LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of June 16, 2010

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, June 16, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Mr. Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Cox, Glick, Hart, Morgan, Wallace and Weitkunat on a site visit to Legends of Ranching Location and Extent, CSU Solar 1041, Loveland 1041 Gas Line, Clingan Special Review, and Green Releaf Special Review.  Commissioner Hess visited the sites independently.

 

Chairman Wallace thanked Commissioner Morgan for his nine years of service to the Planning Commission.

 

Commissioner Morgan commented on the remarkable county and staff.  He stated that it was an honor to have been on the 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 MAY 19, 2010 MEETINGS:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Glick.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  LEGENDS OF RANCHING LOCATION AND EXTENT #10-Z1802:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a new horse barn at the equine center of the CSU Foothills Campus located west of Picket Equestrian Center.  The facility had already been constructed due to an oversight and the applicant was now seeking proper review and approval.  During an evaluation of the CSU Master Plan CSU realized that the barn had not went through review under the county.  He stated that Larimer County appreciated the efforts of CSU to bring the structure in to receive proper approval.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Legends of Ranching Location and Extent, file #10-Z1802, with the following condition:

 

 

1.   The applicant shall coordinate any contemplated drainage or traffic improvements with the Larimer County Engineering Department. 

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #2  CSU SOLAR 1041 #10-Z1794:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a 1041 permit for an expansion of the existing solar facility on the Foothills Campus of CSU.  The expansion would increase the area of the solar facility to 16.1 acres and would add 3.3mW of generation.  The site was situated north of LaPorte Avenue and west of Overland Trail. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked how the reclamation was occurring under the existing solar panels.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the vegetation was reestablishing itself.  The new panels were fixed panels so there may be more permanent shading.  Therefore, the Development Services Team wanted CSU to be aware of that issue.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that CSU Solar 1041, file #10-Z1794, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved with the following conditions:

 

1.   The final Plan shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the CSU Solar Expansion 1041 Permit File # 10-Z1794, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the CSU Solar Expansion 1041 Permit.

 

2.   Obtain all necessary state and local permits prior to construction, including air and water quality construction permits.

 

3.   Conduct an evaluation for the possible existence at/adjacent to the site of Ute’s Ladies Tresses and avoid if necessary any impacts to any populations. 

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  LOVELAND 1041 GAS LINE #10-Z1793:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a 1041 permit to construct a new 8 to 16 inch diameter high pressure natural gas transmission line.  The alignment was generally west of County Road 17, north of County Road 14, south of County Road 18, and southwest of the Loveland City Limits.  The purpose of the new line was to replace a 82 year old pipeline and also plan for growth.  He stated that the current pipeline ran under County Road 17 (Taft) to a regulator station at the corner of 14th Street SW and Taft Avenue.  The line was not holding pressure and attempts had been made with fail to correct the problem.  The regulations would allow the applicants to rebuild the pipeline in the current easement with no permit requirement.  However, given the density of development north of County Road 16 and other conflicts that route was dismissed.  The proposed route runs west of Taft adjacent to conservation easement owned by Loveland, west of Spring Mountain Estates, through other undeveloped agricultural parcels, under County Road 16, and around Blackbird Knolls Subdivision through open space west of the subdivision.  The route initially went through the Blackbird Knolls Subdivision but was altered due to comments and conflicts.  He mentioned that there were a number of alternative routes examined but the applicants preferred route was the one being examined through the 1041 permit review.  He stated that there were concerns regarding the safety of natural gas pipelines; however, in this jurisdiction there had been relatively few or no historical issues.  The Development Services Team was recommending approval. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked if the old line would be abandoned.

 

Mr. Helmick replied yes.

 

Commissioner Glick asked what a significant alteration would be, which was stated in Condition of Approval #6.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the applicants would have to alert the Planning Department of any changes or alterations to the route.  He stated that the applicant had suggested a trigger of 500 feet.  He stated that any deviation would be evaluated based on the location and issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Tecavec, Public Service Company of Colorado, was requesting to reroute a 16 inch natural gas line as there was an additional supply of gas needed in the area.  The current line was 82 years old and needed to be replaced.  He stated that public outreach had occurred to notify the public of the proposal.  Based on a study and public input the proposed route was chosen.  He noted that they had been in contact with the City of Loveland.  He stated that they had meetings with the residents of the Blackbird Knolls Subdivision, and they were now proposing to reroute the line to the west out of the subdivision through an open space west of the subdivision instead of going through the subdivision.  He explained that they did hold a franchise with the City of Loveland, which allowed them to construct within right-of-ways in their jurisdiction.  He stated that there was opposition from some of the landowners but they were working to come to an agreement to everyone’s satisfaction.  He stated that the plan was to construct the line in the fall.  He stated that Public Service prided themselves in taking consideration of public involvement and had utilized that from the start of the project.  Their goal was to reach agreements with 100% of the landowners where they needed to acquire easements.

 

Commissioner Hart asked if he had concern regarding what a “significant alteration” would be in terms of Condition of Approval #6.

