Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of December 19, 2007

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, December 19, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Waldo, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioners Morgan and Oppenheimer were absent.  Commissioner Boulter presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Jill Bennett, Principal Planner, Tom Garton, Chief Building Official, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Chad Bahr, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Wallace, and Weitkunat today on a site visit to Benglen Subdivision, Carnes Special Exception, Jax Farm and Ranch Special Review, and Lindquist Subdivision.         

 

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 NOVEMBER 21, 2007 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Hart.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Joe Eccher, 2850 N. Shields, stated that he lived directly north of Jax and asked what they planned to do with their stormwater and if they were going to keep the loud speakers outside of the building.

 

Chairman Boulter removed the Jax Farm and Ranch Special Review from consent to discussion.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  RED FEATHER LAKES BUSINESS REZONING CORRECTION OF LEGAL 07-CA0070:  Mrs. Bennett explained that earlier this fall the Larimer County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners heard and approved a rezoning request for 20 existing business properties located in the Red Feather Lakes Plan Area.  The rezoning utilized the newly created Red Feather Lakes Business zone and was consistent with the Red Feather Lakes Area Plan adopted in August 2006.  While mapping and updating the data base following approval of the rezoning, it was discovered that the legal description of the above property was incomplete.  The purpose of the request was to correct the record for the rezoning of this property. 

 

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 Red Feather Lakes Business Rezoning Correction of Legal, file #07-CA0070, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEM #2  LINDQUIST SUBDIVISION #06-S2662:  Mr. Bahr provided background information on the request to divide 26.9 acres into two lots for single-family residential use located north of County Road 58 one-half mile west of County Road 3.

 

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 Lindquist Subdivision, file #06-S2662, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The following utility easements shall be shown upon the Final Plat:

                          Front Lot Line: 15 feet wide                           

              Side Lot Lines: 5 feet wide

                          Rear Lot Lines: 10 feet wide 

 

B. The Final Plat of the Lindquist Subdivision shall be consistent with the information contained in the file, #06-S2662 or as modified by conditions of approval.

 

C.  The following fees shall be collected at the time of building permit for new single-family dwellings: the Poudre School District fees in lieu of dedication, the Larimer County Capital Transportation Expansion fee and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply. For the access improvements to Lot 2 and for any other work within the County Road right-of-way, the County Engineer’s office will require an Access or Right-of-Way Construction Permit. Before construction, the applicant must also contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit.

 

D.  The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement, to be prepared by Staff and approved by the County Attorney, which details in standard language the conditions of approval and other important information related to the Subdivision.

 

E.   The applicant shall sign a Final Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice must include, but is not limited to, all issues related to rural development; the requirement for engineered footings and foundations and the requirement for passive radon mitigation.  Other items raised in the review, or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code, may also be included.

 

 

F.   The Final Plat will show a new 20-foot dedicated road right-of-way (ROW) along the entire length of the site adjoining County Road 58 on its north side. The ROW dedication will include the provision for a 15-foot utility easement.

 

G.  The applicant shall provide the updated Drainage and Grading Plans as noted by the County Engineering Department in their Memo dated 10-3-2007.  

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEM #3  BENGLEN SUBDIVISION #06-S2608:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for a subdivision of 5.96 acres into two lots for single-family residential uses situated on the north side of County Road 30 west of Donath Lake and approximately ¾ mile east of Garfield Avenue. 

 

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 Benglen Subdivision, file #06-S2608, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Benglen Subdivision shall be consistent with the information contained in the file, #06-S2608 or as modified by conditions of approval.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at the time of building permit for new single-family dwellings: the Thompson School District fees in lieu of dedication, the Larimer County Capital Transportation Expansion fee, the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication and the Fossil Creek Drainage Basin Fee.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.  Before construction, the applicant must also contact the County Engineering Department to obtain a Development Construction Permit, and a permit for work on the access and in the right-of-way.

 

3.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement, to be prepared by Staff and approved by the County Attorney, which details in standard language the conditions of approval and other important information related to the Subdivision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.   The applicant shall sign a Final Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice must include, but is not limited to; all issues related to rural development; the requirement for engineered footings and foundations and the requirement for passive radon mitigation.  Other items raised in the review, or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code, may also be included.

