Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of February 17, 2010

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, February 17, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Boucher, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Toby Stauffer, Planner II, Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department, Traci Shambo, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Mr. Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Cox, Glick, Hart, and Weitkunat on a site visit to Cottonwood Acres Subdivision, Elliott Special Review, and Herrera Subdivision.  Commissioner Hess visited the sites independently.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:  

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 16, 2009 MEETINGS:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Glick.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Mr. Lafferty stated that the applicant wished to remove Cottonwood Acres Subdivision, #09-S2927, from the consent agenda to discuss the conditions of approval.

 

Chairman Wallace stated that the item would be discussed after the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1  HERRERA SUBDIVISION  #09-S2900:  Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a three lot subdivision of 9.5 acres to reconfigure the lot lines of three existing parcels and allow for the construction of an additional home on property located north of County Road 14, approximately 0.6 miles west of County Road 1.  The request also includes appeals to Section 8.14.2.N and 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow for the development of a private road in an access easement that does not provide connectivity to adjacent property.

 

Commissioner Hart asked if the Town of Johnstown responded to the item. 

 

Mr. Whitley replied that the Town of Johnstown did not object to the proposal or the proposed new home being on a septic system.  They also did not have concerns regarding the appeals and the lack of connectivity to adjacent properties.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Glick moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Herrera Subdivision and appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #09-S2900, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Herrera Subdivision, File #09-S2900, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Herrera Subdivision.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Johnstown school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

3.   All habitable new habitable structures shall protected with residential fire sprinklers. 

 

4.   All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation.  The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table.  Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.

 

5.   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

 Commissioners' Boucher, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE, SECTIONS 9.5 & 9.6  #10-CA0105:  Ms. Shambo provided background information on amending the Land Use Code, Sections 9.5 and 9.6, related to Transportation Captial Expansion Fees.  Sections 9.5 and 9.6 specifies that each January the Regional and Non-Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fees be updated to reflect changes in road construction costs during the previous year.  The amount of the fee increase was based upon a Colorado Department of Transportation regional cost index found in the annual Colorado Construction Cost Index Report.  Originally the Engineering Department was proposing to use the index found in the report that was the previous years’ average; however, after the receiving comments at the January 13, 2010 work session the language had been revised to use the two year moving average that was also found in the report.  In addition, staff was proposing to change the month that the fee increase would be evaluated from January to February as the index report came out at an unspecified date in January.  Furthermore, staff desired to change the month that fees would go into effect from March to April to allow changes to be evaluated, etc. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Glick moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #10-CA00105, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Amend section 9.5.6.C.2. as follows:

 

During the month of January February of each year, the fees in the Road Fee Schedule shall be updated by the fee administrator to reflect changes in road construction costs during the previous year. The updated fees shall become effective on the first day of March April. To calculate an updated Fee, each fee in the Road Fee Schedule shall be multiplied by a ratio, the numerator of which is the most recently available annual two-year moving average of  in the annual Colorado Construction Cost Iindex Report prepared by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the denominator of which is the same index for a period one year earlier than the numerator. If the ratio is less than, or equal to 1.05, the fees in the Road Fee Schedule shall be updated by the fee administrator without further action by the county commissioners. If the ratio is greater than 1.05, the fee administrator shall report the ratio to the county commissioners, and the county commissioners shall determine the ratio that shall be used to update the fees. All obligations to pay the non-regional road capital expansion fee shall apply to the most recent update of the fees in the Road Fee Schedule.

 

 

 

 

 

2.         Amend section 9.6.7.C.2 as follows:

 

D uring the month of January  February of each year, the fees in the Road Fee Schedule shall be updated by the fee administrator to reflect changes in road construction costs during the previous year. The updated fees shall become effective on the first day of March April. To calculate an updated fee, e ach fee in the Road Fee Schedule shall be multiplied by a ratio, the numerator of which is the most recently available annual two-year moving average of  in the annual Colorado Construction Cost Iindex Report prepared by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the denominator of which is the same index for a period one year earlier than the numerator. If the ratio is less than, or equal to 1.05, the fees in the Road Fee Schedule shall be updated by the fee administrator without further action by the county commissioners. If the ratio is greater than 1.05, the fee administrator shall report the ratio to the county commissioners, and the county commissioners shall determine the ratio that shall be used to update the fees. All obligations to pay the regional road capital expansion fee shall apply to the most recent update of the fees shown in the Road Fee Schedule.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

