Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of July 18, 2007

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, July 18, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioners Morgan was absent.  Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Matt Johnson, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Rob Helmick accompanied Commissioners’ Cox, Hart, Waldo, Wallace, and Weitkunat today on a site visit to Fox Hollow Planned Land Division/Planned Development and Psychic Visions Sign Appeal. Commissioners’ Karabensh, Morgan and Oppenheimer were absent.  Commissioner Boulter visited the site independently.

 

Chairman Wallace introduced Karen Weitkunat as a new Commissioner.  She also asked to move the Election of Officials to the end of the agenda.

 

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 20, 2007 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Hart.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1  FOX HOLLOW PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT  07-S2666:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to rezone and subdivide 9.28 acres into two residential lots located on the north side of Richards Lake Road, approximately 1000 feet east of Terry Lake in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.4 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to be allowed to use on-site septic systems as no public sewer service was available.

 

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Helmick noted that it would be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that the rezoning to Planned Development would not become effective until the Final Plat for the Planned Land Division was recorded.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked about the adequate public facilities and the domestic water level of service standards, specifically the State Engineer’s comments.

 

 

 

Mr. Wheeler explained that the application was referred out with information provided by the applicant regarding their water source.  The Planning Department did not receive comments; therefore, the applicant’s representative was contacted and asked to speak with the East Larimer County Water District (ELCO).  ELCO replied that they had satisfied the standard and provided the information that the State needed.  As a result, the applicant was to obtain a letter from the State and submit it before the Board of County Commissioners hearing.

 

Mr. Ryan explained that the provisions for demonstrating compliance with the adequate public facilities standard included two steps:  1.  A letter from the water district indicating that they could supply taps and that those taps could meet the water pressure delivery standards of Larimer County, and 2.  Confirmation from the State Engineer’s office that water was available.  He stated that he was satisfied with Mr. Wheeler’s condition to receive the letter prior to the Board of County Commissioner’s hearing.

 

Commissioner Boulter 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 Fox Hollow Planned Development, file #07-S2666, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved as follows and subject to the condition that the Planned Development rezoning does not become effective until the Planned Land Division Final Plat has been recorded:

 

A.   Principal uses:

 

Agricultural:

1.   Farm (R)

2.   Sod farm, nursery (R)

3.   Tree farm (R)

4.   Greenhouse (R)

5.   Garden supply center (S)

6.   Commercial poultry farm (S)

7.   Feedyard (S)

8.   Boarding stable (S)

9.   Pet animal facility (MS/S)

10.   Fur farm (S)

11.   Agricultural labor housing (S)

12.   Packing facility (R)

13.   Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S)

14.   Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S)

 

Residential:

15.   Single-family dwelling (R)

16.   Group home for developmentally disabled (R)

17.   Group home for the aged (R)

18.   Group home (R)

19.   Storage buildings and garages (R)--See section 4.3 (use descriptions and conditions)

20.   Group home for the mentally ill (R)

 

Institutional:

21.   Cemetery (S)

22.   Hospital (S)

23.   School, public (L)

24.   School, nonpublic (R/S)--See section 4.3 (use descriptions and conditions)

25.   Church (R/S)--See section 4.3

26.   Child/elderly care center (S)

27.   Child/elderly care home (R)

28.   Community hall (R/S)

29.   Sheriff/fire station (L)

30.   State-licensed group home (S)

 

Recreational:

31.   Golf course (S)

32.   Country club (S)

33.   Riding academy (S)

34.   Public park, playground (L)

35.   Trail/trail head (L)

 

Accommodation:

36.   Seasonal camp (S)

 

Industrial:

37.   Mining (S)

38.   Oil and gas drilling and production (R)

 

Utilities:

39.   Utility substation (L)

40.   Water storage facility (L)

41.   Treatment plant (L)

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

43.   Radio and television transmitters (S)

 

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.   21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) if both public water and sewer are used.

