LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of January 18, 2017

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, January 18, 2017, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Miller and Wallace were present.  Commissioners’ Gerrard and Jensen were absent.  Commissioner Glick presided as Chairman.  Also present were Terry Gilbert, Community Development Director, Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Clint Jones, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department, Lea Schneider, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary. 

 

The Planning Commission went on a site visit to Hybiak Conservation Development and Valerosa Planned Land Division/Planned 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 DECEMBER 21, 2016 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

MOTION by Commissioner Wallace to move Item #4 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code – Short Term Rentals, #17-CODE0200, to the consent agenda, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1 HYBIAK CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #16-S3381:  Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a Conservation Development to divide approximately 45 acres into one residential lot and one residual lot with a residential building envelope on the property located at 7520 N. County Road 21, Fort Collins, which was east of County Road 21 approximately 700 feet north of the intersection of County Road 21 and Davis Street.  The request also included appeals to Sections 8.14.1.M (Public Right-of-Way) and 8.14.1.R (Connectivity) of the Land Use Code.

 

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 approval of the Hybiak Conservation Development, file #16-S3381, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Hybiak Conservation Development, File 16-S3381 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 Hybiak 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 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.   Access to the homes on Residual Lot A and Lot 1 shall be a dedicated fire lane within an Emergency Access Easement.  The design of the lane must be approved by the Podure Fire Authority A future home on Lot 1 must be equipped with a residential fire sprinkler system.

 

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.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Dougherty, Miller, Wallace and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7 -0

 

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 approval of the Hybiak Conservation Development appeals to Sections 8.14.1.M (public right-of-way) and 8.14.1.R (connectivity) of the Land Use Code, file #16-S3381.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Dougherty, Miller, Wallace and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7 -0

 

 

ITEM #4 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #16-CODE0200:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to

Amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by:

1.   Adding the term “Short Term Rental” to Section 0.1. - Definitions

2.   Adding the use description “Short Term Rental” as Section 4 .3.6.E. and renumbering the balance of the Section,

3.   Adding to the zoning table in Section 4.1 under the category of Accommodations “Short Term Rental” as a use allowed by Special Review (S) or Site Plan Review (SP), and

4.   Adding “Short Term Rental” by Special Review (S) to the list of allowed uses under the accommodations section of the Zoning Districts  RE - Rural Estate, FO - Forestry, FO-1- Forestry, A - Accommodations, T - Tourist, O - Open, or by Site Plan Review (SP) in the zoning districts  B - Business and RFLB - Red Feather Lakes Business.

 

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 approval to the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #16-CODE0200, as follows:

 

1.   Add a new definition to Section 0.1. – Definitions as follows:

 

Short term rental . A building, under single management and ownership, for temporary rental to transient guests (for example: vacation rental by owner – VRBO or Airbnb). 

 

2.   Add a new use description to Section 4.3.6. following current item D and renumber the balance of the section:

 

E. Short term rental. A building, under single management and ownership, for temporary rental to transient guests (for example: vacation rental by owner – VRBO or Airbnb). 

 

3.    Change the zoning table as follows:

 

Category

Use

FA

FA-1

FO

FO-1

O

E

E-1

RE

RE-1

R

RE-1

R

R-1

R-2

M

M-1

A

T

B

C

I

I-1

RFLB

AP

Accommodation

Short term rental

S

S

S

S

S

S

SP

 

SP

 

 

 

 

 

4.   Add “Short term rental” to the list of allowed uses under the “accommodation” section in the following Zoning Districts:

 

RE-Rural Estate (S)

FO-Forestry (S)

FO-1 Forestry (S)

A-Accommodations (S)

T-Tourist (S)

O-Open (S)

B-Business (SP)

RFLB – Red Feather Lakes Business (SP)

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Dougherty, Miller, Wallace and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7 -0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

Commissioner Dougherty noted that he knew the applicant for Valerosa PLD/PD, Maura O’Leary; however, it would not affect his decision making on the proposed application.

 

ITEM #2 VALEROSA PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #16-S3385:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a rezoning from RE – Rural Estate to PD – Planned Development, and a Planned Land Division to divide a 50.59 acre parcel into four lots on the property located at 4389 N. County Road 19, Fort Collins, which was located southwest of the intersection of N. County Road 19 and County Road 56.  The request also included an Appeal to Section 8.14.1.R of the Land Use Code regarding road connectivity.  He noted that each lot would have a four acre building envelope, and the proposed Planned Development zoning mimicked the Rural Estate zoning already established in the area.  A neighborhood meeting was held in September 2016 where a majority of concerns in regards to density and connectivity.  He stated that the proposal went to LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee in December 2016 where they recommended approval of the Planned Land Division, Planned Development and appeal to connectivity.  He explained that instead of installing a road for connectivity the applicant was proposing to have a shared access off of County Road 56.  He mentioned that the Engineering Department did not support the appeal. 

