LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of August 19, 2015

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, August 19, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Christman, Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Miller, and Wallace were present.  Commissioners’ Gerrard and Zitti were absent.  Commissioner Jensen presided as Chairman.  Also present were Terry Gilbert, Community Development Division Director, Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Tracy Shambo, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary. 

 

The Planning Commission went on a site visit to Molesworth PLD/PD, Colorado Aronia Project Special Review and Hilgenberg/SASS Special Review.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:  

None.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JULY 15, 2015 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Wallace to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Cox.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Mr. Lafferty stated that Item #3 Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Vision for Big Thompson was not properly noticed; as a result, the item would be removed and heard at a later date.  MOTION by Commissioner Dougherty to remove Item #3 Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Vision for Big Thompson , seconded by Commissioner Miller.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  SALVATION ARMY AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW  #15-Z1971:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for amendments to the Salvation Army Special Review (File #Z-21-87) and Longs Peak Inn Special Review (File #92-ZR0196) to allow for approved buildings and facilities to be replaced and/or relocated on the property and to allow new buildings and recreational facilities. The subject property was located at 61 Gillette Drive and 6925 Highway 7, Estes Park; located west and north of the intersection of Highway 7 & Preservation Drive.

 

Commissioner Christman asked if there were any comments from the surrounding neighbors.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that the Tahosa Valley commented and did not object to the proposal.  No other comments were received.

 

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 the Salvation Army Amended Special Review, file #15-Z1971, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes subject to the following conditions:

           

1.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Salvation Army Amended Special Review, File #15-Z1971 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 Salvation Army Amended Special Review.

 

2.   The maximum future build-out of the property shall be limited to 137,557 square feet of buildings and a maximum camp capacity of 566. 

 

3.   Prior to the issuance of building permits for new structures, a Site Plan Review is required to evaluate items such as building placement, erosion control, the provision of adequate water and sewer, traffic impacts and compliance with the approved cumulative square footage of buildings, developed outdoor recreation areas and bed capacity.

 

4.    The Salvation Army shall develop a utility master plan addressing sewage disposal and domestic water service.  Adequate sewage disposal and domestic water service must be provided for proposed facilities prior to the issuance of permits for those facilities.

 

5.   Salvation Army shall create and implement a forest management plan for the entire property that addresses wildfire mitigation no later than December 31, 2015.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Commissioner Glick  seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #2  MOLESWORTH PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #15-S3285:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a rezoning to Planned Development and a combined Preliminary and Final Planned Land Division of an 18.72-acre parcel into two single-family residential lots, which was located at  3375 S. Garfield Avenue, Loveland; located west of S. Garfield Road approximately 1,100 feet south of County Road 16.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.1.R of the Land Use Code regarding connectivity and an appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.4 of the Land Use Code to utilize on-site sewage treatment systems in a Growth Management Area.

 

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 the Molesworth Planned Land Division and appeals to Sections 8.14.1.R and 8.1.1.B.4, file #15-S3285, 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 Molesworth Planned Development/Planned Land Division, File 15-S3285 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 Molesworth Planned Development/Planned Land Division.

 

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

 

 

3.   There are two fire hydrants in the vicinity of the Molesworth Planned Land Division. If all parts of a residential structure are not within 600 feet of a fire hydrant (measured as a hose would be deployed from fire apparatus), an NFPA 13D residential fire-sprinkler system will be required. 

 

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  Glick seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Miller, Wallace, and Chairman Jensen 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 the Molesworth rezoning from R-1 – Residential to PD - Planned Development, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the final plat of Molesworth Planned Land Division.

