NO AUDIO AVAILABLE

 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of October 20, 2010

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, October, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hess, Miller, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioner Wendt was absent.  Commissioner Hart presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Samantha Mott, Planner II, Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department, Martina Wilkinson, Engineering Department, Traci Shambo, Engineering Department, Mark Peterson, County Engineer, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Mr. Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Dougherty, Glick, Hart, Miller, Wallace and Weitkunat on a site visit to Coal Creek Flood Mitigation Location and Extent, Flower Power Botanicals Special Review, and Premier Wellness Special Review.  Commissioner Hess visited the sites independently.

 

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 SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 MEETINGS:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Glick.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

REMOVED ITEM:

Northern Colorado Natural Wellness Special Review, File #10-Z1811.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Planning Staff asked that Item #3 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 4.3.10, File #10-CA0111, be moved to the consent agenda.  Chairman Hart moved the item to the consent agenda.

 

Members of the audience asked that Item #1 Berthoud Family Church Special Review, File #10-Z1816, be moved off of the consent agenda.  Chairman Hart stated that it would be moved to a discussion item and be heard at the end of the agenda.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2  COAL CREEK FLOOD MITIGATION LOCATION AND EXTENT #10-Z1821:   Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for improvements associated with the Coal Creek flood mitigation elements of the overall Boxelder Creek storm drainage improvements located generally south of County Road 70, east of County Road 70 and on/adjacent to Clark Reservoir.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Coal Creek Flood Mitigation Location and Extent, file #10-Z1821, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Applicant must obtain all identified permits and permissions as discussed in the referral comments.

2.   All construction activities must comply with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance.

3.   Nighttime operations must be kept to a practicable minimum to avoid disruption to surrounding properties.

4.   Every effort shall be made to mitigate or reduce the impact of odors generated by the dredged material.  This may include methods to insure drying of the material as quickly as possible. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hess, Miller, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Hart voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #3  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 4.3.10 #10-CA0111:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code to add backyard chickens as an accessory use to Section 4.3.10 of the Land Use Code.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Glick 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 4.3.10, file #10-CA0111, be approved as follows:

 

1.         Add a new accessory use to Section 4.3.10.D. “Backyard Chickens” (following pet animals) as follows and renumber the balance of the section:

 

D. Backyard Chickens - The keeping of up to (six) 6 chicken hens is permitted as an accessory use to a residential use. The keeping of roosters or more that six (6) chicken hens is prohibited in all zone districts except those that allow farm uses.  The following requirements apply:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   The chicken hens must be provided with a covered, properly ventilated and predator-resistant chicken coop.

2.   The chicken hens must have access to an outdoor enclosure that is adequately fenced to protect them from predators.

3.   The coop and enclosure are limited to a maximum size of 120 square feet.

4.   The chicken coop and outdoor enclosure shall be regularly cleaned to control dust, odor and waste and not constitute a nuisance, safety hazard, or health problem to surrounding properties.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hess, Miller, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Hart voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4  FLOWER POWER BOTANICALS SPECIAL REVIEW #10-Z1798:  Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a medical marijuana grow operation and dispensary in the I-Industrial zoning district located at 1308 Duff Drive, Fort Collins which was located north of Duff Drive approximately 750 feet northwest of the intersection of Link Lane and Duff Drive.  The applicants proposed to have a grow operation of up to 1,000 mature plants and up to 1,000 seedlings and clones, and a medical marijuana dispensary serving up to 500 patients.  There would be a maximum of 30 patient visits per day and up to four employees on-site at any one time. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked about comments received from the City of Fort Collins.

 

Chairman Hart questioned the number of patients visits.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if neighbor concerns regarding security had been addressed.

 

Commissioner Cox asked who the attendees were at the neighborhood meeting.

 

Mr. Whitley replied that he did not have a copy of the neighborhood meeting attendees.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if there were requirements regarding security.

 

Mr. Whitley replied that the county required that there be security but the regulations did not outline specifics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Verchick, applicant, explained that the City of Fort Collins commented that he would have to obtain their permission if conducting deliveries within the city limits.  He anticipated that patients would come to pick up their medication once or twice a month, which equaled approximately 1,000 patients per month.  That equaled approximately 33 patient visits per day.  He explained that the hours of operation would be from 8 am to 7 pm.  He would have security cameras inside and outside of the facility, a locked safe, and restricted areas where the marijuana would be stored and purchased.  He stated that three people attended the meeting, and he would provide a copy of the list to the planning department.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the marijuana would be transported.

