LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

 Minutes of June 20, 2018

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Christman, Jensen, and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Caraway phoned in.  Commissioner Dougherty presided as Chairman.  Commissioners’ Cox, Gerrard, Lucas and Miller were absent.  Also present were Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director, Lesli Ellis, Community Development Director, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Rebecca Smith, Planner I,  Clint Jones, Engineering Department, Lea Schneider, Health Department, and Deb Johnson, Recording Secretary. 

 

The Planning Commission went on a site visit to Ten Bears Winery Special Review, Integrated Water rezoning, Riverview RV Park Special Review, Xcel Energy Location & Extent, Hillkins Subdivision, and Covey Rezoning. 

 

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 MAY 16, 2018 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Jensen to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Caraway.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

 

AMMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  Chairman Dougherty explained the Consent Agenda items and asked for a show of hands if anyone in the audience would like to speak against any of the Consent items on the Agenda. MOTION by Commissioner Wallace to move The Ten Bears Winery Amended Special Review, file #18-ZONE22334 and Integrated Water Services Rezoning, file #17-ZONE2286 to full hearing items, seconded by Commissioner Christman.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3 RIVERVIEW RV PARK SPECIAL REVIEW #18-ZONE2324:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for Review of a RV Park part existing non-conforming and part existing without County approval.  Request is to review and approve the existing park of 159 spaces and adding up to 10-12 spaces And Appeal to section 8.6.3.C Larimer County Land Use Code – internal roadway paving.  Located at 7808 W Highway 34, south of Hwy 34 and the Big Thompson River at CR 27, the Big Thompson School.  

  

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Commissioner Jensen asked Mr. Helmick to explain about section 8.1.1-Sewage Disposal Level of Service Standards to conform with zoning.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that the sewer system needs to be fixed, but he also needs to know how many spaces he is allowed in order to do so.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked Mr. Helmick to explain about section 8.1.4 RV Parks are allowed long term and short term as an RV regulation in our code.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that as an RV park any limitation on length of occupancy is not stated, so a number of occupants are permanent.  This is different from an RV that one owns and puts on a vacant lot.  It is only allowed for 180 days.

 

Commissioner Jensen stated that this is also different from short term rental regulations because it is an RV Park.

 

Mr. Helmick agreed.

 

Commissioner Wallace moved that the planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Riverview RV Park Special Review, file #18-ZONE2324 and approve the appeal to section 8.6.3.c of the Larimer County Land Use Code – internal roadway paving for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, 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 Riverview RV Park Special Review file # 18-ZONE2324 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 Riverview RV Park Special Review file.

 

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. No expansion of the number of site or relocation of site can occur until the applicant has obtained and permitted the installation of the new wastewater treatment system.

 

9. The applicant shall provide an agreement with Sylvandale Ranch for emergency access no later than 90 days after the Board of County Commissioners action on this request. 

 

10. The applicant shall develop and provide for review an emergency /evacuation plan for the park.  This plan shall be provided no later than 90 days after the Board of County Commissioners action on this request and shall be reviewed and approved by the LFRA and County staff.

 

11. The applicant shall provide a weight limit for the bridge at Hwy 34 and the site shall then be signed.

 

12. A Floodplain Development Permit will be required for work within the floodplain.  All floodplain regulations will apply.

 

13. A Development Construction permit will be required for site improvements.

 

14. Transportation Capitol Expansion Fees will need to be paid within 90 days after the Board of County Commissioners sign the findings and resolution.

 

Commissioner Christman seconded the Motion.

 

DISCUSSION :

 

Mr. Jensen asked if Mr. Youree was aware of the additional conditions.

 

Mr. Youree replied yes.