 

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

 

      Principal uses:

      Agricultural

              1. Apiary (R)

              Residential

              2. Group home (R)

              3. Group home for the aged (R)

 

 

              4. Group home for the developmentally disabled (R)

              5. Group home for the mentally ill (R)

              6. Single-family dwelling (R)

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

Institutional

              8. Child/elderly care center (S)

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

              10. Congregate residence (S)

              11. Hospital (S)

              12. School, nonpublic (S)

              13. State-licensed group home (S)

              Accommodation

              14. Nursing home (S)

              Utilities

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

              Industrial

              16. Oil and gas drilling and production (R)

              17. Small solar facility (R/PSP)

              B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

              1. Minimum lot size:

              a. 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

              b. 21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) if public water and sewer are used.

              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 20        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 yards—Seven feet.

              c. Rear yards—25 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 on             a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection  4.3.10.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4  HILGENBERG/SASS SPECIAL REVIEW  #15-Z1953:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for Special Review of a shooting range for single action sport shooting located off the north end of CR5J west of I-25.  The proposal was for a not for profit shooting range operated as a structured Cowboy Action Shoot under the rules of the Single Action Shooting Society (SASS).  The shoots would typically occur on Saturdays from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm with up to 23-50 individuals and up to 25 events per year in fair weather circumstances.  Mr. Helmick noted that the site of the shooting range had been amended by the applicant and moved farther south on the site away from the residences in the area.  In addition, a noise study had been completed, which showed that the use could be operated under the technical standards of the Larimer County noise ordinance.  

 

 PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Pamela Russell, owner adjacent to the subject site, stated that they did not have a residence on the property; as a result, they did not have any issue with the noise.  She stated that the applicant was responsible and a good neighbor, and they were in favor of the proposal.

 

Robyn Oneill, owned property closest to the north of the proposal.  She noted some discrepancies between the staff report and the applicant’s project description.  First, she did not believe that the shooting range was for family and friends as stated but was a competitive shooting club.  She also believed that fees were collected for the shootouts.  She mentioned that the Burlington Northern Railroad Public Affairs Director asked to be notified if the project moved forward, and she did not know if that had occurred.  She explained that there were switching stations to the north and tankers would sit on the tracks for hours at a time, which was a cause for concern.  She stated that the noise study readings were taken off of single shots and pointed out that over the years it had been a competitive shootout with multiple rounds that went on for hours.  She stated that the noise affected their lives as well as the animals on the property.  She wondered if the site should be rezoned and asked that the proposal not be approved.

 

Commissioner Miller asked if there were acceptable conditions that would help ease her concerns.

 

Ms. Oneill stated that she believed the application should go through a rezoning.

 

Commissioner Cox pointed out that the applicant was proposing to move the shooting site further away from her residence.

 

Ms. Oneill stated that it was proposed to be across from her horse pasture.  She also stated that the berms at the new site were lower.  She reiterated that it seemed the site would be for a business even though it stated it was not for profit.

 

Commissioner Miller asked how many times the range was used in the last two years.

 

Ms. Oneill felt that the range was used more than what was portrayed in the staff report.

 

 

 

 

Barbara Ashley, stated that she was a friend that watched the competition.  She stated that about a year ago it was a club but it was no longer.  There were no members or no fees but a small donation for the toilets, land maintenance, etc. was asked for.  She stated that the applicants had listened to the concerns and moved the range to help with those concerns. 

 

Scott Miller, Wellington resident who spent time at the Oneill residence, wanted to speak regarding nuisance laws of Colorado and stated that it was a nuisance to the landowners.

 

Russ Pickering, stated that he completed the noise study and explained how it was conducted.  He explained that during the shoots there were 2-3 groups with one person per group shooting at a time.  There were also different types of guns used that omitted different noise levels, and as a result, the study used 3 types of guns that omitted 3 different noise levels.  He stated that the current site of the shooting range had a noise level of 73 decibels.  When the test was performed from the new, proposed site using the 3 shooters and 3 different guns, the maximum noise heard was 53.7 decibels with an average of 39.8 decibels.  He explained that the study was conducted to simulate a shooting match that would typically occur on the site. 

