                                                                                 June 12-26, 2012


Dates service centers will be open (the 8 days prior to and including the day of the election)
[§1-7.5-107(4.5), C.R.S.]
                                                                                                 June 18-26, 2012


Date of the primary election [§1-4-101, C.R.S.]                                                  June 26, 2012




                                                             12
Return your ballot                                                                                                             Secrecy Sleeve with Voter Instructions
You may return your voted ballot by mail (don’t forget to include adequate postage) or you may hand                [insert county name] [insert election type] [insert election date]
deliver your ballot to a designated drop-off location. (See Frequently Asked Questions below.)
                                                                                                                What are the contents of my Official Mail Ballot Packet?
Ballots must be RECEIVED at the [insert county name] County Elections office and/or Designated
Drop-off/Service Center locations by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day in order for your vote(s) to be counted.            Official Ballot     Secrecy Sleeve with Voter Instructions                                         Official Return Envelope
Ballots received after 7:00 p.m. on Election Day will not be counted.
                                                                                                                How do I vote my ballot?
Postmarks do not count as a received date.                                                                  Follow all the voting instructions shown on your ballot. After you have marked all your voting choices
                                                                                                            and finished voting:

Frequently Asked Questions:                                                                                        1.    Refold your ballot along the original fold lines.
                                                                                                                   2.    Place your voted ballot in the Secrecy Sleeve.
Where can I drop off my ballot?                                                                                    3.    Place the Secrecy Sleeve (with voted ballot) into the Official Return Envelope.
[insert Designated Drop-off/Service Center site information here]                                                  4.    Sign and date the “Affidavit of Voter” located on the back of the Official Return Envelope.
                                                                                                                         See example below.
                                                                                                            Only one voter’s ballot is permitted in your Official Return Envelope.
                                                                                                            If more than one ballot is placed in your Official Return Envelope, none of the ballots will be counted.
                                                                                                            If you are a first time voter who registered to vote in the State of Colorado by mail, you must enclose a
                                                                                                            photocopy of your identification in the Official Return Envelope. Do not place your ID photocopy in the
                                                                                                            Secrecy Sleeve with your voted ballot. See the AM I REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ID? section below.

                                                                                                            By law, your signature is required                                            AFFIDAVIT OF VOTER
                                                                                                            on the AFFIDAVIT OF VOTER                      I state under penalty of perjury that I am an eligible elector; that my signature and
                                                                                                            (located on the back of the Official           name are as shown on this envelope; that I have not and will not cast any vote in
                                                                                                            Return Envelope). If you do not                this election except by the enclosed ballot, and that my ballot is enclosed in accord
                                                                                                            sign the affidavit, your ballot will           with the provisions of the “Uniform Election Code of 1992.”
                                                                                                            not be counted.
                                                                                                                                                           X                   George Washington
                                                                                                                                                                 Voter’s Signature – (Signature Required)
                                                                                                                                                           TODAY’S DATE                             July 4, 1776
                                                                                                                                                           * Witness
                                                                                                                                                           * In case of applicant’s disability or inability to sign personally, his/her mark shall be witnessed by another person.



                                                                                                              Am I required to provide identification (ID)?
                                                                                                            [insert information that informs voter if he/she is subject to ID requirements here]
                                                                                                            If you are required to provide ID as indicated above, place a photocopy of one of the following
                                                                                                            acceptable forms of identification into the Official Return Envelope. (Do not place the photocopied
What do I do if I make a mistake, damage or lose my ballot?                                                 identification in the Secrecy Sleeve with your voted ballot.) All ID’s must be current and valid. If
You may request a Replacement Ballot by calling [insert county phone number] during regular                 your ID shows your address, that address must be in the State of Colorado for the ID to be considered
business hours, [insert business hours] or on Election Day from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.                      a valid form of identification.
                                                                                                               Colorado driver's license
How do I know you received my ballot?                                                                          Colorado ID card issued by the department of revenue
To verify that your Mail-In Ballot was received by the Elections Office, please call [insert county phone      United States passport
number] or visit our website [insert county website address].                                                  Employee ID card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of
                                                                                                                the United States government or of this state, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political
I’ve heard that mail ballots are only counted if there are close races. Is that true?                           subdivision of this state
                                                                                                               Pilot's license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the United States
No. All ballots, both polling place and mail, are counted in the same manner. All valid mail ballots are       United States military ID card with a photograph of the eligible elector
counted in every election in Colorado, regardless of the outcome or closeness of any race.                     A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that
                                                                                                                shows the name and address of the elector. For examples, please visit: www.elections.colorado.gov
Are ADA accessible voting machines available?                                                                  Medicare or Medicaid card issued by the United States Health Care Financing Administration
Yes. ADA accessible voting machines are available for use. For more information, please contact the            A certified copy of a birth certificate for the elector issued in the United States
[insert county name] County Elections office at [insert county phone number].                                  Certified documentation of naturalization
                                                                                                               Student ID card with a photograph issued by an institution of higher education in Colorado
                                                                                                            For additional information regarding acceptable forms of ID visit www.elections.colorado.gov, see SOS Election
                                                                                                            Rule 30.1.6, or call [insert county name] County Elections.
SOS Approved 04/20/10
                    PRIMARY ELECTION MAIL BALLOT PLAN
                               COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE
                                 1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 200
                                 DENVER, COLORADO 80290
                                    PHONE: 303-894-2200
                                     FAX: 303-869-4861


Thank you for accessing the mail ballot plan online form. Please save this form down to your
computer so that it may be submitted to our office upon completion. Forms should be submitted via
email (state.electiondivision@sos.state.co.us).
      ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
                  ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                        ACTION AGENDA ITEM # P1a
                     Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 1:30-1:45pm

FROM:     Planning Dept., Chris Brookshire 
THROUGH:  Chad Phillips 
DATE:     2/6/12 
AGENDA ITEM: 
Grassy Creek              PP1980­004 
Release of Bond #B003160 
                                                                                 __________      
Check one that applies to your item:                  X ACTION ITEM 
                                                      DIRECTION 
                                                      INFORMATION 
                                                                                                    
       I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
              Foundation  Energy  Management,  LLC  was  an  owner  of  the  Grassy  Creek  Oil 
              Well  Site  #2.  Ownership  of  the  well  has  been  sold  to  HRM  Resources,  LLC. 
              Permits for oil and gas wells can be transferred as long as the new owner signs 
              a new permit showing acceptance of the conditions of the permit and submits 
              all  required  documentation  associated  with  the  permit.  The  new  owner  has 
              met all requirements and has submitted a bond.  
   II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
              Release Bond #B003160 
        
       III.     DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget):  
           
        
       IV.      IMPACTS  OF  A  REGIONAL  NATURE  OR  ON  OTHER  JURISDICTIONS      
                  BACKGROUND INFORMATION:   
        
       V.            LEGAL ISSUES:    
        
       VI.  CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:   
        
       VII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:    




                                                1
      ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
                  ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                        ACTION AGENDA ITEM # P1b
                     Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 1:45-2:00pm

FROM:     Planning Dept., Chris Brookshire 
THROUGH:  Chad Phillips 
DATE:     2/6/2012 
AGENDA ITEM: 
Grassy Creek               PP1973­005 
Release of Bond # B003968 
                                                                                 __________      
Check one that applies to your item:                  X ACTION ITEM 
                                                      DIRECTION 
                                                      INFORMATION 
                                                                                                    
       I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
              Foundation  Energy  Management,  LLC  was  an  owner  of  the  Grassy  Creek  Oil 
              Well  Site  #3.  Ownership  of  the  well  has  been  sold  to  HRM  Resources,  LLC. 
              Permits for oil and gas wells can be transferred as long as the new owner signs 
              a new permit showing acceptance of the conditions of the permit and submits 
              all  required  documentation  associated  with  the  permit.  The  new  owner  has 
              met all requirements and has submitted a bond.  
               
   II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
              Release Bond #B003968 
        
       III.     DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget): NA 
           
        
       IV.      IMPACTS  OF  A  REGIONAL  NATURE  OR  ON  OTHER  JURISDICTIONS      
                  BACKGROUND INFORMATION:   
        
       V.            LEGAL ISSUES:    
        
       VI.  CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:   
        
       VII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:    




                                                1
       ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
               ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                     ACTION AGENDA ITEM # P2a
                  Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 2:00-3:00pm

FROM:             Planning Dept., Rebecca Bessey
THROUGH:          Chad Phillips
DATE:             2/9/2012
AGENDA ITEM:      Blacktail Meadows      PZ2011-010
                  Rezone to PUD and Major Amendment to Final PUD

Check one that applies to your item:                X ACTION ITEM
                                                      DIRECTION
                                                      INFORMATION


I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: The Applicant is proposing a major
       amendment to the Final PUD for the Blacktail Meadows neighborhood. In addition,
       the Applicant is requesting a rezoning of Blacktail Meadows from LDR (with PUD
       overlay) to PUD in accordance with Section 7.3.1 of the Zoning Regulations.

II.    RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve, approve with conditions, deny, or table the
       requested rezoning to PUD and major amendment to the Final PUD.

III.   DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget): n/a
       Proposed Revenue:
       Proposed Expenditure:
       Funding Source:

IV.    IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (Identify any
       Communications on this Item): The proposed Final PUD includes 8-foot side
       setbacks and utility easements along all side lot lines of the proposed new lots (the
       duplex lots proposed to be split). If approved, the Applicant will need to apply for
       partial vacation of the existing utility easements along the existing duplex lot lines
       reducing them from 10 feet to 8 feet. Vacation of the easements will need to occur
       prior to recording of the Final Plat.

V.     BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 19, 2011, the Planning Commission
       recommended denial of the proposed rezoning and PUD amendment (draft minutes
       attached). In response to the Planning Commission’s comments, the Applicant has
       revised the proposal (revised narrative attached) in the following key ways:
       • Revised proposal: 8-foot side setbacks and utility easements along all side lot lines
           of new single family lots. (Original proposal: 10-foot side setbacks for house and 5-
           foot side setbacks for detached accessory structures.)


                                               1
                                                                     BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 2 of 29


        •   Revised proposal: permitted uses on remaining duplex lots to include duplexes or
            single family homes.

VI.     LEGAL ISSUES: n/a

VII.    CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: n/a

VIII.   SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS: n/a




                                              2
                                                                            BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 3 of 29
R.C.P.C.                                      MINUTES                                January 19, 2012


Chairman Gallagher added that the tabling will allow the COGCC and the CDPHE to answer
outstanding questions and all the County Attorney’s Office to review the conditions for Board of
County Commissioner approval.

The motion to table carried 9 – 0, with the Chair voting yes.