 

MOTION PASSED: 5-0

 

 

ITEM #4 XCEL ENERGY LOCATION & EXTENT COBB LAKE SUBSTATION #18-ZONE2360:   Ms. Smith provided background information on the request for a Location & Extent for a proposed 120 foot monopole for Xcel Energy to enhance their Field Area Network (FAN).  Located at 1231 N County Road 5, situated south of E County Road 50, north of E County Road 48, and west of N County Road 5 located at 1231 N County Road 5.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Commissioner Jensen stated that this is a Location & Extent application and there for the Planning Commission here tonight has the final say on this application.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that a Communication Tower usually comes to us in the form of an administrative approval or a Minor Special Review.  This application is different in this tower is for utility and not a communication tower.

 

Commissioner Wallace moved that the planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the XCEL Energy Location & Extent Cobb Lake Substation, file #18-ZONE2360, for the property located at 1231 N. County Road 5, situated south of E County Road 50, north of E County Road 48, and west of N County Road 5 located at 1231 N County Road 5.

 

Commissioner Christman seconded the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 5-0

 

 

ITEM #5 HILLKINS SUBDIVISION #17-LAND3623:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for A) Preliminary and Final Plat of a Subdivision to divide a 14.29-acre parcel zoned FA-1 – Farming into two lots; and B) Appeal to Section 8.14.1.R (Connectivity) of the Land Use Code.  Located at 208 S. County Road 5, Fort Collins; Located east of County Road 5 approximately 0.25 miles north of the intersection of County Road 5 and Highway 14 feet.  The proposed lot sizes are 8.88 acres and 5.41 acres.  The property is currently undeveloped. The property is Lot 2 of the Poudre Equestrian Center Minor Land Division.  A condition of approval of the Minor Land Division reads: “Lot 2 of the Poudre Equestrian Center Minor Land Division shall remain undeveloped.  No building permits will be accepted until such time as a development review application is approved and/or recorded for a new principal use.  This note shall be added to the Final Plat for the Poudre Equestrian Minor Land Division.” The two lots will share a single access drive onto County Road 5.  That access will be contained within a 40-foot wide access easement. The property is within the Boxelder Sanitation District service area.  The application has requested to allow the lots within the subdivision to be served by on-site septic systems rather than extend the public wastewater system to the property.  

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Chairman Dougherty asked if the Applicant would like to speak at this time.

 

The Applicant, Dave Deakins stated that this request is keeping with the agricultural character of the existing area and that he would like to thank the Larimer County staff for all their hard work.

 

Commissioner Jenson asked Mr. Whitley to explain the usual connectivity requirement and why this appeal meets staff approval.

 

Mr. Whitley replied that Section 8.14.1.R (Connectivity) of the Land Use Code reads:  All land divisions must be designed to permit the continuation of streets, roads, trails, pedestrian access, utilities and drainage facilities into adjacent property. The connection must provide a logical, safe and convenient circulation link for vehicular, bicycle and/or pedestrian traffic with existing or planned circulation routes to allow a neighborhood traffic circulation system and to improve emergency and service access. Particular attention must be given to access to destinations such as schools, parks and business or commercial centers.  The purpose of the connectivity requirement is to provide opportunities for the continuation of roads and pedestrian connections to adjacent properties when it makes sense to do so. If more than one new lot was proposed, the Development Services Team would have advocated for the dedication of a new public road to serve the lots and to provide an opportunity for the continuation of a public road to the east. Given that no new roads are required for the division of this property to create one additional lot, the Development Services Team approval of the appeal to not require connectivity would not subvert the purpose of the requirement and that the property owner did not want connectivity.

Commissioner Wallace moved that the planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Hillkins Subdivision, file #17-LAND3623, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:  (A) 1-5 and recommend approval to the appeal to section 8.14.1.R (Connectivity) of the Land Use Code subject to the following condition:  (B) 1 .

 

A)

1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Hillkins Subdivision, File #17-LAND3623 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 Hillkins Subdivision.

 

2. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  (School District Name) 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. The Poudre Fire Authority has provided two options regarding fire protection: 1) A hydrant can be installed at the fork in the driveway to serve both residences and home homes will not be required to be equipped with fire sprinkler systems or 2) A hydrant can be installed at County Road 5 if both residences are designed with an approve 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.

