LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of March 16, 2011

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, March 16, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Miller, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioner Hart presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Hess was absent.   Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Mr. Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hart, Miller, Wallace and Weitkunat on a site visit to Loveland Protestant Church Special Review, Saratoga Estates Planned Land Division/Planned Development, and Wilson Conservation Development. 

 

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 FEBRUARY 16, 2010 MEETINGS:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Glick.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

 

TABLED ITEM:

 

ITEM #3 CARING TOUCH NETWORK SPECIAL REVIEW #10-Z1782:   The application was tabled to the April 20, 2011 Planning Commission hearing at the request of the applicant.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  SARATOGA ESTATES 2ND PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #10-S3004 :   Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a Planned Land Division and Planned Development to divide Lot 2 of Saratoga Estates Minor Residential Development and an adjacent metes and bounds parcel into two lots and rezone the property to PD-Planned Development.  The property is located on the south side of 57th Street, east of County Road 13 in the Loveland Growth Management Area.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Saratoga Estates 2nd Planned Land Division, file #10-S3004, 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 Saratoga Estates 2nd Preliminary Plat file # 10-S3004 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 Saratoga Estates 2nd Preliminary Plat.

 

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

 

3.   Fire Requirements – All new residential structures shall have residential fire sprinkler systems installed unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Loveland Rural Fire Protection District that a fire hydrant meeting their requirements, 500GPM, is within 600 feet of the structure. 

 

4.   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 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.

 

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.   All construction on Lot 1 shall be located 100 feet from the high water line of Horseshoe Lake, which line shall be dimensioned on this plat.

7.   Lot 1 shall be required to connect to the public sewer system.

 

8.   An Annexation agreement shall be required.

 

9.   Any and all access to the lake is subject to the rules and regulations of the lake owners.  Boat houses and docks are regulated by the owners of the lake. 

 

10.   Access to both lots shall be shared as depicted on the plat. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the rezoning from FA-Farming to PD (Planned Development), file #10-S3004, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.  The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the final plat of SARATOGA ESTATES 2ND PRELIMINARY PLAT File # 10-S3004.

 

B.  The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for SARATOGA ESTATES 2ND PRELIMINARY PLAT File # 10-S3004 shall be as follows:

 

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

 

PD (Planned Development)

 

1.    Principal uses:

Agricultural

1.Agricultural labor housing (S)

2.Apiary (R)

3.Commercial poultry farm (S)

4.Equestrian operation (PSP/MS/S)—See section 4.3.1

5.Farm (R)

6.Feedyard (S)

7.Fur farm (S)

8.Garden supply center (S)

9.Greenhouse (R)

10.Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S)—See section 4.3.1

11.Packing facility (R)

12.Pet animal facility (MS/S)—See section 4.3.1

13.Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/S)—See section 4.3.1

14.Sod farm, nursery (R)

15.Tree farm (R)

Residential

16.Group home (R)

17.Group home for the aged (R)

18.Group home for developmentally disabled (R)

19.Group home for the mentally ill (R)

20.Single-family dwelling (R)

21.Storage buildings and garages (R)—See section 4.3.2

 

Institutional

22.Cemetery (S)

23.Child/elderly care center (S)

24.Church (MS/S)—See section 4.3.4

25.Community hall (MS/S)—See section 4.3.4

26.Hospital (S)

27.School, nonpublic (S)

28.State-licensed group home (S)

Recreational

29.Country club (S)

30.Golf course (S)

Accommodation

31.Bed and breakfast (MS/S)—See section 4.3.6

32.Seasonal camp (S)

Industrial

33.Mining (S)

34.Oil and gas drilling and production (R)

35.Small wind energy facility (MS)

Utilities

36.Commercial mobile radio service (SP/S)—See section 16

37.Radio and television transmitters (S)

 

2.  Lot, building and structure requirements:

 

a.     Minimum lot size:  100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.  21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) if both public water and sewer are used.