 

c.   Maximum density in a conservation development is calculated by dividing the total developable area by the required minimum lot size. Maximum density in a rural land plan is determined by subsection 5.8.6.A. Lots in a conservation development or rural land plan that use a well or an individual septic system must contain at least two acres (87,120 square feet). Lots in a conservation development or rural land plan connected to public water and either a public sewer or community sewer system are not required to meet minimum lot size requirements (except for the purpose of calculating density).

 

2.   Minimum setbacks:

 

a.   Front yard--Refer to section 8.17 (supplementary regulations for setbacks from highways and county roads). The setback from an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement.

b.   Side yards--five 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.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Waldo, Weitkunat, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

Commissioner Boulter 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 Fox Hollow Planned Land Division and appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.4 of the Larimer County Land Use Code that requires newly subdivided lots in a Growth Management Area to connect to the public sanitary sewer service, file #07-S2666, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

      1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Fox Hollow Planned Land Division / Planned Development, File #07-S2666, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Fox Hollow Planned Land Division / Planned Development.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

      4.   The applicant shall sign a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County as a part of the Final Plat, and to be recorded with the Final Plat, that provides important information to potential buyers about conditions of approval, rural area issues, water rights, etc.

 

      5.   The new residential use shall include a residential fire sprinkler system must be designed and installed to meet NFPA standards.

 

      6.   Engineered footings and foundations are required for new habitable construction.

 

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

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Waldo, Weitkunat, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2  PSYCHIC VISIONS SIGN APPEAL #07-G0139:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for an appeal to Section 10.5.j and Section 4.3.10.B.1.f of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow a home occupation to have 32 square feet of sign face rather than the three square feet allowed.  The subject property was situated on the southwest corner of Highway 34 and Walnut Avenue.  He noted that the Development Services Team was recommending denial as it was a home occupation and supported the intent of the regulations.  However, the site did contextually relate to many non-residential uses along the Highway 34 corridor, all of which had numerous larger signs allowed by their zoning.

 

Commissioner Hart confirmed that the sign height could not exceed 8 feet.

 

 

Mr. Lafferty replied yes, it had been conveyed to the applicant.  He explained that the 8 feet sign allowance was to the top of the sign from the existing grade.  He also noted that the two signs that were currently on the sight were temporary and would be removed as the new sign was erected.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Adam Marks, 1309 Walnut Avenue, explained that he purchased the property in November 2006 and was told the property was zoned T-Tourist; however, the property was actually zoned R1-Residential.  He stated that he relocated from his previous business site within the Loveland City Limits for family reasons and now after being misled and buying the property he felt that three square feet of signage was not beneficial to his business.  He stated that he had spoke with several neighbors and surrounding businesses who did not feel that the sign was out of text due to the fact that so many businesses were located to the east and west of his home on Highway 34.  He also noted that there had been several aesthetic changes to the property in which some of the neighbors had expressed a great amount of gratitude.  He stated that the hours were generally between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. and had a low volume of customers which he felt should not offend anyone in the neighborhood.  He stated that there was a minimal amount of vehicles, maybe three to four per week, which sought out his service.  He noted that it was never his intent to offend anyone in the neighborhood.  He felt that the sign could be beneficial to many people as it had been in the past and approving the sign was not out of text.

 

Commissioner Waldo asked how he felt about the size of his current signs?

 

Mr. Marks stated that the size of the sign was 24 square feet and felt that it was not offensive to the area as there were signs across and down the street.  The current sign was intended to be a temporary sign.  The intent was to use the sign that he used at his previous location which was an externally lit pole sign.  He felt that it was a nicer sign and was like what several businesses in the area had.  He felt that it added better coverage, better viewing, and more notice to the business and the property.

 

Chairman Wallace asked how people found out about his business?

 

Mr. Marks stated that generally people found out about the business through driving by the property and his signage.  He felt a sign was one of the biggest and most important elements of his business.  It offered advertising to the traffic that he depended on.  The other way was through yellow page advertising and word of mouth.  There were three to four cars per week as far as visits from tourists, people driving by, or from scheduled appointments.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if he had a home occupation at the previous location?

