Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of March 19, 2008

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Cox, Hart, Oppenheimer, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioners Karabensh, Waldo, and Chairman Boulter were absent.  Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Stan Griep, Building Department, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Cox, Hart, Morgan, Wallace, and Weitkunat today on a site visit to Riverwalk Subdivision and Obermeyer Hydro. Facility Special Exception.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

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

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 20, 2008 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Wallace to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Cox.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  RIVERWALK SUBDIVISION 07-S2751:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to subdivide 3.84 acres into three lots for single-family residential use located 0.5 miles south of LaPorte at the end of East Bingham Hill Drive just east of North Overland Trail.  Lot 1 would be 1.34 acres, Lot 2, where the existing residence would be located, would be 1.31 acres, and Lot 3 would be 1.05 acres.  He noted that Condition of Approval I.a. should state a removal date of June 2, 2008 instead of 2007 but remarked that after speaking with the applicant he was extending the date until September 02, 2008.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Riverwalk Subdivision, file #07-S2751, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and new removal date of September 02, 2008 for condition I.a.:

 

A.        The Final Plat of the Riverwalk Subdivision shall be consistent with the information contained in the file, #07-S2751 or as modified by conditions of approval.

 

 

 

B.         The following fees shall be collected at the time of building permit for new single-family dwellings: the Poudre School District fees in lieu of dedication, the Larimer County Capital Transportation Expansion fee and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amounts that are current at the time building permit application shall apply. For any other work within the County Road right-of-way, the County Engineer’s office will require an Access or Right-of-Way Construction Permit. Before construction, the applicant must also contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit.

 

C.        The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement, to be prepared by Staff and approved by the County Attorney.

 

D.        The applicant shall sign a Final Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice must include, but is not limited to, all issues related to rural development; the requirement for engineered footings and foundations and the requirement for passive radon mitigation.  Other items raised in the review, or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code, may also be included.

 

E.         Requirements concerning drainage:

 

a.   the final plans will need to include more roadway design information for the turn around and extension including thickness and type of material to be placed as well as spot elevations which allow surface runoff to drain properly,

b.   with Final Plat submittal, the Final Drainage Plan and Report will need to be prepared, signed and stamped by a professional engineer,

c.   the final plans will need to call out the minimum finished floor elevations per the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and page 3 of the Preliminary Drainage Report,

d.   the final plans need to show the erosion control measures per the recommendations given on page 5 of the Preliminary Drainage Report, 

e.   the Final Drainage Report and Plans will need to show any new driveway culverts, if necessary. Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards (LCRARS) Drawings 7 and 11 shall be referenced accordingly, and 

f.   this project proposal lies within a Drainage Basin and drainage fees will need to be calculated by the Engineering Department.

 

F.         Requirements concerning road capacity and access:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.   Since this project will access Overland Trail, a paved County Road, a new paved apron will need to be provided at the Bingham Hill Road and Overland Trail intersection since the existing paved apron is in poor condition. The new paved apron will need to extend from the edge of pavement on Overland Trail to the edge of right-of-way and shall be a 24 foot wide, 4 inch thick, paved mat with 20 foot return radii. As long as written documentation is provided which indicates that the applicant is willing to build this apron, then the plans can be updated accordingly with the final plat submittal.

b.   The submitted drawings call out the road name as “East Bingham Hill Drive”. This particular street name does not meet the County’s Rural Addressing and street name requirements. As a result, the plat and plans shall indicate the street name as Bingham Hill Road or a new street name shall be proposed in coordination with Karlin Goggin of the Larimer County Building Department.

c.   Also, this project will be responsible for installing the appropriate street name sign panel which can be located on top of the stop sign post (on the northeast corner of the Overland Trail intersection) per LCRARS Drawing 8 and 9. Also, the County’s Road and Bridge Department will be contacted by the Engineering Department office to install a new sign post to replace the existing wooden post as well as “No Outlet” plaques.

 

G.   Utility easements shall be shown upon the plat according to the following: 1) Front Lot Line: 15 feet wide, 2) Side Lot Lines: 5 feet wide and 3) Rear Lot Lines: 10 feet wide.

 

H.        The following building setback information shall be shown upon the plat: 1) Front Yard: 25 feet from the property line or the edge of the road ROW, 2) Side Yard: 5 feet and 3) Rear Yard: 10 feet.

 

            The Preliminary Plat needs to show these building setbacks. At this point in time the proposed south lot line to Lot 1 would be a front yard for the distance concurrent with the proposed right-of-way (ROW) line, then be considered a side yard and the north line of Lot 2 would be a side yard. The north line of Lot 3 would be considered a front yard.