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

c.     Minimum required setbacks: (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)

1.   Street and road setback (Refer to section 4.9.1 setbacks from highways, county roads, and all other streets and roads.) The setback from a street or road must be 25 feet from the lot line, nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

2.   Side yards—Five feet.

3.   Rear yards—Ten feet.

4.   Refer to section 4.9.2 for additional setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers).

d.    Maximum structure height—40 feet.

e.     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.

 

Note:

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

b.   Uses followed by an (SP) require approval through the site plan review process described in section 6.1.

c.   Uses followed by a (PSP) require approval through the public site plan review process described in section 6.2.

d.   Uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the minor special review process.

e.   Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the special review process described in section 4.5.

f.   Uses followed by a combination of (R/SP/PSP/MS/S) may be allowed by right or require approval based on thresholds in section 4.3 (use descriptions).

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #2  WILSON CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #10-S3010 :   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a six lot Conservation Development on 79.12 acres located southeast of the intersection of County Road 68 and County Road 11.  The proposal would create six residential lots and one residual lot of 57.6 acres with a residential building envelope.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.1.P of the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding the maximum length of a dead-end access.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Wilson Conservation Development and appeal to Section 8.14.1.P of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #10-S3010, for the property described on “Exhibit B” 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 Wilson Conservation Development, File #10-S3010 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 Wilson Conservation Development.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Poudre R-1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional and Community Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

3.   All new homes within the Conservation Development must install residential sprinkler systems to meet or exceed NFPA13D.  In addition to the sprinkler system the builder must provide a horn and strobe to the front of the house to show a water flow.

 

4.   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.

 

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 keeping and/or boarding of horses on Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall be limited to one horse per acre.  The Developer shall also include this provision in the covenants for the Wilson Conservation Development.

 

7.   The applicant shall modify the plat to reflect the following changes:

 

·  modify the location of the building envelope on the residual lot to maintain a 25-foot setback between the building envelope and Lot 1

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4  LOVELAND PROTESTANT CHURCH SPECIAL REVIEW #10-Z1834:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Special Review to change the nonconforming status of the existing church and private school to allow for modifications to the existing church building and on-site parking located at the northeast corner of E. 57th Street and N. Monroe Avenue.  The site consisted of two parcels, one contained the church and one contained the school.  The proposed expansion of the site included removal of a 3,806 square foot portion of the existing church building and replacing it with a 12, 279 square foot addition.  Along with that, additional parking would be added to the church site and to the north of the school.  The school currently held classes from grades Kindergarten to 9th grade and were considering the addition of grades 10-12 but planned to use the expanded church for some of those additional students and activities.  Mr. Lafferty mentioned that there were neighborhood concerns regarding the parking location and traffic use of Larch Place.  Barbara Menzel wrote a letter with concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed school parking lot, which would be directly behind her home. Her concerns were regarding drainage, added noise, and odor.  Mr. Lafferty explained that there was a row of trees that bordered her home, which would be removed and replaced by a 6-foot wooden fence to buffer the new parking lot.  He also explained that the intensity of use was not increasing, just the footprint of the building.  As a result, the Development Services Team was not requiring site improvements regarding access. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the new building height met the standards.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that all zoning districts had a 40-foot height requirement. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked why the new parking lot was being put to the north of the school.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that the south and middle of the school site consisted of a playground and ball fields.  Larimer County did not regulate the location of parking on the site, only reviewed it to make sure it provided adequate access and spacing.

 

Commissioner Wallace was concerned about having a motion detector light on the north side of the building.

 

Dave Poortinga, applicant, stated that the existing use of the site was a school and church.  The original church building was constructed in the 1960’s and the school was built in the 1980’s.   A church addition was also constructed in 1980 which included the sanctuary.  The sanctuary could hold up to 400 occupants, and they currently had a membership of 275, which included adults and children.  The school was added on to in the early 1990’s.  The current school included the grades K-9th with approximately 65 students.  Over the years that number had generally fluctuated in the 35-65 range.  A decision was made in January 2011 to add grades 10-12 over the next three years.  They currently had five classrooms with a  total occupant load of 135 students.  Four classrooms were currently used with an extra classroom used for general purposes.  That 5th classroom would be put into use for the high school.  Each room was used in a multi-grade setting except for the kindergarten.  There were no proposed change to the school.  The proposal included demolition of the original church building allowing construction of a new, more functional building.  The original building included a sanctuary and basement with several small rooms, which they had out grown.  The proposed building allowed for bigger