 

B)

1.   The Development Services Team recommends approval of the appeal to Section 8.14.1.R (connectivity) of the Land Use Code.

 

 

Commissioner Jenson seconded the Motion

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

 

Philip Kaspar stated that he was the neighbor and owner of the arena property next door and he wanted access for emergency vehicles.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that we have already had a motion of approval and if Mr. Kaspar would talk with staff on how to amend his request.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-0

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #6 COVEY REZONING #18-ZONE2313:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for Rezoning of approximately 20.6 acres of a 35.05 acre parcel from FO – Forestry to O – Open. The balance of the property is already zoned O – Open.  Located at 2661 W. County Road 64, Fort Collins; located on the south side of County Road 64 approximately one half mile west of the intersection of County Road 64 and County Road 19/Taft Hill Road.  The property currently contains a single-family home, detached garage, a metal accessory building and two loafing sheds. In 1973 the Board of County Commissioners approved a rezoning of approximately 320 acres (the East half of Section 33, Township 9 North, Range 69 West) from O – Open to FO – Forestry.  That approval rezoned the majority of the subject property but left the balance of the property zoned O – Open. The minimum lot size in the O - Open zoning district is 10 acres.  The minimum lot size for single-family development is 5 acres in the FO – Forestry zoning district. Based on information in the 1973 case file, the intent was to subdivide the 320 acres into single-family lots smaller than 10 acres each.  The current property owners would like to pursue approval for a Community Hall on their property. The preferred location of Community Hall building is on the portion of the property zoned FO – Forestry.  The Land Use Code defines a Community Hall as, “A facility used for recreational, social and cultural activities.”  Community Halls are allowed in the O - Open zoning district through the Special Review process if the indoor facility is larger than 2,000 square feet and/or if the outdoor recreation area exceeds 5,000 square feet.  Community Halls are not allowed in the FO - Forestry zoning district.  If the rezoning is approved, the property owners intend to submit a Special Review application.  If the rezoning is denied, the property owners could pursue Special Review approval if the Community Hall use was fully located on the portion of the property zoned O – Open or the property owners could submit a Special Exception.  A Special Exception is the process that can be utilized to seek approval for a use that is not allowed by a property’s zoning district.

Mr. Whitley stated that the property owners completed a Sketch Plan Review for the proposed Community Hall and they held a neighborhood meeting on March 27, 2018.  While a number of concerns have been raised about the proposed Community Hall, there have been few comments regarding the rezoning.  Concerns regarding the Community Hall will be addressed with a future Special Review or Special Exception application.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that t he Development Services Team recommends approval of the Covey Rezoning, File #18-ZONE2313 from FO – Forestry to O – Open.  It meets the following criteria:

A.   proposed change is consistent with the Master Plan;

 

The Larimer County Master Plan classifies properties inside of Growth Management Areas as Urban Lands and classifies properties outside of Growth Management Areas as Rural Lands. The subject property is not in a Growth Management Area.

 

Rural Land Use Principle LU-4-s2 from the Master Plan reads, “Changes in existing zoning shall be approved only when the change supports rural uses and maintains the open character of the rural areas.”

 

The majority of the Rural Lands in unincorporated Larimer County are zoned O –Open and the use of those properties consistent with the Open zoning regulations would be considered to support rural uses and maintaining the open character of the rural areas.

 

            The proposal meets this criterion.

B. The proposed change is compatible with existing and allowed uses on properties in the neighborhood and is the appropriate zoning for the property;

 

While there are parcels that are zoned FO – Forestry and parcels zoned O – Open in the vicinity, the subject parcel is the only one that is split by the two zoning districts.

 

One parcel having two different zoning districts can create difficulties when the two districts allow different land uses or have different setbacks or minimum lot sizes.

 

The majority of the properties in the vicinity are zoned O – Open. Rezoning the 20.6 acres of the subject property to Open would be compatible with existing and allowed uses on properties in the neighborhood and would be the appropriate zoning for the

property.