 Commissioners' Boucher, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #3  COTTONWOOD ACRES SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT #09-S2927:  Ms. Stauffer provided background information on the request to subdivide a 9.88 acre lot for single-family residential use located at 6632 E. County Road 58, ½ mile west of County Road 1 off County Road 58.  The request also included appeals to Section 4.1.5.B.1 (minimum lot size) and Section 8.14.2.H (lot width to depth ratio) of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  She explained that the land was a portion of Lot 2 of the Fenno MLD, which had one 40-acre lot and one smaller lot.  The 40-acre lot was divided into two pieces, a 30-acre parcel and a 10 acres parcel without proper county approval.  With the subdivision request the owners wished to create a legally split ten acre piece out of the original 40-acre piece.  When deciding to subdivide the land, the owners did attempt to include the additional 30-acre parcel and the additional owner in the subdivision but that owner was unwilling to participate.  Ms. Stauffer requested that two conditions of approval be removed:  condition #2 regarding fees and condition #6 regarding residential sprinklers.  Condition #7 regarding a shared access easement was also being contested by the applicant. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Rob Persichitte, Intermill Land Surveying, was representing the owners.  They agreed with the removal of the two conditions of approval but did not agree with the access easement and agreements.  He explained the history of the property and explained the intentions for the proposed lot.  He further explained that the owners did not want to be burdened with the other property and bound to an agreement with an owner that may or may not agree. 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department, explained that initially they suggested that the applicant maintain their current access and if the 30-acre parcel did desire to acquire a building permit in the future then the access points would be consolidated.  He explained that the Engineering Department was asking the owners to dedicate the easement now; however, they would not have to use it until a later date when the adjacent property owner acquired legality of their property.  He stated that the Engineering Department wanted condition of approval #7 to remain.

 

Mr. Persichitte stated that dedicating the access was not the primary issue.  The concern was down the road and whether there would be two agreeing parties regarding construction and maintenance.

 

Commissioner Morgan wondered if the condition could be extinguished later if in the future access to the adjacent property was placed on another site.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the existing septic system was in compliance?

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, replied that there was an existing septic system on the property but was no longer serviceable, and a new system would need to be installed for the new construction. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace suggested that the application be approved and forwarded to the County Commissioners subject to staff reviewing if it would be legally possible to vacate the easement if it was not used as a primary access to the property to the north.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that he would need to confer with the County Attorney regarding the suggestion that the easement automatically revert based on the legality of the adjacent lot.

 

Commissioner Morgan suggested that if the adjacent, illegal parcel was developed as a single family residential property then the easement would remain.  However, in the event that the parcel was developed for more than one single-family residence then that easement would disappear.  He did not want to see the applicants burdened with an easement for more than one single-family unit. 

 

Mr. Lafferty agreed that there was development potential on the adjacent, illegal 30-acre parcel.

 

Commissioner Morgan suggested adding “single family residence” into the condition of approval #7 so it stated:  “A 20’ wide 40’ long access easement along the shared easterly property is shown on the final plat. The existing access to the subject property does not need to be relocated to the easement until the lot directly to the east seeks an access permit or the eastern lot becomes legal and applies for a “single family residential “building permit.  To allow…………”

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that he understood the request and staff would work on amending the wording in condition #7

 

Commissioner Glick moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Cottonwood Acres Subdivision and appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #09-S2927, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and the removal of conditions #2 and #6 and amendment to condition #7 to add “single family residential” into the language:

 

1)    The Final Plat shall be consistent with this approval and with the information contained in the Cottonwood Acres Subdivision (File # 09-S2927) except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Cottonwood Acres Subdivision.

 

 

2)    All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation.  The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 5 feet from the seasonal high water table. 