 

rooms with the addition of a church library.  In the basement there would be spaces for society gatherings, an office, computer room, and school library.  Currently there were no dedicated rooms for Sunday School classes; therefore, the were proposing four classrooms on the 2nd floor that could also be used by the school as necessary.  The proposed footprint of the addition and remodel held the current north and east edges of the existing building being remove.  They were only expanding the footprint to the west towards the school.  Site modifications included additional parking and rearrangement of existing parking along the west and south sides of the church.  In addition, a small parking lot was being proposed on the north side of the school.  A fence would be added along the north side of the that parking lot which was shared with the existing residence.  A lot line adjustment would also be made to make the lots more sensible with the site improvement.  He stated that all recommendations of approval would be addressed.  He explained that the elevation height of the building would be at 34 feet.  He also explained that the proposed motion light was to address neighborhood concerns regarding security.  He stated that there were two lights over the parking lot which they felt were sufficient but they wanted to address additional neighborhood concerns.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Timothy Myers, resident on Ptarmigan Run, was not opposed but wanted more clarification.  He had concerns regarding the size of the building but now understood that it would be a two-story building with a basement.  He was also opposed to cutting down the trees by the parking lot. 

 

Gail Bonomo, resident of Horseshoe Estates, stated a concern regarding access on Larch Place the roads were not dedicated, and she asked that the church help maintain the road.  She also felt that as high school students were introduced to the site they would definitely challenge speed laws and wear the road.  She was asking that money be given to help fix and/or maintain the road. 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that the roads were publicly dedicated roads maintained by the homeowners association.  He suggested inquiring about a PID (Public Improvement District) to help set up a system for all homeowners and help maintain the roads. 

 

Mr. Poortinga stated that the trees that would be removed were in bad condition with disease and such.  They would be installing new trees by the new parking lot on 57th.  He stated that Larch Place was used twice a week during church services.  Other then that it was chained off.  He stated that the issue of helping to maintain the street would have to be taken up with the church board. 

 

Chairman Hart asked if the north entrance would be chained when the high school kids started school.

 

Mr. Poortinga stated that the entrance would always be chained and would continue to be other then during church service times.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if it was a requirement to expand the parking.

 

 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that in order to expand the church the site had to be changed to a conforming status.  Section 8.6 of the Land Use Code addressed parking and would be based on the congregation size.  Section 8.6 was a recommended standard, not a requirement; therefore, it was the Development Services Team’s goal to bring the site as close as possible to the standard. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked that the applicant be good neighbors and address the concerns.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the use had been on the site for many years, and the commission needed to examine whether the use was compatible based on the fact that the proposal was for an addition not a new use.  She felt that the proposal met the review criteria. 

 

Commissioner Glick wondered if an additional condition of approval be added regarding down lighting.  He also suggested adding a condition of approval regarding traffic and requiring restricted access. 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that it was not in the prevue of staff or the commission to restrict access to a public road.  There was no rational nexus to require traffic requirements because there was no change to the intensity of the use on the site compared to what they were currently doing.

 

Commissioner Miller recommended that the applicant work with the neighborhood regarding access on Larch Place.

 

Commissioner Wallace proposed an additional condition of approval stating that all outside night lighting on the north side of the new addition of the church be shielded to control off-site light impacts.         

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Loveland Protestant Church Special Review, file #10-Z1834, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions with the addition of a Condition 11:

 

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 Loveland Protestant Reform Church Special Review File #10-Z1834 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 Loveland Protestant Reform Church Special Review File #10-Z1834 .

 

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.   The applicant shall provide a landscape plan for the screening of the new parking lot north of the existing school.  Said landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to any new construction on the property.

 

5.   The applicant shall provide fire sprinklers to the expanded portions of the church in accordance with the referral comments from the City of Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau, dated January 10, 2011, by Romeo Gerfais.