 

Mr. Tecavec stated that they would agree to a 500-foot deviation trigger except for the area that they were still trying to obtain easement from that property owner.  He wanted the latitude to work with the landowners that the deviation would effect.

 

Commissioner Glick asked at what depth the line would be buried.

 

Mr. Tecavec stated that the standard depth was 48 inches over the top of the line.  Additional depth consideration would be considered if needed with the individual landowners. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked what the timeline was for the construction.

 

Mr. Tecavec stated that it was approximately 45 days.

 

Commissioner Glick asked what the growth projections were.

 

Mr. Tecavec stated that they planned for long-term supply to hopefully last for “another 80 years.”

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Paul Frank, lived in southwest Loveland, wanted a better definition of significant deviation.

 

Commission Wallace explained that the deviation depended on the location and parties involved.

 

Mr. Frank asked if they could deviate to one of the other alternative routes.

 

Commission Wallace replied no.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that a deviation would apply to the approved route.

 

 

 

Ed Leon, southwest Loveland resident, realized the need for infrastructure.  He recommended that the Planning Commission require a depth of 6 feet when within 500 feet of residences and be at least 500 feet from residences.  He stated that he was approximately 70 feet from where the pipeline would be but he was not involved in the process as the route was on the other side of his property line. 

 

Henry Hetzel, stated that the Land Use Code required the applicant to examine different routes, not just their favored or cheapest route.  Public Service development a decision matrix of nine routes.  He stated that Larimer County did not review the accuracy of the matrix and Tetra Tech Engineering who development the matrix would not give him an explanation or guide him to a reference explaining it.  He mentioned that the County Engineer did not understand the matrix either and had concerns about ranking methods and some of the numbers.  Taft Avenue was ranked as the #3 route choice out of nine routes.  He felt that it should have been ranked #1 as it was the existing easement for the 8-inch gas pipeline.  The Public Service decision matrix included construction costs for all routes but it did not include an estimate of the cost for purchasing easements.  Taft would have no easement cost but an easement to go through his property would cost $200,000.  The old pipeline should be replaced as it was there before any current property owners bought their property.  The residents of Blackbird Knolls bought their homes before the intrusion, and the high-pressure gas pipeline would come within 50 feet of those residents.  Public Service would condemn 2,150 feet of his private property, and have over 2,000 feet of high-pressure gas pipe in the backyards of people who would eventually live on his land.  He felt that developers would not be interested in his property and that it was un-American to condemn property when it was not absolutely necessary.  Public Service had alternatives but they could and would condemn his land.  He stated that people expected pipelines under roads and the pipeline should be under Taft. 

 

Commissioner Hess asked if his property was currently for sale.

 

Mr. Hetzel replied no but stated that he knew it would be developed in the next 10-15 years.

 

Paul Foreman, resident of Blackbird Knolls, supported the previous speakers comments.  He asked why the pipeline was not being put under Taft Avenue where it already existed.  He also pointed out that in the Blackbird Knolls open space there was a 60-foot buffer zone from the back of the houses to the wetlands, and Public Service’s construction area was 70-100 feet wide.  The point of the open space was to protect the wetlands so he wondered how that would be accomplished putting a pipeline through them.  He remarked that Public Service met with the Blackbird Knolls HOA board who would make the decision but only 20 homes in the subdivision were immediately impacted by the pipeline and Public Service never spoke with those residents.  He felt that private property should not be taken away to put in the pipeline.  Public Service could accomplish what they wanted by using the existing Taft easement.  He did not believe that they had the proper routing at the end of the proposed route to get to 14th Street.

 

Mr. Tecavec stated that it was Public Service’s preference to acquire private easements.  There was a higher frequency of 3rd party damage than if private easements were acquired. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked what they would do if the application was denied.

 

 

 

Mr. Tecavec stated that they would have to replace it in the current location under Taft.  He stated that route would then force them to go to the west under 14th Street.  The implication of that route would be impacts to traffic, landowners, and finance.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if Public Service would condemn Mr. Hetzel’s property if they could not obtain an easement. 

 

Mr. Tecavec replied that they had the right to do that but it was the last thing that they wanted to do or consider.  Another option would be to put it under 18th Street SW which would be considered.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if they would work with each landowner and notify them of the depth of line.

 

Mr. Tecavec stated that it was part of their communication.  If the landowner had concerns it was an option that they could work with them on.  He stated that they did have communication with Spring Mountain Ranch and have maintained contact with the HOA. 

 

Commissioner Hart confirmed that if wetlands would be disturbed Public Service would have to get approval with the Corps. of Engineers.

 

Mr. Tecavec replied yes.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what disruption would occur if the line was put under Taft.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that there were a huge number of property owners adjacent to the right-of-way.  Taft in Loveland ranged from a 4-lane road to a two-lane road, which would cause lane closures during the construction period.  Also, it was the county’s preference to not have utilities in the right-of-way. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked who’s responsibility it was to repave the road if the line was put under Taft?

