LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of January 21, 2004

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, January 21, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Morgan, Pond, and terMeer, were present. Commissioner Korb presided as Chairman.  Commissioners' Nelson, Wallace and Waldo were absent. Also present were Al Kadera, Senior Planner, Jill Bennett, Senior Planner, Mark Peterson, County Engineer, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Pam Stringer, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

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 DECEMBER 17, 2003 MEETING: MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes as presented; seconded by Commissioner Boulter.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1 LAPORTE AREA PLAN #03-CA0044:  Mrs. Bennett provided background information on the Adoption of the LaPorte Area Plan as an Element of the Larimer County Master Plan. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

 

Jim Chickles, 2204 N Overland Trail, LaPorte, spoke in favor of the LaPorte Area Plan. 

 

Doug Kindsfater, 1302 Owl Canyon Trail, LaPorte, asked what the effective date of the Plan would be if adopted and if it would supersede zoning.

 

Mrs. Bennett replied that the plan is a guide to new development.  It was not zoning nor would it replace any existing zoning.  However, it was connected to zoning and was important if a land owner requested a change in zone.  Mrs. Bennett stated the plan would not down zone anyone but it could be possible to up zone if the request was consistent with this plan. 

 

Chairman Korb commented when a plan is adopted, it is a dream and a vision. But what is there is recognized and has a vested interest that can not be tampered with. 

 

Doug Kindsfater questioned if the incentives were sufficient compensation for change and would it give the owner the right to continue the existing use on the property? He also questioned if the use would stay with the land if the land transferred hands?

 

Chairman Korb stated the successors would have the same rights.

 

More discussion continued on how the plan would not change the underlying zoning of the property.

 

Public Testimony was closed at this time.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Commissioner Morgan commented on the remarkable job Mrs. Bennett and her staff had done on soliciting community input and he stated that the plan was a reflection of what the LaPorte Community envisioned.  It also enhanced the business and family opportunities that were in the LaPorte area and makes it unique.

 

Commissioner terMeer voiced her support of the LaPorte Area Plan but also stated her concerns on how the plan does encouraged up zoning, which she was against.

 

Chairman Korb replied that it would not affect up zoning, although it was encouraged in certain limited areas.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission adopt the LaPorte Area Land Use Plan (including the modifications to the drainage language) 03-CA0044 as an element of the Larimer County Master Plan.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Huddleston, Morgan, Pond, terMeer and Chairman Korb voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

 

ITEM #2 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #03-CA0045:  Mrs. Bennett provided background information on the proposed Code amendments to implement the LaPorte Area Plan. Specifically to change Section 5.2.2, to add Subsection F to Section 8.9.1; and to change the classification of a section of County Rd. 19 in the LaPorte Plan Area

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the following Land Use Code amendments:

 

1.  Amend the Land Use Code, Sec. 5.2.2 as follows:

 

Any land division in a GMA district or in the LaPorte Plan area must be divided as a Planned Land Division, except those parcels that meet the review criteria for a Minor Land Division or are in conformance with Sec. 5.8, Rural Land Use process.  A land division in the LaPorte Plan area must be divided as a Planned Land Division if a rezoning to PD-Planned Development occurs.

 

2.  Amend the Land Use Code by adding subsection F. to Sec. 8.9.1. 

 

The actual text for subsection F. would be located in a separate document from the Land Use Code, titled Supplementary Engineering Regulations for the LaPorte Plan Area, as follows:

 

Sec. 8.9.1 Supplementary Engineering Regulations

 

F.  LaPorte Plan Area Access Control and Roadway Design

 

1.  Access control and traffic circulation

 

a. New land divisions and/or Site Plans must be designed and constructed to implement the access control and traffic circulation plan as shown on the LaPorte Area Plan Future Transportation Improvements Map.

b. Land divisions and/or Site Plans pertaining to those properties affected by said access control and traffic circulation plan must be designed such that access from County Road 54G or Taft Hill Road takes place only in the locations shown on the LaPorte Area Plan Future Transportation Improvements Map.  The exact location of the access points along County Road 54G or Taft Hill Road and the right-of-way for said access points shall be determined by the County Engineer based upon the access control and traffic circulation plan. For those properties where it is not physically feasible to take access according to the plan, the County may allow an alternate temporary access point(s) as approved by the County Engineer until such time as access per the plan is physically feasible.

c. At the time of final plat or Site Plan approval, for those properties affected by said access control and traffic circulation plan shown on the LaPorte Area Plan Future Transportation Improvements Map, public right-of-way for traffic circulation must be dedicated in a final configuration that considers the Map, the final plat or Site Plan for adjacent sites, the topography, drainage, floodplains and/or other physical characteristics of the area, and is approved by the County Engineer.

d. Streets, roads, intersections, turning lanes, or other physical improvements included in the design of new development affected by said access control and traffic circulation plan must be constructed at the time of development or, at the County’s discretion, a fee-in-lieu must be paid to the County.

