RED FEATHER LAKES PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Fire House Meeting Room
44 Fire House Lane, Red Feather Lakes, CO
June 10, 2010 Meeting Notes
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 PM by Chairperson Ted Carter.
Members in Attendance: Gene Barker, Barbra Bowman, Susan Bradley, Ted Carter, Terry Ferebee, Eunice Michalka, Ben Myers, Lucille Schmitt, Michael Sledge, Roger Svendsen
Members Excused Absences : All other members had excused absences.
Larimer County Representation : County Commissioner Lew Gaiter, III and Rob Helmick, LARCO Planning
Guests Present : Colorado State Senator District 15 Kevin Lundberg, Colorado State Representative House District 49 B. J. Nikkel, Pat Bradley, Sue Stevens, Stephen Johnson, and Terri Donnelly
Adoption of Agenda: The agenda was approved as written
Approval of Minutes : May 13, 2010 meeting minutes were approved
Communications from Committee Members : Michael Sledge disseminated to the PAC a written document and preliminary site plan for Sawmill Junction. Chair Ted Carter determined that discussion surrounding Michael’s input would be delayed until later in the meeting under “discussion items.”
Comments from Audience : Stephen Johnson recommended that the PAC take another look at the Red Feather Area Plan and that the concept that Main Street is the core area of the village needs to be reviewed. The concept is probably only held by the business owners that own property in this area; the “core” is becoming a ghost town.
Communications from County Representatives :
LARCO Commissioner Lew Gaiter III introduced Colorado State Senator Kevin Lundberg and Colorado State Representative B. J. Nikkel. Senator Lundberg and Representative Nikkel briefly introduced themselves. Senator Lundberg may be contacted at Kevin@kevinlundberg.com or 970-663-3506 and Representative Nikkel at Rep.Nikkel@gmail.com or 970-663-3506.
Action Items : None
1. Rob Helmick, LARCO Planning.
a. The County has received no applications for the RFLPAC. Rob recommended that PAC members encourage Red Feather Lakes’ citizens to apply for the PAC. Rob additionally advised that neither he nor his office has received any information pertaining to Dennis Frydendall’s continued PAC membership. Gene Barker volunteered to contact Dennis to ascertain his intentions to continue or not to continue his PAC membership.
b. The County is beginning to receive work products from the road survey contractor. Issues have been raised pertaining to historic monumentation.
2. Ben Myers advised that he has been unable to penetrate the bureaucracy of CenturyTel to obtain information on the process to upgrade RFL internet capacity. Ted Carter advised that he may have a contact person.
1. A motion was made and seconded to postpone the discussion items listed on the meeting agenda for June 10, 2010 and discuss the concern that Michael Sledge identified earlier. PAC approved.
Mr. Sledge’s written document states:
“Whereas, PAC, was created to function and provide local input and guidance to all effects upon the RFL community and use the RFL Area Plan as its charge under the Larimer Master Plan, PAC expresses deep concern and alarm at being bypassed for input over commercial development plans on Red Feather Road (74E).
“Approvals for an Industrial Park with as many as 8 or 9 businesses on a 3 ˝ acre footprint at the current Ponderosa Reality Site, newly purchased by Roger Craig, appear to be on a fast-track for construction without review by RFL-PAC. The RFL Area Plan was approved for inclusion as an element of the LC Master Plan by unanimous BOCC vote, August 2006, and the RFLPAC’s bylaws include the charge to “communicate to the county commissioners on any issues that impact the Red Feather Lakes Community.
“Since that time, the PAC has listened and offered advisories on several casual and formal development proposals for our community. Examples include: the “960” acre/residential community plan for Deadman Road, the permit for operation of the Monroe Gravel Pit/Mine, three or more separate proposals by Pete Blattenbauer for auto repair and body shops, and participation in the reform of local code for commercial real estate/easy transfer of use and function.
“In short, every major development consideration that affects the RFL community has received the voluntary or mandatory courtesy of allowing PAC to listen and input about potential effects upon our community. PAC is advisory to the BOCC and has existed for over 6 years to perform this function, providing local, mountain voice about our own future. Questions must be raised as to how proposed developments fit within the Plan vision and guidelines. These functions are Prime reason for the formation and continued existence of the RFL-PAC. The very controversy that this proposal suggests also invite speculations from parts of our citizenry, as well as PAC members, that bypassing public awareness and PAC review may be deliberate. If so, this insults Red Feather citizens as well as PAC.
