LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of August 20, 2008
The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, August 20, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room. Commissioners Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Oppenheimer, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present. Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman. Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Toby Stauffer, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department, Heather Zimdahl and Jill Wilson, Planning Technicians and Recording Secretaries.
Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Glick, Hart, Wallace and Weitkunat today on a site visit to Brownstone Quarry Amended Special Review, Colorado Youth Outdoors Special Exception, S&H Rezoning, and Dixon Creek-Horseshoe PRPA Location and Extent.
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 JULY 16, 2008 MEETINGS: MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheimer. This received unanimous voice approval.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
None
TABLED ITEM:
Mr. Helmick stated that the applicant’s requested that the Prospect Mountain Water District Service Plan, file #08-G0156, be tabled to September 17, 2008 at 6:30pm. The applicant needed time to revise the service plan and supplement the record.
MOTION by Commissioner Morgan to tabled the Prospect Mountain Water District Service Plan, file #08-G0156, to September 17, 2008 at 6:30pm, seconded by Commissioner Glick. This received unanimous voice approval.
CONSENT ITEMS:
ITEM #1 DIXON CREEK-HORSESHOE PRPA LOCATION AND EXTENT,
FILE #08-Z1707:
Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for the rebuild of an existing 115kV single circuit electrical transmission line to a double circuit 230kV line, which was proposed to follow the existing alignment from the Horsetooth switching station to the Trilby substation.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Wallace moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Dixon Creek-Horseshoe PRPA Location and Extent, file #08-Z1707.
CommissionerHart seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
ITEM #2 S & H REZONING, FILE #08-Z1699: Ms. Stauffer provided background information on the request to rezone seven metes and bounds parcels from O-Open and C-Commercial to PD-Planned Development to accommodate existing uses consistent with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. The property is located at 308 Summit View Drive, at the intersection of the Mulberry Avenue frontage road, Lincoln Avenue, and Summit View Drive.
Commission Morgan asked about having an agreement to annex?
Mr. Lafferty explained that properties inside the Growth Management Area (GMA), which were going through the development review process, were asked to submit a signed agreement that they would not object to annexation in the future.
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 S&H Rezoning, file #08-Z1699, request to rezone the property from O (Open) and C (Commercial) to PD (Planned Development) for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The subject properties shall submit an agreement to annex to the City of Fort Collins within 60 days of approval of this request.
2. The property owners shall clear up outstanding building code issues within 60 days of approval of this request.
3. In the event that the Boundary Line Adjustment changes the lot lines in such a way as to cause a water meter pit to fall onto an adjacent lot, the pit shall be relocated by the property owner at the owner’s expense onto the appropriate lot or an easement shall be established.
4. The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the properties shall be split into two districts, S & H PD 1 and S & H PD 2. See the attached “Zoning Exhibit” for the areas associated with each district. The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for S & H PD (Planned Development) 1 and 2 shall be as follows:
S & H PD 1
A. Principal uses:
Agricultural
1. Garden supply center (R)
2. Livestock auction (S)
3. Pet animal facility (R)
4. Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)
5. Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)
Commercial
6. Convenience store (R)
7. Automobile service station (R)
8. Carwash (R)
9. Professional office (R)
10. General retail (R/S) See section 4.3
11. General commercial (R)
12. Personal service (R)
13. Takeout restaurant (R)
14. Sit-down restaurant (R)
15. Nightclub (R)
16. Flea market (R/S)--See section 4.3 (use descriptions and conditions)
17. Instructional facility (R)
18. Outdoor display/sales (R)
19. Clinic (R)
Institutional
20. Health services (R)
21. Hospital (R)
22. School, public (L)
23. School, nonpublic (R/S)--See section 4.3
24. Rehabilitation facility (R)
25. Sheriff/fire station (L)
26. Church (R)
Recreational
27. Place of amusement or recreation (R/S)--See section 4.3
28. Membership club/clubhouse (R)
Accommodation
29. Hotel/motel (R)
Industrial
30. Enclosed storage (R)
31. Trade use (R/S)--See section 4.3
32. Light industrial (S)
33. Outdoor storage (R/MS)
Utilities
34. Utility substation (L)
35. Treatment plant (L)
36. Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)--See section 16
37. Radio and television transmitters (S)
38. Water storage facility (L)
Transportation
39. Transportation depot (R)
40. Bus terminal (R)
41. Truck stop (R)
42. Transportation service (R)
43. Parking lot/garage (R)
44. Park and ride (R)
B. Lot, building and structure requirements:
1. Minimum lot size:
a. 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.
b. 15,000 square feet (0.34 acre) if public water and sewer are used.