 

Mr. Verchick replied no, and explained that the marijuana would be sold in its original form.

 

Commissioner Hess asked for clarification on number of patients per day.

 

Mr. Verchick clarified that he was proposing to serve 1,000 patients per month.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Jathan Trevina, Roller Land Skate Center, had concerns regarding the effects the proposed business would have on lowering property values and increasing crime in the area.  He also noted that there was a church within 1,000 feet of the site.  He stated that he considered the area his “neighborhood” and was trying to “clean up” the area. 

 

Commissioner Hess asked if the roller rink had applied to have a daycare center.

 

Mr. Trevina replied yes, it would be open by the beginning of 2011.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if he was representing any other businesses in the area.

 

Mr. Trevina replied that he was not representing any other business but his own; however, he had spoken with several other business owners.

 

Mr. Verchick felt that the roller rink was a significant distance away from the site.  He stated that a business owner from the area and a friend attended the neighborhood meeting and none were in opposition of the business.  He stated that he was in the process of responding to the letter submitted by Mr. Stewart.  He pointed out that the area was having trouble leasing out commercial spaces.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked when the safety and hazard aspects would be addressed.

 

Mr. Whitley replied that the applicants had been in contact with the fire department and those issues would be addressed at the time of the building permit. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Cox stated that there were many inconsistencies in the application such as the neighborhood meeting report.  She also felt that all of the standards regarding medical marijuana had yet to be addressed in the regulations.  She also felt that concerns from the neighborhood should be considered.  She did not believe that the application met the criteria, and she was not in favor of the application.

 

Commissioner Dougherty agreed that there were inconsistencies in the application but understood that mistakes did occur when creating a report.  He felt that there were many other access points to the site that did not go by the roller rink.  He was in favor of the application.

 

Commissioner Hess liked that the applicant had been proactive in speaking with different referral agencies and stated that she would vote in favor of the application.

 

Commissioner Miller stated that it met the criteria and felt that the application should be approved.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that the application met the three criteria put in place for medical marijuana facilities.

 

Commissioner Glick stated that two property owners had voiced concerns, and the compatibility issues needed to be considered.

 

Commissioner Dougherty 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 Flower Power Botanicals Special Review, file #10-Z1798, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

2.    The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Flower Power Botanicals Special Review File # 10-Z1798 except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Flower Power Botanicals Special Review.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

5.    In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

6.    County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

 

7.    The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

8.    The applicant shall obtain all necessary building and/or change of occupancy permits and shall comply with the applicable Building and Fire Code requirements which may vary depending on the type and quantities of chemicals used and stored within the building.

 

9.    The applicant shall provide a letter from ELCO indicating the installation of a back flow prevention device has been completed.  

 

10.   The property owner shall sign an Annexation Agreement to the City of Fort Collins within 60 days from the date of approval.

 

Commissioner Hess seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Cox and Chairman Hart voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Dougherty, Glick, Hess, Miller, Wallace, and Weitkunat voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #5  PREMIER WELLNESS SPECIAL REVIEW #10-Z1807:  Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a medical marijuana dispensary in the C-Commercial zoning district located at 2321 E. Mulberry Street, Unit 12A, Fort Collins which was south of E. Mulberry Street frontage road, approximately 600 feet southwest of the intersection of E. Mulberry Street and Timberline Road.  The request also included an appeal to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 4.3.3.F.1, to allow the dispensary to be within 500 feet of a public park.  He noted that the agenda noted an appeal to be within 1,000 feet of two childcare centers, which was an error.  He explained that the site was within 500 feet of a designated natural area, which did not have public access.  The City of Fort Collins did confirm that they had no plans to create public access to that property.  Mr. Whitley showed through pictures that the site was not visible from the natural area.  He explained that the applicant was requesting to serve up to 200 patients.  Medical marijuana would not be grown on the property and there would be a maximum of 30 patient visits per day.  Mr. Whitley also noted that the property was located in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, and the City of Fort Collins commented that they required a minimum 500-foot separation between dispensaries and public parks.  They also noted that the Fort Collins regulations did not allow for variances from that standard.

 

Commissioner Glick asked what public access to the natural area would be defined as.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that there was a retaining wall and drainage way east of the designated natural area and there was no pedestrian access across that drainage way.  The area was not intended to have public access, and the City of Fort Collins confirmed that they had no plans to provide access. 