2.  Roadway Design

 

Street and road improvements shall be designed in accordance with the typical sections contained in the LaPorte Area Plan and detailed below:

 

a. Rural Arterial Typical Section.

b. Urban Arterial Typical Section.

c. Collector Typical Section.

d. Local Residential Street Typical Section.

 

 

 

Functional Road Classification Map Change

 

Amend the Functional Road Classification Map to reflect a change in classification of County Rd. 19 (Taft Hill Rd.) from County Rd. 54G to Hwy. 287 (LaPorte Bypass) from minor collector to major collector. 

 

Commissioner Boulter seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Huddleston, Morgan, Pond, terMeer and Chairman Korb voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

 

ITEM #3 LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT #04-CA0001: Mr. Kadera provided background information on the request to amend Section 4.3.10.F.

 

1.    PET ANIMAL REGULATIONS:

 

Commissioner Morgan asked for clarification on the hobby breeders and the number of animals they could have.

 

Mr. Kadera stated that the hobby breeders could have as many animals as they wanted but could only have 2 litters and transfer 18 puppies, kittens, etc. per year.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked how the County would be able to enforce this and what would the impact be of the residential areas?

 

Mr. Kadera stated that the current regulation allows the property owner to have 3 adult dogs and not be considered a kennel.  You could breed the dogs many times in a year without being in violation of the existing code.  If the amendment was adopted, it would limit the number to some extent and it would be consistent with the state regulation.  

 

Commissioner Morgan asked Mr. Kadera who would enforce the regulation if he was comfortable with that number?

 

Mr. Kadera stated that when talking with the complainant, it doesn’t matter how many dogs, it’s the noise level.  Mr. Kadera also stated that he does not see a problem enforcing the number of dogs.

 

Commissioner terMeer questioned the engineering aspect of allowing a vet clinic to now have 50 trips per day rather than the 20 trips per day as previously approved? 

 

Mr. Kadera replied that 20 trips per day were recommended by the engineering department at that time.  The difference would be that a traffic impact report would have to be completed for any trips over 20 trips per day.

 

Commission terMeer felt that 50 trips per day was a lot of trips.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

 

Greg Wild, 5600 W US Hwy 34, suggested combining the Vet Clinic and the Pet Animal Facility definition to make it more realistic.  He also stated that the T-Tourist Zoning was not included in the listing of zoning districts.

 

Public Testimony closed at this time.

 

Mr. Kadera replied a vet clinic or kennel was not a consistent use with some uses in the T-Tourist Zoning District and that combining the vet clinic and pet animal facility definition would not comply with the state regulations.

 

Commissioner Boulter asked if a full care facility and vet clinic application could be reviewed as one application.

 

Mr. Kadera replied yes.

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked if a combined application was submitted, would the trips per day be 100?

 

Mr. Kadera stated no because the impact on the roads would be 50 vehicle trips and they would need a full Special Review.

 

Commissioner Morgan expressed concern of allowing more than one principal use on a property.

 

Mr. Kadera replied that an amendment to the Special Review process was done to allow the Commissioners to authorize more than one principal building on a property.

 

Commissioner Boulter appreciated the fact that the code took into account that people want to breed their dogs occasionally and that they have been given the opportunity to do so.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the following Land Use Code Amendment as follows:

 

Items to be deleted from the Land Use Code

 

Section 4.1, starting on Page 4-1 delete the term “Kennel” from all zoning districts.

 

Section 4.3, Use Descriptions, starting on Page 4-70 delete the term “Kennel”.

 

Definitions, delete the term “Kennel”.

 

Index, delete the following terms:  Household Pets and Kennel.

 

Section 4.3.3.G, Personal Service, Page 4-73 delete, “1.  A pet grooming facility can not include medical care of pets.”

 

Items to be added to the Land Use Code

 

Definitions

 

Pet Animal-“Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, mice, ferrets, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates or any other species of wild or domestic or hybrid animal, except livestock, sold, transferred or retained for the purposes of being kept as a household pet.  Pet animal includes dogs and cats kept for working purposes on a farm or ranch.”

