Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of May 17, 2006

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, and Wallace were present.  Chairman Boulter presided as Chairman.  Commissioners’ terMeer and Waldo were absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Karin Madson, Planner II, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, Al Kadera, Principal Planner, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

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 APRIL 19, 2006 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheimer.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

Two members of the audience were present to speak about the Buckhorn Mountain Radio Tower Special Review.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  THOMPSON SCHOOL DISTRICT LOCATION AND EXTENT #06-Z1588:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request to purchase an additional school site son the south side of County Road 30, ¼ mile east of US Highway 287 and the Loveland City Limits.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Thompson School District Location and Extent, file #06-Z1588, subject to the following conditions:

 

A.  A Location and Extent of the site development plan will occur prior to any construction of buildings or structures.  

B.   That future Location and Extent submittal will include provisions to address the issues identified in this staff report including potential hazards associated with the existing irrigation ditch and power transmission lines.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #2  PLANK PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #05-S2484:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to create 45 single family residential lots on 18.55 acres and rezone from FA-1 - Farming to PD – Planned Development at the southeast corner of Kechter and Ziegler Roads.  The Development would also include three common area lots for open space and drainage.

 

Commissioner Wallace 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 property for Plank Planned Land Division, file #05-S2484, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plat and with the information contained in the Plank Planned Land Division (File #05-S2484), 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 Plank Planned Land Division.

 

b.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Community and 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. 

 

c.   Per the recommendation of the Colorado Geological Service subsurface construction (basements) shall include perimeter drains as part of the foundation design and construction.

 

d.   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.

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the property for Plank Planned Development, file #05-S2484, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   Approval of the rezoning from FA-1 (Farming) to PD (Planned Development) subject to the following condition:

 

1.   The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the final plat of Plank Planned Land Division.

 

 

b.   The zoning designation for the Plank PD and PLD shall be PD (Planned Development, which zoning classification will be subject to the development standards and requirements of Subsection I.f. (Mixed Use Neighborhood Area Regulations) of the Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for in the Supplemental Regulations to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.9.2.A.1, or as amended.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #3  BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN RADIO TOWER SPECIAL REVIEW #05-Z1573: 

Chairman Boulter asked members of the audience to voice their concerns regarding Buckhorn Mountain Radio Tower Special Review before it was formally removed from the consent agenda.

 

Ralph Niemann, 765 County Road 41, stated that he was the nearest residence to the tower and was concerned with the radio reception at his home.  He explained that currently there was one radio station interfering with his radio reception and had interfered with his T.V. reception before he went to satellite.  The radio could not get 90.1 F.M.  He stated that he had been working with the engineer for 1 ½ years and recently was told that nothing could be done to help the situation.  He was concerned that there would be more interference if more stations were added to the tower. 

 

Chairman Boulter pointed out that Mr. Niemann had also written a letter to the Planning Department.

 

Mr. Niemann remarked that he had contacted the FCC who told him that he needed to contact the radio station.

 

Chairman Boulter confirmed that radio interference was regulated by the FCC and could not be regulated by the County Planning Department.

 

Rob Helmick, Principle Planner, replied that interference was not in the County Planning Department’s purview to regulate.  It was to be regulated by the FCC, the complainant, and the radio station.

 

Chairman Boulter remarked that unfortunately the only decision that could be made by the Planning Commission was regarding the location of the tower and not interference.  He asked the applicant to be a good neighbor and work with Mr. Neimann.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ann Closser, consultant for Mauna Towers, stated that she had the name and phone number of the owner of the radio station, which was Bob Ogsberger with a work phone number of 719-533-0300 and cell phone number of 719-351-7107.  She stated that they were willing to be a good neighbor and help Mr. Neimann in any way.  She remarked that her client, Mr. Michael, knew the station owner therefore if Mr. Niemann did not get a response from Mr. Ogsberger they would get in touch with Mr. Ogsberger themselves.

 

Chairman Boulter confirmed that she would follow up on the situation.

 

Ms. Closser replied yes, she would exchange phone numbers with Mr. Niemann. 

 

Louise Niemann, 765 County Road 41, stated that she owned the land to the west, south, and north of the tower.  That land was put into a conservation easement last year.  She thought that it was strange that the tower was being developed 20 feet from the boundary and that it was the opposite of what had been and what was planned for the area.  She stated that there were eleven towers on the site, all of which she did not have information on like whether they were active or not or how many were planned to be erected.

 

Ms. Closser replied that they inventoried what was on her client’s property along with what was on the adjacent properties.  There was only one tower on Mr. Michael’s property and ten on the adjacent parcel.  Recently FCC studies were done to determine which of any of the installations on the sites had active licenses.  What was found was 171 FCC licenses for a one kilometer area of the particular coordinate.  Only 16 were actually from the geographical area and only one of those 16 was sending transmission, which were less than 5% of the maximum permissible exposure limit. 

 

Commissioner Morgan felt that the application should be removed from the consent agenda given the extensive amount of questions concerning the application.

