Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of November 19, 2008

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Benton, Glick, Hart, Hess, Oppenheimer, Weitkunat and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Cox was absent.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Toby Stauffer, Planner II, Traci Shambo, Development Review Engineer, Doug Ryan, Health Department, Heather Zimdahl, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Hart, Wallace, and Weitkunat on a site visit to Newt Planned Land Division/Planned Development, Ten Bears Winery Special Review, Timberline Resources Special Review Amended Conditions of Approval, Sunny Jim’s Candy Ranch Special Exception, Graycor Blasting Special Exception, and Bacon Quarry Special Review on November 19, 2008.

 

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 OCTOBER 15, 2008 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Wallace to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Glick.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None

 

TABLED ITEM:

Mr. Lafferty stated that the Land Use Code Amendments regarding Thresholds, file #08-CA0089 had been tabled to December 17, 2008 at 6:30pm.

 

MOTION by Commissioner Wallace to table the Land Use Code Amendments regarding Thresholds, file #08-CA0089 to December 17, 2008 at 6:30pm; seconded by Commissioner Glick.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2  NEWT PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND APPEAL, FILE #07-S2739:

Mrs. Stauffer provided background information on the request to divide an existing residential lot, a portion of Lot 21 of the Victoria Estates Subdivision consisting of 5.5 acres, into two, single-family residential lots, rezone the property from FA-1 Farming to PD Planned Development, and appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.4 of the Land Use Code so the development could use an on-site septic system in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.

 

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 Newt Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #07-S2739, request to subdivide 5.5 acres into 2 single family lots and appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.4 of the Land Use Code regarding the use of an on-site septic system, 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 Newt Planned Land Division (File #07-S2739), 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 Newt Planned Land Division.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance: the Thompson R2-J School District fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County Community and Regional Park Fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion and applicable drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

 

3.   All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation.  The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table.  Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.

 

4.   Due to the shallow groundwater of this area, construction plans shall be prepared in accordance with the recommendations from the applicant’s geotechnical engineer.

 

5.   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.

 

6.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County, as a part of the Final Plat and to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice 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, soil testing for the new septic permit and other issues raised in the review, or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

7.   The lowest opening elevation of any structure placed on proposed lot 2 will be 104.12 feet or higher using the same relative elevation datum as shown on the preliminary plat that established the Fairport Reservoir spillway as being at elevation 102.62 feet.  Any proposed structure shall be a minimum of 1.5 feet above possible ponding depths of the reservoir. The spillway elevation shall be labeled on the final plat and a plat note shall be included relating this condition of approval. 

 

8.   The developer shall provide an access easement agreement that includes provisions for Lot 1 and Lot 2 to use and maintain the access easement along the southern edge of the property.

 

9.   Residential sprinklers shall be required within the dwelling unit on Lot 2 and installed as part of any building permit application for a dwelling unit.  Prior to approval of the final plat the applicant shall provide information to the Planning Department indicating that the water flow and pressure from the service provider is adequate for fire protection.

 

10.   The applicant will need to submit a plan addressing livestock management in relation to wetland and buffer areas with the final plat submittal.

 

11.   The applicant will be required to obtain any required permits concerning water quality management for the development. As building permits are applied for, the applicant for each building permit will be required to apply for any necessary permits.

 

12.   A signed annexation agreement will need to be submitted with the final plat for this project. A sample annexation agreement is available from the Planning Department.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Newt Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #07-S2739, request to rezone the property from FA-1 Farming to PD Planning Development, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

2.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Newt Planned Land Division shall be as follows:

§  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.

§  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).

§  Uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in section 13.0.

 

A.   Principal uses:

 

Agricultural

1.   Farm (R)

2.   Tree farm (R)

3.   Greenhouse (R)

4.   Boarding stable (S)

5.   Pet animal facility (MS/S)

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

Residential

7.   Single-family dwelling (R)

8.   Dwelling, cabin (R)

9.   Group home for the developmentally disabled (R)

10. Group home for the aged (R)

11. Group home (R)

12. Storage buildings and garages (R)

13. Group home for the mentally ill (R)

Institutiona l

14. Cemetery (S)

15. School, public (L)

16. School, nonpublic (R/S)

17. Church (R/S)

18. Child/elderly care center (S)

19. Child/elderly care home (R)

20. Community hall (R/S)

21. State-licensed group home (S)

Recreational

22. Public park/playground (L)

Accommodation

23. Bed and breakfast (MS/S)

Utilities

24. Water storage facility (L)

25. Radio and television transmitters (S)

26. Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)

27. Small Wind Energy Facility (MS)

 

B.  Lot, building and structure requirements:

1.   Minimum lot size:  2.5 Acres

2.   Minimum setbacks:

a.   Front yard- twenty-five (25) feet

b.   Side yards--five (5) feet.

c.   Rear yards--ten (10) feet.