 

Livestock-“Cattle, horses, mules, burros, sheep, swine, llamas and goats, regardless of use, and any animals, except dogs and cats, that are used for working purposes on a farm or ranch and any other animal designated by the State Agricultural Commissioner, which animal is raised for food or fiber production.”

 

Pet Animal Facility-“Any place or premise used in whole or in part, which part is used for the keeping of pet animals for the purpose of adoption, breeding, boarding, day care, training, grooming, handling, selling, sheltering, trading or otherwise transferring such animals.  Pet animal facility also includes any individual animals kept by such a facility as breeding stock.  Pet animal facility does not mean a common carrier engaged in intrastate or interstate commerce.  Two or more pet animal facilities that have the same or similar purpose and operate from one place or premise are considered a single pet animal facility.”

 

Canine Hobby Breeder Facility-“Any facility which transfers no more than 18 dogs per year or breeds no more than 2 litters per year, whichever is greater.”

 

Bird Hobby Breeder Facility-“Any facility engaged in the operation of breeding and raising birds for the purpose of personal enjoyment that does not transfer more than 30 birds per year.”

 

Feline Hobby Breeder Facility-“Any facility that produces or transfers no more than 18 cats per year or breeds no more than 3 litters per year.”

 

Small Animal Hobby Breeder Facility-“Any facility that transfers a number of animals less than the maximum number established by the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture by rule for each particular species.”

 

In Section 4.3.10 replace “C.  Household Pets” with  “C.  Pet Animals.  Pet animals are permitted as an accessory use to residential uses.  Hobby breeder facilities are permitted as part of this accessory use”.

 

Add Section 4.3.12, “Pet Animal Regulations”

 

A.   Pet Animal Facility--“Any place or premise used in whole or in part, which part is used for the keeping of pet animals for the purpose of adoption, breeding, boarding, day care, training, grooming, handling, selling, sheltering, trading or otherwise transferring such animals.  Pet animal facility also includes any individual animals kept by such a facility as breeding stock.  Pet animal facility does not mean a common carrier engaged in intrastate or interstate commerce.  Two or more pet animal facilities that have the same or similar purpose and operate from one place or premise are considered a single pet animal facility.”

 

  1. Minor Special Review is required for any pet animal facility that generates 50 vehicle trips or less per day, except in the B-Business, C-Commercial and I-Industrial Zoning Districts where an indoor pet animal facility is a use by right.

2.   Special Review is required for any Pet Animal Facility that:
a.  Generates more than 50 vehicle trips on any day, except in the B-Business, C-Commercial and I-Industrial zoning districts where a Pet Animal Facility is a use by right; and/or
b. Has any outdoor activities except the parking of customers’ cars.

 

B.   Pet Animal Veterinary Clinic/Hospital--“A facility for the diagnosis, treatment and/or hospitalization of pet animals.”

 

  1. Minor Special Review is required for any Pet Animal Veterinary Clinic/Hospital that generates 50 or less vehicle trips on any day, except in the B-Business, C-Commercial and I-Industrial Zoning Districts where such a Pet Animal Veterinary Clinic/Hospital is a use by right.
  2. Special Review approval is required for any Pet Animal Veterinary Clinic/Hospital that:
    a.  Generates more than 50 vehicle trips on any day, except in the B-Business, C-Commercial or I-Industrial Zoning Districts; and/or

b.   Has any outdoor activities other than the parking of customers’ cars.

 

Amendments to Zoning Districts

 

In Sections 4.1.1, FA-Farming; 4.1.2, FA-1 Farming; 4.1.3, FO-Forestry; 4.1.4, FO-1 Forestry; 4.1.5, O-Open and Section 4.1.8, RE-Rural Estate add the following uses under the Agricultural use category:

 

Pet Animal Facility (MS/S)

 

In Sections 4.1.17, B-Business; 4.1.18, C-Commercial; and 4.1.19, I-Industrial add the following uses under the Agricultural use category:

 

Pet Animal Facility (R/S)

 

In Section 4.1.21, AP-Airport add the following uses:

 

Pet Animal Facility (MS/S)

 

These amendments also affect the Zoning Table located at the end of Section 4.1.

 

Item to be Amended

 

Amend the Use Description for Livestock Veterinary Clinic/Hospital to read,

 

“Livestock Veterinary Clinic/Hospital—A facility for the diagnosis, treatment and/or hospitalization of livestock.