2. Minimum setbacks:
a. Front yard--Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways and county roads.
b. Side yards--ten (10) feet.
c. Rear yards—ten (10) feet.
d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the
established watercourse.
3. Maximum structure height--40 feet.
4. No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional
buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.
S & H PD 2
A. Principal uses:
Agricultural
1. Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)
2. Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)
3. Pet animal facility (R)
Commercial
4. Permanent fireworks sales (S)
5. Adult use (S)
6. Outdoor display/sales (R)
7. Convenience store (R/S)
8. Automobile service station (R/S)
9. Car wash (R/S)
10. Professional office (R/S)
11. General retail (R/S)
12. General commercial (R/S)
13. Personal service (R/S)
14. Restaurant/take-out (R/S)
15. Restaurant/sit-down (R/S)
16. Nightclub (R/S)
17. Flea market (R/S)
18. Instructional facility (R/S)
19. Outdoor display/sales (R)
20. Clinic (R/S)
Recreational
21. Place of amusement or recreation (R/S)--See section 4.3
22. Membership club/clubhouse (R)
Industrial
23. Enclosed storage (R)
24. Outdoor storage (R/MS)
25. Trade use (R)
26. Light industrial (R)
27. General industrial (S)
28. Recycling (S)
29. Junkyard (S)
Utilities
30. Utility substation (L)
31. Treatment plant (L)
32. Radio and television transmitters (S)
33. Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)--See section 16
34. Water storage facility (L)
Transportation
35. Transportation depot (R)
36. Bus terminal (R)
37. Truck stop (R)
38. Transportation service (R)
39. Parking lot/garage (R)
40. Park and ride (R)
41. Heliport (S)
42. Train station (R)
Institutional
43. Sheriff/fire station (L)
44. Church (R)
B. Lot, building and structure requirements:
1. Minimum lot size:
a. 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.
b. 15,000 square feet (0.34 acre) if public water and sewer are used.
2. Minimum setbacks:
a. Front yard--Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways and county roads.
b. Side yards--ten feet.
c. Rear yards--ten feet.
d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the
established watercourse.
3. Maximum structure height--40 feet.
4. No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional
buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.
§ 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 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.
§ 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) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.
§ Uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in Section 13.0 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.
Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
ITEM #3 BROWNSTONE QUARRY AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #08-Z1679: Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for the expansion of the Brownstone Quarry approved in 1997 (#97-ZR1066) from 9.9 acres to 58.75 acres with the total area disturbed being approximately 29 acres located north of County Road 56 and Highway 287 north of the intersection of County Road 54G and Highway 287. Mr. Helmick explained that the project had been reviewed by the Laporte Area Plan Advisory Committee. He also pointed out that in the 10 years the quarry had operated there had been no complaints received by staff.
Commissioner Weitkunat asked what the outcome was from the LaPorte Area Plan Advisory Committee meeting?
Mr. Helmick replied that the Laporte Area Plan Advisory Committee found it to be consistent with the Laporte Area Plan and their principal charge.
Commissioner Weitkunat asked about the historic accumulation of items on the property?
Mr. Helmick explained that the Code Compliance Department had determined that there was a significant accumulation of stuff on the property, most of which pre dated the regulations. Since Code Compliance did not see an increase in accumulation, it was noted in the comments but did not pertain to the project as presented.
Commissioner Weitkunat asked if the pole barn that was on the property was in operation?
Mr. Helmick stated that it had been permitted and it was in operation.