 

Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department, replied that it would be the responsibility of Public Service.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if it was a high-pressure gas line.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that it was 1000 psi.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if there was a setback requirement from high-pressure gas lines.

 

Mr. Helmick replied no. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there was an analysis of the other alignments.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Helmick replied yes.  He explained that Alignment 7 had more wetlands and went through Spring Mountain Ranch.  Alignments 10 and 11 both ended up going through subdivisions.  Alignment 4 had issues with wetlands and going through a lake. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan felt that it was imperative that the public utility company take into consideration the public impact and public comments.  He did not feel that it was the commissions prevue to establish a certain depth to bury the line.  He did not feel that Taft was a good alternative and was recommending approval of the application.

 

Commissioner Wallace agreed that putting the pipeline under Taft was not appropriate and that there were not other appropriate alternatives.  She was also recommending approval.

 

Commissioner Hess agreed.  She felt that Public Service had done their due diligence with considering the best route and notifying the public.

 

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 Loveland 1041 Gas Line, file #10-Z1793, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved with the following conditions:

 

1.   The final plan shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the West Main Gas Line Replacement 1041 permit File #10-Z1793, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the West Main Gas Line Replacement 1041 permit.

 

2.   The applicants shall conduct a burrowing owl survey for those areas of the preferred route crossing prairie dog towns.

 

3.   The applicants shall coordinate all ditch crossings with the appropriate ditch companies and insure that all licenses and agreements are in place prior to construction.

 

4.   The applicant shall coordinate all bores of  the county roads affected by the route and obtain all necessary permits and permissions. 

 

5.   The applicant shall obtain all necessary and require State and Federal permits for the construction of the pipeline.

 

6.   The approval of this pipeline designates a corridor along the alignment and deviations to accommodate field issues will not affect the approval.  Significant alterations to the route shall be evaluated by the county prior to commencing activity, and may be subject to further review.   

 

Commissioner Hess seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #4  CLINGAN SPECIAL REVIEW #10-Z1786:  Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a pet animal facility in the O-Open zoning district and located at 9100 N. County Road 15 east of the intersection of N. County Road 15 and Grayhawk Road.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1.f of the Larimer County Land Use Code, which would require paving of the access drive and parking area with asphalt, concrete, or other similar all-weather material.  The applicant operated a police dog training facility on the site since 1999.  The training was conducted outside and included the sale of police dogs from the site.  He explained that a code compliance complaint was received in 2009, and the Board of County Commissioners found that the property owners were in violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code but allowed the business to continue with the caveat that they submitted a Special Review application.  He stated that from 1999 through 2004 there were 20 to 30 dogs on the property at all times but the number of dogs on the property had diminished over the years.  The applicants were requesting to keep up to five dogs on the property that would be offered for sale and asking for permission to conduct up to four training academies per year.  Each academy would have up to five students and would last for up to eight weeks.  He noted that dogs participating at the academy would not be boarded on the property.  He mentioned that the on-site training grounds included a debris field, which had historically been located on a highly visible portion of the property but was relocated to a smaller area less visible from County Road 15 and adjacent property.  He explained that the applicant’s driveway currently consisted of an all-weather surface but the majority of the parking area was a dirt surface.  The Development Services Team was supporting the appeal and recommending approval of the Special Review. 

 

Commissioner Wallace disclosed that Commissioner Hess, Morgan, and she lived in the general area of the subject application.  She also disclosed that Commissioner Hess had a personal relationship with the applicants.

 

Commissioner Hart asked if the handlers would reside overnight during training sessions.

 

Mr. Whitley replied no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joe Clingan, owner of Fort Collins Protection Dogs and Training, stated that he was a retired police officer in the K9 unit.  He stated that he had moved to the site in 1999 with the idea of having the facility.  He stated that he was negligent in not understanding the county’s code requirements.  He explained that he obtained a state license when he built the kennel, and he thought that was all he needed to do.  He stated that he intended to do what was needed in order to keep operating his businesses and maintaining his livelihood.  Since 1999, they had not received a complaint from the Sheriff’s office or animal control.  He stated that the neighbors to the north had complained to him on occasion, and he had done what he could to minimize the noise.  He stated that the calls came in during the time when the business was a full time operation and remarked that from 1999 to 2005 he did have a number of dogs in the kennel.  Since that time, he had cut back on his operations to a point where he only had a few dogs.  Presently he had two dogs for sale.  He was asking for the possibility of having five dogs for