 

            The proposal meets this criterion.

C. Conditions in the neighborhood have changed to the extent that the proposed change is necessary;

 

Based on information in the 1973 case file, the purpose of rezoning of this and other properties in the vicinity was to allow for the subdivision of the properties into lots smaller than 10 acres.

 

What has changed since 1973 is that the 320 acres that were rezoned were not further divided into lots smaller than 10 acres. Given the lack of desire among property owners to divide these parcels, the zoning could be considered to be obsolete.

 

In addition, the land use regulations have changed. Until 2000, Community Halls were a use by right in both the O – Open and FO – Forestry zoning districts. As previously mentioned, Community Halls are no longer allowed in the FO – Forestry zoning district.

 

            The proposal complies with this criterion.

D. The proposed change does not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;

 

The proposed change would not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.

            The proposal meets this criterion.

E. The proposed change addresses a community need;

 

The property owners believe that there is a demand for Community Hall services in the area. Rezoning the property would allow the property owners to pursue Special Review approval with the goal of establishing a Community Hall to fill that need.

 

The proposal meets this criterion.

 

F. The proposed change results in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood;

 

Given the pattern of zoning in the area (see the vicinity map), the proposed change would result in a logical and orderly development pattern in the neighborhood.

 

Commissioner Jenson asked Mr. Whitley to explain why community halls are no longer allowed in FO zoning.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that when the Land Use Code was adopted in 2000 it was that we not change the allowed use in any given zoning districts. Until 2000, Community Halls were a use by right in both the O – Open and FO – Forestry zoning districts.  As previously mentioned, Community Halls are no longer allowed in the FO – Forestry zoning district.  He thinks it was an error

Mr. Lafferty stated that the only other thing that changed was that it went from a use by right to a use by special review in the O-Open district.

Commissioner Wallace asked why was the Forestry zone changed from O-Open to Forestry on this half of the section

Mr. Whitley replied based on information in the 1973 case file, the purpose of rezoning of this and other properties in the vicinity was to allow for the subdivision of the properties into lots smaller than 10 acres.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Jay Altman stated that he was an adjacent property owner and is concerned about the event center they are planning for this property after the rezoning.  An event center will change the character of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Dougherty stated that this is a hearing for the rezoning only.  If in the future there is an application for a community hall, there will be another hearing on that.

Julie Rohloff stated that she is the neighbor to the east side of the zoning change.  She said she is in disagreement with County staff regarding the criteria A, B, and C.

Russell Rohloff addressed criteria E and F and is in disagreement with County staff.

Dean Degroot stated that he is the property owner to the west and asked why is this property being rezoned O-Open when it is commercial.  He stated there is no need for this rezoning.

Joyce Leflet, the applicant, stated that she appreciates the concerns of her neighbors but she was advised by staff to rezone this property.

 

DISCUSSION: 

Commissioner Jensen asked Mr. Whitley to address some of Mr. Degroot’s questions.

Mr. Whitley replied by saying that a community hall is allowed in the Open zoning through the special review process and does not require it to be in a commercial zoning.  He stated that there is 320 acres of forestry zoning in the area, but it was the exception not the rule.  Prior to 1973 this property was zoned Open.  To the north of this property and to the west of this property, it is zoned Open and this is the prevailing pattern. 

Mr. Lafferty added that on page 220 of your packet under Review Criteria and Analysis it states that County Commissioners must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable.

Commissioner Dougherty asked Mr. Whitley if an accessory use like a metal fabrication could also be construed as an accessory use like raising livestock or boarding horses.

Mr. Whitley agreed.

Commissioner Jenson moved that the planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Covey Rezoning, file #18-ZONE2313, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, subject to a request to rezone 20.6 acres of the subject property from FO – Forestry to O – Open.