ACTIVITY:   PZ2011-010
PETITIONER: Blacktail Meadows
PETITION:   Rezone to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and major amendment to
            Blacktail Meadows PUD to convert 10 duplex lots into 20 single family lots
LOCATION: Blacktail Meadows, Phases IV and V of the Neighborhoods at Young’s Peak,
            Stagecoach; located on the south side of CR 16, east of CR 212

Ms. Jill Brabec, an attorney representing the petitioner, stated that the main goal of the proposal is
to modify the types of lots and the types of housing that would be built on a portion of the lots within
the subdivision. She stated that there are currently 16 duplex lots in Blacktail Meadows. Under the
proposal, 10 of those would be subdivided to create 20 small single family lots, and thereby create
more diversity within the housing types available in the area. Ms. Brabec emphasized that the
density in the neighborhood (45 units) would not change; there would be 13 single family lots, 6
duplex lots and 10 small single family lots instead of 13 single family lots and 16 duplex lots. She
added that the infrastructure for the neighborhood is already in place and would not need to be
modified to accommodate the proposed change.

Ms. Brabec presented a site plan and indicated the location of the duplex lots proposed for
subdivision. She offered that this alteration in the neighborhood makes sense because the world
has changed since the Blacktail Meadows PUD was approved in 2006 and different options are
needed to address the current circumstances. Ms. Brabec stated that there has been a move
away from larger homes and these small lots would allow for attainable housing that is more likely
to get financing. She noted that duplexes are more difficult to finance and two buyers must ready
to purchase the units. Ms. Brabec presented some sample renderings of the types of homes that
would be built on the small lots. She stated that in diversifying the housing mix a more sustainable
and stable neighborhood would be created. Ms. Brabec offered that the goal of creating diverse
neighborhoods has been discussed for many years in the community and is included in the Master
Plan. She cited Section 12.2.A in particular.

Ms. Bessey explained that in 2006 when the Board of County Commissioners approved the re-
zoning of this area through a resolution, a PUD overlay was created, but a PUD Plan was not
recorded. She stated that in order to be consistent with current practices and regulations the
proposal requires a re-zoning from Low Density Residential (LDR) to PUD and the recordation of a
formal PUD Plan that would specify the exact uses allowed. She noted that PUD overlays are no
longer used. Ms. Bessey clarified that the proposed change would only affect the Blacktail
Meadows neighborhood; the resolution would continue to apply for the Young’s Peak and
Doublecreek neighborhoods.

Regarding responses from referral agencies, Ms. Bessey stated that Oak Creek Fire Protection
District Chief Chuck Wisecup did not submit any formal comments, but stated that he would do so


                                                  15
                                                                           BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 4 of 29
R.C.P.C.                                      MINUTES                                January 19, 2012


prior to the Board of County Commissioners’ hearing. Ms. Bessey said that the letter submitted by
the Morrison Creek Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District (Morrison Creek District) had been
inadvertently omitted from the packet, but was included in the supplemental packet that also
includes several letters from the public. Ms. Bessey stated that the Morrison Creek District has
expressed concern that the original agreement stipulated that there would be 10 ft. easements
granted along all lot lines, and it wants the new plat to include these easements along the new lot
lines as well, for a total of a 20-ft. easement between each small lot. Ms. Bessey noted that the
infrastructure is already in place to serve these lots, and she is unsure why the Morrison Creek
District needs the center easements. She stated the application requests a 5-ft. setback for
detached accessory structures for a total of a 10-ft. separation.

Ms. Bessey noted that a letter had been received from the Stagecoach Property Owners’
Association, which had not taken a position on the petition. She noted that additional letters had
been received this evening. Ms. Bessey reviewed that the main concerns of those opposed to the
proposal were based on the increase in the total number of structures allowed, the small size of the
lots and a concern that modular homes might be built on the lots. Ms. Bessey noted that there
were also letters in support of the petition, citing the desirability of smaller lots and homes and the
attainability of the small lots. She noted that a letter had been submitted by Alpine Bank describing
the difficulty of financing duplexes.

Ms. Bessey noted that several of the letters included a misconception about the nature of the
existing PUD and what is allowed. She stated that there are actually now three types of housing
units allowed in Blacktail Meadows: single family homes, duplexes and attached or detached
accessory housing units, which may be constructed on nine of the single family lots. The proposed
addition of the small single family lots would add up to a mixture of four housing types within the
neighborhood.

Commissioner Klumker asked what the homeowners’ association has to do with the PUD. Ms.
Brabec offered that some people who had written letters regarding the proposal had misunderstood
the standing of the homeowners’ association. She suggested that the homeowners’ association
was not a relevant topic. Mr. Phillips stated that it is the policy of the County not to consider
covenants. He said that covenants are not reviewed or approved by any County body and can be
changed at any time. He added that applicants often choose to address the issue of covenants
before coming to Planning Commission, but this applicant has chosen to do that afterwards.

Commissioner Arel asked for a clarification of the Morrison Creek District’s easement request. Ms.
Bessey stated that the District is asking for 10 ft. on each side of the property lines, for a total
separation of 20 ft. Mr. Phillips added that this is the standard requirement for a regular
subdivision, but that the PUD process allows for variation on such issues.

In response to a question from Commissioner Ayer, Mr. Steve Caragol stated that the footprint of
the homes would contain approximately 1200 sq. ft. Commissioner Ayer asked who would build
the homes. Ms. Brabec stated that the developer will sell the lots, and individuals will build the
houses. She noted that the covenants will cover concerns regarding architecture.

Public Comment



                                                  16
                                                                              BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 5 of 29
R.C.P.C.                                        MINUTES                                 January 19, 2012


Ms. Ann Holmes stated that she lives in Meadowgreen, the immediately adjacent subdivision. She
acknowledged that the letter she had submitted contains some misinformation. She expressed
concern with the plan for detached garages behind the proposed houses, noting that there would
be a significant snow storage problem on such narrow lots. She also expressed concern with the
aesthetics of so many little houses and with the economics of the proposal. Ms. Holmes stated
that there are 0.5-acre lots available in Stagecoach now for approximately $20,000 that are not
selling. She said that the negative aspects of the proposal are not justified by a demand. Ms.
Holmes noted that the connectivity between the neighborhoods that was an element of the original
layout has been fenced-off. She expressed concern with the safety of a neighborhood that has
only one way out and one way in.

Ms. Holmes read into the record comments from new owners in Meadowgreen, Shelly and Mike
Gantenbein expressing their concern with the increased density and suggesting that other options
for development could be achieved.

Ms. Holmes suggested that rather than subdividing the lots, the duplex lots could be changed to
single family lots for a reduction in density. She cited the trend toward lot consolidation in areas of
Stagecoach not served by water and sewer. Ms. Holmes offered that Red Hawk Village has been
a disaster and it is made up of similarly sized lots. She stated that she did not think the proposal
would help Stagecoach in any way.

Mr. Mike Farrell, a nearby resident, expressed concern regarding the comments on the difficulty of
financing duplex lots. He said that affordable often means cheap and he did not want to see the
quality of the products in Stagecoach to be cheapened. Mr. Farrell noted that Outback
Investments had just purchased the property and they knew what was approved and allowed when
they bought it. He said that the owners of Blacktail Meadows shouldn’t be able to negatively
impact the adjacent neighborhood. He stated that he does not think there is a market for the
proposed small lots and subdividing them would only reduce nearby property values.

Mr. Farrell cited Section 7.3.H of the Routt County Zoning Regulations regarding the desirability of
clustering homesites and creating a variety of housing types of layout within a neighborhood. He
said that the narrow lots would force the houses and layouts to be very similar and would reduce
the clustering by allowing there to be more structures spread out more evenly.

Mr. Farrell cited Section 7.3.I regarding consistency with neighboring areas and stated that the
0.18-acre lots would be one quarter of the size of lots available in the adjacent neighborhood. He
cited Section 7.3.L regarding compatibility, again stating that the narrow lots would require that
houses to be very similar in shape, size and placement on the lots He reviewed the list of
requirements that must be met to qualify for a zone changes and stated that contrary to the
requirements, the proposed disadvantages of the proposal outweigh the advantages: there would
be less open space, more structures and reduced property values, and the lot sizes would not be
consistent with the lot sizes in adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Farrell referred to the suggested
findings of fact for approval of the petition and stated that it does not meet the first or third finding
regarding compliance with the applicable planning documents and the compatibility with
immediately adjacent and neighborhood properties. He stated his opposition to the petition.




                                                    17
                                                                            BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 6 of 29
R.C.P.C.                                      MINUTES                                January 19, 2012


Mr. Tony Stich stated that he lives in Stagecoach, although not in the immediate vicinity of Blacktail
Meadows. He described a town he had lived in in Ohio that included varying sizes of lots, varying
housing types and several amenities, with swales separating the neighborhoods. He offered that
these separations preserved the property values within each of the neighborhoods. Mr. Stich
stated that he did not see the problem with the proposal provided that some features were
maintained to separate different parts of the community.

Mr. Mike Vanderberg apologized for the incorrect comments included in his letter regarding the
homeowners’ association. He stated that he did not think placing houses 10 or 20 ft. apart was in
keeping with the character of Stagecoach, which is very much oriented toward the physical
surroundings. He stated that he did not think the proposed lots would allow for an aesthetically
pleasing neighborhood layout, and added that there is not a market for these lots. He suggested
that when the market comes back, these lots would not be attainable.

Mr. Bill Atkinson, a resident of Meadowgreen noted that the realtors who had submitted comments
are not Stagecoach residents. He cited the list of 123 different properties currently available for
sale in Stagecoach, noting lots twice the size of the proposed subdivided lots were listed for as little
as $24,000. He stated that there is no demand for these lots. He noted that there are lots for as
little as $9,000 available further up the valley.

Mr. Atkinson stated that the 16 duplex lots in Blacktail Meadows could be developed by the Yampa
Valley Housing Authority for affordability and suggested that single family homes could be
developed on these lots instead of duplexes anyway. He reviewed the process that he had gone
through to build his home, noting that although he qualified, he refused to consider the affordable
housing in Red Hawk Village because it was so poorly built. Nonetheless, he said, the use of
homes in that neighborhood negatively impacted his financing. Mr. Atkinson expressed concern
that the proposed subdivision would negatively impact property values in the area.

Mr. Atkinson expressed concern regarding the stormwater management on the small lots and
stated that the negative impacts far outweigh any positive ones. He stated that the area already
has a variety of housing types and many opportunities for affordable housing. Mr. Atkinson
suggested that the owner has a reputation for purchasing distressed properties around the state
and redeveloping them for a profit.

