Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of July 16, 2008

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Benton, Glick, Hart, Hess, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioners’ Cox and Oppenheimer were absent.  Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Toby Stauffer, Planner II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Jill Bennett, Principal Planner, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Benton, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, and Weitkunat today on a site visit to Forbes Ranch Estates Amended 2nd Subdivision, McBlair Ranch Special Exception, John Deere Drive (121) Rezoning, and River Bluffs Open Space Location and Extent.

 

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 JUNE 18, 2008 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Hart to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Weitkunat.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

ELECTION OF OFFICIALS:

Chairman Morgan requested that the election of officials be completed at the end of the hearing.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  RIVER BLUFFS OPEN SPACE LOCATION AND EXTENT  #08-Z1701:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request from the Larimer County Open Lands Department to construct and establish a trailhead for and extend the Poudre River Trail through property owned by Larimer County situated east of County Road 3 and south of the Poudre River north of Highway 392 adjacent to the Town of Windsor.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the River Bluffs Open Space Location and Extent, file #08-Z1701, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Prior to development of the site the open Lands Department shall submit an application to the Planning Department for Site Plan Review for review and approval.

2.   The Town of Windsor shall be provided a referral and their comments solicited in the design and development of the trail head. 

 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

Commissioner Weitkunat commented that the project had fulfilled some of the promises and the obligations that had gone to the citizens of Larimer County.  She felt that it was a great thing to have it moved forward as it would benefit all citizens in Larimer County.

 

ITEM #2  JOHN DEERE DRIVE (121) REZONING #08-Z1685:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to rezone a 2.87 acre parcel of land from O-Open to PD-Planned Development with the uses allowed being consistent with the land use objectives of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, which was industrial.  The location of the property was located on the west side of John Deere Drive, approximately ¼ mile north of the Highway 14 Frontage Road.

 

DISCUSSION:

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 John Deere Drive (121) Rezoning, file #08-Z1685, request to rezone the property from O (Open) to PD (Planned Development) for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for John Deere Drive (121) Planned Development shall be as follows:

 

1.    The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the property shall be as follows

 

PD (Planned Development)

 

A. Principal uses:

Agricultural

1. Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

2. Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

3. Pet animal facility (R)

Commercial

3. Permanent fireworks sales (S)

4. Adult use (S)

5. Outdoor display/sales (R)

6. Convenience store (R/S)

7. Automobile service station (R/S)

8. Car wash (R/S)

9. Professional office (R/S)

10. General retail (R/S)

 

11. General commercial (R/S)

12. Personal service (R/S)

13. Restaurant/take-out (R/S)

14. Restaurant/sit-down (R/S)

15. Nightclub (R/S)

16. Flea market (R/S)

17. Instructional facility (R/S)

18. Clinic (R/S)

Recreational

19. Place of amusement or recreation (R/S)--See section 4.3 (use descriptions and conditions)

20. Shooting range (R/S)--See section 4.3

21. Membership club/clubhouse (R)

Industrial

22. Enclosed storage (R)

23. Outdoor storage (R/MS)

24. Trade use (R)

25. Light industrial (R)

26. General industrial (S)

27. Mining (S)

28. Oil and gas drilling and production (R)

29. Land fill (S)

30. Recycling (S)

31. Hazardous materials storage and handling (S)

32. Junkyard (S)

Utilities

33. Utility substation (L)

34. Treatment plant (L)

35. Radio and television transmitters (S)

36. Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)--See section 16

37. Water storage facility (L)

Transportation

38. Transportation depot (R)

39. Bus terminal (R)

40. Truck stop (R)

41. Transportation service (R)

42. Parking lot/garage (R)

43. Park and ride (R)

44. Heliport (S)

45. Train station (R)

Institutional

46. Sheriff/fire station (L)

47. Church (R)

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

1. Minimum lot size:

a. 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

b. 15,000 square feet (0.34 acre) if public water and sewer are used.

2. Minimum setbacks:

a. Front yard--Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways and county roads.

b. Side yards--ten feet.

c. Rear yards--ten feet.

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

3. Maximum structure height--40 feet.

4. No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.

 

Uses followed by an (R) are allowed by right.

 

Uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the Minor Special Review process.

 

Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the Special Review process described in Section 4.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

Uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by right or require special review approval based on thresholds in Section 4.3 (use descriptions) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

 

Uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in Section 13.0 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING SECTION 4.3.1.J  #08-CA0086:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code specifically Section 4.3.1.J concerning Apiary.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #08-CA0086, be approved as follows:

 

1.  1. Replace the existing reserved Section 4.3.1.J. with the following:

 

J. Apiary.  An assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location.  An apiary must meet the following standards:

 

1. Hives.  All bee colonies shall be kept in Langstroth type hives with removable frames, which shall be kept in sound and usable condition.

 

2. Fencing of flyways.  In each instance in which any colony is situated within twenty-five (25) feet of a public or private property line of the lot upon which the apiary is situated, as measured from the nearest point on the hive to the property line, the beekeeper must establish and maintain a flyway barrier at least six (6) feet in height consisting of a solid wall, fence, dense vegetation or combination thereof that is parallel to the property line and extends ten (10) feet beyond the colony in each direction so that all bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six (6) feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the apiary.

 

3. Water. Each beekeeper must ensure that a convenient source of water is available at all times to the bees so that the bees will not congregate at swimming pools, bibcocks, pet water bowls, birdbaths or other water sources where they may cause human, bird or domestic pet contact.

 

4. General maintenance.  Each beekeeper must ensure that no bee comb or other materials that might encourage robbing are left upon the grounds of the apiary site. Upon their removal from the hive, all such materials must be promptly disposed of in a sealed container or placed within a building or other bee-proof enclosure.