sale at any given time.  He explained that he would have the dog for three weeks, and then the handlers would come for their academies.  They would be at his facility and off-site training facilities during the day but then the handlers and their dogs would leave at night.  He mentioned that he had also taken on a partner in his business who lived in Weld County who would house the dogs at her facility so that he did not have the dogs for very long.  He stated that a neighbor complaint had been received from the Indian Ridge Subdivision east of his property so he erected a fence to the east to help mitigate the noise.  After that, he did not hear from that neighbor again.  He pointed out that a letter had been submitted from a close neighbor in Indian Ridge that did not have a problem with the operation.  He stated that he had moved the debris field, which consisted of suitcases, containers, desks, file cabinets, etc. that could hide drugs or explosives, behind the sheds and was less visible.  He stated that he had also changed his classification in his state kennel license from a kennel and German Shepard Dog Rescue to just a kennel.  He also installed music in the kennel to help the dogs from hearing noises and barking.  Along with that, he installed a tone alarm so when the barking reached a certain level a tone would come on to help the dogs to stop barking but he was not sure if it worked.  He stated that he did have old vehicles on the site to teach the dogs but had several vehicles towed and only three remained.  He stated that they had changed the feeding hours so the dogs did not make noise so early in the morning.  He explained that 25% of the training was done off-site, and he had erected several fences to help with the noise and visibility.  He stated that he had tried to do as much mitigation as possible and agreed to work with the county to maintain the facility as it was his livelihood and passion. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked about the Waverly Community Influence Area’s comments specifically regarding building a berm.

 

Mr. Clingan explained that he looked into putting a berm to the north to help with noise from the kennel but he had taken other steps to mitigate noise and did not really feel that a berm was necessary.  He stated that since he moved the debris you could not see the debris field from the road.  He stated that an additional visual barrier could be installed.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Mark Miller, El Paso County Sheriff’s Office and current student, stated that there were no noise issues.  The impact of the business benefited the community.

 

 

 

 

Dan Downs, Wyoming Department of Corrections Investigations Unit, was there on behalf of Major William Moore, Chief of Investigation, and submitted his letter.  He stated that the department had been in business with Mr. Clingan since 2004. 

 

Richard Hillhouse, stated that if the facility was shut down it would have an impact to law enforcement in Wyoming.  He stated that he was with the Pine Bluffs Police Department and Mr. Clingan had given him and his K9 free training twice a month.  If it was shut down a pillar in the law enforcement community would be shut down. 

 

Phyllis Chatterton, stated that she lived a mile from the facility.  She stated that she had worked for the Kansas Humane Society for seven years and one of her duties was to inspects kennels.  She stated that she had been on the property several times (for other reasons) and had not found barking.  She did not have a problem with the field and felt that the work place was neat, clean, and painted.  She had no objections to the business.

 

Andrea Clingan, stated that when the humane society was called it was due to her dogs, which her parents were keeping for her for a couple of days.

 

Dave Zander, stated that he had lived in Waverly for 18 years and drove by the facility every day.  He stated that it had never bothered him.  He was proud that Mr. Clingan was doing the work he was because it was needed.  He was sorry that he had to pave part of his driveway and that there was a big issue being made over the facility.  He mentioned that the coyotes in the area made a lot of noise.  He remarked that the issues that the neighbors had should be worked out as neighbors.  He asked what the Waverly Community Influence Area group was.  He stated that it was a committee of three people making a recommendation for a whole community. 

 

Gary Lundstedt, stated that he had been to the subject property numerous times in the last two years and the dog barking was minimal. 

 

Brian Lundstedt, stated that the visibility from the road was very minimal.  He stated that the numerous times that he had been on the property there was minimal to no barking and no sustained barking.

 

Aaron Harrington, a K9 handler, stated that he had been on the property numerous times and there was minimal barking.

 

Zach Clingan, stated that the barking was not an issue.

 

Leslie Sorensen, lived next door to the north of the subject property.  She stated that she was at her home every day and her testimony should count.  She stated that they had always tried to take up their issues with Mr. Clingan but they had suffered through many, many years of Mr. Clingan’s business.  She stated that they had to deal with dogs barking on and off 24 hours a day.  She also mentioned that there had been anywhere from 10-30 dogs on site.  She remarked that the petition had no specific reason stating why it should be signed and was sent around to people in the area that had experienced the training facility.  She stated that no one would want to buy a piece of property next door to a training facility like the one on site.  She stated that when the shooting training went on it was unbearable.  Her husband had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and it disturbed him extremely.  The barking could be stopped by calling the Clingans but they

 

did not hear it, as they were numb to the noise.  According to the proposal there would be 222 days of shooting off and on throughout the day every day and all the dogs on site would be barking because they were agitated.  She did not mind the obedience training but the man work and shooting was unbearable.  She also stated that she had seen a sign on the property advertising puppies.  She recognized that there was a need for training for military and police dogs but not in a rural community like hers.

 

William Altenburg, lived south of the property and was the one that sold the property to Mr. Clingan in 1999.  He stated that his two main issues were barking dogs and visual appearance of the property.  He stated that he did go to the Clingans early on with those two issues and did try to deal with them neighbor to neighbor.  He stated that most of the time the dogs barked early in the morning and late into the evenings.  The visual appearance of the property was not appropriate for a residential neighborhood and affected the property values.  He stated that the petition signed by ten neighbors should take precedence over the other friends and neighbors who submitted their opinions because the people that signed it were in immediate contact of the site.  He asked that the Special Review not be granted.

 

Megan Baumann, stated that there was only one dog let out of the kennel at a time to be trained.  She stated that she had heard gunshots and fireworks in the area that did not come from her parents property. 