 

I.          For compliance to the LUC on outstanding issues, the following shall be required:

 

a.    Removal of the red/brown mobile home that was originally permitted as an office for a greenhouse use, but since the green house use is gone, then said home shall be removed by September 02, 2008, or before the Final Plat is recorded, which ever comes first.

b.    Four options exist for the small, 12’ x 7.8’ shed/building proposed to remain on Lot 1 because it would be in the side yard setback of 5 feet: 1) change the course of said property line, thus allowing more space, 2) apply for an appeal to the 5-foot side yard setback requirement of the LUC for it to be waived or varied which could be done during the processing of the this subdivision, 3) physically move the building back or 4) utilize PD, Planned Development, zoning, which is allowed in this LaPorte Sub-area Plan. This last option allows a developer to write their own setbacks.     

 

J.          The Larimer County Building department in their 11-28-07, memo stated that a building permit for a 26’ x 40’ pole building has expired. This issue needs to be addressed and shall be a condition of approval of said subdivision.

 

K.              For construction deign purposes, the finished basement floor slab elevations should extend no deeper than 5 feet below existing site grades and that an under-slab drainage system, in addition to conventional subsurface perimeter drainage, would be required beneath each structure.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

ITEM #2  CABIN CREEK SUBDIVISION 07-S2752:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to subdivide two parcels with a combined total of 121.93 acres into four single-family residential lots located approximately 1.5 miles west of County Road 73C and 0.5 miles southwest of Crystal Lakes Reservoir.  The request also included an appeal to the County Road Standards to use “Appendix G” private road standards for the existing road instead of “Appendix C” being the minimum standard for public roads.  He explained that on June 25, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners granted approval to an appeal to use the subdivision process instead of the Conservation Development process.  He also noted that condition #7 had been fulfilled by the applicant and could be removed. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the larger lots could be further subdivided?

 

Mr. Wheeler replied yes.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Cabin Creek Subdivision, file #07-S2752, appeal to Appendix C Road Standards, to allow the applicant to use the Appendix G Standards be approved.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

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

 

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Cabin Creek Subdivision, file #07-S2752, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Cabin Creek Subdivision shall be consistent with the information contained in the file, #07-S2752 or as modified by conditions of approval.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at the time of building permit for new single-family dwellings: the Poudre School District fees in lieu of dedication, the Larimer County Capital Transportation Expansion fee and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.  Before construction, the applicant must also contact the County Engineering Department to obtain a Development Construction Permit along with an access permit.

 

3.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement, to be prepared by Staff and approved by the County Attorney, which details in standard language the conditions of approval and other important information related to the Subdivision.

 

4.   The applicant shall sign a Final Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice must include, but is not limited to; all issues related to rural development; the requirement for engineered footings and foundations and the requirement for passive radon mitigation.  Other items raised in the review, or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code, may also be included.

 

5.   All lots shall have building envelopes to prevent the location of new construction in hazard areas or areas of steep slopes.  The Final Plat shall also show Parcel’s 1 and 2 as Lot 3 and Lot 4 of the Cabin Creek Subdivision.

 

6.   The applicant shall provide a Forest Management Plan and a Wildfire Mitigation Plan for review and approval by the County Emergency Services Specialist and the County Forrester.  The Plans shall address the requirements of contained in the memorandum dated 5-09-07 from the Sheriff’s Department (Emergency Service Provider) related to issues such as access, building envelopes, firefighting requirements, etc. 

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #3  HERMIT PARK OPEN SPACE SPECIAL REVIEW 07-Z1671:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to expand the existing non-conforming campground use at Hermit Park which was on approximately 200 acres of a 1362 acre site located on the south side of Highway 36 approximately one mile east of Estes Park adjacent to Meadowdale Ranch and across from Ravencrest Heights.  He stated that Larimer County proposed to operate the facility as a public site and expand the use in the following ways over the next 8 years (2016):  Add up to 19 additional campsites, add three new small and two larger cabins and relocate two cabins, make improvements including additional pavilions and flush toilets at the group use area, add two new shower houses, construct a visitor’s center, have camp host areas, complete a trial and trail head work, and add a temporary modular office at the entrance.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked for clarification on the amount of the Transportation Capitol Expansion Fee.

 

Traci Downs, Engineering Department, stated that it would be $46,900 and would not be waived for the campground uses, cabins, etc. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked what the best practice business decisions were listed in the inspection report?

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that the inspection report provided in the agenda was prepared by the Larimer County Natural Resources Department.  Those practices were generally the items that were addressed when construction plans were prepared and addressed for the purposes of making sure that the management practices occurring during construction protected water and air quality, etc. 

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Hermit Park Open Space Special Review, file #07-Z1671, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Hermit Park Special Review (File #07-Z1671), 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 Hermit Park Special Review.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.   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.

5.   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.

6.   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.

7.   Specific plans for the reuse or redevelopment of cabins or campsites may be required to obtain Site Plan Review approval prior to commencement of use or obtaining a building permit.  Details of and compliance with specific standards for those applications will be addressed at the time of the application. 