 

 

 

 

 

5. Queens.  In any instance in which a colony exhibits unusually aggressive characteristics by stinging or attempting to sting without due provocation or exhibits an unusual disposition towards swarming, it shall be the duty of the beekeeper to requeen the colony. Queens must be selected from stock bred for gentleness and nonswarming characteristics.

 

6. Colony densities.

a.  No more than the following number of colonies may be kept on any lot, based upon the size or configuration of the lot on which the apiary is situated:

1. One-quarter (1/4) acre or less lot size - two (2) colonies;

2. More than one-quarter (1/4) acre to one-half (1/2) acre lot size - four (4) colonies;

3. More than one-half (1/2) acre to one (1) acre lot size - six (6) colonies;

4. More than one (1) acre or larger lot size - eight (8) colonies; and

5. Regardless of lot size, where all hives are situated at least two hundred (200) feet in any direction from all property lines of the lot on which the apiary is situated, there shall be no limit to the number of colonies.

 

b.  For each two (2) colonies authorized under colony densities, Subsection (a) above, there may be maintained upon the same lot one (1) nucleus colony in a hive structure not exceeding one (1) standard nine and five-eighths (9 5/8) inch depth ten (10) frame hive body with no honey super(s) attached as required from time to time for management of swarms. Each such nucleus colony must be disposed of or combined with an authorized colony within thirty (30) days after the date it is acquired.

 

2.  Add definitions for:

 

Apiary - An assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location. 

 

Beekeeper - any person producing or causing to be produced bees or bee products.

 

Bees - honey-producing insects of the genus apis, including all life stages.

 

Colony - one group of bees established in a place acceptable to said bees for the rearing of young and the storage of honey.

 

Hive - a structure containing bees and designed to receive movable frames of comb.

 

Honey super  – any hive body, or smaller box, used for the storage of surplus honey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.   Add Apiary as a new use by right to the Section 4.1 zoning districts under Agricultural uses and renumber the remainder of the sections as necessary:

 

A. Principal uses:

Agricultural

#. Apiary (R)

 

4.  Add Apiary as a use in the zoning table inset in Section 4.1 with the designation of “R” in all zoning districts following the Agricultural/Tree Farm use:

 

Category:   

Use:   

All zoning districts:

Agricultural

Apiary

R

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #4  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS  #08-CA0087:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code, specifically regarding notice requirements in Sections 12.3.3 Mailed Notice, Section 22.2.2 Process, Section 22.3.2 Process, Section 12.2.4 Neighborhood meeting, Section 4.3.10.G Extended Family Dwelling, Section 0 Definitions, Section 8.10.6 Amendments, and Section 12.6.6 Property owners association or equivalent.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Weitkunat 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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #08-CA0087, be approved as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Change Section 12.3.3 Mailed Notice as follows:

 

12.3.3. Mailed notice.

A. When required by the notice of public hearing table in this section, a notice must be mailed (first-class, postage-paid) to affected property owners in the vicinity of the proposal. Records of the county assessor will be used to determine the names and mailing addresses of those to be notified. At the pre-application conference prior to submitting the application, the applicant and the staff planner assigned to the project will determine the area to be included in the mailing list. The area included can not be less than 500 feet surrounding the property.

B. The applicant must provide the list of mailing addresses, on mailing labels, with an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the mailing list. The notice must contain the applicant's name; a brief description of the project; a general description of its location; a vicinity map that clearly shows the property's location; a reduced copy of the general development plan (or preliminary plat for a single-phase project or preliminary rural land plan); and the place where the file can be reviewed.

B.C. Depositing the notice in the U.S. Mail with postage prepaid is the responsibility of the planning department or rural land use center and satisfies the mailed notice requirement. Failure of anyone to receive to send a mailed notice does not invalidate any public hearing.

 

2. Change Section 22.2.2. Process as follows:

 

22.2.2. Process.

A. Appeals of administrative decisions and planning director interpretations.

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 in the vicinity of the proposal if the planning director determines such notice is appropriate. 

 

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

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 in the vicinity of the proposal as determined by the planning director. 

 

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

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 in the vicinity of the proposal as determined by the planning director with the notice of development review. 

 

 

 

 

 

3.  Change Section 22.3.2. Process as follows:

 

22.3.2. Process.

C. 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 must be sent to affected property owners in the vicinity of the proposal as determined by the planning director. 

 

4.  Change Section 12.2.4. Neighborhood meeting as follows:

 

12.2.4. Neighborhood meeting.

D. Neighborhood meetings will be conducted by a facilitator who is retained by the applicant. The applicant is responsible for all expenses of the neighborhood meeting, including the facilitator's fee, facility costs and the cost of the meeting notice. The facilitator is responsible for encouraging a free exchange of information between the applicant and those potentially affected by the proposal. The facilitator will prepare a written report that will become a part of the case file. The report will also be included in the staff report prepared for any public hearing on the proposal. The applicant is responsible for providing notice to the affected property owners in the vicinity of the proposal and for presenting the proposal to those attending the neighborhood meeting.

 

5.  Change Section 4.3.10.G Extended Family Dwelling as follows:

 

4.3.10.      

G. Extended family dwelling. 

2. A permit for an extended family dwelling used to house immediate family members for reasons other than age or disability, or on lots or parcels containing fewer than four acres, may be issued by the county commissioners after a public hearing with notice to affected property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the lot or parcel on a finding that the following standards and conditions have been met:

 

6.  Change Section 0. Definitions as follows:

 

0.    DEFINITIONS

Affected pProperty owner in the vicinity of the proposal (APO).  Those property owners in the vicinity of a development application and includes all those owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the site of the application. 

 

7.  Change Section 8.10.6. Amendments as follows:

 

8.10.6. Amendments.

The planning director may authorize minor adjustments to the use plan for residual land and common area upon a finding that the original intent and purpose of the approved use plan is preserved. If the planning director determines the adjustments are not minor or will change the intent and purpose of the original use plan, the county commissioners must approve the amendments at a public hearing with notice to affected property owners within the development.