Commissioner Christman seconded the motion.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0

 

ITEM #1 TEN BEARS WINERY AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #18-ZONE2334:   Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a n appeal to allow an onsite water supply of a cistern to be used for a value added agricultural use.  The appeal is to Section 8.1.2 –Domestic Water Level of Service - of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Located at 5215 Ten Bears Court, LaPorte, CO At the intersection of CR 23 E and CR 56.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Commissioner Christman asked if the applicant grew their own grapes would they still need this amended special review.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that if they grew all their own grapes all the time and it is a agricultural use by right.

 

Mr. Jensen asked if there is a separation between grapes and juice.

 

Mr. Helmick replied no.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

 

Betty Wilmoth asked for clarification on tasting and retail sales and location and size of cistern.

 

Chetana White stated her concern about traffic on the dirt roads and number of events.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked Mr. Helmick to address these concerns.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that all water is hauled and treated to meet the Health Department standards.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the cistern is an approved water container on a trailer.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the applicant is keeping within the 20 trips per day and will not require any more treatment or maintenance to the roads. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the original application did indicate (10) Special Events, but after reviewing comments from the Engineering and Health departments the applicant scaled back to the (3) Special Events that is allowed under the Special Event permit process.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked for a definition of a Special Event.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that a Special Event as defined and allowed under Section 7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code states that any event that is not for personal use.  He further stated we are not asking for approval of Special Events with this application.  The applicant would need to apply through the Special Event 60 day process if they wanted a Special Event.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if retail sales and tastings are they governed by liquor licensing authorities.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that they are governed by liquor licensing authorities and the Health Department.

 

Ms. Schneider confirmed that food service is very limited.  The cistern water is from the City of Fort Collins and is a 200 gallon cistern and is just for the making of the wine, and does not provide irrigation.  The retail sales is just packaged wine.

 

Mr. Conkling, the applicant, stated that the water is not used in the wine making process, just grapes.  He confirmed that the 200 gallon cistern is just for cleaning and only uses about 11 gallons a day.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked for clarification on the wine tastings.

 

Mr. Conkling stated that currently we have only had private wine tastings and we are trying to do public wine tastings.  The wine tasting involves the people coming and we serve wine outside on the patio.  They can then buy our packaged wine.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked for clarification of his (3) Special Events per year.

 

Mr. Conkling stated that the harvest party and maybe 1 to 2 weddings per year with a max of 100 – 150 people.

 

Commissioner Caraway asked for clarification on the additional traffic.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that it may add trips but are within the agriculture use by right regulations. 

 

Commissioner Jensen asked for clarification of retail sales.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that it is the sale of wine and maybe t-shirts or a wine glass.

 

Commissioner Wallace moved that the planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of The Ten Bears Winery Amended Special Review, file #18-ZONE2334, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes 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 Ten Bears Winery Amended Special Review file # 18-ZONE2334 except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Ten Bears Winery Amended Special Review file # 18-ZONE2334

 

3. Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners

 

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

 

5. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

6. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

 

7. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

8. The applicant shall obtain any and all necessary State and Federal permits for the use, 

 

9. Any event at this site which exceeds the use in this approval shall be required to apply for and receive approval of a Special Event as defined and allowed under Section 7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Christman seconded the Motion.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0

 

ITEM #2 INTEGRATED WATER SERVICES REZONING #17-ZONE2286:   Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a Sketch Plan Review to rezone a 2.09 acre lot from B-business to C-Commercial.  Located at 1208 Poplar in Kelim south of Hwy 344 ¼ mile west of the Weld county line.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Commissioner Jensen asked why The Town of Johnstown did not annex this property.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that it is his understanding that Johnstown only annexed the large properties for developments.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that the Town of Johnstown can’t just come in and annex property that did not want to be annexed.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

 

Kara Einfalt stated that she is concerned about fires, traffic and what kind of commercial use is going in there. Does the 20 trip rule apply to everyone.

 

Dave Einfalt stated that he was offended by the way Kelim is being referred to.  He is also concerned with the increase of traffic.

 

Barbara Ziesche stated concerns about the environmental impact.  She has concerns about traffic, noise and asked what are the future plans for this property.