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 Brownstone Quarry Amended Special Review, file #08-Z1679, 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 Brownstone Quarry Special Review amendment File # 08-Z1679 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 Brownstone Quarry Special Review amendment File # 08-Z1679. Furthermore this application is limited and conditioned by the original conditions of approval found in File 97-Z1066, specifically:
a) The hours of operation shall be 8:00 am to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
b) There shall be no blasting at any time.
c) Where possible, the reclamation shall be accomplished in a phased manner, concurrent with the mining operation.
d) Should the mining activity still be active January 1, 2037, the Board of County Commissioners shall review and update the conditions approved for this special review. The Board of County Commissioners review may include additions, deletions, and modifications of the conditions as necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Larimer County. This review shall be completed in 25 year intervals thereafter. The quarry operator shall submit the following information by July 1 of the year that the review is to be completed:
o a current site plan of the quarry. The site plan should be similar to those submitted as part of the Special Review application. The site plan should clearly show:
o the property boundaries,
o the location of the permanent identification posts that were to be placed on the perimeter of the quarry area,
o current approved mining boundaries,
o current and old mining areas with acreage,
o storage and loading areas,
o processing areas and any structures or improvements on the property.
e) A narrative that describes the current operation and any reclamation efforts that have been completed.
f) Materials shall not be removed form the top of the hogback.
g) Heavy equipment maintenance, including oil changes shall be done off site.
h) The proposed fuel tanks shall be bermed to contain spills and leaks in accordance with the requirements of the Larimer County Health Department.
i) The mining operation shall comply with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance.
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 operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the State that details overall compliance with the stormwater management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the State MLRB.
9. No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the County right-of-way
10. Trucks shall not back onto or use the County Road for a turnaround.
11. Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.
12. The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the County roadway.
13. 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 fees calculated are based on the projected average daily traffic submitted with traffic study.
Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
ITEM:
ITEM #4 COLORADO YOUTH OUTDOORS SPECIAL EXCEPTION #07-Z1665:
Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for use of a 240 acre site as a youth/family outdoor education facility and headquarters, including shooting ranges located on the south side of County Road 36 and north of County Road 34C, immediately east of I-25 and west of County Road 5. The request also included an appeal to Section 8.6.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code which required paving of access roads and parking areas. The property was the subject of both an approved Rural Land Use Plan (RLUP) for 11 single family lots and residual land and a Conservation Easement granted to the Legacy Land Trust. If the proposed use was approved the applicants would be required to vacate the RLUP and modify the Conservation Easement. The Town of Windsor did not object to the project and the trail easement along County Road 5
Commissioner Hart asked that Condition #6 be clarified to include Saturdays.
Commissioner Glick asked how the Conservation Easement would affect the approval of the project if it could not be changed.
Mr. Helmick explained that it would depend on the nature of what could not be resolved. Mr Helmick further explained that the applicants were basically proceeding on this project at there own risk. If the applicants could not get what they needed from the Legacy Land Trust then that could jeopardize all or some of the project.
Commissioner Glick then asked if Larimer County was relying on the Legacy Land Trust to let us know when or if they had agreed or who was to follow up on that.
Mr. Helmick replied that the Legacy Land Trust were responsible for their own issues. He explained that it was up to the Legacy Land Trust to enforce the terms of the easement not Larimer County.
Commissioner Wallace asked if there would be shooting allowed all year round.
Mr. Helmick replied yes, per the applicants’ project description.
Bob Hewson, Colorado Youth Outdoors, showed an aerial view of the site. He explained that as of October 5, 2007, the Louis Swift Estate no longer owned the property, Colorado Youth Outdoors did. He informed the Planning Commission that the Conservation Easement only held 214 acres of the 240 acre site. He mentioned that the Legacy Land Trust were fully aware and supportive of the project. He explained that the project was a nonprofit with the mission to bring parents and children together with a traditional outdoor curriculum. He stated that 60% of the curriculum was to be taught at various high schools in Colorado and only 40% of the curriculum would be on taught on site. He elaborated on the features, history and uses of the property. He explained that shooting had occurred on the property for many years and over the course of those years there was never a complaint received.
Commissioner Hart asked the applicant to address the issues with the Poudre trail and paving.
Mr. Hewson explained that originally they were asked to bring the Poudre trail directly through the property, but shooting was not the only issue with that. He pointed out that the property was not public land, it was gated. He said that putting the trail through the property would spoil that value and the overall vision for the property. He explained that they would allow for an easement on the east side of the property that would provide for a trail. He remarked that the parking lot on the north side of the property was a gravel lot and would like it to remain that way. He explained that the Legacy Land Trust would not be interested in paving the parking lot.
Commissioner Wallace asked for an explanation of the hours of operation.
Mr. Hewson stated that the program was an after school program. He stated that historically they had started as early as 4:30 p.m. and shot until 9:00 p.m. He explained that because of the number of participants in the program, they would ask for extended hours on Wednesdays. He further explained that as the program grew they would need more days with extended hours. He elaborated on the hours of some of the nonprofits that would use the property.