 

Anthony DeTomasi, was constructing a home near the site and stated that he never received notice of the project.  He stated that it was a major concern for the neighbors.  He read a passage from Mr. Hamill, a neighbor to the proposal, outlining many concerns.  He wondered who would monitor the site, who would make sure they were using the type of guns stated, etc..

 

Mr. Helmick stated that no further comments were received from Burlington Northern Railroad.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that a noise study was completed at the current site and the new proposed site.   The noise level at the new site was at around 55 decibels, which was the daytime noise level at residential property line for the Larimer County Noise Ordinance. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if it made a difference whether the range was not for profit or for profit.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the Land Use Code did not specify whether a shooting range was for profit or not for profit.    

 

Commissioner Cox asked how they could ensure that the shooting range stayed SASS and wondered if a condition of approval should be added.  She thought that there should be a requirement restricting high powered firearms to be shot.  She also asked if there were other mitigation ideas that could be considered to help with the noise.

 

Mr. Ryan explained that the operation was being moved to the south, the shooting would be done towards the south, and single action guns were being shot.  However, if another mitigation method was proposed the most effective type would be a structural blockage that blocked the noise from the line of sight to the receiver like a heavy fence. 

 

Commissioner Cox had a concern with the railroad tracks being near the shooting site.  She felt that there should be a response or comments from the railroad and that there should have been a direct notification to the railroad.

 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that they were shooting away from the railroad.  He stated that the information was sent to Burlington Northern Railroad and no comments were received.

 

Commissioner Glick mentioned right to farm and wondered if the proposal was incompatible if the right to farm was looked at from a reverse farmers’ perspective.  He wondered what the rules of discharging a firearm from a property line were.  He also asked if there was any lead recovery plan and what would happen if that plan was not followed.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that he deferred the question to the sheriff’s office as he did not know the rules of discharging of a firearm.

 

Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant had provided a lead mitigation plan, which he outlined.

 

Mr. Pickering stated that a screen would help the sound and would have to be high enough so it would interrupt the line of sound wave.  He stated that the site would have to be revisited to determine if it could be engineered to have a fence/screening.

 

MOTION by Commissioner Miller to table the application until more information with regards to the firearm discharge distance requirements were provided.  Commissioner Cox seconded the MOTION with a Friendly Amendment that it be tabled until such a time that comments were received from Burlington Northern Railroad and discharge distance requirements were determined.  Commissioner Miller accepted the Friendly Amendment.

 

Commissioner Glick stated that those issues could be addressed before the proposal went before the County Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Miller withdrew the Motion.

 

Commissioner Glick spoke regarding the number of proposed events.  He also stated that he did not think the events should be held on back to back days, and the events should be limited to 4 hours only.  He felt that 50 participants on the site was too high and that it should be lowered to 25-30 people.  He thought those issue could help with the compatibility and stated that he would vote against the proposal if changes were not made..

 

Commissioner Christman agreed that it had affected quality of life and was not sure that moving the site would help.  She stated that she was against the proposal.

 

 Commissioner Miller stated that he had been on both sides of these types of events.  He pointed out that the types of guns used did make a difference with the noise.   He stated that he could not make a decision regarding the proposal as he needed more information.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that a shooting range was allowed in the O-Open zoning, and the applicant had tried to mitigate concerns.  He was unsure of how he would vote.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that people did many things to disrupt the noise of property and personally she would not like a shooting range next to her property.  She did not feel that it was compatible next to properties and ranches that had been there for years.

 

 

Commissioner Cox stated that she did not feel that there was enough information regarding mitigation and the railroad.  She also had a concern that it would start at 8:30 in the morning.  She stated that she would vote against the proposal.

 

Commissioner Jensen pointed out that the neighbors felt the proposal would not be compatible with the surrounding area.  He agreed and stated that he would not be able to support the proposal as presented.