 

Judy Clingan, stated that they did move the two horses off of the site to help with the barking.  The feeding hours were changed so the dogs were not fed before 7 a.m.  She also stated that others in the area fired guns.  She also mentioned that one person who signed the petition stated that they were under the belief that the facility was going to expand which was not true.  She explained that shooting did not occur every day of training and blanks were used.

 

Cassie Harris, stated that the property was clean and painted, and the vegetation was well maintained. 

 

Mr. Dougherty asked if there had been any decibel readings made on the property?

 

Mr. Whitley replied no. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if the shooting training would exceed the allowed decibel readings?

 

Mr. Whitley stated that there was an exemption in the Noise Ordinance that allowed noise to exceed that decibel up to a certain percent for up to 15 minutes of a one hour period. 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, explained that Larimer County did have Noise Ordinance that had two major provisions.  The first was a prohibition against noises that were louder then a certain decibel level.  The other provision was a prohibition against creating a “noise disturbance” which was defined as “a noise of such a volume, frequency, or intensity that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life, quiet comfort or outdoor recreation of an individual of ordinary sensitivity and habits.”  He stated that very rarely did noise from kennels exceed the allowed level as the disturbance was usually for very short periods of time. 

 

 

Mr. Clingan explained the operations of the business.  He stated that the training day would begin off-site and last until 10 am.  Then they would come back to his property to do evidence searches, obedience training, etc.  In the afternoon bite work occurred which involved four bites from each dog.  Then once a week each dog would hear two gunshots.  He heard that some of the people that signed the petition were under the impression that they were requesting to increase the operation and number of dogs, which was untrue.  He stated that he did have puppies in the past that were brought to him to sell but he did not breed dogs.  He stated that he was working on the vegetation issues and trying to keep it under control.  He stated that Gary Whitney was their closest neighbor, and he did not have a problem with the facility.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat wondered if there would be a value in putting signage on the property so the public was aware of what was occurring on the property.  She thought that signage might mitigate neighborhood issues.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if he resided on his property before the Grayhawk Knolls Subdivision was developed.

 

Mr. Clingan replied yes.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace remarked that over the years barking dogs on the property had been a problem, which she had heard about from neighbors and a variety of people.  She also stated that the property had been an eyesore for years.  She stated that it had substantially improved but there were still junk cars on the site and junk cars and/or junk piles were not allowed elsewhere in the community.  The materials were right by the road, and the property did have issues with a visibility impact. 

 

Commissioner Cox agreed that from a visual perspective from the county road it was an issue.  She concurred with the comments from the Waverly Community group regarding a visual barrier and felt that it would help with the visual impacts. 

 

Commissioner Hess stated that she drove by the property often.  She stated that over the last year she had noticed a change in the visual aspect of the property.  She felt that moving the debris field took care of many of the issues.  She believed that a pet animal facility would have items outside and understood that training police dogs required different materials.  She pointed out that the junk cars on site were there for a purpose of training not a refusal from the applicant to move them off site.  She felt that Mr. Clingan had shown that he was willing to do what he needed to mitigate the visual and noise impacts from his neighbors.

 

Commissioner Dougherty understood the issue of barking dogs.  He felt that the property fit the criteria for a pet animal facility.  He also felt that the junk cars were there for a reason.  He did suggest adding more fencing if it helped mitigate the visual impacts. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that it was a business, and the applicant had addressed many issues to mitigate the impacts.  He understood the firearms issue but felt that it was part of living in the country.  He felt that careful monitoring and patience would help to solve the issues.

 

 

 

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 Clingan Special Review, file #10-Z1786, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved with 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 Clingan Special Review File #10-Z1786, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Clingan Special Review.

 

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

 

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

 

5.   No more than five dogs for sale shall be housed on the property at any one time.

 

6.   The Pet Animal Facility shall be limited to four training academies per year.

 

7.   Each training academy shall be limited to eight weeks and five students.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Cox requested a Friendly Amendment to add a condition of approval to require the debris field to be screened from the county road. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked what material the screening should be.

 

Commissioner Hart preferred that staff worked out that issue with the applicant.

 

Commissioner Hart amended the Motion.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the amended Motion.

 

Chairman Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hart, Hess, Morgan, and Weitkunat voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-1

 

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 Clingan Special Review appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1.f of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #10-Z1786, be approved as follows:

 

1.   An all-weather surface shall be established for the on-site client parking area.

 

2.     An asphalt surface shall be provided for the access from the edge of pavement on County Road 15 to the right-of-way/property line. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #5  GREEN RELEAF SPECIAL REVIEW #10-Z1783:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a medical marijuana grow operation and dispensary on the east side of Link Lane, south of Lincoln Avenue.  The property is in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and located in the I-Industrial zoning district.  Currently on the site was a restaurant and lounge.  The applicant was proposing to keep the restaurant and cease the use of the lounge and use it for a medical marijuana grow and dispensary operation.  He noted that Rollerland, which was approximately 1,000 feet from the site, was applying to establish a daycare in the facility.  He stated that the frontage to the property had unrestricted access to Link Lane, and the Development Services Team was requesting that a plan be developed that would limit access to two points of access to Link Lane.  The Development Services Team was recommending approval of the request.  He noted that Senate Bill 1284, Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, would become effective July 1, 2010. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there was any regulations regarding a grow/dispensary operation within the same premises as a restaurant or liquor license.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that from a land use perspective no.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that the retail food code indicated that there had to be a physical separation between the medical marijuana grow and dispensary facility and the restaurant.  The Health Department’s restaurant inspectors had met with the applicants.  The applicants had presented a plan to make it two separate facilities with two different entrances.