 

Chairman Boulter asked that the Buckhorn Mountain Tower be removed from the consent agenda so it could be discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN RADIO TOWER SPECIAL REVIEW #05-Z1573: 

Ms. Madson provided background information on the request to add a 198-foot radio tower to an existing radio facility consisting of a 130-foot tower and 12,000 square foot building on a one acre site located east of County Road 41 on Buckhorn Mountain.  She explained that the site had been in existence since the mid or early 1950’s and was originally part of AT&T’s microwave connection from Chicago to Oakland.  Since that time the facility was purchased by American Tower in 2000 and repurchased by the current property owner in 2002.  From County records it appeared that the use of the site as it currently existed was changed without county approval, therefore the applicant was bringing forth the application to examine both what was existing and the proposed FM transmission facilities to be added to the site.  The applicant was proposing two additional FM radio stations on the 198-foot tower and proposed two standard power FM radio transmitters, three low power FM translator, and two CMRS facilities as potential expansions.  She stated that on Monday she had received notice from the applicant that one of the proposed FM low power facilities had already been added to the site.  She explained that the parcel to the east contained a number of communication facilities.  There were ten additional towers ranging in height from 50 to 126 feet.  Those towers were not apart of the application.  She stated that some research had been conducted regarding those facilities and county records revealed very vague results.  She stated that the Development Services Team was recommending approval of the application along with conditions of approval.  She remarked that Staff was adding another condition, Condition J, which would state, “Within 45 days of the recordation of the Findings and Resolution, the applicant shall obtain building permits for the existing antennas.”  

 

Chairman Boulter asked what the status of the tower was?

 

Ms. Madson explained that there was one tower on the property, which was 130 feet built in the 1950’s and would make it a nonconforming tower.  The use of the tower as originally established had ceased.  It was converted to FM radio transmission without the benefit of county approval.  She explained that a building permit had to be obtained for the attachment of antennas to existing towers, hence the Condition J.

 

Ann Closser, consultant for Mauna Towers, explained that when American Tower purchased the property in 2000 they cleaned up the site such as asbestos, soils, and tower.  Mr. Michael was proposing to add a 198 foot tower to the property.  Ultimately there would be four FM radio stations with two stations on each of the towers, two on the 130 foot tower and two on the 198 foot tower.  She stated that they would also like the opportunity for other players to come along and co-locate.  They welcomed co-location because the infrastructure was already available and there was a 12,000 square foot building there, and it seemed to be a reasonable place.  She explained that letters had been sent letters to all of the cellular/PCS carriers to try to solicit some interest in locating antennas on the towers.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how many trips would occur to the site?

 

Ms. Closser replied that at the most there would be one visit per month per station.  Therefore there would be four vehicle trips. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the applicant would want to build an additional tower on the site in the future?

 

Mrs. Closser replied that there wasn’t enough practical, usable space left on the site, which was the reason for the height of the tower.  It minimized the need to construct another tower because there was enough vertical room to separate the users or different antennas. 

 

Commissioner Morgan confirmed that the intent was that the 198 foot tower would be the last erected on the site by the current operator.

 

Ms. Closser replied yes.

 

Chairman Boulter asked what the motivation was to bring forth the application?

 

Ms. Closser replied that they had new interest by a new tenant, KUNC, and one of the FM stations wanted to move from the smaller tower to the taller tower. 

 

Chairman Boulter stated that he supported the co-location idea.  He wanted to make sure that the applicant was going to adhere by the rules this time.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Chris Hubberts, 10506 Rist Canyon, stated that he had a view of the towers from his property and appreciated the applicant cleaning up the site.  He was opposed to the 198 foot tower because of the height and the decreasing aesthetic values.

 

Ms. Closser replied that the height of FM radio towers were not uncommonly 300 to 500 feet considering the nature of the use.  The proposed height of 198 feet was keeping the tower as low as possible while still allowing vertical separation between the users.  It also kept it from being susceptible to lighting or marking requirements from the FAA.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer asked if the tower could be any smaller in height?

 

Victor Michel, Mauna Tower, replied that with the combination of the multiple signals he was using all the vertical space.  Yes it could be physically possible to lower the tower some but then there would be no room for any future development.  He stated that he was trying to avoid having to apply again to add sections on to the tower.  He stated that at the present time he had no knowledge of any future development but was open to the idea if it was presented.  He stated that he had only owned the property for two years and was trying to correct the wrongs that were made in the past by the previous owners.  He felt that it was a perfect place for development of the FM stations because coverage was good at that altitude.  He stated that he would work to address Mr. and Mrs. Niemann’s concerns.  He was the landowner and wanted to be a good neighbor.  He stated that there was an answer to fixing his problem.  He remarked that any new towers would first be applied for and approved by the County.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan admitted that no one wanted a tower near their property and was sensitive to that.  However the particular sight had been occupied by towers for approximately 50 years.  As far as the height issue, 198 feet was better than having a lighted tower.  He stated that he would support the request.

 

Commissioner Karabensh concurred with Commissioner Morgan.  She commended the applicant for coming through the process.  She also wanted to concur with the residents of the area as she appreciated the aesthetic component, however she did listen to the radio and knew that there was a huge demand for technology.  She felt that it was a tradeoff, particularly the height.  While no tower was aesthetically desirable the tower height allowed for no lighting or marking and was better than a higher tower on a flat land.  It was also better to have all the towers co-located and to maximize the height what could occur out of the tower than to have additional towers erected on other ridges in the area.