 

5.   The existing older mobile home on Lot 2 shall be removed prior application for a building permit on Lot 2.

 

6.   Lot 2 shall include a bulding envelope on the final plat defined by the property line, road and 100-foot setbacks from the Louden Ditch.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEM #4  JAX FARM AND RANCH SPECIAL REVIEW #05-Z1555:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a 13,665 square foot addition to the existing 27,158 square foot JAX Farm and Ranch building located along the north side of Highway 287, approximately ¼ mile east of County Road 17.  The proposed expansion would occur along the eastern side of the existing facilities, consuming some of the existing outdoor display and sales area occurring on the property.  Additional modifications proposed included expansion and redesign of the parking, redefinition and enlargement of the detention facilities, architectural enhancements to the existing building, and refinement of the outdoor display of merchandise.  The Special Review request was to determine compliance with the Large Retail Establishment requirements found in Section 8.18 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  He stated that there was an appeal to operate on an on-lot septic system, which the Development Services Team felt was appropriate.  The applicant had also indicated that they were obtaining easements for drainage to flow through a pipe system across the adjacent property which was a mini-storage facility and that the existing flows from the previous approval would continue to occur along the northern property line and the southern property line of Mr. Eccher’s property.  He stated that Larimer County had a noise ordinance regulated by the Health and Sheriff Departments. 

 

Stuart Hutchison, 712 Jay Avenue, was the architect for the project.  He stated that he was not familiar with the noise issue but assured the commission that he would pass the information along to Jim Quinlan, the President of Jax.  Regarding the drainage issues, he stated that he preferred that it be addressed by the civil engineer to the project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Joe Eccher, 2850 N. Shields, stated that the speakers were loud and would start before 7:00 a.m. and go until 7 or 8:00 p.m.  He wondered if it could be kept within the building or if the employees could wear a two way radio transceiver.  He explained that Mr. Quinlan had come to him a couple of years ago because he was having trouble with his drainage so he allowed him to put a couple of pipes on property.  He stated that he was concerned how the expansion would affect the drainage. 

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, stated that the existing building’s roof drainage went to the north.  There was an informal agreement for that drainage to go onto Mr. Eccher’s property.  As the project went into its final site plan review the Engineering Department had advised the applicant that he would either have to pursue a formal drainage easement agreement with Mr. Eccher or would need to reroute the roof drainage to the east to be routed to and through the detention pond.

 

Mr. Eccher asked what direction the drainage was being taken off the land?

 

Ms. Coleman replied that it was heading to the east to Dry Creek.  She stated that the applicant had not yet chosen which option they wanted to pursue. 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that he was not familiar with the noise issue; however, Larimer County had a noise ordinance that did pertain to the situation described.  His recommendation was to add a condition of approval which would indicate that the operation of the facility must comply with the noise ordinance and ask the applicant to address the Board of County Commissioners about the issue. 

 

Commissioner Wallace felt that the drainage issue would be taken care of.  As far as the noise, she proposed that the issue be addressed subject to an added condition #10 that Jax provide information about the noise level and noise mitigation.  She thought that there should be a time limit to how early and how late it could occur. 

 

Mr. Lafferty suggested that Condition #10 state that; “Prior to the item being presented to the Board of County Commissioners the applicant shall address the noise issues and the hours of operation with respect to the speaker system on the site to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners.” 

 

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 Jax Farm and Ranch Special Review, file #05-Z1555, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and added Condition #10:

 

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 JAX Farm and Ranch Special Review (File #07-Z1555), 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 JAX Farm and Ranch Special Review.

 

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

 

4.   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.

 

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.   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.

 

7.   The applicant shall resolve all remaining issues or concerns as part of the Site Plan Review application being processed simultaneously with this application.

 

8.   Prior to the approval of the Site Plan Review application the applicant shall provide documentation that the right-of-way necessary for the future improvements to Highway 287 has been dedicated to the Colorado Department of Transportation.

 

9.   Prior to approval of the Site Plan Review application the applicant shall provide documentation that all necessary agreements and easements for the stormwater detention facilities have been finalized, and recorded.

 

 

10. Prior to the item being presented to the Board of County Commissioners the applicant shall address the noise issues and the hours of operation with respect to the speaker system on the site to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners.” 