Ms. Stephanie Fairchild stated that she is also a resident of Stagecoach and Mr. Caragol’s realtor
for these properties. She noted that the $24,000 lots cited earlier would be these subdivided lots,
and that most of the other lots in Stagecoach cited in the previous comments are not served by
utilities. She stated that the proposal would not increase the density; the 20 units currently allowed
on 10 lots would be converted to 20 units allowed on 20 lots. She offered that some changes are
needed in Stagecoach to attract more people. Ms. Fairchild stated that creating diversity and
attainable single family lots would help attract buyers, adding that those seeking to purchase a
condo or duplex unit are not necessarily the same people looking for a detached house.

Regarding the goal of establishing diverse neighborhoods, Ms. Holmes stated that Ormega Way
was platted almost 40 years ago and now has 15 homes, many children, dogs and diversity.




                                                  18
                                                                             BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 7 of 29
R.C.P.C.                                       MINUTES                                January 19, 2012


Ms. Bessey explained that a PUD creates its own zone district, so that if lots are specified as
duplex lots, that is all that can be built there. A buyer of a duplex lot could not build a single family
home. She noted that this specificity is not true in traditional zone districts. The areas surrounding
the Blacktail PUD are all currently zoned High Density Residential and although the existing
structures are single family homes, the density allowed in the HDR zone district is one unit per
3000 sq. ft, meaning that 4 up to 7 units could be built on a 0.5-acre lot in Meadowgreen. Ms.
Bessey stated that PUDs are different and that uses are defined and restricted, so duplex lots must
be duplexes. In the HDR zone district everything from single family homes to multi-family buildings
are allowed.

Mr. Phillips added that the existing PUD at Blacktail is an overlay, which is why a re-zoning is
needed. The County no longer uses overlays that allow the original zoning to remain in place
“under” a PUD. A PUD is now its own zone district.

Commissioner Horn asked about the location of the fire hydrants. Mr. Caragol indicated the
hydrants on a site plan.

Commissioner Gibson, a landscape architect, stated her support for the proposal. She offered that
the addition of the smaller lots allows buyers many options. She suggested that the schematic
shown earlier was not realistic in that it showed all the lots arranged in a similar fashion.
Regarding the issue of run-off, Commissioner Gibson stated that the amount of impervious surface
would probably be about the same whether the lots are subdivided or not. She stated that the
diversity of lots is good idea, and noted that if someone wants to build a duplex, there would still be
lots available for that.

In response to a question from Commissioner Ayer regarding the ability of the proposal to meet all
the criteria for a zone change, Commissioner Gibson stated that the issue of clustering applies to a
larger scale of planning and that the creation of these neighborhoods is already clustered
development, whether single family or duplex. Regarding the character of the neighborhood, she
noted that Red Hawk Village is very nearby and that the proposal fits with the general character of
the area.

Commissioner Benjamin, also a landscape architect, stated that he does not like the proposal. He
offered that switching the uses within a PUD seems like a flip-flop on a previous decision. He
suggested that the lots are too small to be useable and that their narrow shape would dictate
similar layouts. Commissioner Benjamin added that he doesn’t like the idea of 5 ft. setbacks.

Commissioner Ayer offered that the proposal would create lots much like those in Old Town.

Ms. Brabec noted that there are currently no small single family lots in the subdivision and
reviewed the final mix of lot types that would be created by the proposal.

Commissioner Arel stated that he is also opposed to the proposal, and offered that it was too bad
that single family homes could not be built on the duplex lots.

Commissioner Ayer said that the requirements for zoning amendments listed on pages 8 – 9 of the
staff report need clarification. Ms. Bessey cited Section 7.3.1 (in the PUD chapter) states that prior


                                                   19
                                                                          BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 8 of 29
R.C.P.C.                                     MINUTES                               January 19, 2012


to a major amendment, the land must be either re-zoned to a PUD or Outdoor Recreation. She
stated that the zoning amendment provisions do apply, but there is another section of the Zoning
Regulations that states a PUD should not be amended unless it is re-zoned to PUD because PUD
overlays are no longer used. She stated that the advantages of the re-zone would be that a PUD
Plan would be recorded, which would provide clarity over the existing resolution regarding
setbacks, uses, etc. Regarding the requirements for a PUD amendment, she noted that although
the Zoning Map is not in error, the overlay is a remnant from an outdated system and a re-zoning is
needed prior to an amendment. She offered that overlay system was very misleading.

Regarding the schematic for potential homes, Mr. Phillips stated that the PUD Plan would require
sample layouts and architectural styles that each builder would have to conform to.

Commissioner Benjamin stated that he could support the zone change, but not the subdivision.
Ms. Bessey reiterated that the property could not be re-zoned to PUD without a PUD Plan.
Commissioner Arel stated that he did not see any public benefit from the proposal.

Commissioner Klumker stated that he agreed with Commissioner Gibson, and stated his support
for the petition.

MOTION
Commissioner Arel moved to deny the petition for a re-zoning to PUD and for major amendments
to the Blacktail Meadows PUD with the finding of fact that the proposal provides no public benefit.
He cited lack of compliance with Sections 7.3.C, 7.3.F, 7.3.I and 7.3.L of the Routt County Zoning
Resolution as reasons for the denial.

Commissioner Benjamin seconded the motion.

Discussion and Friendly Amendments
Commissioner Horn added lack of compliance with Sections 7.3.F and 7.3.I to the findings of fact.
This amendment was accepted, as indicated above.

The motion to deny carried 6 – 3, with the Chair voting yes.


The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.




                                                 20
                                                                         BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 9 of 29




February 8th, 2012

Routt County Planning Department
Chad Phillips, Director of Planning
Rebecca Bessey, Planner
P.O. Box 773749
Steamboat Springs, CO 80477

Request for a Zoning Amendment
Blacktail Meadows, The Neighborhoods of Young’s Peak

Chad and Rebecca,

This is an application for a zoning amendment to the Planned Unit Development of Black Tail
Meadows at the Neighborhoods of Young’s Peak. The existing project is a 29 lot subdivision
which includes a mixture of single family and duplex lots located in the Stagecoach Area of
Routt County. The existing plat has an atypical Planned Unit Development overlay through
Ordinance. The existing zoning is LDR Low Density Residential. Through this application we
propose to rezone the property from LDR to PUD or Planned Unit Development. In the PUD
plan, we are proposing to subdivide a portion of the duplex lots into single family lots. It is
important to note that while there would be an increase to the overall number of lots in the
subdivision, there would be no change to the anticipated maximum build-out density of the
subdivision. This request is due in part to the restrictions with the current and for the foreseeable
future of lending requirements which will be difficult or impossible on duplex products such as
what is currently designed in the subdivision. In this proposal we have avoided splitting lots
which have constraints due to frontage or access. By altering the lot configuration within the
subdivision, we hope to achieve a more predictable build out, with more single family product
being available.

The original PUD application for Blacktail Meadows discussed a mixture of housing types and
affordability created by the smaller housing units (duplexes and smaller lot). Through this
proposal we will be creating three distinct lot types: single family lots, small single family lots,
and duplex lots. This proposal is in keeping with this original intent as it maintains smaller units
and the only change is the sequencing of the subdivision of some of the individual duplex lots.
Example: if you were to build a duplex, then subdivide into two units on two lots, this proposal
would create the same final result of two units on two separate lots, the lots would just be
divided prior to the construction of the actual units. This is creating an affordable product by
design, as small lots will inherently limit the size of the product that can be constructed on a site
and will create a more attainable housing product for Routt County.

Water and sewer infrastructure is already in place to all existing and proposed building sites.
There are no proposed changes to the infrastructure and there are no proposed changes of the
access to and circulation within the subdivision.
At the recording of the final plat, the existing plat and the PUD Overlay by ordinance would be
replaced by the new zoning and the PUD Plat. This will streamline the existing set of
problematic documents. This proposal will bring the subdivision into greater conformance with
the goals of the Routt County Master Plan and the Stagecoach Master Plan.
                                                                        BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 10 of 29




Proposal
• Lots#        1-13            single family no change from existing plat
• Lot#         14D             no proposed change
• Lots#        15A, 15B        split into single family lots
• Lots#        16A, 16B        split into single family lots
• Lots #       17A, 17B        split into single family lots
• Lots #       18A, 18B        split into single family lots
• Lot#         19D             no proposed change
• Lot#         20D             no proposed change
• Lots#        21A, 21B        split into single family lots
• Lots#        22A, 22B        split into single family lots
• Lots#        23D             no proposed change
• Lots#        24A, 24B        split into single family lots
• Lots #       25A, 25B        split into single family lots
• Lots#        26A, 26B        split into single family lots
• Lots #       27A, 27B        split into single family lots
• Lot#         28D             no proposed change
• Lot #        29D             no proposed change

ReCap of Proposed
Current number of lots =                              29
Current maximum allowed number of units =             45
Proposed number of lots =                             39
Proposed maximum allowed number of units =            45 (no change)

Proposed Product Type
Single Family Lots =                                  13
Small Single Family Lots =                            20
Duplex Lots =                                         6

We again stress that this is the maximum number of units that would be allowed to be
constructed in this neighborhood and it is unlikely that the subdivision will be built out to full
potential.

To allow for the greatest flexibility of future house designs, we are requesting an 8’-0” setback &
easement with the side lot lines of only the lots to be subdivided. Existing lot lines of unaffected
lots will have their respective setbacks and easements remain as depicted on the PUD site plan.
By creating envelopes of at least 33’ to 34’ in width, future buyers will be given the most options
for how best to layout their homes and will greatly reduce the visual effect of “narrow homes”
lining the street. Envelope widths narrower than 33’ would significantly reduce the options and
flexibility for future house designs.

Lots with Proposed 8’-0” Setback & Easement
• Lots#      15A, 15B
• Lots#      16A, 16B
• Lots #     17A, 17B
• Lots #     18A, 18B
• Lots#      21A, 21B
                                                                      BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 11 of 29




•   Lots#      22A, 22B
•   Lots#      24A, 24B
•   Lots #     25A, 25B
•   Lots#      26A, 26B
•   Lots #     27A, 27B

Criteria for Approval

8.2. Standards for Zoning Amendments
8.2.1. Standards for Zoning Amendments – Part 1
    In any petition for zoning amendment, the petitioner shall have the burden of showing that all
    of the following exist:

A. That the proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and policies of the Master Plan
   and any applicable sub-area plans.
   Applicant Response: Consistent. This proposal would bring this subdivision into greater
   conformance with the goals of the Routt County Master Plan and the Stagecoach Community
   Plan.

B. That the area in question possesses geological, physiological and other environmental
   conditions compatible with the characteristic of the Zone District requested.
   Applicant Response: Consistent. The proposed zoning change is PUD. The existing zoning
   and PUD overlay by Ordinance allows for the same number of units to be built as with the
   proposal. There are already residential buffer zones, hillside protection zones, infrastructure
   and trails in place with the existing Final Plat.

