Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of April 19, 2006

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, April 19, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, and Wallace were present.  Chairman Boulter presided as Chairman.  Commissioner terMeer was absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Casey Stewart, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

Chairman Boulter stated that Commissioner Huddleston was moving out of state and would no longer be on the Commission.  He acknowledged his years of service to the Planning Commission.

 

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 MARCH 15, 2006 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheimer.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, informed the Commission that there were members of the public that wanted to discuss the Blue Moon Mountain Ranch Amended Special Review, which was on the consent agenda.

 

Chairman Boulter removed Blue Moon Mountain Ranch Amended Special Review from the consent agenda.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1  CROW LANE RESERVOIR #1 LOCATION AND EXTENT #06-Z1586:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request for approval of a water reservoir located in Pinewood Springs, approximately ¾ mile north of the Larimer/Boulder County line on U.S. Highway 36.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Crow Lane Reservoir #1 Location and Extent, file #06-Z1586, subject to the following conditions:

 

A.  The needed property is obtained and new property boundaries to allow for the reservoir are approved through the Minor Land Division and Amended Plat processes.

B.   An access permit is obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation. 

C.  Adequate access easements and roads are provided which allow access for existing lot owners as well as the Pinewood Springs Water District.

 

 

D.  Existing septic systems are evaluated and all leach fields are set back or relocated at least 100’ from the high water elevation. 

E.   Any required state permits are obtained and Best Management Practices are followed to control erosion and dust emissions.

F.  The Development Services Team requests that the District provide documentation to the Larimer County Planning Department prior to commencing construction demonstrating these conditions have been met.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEMS :

 

ITEM #2  BLUE MOON MOUNTAIN RANCH AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #04-Z1550:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request to amend the Double L Ranch Special Review (file #92-MZ0186) for a residential camp providing experiential outdoor learning experiences located north of Rim Road off of the Red Feather Lakes Road (County Road 74E).

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Pat Frysinger, President of the North Rim Road Association, stated that his concern was the traveling on the road.  As the camp grew larger the road association anticipated more people and inexperienced drivers using the road.  The association was charged with building, maintaining, repairing, and regulating the road and did not wish to have a residential camp in existence in the middle of the residential area. 

 

Spence Sedacca, 5433 N. Rim Road, echoed Mr. Frysinger’s concerns.  He remarked that the concern was not what Blue Moon did with the property but was the road.  He explained that the property was approximately 8000 feet in elevation, and therefore experienced a lot of weather.  He stated that it was a private road. 

 

Mr. Frysinger stated that the landowners were subject to a suit for any sort of injury because they were unable to obtain insurance.  He stated that the road association would like the camp to scale back their plans and operate as they had in the past. 

 

Mr. Karan stated that there were a number of staff conditions of approval that addressed the concerns. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked if Staff believed the road could accommodate a 12-passenger vehicle?

 

 

 

 

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, explained that in Traci Downs’, Engineering Department, evaluation she found that the project would generate fewer than 20 trips per day and as such was exempt from traffic studies and paving threshold analysis.  She did not find any safe or adequate access issues.  Ms. Downs did ask, which was a condition of approval, that a private road construction permit be obtained for the construction of a road from the North Rim Road to the site access to address road construction accessibility issues and to specifically address providing adequate site distance.

 

David Sitzman, member of the Educo Board, stated that the issue of the road had come up in previous discussion.  He explained that the camp would have the same level of people, students, and vehicles that had been in the past.  There had been some licensing changes and unclear issues related to the prior use approval, which the Amended Special Review helped to clarify.  He stated that there would be a maximum of 30 students a day with most of the use being in the summer and some in the winter.  He explained that if the use evolved into something larger a condition of approval stipulated that Blue Moon would have to obtain another review approval.  He agreed that the road maintenance and insurance issues were concerns but felt that it was something that should be worked out with the road association and not affect the review before the Commission.  He stated that Educo was a member of the road association, had a right to use the road to access their property subject to the provision of the road association, and intended to be active members in the road association and do their part. 