“In keeping with Article I, Section 3 of our bylaws, the county should seek the input of the RFLPAC on any posed development with the potential to significantly alter the character of the plan area, regardless of compliance with land use codes. Up until now, PAC has received this respect and courtesy.
“Therefore, RFL-PAC, respectfully, requests a stay upon the approval/construction for the Industrial Park from BOCC. We also ask for the courtesy of a prompt replay to our concern until our own study and community can input and our voices be heard.
“The Larimer Master Plan and the Red Feather Lakes Area Plan within, require our advice.
“Why else does RFL-PAC exist?"
Lucille Schmitt stated that Roger Clark came to a PAC meeting as a guest and advised the PAC what he would like to do. The Shop and Lumber Storage Business has always been used for various business purposes. The current zoning is appropriate for proposed site plan and resulting businesses. The disseminated “preliminary site plan” is a work in progress; the “preliminary site plan” is not the final plan; it changes frequently due to county requirements and input for his architect. There is not a final product currently available to present to anybody. In Red Feather zoning, certain businesses are allowed on the property under certain conditions - there is a list of business allowed by use of right and there is a list of business that are allowed by special review. The process right now is the site review. The proposed businesses in Sawmill Junction does not fit in the village core area – a body shop, an automotive shop – these are businesses authorized by use of right zoning and no special review is required.
Ben Myers stated that under the PAC bylaws there is a section where the PAC gets involved and one such time is “any issues that impacts Red Feather Lakes community” and since new businesses impact Red Feather, the PAC should be in the loop somewhere in the process.
Rob Helmick advised that Mr. Clark started conversing with the County in early Fall 2009 and he or his agents have meet with county staff several times. Two building permits and two septic permits have been issued to the property to clean up historical issues. There is no formal application for a site plan in front of the County right now. It is not normal for a PAC to review building permit applications; but special reviews would be run by the PAC as part of the development process.
Roger Svendsen stated that once an individual has a serious intent to build a business, he or she would certainly exercise wisdom to bring it forward to the PAC and keep the PAC informed.
Michael Sledge stated that during the development of the RFL Area Plan, it was agreed that the natural beauty corridor of 74E would be secondary for development purposes to the Village Core and Dowdy Lake Road. Will these new Sawmill Junction businesses on 74E shift the business focus to that area by default? Additionally, Michael stated that this proposal was a mega project.
Ted Carter stated that by comparing the Sawmill Junction proposal to the 960 proposal is an illegitimate comparison because the 960 owner did what he was required to do and if the Sawmill Junction owner was going for a special review, he would have to do what the 960 owner did. If the Sawmill Junction wants to build on his private land and it is within the RFL zoning regulations, then he has the right to proceed. It might be wise for the owner to keep the PAC informed, but he has no legal requirement to do so. The PAC has no right to get into a development process when the PAC has no right to do it.
Ben Myers asked Rob Helmick where it would be appropriate for the County to bring up the Sawmill Junction proposal to the PAC. Rob advised that if there was no storage proposal with the Sawmill Junction proposal, PAC would never see it under current protocol. Rob stated that he would try to keep the PAC informed of projects that may have an impact on the RFL community, but if the proposal is within the zoning regulations, he may not be informed of the proposal himself.
Gene Barker advised that he did not view the Sawmill Junction as a mega project but felt that the PAC should be kept informed of its progress.
Barbra Bowman stated that she did not view the project as a mega one and that the project would not draw from the business core. She viewed the proposal as “great”, “it is being cleaned up.”
2. Rob Helmick reminded the PAC that it had identified three possible work programs for 2010, which are (1) high speed internet, (2) water rights/water district, and (3) environmental learning center. If the PAC is to move these items forward, the PAC needs to determine (1) possible outcomes (goals), (2) time frames is getting things accomplished, (3) what is deliverable and who gets to act on it and (4) who is responsibilities for making it happen. The PAC briefly discussed these items.
RFLPAC meeting adjourned at 3:20 PM.
Submitted by Terry Ferebee