8.   The applicant must develop and have approved by the Engineering Department and the Health Department a detailed road maintenance and dust suppression plan no later than July 31, 2008.

9.   The applicant is required to pay the then current Transportation Capital Expansion Fees at the time of permit issuance or use commencement for any new cabin or campsites. 

10.   The applicant shall provide a copy of the properly executed and recorded emergency access easement no later than July 31, 2008.

11.   The applicant shall obtain approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation for the turn lanes required on Hwy 36 and complete and have accepted those improvements no later than October 1, 2008 or before any “new” camp site or cabin is added. 

12.   The applicant shall resolve the trespass issues with the neighbor, at the soonest opportunity. This includes relocation of or reclamation of the trial in question.   

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4  ADOPTION OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND AMENDMENTS TO THE WINDSOR-SEVERENCE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to adopt the 2006 International Fire Code and amendments in the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Adoption of the 2006 International Fire Code and amendments in the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District be approved and the currently adopted 2003 International Fire Code in the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District be repealed.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

ITEM #5  OBERMEYER HYDRO. FACILITY SPECIAL EXCEPTION 06-Z1589:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend the Obermeyer Hydro., Inc. Special Exception to expand the employee base of the use from 10 to 160 and to expand the office, research and development, and manufacturing building foot print from 15,850 square feet to 75,750 square feet.  The subject property was located on the southwest corner of County Road 74 and 15.  He explained that in 1990 the Board of Adjustment approved to allow operation of a research, design and limited manufacturing facility with the limitations of 1,250 square feet addition to the 5,000 square foot agricultural building, and use of the resulting 6,250 square feet of building for research and development of large rubber bladder control gates for hydroelectric and water supply projects.  The 1,250 square foot addition would be for office space and the maximum number of employees was to be 10.  In 1994 the Board of Adjustment approved the addition of a new 9,600 square foot building addition to the property subject to the conditions of approval from the 1990 approval.  He noted that since 1994 6,000 square feet of the 9,600 square foot building had been constructed.  Additionally, the growth of employees had risen from 10 to 40, 26,000 square feet of outdoor storage had been created, 3,000 square feet of accessory buildings had been installed, and outdoor testing of classified military technology and equipment had been done.  The applicant had acknowledged the changes to the use and site conditions as well as anticipated future growth of the business and was currently proposing the following:

 

 

 

 

 

·  Removal of the existing 1,250 sq. ft. office to be replaced by 2,500 sq. ft. new office space,

·  Expansion (two phases) of the existing 6,000 sq. ft. building (1994 Special Exception) to 18,000 sq. ft.,

·  Construction (two phases) of a new 35,000 sq. ft. building for office, research and development space,

·  Construction of a new 5,000 sq. ft. building for metal and wood working activities that need to be separated from the main shop environment,

·  Construction of a new 6,250 sq. ft. building for refrigerated storage and receiving and delivery areas,

·  Construction of a new 4,000 sq. ft. building for storage and additional R&D space,

·  Continuation of at least 1 ac. of out-door storage,

·  Enclosure of the existing autoclaving machine for temperature control to allow for year round operation, and

·  Construction of necessary on-site and off-site improvements necessary for the expansion.

 

Additionally the applicant was requesting that the number of employees for the use be allowed to expand to 160. 

 

Mr. Lafferty pointed out what the layout of the proposed site would look like and mentioned that the applicant had included an area for detention facilities associated with the increase of impervious surface associated with buildings, parking, etc.  He noted that another area was being set aside for the possibility of a wastewater treatment facility to handle sewer as there was no public sewer facilities in the area.  He also pointed out that there was an irrigation ditch on the property.  He stated that water service in the area was provided by Northern Colorado Water District but they could not provide new service to the site at the current time.  The Wellington Fire District also had concerns regarding the limited availability of water protection on the site.  He noted that the applicant had provided some alternatives that could include using irrigation water or a pond.  He also stated that with improvement of the site County Road 74 would need to be paved from its western boundary to County Road 15.  Finally, the site would need approximately three acres of area for stormwater detention facilities.  He stated that the Development Services Team was recommending denial of the application due to the following concerns:  adequate public facilities, increased traffic from urban areas to a rural area, a precedence being established that would result in unplanned land use patterns to the surrounding area, visual impacts, the use moves or abandons the site, and unnecessary resource consumption and pollution associated with locating an urban use in a rural area.

 

Reggie Kemp, 3460 Revere Court West, was representing the applicant and also worked at Obermeyer Hydro. Facility.  He stated that they were asking for an amendment to the existing Special Exception to accommodate the expansion for the growth that they had been experiencing.  He stated that the business had been in operation for 21 years and relocated to Wellington in 1990.  He noted that the business was the only manufacturer of its product in the United States, and the demand for the product was worldwide.  He remarked they were a significant supplier of jobs which was a real advantage to Larimer County. 