 

Shane Butterfield, Director of Educo, stated that Educo was trying to be a responsible organization, and was trying to work with their neighbors in a positive relationship.  She explained that there was a maximum of 12 children on a course with three instructors and would remain that way.  However, Educo was trying to think with a larger vision in case they did have two groups of children there at one time.  They also had to meet new regulations, which was why they were proposing a new building. 

 

Brad March, March & Olive, P.C., stated that he was a trustee of the Don and May Wilkins Charitable Trust, which was involved with the Blue Moon property.  He stated that the property did have an easement over the North Rim Road.  He stated that Educo had been a phenomenal contributor to the community, and the camp was not raising the level of activity.  The road was well maintained and had never had a problem on it.  He remarked that the Wilkins Trust and he had been very impressed with Educo’s work, and strongly urged the approval of the application and remarked that it was just affirming what was approved in 1995.

 

Mr. Frysinger remarked that the Planning Department had not notified the road association or him of the hearing.  He urged Educo to scale back their plans.  He was afraid that it would be sold as a commercial campground if Educo did not succeed. 

 

Mr. Sedacco stated that the area was very remote and felt that if use on the road continued someone was bound to get injured. 

 

Mr. Karan stated that Planning Staff had instructed Educo to speak with County Development Review Engineers along with the County Public Works Department.  He explained that due to the small amount of traffic, Staff could not require a major upgrade of the road.  Therefore, provisions were included that required and recommended certain practices so the camp could improve the safety up and down the road.

 

Mr. Helmick explained that the current project was an amendment to a Special Review in 1993 that anticipated a fairly intensive use on the property.  There was an expiration associated with it but there was also documentation of a use established on the property consistent with the approval.  The Planning Department was informed by Mr. March that Educo wanted to amend the Special Review to reflect the way they wanted to use the property, and so the record would be clear. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked if the road association had any other requirements on road usage?

 

Mr. Frysinger explained that the directors of the association were solely responsible for the construction, repair, maintenance, and regulation.  A sign had been posted on the gate that stated, “Steep sharp curves ahead.  If snowy, icy, or wet chains required for two-wheeled vehicles required.”  He noted that volunteers of Educo were not knowledgeable of the road, and the road association had asked that 14-passenger buses not be used on the road.

 

Mr. March pointed out that there was an easement to each property owner to use the road.  The road association did not have the ability to dictate the use of the road.

 

Mr. Sitzman reiterated that Educo was continuing the same use as they had in the past.  A conservation easement was granted on the property that restricted the development on the property to only allow the uses of Educo or a very limited residential use if Educo would ever fold.  He stated that volunteers were not allowed to drive vans on the road.  Educo was a member of the road association and was willing to work with the road association to ensure that the roads were maintained and kept in good condition.

 

Commissioner Pond asked the length of the camping season?

 

Mr. Sitzman replied that the program generally ran from May to September.  He stated that Educo would like to utilize the property on a year-round basis but right now the primary courses were in the summer.  He stated that what occurred in the winter was very limited and would remain limited.

 

Commissioner Pond asked if Educo had any four-wheel drive vehicles for emergencies?

 

Mr. Sitzman replied that they had one four-wheel drive pickup.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer asked if the water cistern and communication system between the fire department and Educo were installed?

 

Mr. Stizman stated that the tanks had not yet been installed but would be when and if the application was approved.

 

Ms. Butterfield stated that Educo had an analog phone to contact emergency services.  She had also been in contact with the chief of the fire department, who had been on the property and was satisfied.

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan remarked that it was a very low-intensive usage of the 146 acres.  He appreciated the message and understood that the road had some issues but he did not see an impact situation.  If Educo was responsible and took precaution during bad weather he did not see a problem with the use.

 

Commissioner Wallace agreed with Commissioner Morgan’s comments.  She cautioned the staff of Educo to make sure that they had drivers that were appropriately trained and had appropriate vehicles.  She felt that the staff should also be trained to use the alternative trail to walk into the property.

