Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of February 18, 2009

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, February 18, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Benton, Cox, Glick, Hart, Hess, Oppenheimer, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Samantha Mott, Planner, II, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Cox, Glick, Hart, Wallace and Weitkunat today on a site visit to Hessdorfer-Phillips Subdivision and Lafarge Taft Hill Batch Plant Amended Special Review.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

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

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 21, 2009 MEETINGS:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Glick.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

POSTING OF MEETING IN COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW:

Commissioner Cox moved that the Larimer County Planning Commission designate the Oak Street entrance to the Larimer County Courthouse as the public posting place for notices of all official actions and public meetings in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Open Meetings law (CRS 24-6-402).  Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  HESSDORFER-PHILLIPS SUBDIVISION  #06-S2610:   Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to subdivide approximately 15.85 acres into tow lots for single-family residential uses located off the north side of Highway 56, west of Berthoud and south of the Harvest Heights Subdivision.  Lot 1 would be 6.10 acres in size and would include the existing house.  Lot 2 will be 9.75 acres. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Glick 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 Hessdorfer-Phillips Subdivision, file #06-S2610, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Hessdorfer-Phillips Subdivision shall be consistent with the information contained in the file, #06-S2610 or as modified by conditions of approval.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at the time of building permit for new single-family dwellings: the Thompson School fees in lieu of dedication, the Larimer County Capital Transportation Expansion fee and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.

 

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

 

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

 

5.   Septic systems for new construction shall be of an engineered design.

 

6.   For exterior lighting, all lots are required to use shields that direct lighting downward to minimize lighting impacts off-site.

 

8.   Residential sprinkler systems are required for all new habitable construction for lots at this Subdivision, unless the Berthoud Fire Protection District determines they are not necessary.

 

9.   Basements will not be allowed on lot 1 unless a minimum 3 foot separation between the lowest floor elevation (including basements) and groundwater can be established at time of building permit application.  The submitted geotechnical report indicated that ground water is approximately 10 feet below grade on this lot.

 

10. The applicant shall repair existing roadway deficiencies such as potholes in Sunbird Lane. Collateral for these improvements shall be included in the Opinion of Costs provided for the Development Agreement, or through some other mechanism acceptable to both the applicant and the County Engineering Department.

 

11. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a Shared Maintenance Agreement for both lots to ensure the continued maintenance of the shared access.

 

12. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a Final Drainage Plan to address all requirements stipulated by the County Engineering Department, including reference information related to the existing seasonal pond.

 

 

13. The applicant shall finalize all outstanding building permit and inspection requirements for the existing residence within 90 days of the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

14. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain Ditch Company approval either by signed agreement or letter of agreement from the Ditch Company stating they do not object to subdivision approval.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  9-0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2  LAFARGE TAFT HILL BATCH PLANT AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #08-Z1709:  Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request to amend an approved 1985 Special Review to change the locations of an asphalt batch plant and a concrete plant located at 1690 N. Taft Hill Road east of Taft Hill Road south of the Poudre River.  The request also included an appeal to Section 4.1.1.B.3 of the Land Use Code to allow five silos to be taller than the maximum structure height of 40 feet.  The request was to allow a height of 85 feet.  The site was approximately 35 acres and was zoned FA-Farming.  It was previously a gravel mine site and was now used by Lafarge for offices, storage, and vehicle maintenance and repair.  The batch plants were established on the site after the 1985 approval but were then removed within the last ten years.  Mr. Whitley emphasized that the use on the property with the batch plants was approved in 1985 but the point of discussion was the location of the batch plants and the height.  The approved locations of the plants were approximately 900 feet north of the Poudre River Trail and approximately 800 feet east of Taft Hill Road.  Lafarge was requesting to reestablish the batch plants that had previously been removed; however, it was discovered that the approved locations were actually located in the Poudre River Floodway, which was apparently not evaluated in 1985.  The amended request was to change the location to be approximately 175 feet east of the centerline of Taft Hill Road and approximately 290 feet north of the Poudre River Trail.  The particular location was the farthest away location from the road and trail while staying outside of the 100 year floodplain and the Poudre River Floodway.  Along with that the FA-Farming zoning only allowed structures up to 40 feet tall, and the applicants were proposing silos associated with the batch plants, five total, that would be a total of 85 feet and would require an appeal to Section 4.1.1.B.3 of the Land Use Code.  He stated that the height increase would help with air emissions, increase storage capacity which would decrease the number of days of production on the site, and decrease traffic as traffic would not have to move in and out of the property as often.  He noted that the Findings and Resolution from 1985 did not mention vehicle trips and the Development Services Team was not recommending a condition of approval regarding traffic.  Lafarge currently had four active operations in the Taft Hill area and extracted resources were currently trucked to the batch plant at the Rigdon Farm plant located in southeast Fort Collins, and 