 

 

8.  Change Section 12.6.6. Property owners association or equivalent as follows:

 

12.6.6. Property owners association or equivalent.

D. All documents providing for maintenance must include a provision allowing county commissioners to take over maintenance of the common facilities and assess the cost of maintenance, including inspection fees, legal fees and administrative expenses, to the property owners within the development, if the responsible entity fails to maintain the common facilities in a reasonable condition. Any unpaid assessments will become a lien upon the properties payable in the same manner and with the same priority as provided by law for the collection, enforcement and remittance of general property taxes. The county will file a notice of such lien in the office of the county clerk and recorder upon the properties and will certify such unpaid assessments to the county treasurer for collection, enforcement and remittance. Before taking over maintenance of any property the county commissioners will hold a public hearing with at least 14 days' notice to the affected property owners within the development. If the county commissioners take over maintenance of the common facilities, the commissioners will continue the maintenance until it is assured that adequate provisions have been made for the maintenance of the common facilities.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #5  FORBES RANCH ESTATES AMENDED 2ND SUBDIVISION  #04-S2335:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to amend the Forbes Ranch Estates Subdivision Plat by changing the designation of Lot 6 from being a “Recreation Lot” to a “Non-Buildable Out Lot”.  The subdivision was located approximately 1/3 mile east of the intersection of County Road 6 and 69, southwest of Berthoud, on the southeast corner of Lake Hollow and Martingale Drive.  He explained that the lot was designated on the plat as an outlot for recreational purposes, and a letter in the file from the original developer indicated that the intent of the lot was to be used for private recreational purposes/open space for all of the residents of the subdivision.  However, at that time the developer never formed a homeowner’s association or deeded over ownership of the open space lot to a joint holding.  In 1999, the applicant purchased Lot 6, and in 2004 contacted Larimer County Planning Staff about converting the lot from a nonbuildable recreation use to a single family residential lot.  However, he now desired to remove the recreation designation from Lot 6 but leave it as a nonbuildable outlot.  Mr. Wheeler noted that many of the residents had requested that the lot be left as a recreational use lot for the residents.  He noted that an adjoining property owner had expressed interest in purchasing the lot but not with the recreation designation on the plat.  He stated that the Development Services Team could not support changing the designation on the plat without support of the majority of the residents in the subdivision as stated in a state statue.  As a result, they were recommending denial.

 

 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what the difference was between a recreational lot and a nonbuildable outlot?

 

Mr. Wheeler replied that there wouldn’t be a change to the lot but since a majority of the residents did not want the change the Planning Staff could not support the request. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked what the ownership rights were of the lot to the other residents of the subdivision?  Did the residents believe that they were receiving rights to the oulot when they purchased the lots.

 

Mr. Wheeler did not believe that there was anything done to establish rights to any of the other owners and there was no physical ownership rights in common.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if the other residents were informed that the applicant would not be able to build on the lot by changing the designation?

 

Mr. Wheeler stated that initially the request was to convert the lot to a buildable lot.  As the application went further the applicant indicated that he was interested in receiving a ruling from Larimer County that clarified his ability to sell to another private owner and was no longer interested in building on the lot.

 

Mark Buckley, 796 Abrams Way, thanked the commission for their volunteered time and mentioned that he had a positive experience working with Larimer County.  He stated that Mr. Forbes, the developer of the property, had tried for 10 years to get a homeowners association to form but nothing did.  The residents that he had recently spoken to stated that they had no interest in starting a homeowners association as the development was 35 years old.  He explained that he started the application 4 years ago and had been told that he needed 100% approval from the residents to change the designation.  He explained that Lot 8 was also an outlot that was given up by the developer and was attached to Lot 14, which was called the maintenance/outlot pasture.  He stated that he had lived on Lot 14 since 1993 but moved a couple of years ago but still owned Lot 6, which was the lot in question.  He explained that he solely maintained the lot for Mr. Forbes and when he did buy the lot his insurance company informed him that the public could not be on the property because he would be liable for injuries, etc.  As a result, he fenced the lot and had been maintaining it ever since.  He explained that prior to the fence there were people on the lot shooting fireworks, setting traps for animals, and trash left.  He did try to let the neighbors use the lot to fish but it was basically a maintenance liability issue.  He stated that the present owner of Lot 14, Julie Parsons, had expressed interest in purchasing the lot and keeping it as it was.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if he had ever received any monies from any neighbors of the subdivision for use of the lot?

 

Mr. Buckley replied no.

 

Commissioner Benton asked if the boundary line between Lot 6 and Lot 8 was eliminated?

 

Mr. Buckley replied no and explained that Lot 8 and Lot 14 were combined for tax purposes.

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Thomas Moore, 5521 Crestone Circle, Boulder, was an attorney representing Julie Parsons.  He explained that she had inquired about purchasing the lot last year but there was a contract in place.  At that time they discovered the “recreational use” designation.  The premise that the County was using was that the neighborhood belonged to Kiowa, which it didn’t.  The definitions in Kiowa discussed what a common interest community was which was a community that owned property jointly.  The community did not own any property jointly.  The premise to have a majority of the neighborhood approve the change from recreational to nonbuildable was false and the Commission had the authority to make that change.  He stated that it was a lot that could have nothing done to it with its current designation, and Ms. Parsons wanted to purchase the lot and leave it open.  He clarified that the Parsons did own Lot 14 and the other outlot, Lot 8.

 

Mac Juneau, 2801 Lake Hollow Road, stated that he purchased his lot in 1996 and at that time it was his understanding that the lot in question was a lot set aside for recreation.  He felt that vacating the present designation would set a bad president because the developer clearly intended the lot to be part of the development as the plat seemed to indicate.  He came to the meeting with the thought that the lot would be built upon so he was happy to hear that it would not be but suggested just leaving the lot the way it was. 