 

 

 

Henry Obermeyer, 303 W. County Road 74, owner of the property and business, explained what their products were and how it was manufactured. 

 

Mr. Kemp noted that the company had products in 35 states and 21 foreign countries, which categorized them as a primary company.  He stated that expansion would be phased.  The existing building would first be expanded by 200 feet then building C and D would be added, which were the north and south buildings.  In Phase II, 50 to 100 foot of the large building north of the shop would be added.  The site would be expanded in increments after that based on the business requirements.  He showed what the proposed buildings, parking, and paved road would look like if approved.  He remarked that a neighborhood meeting was held where they had 100% favorable responses.  He pointed out the other types of uses that occurred in the area such as the Rawhide Power Plant, the new Larimer County Landfill, Keaton Industries, and the Wellington Oil Field.  He mentioned that Obermeyer Hydro. Facility had operated at the site for 18 years, were an environmentally clean manufacturing facility, and created less noise and site activity then a typical agricultural operation.  He stated that they turned in a traffic study and at full build out with 160 employees there would be 412 vehicle trips per day, which would require the paving of County Road 74.  He stated that there was ample water supply and that they were not depending on Northern Colorado Water District to provide water.  There were two on-site wells along with the North Poudre Irrigation Ditch water, which could be used for fire fighting.  Also, there was an ample area of storage for the fire rated pond, which would be protected from freezing, dust, etc. but the detailed design of that had not been completed yet as it would be part of the Site Plan review.  He remarked that the site was 88 acres and when the build out was done it would occupy only 10% of the property and have less than two acres under roof.  As far as land acquisition expenses, it was exceedingly high in Larimer County, and they would have to consider other places that were less expensive.  The relocation expense would be approximately $500,000 just to move the operations, and there would be production delays as they were dependant on the autoclave.  The replacement cost of the autoclave would be around $2 million and as it would be very difficult to move.  Other relocation factors that caused concern were the existing jobs that would be lost and the local employment opportunities that would not be realized if the expansion at the site was denied.  There would be an economic impact to the company that could jeopardize the viability as the delays in production would be devastating for their operations.  He stated that they believed that they had met the spirit and intent of all of the review criteria in the Land Use Code and explained why.  He also went over the Master Plan, Section 1.2 Fairness Principles and Section 1.5 Master Plan Themes and addressed the Land Use Code Section 2.3.1 Purpose of the Code.  He requested the approval of the expansion and stated that Obermeyer Hydro. Facility was prepared to accommodate all applicable site requirements as the phased expansion progressed.  He remarked that expansion would enhance job creation and economic growth that were essential to Northern Larimer County, and the proposed expansion fit well with the agricultural operations in the area. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Obermeyer clarified that he did receive approval from the Board of Directors of North Poudre Irrigation Company regarding the use of their multiple use portion of their North Poudre Water for puposes such as sanitary use, fire protection, etc.  He stated that he owned approximately 10 acre feet of such water, which they had been using to date.  He stated that as a long term solution it would be used for a minimum of fire protection and irrigation water.  He remarked that depending on the ability to obtain a tap from the Northern Colorado Water District they would either treat the North Poudre Water or buy from Northern Colorado Water.  He noted that Planning Staff had excellent suggestions on building configuration and compatibility and had been good to deal with. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked how many neighbors attended the neighborhood meeting?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied six were in attendance.

 

Commissioner Hart asked how the autoclave was put on site?

 

Mr. Obermeyer stated that it was built on site.  He stated that he could build one on another site but the problem with moving the current one was that it was 25 feet high before being put on a truck and roughly 25 feet wide and 50 feet long and 165,000 pounds. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Delbert Black, 15366 N. County Road 15, stated that Mr. Obermeyer had been a good neighbor for the past 18 years.  He noted that rural, northern Larimer County had a power plant, filter plant, oil storage facilities, oil wells, packing plant, chicken research, and Mr. Obermeyer’s manufacturing facility.  All of those facilities employed people that were hoping to sustain the rural atmosphere and people.  The residents in the area lived in housing developments, 10-acre parcels, 35-acre parcels, and larger and most had to work somewhere else to be able to sustain their farms.  He noted that there were only four families in the area that primarily farmed and some had to rent extra land to do so.  He stated that Mr. Obermeyer hired numerous people in the community and had given the area good, economic growth and brought in outside money into the County and into the State.  He acknowledged that the fire protection and sewer were issues but if they could be solved then the business should be able to stay.  He suggested approving the application to provide more jobs to the surrounding community.

 

Chuck Mayhugh, 9049 Painted Horse Lane, was Chairman of the Wellington Planning Commission.  They reviewed the application and at their meeting had no public comment and no opposition.  The Obermeyer Hydro. Facility was a major contributor to Wellington and most of the employees lived in the immediate area.  He commented that it did not establish a precedence because of the fact that it was an urban use in a rural setting and pointed out the Anheuser-Busch Facility that was surrounded by farmland.  He stated that they supported the facility as it was a benefit to their community. 