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

e.   Wetland buffer- 50’ feet- see the plat associated with this development.

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 Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #3  TEN BEARS WINERY SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #08-Z1695:

Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request to establish a winery use on a parcel zoned O-Open.  The applicant had not yet established an agricultural use on site, (ie. the grape vines), but suggested that within 5 years he would be in the position to not have to import any grapes to the site.  In the interim however, it was his intention to import grapes to make wine on site until he could successfully harvest the grapes in sufficient quantities to allow for the production of wine from on site produce.  There was also a request for an appeal to Section 8.1.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow for the use of hauled water for the winery.

 

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 Ten Bears Winery Special Review, file #08-Z1695, request for an accessory agricultural use for value added processing and appeal to Section 8.1.2 of the Land Use Code to allow for hauled water for the winery, 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 Ten Bears Winery Special Review file # 08-Z1695 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 Ten Bears Winery Special Review file # 08-Z1695.

 

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 pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) before the use commences, or within 120 days of the recordation of the Findings and Resolution approving the Special Review, whichever occurs first. The Larimer County Land Use Code does not have a land use category that covers winery, so the fees will be calculated based on the projected average daily traffic submitted with traffic study.

 

9.   There shall be no retail sale or public events/tastings at this site.

 

10.   The addition of retail sales, tastings or public events shall cause the use to be subject a t minimum to Site Plan Review or reconsideration of the Special Review.  This is in part based on the volume of imported grapes used in the production. 

 

11.   The applicant shall conform to the following Health Department conditions; operation of the winery shall conform to the State of Colorado Food Manufacturing Practices,  the cistern for hauled in water may be used both as detailed in the letter of August 7, 2008, and an ISDS permit must be issued for the use.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4  TIMBERLINE RESOURCES SPECIAL REVIEW AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, FILE #08-G0158: 

Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend the conditions of approval to allow an additional 3 years to commence mining (until Sept. 12, 2011) and amend the Development Agreement to extend the timeframe for completion of improvements required as conditions of approval (until Dec. 27, 2011).

 

Mike Reeper, 1707 Coal Blvd Golden explained that the applicant was requesting that the timeframe be extended, but that all other conditions remain the same as per the original approval. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Hart asked if the completion of access improvements had anything to do with the timeframe extension requested.

 

Traci Shambo replied that per the original approval the applicant was to put in a turn lane to the site before any mining commenced.  She explained that she did notify the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) of the 3 year extension to build the turn lane and commence the mining. 

 

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 Timberline Resources Special Review Amended Conditions of Approval, file #08-G0158, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #5  SUNNY JIM’S CANDY RANCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION, FILE #08-Z1710:  

Mrs. Stauffer provided background information on the request for approval of a U-Haul business and outdoor storage of U-Haul trucks at the Sunny Jims Candy Ranch property.  The candy store had been in operation since 1964, and the U-haul business had been in operation since 2006.  Businesses in the area include a few retail stores, a commercial warehouse, a landscape and nursery business, and a gas and convenience store. Other properties in the area are residential or agricultural.

 

Commissioner Hart asked if there was adequate room on the property for emergency vehicles to get to the back of the lot with the requested number trucks parked on site.

 

Traci Shambo replied that the suggested configuration of the trucks would not alter emergency access to the property.

 

Commissioner Benton asked about the condition of “No maintenance of the vehicles on site” and wondered how the applicant would deal with that.

 

Mrs. Stauffer replied that all vehicles would be maintained off site at a larger U-Haul facility. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the 26’ truck accommodation was for storage of a drop-off truck for the 24 hours layover time.

 

Mrs. Stauffer explained that the Applicant would like to have a 26’ truck in her inventory, but staff did not feel that a 26’ truck fit well on the site.  Staff did try to work a parking configuration to accommodate a 26’ truck.  She stated that it was staff’s thought that the site worked better with 17’ or smaller trucks.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if there was a condition put in place to prevent the access to the back of the property from being blocked.