C. That the advantages of the Zone District requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages
   to the County and neighboring land occasioned by the amendment.
   Applicant Response: Consistent. As the proposal is not proposing an increase to the allowed
   density within the subdivision, but instead addressing how that density is configured to allow
   for more flexibility than exists with the current plan. Eliminating the PUD overlay by
   Ordinance and allowing for a simple PUD Plat which depicts graphically the necessary
   information will improve the product for owners, designers, builders as well as planning
   staff.

D. That the applicable provisions of these Regulations have been met.
   Applicant Response: Consistent.

E. That in the case of a zone amendment request that would increase allowable residential,
   commercial, or industrial density, that adequate facilities such as roads, water and
   sanitation, fire protection, emergency services and public utilities shall be available to serve
   the area.
   Applicant Response: NA. We are not proposing any increase to the allowable densities
   within the subdivision.

8.2.2. Standards for Zoning Amendments – Part 2
    In addition, zoning amendments shall be allowed only after the petitioner demonstrates that
    rezoning is necessary for one or more of the following reasons:
                                                                     BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 12 of 29




A. The existing Zone District is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the applicable Master
   Plan and any applicable adopted area or community plan; or
   Applicant Response: The conflict and inconsistency between the Routt County Master Plan,
   The Stagecoach Community Plan, the underlying LDR zoning and the PUD overlay by
   Ordinance will be remedied through this proposal to rezone the subdivision to PUD. The
   rezoned property will be in greater conformance with the original intent of the subdivision
   along with the master and area plans.

B. The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it
   is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area; or
   Applicant Response: NA. No increase to the existing platted density is proposed.

C. The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide land for a demonstrated community
   need; or
   Applicant Response: Consistent. As discussed above, this proposal will create attainable
   housing by design. Without the need for deed restrictions, the product type created will be
   attainable due to its size.

D. The existing zone classification currently shown on the Official Zoning Map is an error
   Applicant Response: NA

Please contact me if you have any additional questions or if you need any additional information
for this application.


Sincerely,



Steve Caragol
Manager, Outback Investments, LLC


Notes
1) It should be noted that any illustrative site layouts, floor plans, and examples of possible
   houses contained in the application materials are merely to serve as examples of what could
   be built with this application and are not binding upon any current or future lot owners. All
   lots designated as duplex (or D) within the subdivision would allow for the construction of
   either a duplex or single family structure.

2) Pages removed from November 9th 2011 Application Packet:
      o C1.1 Illustrative Site Plan
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 13 of 29
                                                                                                                 Page 1 of 1
                                                                                       BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 14 of 29


From:                                         Eph & Ann Holmes [ephann@q.com] 
Sent:                                           Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:03 PM 
To:                                               Rebecca Bessey 
Cc:                                               MDGantenbein@pcl.com 
Subject:                                     FW: RE: PZ2011‐010, Outback Investments, LLC, Blacktail Meadows, Major Amendment 
                                              to Final PUD 
  
Rebecca, 
  
Here are the comments from the other residents on Ormega Way who did not receive the planning department 
packet on this action until I shared my copy with them. I read most of this before the Planning Commission Thursday 
evening. I thought is should be included with the packet going to the County Commissioners. 
  
Thank you, 
  
Ann Holmes 
ann@q.com 
  
  
  
From: Mike Gantenbein [mailto:MDGantenbein@pcl.com]  
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:40 PM 
To: ephann@q.com 
Cc: Shelly Gantenbein; Mike Gantenbein 
Subject: FW: RE: PZ2011‐010, Outback Investments, LLC, Blacktail Meadows, Major Amendment to Final PUD 
  
  
Ann, 
  
I really appreciate the time you gave me to discuss this situation. We apologize for not acting sooner, but would be 
grateful if you could represent us at the hearing on Thursday, January 19. 
  
As you are aware, last October, Shelly and I bought the house on Barr Trail in Meadowgreen. We had been debating 
on various mountain/lake locations, but decided on the Stagecoach area mainly because of the location and the size 
of the lots. We didn’t want to buy something too big, but with just enough land that our family would enjoy, that 
would take us away from a “big city” atmosphere. Increasing the density of the area in Blacktail Meadows will not 
harmonize with the low density character of Meadowgreen at Stagecoach. 
  
Therefore, we too would like to voice our passionate concerns about the request to subdivide the 10 duplex lots in 
Blacktail Meadows into 20 small, narrow lots and lesser property setbacks.  We believe there are various options that 
could be developed  in lieu of subdividing the 10 duplex lots without affecting the property value and character of 
our small mountain community. We can appreciate the developer’s financial justification, but feel his solution is one 
that Shelly and I must oppose and request that the Planning Commission and the Routt County Commissioners deny 
this request to re‐zone parts of Blacktail Meadows. We feel there are other alternate solutions that could be 
achieved.   
  
Again, we express regret that we did not respond sooner  but, thank you in advance on representing our opinion at 
the hearing.  
  
Shelly Gantenbein 
  
  




file://P:\Docs\PZ2011-010\Gantenbein letter.htm                                                                 02/09/2012
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 15 of 29
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 16 of 29
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 17 of 29
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 18 of 29
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 19 of 29
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 20 of 29
                                                                                                        Page 1 of 1
                                                                               BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 21 of 29


From:                                         Barkley Robinson [barkley@prusteamboat.com] 
Sent:                                           Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:02 PM 
To:                                               Rebecca Bessey 
Subject:                                     Blacktail Meadows Proposal  
  
Dear Ms. Bessey, 
  
Regarding the application from Outback Investments to subdivide 10 duplex lots in the Blacktail Meadows 
subdivision at Stagecoach: 
  
I support the proposal. As a Realtor with clients and friends in Stagecoach, I think this should be approved 
because density for the subdivision will remain the same. Splitting these 10 lots from “duplex” to “single family” 
should also help buyers to attain loans on these parcels, which is important, especially in today’s lending 
environment. 
 
Sincerely, 
  
Barkley Robinson  
Broker Associate, GRI, PE  |  Prudential Steamboat Realty  
970.879.8100x443 office | 970.819.6950 cell | 800.430.4121 toll free  
barkley@prusteamboat.com  |  www.prusteamboat.com   




file://P:\Docs\PZ2011-010\Robinson letter.htm                                                           02/09/2012
                                                                                                         Page 2 of 2
                                                                                BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 22 of 29


Subject: Proposal for land in Stagecoach 
  
Hello, 
I’m writing in reference to the Blacktail Meadows subdivision in Stagecoach (part of the Neighborhoods at 
Young’s Peak) which is next to the Stagecoach fire station, just past Ormega Way. Blacktail Meadows currently 
has 29 parcels, with a mix of single family lots and duplex lots.  
  
Next Thursday, Jan 19, at 6:00 PM there is a planning commission meeting to review the application to 
subdivide 10 duplex lots into smaller single family lots at Blacktail. This does not change the density of the 
subdivision, and it will still have a mixture of lot types, including single family & single family with caretaker, 
duplex lots, and the smaller single family lots (created from subdivided lots.) 
Since density won’t change, and because it will create reasonably priced single family lots with prices starting at 
$23,500 I support this proposal. I think it’s a good thing to have more choices for people looking to build a home 
on an improved lot (paved roads, water and sewer service are available) especially if it will spur growth 
sometime in the relatively near future. Splitting these 10 lots from “duplex” to “single family” should also help 
buyers to attain loans on these parcels.  
  
Think of the people you know who could benefit from a few new houses built in Stagecoach – it will contribute 
to the tax base in the area, provide work for local tradesmen, and add a few new neighbors in an area hit hard 
by short sales, foreclosures and ensuing vacancies.  
  
You can visit www.BlacktailMeadows.com for photos, plat map, etc. Or give me a call to discuss your questions. 
819‐1131. I’m looking for support for the application, either by attending the meeting on Jan 19, or simply by 
sending an email to the planning commission (rbessey@co.routt.co.us) I ask you for support as a resident of 
Stagecoach for the past 6 years – I would love to see more people moving into Stagecoach and creating a lively 
community there again.  
  
Thank you for your consideration. 
  
Stephanie Fairchild 
Broker Associate, The Boyd Team 
Prudential Steamboat Realty - 610 Marketplace Plaza # 100 - Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 
970-819-1131 Cell 
970-875-2401 Direct 
www.SteamboatBuyer.com - The best deals in local real estate. Updated weekly! 
Steph@SteamboatAgent.com 
  
I'm never too busy for your referrals!  
  
  




file://P:\Docs\PZ2011-010\Fairchild letter.htm                                                           02/09/2012
                                                                                                         Page 1 of 1
                                                                                BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 23 of 29


From:                                         Karen Hughes [karenh@prudentialsteamboatrealty.com] 
Sent:                                           Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:28 PM 
To:                                               Rebecca Bessey 
Subject:                                     Black tail Meadows 
  
I’m writing in reference to the Blacktail Meadows subdivision in Stagecoach (part of the Neighborhoods at 
Young’s Peak) which is next to the Stagecoach fire station, just past Ormega Way. Blacktail Meadows currently 
has 29 parcels, with a mix of single family lots and duplex lots 
  
  
Since density won’t change, and because it will create reasonably priced single family lots with prices starting at 
$23,500 I support this proposal. I think it’s a good thing to have more choices for people looking to build a home 
on an improved lot (paved roads, water and sewer service are available) especially if it will spur growth 
sometime in the relatively near future. Splitting these 10 lots from “duplex” to “single family” should also help 
buyers to attain loans on these parcels. 
  