 

Lewis Grant, 515 W. County Road 72, stated that he was with Grant Family Farms and their headquarters was in the same section as the Obermeyer operation.  Delbert Black and he put together a petition that he submitted to the Commission.  He stated that it was started on Monday morning and had 82 signatures from people in the area in support of the operation.  He showed on a map who in the area had signed the petition. 

 

 

Wayne Jensen, 9133 N. County Road 5, was Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce in Wellington and was also a member of the local economic development committee that was orchestrated through the Chamber.  He felt that it was a prime opportunity in the community to not just prevent the loss of manufacturing jobs but to expand manufacturing jobs.  It was not scarring the landscape or negatively impacting the residents.  Economic development was what Wellington was striving for.  They were trying to attract companies like Obermeyer Hydro. Facility to the area so it seemed contradictory to spend the effort and money trying to attract companies to the area when in turn we wouldn’t support existing companies that in all likelihood would have to move out of the area if they did not receive support.

 

Lou Kinzli, 11150 N. County Road 15, stated that he did not know that Obermeyer was operating until 2003.  He was a realtor in the area and had no complaints in 13 years about the facility.  He lived 2 ½ miles away and felt that the use should be supported.  He stated that other countries in the world allowed industry to be placed into rural areas so why couldn’t Larimer County.

 

Mike Schneider, 13009 Palomino, stated that he had spoken with most of the families in Horseman Hills about Obermeyer’s expansion and not one had a concern.  He stated that he was also an employee at the company and since working there he had reduced his fuel costs by $200 a month.  He stated that Mr. Obermeyer was a great employer and great neighbor and felt that an expansion approval should be considered.

 

Wendell Nelson, 5537 N. County Road 9, stated that he had a 35 acre farm.  He stated that in 1960 there were 25,000 people here and businesses had to move outside of town.  Wellington was growing and there was a concern about getting jobs into the Wellington area as it was a necessity for the town to sustain itself.  Mr. Obermeyer’s operation was a clean operation, and he asked that they have the chance to grow as it would add a lot of income to the County and to Wellington. 

 

Ron Young, 5133 Eagle Lake Drive, stated that the community was behind the Obermeyer plant.  He chaired the economic development committee and stated that if they lost the plant it would be devastating to the community. 

 

Miquel Galvez, 9052 Painted Horse Lane, stated that he was currently in negotiations to purchase the house on that property.  He stated that he lived in Greeley and was looking to move his family to Wellington and felt that they represented what was the future of Larimer County.  He was an employee of Obermeyer Hydro and was contacted by Mr. Obermeyer a year ago as he was graduating from CSU.  He stated that the decision would impact his family’s future and have an impact to the community.  He recommended that the facility be approved.

 

Larry Noel, 6993 Mount Nimbus Street, was the Mayor of Wellington and also on the Wellington Planning Commission.  He stated that the proposal was a good, common sense plan that needed to be approved.  The economic conditions were uncertain and housing had slumped, and Wellington needed more jobs in the area.  He felt that it was a good addition to Larimer County and pointed out that there were counties that would pay Mr. Obermeyer to locate his business within their counties because of the jobs he would bring. 

 

Robert Slate, 726 Sherry Drive, stated that the commute was reasonable for people in the area.  He stated that it was a clean business and did not see any reason not to approve the proposal.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that he did not disagree with the comments that were made by the public.  Mr. Obermeyer was a successful business man that ran a fine operation.  He pointed out that the Master Plan themes that were mentioned by the applicant and public were bulleted points that were followed by pages and pages of text explaining what those themes meant.  He felt that there were sections in the Land Use Code that would suggest that the intent of the Master Plan was to maintain an open and rural environment outside of urban growth areas and businesses that did not demand a rural location should be located within an urbanized area where there were public facilities and where the residents of the communities were closer to the work environment. 

 

Mr. Obermeyer stated that the company had a commitment to open space that was expected and described in the Master Plan.  The facility was on an 88-acre parcel, and he owned the ten acres that separated it from County Road 15.  He was also in negotiations for some further buffer zone.  They were very much committed to keeping the area as open as possible and available for agricultural use.  They had proposed less than two acres under roof.  The portion of the property that would be under roof was dry land so the amount of agricultural production that might be compromised with both parking and the buildings was very minimal.  They had made a sincere attempt to make the buildings agricultural, architecture type buildings as the larger building was configured to look like a riding arena.  He stated that they respected people’s desire to live in the country and have that ambiance.  Most of the original 88 acres was open and was intended to remain open, and he was looking into the tax benefits of putting a conservation easement on it.  There was no intent to extend the facility to the west of the existing trees.  With respect to the Master Plan, he believed that their plan was completely consistent with the intent to maintain open space.  His decision on making more land acquisitions depending on the decision made by the commission.  He stated that he would like to continue to invest in Northern Larimer County.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Weitkunat commented on the articulate presentations made by the applicant and public.  She stated that economic development was a very important attribute to a community and county.  It was a well run company with success and a plan.  She asked for an explanation of the noncompliance that was happening associated to the previous approvals.