 

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 denial of the Hilgenberg/SASS Special Review, file #15-Z1953, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

Commissioner Miller abstained.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

ITEM #5  COLORADO ARONIA PROJECT SPECIAL REVIEW  #15-Z1970:   Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for a Special Review for the Colorado Aronia Project at Bingham Hill Farm to include a Value-Added Agricultural Processing associated with farming aronia berries, an Agritourism Enterprise associated with farming aronia berries, a Bed & Breakfast accommodating up to 6 guests, and an appeal to Section 10.10.A.3. of the Larimer County Land Use Code to allow an off-premise sign.  The site was located on the north side of Bingham Hill Road, approximately ½ mile west of Overland Trail.  She explained that the Colorado Aronia Project was a request for Special Review to allow Value-Added Agriculture Processing and Agritourism.  Cultivation and packaging of the berries was a use by right in the FA-Farming zoning district. The aronia cultivation would take place in the areas currently being used for the existing tree farm and nursery.  The project would work at determining best practices for production and also developing and testing value added products.  She pointed out that currently on the site there was an existing residence, a tree farm and nursery, a seasonal camp, and an events center with 22 allowed events, 9 allowed outdoors.  The Value-Added Agriculture Processing (VAAP) on site would include production of products from aronia berries including dried fruit, juices, wine, jams & jellies, flavored chocolates and powdered aronia for use in health supplements, nutrition bars, cosmetics and for coloring.  The VAAP would take place in a new proposed 4000 sq. ft. building that would also be used for packaging of the product.  Some processing might also be done in the existing kitchen located in the existing multi-purpose building.

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed operations for the VAAP are described as:

§  Operated by the owner of the property.

§  Seasonal operation.

§  Will operate 5 days a week (Monday – Friday) from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

§  1 additional employee in addition to the 4 that will be employed by the farming and packing operation.

§  The uses together are anticipated to create an additional 22 trips per day during peak season (June-August).

§  Processing will be located 225 feet from the nearest property line.

§  Processing and sales facility, all outdoor storage and on-site parking will be screened from dwellings within 500 feet.

§  Virtually all activities associated with the VAAP will take place indoors.

§  Less than 50% of the product to be processed will be grown onsite.

In addition to the Special Review, the request proposed to have Agritourism associated with the farm use.  The project description stated that the Agritourism activities would include educational classes for producing and using aronia, family outings for “u-pick” opportunities, community workdays, sponsorship of charitable events and other community outreach, wine tastings, aronia themed gatherings, school field trips, farm tours and other similar activities related to aronia.

The proposed operation was proposed to be as follows:

§  Operated by the owner of the property.

§  Year round, with seasonal focus of June through August.

§  6 days a week from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the tourist season and 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. during the off-season.

§  1-2 employees during the tourist season.

§  All activities will take place more than 100 feet from a property line.

§  Traffic generation is anticipated to be approximately 18 vehicle trips/ day on weekends and 5 vehicle trips/ day during the week.  The uses together are anticipated to create an additional 22 trips per day during peak season (June-August).

Furthermore, the applicant was requesting approval of a Bed & Breakfast for up to 6 guests, to be located in the existing single family residence. 

The proposed operations for the bed and breakfast were proposed as follows:

  • Seasonal use with peak during tourist season (June-August).  7 days a week during tourist season (June-August) & Friday through Sunday off-season.
  • No additional employees needed.
  • Will utilize existing parking areas for the residence.
  • Traffic will be consistent with that of a single family residence.

Lastly, the request included an appeal to Section 10.10.A.3. (sign code) for an off-premise sign or a request for a Transit Oriented Directional Sign (TODS) to notify vendors and guests of the project location.  She mentioned that the minutes and recommendation from the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee (LAPAC) had been provided to the commissioners along with three additional neighborhood comments that were received.

 

Commissioner Christman asked if the tree farm nursery would be replaced by the arionia berries.

 

Ms. Madson replied yes.

 

Commissioner Miller asked if the sewer system was large enough to accommodate the use.