 

Mrs. Shambo replied that it was the intent of conditions 5-7 to make sure the parking lot was formally stripped and the U-Haul spaces were designated.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if there had ever been any accidents involving the U-Haul rentals moving in and out the business location.

 

Mrs. Stauffer replied no, not to her knowledge.

 

Ida Suppes 5431 W Highway 34 Loveland stated that she took on the U-Haul business in 2006 in addition to the candy business to maintain her income.  She said that she would make more money if she were able to keep one 26’ truck in her inventory in addition to the smaller trucks.  She explained that she backed up all the trucks into the spaces, and that she had not had an accident with the U-Haul trucks in the entire time the business had been at that location.

 

Commissioner Morgan clarified that the applicant would like to have one 26’ truck and one 24’ rotation truck in addition to the smaller trucks.  He confirmed that a rotation truck was an older truck that was just used in town.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the applicant was ok with staff’s condition of 4 trucks allowed on site.

 

Ms. Suppes replied that she would like to have 5 trucks on site with 1 overflow truck.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if the applicant was at capacity every day with the trucks.

 

Mrs. Suppes replied no.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if the Applicant was a fully licensed U-Haul rental agency.

 

Mrs. Suppes replied yes.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if the business was seasonal.

 

Ms. Suppes replied that her business dropped off a little in the winter but was pretty steady throughout the year.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Sandra Brewer 5436 Wild Lane Loveland explained that she lived directly behind the subject property.  She stated that she did have some concerns about pollution, volume of trucks, and maintenance of the vehicles.  She said that there had been accidents in the past on that property and that she was concerned with safety.

 

Edward Chambers U-Haul Representative explained that all of the vehicles that U-Haul carried ran on unleaded fuel only; they no longer used diesel fuel.  He stated that the property provided business to the entire Hwy 34 region.

 

Robert Pape 5424 Wild Lane stated that he could see the trucks from his front window, and he was concerned with decreased property values in the area because of the business.

 

 

Ida Suppes 5431 W Highway 34 Loveland explained that there was a gas station 2 blocks away and believed that the gas station put off more pollution then the U-Haul business would. 

 

Commissioner Morgan closed public comment.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Weitkunat asked why staff felt that the property functioned better with the 17’ truck maximum.

 

Mrs. Stauffer explained that staff felt that a 17’ truck fit better on the site while still keeping the flow of traffic.

 

Mrs. Shambo explained that parking on the site was tight already and staff felt that it would be hard to maneuver a larger truck to fit perfectly in the designated space.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked why the rental business was considered outdoor storage.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that the parking and keeping of vehicles was within the definition of outdoor storage.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if staff had a parking model that allowed for a larger truck to be parked on the left side of the building.

 

Mrs. Stauffer replied that the parking space was kept for the candy store employees or for access to the back of the property, but was not intended for a U-Haul truck.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer asked about the width of the driveway in the rear of the property and expressed concern for emergency vehicle access.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that he would estimate the width to be between 12-15 feet. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked about trucks of any size being left on the property for 24 hours to await pickup, and wondered if that was ok with staff.

 

Mrs. Stauffer replied that it was.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that she had some concerns with limiting the maximum length of the trucks.  She asked if staff could work out a timeframe condition for larger trucks to be on the property.

 

Mrs. Stauffer replied that staff had worked out the 24 hour rule, which meant that a truck of any size could be parked on the property for up to 24 hours.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that she would be willing to work with timeframes without limiting the maximum length of the trucks.

 

Commissioner Hess concurred with Commissioner Weitkunat’s comments.

 

Commissioner Wallace felt that if the site could accommodate a larger truck in a designated space then it should be allowed, but if the site could not accommodate the larger truck in that one designated space it should not be allowed.  She stated that the applicant and staff needed to work within the restrictions of the site.

 

Commissioner Morgan expressed concern for the restrictive nature of the site, and stated that there should be a size limitation for the trucks.

 

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 Sunny Jim’s Candy Ranch Special Exception, file #08-Z1710, request to allow accessory outdoor storage of U-Haul trucks , for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions with an amendment to Item 5 as shown below:

 

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.   The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and information contained in the Sunny Jim’s Special Exception, File # 08-Z1710 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 Sunny Jim’s Special Exception, File # 08-Z1710.

 

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

 

4.   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.