 

6.   The applicant shall sign an agreement to annex form within 60 days of approval of the application.

 

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

 

8.   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.

 

9.   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.

 

10.   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.

 

11. All outside night lighting on the north side of the new addition of the church be shielded to control off-site light impacts.         

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #4  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #11-CA0015:  Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request to make changes to the adopted Land Use Code to codify the prohibition of the operation of medical marijuana centers, optional premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana infused products manufactured in unincorporated Larimer County.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Cox 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 #11-CA0015, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    Amend the section 0.1 definition of home occupation to read:

 

Home occupation.  A business use conducted as a customary, incidental, and accessory use in the resident's dwelling unit, attached garage or detached building, including office work, the making of art or crafts, trade uses, the providing of personal or professional services, and similar activities, and including retail sales of products produced on the premises and products clearly incidental, secondary and ancillary to the home occupation. Uses specifically excluded from home occupations include vehicle repair or similar activities., medical marijuana dispensaries and medical marijuana grow facilities/operations.

 

2.    Delete the following definitions from section 0.1:

Medical marijuana dispensary. The use of any property or structure to sell, distribute, transmit, give, dispense, or otherwise provide medical marijuana in accordance with Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution. 

Medical marijuana grow facility/operation. The use of any property or structure where marijuana plants are grown to sell, distribute, transmit, give, dispense or otherwise be provided in accordance with Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution.

 

3.    Add  the following definitions to section 0.1:

Medical Marijuana.  Marijuana that is grown and sold in accordance with Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution.

 

Medical Marijuana Center.  A person or entity licensed to operate a business as described in the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code that sells medical marijuana and medical marijuana-infused products to registered patients or primary caregivers as defined in Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution, but is not a primary caregiver.

 

 

 

 

Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturer.  A person or entity licensed pursuant to the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code to operate a business manufacturing medical marijuana-infused products.

 

Medical Marijuana Optional Premises Cultivation Operation.  A person or entity licensed pursuant to the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code to grow and cultivate marijuana for a purpose authorized by Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution.

 

Medical Marijuana Patient.  The term medical marijuana patient has the meaning set forth  for the term ‘patient’ in Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution.

 

Medical Marijuana Primary Caregiver.  The term medical marijuana primary caregiver has the meaning set forth for the term ‘primary caregiver’ in Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution.

 

4.    Add Section 4.3.12 Prohibited Uses

 

A.   Medical marijuana centers, medical marijuana infused products manufacturers and optional premises cultivation operations are prohibited in all zoning districts as principal uses or accessory uses, including home occupations, regardless of whether any such use is operated for profit or not for profit.

 

B.   Medical Marijuana Patients and Medical Marijuana Primary Caregivers.  Nothing in this Code shall prohibit, regulate or otherwise impair or be construed to prohibit, regulate or otherwise impair the use of medical marijuana by patients as defined by the Colorado Constitution, or the provision of medical marijuana by a medical marijuana primary caregiver to a medical marijuana patient in accordance with Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution, and consistent with the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and other statutes, rules and regulations of the State of Colorado.

 

5.    Amend Section 4.7.2  (Special Exception Applicability) to read:

 

Only those uses that are not otherwise allowed by right, minor special review or special review, in a particular zoning district may be granted through this process, except that the county commissioners are not authorized to grant use changes (special exceptions) in a GMA district, PD-district or in the LaPorte Planning Area. Special Exception applications to allow medical marijuana centers, medical marijuana infused product manufacturers, medical marijuana optional premises cultivation operations, or other medical marijuana-related uses in any zoning district shall not be accepted, reviewed or processed. The county commissioners evaluate each proposed special exception use for compliance with the review criteria in this section and the development standards that apply to all development.

 

 

 

6.    Delete Sections 4.3.3.F (Medical Marijuana Use Description) and 4.3.3.G (Medical Marijuana Grow Facility/Operation. and renumber the remainder of the section:

F. Medical marijuana dispensary. The use of any property or structure to sell, distribute, transmit, give, dispense, or otherwise provide medical marijuana in accordance with Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution. 