 

 

if the Amended Special Review was approved and the batch plants were reestablished the materials would no longer have to be trucked across town.  Also, the 1985 Special Review did not limit the hours of operation but Lafarge had voluntarily proposed to limit the hours to one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset weekdays with weekend hours and times outside of those hours on an emergency only basis.  He noted that those proposed hours were a condition of approval.  He clarified that all of the conditions from the 1985 review would still be applicable unless amended with this application.  He also noted that a neighbor from the Saddle Back Subdivision did raise concern regarding the application but after further discussions with Lafarge had written a letter of support of the application with a note regarding the hours of operation to be changed.  He mentioned that Lafarge was proposing to add 16 new trees on the property adjacent to Taft Hill and to the Poudre River Trail and were also proposing to locate their aggregate stockpiles east of the plants to partially screen from the Poudre River Trail.  He stated that the property was within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, and the proposed use was in compliance with Fort Collins’ current structure plan.  A referral was sent to the City of Fort Collins in 1985 and they did recommend approval of the Special Review.  The City of Fort Collins however did not respond to the referral or phone message that was sent with the Amended Special Review.  Therefore, the Planning Department was assuming that the City of Fort Collins did not have an issue with the proposed amendments.  He noted that Condition of Approval 12 should be deleted as it dealt with Transportation Capital Expansion Fees and those fees would not be applicable in the present case. 

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that Condition 13 was worded wrong and should stated that the “Hours of operation shall be limited to one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset….”.

 

Ann Best Johnson, Land Manager for Lafarge, 11409 Business Park Circle, Longmont, stated the history of the use in the area.  She explained that when Lafarge went to the County regarding the height variance of the silos the floodway concerns were realized and they worked with County Staff to determine a better placement that would conform to their best management practices for safety as well as floodway restrictions and FEMA regulations.  She pointed out where the batch plants would be and noted that Lafarge did have mining permits in the other locations that surrounded the area.  She stated that the application represented two separate requests.  One was to the height restrictions in the FA-Farming zoning district as well as a modification to the plant placement on the site.  She stated that public participation and notice had been numerous.  Lafarge held three quarterly meetings in July, October, and January.  Two meetings were held in October and December to discuss the proposed proposal with those people living within a 1,000 feet of the area.  In addition, the Saddle Back Home Owners Association contacted them and Lafarge held a special meeting for them prior to the hearing.  A sign was posted on the property January 26, 2009 and an additional surrounding property owner did request a tour of one of the plants and although the plant was not operational that day due to the weather they did accommodate that property owner and provided the site tour.  She explained that the function of the silo for a ready mix concrete facility as well as an asphalt facility was to store raw materials prior to processing.  It was also to allow the latest technology for efficiency as well as environmentally sound materials.  Its increased storage capacity decreased production and traffic, and promoted site safety.  She stated that the proposed five silos would be approximately 63 feet tall.  The additional height would be for the antennae that went on top that relayed the communication device. 

 

 

Final heights would depend on availability of the latest technology but in no event should the height including the antennae exceed 85 feet.  The asphalt silo would be outfitted with a blue haze or smoke control detector system which was designed to collect and filter the air.  Any oil particles would be removed that were in the air and would be recycled and reused so the only thing being released in the air was clean.  The three silos were approximately 13 feet in diameter for the asphalt plant.  The concrete plant would have two silos that were approximately 12 feet in diameter.  She stated that Lafarge’s’ request for the location change did support their best management practices of safety, plant design, and operation as well as worked with Larimer County Flood Administration and FEMA.  She explained that there were four stockpiles planned on the eastern boundary of the floodway designation which would also help with the existing planned vegetation and help screen and almost insulate the area.  Along with that, stationery equipment would be earth-toned in color.  She stated that hours of operation were not reviewed in 1985 but in order to be a good neighbor Lafarge had proposed to self limit the operation to one hour prior to sunrise and one hour after sunset.  Of course if there was an emergency or special project that needed to happen they would like to have the flexibility to operate outside of that time but did not anticipate that happening often. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what occurred on site the hour before sunrise and the hour after sunset and why they believed it was necessary to have those hours?

 

Ms. Johnson replied that production time was often timed with moisture content in the air and temperatures in the air.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how much noise was generated at the early and late hours?

 

Ms. Johnson stated not much more than what would be generated during the operation of the plant. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that sunrise and sunset always changed.  He asked if the employees worked those kinds of hours currently?