Commissioner Wallace asked about the lighting plan.
Mr. Hewson replied that it was an industry standard to have lit fields for the shooting curriculum.
Commissioner Benton asked if the other non-profits would have to adhere to the approved hours of operation.
Mr. Hewson replied they would have to abide by Colorado Youth Outdoors rules and regulations.
Commissioner Weitkunat asked if the shooting would utilize targets.
Mr. Hewson explained that there were three different shooting events that would be available. He said that one would be utilizing a clay target that would be shot in the air out of a machine. He elaborated on the size and character of the target.
Commissioner Weitkunat asked how the site would be lit.
Mr. Hewson explained that the lights would be elevated on a pole and pointed downward.
Commissioner Cox asked if the project was within the Winsdor or Timnath Growth Management Area.
Mr. Helmick replied that the project would be within the Timnath Growth Management Area, but Larimer County did not yet have an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Timnath.
Commissioner Morgan asked what the intent was regarding the landscaping buffering.
Mr. Hewson stated that the original plan called for berms that were not presently there. He stated they would be open to additional landscaping.
Commissioner Morgan asked about the viability of using no lead shot.
Mr. Hewson remarked that the price of lead was continuing to increase and other sources were decreasing in price. He stated that Colorado Youth Outdoors supplied the ammunition to the users and no foreign ammunition was allowed.
Commissioner Morgan asked if the best management practices would be used.
Mr. Hewson replied yes.
Commissioner Wallace confirmed that the indoor shooting building would have noise mitigation measures.
Commissioner Hess asked if the hunters would be able to use lead shot.
Mr. Hewson stated that for some species, lead shot could be used.
Commissioner Glick asked about the safety hazards that might be caused by the hunters.
Mr. Hewson explained that the Colorado Division of Wildlife had regulations regarding safety standards and they would apply to the property.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Joe Haralson, 5600 South County Road 5 said that it was his understanding that the shooting would be only two Wednesdays per month. He explained that when he met with the applicant there was no mention of other dates for shooting. He remarked that if shooting were to occur almost every night of the week there was a potential for traffic and noise to increase.
Steve Pfister, 128 Via Venado, Bellvue explained that he owned property immediately south of the project. He remarked that it was a great concept in the wrong location. He pointed out that the area was changing and development around the project was happening. He elaborated on the development that was to occur. He stated that within two years development would occur to the south of the project. He mentioned that his main concerns with this project were noise, pollution, lights and safety.
Commissioner Benton asked if the shooting range would have an effect on the value of his development.
Mr. Pfister replied yes.
Carol Harrison, 5329 South County Road 3F said that she thought it was a great project, but she would like to see conditions put on the shooting range for the noise and the proposed developments to the north and south. She explained that she did not think the shooting hours would be controlled. She requested that the item be tabled due to the lack of public notice.
Craig Harrison, 5329 South County Road 3F remarked that the applicant had a great idea, great concept, but a bad location. He pointed out several statements from the conservation easement that described the allowed uses on the property and elaborated on how the project did not meet those allowed uses. He remarked that all the other uses on the property were fantastic and that the applicants had done a great job with the appearance of the property. He suggested that the special exception be re-examined every three years. He also suggested that the county ask to see the modified conservation easement.
Linda Martin, Community Development Director for the Town of Timnath provided some clarification on the status of the Intergovernmental Agreement between Larimer County and the Town of Timnath. She stated that there was Regional Commercial zoning proposed north of the project. She elaborated on the types of development that were allowed in the Regional Commercial zoning district. She remarked that it would be a heavily urbanized area. She pointed out that at the Town of Timnath meeting, no recommendation was given and there was no indication of support or lack or support for the project. She suggested that staff trigger the project to no longer be an allowed use at such time as development occurred. She also suggested that shooting be allowed for Colorado Youth Outdoors participants only and not let other agencies shoot there. She requested that the item be tabled due to the big issues she felt were not resolved.
Commissioner Glick asked why two letters were sent from the Town of Timnath with conflicting concerns.
Mrs. Martin replied the other uses proposed on the property were consistent with the vision of the Town, but the shooting became a bigger issue.
Commissioner Glick asked if the proposed shooting hours had always been consistent.