Medical marijuana dispensaries must comply with the following standards:

1.   Medical marijuana dispensaries shall not be located within 1,000 feet of any existing public or private school or licensed child care facility and shall not be located within 500 feet of any existing: principal campus of a college, university or seminary; residence; church or religious institution; drug or alcohol rehabilitation facility; public community center or publicly owned or maintained building open for use by the general public; public park or playground.

 

a.   The distance referred to in this section is to be computed by direct measure from the nearest property line of the land used for the purposes itemized in paragraph 1 above to the nearest portion of the building in which the medical marijuana is to be dispensed.

 

2.   Medical marijuana dispensaries shall comply with any and all applicable state statutes and regulations, including but not limited to any licensing and reporting requirements.

 

3.   No medical marijuana dispensary shall cause or add to an undue concentration of such dispensaries and/or medical marijuana growing facilities in any area within unincorporated Larimer County.

 

4.   Medical marijuana dispensaries shall have a fixed physical location and shall not operate a mobile dispensary.  Reasonable delivery services to registered patients consistent with any conditions of approval are excluded from this restriction.

 

5.   Medical Marijuana dispensaries shall not permit smoking or consumption of medical marijuana on their premises.

 

6.   Medical marijuana dispensaries shall implement appropriate security measures to deter and prevent the unauthorized entrance into areas containing medical marijuana and the theft of medical marijuana, to include at minimum, security cameras, locks, and safes.

 

Note:

 

·  Any medical marijuana dispensary in existence and in operation within the unincorporated territory of Larimer County prior to January 4, 2010 which did not obtain special exception approval for that use from the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners is an illegal use.  Such uses must obtain Special Review zoning approval in order to be a legal conforming use in Larimer County.

 

 

·  Approval by the County of a Special Review application for a medical marijuana dispensary is in no way a finding that such operations are consistent with or allowed by any other laws or regulations other than Larimer County land use regulations.  Any operator of a medical marijuana dispensary is responsible for complying with any other legal requirements and the consequences of any non-compliance.  Approval of a medical marijuana dispensary through the Larimer County Special Review process is not a defense to any state or federal criminal charges.

 

G. Medical marijuana grow facility/operation. The use of any property or structure where marijuana plants are grown to sell, distribute, transmit, give, dispense or otherwise be provided in accordance with Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution.

 

Medical marijuana grow facilities/operations must comply with the following standards:

 

1.   Medical marijuana grow facilities/operations shall not be located within 1,000 feet of any existing public or private school or licensed child care facility and shall not be located within 500 feet of any existing: principal campus of a college, university or seminary; residence; church or religious institution; drug or alcohol rehabilitation facility; public community center or publicly owned or maintained building open for use by the general public; or public park or playground.

 

a.   The distance referred to in this section is to be computed by direct measure from the nearest property line of the land used for the purposes itemized in paragraph 1 above to the nearest portion of the building in which the medical marijuana is to be dispensed or grown.

 

2.   Medical marijuana grow facilities/operations shall comply with any and all applicable state statutes and regulations, including but not limited to any licensing and reporting requirements.

 

3.   No medical marijuana grow facility/operation shall cause or add to an undue concentration of such medical marijuana growing facilities/operations and/or medical marijuana dispensaries in any area within unincorporated Larimer County.

 

4.   Medical marijuana grow facilities/operation shall have a fixed physical location and shall not operate as a mobile growing facility. 

 

5.   Medical marijuana grow facilities/operations shall not permit smoking or consumption of medical marijuana on their premises.

 

6.   Medical marijuana grow facilities/operations shall implement appropriate security measures to deter and prevent the unauthorized entrance into areas containing medical marijuana and the theft of medical marijuana, to include at a minimum, security cameras, locks, and safes.

 

 

Note:

 

·  Any medical marijuana grow facility/operation in existence and in operation within the unincorporated territory of Larimer County prior to January 4, 2010 which did not obtain special exception approval for that use from the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners is an illegal use.  Such uses must obtain Special Review zoning approval in order to be a legal conforming use in Larimer County.