 

Mr. Marks replied yes.  The sign that he wanted to put up was previously approved by the City of Loveland. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jean Gerlach, 1304 Pine Street, presented a petition for denial signed by 14 people.  She stated that she had lived in the subdivision for 30 years and was opposed to the proposed sign.  She believed that the business had changed the character of the subdivision.  She stated that there was already the three square feet of neon electric sign on his front porch plus the two large signs which were lit up all night long and not just during business hours. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if there was a home occupation in that home prior to November?

 

Ms. Gerlach replied that there had been a small business two owners prior to Mr. Marks. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked what in general bothered the neighbors about the proposed sign?

 

Ms. Gerlach stated that the neighbors felt that the sign was too large and too well lit up at night.  They were not necessarily opposed to the in-home business but felt that it brought a different flavor to the neighborhood in general.

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked how many homes were in the subdivision?

 

Keith Short, 1209 Pine Street, stated that there were 32 lots in the subdivision.  He noted that Mr. Marks had cleaned up the property and it did look much more appealing.  However, the subdivision maintained the streets, which became a factor.  Also, Imperial Ridge Subdivision was directly behind the Ankeny Subdivision and there was no through street into that subdivision.  As a result, the subdivision had traffic trying to get to Imperial Ridge and now with the large signs it brought more traffic to the area and more traffic at night.  The extra traffic was a burden to the neighborhood and that was why he was opposed to the signage. 

 

Ross Kroboth, 1300 Elm Street, stated that he was opposed to the signs.  He owned Lot 24 and pointed out that the traffic on his street had increased significantly. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Boulter stated that he had looked at the application in terms of the letter of the code and the spirit of the neighborhood.  When he looked at the location it looked much like the other businesses along the way which mad him feel that the sign would not be out of character.  However, after listening to the neighbors he felt that it was out of character with the neighborhood.  He stated that he would support a sign but not a sign that was 32 square feet.  He stated that he would deny the sign but would like to see a modification to the sign size and go forward with a smaller sign size.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that existing neighborhoods needed to be maintained and if it appeared that a business would negatively impact it by granting a variance from the code then it was not good.  He did not get the impression that the sign attracted a lot of business.  To him it seemed that most of the business came from word of mouth and existing clients.  He did not feel that the sign was necessary to maintain the viability of his business, and given those factors he would deny the request.

 

Commissioner Cox stated that she agreed with Commissioners Boulter and Hart. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Karabensh stated that she was guided by the review criteria of the Land Use Code.  She did not feel that the criterion had been met by the proposed application.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that the property looked as if it belonged in a commercial district, however knowing that it was a home occupation made it secondary to the residence.  The Code was very clear on the regulations, and as proponent of the intent and purpose of the codes she had to adhere to that.  She did not know where the future of the area lied as far as commercial districts and rezoning because the property did not seem to the have the residential natures, therefore there may be other directions down the road.  However, she needed to adhere to what the code said, and a sign would be inappropriate for the neighborhood.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer stated that he agreed with his fellow Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that he had visited the site, and the sign did not seem out of place; however, neighborhood feelings were discovered.  He stated that he was in support of having a sign but the proposed sign was too large. 

 

Chairman Wallace agreed with the other Commissioners. 

 

Commissioner Boulter 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 Psychic Visions Sign Appeal, file #07-G0139, be denied.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Waldo, Weitkunat, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #3  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #07-CA0073:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request to amend Section 8.15, Lighting, of the Land Use Code to provide standards when outdoor lighting was proposed in Conservation Development, Minor Special Review, Site Plan Review, Special Exception, Special Review, and Subdivision applications.  In addition, the proposed amendments would include guidelines for residential lighting for individual lots.  The proposal did not address existing residential lighting or lighting for residential lots that were part of a development proposal.  She stated that there were changes to the proposed amendments that did not get included with the draft.  Under Section 8.15.2 the words “or required” should be added after the sentence, “….in which exterior lighting is proposed….”.  In Section 8.15.3 the words “or development in a Growth Management Area” should be deleted.  And, in the definition for Glare the word “is” should be added before the word “visible”.