 

Jeremy Runner, 1800 N. Taft Hill Road, stated that he had been with Lafarge for 9 years.  He stated that the commission was comparing the asphalt and concrete operations to the mining operations which were different.  The asphalt and concrete operations were predominately weather related.  Aggregate operations could be produced year round and did not have the varying temperatures that were associated with the asphalt and concrete production.  In the summer time they needed to be able to produce asphalt because of the temperature limitations.  It had to be 40 degrees and rising to produce the asphalt.  When it was below the temperatures they could not operate.  He remarked that in the morning the workers were getting dressed, turning over the belts, and making sure that everything was going to run properly. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked what the objection was to crafting hours that had some certainty rather than stating one hour before sunrise because at times in the summer the batch plant could start at 4:00 in the morning.  He asked what time the plant normally ran?

 

Mr. Runner stated that the employees generally went to work at 6:00 a.m. and typically left at 6:00 p.m.  There were exceptions to the times when special projects came about.

 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that Lafarge had done an excellent job and had been an excellent operator. 

 

Ms. Johnson noted that the ready-mix concrete was a perishable product and often times they were needed on site at sunrise to pour the product; therefore, they needed that extra time to load the product so that they could get to the job site. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked what a silo looked like?

 

Ms. Johnson showed a picture of what the silos typically looked like.  She explained that the silos would be approximately 63 feet, and the rest of the height would be the antennas.  She showed a picture of what a plant would look like from a quarter of a mile away. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if it would be a shiny metal?

 

Ms. Johnson replied that the structures would be earth-toned colors.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that one of the conditions from the 1985 approval was that all of the equipment be earth toned and that would be a remaining condition of approval. 

 

Commissioner Hart stated that it was indicated that the height of the silo could change.  He asked what the range of change would be?

 

Ms. Johnson stated that it could be 63 to 65 feet.  It would just be a minor fluctuation.  They did not want to commit to 63 feet in case they could get a better silo at 63.5 feet or 64 feet. 

 

Commissioner Benton asked how common emergencies or special projects were? 

 

Ms. Johnson stated that emergency situations could happen only once a year as an emergency situation could be a pot hole in I-25 or damage caused to a county road, and the best times to repair those were in low traffic times.  She stated that it did not occur on a normal basis but they did want the ability to do the project if the need arose.

 

Commissioner Glick asked about the emissions of the higher silos?

 

Ms. Johnson explained that as the heat rose and the oil particles were in the air the taller the silo the easier it would be to capture it before it was released in the air and recycle it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Craig Sisco, 1910 N. Taft Hill Road, owned the KOA Lakeside Campground located about a quarter mile from the facility.  He stated that he did attend one of their special meetings, and he was the person they referred to that was given the site visit.  The hours were a concern to him because the campground quiet hours were from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.  Also, noise was an issue and when he went to the site visit it was unfortunately not the subject facility but one in Greeley, and it was not running at the time.  Their main business was in the summer time when they would start their hours of operation earlier.  He wanted to see set hours were it did not fluctuate with the sun.  He mentioned that traffic was also a concern, and he did not see that a condition was placed on the approval that no material from other sites could be shipped in to the facility to be processed.  He stated that he did not have an issue with the height as long as it was for the environment but he was worried about the heavy emissions floating towards his campground.  He stated that Lafarge had been a good neighbor. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there was notification when operating outside of allowed times?

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that if it was truly an emergency it would be a one time event.  Anything beyond that which was anticipated and would take several days or weeks would need to be submitted to the County. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked what conditions the City of Fort Collins asked for in 1985?

 

Mr. Whitley replied that they asked that the location be as far away as possible from the Poudre Trail. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked where the noise was generated at the plant?

 

Ms. Johnson pointed out where noise would be generated on site and explained that the noise generated would be from loading the concrete into a truck.  She stated that the noise was very different from loading up a truck with rocks.  Asphalt was recycled material that was in very small form and mixed with oil or asphaltic cement so it would be softer.  The concrete was water, aggregate, and cement and was mixed up before put in.  She stated that the proposed site was in the lowest density area of all their plants and noise has not been an issue in any location.  She stated that the noise generated was like a whooshing noise like the noise sand would make.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Hart stated that time restriction was a voluntary one not required by the county and noted that the current proposal placed the plants further away from the campground.

 

Commissioner Glick stated that the hours needed to be carefully examined in order to not inhibit the business.  He felt that Lafarge did not intend for a discussion to arise regarding their hours of operation but were reflecting them for there construction business and trying to be a good neighbor. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Lafarge Taft Hill Batch Plant Amended Special Review, file #08-Z1709, and appeal to Section 4.1.1.B.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved by deleting condition 12, amending condition 13, and subject to the following conditions :

 

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

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Lafarge Taft Batch Plant Amended Special Review, file #08-Z1709 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 Lafarge Taft Batch Plant Amended Special Review.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8.   No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the County right-of-way .

 

9.   Trucks shall not back onto or use the County Road for a turnaround.

 

 

10.   Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.