 

Chairman Boulter was greatly appreciative of the applicant coming through the public process and for being willing to work with his neighbor.  He stated that he was supportive of keeping towers in one area and felt that the application accomplished that goal.  He stated that he would support the application.

 

Commissioner Pond 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 Buckhorn Mountain Radio Tower Special Review, file #05-Z1573, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   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.

 

B.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Buckhorn Mountain Radio Tower Special Review (File #05-Z1573), 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 Buckhorn Mountain Radio Tower Special Review.

 

C.   Site Plan Review is not required for the construction of the new tower.  The plot plan submitted with the building permit application shall include the following note:  “Natural drainage on the site will be maintained, erosion will be minimized and any disturbed areas will be reestablished to an equal or better condition.”

 

D.   Within 30 days of recordation of the Findings & Resolution the applicant shall obtain a private road construction permit and certification from the Engineering Department.

 

 

 

 

 

E.   Prior to submitting an application for building permit the applicant shall clarify and provide documentation to the Planning Department that demonstrates that the proposed facilities will comply with FCC standards for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.

 

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

 

G.   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 the County, the 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.

 

H.   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.

 

I.   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.

           

J.  Within 45 days of the recordation of the Findings and Resolution, the applicant shall obtain building permits for the existing antennas

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS :

 

ITEM #4  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #06-CA0059:  Mr. Kadera provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by amending Section 4.2.3.F.9.d to change the reference to "Planned Development" to "Planned Land Division", amending Section 4.3.10.B Home Occupation, amending Section 4.8 Non-conformities, adding a new Section 5.13.5.E to require completion of a final plat within one year from the date of a complete application, amending Section 8.01.D to remove the reference to the Board of Adjustment, amend Section 8.6.3.B.4.d to require signing handicapped parking spaces with both pavement markings and free standing signs, amending Section 8.17.3 to allow the Planning Director the discretion to approve administrative setback variances in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts and administrative variances for setbacks from County Roads, State Highways and Streams, Creeks and Rivers., amending Sections 12.2.4. A & B for incorrect references to special exceptions, and amending Section 22.2.2 to allow the Planning Director to determine if an appeal should be referred to the Planning Commission and to allow anyone to submit evidence rather than just the person who filed the appeal.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked for clarification on Section 4.3.10.1.l.

 

Mr. Kadera replied Section 4.3.10.1.l would read, “Any home occupation established after (the date of this amendment) must provide a Home Occupation Certification to Larimer County prior to operation.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked how this new information would reach the public?

 

Mr. Kadera replied that it would be on the Larimer County website and would work with the Commissioner’s office to publicize it in the newspaper and other media sources. 

 

Commissioner Pond felt that the wording of Section 4.3.10.1.d was confusing and recommended to change the wording from “building setbacks” to “setbacks to property lines”.

 

Mr. Kadera replied that the change could be accommodated.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the retail sales event could last from one to thirty days?

 

Mr. Kadera replied that it could be thirty, one day events a year or one, thirty day event and a person could erect a sign for 30 days.

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked about the Final Plat deadline amendment.  He asked that in the case of a financial hardship regarding posting collateral to move the project forward that it may be appropriate to allow a hardship clause. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the amendment would not be retroactive.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the code would state notice that the applicant would have a certain amount of time to comply?

 

 

Mr. Helmick replied that the County attorney would have to determine that issue.

 

Commissioner Morgan felt that if the Land Use Code was going to be changed that it should handle current as well as future problems.

 

Commissioner Wallace pointed out that the added language did not stipulate the ability to ask for an extension from the Board of County Commissioners on the Final Plat.

 

Mr. Kadera replied that an appeal could be filed to ask for additional time.  Everything in the code could be appealed except process.  He went on to explain the background of the change to group homes.  In 2001 the state law was changed, therefore the Land Use Code was not consistent with the state.  As a result, amendments needed to occur to Section 4.1 to add Group Home for the Mentally Ill and change Group Home for the Elderly to Group Home for the Aged in all “Residential” zoning categories.  Also Section 4.3.E needed to be amended to reflect the changes and a Section 4.3.I needed to be added for Group Home for the Mentally Ill.  Also he explained that in Section 4 of the Land Use Code certain uses were omitted, which needed to be added.  A new definition of “Sawmill” also needed to be added and needed to be added as a new subsection 4.3.7.L.  Section 5.13.6 Building Permits needed to be altered to determine when building permits could be accepted for land use applications.  He stated that the change would bring the Code in conformity with the land use Development Agreement.  Lastly, he explained that a new subsection 4.6.7 Administrative Variance would be added to the Land Use Code to allow the Planning Director to determine different setbacks in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, stated that there was a zoning violation across the street from his property.  He remarked that the process for zoning enforcement was difficult because there were no penalties.  There were no incentives to come into compliance.  He stated that there needed to be a willingness to enforce.  He felt that the home occupation regulations were not enforceable.  He felt that the number of employees allowed was not enforceable because there was no tool.  He thought that when a certification, registration, or licensing was complete that the applicant acknowledge what the Code was and that they have no objection to allowing code enforcement of the home occupation rules.  He felt that the certification should not allow the home occupation to be owned by people other than the home owner.  He also questioned the enforceability of the on site retail sales and the five vehicle trips per day.  The outdoor storage was also an enforceability issue.  He wanted to see an effort made and felt the tool was through the certification process which would allow code enforcement to inspect the home occupation.