 

Commissioner Cox asked if there were any other marijuana dispensaries in the area.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that there were no legally established ones.  The Planning Department did have applications in requesting operations be in the area.  He reminded the commission that the regulations only allowed the operations in C-Commercial and I-Industrial zoning districts; therefore, it was one of the only areas that existed that was an option for applicants.

 

Commissioner Glick wondered if the request should wait to be heard until the state bill went into effect. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that one of the requirements was that applicants had an application in before July 1, 2010. 

 

Commissioner Cox wondered if the request could be tabled.

 

Mr. Helmick replied yes but there needed to be a direction given to the applicants on issues that needed to be fixed.  It could not be tabled just to wait for the new law to become effective.  The Planning Department and applicants were working under the rules that had been established and those rules had not been changed yet.

 

Lonnie Castillon, co-applicant, stated that he was proposing to operate a medical marijuana dispensary and grow facility at 320 S. Link Lane.  The location met all the necessary criteria for zoning and distance requirements.  He stated that they would address the parking area issues and a survey of the lot had already been done.  He stated that they would try to have a one way circulation flow with diagonal parking. 

 

Eloy Castillon, co-applicant, stated that he had bought the property in 1997.  He stated that they were complying with the county regulations.

 

Commissioner Hess asked if they would have delivery.

 

Mr. Castillon replied that they might deliver if need.  He stated that they did and would have security.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat confirmed that half of the building was the restaurant and the other half was the lounge. 

 

Mr. Castillon replied yes and both were currently in operation.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked about the hours of operation of the restaurant.

 

Mr. Castillon replied that they opened at 6:00 am and closed around 9 pm.  It was closed on Sundays.  The dispensary would be open from approximately 9 am to 7 pm. 

 

Commissioner Morgan confirmed that the bar operation would cease.

 

Mr. Castillon replied yes.  He stated that the restaurant had its on liquor license and would serve alcohol.  He stated that the restaurant and dispensary would be divided and there would not be the opportunity to move from side to side within the building.  He stated that it was a family restaurant.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Marie Hornback, was the owner of a dental lab in area since 1994.  She opposed the opening of the facility as she felt it would increase crime and traffic in the area.  She also believed that certain communities were defined by the businesses in that community, and a medical marijuana facility would not uplift the community but downgrade it.  She pointed out that even though the area was zoned industrial there were other types of businesses in the area.  She felt that it would affect their property values over time.  She also mentioned that many communities had banned the activities in their communities.  She was opposed to the operation.

 

Jerry Granberg, owner of Young’s Liquor located at Link Lane and Mulberry.  He was concerned about property values and the kind of people that might come into the community.  He was opposed to it in that neighborhood.

 

Chris Howley, was an instructor for a children’s speed skating class taught at Rollerland.  It was for children between the ages of 5 and 12 and met there five times a week.  The facility was a roller rink and there were probably more children in and out of that building every day of the week then the largest licensed facility.  His main issue was distribution and not being able to control what would happen once the marijuana left the facility.  He noted that it was less than a 1,000 feet from Rollerland.

 

Tanika Trevena, was concerned about the at-risk youth and crime in the area. 

 

 

 

Jathan Trevena, was with Rollerland Skate Arena.  He stated that it had been there for 30 years.  He stated that there was a high concentration of undesirable businesses in the area such as the Hunt Club and their business catered to children 14 years old and younger.  He stated that property value was also a concern.  He stated that they were in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and were within 1,000 feet of the Fort Collins city limits.  Fort Collins had stipulated in their laws that medical marijuana facilities could not be within the area of schools, daycares centers, etc. but also recreation facilities and places where children congregated.  He asked that the commissioners took that into consideration.  He also mentioned that they were also in the process of applying for a daycare license with the State. 

 

Ken Correia, business owner in the medical marijuana industry, stated that there had been a lot of information given out that was not accurate.  Senate bill 1284 had been passed and established many regulations and believed that the county regulations fell within the state regulations.  He heard a lot of fears and stated that there were many positives coming from the industry such as redevelopment.  He stated that the applicants were trying to establish a safe location and pointed out that people would go there to get there medicine and leave.  It was not going to be a facility for drug dealing.  He believed it would be a better location and environment then the bar currently there.

 

Jondon Trevena, stated that his main concern was that Rollerland had been there for 30 years and they did have a lot of schools, churches, and daycare facilities coming to the facility.  He stated that some of those establishments took a different route to their facility just so they would not have to drive by the Hunt Club.  He was opposed because it could hurt or ruin their business. 