 

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

A.   Four parked U-Haul trucks or other rental vehicles will be allowed on-site at any time.

B.   The four primary parking spaces for the U-Haul trucks will be on the east side of the property.

C.   Three rental vehicles on site shall be a maximum of 17’ long, allowing for one rental vehicle on site to be 26’ long, and one trailer on site to be a maximum of 12’ long.

D.   All vehicles must be parked so that all parts of the vehicle are within the property boundary and not in the adjacent right-of-way.

E.   One additional overflow space will be allowed on the west side of the property. That space shall be for temporary parking only. Any vehicle in that space must be moved off site or to another permanent space within 24 hours.

F.   If the property has more than four trucks, trailers or other rental vehicles on-site, the extra vehicles must be removed within 24 hours.

G.   Parking or storage of any vehicles associated with this use is not allowed off the property or in the HWY 34 right-of-way.

H.   No maintenance of rental vehicles is allowed on site.

I.    No additional businesses are allowed on-site without going through an approved county process.

J.    No additional structures or changes to the site are allowed without going through an approved county process.

 

6.   The applicant shall provide a revised site plan to the Planning and Engineering Departments that shows the proposed signage and striping plan for the property within 30 days of County Commissioner approval.

 

7.   Within 60 days of County Commissioner approval, the applicant shall sign and stripe the property to delineate parking spaces for rental vehicles, one overflow space, and spaces for candy customers.

 

8.   The applicant shall pay $4,250 in Transportation Capital Expansion fees within 60 days of County Commissioner approval.

 

9.   The applicant shall provide a narrative detailing the maintenance plan for rental vehicles to the Planning Department within 30 days of County Commissioner approval.

 

10.   The applicant will provide a 25’Right-of-Way (ROW) Reservation for Highway 34 with approval of this application. The 25’ ROW reservation begins at the existing ROW line and extends 25’to the north along the entire length of the property.

 

11.   The Larimer County Planning, Engineering, and Code Compliance Departments will conduct periodic site visits to confirm that the use is meeting all conditions of approval. If the use is not in compliance with the conditions of approval, County staff will document the violation and begin the process for a Show Cause hearing. The Show Cause hearing is a hearing before the County Commissioners. The Commissioners will evaluate if the use is not in compliance with the conditions of approval and decide if the business will be allowed to continue. This Special Exception approval is considered notice of these conditions. If at any time after this approval the property is found to be not in compliance, the process for the Show Cause hearing will begin.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #6  GRAYCOR BLASTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION, FILE #08-Z1691:  

Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for the use of an existing building and surrounding lands for storage of company equipment, use of the property for a its regional base of operations and the storage of explosives used in the business. 

 

Commissioner Hess clarified that staff did not find the storage of trucks to be compatible with the area.

 

Mr. Helmick replied yes, and also included the operation of the business.

 

Commissioner Hart asked how many employees were on site on a daily basis.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that it varied day to day.

 

Commissioner Hart asked if Larimer County had any regulations for the storage of explosives.

 

Mr. Helmick replied no.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if there were any health or safety issues for the transportation of explosives on and off the site.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that no issues were raised from referral comments.

 

Tim Goddard, Applicants Representative/Attorney believed that there had been some misunderstandings in regards to the project.  He stated that the applicant was not requesting permission for the storage of explosives, but for the storage of trucks.  He explained that it was his understanding that the applicant had received a minor special review for the storage of the explosives, and explained that the explosives were stored according to state and federal regulations.  He stated that there had never been an accident in the United States pertaining to the storage of explosives.  He said that the storage building was not out of character for the area.  He explained that moving the business part of the project to another site would increase the amount of trips back and forth to the property where the dynamite would continue to be located.  He believed that the project was of a unique nature but was not a business being run from the property.  He stated that the project generated only 3 trips per week.  He mentioned that the loss of Graycor would have a large negative financial impact on Larimer County. 

 

Lars Selby 439 Rodeo Hills Lane explained that the state and federal regulations for storage and transportation of dynamite were very tight.

 

Jeff Smith 18434 Marshfield, Illinois Senior Vice President for Graycor Blasting stated that the company chose Larimer County after looking at others areas, because it was centrally located.  He remarked that they would like to stay in Larimer County.

 

Commissioner Glick asked about due diligence for the location of the business onto a property that was zoned O-Open.  He asked if the company looked into the Land Use Code for the area that they were trying to locate to.

 

Mr. Smith replied no, it was his understanding that it was ok.