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEM #5  LYONS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ADOPTION OF THE 1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODEAND 2000 URBAN-WILDLAND INTERFACE CODE:  Mr. Laffery provided background information on the request for the Lyons Fire Protection District to adopt the 1997 Uniform Fire Code, the 200 Urban-Wildland Interface Code, and amendments.  He stated that Mr. Tom Garton was available for any questions. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked for a brief analysis of how the Lyons structural organization worked within the County?

 

Bill Eliasen, 825 Dirt Avenue, was representing the Lyons Fire Protection District as a board member as the chief could not attend.  He said that Lyons Fire Protection District was 76 square miles, which was broken into thirds with Larimer County being the smallest section.  It incorporated the Town of Lyons, Boulder County, and Larimer County. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked why they were adopting the 1997 Uniform Fire Code and not the 2006 International Fire Code?

 

Mr. Eliasen stated that the District was still operating under the 1983 fire code.  He explained that the district was trying to progress but did not feel comfortable with the international code yet as the 1997 fire code better fit the districts’ needs. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners adopt the 1997 Uniform Fire Code, 2000 Urban-Wildland Interface Code, and amendments for the Lyons Fire Protection District in unincorporated Larimer County.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #6  LOVELAND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ADOPTION OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for the Loveland Rural Fire Protection District to adopt the 2006 International Fire Code and amendments.

 

Greg White, 1423 W. 29th Street, was the attorney and secretary to the Loveland Rural Fire Protection District.  He explained that the district had adopted the 2006 International Fire Code with some amendments and wanted to get approval so they could enforce it in the unincorporated parts of Larimer County.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners adopt the 2006 International Fire Code and amendments and repeal the currently adopted 1997 Uniform Fire Code in the Loveland Rural Fire Protection District in unincorporated Larimer County.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #7  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #07-CA0079:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request to make changes to the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #07-CA0079, be approve as follows:

 

1.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.1.A, as follows:

 

 

Farm.  Any parcel of land containing at least three acres used primarily for the commercial, soil-dependent cultivation of an agricultural crop, the facilities and storage necessary for the management of a commercial custom farming operation or the hauling of farm products, the raising of fish, bees, plants or animals or the raising of livestock.  This does not include but not including feedyards, poultry farms, exotic animal farms or fur farms. 

 

 

2.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 0.1 definition of “Farm”, as follows:

 

Farm.  Any parcel of land containing at least three acres used primarily for the commercial, soil-dependent cultivation of an agricultural crop, the facilities and storage necessary for the management of a commercial custom farming operation or the hauling of farm products, ; the raising of fish, bees, aquatic plants or animals ; or the raising of livestock . This does not include feed lots, dairies, feedyards, poultry farms, exotic animal farms or fur farms. 

 

3.    Amend the Land Use Code by deleting Section 4.3.1.H as follows and renumbering the remainder of the section:

 

H.  Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital.  A facility for the diagnosis, treatment and/or hospitalization of pet animals. 

1. Any pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital that includes outdoor activities, other than the parking of clients' cars, requires approval through the special review process.

2. Pet animal veterinary clinics/hospitals located in the FA-Farming, FA-1 Farming, FO-Forestry, FO-1 Forestry, O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts that generate 20 or fewer vehicle trips on any day require approval through the minor special review process. Pet animal clinics/hospitals in these zoning districts that generate more than 20 vehicle trips on any day require approval through the special review process. Any pet animal clinic/hospital located in the AP-Airport Zoning district requires approval through the special review process.

 

4.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.6.7.B, as follows:

 

4.6.7. Administrative variance.

B. The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from the county road setback requirements listed in section 4.9.1.B. for additions to existing buildings which are nonconforming with respect to county road setbacks, subject to the following criteria:

1. The proposed addition must meet the following minimum setbacks:

a. Arterial roads-90 feet from ROW centerline;

b. Major collector roads-80 feet from ROW centerline;

c. Minor collector roads-60 feet from ROW centerline;

d. Local roads-55 feet from ROW centerline.

2. A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners within 250 feet on each side and across the road from of the subject property or as determined by the Planning Director, and no objections were stated;

3. No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification.

4. The review criteria in section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable. The decision of the planning director can be appealed to the board of adjustment. See section 22, Appeals.