  
Kind Regards, 
  
Karen Hughes 
  




file://P:\Docs\PZ2011-010\Hughes letter.htm                                                              02/09/2012
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 24 of 29
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 25 of 29
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 26 of 29
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 27 of 29
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 28 of 29
BCC Item # P2a Packet Page 29 of 29
      ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
                ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                      ACTION AGENDA ITEM # P3a
                   Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 3:00-3:30pm

FROM:     Planning Dept., Jake Rosenberg 
THROUGH:  Chad Phillips 
DATE:     2/7/12 
AGENDA ITEM: 
BOLA ENTERPRISES, INC.              PS2011­011, PZ2011­005, PZ2011­006, & PZ2012­001 
Aspen Heights, Filing 6: Consolidation plat, Rezone, and Vacation of ROW and Utility 
Easements 
ATTACHMENTS:  Planning Commission Draft Minutes from February 2, 2012 
                                                                          __________          
Check one that applies to your item:                  X ACTION ITEM 
                                                      DIRECTION 
                                                      INFORMATION 
                                                                                          
       
      I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
             The applicant requests the following as part of a combined petition: 
              
             1. Replat of Lots 126‐129, 155‐158, 319 and 320, Steamboat Lake Filing No. 
                 7 and Parcel F, Aspen Heights and Outlot A, Aspen Heights, Filing No. 5 
                 into Lot 1, Outlot “A”, and Outlot “F” Aspen Heights Subdivision, Filing 
                 No.6 
             2. Zone Change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mountain Residential 
                 Estates (MRE) for the lots within the consolidation plat 
             3. Vacation of the section of the Crazy Horse Way R.O.W. and utility 
                 easements falling within with perimeter of the proposed subdivision and 
                 the vacation of the cul‐de‐sac and the associated easements and R.O.W. 
                 dedicated to Routt County as part of the Aspen Heights Subdivision Plat 
                   
       II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
                Approval with conditions 
        
       III.     DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget):  
               Proposed Revenue:  N/A 
                   Proposed Expenditure: N/A 
                     Funding Source: N/A 
 
       IV.         IMPACTS  OF  A  REGIONAL  NATURE  OR  ON  OTHER  JURISDICTIONS 
                (Identify any Communications on this Item):   


                                              1
            Referral responses were received from Environmental Health, Road and Bridge, 
            and  the  Colorado  Geologic  Survey  (CGS).    No  issues  were  unresolved  in  the 
            referral  process.  Other  issues  have  been  addressed  in  the  staff  packet  and 
            recommended conditions of approval.   
 
    V.          BACKGROUND INFORMATION:   
             Steamboat  Lake,  Filing  7  was  recorded  on  November  8,  1972.    The 
             subdivision  was  platted  with  LDR  zoned  lots  approximately  .4  acres  in  size 
             which  require  central  water  and  sewer  in  order  to  be  deemed  buildable.  
             Because  such  capital  improvements  have  not  been  undertaken  in  the  area, 
             consolidation plats are commonly proposed in order to create lots (>5 acres) 
             that can support individual well and septic.   
     
    VI.         LEGAL ISSUES:   N/A 
     
    VII.    CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:   
             CGS  provided  general  comments  concerning  site  geology  regarding 
             development on or near the slopes associated with Ways Gulch.  Staff finds that 
             existing regulations which limit building on steep slopes (>30) and require 50ft 
             water  body  setbacks  will  satisfy  CGS’s  recommendation  that  development  be 
             restricted near Ways Gulch.   
            
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          




                                              2
                                ROUTT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

                                              DRAFT MINUTES

                                             FEBRUARY 2, 2012

The regular meeting of the Routt County Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. with the
following members present: Chairman Jay Gallagher and Commissioners Wayne Adamo, John Ayer, Sandi
Gibson, Brita Horn, Andrew Benjamin, Donna Hellyer, Dick Klumker and alternate Alan Goldich.
Commissioner Brian Arel was absent. Planning Director Chad Phillips and staff planner Jake Rosenberg
also attended. Sarah Katherman recorded the meeting and prepared the minutes.


ACTIVITY:   PS2011-011, PZ2011-005, PZ2011-006 & PZ2012-001
PETITIONER: Bola Enterprises, Inc. – Robert Hagerty, representative
PETITION:   1. Vacation of the section of Crazy Horse Way right-of-way and utility easements
            falling within the perimeter of the proposed subdivision and the vacation of the cul-
            de-sac and the associated easements and rights-of-way dedicated to Routt County
            as part of the Aspen Heights Subdivision Plat
            2. Zone Change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mountain Residential Estates
            (MRE) for the lots within the consolidation plat
            3. Replat of Lots 126-129, 155-158, 319 and 320, Steamboat Lake Filing No. 7 and
            Parcel F, Aspen Heights and Outlot A, Aspen Heights, Filing No. 5 into Lot 1, Outlot
            “A” and Outlot “F” Aspen Heights Subdivision, Filing No. 6

LOCATION:        Approximately 6 miles north of Clark, west of CR 129

Mr. Bob Hagerty, the president of Bola Enterprises, Inc., clarified that he had originally planned for two lots
to be replatted at this time. As a result, the lot currently being platted, Lot 1, is referred to in the
correspondence with the Woodfields, the U.S. Forest Service and NWCC as Lot 2. Lot 1 is the only
buildable lot on the current replat. Mr. Hagerty indicated Lot 1 on a site plan.
Mr. Hagerty said that the current replat includes a 50-ft. waterbody setback along Wade’s Gulch in the
northwest corner of the Lot 1. He noted that this is not a buildable area anyway and no waterbody
crossings are needed. Mr. Hagerty indicated on a site plan the portion of Crazy Horse Way that is to be
vacated. The other half of this right-of-way was vacated as part of the Filing No. 5 replat. He added that
the currently platted cul-de-sac at the end of Crazy Horse Way will be vacated. Mr. Hagerty noted that
Woodfields, who own the lot containing the cul-de-sac right–of-way do not want a cul-de-sac to be built.
Mr. Hagerty stated that all the lots would be accessed from Antelope Way.

Mr. Hagerty stated that the 30-ft. right-of-way that extends beyond Antelope Way (referred to in item 5 on
page 4 of the staff report) does not actually touch proposed Lot 1. He explained that this was done to
facilitate a future replat. Mr. Hagerty explained that in order to satisfy the concerns of Road & Bridge
Senior Engineer Heather McLaughlin, a 70-ft. wide right-of-way for a residential cul-de-sac has been set
aside in the event that access is needed from the extension of Antelope Way.

Regarding water, Mr. Hagerty indicated on a site plan the location of a well that will be shared by three
properties. He said that the well is very productive and that an easement for the well would be created



                                                       3
when the second lot is created. He indicated that location of the other wells in the vicinity and noted that
they own rights to abundant water in the area.

Mr. Rosenberg cited the letter included in the fact packet from J. Allen & Carol Woodfield regarding the
intent to vacate the platted cul-de-sac on their property. He stated that this vacation was advertised as part
of the current petition because the cul-de-sac right-of-way is being severed by the proposed replat. He
stated that for procedural reasons it will be included with all of the vacations (huh?). Mr. Rosenberg also
noted that the last phrase of suggested Condition 3.d of the Replat is redundant and should be eliminated.
He added that the staff report lists the action items in the improper order. The motion for a Zone Change
should be made first.

In response to a question from Commissioner Ayer regarding the creation of an outlot under 5 acres, Mr.
Phillips stated that there will be a plat note stating that the outlot is not buildable. This outlot may be used
in a lot consolidation in the future.

There was no public comment.

MOTION – Zone Change
Commissioner Goldich moved to recommend approval of the Zone Change from Low Density Residential
(LDR) to Mountain Residential Estates (MRE) for the lots within the consolidation plat with the findings of
fact that with the following conditions the proposal meets the guidelines of the Routt County Master Plan
and the Upper Elk River Valley Community Plan and is in compliance with Sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the
Routt County Zoning Regulations. This approval is subject to the following conditions:

    1. The change of zone from LDR to MRE shall become effective upon signing of a resolution
       amending the Official Zoning Map by the Board of County Commissioners, said resolution to be
       recorded with the Final Plat.

    2. The zone change is contingent upon a Final Plat being recorded.

    3. Prior to recordation, the applicant shall submit an electronic copy of the approved plat to the
       County Planning Department in a .DWG format or other format acceptable to the GIS Department.
    4. The permits/approval shall not be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Failure to pay fees
       may result in revocation of this permit.

Commissioner Gibson seconded the motion.

The motion carried 9 - 0, with the Chair voting yes.


MOTION – Final Plat
Commissioner Goldich moved to recommend approval of the Replat of Lots 126-129, 155-158, 319 and
320, Steamboat Lake Filing No. 7 and Parcel F, Aspen Heights and Outlot A, Aspen Heights, Filing No. 5
into Lot 1, Outlot “A” and Outlot “F” Aspen Heights Subdivision, Filing No. 6 with the findings of fact that
with the following conditions the proposal meets the applicable guidelines of the Routt County Master Plan
and the Upper Elk River Valley Community Plan and is in compliance with Sections 5, and 6 of the Routt
County Zoning Regulations and Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Routt County Subdivision Regulations. This



                                                        4
approval is subject to the following conditions:

General Conditions:
   1. The Final Plat for the subdivision shall be recorded within twelve (12) months unless an extension
       is granted in accordance with Section 2.1.6 of the Routt County Subdivision Regulations.
   2. The required subdivision improvements outline in Section 4.2 of the Routt County Subdivision
       Regulations shall be waived.
   3. The Final Plat notes shall include, but are not limited to:
            a. Revegetation of disturbed areas shall occur within one growing season with a seed mix
                which avoids the use of aggressive grasses. See the Colorado State University Extension
                Office for appropriate grass seed mixes.
            b. The owner shall prevent the spread of weeds to surrounding lands, and comply with the
                Colorado Noxious Weed Act and Routt County noxious weed management plan.
            c. Use of bear and rodent resistant trash containers is required. Designs for all trash
                containers used on site shall be submitted and approved by the Division of Wildlife prior to
                their installation.
            d. Domestic predators shall be kept under their owner’s control at all times and shall not be
                allowed to run at large.
            e. Any fencing constructed on the site shall meet the Colorado Division of Wildlife
                recommendations.
            f. Lots owners shall comply with the requirements and guidelines of the Colorado State
                Forest Service and other applicable agencies in regard to wildland fire mitigation
                measures.
            g. All lighting shall be downcast and opaquely shielded.
            h. The suitability of these lots for individual septic disposal systems and the availability of
                permits for individual septic disposal systems has not been established and such shall be a
                condition of obtaining a building permit for these lots.
            i. Routt County (County) and the North Routt Fire Protection District (District) shall be held
                harmless from any injury, damage, or claim that may be made against the County or the
                District by reason of the County’s or the District’s failure to provide ambulance, fire, rescue
                or police protection to the property described on his plat, provided that the failure to
                provide such services is due to inaccessibility of the property by reason of internal roads
                being impassable. This conditions shall not relieve the County or the District of their
                responsibility to make a bona fide effort to provide emergency services should the need
                arise.
            j. Routt County is not responsible for maintaining or improving the subdivision’s roads.
            k. Outlot A and Outlot F are restricted from development and shall not be issued building
                permits.
            l. Address signage in conformance with Routt County Road Addressing, Naming and Signing
                Policy shall be located at the entrance to the driveway.

    4. A payment-in-lieu of land for public facilities in the amount of $1400 in accordance with the
       provisions of Section 3.5.2 of the Routt County Subdivision Regulations shall be paid prior to
       recordation of the Final Plat.
    5. The Final Plat shall show 15 foot wide public utility, drainage, snow removal and storage along lot
       lines fronting roads and 10 foot wide public utility and drainage easements along all side and rear
       lot lines and such shall be dedicated appropriately.