 

Commissioner Benton asked if the lot should have been maintained by the neighborhood if they believed it was a community lot?

 

Mr. Juno replied that it wasn’t an unreasonable expectation. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked if he ever challenged Mr. Buckley when the fence was put up and access was denied?

 

Mr. Juno replied no.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if any money was given to purchase or rent the lot? 

 

Mr. Juno replied no.  It was the understanding that it was the neighborhood’s lot to use.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if he thought he was also buying rights to the lot when he bought his house?

 

Mr. Juno replied yes. 

 

Lori Jones, 2609 Martingale Drive, stated that the lot was gorgeous.  She stated that they moved there in 1990, and she never knew that it was for sale.  If they would have known maybe the neighborhood would have purchased it.  They too believed that the lot was originally planned for the people in the development to use.  She did not see a problem with leaving it as a recreational lot.  It was an area that consistently flooded and it would be hard to subdivide.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if the major concern was to not have the lot developed?

 

Ms. Jones replied yes and to keep it as a recreational use. 

 

 

Commissioner Glick asked if she would support changing the designation if the lot could not be built upon?

 

Ms. Jones replied that she would rather have the neighborhood purchase the land.

 

Pauline Juneau, 2801 Lake Hollow, stated that there was a survey taken of the neighborhood and 86% of people stated that they wanted to keep the recreational designation on the lot.  They did buy the property believing that they did have recreational rights to that lot.  She believed that there was an interest in the neighborhood to form a homeowners association and purchase the lot. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if anyone objected to the fence that was put up on the lot.

 

Ms. Juneau stated that she was not aware of any objections to Mr. Buckley.

 

Jack Strandquist, 2705 Lake Hollow Road, stated that he moved in to his house in 1991.  He stated that when the fence went up he called somebody in the County and was informed that the land had been purchased and it was private property.  He stated that regardless of the legal status of the lot the fence around it made it unavailable for recreation.  He remarked that there was an interest in having the lot return to its original status where they were able to use the lot as open space and that it not be built upon.

 

Mr. Buckley stated that he had nothing to add.

 

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Lafferty stated that as the issue was discussed with the County Attorney it was of their opinion that when a plat was recorded in a subdivision, and it contained a lot with passive recreation or recreational uses on it that it established a covenant.  It did not create a homeowner’s association document or a common interest community but it did create a common interest in that property as shown on the plat for specific purposes which could benefit the property owners as they purchased lots looking at the plat.  The Attorney’s opinion was that if there was going to be modification to the plat by changing the designation of the use of that lot then 100% of the property owners within the development would need to acknowledge that approval or modification and absent that the modification should not occur.  He stated that it had not been determined whether the property owners had a right to use the lot and that issue would have to be determined by a court as to what the purpose or intent of the easement of that lot was. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if “recreational” lots still applied today?

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that until the Land Use Code was adopted in 2000 there was not a definition.  Currently in the Code an outlot was defined as “all parcels that were to be used only for drainage easements, rights-of-way, or other uses that do not need any buildings must be labeled outlot.”  A common area lot was a lot that was dedicated for passive or active recreation purposes that became the ownership of an association.  There were also residual lots which were lots that had intrinsic values whether it was open or limited to its buildablity and those lots could be held in private ownership but there was a covenant recorded stating how the lot would be used.  He stated that in 1974, those definitions did not exist. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if structures such as a bathhouse or picnic area could have been built on the lot?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that the recreational designation did not indicate that there wasn’t an ability to put a structure on there such as a gazebo.  It just stated that it was not a single family use lot.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the state statue requirement needed to be met before a designation could be changed by the County. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat also believed that the state statue had to be followed.

 

Commissioner Hart felt that it was unfortunate that the property owners did not follow up and make sure the developer delivered on the plat.  It was also unfortunate that Mr. Buckley bought the lot in good faith and was affected by the plat that was recorded 20 years before he bought the property.  However, it was an issue that needed to be resolved with the neighbors or perhaps in the court system. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that when the plat was recorded there was an intent which had to be relied upon even though it may not be within the confines of the common interest ownership act.  The County was not in a position to make the change to the plat.

 

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 Forbes Ranch Estates Amended 2nd Subdivision, file #04-S2335, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #6  MCBLAIR RANCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION  #07-Z1663:  Ms. Stauffer provided background information on the request to allow an events center and wedding facility approximately three miles northwest of Masonville on County Road 27 on the south side of the road.  The request also included appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code, specifically Section 9.7 right-of-way dedication for County Road 27, Section 8.6.3.C paving for parking lot and access drive, Section 9.5 and 9.6 payment of Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, and Section 12.5 application for a Development Construction Permit.  Lastly, the request included appeals to the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards concerning Section 10.4.9 and Section 10.3.4.  She mentioned that the building was built in 1994, and the use of the building for the wedding center began around 2000.  Since the historic use of the property had been agricultural and residential the commercial use was an additional use on the property, which required a Special Exception.  She stated that the building was never permitted for an assembly or agricultural use and needed to be brought up to the building code standards.  She added that the event center would occupy approximately 2 acres on a 39 acre property and would host approximately 25-30 events a year. 