 

John Wieneke, Spradley Barr Ford 4809 S College explained that the negative economic impact would be great if Graycor were not able to stay at its current location.  He explained that Spradley Barr maintained all of Graycor’s trucks, and in 2007 Gracor spent over $188,000 at Spradley Barr.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what the Planning Commission was to consider with the project.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that principally the Planning Commission was to consider the vehicles and the storage of the vehicles.  He explained that because there was more than one employee that came to the site, the business part came into question and because explosives were the business they were to be discussed.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there was a previous permit that allowed the storage of dynamite on the property.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that in 2006 the applicant came forward to request that they be able to store dynamite on the property, but after much investigation staff determined that there were no permits required.

 

Commissioner Hart confirmed that the Planning Commission was to consider the operation of the business and the storage of trucks on the property.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Catherine Critz, 217 Rodeo Hills Lane, opposing property owner’s representative, stated that they were not only concerned with the storage of dynamite, but were also concerned with the general commercial presence of the business.  Ms. Critz elaborated on reasons that the review criteria had not been met and stated that the business was out of character for the area.  She stated that Graycor did not help maintain the road.  She mentioned that her main issues were the traffic, noise, decreased property values, safety, and road damage. 

 

Gwyneth, 20358 Cattle Drive, remarked that there was not much traffic and did not see what all the fuss was about.

 

Al Scott, 20957 N County Road 15, said that it was no different than an employee parking their work truck outside there home.  He could not see what the big deal was.

 

Clint Borokowski, 217 Rodeo Hills Drive, remarked that the applicant did not ask permission before they set up shop, and expressed concern for property values.

 

Katherine Zwiefel, 19737 Rawhide Flats Road, stated that her property was currently up for sale and there had been no discussion of the property value decreasing because of the business.  She stated that she had no concern with the traffic.

 

Carrie Holbrook, 19356 Cattle Drive, remarked that the applicants were great people and she had no problem with the business.

 

Muriel Reeve, 19445 Rawhide Flats Road, stated that the road had always been wash boarded.  She stated that the business was actually in character with the neighborhood because so many employees lived in the area.

 

Sara Standing, 20884 Cattle Drive, stated that she has had no impact with property insurance.  She reiterated that Graycor was not out of character for the area. 

 

Gary Peterson, 1805 Crestmore Place, stated that it would not cost as much to move the business as was presented.  He remarked that there would be no transition from the designated open space in the area to the commercial/industrial nature of the business. 

 

Mike Selby, applicant, remarked that he was not requesting a zoning change; he just wanted to park his trucks in the building.

 

Tim Goddard, Applicants Representative/Attorney, remarked that there was a study done and it concluded that the road base was sufficient to handle the truck traffic from the business.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if the request for the storage of trucks would fall under outdoor storage.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that outdoor storage was not a permitted use in the O-Open zone district.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the applicants were requesting to store all the trucks indoors and not have any trucks stored outside.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the private road had restrictions on it.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that the applicant had presented sufficient evidence that the road did not have restricted uses.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the employees that go back and forth to the site were employees of Graycor or the applicant.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that he did not know for sure, but he would assume that they were employees of Graycor.

 

Commissioner Morgan closed public comment.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace remarked that the project did not meet the review criteria as presented.

 

Commissioner Morgan concurred with Commissioner Wallace’s comments.  He remarked that if the business had the resources to relocate a business to Larimer County, then it had the resources to research the property before moving.

 

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 Graycor Blasting Special Exception, file #08-Z1691, request for approval to use an existing building for the storage of explosives , for the property described on “Exhibit E” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Benton seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Hess voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-1

 

ITEM #7  BACON QUARRY SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #08-Z1678:  

Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for approval to operate a commercial sandstone quarry on 2.5 acres of an 8.8 acre site in the Masonville area.  The request included an appeal to Section 8.6.3 of the Land Use Code related to paved parking.  Mr. Wheeler explained that the applicant had worked with neighboring property owners to resolve any outstanding issues. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the Planning Commission was supposed to vote on the application as it was presented or with new conditions as requested by the neighboring property owners.

 

Mr. Wheeler replied that the application was as presented with an exception to the permit life which would be extended to 25 years.