 

Chairman Boulter remarked that he had previously had a phone conversation with Evelyn King regarding enforcing setbacks in the O-Open zoning district and resending the setbacks in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estates zoning district.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evelyn King, 6321 14th SW, Loveland, stated that she was a member of the Board of Adjustment.  She stated that she was in opposition of the changes to the nonconformity section of the Code and to the new Administrative Variance for the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts.  She explained the history of the zoning districts’ lot sizes and stated that more lot size variances had been requested over the years, which in turn created lots that did not meet the 10-acre minimum in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate districts.  She pointed out several examples of variances that had gone before the Board of Adjustment over the past few years.  She remarked that there had been 530 variance requests, and the people that had a variance denied had spent approximately $10,000 total and received nothing.  She proposed rescinding the 2000 change to the RE-Rural Estate and O-Open zoning districts and explained her reasoning.  She did not find that there was a balance between the needs of all citizens versus the unfair impact of the change upon the property owners in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estates districts.  The change in 2000 also did not follow the intent of the Master Plan’s fairness principles.  It did not have an educational component, respect individual property rights, respect the values of the individuals of the community, recognize the cumulative impacts on future generations, or have consistent requirements and contain flexibility within the written criteria.  She explained that she was just asking for some consistency.  She commented on the changes to the nonconformity section of the code and expressed her concerns.  She had an issue with the change to Section 4.8.10 because Section 4.8.10.B.1 was a large percentage of items that had to go before the County Commissioners.  She felt that there should be a requirement that there was the County Health and Engineering approval.  She also thought that there should be an administrative variance allowed for all of the nonconformities. 

 

Mr. Kadera replied that the effort trying to be made was to address some of the concerns that had come up with the change to the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts.  He stated that nonconformities occur in all zoning districts and that was what the nonconformity section of the code was trying to address.  He explained that the County Attorney rewrote the nonconformity section of the code to simplify and make it more clear. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked about the enforceability issue.

 

Mr. Kadera stated that the Code Compliance team had looked had the changes to the code.  Mr. Kadera stated that most of the public wanted to comply with the code.  He stated that issues were enforceable.

 

Chairman Boulter asked what the Administrative Variance would cost?

 

Mr. Kadera stated that it had not been determined yet, but it would probably be close to the cost of the Minor Variance.

 

DISCUSSION:

Chairman Boulter liked the idea of the Administrative Variance and stated that it could always be expanded in the future to include other zoning districts.

 

Commissioner Morgan felt that the wording for 5.13.6.A was confusing and suggested that the sentence be revised to “A building permit will not be accepted for processing on property that has a valid land use application pending…….”

 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #06-CA0059, as follows with the suggested changes to Sections 4.3.10.1.d, 4.3.10.1.l, and 5.13.6.A:

 

1.   Amend the Land Use Code by making the following changes to Section 4.3.10:

 

Section 4.3.10

B.   Home occupation. A business use conducted as a customary, incidental, and accessory use in the resident’s dwelling unit, attached garage or detached building, including office work, the making of art or crafts, trade uses, the providing of personal or professional services, and similar activities, and including retail sales of products produced on the premises and products clearly incidental, secondary and ancillary to the home occupation.  Uses specifically excluded from home occupations include vehicle repair or similar activities.

 

Home occupations are allowed in all zoning districts by right and by minor special review as detailed below.

1.  All home occupations must meet the following criteria.         

a. The home occupation may utilize up to 50 percent of the square footage of the dwelling, including the basement and attached garage, not to exceed 800 square feet in the dwelling and attached garage.

b. Multiple home occupations are allowed on any lot provided that for all home occupations totaled together, the requirements for a single home occupation are not exceeded.

c. The home occupation is conducted only by members of the family who reside on the premises plus up to one full time equivalent person who does not reside on the premises.

d..  All parking required to accommodate the home occupation must be provided on the site of the home occupation and located outside of required setbacks from property lines.

e.  The home occupation must not change the residential character of the lot or the exterior appearance of the dwelling.

f.  The home occupation is limited to one identification sign which must be flush mounted on the building containing the home occupation. The maximum size for an identification sign for the home occupation is three square feet.

g.  On site retail sales of products produced on the premises may occur only during retail sales events.  Retail sales of products clearly incidental, secondary and ancillary to the home occupation may occur throughout the year.

h.  On site retail sales events may occur no more than 30 calendar days in any year.

 

 

 

i.  The home occupation may also have one temporary on or off premise directional sign that is located on private property no farther from the subject parcel than the nearest arterial road, has a one or two sided sign face that is no more than 9 square feet per face, a sign height no more than 8 feet, and is in place only during allowed retail sales events.

j.  Any noise, dust, odors, vibration, or light generated as a result of the home occupation must be below, at the property line, the volume, frequency, intensity, duration or time of day such that it does not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life, quiet, comfort or outdoor recreation of an individual of ordinary sensitivity and habits.

k.   All applicable land use, health, and building codes must be met.                  

l.  Any home occupation established after (the date of this amendment) must provide a Home Occupation Certificate to Larimer County prior to operation.