 

Maura O’Leary, applicant, stated that she had originally asked for 5 lots; however, density was an issue at the neighborhood meeting so she reduced the number to 4 lots with building envelopes.  She explained that she was proposing a shared access off of County Road 56 across from an existing driveway and mentioned that the neighbor to the west was opposed to an access road along the west property line.  She also explained why she did not believe it was appropriate to require a road for connectivity.

 

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Sandy Brown, neighbor to the east, stated that the proposed area was dry land agriculture and expressed concerns regarding dust and road noise and pointed out that the properties to the east were all irrigated land.  She also remarked that people in the area had a reasonable expectation that the area would stay rural and noted that she and many others were unaware of the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee.

 

Sandy Eggleston, lived directly west of the property, stated that she had bought the property to be in the country with the impression that she would have 50 acres to her east and 38 acres to the west and did not like to see the property subdivided.  She also stressed that she did not want a road next to her property.

 

Brian Squire, asked for clarification on the proposed uses for the property under the Planned Development zoning. 

 

Mr. Whitley explained that there were several potential uses; however, certain proposed uses would have to go through an approval process in order to establish that use. 

 

Ms. O’Leary stated that there were no assurances that people would take care of the land but a majority of the people in the area were good stewards of the land, and she hoped to market the land to good stewards.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked about the one access point on County Road 56.

 

Ms. O’Leary stated that she was trying to just have one access point but was not opposed to having two access points.

 

Commissioner Couch asked if covenants would be in place for the lots.

 

Ms. O’Leary stated that she was not opposed to it.  She was satisfied that the use by right uses would be allowed, that the other uses would have to go through an approval process, and she was not planning to add any other covenants. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Glick asked about the Engineering Department’s concerns with the shared access.

 

Clint Jones, Engineering Department, stated that it was not required to have separate access points and agreed that a shared access road would be safer.

 

Commissioner Dougherty felt that the proposal fit the area.  He stated that he was not in agreement of requiring connectivity and also did not believe there needed to be covenants as there are already protections in the land use code for the items brought up by the neighbors.  He was also in favor of a shared access and would vote for approval of the application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that there had been no previous limits placed on what could be done with the lot but did sympathize with the neighbors and their concerns.  She stated that it met the review criteria, requiring a road on the west side of the property did not make sense and connectivity was not needed.  She stated that she was unsure if the shared access stub was appropriate or not.

 

Commissioner Miller agreed with the earlier comments.

 

Commissioner Christman supported the application and stated that she would not require the road on the west side of the property.

 

Commissioner Couch agreed and stated that the shared road made sense as fewer accesses on the road would be safer.

 

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 approval of the Valerosa Planned Land Division, file #16-S3385, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Valerosa Planned Development/Planned Land Division, File 16-S3385 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 Valerosa Planned Development/Planned Land Division.

 

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 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.   A fire hydrant is required within 400 feet of all residences. If this requirement cannot be met, homes must be equipped with an approved residential automatic sprinkler system.

 

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.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Dougherty, Miller, Wallace and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7 -0

 

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 approval of the rezoning from RE – Rural Estate to PD - Planned Development, file #16-S3385, as follows:

 

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

 

    1. The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Valerosa Planned Development shall be as follows:

 

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.         Greenhouse (R)

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

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

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

12.       Sod farm or nursery (R)

13.       Tree farm (R)

 

Residential

14.       Dwelling, cabin (R)—See subsection 4.3.2

15.       Group home (R)

16.       Group home for the aged (R)

17.       Group home a for the developmentally disabled (R)

18.       Group home for the mentally ill (R)

19.       Single-family dwelling (R)

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

Institutional

21.       Cemetery (S)

22.       Child/elderly care center (S)

23.       Church (MS/S)—See section 4.3.4

24.       School, nonpublic (S)

25.       State-licensed group home (S)

Recreational

26.       Country club (S)

27.       Golf course (S)

Accommodation

28.       Bed and breakfast (S)

29.       Resort lodge/resort cabins (S)

30.       Retreat (S)

31.       Seasonal camp (S)

Utilities

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

33.       Radio and television transmitters (S)

Industrial

34.       Mining (S)

35.       Oil and gas drilling and production (R)

36.       Small solar facility (R/PSP)

B.        Lot, building and structure requirements:

1.   Minimum lot size:

a.  Ten acres (435,600 square feet).

 

 

 

 

b.  Maximum density in a conservation development is calculated by dividing the total developable area by ten acres. 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). 

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

a.         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.

b.         Side yard—25 feet except that if there is an existing building over 120 square feet in area that has been legally established prior to January 22, 2007 that is setback less than 25 feet from the side yard, said existing building shall be deemed conforming with respect to side yard setback, and an addition to said existing building or a new building shall be allowed a side yard setback equal to or greater than the existing building, but in no case shall the side yard setback be less than five feet.

c.         Rear yard—25 feet except that if there is an existing building over 120 square feet in area that has been legally established prior to January 22, 2007 that is setback less than 25 feet from the rear yard, said existing building shall be deemed conforming with respect to rear yard setback, and an addition to said existing building or a new building shall be allowed a rear yard setback equal to or greater than the existing building, but in no case shall the rear yard setback be less than ten feet.