 

Mr. Obermeyer explained that they began the process in 1993 when the property to the east became available.  After the purchase of the land to the east they contacted the Planning Department and had been working with them ever since.  While working with the Planning Department and trying to get product out of the door the employee number increased.  With regards to the cold storage, they had purchased some material that needed to be refrigerated and had applied for a building permit for the portable building.  With respect to the autoclave structure, it was attached to the autoclave. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked what the business plan was?

 

Mr. Obermeyer stated that the Planning Department suggested coming up with a 10-15 year business plan.  They did not intend to build everything on day one.  They urgently needed shop space and office space.  He stated that the large building may be in place in the next five years and increasing the employee count would be a 5-10 year time frame.  Of the 160 employees not all of them would be on site at one time.  He explained that they were partially a manufacturing company and partially a construction company. 

 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that structures had appeared on the site that were being used that were associated with the business that were never part of the original approvals, therefore had never been approved from that perspective or approved from a building permit stance.  Mr. Obermeyer had in the last 6 months attempted to make submittals to make those structures building permit compliant; however, they could not be approved because it would validate those as being existing structures that were approved.  If the project was approved as proposed then the building permits would be completed and they would become legitimate buildings on the site. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked for information on the water, sewer, and fire protection issues.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that there were uncertainties.  They were technical related issues and if enough time and money were spent on those issues he believed that they probably would be able to be solved.  Based upon the standard criteria in the Land Use Code those criteria had not been demonstrated to be complied with.  He stated that there may be other alternatives but the Planning Department did not want to make Mr. Obermeyer put thousands of dollars into studies that may be meaningless if his application was denied.  He explained that if the use was approved then during the site plan process they would have to demonstrate compliance with the Code.

 

Commissioner Hart asked what would happen if business did well and they eventually needed more space then what they were proposing?

 

Mr. Obermeyer replied that there was an economy of scale that would benefit the company at that point.  The 160 employees was conservative with respect to company growth, and they had alternatives plans for the balance of that growth.  At that point in time he had envisioned several geographically separate units.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if Mr. Obermeyer would agree to no further expansion at the site if the current proposal was approved?

 

Mr. Obermeyer stated that he would have to carefully consider that.  The business was different then some because it was less mobile.  Under different circumstances they would move but they had very unique requirements.  He stated that it was prudent to have it located on at least 40 acres and if they went to buy 40 acres in town is could be very expensive.  They felt that the work done should be done outside of town. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that it was a tough issue.  The O-Open zoning district was not for industrial use, and the nature of the use had to be tied to agriculture, natural resources, or the use had to demonstrate that an urban location would cause incompatibility.  She was not convinced that the use caused incompatibility nor was it tied to agriculture or related to natural resources.  It was a good business with good employees but it did not meet the requirements of the plan which was unfortunate.  She stated that she could not approve the proposal due to those reasons.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if there was adequate water at the current position the business was at?

 

 

 

 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that currently the facility was served by two wells.  The applicant had looked into converting those wells from domestic use wells to commercial use wells and had indicated that at the current time it had not happened which did not mean that it was not feasible.  The other option involved the Northern Colorado Water Association but they did not have the capacity at the present time.  A third option was to use irrigation water which would need to be treated and distributed for domestic purposes.  The issue with that option would be that it would be considered a public noncommunity water system, which would need to meet some regulatory standards.  The applicant had indicated that they would comply with one of those options and as part of the next phase, which would be site plan review, they would demonstrate that they could meet one of those criteria.  On the issue of sewer, currently the facility had a small septic tank and leech field.  Based on the capacity that the facility would be at in the near future the sewer system would not be able to be an individual system that was regulated but would need to be classified as a Sewage Treatment Works which was a state regulated system.  He noted that the applicant had hired an engineering firm which had outlined a process to take them through the state regulatory process.  If the Special Review was approved then they would have to demonstrate to the county that the sewer system could be designed, meet the state standards, and obtain the required permits. 

 

Mr. Obermeyer stated that the memo from the Wellington Fire Department that was in the agenda packet was a couple of years old.  He recently hired a fire protection company to do a detailed study.  From that they had some issues resolved such as the placement of fire hydrants, pond size, etc.  He stated that the plan was to have a fire hydrant within a certain number of feet of every point on the outside of every building and have an 8 inch line going from a large fire pump at the pond.  He stated that it had been addressed and priced and doing that would be much less than the cost of moving the facility.  He pointed out that the cost of moving would be $3 million just to be at an industrial park at exactly the same size they were at now and then they would have several million dollars worth of immediate expansion that would need to be done.  The moving costs were much more expensive then the best sewer treatment plant they could get, and a treatment plant to treat the North Poudre water.  He stated that even if they put in $500,000 worth of infrastructure in terms of sewage, water, and fire protection it was a small investment compared to $3 million dollars to unnecessarily move to an industrial site. 