 

Traci Downs, Engineering Department, explained that the Development Services Team was recommending denial of the following appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code:  Section 9.7 – right-of-way dedication for County Road 27, Section 9.5 & 9.6 – payment of Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, and Section 12.5 – application for a Development Construction Permit.  She explained that the reason for denial of Section 9.7 was because County Road 27 was a major collector and required 100 feet of right-of-way.  Regarding Sections 9.5 & 9.6, she explained that the purpose of those fees were to ensure that development contributed their share in providing capacity related road improvements.  The fee would be $2,911 and was calculated based on the estimates and the conditions of what was to occur on the property such as having up to 45 vehicles and 30 events per year.  Also, the Engineering Department issued a Development Construction Permit per Section 12.5 for any site improvements.  She explained that for the proposed use it would be $400, and the Department would do site inspections while the work was in progress and ensure that the improvements were completed that were committed to.  She remarked that the Development Services Team was recommending approval of the appeal to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.6.3.C – paving for parking lot and access drive subject to the condition that the parking area and drive areas were surfaced with an all-weather material such as aggregate base course or recycled asphalt.  She explained that they were in support of the appeal because it was rural in nature, seasonal and there were limited amounts of events each year.  She stated that the other appeals dealt with the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards to Section 10.4.9 – paving the County Road 27 access apron and Section 10.3.4 – to widen the access drive to 20 feet in width.  The Development Services Team was recommending denial of those appeals because a paved apron was required when there was access off of a paved road because it minimized the degradation of the county paved road.  Also, the standard minimum width of a road that served two-way traffic was 20 feet; therefore, they were requiring the access drive to be widened.  Along with that the Loveland Fire Protection District also commented and requested a 20 foot wide road adequately compacted to hold fire trucks.  However, in the comments they stated that they were willing to consider a slightly smaller width if there was justification and rational.  She stated that the Engineering Department was also willing to consider that option but generally liked to see a 20 foot width. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked what the current right-of-way designation for County Road 27 was?

 

 

Ms. Downs replied that it was probably 30 foot half right-of-way so 20 additional feet would need to be dedicated.

 

Commissioner Hart remarked that Mr. Clausen stated that the old County Road was 20 feet in width and wondered if that could be used for the main access.

 

Mr. Lafferty pointed out where that road was and stated that it was their understanding that the road would be a secondary access point to the parking lot.

 

Ms. Downs stated that to use that access the site distance would need to be examined, and they would need to make sure that it was not crossing another property. 

 

Charles Clausen 12115 Buckhorn Road, stated that what had been proposed was not compatible with what he was requesting.  He stated that he was simply seeking approval to continue having private parties, weddings, and neighborhood picnics on their property like they had always done.  He stated that the only change was that instead of erecting tents they were allowing people to use their shop building to sit, eat, and dance.  Also, a couple of bathrooms had been installed so people did not have to use port-a-potties.  He reiterated that it was not a concert venue or dude ranch.  They were private parties not public events.  He stated that they were not asking for a zoning change or change of use of the barn or to change the principle use of the property.  It was still an agricultural building as over 90% of the use was for agriculture.  The issue of changing the use category of the building to assembly would make it be under the 2006 standards instead of the standards that were in effect 14 years ago.  He mentioned that there had been no negative impacts to the surrounding area in the 12 years that it had been occurring, and the County had never received any complaints.  Along with that, the conditions that Staff was requesting were far from appropriate.  What should have been a simple process had turned into a nightmare obstacle course.  They had spent nearly $8,000 in plans and engineering studies, and the more they tried the more demands they faced.  He stated that one of the primary goals was to preserve the pristine natural environment and did not want to turn it into an extension of the City with paved parking lots, street lights, grading, and landscaping.  Holding weddings and private events was a way to keep the ranch alive and supplement income.  He pointed out that farmers had always used barns to hold community events, auctions, etc. which did not change them to assembly buildings plus those people would park in the pastures.  He remarked that some of the conditions that Staff had imposed had disastrous and unintentional consequences.  He wondered what would happen if 47 cars showed up instead of the 45 they were limited to or 300 people wanted to attend.  He stated that he needed to be allowed more than 30 events as there were 52 weeks in a year.  He remarked that when they started the process they were assured by Staff that they could continue to hold events as long as they were actively pursuing the Special Exception.  As a result, they entered into contracts and ran weddings into October.  On June 5, 2008 they received a notice to cease conducting all events at the barn until the Change of Occupancy Permit and inspections were obtained.  They then contacted the Customer Advocate in the Planning Department and were told to disregard the letter.  On July 3, 2008 they then received a letter from Staff outlining conditions that had to be met, and Staff specifically stated that they could not let people into the building until everything was completed and inspection approvals were received.  He stated that they would suffer extreme financial detriment if held to those conditions, and it would cause harm to the couples who were planning to hold their weddings there.  He asked from relief from those conditions as they moved forward in the process. 

 

 

He also did not believe that there was a need for drainage studies as the building had been there for 14 years without ever having a drainage problem.  He appealed the need for additional expensive engineering studies.  He explained that Staff also wanted them to obtain a septic system permit and do studies in sewage generation rates to determine that the present system was adequate.  He stated that in over 12 years of use and some 436,000 gallons of sewage there had never been a single problem and wondered if there was a compromise solution available.  He also wanted to appeal the requirement for a Development Construction Permit because there was no new development or construction.  He stated that they had already provided in detail what the site distance was with photographs, measurements, and actual vehicle tests and wondered why it was necessary to pay the expense of a site distance evaluation stamped and signed by a professional engineer.  Along with that, the water supply issue was an obstacle because the use classification was not changing; therefore, there was no need to apply that provision.  They had a domestic well but were told that it would need to be a commercial well so they converted it and now had to install and maintain a flow meter.  He stated that they had lost over 215,000 gallons of water per year that they were previously allowed, which was water they desperately needed.  They were now no longer allowed to water the lawn or water the confined livestock.  He mentioned that if the project was not approved they were stuck with that restriction because they now had lost the right to use the well for domestic purpose.  Also, the Staff was insisting that they dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way but admitted during the McBlair Ranch Shooting Range Special Review hearing that there were no plans in the foreseeable future of widening the road, and they were not aware of any other place in the area where such right-of-way existed.  He requested an appeal to that requirement.  He stated that the Staff then recommended approval not to pave the parking lot; however, they imposed a condition to surface the pasture with aggregate base or recycled asphalt.  If that occurred they would lose the pasture which they use for hay and grazing and would cost them in supplement feed cost.  Also, it was economically unsound to resurface over vegetation which actively absorbed carbon dioxide with materials that reflected into the air.  If they changed that location to the east of the building it would cause a problem of moving machinery or hauling in hay by 18-wheelers.  He explained that almost all of their events were between April and October, and no one had ever got stuck even on the rare occasion when there was snow.  He also mentioned that there was room for four handicap spaces on the concrete apron attached to the front of the building, and in the 12 years they had events they had not had more than 15 handicap attendees total in all of that time.  He stated that there would be no new driveway construction and there was no need for the apron paving.  The driveway had been there for over 50 years and was covered with recycled asphalt that was well compacted.  The driveway was also already 17 feet wide and there was plenty of room for cars to pass each other by pulling to the side of the unobstructed pasture and widening it three more feet did not make sense.  There was hardly ever two-way traffic at a wedding anyway.  There were also three roadways that accessed the property from County Road 27, one of which used to be the old County Road 27 and was 20 feet wide so there was adequate emergency access.  He explained that on May 14, 2008 the Building Department inspected the building.  The inspector’s principal finding was that the building was properly built to code in 1994 as an agricultural building.  A change in occupancy would require compliance with new 2006 standards.  He remarked that it was an engineered steel building that had demonstrated stability and integrity through 14 years of continuous use.  The County was full of agricultural buildings that had more people going through them every day than they ever had at one of their events.  He asked that the building classification stay as agricultural and the limited additional use of the building be approved.