Mrs. Martin replied that the shooting was represented as being seasonal, not ongoing and constant.
Commissioner Weitkunat asked if the Town of Tinmath had adopted their comprehensive plan.
Mrs. Martin replied yes.
Trent Horton, 7923 Cherry Blossom Drive remarked that having a shooting range at that location was wrong. He stated that he would support all the other uses proposed on the property except for the shooting.
Commissioner Morgan closed public comment and asked if the applicant would like the chance to rebut.
Bob Hewson, Colorado Youth Outdoors, remarked that the shooting would be within safe zones. Mr. Hewson stated that they did not believe that traffic was an issue for the project. He explained that because Colorado Youth Outdoors was an after school program evening hours were a must have. He further explained that if they were limited to daytime only shooting, it would almost eliminate the participants’ opportunity to shoot. He pointed out that the size of the property acted as a buffer for the shooting range and discussed other shooting range practices in Colorado.
Commissioner Hess asked if the property was fenced.
Mr. Hewson replied that the property was currently fenced and would continue to be fenced. He stated that there were “no trespassing” signs up and the gates were locked.
Commissioner Glick asked about validating other nonprofits before they used the property.
Mr. Hewson replied that they require an application that included a description of the use, insurance held, and demonstration of nonprofit status.
Commissioner Benton asked how the noise was consistent with wildlife in the surrounding area.
Mr. Hewson replied that he did not think the noise was an issue to wildlife considering Interstate-25 produced more noise then they would.
Commissioner Hart asked if Larimer County normally approved projects with an annual review.
Mr. Helmick replied no, not typically.
Commissioner Glick asked if the application would be grandfathered in if the Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement went into effect before the project had final County Commissioner approval.
Mr. Helmick replied yes. The project would be reviewed under the rules and regulations that were in place at the time the application was submitted.
Commissioner Weitkunat asked about putting a condition on the project that dealt with days and hours for shooting.
Mr. Helmick explained that hours and days were all fair conditions of approval within the context of finding compatibility. He pointed out that staff had made some recommendations with regards to days and hours of operation.
Commissioner Weitkunat asked about the county noise ordinance.
Mr. Helmick stated that the county noise ordinance would always prevail over conditions set by staff.
Doug Ryan, Larimer County Health Department explained that the county noise ordinance had noise standards that currently would apply. He remarked that the noise ordinance regulated decibel levels during the day, which were described as 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and at night time, which was described at 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. He stated that the application did have a noise plan and it stated that without berms the site noise would be in excess of the noise ordinance.
Commissioner Glick requested information on condition #6 regarding the site being open on Sunday.
Mr. Helmick stated that per the applicants’ request, shooting could occur 7 days a week.
Bob Hewson, Colorado Youth Outdoors Director explained that they did not have any curriculum on Sundays, other than special events, but he mentioned that the property would be open on Sundays so other nonprofit organizations were able to use the site on Sunday.
Commissioner Morgan asked if Colorado Youth Outdoors would offer skeet and trap shooting on Sunday and if so what the hours of operation would be.
Mr. Hewson replied yes, 7am to 9pm.
Mr. Helmick pointed out that a few technical corrections needed to be made to conditions 5, 6, and 7.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Weitkunat remarked that the appeal to the paving requirements had not been discussed and stated that she thought it was an acceptable request. She stated that she thought the project would be a benefit to the community and had really only heard complaints on the shooting portion of the project. She requested that a condition be placed on the project that gave
some times of rest from shooting. She stated that shooting was an important aspect but should not take place everyday.
Commissioner Hess stated that there should be some days without shooting.
Commissioner Benton agreed that the project was something that was needed in the area. He remarked that noise was a big issue. He stated that he was concerned about a development going in next to the project but he pointed out that there was no development yet, and the Planning Commission must look at what was there now not what may or may not be there in the future.
Commissioner Hart stated that he did not think the Planning Commission could approve a use that would not be compatible with the surrounding area. He mentioned that he did not think that the project was able to meet the review criteria for special exceptions, particularly the criteria that dealt with compatibility.
Commission Cox remarked that the area was still very rural, but would be developing as the main street for the Front Range. She stated that she also struggled with the issue of compatibility. She explained that she would not be in favor of 7 day a week of shooting.
Commissioner Oppenheimer agreed with Commissioner Cox and Commission Hart.