 

Robert Mies asked how did this property get approval for 2 residential homes.  He is concerned about the water table and zoning concerns.

 

Shannon Mclaughlin will be purchasing this property.  He stated that he is planning to put a small electrical company on this property with 10 employees.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked if the front house would be raised.

 

Mr. Mclaughlin stated that the foundation might be beyond repair.

 

Commissioner Christman asked if he has a contract to purchase this property.

 

Mr. Mclaughlin replied yes.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked Mr. Helmick what is the impact of changing this from B-Business to C-Commercial.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the Commercial zoning would allow for trade uses.  B- Business is more for retail zoning.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated Community Hall, Bar, Tavern, Clinic, and Car wash are some of these uses.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that there is not a current use of this property.  Any use will have to go through a Site Plan Review process.

 

Commissioner Jensen stated that the site plan review process would be administrative.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that yes on the administrative process, but road conditions and sanitation would be part of that process and if improvements needed to be done, it would be up to the applicant to do so.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that there is not much information in the file regarding the second home on the property.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked if the neighbors would be notified and have a chance for public comment in the Site Plan Review process.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that in the administrative process there is no public comment.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if there is a limit of employees or trips.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that development standards would dictate.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that we did visit this site today and wanted to make the neighbors know that it was a unique neighborhood and that the properties were very well cared for.

 

Commissioner Wallace moved that the planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Integrated Water Services Rezoning, file # 17-ZONE2286, for the property described on “Exhibit E” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Any change of use of this site will require Site Plan Review approval.

 

Commissioner Jensen seconded the Motion .

MOTION PASSED: 5-0

 

Commissioner Dougherty wanted to thank Commissioner Chirstman and Commissioner Cox for their service.

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:

 

  Mr. Lafferty also wanted to thank both Commisioners for their service on behalf of the County. 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that the Mon Cheri Special Review and Rezoning was approved by the Board of County Commissioners.  They approved the rezoning to Business and they did approve the Special Events Facility with a 2-1 vote. They are allowing (7) weddings with no amplified noise.  The Timberline Resources Special Review was also approved with a 2-1 vote with additional conditions that would mandate that trucks move north on Overland Trail and then immediately east onto highway 287 and the applicant be required to agree to work with any adjacent gravel pits that may subsequently be approved by the County in order to consolidate access, and that the applicant be required to move their access directly onto highway 287.

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:47 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.

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Sean Dougherty, Chairman                                         Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E XHIBIT A 

 

BEG ON SRLY ROW HWY 34 S 29 26' 30" E 1722.63 FT FROM NW COR 12-5-70, TH LEAV SD ROW S 36 13' E 70.36 FT, S 5 15' E 50 FT TO APPROX C/L BIG THOMPSON RIVER, TH ALG SD C/L SERLY TO PT S 64 17' E 1218.23 FT, TH LEAV SD C/L S 1 33' E 336.81 FT, S 43 56' W 364

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

LOT 2, POUDRE EQUESTRIAN CENTER MLD (20050082068)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

BEG AT PT ON N LN WH BEARS S 89 30' E 2105.51 FT FROM NW COR, S 89 30' E 412 FT TO SE BANK CANAL, TH ALG SD BANK S 60 5' 27" E 446.3 FT, S 57 25' 4" E 324.3 FT, S 45 27' 4" E 165.83 FT, S 30 14' 41" E 173 FT, S 11 44' 53" E 155.77 FT, S 9 51' 45" W 154.68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT E

 

BEG AT CEN OF NE 1/4 13-5-68 FROM WH PT NE COR OF W 1/2 OF NE 1/4 BEARS N 0 0' 40" E 1326.6 FT, N 89 48' 50" W ALG LN OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 330 FT, N 0 0' 40" E 221.3 FT TPOB, N 0 0' 40" E 360 FT, S 89 48' 50" E 150 FT, S 0 0' 40" W 80 FT, S 89 48' 50"E 180