1.   Minor Special Review is required for any Livestock Veterinary Clinic/Hospital that generates 50 or fewer vehicle trips on any day, except in the B-Business, C-Commercial or I-Industrial Zoning Districts where such a Livestock Veterinary Clinic/Hospital is a use by right.

2.   Special Review approval is required for any Livestock Veterinary Clinic/Hospital that:
a.  Generates more than 50 vehicle trips on any day, except in the B-Business, C-Commercial and I-Industrial zoning districts where a Livestock Veterinary Clinic/Hospital is a use by right; and/or

b.  Has any outdoor activities other than the parking of customers’ cars.”

 

Commissioner terMeer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Huddleston, Morgan, Pond, terMeer and Chairman Korb voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

 

2.         LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR ON-SITE SEWER SYSTEMS:  Mr. Ryan, Environmental Health Department, provided the background information on the request to replace the word “intrinsic” with “natural”.

 

Commissioner Boulter asked if this was a semantic change?

 

Mr. Ryan replied that by locating the lots on better soils and having the residual land be located on soil less suitable for sewer systems, the general principal would not be changed with the substitution of the word natural in place of intrinsic.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

 

Greg Wild, 5600 W US Hwy 34, stated that residual land should be used for agricultural purposes, which in most cases have the most suitable soils. 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Mr. Ryan stated that depending on the degree of natural suitability of the soils and other constraints like water courses and slope.  We could work with the design, density and location of the lots to meet the goals outlined in the Code.

 

Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the following Land Use Code Amendment as follows:

 

Amend Section 8.1.1.B.2.e

 

Substantial evidence is submitted showing that the design, layout and density of a development proposal incorporates the inventory and analysis of site conditions listed above.  Proposals must show that site conditions are compatible with the use of on-site sewer systems and that the location of sewer systems will take advantage of favorable site conditions while avoiding significant constraints.  Evidence of compatibility may include natural suitability of soils and other site conditions; development design and density tailored to limits placed by site constraints; and the ability to meet future lot owner expectations for operation and maintenance.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Huddleston, Morgan, Pond, terMeer and Chairman Korb voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

 

3.    PUBLIC VS PRIVATE ROADS AND GATED ROADS:  Mr. Kadera provided background information regarding this proposal.

 

Commissioner Pond requested clarification regarding long term or permanent maintenance of a private road.

 

Mr. Kadera stated that the county would prefer to use the term permanent but some attorneys have trouble with using the word permanent. 

 

Commissioner Boulter requested for clarification on gated public roads and asked if the code was silent on them?

 

Mr. Kadera replied the code did not mention gated public roads.  However, legally one can not put a barricade across a public right-of-way.

 

Commissioner Morgan was concerned about imposing new standards on the Rural Land Use Plan if the new wording proposed in the Development Design Standards was adopted.

 

Mr. Kadera replied that the Rural Land Use Center was currently working engineering standards that would apply to that process.  This applicable county standard would not apply if the Rural Land Use Center adopts its own road standards.

 

Chairman Korb asked what the current road standards were for the Rural Land Plan Use center?

 

Mr. Reidhead, Rural Land Use Center Director, replied that the Rural Land Use Center currently uses Appendix G minimal road standards for 35 acre projects.  He also stated that the Rural Land Use Center was working on a new resolution for development standards that should be completed within the next 6 months.

 

Chairman Korb asked if these standards were more lenient than general road standards?

 

Commissioner Boulter was concerned with the flexibility that may be eliminated when dealing with applicants in the Rural Land Use Center if the words “except rural land plans” were taken out.

 

Mr. Reidhead concurred with Commissioner Boulter. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

 

Lynn Hammond, Attorney in Loveland, 1255 W 6th Street, stated his concerns about section 18.14.2 Development Design Standards and striking the words “except rural land plans”.  He also requested that the Planning Commission delay this proposal until Mr. Reidhead could put together his proposal.  Mr. Hammond went into more detail on how unique the Rural Land Use Center is and how the land owner can work with the county to create something more desirable than 35 acre tracts.

 

John Barnett, 3200 Greenwood Ct., Fort Collins, spoke in opposition of the proposed amendments.  

 

Commissioner Morgan asked Mr. Barnett if his only objection was to striking the words “except rural land plan”?

 

Mr. Barnett stated yes.  He felt the County was being restrictive on gated communities and would like to see a more public process.