 

11.   The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the County roadway.

 

12.   Hours of operation shall be limited to one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset with weekend hours and hours outside of the proposed times only on an emergency basis.  The County will be notified of operation outside of the standard hours.

 

13.   The landscaping indicated on the site plan shall be installed prior to commencement of the operation.

 

14.   All other conditions placed on the 1985 Special Review remain applicable unless expressly amended or deleted by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  9-0

 

 

 

ITEM #3  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE  #09-CA0091 :   Ms. Mott provided background information on the request to amend the Land Use Code to reorganize and clarify setback requirements and make revisions to the definition section.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if one would measure the height of a fence from the toe of the cut or from the back of the top of the retaining wall. 

 

Ms. Mott pointed out that the Land Use Code language for fences was not being changed. 

 

Commissioner Morgan had an issue with the change to Section 5.3.7.C.2 regarding the ability to have an agricultural building.

 

Ms. Mott stated that Section 5.3.7.C.2 was giving the developer the opportunity to locate agricultural buildings outside of the building envelope if specified as part of the approved development because currently the code stated that all buildings on a residual lot had to be located within the building envelope. 

 

Commissioner Hart had an issue of whether setbacks should be administered as written or if they should be applied. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that “administered” was used in a number of places in the code amendments.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that in the code amendments a “traveled way” was mentioned, and he could not find a definition for a “traveled way”.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that a traveled way was defined within the engineering standards and code.

 

Commissioner Hart did not understand what the wording “Written documentation has been provided to the Planning Department that the property owners in the vicinity of the proposal, or as determined by the Planning Director, ….” meant.

 

Ms. Mott replied that in the code property owners within 500 feet had to be notified and for administrative variances often times the 500 feet was excessive.  Therefore, the Planning Department wanted to add some language to give the Planning Director leeway to make a determination whether notification could be less than 500 feet.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that the wording “as defined in the Code” should be added to the above mentioned statement.

 

Commissioner Hart had questions regarding perimeter fencing.

 

Ms. Mott reminded the commission that the language for fencing was not examined or changed with the proposed amendments.  The fence section was just moved to a different place in the Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Hess had more questions regarding the fence standards in the code.

 

Ms. Mott again reminded the commission that the fencing section was not examined but was just moved to a new section.  She stated that the fence standards would be looked at by the Planning Department to see if the wording for that section should be amended. 

 

Commissioner Wallace suggested changing the wording “If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is administered” to the “……., the greater setback is required.”

 

Ms. Mott replied that she would make the change and make the change to all sections that applied.  Ms. Mott also stated that Section 4.6.7.C.4 which stated, “Written documentation has been provided to the Planning Department that the property owners in the vicinity of the proposal, or as determined by the Planning Director, have been notified and they have indicated they support he variance request” would be changed to “Written documentation has been provided to the Planning Department that the property owners in the vicinity of the proposal as defined in the code, or as determined by the Planning Director, have been notified and they have indicated they support he variance request”.  She remarked that the language would be changed in each section that applied.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

 

 

 

 

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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #09-CA0091, be approved as follows with the changes noted above:

 

1.         Amend the definitions in Section 0.1 for the following:

 

Building envelope.   An area within the property boundaries of a lot or property within which all buildings on the lot an allowed building or structure may must be placed.

 

Lot line, front .   The shortest lot line separating a lot from a street or road. right-of-way. On a corner lot, the shorter lot line abutting a street or road is considered the front lot line.  The front lot line designation is for the purpose of identifying the side and rear lot lines and it is not based on the orientation of the house and/or buildings on the lot.

 

Setback .   The minimum required distance, measured at the shortest distance perpendicular or radial from, a property lot line, waterway, street or road, or right-of-way centerline between a building and the property lot line, waterway, street or road. or right-of-way centerline.

 

Structure .   Anything constructed or erected and that requires a permanent location on or in the ground or attachment to something having a permanent location on or in the ground, but not including fences six feet or less in height and retaining walls four feet or less in height, irrigation facilities, poles, lines, cables or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities.  Landscape and associated nonliving ornamental landscape features or materials, such as rocks and edging, are excluded from this definition

 

            2.         Add definitions to Section 0.1 for the following:

 

Lot .  A designated parcel, tract, or area of land established by plat, subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, to be separately owned, used, developed, or built upon.

 

Roof.  The cover of any building, including the eaves and similar projections.  The cover may be solid, open beams, lattice, fabric, or similar materials.

 

            3.         Delete definitions in Section 0.1 for the following:

 

Lot width .   The distance between the side lot lines measured parallel to the front lot line at the front setback line.

 

 

 

 

Reversed corner lot .   A corner lot having its side street line substantially a continuation of the front lot line of the first lot to its rear.   (**Eliminating because all roads will have setbacks now.)