 

3)    Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

4)    The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County, as a part of the Final Plat and to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice shall provide notice to all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall include, but is not limited to; the issues related to rural development, the need for engineered footings and foundations, the need for passive radon mitigation, soil testing for the new septic permit and other issues raised in the review, or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

5)    A 20’ wide 40’ long access easement along the shared easterly property is shown on the final plat. The existing access to the subject property does not need to be relocated to the easement until the lot directly to the east seeks an access permit or the eastern lot becomes legal and applies for a single family residential building permit. To allow the interim access, the existing access, the property owner shall record an agreement that indicates they will participate financially in any future project that would consolidate access points, and that the interim access will be abandoned when the new adequate access has become available.

 

6)    At the time of building permit issuance the septic system should be at least 100’ from the irrigation ditch.

 

 

7)    Prior to the final plat, the applicant shall complete all required corrections and submit two revised copies to the Larimer County Engineering Department Land Surveyor.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

 Commissioners' Boucher, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #4  ELLIOTT SPECIAL REVIEW #09-Z1761:  Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a Special Review for a pet animal facility in the FO-Forestry zoning district located east of N. County Road 7, approximately 2.7 miles north of County Road 70.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow the existing driveway to remain dirt instead of being upgraded to an all-weather surface of a minimum of 12 feet wide and 4 inches deep.  The property owners currently have 12 dogs, two of which are primarily indoor dogs and ten are kept primarily outdoors.  The outdoor dogs are housed in a number of outdoor pens, each containing at least one structure used for shelter.  Mr. Whitley explained that the last four years the applicant bred and sold two litters of puppies per year.  They were now seeking to sell up to five litters per year but were not proposing to expand the number of dogs kept primarily outdoors beyond the existing ten.  The property currently contained two nursery structures, which included heat lamps and fans.  The property owners have obtained a building permit for a birthing barn, which was currently under construction.  The birthing barn would be insulated, heated, air conditioned, and would include a bathtub and a sink.  The applicants also noted that no more than three cars would visit on any given day.  Because of the low thresholds regarding traffic generated, the Development Services Team was not proposing to limit the maximum number of trips per day.  He showed pictures of the property and the road (driveway).  He stated that until the property owners submitted their application there had been no complaints to Larimer County or the Humane Society regarding barking.  However, there were complaints logged by the Humane Society shortly after the application had been submitted but there were no violations found regarding noise.  He emphasized that Larimer County did not regulate the number of animals that could be kept as pets; therefore, if the application was denied the same number of adult animals could remain on the property.  He mentioned that some surrounding property owners had voiced concerns regarding the proposal citing property values, noise, and visual impacts.  He stated that dog feces was scooped daily into containers and stored on a trailer until it was hauled to the landfill.  That practice was acceptable to the Health Department as long as trips to the landfill occurred often to prevent fly and odor problems.  He explained more about the appeal to Section 8.14.7 regarding paving the road, which the Development Services Team was recommending denial of.  He mentioned that if the appeal was not granted then the applicants were requesting to locate two customer parking spaces approximately 110 feet east of the centerline of N. County Road 7 to shorten the driveway distance that would need to be improved.  He stated that the Development Services Team was not supporting that proposal.  The Development Services Team however was supporting an approval of the Special Review.

 

Commissioner Hart asked if the structures met the setback requirements?

 

Mr. Whitley replied that that the nurseries were slightly closer to the lot line then allowed.  Therefore, the property owners had the option of moving those structures or seeking a variance.  All the other structures met the setback requirements.

 

Gary & Wendi Elliott, applicants, stated that they had 12 registered licensed dogs, 10 of which were primarily outside dogs.  They had raised their allowed two litters for the past four years and decided to expand.  She stated that if approved she would not acquire any additional dogs and would have a maximum of five litters.  She only intended to average three litters a year or an average of 24 puppies in one year.  If a maximum of five litters did occur in one year, which would be a maximum of 40 puppies, the previous year and following year would have far fewer litters, if any, to allow the dams and herself adequate time off.  She noted that they would be keeping their 10 dogs even if the Special Review was not approved.  The birthing barn would include a full bathroom and would be properly heated, vented, and air conditioned.  It would also be equipped with a microwave for warming supplemental milk and a small refrigerator to keep the milk cool.  The nurseries were fully insulated and equipped with heat lamps.  She reiterated that they were only requesting a maximum of an additional three litters a year.  She stated that their dogs rarely barked and barking levels would not increase with a litter of puppies.  There would also be no additional visual impacts for the neighbors.  She spoke of her operation and care of their dogs. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked how many breeding females the family owned?