 

Reed Bond, Landmark Engineering, explained that he had been working with the Engineering Department and had decided not use the corner area of the project site for waste rock.  He further explained that because they were not going to use that part of the site for waste rock, the total mining area had reduced ¼ of an acre.  Mr. Bond believed that 25 years would be an acceptable time frame for the mining operation.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Jim Martell, Attorney, stated that he represented the neighborhood association.  He explained that they had reached an agreement with the applicant, and elaborated on the conditions that they had recommended for the applicant; 1. 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday-Friday hours of operation, 2. The Applicant would use broadband back-up alarms, not beepers, 3. The applicant would put in landscaping that was watered and maintained for the entire life of the project, 4. There would be a maximum of 2 trucks per week, 5. No retail sales on site, 6. The port-o potty would be located somewhere near the residence and at least 75 feet from the road, 7. A nice fence would be put up, like others around the area, should the fence need replacement, 8. No fuel storage on site, 9. The entrance would be offset at least 20 feet from the driveway, 9. There would be a maximum of 5 employees, 10. The Applicant would put recycled asphalt or gravel on the roadways within the property to reduce the dust.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that many of the conditions stated were site plan or final development issues that the Planning Commission would not get into. 

 

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 the Bacon Quarry Special Review, file #08-Z1678, request for approval to operate a commercial sandstone quarry and appeal to Section 8.6.3 of the Land Use Code to allow for gravel in the parking area , for the property described on “Exhibit F” 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.  Quarry activities shall be limited to 25 years from the start of operations, unless Larimer County grants approval to extend the permit time.

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Bacon Quarry Special Review (File #08-Z1678) 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 Bacon Quarry Special Review.

 

3.   The Applicant shall execute a Development Agreement to be signed by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded with the Larimer County Clerks Office, before the commencement of any excavation activities and no longer then one year after the date of the Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing.

4.   No operation of the quarry shall occur on the weekends or County designated holidays.   Monday through Friday hours of operation are limited to the time between 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, to include time for equipment warm-up.

 

5.   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.

 

6.   Reclamation shall begin as soon as possible after the completion of quarry activities and no later then the start of the next growing season.

 

7.   The Applicant shall comply with requirements with the Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County.

 

8.   The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the County Engineering Department outlined in their comments dated 10-17-08:

 

a.   Within 90 days of Special Review approval at a Board of County Commissioners hearing, the Applicant is required to apply for a Development Construction Permit (DCP) and Access Permit.  The site and access improvements will need to be completed prior to commencing the mining operation.

 

b.   Applicant shall provide a right-of-way Deed of Dedication (50 foot half right-of-way) to be recorded prior to or with the Development Agreement.

 

c.   The Applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee of $2,833.00 prior to recording of the Development Agreement.

 

d.   The State of Colorado approved Mining and Reclamation Permit, State Storm water Discharge Permit, and State Fugitive Particulate Emissions Permit (if required by the State) shall be submitted to the County Engineering Department within 90 days of Special Review approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

e.   The temporary northern access shall only be used for the pick up of material and can only be used up to twice per week for this use. The access must be abandoned once the mining operation ceases.

 

f.    No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the County right-of-way.

 

g.   Trucks shall not back onto or use the County Road for a turnaround.

 

h.   Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.

i.    The Applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of any site material in the County right-of-way.

 

9.   Operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the State that details overall compliance with the storm water management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the State MLRB.

 

10. The Applicant shall provide copies of all final plans including mining, landscape and reclamation plans within 90 days of the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, for review and approval by Staff prior to commencement of mining operations.

 

12. The Applicant shall provide secondary containment for outdoor storage areas that are sized correctly to contain possible spills.  All flammable or combustible liquids shall be stored per the requirements in the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.

 

13. All back-up alarms shall be the broadband type using the white noise technology, and shall be reduced in volume to the lowest level allowed by law.

 

14. No retail sales are allowed on site.

 

15. The quarry is allowed a maximum of 5 employees, and no more than two semi-trailer truck loads of quarried material may be removed from the site each week.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #8  LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING CEMETERIES,

FILE #08-CA0088: 

Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the proposed amendments to the adopted Larimer County Land Use Code.  Staff proposed to amend the definition of a cemetery, to include definitions for funeral homes and crematoriums and to include funeral homes in the C- Commercial and I and I-1 Industrial zone districts.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Dennis Lynch 316 E County Road 30 stated that he was a representative of his community.  He believed that crematoriums were industrial in every way and belong in industrial zoned areas only.  He explained that he had fought other crematorium applications recently and pushed for code changes at that time.  He stated that a crematorium would not fit in a commercial zone districts because it was not a commercial use.  He suggested that crematoriums be allowed only in industrial zoned areas by Special Review.