 

Lonnie Castillon replied that medicating outside would not be allowed.  He stated that their signage would say Green Releaf Wellness Center and there would not be any picture or reference to marijuana.  He stated that the Hunt Club and their signage was more inappropriate then what their business was proposing.  He stated that they were educated and professional and planned to comply with all state and local regulations.  He pointed out that there were many instances where people went into a liquor store and supplied liquor to minors and the medical marijuana industry was going to be regulated on a more restrictive level then liquor.  He remarked that there would be a security plan in place to make the place safe.  He stated that they were trying to have a legitimate business, supply people with their medication, and comply with all regulations.

 

Commissioner Glick asked about the City of Fort Collins regulations considering that the location was within the Fort Collins GMA.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that Fort Collins did not comment regarding their regulations.

 

Commissioner Weitkuant wondered if cultivation of plants was a different kind of business compared to wellness and health.

 

Mr. Helmick stated the commercial cultivation of a crop was anticipated in the code that was adopted.  There was no prohibition to combine the two operations, and House Bill 1284 stated that it was a preferred mechanism. 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Hart stated that in January the Board of County Commissioners approved medical marijuana facilities to be reviewed under the Land Use Code.  The operation met the criteria. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that his son went to Rollerland.  He did not see an issue with increased crime in the area and saw an opportunity for the building to increase in value.  He thought that it was a viable business and it fit with the criteria that was put into place.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that the criteria was based on compatibility.  He did not believe that their was a compatibility between a marijuana grow and dispensary and a restaurant with a liquor operation.  He did not support the request as it was not compatible with the underlying intent of the regulations that were approved. 

 

Commissioner Cox stated that the reason for the separation requirements was to protect children, and the roller rink had more children present there than a daycare center or school possibly did.  From a compatibility standpoint and intent of the separation regulations she could not support the dispensary in that location.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat reaffirmed what Commissioner Morgan and Cox stated.  She did not feel that the intent was to allow an operation to be in the same building as a restaurant and liquor establishment.  When she thought of industrial, she thought of more of an isolated area with less family establishments.  She did not feel that it met the compatibility in the area. 

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Green Releaf Special Review, file #10-Z1783, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty and Hess voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 11:07 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.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Nancy Wallace, Chairman                                          Gerald Hart, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

PARCEL ONE:

Solar Site:

 

a parcel of land located in the Northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described an follows:

 

Commencing at the west quarter corner of said Section 8, s found ELM. brass cap; from which the East Quarter corner of said Section 8, a found 3-1/4” aluminum cap in a monument box stamped P.L.S. #34990 beers N84 °32’02”E, 5324.07 feet, with all bearings contained herein being relative thereto; thence N84° 32’02”E on the south line of said Northwest Quarter, 2088.92 feet; thence departing said south line N00 ° 00’00”E, 1162.88 feet to the Point of Beginning, a found #4 rebar end red plastic cap stamped P.L.S. #35581 (here in after to be referred to as a “found cap”); thence N90° 00’00”W, 1021.17 feet to a found cap; thence N00° 00’00”E. 840.33 feet to a found cap; thence N90° 00’00”E, 1021.17 feet to a found cap; thence S 00° 00’00’W, 640.33 feet to the Point of Beginning.

 

PARCEL TWO;

20’ Electrical Utility Easement South of Laporta Avenue.

 

A 20 foot wide electrical utility easement in the Northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being 10 feet on each side of the following centerline:

 

Commencing at the west quarter corner of said section 8, a found B.L.M. brass cap; from which the East quarter corner of said Section 8, a found 3-1/4” aluminum cap in a monument box stamped p.l.s. #34990 bears N84 °32’02”E, 5324.07 feet, with all bearings contained herein being relative thereto; thence N54° 32’02”E on the South line of said Northwest quarter, 1954.21 feet; thence departing said south line N00 ° 00’00”E, 138.21 feet to the point of beginning; thence N00° 00’00”W, 21.81 feet to the point of terminus.

(SEE DETAIL SHEET 2 OF 2)

 

and.

 

Electrical Utility Easement North of Laporte Ave.

 

A 20 foot wide electrical utility easement in the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, township 7 North, Range 69 west of the Sixth principal meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being 10 feet on each side of the following centerline:

 

Commencing at the west quarter comer of said section 8, a found B.L.M. brass cap; from which the East quarter corner of said Section 8, a found 3-1/4” aluminum cap in a monument box stamped pls. #34990 bears N84 °32’02”E, 5324.07 feet, with all bearings contained herein being relative thereto; thence N84° 32’02”E on the south line of said Northwest quarter, 1954.21 feet; thence departing said south line N00 ° 00’00”E, 218.15 feet to the point of beginning; thence N00° 00’00”E, 104.91 feet; thence N34 ° 21’0l”W, 329.43 feet; thence on the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 50.00 feet, an arc length of 14.3S feet, a delta of 16° 26’33”, and a chord which bears N 35° 32’33’W, 14.30 feet; thence N43 ° 45’49”W, 219.94 feet; thence on the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 30.00 feet, an arc length of 22.91 feet, a delta of 43° 45’49”, and a chord which bears N21 ° 52’35”W, 22.36 feet; thence N00 ° 00’00”E, 389.44 feet to the point of terminus.