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

3.   Maximum structure height—40 feet.

4.   No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings are allowed on a parcel if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Dougherty, Miller, Wallace and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7 -0

 

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 approval of the Valerosa Planned Land Division/Planned Development appeal to Section 8.14.1.R of the Land Use Code, file #16-S3385, and work with County Staff to determine alignment of the driveways onto the lots.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Dougherty, Miller, Wallace and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  7 -0

 

 

ITEM #3 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #17-CODE0204:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by:

1.   Changing the definition “Farm” in Section 0.1. – Definitions to not include the language “containing at least three acres”,

2.   Changing the use description “Farm” at Section 4.3.1.A. to not include the language “containing at least three acres”, and to add the requirement for Public Site Plan (PSP) review for farms occurring on lots within a constructed subdivision, conservation development, or rural land use plan

3.   Changing the Agricultural category of “Farm” within the zoning table of Section 4 from “(R)” to “(R/PSP)” for the Zoning Districts  FA – Farming, FA-1  - Farming,  FO - Forestry, FO-1- Forestry, O – Open, E – Estate, E-1 –Estate, RE –Rural Estate, RE - Rural Estate, R (Residential) and AP – Airport, and

4.   Changing the list of allowed uses under the Agricultural section of the Zoning Districts  FA – Farming, FA-1 -Farming,  FO - Forestry, FO-1- Forestry, O – Open, E – Estate, E-1 –Estate, RE –Rural Estate, RE - Rural Estate, R (Residential) and AP -Airport from “Farm (R)” to “Farm (R/PSP)

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Maureen McDonough, stated that she had initially brought the issue to the County.  She questioned whether her proposed ‘farm’ was commercial.  She explained that a neighbor had initially complained; however, they were within the limits of the number of animals allowed but out of compliance due to milk sharing.  The Land Use Code had a definition of a farm set in the 1980s to be 3 acres or more but the zoning was set in the 1960s to be for FA-1 Farming with a minimum lot size of 2.3 acres.  She was glad to see that the ‘3 acre’ part of the definition would be removed because it disagreed with how the zones were currently written.  She was concerned that some subdivision lots with large acreages would be impacted.  She also mentioned the Cottage Food Act, which helped protect people who wanted to sell eggs from their chickens without having to be a commercial poultry farm.  She noted that it was a right to farm state, and she was passionate about protecting the small farmer.  She remarked that if a property owner was within the stipulated amount of animals allowed on a property and the three acres stipulation was removed then they should be allowed to farm without having to go through the public site plan process.

 

Commissioner Cox questioned if she would rather see it amended to a 2.3 acre requirement.

 

Ms. McDonough replied yes to coincide with the FA-1 zone district.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that farming was just not allowed in the Farming zone district.  It was allowed in multiple others, which had different minimum lot sizes.  The amendment was not trying to align it with the FA-1 zone district as there was no correlation of ‘farm’ with the Farming zone districts.

 

LeeAnne Sanders, was the president of Berthoud Local but was not speaking on their behalf.  She stated that she supported dropping the language “containing at least three acres” but had concerns about the Public Site Plan process.  She wondered if selling at a farmers market or selling eggs to neighbors would make it a commercial use and require a review.  She discussed the Cottage Foods Act which was a state law that provided the right for anyone to sell up to $10,000 in whole eggs with no reviews.  Additionally, it provided the right sell whole produce as well as some packaged foods with no review.  As a result, she stated that it seemed that the ‘Act’ would be in conflict with some of the requirements of Public Site Plan review.  

 

Commissioner Miller suggested tabling the item until more information was learned about the Cottage Foods Act.

 

Commissioner Glick suggested allowing the rest of the public to speak before tabling the item was discussed.

 

Kristen Ramey, mentioned that she owned 6 acres and pointed out that farms were getting smaller.  She agreed with removing the language as she felt a lot of farming or growing of food could be done on less than 3 acres.  She was concerned with requiring review for people in a subdivisions especially for those who had been raising sheep, cows, etc. for years.  She stated that it needed to be determined what would trigger a commercial use and what wouldn’t.  She remarked that conflicting language was being removed but other conflicting language was being added regarding lots in a subdivision having to go through the public site plan.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace stated that the commercial aspect was different than the Land Use issue.  She stated that there was a conflict of protecting neighbors and protecting the property owner. 

 

Commissioner Miller agreed.  He felt that more information should be learned about the Cottage Food Act before moving forward. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if the Cottage Food Act would trump the Land Use Code. 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that the Cottage Food Act had a lot to do with the handling and passing of food, and it was not a land use issue.  He stated that the County Attorney would need to be consulted on the issue.  He noted that the proposed amendments would not have come up if the County did not receive a complaint on the issue.