 

4.         Amend the Code language for the following portions of sections 4.1.1 FA-Farming, 4.1.2 FA-1 Farming, 4.1.3 FO-Forestry, 4.1.4 FO-1 Forestry, 4.1.15 A-Accommodations, 4.1.16 T-Tourist, 4.1.17 B-Business, 4.1.18 C-Commercial, 4.1.19 I-Industrial, 4.1.20 I-1 Heavy Industrial, 4.1.21 AP-Airport as follows:

 

B.2. Minimum required setbacks:  (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)  The Front yard setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

5.         Amend the Code language for the following portions of sections 4.1.6 E-Estate, 4.1.7 E-1 Estate, 4.1.9 RE-1 Rural Estate, 4.1.13 M-Multiple-family, 4.1.14 M-1 Multiple-family as follows:

 

B.2. Minimum required setbacks:  (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)  The Front yard setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 45 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

6.         Amend the Code language for the following portions of sections 4.1.10 R-Residential, 4.1.11 R-1 Residential, 4.1.12 R-2 Residential as follows:

 

B.2. Minimum required setbacks:  (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)

 

 

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)  The Front yard setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 20 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

7.         Amend the Code language for the following portions of sections 4.1.5 O-Open and 4.1.8 RE-Rural Estate as follows:

 

B.2. Minimum required setbacks for lots created on or before November 29, 1973, including lots created on or before that date that have been reconfigured by amended plat, add-on agreement or boundary line adjustment:  (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)  The Front yard setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

 

B.3. Minimum required setbacks for lots created after November 29, 1973. , see Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance(If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)  The Front yard setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

8.         Amend the Code language for the following portions of section 4.1.23 RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business as follows:

 

B.2. Minimum required setbacks:  (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required.)

 

a. Street and road setback Front yard(Refer to section 4.9.1 for setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.)  The setback from a an interior subdivision street or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property lot line, or from the  nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater,  except for those lots fronting on Main Street between County Road 179 and Grand Drive, where the setback may be the lesser of 25 feet or the same setback established by an existing structure on the same side of the street in that block. 

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.  Refer to Section 4.9.2 for Additional Setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers.)

 

9.         Amend Section 4.9.1 Setbacks from highways and county roads which contains general setback requirements applicable in all zoning districts as follows:

 

4.9.1.  Setbacks from highways, and county roads, and all other streets and roads.

A. Highways.  Setbacks from state and federal highways are 100 feet from the right-of-way centerline or 50 feet from the right-of-way line, whichever is greater, except those highways noted below where the minimum setback is 130 feet from centerline of the right-of-way or 80 feet from the right-of-way line, whichever is greater:

1. U.S. Highway 287 from Fort Collins city limits south to the Boulder County line.

2. Colorado Highway 68 (Harmony Road) from Interstate 25 west to Highway 287.

 

 

3. Colorado Highway 14 (Mulberry Street) from Fort Collins city limits east to the Weld County line.

4. Colorado Highway 392 from Interstate Highway 25 east to the Weld County line.

5. U.S. Highway 34 from Mourning Drive east to the Weld County line.

6. Fort Collins Expressway and those portions of U.S. Highway 287 and Colorado Highway 14 north of Fort Collins city limits that are four lanes.

7. Colorado Highway 402 from Loveland city limits east to the Weld County line.

 

B. County Roads.  Setbacks from Larimer County roads, as identified and classified on the Larimer County Functional Road Classification Map, shall be measured from the original right-of-way centerline, before any additional right-of-way was dedicated, as determined by the County Engineer, as follows:

 

 

 

TABLE INSET:

Road Classification                              Measured from right-of-way centerline

  Arterial   

110 feet *   

Major collector   

100 feet *   

Minor collector   

70 feet *   

Local, numbered county roads   

60 feet *   

*Setbacks for additions to existing buildings, which are nonconforming with respect to county road setbacks, are eligible for an administrative variance procedure. See section 4.6.7.

 

C.  All other streets and roads.

1.  Setbacks shall be measured from the lot line, nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

2.  Street and road setbacks are stated in each zoning district.

3.  The applicable street and road setback applies to both sides of a street or road adjacent to a lot or that goes through a lot.  When an applicable side or rear setback exceeds the street or road setback, the greater setback applies.

4.  Setbacks do not apply to streets or roads that are used for internal circulation in multi-family, commercial, or industrial developments.

 

            10.       Amend Section 4.9.2 Additional Setback Requirements as follows:

 

A. Setbacks from streets and roads.  Setbacks from interior subdivision streets and from public and private roads are stated in each zoning district. Setbacks are measured from the nearest edge of the right-of-way or access easement. 