 

2.  A home occupation meeting the criteria in sub-section 1 and the following additional criteria are allowed by right.

a.  The home occupation is conducted in a dwelling and/or in a detached accessory building.  The detached accessory building must have had a building permit prior to (date of enactment of this amendment).

b.  The area used for the home occupation inside both the dwelling, attached garage and detached accessory building totaled together is no more than 800 square feet.

c. There is no outside storage associated with the home occupation, except that no more than one vehicle used in the home occupation may be stored outside, and such vehicle must be registered as either a passenger vehicle or light duty truck.

d.  Vehicle trips associated with the home occupation, except for retail sales events, will not exceed 5 trips in any one day.

 

3.  A home occupation meeting the criteria in sub-section 1 above and wishing to operate under the following conditions or circumstances may operate if approval is first obtained through the minor special review process

 

a.   Outdoor storage of materials, parts, vehicles, equipment, finished product and other items  such vehicle being registered as either a passenger vehicle or light duty truck, is allowed if the outdoor storage will be effectively screened from surrounding properties and public roads, and is limited to the following:

 

 

Maximum area of screened outdoor storage  Minimum setback from all property lines

200 square feet                                                50 feet

201- 400 square feet                                       100 feet

401- 800 square feet                                       200 feet

             

 

b.         The home occupation is to occur in an accessory building that had or will have a building permit issued after (date of enactment of this amendment).

 

 

 

c.         The area used for the home occupation inside the dwelling, an attached garage, and detached accessory building totaled together is more than 800 square feet but no more than 1200 square feet.  Home occupations using a total area of more than 1200 square feet are not allowed.

d.         Vehicle trips associated with the home occupation, except for retail sales events, will not exceed 10 trips in any one day.

 

2.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding the definitions of Retail Sales Event, Craft, Vehicle repair, and Home occupation.

 

3.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 10.5 (Signs not subject to permit), by adding a new subsection 10.5.R to read:

 

“A home occupation may have one temporary on or off premise directional sign that is located on private property no farther from the subject parcel than the nearest arterial road, has a one or two sided sign face that is no more than 9 square feet per face, a sign height no more than 8 feet, and is in place only during allowed retail sales events.”

 

4.   Amend the Land Use Code by amending Section 10.6 (Prohibited signs), subsection E as follows:

 

“Billboards, off premises signs, except that a home occupation may have a temporary, off premises directional sign as described in Section 10.5.R.”

 

5.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding a new subsection 5.13.5.E   Final Plat Completion.

 

Section 5.13.5.E   Final Plat Completion

 

The final plat process must be completed within one year from the date that a complete final plat application is accepted by the planning director.  Completing the final plat process will require complete execution of the final plat and the development agreement and the recording of these documents in the Office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.

 

6.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.6.3.B.4.d, by deleting the “or” from “and/or”.

 

7.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 12.2.4.A, to read as follows:

 

”The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to allow the applicant to present the proposal to nearby residents and property owners who may be affected by the proposal.  A neighborhood meeting is required for amendments to the official zoning map, special reviews, special exceptions, subdivisions, planned land divisions or conservation developments.  (Note: A neighborhood meeting is also required for a rural land use plan but has different requirements.  See section 5.8.5.C.6).  The Planning Director may require a neighborhood meeting for a variance or if he/she determines the meeting would benefit the board of adjustment’s review.”

 

 

 

8.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 12.2.4.B, by deleting the reference to concept review as follows:

 

“The neighborhood meeting must be conducted after concept review (or optional sketch plan review) sketch plan review but before an application is submitted for any procedure requiring a public hearing.  Neighborhood meetings for special exceptions or variances, if required by the planning director, will be conducted before the board of adjustment hearing.

 

9.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.2.3.F.9.d, as follows:

 

“Land divisions must occur as planned land divisions and all rezonings require rezoning to PD planned development district.”

 

10. Amend the Land Use Code by amending Section 22.2.2 as follows:

 

22.2.2. Process.

 

A. Appeals of administrative decisions and planning director interpretations.

 

1. Initiation of appeal. A written application for appeal must be submitted to the

planning department within 30 days of the decision or interpretation which the

person believes to be in error. The planning director may grant one 30-day

extension of this time limit provided that a written request for such extension is

submitted to the planning director within the initial 30-day period.

 

2. Contents of appeal. The appeal must be submitted on a form provided by the

planning department and must include a statement of the decision or interpretation

being appealed, the date of the decision or interpretation, and facts, legal authority

or other evidence that supports the decision was in error. An application fee

established by the county commissioners must be paid when the appeal is

submitted.

 

3. Scheduling. Upon receipt of the appeal, the planning director will schedule the

appeal on the next available agenda of the county commissioners, no later than 60

days after the date on which a properly completed notice of appeal is filed.