 

Commissioner Cox asked if the complaints were from several neighborhoods.

 

 

Mr. Lafferty replied just one neighborhood.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that the Health Department saw the Cottage Foods Act as a food safety law.  He explained that it exempted certain small growers and manufactures from having to comply with the retail food service regulations or having to comply with the food manufacturing standards.  It was an exemption from some of the food safety standards as it realized that some of the small manufacturers not dealing with hazardous foods could manufacture, sell, and distribute foods at farmers markets or on their property, etc..  He concurred that it was not a land use issue.

 

Commissioner Cox wondered what complaints drove the amendment.  She mentioned her concern of unintended consequences of the proposal requiring a public site plan review.  She stated that she could not make a decision on the proposal because of those unintended consequences.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that from a real estate stand point a potential buyer would have certain expectations if the lot was in a residential area.  If it went through the process then neighbors would have a say and be able to voice their concerns.  He remarked that it was a property rights issue regardless of the Cottage Food Act. 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that the intent was not to take anything away from rural properties.  It was only a concern when it involved a property within a subdivision when there were expectation that it was a residential property. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked for a definition of commercial and if that included growing food and taking it for sale to farmers' markets.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that it became commercial when it became retail sales.

 

MOTION by Commissioner Miller to table Item #3 in order t o learn more about the Cottage Food Act and define commercial as it related to proposed uses, seconded by Commissioner Christman.  

The Motion Failed by voice vote.

 

Commissioner Cox was concerned that there were unintended consequences of amending the code over one complaint. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked if an approved public site plan ran with the land.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied yes.  He explained that if a lot owner could prove that the use occurred over the years then the use could become a non-conforming use. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners denial of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #17-CODE0204.

 

Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Dougherty, Miller, Wallace and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7 -0

 

ITEM #5 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #17-CODE0205:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by repealing Section 7 – Special Events and replacing it with a new Section 7.0 - Special Events. He spoke to the proposed outlined changes and noted some significant proposed amendments:

 

 

·  There shall be no more than three (five or seven TBD) special events allowed on a property in a calendar year.

·  The combined number of days that special events can occur on a property cannot exceed 30 days in any 12 month period. 

·   There shall be no more than one special event allowed on a property in a calendar month.

  • A special events permit shall be required for any special event on property where it is anticipated that the overall attendance will exceed 40 persons.

He mentioned that the proposed changes had been previously discussed at worksessions with the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners as well as at two public meetings with citizens.  He noted that ‘Private family social gathering’ was added to the amendment; however, a new definition had not yet been added to the Code and such amendment would occur at a later date if the proposal was approved. 

 

Commissioner Miller asked how many complaints were received in regards to events that took place.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that there was not a complaint process but he determined they had received anywhere from 3-5 complaints.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Cliff Lane, represented a neighborhood in Berthoud, stated that they supported to repeal the existing Section 7 and replace it as they felt it would eliminate loopholes.  He noted an event center on County Road 27E, Rancho Ricardo, which was operating under the special events regulations and mentioned concerns with traffic, safety, noise, quality of life, wildlife, etc.  He asked that the new proposed changes be accepted.

 

Richard Gillies, stated there was at least a dozen entries or more of complaints.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the complaints had to deal with the Rancho Ricardo issue or other issues.

 

Mr. Gillies replied both. 

 

Kirsten Gillies, stated there was an overlap of the use by right and an accessory home business.  She also stated that properties holding special events could affect property values.

 

 

 

 

 

John Baumann, remarked that the new proposed Section 7 could help mitigate problems.  He stated that the existing code allowed 30 days a year with 30 events a year, which meant that there could be an event every 3 weeks in the summer.  He felt that 3 events per year, once a month, would be sufficient.  He recommended approval of the revision and asked that the definition of a ‘family gathering’ be determined.

 

Kim Liebrand, noted the proposed Section 7.9 and stated that the port-a-potties at the Rancho Ricardo site were left on the property and never been removed.

 

Kristen Murphy, represented Rancho Ricardo, stated that in 2016 two events were held, both during the day.  She did not believe the land use code needed to be amended and mentioned that a consequence of becoming a ‘community hall’ meant that water rights had to be obtained.  She also remarked that reducing the number of events per year from 30 to 3 was an extreme modification and suggested allowing 12-15 events.  She also stated that reducing the number of people allowed from 300 to 40 was also a dramatic modification.  She suggested allowing two events per month instead of just one.  Additionally, she did not believe that a review process should be implemented. 

 

Tom Knebel, lived next to an event center in Fort Collins, had concerns about private social family gatherings as private parties were rarely supervised and noise could become a concern.  He also asked if there would be any consequences for not abiding to the new regulations and/or if penalty fees would be implemented?

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that a private social family gathering would not be allowing others to have their parties or gatherings on someone else’s property.