 

Mr. Ryan stated that there were currently two systems on the site, and a third system would need to be installed if the proposal went forward. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Randy Pope, applicant, explained what aronia was.  He stated that they could not have a viable business with the restrictions imposed on the current events center on the property; as a result, he  wanted to utilize his property for agriculture, which was located in the FA-Farming zoning district, and wanted to use his property that had been in his family for 50 years.  He pointed out that Larimer County was a right to farm county and that there was no one currently growing or processing aronia in Colorado.  He spoke to the many benefits it could have for the farming community and students of CSU.  He explained that there was intent to lease space to Rams Pointe Winery, which was currently a winery operating in Grand Junction, as the site would be closer for the students.   He stated that the proposed building would be approximately 4,000 feet, which could be a use by right and pointed out many other large buildings erected in the area.  He also pointed out that all uses would be indoors and that the value added processing within the building triggered the Special Review.  He discussed the number of employees that could be at the site.  He pointed out that the limits to the facility would be naturally imposed by the septic system as it would set the limits of the size of the processing.  He mentioned that the agritourism and bed and breakfast were a limited impact.  He presented a traffic analysis, which he explained.  It pointed out traffic counts according to the different uses, people using the property, and months of the year.  He stated that he did not believe that traffic generated by the proposal would be an impact to the area as it was minimal. He believed that bringing in the berries would do the county, community and his family a service.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how much of the product would be grown on site and how much would it increase in the future.

 

Mr. Pope stated 6 acres and that he did not anticipate that it would increase because they would need a processing facility.  To start, the berries would be brought in from out of state to  process and explained that in 4-5 years the fruit grown on the site would be harvestable. 

 

Commissioner Miller asked if the camps, weddings, and outdoor events would diminish as the new proposal prospered. 

 

Mr. Pope was unsure but imagined the events could go forward as they might become part of the agritourism.  He stated that they would continue the camps.  He stated that there was a group of volunteers called WWOOF that went to farms to work which brought about the bed and breakfast concept.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if CSU would be using his processing facility.

 

Mr. Pope stated that the processing facility would occur immediately.  CSU would move their wine processing from Grand Junction to the site and process within the same building.  The uses in the building would be processing, which meant cleaning, destemming and packaging for future use.  The winery was a value added processing portion of making jams, jellies, etc.  The retail portion would be a simple store front that was allowed as part of the value added processing and would be a small area where products could be sold. 

 

 

Commissioner Cox asked how long it would be before the berries were on site.

 

Mr. Pope stated that once approval occurred they would be imported immediately.  He explained that to grow the berries it would take 3 years.  He went into greater detail of how the plants grew.

 

Stephen Menkey, Professor at CSU, would be the proprietor of the Rams Pointe Winery if it moved to the proposed facility.  He stated that the proposal would benefit his students of CSU and the location worked well and was close to campus.  The current operation in Grand Junction would be moved to this leased facility with no expansion.

 

John Schmidt, 4009 Bingham Hill Road, was opposed to the project as he did not feel that it enhanced the area.  The establishment of a processing plant and retail store furthered the commercial aspect of the property.  The traffic created by the employees, retail store, events, and delivery trucks created traffic and was an adverse effect.

 

Liz Whitney, stated that her main concern was that it could open the door for larger and more events with the agritourism portion of the proposal. 

 

Joe Sullivan, 4020 Bingham Hill Road, was concerned about further expansion.  He asked if there would be the use of pesticides.

 

Lisa Ashbach, member and co-created of Bellvue Historical Foundation, stated that there were no objections from the group regarding the proposal.  The group sought other options for landowners in the area other than subdivisions.  She pointed out that it was a seasonal and occasional use.  She felt that it was important that the long time resident family be able to develop a way of life on their property.

 

Commissioner Cox asked if she lived in Bellvue.

 

She replied that she lived in Bellvue but not on Bingham Hill.