 

B . AStreams, creeks and rivers.  The minimum required setback from any stream, creek or river identified on a U.S.G.S. quadrangle map is 100 feet from the centerline of the water course unless a greater setback is required by section 8.2 (wetlands); subsection 8.4 (wildlife); or section 4.2.1 (floodplains). 

 

C . BArchitectural features.  Architectural features such as cornices, canopies, eaves, awnings, bay windows, window wells, cantilevered walls, chimneys and mechanical equipment may extend two feet into a required setback. In all cases a minimum setback of three five feet for any structural component or architectural feature must be maintained from all property lines. No part of any building structure, including the architectural features mentioned above may extend outside a designated building envelope. No part of any building structure, including the architectural features mentioned above may extend into or above any easement. 

 

 

 

 

 

DC. Porches and Decks,  Open, unenclosed, uncovered porches or decks, located at grade have no setback restriction.  Open, unenclosed, uncovered porches or decks, with the finished floor elevation 30 inches or less above the average finished grade, must maintain a distance of five feet from all lot lines may extend six feet into a required side or rear setback.  All porches and decks with a finished floor elevation greater than 30 inches must meet the applicable building setbacks.  However a minimum setback of three feet must be maintained from all property lines. No porch or deck may extend into or above an easement or outside a designated building envelope.

 

E. Reversed corner lots.  The side setback along the street side of a reversed corner lot must equal or exceed the required front setback for that street. 

 

F. Setbacks for landscaping requirements.  Setbacks may need to be greater than those specified above as necessary to accommodate landscaping requirements of section 8.5 (landscaping).

 

D.  Structures .  All structures must maintain a distance of 5 feet from all lot lines.  Structures may be located outside a building envelope unless restricted to the building envelope as part of an approved development.   No part of any structure may extend into or above any easement.

 

E.  Fences

1.  Fences for individual residential uses must meet the following criteria.

a.  All fences are subject to sight triangle standards included in the Urban Area Street Standards and Rural Area Road Standards that are part of the technical supplement to this code.

b.  Fences in the required street and road front yard setback can must not exceed eight feet high. (Note:  Any fence over six feet requires a permit from the county building department.) 

 

2.  Requirements for all fences other than agricultural fences.

a.  The height of fences will be measured from ground level at the base of the fence except that depth-of-drainage channels under a fence can not be included in the height measurement.

b.  The height of fences built on berms or retaining walls must include the height of the berm or wall.

 

11.       Revise Section 4.6.7 Administrative Variance to eliminate repetitiveness and to add an additional administrative variance as follows:

 

4.6.7.  Administrative variance.

The administrative variance process requires a pre-application conference and review by the planning director. Administrative variances automatically expire if not acted upon within 12 months of the date of the written approval of the planning director.  The decision of the planning director may be appealed to the board of adjustment.  See section 22, Appeals.

 

 

A. The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from the required 100-foot setback from the centerline of streams, creeks and rivers up to 50% of the required setback provided the following criteria are met. The administrative variance process requires a pre-application conference and review by the planning director. The decision of the planning director may be appealed to the board of adjustment.

1. The review criteria for a setback variance in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable;

2. The proposed building site is not within a wetland area;

3. The proposed building site is not within a 100-year floodplain; and

4. The proposed building site is not within any federally designated threatened or endangered species critical habitat;

 

Administrative variances automatically expire if not acted upon within 12 months of the date of the written approval of the planning director.

 

B. The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from the county road setback requirements listed in section 4.9.1.B. for additions to existing buildings which are nonconforming with respect to county road setbacks, subject to the following criteria:

1. The proposed addition must meet the following minimum setbacks:

a. Arterial roads-90 feet from ROW centerline;

b. Major collector roads-80 feet from ROW centerline;

c. Minor collector roads-60 feet from ROW centerline;

d. Local roads-55 feet from ROW centerline.

 

2. A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners within 250 feet of the subject property or as determined by the Planning Director, and no objections were stated;

2.  Written documentation has been provided to the Planning Department that the property owners in the vicinity of the proposal as defined in the Land Use Code, or as determined by the Planning Director, have been notified and they have indicated they support the variance request;

3. No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification.

4. The review criteria in section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable. The decision of the planning director can be appealed to the board of adjustment. See section 22, Appeals.

 

C. The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from the required setback on one side of a corner lot for an addition to an existing building which is nonconforming with respect to the required street or road setback provided the following criteria are met.