 

Commissioner Waldo 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 property for Blue Moon Mountain Ranch Amended Special Review, file #04-Z1550, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.  Residential camp use throughout the life of this Special Review approval:

 

1.   The applicant shall provide a Development Agreement for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners prior to October, 1, 2006. 

2.   The maximum routine camp population may not exceed 30 people  An exception is that Educo may host a by-invitation-only gathering which may have up to fifty (50) people up to 3 times within a calendar year.  If this is the case Educo would bring in additional restroom facilities and would cater food to the property.  Educo will develop and implement a system for tracking daily attendance and provide the Larimer County Planning Department a brief annual report which provides these counts within 15 days of the end of the calendar year (i.e., January 15).

3.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Blue Moon Ranch Amended Special Review (File #05-Z1550), except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other representations and commitments of record for the Blue Moon Ranch Amended Special Review.

4.   All improvements will conform to plans and approvals as indicated in File #05-Z1550).

5.   Staff and students in activities on Blue Moon Mountain Ranch will be transported to and from the premises using motor vehicles no larger than a 15-passenger van.  Exceptions may be made in case of fire fighting, emergency response and vehicles involved in evacuation during wild fire or other emergency events as discussed in the Emergency Management Plan. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.  Prior to start of youth camp operations for the 2006 season:

 

1.   Educo will obtain a Residential Children’s Camp license from the Colorado Department of Human Services.

2.   A County permit for private road construction is required.  The access from North Rim Road must meet the requirements of Appendix G of the Larimer County Road Manual (LCRM) In the event that strict compliance with such standards cannot be reasonably accomplished, deviations or alternatives may be permitted only if approved by Larimer County Engineering Department.

3.   Plans must be approved for the food service, water supply and sewage disposal systems, and final construction approval shall be obtained from the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment.  

4.   A 2000 gallon tank to supply water for consumption, hygiene and fire fighting will be installed and certified by the applicant’s engineer.

5.   A forest management plan will be submitted to the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) for approval prior to the start of operation.  

6.   Manuals and field notes for Wildfire and Emergency Evacuation plans will be submitted to the Planning Department as proposed. 

 

C.  Residential camp use starting January 1, 2007:

 

In addition to meeting the above conditions, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval for operation in 2007 and beyond.  Prior to the start of 2007 camp operations:

 

1.   A Development Agreement must be approved by the County Planning, Health and Engineering Departments and County attorney; and recorded by the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.

2.   All improvements will conform to plans and approvals as indicated in File #05-Z1550.

3.   A forest management plan will be approved by the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS).

4.   Plans for proposed future improvements, including but not limited to expansion to 50 person capacity (water supply, sewage disposal and food service provision), five additional sleeping yurts, and a recreation/education center building must be approved through the County Site Plan process (LCLUC Section 6.0) prior to construction of said facilities.  All buildings will be contained in the 5-acre area shown on the site plan contained in the file.

5.   Transportation Capital Expansion fees will be paid within 90 days of the recording of the Special Review approval.

6.   Any areas disturbed by site construction must be restored to meet or exceed the historic conditions.

7.   The North Rim Road Association is responsible for maintenance of the North Rim Road which serves as access for numerous property owners in the vicinity of the subject property.  The owner must continue to participate in the North Rim Road Association along with other property owners and members in the manner prescribed by the Association and its controlling organizational documents. 

8.   Before expansion of use to more than a total of 50 students and staff on any given day will require a new Special Review amendment or full Special Review approval.