Commissioner Glick suggested that staff and the applicant work together on the parameters of the days and hours of operation.
Commissioner Wallace stated that the use could be compatible with the criteria and surrounding area if the conditions were modified. She agreed that it was not an appropriate use on a Sunday.
Commissioner Morgan responded that he agreed with Commissioner Wallace’s comments. He suggested that the days and hours of operation be modified to include no shooting on Sundays. He elaborated on some ideas for days and hours of operation.
Commissioner Hess suggested having Winter and Summer hours.
Commissioner Wietkunat remarked that staff and the applicant should work out some conditions.
Commissioner Hart suggested that staff and the applicant work out conditions on days and hours of operation before going to the County Commissioners for review based upon the Planning Commission 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 Colorado Youth Outdoors Special Exception, file #07-Z1665, and appeal to Section 8.6.3. of the Larimer County Land Use Code to the parking paving requirements for the educational pavilion, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions, with changes made to conditions 5, 6, and 7:
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. Each phase of the site development shall complete Site Plan Review prior to initiation of any activities.
3. The applicant and the Larimer County Engineering Department shall develop a phasing plan for turn lane construction prior to the Board of County Commissioners public hearing, approval at that time.
4. The education pavilion parking area may be gravel surfaced. The access off of CR 36 must be paved with an apron approved by the Larimer County Engineering Department.
5. A final shooting management plan shall be provided as a part of the Site Plan Review for the facility. At a minimum it shall include the prohibition of lead shot, how non-toxic shot will be provided, the hours and days of operation, and supervision
6. The time and dates of operation shall be determined by the applicant and staff, before the County Commissioners’ hearing, based upon the Planning Commissions comments including limited Saturday and no Sunday shooting.
7. The number of users and events shall be consistent with the representations contained on figures 3 and 4 of the application project description, except has modified by these conditions.
8. The final drainage plans and any structures to be built over the Fossil Creek Ditch must be reviewed and approved by the ditch company prior as a part of the approval of any construction plans for any phase.
9. The applicant shall coordinate the construction of the access on CR 34C with the Town of Windsor. The parking lot for the shooting ranges/circular building and offices must be paved for the base use level of 100 persons. Overflow or special event parking may be gravel surfaced.
10. The applicants must have the Swift Rural Land Use Plan vacation of the plat approved and recorded by the Board of County Commissioners prior to the issuance of any permits for the use at this site.
11. A final lighting plan for the parking areas and the trap range must be submitted and approved at Site Plan Review. This plan must pay special attention to and avoid light trespass and glare onto any adjoining residential uses and on I-25.
12. A final noise mitigation plan that demonstrates compliance with the noise ordinance, with improved noise reduction berms must be completed as a part of the Site Plan Review for the skeet/trap range uses. If it is determined that the
skeet/trap use constitutes a noise disturbance as defined in the ordinance modifications to the use may be required.
13. The construction plans for the indoor shooting range must be developed to be consistent with the recommendations of the Larimer County Health Department to address indoor lead levels.
Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.
Commissioner Glick asked for a friendly amendment to the motion. He requested that condition #6 be deleted and asked that time and dates of operation be determined by the applicant and staff, before the County Commissioners’ hearing.
Mr. Helmick suggested that condition #6 be left in but modified to reflect the comments by the Planning Commission.
Commission Glick withdrew the friendly amendment.
Commissioner Wallace and Weitkunat accepted the withdrawal of the friendly amendment.
Commissioner Oppenheimer voted against the Motion.
Commissioners' Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 8-1
REPORT FROM STAFF: Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:20 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”
LOT 1:
A tract of land situate in the Southwest 114 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8, Township 7 North.
Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the
South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 8 as bearing S89º12'00"E and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines of which begin at a point
which bears N89°12'00"W 1755.20 feet, and again N00°48'00"E 30.00 feet from the Southeast
Corner of said Section 8, and run thence N89º12'00"W 6.83 feet; thence N82°54'00"W 203.98
feet; thence N00º10 '52" W 312.95 feet; thence S89º30'20”W 78.43 feet; thence N00°48'00"E
241.09 feet; thence S89°12'00"E 293.35 feet; thence S00°48'00"W 574.61 feet to the point of
beginning. containing 3.1936 acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements and rights of-way which are existing or are of record.