1.  The building is nonconforming with regards to the street or road setback that is not along the front lot line.

2.  The proposed addition must not come any closer to the road than the existing building.

3.  The lot is less than ½ acre in size.

 

4.  A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners within 250 feet of the subject property or as determined by the Planning Director, and no objections were stated;

4.  Written documentation has been provided to the Planning Department that the property owners in the vicinity of the proposal as defined in the Land Use Code, or as determined by the Planning Director, have been notified and they have indicated they support the variance request;

5.  No portion of the original building or the proposed addition is within the future right-of-way identified by the Larimer County Functional Road Classification or the Colorado Department of Transportation.

6.  The review criteria for a setback variance in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable.

 

4.6.7.D C The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from all setback requirements up to ten percent of the required setback after finding the proposed setback is consistent with the intent and purpose of this code. The planning director's decision must be in writing and may be appealed to the board of adjustment. See Section 22, Appeals.

 

            12.       Amend the following portions of Section 4.6. Zoning Variances as follows:

 

4.6.2.  Applicability.

When consistent with the review criteria listed below, the Board of Adjustment may grant zoning variances:

A. From the minimum setback requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23;

 

B. From the maximum structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23; and

C. From the minimum setback requirements and maximum height requirements of sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 and 8.19. 4.9.1, 4.9.2.

 

13.       Amend the following portions of Section 5.3 Conservation Development as follows:

 

5.3.5 Land Uses

E.  Existing rural features on the site, such as farmstead structures and fencing, should be preserved if the structures have historic value.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.C. Building envelopes.   

1. In lieu of setbacks, building envelopes must may be designated for each lot to identify the area where all structures buildings may must be constructed and to provide adequate separation between structures buildings and uses or activities. Building envelopes must be designed to avoid hazard areas, the tops of ridgelines or slopes, view corridors, open fields, sensitive environmental areas, and agricultural infrastructure. To the maximum extent feasible, all building envelopes must be located at least one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) from the edge of the Interstate 25 right-of-way. In mountainous areas, building envelopes must be designated at the minimum size necessary to construct a dwelling on the lot so the area disturbed is minimized.

2. On a residual lot, if building envelopes are used, agricultural buildings may be located outside the building envelope only if specified as part of an approved development, but in those cases they must meet all the applicable building setback requirements.  Building envelopes must be established for buildings related to agricultural uses in the residual land and designed to cluster buildings and structures together in the least sensitive portion of the area.

3. The placement of structures buildings within building envelopes along the street frontage should be varied to minimize uniformity.

4. Existing rural features on the site, such as farmstead structures and fencing, should be preserved if the structures have historic value.

4.  A building envelope may be used to limit the location of various types of structures.  When so used, the types of structures limited to the building envelope must be clearly stated as part of an approved development with the implication that all other types of structures may be located outside the building envelope.

 

            14.       Create a new Section 8.1.6 Fence Standards as follows:

 

8.1.6 Fence Standards

A.  Fences for individual nonresidential uses, excluding agricultural uses.

Fences for individual nonresidential uses, excluding agricultural uses, must meet the following criteria:

1.  Fences up to six feet high may be placed anywhere on the lot but are subject to sight triangle standards included in the county road standards that are part of the technical supplement to this code.

 

2.  Security fencing may include three strands of wire on top of the fence that will not be included in the height measurement. The wire strands must not extend beyond the property line.

 

B.  Development perimeter fencing (excluding agricultural fencing).

1.  If fencing is proposed around the perimeter of a development, any fencing adjacent to a county road or state or federal highway must be compatible with existing land uses, topography and landscaping in the immediate vicinity.

2.  Fences longer than 40 feet must include one evergreen tree or three shrubs for each 40-foot section or portion thereof planted on the outer or public side of the fence.

 

 

3.  Fences longer than 100 feet must provide variation by using changes in height, different material combinations, offset angles, articulation and/or plant materials.

 

C.  Requirements for all fences other than agricultural fences.

1.  The height of fences will be measured from ground level at the base of the fence except that depth-of-drainage channels under a fence can not be included in the height measurement.

2.  The height of fences built on berms or retaining walls must include the height of the berm or wall.

3.  All fences must be constructed in a professional manner and properly maintained.

 

D.  Wildlife.

Wildlife should be considered before the construction of any fence. The division of wildlife should be consulted for design criteria for fences in important wildlife habitat areas. If a development is subject to a wildlife conservation plan, there may be additional fence regulations based on the plan. See sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.6 for additional fence regulations.

 

            14.       Delete Section 8.16 Fences renumber the remainder of the section.

 

15.       Amend the following portions of Section 8.6 Off-Road Parking Standards as follows:

 

8.6.3.B.5.a Setbacks.    Parking Lot Location.

a. Parking lots must be set back separated from road rights-of-way and from side and rear lot lines in accordance with the following:

 

TABLE INSET:

 

  Along an arterial road   

15 feet   

Along a nonarterial road   

10 feet   

Along a side or rear lot line   

8 feet   

 

 

b. Parking lot setbacks for rear and side lot lines may be waived for buildings or uses with shared parking facilities.