 

Commissioner Glick confirmed that there were no barriers other than vegetation to prevent access to the natural area from the proposed site parking lot.

 

Mr. Whitley replied yes; however, one would be crossing over private property.

 

Commissioner Glick wondered if allowing the appeal went against the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Fort Collins.

 

Mr. Whitley replied that the City of Fort Collins comments were recommendations, and Larimer County did not have to follow those recommendations. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked why a natural area was being considered a public park.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that the Land Use Code did not define a public park.  The site was designated as a natural area; therefore, the Planning Department was being safe in making its distinction. 

 

Commissioner Wallace had issues with the parking area and parking spaces on the site.

 

Mr. Whitley explained that there were three parking spaces provided for the specific unit but other parking spots were available for the whole condominium. 

 

Chairman Hart asked why an annexation agreement was not being required for this application.

 

Mr. Whitley explained that at the advice of the County Attorney they were not requiring an annexation agreement since the site was within a condominium unit. 

 

Scott Stokely, applicant, stated that they did have difficulty finding a location for their business.  They hoped to locate in an area that did not require an appeal; however, they were unable to and ultimately chose the proposed location.  He stated that they spoke with the owners of the units in the condominium and parking was a reoccurring concern.  He noted that their grow site would be located in Denver.  He stated that they had every intention of working with their neighbors to address any concerns.

 

Lacy Bittner, applicant, stated that parking was a concern with other unit owners and stated that renting others parking spaces was an option.

 

Mr. Stokely noted that they were trying to address all concerns raised from the letter received from Alma & Sons, LLC.  He understood the fears regarding crime and medical marijuana and presented data that showed there was no evidence that crime increased due to medical marijuana dispensaries. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked how much product would be kept on site.

 

Mr. Stokely stated that it would depend on how many patients they were serving.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that serving 30 patients per day would impact the parking on the site.

 

Mr. Stokely disagreed.  He stated that the number of patients was an estimate.

 

Ms. Bittner explained that they were told to ask for the highest possible patient number when applying for the Special Review but did not foresee that many patients at the start up of their business.  If the business did grow then they would search for a new location that would better accommodate more patients.

 

Commissioner Miller asked how long the process would take for a customer to purchase the product.

 

Mr. Stokely believed that it would take less than 15 minutes. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if there would be any security measures put in place regarding the front glass windows.

 

Mr. Stokey replied that there would be bars on the windows, and they would have other security measures such as a safe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Susan Andelt, owner of Unit 7, stated that there was public access to the natural area from the condominium parking lot.  She also felt that the City of Fort Collins recommendations should be taken into consideration.  She stated that there was an array of businesses in the condominium from dog groomers to musical instrument repair.  She felt that her business would not benefit and be hindered by the proposed business.  She also noted that traffic and parking was a huge issue and all the businesses had problems with parking. She encouraged the commission to deny the application.

 

Andrea Kennedy, owner of a Unit 3, stated that there was an array of businesses in the condominium.  She also pointed out that there was nowhere to turn around, and access in and out of the property was difficult. 

 

Mr. Stokely was aware of the parking issue but pointed out that all retail businesses would bring customers.  He stated that they would also work out any issues with their neighbor.  He stated that neighborhood letters were sent out to surrounding property owners.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Dougherty had concerns with parking.  He also was concerned with the people that attended the neighborhood meeting.  He stated that he would vote against the application.

 

Commissioner Miller did not believe that loitering and vandalism would be an issue.  He did see the concern with the parking; however, he did not see that it was different from any other retail business.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that the condominium was an existing building and the issues that came from the poor planning of the condominium should not penalize the applicant or business.  She felt that the applicant was sincere in their attempt to work with the neighbors.

 

Chairman Hart stated that a number of neighbors had an issue with the application.  He also pointed out that the building had inadequate access.

 

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 Premier Wellness Special Review, file #10-Z1807, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

2.         The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Premier Wellness Center Special Review File # 10-Z1807 except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Premier Wellness Center Special Review.

 

 

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

 

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

 

5.         In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

6.         County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

 

7.         The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

8.         The applicant shall obtain all necessary building and/or change of occupancy permits and shall comply with the applicable Building and Fire Code requirements which may vary depending on the type and quantities of chemicals used and stored within the building.

 

9.         The applicant shall provide a letter from ELCO indicating the installation of a back flow prevention device has been completed.  