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if the amendments delineated from new proposals and existing platted subdivisions?

 

 

Mr. Madson replied that Section 8 was applicable to new development.

 

Commissioner Hart asked why Section 8.15.6.D stated that lighting should be equipped with on-off switches?

 

Ms. Madson replied that it was existing code language.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the genesis of that came from a previous Commissioner Wallace concerned with light pollution as a result of having yard lights stay on all night.  The ability to turn the lights off was an important concept. 

 

Chairman Wallace stated that she would have liked the amendments to be mandatory for residential lots as well.  She thought that the amendments would reduce the amount of electricity used and the amount of light sky that was polluted by light, and the more we could do to help with the reduction of that problem the better off we would be.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Waldo 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, Section 8.15, file #07-CA0073, be approved as follows:

 

1. Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.15, as follows:

 

8.15. SITE LIGHTING

 

8.15.1. Purpose.

 

The purpose of this section is to encourage the wise use of exterior lighting and to provide enough light for a safe and comfortable nighttime environment, while addressing the actual physical effects of lighting, and the effect that lighting may have on the surrounding neighborhood. Exterior lighting will be evaluated in the development review process to ensure functional and security needs of the project are met in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood. The degree to which exterior night lighting affects the project, adjacent properties or the neighborhood will be evaluated considering the light source, level of illumination, hours of illumination and need for illumination.

 

 

 

 

 

 


8.15.2. General standard.  Applicability.

 

All applications for Subdivision, Planned Land Division, Conservation Development, Minor Special Review, Special Review, Special Exception and Site Plan Review and special review in which exterior lighting is proposed or required must include a proposed lighting plan that meets  the functional security needs of the proposed land use without adversely affecting adjacent properties or the neighborhood. The degree to which exterior night lighting affects the project, adjacent properties or the neighborhood will be evaluated considering the light source, level of illumination, hours of illumination and need for illumination.  Any light used to illuminate signs, parking areas or for any other purposes must be arranged to reflect light away from adjacent residential properties and away from the vision of passing motorists.



8.15.3. Minimum Outdoor Lighting levels.

 

With the exception of lighting for public streets, all other project lighting used to illuminate buildings, parking lots, walkways, plazas or the landscape, must be evaluated during the development review or site plan review process. Table 8.15.3 shows minimum lighting levels for outdoor facilities used at night:

Lighting for development applications that include areas of outdoor activity, including Special Review, Minor Special Review, Special Exception, Site Plan Review or development in a Growth Management Area, must comply with the Minimum Lighting Levels in Table 8.15.3.   All project lighting used to illuminate buildings, parking lots, walkways, plazas or the landscape, with the exception of lighting for public streets, must be evaluated during the development review or site plan review process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 8.15.3

MINIMUM LIGHTING LEVELS FOR FACILITIES WITH AREAS

OF OUTDOOR NIGHTTIME ACTIVITY

 

TABLE INSET:

 

  Area/Activity*   

Footcandle   

Building surrounds (nonresidential)   

1.0   

  Bikeways along roadside     

   

Commercial areas   

0.9   

Intermediate areas   

0.6   

Residential areas   

0.2   

  Walkways along roadside     

   

Commercial areas   

0.9   

Intermediate areas   

0.6   

Residential areas   

0.5   

Park walkways   

0.5   

Pedestrian stairways   

0.3   

Loading and unloading platforms   

20.0   

Parking areas   

1.0   

Playground   

5.0   

*Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Lighting Handbook

 

 

8.15.4. Development Lighting Design Standards.

 

The lighting plan for all applications in which exterior lighting is proposed or required must comply with the following design standards:

A.   Flashing or revolving exterior lighting is prohibited, except for standard agricultural equipment.

B.   A. Site lighting that may be confused with warning, emergency or traffic signals is prohibited.

C.   B. Background spaces, such as parking lots, must be illuminated as unobtrusively as possible to meet the functional needs of safe circulation and protecting people and property. Foreground spaces, such as building entrances and plaza seating areas, must use local lighting that defines the space without glare.