 

 

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the building was constructed without a permit and if so, why?

 

Mr. Clausen replied no, it was permitted under permit #93-L4325.  The only thing he did not do was get an electrical inspection and occupancy certificate. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Sylvia Clausen, 12115 Buckhorn Road, stated that her parents bought the original ranch there in 1951.  One of the things that was taught to her besides ranching was hospitality as her parents hosted many picnics, youth group activities, etc. and it had extended into their present lives now.  She explained that they built the building for an agricultural building and eventually people started asking to hold their functions on their property.  She stated that they enjoyed the people coming, and they had a very pretty site for people.  She hoped that it would be allowed to continue because people truly enjoyed being there.  She felt that the building was safe, and she would be the last person to ask someone to come into an unsafe building. 

 

Marilyn Dion, 12710 N. County Road 27, stated that she had lived on her property since 1993.  They had been to many parties, picnics, etc. at the Clausens’ and she felt very safe in the building.  She stated that she would prefer going in that building rather than in a tent for a wedding because it was much safer.  She also liked that they had the restrooms rather than a port-a-potty.  She stated that they kept the place nice and the pasture that was recommended to be paved was a disgusting request.  There was no problem parking or walking in the pasture.  She stated that some of the things that were being required did not make sense.  It was not the city and people wanted the Clausen’s facility the way it was.  She also remarked that the requirement for the commercial well was ridiculous, which caused the loss of water.  Some of the things that were required of the Clausens had put them in a very big detriment situation.  She stated that she would like to see it continue as it had for many, many years.

 

Barbara Cohen, 401 E. County Road 56, stated that they were country people offering a nice place and could not understand all of the rules and regulations.  The pleasure that was being offered to other people was being bulldozed away.  It was the country, not the city.  It was a quality of life issue.  If you took away those people’s legacy you took away a quality of life. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that in the applicant’s project description it stated the number of weddings, number of people, and number of parking places that they were requesting. 

 

Mr. Clausen replied that they were not recommending those numbers.  Those numbers were recommended by the Planning Department and that was why they were trying to appeal the items.  He stated that from April to October they usually had about 30 weddings but it had never been stated that 30 was their permanent number.  It was just an average. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked what number of activities was he asking for?

 

Mr. Clausen stated that most of the events centers in the area had three events per day but they did not want to do that many.  However, if his taxes were raised and his hay prices went up he may need to hold more events.  He stated three events times 52 weeks was a reasonable amount; however, he did not want to have that many.  He stated that 40-45 events would be sufficient.

 

 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that the present application could be acted upon and before the County Commissioners hearing the applicant could refine the request with Staff.

 

Mr. Clausen agreed.  He also stated that the letter he received stated that the building might not be in compliance because it did not get an occupancy certificate.  He recommended that they be grandfathered with no restrictions and new permits cleared by the Building, Health, and Planning Departments except for the electrical permit.  He also asked to return the split parcel back to his son to increase his property from 35 acres to 40 acres total.  He asked that it all be grandfathered because the water rights had been lost, and it was costing them irreparable harm for the rest of the ranch’s life.

 

DISCUSSION:

Ms. Stauffer stated that an appeal action to the classification of the building requested by Mr. Clausen could not decided by the Planning Commission nor the Board of County Commissioners as it was an action and request that would have to go before the Building Board of Appeals.  Also, she explained that the building permit that was applied for was a farm building with a concrete floor.  It passed a foundation inspection but did not have a final framing inspection.  The permit then did expire without all approvals. 

 

Ms. Downs stated that the submitted plan showed that they could adequately accommodate 45 cars and have proper circulation.  The Engineering Department was recommending putting the all-weather surface in the parking area designated on the plan and not on the pasture.  She stated that site distance was verified to have adequate site distance at the property. 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, explained that there was an existing septic system on the property.  The Health Department had asked to permit that system in conjunction with the building permit for the barn which would change the occupancy from an agricultural building to a building that was occupied by a larger number of people.  He stated that he made recommendations which were to have the septic tanks pumped out by a license cleaner to determine the size, the design, the function, etc.  The barn and the restrooms in the building were served by a well which was formally permitted by the State as a domestic use well.  The State Division of Water Resources provided comments regarding the proposed application and indicated that the domestic use well could not be used for the proposed use.  However, the State offered a remedy to that decision which was to change the classification which the Clausens did.  The Clausens requested through the State a change in classification to a commercial use, and the State granted that classification.  The State explained that if that occurred it would be for one third of an acre foot and for indoor use only.  By changing that classification the State did not allow outside irrigation with that water well.  He explained that one of the options to deal with that problem was to go through the augmentation process and have that well augmented for a larger amount of use in which then it could be used for a wide variety of purposes. 