 

4. Notice. Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a

newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date. Notice

by first-class mail may be sent to affected property owners if the planning director

determines such notice is appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Action by the county commissioners.

a. At the appeal hearing the county commissioners will take relevant evidence

and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, the administrative

officer, planning director, county staff and any interested party.

b. At the appeal hearing, the county commissioners will only consider the

same application, plans and materials that were the subject of the original

decision or interpretation, the record of that decision or interpretation and

the issue raised by the person who submitted the appeal, unless the county

commissioners, in their discretion, determine other evidence to be relevant

and helpful. Testimony from interested parties may be considered only as

it relates to the administrative officer’s decision or the planning director’s

interpretation.

c. At the conclusion of the hearing the county commissioners will affirm,

affirm with modifications or reverse the decision of the administrative

officer or the interpretation of the planning director.

d. The county commissioners may refer an appeal to the planning

commission for a recommendation. The decision to refer an appeal to the

planning commission will be made by the county commissioners within 14

days of the date the appeal was filed. The county commissioners may refer an appeal to the planning

commission for a recommendation. The decision to refer an appeal to the

planning commission will be made by the county commissioners within 14

days of the date the appeal was filed. The county commissioners may refer an appeal to the planning

commission for a recommendation. The decision to refer an appeal to the

planning commission will be made by the county commissioners within 14

days of the date the appeal was filedAll appeals to the board of county commissioners will be reviewed by the planning director who will determine whether the appeal will be referred to the planning commission for recommendation prior to a county commissioners’ hearing on the appeal.

 

6. Burden of proof. The decision of the administrative officer’s decision or the planning director’s

interpretation will not be reversed unless it is shown  by a

preponderance of the evidence that the decision is in error or inconsistent with the intent

and purpose of this Code.

 

 

B. Appeals to deviate from standards or requirements not filed concurrently with

development applications.

 

1. Initiation of appeal. For appeals to deviate from Code standards or

requirements that are not filed as part of a development review application, a

written application for appeal must be submitted to the planning director.

 

2. Contents of appeal. The appeal must be submitted on a form provided by the

planning department and must include a statement of the Code provision

being appealed and evidence that supports the appeal, including evidence that

demonstrates how Section 22.3.2 or 22.2.4 review criteria for the appeal are

met. The planning director may request additional information necessary to

evaluate the appeal.

 

3. Scheduling. The appeal will be scheduled for hearing within 60 days after the

date on which a properly completed notice of appeal is filed.

 

4. Notice. Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published

in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date.

Notice by first-class mail may be sent to affected property owners as

determined by the planning director.

 

 

 

5. Action by the county commissioners.

a. At the hearing the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, county staff and any interested party.

b. At the conclusion of the hearing, the county commissioners will

approve, approve with conditions or deny the appeal.

c. The county commissioners may refer an appeal to the planning

commission for a recommendation. The decision to refer an appeal to

the planning commission will be made by the county commissioners

within 14 days of the date the appeal was filed  All appeals to the board of county commissioners will be reviewed by the planning director who will determine whether the appeal will be referred to the planning commission for recommendation prior to a county commissioners’ hearing on the appeal.

 

6.  Burden of Proof.

The appeal will granted only if the applicant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that granting the appeal will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Code.

 

 

C. Appeals to deviate from standards or requirements filed concurrently with

development review applications.

 

1. Initiation of appeal. For appeals to deviate from Code standards or requirements that are filed as part of a development review application, a written application for appeal must be submitted to the planning director.

 

2. Contents of appeal. The appeal must be submitted on a form provided by the planning department and must include a statement of the Code provision being appealed and evidence that supports the appeal, including evidence that demonstrates how the Section 22.2.3 or 22.2.4 review criteria for the appeal are met. The planning director may request

additional information necessary to evaluate the appeal.

 

3. Scheduling. The appeal will be heard at the same time as the development

review application

 

4. Notice. Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation as part of the notice of the development review application. Notice by first-class mail may be sent to affected property owners as determined by the planning director with the notice of development review.

 

5. Action by the county commissioners.

a. At the hearing, the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, county staff and any interested party.

b. At the conclusion of the hearing, the county commissioners will approve, approve with conditions or deny the appeal. The county commissioners will make separate findings and take separate action on each appeal before taking action on the development proposal.

c. Appeals of Code standards or requirements submitted concurrently with a development review application will be reviewed by the planning commission along with the development proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

6.  Burden of proof.

 

The appeal will be granted only if the applicant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that granting the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Code.

 

 

10.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding Group Home for the Mentally Ill and change Group Home for the Elderly to Group Home for the Aged to each zoning district that includes “Residential” category of uses in Section 4.1.

 

11.   Amend the Land Use Code Section 4.3.E and 4.3.F as follows:

 

E. Group home for the developmentally disabled.  A single-family dwelling occupied by four to eight people who are developmentally disabled. 

1. A group home must be licensed by the State of Colorado prior to occupancy.

2. No more than eight developmentally disabled persons can be housed in such a group home not including staff

3. Developmentally disabled means people having cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, mental retardation, autism or epilepsy.

4. Anyone proposing to occupy a single-family dwelling as a group home for the developmentally disabled must demonstrate by competent evidence that there are no other such group homes within 750 feet of the proposed facility.

5. A group home for the developmentally disabled must be occupied by the owner or be operated by a nonprofit agency as defined by the State of Colorado.

 

F. Group home for the elderly aged.  A single-family dwelling occupied by four to eight people who are 60 or older. 

1. A group home for the elderly aged must be licensed by the State of Colorado prior to occupancy.

2. No more than eight people can occupy a group home for the elderly aged not including staff

3. Anyone proposing to occupy a single-family dwelling as a group home for the elderly aged must demonstrate by competent evidence that there are no other such group homes within 750 feet of the proposed facility.