C.   Light sources must be concealed or shielded to the maximum extent feasible to minimize the potential for glare and unnecessary diffusion on adjacent properties.

D.   All outdoor fixtures must be designed, shielded, aimed, located and maintained to prevent glare and light trespass on abutting properties and the vicinity.

 

 

D.   The style of light standards and fixtures must be consistent with the style and character of architecture proposed on the site.

E.   The use of exterior lighting must be minimized in areas of important wildlife habitat.  Lighting must be designed so it does not spill over onto such habitat. 

E.   Light sources must produce accurate color rendition. Incandescent, metal halide, mercury vapor and high pressure sodium light sources all have good color rendition and are permitted light sources.

F.   Maximum on-site lighting levels must not exceed ten footcandles, except for loading and unloading platforms where the maximum allowed lighting level is 20 footcandles.

G.   Light levels measured 20 feet beyond the property line of the development site (adjacent to residential uses or public rights-of-way) must not exceed one-tenth foot-candle as a direct result of the on-site lighting.

H.   All site lighting shall be equipped with an on-off switch.

 


8.15.5. Alternative compliance.

 

Upon request of an applicant, the planning director may approve an alternative lighting plan that may be substituted in whole or in part for a plan meeting the standards of this section. The planning director's decision can be appealed to the county commissioners.

A.   Procedure.  Alternative lighting plans must be prepared and submitted with information to in accordance with submittal requirements for lighting plans. The plan must clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and describe how the plan would better accomplish the purpose of this section than a plan that complies with this section. 

B.   Review criteria.  To approve an alternative plan, the planning director must find the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this section as well as or better than a lighting plan that complies with this section. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the planning director will consider the extent to which the proposed design protects natural areas from light intrusion; how it enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity; how it fosters non-vehicular access; and how it demonstrates innovative design and use of fixtures or other elements. 

 

 

8.15.6. Residential lighting design guidelines for individual lots.

 

The following guidelines are intended to encourage the wise use of exterior lighting and to provide enough light for a safe and comfortable nighttime environment in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood.  These guidelines should be incorporated into development applications to the extent practicable.

A.   Outdoor fixtures should be designed, shielded, aimed, located and maintained to prevent glare and light trespass on abutting properties and the vicinity.

B.   The style of light standards and fixtures should be consistent with the style and character of architecture proposed on the site.

C.   The use of exterior lighting should be minimized in areas of important wildlife habitat.  Lighting should be designed so it does not spill over onto such habitat. 

D.   All outdoor lighting, except low-output (2000 lumens or less) lighting, should be equipped with an on-off switch.

 

2.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following definitions:

 

GLARE: Direct light emitted from a luminaire in which the light source (i.e. bulb) is visible from an adjacent property.

 

LIGHT TRESPASS: The shining of direct light produced by a luminaire beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel on which it is located.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Waldo, Weitkunat, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ELECTION OF OFFICIALS: 

Commissioner Waldo nominated Commissioner Boulter for Chairman. Commissioner Hart seconded the nomination.  Commissioner Waldo moved to close the Nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot electing Commissioner Boulter as Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Hart.  MOTION PASSED.

 

Commissioner Cox nominated Commissioner Karabensh for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Boulter seconded the nomination.  Commissioner Cox moved to close the Nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot electing Commissioner Karabensh as Vice Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Boulter. MOTION PASSED.

 

Commissioner Karabensh nominated Commissioner Cox for Secretary.  Commissioner Boulter seconded the nomination.  Commissioner Karabensh moved to close the Nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot electing Commissioner Cox as Secretary, seconded by Commissioner Boulter.  MOTION PASSED.  

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Nancy Wallace, Chairman                                            Kristen Karabensh, Secretary

 

EXHIBIT “A”

 

TRACT 24, HIGHLAND PLACE, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

LOT 23 & 1/2 OF VAC ALLEY ADJ ON S & LESS N 20 FT TO STATE HWY, BLK 2, ANKENY

 

 

 

 

 

 

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