                                                      5
    6. All property taxes must be paid prior to the recording of the plat.

Commissioner Gibson seconded the motion.

The motion carried 9 - 0, with the Chair voting yes.


MOTION – Utility and Drainage Easement Vacation
Commissioner Goldich moved to recommend approval of Vacation of the section of Crazy Horse Way right-
of-way and utility easements falling within the perimeter of the proposed subdivision and the vacation of the
cul-de-sac and the associated easements and rights-of-way dedicated to Routt County as part of the Aspen
Heights Subdivision Plat. This approval is based on the findings of fact that with the following conditions
the proposal meets the applicable guidelines of the Routt County Master Plan and the Upper Elk River
Valley Community Plan, and is in compliance with Section 2 of the Routt County Subdivision Regulations.
This approval is subject to the following conditions:

    1. A resolution vacating the Lot 3, Aspen Heights cul-de-sac, the Antelope Way right-of-way, and
       utility and drainage easements shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
    2. An easement dedicating a public right-of-way for a cul-de-sac turnaround on Lot 125, Steamboat
       Lake Filing 7, shall be recorded prior to the recordation of the Final Plat.

Commissioner Gibson seconded the motion.

The motion carried 9 - 0 with the Chair voting yes.
           




                                                      6
      ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
               ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                     ACTION AGENDA ITEM # P4a
                  Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 3:30-4:00pm

FROM:     Planning Dept., Jake Rosenberg 
THROUGH:  Chad Phillips 
DATE:     2/7/12 
AGENDA ITEM: 
DOUBLE Y PROPERTIES, LLC                     PS2011­012, PZ2011­007, & PZ2011­008 
Elkhorn Subdivision, Filing 5:  Consolidation plat, Rezone, and Vacation of ROW and Utility 
Easements 
ATTACHMENTS:           Planning Commission Draft Minutes from February 2, 2012 
                                                                        __________                       
Check one that applies to your item:                   X ACTION ITEM 
                                                       DIRECTION 
                                                       INFORMATION 
                                                                                                    
      I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: 
             The applicant requests the following as part of a combined petition: 
              
             1. Replat  of  Lots  49‐108,  112‐118,and  parcels  A,  B,  C,  F  and  G  Steamboat 
                 Lake,  Filing  No.  8  creating  Lots  17,  18,  19  and  Outlot  “G”,  Elkhorn 
                 Subdivision, Filing No. 5  
           2. Zone Change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mountain Residential 
              Estates (MRE) 
              3. Vacation of Dove Lane, Big Horn Circle, Green Leaf Circle, a portion of Kiowa 
                   Circle,  and  all  easements  that  fall  within  the  perimeter  of  the  proposed 
                   subdivision 
                    
       II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 
                Approval with conditions 
        
       III.     DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget):  
               Proposed Revenue:  N/A   
                 Proposed Expenditure: N/A 
                 Funding Source: N/A 
        
       IV.      IMPACTS  OF  A  REGIONAL  NATURE  OR  ON  OTHER  JURISDICTIONS 
                   (Identify any Communications on this Item):   
              Referral  responses  were  received  from  Environmental  Health,  Road  and  Bridge, 
              and  the  Colorado  Geologic  Survey  (CGS).    Jill  Carlson  of  the  Colorado  Geologic 
              Survey  identified  areas  of  potentially  unstable  slopes  within  the  proposed 



                                                  1
         subdivision.  Ms. Carlson provided several recommendations that Staff included 
         as  recommended  conditions  of  approval  and/or  plat  notes.    Staff  suggests  that 
         general  condition  3.n.  and  3.m.  of  the  Final  Plat  be  rewritten  as  follows  for 
         clarity:  
          
            n. Drainage features shall be designed and maintained to quickly channel all 
            surface runoff away from structures and roads and off of slopes as efficiently 
            as possible so as not to pond anywhere within or near developed areas.  
             
            m.  Homes  should  not  be  located  immediately  below  steep  slopes  or  areas 
            where foundation excavations could destabilize soils above the cut.   
 
         According  to  the  County’s  geologic  hazard  map,  a  geologic  fault  line  is  located 
         beneath the proposed Lot 17. In past instances, the BCC has included a condition 
         of  approval  to  be  included  in  the  plat  notes  requiring  additional  investigation  if 
         there  is  evidence  of  faulting.      This  recommended  condition  is  included  in  the 
         general conditions of the final plat.                   
     
    V.           BACKGROUND INFORMATION:   
         The plat for Steamboat Lake, Filing 8 was recorded in September, 1972.  The plat 
         is relatively high density with 116 townhome lots situated around several loop 
         streets.  The  existing  platted  lots‐  all  of  which  are  zoned  LDR‐  average  around 
         0.075  acres.    Because  such  capital  improvements  have  not  been  undertaken  in 
         the area, consolidation plats are commonly proposed in order to create lots (>5 
         acres) that can support individual well and septic.   
          
     
    VI.      LEGAL ISSUES:   N/A 
     
    VII.  CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:   
        CGS  provided  comments  concerning  site  geology  and  presence  of  potentially 
        unstable slopes.  Staff suggests that the CGS recommendations be included as plat 
        notes. 
            
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



                                                 2
 
 
                                ROUTT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

                                              DRAFT MINUTES

                                             FEBRUARY 2, 2012

The regular meeting of the Routt County Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. with the
following members present: Chairman Jay Gallagher and Commissioners Wayne Adamo, John Ayer, Sandi
Gibson, Brita Horn, Andrew Benjamin, Donna Hellyer, Dick Klumker and alternate Alan Goldich.
Commissioner Brian Arel was absent. Planning Director Chad Phillips and staff planner Jake Rosenberg
also attended. Sarah Katherman recorded the meeting and prepared the minutes.
 
ACTIVITY:       PS2011-012, PZ2011-007 & PZ2011-008
PETITIONER: Double Y Properties, LLC
PETITION:       1. Vacation of Dove Lane, Big Horn Circle, Green Leaf Circle, a protion of Kiowa
                Circle, and all easements that fall within the perimeter of the proposed subdivision
                2. Zone Change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mountain Residential Estates
                (MRE)
                3. Replat of Lots 49-108, 112-118 and Parcel A, B, C, F and G Steamboat Lake, Filing
                No. 8 creating Lots 17, 18, 19 and OUtlot “G”, Elkhorn Subdivision, Filing No. 5
LOCATION: Approximately 5 miles north of Clark, west of CR 129

Mr. Bob Hagerty, the managing member of Double Y Properties, LLC, stated that he is doing this project in
conjunction with Lee Emory. He indicated on a site plan the area of the proposed replat and stated that it is
a flat area on the top of a hill. The land drops off on all sides. Mr. Hagerty explained that Dave Colburn is
also participating in the project and will own one lot; Double Y Properties will own the remaining two lots.
Mr. Hagerty stated that the area had originally been platted for townhomes and indicated on a site plan the
various small roads to be vacated. He stated that access of all three proposed lots would be via
Powderhorn Road.

Mr. Hagerty indicated on a site plan the location of three wells, one of which is on proposed Lot 17 and the
other two are across the road from the property. He stated that the property has abundant water and
discussed the hydrology of the area, noting that CR 129 acts as a dike in the flow of the underground water
that travels through the fissures in the rock.

Mr. Hagerty indicated on the site plan the existing lots that the petitioners were not able to purchase for
inclusion in the replat. He stated that Road & Bridge Senior Engineer Heather McLaughlin had requested
the inclusion of a right-of-way for a residential cul-de-sac within the platted area. Mr. Hagerty indicated the
location of the right-of-way at the southwest corner of proposed Lot 19, but added that he did not anticipate
that the cul-de-sac would ever be constructed.

Mr. Hagerty acknowledged that the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) has expressed concerns regarding
unstable slopes in the area. He said that the area is very flat and noted that in the course of drilling,
bedrock has been encountered about 4 ft. below the surface and is thought to be quite deep. He also
noted that a mapped fault, which also shows up adjacent to the Steamboat Lake Dam, runs through the



                                                       3
property. He stated that no displacement has been found, although there is a suggested plat note to
address the fault crossing proposed Lot 17.

Mr. Rosenberg stated that no correspondence had been received regarding this petition. He stated that Jill
Carlson of the CGS visited the site and identified potentially unstable slopes. He noted that the suggested
conditions contain plat notes based her recommendations. Mr. Rosenberg stated that the concerns
regarding unstable slopes relate to Lots 18 & 19, but not Lot 17.

Commissioner Hellyer asked why Outlot G is designated as non-buildable. Mr. Rosenberg stated that
Outlot G is not large enough to qualify as a buildable lot in the MRE zone district, but would probably be
part of a future lot consolidation.

There was no public comment.

MOTION – Zone Change
Commissioner Gibson moved to recommend approval of the Zone Change from Low Density Residential
(LDR) to Mountain Residential Estates (MRE) with the findings of fact that the Zone Change from Low
Density Residential (LDR) to Mountain Residential Estates (MRE) for the lots within the consolidation plat
with the findings of fact that with the following conditions the proposal meets the guidelines of the Routt
County Master Plan and the Upper Elk River Valley Community Plan and is in compliance with Sections 4,
5, 6 and 8 of the Routt County Zoning Regulations. This approval is subject to the following conditions:

    1. The change of zone from LDR to MRE shall become effective upon signing of a resolution
       amending the Official Zoning Map by the Board of County Commissioners, said resolution to be
       recorded with the Final Plat.

    2. The zone change is contingent upon a Final Plat being recorded.

    3. Prior to recordation, the applicant shall submit an electronic copy of the approved plat to the
       County Planning Department in a .DWG format or other format acceptable to the GIS Department.

    4. The permits/approval shall not be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Failure to pay fees
       may result in revocation of this permit.

Commissioner Goldich seconded the motion.

The motion carried 9 - 0, with the Chair voting yes.