 

Joan Schmidt, stated that she had a property that bordered the applicants property.  She stated that the site had a great impact on the compatibility with the neighborhood and their lives.  She stated the criteria in Section 4.3.10.A.3 of the Land Use Code regarding value added agriculture and processing produce on site, which stated that the facility must be clearly incidental to and supportive of the dominant agricultural use on the site. When processing becomes the dominant feature on the site, the business will need to relocated to an appropriately zoned area.  She asked that the criteria be considered.

 

Mr. Pope pointed out the multiple various businesses that reside in the area.  He stated that delivery trucks were accounted for in the traffic study and that the delivery trucks had come to the site for the last 15 years due to the tree nursery.  He stated that pesticides would not be an issue.  He mentioned that if the use expanded then they understood that it would have to move. 

 

Commissioner Christman asked about the sign appeal.

 

Mr. Pope stated that the Tourist Oriented Directional Sign (TODS) would be fine and adequate. 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

Ms. Madson reiterated that the conditions of approval were based on the proposal as it was presented.  Any expansion would require additional approval.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if it was value added agriculture if the materials were being brought in.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that the Land Use Code stated that by Special Review value added agriculture could be brought in from off-site.

 

Commissioner Glick pointed out that the building would be leased by CSU and there would be a winery, which seemed liked two commercial uses.  He wondered about the traffic that could be generated from tours.

 

Ms. Shambo stated that the traffic study was meant to show traffic once the business was running.  She stated that the traffic count was taken into consideration with the other events that could occur on the site. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked how many uses were currently on the site. 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that there was the residence and tree farm, which were use by right.  The community hall and seasonal camp were approved by Special Review.  The aronia berries would replace the tree farm.

 

Commissioner Cox felt that the intent of value added agriculture and agritourism was to support the farmers.  She felt that since the growing of the berries would not occur for 3-5 years it seemed more like of a commercial operation of a winery and processing plant.  The uses on the site could be approved without knowing if the crop/agricultural aspect on the site would work. 

 

Ms. Madson stated that the way the Land Use Code was written, the application as proposed could be allowed.

 

Commissioner Cox did not feel that was the intent of the Land Use Code and there was a gap that was being exploited. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty commended Mr. Pope and felt that the proposal did fit into the neighborhood and did not inconvenience the surrounding area.  He mentioned that he was offended by a LAPAC member’s comments at their meeting regarding hiring homeless.  He felt that it worked from the agricultural standpoint and fit with value added agriculture.  He stated that he would vote to approve the application.

 

Commissioner Miller concurred and stated that he was in support.

 

Commissioner Christman concurred and supported the application.

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Glick stated that he concurred that it worked with the agricultural aspect of the area; however, he felt that there were too many uses on the property, which could increase traffic and make it incompatible.  He felt that there were not enough limits and would vote against the proposal.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the proposal fit within the agritourism outlined in the Land Use Code; however, since there were other uses currently on the site there was the potential to create an issue. 

 

Commissioner Jensen agreed with what had been said about the totality of uses on the property and the impact they all might have.  He did not see a reason to vote against it as it fit the area and the Land Use Code as written today.

 

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 approval of the Colorado Aronia Project Special Review, file #14-Z1970, 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 the Colorado Aronia Project Special Review, File #15-Z1970 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 Colorado Aronia Project Special Review.

 

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 pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) to the Larimer County Engineering Department before the use commences, or within 120 days of the recordation of the Findings and Resolution approving the Special Review, whichever occurs first.

 

9.    Expansion of the proposed Value Added Agricultural Processing, Agritourism or Bed & Breakfast uses will require additional Special Review approval.

 

10.   The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Poudre Fire Authority as outlined in the memo from Jim Lynxwiler, dated July 10, 2015. Construction of the tasting room and processing building will need further review and approval.

 

11.    The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Health Department as outlined in the memo from Doug Ryan, dated April 23, 2015.

 

Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

Commissioner Glick voted against the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-1

 

 

Commissioner Glick stated that he supported a TODS sign but not any additional signs.