 

 

9.   Before building permits are issued for future improvements an additional Site Plan Review approval will also be required. 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #3  SAUNDERS APPEAL #06-G0105:  Mr. Stewart provided background information on the request to appeal Section 4.3.4.I (Child care home) of the Larimer County Land Use Code that restricts a child care home to a residence.  The proposal was to convert the existing detached garage into a child care home situated on County Road 21, ¾ mile north of the Boulder County Line.  He stated that the proposal would have to go through a site plan evaluation to make sure there was adequate parking on the site.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Wendy Saunders, 2029 S. County Road 21, explained that she wanted to open a Montesori preschool.  It was not a daycare but she had to go by daycare rules and licensing.  She explained that she took in or rescued abandoned farm animals and wanted to incorporate that within the Montesori curriculum.  She stated that she would have eight children.  She showed pictures of the site, and explained that the detached structure would have a kitchen and a bathroom and was in close proximity to the main house.  She also stated that parking and traffic should not be an issue and would not infringe on the neighbors. 

 

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 Saunders Appeal, file #06-G0105, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The owners shall obtain and finalize all required building permits for the conversion of the detached garage to a child care home prior to commencing the use.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #4  ESTES VALLEY RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN #06-G0106:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request to form a new rural fire protection district to provide for fire protection services in the Estes Valley excluding the Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park and adjacent to the Loveland Rural Fire District and the National Forest. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Jim Austin, Firewise Coalition of Estes Valley, explained that the initiative failed two years ago because it included the whole Estes Valley and would have increased taxes.  Historically the fire department had provided services to both the town and the rural residents for free, and the town could no longer provide additional funds for the fire department to help them grow.  The intent was to provide a tax base to collect revenues to pay in proportion to the property tax assessed valuation compared to the towns, which was 40% for the rural areas and 60% for the town.  It would pay that amount and the operating expense of the fire department plus pay into a capital reserve fund to build small rural stations around town that would be unmanned simply to station fire trucks closer to the developed communities. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Pond 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 Estes Valley Rural Fire Protection District, file #06-G0106, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The applicant shall address the concerns of the Commission, staff (as identified in this report and that arise during additional review and analysis) and referral agencies prior to the final decision of the Board of County Commissioners. 

2.   The plan shall meet the minimum requirements of State statute regarding the formation of a new special district.

3.   The service Plan must be revised to reflect the potential of the YMCA of the Rockies property to become nontaxable property.  This shall include either a revised budget and or revised mill levies to maintain the funding levels proposed.

4.   Prior to final approval the district proponents shall execute a satisfactory IGA with Larimer County.  This IGA shall at a minimum include language allowing the County to assure the District is working to include properties in a cooperative manner and in a reasonable and cost effective manner.  Further allowing the County review and input into the construction of facilities, including Site Plan review and building permit issuance when proposed in their jurisdiction.

5.   Expand/define a potential inclusion area in the Service Plan to include the area currently served by the Glen Haven volunteer department. 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

ITEM #1  CROW LANE RESERVOIR #1 LOCATION AND EXTENT #06-Z1586: 

Mr. Helmick informed the Commission that a member of the public, Mr. Wyatt, was informed of the wrong hearing time for the Crow Lane Reservoir #1 Location and Extent, in which he had comments on. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked Mr. Wyatt to speak about the application.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

David Wyatt, Wyatt & Winslow, LLC, represented Mark and Carol Meyers, one of three residential property owners bordering the proposed reservoir.  He requested a new hearing but in the alternative he wanted his comments to be on record.  He stated that his clients had concern about the proximity of the reservoir to their residence because the shore of the reservoir was ten feet or less from the deck of the residence.  The biggest concern was the rise in the water table, which could compromise the integrity of the structure.  He wanted the Pinewood Springs Water District do their own investigation and verify it with a qualified engineer on what the potential impacts would be with the reservoir on the residence and/or do some sort of mitigation to ensure that the water would not intrude and the clients’ home structure would be safe.  He stated that at a minimum a soil test needed to be completed to determine the percolation of the ground water going into the residence and the potential of any compromise to the structure.

 

Chairman Boulter asked the recording secretary to forward the minutes to the applicant, Pinewood Springs Water District.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if his clients and he had spoken with the applicant?

 

Mr. Wyatt replied yes. 