LOT 2:
A tract of land situate in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8. Township 7 North,
Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the
South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 8 as bearing S89°12'00"E and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point
which bears N89º12'00"W 1755.20 feet, and again N00°48'00"E 30.00 feet, and again
N89º12'00"W 6.83 feet, and again N82º54'00"W 203.98 feet from the Southeast Corner of said
Section 8, and run thence N82º54'00”W 146.19 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of way
line of Summit View Drive; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line.
N36º09'00”W 195.22 feet; thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line,
N78º34'00"E 49.58 feet; thence N86º3I434"E 211.40 feet; thence S00°10'52"E 198.34 feet to the
point of beginning, containing 0.8465 acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements and
rights-of-way which are existing or are of record.
LOT 3:
A tract of land situate in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8, Township 7 North,
Range 68 West of 'the Sixth P.M., County f Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the
South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 8 as bearing S89º12'00"E and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point
which bears N89º12'00"W 1755.20 feet, and again N00°48'00"E 30.00 feet, and again
N89º12'00"W 6.83 feet, and again N82º54'00" W 203.98 feet, and again N00º10'52" W 198.34
feet from the Southeast Corner of said Section 8, and run thence S86º31'34"W 2 1 1.40 feet;
thence S78º34'00"W 49.58 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of-way line of Summit
View Drive; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line, N36º09'00"W 107.90 feet;
thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line, N78º34'00"E 249.41 feet; thence
N89º30'20”E 78.43 feet; thence S00°10'52"E 114.61 feet to the point of beginning, containing
0.7271 acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements and rights-of-way which are
existing or are of record.
LOT 4:
A tract of land situate in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8, Township 7 North.
Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the
South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 8 as bearing S89º12'00"E and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point
which bears N89º12'00" W 1755.20 feet, and again N00°48'00"E 604.61 feet from the Southeast
Corner of said Section 8, and run thence N89º12'00" W 423.17 feet; thence S71 º19'00" W 116.20
feet; thence S55°50'00"W 155.52 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of-way line of
Summit View Drive; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line, N35º38'00”W 309.56
feet; thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line, S89º21'00"E 297.64 feet; thence
N00°39'00"E 133.71 feet; thence S89º21'00"E 533.44 feet; thence S00°48'00"W 293.07 feet to
the point of beginning, containing 3.9663 acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements
and rights-of-way which are existing or are of record.
LOT 5:
A tract of land situate in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8, Township 7 North,
Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the
South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 8 as bearing S89º12'00"E and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines of which begin at a point
which bears N89º 12'00" W 1755.20 feet, and again N00°48'00"E 843.68 feet, and again
N89º21'00"W 533.44 from the Southeast Corner of said Section 8, and run thence S00°39'00"W
133.71 feet; thence N89°21'00"W 297.64 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of-way
line of Summit View Drive; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line. N35°38'00"W
22.36 feet. and again N00°4 1'55"E 11 5.69 feet; thence departing said existing Easterly right-of way line, S89°21'00"E 310.77 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.9514 acres, more or
less. and being subject to all easements and rights-of-way which are existing or are of record.
LOT 6:
A tract of land situate in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8. Township 7 North,
Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the
South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 8 as bearing S89º12'00"E and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point
which bears N89º12'00”W 1755.20 feet. and again N00°48'00"E 843.68 feet from the Southeast
Corner of said Section 8. and run thence N89º21'00”W 844.2 1 feet to a point on the existing
Easterly right-of-way line of Summit View Drive: thence along said existing Easterly right-of way line, N00°41'55"E 187.24 feet; thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line,
S89º54'24"E 844.60 feet; thence S00°48'00"W 195.45 feet to the point of beginning, containing
3.7090 acres. more or less, and being subject to all easements and rights-of-way which are
existing or are of record.
LOT 7:
A tract of land situate in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8, Township 7 North.
Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which. considering the
South line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 8 as bearing S89º12'00"E and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point
which bears N89º 12'00" W 1755.20 feet, and again N00°48'00"E 1039.13 feet from the Southeast Corner of said Section 8, and run thence N89º54'24"W 844.60 feet to a point on the existing
Easterly right-of-way line of Summit View Drive; thence along said existing Easterly right-of way line, N00°41'55"E 326.59 feet; thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line,
S88º30105"E 845.18 feet; thence S00°48'00"W 305.86 feet to the point of beginning, containing
6.1331 acres. more or less, and being subject to all easements and rights-of-way which are
existing or are of record.