 

Commissioner Hess seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Wallace, and Chairman Hart voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Hess, Miller, and Weitkunat voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION FAILED:  5-3

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #1  BERTHOUD FAMILY CHURCH SPECIAL REVIEW #10-Z1816:  Ms. Mott provided background information on the request to allow a child care center within an existing church for up to 30 children in the FA-1 Farming zoning district located at 3982 Nations Way in Berthoud, approximately 0.25 miles south of the intersection of County Road 8E and County Road 23 on the east side of the road.

 

Commissioner Cox asked how many people attended the neighborhood meeting.

 

Ms. Mott replied seven.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if there was a code compliance issue on the property.

 

Ms. Mott replied that there was a code compliance case regarding junk vehicles but an effort had been made to clean up the property.

 

Bruce Conover, Pastor of Berthoud Family Church, stated that the child care center would be located within the existing church.  The daycare would be open from 6 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday year round with a total of 30 school age kids.  He felt that there was a need for a daycare for his members and in the immediate area as Berthoud was expanding to the west and there were several subdivisions in the area.  He pointed out that the proposal for 30 children was 50% less than what was allowed which made the proposal under the required traffic threshold to require road improvements.  He stated that all traffic in and out of the subdivision was accessed at one point which was the intersection of County Road 23 and Nations Way.  The first driveway after that intersection was the drive in to the church; therefore, no daycare or church traffic would go past any residences.  The site had a landscaping berm at the front of the property to barrier sound and traffic from the residential sites.  He mentioned that the closest residence would be greater than 500 feet away.  All activity for the daycare would be confined to inside the church except the playground area.  He addressed the vehicles on site and stated that he had been in contact with the code compliance department, and he was working with the department to close the violation case. 

 

Commissioner Hess asked where the bus stop was.

 

Mr. Conover pointed out the location, which was near the street entrance to the church. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there would be preschool age kids at the daycare.

 

Mr. Conover replied no, not at the present time.  He stated that he was unsure of what direction the cliental would go but understood that he would have to seek approval for preschool age children to attend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Ken Peralez, 3961 Nations Way, had concerns about noise and traffic.  He showed that the flyer advertising the subdivision stated that the home sites were located on a secluded county lane away from the hustle and bustle of life.  He moved there to get away from the “city life”.  He noted that he did attend the neighborhood meeting.  He stated that he could see the church and the playground site from his home.  He stated that here could be 134 additional trips generated with the new use and was concerned with the extra traffic congestion especially in the morning hours when people were going to work. 

 

Paula Cutillo, 3973 Nations Way, stated that she lived directly across from the church.  She stated that she knew the church would be constructed but unaware of the plans for a daycare center.  She stated that she had lived in her house since 2004 and chose to live there because of the open space, scenic views of the mountains, rural character of the area, and night sky.  Harvest Heights Subdivision was promoted and advertised using those attributes, which people valued.  She was concerned about the traffic as Nations Way was a cul-de-sac with dirt shoulders and all traffic in and out of the subdivision was through the intersection of Nations Way and County Road 23.  The intersection was also the location of the bus stop which had no permanent shelter.  The increase in number of children at the bus stop and the additional trips generated from dropping off and picking up children during rush hour would contribute to an unsafe environment for pedestrians and commuters.  Harvest Heights was a quiet neighborhood; however, 30 children recreating on the property year round would significantly increase noise in the neighborhood.  Also, the area experienced high winds and soil and trash blew into neighboring yards which had been documented in emails to the applicant.  She was concerned that any increased activity on the property would increase the amount of trash that blew into her yard.  In reviewing the application, she asked that the cumulative as well as the individual impacts be considered.  The plans for the church presented at the HOA meeting proposed a one-story building and a two-story building was built.  In addition, the trees place on the property obstructed views of the mountains, and the commercial lights on the building obstructed the night sky.  She was concerned that it would have a cumulative effect on the neighborhood and values of the properties.  She did not feel that the proposed use was compatible with the neighborhood or in harmony of the rural aspect of the neighborhood.

 

Alisha Dillon, Raising Daisies Daycare locate in the City Limits of Berthoud, stated that she was a licensed daycare provider in Berthoud for the last 7 years.  She stated that she spoke with the applicant regarding the proposal; however, she did have some concerned.  She was concerned that a new daycare facility was not needed in the area and that other daycares would be closed due to a new one opening. 