 

 

ITEM #5  DEEP WATER METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS NO. 1 & 2 #06-G0108:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request to form two linked Metropolitan Districts to provide for provision of public water service and proposes to facilitate the provision of other services, including sewer, roads, and storm drainage situated northwest of Wellington, adjacent to County Road 70 and County Road 9.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Evan Ela, Collins, Cockrel, & Cole, P.C., explained that two special districts were proposed to be formed.  District 1 would be a contracting, Title 32 district, that could facilitate the development of the oil-water source and contract with others for the sale of finished water and also augmentation water.  He explained that many customers of the project would rather work with a governmental entity rather than a private company.  District 2 would have a subdivision of 60 residential units on a total of 147 acres of land.  He stated that in the service plan for District 2 all of the financing was born initially by the developer, Mr. Seaworth; who would only get repaid as people bought the lots and paid tap fees.  He stressed that they were not seeking approval of the subdivision, just the ability to form a special district, and at a later date Mr. Seaworth would seek County approval for the subdivision. 

 

 

 

 

Richard Seaworth, 3218 E. County Road 70, stated that he had lived in the area for 60 years.  He explained the design for the districts and subdivision.  He stated that he went to Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and they stated that there was no more capacity for water and had no obligation to serve the area.  He remarked that water was hard to find in the area.  Thorton and Greeley had bought water from the county, which was why it was important to find another source of water.  He also stated that another purpose was to help the oil company pump more oil.  The oil company anticipated being able to double the output of the oil field within 24 months from the time 100% of the water was taken.  He felt that the project would be good for the area and the county.

 

Mr. Ela discussed a response letter to the Planning Department in regards to the recommendation of denial.  He stated that there was question of the guarantee that there would be a continued water source to the contracting parties.  He explained that there would be a three-way contract that would include District 1 which would assure that District 1 could secure the ability to secure a water source from the oil wells regardless of what was occurring with the oil well and oil market.  The Town of Wellington had submitted a letter stating that they wanted to contract with a governmental agency, not a private company.  He stated that the formation of the district would create a stable entity, a perpetual existing agency that could contract with other entities within the county.  He explained that the Planning Staff noted a concern that the district could fail.  He acknowledged that there was a risk that any entity or organization failing but the two districts were not obligating any kind of bonded indebtedness, it was strictly operating on a cash basis, and did not have the debt risks that some other developments may have.  Planning Staff had also indicated a concern about the lack of control of District 1’s eventual sale to entities in other counties.  He stated that there could be customers in other counties but did not mean that it would occur and that there should be no concern with that issue.  Even if it did it would be controlled through the water court process, the augmentation plant, and the water markets.  He noted that the benefit to the county was that the district would allow the development of a new non-tributary source, which could provide augmentation water.  He stated that the district would maintain and own the roads. 

 

Mr. Seaworth explained that he wanted to have one acre lots because he could take care of the open space and run the sewer lines out there.  He stated that the reason that two districts were needed was because there was more water than they had anticipated.  The water supply would last 1,000 years, and he hoped to double that.

 

Webster Jones, General Manager of East Larimer County Water District (ELCO), explained the history of the water district.  He stated that they were intrigued with the proposed source of water.  He remarked that a water tap from them would be approximately $26,000.  He stated that the district served their last customer to about County Road 60 and could not serve an area above 5,250 feet, and the proposed project’s elevation was about 5,400 feet.  Therefore there would be the distance and elevation that ELCO would be faced with if asked to serve the proposed area.

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked what kind of criteria and concerns would ELCO have if they considered obtaining water from a non-traditional source?

 

Mr. Jones replied that it would be the reliability, quality, and affordability.

 

 

 

Larry Wagner, 3570 Adams Circle, stated that he owned 640 acres approximately one mile north of the proposed project.  He remarked that he was in the process of splitting the land into 24 lots and obtaining water was a problem.  He stated that the proposal was a new way to obtain water because they were not being supplied by what was currently available.