MOTION – Final Plat
Commissioner Gibson moved to recommend approval of the Replat of Lots 49-108, 112-118 and Parcel A,
B, C, F and G Steamboat Lake, Filing No. 8 creating Lots 17, 18, 19 and OUtlot “G”, Elkhorn Subdivision,
Filing No. 5 with the findings of fact that with the following conditions the proposal meets the applicable
guidelines of the Routt County Master Plan and the Upper Elk River Valley Community Plan and is in
compliance with Sections 5, and 6 of the Routt County Zoning Regulations and Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the
Routt County Subdivision Regulations. This approval is subject to the following conditions:




                                                      4
General Conditions:
   1. The Final Plat for the subdivision shall be recorded within twelve (12) months unless an extension
       is granted in accordance with Section 2.1.6 of the Routt County Subdivision Regulations.
   2. The required subdivision improvements outline in Section 4.2 of the Routt County Subdivision
       Regulations shall be waived.
   3. The Final Plat notes shall include, but are not limited to:
            a. Revegetation of disturbed areas shall occur within one growing season with a seed mix
                which avoids the use of aggressive grasses. See the Colorado State University Extension
                Office for appropriate grass seed mixes.
            b. The owner shall prevent the spread of weeds to surrounding lands, and comply with the
                Colorado Noxious Weed Act and Routt County noxious weed management plan.
            c. Use of bear and rodent resistant trash containers is required. Designs for all trash
                containers used on site shall be submitted and approved by the Division of Wildlife prior to
                their installation.
            d. Domestic predators shall be kept under their owner’s control at all times and shall not be
                allowed to run at large.
            e. Any fencing constructed on the site shall meet the Colorado Division of Wildlife
                recommendations.
            f. Lots owners shall comply with the requirements and guidelines of the Colorado State
                Forest Service and other applicable agencies in regard to wildland fire mitigation
                measures.
            g. All lighting shall be downcast and opaquely shielded.
            h. The suitability of these lots for individual septic disposal systems and the availability of
                permits for individual septic disposal systems has not been established and such shall be a
                condition of obtaining a building permit for these lots.
            i. Routt County (County) and the North Routt Fire Protection District (District) shall be held
                harmless from any injury, damage, or claim that may be made against the County or the
                District by reason of the County’s or the District’s failure to provide ambulance, fire, rescue
                or police protection to the property described on his plat, provided that the failure to
                provide such services is due to inaccessibility of the property by reason of internal roads
                being impassable. This conditions shall not relieve the County or the District of their
                responsibility to make a bona fide effort to provide emergency services should the need
                arise.
            j. Routt County is not responsible for maintaining or improving the subdivision’s roads.
            k. Outlot G is restricted from development and shall not be issued building permits.
            l. Address signage in conformance with Routt County Road Addressing, Naming and Signing
                Policy shall be located at the entrance to the driveway.
            m. Grading for driveways, building pads and other improvements should be designed to
                minimize temporary and permanent cuts and fills to the extent possible. A qualified
                geotechnical professional should determine maximum allowable unretained, temporary
                and permanent cut/fill heights and sope angles, based on site-specific, measured shear
                strength values. Site grading and drainage plans should be prepared and reviewed by a
                qualified engineer who is familiar with the slope stability concerns.
            n. Drainage features must be designed and maintained to quickly channel all surface runoff
                away from structures and roads and off of slopes as efficiently as possible. It is imperative
                that water is allowed to drain quickly and NOT pond anywhere within or near developed
                areas.



                                                      5
            o. Homes should not be located immediately below steep slopes.

    4. A payment-in-lieu of land for public facilities in the amount of $1400 in accordance with the
       provisions of Section 3.5.2 of the Routt County Subdivision Regulations shall be paid prior to
       recordation of the Final Plat.
    5. Hazard mapping shows a mapped fault on or near Lot 17 Elkhorn Subdivision, Filing No. 5. If site
       development reveals evidence of faulting in soils, then additional investigation will be needed to
       ensure that individual structures are not located within active fault rupture zones.
    6. The Final Plat shall show 15 foot wide public utility, drainage, snow removal and storage along lot
       lines fronting roads and 10 foot wide public utility and drainage easements along all side and rear
       lot lines and such shall be dedicated appropriately.
    7. All property taxes must be paid prior to the recording of the plat.

Commissioner Klumker seconded the motion.

The motion carried 9 - 0, with the Chair voting yes.

MOTION – Utility and Drainage Easement Vacation
Commissioner Gibson moved to recommend approval of the vacation of Dove Lane, Big Horn Circle, Green
Leaf Circle, a portion of Kiowa Circle, and all easements that fall within the perimeter of the proposed
subdivision. This approval is based on the findings of fact that with the following conditions the proposal
meets the applicable guidelines of the Routt County Master Plan and the Upper Elk River Valley
Community Plan, and is in compliance with Section 2 of the Routt County Subdivision Regulations. This
approval is subject to the following conditions:

    1. A resolution vacating the Lot 3, Aspen Heights cul-de-sac, the Antelope Way right-of-way, and
        utility and drainage easements shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
    2. An easement dedicating a public right-of-way for a cul-de-sac turnaround on Lot 125, Steamboat
        Lake Filing 7, shall be recorded prior to the recordation of the Final Plat.

Commissioner Klumker seconded the motion.

The motion carried 9 - 0 with the Chair voting yes.
 




                                                       6
      ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
                 ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                      ACTION AGENDA ITEM # P5a
                       Tuesday, February 14, 2012 @ 4:00-4:30pm

FROM:      Planning Dept., Jake Rosenberg
THROUGH:   Chad Phillips
DATE:           2/7/12
AGENDA ITEM:
SNOKOMO ESTATES               PS2008-001
Request for a 3 year extension of final plat recordation for Snokomo Estates, Filing 3
ATTACHMENTS:          Letter from Thomas R. Sharp
                      BCC Minutes from June 2, 2009
                      BCC Minutes from July 8, 2008
                                                                                  __________
Check one that applies to your item:                X ACTION ITEM
                                                      DIRECTION
                                                      INFORMATION

       I.     DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE:
                A request for three year extension for the recordation of the final plat for
                Snokomo Estates, Filing 3 was received on January 10th, 2012 in anticipation of
                the July 8, 2012 deadline.

       II.      RECOMMENDED ACTION:
                Approval of requested extension

       III.       DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget):
                Proposed Revenue: N/A
               Proposed Expenditure: N/A
               Funding Source: N/A

       IV.         IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS
                 (Identify any Communications on this Item):
                 N/A

       V.         BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
                PS2008-001 was approved on July 8, 2008 with conditions 1-8. Condition
                number one (1) states:

                1. The final plat for the subdivision shall be recorded within twelve (12)
                   months, unless an extension is granted in accordance with Section 2.1.6-
                   Plat Recordation: All Subdivision and Subdivision Exemptions of the Routt
                   County Subdivision Regulations.
          ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
                ACTION AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM
                CONSENT OR ACTION AGENDA ITEM # 5A

FROM: Road & Bridge
THROUGH:       Heather McLaughlin
DATE:      February 14, 2012
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and Consideration for signing the Chip and Seal aggregate
size resolution

                                          ACTION ITEM
                                                                     __________
Check one that applies to your item:
                                          DIRECTION
                                          INFORMATION

   I.  DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE:
   RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF MULTI-MODAL USES OF COUNTY ROADS
   THROUGHOUT ROUTT COUNTY THROUGH THE USE OF SMALL AGGREGATE CHIP
   SEALS

   II. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion and Consideration for signing the Chip and Seal aggregate size resolution


           Proposed Revenue: none
   III.    DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (Variation to Budget):

           Proposed Expenditure: none
           Funding Source: none

   IV.     IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (Identify

            a. Smaller chip size will benefit the multi-modal user.
            any Communications on this Item):

            b. Routt County will have a uniform chip size that will not change depending on
               the road and location.

           BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Routt County’s Multi Modal Road User Advisory
            Board (MMRUAB) discussed aggregate sizes used for chip and seal projects on
   V.

            Routt County Roads. During public meeting with the Board of County
            Commissioners, the MMRUAB discussed options for smaller chip sizes to be used
            County-wide.

            During the public meeting the BCC gave direction to instill a county-wide policy
            using 3/8” chips for all applications.

            The resolution has been preliminarily reviewed by the BCC.

   VI.     LEGAL ISSUES: None



                                              1
VII.    CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: None

        SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS: Sign resolution for 3/8” chips to be used
        countywide for all chip and seal projects.
VIII.




                                     2
STATE OF COLORADO )
                  ) ss                                RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
COUNTY OF ROUTT   )

     RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF MULTI-MODAL USES OF COUNTY ROADS
THROUGHOUT ROUTT COUNTY THROUGH THE USE OF SMALL AGGREGATE
CHIP SEALS

        WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Routt County, Colorado (the
"Board") has held public hearings, the latest of which occurred on November 8, 2011, and
desires to provide and maintain a county road system that supports all users of the county road
system, whether they be motorized or non-motorized, traditional or alternative users.

        WHEREAS, the community has initiated the concept of the City of Steamboat Springs
being coined as “Bike Town U.S.A.”, and Routt County supports “Bike Town U.S.A.” within
the City of Steamboat Springs,

       WHEREAS, multi modal uses are increasing throughout Routt County and there are
more bicyclist and cycling events. In 2011; The Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Road Race
Training Series, the City of Steamboat Town Challenge Mountain Bike Series, the Denver Post
Ride the Rockies, Routt County Riders Ride To Work Day, Bicycle Tour of Colorado, Steamboat
Optimist Club and City of Steamboat Youth Bicycle Safety Rodeo, the Kent Eriksen Tour de
Steamboat, Steamboat Stinger Mountain Bike Race, the Steamboat Triathlon, Ride 4 Yellow, the
USA Pro Cycling Challenge International Stage Race, Steamboat Stage Race and the Steamboat
OktoberWest Pedaling Posse Parade events were all held in Routt County.

WHEREAS, the widespread use of bicycles brings many benefits to a community. Cycling
improves people’s health, increases public safety, encourages greater involvement in
communities, reduces traffic congestion, improves air quality, reduces our reliance on fossil
fuels, and generally is better for the environment than alternate methods of travel.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Routt
County, Colorado that Routt County will us 3/8 inch chips on all county roads, ¾ inch chips for
the first layer of a double chip and seal, and 3/8 inch chip seal aggregate size for the second layer
for all ROUTT COUNTY ROADS, and at any time a single layer chip seal is applied it will be a
3/8 inch aggregate size chip seal.

       ADOPTED this 14th day of February, 2012.

    BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ROUTT COUNTY,
COLORADO.

                                                              _______________________
                                                               Douglas B. Monger, Chairman

                                                  Vote: Douglas B. Monger(Aye) (Nay)(Absent)
                                                        Nancy J. Stahoviak (Aye) (Nay)(Absent)
                                  Diane Mitsch Bush(Aye) (Nay)(Absent)
ATTEST:

____________________________
Kay Weinland
Routt County Clerk and Recorder
          On April 16, 2009, the applicant requested a three year extension to the
          original agreement resulting in a proposed deadline for the recording of the
          final plat to July 8, 2012. The extension was granted by a 3-0 vote.

VI.     LEGAL ISSUES:
        N/A

VII.    CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
        N/A

VIII.   SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS:
          Denial of requested extension or approval of extension for a lesser time period
3
4
      MOTION

      Commissioner Stahoviak moved to approve the purchase of an upgrade of the current
Dictaphone recording system to allow for the recording of the new 800 MHz talkgroups from
Grabar Voice, Inc., in the total amount of $9,000, including installation.