 

Neil Haley, stated that it was appropriate to look at Section 7 of the code as neighborhoods had certain expectations on what would occur in the area and in that neighborhood. 

 

Holly Field, agreed with the amendment.

 

Lea Feldman, stated that Rancho Ricardo was being advertised as a business and not a special event.  She was in support of the proposed changes.

 

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 approval to the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #17-CODE0205, by repealing Section 7 and replacing Section 7 with the added language that ‘There shall be no more than three special events allowed on a property in a calendar year.’.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that he was inclined to allow 7 events per year and not just three as he felt three was too low. 

 

 

Commissioners’ Christman and Miller also stated that they would like the number to be 7 events per year. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the Code stipulated only three events per year were allowed if someone could ask for an increased number.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that an appeal would have to be filed; however, the question should then be raised if it would be better for the applicant to apply for a community hall use. 

 

Commissioner Cox offered a Friendly Amendment to the Motion to increase the number of special events allowed on the property in a calendar year to 5 events, Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval to the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #17-CODE0205, by repealing Section 7 and replacing it as follows with the amendment to Section 7.2.B to allow 5 special permit events in a calendar year:

7.0. - SPECIAL EVENTS

7.1. - PURPOSE

The purpose of this section 7 is to:

A.   provide for the temporary (see Section 0.1 – Definitions) use of property for Special Events in all zone districts,

B.   provide for the orderly control of special events by establishing appropriate permit requirements and regulations,

C.   ensure the promoter or sponsor of a special event is aware of any special circumstances that may have an impact on the success of their event, and

D.   minimize any significant effects of a special event on adjacent and nearby property owners, residents and businesses or which would impact the prevailing site conditions, traffic and circulation patterns, land use characteristics or the nature of the proposed use.

7.2. – DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

A.   Special Event are the temporary (see Section 0.1 – Definitions) use of land, buildings or structures for a gathering of any size, at any location, for any purpose, unless excluded in Section 7.3.B. of this Code, but are not limited to:

1.    Carnivals,

2.    Circuses,

3.    Concerts,

4.    Revivals,

5.    Tournaments,

6.    Seasonal Events (haunted houses),

7.    Craft fairs or markets,

8.    Festivals (Medieval Festivals)

9.    Fund-raisers,

10.   Rodeos.

 

B.   There shall be no more than five special events allowed on a property in a calendar year.

C.   The combined number of days that special events can occur on a property cannot exceed 30 days in any 12 month period. 

D.   There shall be no more than one special event allowed on a property in a calendar month.

7.3. – APPLICABILITY AND EXCLUSIONS

A.    This Section shall apply to all special events, as defined in section 7.2., conducted on any property in Larimer County, regardless of what zone district the property is situated in, unless otherwise excluded herein:

B.    This Section shall not apply to:

1.   Gatherings on property that has received and is subject to an existing land use approval that limits the number, type and nature of gatherings to be held on the property (i.e. Community Halls),

2.   Temporary uses excluded in Section 4.3.10.A – Accessory Agricultural Uses

3.   Private family/social gatherings,

4.   Special Events occurring on any Larimer County road or other county owned properties, parks or open lands. Any event utilizing a Larimer County road or other county property is required to obtain a special events permit pursuant to Article IV – Special Events, Chapter 50 – Roads and Bridges of the Larimer County Code of Ordinances. Any event occurring on a county park or open lands property shall be regulated by the rules and regulations of the county parks and open lands department. or

5.   Gatherings at any regularly established, permanent place of assembly such as:

a.    Place of worship,

b.    Stadium,

c.    Athletic field,

d.    Arena,

e.    Auditorium,

f.    Fairgrounds,

g.    Coliseum,

h.    Picnic or camping area,

i.   Sale or auction of agricultural lands or personal property,

 

j.   Polling places for special or general elections,

k.    Other similar permanently established place of assembly, or

l.   Temporary uses identified in Section 4.3.11 of this Code

Provided that:

1.   Such place is being used for its established and normal use allowed by zoning,

2.   Attendance does not exceed the maximum seating capacity of the structure or place where the gathering is held, and

3.   The gathering complies with all other county ordinances, resolutions and regulations.

 

7.4. - PERMIT REQUIRED

A special events permit shall be required for any special event on property where it is anticipated that the overall attendance will exceed 40 persons.

7.5. – REVIEW CRITERIA

To approve a Special Events permit, the Community Development Director, or the County Commissioners, must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A. The applicant has demonstrated that the special event can be compatible with existing and allowed used in the surrounding area.

B.   The applicant has demonstrated that the special event complies with all applicable requirements of this code.

C.   The applicant has demonstrated that the special event will result in no substantial adverse impact on other properties in the vicinity, including environmentally sensitive areas or features or other lands

D. The applicant has demonstrated that the special event has addressed the recommendations of the referral agencies

E.   The applicant has demonstrated that the Special event will comply with the applicable performance standards as set forth in Section 7.7 of this Code.