 

Brad March, March & Olive, P.C., stated that he was the town attorney for Wellington.  He remarked that it was an intriguing project.  He stated that the purpose of District 1 was to provide water to a myriad of users.  Those users could be the Town of Wellington, which had been very interested in the source.  In evaluating the project the town looked at District 1, and the conclusion was that there needed to be a district or governmental entity that provided the distribution of the water to various users.  Wellington needed to develop new water sources.  It was very important to a town if the project was to be developed and if the town was going to look at utilizing the source for it to be a governmental entity that had control over the distribution.  He recommended that the Commission recommend approval of District 1.  He believed that if Wellington bought into the district Wellington would have substantial amounts of control over the operations, both contractually and otherwise.  Wellington would also have the ability to take over the district if it defaulted on contracts. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that unless the district contracted with Wellington and there were intergovernmental agreements there was no control process.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that there was no assurance that the district would sell water to Wellington and felt that the plan had many conflicts of interest.

 

Mr. Seaworth stated that they needed to sell to the Town of Wellington, and they had also talked with the cities of Ault and Pierce.  He explained that the water would be used for indoor use only and would have to be competitive in order to sell the water.  He remarked that he did not understand the fear of water being available.

 

Commissioner Morgan replied that the fear was that currently water was being taken out of Larimer County.  He stated that the service plan was clear but the concern was that the water would go to the highest bidder.  District 1 was a marketing district and that it essentially would be controlled by a developer.

 

Mr. Seaworth stated that the district was adding water to Larimer County not taking it away.  He wanted it to stay in Northern Colorado where it was needed. 

 

Mr. Ela reiterated that there were customers interested in buying the water.  He stated that it would be more economical to use the water locally. 

 

Mr. Seaworth asked the Commission if they would be more receptive to the project if they had a contract with Wellington?  He stated that he was willing to make a stipulation that nothing would occur on District 2 until there was a solid business partner. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

Chairman Boulter stated that one of the concerns was the proposed lots and if there would be potential burden for the lot owners or if the county would be left with the responsibility if the proposal fell through.  He stated that he liked the idea of finding new water to put out into the county, and the fact of finding water in a place that it had not been used before but was concerned with the mechanisms and uncertainties. 

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that it was a fantastic idea and liked that so many people could benefit from it. 

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that he was afraid that the water would go to the highest bidder.  He felt that there should be conditions on the special district that stipulated that the water could not leave Larimer County unless there was specific criterion.  He wanted Larimer County to have first right to the water. 

 

Commissioner Wallace pointed out that there would be many homes depending on the water.  She did not feel that it met the criteria for a district. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh found the project to be very intriguing and innovative and was in support of increasing water supply and availability.  Her biggest issue was the structure of the district.  Fundamentally, the way the project was structured the private entity would be selling the water to District 1 and then District 1 would be contracting with many other areas that would be relying on the water.  She wondered about that reliability and if it would be economically possible and sufficient from a public policy standpoint given that the mechanism that District 1 was funded from the water sales.  If production of the water ceased there would be contractual rights but where would the funding come from to actually keep the water available to all the mechanisms that were relying on the water.  She pointed out that the statutory framework stated disapproval unless there was satisfactory evidence to meet all the conditions, and she was not comfortable and did not see that satisfactory evidence had been provided. 

 

Commissioner Waldo acknowledged Mr. Seaworth’s integrity for his land and stated that he wanted to put trust into him to do the right thing with the water.  He stated that he would support the project.  He remarked that it was found water that was not being used, which would help the local community and hoped that the right decisions would be made.

 

Commissioner Pond wondered about the long term reliability of the project. 

 

Commissioner Morgan respected Commissioner Waldo’s comments regarding the Seaworths; however, he felt that it was the long term commitment to the residents of the county that needed to be considered.  It was a great opportunity, but it had to be managed very well.

 

Commissioner Pond 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 Deep Water Metropolitan Districts #1 & 2, file #06-G0108, be denied.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED 6-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:30 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                                      Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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