 

Glenn Devoe, 3807 Nations Way, had concerns regarding traffic.  He also was concerned that so many students could be using the bus stop.  He stated that there were already nine kids utilizing the bus stop.  He stated that there was heavy equipment on the site besides the cars that were already discussed.  He felt that traffic would increase as Nations Way was connected to the other subdivisions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Conover stated that the church initiated the development and the lot was always disclosed to have a church on it with the possibility of a daycare and Christian school.  When lots were purchased conceptual plans were given to potential buyers.  He explained that in the morning the kids would be inside.  In the afternoon, the kids might be outside on the playground but a fence would be built around that which would minimize the noise.  He stated that after hearing more about the bus stop concerns he was unsure that utilizing the bus stop was a good idea and felt that the church might need to bus the children themselves.  He admitted that during construction there was trash but addressed it when concerns were raised.  He stated that the heavy equipment was onsite to help maintain the 18 acres and was not an issue with the code compliance department.  He understood the neighborhood concerns but felt that the change would have a minimal impact on the neighborhood and reiterated that there would be no new construction.  He stated that he would continue to work and cooperate with the neighbors. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what the road surface was.

 

Mr. Conover stated that it was asphalt.  The driveway into the church and the parking lot was also asphalt.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if the playground fence would be a privacy fence.  He also asked if he had spoken with the school district regarding bus service.

 

Mr. Conover believed that it would be a privacy fence.  He stated that he had not spoken with the school district as he was waiting to work out some of the details.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if he lived on the property.

 

Mr. Conover replied no. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat confirmed that it would be for school age children who would be watched before and after school.

 

Mr. Conover replied yes.  During the summer they might watch them all day long.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Dougherty asked if there were complaints regarding the site plan in 2007.

 

Ms. Mott replied that it was an administrative process.  During the site plan process the applicant indicated the possibility for a daycare but did not pursue it at the time. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked about Sunny Days Lane.

 

Matt Lafferty, Planning Department, explained that it was provided for emergency access only and would not be a through street accessible by the residents. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if there was a document that the property owners saw regarding the use on the church site.

 

Ms. Mott stated that the site plan that stated the information. 

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that the county did not require the applicant to disclose that there would be a church on the property.  The plat of record platted Lot 15 as a church site, and the site plan for the church was a public record. 

 

Ms. Mott showed the site plan, which stated proposed use of church and possible daycare.

 

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 Berthoud Family Church Special Review, file #10-Z1816, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved with the following conditions:

 

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

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Berthoud Family Church Special Review, File #10-Z1816, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Berthoud Family Church Special Review.

 

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

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

 

5.   The child care center shall be limited to 30 children.

 

6.   The child care center shall be limited to the hours of operation of Monday through Friday from 6:00am until 6:00pm.

 

7.   In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

8.   County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

 

 

9.   The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

10.   The applicant shall obtain all necessary building and/or change of occupancy permits and shall comply with the applicable Building and Fire Code requirements.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hess, Miller, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Hart voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:  Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings.  He also informed the commission of the resolution passed by the Board of County Commissioners on October 05, 2010 opposing Amendments 60, 61, and Proposition 101.  He explained that the Planning Commission had the option to make a motion or pass resolutions regarding that action.

 

Chairman Hart believed that resolution was appropriate as if those measures were passed the county would not have the staff supported needed to carry out the land use processes and the county would not have the infrastructure to keep the county going and have a high quality of life.        

 

Commissioner Hess agreed.

 

Commissioner Miller felt it was not apart of their duty.

 

Commissioner Dougherty agreed with Chairman Hart.  If the commission was unable to obtain information that was needed to help make their decisions.

 

Commissioner Wallace moved to make a statement that supports the Board of County Commissioners in their position opposing Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat felt that there should be a statement of why it was relative to the Planning Commission as it would affect the ability of staff to perform.  She requested a friendly amendment.

 

Commissioner Wallace and Dougherty agreed to accept Commissioner Weitkunat’s friendly amendment. 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Hart reiterated that the commission was concerned that the measures would hurt the quality of life in Larimer County and inhibit the Planning Commission in making recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners if they did not have the support needed.

 

Commissioner Miller abstained from voting due to lack of information.

 

Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hess, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Hart voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Gerald Hart, Chairman                                               Jana Hess, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

LOT 3A, AMD LOTS 2 & 3, FORT COLLINS BUSINESS CENTER 3RD FILING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

.

 

UNIT 12A, SMALL MALL CONDOS FTC (20040110128 AND 20090011219)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

LOT 15, HARVEST HEIGHTS SUB, 20030134644