 

Scott Charpentier, Developer of the Hidden Valley Estates Rural Land Use Project, stated that the Rural Land Plan had made the Hidden Valley Estates project possible.  With some of the slopes in this area, he could not even meet the county standards.

 

Chairman Korb asked if the Hidden Valley Estates had phases?

 

Mr. Charpentier stated yes.  He also requested the Planning Commission give Mr. Reidhead chance to get a proposal together and to put the amendment on hold.

 

Doug Kindfater concurred with tabling the amendment.

 

Kitty Wild, 1757 Glade Road, Loveland, stated her concern regarding private vs. public dedication of roads and asked if all of the issues involved were looked at?  She also stated that Section E would be an over kill because no bank would lend money on a property without proper access. 

 

Greg Wild expressed his concern on the public process and lack of notification to the general public of these types of amendments.  Mr. Wild said he would like to see the purchasers make the decision regarding gated roads and not the county.

 

Public Testimony was closed.

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Mr. Kadera replied that approval of the amendment would not mean that automatically all private roads in the county would become public roads.  Public dedication doesn’t necessary imply public maintenance.  What was proposed in paragraph E was basically the practice the County has undertaken for many years.  He also stated that the County had always required evidence from an Attorney or Title Company that the owner had the right to use a road.

 

Chairman Korb concurred with Mr. Kadera regarding the access issues.

 

Commissioner Morgan felt the proposed amendment needed more public comment before being adopted amendments the process is adopted and exception of all of this from the Rural Land Use Plan and Section E & F are areas of the code that we are just defining are problematic at this time.

 

Commissioner Pond agreed with Commissioner Morgan

 

Mr. Kadera stated that if the recommendation of amendments were for denial, it would still go before the Board of County Commissioners as denial.  Another option could be to exclude the Rural Land Use Center from these amendments and then the amendments could move forward. 

 

After much discussion Mr. Kadera withdrew Gated Roads and subsections items R & S and the “except rural land plans” as stated in the 1st sentence of Section 8.14.2 Development Design Standards.

 

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 approval of the following Land Use Code amendments:

 

8.14.2 Development Design Standards

 

The following standards apply to all development except rural land plans:

 

Delete Section 8.14.2.E and replace with the following

 

E.         In cases where the access route between the subject site and a county road identified on the Larimer County Functional Road Classification Map is anything but a public right of way, the applicant must demonstrate, by competent evidence, the legal right to use any and all portions of that access route to the extent required for the pending development. 

 

Add a new Sec. F and renumber existing sections.

 

F.  All roads within the boundaries of land divisions and site plans, in both rural and urban areas, must be a public right of way.  In order for the County Commissioners to approve an appeal to allow a private road within a land division or site plan, the County Commissioners must find that all the following criteria are met:

 

 

1.   The County Engineer has determined that there clearly is no current or future need for connectivity of the road(s) in the subject parcel with existing or potential roads in adjacent parcels;

2.   There is an easement, agreement, covenant or other appropriate document to be recorded in the County records that grants the right of access for emergency and service vehicles and that defines the persons/entities entitled to use the roads, the purpose for and manner in which the roads may be used, any limitations on the use of the roads, the persons/entities authorized and responsible to construct and maintain the roads, the person/entity authorized to enforce the terms of the easement and the penalties for violation of the terms of the easement;

3.   The design and construction of the private road will meet applicable County road or street standards;

4.   Provisions acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners have been made for the long term or permanent maintenance of the private road; and

5.   County requirements for road naming, road name signs and addressing have been or will be met prior to the issuance of any building permit.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Huddleston, Morgan, Pond, terMeer and Chairman Korb voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

 

4.         AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN, COUNTY LINE ROAD FROM COUNTY ROAD 14 TO US HIGHWAY 34 AND FROM COUNTY ROAD 26 TO COUNTY ROAD 56.

 

Mr. Peterson provided background information on this item.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

 

None

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following resolution.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the following Land Use Code amendments:

 

To amended the Master Transportation Plan to identify County Line Road (Larimer County Road 901 or Weld County Road 13) from County Road 14 to U. S. Highway 34 and from County Road 26 to County Road 56 as a Minor Collector.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Huddleston, Morgan, Pond, terMeer and Chairman Korb voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

REPORT FROM STAFF: 

 

ADJOURMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:48 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.

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Mark Korb, Chairman                                                  Rodney Nelson, Secretary