 

Ms. Elliott replied eight. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked approximately how many visits they received per puppy?

 

Ms. Elliott replied that they have the puppies adopted out before they were born; therefore, there was only one visit per puppy.  There would be a total of 24 additional visits per year.  She also stated that they did sometimes deliver the puppies to their new homes.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if they were licensed by the State.

 

Ms. Elliott replied no, they would obtain their license after the Special Review approval. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if they had considered doing any landscaping to soften the impact?

 

Ms. Elliott stated that there were walls around several of the pens, and they had also planted trees. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Kendra Soderberg, Wellington resident, did not believe the road would be an issue.  The Elliott family took good care of their animals.

 

Scott Koskie, 14570 N. County Road 7, was the second closest neighbor to the Elliotts.  He stated that he had lived at that address for the last 21 years.  He spoke to the care of their animals.  He asked that the Special Review be approved. 

 

Mike Barnhart, Loveland resident, was a dog owner of two of the Elliott’s puppies.  He asked that the application be approved.

 

 

 

Charles Wilcox, 14312 N. County Road 7, was the Elliott’s nearest neighbor.  He stated that he did not even know they had 10 dogs.  He stated that there was a stock yard to the north and a feed lot to the southeast so smell from the Elliott’s would not be an issue.  There was also a creek on their property that was covered in trees which helped with the landscape issue.  The pens were clean, the dogs and puppies were taken care of, and there was no barking.  He was their nearest neighbor, and he did not have an issue.

 

Jim Elliott, stated that the applicants moved on to the property so they could have animals and dogs.  The road was an issue, and the Elliotts planned to get the road graded and accessible.  However, to get the road up to the standard of the county it would cost over $20,000.  He asked that the request be granted.

 

Carrie Koskie, 145701 N. County Road 7, stated that she had drove a school bus on County Road 7 for ten years and had never seen extra people on the property.  She stated the extra puppies would not impact traffic, and she did not hear barking come from that portion of their neighborhood. 

She stated that she did see them interact with their dogs. 

 

Angie McKim, Milliken resident, was the sister to Wendi Elliott.  She stated that she was at the property often and stated that barking and smell was not an issue.  

 

Cheryl S., Denver resident, stated that the road concerned her as the access for emergency crews would be difficult.  She also stated that the parking lot idea did not make sense as the potential owners could not meet the parent dogs and see the living area of the dogs.

 

Dianne Holland, stated that she owned two properties adjacent to the subject property.  She was strongly opposed to the proposal and appeal for the road surfacing.  The proposal was not compatible with the rural residential neighborhood.  There were 20 neighbors that signed a letter of opposition and an online petition had over 1,000 signatures.  She spoke of the review criteria for the proposal and stated that it was not compatible with the neighborhood due to the number of opposition, the noise impact, the increase of traffic, and the visual impacts from the makeshift pens.  She was also concerned that if the proposal was approved that enforcement would become even more difficult.  Along with that , she did not feel that the appeal should be granted, and the alternative suggestion to use a parking lot did not meet the review criteria either.  She stated that the increased number of litters would increase the number of puppies which would increase the number of people that visited the property.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if her main concern was the noise.

 

Ms. Holland replied yes, and the negative impact on her property values. 

 

Commissioner Morgan pointed out that whether the application was approved or not the 10-12 dogs that were outside would not change.

 

Ms. Holland stated that she was concerned with the current level of noise coming from the property. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked how the noise would be expanded over what currently existed and how that would affect the compatibility of the existing use.

 

Ms. Holland stated that the Elliotts remarked that they would take dogs back if the home they were placed at did not work.  She also noted that they might not sell all of the puppies.  She also wondered who would enforce the number.  