      Commissioner Mitsch Bush seconded; the motion carried 3-0.

             EN RE: PURCHASING / MARTI HAMILTON

      DIGITAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CONTRACT

        Ms. Hamilton reviewed a contract to provide two ISDN-PRI digital trunk lines to
connect to the County’s main telephone service line. In addition, she stated that two new PRI
cards had to be purchased and installed to connect to the two ISDN lines. She requested
that the Board waive the formal bid process and approve the sole-sourcing of the card
installation to the only local vendor who performed such installations. She noted that the cost
of the cards would be recouped through savings over approximately an 18-month period.

      MOTION

        Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a five-
year agreement with Qwest Communications to provide two ISDN-PRI digital trunk lines to
connect to the main County telephone switch, for an annual fee of $13,500.00; to waive the
formal bid process for the purchase and installation of two PRI cards to allow the connection
to the new ISDN-PRI lines, and to approve and authorize the Chair to sign all documents
related to the purchase and installation of two PRI cards from Tuck Communications, for a
total of $6,450.50, and noted that the purchase and installation costs would come from the
Equipment Pool’s maintenance line item.

      Commissioner Stahoviak seconded; the motion carried 3-0.

             EN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT

      No one from the public was present.

             EN RE: PLANNING / CHAD PHILLIPS

      SNOKOMO ESTATES (PS2008-001)

      Tom Sharp, petitioner, and Connie Staponski, Planning, were also present.

      Ms. Staponski said that the County Commissioners had approved the Snokomo
Estates subdivision in July, 2008. A condition of that approval was that a final plat of the
subdivision be recorded within twelve months. The Planning Department had received a

Page 2009-310
June 2, 2009
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
                                            5
letter, dated April 16, 2009, from the petitioner requesting an extension of the filing of the final
plat deadline for three years.

        Mr. Sharp stated that the recordation of the final plat triggered the requirement to
install water and sewer lines and meet the fee-in-lieu requirement. He said that the
Stagecoach area real estate market was currently experiencing a 20-to40% drop in lot prices.
Since the market was depressed and would take time to recover, he had requested a three-
year extension of the filing deadline.

      The Board discussed the request and determined that approval of a multiple-year
extension was not unprecedented and would not adversely affect the County in any way.

       MOTION

        Commissioner Stahoviak moved to approve the request to extend the deadline for the
filing of the final plat for Snokomo Estates, Filing 3, to July 8, 2012.

       Commissioner Mitsch Bush seconded; the motion carried 3-0.

              EN RE: ROUTT COUNTY (PI2008-026)

       PROPOSED TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS REGULATIONS

       Chad Phillips, Planning, was present.

       Mr. Phillips stated that the agenda item had been rescheduled.

       MOTION

      Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to table a work session regarding the Transfer of
Development Rights County-Wide Regulations until June 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

       Commissioner Stahoviak seconded; the motion carried 3-0.

              EN RE: CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS / LAURA ANDERSON

       UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 40 NEPA STUDY

      Philo Shelton, City of Steamboat Springs’ Director of Public Works, and Heather
McLaughlin, Road and Bridge, were also present. Randall Hannaway, Wilton West, joined
the meeting after it had begun.

      Ms. Anderson, Steamboat Springs’ engineer and project manager for the U. S.
Highway 40 NEPA study, said that the public open house to present the West of Steamboat
Springs United States Highway 40 NEPA Study to the public and receive comments occurred

Page 2009-311
June 2, 2009
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
                                              6
      MOTOROLA PURCHASE AGREEMENT

       Mr. Hill stated that the agenda item ‘Consideration for approval and authorization to
sign a sole source purchase agreement for Motorola to upgrade dispatch consoles for DTR
compatibility’ had been reviewed and approved by the Board the previous week and was
erroneously scheduled on this week’s agenda.

             EN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT

      No one from the public was present.

             EN RE: PLANNING / CHAD PHILLIPS

      STEPHEN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (PZ2008-001)

      Michelle Brown, Planning, was also present.

      Ms. Brown said that the petition for a zoning amendment had been approved by the
Planning Commission on May 1, 2008 and by the Board on May 27, 2008. A resolution for a
zone change would conclude the petitioner’s request.

      MOTION

      Commissioner Monger moved to adopt and authorize the Chair to sign Resolution
2008-P-042, Zoning Amendment Agriculture and Forestry (A/F) to Medium Density
Residential (MDR) Planning Activity PZ2008-001.

      Commissioner Stahoviak seconded; the motion carried 3-0.

             EN RE: SNOKOMO ESTATES, FILING 3 / TOM SHARP

      Chad Phillips and Connie Staponski, Planning, and John Merrill, County Attorney,
were also present.

        Ms. Staponski said that the petition was to subdivide Lot 9 in Snokomo Estates, Filing
2, into two lots to be known as Lots 1 and 2, Snokomo Estates, Fililng 3. She said that the
approximately nine-acre parcel had been acquired in 1984; the Snokomo Estates’ original
plat was recorded in 1988. That same year, a two-lot subdivision exemption was approved
by the Board. Lot 9 was retained by the petitioner and was the subject of the petition before
the Board. She stated that the petitioner had sent a letter, dated July 2, 2008, to request
changes to two conditions approved by the Planning Commission: Condition #3 pertained to
building height restrictions; Condition #6 related to a fee-in-lieu of land for public benefit.

        Mr. Sharp said that the original parcel would have allowed a maximum of five duplex
lots. He had elected to divide the parcel into three lots, two of which were not part of the
petition before the Board. The size of the upper lot of the subdivision, Lot 9, would allow up

Page 2008-348
July 8, 2008
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
                                            7
to two duplex lots. He stated that the commitment letter from Morrison Creek Water and
Sanitation District to service the lots would remain in effect. In regard to Condition #6, Mr.
Sharp said that he had conveyed Lot 8 to the Stagecoach Property Owners Association
(SPOA) for use as open space, a SPOA building, or as a fire station. SPOA had
subsequently sold the property, but since he had in good faith donated land for public benefit,
he felt that he had already met the purpose of Condition #6. If the Board deemed the
payment of the fee appropriate, he asked that the fee be calculated on one lot rather than the
two that would be created if his petition were approved. In regard to Condition #3, he
requested that a maximum building height not be expressed in feet, rather that any
structure’s height would not exceed a certain elevation in relation to sea level. Mr. Sharp
stated that electric lines had been installed; a driveway had been constructed, and the lower
road had been graded.

      ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION

        Commissioner Monger said that when Snokomo Estates, Filing 2 was created, the fee-
in-lieu was in the County’s regulations but was not collected from applicants. When the
zoning regulations were updated approximately four years ago, the Board agreed to begin
collecting the fee on new developments. Commissioner Monger explained that the
Commissioners had continually encouraged lot consolidations and lower density
development, whereas the current petition would increase density. Also, he felt that the
collection of the fee had to be imposed consistently. He added that if the lot had been
subdivided ten years ago, property taxes on two lots would have been collected annually.
Thus, he believed the imposition of the fee to be appropriate.

        Commissioner Stahoviak said that as regulations and requirements change, they must
be enforced. Given the history of the property and the land contribution, she supported the
fee-in-lieu being levied on one lot of the subdivision being created by the present petition.

       Commissioner Mitsch Bush agreed that regulations had to be followed. She stressed
that downzoning was a focus of the Board as well as the County’s Master Plan. She would
agree to a compromise and levy the fee-in-lieu on one lot only.

      MOTION

       Commissioner Stahoviak moved to approve the petition submitted by Thomas and
Sandra Sharp to subdivide Lot 9, Snokomo Estates, Filing 2, into two lots to be known as
Lots 1 and 2, Snokomo Estates, Filing 3, with the findings of fact that the proposal, with the
following conditions, meets the guidelines of the Routt County Master Plan, Sections 3, 4,
and 5; the Stagecoach Community Plan, Section 4, and is in compliance with Section 6 of the
Routt County Zoning Regulation and Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Routt County Subdivision
Regulations.

      Approval is based on the following conditions:



Page 2008-349
July 8, 2008
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
                                            8
      1.    The final plat for the subdivision shall be recorded within twelve (12) months,
      unless an extension is granted in accordance with Section 2.1.6 of the Routt County
      Subdivision Regulations.
      2.    The final plat shall include, but not be limited to:

             a.     Revegetation of disturbed areas shall occur within one growing season
             with a seed mix that avoids the use of aggressive non-native grasses.
             b.     The owner shall prevent the spread of noxious weeds to surrounding
             lands and comply with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and Routt County
             Noxious Weed Management Plan.
             c.     Use of bear-proof and rodent-resistant trash containers is required.
             Designs for all trash containers used on site shall be submitted and approved
             by the Division of Wildlife prior to their installation.
             d.     The applicant shall comply with the Routt County outdoor lighting
             standards, Section 6.1.6. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and opaquely
             shielded.

      3.      In accordance with the Public Sites provision of the Routt County Subdivision
      Regulations, cash-in-lieu in the amount of 5% of the value of one lot in the subdivision
      shall be paid. The petitioner is hereby directed to obtain an appraisal for the one lot,
      based on the completion of the proposed platting. A fee-in-lieu of 5% of the appraised
      value shall be paid prior to the recordation of the final plat.
      4.      The final plat shall show public road and utility easements, and such shall be
      dedicated appropriately.
      5.      Prior to issuance of a building permit, approval of water and sewer trunk lines,
      service lines, and appurtenances on and to the property shall be subject to all terms,
      limitations, and provisions of the Morrison Creek Metropolitan Water and Sanitation
      District.
      6.      In addition to the height restrictions for the General Residential Zone District,
      the final plat shall contain a plat note restriction that the building height for structures
      on Lots 1 and 2, Snokomo Estates, Filing 3, shall not exceed 7,423.6 feet above MSL
      in elevation. In addition, exterior building materials shall be colors compatible with the
      existing character of the site.
      7.      The existing Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) Number 511461,
      recorded on May 28, 1999, shall be updated.
      8.      The petitioner shall comply with the requirements stated in the Morrison Creek
      Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District commitment letter dated March 24, 2008 for
      District central water and sewer service to Filing 2 and Filing 3, Snokomo Estates.

      Commissioner Monger seconded.

       Under discussion, Commissioner Mitsch Bush asked which of the two new lots would
be subject to the fee-in-lieu. By consensus, the Board agreed that the fee could be levied on
either lot since they were approximately the same acreage. Commissioner Monger stated
that the value of both lots would depend on whether utilities had been installed.
       The motion carried 3-0.
Page 2008-350
July 8, 2008
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
                                             9

								
To top