Commissioner Glick asked that if crematoriums were to be limited to only commercial and industrial zoned areas where would that put them in the county, and how much land in Larimer County is zoned commercial or industrial.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that the majority of the county’s commercial and industrial zoned parcels were located along the Mulberry corridor east of Fort Collins.  He explained that because of some recent annexations by the City of Fort Collins, the county had some commercial and industrial zoned parcels along the south edge of Fort Collins or north Loveland.  He further explained that based upon the definition of an allowed commercial use, the crematorium did fit within the commercial zone district.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if other municipalities permitted crematoriums to be in commercial zone districts. 

 

Mr. Lafferty replied yes and elaborated on the different zoning districts in other municipalities that allowed crematoriums. 

 

Doug Ryan explained that in any case, a specific analysis should be done for the project and a Special Review application would allow for that type of analysis. 

 

Commissioner Wallace said that the Special review hurdle was difficult to get over because applicants have to meet all the requirements and review criteria not just one.  She explained that the compatibility requirement was very difficult to get beyond because the applicant must prove that the use was compatible with other allowed uses in the area, not just uses but allowed uses and be in harmony with the neighborhood. 

 

Commissioner Morgan closed public comment.

 

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 the Land Use Code Amendments, file #08-CA0088 regarding cemeteries, be approved:

 

1. Amend the definition of cemetery as follows:

Cemetery.  A tract of land parcel set aside for interring four or more bodies, including funeral homes, columbariums and mausoleums when operated in conjunction with and located on the same premises as the cemetery.  A crematorium shall not be located in a cemetery. 

 

2. Add definitions for the following:

Funeral home – a building used for the preparation of the deceased for burial or cremation, for the display of the deceased and/or for ceremonies or services related thereto, excluding a crematorium.

 

Crematorium – A crematorium is a structure that houses one or more crematories.  A crematory is an incinerator, furnace, retort, or oven used for the purpose of cremation of human or animal remains.

 

3. Amend the 4.3.4. Institutional Use Descriptions as follows:

 

C. Cemetery.  A tract of land set aside for interring four or more bodies, including funeral homes, columbariums and mausoleums when operated in conjunction with and located on the same premises as the cemetery. A crematorium shall not be located in a cemetery.

 

4. Add the following new 4.3.4 use descriptions following C. Cemetery and renumber the remainder of the section:

 

D. Funeral home – a building used for the preparation of the deceased for burial or cremation, for the display of the deceased and/or for ceremonies or services related thereto, excluding a crematorium..

 

E. Crematorium – A crematorium is a structure that houses one or more crematories.  A crematory is an incinerator, furnace, retort, or oven used for the purpose of cremation of human or animal remains.

 

5. Amend the C, I and I-1 zoning districts zoning districts to allow a funeral home by Right (R) and a crematorium by Special Review (S).   List these uses under the “Institutional” category and renumber the remainder of the section:

            Funeral homes (R)

Crematorium (S)

 

6. Amend the zoning table inset in Section 4.1 to include the following in the C, I and I-1 zoning districts:

 

Category:

Use:

Zoning districts C, I and I-1:

Institutional

Funeral Home

R

Institutional

Crematorium

S

 

Commissioner Benton seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 11:04 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                                           Karen Weitkunat, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

A portion of Lot 21, Plat of Victoria Estates Subdivision, situate in the South Half of

Section 13, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6'h Principal Meridian, Larimer

County, Colorado, described as follows:

BEGINNING at the northeast corner of Lot 21, Victoria Estates Subdivision; THENCE

S 00°00'00" E, along the easterly line of said Lot, 279.33 feet to the Southeast corner

thereof; THENCE, S 82 43'30" W, along the southerly line of said Lot, 797.02 feet to a

point on the easterly right of way line of Victoria Drive; THENCE, along the easterly

and northerly right of way of Victoria Drive the following two courses and distances:1)

N 00°29'30" E, 15.00 feet; 2) N 61 55'30" W, 30.62 feet; THENCE N 09 25'19" E,

349.90 feet to a point on the northerly line of said Lot; THENCE, along said line the

following two courses and distances: 1) S 72 08'40" E, 154.70 feet; 2) N 85 06'20" E,