 

 

5.    Amend the Land Use Code by deleting Section 4.9.3 as follows and renumbering the following sections:

 

4.9.3. Minor setback variances.

The planning director may grant minor variances from setback requirements up to ten percent of the required setback after finding the proposed setback is consistent with the intent and purpose of this code. The planning director's decision must be in writing and may be appealed to the board of adjustment. See Section 22, Appeals. Also see Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variances.

 

6.    Amend the Land Use Code by adding a Section 4.6.7.C as follows:

 

4.6.7.C  The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from setback requirements up to ten percent of the required setback after finding the proposed setback is consistent with the intent and purpose of this code. The planning director's decision must be in writing and may be appealed to the board of adjustment. See Section 22, Appeals.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #8 CARNES SPECIAL EXCEPTION #05-Z1566:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to allow the operation of a traffic sign leasing business on a 35-acre parcel in the O-Open zone district located approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of County Road 7 and E. County Road 72.  The business provided emergency responder and traffic sign support for roadside construction activities and was found to be a zoning violation in 2003.  He noted that the use was a zoning violation in which the Board of County Commissioners directed the owners to seek Special Exception approval in 2005 for the business.  The preliminary site plan showed a variety of uses in an area of approximately 200’ by 250’ in size that included several places for outdoor storage.  The primary concern with the request was the consistency and compatibility with the Master Plan, which designated the area as a rural, residential.  Allowing the use in the area also allowed the applicant a competitive edge.  The Development Services Team was recommending denial of the request. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connie Carnes, 13414 N. County Road 7, stated that she owned the traffic control business known as Carnes Services.  She showed the Town of Wellington’s plan for the area on a map.  She stated that their property extended to I-25 and recently railroad tracks had been installed and the area would be used for storage and sorting of railroad cars.  She showed pictures of businesses that were in walking distance of their property.  She also noted that the new landfill had been approved which was in the area along with the glider port that was already there.  She challenged the Development Services Team’s statement about having a competitive edge and presented letters from competitors stating that the location of the business was not a factor.  She explained that business was awarded through the bidding process and proposals and was not awarded because of their location as she did work in other cities and counties. 

 

Bob Carnes, 13414 N. County Road 7, stated that their competitors did not feel that they had a competitive advantage.  He felt that they had a nice property and pointed out that the Health and Engineering Departments did not have a problem with the business in its current location.  He stated that they had a neighborhood meeting where the neighbors remarked that they did not have a problem with the business. 

 

Ms. Carnes presented a petition from their neighbors in support of the business.  She also had letters from Harvest Farm, which was located on County Road 66 and 7, and their immediate neighbors to the north and to the south stating their support.  She noted that she gave her employees benefits and presented letters from her employees.  She also stated that they decided to get a lawyer to help with the issue; however, the services provided were not adequate which gave an impression of them trying to disregard the process over the years and apologized for that.  She stated that as soon as they started working with the Planning Commission themselves the process moved ahead. 

 

Mr. Carnes pointed out that the new landfill was only one mile away and would accumulate more traffic compared to their business.  

 

David Osborn, The Osborn Law Firm, was the attorney for the Carnes.  He stated that since the process had started the Carnes’ had moved most of their business off the site to the Town of Wellington, added substantial fencing, and all the neighbors had been supportive.  He stated that because there was no Intergovernmental Agreement with Wellington Larimer County would not acknowledge the growth plans of Wellington.  He explained that the Carnes chose to operate at the site to maintain their family life.  He stated that they had tried to comply with everything that Staff had suggested.  They were good citizens and the zoning violation could be remedied with a Special Exception.  He asked that the Commission to approve the request. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked the Carnes’ to explain what occurred on the property in terms of the business. 

 

Ms. Carnes replied that on the property they stored items that were in between jobs.  In the shop was where work would be done to mount a sign to get it ready to take to a job.  The shop was also used to store personal items such as their horse trailer.  She stated that small repairs such as welding were also done. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if the employees came to the site?

 

 

Ms. Carnes stated that their employees did not come to the site.  She explained that the employees took their trucks home loaded and would go to the satellite sites each day for the job.  She stated that the items located at their site were in between jobs or new items.  She noted that computerized work was also done at their site. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat confirmed that there was an office on site.