(SEE DETAIL SHEET 2 OF 2)

 

PARCEL THREE;

Ingress and Egress Easement:

 

A 20 foot wide ingress easement in the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being 10 feet on each side of the following centerline:

 

Commencing at the West Quarter comer of said Section 8, a found BLM. Brass Cap; from which the East Quarter comer of said Section 8, a found 3-1/4 Aluminum Cap in a Monument Box Stamped P.L.S. #34990 beam N84 °32’02”E, 5324.07 feet with all bearings contained herein being relative thereto; thence N84° 32’02”E on the South line of said Northwest Quarter, 1917.01 feet; thence departing said South line N00 ° 00’00”E, 225.27 feet to the Point of Beginning on the Northerly right of way line of La Porte Avenue; thence N26 ° 16’59”W, 10.44 feet; thence N34 ° 06’33”W, 85.36 feet; thence N48 ° 54’25”W, 156.29 feet; thence N49 ° 33’20”W, 244.65 feet; thence N49 ° 05’58”W, 246.01 feet; thence N49 ° 28’45”W, 144.28 feet thence

N49 ° 13’20”W, 310.58 feet; thence N48 ° 52’l0”W, 158.60 feet, thence on the arc of a come to the Right having a radius of 347.64 feet an arc length of 249.72 feet, a delta of 41° 09’23”, and a chord which bears N25° 29’33”W, 244.38 feet; thence N03 ° 09’S4”W, 93.80 feet; thence N01 ° S2’39”E, 96.37 feet thence N90 ° 00’00”E, 263.89 feat to the Point of Terminus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARCEL FOUR;

Solar Site:

 

a parcel of land located in the Northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:

 

Commencing at the west quarter corner of said Section 8, a found B.L.M. brass cap; from which the East Quarter corner of said Section 8, a found 3-1/4” aluminum cap in a monument box stamped P.L.S. #34990 bears N84 °32’02”E, 5324.07 feet, with all bearings contained herein being relative thereto; thence N84° 32’02”E on the south line of said Northwest Quarter, 2088.92 feet; thence departing said south line N00”00’00”E, 1162.88 feet to the Point of Beginning, a found #4 rebar and red plastic cap stamped P.LS. #35581; thence N90° 00’00”W, 1021.17 feet to a found #4 rebar and red plastic cap stamped P.L.S. #35581; thence N00 ° 00’00”E, 640.33 feet to a found #4 rebar and red plastic cap stamped P.L.S. #35581; thence N90 °00’00”W, 202.41 feet to a set #5 rebar and yellow plastic cap stamped P.L.S. # 37929, (herein after to be referred to as a “set cap”; thence S00 ° 00’34”e, 551.51 feet to a set cap; thence 525 ° 06’53”E, 25.80 feet to a set cap; thence S31 ° 32’21”E, 66.14 feet to a set cap; thence N84 ° 15’46”E, 115.17 feet to a set cap; thence S40 ° 22’l0”E, 59.85 feet to a set cap; thence N89 ° 05’39”E, 84.19 feet to a set cap; thence S84 ° 22’12”E, 60.95 feet to a sat cap; thence S30 ° 39’52”E, 257.51 feet to a set cap; thence S56 ° 03’17”E, 252.25 feet to a set cap; thenceS48 ° 46’31”E, 45.02 feet to a set cap;

thence S14° 21’47”E, 56.90 feet to a set cap; thence S50° 24’l1”E, 164.60 feet to a set cap; thence S44° 51’l6”W, 31.98 feet to a set cap; thence S25° 20’12”E, 72.58 feet to a set cap; thence S14° 911’55”W, 31.74 feet to a set cap; thence S49° ”06’40”E, 160.57 feet to a set cap; thence

N51 ° 42’16”E, 102.33 feet to a sat cap; thence N82 ° 43’34”E, 114.16 feet to a set cap; thence N07 ° 16’24”W, 106.63 feet to a set cap; thence N82 ° 35’l5”E, 102.03 feet to a set cap; thence S07 ° 08’22”E, 126.48 feet to a set cap; thence N82 ° 35’l5”E, 84.68 feet to a set cap; thence

N03 ° 13’26”W, 1366.40 feet to a set cap; thence N90 ° 00’00”W, 63.01 feet to a found #4 rebar and red plastic cap stamped P.L.S. #35581; thence S00 °00’00”W, 640.33 feet to the point of beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

Township 4 N, Range 69 W, Sections 3 and 4; and Township 5 N, Range 69 W, Sections 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, and 35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

LOT 1, ALTENBURG SUBDIVISION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

 

LOT 1, REPLAT LOT 11, BLK 2, E MULBERRY SUB