 

Commissioner Dougherty agreed.

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Jensen, Chairman                                                 Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A 

 

Long's Peak Inn

Por of E2 of E2 27-4-73 & por of W2 of W2 26-4-73 beg at pt on C/Lof Columbine access Road from wh

sec cor common to Sec 26 , 27,34 &35 bears S 04D 53M E 1058 ft. th N 83D 38M 43S W 1100 ft, th N

OOD 01M 43S E 4000 .13 ft alg C/l of existing public service powerline alg Wrly to N 1n of 27-4-73, th N

89D 54M E 408.1 ft to intsec of N Sec In with Wrly ROW In of SSt. Vrain wh Rad is 517.47, a dist of

271.8 ft & wh can is S 82D 36M E of ROW intsec th S 22D 41M 52S E 200 ft, th alg a cur to R wh rad is

532.96 ft 93.02 ft, th S 12D 411'v1 52S E 1037.5 ft, th alg cur to I wh rad is 1472.4 ft 218.43, th S21D 11M

52S E 800 ft, th alg cur to R wh rad is 914.93 ft 191 .62 ft , S 09D 11M 52S E 700 ft, th alg cur to R wh rad

is 676.2 ft 377.66 ft, th S22D 48M 08S W 300 ft , th to In on cur wh rad is 517.47 ft a dist of 100.04 ft to

its intsec wi th C/l of Columbine access rd, th N 83D 38M 43S W 10.67 ft TPOB & also tr of land in S2 of

NE4 27-4-73 beg at pt wh bears SOOD47M E 740 ft from NE cor of SW40f NE4 Sec 27 & Run th N 89D

56M E 173 ft, th S 370 ft, W 663. 39 ft, N OOD 39M 35S E 369.26 ft, N 89D 56M E 486.14 ft TPOB.

And

A portion of the South 1/2 of the NE1/4 of Section 27, Township 4 North , Range 73 West of the 6th P. M.,

larimer County, Colorado (according to the 1928 U.S. General land Office Dependent Resurvey of said

Section 27). More particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the North Y. corner of said Section 27 which is monumented by a brass capped pipe;

thence South 00 degrees 49 minutes 00 seconds East along the North- South centerline of said Section

27 a distance of 1294 .85 feet to the NW corner of the SW1/4 of the NE1/4 of said Section 27;

thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes East along the East-West centerline of the NE1/4 of said Section

27 a distance of 1500.64 feet ;

thence South 00 degrees 05 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 360.12 feet to the TRUE POINT OF

BEGINNING;

thence South 00 degrees 05 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 367. 18 feet;

thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 173.87 to the North- South

centerline of the NE1/4 of said Section 27;

thence N 89 degrees 46 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 485 . 27 feet;

thence North 00 degrees 39 minutes 35 seconds East a di s tance of 369.72 feet;

thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes 50 seconds East a d i stance of 475.94 feet to the North-South

centerline of the NE1/4 of said section 27, thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes 50 seconds East a

distance of 179. 51 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

All beari ngs are relative to the North line of the NE1/4 of said Section 27 bearing North 89 degrees 50

minutes 23 seconds East.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High Peak Camp

Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of Larimer

 

Described as:

 

A tract of land located in the E1/2 of Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M.,

more particularly described as COMMENCING at the South quarter corner of said Section 27, with all

bearings relative to the South line of the SE1/4 of said Section 27 considered as bearing S89° 58' 47" E;

thence S89° 58' 47" E a distance of 638 . 21 feet along the South line of the SE1/4 of said Section 27 to

the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING:

thence S89°58' 47" E a distance of 431.71 feet along the South line of the SE1/4 of said Section 27 to a

point from which a one-sixteenth corner bears S89° 58' 47" E a distance of 245.00 feet;

thence N00 o 01' 13" E a distance of 409.52 feet;

thence S89° 58' 47" E a distance of 381.83 feet;

thence due North a distance of 2362.28 feet;

thence due West a distance of 500 feet;

thence due South a distance of 1020.00 feet;

thence due West a distance of 807.87 feet;

thence S00° 47' 04" E a distance of 190.00 feet;

thence due West a distance of 168.00 feet to a point on the West line of the SE1/4 of said Section 27;

thence S00° 47' 04" E a distance of 1151.89 feet along the West line of the SE1/4 of said Section 27;

thence S89° 58' 47" E a distance of 643 . 96 feet;

thence S00° 01' 13" W a distance of 409.52 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING:

