RED FEATHER LAKES PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FIRE HOUSE MEETING ROOM
44 Fire House Lane, Red Feather Lake
April 9, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairperson Ted Carter.
Members in Attendance: Gene Barker, Susan Bradley, Ted Carter, Dennis Frydendall, Bill Gilbert, Eunice Michalka, Ross Reid, Lucille Schmitt, Michael Sledge, Roger Svendesen, Bud Thomas
Members Excused Absences: All other members had excused absences
Adoption of Agenda: All RFLPAC members approved the adoption of the agenda.
Approval of Minutes: The March 12, 2009, minutes were approved as corrected by all RFLPAC members.
Communications from Committee Members: None
Larimer County Representation: Jill Bennett, LARCO Planning
Guests Present: Stephen Johnson, Pat Bradley, Pat Clemens
Comments from the Audience: None
Zoning Code Changes
Jill Bennett presented the following proposed changes in the zoning code for Red Feather Lakes:
4.1.23 RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business.
4.3.7.B. Trade use. A business or occupation requiring specialized training in a manual or mechanical skill, including but not limited to carpentry, plumbing, sheet metal, electrical, auto repair, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, furniture upholstery and machine shops.
1. A trade use with any outdoor storage of materials, parts, vehicles or finished product requires approval through the special review process in the C-Commercial zoning district.
2. A trade use with any accessory outdoor storage of materials, parts, vehicles or finished product in the RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business zoning district is allowed only when the accessory outdoor storage is specifically approved as part of the application for special review.
Jill explained that the proposed additions included special language specifically for Red Feather Lakes regarding outdoor storage as part of trade use in order to clarify what was already in the code.
The discussion included the following points and concerns:
Currently RFLB is a combination of C-Commercial and B-Business. Trade use (S) is not included in the RFLB list.
Currently persons wanting a trade use permit would have to apply to the county for C-Commercial. If that was approved, that property could have any type of commercial use. There would be no restrictions on future use.
Trade use by special review would be more specific to the particular business; it would not leave the location open to other types of business.
The original intent of the RFLB zone was to include a blend of uses good for the community; it was not intended to exclude such businesses as plumbing and carpentry. While such businesses could be permitted by special review, it is more straightforward to add the proposed changes.
Could adding the clause make it easier for a questionable business to be brought in outside the currently designated business area?
Adding the clause means that the community thinks these kinds of uses are good for the community. There is nothing in the clause about the location of the business.
The original plan wanted the village center to be “softer” businesses. It may be necessary to redefine certain areas.
Adding the trade use clause would provide a way for trade businesses to be permitted without asking for C-Commercial. There would be limits on future use.
Without the trade use clause, there would be much more resistance to new business because there would be more resistance to the approval of a C-Commercial permit.
More time to think and discuss this issue could be taken, but would possibly leave the Planning Commission with little time to consider PAC’s recommendation. Also, the next meeting will be planning for the June meeting and there will be little time for any other discussion.
Dennis Frydendall called the question. Bud T. motioned and Bill G. seconded.
Roll Call vote was 10-1 in Favor:
Gene Barker no
Ted Carter yes
Bill Gilbert yes
Eunice Michalka yes
Ross Reid yes
Lucille Schmitt yes
Michael Sledge yes
Roger Svendesen yes
Dennis Frydendall yes
Bud Thomas yes
Susan Bradley yes
The Road Subcommittee met with county representatives, who were favorable to the direction PAC is taking on designating public roads.
The Road Subcommittee meets with Kathay Rennels and Denny LaRue on April 21st to work on strategy for the June public meeting. Plan is to anticipate as many issues as possible and get advance opinion of the county attorney. County has asked PAC’s help in making a list of possible questions which will be raised. Roads committee queries:
-what does “public road” designation/meaning include or preclude?
-responsibility for maintenance?
-what would the sheriff's responsibility be?
-why these 6 roads?
-what are the implications of platting inaccuracies?
-what about county standards on width - travel vs. platted?
-why not county maintenance?
-would it create nonconforming use – actual location vs. platted road?
-ATV's legal or not?
-are roads that exist where they are now legal where they sit?
-if legal, what happens to the platted road?
-do plats say the roads are available for utilities?
-how does making the roads public effect water & sewer placement?
-what is the cheapest way to make current roads "legal"?
-what about roads over private dams - how can that part of the road be declared public?
-Main St. and Fire House Lane owned by organizations or businesses will need to be dedicated as public by property owners. Process?
RFLPAC meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
Michael Sledge, RFLPAC Secretary