7.6. – PROCESS/SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

A.        Application: At least 60 days prior to the requested start date of the proposed special event requiring a permit, a complete special event permit application shall be submitted to the Larimer County Community Development Director . The application shall include the following information:

1. The name and mailing address of all persons signing the application, and in the case of a corporation, a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State's Office.

2. The address, assessor parcel number, and legal description of all property upon which the event is to be held, together with the name and mailing address of the record owners of the property.

3. A written description indicating: the type of event, the event sponsor(s), the location of the event, a list of all roads affected, the duration of the event, the hours of operation, the expected water requirements (including the source and supply of water), the number of employees/volunteers, the number and location of toilets, the maximum number of persons that will be permitted to attend at any single time, the methods applicant will use to insure the maximum number of allowed attendees at any single time is not exceeded, food or alcoholic beverages to be served (if alcohol is served a separate liquor license permit application is required), temporary structures or fences proposed, the anticipated parking needs and how the need is to be addressed, a statement of expected impacts to the subject land and surrounding properties, and a statement describing how impacts on surrounding properties will be minimized.

4. A sketch with dimensions, showing all of the following: existing and proposed buildings, internal streets on the event site, adjacent off-site streets, property lines on the proposed site and on abutting properties, the location of the event, the location of proposed structures (including restrooms, storage bins, trash receptacles, temporary buildings, etc.), the location of traffic controls proposed (including road barriers, detour signs, traffic control lights, traffic personnel, etc.), access to/from the site, parking areas (showing access, number of parking spaces, parking barriers, surfacing, etc.), and activity areas (e.g. parking areas, food and beverage areas, seating, etc.).

5. A description of any signage associated with the event. Temporary signs to promote or identify an approved special event are subject to the following restrictions:

a. All special event signs must be located on the lot that is the site of the special event;

b. The maximum sign size is 32 square feet;

c. Each approved special event is limited to one sign per street frontage of the lot that is the site of the special event;

d. Banners are permitted as long as the total square footage of all banners does not exceed 100 square feet; and

e. Signs and banners promoting or identifying a special event are not subject to a separate permitting requirement but all such signs and banners must be removed from the site within 24 hours of the end of the approved special event.

6. Written confirmation from the property owner(s) agreeing to the use of their property for the special event or a copy of the lease agreement showing that the special event is allowed to occur on the property.

7. A nonrefundable application processing fee in an amount established by the board of county commissioners.

8. Any additional information the county manager deems necessary to evaluate the special event.

 

B.  Application review  - Upon determining that the special event permit application is complete, the Community Development Director will refer the application to other county or non-county departments, agencies or officials whose consideration is deemed essential to a full and complete assessment. Review of the application will take into consideration:

1.   The adequacy of the site sketch.

2.   The adequacy of the site to accommodate the special event proposed.

3.   The degree to which the special event complies or will be able to comply with the performance standards of Section 7.7.

4.   The preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the public and surrounding properties and uses.

 

C. Action on application. Within 30 days of filing of a complete special event application, the Community Development Director will take one of the following actions:

1. Issue the permit with any conditions deemed necessary to minimize potential adverse impacts and meet the intent and purpose of this section,

2. Deny the permit if the proposed special event fails to conform to the applicable provisions, requirements or standards of this section 7.  The Community Development Director’s decision shall specify the reasons, in writing, for the denial citing specific requirements, provisions and standards in this section 7 or other applicable provisions, laws, rules or regulations that were not met, or

3.  Schedule the application for a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to determine if the event should be allowed or denied.

D. Appeals.

1.   Any decision by the Community Development Director to either grant or deny the special event permit may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. Appeals must be received within five calendar days following the date on which the Community Development Director issues his/her decision. The appeal must be in writing and must state specifically why the Community Development Director’s decision is incorrect or inconsistent with the provisions, intent or purpose of this section 7.

2.   The Board of County Commissioners will consider the appeal in an open meeting. The Board may overturn or modify the Community Development Director’s decision if the Board determines the Community Development Director’s decision is incorrect or inconsistent with the provisions, intent or purpose of this section 7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.7. - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Special events may be required by the Community Development Director to comply with any or all of the following conditions, except for subsections D, I and J which may only be waived with the approval of the Larimer County Health Department, the fire district or the Larimer County Sheriff respectively. Which requirements apply to a specific event will be determined based on the location and type of event, and after consultation with the county sheriff, department of health and environment, applicable fire authority and any other county or non-county department, agency or official whose consideration the Community Development Director deems essential to a full and complete assessment. All applicable requirements shall be specified in the conditions of the permit, if approved:

A. An adequate and safe supply of potable water meeting requirements set forth by the Colorado Department of Health or county department of health and environment shall be provided.

B. Separate enclosed toilets for males and females, meeting all state and local specifications, as determined by the county department of health and environment, conveniently located throughout the grounds, sufficient to provide healthful facilities, for the maximum number of persons allowed at any single time, to attend the special event shall be provided.