TOGETHER WITH Right-of-Way easement contained in instrument recorded November 25,1942 in

Book 746 at Page 74.

EXCEPT a strip of land 16 feet wide commencing at the public road 12 feet North of intersection with

the brook just North of the present site of Long's Peak Inn, extending thence 350 feet in a line 5° South

of West and thence in a line 121/2° South of West to West line of SE1/4 of SE1/4 Section 27, Township

4 North, Range 73 West, as conveyed to Harry Bitner by Enos A. Mills in the Deed recorded March 18,

1909 in Book 255 at Page 587

 

And

 

EXCEPT a strip of land 30 feet wide across the following described tract as excepted in Deed from

Edwin F. Gillette to Charles H . Alexander recorded February 18 , 1918 i n Book 367 at Page 277:

Beginning at NE Corner of NE1/4 of SE1/4 of Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th

P.M., thence West 500 feet; thence South 1020 feet; thence West 200 feet; thence South 700 feet ;

thence East 700 feet to East line of W1/2 of said SE1/4 at a point 400 feet South of SE corner of said

NW1/4 of SE1/4; thence along East line of W1/2 of said SE1/41720 feet to place of beginning.

 

And

 

BEG AT SE COR SW4SE4 27 -4 - 73, TH W 125 FT; N 600 FT ; E 263. 57 FT M/l TO E BDRY LI PROP DESC BK

1157 P 124; TH S ALG SO E BDRY LI 413 . 77 FT; W 135 FT TO N-S C/l SE4 SO SEC ; TH S TO POB. ALSO BEG

AT SE COR SW4SE4 SO SEC, TH ALG S LI N 89D58M47S 125 FT TPOB ; TH NOD1M13S E 409.52 FT ,

N89D58M47S S W 120 FT, SOD1M13S E 409.52 FT, S89D58M47S E 120 FT TPOB; LESS BEG AT SECOR

SW4SE4, N 89D58M47S W 125 FT, N OD1M13S E 409.52 FT 1POB, S89D58M47S E 259.03 FT, N

0D0M10S W 190.48 FT, N89D58M47S W 257.95 FT, S 0D1M13S W 190.48 FT TPOB.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

Lot 3, CANNON M.R.D. #S-79-89, (according to the Plat thereof recorded March 21, 1990 in the

real property records of the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado at

Reception No. 90011727), County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

Containing 18.37 Acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements and/or rights-of-ways

now existing or of record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

POR IN 10-9-68 DESC AS TR IN SE 3-9-68 & N 1/2 10-9-68, BEG E 1980.65 FT FROM NW COR, E 687.34 FT, N 0 31' 13" W 1100.34 FT TO RR, N 31 37' E 717.87 FT, TH ALG ARC 5829.58 FT RAD CUR L, 1000.86 FT, L/C N 26 41' 54" E 999.63 FT, S 89 35' 38" E 9.19 FT TO HWY 25, S 14 9' 1" W 5413.16 FT, N 89 35' 6" W 1376.22 FT, N 19 18' 35" E 307.96 FT, N 9 57' 30" E 166.13 FT, N 5' 31' W 104.67 FT, N 27 42' 43" W 74.21 FT, N 44 17' 58" W 119.37 FT, N 31 37' E 2260.23 FT TPOB (SPLIT FROM 89100-00-001)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

 

TRACT 2, POPE MRD 96-EX0830