EXHIBIT “B”
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 AND THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 8 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LlNE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 8 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST AS BEARING N 89º26'17" E, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAlD SECTION 13; THENCE RUN N 06º34'37" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 1084.87 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN N 71º21'00" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 1359.01 FEET; THENCE RUN N 59º25'26" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 680.39 FEET; THENCE RUN S 30º34'34" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 440.30 FEET; THENCE RUN S 30º35'42" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 1185.63 FEET; THENCE RUN S 01º16'52" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 605.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 237.57 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 09º12'23" WAND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 65.51 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 65.72 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15'51'02" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN S 17º07'54" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 61.09 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 686.88 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 02º55'46" W AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 337.04 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 340.52 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28º24'16" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN S 11'16'22" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 126.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 704.06 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 08º34'13" E AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 66.39 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 66.42 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5º24'18" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN S 05'52'04" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 14.06 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 577.35 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 13º14'33" E AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 148.21 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 148.62 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14º44'58" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN S 20'37'01" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.35 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 235.99 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 13º'43'05" E AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 56.69 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 56.83 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13'47'53" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN S 06'49'08" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 39.01 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 56'56'50" E AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 59.88 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 68.26 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 100º15'23'' TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN N 72º55'28" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.75 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 241.35 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S 84º38'44" E AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 184.18 FEET; THENCE RUN EASTERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 188.97 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44'51'35" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN S 62º12'56" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 159.97 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OFWAY LlNE OF WEST LARIMER COUNTY ROAD 56; THENCE RUN S 86º57'15" W, ALONG SAlD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.78 FEET; THENCE RUN N 62º12'56" W, LEAVING SAlD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 118.09 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 216.35 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N 84º38'44" W AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 165.10 FEET; THENCE RUN WESTERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 169.39 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44º51'35" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN S 72º55'28" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.75 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 64.01 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N 56'56'50" WAND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 98.25 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 112.01 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 100º15'23" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN N 06º49'08" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.86 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 210.99 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N 13º43'05" W AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 50.69 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 50.81 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13º47'53" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN N 20°37'01" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 79.35 FEET FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 602.35 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N 13º14'33" WAND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 154.63 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 155.06 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14º44'58" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN N 05º52'04" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 14.06 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 679.06 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N 08º34'13" WAND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 64.04 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.06 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5º24'18" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE; THENCE RUN N 1 1'16'22" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 126.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 711.88 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N 01°51'19" E AND A CHORD DISTANCE OF 323.37 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY ALONG SAlD CURVE FOR A DISTANCE OF 326.22 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26º15'21" TO THE END OF SAlD CURVE;
THENCE RUN S 82º01'03" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 482.96 FEET;
THENCE RUN S 15°10'19" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 249.53 FEET;
THENCE RUN S 00º37'52" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 132.88 FEET;
THENCE RUN S 21º02'08" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 91.74 FEET;
THENCE RUN N 27º37'02" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 169.58 FEET;
THENCE RUN S 64º10'02" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.16 FEET;
THENCE RUN N 25º49'58" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 1958.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. CONTAINING 58.75 ACRES, MORE OR LESS AND SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
EXHIBIT “C”
Being Lots 1 -11 and Residual Lot 'A' of Swift Ponds R.L.U.P 99-RLP0028 per the plat recorded June 6th, 2001 at Reception No. 2001 0044172, situate in the Northeast Quarter and the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10, 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 Northeast Quarter of said Section 10 as bearing South 88º'53'30" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said Section 10; thence along the East line of said Northeast Quarter, South 00º30'03" West 2624.18 feet to the East Quarter comer of said Section 10;thence along the East line of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 10, South 00º34'19" West, 1341.7 1 feet to the Southeast comer of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 10; thence along the South line of said North Half North 88º56'36" West 2646.65 feet to the Southwest comer of said North Half; thence along the North-South centerline of said Section 10;thence continuing along said North-South line North 00°38'34" East 2641 .01 feet to the North Quarter comer of said Section 10; thence along the North line of said Northeast Quarter South 88º53'30" East 2638.50 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Said Parcel contains 240.70 acres, more or less, and is subject to all existing easements and or rights of way of record.