6 15.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

LOT 3, HARVEY ROLLING HILLS PLANNED LAND DIVISION AMD (20050064468)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

A parcel of land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 29 and the north half of Section 28, Township 8 north, Range 69 west of the 6th principal meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the west quarter of Section 28 whence the west line of the northwest 1/4 of Section 28 Section bears north 00 25'00" east 2644.23 feet, said line forming the basis of bearings for this description; Thence along the south line of the northeast one-quarter of Section 29 north 89 48'35" west 926.49 feet; Thence north 00 07'00" east 630.97 feet; Thence north 89 53'00" west136.12 feet; Thence north 28 00'00" cast 6.67 feet; Thence north 89 53'00" west 278.47 feet; Thence along the west line of the northeast one quarter of Section 29 north 00 05'14" east 54.11 feet;

Thence south 89 53'00" east 411.49 feet;

Thence north 00 07'00" east 213.16 feet;

Thence along the centerline of Jackson Ditch the following four courses:

1) north 48 58'30" east 131.82 feet;

2) Thence north 09 42'00" east 185.44 feet;

3) Thence north 21 27'00" east 156.1 7 feet;

4) Thence north 15 15'00" east 87.80 feet;

Thence north 90 00'00" west 621.74 feet;

Thence along said west line of the northeast one quarter north 00 05'14" east 1230.29 feet to the east sixteenth comer of Section 29;

Thence along the north line of the northeast one quarter of the northeast one quarter of Section

29 north 89 41 '30" east 1352.86 feet to the northwest comer of Section 28;

Thence along the north line of the northwest one quarter of said Section south 89 47'29" east

2187.59 feet;

Thence along the southwesterly Right-of-way of Colorado State Highway 287 the following 6

courses:

I) south 49 17'42" east 1993.51 feet;

2) Thence south 52 29'1 8" east 1173.33 feet;

3) Thence north 53 42' 19" east 50.75 feet;

4) Thence south 36 17'33" east 447.60 feet;

5) Thence south 38 40'1 1" east 291.32 feet;

6) Thence south 89 3 1 '37" east 101.47 feet;

Thence along a line being 30.00 feet west of and parallel with the east line of the northeast one quarter of Section 28 south 00 42'00" west 70.20 feet to a point on the south line of the northeast one quarter of said Section 28; Thence along said line north 89 55'01" west 5237.24 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Said Parcel of land contains 295.059 acres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

BEGINNING AT A POINT 97.5 FEET NORTH OF A POINT WHICH THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. BEARS S 40° 50’ E 802.1 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 187.5 FEET MORE OR LESS TO NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY 116; THENCE NORTH 187.5 FEET; TEHNCE NORTHWESTERLY 116 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT E

THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTIO 36, TOWNSHIP 11 NORTH RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT F

All that portion of the North One-Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 6 North, Range 70 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Assuming the North line of the South One-Half of said Section 26 as bearing North 89º32'52" East according to the recorded plat of the Jenks Exemption, between the monuments shown and described hereon, with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of said Section 26; thence along the North line of the South One-Half of said Section 26, North 89º32'52" East, a distance of 1304.60 feet to the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said North line North 89º32'52" East, a distance of 18.44 feet to the Westerly right-of-way of Larimer County Road Number 27, as described in a deed recorded in Book 958, Page 469, of Larimer County Records; thence along said Westerly right-of-way the following three (3) courses and distances: I) along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left, the center of which bears North 85º19'36" East, and having a radius of 603.00 feet and a central angle of 21°08'14", an arc distance of 222.46 feet, the chord of said curve bears South 15º14'32" East, a distance of 22 1.20 feet; 2) South 25º48'39" East, a distance of 557.89 feet; 3) southerly, along a curve to the right, having a radius of 2,835.00 feet and a central angle of 12º56'30", a distance of 640.40 feet, the chord of said curve bears South 19º20'24" East, a distance of 638.99 feet to a point on the South line of the North One-Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 26; thence South 89º50'36" West, along said South line, to the Southwest corner of the Northeast 114 of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 26, a distance of 527.10 feet; thence South 89º50'36" West, along said South line, a distance of 385.86 feet; thence North 86'49'53" East, a distance of 96.2 1 feet; thence North 76º49'26" East, a distance of 164.85 feet; thence North 63º36'21" East, a distance of 143.96 feet to a point on the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00º10'28" West, along said West line, a distance of 1,214.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 383,568.72 square feet or 8.8055 acres, more or less,

 

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