4. A group home for the elderly must be occupied by the owner or operated by a nonprofit agency as defined by the State of Colorado.

 

12.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding Section 4.3.1  Group Home for the Mentally Ill.

 

4.3.I  Group Home for the Mentally Ill  A single family dwelling occupied by four to eight people who are mentally ill as defined in Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-115.

 

1.    A group home for the mentally ill must be licensed by the State of Colorado prior to occupancy.

2.    Not more than eight people can occupy a group home for the mentally ill not including staff.

 

 

 

3.    Anyone proposing to occupy a single family dwelling as a group home for the mentally ill must demonstrate by competent evidence that there are no other such group homes within 750 feet of the proposed facility.

4.    No person shall be placed in a group home for the mentally ill unless they qualify pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-115.

 

13. Amend the Land Use Code by adding Boarding Stable (S) under the Agricultural heading in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 and also add Riding Academy (S), Golf Course (S) and County Club (S) under the Recreational heading.  Then renumber the uses accordingly.

 

14.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding a new definition of “Sawmill” and adding a new subsection 4.3.7.L  Sawmill to read as follows:

 

“A facility where logs or partially processed cants are sawn, split, shaved, stripped, chipped or otherwise processed to produce wood products, not including the processing of timber for use on the same lot by the owner or resident of the lot.”

 

15.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.13.6 (Building Permits) as follows:

 

5.13.6. Building permits.

A. A building permit will not be accepted for processing on property that has a valid land use application pending for review of a variance, special exception, special review, site plan, rezoning, subdivision, conservation development, planned land division, minor land division, minor special review, amended plat or rural land plan.

 

B. The building department may accept applications for building permits after the final plat is recorded,a site plan, variance or rezoning is approved. or final approval is granted for a variance, special exception, rezoning or special review. The building department may accept applications for building permits on property subject to a special exception or a special review after all requirements of Section 12.6 of this code are metThe building department may issueaccept applications for building permits for individual lots in approved subdivisions, conservation developments and planned land divisions as follows:

 

1. Footing and foundation permits for new construction will be accepted only after the following have occurred:

a. Over lot grading is complete, and the county engineer has inspected and approved the grading;

b. Final grading of drainage easements and the installation of the stormwater drainage system is complete, and the county engineer has inspected and approved the grading and installation; and

c. Construction of the roadway sub-grade and installation of the aggregate base course, or other all-weather surface, for the roadway serving the project is completed and inspected and approved by the county engineer, and acceptable density tests for the subgrade and utility trenches have been submitted to and approved by the county engineer.

d. Street signs are properly installed at all intersections and have been inspected and approved by the county engineer.

           

 

 

2. Full building permits for new construction will be issued only after the following have occurred:

a. Roadway surfacing at least through aggregate base course or plant mix bituminous base application is complete; the county engineer has inspected and approved the surfacing and density tests for the applied material have been submitted to and approved by the county engineer;

b. Public water and sewer systems are completely constructed, and evidence of acceptance by the appropriate water, sewer and fire protection providers has been submitted to the county engineer; and

 

 

C. No structure can be occupied until a certificate of occupancy is accepted by the building department.

 

 

16.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.8 (Nonconformities) as follows:

 

4.8       Nonconformities

 

4.8.1    Purpose

 

This section governs uses, building and structures (except signs), and lots that were legally established prior to the adoption of this code but that do not comply with one or more requirements of this code.  The provisions of this section are intended to recognize the interests of property owners in continuing and putting to productive use nonconforming uses, buildings, structures and lots while also encouraging as many aspects of such uses, buildings, structures and lots to be brought into conformance with this code as is reasonably practicable.

 

4.8.2    Nonconforming use.

           

A nonconforming use is an existing use that does not comply with the requirements of this code but did conform to all applicable regulations in effect at the time the use commenced.

 

4.8.3.   Nonconforming building or structure.

 

A nonconforming building or structure is an existing building or structure that does not comply with the requirements of this code but did conform to all applicable regulations in effect at the time the building or structure was constructed.

 

4.8.4.   Continuation of a nonconforming use.

 

A nonconforming use may be continued.  Normal or routine repairs and maintenance of a building, structure or area containing a nonconforming use are allowed.  Normal or routine repairs and maintenance do not include any repairs or maintenance that enlarge a building, structure or area containing a nonconforming use.

 

 

4.8.5.   Substitution of uses.

 

A nonconforming use may not be replaced by another nonconforming use.

 

4.8.6.   Discontinuance of a nonconforming use.

 

If a nonconforming use is discontinued for more than 12 consecutive months, the use may not be reestablished.  If a question arises as to whether a nonconforming use has been discontinued, the property owner has the burden to show by competent evidence that the nonconforming use has not been discontinued. 

 

4.8.7.   Continuation of nonconforming building or structure.

 

A nonconforming building or structure may continue to be used and occupied.  Normal or routine repairs and maintenance of a nonconforming building or structure are allowed.  A nonconforming building or structure may not, however, be repaired or altered in a way that would increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to this code.