 

Commissioner Hart remarked that Mr. Clausen stated that he did not want to change the use of the building and would use if mostly for agricultural purposes.  He asked if the use of the building for the period of time it was used as the events center required the change in designation?

 

 

 

 

Ms. Stauffer believed that since the building was built with electrical, plumbing, heating and ventilation system that it was built as an assembly use building and needed to be inspected as an assembly building.  If the structure was to be used as an assembly structure inviting people to be in it for a short period of time then it needed to be permitted as an assembly use as those buildings had a different set of requirements than a farm building.  Even if the building would have been permitted as an agricultural building the applicant would still have to apply for a change in occupancy permit.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what the likelihood that the additional right-of-way along the road would be needed?

 

Ms. Downs replied that she was not sure what types of improvements would occur but the likelihood of the road being widened to the full width of a major collector cross section in the next 20 years was fairly unlikely.  However for shoulder widening, widening the road for paved bike lanes, etc. could occur. 

 

Commissioner Wallace thought that the access apron needed to occur.  She stated that the width of the access drive was a width of 17 feet and wondered if widening it three more feet would make that big of a difference.

 

Ms. Downs stated that if the road was 17 feet they could work with the applicant to have some pull outs in each direction.  She did want to make sure the local fire authority would be okay with 17 feet.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the two access roads into the property could be utilized as one way roads during the events?

 

Ms. Downs replied yes, if the access was designated as one way than 17 feet would be sufficient.  However that may involve other factors such as maintenance agreements and easements to cross the other property. 

 

Mr. Lafferty explained one of the access roads to the property was on a separate parcel, which was currently owned by members of the family but in future may not be.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the building had to receive the Change in Occupancy permit prior to continuing any events?

 

Ms. Stauffer replied that the Code Compliance Staff did send a letter to the Clausens stating that the County could not support the use of the building as an event center given that it had not been permitted as an event center or for an assembly use.  Therefore, the County was recommending that the applicants continue at their own risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that there needed to be a body of regulation that dealt with the entrepreneurship opportunities in Larimer County and the level of requirements that would be placed on people of the County recognizing that it was the country and they were not trying to duplicate what was occurring in the city.  With the County Code the Commission still had to dance around the problem of trying to expand the rural opportunities, job opportunities, and encourage entrepreneurship yet the Land Use Code continued to be an impediment or add to the cause.  It was important to get on the agenda of Land Use issues in 2008-2009 to deal with the issues of rural development and the implications that were in the Code. 

 

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 McBlair Ranch Special Exception, file #07-Z1663, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions with the exception that the Planning Commission did not feel that Conditions 7 and 9 were within the prevue of the Commission:

 

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

 

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

 

3.   The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and information contained in the McBlair Ranch Special Exception, File # 07-Z1663 except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement by the County and the applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the McBlair Ranch Special Exception, File # 07-Z1663.

 

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

 

5.   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 Exception approval.

 

6.   The Special Exception is approved with the following requirements:

A.   Events will be limited to 170 people maximum.

B.   Vehicles on site for any event will be limited to 45.

C.   Hours of operation for the facility will be 10 am to Midnight.

D.   The facility will be limited to 30 events per year.

E.   Noise from the facility will be managed in accordance with the Land Use Code and the applicant’s noise mitigation plan included with this application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.   Events in the structure may not commence until such time as a Change of Occupancy Building Permit and required inspection approvals are obtained for the use in the structure. Please refer to the Code Compliance Section Special Inspection and Staff Report dated May 15, 2008 for additional information. The Change of Occupancy Permit will accomplish requirements associated with permit # 93-L4325.

 

8.   Prior to the application of the Change of Occupancy Permit the applicant will need to provide a Drainage and Erosion Control Narrative that details the existing and proposed drainage paths on and off-site as well as any impacts that an increase in site imperviousness from the parking area may have. The Drainage and Erosion Control Narrative will need to be provided by a licensed engineer and the Engineering Department will need to review and approve the narrative before the applicant can proceed with a permit process.

 

9.   Prior to using the shop building as an events center, a Change of Occupancy Building Permit must be obtained by the applicant within sixty (60) days from the date of the Special Exception approval by the County Commissioners. The Change of Occupancy permit has several requirements; a few of those are outlined here.

A.   The applicant must obtain a septic system permit. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the septic system has the necessary capacity for the proposed use as outline above and in the project materials.

B.   All required building, electrical and septic inspection approvals must be obtained by the applicant. 

C.   The applicant must obtain a Development Construction Permit. The applicant should meet with the Engineering Department to outline the conditions of the Development Construction Permit.

D.   The applicant will need to receive approval of a Fire and Life Safety plan from the City of Loveland Fire Bureau, and provide to the Planning Department a plan that has been approved by the City of Loveland.

E.   A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) will be issued by the Building Department upon completion of these inspection approvals. The TCO authorizes the structure to be used as an events center during the remaining inspection process, and a final Certificate of Occupancy authorizes the structure to be permanently used as an events center.

 

10.   Other inspection approvals and site improvements will be conditions of approval to the Change of Occupancy Building Permit.  The site improvements, listed below, must be completed within 180 days from the issuance date of the permit.

A.   Final inspection approval from the Larimer County Engineering Department confirming all conditions related to the Development Construction Permit have been satisfied. The Development Construction Permit is issued by the Engineering Department.

B.   Final inspection approval from the Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau confirming all conditions attached to a fire and life-safety plan have been satisfied.

C.   Any other requirements listed in the Change of Occupancy Permit, this report, and the submittal materials associated with this application.