 

16.       Amend the following portions of Section 18.2.  Manufactured Homes and Manufactured Home Parks as follows:

 

18.2.3.C.   Minimum setbacks. The minimum setback along property lines of a manufactured home park are listed below. Structures Buildings, including manufactured homes, must not be erected, constructed or located closer to such property lot lines than the minimum setback distance, unless otherwise specifically provided.

 

1. Setbacks from public street or highway rights-of-way must comply with subsection 8.17 4.9.1.A and 4.9.1.B (setbacks from highways and county roads) of this Code.

 

17.       Amend the following portion of Section 8.14.2.E Development Design Standards as follows:

 

8.14.2.E. Corner lots must have adequate width and depth to meet applicable setbacks from and orientation to all both roads. Setbacks on corner lots must be designated on the final plat;

 

            18.       Amend the following portions of Section 22.0  Appeals as follows:

 

                        22.2.  Appeals To County Commissioners

22.2.1.  Applicability.

A. The county commissioners are authorized to hear and decide appeals where:

1. A person asserts that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or refusal made by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this code (administrative decisions) except:

a. The minimum setback or structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23; or

b. Sections 4.9.1, and 4.9.2., 4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6.

2. A person asserts that the planning director has made an error in interpreting the text of this code.

3. A person proposes to deviate from a standard or requirement imposed by this code, except standards or requirements which are subject to zoning variances from the board of adjustment in section 4.6.1 4.6.2.

 

22.3.  Appeals to the Board of Adjustment

22.3.1.  Applicability.

A. The board of adjustment is authorized to hear and decide appeals where:

1. A person is aggrieved by his/her inability to obtain a building permit as a result of an error by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of:

a. The minimum setback or maximum structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23; or

b. Sections 4.9.1, and 4.9.2.,  4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6 .

 

2. An officer, department, board or bureau of the county is affected by the grant or refusal to grant a building permit as a result of an error by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of:

a. The minimum setback or maximum structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23; or

b. Sections 4.9.1, and 4.9.2., 4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6 .

3. A person asserts that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or refusal made by an administrative officer or agency in the administration or enforcement of:

 

 

a. The minimum setback or maximum structure height requirements of sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21 and 4.1.23; or

b. Sections 4.9.1, and 4.9.2., 4.9.3., 4.9.4 and 4.9.6.

B. All appeals of the planning director's interpretations of the provisions of this code are expressly reserved to the county commissioners.                      

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  9-0

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:40 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.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Roger Morgan, Chairman                                           Karen Weitkunat, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “A”

 

 

That portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 4 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, described as follows: Considering the South line of said Southwest Quarter as bearing East and West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Beginning at the South Quarter comer of Section 17; thence along the South line of said Southwest Quarter West 404.68 feet to the Southerly prolongation of the Easterly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed recorded in Book 1496 at Page 572, records of said County; thence along said Southerly prolongation and said Easterly line North 01 degrees 34 minutes 17 seconds East, 5 1.82 feet; thence West 60.02 feet; thence North 01 degrees 34 minutes 17 seconds East 600.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence West 675,OO feet; thence South 80 degrees 40 minutes 10 seconds West, 68 1.20 feet to a point on the Westerly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed recorded in Book 1496 at Page 572, records of said County; thence along the Westerly line of said parcel described in said Book 1496 at Page 572, the following thirteen (13) courses and distances: North 26 degrees 00 minutes 55 seconds East, 25.00 feet; North 09 degrees 38 minutes 09 seconds East, 99. 67 feet; North 27 degrees 00 minutes 16 seconds East 176.50 feet; North 32 degrees 06 minutes 09 seconds East, 110.41 feet; North 18 degrees 22 minutes 32 seconds East, 49.08 feet; North 07 degrees 17 minutes 41 seconds East, 49.65 feet; West 1 1.38 feet; North 12 degrees 32 minutes 4 1 seconds East, 13.26 feet; North 35 degrees 13 minutes 25 seconds East, 143.42 feet; North 27 degrees 24 minutes 34 seconds East, 86.07 feet; North 23 degrees 12 minutes 42 seconds East, 134.60 feet; North 17 degrees 26 minutes 35 seconds East, 122.54 feet; North 29 degrees 36 minutes 30 seconds East, 174.47 feet; thence South 44 degrees 08 minutes 59 seconds East, 1,214.06 feet to a point on a curve concave to the East having a central angle of 122 degrees 44 minutes 3 1 seconds a radius of 50.00 feet, the chord of which bears South 15 degrees 3 1 minutes 15 seconds East, 87.77 feet; thence Southerly along the arc of a curve 87.77 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

Pt. NW4 Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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