 

·  Approval by the County of a Special Review application for a medical marijuana grow operation/facility is in no way a finding that such operations are consistent with or allowed by any other laws or regulations other than Larimer County land use regulations.  Any operator of a medical marijuana grow facility/operation is responsible for complying with any other legal requirements and the consequences of any non-compliance.  Approval of a medical marijuana grow facility/operation through the Larimer County Special Review process is not a defense to any state or federal criminal charges.

 

7.    Delete the following uses from the specified zoning districts as follows:

4.1.18. C-Commercial A. Principal uses under the Commercial category:

12. Medical marijuana dispensary (S) See section 4.3

13. Medical marijuana grow facility/operation (S) See section 4.3

and renumber the remainder of the section.

4.1.19. I-Industrial A. Principal uses under the Commercial category:

12. Medical marijuana dispensary (S) See section 4.3

13. Medical marijuana grow facility/operation (S) See section 4.3

and renumber the remainder of the section.

 

 

8.    Amend the zoning table inset in Section 4.1 to delete the following uses:

Category:

Use:

Zoning districts C and I:

Commercial

Medical marijuana dispensary

S

Commercial

Medical marijuana grow facility/operation

S

 

9.    Amend only the first paragraph of section 4.3.10.B definition of home occupation to read:

Home occupation. A business use conducted as a customary, incidental, and accessory use in the resident's dwelling unit, attached garage or detached building, including office work, the making of art or crafts, trade uses, the providing of personal or professional services, and similar activities, and including retail sales of products produced on the premises and products clearly incidental, secondary and ancillary to the home occupation. Uses specifically excluded from home occupations include vehicle repair or similar activities. , medical marijuana dispensaries and medical marijuana grow facilities/operations.

 

10.   Add Section 22.2.1.A.4 (Appeals Applicability).

 

4.  Appeals to the prohibition of medical marijuana centers, medical marijuana infused product manufacturers, medical marijuana optional premises cultivation operations and appeals that would allow for the submittal of a land use application to establish those or similar medical marijuana-related uses in any zoning district shall not be accepted, reviewed or processed.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that a lot of work had went in to creating the regulations and felt that it was a waste of time to create those regulations and turn around almost one year later and repeal them.

 

Commissioner Dougherty voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-1

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

 

 

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

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Gerald Hart, Chairman                                               Jana Hess, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

Lot 2, SARATOGA ESTATES M.R.D. 97-EX1095, Larimer County, Colorado and a portion of that certain parcel of land as described in deed recorded at Reception No. 86075915, records of said County, situate in the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows;

Considering the North line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 31 as bearing South 89°45'00" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto;

BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said Lot 2, SARA TOGA ESTATES M.R.D. 97EXI095; thence along the East line of said Lot 2, South 00°00'00" West 786.16 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence along the South line of said Lot 2, South 81 °06'00" West 220.00 feet and again North 86°05'00" West 299.22 feet to the Southeasterly corner of that certain parcel of land as described in deed recorded at Reception No. 86075915, records of said County; thence along the Southerly line of said certain parcel, South 73°31 '00" West 245.82 feet to the point of intersection of the Southerly prolongation of the Westerly line of said Lot 2; thence along said prolongation and along the Westerly line of said Lot 2, North 00°00'00" East 463.68 feet and again North 90°00'00" East 234.62 feet and again North 00°00'00" East 297.54 feet and again North 30°41' 18" West 128.88 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence along the North line of said Lot 2, South 89°45'00" East 582.75 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 2, SARATOGA ESTATES, Larimer County, Colorado and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

The above described parcel contains 11.99 acres, more or less, and is subject to any existing easements and/or rights of way of record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, CONTAINING 79.12 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

Lot One (1) and Lot Two (2), Replat of Tract "A" Horseshoe View Estates recorded March 24, 1980 as Book 2033 at Page 465 of the Records of Larimer County, located in the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) of Section Twenty-five (25), Township Six North (T.6N.), Range Sixty-nine West (R.69W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6 th P.M.), County of Larimer, Sate of Colorado.

Said property containing 3.402 acres more or less (±).