 

4.8.9.   Destruction.

 

A.        If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed (i.e., incurs damages of more than 50 percent of the building or structure’s replacement cost) by a calamity beyond the control of the property owner, other than a flood, the property owner may repair or replace the nonconforming building or structure, provided that he/she submits a building permit application within 12 months of the calamity.  The nonconforming building or structure may only be replaced in the same location and size as the original building or structure.  Nonconforming buildings or structures damaged or destroyed by flood must meet the requirements of subsection 4.2.2 (floodplain overlay district).   

 

B.         If a building or structure containing a nonconforming use is destroyed by a calamity beyond the control of the property owner, the property owner may reestablish the nonconforming use and may repair or replace the building or structure, provided that he/she submits a complete building permit application within 12 months of the calamity.  The building or structure containing the nonconforming use and the nonconforming use may only be replaced in the same location, size and character as the original building or structure and use.

 

4.8.10. Extension, expansion, enlargement or change in character.

 

A.        A nonconforming use or a building or structure that contains a nonconforming use cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without the approval of the county commissioners.

           

B.         A nonconforming building or structure cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without the approval of the county commissioners except where the building is nonconforming only as to a required setback and the following conditions are met:

 

 

                        1.         The proposed addition is not more than 25 percent of the square footage

                                    of the original building and is not more than 1,000 square feet;

 

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

 

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

                                    Classification or the Colorado Department of Transportation.

 

C.        A use that is nonconforming because it has been changed by regulation from a use by right to a use by special review or a use by minor special review cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without special review or minor special review approval by the board of county commissioners under Section 4.5.  In determining whether to approve the special review or minor special review, the county commissioners will consider the entire use, not just the elements of the use sought to be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character.

 

D.        In determining whether there has been a change in character of a use, building or structure, the following factors may be considered:

 

1.         Whether there has been a change in the nature, volume, intensity, frequency, quality or degree of the use, building or structure.  (For example, has there been a significant increase in the number of employees or traffic volume; has there been a change in the days or hours of operation; or have the physical dimensions of the building or structure been increased);

 

2.         Whether there has been a change in the activity, products or services.  (For example, a dog grooming facility that has been converted to a retail store for pet supplies could be considered a change in the character of the use).

 

3.         Whether the new use, building or structure reflects the nature and purpose of the prior use or structure.  (For example, an air strip used for seasonal crop dusting operations that is subsequently used only for recreational parasailing could be considered a change in the character of the use);

 

4.         Whether the new use is different in kind on its effect on the neighborhood. (For example, has there been a change in environmental influences on the neighborhood, such as light, noise or air quality).            

 

4.8.11. Review Criteria for requests to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure.

 

Except for requests involving special reviews or minor special reviews pursuant to Section 4.8.10.C, to approve a request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure, the county commissioners must find the following conditions exist.

 

 

 

A.        The proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and be in harmony with the neighborhood.

 

            B.         The proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change will not                               adversely affect property values in the area affected by the proposed                                          extension, expansion, enlargement or change.

 

C.        The proposed extension, expansion, enlargement or change will not impair the intent and purpose of this code and the master plan.

 

 

4.8.12. Conditions of approval

 

The county commissioners may impose conditions on a request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure to accomplish the purposes and intent of this code and the master plan; prevent or mitigate adverse effects on the public, neighborhoods, utilities and county facilities; and ensure compatibility of land uses.  These conditions may include a requirement that some or all elements of the nonconforming use and/or that some or all areas of a nonconforming building, structure or site be brought into compliance with the standards in Section 8 of this code.

 

4.8.13. Process

 

All applications for requests to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure require a pre-application conference and county commissioner review.  The Planning Director may require a neighborhood meeting if he/she determines that the meeting would benefit the county commissioners’ review of the application.  Each of these processes is described in Section 12.2 (development review procedures).

 

4.8.14. Nonconforming Lots

 

A.        A nonconforming lot is a lot, parcel or tract of land that does not meet one or more of the requirements of this code and:

 

                        1.         Was created by deed or other instrument of property transfer signed 

                                                before May 5, l972; or

 

                        2.         Was approved by the county commissioners on or after May 5, l972; or

 

                        3.         Appears on a final plat of record approved by the appropriate authority at                                 the time the plat was recorded.  (See definitions, legal lot).

 

B.         Nonconforming lots must meet all requirements of this code except minimum lot size and minimum lot width-to-depth ratio.

 

 

17.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding a new Section 4.6.7  Administrative Variance.

 

Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance

 

The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts which meet the following criteria.

A.   The required side and rear setbacks on the lot are 25 feet;

B.   An addition to an existing building is proposed and the addition will be at least five feet from the side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line; or

C.   A new building is proposed and the building will match the setback of an existing building along the same lot line that is at least five feet from the side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line;

D.   A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners adjacent to the subject property and no objections were stated; and

E.    The review criteria in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable.

The decision of the planning director can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.

 

18. Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.1.5.B.3 to read, “Minimum setbacks for lots created after November 29, 1973.  See Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance.”

 

19. Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.1.8.B.2, Minimum setbacks to read, “Minimum setbacks.  See Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance.”

 

20. Amend the Land Use Code by moving Section 8.17.3, Minor setback variances to Section 4.6.8.  This results in Section 8.17.4 being renumbered to be 8.17.3.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  -0

 

Mr. Kadera stated that the amendments to the Land Use Code would be heard before the Board of County Commissioners on June 19, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:10 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                      Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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