 

Ms. Carnes stated yes, but only two neighbors and family members who were also employees were at that site.  She stated that they also had an office in Wellington.  She remarked that the signs on the property were only at the site temporarily.  Some of the supplies had to be on site so they were readily available.  They were a 24 hour a day seven days a week business.  She noted that the competitive edge was work ethic.  She wanted and enjoyed the lifestyle of having their business with the ability to also take care of their family at the same time.

 

Mr. Wheeler stated that Larimer County did not have an Intergovernmental Agreement nor recognized a Growth Management Area with the Town of Wellington therefore could only look to the Land Use Code and Master Plan for guidance.  The applicants could try to seek annexation with Wellington. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Waldo stated that the use did not coincide with the Master Plan; however, the applicants were asking for a Special Exception.  The point of allowing exceptions was because something did not meet the rules.  There were no neighbors in opposition and there was a petition from the neighbors in support of the business.  There were a lot of uses in the area that were not residential, and the area was growing and would continue to grow.  Larimer County was made up of common people.  The Board was judging them yet the people that lived around them signed and stated that the applicants ran a nice business, which did fit with what they were doing.  Should the people on the Commission not represent the wishes of the people who live in the area he asked?  He stated that he only had six months left on the board and had enjoyed his time but felt that it was an issue of our American freedom and our property rights.  It was being chipped away by Boards that felt that it was their business to tell people what they could do on their property.  He strongly disagreed with that and that which was one of the reasons he took a seat on the Board.  He believed that if someone signed up to be in a neighborhood with covenants then those rules should be followed; however, the property was out in the O-Open zone district that did not have an covenants.  They were setting the very minimum standard, and he supported the exception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Boulter stated that in the last year there had been talk about encouraging business out in rural areas so people who had farm and ranches could continue to have that plus work to supplement.  On the field trip he saw a very well run property and an effort made to screen commercial uses from most visible places.  He agreed that putting fences up might not have been what was envisioned but it was better then having stored commercial things left out in the open.  The applicants had tried to mitigate a lot of their business from the core property by having an office in Wellington and the satellite locations which had diminished the impact of the business on their neighbors as seen by the lack of complaint by the neighbors.  He thought that it was a well run business in an area that was commercializing, and the Carnes’ were in limbo because of the lack of agreements between the County and the Town of Wellington.  He did note that he did not like the years the process had taken and the negative feelings.  He recommended that the Special Exception be approved with the condition that the property be brought into compliance with the Staff’s recommendations. 

 

Commissioner Cox did not feel that the current application was any different from the Owl Canyon Storage Special Exception that went before the Commission the month before.  The only exception was that the Owl Canyon applicants were asking for permission prior to locating their business but they were denied.  She thought that the applicants should check into annexing to Wellington.  She also thought that there was a problem with the Master Plan for the area.

 

Commissioner Hart felt that Commissioners Boulter and Waldo made an effective agrument about the case.  The Master Plan may not be valid for the location in question and Larimer County and Wellington needed to get there acts together.  The applicants were in violation of the Master Plan and granting a Special Exception for one application but not another would not be right. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat pointed out that outdoor storage was not allowed in the O-Open zoning but acknowledged that the outdoor storage was a temporary situation.  She remarked that after visiting the site the storage was screened and not visible.  If the neighbors had no objection and the traffic count was not effected  then it seemed that there could be compatibility.  The area was in transition and there needed to be discussion between the County and Wellington because it left the applicants in limbo. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh stated that the applicants ran a strong business but she examined the review criteria to make her decision.  She stated that the applicant’s were able to find other locations that were suitable and more appropriate for the kind of business they had and what was remaining on their property was more of an ancillary, limited kind of a use that was more associated with the overflow of the business into their lives. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the property was in the O-Open zone, and the Master Plan called for the preservation of an open and rural character.  The fence on the property was not consistent with that.  She also remarked that there were other locations for the business to be located.  Wellington did not have a designated Growth Management Area and until that occurred Larimer County could not say that a commercial use could take place in the area not knowing that it was what Wellington had planned for the area. 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated the Master Plan was intended to define rural and urban area.  A Special Exception was a unique situation where a use did not fit in an urbanized area and demanded a rural location.  Staff’s position was that there were no special circumstances that justified the use other then for convenience. 

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that the big picture should be looked at and that they needed to get back to the fact of the people that actually lived in the area.  Nobody had a problem with the use.  He stated that it seemed very logical to support something that the people in the area supported and very illogical to talk about a document (Master Plan) making the decisions when the people were the ones that were out there and owned the land. 