C. A sanitary method of disposing of solid or liquid waste, in compliance with state and local laws and regulations, sufficient to dispose of the solid waste production of the maximum number of persons allowed at any single time to attend the special event.

D. As determined by the county department of health and environment, the following may be required:

1.   Two certified emergency medical technicians and one emergency ambulance provided for special events with 500 persons. One additional certified medical technician provided for every additional 500 persons. An enclosed structure where treatment may be rendered shall also be provided.

2.   A licensed practical nurse or registered nurse, licensed to practice in the state, provided for special events with 1,000 persons. One additional nurse provided for every additional 1,000 persons.

3.   A vector control plan indicating how insects, rodents, and other vermin will be controlled by proper sanitary practices, extermination or other safe and effective control methods. Where necessary, a plan to control animal ectoparasites, and other disease transmitting and nuisance insects must be provided.

E.   If the special event is to occur during hours of darkness, illumination sufficient to light the area of attention (stage, actors, band, etc.) be provided at the rate of at least five foot-candles. Such illumination shall not be allowed to shine or reflect unreasonably beyond the boundaries of the location of the special event.

F.   A parking area sufficient to provide parking space for the maximum number of persons allowed at any single time to attend the special event. In addition, there shall be a traffic circulation system sufficient to allow safe and efficient traffic and pedestrian circulation for the maximum number of persons allowed at any single time to attend the special event. The flow of traffic on roads shall not be blocked or hindered, and no cars, buses or bicycles shall be allowed to park along the side of or in any public road right-of-way, without prior written approval of the county engineering department.

G. Adequate facilities for communication with hospital, police and fire services shall be provided and based in the medical station.

H.  If the assembly is to continue overnight, camping facilities in compliance with all state and local requirements must be provided.

I.    Security which, as determined by the county sheriff, is adequate to control any disturbances which might occur at the special event. An adequate plan of peer group control may be used if approved by the Larimer County Sheriff.

J.    Applicant must provide evidence that the applicable fire protection district has been notified about the special event. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the fire protection district.

K. Applicant assurance that sounds from the special event do not carry unreasonably beyond the boundaries of the location of the special event. Sound created by the special event which exceeds any limitations set by the Larimer County Noise Ordinance shall be presumed to be unreasonable.

L.   Applicant must provide for appropriate dust mitigation.

M. If electrical systems are not self-supporting, electrical systems installation and maintenance must comply with minimum county and state electrical standards.

N. Management of food service shall conform to the requirements of the county department of health and environment.

O. Guarantees in the form of a n irrevocable letter of credit, bond, or cash retainer in the amount of $500.00 per acre to cover the cost any required grading, site restoration, dismantling and removal of structures, and clean-up following the special event may be required. Any letter of credit, bond or cash retainer must be irrevocable for a period of 30 days after the completion of the event. The letter of credit, bond or cash retainer will be released by the county as soon as possible after the event, after determination that the site has been adequately cleaned-up and restored from any impacts of the event. If the county has not made a determination on retention or return of the guarantee within 30 days following the event, said guarantee will be returned to the applicant.

P.   Structures and facilities shall be designed and located on the site and the site shall be maintained so as to insure:

1.  Trees, underbrush, large rocks and other natural features are left intact and undisturbed.

2.  Natural vegetative cover is retained, protected and maintained so as to facilitate drainage, prevent erosion and preserve scenic attributes.

Q. For special events that involve exotic animals, including but not limited to circuses, carnivals, fairs, exhibitions, races, displays, educational seminars or performances, the Community Development Director may impose as a condition of permit approval reasonable conditions the Community Development Director deems necessary or appropriate to protect the health, safety and welfare of the animals, the permit holder, those persons conducting the special event, the special event attendees, and the general public. This section 7.7.Q shall not apply to special events involving only livestock, domestic animals or wildlife sanctuaries licensed by the division of wildlife. The Community Development Director may consult the humane society or other animal welfare agencies or organizations in determining necessary and appropriate conditions.

R. A description of the surface material of the parking area and a method-plan for handling traffic in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Colorado Supplement.

 

S.   Insurance in an amount determined to be adequate and reasonable in light of the risks and hazards relating to the special event. Applicant may also be required to purchase search and rescue (SAR) cards for some or all persons participating in the special event.

7.8. - COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REGULATIONS

A. Special events shall occur or operate in compliance with the provision of this section 7 and all applicable provisions and regulations of Larimer County and applicable state and federal statutes and regulations.

B. Issuance of a special event permit shall not relieve the landowner or applicant of the responsibility for securing other permits or approvals required by the planning department, the building department, department of health and environment, the fire district or other department or agency of Larimer County or other public agency.

 

7.9. - SITE CLEAN UP AND RESTORATION

Within 48 hours of cessation of the event, the special event site shall be returned to its previous condition, including removal of all buildings and structure s , trash, debris, signage, attention-attracting devices or other evidence of the special event.