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the inspection approvals, the applicants must meet all other Building Code conditions and requirements attached to the change of occupancy building permit. Building Code requirements will be determined when the applicants submit their change of occupancy permit application to the Building Department.

 

When all inspection approvals and site improvements have been completed and approved, a final Certificate of Occupancy will be issued by the Building Department authorizing the structure to be used as an events center.

 

11.   Parking for any events at the Events Center cannot impact the circulation or access for any part of the access road to the facility. Events and associated parking will need to allow adequate circulation for traffic and emergency vehicles.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

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 McBlair Ranch Special Exception appeal to Section 9.7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #07-Z1663, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be denied and that Sections 9.5, 9.6, and 12.5 of the Land Use Code would not be considered.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Hess voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-1

 

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 McBlair Ranch Special Exception appeal to Section 8.6.3.C of the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding paving for parking lot and access drive, file #07-Z1663, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following condition:

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the applicant will need to surface the parking are and drive areas with an all weather material such as aggregate base course or recycled asphalt. The applicant will need to expand and construct the parking area in accordance with Engineering Department Standards, conditions of this report, and applicable code requirements.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

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 McBlair Ranch Special Exception appeals to Section 10.4.9 of the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards, file #07-Z1663, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be denied and Section 10.3.4 not be voted on subject to discussion and negotiation between the applicant and the Engineering Department regarding the width of the drive.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Hess voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-1

 

 

ITEM #6  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE TO ADD SECTION 14 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST  #08-CA0084:  Ms. Bennett provided the Commission with new information and public comments. 

 

Chairman Morgan asked for time to review the new information and comments.  He recommended discussing the item at a worksession so it could be further reviewed and then rescheduled for a public hearings.

 

Commissioner Hart felt that the topic was an important decision for Larimer County and recommended that if the item was tabled to a different public hearing date that any new comments received a week before the worksession would not be incorporated.

 

Chairman Morgan invited the members of the public in attendance to attend the worksession or submit written comments.

 

 

 

Ms. Bennett clarified that the Glade Reservoir project under the State Statue would allow a designation as a matter of State interest for a reservoir of that type; however, it was not under consideration through the proposed regulations.  If testimony was received regarding the Glade Reservoir it did not relate to the issue at hand and would not be within the prevue of the Commission or the County Commissioners’ to add such a designation without adequate public notice.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Mark Murray, Tri-State, stated that he would rather comment a different time after the Commission had an opportunity to review all of the written comments that were received.

 

Dolores Williams, 415 Mason Court 7A, asked that the County Commissioners had a legal say in the Glade Reservoir.  She stated that she got the information to come to the hearing from Preserve the Poudre. 

 

Barbara Cohen, 401 E. County Road 56, appreciated the fact that the Commission had received new information.  However, she supported a timeline because it felt like a stall tactic as the people had a right to see a beginning, middle, and an end to the regulation.  The 1041 Regulation was very important.

 

Commissioner Hart reiterated that what was trying to occur with the process was to establish 1041 Regulations in Larimer County.  The County Commissioners had made the decision that the first group of designated matters of State interest were power lines, electrical generation and transmission sites, and power plants.  It was possible if and when the regulations went into place that those designated matters of State interest could be expanded but they were not included now.  Therefore the people that were concerned about damns, mines, water pipes, etc. would not be included in the regulation yet.  They might be included based on the decision of the County Commissioners in the future.

 

Ms. Williams stated that there might be a time consideration with the 45 day extension on the EIS for Glade Reservoir and asked that it be considered.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission table the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding 1041 Regulations, file #08-CA0084, to the September 17, 2008 Planning Commission hearing.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

ELECTION OF OFFICIALS:

Commissioner Hart nominated Commissioner Morgan for Chairman. Commissioner Hess nominated Commissioner Wallace for Chairman.  Commissioner Hart moved to elect Commissioner Morgan as Chairman by vote, seconded by Commissioner Weitkunat.  MOTION PASSED.

 

Commissioner Hart nominated Commissioner Wallace for Vice Chairman.  Chairman Morgan moved to elect Commissioner Wallace as Vice Chairman by acclimation, seconded by Commissioner Hart. MOTION PASSED.

 

Commissioner Morgan nominated Commissioner Weitkunat for Secretary.  Chairman Morgan moved to elect Commissioner Weitkunat as Secretary by acclimation, seconded by Commissioner Wallace.  MOTION PASSED.  

 

 

Chairman Morgan welcomed the new Planning Commission members.

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:23 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.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Roger Morgan, Chairman                                             Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “A”

 

A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th, P.M., thence North 89º01' West 1608.85 feet; thence South 00°09' West 500 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 89º01' East 500 feet; thence South 00°09' West 250 feet; thence North 89º01' West 500 feet; thence North 00°09' East 250 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 2.8674 acres, more or less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

Lot 6, Forbes Ranch Estates Second Subdivision, being a replat of Lots 29, 30, 32, and 33, and outlots “A” and “B”, Forbes Ranch Estates Subdivision, County of Larimer, State of Colorado

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

Parcel N umber: 06090-00-012

Description: Considering the Southwest corner of Section Four (Northwest corner of Section nine) and proceeding east along the south line of Section Four (which is described on Larimer County Assessor's map 0813 as S 86 degree 32' E) 322 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence continuing east along the south line of Section Four 838 feet, thence S 13 degree E 260 feet, thence west on a line parallel to the south line of Section Four (S 86 degree 32' W) 838 feet, thence N 13 degree W 260 feet returning to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, all in Section Nine, Township Six North, Range Seventy West. (Map Attached)

Parcel Number: 06090-00-003

Description: The West Half of the Northwest Quarter, and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 6, Range 70.

THE ABOVE PARCEL IS ADJOINED TO 'THE FOLLOWING:

Parcel Number: 06040-00-050

Description: The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 6 North, Range 70 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado

 

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