 

Michael Holland, owned two properties adjacent to the subject property.  He stated that the proposed parking lot was within 250 feet of his house.  He asked if they had obtained electrical permits for their heat lamps.  He showed a picture of the culvert in the road and stated that it was collapsing.  He did not believe that the road would be able to withstand emergency vehicles.  He stated that their views were impacted by the property and all the dog kennels.  He was considering selling his properties and felt that the visual impact would impair their ability to sell and/or decrease the value.  He stated that his house was approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest pen.

 

Mary Roberts, 406 Del Claire, Wellington, stated that the commission had effectively muzzled the room and respectfully disagreed that the issue was just a land use issue.  It was a community issue.

 

Christopher Laughrun, lived across the street from the subject property.  He stated that emergency vehicles had not been restricted by the road and had been able to access the home in the past.  As far as the feces issue, he saw first hand them clean the kennels and never saw feces in the kennels.

 

Kevin Laughrun, lived across the street from the subject property.  He stated that the parking area would not be a detriment to the road.  The cost of building the road was great and he did not understand why they expected them to have a better road then County Road 7 was.  They had the right to build on their property.

 

Mark Sears, relative to the family, stated that he helped them to grade their driveway and install their culvert.  He stated that the dents in the culvert were in the culvert before it was installed.  He was a professional engineer and oversaw the installation of it, and he guaranteed that it was sound.  He stated that emergency vehicles had driven on the road before.  The surface in the area was very gravely but very stable, and the driveway had been used for seven years without anyone getting stuck.  He noted that the Elliotts did intend to improve the driveway by grading and filling the potholes and ruts.  For the approximate 50 customers that would come to the property it would be a safe and adequate driveway.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if it had been evaluated on how to grade the driveway so potholes did not reappear over time.

 

Mr. Sears stated that the potholes had not occurred because of instable material.  The road had just eroded over time do to tires impacting the ground.  The drainage did need to be improved so the road drained well. 

 

 

 

 

Carol Coffey, Larimer County resident, stated that upgrading the road would cost a lot of money but that was a cost associated with running a business.  She did not want a precedence to be set by waiving the paving requirement. 

 

Joanna Wells, Weld County resident, concurred with the previous speaker.  She felt that all standards should be upheld. 

 

Amy Bristo, asked about the daycare on the property.  She was concerned regarding the road and the safety. 

 

Dianne Holland, asked that some landscaping or berming be provided around the pens to help with the visual impacts. 

 

Jane Richardson, lived north of the subject property, stated that the applicants were responsible and noted that the land value fluctuated with the economy.  She did understand that some grading would need to be done but the county was asking the applicants to have a road that was better then County Road 7.  She felt that the application should be approved. 

 

Wendi Elliott, stated that the driveway did have ruts and they were willing to upgrade it.  However, they did not believe that it needed to be 12 feet wide and 4 inches deep.  They were willing to grade it down and put some gravel on it but not to that standard.  She spoke to the electrical wiring.  She stated that the property did have mature trees and the visual impact would not change with the addition of three more litters per year. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Cox asked if there was a lower standard regarding the road.

 

Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department, stated that the Rural Area Road Standards called for a minimum of 12-feet wide and 4-inches deep road surface. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked what the trigger was for that standard?

 

Mr. Goodell replied that it was triggered by the Special Review process.  The minimum standard was set at a level of 200 trips per day or less.  He understood that there was a gap between what the standard required and what the applicants were proposing.

 

Commissioner Hart asked about electrical permitting.

 

Mr. Whitley replied that the county did not issue electrical permits or do electrical inspections.  It was performed by the state.

 

Commissioner Morgan was concerned with landscaping requirements.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that there was no landscaping requirements with the proposal due to the water issues in that portion of the county.  The landscaping section of the code did not necessarily mean soft landscaping but could mean hard landscaping such as fences, etc.  The analysis done by staff was that there was adequate screening from adjacent properties as it related to the proposed use. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the applicants would be able to do grooming, boarding, etc. in the future under the definition of a Pet Animal Facility.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that if additional uses were desired beyond what was being considered with the current proposal then it would require the proposal to be reevaluated for those expanded characteristics and uses.