 

Commissioner Morgan summarized what Wellington’s draft comprehensive plan stated on page 14 that, “The following locational criteria should be used in determining where industrial and commercial land uses are to locate:  1.  Industrial and commercial uses should have good access to highways and railroads, 2. Industrial uses should locate in close proximity to other industries.  When industries are grouped together there are fewer negative impacts on other land uses, and 3. Commercial and Industrial uses should located in close proximity to existing or planned infrastructure, particularly sewer, water, and electricity.  Water must be of adequate flow and pressure to ensure fire protection.  No commercial or industrial uses should be allowed on septic.”  He stated that if the Town of Wellington were sitting in the Planning Commission’s shoes and looking at those criteria they would probably conclude that it was not the right location.  It was a great business and a business that should be in the county but it was in the wrong place for its size and scale.  It did not have water or sewer, was not in proximity to other industries, or have adequate water pressure for fire protection.  He stated that he was very conflicted.

 

 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Obermeyer Hydro. Facility Special Exception, file #06-Z1589, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Oppenheimer, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Hart and Wallace voted for the Motion.

 

MOTION FAILED:  4-2

 

Commissioner Cox stated that she was confused by the Motion and did not vote the way she meant to.

 

Commissioner Cox moved to reconsider the vote.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-1

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Obermeyer Hydro. Facility Special Exception, file #06-Z1589, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Oppenheimer, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Hart, Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION FAILED:  3-3

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:15 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 Boulter, Chairman                                      Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “A”

 

A tract of land situate in the East 1/2 of Section 32, Township 8 North, Range 69 West

of the 6th P.M.. which considering the North line of the NE 1/4 of Section 32, Township

8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M. as bearing North 89°44' East and with all

bearings herein relative thereto begins at a point which bears South 9°3' West 2902.84

feet, and East 251.02 feet, which point is also North 1103.00 feet and 216.28 feet West of

the Southwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 32, which

point is also the Southeast corner of Lot 7 of the Farrell Subdivision in the East 1/2 of

said Section 32; thence North 5° 10' Last 177.45 feet; thence South 84°50' East 100.00

feet; thence North 5°10' East 259.50 feet; thence South 56°8' East 490.50 feet: thence

South 153.02 feet; thence West 546.28 feet to the point of beginning. NOTE: Included

within the above description is a portion of East Bingham Hill Drive as vacated by Order

Vacating Street recorded May 2, I966 in Rook 1327 at Page 407.

 

Also.

A tract of land located in the East Half of Section 32. Township 8 North, Range 69 West

of the 6th P.M. being a portion of the 100 foot wide former Colorado and Southern

Railroad Right of way through the said Section 32, the said tract is also located adjacent

to that certain tract of land described in a Quit Claim Deed recorded November 28: 1977

in Book 181 6 at Page 956 records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County: more

particularly described as follows:

 

Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 7 of the Plat of Farrell Subdivision. a Plat of

record with the said Clerk and Recorder: thence along the East line of the said Lot 7, also

along the West line of the said tract described in Rook 1816 at Page 956, North 05

degrees 38 minutes 40 seconds East for a distance of 177.45 feet; thence continuing along

the said West line of the tract described in Book 1816 at Page 956. South 84 degrees 21

minutes 20 seconds East for a distance of 100.00 feet; thence continuing along the said

West line, North 05 degrees 38 minutes 40 seconds East for a distance of 263.36 feet to

the Southerly right of way of the said railroad and to the True Point of Beginning of this

description; thence along the Northerly prolongation of the said West line, North 05

degrees 38 minutes 40 seconds East for a distance of 57.06 feet to the centerline of said

railroad right of way: thence along the said centerline, South 55 degrees 33 minutes 26

seconds East for a distance of  484. 15 feet to the Northerly prolongation of the East line of the said tract described in Hook 18 16 at Page 956; thence along the said prolongation

line, South 00 degrees 23 minutes 43 seconds West for a distance of 60.34 feet to the said

 

 

EXHIBIT “A” CONTINUED….