7.10. - ENFORCEMENT

A. Inspections:  The County or its representatives may enter and inspect the special event site from time to time to ensure compliance with the special event permit conditions and to enforce the provisions of this section.

B. Permit available: The special event permit issued by the county must be available for inspection on the special event site at all times during the event.

C. Suspension and revocation of permit: The Community Development Director may suspend or revoke a special event permit for violation of any provision of this section 7 or any other applicable law, rule or regulation, for violation of the permit conditions, or for any misrepresentation by the applicant, his agents or employees or independent contractors under contract with the applicant. The decision of the Community Development Director to suspend or revoke a special event permit may be appealed to the board of county commissioners. No event shall occur while a suspension or revocation appeal is pending except as authorized by the Community Development Director . By signing the application, the applicant agrees that the Larimer County Sheriff may enter the special event site and cause the special event to be stopped upon suspension or revocation of the special event permit.\

D. Letter of credit or cash: Upon breach of the terms and conditions for which the letter of credit, cash or other guarantees are provided pursuant to [subsection] 7.7.O, the county may undertake to cure such breach, perform such condition, or cause such condition to be performed by another and may use the proceeds of the guarantee to recoup its costs.

E.   Additional remedies: Failure to comply with this section 7 or with the special event permit conditions is a violation of this land use code for which the county is entitled to pursue and seek the remedies and penalties set out in   section 21.2 of this Code

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Dougherty, Wallace and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

Commissioner Miller voted against 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 9:54 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.

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Scott Glick, Chairman                                                Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A 

 

 

NE OF NW & NW OF NW 4-8-69; EX RD, LESS 1577-803

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

Lot 1:

A tract of land situate in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the East line of said Northeast 1/4 as bearing N00 ° 33'00"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears N00 ° 33'00"E 901.45 feet, and again N88°14'54"W 50.01 feet from the East 1/4 Corner of said Section 21, and run thence N88°14'54"W 37.35 feet; thence S81 °32'19"W 363.27 feet; thence S79°26'53"W 589.74 feet; thence S83°38'43"W 93.56 feet, thence N86°48'42"W 89.05 feet; thence N60 ° 25'08"W 66.28 feet; thence N27°14'03"W 94.44 feet; thence N06°12'37"W 145.05 feet; thence N17°36'04"W 128.72 feet; thence N38°34'51 W 48.63 feet; thence S89°27'00"E 1346.50 feet; thence S00 °33'OO"W 242.97 feet to the point of beginning, containing 10.0000 acres, more or less.

 

Lot 2:

A tract of land situate in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the East line of said Northeast 114 as bearing N00 ° 33'OO"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears N00 ° 33'OO"E 901.45 feet, and again N88°14'54"W 50.01 feet, and again N00 °33'OO"E 242.97 feet from the East 1/4 Corner of said Section 21, and run thence N89°27'00"W 1346.50 feet; thence N38°34'51 "W 34.08 feet; thence N56°20'22"W 49.07 feet; thence N48°44'35"E 355.50 feet; thence N00 °25'51 "E 1 06.64 feet; thence N85°24'15"E 1108.82 feet; thence S89°27'00"E 40.00 feet; thence S00 ° 33'OO"W 496.32 feet to the point of beginning, containing 12.7767 acres, more or less.

 

Lot 3:

A tract of land situate in the Northeast 114 of Section 21, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the East line of said Northeast 1/4 as bearing N00 ° 33'OO"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears N00 ° 33'OO"E 901.45 feet, and again N88°14'54"W 50.01 feet, and again N00 °33'OO"E 739.29 feet from the East 1/4 Corner of said Section 21, and run thence N89°27'00"W 40.00 feet; thence S85°24'15"W 548.20 feet; thence N00 °33'OO"E 877.33 feet; thence N71°00'00"W 326.20 feet; thence N00 ° 33'00"E 40.00 feet; thence S89°44'51"E 382.62 feet; thence along the arc of a 510.16 foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 804.01 feet, whose central angle is 90°17'51 ", the long chord of which

bears S44°35'56"E 723.35 feet; thence S00 ° 33'00"W 463.23 feet to the point of beginning, containing 12.7767 acres, more or less.

 

Lot 4:

A tract of land situate in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the East line of said Northeast 1/4 as bearing N00 ° 33'OO"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears N00 ° 33'OO"E 901.45 feet, and again N88°14'54"W 50.01 feet, and again N00 °33'00"E 739.29 feet, and again N89°27'00"W 40.00 feet, and again S85°24'15"W 548.20 feet from the East 1/4 Corner of said Section 21, and run then thence S85°24'15"W 560.61 feet; thenceN00"25'51 "E 1069.54 feet; thence S89°44'51 "E 251.15 feet; thence S00 ° 33'00"W 40.00 feet; thence S71 °00'00"E 326.20 feet; thence S00 ° 33'OO"W 877.33 feet to the point of beginning, containing 12.7767 acres, more or less.