 

Commissioner Cox asked what a reasonable road structure would be.  She did not believe that one extreme of a dirt road to another extreme of the road standard was appropriate.

 

Commissioner Wallace felt that the application was compatible with the neighborhood.  She also agreed that the road issue needed to be addressed and modified.

 

Commissioner Hart felt that the electrical situation should be examined for the sheds and additional landscaping would be appropriate.  He did not think that the expansion would be a significant issue for the surrounding properties. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she did not feel that the issues regarding electrical permits and landscaping should be conditions of approval.

 

Commissioner Cox did not feel that the visual impact on the property would change with three extra litters per year. 

 

Commissioner Hart moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Elliott Special Review, file #09-Z1761, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Elliott Special Review File #09-Z1761, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Elliott Special Review.

 

3.   Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners.

 

4.   This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.

 

5.   The Pet Animal Facility shall be limited to 10 adult animals kept primarily outdoors.

 

6.   The Pet Animal Facility shall be limited to breeding and selling a maximum of five litters per year.

 

7.   In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

8.   County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

 

9.   The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boucher, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

Commissioner Morgan moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Elliott Special Review appeal to Section 8.14.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #09-Z1761, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

            1.         Grading and substrata be in comformance with the Larimer County Standards.

            2.         Width of the improved surface of the road be limited to 10 feet wide.

            3.         The road surface material be 2 inches in depth.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Cox struggled with the specificity of the motion.  She thought that the motion would be more broad to allow staff to determine acceptable grade, drainage, etc.

 

Commissioner Boucher did not want to have specifics regarding the width and the depth.  He felt that the staff should determine that in accordance with the county standards.

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that the road needed to be graded and drainage needed to be addressed.  However, she did not feel that the specifics of the width and depth should be specified.

 

Commissioner Glick withdrew his second to the Motion to allow for an amendment to the Motion.

 

Commissioner Boucher noted that he would vote in favor of the Motion but would rather see less specificity as there was not a significant increase in traffic with the proposed expansion.

 

Commissioner Hess stated that the applicants should be held to the Larimer County standards.

 

Commissioner Morgan amended his Motion to move that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Elliott Special Review appeal to Section 8.14.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #09-Z1761, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

            1.         The road grading and drainage be in conformance with Larimer County Standards.

            2.         The road width be 10 feet wide and 2-inches deep or an other acceptable standard

as determined by the Engineering Department.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boucher, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

POSTING OF MEETING IN COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW:

Commissioner Cox moved that the Larimer County Planning Commission designate the Oak Street entrance to the Larimer County Courthouse as the public posting place for notices of all official actions and public meetings in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Open Meetings law (CRS 24-6-402).  Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:  Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings. 

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:50  p.m.

 

 

These minutes constitute the Resolution of the Larimer County Planning Commission for the recommendations contained herein which are hereby certified to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Nancy Wallace, Chairman                                          Gerald Hart, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

That portion of Lot 2, FENNO M.L.D. 01-S1790, Larimer County, Colorado

EXCEPTING THEREFROM that certain parcel of land as described in deed recorded at

Reception No. 2003-0154288 on December 10, 2003, records of said County, situate in

the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 8 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.,

County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows;

 

Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 12 as bearing South

89°44’54” West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto;

 

Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 12; thence along the South line of said

Southeast Quarter, South 89°44’54” West 2409.54 feet to the Southwest corner of said

FENNO M.L,D,; thence along the West line of said FENNO M.L.D., North 03°37’34”

East 30.07 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 2, FENNO M.L.D. and the TRUE

POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Westerly line of said Lot 2 the following

nineteen (19) courses and distances North 03°37’34” East 109.59 feet; thence North

09°56’12” East 119.65 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Southeast,

having a central angle of 62°29’42” and a radius of 98.43 feet, the long chord of which

bears North 41°11’03” East 102.12 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve

107.36 feet; thence tangent from said curve North 72°25 ‘54” East 51.49 feet to the

beginning of a tangent curve concave to the West, having a central angle of 108° 1 6’40”

and a radius of 139.26 feet, the long chord of which bears North 18°17’34” East 225.72

feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 263.17 feet; thence non-tangent

from said curve North 35°36’45” West 235.18 feet; thence North 30°37’50” West 293.61

feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the East, having a central angle of

75°33’49” and a radius of 188.37 feet, the long chord of which bears North 07°09’05”

East 230.81 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 248.43 feet to the

beginning of a compound curve concave to the Southeast, having a central angle of

37°46’30” and a radius of 482.69 feet, the long chord of which bears North 63°49’ 14”

East 312.50 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 318.24 feet; thence

non-tangent from said curve North 82°42’39” East 150.87 feet to the beginning of a

tangent curve concave to the Northwest, having a central angle of 79°57’2 1” and a radius

of 155.00 feet, the long chord of which bears North 42°43’59” East 199.17 feet; thence

Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 216.30 feet; thence non-tangent from said curve

North 03°00’11” East 107.05 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the East,

having a central angle of 43°54’51” and a radius of 175.00 feet, the long chord of which

bears North 24°57’36” East 130.87 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve

134.13 feet; thence tangent from said curve North 46°55’02” East 167.51 feet; thence

North 03°09’38” East 221.12 feet; thence North 20°09’l0” West 23.36 feet to a point as

monumented in the field by a No. 4 rebar (length unknown) and plastic cap marked LS

31169; thence South 89°55’04” West 53.10 feet; thence North 19°58’48” West 83.82

feet; thence North 37°48’26” West 5.00 feet to a point as monumented in the field by a

No. 4 rebar (length unknown) and plastic cap marked LS 5028 hereinafter referred to as

Monument Type ‘A’ said point also being on the Westerly line of that certain parcel of

land as described in deed recorded at Reception No. 2003-0154288 on December 10,

2003, records of said County; thence along said Westerly line the following six (6)

courses and distances, South 78°46’17” East 192.61 feet to a point as monumented in the

field by Monument Type ‘A’; thence South 11°13’56” West 294.58 feet to a point as

monumented in the field by Monument Type ‘A’; thence South 25°53’30” West 527.23

feet to a point as monumented in the field by Monument Type ‘A’; thence South

27°26’13” West 416.33 feet to a point as monumented in the field by Monument Type

‘A’; thence South 05°19’34” West 571.22 feet to a point as monumented in the field by

Monument Type ‘A’; thence South 04°59’l0” West 437.01 feet to a point as

monumented in the field by Monument Type ‘A’ said point being on the South line of

said Lot 2, FENNO M.L.D.; thence along said South line, South 89°44’54” West 243.19

feet to Southwest corner of said Lot 2, FENNO M.L.D and the TRUE POINT OF

BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 10.00 acres, more or less, and is

subject to any existing easements and/or rights of way of record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

That portion of the North half of section 34, township 10 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado more particularly described as follows: Considering the West line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 34, as bearing North 00 degrees 08 minutes 21 seconds West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto. Commencing at the West Quarter corner of said Section 34, thence along the West line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 34, North 00 degrees 08 minutes 21 seconds West, 1394.72 feet to the True Point of Beginning, thence continuing along said West line, North 00 degrees 08 minutes 21 seconds West, 285.00 feet; thence along the South line of the North Half of the South Half of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 34, South 88 degrees 35 minutes 12 seconds East, 1973.67 feet; thence along the East line of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 34, North 00 degrees 15 minutes 57 seconds West 1001.25 feet to the North line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 34; thence along said North line, South 88 degrees 23 minutes 37 seconds East, 657.22 feet to the North Quarter corner of said Section 34; thence along the North line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 34, South 88 degrees 21 minutes 41 seconds East, 320.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 21 seconds East, 1202.83 feet; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 39 seconds West, 2947.49 feet to the True Point of Beginning, Except any portion of said land lying within the boundaries of that parcel of land contained in Deed recorded March 19. 1973 in Book 1545 at Page 507.  County of Larimer, State of Colorado

 

 

 

 

 

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.