 

Southerly right of way of the railroad, thence along the said Southerly right of way, North

55 degrees 33 minutes 26 seconds West for  a distance of 490.45 feet to the Point of

Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “B”

 

LEGAL DESCRlPTlON OF CABIN CREEK SUBDIVISION:

 

LOT I :

A tract of land situate in the South 1/2 of Section 10, Township 10 North, Range 74 West of the

Sixth P.M.. County of Larimer. State of Colorado. which, considering the South line of the

Southeast 1/4 of said Section 10 as hearing N89° 16' 3I"W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point on the centerline of Pearl Creek Road which bears N55°02'54"W 2814.30 feet from the Southeast Corner of said Section 10, and run thence along the centerline of Pearl Creek Road. N74°11'20"W 614.59 feet: thence departing said centerline. N70°00'19"W 315.77 feet to a point on the centerline of Pearl Creek Road: thence along said centerline, N64°14'55"W 15.18 feet; thence departing said centerline, N33°18'49"E 107.18 feet: thence N52°45'56’’E 103.63 feet: thence N65°06'42"E 187.52 feet: thence N42°07'26"E 131.56 feet: thence  N 31°26'18"E 65.98 feet; thence N56°59'34"E 107.52 feet; thence S 31°11'31"E  697.49 feet to a point on the centerline of Pearl Creek Road: thence along said centerline, along the arc of a l50.00 foot radius curve concave to the East :a distance of 28.32 feet, whose central angle is 10°49'02", the long chord of which bears S 08°39'08"E 23.28 feet, and again S14°03'39’’ 52.97 feet, and again along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the West a distance of 50.46 feet, whose central angle is 28°54'49", the long chord of which bears S00°23'45"W 49.93 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.9882 acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements and rights-of-way which arc existing or arc of record.

 

LOT 2:

A tract of land situate in the South 1/2 of Section 10, Township 10 North, Range 74 West of the

Sixth P.M.. County f Larimer, State of Colorado. which. considering the South line of the

Southeast 1/4 of said Section 10 as bearing N89°16'3 1 "W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto. is contained within the boundary. lines which begin at a point on the centerline of Pearl Creek Road which bears N 28°55'34"W  1986.87 feet from the Southeast Corner of said Section 10, and run thence N13°54'55"E 223.50 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Crystal Lakes Fifteenth Filing P.U.D.; thence along said Southerly line. N79°46'30”E 530.00 feet to a point on the centerline of  Pow Wow Drive; thence S01°24'27"W 80.72 feet; thence along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the East a distance of 81.69 feet. whose central angle is 46°48'13”, the long chord of which bears S21°59'39"E 79.44 feet; thence S 45°23’46"E 75.32 feet to a point on the centerline of Pearl Creek Road: thence along said centerline. S44°36'14"W 40.00 feet. and again along the arc of a 400.00 foot radius curve concave to the North a distance of 330.47 feet; whose central angle is 47°20'09", the long chord of which bears S68°16'I9"W 321. 15 feet. and again N88°03'36"W 164.36 feet, and again along the arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve concave to the North a distance of 65.67 feet, whose central angle is 12°32'32", the long chord of which bears N81°47'20"W 65.54 feet, and again N75°31’'04"W 55.66 feet, and again along the arc of a500.00 foot radius curve concave to the North a distance of 49.55 feet, whose central angle is 05°40'40", the long chord of which bears N72°40'44"W 49.53 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.8060 acres. more or less, and being subject to all casements and rights-of way which arc existing or arc of record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “C”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “D”

 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

(Combined Obermeyer Parcels)

 

That portion of the Northeast One-Quarter of Section 2. Township 9 North. Range 69 West of the 6"' P. M.,in the County of Larimer. State of Colorado, which, considering the East line of the Northeast One-Quarter as bearing S 00°38'12" E, and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto. is more particularly described as follows:

COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of said Section 2; thence S 89°58’19’’ W. along

the North Line of said Northeast One-Quarter. 680.67 feet to the TRUE POINT OF

BEGINNING, said point being the Northeast Corner of OUTLOT.4 of the Proposed Hall Second Amended Exemption thence along the Easterly and Southerly boundary lines of Said Outlot A the following Four (4) courses:

1) S 00°38'12" E. parallel with the East Line of said Northeast One-Quarter. 640.00 feet;

2) S 89°58'19" W. parallel with the North Line of said Northeast One-Quarter, 369.08 feet;

3) S 00°38' 12" E. parallel with the East Line of said Northeast One-Quarter, 40.00 feet:

4) S 89°58'19” W. parallel with the North Line of said Northeast One-Quarter. 272.35 feet to the Southwest comer of said Outlot A. said point being on the East Line of the West One-Half of said Northeast One-Quarter;

thence S 00°37'27" E. along said West Line, 1.542 .65 feet; thence S 89-01 '28" W.

20.44 feet; thence S 0l°08'08" E. 361.64 feet to the South line of the said Northeast One-Quarter; thence S 89°54'21" W. along said South line, 1,305.30 feet to the Center One-Quarter comer of said Section 2; thence N 00°36'42" W, along the West line of said Northeast One-Quarter, 2,587.07 feet to the North One-Quarter comer of said Section 2:  thence N 89°58'19" E. along the North line of said Northeast One-Quarter, 1,963.22 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing 88.01 7 Acres More. or Less.

 

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.