 

Mr. Wheeler acknowledged that the Master Plan may need to be updated.  He noted that it was the position of the Planning Commission to look at uses as they came before them as it had never existed before.  He asked what the recommendation would be if the commission looked at the use at its location without taking into consideration at all the improvements that had already occurred.  He stated that the request could not meet all of the review criteria; therefore, Staff could not support the use.  The recommendation was not in opposition to the business but was in opposition to what the zoning designated for the area. 

 

Commissioner Waldo noted that farmers had outdoor storage of their equipment but since it was agricultural it wasn’t a problem.  He asked what the difference was?

 

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 Carnes Special Exception, file #05-Z1566, for the property described on “Exhibit E” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo and Chairman Boulter voted against the Motion. 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-2

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                      Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “A”

 

 

Lot 4, Block 30, Hiawatha Heights, less 86053785 and Lot 5, Block 30, Hiawatha Heights, less the southerly part described in 1086-225.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “B”

 

A tract of land situate in the South ½ of Section 11, Township 7 North, Range

68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larirner, State of Colorado, being more

particularly described as follows: Considering the South line of the Southwest

¼ of said Section 11 as bearing N O0°OO’ OO”E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the South ¼ comer of said Section 11 and run thence along the South line of the Southeast ¼ of said Section 11, S89°58’46’’E 1116.67 feet; thence departing said South line N00°49’14”E 935.00 feet; thence N89°58’46”W 1260.06 feet to a point on a line that is 25.00 feet East of and parallel with the East line of a parcel described in Book 1770 at Page 539; thence along said parallel line S00°00’00”E 934.96 feet to a point on the South line of the Southwest ¼ of

said Section 11; thence departing said parallel line and along the South line of

the Southwest ¼ of said Section 11, N00°00’00’’E 130.OO feet to the point of

beginning, containing 26.9006 acres, more or less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “C”

 

A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION

24, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL

MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE

PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

 

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE

EAST 1,321.57 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF

THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE

EAST 365.57 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE OF

LOUDEN DITCH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE THE FOLLOWING

SEVEN COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 30°29'03" EAST 78.89 FEET;

NORTH 17°20'37" EAST 77.83 FEET; NORTH 03°30’14" EAST 77.93 FEET; NORTH 24°29'28" WEST 84.51 FEET; NORTH 45°32'30’’ WEST 209.63 FEET; NORTH 29°47'05" WEST 77.77 FEET; THENCE NORTH 15°47'53" WEST 752.15 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00°15'16" WEST 1,231.09 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

 

SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 5.96 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “D”

 

A parcel of land located in the Southwest One-Quarter of Section 26, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being described as follows:

 

All of Tract “A”, a Plat of Con Agra P.U.D. as recorded in the office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder under Reception No. 93060156.

 

Said parcel of land contains 223,345 square feet or 5.127 acres of land, more or less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “E”

 

A TRACT LOCATED IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OR LARIMBR, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS

 

CONSIDERING THB WESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER 0F SAID SECTION 3 AS BEARING NORTH 00 DEOREBS 20 MINUTE8 44 SECONDS EAST AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO

 

BEGINNING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE 0F THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCB 0F 1343.57 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER 0F A PARCEL DESCRIBED UNDER RECEPTION NO. 93059136 RECORDED AUGUST 18, 1993 THE TRUE POINT OR BEGINNING

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST(S0UTH 88 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST AS MEASURED) ALONG THI SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL A DISTANCE OF 30.00(29.84 AS MEASURED) FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LARIMER COUNTY ROAD 7

 

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL A DISTANCE 0F 3636.85(3637.09 AS MEASURED) FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD,

THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST(SOUTH 14 DECREES 51 MINUTES 53 SECONDS WEST AS MEASURED) ALONG THE WESTBRLY RIGHT 0F WAY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD A DISTANCE OF 436.34 FEET,

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WERT A DISTANCE 0F 3522.54 FEET TO THE PROPOSED EASTERLY LINE 0F LARINZR COUNTY ROAD 7

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREE8 39 MINUTES I4 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE 0F 35.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3 A DISTANCE 0F 422.40 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT 0F BEGINNING, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.

 

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.